id
string | text
string |
|---|---|
0704.0001
|
Title: Calculation of prompt diphoton production cross sections at Tevatron and
LHC energies
Abstract: A fully differential calculation in perturbative quantum chromodynamics is
presented for the production of massive photon pairs at hadron colliders. All
next-to-leading order perturbative contributions from quark-antiquark,
gluon-(anti)quark, and gluon-gluon subprocesses are included, as well as
all-orders resummation of initial-state gluon radiation valid at
next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy. The region of phase space is
specified in which the calculation is most reliable. Good agreement is
demonstrated with data from the Fermilab Tevatron, and predictions are made for
more detailed tests with CDF and DO data. Predictions are shown for
distributions of diphoton pairs produced at the energy of the Large Hadron
Collider (LHC). Distributions of the diphoton pairs from the decay of a Higgs
boson are contrasted with those produced from QCD processes at the LHC, showing
that enhanced sensitivity to the signal can be obtained with judicious
selection of events.
Body: \newcommand{\barl}{\bar{\lambda}} \newcommand{\barp}{\bar{p}} \preprint{ANL-HEP-PR-07-12, arXiv:0704.0001} \title{Calculation of prompt diphoton production cross sections at Tevatron and LHC energies} \author{C. Bal\'{a}zs$^{1}$} \thanks{balazs@hep.anl.gov; Current address: School of Physics, Monash University, Melbourne VIC 3800, Australia} \author{E.~L.~Berger$^{1}$} \thanks{berger@anl.gov} \author{P. Nadolsky$^{1}$} \thanks{nadolsky@hep.anl.gov} \author{C.-P. Yuan$^{2}$} \thanks{yuan@pa.msu.edu} \affiliation{$^{1}$High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 \\ $^{2}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824} \begin{abstract} A fully differential calculation in perturbative quantum chromodynamics is presented for the production of massive photon pairs at hadron colliders. All next-to-leading order perturbative contributions from quark-antiquark, gluon-(anti)quark, and gluon-gluon subprocesses are included, as well as all-orders resummation of initial-state gluon radiation valid at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy. The region of phase space is specified in which the calculation is most reliable. Good agreement is demonstrated with data from the Fermilab Tevatron, and predictions are made for more detailed tests with CDF and D\O~data. Predictions are shown for distributions of diphoton pairs produced at the energy of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Distributions of the diphoton pairs from the decay of a Higgs boson are contrasted with those produced from QCD processes at the LHC, showing that enhanced sensitivity to the signal can be obtained with judicious selection of events. \end{abstract} \date{May 3, 2007} \pacs{12.15.Ji, 12.38 Cy, 13.85.Qk } \keywords{prompt photons; all-orders resummation; hadron collider phenomenology; Higgs boson; LHC} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The long-sought Higgs boson(s) $h$ of electroweak symmetry breaking in particle physics may soon be observed at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) through the diphoton decay mode ($h\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$). Purely hadronic standard model processes are a copious source of diphotons, and a narrow Higgs boson signal at relatively low masses will appear as a small peak above this considerable background. A precise theoretical understanding of the kinematic distributions for diphoton production in the standard model could provide valuable guidance in the search for the Higgs boson signal and assist in the important measurement of Higgs boson coupling strengths. In this paper we address the theoretical calculation of the invariant mass, transverse momentum, rapidity, and angular distributions of continuum diphoton production in proton-antiproton and proton-proton interactions at hadron collider energies. We compute all contributions to diphoton production from parton-parton subprocesses through next-to-leading order (NLO) in perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD). These higher-order contributions are large at the LHC, and their inclusion is mandatory for quantitatively trustworthy predictions. We resum initial-state soft and collinear logarithmic terms associated with gluon radiation to all orders in the strong coupling strength $\alpha_{s}$. This resummation is essential for physically meaningful predictions of the transverse momentum ($Q_{T}$) distribution of the diphotons at small and intermediate values of $Q_{T}$, where the cross section is large. In addition, we analyze the final-state collinearly-enhanced contributions, also known as `fragmentation' contributions, in which one or both photons are radiated from final-state partonic constituents. We compare the results of our calculations with data on isolated diphoton production from the Fermilab Tevatron~. The good agreement we obtain with the Tevatron data adds confidence to our predictions at the energy of the LHC. The present work expands on our recent abbreviated report~, and it may be read in conjunction with our detailed treatment of the contributions from the gluon-gluon subprocess~. Our attention is focused on the production of isolated photons, \emph{i.e.}, high-energy photons observed at some distance from appreciable hadronic remnants in the particle detector. The rare isolated photons tend to originate directly in hard QCD scattering, in contrast to copiously produced non-isolated photons that arise from nonperturbative processes such as $\pi$ and $\eta$ decays, or from via quasi-collinear radiation off final-state quarks and gluons. We evaluate contributions to continuum diphoton production from the basic short-distance channels for $\gamma\gamma$ production initiated by quark-antiquark and (anti)quark-gluon scattering, as well as by gluon-gluon and gluon-(anti)quark scattering proceeding through a fermion-loop diagram. At lowest order in QCD, a photon pair is produced from $q\bar{q}$ annihilation {[}Fig.~ (a)]. Representative next-to-leading order (NLO) contributions to $q\bar{q}+qg$ scattering are shown in Fig.~ (b)-(e). They are of ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s})$ in the strong coupling strength~. Production of $\gamma\gamma$ pairs via a box diagram in $gg$ scattering {[}Fig.~ (h)] is suppressed by two powers of $\alpha_{s}$ compared to the lowest-order $q\bar{q}$ contribution, but it is enhanced by a product of two large gluon parton distribution functions (PDFs) if typical momentum fractions $x$ are small~. The ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s}^{3})$ or NLO corrections to $gg$ scattering include one-loop $gg\rightarrow\gamma\gamma g$ diagrams (i) and (j) derived in Ref.~, as well as 4-leg two-loop diagrams (l) computed in Ref.~. In this study we also include subleading contributions from the process (k), $gq_{S}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma q_{S}$ via the quark loop, where $q_{S}=\sum_{i=u,d,s,...}(q_{i}+\bar{q}_{i})$ denotes the flavor-singlet combination of quark scattering channels. Factorization is a central principle of hadronic calculations in perturbative QCD, in which a high-energy scattering cross section is expressed as a convolution of a perturbative partonic cross section with nonperturbative parton distribution functions (PDFs), thus separating short-distance from long-distance physics. The common factorization is a longitudinal notion, in the sense that the convolution is an integral over longitudinal momentum fractions, even if some partons in the hard-scattering process have transverse momenta that border the nonperturbative regime. Unphysical features may then arise in the transverse momentum ($Q_{T}$) distribution of a color-neutral object with high invariant mass ($Q$), such as a pair of photons produced in hadron-hadron collisions. When calculated in the common factorization approach at any finite order in perturbation theory, this distribution diverges as $Q_{T}\rightarrow0$, signaling that infrared singularities associated with $Q_{T}\rightarrow0$ have not been properly isolated and regulated. These singularities are associated with soft and collinear radiation from initial-state partons shown by the diagrams in Figs.~ (b), (d), and (i). A generalized factorization approach that correctly describes the small-$Q_{T}$ region was developed by Collins, Soper, and Sterman (CSS)~ and applied to photon pair production~. In this approach the hadronic cross section is expressed as an integral over the transverse coordinate (impact parameter). The integrable singular functions present in the finite-order differential distribution as $Q_{T}\rightarrow0$ are resummed, to all orders in the strong coupling $\alpha_{s}$, into a Sudakov exponent, and a well-behaved cross section is obtained for all $Q_{T}$ values. As explained in Sec.~II, our resummed calculation is accurate to next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic (NNLL) order. It is applicable for values of diphoton transverse momentum that are less than the diphoton mass, i.e., for $Q_{T}<Q$. When $Q_{T}\sim Q$, terms of the form $\ln^{n}(Q_{T}/Q)$ become small. A perturbative expansion with a single hard scale is then applicable, and the cross section can be obtained from finite-order perturbation theory. In addition to the initial-state logarithmic singularities, there is a set of important final-state singularities which arise in the matrix elements when at least one photon's momentum is collinear to the momentum of a final-state parton. They are sometimes referred to as `fragmentation' singularities. At lowest order in $\alpha_{s}$, the final-state singularity appears only in the $qg\rightarrow\gamma\gamma q$ diagrams, as in Fig.~ (e). There are various methods used in the literature to deal with the final-state singularity, including the introduction of explicit fragmentation functions $D_{\gamma}(z)$ for hard photon production, where $z$ is the light-cone fraction of the intermediate parton's momentum carried by the photon. These single-photon ``one-fragmentation'' and ``two-fragmentation'' contributions, corresponding to one or both photons produced in independent fragmentation processes, are illustrated by the diagrams in Figs.~ (f) and (g). In addition, a fragmentation contribution of entirely different nature arises when the $\gamma\gamma$ pair is relatively light and produced from fragmentation of {\it one} parton, as discussed in Secs.~ and . A full and consistent treatment of the final-state logarithms beyond lowest order would require a joint resummation of the initial- and final-state logarithmic singularities. In the work reported here, we are guided by our interest in describing the cross section for \emph{isolated} photons, in which the fragmentation contributions are largely suppressed. A typical isolation condition requires the hadronic activity to be minimal (e.g., comparable to the underlying event) in the immediate neighborhood of each candidate photon. Candidate photons can be rejected by energy deposit nearby in the hadronic calorimeter or the presence of hadronic tracks near the photons. A theory calculation may approximate the experimental isolation by requiring the full energy of the hadronic remnants to be less than a threshold {}``isolation energy'' $E_{T}^{iso}$ in a cone of size $\Delta R$ around each photon. The two photons must be also separated in the plane of the rapidity $\eta$ and azimuthal angle $\varphi$ by an amount exceeding the resolution $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}$ of the detector. The values of $E_{T}^{iso},$ $\Delta R$, and $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}$ serve as crude characteristics of the actual measurement. The magnitude of the final-state fragmentation contribution depends on the assumed values of $E_{T}^{iso},$ $\Delta R$, and $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}$. An additional complication arises when the fragmentation radiation is assumed to be exactly collinear to the photon's momentum, as implied by the photon fragmentation functions $D_{\gamma}(z)$. The collinear approximation constrains from below the values of $z$ accessible to $D_{\gamma}(z)$: $z>z_{min}$. The size of the fragmentation contribution may depend strongly on the values of $E_{T}^{iso}$ and $z_{min}$ as a consequence of rapid variation of $D_{\gamma}(z)$ with $z$. In our work we treat the final-state singularity using a prescription that reproduces desirable features of the isolated cross sections while bypassing some of the technical difficulties alluded to above. For $Q_{T}>E_{T}^{iso}$, we avoid the final-state collinear singularity in the $qg$ scattering channel by applying quasi-experimental isolation. When $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$, we apply an auxiliary regulator which approximates on average the full NLO rate from direct $qg$ and fragmentation cross sections in this $Q_{T}$ range. Two prescriptions for the auxiliary regulator (subtraction and smooth-cone isolation inside the photon's isolation cone) are considered and lead to similar predictions at the Tevatron and the LHC. We begin with our notation in Sec.~, followed by an overview of the procedure for resummation of initial-state multiple parton radiation in Sec.~. The issue of the final-state fragmentation singularity is discussed in Sec.~. Our approach is compared with that of the DIPHOX calculation~, in which explicit fragmentation function contributions are included at NLO, but all-orders resummation is not performed. Our theoretical framework is summarized in Sec.~. In Sec.~ we compare the predictions of our resummation calculation with Tevatron data. Resummation is shown to be important for the successful description of physical $Q_{T}$ distributions, as well as for stable estimates of the effects of experimental acceptance on distributions in the diphoton invariant mass. We compare our results with the DIPHOX calculation~ and demonstrate that the requirement $Q_{T}<Q$ further suppresses the effects of the final-state fragmentation contribution, beyond the reduction associated with isolation. Next, we present our predictions for distributions of diphoton pairs produced at the energy of the LHC. Various distributions of the diphoton pairs produced from the decay of a Higgs boson are contrasted with those produced from QCD continuum processes at the LHC, showing that enhanced sensitivity to the signal can be obtained with judicious event selection. Our conclusions are presented in Sec.~. \section{Theory overview } \subsection{Notation } We consider the scattering process $h_{1}(P_{1})+h_{2}(P_{2})\rightarrow\gamma(P_{3})+\gamma(P_{4})+X$, where $h_{1}$ and $h_{2}$ are the initial-state hadrons. In terms of the center-of-mass collision energy $\sqrt{S}$, the invariant mass $Q,$ transverse momentum $Q_{T}$, and rapidity $y$ of the $\gamma\gamma$ pair, the laboratory frame momenta $P_{1}^{\mu}$ and $P_{2}^{\mu}$ of the initial hadrons and $q^{\mu}\equiv P_{3}^{\mu}+P_{4}^{\mu}$ of the $\gamma\gamma$ pair are \begin{eqnarray} P_{1}^{\mu} & = & \frac{\sqrt{S}}{2}\left\{ 1,0,0,1\right\} ;\\ P_{2}^{\mu} & = & \frac{\sqrt{S}}{2}\left\{ 1,0,0,-1\right\} ;\\ q^{\mu} & = & \left\{ \sqrt{Q^{2}+Q_{T}^{2}}\cosh y,Q_{T},0,\sqrt{Q^{2}+Q_{T}^{2}}\sinh y\right\}. \end{eqnarray} The light-cone momentum fractions for the boosted $2\rightarrow2$ scattering system are\begin{equation} x_{1,2}\equiv\frac{2(P_{2,1}\cdot q)}{S}=\frac{\sqrt{Q^{2}+Q_{T}^{2}}e^{\pm y}}{\sqrt{S}}.\end{equation} Decay of the $\gamma\gamma$ pairs is described in the hadronic Collins-Soper frame . The Collins-Soper frame is a rest frame of the $\gamma\gamma$ pair (with $q^{\mu}=\left\{ Q,0,0,0\right\} $ in this frame), chosen so that (a) the momenta $\vec{P}_{1}$ and $\vec{P}_{2}$ of the initial hadrons lie in the $Oxz$ plane (with zero azimuthal angle), and (b) the $z$ axis bisects the angle between $\vec{P}_{1}$ and $-\vec{P}_{2}$. The photon momenta are antiparallel in the Collins-Soper frame: \begin{eqnarray} P_{3}^{\mu} & = & \frac{Q}{2}\left\{ 0,\sin\theta_{*}\cos\varphi_{*},\sin\theta_{*}\sin\varphi_{*},\cos\theta_{*}\right\} ,\\ P_{4}^{\mu} & = & \frac{Q}{2}\left\{ 0,-\sin\theta_{*}\cos\varphi_{*},-\sin\theta_{*}\sin\varphi_{*},-\cos\theta_{*}\right\} ,\end{eqnarray} where $\theta_{*}$ and $\varphi_{*}$ are the photon's polar and azimuthal angles. In this section, we derive resummed predictions for the fully differential $\gamma\gamma$ cross section $d\sigma/(dQ^{2}dydQ_{T}^{2}d\Omega_{*}),$ where $d\Omega_{*}=d\cos\theta_{*}d\varphi_{*}$ is a solid angle element around the direction of $\vec{P}_{3}$ in the Collins-Soper frame defined in Eq.~(). The angles in the Collins-Soper frame are denoted by a {}``$*$'' subscript, in contrast to angles in the lab frame, which do not have such a subscript. The parton momenta and helicities are denoted by lowercase $p_{i}$ and $\lambda_{i}$, respectively. \subsection{Resummation of the initial-state QCD radiation } For completeness, we present an overview of the finite-order and resummed contributions associated with the direct production of diphotons. At the lowest order in the strong coupling strength $\alpha_{s}$, photon pairs are produced with zero transverse momentum $Q_{T}$. The Born $q\bar{q}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ cross section corresponding to Fig.~ (a) is \begin{equation} \left.\frac{d\sigma_{q\bar{q}}}{dQ^{2}dy\, dQ_{T}^{2}d\Omega_{*}}\right|_{Born}=\delta(\vec{Q}_{T})\sum_{i=u,\bar{u},d,\bar{d},...}\frac{\Sigma_{i}(\theta_{*})}{S}f_{q_{i}/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})f_{\bar{q}_{i}/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F}),\end{equation} where $f_{q_{i}/h}(x,\mu_{F})$ denotes the parton distribution function (PDF) for a quark of a flavor $i$, evaluated at a factorization scale $\mu_{F}$ of order $Q$. The prefactor\begin{equation} \Sigma_{i}(\theta_{*})\equiv\sigma_{i}^{(0)}\frac{1+\cos^{2}\theta_{*}}{1-\cos^{2}\theta_{*}},\end{equation} with\begin{equation} \sigma_{i}^{(0)}\equiv\frac{\alpha^{2}(Q)e_{i}^{4}\pi}{2N_{c}Q^{2}},\end{equation} is composed of the running electromagnetic coupling strength $\alpha\equiv e^{2}/4\pi$ evaluated at the scale $Q$, fractional quark charge $e_{i}=2/3$ or $-1/3$, and number of QCD colors $N_{c}=3$. The lowest-order $gg\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ scattering proceeds through an amplitude with a virtual quark loop (a box diagram) shown in Fig.~ (h). Its cross section takes the form\begin{equation} \left.\frac{d\sigma_{gg}}{dQ^{2}dy\, dQ_{T}^{2}d\Omega_{*}}\right|_{Born}=\delta(\vec{Q}_{T})\frac{\Sigma_{g}(\theta_{*})}{S}f_{g/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})f_{g/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F}),\end{equation} where the prefactor\begin{equation} \Sigma_{g}(\theta_{*})\equiv\sigma_{g}^{(0)}L_{g}(\theta_{*})\end{equation} depends on the polar angle $\theta_{*}$ $ $ through a function $L_{g}(\theta_{*})$ presented explicitly in Ref.~. The overall normalization coefficient\begin{equation} \sigma_{g}^{(0)}=\frac{\alpha^{2}(Q)\alpha_{s}^{2}(Q)}{32\pi Q^{2}(N_{c}^{2}-1)}\left(\sum_{i}e_{i}^{2}\right)^{2}\end{equation} involves the sum of the squared charges $e_{i}^{2}$ of the quarks circulating in the loop. The NLO direct contributions, represented by Figs.~ (b)-(e), (i)-(l) and denoted as $P(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$, are computed in Refs.~. The NLO $2\rightarrow3$ differential cross section grows logarithmically if the final-state parton is soft or collinear to the initial-state quark or gluon, i.e., when $Q_{T}$ of the $\gamma\gamma$ pair is much smaller than $Q$. These {}``initial-state'' logarithmic contributions are summed to all orders later in this subsection. The NLO $qg$ cross section also contains a large logarithm when one of the photons is produced from a collinear $q\!\!\!\!^{^{(-)}}\rightarrow q\!\!\!\!^{^{(-)}}\gamma$ splitting in the final state. This {}``final-state'' collinear limit is discussed in Section~. With contributions from the initial-state soft or collinear radiation included, the NLO cross section is approximated in the small-$Q_{T}$ asymptotic limit by\begin{equation} A_{q\bar{q}}(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})=\sum_{i=u,\bar{u},d,\bar{d},...}\frac{\Sigma_{i}(\theta_{*})}{S}\left\{ \delta(\vec{Q}_{T})F_{i,\delta}(Q,y,\theta_{*})+F_{i,+}(Q,y,Q_{T})\right\} \end{equation} in the $q\bar{q}+qg$ scattering channel, and by\begin{eqnarray} A_{gg}(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*}) & = & \frac{1}{S}\Biggl\{\Sigma_{g}(\theta_{*})\left[\delta(\vec{Q}_{T})F_{g,\delta}(Q,y,\theta_{*})+F_{g,+}(Q,y,Q_{T})\right]\nonumber \\ & & \hspace{12pt}+\Sigma_{g}^{\prime}(\theta_{*},\varphi_{*})F_{g}^{\prime}(Q,y,Q_{T})\Biggr\}\end{eqnarray} in the $gg+gq_{S}$ scattering channel. The functions $F_{a,\delta}(Q,y,\theta_{*})$ and $F_{a,+}^{(\prime)}(Q,y,Q_{T})$ for relevant parton flavors $a$ are listed in Appendix~. They include `plus function' contributions of the type $\left[Q_{T}^{-2}\ln^{p}\left(Q^{2}/Q_{T}^{2}\right)\right]_{+}$ with $p\geq0$, universal functions describing soft and collinear scattering, and process-dependent corrections from NLO virtual diagrams. The $q\bar{q}+qg$ asymptotic cross section $A_{q\bar{q}}(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ is proportional to the angular function $\Sigma_{i}(\theta_{*}),$ the same as in the Born $q\bar{q}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ cross section, cf. Eq.~(). Similarly, the $gg+gq_{S}$ asymptotic cross section $A_{gg}(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ includes a term proportional to the Born angular function $\Sigma_{g}(\theta_{*}).$ In addition, $A_{gg}(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ contains another term proportional to $\Sigma_{g}^{\prime}(\theta_{*},\varphi_{*})\equiv L_{g}^{\prime}(\theta_{*})\cos2\varphi_{*}$, where $L_{g}^{\prime}(\theta_{*})$ is derived in Ref.~. This term arises due to the interference of Born amplitudes with incoming gluons of opposite polarizations and affects the azimuthal angle ($\varphi_{*}$) distribution of the photons in the Collins-Soper frame . The small-$Q_{T}$ representations in Eqs.~() and () can be used to compute fixed-order particle distributions in the phase-space slicing method. In this method, we choose a small $Q_{T}$ value $Q_{T}^{sep}$ in the range of validity of Eqs.~() and (). If the actual $Q_{T}$ in the computation exceeds $Q_{T}^{sep}$, we calculate the differential cross section using the full $2\rightarrow3$ matrix element. When $Q_{T}$ is smaller than $Q_{T}^{sep}$, we calculate the event rate using the small-$Q_{T}$ asymptotic approximation $A(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ and $2\rightarrow2$ phase space. Hence, the lowest bin of the $Q_{T}$ distribution is approximated in the NLO prediction by its \textit{average} value in the interval $0\leq Q_{T}\leq Q_{T}^{sep}$, computed by integration of the asymptotic approximations. The phase-space slicing procedure is sufficient for predictions of observables inclusive in $Q_{T}$, but not of the shape of $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ distributions. The latter goal is met by all-orders summation of singular asymptotic contributions with the help of the Collins-Soper-Sterman (CSS) method . The small-$Q_{T}$ resummed cross section is denoted as $W(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ and given by a two-dimensional Fourier transform of a function $\widetilde{W}(Q,b,y,\Omega_{*})$ that depends on the impact parameter $\vec{b}$:\begin{eqnarray} W(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*}) & = & \int\frac{d\vec{b}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{i\vec{Q}_{T}\cdot\vec{b}}\widetilde{W}(Q,b,y,\Omega_{*})\nonumber \\ & \equiv & \int\frac{d\vec{b}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{i\vec{Q}_{T}\cdot\vec{b}}\widetilde{W}_{pert}(Q,b_{*},y,\Omega_{*})e^{-{\cal F}_{NP}(Q,b)}.\end{eqnarray} In this equation, $\widetilde{W}(Q,b,y,\Omega_{*})$ is written as a product of the perturbative part $\widetilde{W}_{pert}(Q,b_{*},y,\Omega_{*})$ and the nonperturbative exponent $\exp\left(-{\cal F}_{NP}(Q,b)\right),$ which describe the dynamics at small ($b\lesssim1\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}$) and large ($b\gtrsim1\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}$) impact parameters, respectively. The purpose of the variable $b_{*}$ is reviewed below. If $Q$ is large, the perturbative form factor $\widetilde{W}_{pert}$ dominates the integral in Eq.~(). It is computed at small $b$ as \begin{eqnarray} \widetilde{W}_{pert}(Q,b,y,\theta_{*}) & = & \sum_{a}\frac{\Sigma_{a}(\theta_{*})}{S}h_{a}^{2}(Q,\theta_{*})e^{-\mathcal{S}_{a}(Q,b)}\nonumber \\ & \times & \left[\mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}\otimes f_{a_{1}/h_{1}}\right](x_{1},b;\mu)\left[\mathcal{C}_{\bar{a}/a_{2}}\otimes f_{a_{2}/h_{2}}\right](x_{2},b;\mu).\end{eqnarray} The {}``hard-vertex'' function $\Sigma_{a}(\theta_{*})h_{a}^{2}(Q,\theta_{*})$ is the normalized cross section for the Born scattering $a\bar{a}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, with $a=u,\bar{u},d,\bar{d},...$ in $q\bar{q}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, and $a=\bar{a}=g$ in $gg\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$. The Sudakov exponent\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{S}_{a}(Q,b)=\int_{C_{1}^{2}/b^{2}}^{C_{2}^{2}Q^{2}}\frac{d\bar{\mu}^{2}}{\bar{\mu}^{2}}\left[\mathcal{A}_{a}\left(C_{1},\bar{\mu}\right)\ln\left(\frac{C_{2}^{2}Q^{2}}{\bar{\mu}^{2}}\right)+\mathcal{B}_{a}\left(C_{1},C_{2},\bar{\mu}\right)\right]\end{eqnarray} is an integral of two functions $\mathcal{A}_{a}\left(C_{1},\bar{\mu}\right)$ and $\mathcal{B}_{a}\left(C_{1},C_{2},\bar{\mu}\right)$ between momentum scales $C_{1}/b$ and $C_{2}Q$, and $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are constants of order $c_{0}\equiv2e^{-\gamma_{E}}=1.123...$ and $1$, respectively. The symbol $\left[\mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}\otimes f_{a_{1}/h}\right](x,b;\mu)$ stands for a convolution of the $k_{T}-$integrated PDF $f_{a_{1}/h}(x,\mu)$ and Wilson coefficient function $\mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}(x,b;C_{1}/C_{2},\mu)$, evaluated at a factorization scale $\mu$ and summed over intermediate parton flavors $a_{1}$: \begin{eqnarray} \left[\mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}\otimes f_{a_{1}/h}\right](x,b;\mu) & \equiv & \sum_{a_{1}}\left[\int_{x}^{1}{\frac{d\xi}{\xi}}\mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}\left(\frac{x}{\xi},b;\frac{C_{1}}{C_{2}},\mu\right)f_{a_{1}/h}(\xi,\mu)\right].\end{eqnarray} We compute the functions $h_{a},$ $\mathcal{A}_{a}$, $\mathcal{B}_{a}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}$ up to orders $\alpha_{s},$ $\alpha_{s}^{3},$ $\alpha_{s}^{2},$ and $\alpha_{s},$ respectively, corresponding to the NNLL accuracy of resummation. The perturbative coefficients at these orders in $\alpha_{s}$ are listed in Appendix~. The subleading contribution from the nonperturbative region $b\gtrsim1\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}$ is included in our calculation using a revised {}``$b_{*}$'' model~, which provides excellent agreement with $p_{T}$-dependent data on Drell-Yan pair and $Z$ boson production. In this model, the perturbative form factor $\widetilde{W}_{pert}(Q,b_{*},y,\Omega_{*})$ in Eq.~() is evaluated as a function of $b_{*}\equiv b/(1+b^{2}/b_{max}^{2})^{1/2},$ with $b_{max}=1.5\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}$. The factorization scale $\mu$ in $\left[{\mathcal{C}}\otimes f\right]$ is set equal to $c_{0}\sqrt{b^{-2}+Q_{ini}^{2}}$ , where $Q_{ini}$ is the initial scale of order 1 GeV in the parameterization employed for $f_{a/h}(x,\mu)$, for instance, 1.3 GeV for the CTEQ6 PDFs~. We have $\widetilde{W}_{pert}(b_{*})=\widetilde{W}_{pert}(b)$ at $b^{2}\ll b_{max}^{2},$ and $\widetilde{W}_{pert}(b_{*})=\widetilde{W}_{pert}(b_{max})$ at $b^{2}\gg b_{max}^{2}$. Hence, this ansatz preserves the exact form of the perturbative form factor $\widetilde{W}_{pert}(Q,b,y,\Omega_{*})$ in the perturbative region of small $b$, while also incorporating the leading nonperturbative contributions (described by a phenomenological function $\mathcal{F}_{NP}(Q,b)$) at large $b$. The form of $\mathcal{F}_{NP}(Q,b)$ found in the global $p_{T}$ fit in Ref.~ suggests approximate independence of $\mathcal{F}_{NP}(Q,b)$ from the type of $q\bar{q}$ scattering process. It is used here to describe the nonperturbative terms in the leading $q\bar{q}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ channel. We neglect possible corrections to the nonperturbative contributions arising from the final-state soft radiation in the $qg$ channel and additional $\sqrt{S}$ dependence affecting Drell-Yan-like processes at $x\lesssim10^{-2}$ , as these exceed the accuracy of the present measurements at the Tevatron. The experimentally unknown $\mathcal{F}_{NP}(Q,b)$ in the $gg$ channel is approximated by $\mathcal{F}_{NP}(Q,b)$ for the $q\bar{q}$ channel, multiplied by the ratio $C_{A}/C_{F}=9/4$. This choice is motivated by the fact that the leading Sudakov color factors ${\cal A}_a^{(k)}$ in the $gg$ and $q\bar{q}$ channels are proportional to $C_{A}=3$ and $C_{F}=4/3$, respectively. The uncertainties in the $\gamma\gamma$ cross sections associated with $\mathcal{F}_{NP}(Q,b)$ are investigated numerically in Ref.~. In the region $Q_{T}\sim Q$, collinear QCD factorization at a finite fixed order in $\alpha_{s}$ is applicable. In order to include non-singular contributions important in this region, we add to $W(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ the regular piece $Y(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*}),$ defined as the difference between the NLO cross section $P(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ and its small-$Q_{T}$ asymptotic approximation $A(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$:\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d\sigma(h_{1}h_{2}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)}{dQ\, dQ_{T}^{2}\, dy\, d\Omega_{*}} & = & W(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})+P(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})-A(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})\nonumber \\ & \equiv & W(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})+Y(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*}).\end{eqnarray} At small $Q_{T},$ subtraction of $A(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ in Eq.~() cancels large initial-state radiative corrections in $P(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*}),$ which are incorporated in their resummed form within $W(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$. At $Q_{T}$ comparable to $Q$, $A(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ cancels the leading terms in $W(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$, but higher-order contributions remain from the infinite tower of logarithmic terms that are resummed in $W$. In this situation the $W+Y$ cross section drops below the finite-order result $P(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ at some value of $Q_{T}$ (referred to as the {\em crossing point}) in both the $q\bar{q}+qg$ and $gg+gq_{S}$ channels, for each $Q$ and $y$. We use the $W+Y$ cross section as our final prediction at $Q_{T}$ values below the crossing point, and the NLO cross section $P$ at $Q_{T}$ values above the crossing point. A few comments are in order about our resummation calculation. The hard-vertex contribution $\Sigma_{a}(\theta_{*})h_{a}^{2}(Q,\theta_{*})$ and the functions $\mathcal{B}_{a}\left(C_{1},C_{2},\bar{\mu}\right)$ and $\mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}(x,b;C/C_{2},\mu)$ can be varied in a mutually compensating way while preserving the same value of the form factor $W$ up to higher-order corrections in $\alpha_{s}$. This ambiguity, or dependence on the chosen {}``resummation scheme'' within the CSS formalism, can be employed to explore the sensitivity of theoretical predictions to further next-to-next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (NNNLL) effects that are not accounted for explicitly. The perturbative coefficients in Appendix~ are presented in the CSS resummation scheme , our default choice in numerical calculations, and in an alternative scheme by Catani, de Florian and Grazzini (CFG) . In the original CSS resummation scheme, the ${{\cal B}}$ and ${{\cal C}}$ functions contain the finite virtual NLO corrections to the $2\rightarrow2$ scattering process, whereas in the CFG scheme the universal ${\mathcal{B}}$ and ${\mathcal{C}}$ depend only on the type of incident partons, and the process-dependent virtual correction is included in the function $h_{a}$. The difference between the CSS and CFG schemes is numerically small in $\gamma\gamma$ production at both the Tevatron and the LHC . In the $gg+gq_{S}$ scattering channel, the unpolarized resummed cross section includes an additional contribution from elements of $k_{T}$-dependent PDF spin matrices with opposite helicities of outgoing gluons . The NLO expansion of this spin-flip resummed cross section generates the term proportional to $\Sigma_{g}^{\prime}(\theta_{*},\varphi_{*})\propto\cos2\varphi_{*}$ in the small-$Q_{T}$ asymptotic cross section, cf. Eq.~(). Although the logarithmic spin-flip contribution must be resummed in principle to all orders to predict the $\varphi_{*}$ dependence in the $gg+gq_{S}$ channel, it is neglected in the present work in view of its small effect on the full $\gamma\gamma$ cross section. When integrated over $Q_T$ from 0 to scales of order $Q$, the resummed cross section becomes approximately equal to the finite-order (NLO) cross section, augmented typically by a few-percent correction from integrated higher-order terms logarithmic in $Q_{T}$. Inclusive observables that allow such integration (e.g., the large-$Q$ region of the $\gamma\gamma$ invariant mass distribution) are approximated well both by the resummed and NLO calculations. However, the experimental acceptance constrains the range of the integration over $Q_{T}$ in parts of phase space and may break delicate cancellations between integrable singularities present in the finite-order differential distribution. In this situation (e.g., in the vicinity of the kinematic cutoff in $d\sigma/dQ$ discussed in Sec.~) the NLO cross section becomes unstable, while the resummed cross section (free of discontinuities) continues to depend smoothly on kinematic constraints. We see that the resummation is essential not only for the prediction of physical $Q_{T}$ distributions in $\gamma\gamma$ production, but also for credible estimates of the effects of experimental acceptance on distributions in the diphoton invariant mass and other variables. \subsection{Final-state photon fragmentation } \subsubsection{Single-photon fragmentation} In addition to the QCD singularities associated with initial-state radiation {[}described by the asymptotic terms in Eqs.~() and ()], other singularities arise in the ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s})$ process $q(p_{1})+g(p_{2})\rightarrow\gamma(p_{3})+\gamma(p_{4})+q(p_{5})$ {[}Fig.~ (e)] when a photon is collinear to the final-state quark. In this limit, the $qg\rightarrow q\gamma\gamma$ squared matrix element grows as $1/s_{\gamma5}$, when $s_{\gamma5} \rightarrow 0$, where $s_{\gamma5}$ is the squared invariant mass of the collinear $\gamma q$ pair. In this limit, the squared matrix element factors as \begin{equation} |{\mathcal{M}}(qg\rightarrow q\gamma\gamma)|^{2}\approx{\frac{2e^{2}e_{i}^{2}}{s_{\gamma5}}}P_{\gamma\leftarrow q}({z})|{\mathcal{M}}(qg\rightarrow q\gamma)|^{2}\end{equation} into the product of the squared matrix element $\left|{\mathcal{M}}(qg\rightarrow q\gamma)\right|^{2}$ for the production of a photon and an intermediate quark, and a splitting function $P_{\gamma\leftarrow q}(z)=(1+(1-z)^{2})/z$ for fragmentation of the intermediate quark into a collinear $\gamma q$ pair. In Eq.~() $z$ is the light-cone fraction of the intermediate quark's momentum carried by the fragmentation photon, and $ee_{i}$ is the charge of the intermediate quark. When the photon-quark separation $\Delta r=\sqrt{(\eta_{5}-\eta_{\gamma})^{2}+(\varphi_{5}-\varphi_{\gamma})^{2}}$ in the plane of pseudorapidity $\eta=-\log(\tan(\theta/2))$ and azimuthal angle $\varphi$ in the lab frame is small, as in the collinear limit, $s_{\gamma5}\approx E_{T\gamma}E_{T5}\Delta r^{2},$ where $E_{T\gamma}$ and $E_{T5}$ are the transverse energies of the photon and quark, with $E_{T}\equiv E\sin\theta$. Note that $E_{T5}=Q_{T}$ at the order in $\alpha_{s}$ at which we are working. Therefore, contributions from the final-state collinear, or fragmentation, region are most pronounced at small $\Delta r$ and relatively small $Q_{T}.$ \rightarrow0,$ limit, the final-state collinear contribution is suppressed, reflecting the absence of the soft singularity in the $qg\rightarrow q\gamma\gamma$ cross section. } A fully consistent treatment of the initial- and final-state singularities would require a joint initial- and final-state resummation. In the approaches taken to date, the fragmentation singularity may be subtracted from the direct cross section and replaced by a single-photon {}``one-fragmentation'' contribution $q+g\rightarrow(q\stackrel{frag}{\longrightarrow}\gamma)+\gamma$, where {}``$(\stackrel{frag}{q\longrightarrow\gamma})$'' denotes collinear production of one hard photon from a quark, described by a function $D_{\gamma}(z,\mu)$ at a light-cone momentum fraction $z$ and factorization scale $\mu$. Single-photon {}``two-fragmentation'' contributions arise in processes like $g+g\rightarrow(q\stackrel{frag}{\longrightarrow}\gamma)+(\bar{q}\stackrel{frag}{\longrightarrow}\gamma)$ and involve convolutions with two functions $D_{\gamma}(z,\mu)$ (one per photon). The lowest-order Feynman diagrams for the one- and two-fragmentation contributions are shown in Figs.~(f) and (g), respectively. Parameterizations must be adopted for the nonperturbative functions $D_{\gamma}(z,\mu)$ at an initial scale $\mu=\mu_{0}$. This is the approach followed in the DIPHOX calculation~, in which the sum of real and virtual NLO corrections to direct and single-$\gamma$ fragmentation cross sections is included. When explicit fragmentation function contributions are included, the inclusive rate is increased by higher-order contributions from photon production within hadronic jets. However, much of the enhancement is suppressed by isolation constraints imposed on the inclusive photon cross sections before the comparison with data. Nevertheless, fragmentation contributions surviving isolation may be moderately important in parts of phase space. An infrared-safe procedure can be formulated to apply isolation cuts at each order of $\alpha_{s}$~. This procedure encounters difficulties in reproducing the effects of isolation on fragmentation contributions, because theoretical models reflect only basic features of the experimental isolation and may introduce new logarithmic singularities near the edges of the isolation cones. As mentioned in the Introduction, the magnitude of the fragmentation contribution depends on the values of isolation parameters $E_{T}^{iso},$ $\Delta R$, and $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}$, modeled only approximately in a theoretical calculation. The collinear approximation constrains from below the values of $z$ accessible to $D_{\gamma}(z,\mu)$: $z>z_{min}\equiv(1+E_{T5}^{iso}/E_{T\gamma})^{-1}$. If $D_{\gamma}(z,\mu)$ varies rapidly with $z$, the fragmentation cross section is particularly sensitive to the assumed values of $E_{T}^{iso}$ and $z_{min}$. For instance, if $D_{\gamma}(z,\mu)\sim1/z$, the fragmentation cross section is roughly proportional to $E_{T}^{iso}$ under a typical condition $E_{T}^{iso}/E_{T\gamma}\ll1$. Such nearly linear dependence on $E_{T}^{iso}$ of the fragmentation cross section $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ is indeed observed in the DIPHOX calculation, as reviewed in Sec.~. In reality, some spread of the parton radiation in the direction transverse to the photon's motion is expected. The treatment of kinematics in parton showering programs like PYTHIA results in somewhat different dependence on $z$~ compared to the collinear approximation, hence in a different magnitude of the fragmentation cross section. In this work we adopt a procedure that reproduces desirable features of the isolated cross sections, while bypassing some of the difficulties summarized above. To simulate experimental isolation, we reject an event if (a) the separation $\Delta r$ between the final-state parton and one of the photons is less than $\Delta R$, and (b) $E_{T5}$ of the parton is larger than $E_{T}^{iso}$. This condition is applied to the NLO cross section $P(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$, but not to $W(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ and $A(Q,Q_{T},y,\theta_{*})$, as these correspond to initial-state QCD radiation and are free of the final-state collinear singularity. This quasi-experimental isolation excludes the singular final-state direct contributions at $E_{T5}>E_{T}^{iso}$ and $\Delta r<\Delta R$ (or $s_{\gamma5}<E_{T\gamma}E_{T5}\Delta R^{2}$). It is effective for $Q_{T}>E_{T}^{iso}$, but the collinear direct contributions survive when $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$. The integrated (but not the differential) fragmentation rate in the region $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$ may be estimated from a calculation with explicit fragmentation functions. In our approach, we do not introduce fragmentation functions, but we apply an auxiliary regulator to the direct $qg$ cross section at $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$ and $\Delta r<\Delta R$. In our numerical study we find that this prescription preserves a continuous differential distribution except for a small finite discontinuity at $Q_{T} = E_{T}^{iso}$. It approximately reproduces the integrated $qg$ rate obtained in the DIPHOX calculation at small $Q_{T}$, for the nominal $E_{T}^{iso}$. Two forms of the auxiliary regulator are considered below, based on subtraction of the leading collinear contribution and smooth-cone isolation . In the first case, we subtract the leading part Eq.~() of the direct $qg$ matrix element when $E_{T5}<E_{T}^{iso}$ and $\Delta r<\Delta R.$ We take $z=1-p_{s}\cdot p_{5}/(p_{s}\cdot p_{f}+p_{s}\cdot p_{5}+p_{f}\cdot p_{5}),$ where $p_{f}^{\mu},$ $p_{5}^{\mu},$ and $p_{s}^{\mu}$ are the four-momenta of the fragmentation photon, fragmentation quark, and spectator photon, respectively~. This prescription is used in most of the numerical results in this paper. In the second case, we suppress fragmentation contributions at $\Delta r<\Delta R$ and $E_{T5}<E_{T}^{iso}$ by rejecting events in the $\Delta R$ cone that satisfy $E_{T5}<\chi(\Delta r)$, where $\chi(\Delta r)$ is a smooth function satisfying $\chi(0)=0,$ $\chi(\Delta R)=E_{T}^{iso}$. This {}``smooth-cone isolation''~ transforms the fragmentation singularity associated with $D_{\gamma}(z,\mu)$ into an integrable singularity, which depends on the assumed functional form of $\chi(\Delta r)$. The cross section for direct contributions is rendered finite by this prescription without explicit introduction of fragmentation functions $D_{\gamma}(z,\mu)$. For our smooth function, we choose $\chi(\Delta r)=E_{T}^{iso}(1-\cos\Delta r)^{2}/(1-\cos\Delta R)^{2}$, which differs from the specific form considered in Ref.~, but still satisfies the condition $\chi(0)=0.$ Our earlier results in Ref.~ are computed with this prescription. Here we employ it only in a few instances for comparison with the subtraction method and obtain similar results. Differences between the two prescriptions can be used to quantify sensitivity of the predictions to the treatment of the $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$ and $\Delta r<\Delta R$ region. The two prescriptions yield identical predictions outside of this restricted region, notably at $Q_{T}>E_{T}^{iso}$, where our NLO perturbative expression $P(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ in the $q\bar{q}+qg$ channel is controlled only by quasi-experimental isolation and coincides with the corresponding direct cross section in DIPHOX. The default subtraction prescription predicts a vanishing $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ in the extreme $Q_{T}\rightarrow0$ limit, while the smooth-cone prescription has an integrable singularity in this limit, avoided by an explicit small-$Q_{T}$ cutoff in the calculation of our $Y$-piece. Both prescriptions are free of the logarithmic singularity at $Q_{T}=E_{T}^{iso}$ arising in the fixed-order (DIPHOX) calculation. \subsubsection{Low-$Q$ diphoton fragmentation } Another class of large radiative corrections arises when the $\gamma\gamma$ invariant mass $Q$ is smaller than the $\gamma\gamma$ transverse momentum $Q_{T}$. In this case, one final-state quark or gluon fragments into a low-mass $\gamma\gamma$ pair, e.g. as $q+g\rightarrow(q\stackrel{frag}{\longrightarrow}\gamma\gamma)+g$. The lowest-order contributions of this kind are shown in Fig.~. The process is described by a $\gamma\gamma$-fragmentation function $D_{\gamma\gamma}(z_{1},z_{2},\mu)$, different from the single-photon fragmentation function $D_{\gamma}(z,\mu)$. This new {}``two-photons from one-fragmentation'' contribution is not included yet in existing calculations, even though similar fragmentation mechanisms have been studied in large-$Q_{T}$ Drell-Yan pair production~. The importance of low-$Q$ $\gamma\gamma$-fragmentation may be elevated in some kinematic regions for typical experimental cuts. They can be removed by adjustments in the experimental cuts, as discussed in Sec.~. \subsection{Summary of the calculation } We conclude this section by summarizing the main features of our calculation. Full direct NLO cross sections, represented by the graphs (a)-(e), (h)-(l) in Fig.~, are computed, and their initial-state soft/collinear logarithmic singularities are resummed at small $Q_{T}$ in both the $q\bar{q}+qg$ and $gg+gq_{S}$ channels. The perturbative Sudakov functions ${\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}$ and Wilson coefficient functions ${\mathcal{C}}$ in the resummed cross section $W$ are computed up to orders $\alpha_{s}^{3},$ $\alpha_{s}^{2}$, and $\alpha_{s}$, respectively, corresponding to resummation at NNLL accuracy. Our resummation calculation requires an integration over all values of impact parameter $b$, including the nonperturbative region of large $b$. In our default calculation of the resummed cross section, we adopt the nonperturbative functions introduced in Ref.~. We consider two resummation schemes, the traditional scheme introduced in the CSS paper as well as an alternative scheme~. The comparison allows us to estimate the magnitude of yet higher-order corrections that are not included. The size of these effects is different in the $q\bar{q}+qg$ and $gg+gq_{S}$ channels but not particularly significant in either . The final-state collinear singularity in the $qg$ scattering channel is avoided by applying quasi-experimental isolation when $Q_{T}>E_{T}^{iso}$ and an auxiliary regulator when $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$ to approximate on average the full NLO rate from direct $qg$ and fragmentation cross sections in this $Q_{T}$ range. Two prescriptions for the auxiliary regulator (subtraction and smooth isolation inside the photon's isolation cone) are considered and lead to similar predictions at the Tevatron and LHC. The singular logarithmic contributions associated with initial-state radiation are subtracted from the NLO cross section $P$ to form a regular piece $Y,$ which is added to the small-$Q_{T}$ resummed cross section $W$ to predict the production rate for small and intermediate values of $Q_{T}$. In the $gg+gq_{S}$ channel, we also subtract from $P$ a new singular spin-flip contribution that affects azimuthal angle ($\varphi_{*})$ dependence in the Collins-Soper reference frame. We switch our prediction to the fixed-order perturbative result $P$ at the point in $Q_{T}$ where the cross section $W+Y$ drops below $P$. This crossing point is located at $Q_{T}$ of order $Q$ in both $q\bar{q}+qg$ and $gg+gq_{S}$ channels. \section{Comparisons with Data and Predictions } Our calculation of the differential cross section $d\sigma/(dQdQ_{T}dyd\Omega_{*})$ is especially pertinent for the transverse momentum $Q_{T}$ distribution in the region $Q_{T}\lesssim Q$, for fixed values of diphoton mass $Q$ (cf. Section~). It would be best to compare our \emph{multiple} differential distribution with experiment, but published collider data tend to be presented in the form of singly differential distributions in $Q$, $Q_{T}$, and $\Delta\varphi\equiv\varphi_{3}-\varphi_{4}$ in the lab frame, after integration over the other independent kinematic variables. We follow suit in order to make comparisons with Tevatron collider data, but we recommend that more differential studies be made, and we comment on the features that can be explored. We show results at the energy of the Tevatron collider and then make predictions for the Large Hadron Collider. The analytical results of Sec.~ are implemented in our computer code. As a first step, resummed and NLO $\gamma\gamma$ cross sections are computed on a grid of discrete values of $Q$, $Q_{T}$, and $y$ by using the resummation program \textsc{Legacy} described in Refs.~. At the second stage, matching of the resummed and NLO cross sections is performed, and fully differential cross sections are evaluated by Monte-Carlo integration of the matched grids in the latest version of the program \textsc{ResBos}~. The calculation is done for $N_{f}=5$ active quark flavors and the following values of the electroweak and strong interaction parameters~: \begin{eqnarray} & & G_{F}=1.16639\times10^{-5}~\textrm{GeV}^{-2},~~m_{Z}=91.1882~{\textrm{GeV}},\\ & & \alpha(m_{Z})=1/128.937,~~\alpha_{s}(m_{Z})=0.1187.\end{eqnarray} The following choices of the factorization constants are used: $C_{1}=C_{3}=2e^{-\gamma_{E}}\approx1.123...$, and $C_{2}=C_{4}=1.$ The choice $C_{4}=1$ implies that we equate the renormalization and factorization scales to the invariant mass of the photon pair, $\mu_{R}=\mu_{F}=Q$, in the fixed-order and asymptotic contributions $P(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ and $A(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$. We use two-loop expressions for the running electromagnetic and strong couplings $\alpha(\mu)$ and $\alpha_{S}(\mu)$, as well as the NLO parton distribution function set CTEQ6M~ with $Q_{ini}=1.3$ GeV. For calculations with explicit final-state fragmentation functions included, we use set 1 of the NLO photon fragmentation functions from Ref.~. \subsection{Results for Run 2 at the Tevatron} \subsubsection{Kinematic constraints } In this section, we present our results for the Tevatron $p\bar{p}$ collider operating at $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV. In order to compare with the data from the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) collaboration~, we make the same restrictions on the final-state photons as those used in the experimental measurement (unless stated otherwise): \begin{eqnarray} & & {\textrm{transverse momentum}}~p_{T}^{\gamma}>p_{T\, min}^{\gamma}=14~(13)~{\textrm{GeV for the harder (softer) photon, }}\\ & & {\textrm{and rapidity}}~|y^{\gamma}|<0.9~{\textrm{for each photon}}.\end{eqnarray} We impose isolation conditions described in Section , assuming the nominal isolation energy $E_{T}^{iso}=1$ GeV specified in the CDF publication, along with $\Delta R=0.4,$ and $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}=0.3$. We also show predictions for the constraints that approximate event selection conditions used by the Fermilab D\O~Collaboration~: $p_{T}^{\gamma}>p_{T\, min}^{\gamma}=21~(20)$ GeV for the harder (softer) photon, $|y^{\gamma}|<1.1$, and $E_{T}^{iso}/E_{T}^{\gamma}=0.07$ for each photon, for the same $\Delta R$ and $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}$ values as in the CDF case. \begin{figure*} \caption{The diphoton event distribution from the theoretical simulation for $\sqrt{S}=1.96$\,GeV, with the selection criteria imposed in the CDF measurement, as a function of the various kinematic variables described in the text, shown for $Q_T < Q$ and $Q_T > Q$ separately. } \end{figure*} A scatter plot of event distributions from our theoretical simulation for CDF kinematic cuts and arbitrary luminosity is shown in Fig.~. The events are plotted versus the invariant mass $Q$, transverse momentum $Q_{T}$, rapidity separation $\left|\Delta y\right|\equiv\left|y_{hard}-y_{soft}\right|$, and azimuthal separation $\Delta\varphi\equiv\left|\varphi_{hard}-\varphi_{soft}\right|$ (with $0\leq\Delta\varphi\leq\pi)$ between the harder and softer photon in the lab frame, as well as the cosine of the polar angle $\theta_{*}$ in the Collins-Soper frame. It can be seen from the figure that $\Delta\varphi$ is correlated with the difference $Q_{T}-Q$. Events with $Q_{T}<Q$ ($Q_{T}>Q$) tend to populate regions with $\Delta\varphi>\pi/2$ ($\Delta\varphi<\pi/2$). The extreme case $Q_{T}=0$ relevant to the Born approximation corresponds to $\Delta\varphi=\pi$. The $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ cuts suppress the mass region $Q\lesssim2\sqrt{p_{Tmin}^{\gamma_{3}}p_{Tmin}^{\gamma_{4}}}\approx27$ GeV at $\Delta\varphi\approx\pi$ and $Q_{T}\lesssim25$ GeV at $\Delta\varphi\approx0$, leading to the appearance of a kinematic cutoff in the invariant mass distribution and a {}``shoulder'' in the transverse momentum distribution, as shown in later sections. Our theoretical framework is applicable in the region $Q_{T}\lesssim Q$ (large $\Delta\varphi$), where the dominant fraction of events occurs. The appearance of singularities in the NLO calculation at $Q_{T}\rightarrow0$ and the fact that there are two different hard scales, $Q_{T}$ and $Q$, relevant for the event distributions in the low-$Q_{T}$ region require that we address and resum large logarithmic terms of the form $\log(Q/Q_{T})$. Different and interesting physics becomes important in the complementary region $Q_{T}>Q$ (small $\Delta\varphi$), a topic we address in Sec.~. \subsubsection{Tevatron cross sections } \begin{figure*} \caption{Invariant mass distributions of photon pairs in $p\bar{p}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma X$ at $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV with QCD contributions calculated in the soft--gluon resummation formalism (red solid) and at NLO (blue dashed). The calculations include the cuts used by the CDF collaboration whose data are shown~. } \end{figure*} We compare our resummed and finite-order predictions for the invariant mass ($Q$) distribution of photon pairs, shown in Fig.~ as solid and dashed lines, respectively. The finite-order cross section is evaluated at $O(\alpha_{s})$ accuracy in the $q\bar{q}+qg$ channel and at $O(\alpha_{s}^{3})$ accuracy in the $gg+gq_{S}$ channel. These finite-order calculations are performed with the phase-space slicing method described in Sec.~. When integrated over all $Q_{T}$, as in the $d\sigma/dQ$ distribution at large $Q$, the resummed logarithmic terms from higher orders in $\alpha_{s}$ produce a relatively small NNLO correction, such that the resummed and finite-order mass distributions in Fig.~ are close to one another in normalization and shape. Both distributions also agree with the CDF data in this $Q$ range within experimental uncertainties. The shape of $d\sigma/dQ$ at small $Q$ is affected by the cuts in Eq.~() on the transverse momenta $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of the two photons. In addition to being responsible for the characteristic cutoff at $Q\approx27$ GeV explained in the previous subsection, the cuts on the individual transverse momenta $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ also introduce a dependence of the invariant mass distribution on the shape of the $Q_{T}$ spectrum of the $\gamma\gamma$ pairs. Because of this correlation between the $Q$ and $Q_{T}$ distributions, the discontinuities in $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ as $Q_{T}\rightarrow0$, when computed at finite order, make finite-order predictions for $d\sigma/dQ$ somewhat unstable. \begin{figure*} \begin{centering} \\ (a) \hspace{0.45\columnwidth} (b) \par\end{centering} \caption{Transverse momentum distributions in $p\bar{p}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma X$ at $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV along with the CDF data: (a) the fixed-order prediction $P$ (dashes) and its asymptotic approximation $A$ (dots); (b) the full resummed cross section (solid), obtained by matching the resummed $W+Y$ to the fixed-order prediction $P$ (dashed, same as in (a)) at large $Q_{T}$. } \end{figure*} The finite-order expectation for the transverse momentum distribution $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ (i.e., the integral of $P(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})$ over $Q$, $y$, and $\Omega_{*}$, or $P$ for brevity) is shown as a dashed curve in Fig.~(a). It exhibits an integrable singularity in the small-$Q_{T}$ limit. Terms with inverse power and logarithmic dependence on $Q_{T}$, associated with initial-state radiation as $Q_{T}\rightarrow0$, are extracted from $P$ and form the asymptotic contribution, denoted as $A$ (dotted curve). In the figure, both $P$ and $A$ are truncated at a small value of $Q_{T}$, that is, not drawn all the way to $Q_{T}=0$. The curves for $P$ and $A$ are close at small values of $Q_{T}$, signaling that the initial-state logarithmic singularities dominate the NLO distribution. The difference $Y$ between the $P$ and $A$ distributions includes the finite regular terms not included in $A$ and logarithmic terms from the final-state fragmentation singularities, with the latter subtracted when $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$, as described in Sec.~. The data clearly disfavor the fixed-order prediction in the region of low $Q_{T}$. Figure~(b) features the resummed $W+Y$ contribution (solid curve). Resummation of the initial-state logarithmic terms renders $W$ finite in the region of small $Q_{T}$. The sum of $W$ and $Y$ includes the resummed initial-state singular contributions plus the remaining relevant terms in $P$. Since $P$ provides a reliable fixed-order estimate at large $Q_{T}$, we present our final resummed prediction by switching from $W+Y$ to $P$ at the point at which the two differential cross sections (as functions of $Q$, $Q_{T}$ and $y$) cross each other. In contrast to the fixed-order (dashed) curve $P$ in Fig.~(b), the agreement with data is improved at the lowest values of $Q_{T}$, where resummation brings the rate down, and for $Q_{T}=12-32$ GeV, where the resummed logarithmic terms increase the rate. The resummed predictions for the Tevatron experiments are practically insensitive to the choice of the resummation scheme and the nonperturbative model~. About 75\ at the Tevatron with CDF cuts imposed comes from the $q{\bar{q}}+qg+{\bar{q}}g$ ($gg+gq_{S}$) initial state. The fractions for the cuts used by D\O~ are 84\ $Q_{T}>22$ GeV, because the gluon PDF decreases rapidly with parton fractional momentum $x$ . \begin{figure*} \caption{The difference $\Delta\varphi$ in the azimuthal angles of the two photons in the laboratory frame predicted by the resummed (solid) and fixed-order (dashed) calculations, compared to the CDF data.} \end{figure*} The distribution in the difference $\Delta\varphi$ of the azimuthal angles of the photons is shown in Fig.~. As is true for the transverse momentum distribution in the limit $Q_{T}\rightarrow0$, the distribution computed at fixed order is ill-defined at $\Delta\varphi=\pi$. The resummed distribution shows a larger cross section near $\Delta\varphi=2.5$~rad, in better agreement with the data. In the region of small $\Delta\varphi\lesssim\pi/2$, the fixed-order and the resummed predictions are the same, a result of our matching of the resummed and fixed-order distributions at mid to high values of $Q_{T}$. Although the cross section is not large in the region $\Delta\varphi<\pi/2$, there is an indication of a difference between our predictions and data in this region, a topic we address below. \subsubsection{The region $Q_{T}>Q$ } It is evident from Fig.~ that the $\Delta\varphi<\pi/2$ region is populated mostly by events with $Q_{T}>Q$. New types of radiative contributions may be present in this region, including various fragmentation contributions described in Sec.~ and enhancements at large $|\cos\theta_{*}|$ in the direct production rate. While experimental isolation generally suppresses long-distance fragmentation, a greater fraction of fragmentation photons are expected to survive isolation when $\Delta\varphi<\pi/2$. Besides single-photon `one-fragmentation' and `two-fragmentation' contributions (with one photon per fragmenting parton), one encounters additional logarithmic singularities of the form $\log(Q/Q_{T})$. We noted in Sec.~ that these logarithms are associated with the fragmentation of a parton carrying large transverse momentum $Q_{T}$ into a system of small invariant mass $Q$ , a light $\gamma\gamma$ pair in our case. Small-$Q$ $\gamma\gamma$ fragmentation of this kind is not implemented yet in theoretical models. Therefore, we are prepared for the possibility that both the fixed-order calculation and our resummed calculation may be deficient in the region $Q_{T}\gg Q$. A detailed experimental study of the region $Q_{T}>Q$ may offer the opportunity to measure the parton to two-photon fragmentation function $D_{\gamma\gamma}(z_{1},z_{2})$, provided that the single-photon `one-fragmentation' function $D_{\gamma}(z)$ is determined by single-photon data, and the low-$Q$ logarithmic terms are properly resummed theoretically. In addition to the low-$Q$ fragmentation, the small-$\Delta\varphi$ region may be sensitive to large higher-order contributions associated with $\widehat{t}$- or $\widehat{u}$-channel exchanges in the $q\bar{q}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ and $gg\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ subprocesses. In the Born processes in Figs.~(a) and (h), the $\widehat{t}$- and $\widehat{u}$-channel singularities arise at $\cos\theta_{*}\approx\pm1$ and $\Delta\varphi\approx\pi$. These singularities are excluded by the $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ cuts in Eq.~(), but related residual enhancements in the NLO contributions may still persist at $|\cos\theta_{*}|\approx1$ and $\Delta\varphi\rightarrow0$, not excluded by the cuts (cf. Fig.~). Because $\left| \cos \theta_*\right|$ is large in such events, they tend to have substantial $|\Delta y|$, so they are retained by the $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}>0.3$ cut. In contrast, the low-$Q$ fragmentation contributions tend to be abundant at small $|\Delta y|$. It may be therefore possible to distinguish between the large-$|\cos\theta_{*}|$ and fragmentation events at small $\Delta\varphi$ based on the distribution in $|\Delta y|$. We expect much better agreement of our predictions with data if the selection $Q_{T}<Q$ is made. This selection preserves the bulk of the cross section and assures that a fair comparison is made in the region of phase space where the predictions are most valid. \subsubsection{Fragmentation and comparison with the \textsc{DIPHOX} code} One way to obtain an estimate of theoretical uncertainty is to compare theoretical approaches in various parts of phase space, including small $\Delta\varphi$. We handle the collinear final-state photon singularities in the manner described in Sec.~, without including photon fragmentation functions explicitly. An alternative calculation implemented in the \textsc{DIPHOX} code includes NLO cross sections for single-photon fragmentation processes. Neither code includes a term in which both photons are fragmentation products of the same final-state parton, i.e., the diphoton fragmentation function $D_{\gamma\gamma}(z_{1},z_{2})$. \begin{figure*} \begin{centering} \\ (a) \hspace{0.45\columnwidth} (b) \par\end{centering} \caption{Comparison of our resummed and \textsc{DIPHOX} predictions for (a) the invariant mass and (b) transverse momentum distributions of $\gamma\gamma$ pairs for D\O~kinematic cuts. The solid curves show our resummed distributions with all channels included. The dashed and dotted curves illustrate the resummed and DIPHOX distributions in the $q\bar{q}+qg$ channel. } \end{figure*} In Ref.~ we show comparisons of our predictions with those of \textsc{DIPHOX} along with the CDF data. Here in Fig.~, we show analogous plots of the invariant mass and transverse momentum distributions for D\O~cuts. We note that our fixed-order $q\bar{q}+qg$ contribution agrees well with the direct contribution in \textsc{DIPHOX}. This agreement is particularly impressive in the region of large $Q_{T}$, where both codes use the same fixed-order formalism to handle direct contributions. A contribution from the $gg$ channel is also present in both codes, computed at LO in \textsc{DIPHOX} but at NLO+NNLL in our case. Since the $gg+gq_{S}$ contribution is not dominant (especially in the high $Q_{T}$ region), this difference does not have a significant impact on the comparison. The explicit single-photon fragmentation contributions in \textsc{DIPHOX} (mostly `one-fragmentation' contribution) are quite small for the nominal hadronic energy $E_{T}^{iso} \sim 1$~GeV in the cone around each photon. Exceptions occur in the region $Q_{T}\leq E_{T}^{iso}$, where the fragmentation contributions to $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ have logarithmic singularities, and in the $\Delta\varphi\rightarrow0$ region, where fragmentation is comparable to the direct contributions. Our isolation prescription reproduces the integrated \textsc{DIPHOX} rate well for $0\leq Q_{T}\leq E_{T}^{iso}$, leading to close agreement between the resummed and \textsc{DIPHOX} inclusive rates for most $Q$ values. Returning to the CDF measurement, we remark that the resummed and \textsc{DIPHOX} cross sections for the same $E_{T}^{iso}=1$ GeV underestimate the data within two standard deviations for $Q\lesssim27$ GeV, $Q_{T}>25$ GeV, and $\Delta\varphi<1$ rad (cf. the relevant figures in Ref.~). The \textsc{DIPHOX} cross section can be raised to agree with data in this {}``shoulder'' region, if a much larger isolation energy ($E_{T}^{iso}=4$ GeV) is chosen, and smaller factorization and renormalization scales are used ($\mu_{F}=\mu_{R}=Q/2$). These are the choices made in the CDF study . Since $E_{T}^{iso}$ is an approximate characteristic of the experimental isolation, one might argue that both $E_{T}^{iso}=1$ and 4 GeV can be appropriate in a calculation to match the conditions of the CDF measurement. The direct contribution is weakly sensitive to $E_{T}^{iso}$, while the one-fragmentation part of $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ is roughly proportional to $E_{T}^{iso}$ (cf. Section~). The one-fragmentation contribution is enhanced on average by 400\ increased in the calculation from 1 to 4 GeV. The rate in the shoulder region is enhanced further if the factorization scale $\mu_{F}$ is reduced. \begin{figure*} (a) \hspace{0.45\columnwidth} (b) \caption{Predicted cross sections for diphoton production in $p\bar{p}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma X$ at $\sqrt{S}=1.96$~TeV as a function of (a) the $\gamma\gamma$ pair transverse momentum $Q_{T}$ and (b) the difference $\Delta\varphi$ in the azimuthal angles of the two photons. Our resummed predictions (solid) are shown together with \textsc{DIPHOX} predictions for the default isolation energy $E_{T}^{iso}=1$ GeV and factorization scale $\mu_{F}=Q$ (dashed), and for $E_{T}^{iso}=4$ GeV, $\mu_{F}=Q/2$ (dotted). We impose the condition $Q_{T}<Q$ to reduce theoretical uncertainties associated with fragmentation.} \end{figure*} Since the theoretical specifications for isolation and for the fragmentation contribution are admittedly approximate, we question whether great importance should be placed on the agreement of theory and experiment in the region of small $\Delta\varphi$ or in the shoulder region in the $Q_{T}$ distribution. A straightforward way to reduce sensitivity to fragmentation is to require $Q>27$ GeV or $Q_{T}<Q$, as discussed above. The two cuts have similar effects on the event distributions. Figure~ shows the effects of the $Q_{T}<Q$ cut on the $Q_{T}$ and $\Delta\varphi$ distributions. The cut $Q_{T}<Q$ is particularly efficient at suppressing the fragmentation $Q_{T}$ shoulder (and the region of small $\Delta\varphi$ altogether), while only a small portion of the event sample is lost. This cut is especially favorable, since it constrains the comparison with data to a region where the theory is well understood and has a small uncertainty. Furthermore, with the requirement of $Q_{T}<Q$, the dependence of differential cross sections on the choices of isolation energy $E_{T}^{iso}$ and factorization scale $\mu_{F}$ is greatly reduced to the typical size of higher-order corrections. We predict that if a $Q_{T}<Q$ cut, or a $Q>27$ GeV cut, is applied to the Tevatron data, the enhancement at low $\Delta\varphi$ and intermediate $Q_{T}$ associated with the fragmentation contribution will disappear. This is an important conclusion of our study, and we urge the CDF and D\O\, collaborations to apply these cuts in their future analyses of the diphoton data. \subsubsection{Average transverse momentum } \begin{figure*} \begin{centering}(a) \hspace{0.45\columnwidth} (b) \par\end{centering} \caption{(a) Resummed transverse momentum distributions of photon pairs in various invariant mass bins used in the CDF measurement, normalized to the total cross section in each $Q$ bin. (b) The average $Q_{T}$ as a function of the $\gamma\gamma$ invariant mass, computed for $Q_{T}<Q$. } \end{figure*} An important prediction of the resummation formalism is the change of the transverse momentum distribution with the diphoton invariant mass. This dependence comes, in part, from the $\ln Q^{2}$ dependence in the Sudakov exponent, Eq.~(), and it is desirable to identify this feature amid other influences. In Fig.~(a), we show normalized resummed transverse momentum distributions for various selections of the invariant mass of the photon pairs. Without kinematical constraints on the decay photons, the $Q_{T}$ distribution is expected to broaden with increasing $Q$, and the position of the peak in $d\sigma/dQ_T$ to shift to larger $Q_T$ values. The shift of the peak may or may not be observed in the data depending on the chosen lower cuts on $p_T$ of the photons, which suppress the event rate at low $Q$ and $Q_T$. The interplay of the Sudakov broadening of the $Q_T$ distribution and kinematical suppression by the photon $p_T$ cuts is reflected in the shape of $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ in different $Q$ bins. According to dimensional analysis, the average $\langle Q_{T}\rangle$ in the interval $Q_{T}\leq Q$ may be expected to behave as \begin{equation} \langle Q_{T}\rangle_{Q_{T}\leq Q}=Qf(Q/\sqrt{S}),\end{equation} where the scaling function $f(Q/\sqrt{S}$) reflects phase space constraints, dependence on the Sudakov logarithm, and the $x$ dependence of the PDFs. Figure~(b) shows our calculated diphoton mass dependence of $\langle Q_{T}\rangle$. The linear increase shown in Eq. ({) is observed over the range $30<Q<80$~GeV. For values of $Q$ below the kinematic cutoff at about 30 GeV, the cuts shown in Fig. 3 suppress diphoton production at small $Q_{T}$, and $\langle Q_{T}/Q\rangle$ grows toward 1 as $Q$ decreases (corresponding to production only at $Q_{T}$ close to $Q$). For $Q\sim80$~GeV and above, we see a saturation of the growth of $\langle Q_{T}\rangle$, a reflection of the influences of the $x$ dependence of the PDFs and other factors. Similar saturation behavior is observed in calculations of $\langle Q_{T}\rangle$ in other processes \textbf{}\textbf{.} It would be interesting to see a comparison of our prediction with data from the CDF and D\O~collaborations. \subsection{Results for the LHC} \subsubsection{Event selection} To obtain predictions for $pp$ collisions at the LHC at $\sqrt{S}=14$~TeV, we employ the cuts on the individual photons used by the ATLAS collaboration in their simulations of Higgs boson decay, $h\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$~. We require \begin{eqnarray} & & {\textrm{transverse momentum}}~p_{T}^{\gamma}>40~(25)~{\textrm{GeV for the harder (softer) photon, }}\\ & & {\textrm{and rapidity}}~|y^{\gamma}|<2.5~{\textrm{for each photon}}.\end{eqnarray} In accord with ATLAS specifications, we impose a looser isolation restriction than for our Tevatron study, requiring less than $E_{T}^{iso}=15$ GeV of hadronic and extra electromagnetic transverse energy inside a $\Delta R=0.4$ cone around each photon. We also require the separation $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}$ between the two isolated photons to be above 0.4. The cuts listed above, optimized for the Higgs boson search, may require adjustments in order to test perturbative QCD predictions in the full $\gamma\gamma$ invariant mass range accessible at the LHC. The values of the $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ cuts on the photons in Eq.~() preserve a large fraction of Higgs boson events with $Q>115$ GeV. These cuts may be too restrictive in studies of $\gamma\gamma$ production at smaller $Q$, considering that the two final-state photons most likely originate from a $\gamma\gamma$ pair with small $Q_{T}$ and have similar values of $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of about $Q/2$. The $p_T$ cuts interfere with the expected Sudakov broadening of $Q_T$ distributions with increasing diphoton invariant mass, as discussed in Section~. We further note that the asymmetry between the $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ cuts on the harder and softer photons is necessary in a fixed-order perturbative QCD calculation, but it is not required in the resummed calculation. At a fixed order of $\alpha_{s}$, asymmetry in the $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ cuts prevents instabilities in $d\sigma/dQ$ caused by logarithmic divergences in $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ at small $Q_{T}$. Such instabilities are eliminated altogether once the small-$Q_{T}$ logarithmic terms are resummed to all orders of $\alpha_{s}$. Here we do not consider alternative $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ cuts, although experimental collaborations are encouraged to employ relaxed and/or symmetric cuts to increase the $\gamma\gamma$ event sample in their data analysis. \subsubsection{Resummed $Q_{T}$ distributions and average transverse momentum} \begin{figure*} \caption{Resummed transverse momentum distributions of photon pairs in various invariant mass bins at the LHC. The cuts listed in Eqs.~()~and~() are imposed.The $Q_T$ distribution for $70 < Q < 115$ GeV with an additional constraint $Q_T < Q$ is shown as a dotted line. } \end{figure*} Figure~ shows transverse momentum distributions of the photon pairs for various invariant masses. The average $\gamma\gamma$ transverse momentum grows with $Q$, as demonstrated by Fig. . However, the rate of the growth decreases monotonically with $Q,$ for similar reasons as at the Tevatron. The $\gamma\gamma$ distributions in $Q$ and $\Delta\varphi$ for different combinations of scattering subchannels and choices of theoretical parameters are discussed in Refs.~. In all ranges of $Q$, the $\gamma\gamma$ production rate is dominated by a large $qg$ contribution, accounting for about 50\ fixed-order (NLO) rate. Although this number depends on the choice of the factorization scheme and scale, and, on the other hand, separate treatment of the $q\bar q$ and $qg$ cross sections is not meaningful in the resummation calculation , it nonetheless reflects, in a crude way, the increased relative importance of the $qg$ cross section. The $gg+gq_{S}$ channel contributes about 25\ GeV (the location of the cutoff in $d\sigma/dQ$ due to the cuts on $p_{T}^{\gamma}$) and less at larger $Q.$ As at the Tevatron, the dependence of the cross sections on the resummation scheme is small~. The dependence on the nonperturbative model can also be neglected, as long as the nonperturbative function does not vary strongly with $x$~. \subsubsection{Final-state fragmentation and comparison with DIPHOX} The impact of the final-state fragmentation at the LHC can be evaluated if we compare our results with DIPHOX predictions. The transverse momentum and invariant mass distributions in the $q\bar{q}+qg$ channel from the two approaches are shown in Fig.~. In both calculations, quasi-experimental isolation removes direct NLO events with collinear final-state photons and partons when $Q_{T}>E_{T}^{iso}=15$ GeV, but not when $Q_{T}$ is below $E_{T}^{iso}$. Concentrating first on $\gamma\gamma$ events with $Q_{T}>E_{T}^{iso}$, we observe that, at $Q_{T}>80$ GeV\textbf{,} the resummed $q\bar{q}+qg$ cross section reduces to the direct fixed-order cross section, evaluated in the same way as in the DIPHOX code. Our resummed and the direct DIPHOX cross sections, shown as solid and dashed curves, respectively, in Fig.~(a) consequently agree well at large $Q_{T}$. At smaller $Q_{T},$ the resummed cross section is enhanced by towers of higher-order logarithmic contributions. On the other hand, the full $q\bar{q}+qg$ DIPHOX rate (shown as a dotted line) also includes single-photon fragmentation contributions, which add to the direct production cross section. For the nominal isolation parameters, the explicit fragmentation contribution constitutes about 25\ the full DIPHOX rate for $60<Q_{T}<120$ GeV. Its magnitude increases approximately linearly with the assumed $E_{T}^{iso}$ value. For $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$, the final-state collinear region of the direct contribution is regulated by the collinear subtraction prescription adopted in the resummation calculation, whereas the fragmentation singularity is subtracted from the direct contribution and replaced by photon fragmentation functions in the DIPHOX calculation. Subtraction of singularities in DIPHOX introduces integrable singularities in $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ at different values of $Q_{T}$ below $E_{T}^{iso}$. The origin of the final-state logarithmic singularities at values of $Q_{T}$ below $E_{T}^{iso}$ is discussed in Refs.~. For $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$, the DIPHOX curves represent the average over singular contributions in this $Q_{T}$ interval. After the fragmentation singularity is subtracted, the DIPHOX direct contribution (dashed line) is on average below our resummed $q\bar{q}+qg$ rate (solid line) over most of the range of $Q_{T}$ shown in Fig.~(a). After integration over all $Q_{T}$, our resummed and DIPHOX $q\bar{q}+qg$ cross sections agree within 10-20\ with our resummed rate being below the DIPHOX rate at all $Q$. The largest difference occurs at the lowest values of $Q$ (below the cutoff), where the rates can differ by a factor of 2. In this region, corresponding to diphoton events with small $\Delta\varphi$ and $Q_{T}$ larger than $Q$, the photon fragmentation contributions included in the DIPHOX calculation are large in comparison to the direct rate. Finally, we note that the integrated rate in DIPHOX is more stable with respect to variations in $E_{T}^{iso}$ than the differential distributions in DIPHOX, because $E_{T}^{iso}$ dependence for $Q_{T}>E_{T}^{iso}$ is canceled to a good degree by $E_{T}^{iso}$ dependence for $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}.$ \begin{figure*} \\ (a)\hspace{3in}(b) \\ (c) \caption{Invariant mass, transverse momentum, and $\Delta\varphi$ distributions from our resummed calculation and from \textsc{DIPHOX} at the LHC. We show our fixed-order (dashed) and resummed (solid) distributions. All initial states are included in both calculations, and the single-$\gamma$ fragmentation contributions are included in \textsc{DIPHOX}.} \end{figure*} To obtain the final $\gamma\gamma$ production cross sections, after inclusion of all channels, we combine the respective $q\bar{q}+qg$ results with the resummed NLO $gg+gq_{S}$ cross section in our case and with the LO $gg$ cross section in the DIPHOX case. The distributions in the $\gamma\gamma$ invariant mass $Q,$ the transverse momentum $Q_{T}$, and the azimuthal angle separation $\Delta\varphi$ in the lab frame are shown in Fig.~. For the cuts chosen, the LO $gg$ and the resummed $gg+gq_{S}$ total rates constitute about 9\ mass distributions (Fig.~(a)) are brought closer to one another as a result of the inclusion of the $gg+gq_{S}$ contribution in the resummed calculation. For $Q_{T}\neq0$, the full DIPHOX $Q_{T}$ distribution in Fig.~(b) is determined entirely by direct plus fragmentation contributions (the same as in Fig.~(a)), because the LO $gg$ cross section contributes at $Q_{T}=0$ only. In contrast, our resummed $gg+gq_{S}$ contribution modifies the event rate at all $Q_{T}$. The resummed and DIPHOX rates are in a reasonable agreement for $1.5\lesssim\Delta\varphi\lesssim2.5$, as shown in Fig.~(c). In the $\Delta\varphi\rightarrow\pi$ limit, the fixed-order rates in DIPHOX diverge because of the singularities at small $Q_{T}$, while our resummed rate yields a finite value. For $\Delta\varphi<1.5$, the DIPHOX cross section is enhanced by photon fragmentation contributions. As at the energy of the Tevatron, theoretical uncertainties are greater at small $\Delta\varphi$. Predictions are most reliable when $Q_{T}<Q$ (and the angles $\theta_*$ and $\varphi_*$ are away from 0 or $\pi$). With the $Q_{T}<Q$ cut imposed, the uncertain large-$Q_T$ photon fragmentation contributions are suppressed, and the resummed and DIPHOX cross sections agree well at large $Q_T$ (cf. Fig.~(b)). The $Q_T$ distribution in the interval $70 < Q < 115 $ GeV with the $Q_{T}<Q$ constraint is shown in Fig.~ by a dotted curve. Distributions in the other two mass bins in Fig.~ are essentially not affected by this cut in the $Q_T$ range presented. \begin{figure*} \\ (a)\hspace{3in}(b) \caption{Invariant mass and transverse momentum distributions from our resummed, NLO, and DIPHOX calculations at the LHC, with the $Q_T < Q$ constraint imposed.} \end{figure*} Our calculation captures the dominant contributions to $\gamma\gamma$ production at the LHC. However, as we noted, direct $qg$ scattering, evaluated at order ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s})$ in our calculation, is the leading scattering channel in the region relevant for the Higgs boson search at the LHC. It is important to emphasize that the final-state collinear radiation is not the main reason behind the enhancement of the $qg$ rate, which is increased predominantly by contributions from non-singular phase space regions. Consequently, the $q\bar{q}+qg$ direct rate is only weakly sensitive to adjustments in the isolation parameters $E_{T}^{iso}$ and $\Delta R$ . The unknown ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ contributions to $qg$ scattering may be non-negligible, and it would be valuable to compute them in the future when LHC data are available. \begin{figure*} \caption{Comparison of the normalized Higgs boson signal and diphoton background distributions at the LHC, both computed at NNLL accuracy. The Higgs boson mass is taken to be $m_{H}=130$ GeV, and the background is calculated for $128<Q<132$ GeV.} \end{figure*} \subsection{Comparison with Higgs boson signal distributions} We highlight some similarities and differences between the production spectra for the Higgs boson signal and the QCD background discussed in this paper. We focus on the diphoton decay mode of a SM Higgs boson produced from the dominant gluon-fusion mechanism, $gg\rightarrow h^{0}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, where the Higgs boson production cross section is calculated at the same order of precision as the QCD continuum background. We include initial-state QCD contributions at $O(\alpha_{s}^{3})$ (NLO) and resummed contributions at NNLL accuracy. These contributions are also coded in \textsc{ResBos}~, and we can apply the same cuts on the momenta of the photons to the signal and background. Our findings should remain broadly applicable after the NNLO corrections to Higgs boson production are included. We compute the background in the range $128<Q<132$ GeV, and the signal at a fixed Higgs boson mass $m_{H}=130$ GeV. We impose the kinematic selection $Q_{T}<Q$, but its influence is not important at the large values of diphoton mass of interest here. The cross section times branching ratio for the Higgs boson signal is substantially smaller than the QCD continuum. To better illustrate their differences, Fig.~ presents distributions normalized to the respective total rates. The top-left panel shows normalized transverse momentum distributions of photon pairs. The signal and background peak at about 12 and 5 GeV, respectively. The average values of $Q_{T}$ are 26 and 23 GeV, computed over the range 0 to 75 GeV. Differences in the shapes of these $Q_{T}$ spectra can be attributed to the different structure of the leading terms in the initial-state Sudakov exponents and to the effects of final-state photon fragmentation. The Higgs boson signal is controlled by the characteristics of the $gg+gq_{S}$ initial state, whereas the continuum is controlled primarily by the $q\bar{q}+qg$ initial state. Because the dominant Sudakov coefficient $\mathcal{A}_{q}^{(k)} \propto C_{F}$ in the $q\bar{q}$ case is smaller than $\mathcal{A}_{g}^{(k)}= (C_{A}/C_{F})\mathcal{A}_{q}^{(k)}$ in the $gg$ case, the resummed $q\bar{q}+qg$ initial-state radiation produces narrower $Q_{T}$ distributions than $gg+gq_{S}$ initial-state radiation. About 80\ channel, implying a narrower $Q_{T}$ distribution of the background, if based on the value of $\mathcal{A}^{(k)}$ alone. The continuum background contribution is also enhanced by final-state radiation in $qg$ scattering. The $Q_{T}$ profile of the final-state collinear terms depends more on the isolation model (including $E_{T}^{iso}$ and $\Delta R$) than on the initial-state Sudakov exponent. For the nominal ATLAS cuts, the final-state collinear contribution in our calculation hardens the background $Q_{T}$ distribution, diminishing its difference from the Higgs boson signal distribution. More effective isolation may reduce the impact of the final-state radiation on $Q_{T}$ distributions. Another difference between the signal and continuum is observed in the distribution in the azimuthal angle of the photons, such as the angle $\varphi_{*}$ in the Collins-Soper frame shown in the top-right panel of Fig.~. This distribution is qualitatively the same if integrated over all $Q_{T}$, as in Fig.~, or integrated above some minimal $Q_{T}$ value, as in an experimental measurement. Without isolation imposed, the spin-$0$ Higgs boson signal must be flat in $\varphi_{*},$ but the QCD background peaks toward $\varphi_{*}=0$ and $\pi$ (i.e., $\sin\varphi_{*}=0$) as a result of the final-state $qg$ singularity. \footnote{By definition, the recoil parton 5 always lies in the $Oxz$ plane (has zero azimuthal angle) in the Collins-Soper frame. For the final-state singularity to occur at NLO, the photons should be in the same plane with 5, i.e., have $\sin\varphi_{*}=0$.}${}^,$ \footnote{One of the resummed structure functions for the $gg$ background is modulated by $\cos2\varphi_{*}$ (see Sec.~), but we neglect this modulation in our present calculation. } Isolation cuts suppress both the signal and the background for $\sin\varphi_{*}<\sin\Delta R$. The result is a signal distribution with a broad peak near $\varphi_{*}=\pi/2$, while the background favors values of $\varphi_{*}$ near $0$ and $\pi$. A selection of events with $\varphi_{*}$ in the vicinity of $\pi/2$, and $Q_{T}$ large enough, helps to reduce the impact of the $qg$ background.In the lab frame, a related distribution is in the variable $\left|\varphi_{3T}-\varphi_{4T}\right|,$where $\varphi_{iT}$ is the azimuthal angle between $\vec{p}_{T}^{\gamma_{i}}$ and $\vec{Q}_{T}$. The signal (background) processes tend to have more events with large (small) magnitude of $\left|\varphi_{3T}-\varphi_{4T}\right|$. A third potential discriminator between the signal and background is the difference in the rapidities $\Delta y=y_{hard}-y_{soft}$ of the photons with harder and softer values of $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ in the lab frame, calculated on an event by event basis. This distribution is displayed in the lower-left frame of Fig.~. The background distribution peaks at the origin, while the signal is almost flat over a wide range of $\Delta y$. Different spin correlations in the decay of a spin-0 Higgs boson from those characteristic of QCD background processes are the source of this distinction. Discrimination based on this difference can improve the statistical significance of the signal~. We note that our resummed calculation does not exhibit the kinematic singularity at $\Delta y\approx2$ present in the finite-order cross section and obvious in Fig. 10 of Ref.~, where the distribution with respect to $y^*\equiv\Delta y/2$ is shown. The discontinuity in $d\sigma/dQ_{T}$ caused by the finite-order approximation is resummed in our calculation, yielding a smooth result. The rapidity difference is related to the scattering angle in the Collins-Soper frame: $\tanh(\Delta y/2)=\cos\theta_{*}$ when $Q_{T}$ is zero. The $\cos\theta_{*}$ distribution is shown in the lower-right frame of Fig.~. The difference between the signal and background rates is even more pronounced in this variable, clearly expressing the difference in the spin correlations of the systems producing the photons. A comparison of $Q_{T}$ distributions in the top-left panel of Fig.~ suggests that the signal versus background ratio would be enhanced if a cut is made to restrict $Q_{T}>10$~GeV. After applying this cut, we may again examine the distributions in the rapidity difference of the two photons, the scattering angle in the Collins-Soper frame, and the azimuthal angle distribution of the photons in the Collins-Soper frame. The results are qualitatively similar to those in Fig.~ and are not shown here. A more efficient procedure to increase the Higgs boson discovery significance is to apply a simultaneous likelihood analysis to several kinematic distributions. Based on the present discussion, we would argue that the resummed $Q_{T}$, $\varphi_{*}$, and $\cos\theta_{*}$ distributions are good discriminators between the Higgs boson signal and background in such an analysis. \section{Conclusions } The theoretical study of continuum diphoton production in hadron collisions is interesting and valuable for several reasons{\bf:} there are data from the CDF and D\O~ collaborations at Fermilab with the promise of larger event samples; there are new theoretical challenges associated with all-orders soft-gluon resummation of two-loop amplitudes; and continuum diphotons are a large standard-model background above which one may observe the products of Higgs boson decay into a pair of photons at the LHC. In this paper and Refs.~, we present our calculation of the fully differential cross section $d\sigma/(dQdQ_{T}dyd\Omega_{*})$ as a function of the mass $Q$, transverse momentum $Q_T$, and rapidity $y$ of the diphoton system, and of the polar and azimuthal angles of the individual photons in the diphoton rest frame. Our basic QCD hard-scattering subprocesses are all computed at next-to-leading order (NLO) in the strong coupling strength $\alpha_s$, and we include the state-of-art resummation of initial-state gluon radiation to all orders in $\alpha_s$, valid to next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy (NNLL). Resummation is essential for a realistic and reliable calculation of the $Q_T$ dependence in the region of small and intermediate values of $Q_T$, where the cross section is greatest. It is also needed for stable estimates of the effects of experimental acceptance on distributions in the diphoton invariant mass and other variables. Our analytical results are included in a fully updated \textsc{ResBos} code~. This numerical program allows us to impose selections on the transverse momenta and angles of the final photons, in order to match those employed by the CDF and D\O~ collaborations, as well as those anticipated in experiments at the LHC. Our predictions are especially pertinent in the region $Q_{T}\lesssim Q$. We show that our results at the Tevatron and at the LHC are insensitive to the choice of the resummation scheme and of the nonperturbative functions required by the integration into the region of large impact parameter. The published collider data are presented in the form of singly differential distributions. We follow suit in order to make comparisons, and we find excellent agreement with data, as shown in Sec.~. We recommend that more differential studies be made, and, to motivate these, we present predictions for the changes expected in the $Q_T$ distribution as a function of mass $Q$, and for the dependence of the mean transverse momentum on $Q$. We make predictions for continuum diphoton mass, transverse momentum, and angular distributions at the energy of the LHC. Moreover, we contrast in Fig.~ the shapes of some of these distributions with those expected from the decay of a Higgs boson. The distinct features of the signal and background suggest that that the Higgs boson discovery significance can be increased via a simultaneous likelihood analysis of several kinematic distributions, particularly the resummed $Q_{T}$, $\varphi_{*}$, and $\cos\theta_{*}$ distributions. Another approach to the computation of continuum diphoton production is presented by the \textsc{DIPHOX} collaboration~. This calculation includes both the direct production of photons from hard-scattering processes and the photons produced from fragmentation of (anti-)quarks or gluons. It is valid at NLO, except for the $gg$ subprocess, which is included at leading order only. The \textsc{DIPHOX} code is useful for rates integrated over transverse momentum, but it is not designed to predict the transverse momentum distribution or other distributions sensitive to the region in which the transverse momentum of the diphoton pair is small. Compared to a fixed-order calculation, such as direct photon pair calculation in \textsc{DIPHOX}, our calculation improves the theoretical prediction for event distributions which are sensitive to the region of low $Q_{T}$. Furthermore, our calculation includes the NLO contribution from the combined $gg+gq_{S}$ channel, leading to more accurate predictions at the LHC, where the $gg+gq_{S}$ contribution is generally not small. Only {\em isolated}, not inclusive, photons are identified experimentally. While it is straightforward to define an isolated photon in a given experiment, it is challenging to devise a theoretical prescription that can match the experimental definition, short of first understanding the long-distance dynamics of QCD. The isolated diphoton production rate is modeled in the \textsc{DIPHOX} code by including explicit photon fragmentation function contributions at NLO accuracy. A shortcoming of this approach (as well as of our method for treating isolation) is that one cannot accurately represent photon fragmentation without including final-state parton showering in the presence of isolation constraints. There is inevitable ambiguity and uncertainty in the choice of the ``isolation energy'' used to define an isolated photon theoretically for comparison with the isolated photon measured experimentally. As shown in Sec.~, the \textsc{DIPHOX} cross section can vary by a large factor in some regions of phase space at the Tevatron when $E_{T}^{iso}$ is changed from 1\,GeV to 4\,GeV. Our approach is to concentrate on physical observables which are less sensitive to the fragmentation contributions. We apply the {}``collinear subtraction'' prescription or the {}``smooth-cone isolation'' prescription to define an isolated photon in our calculation. We find good agreement with the data, except in the region with small $Q$ and $\Delta\varphi<\pi/2$, consistent with our theoretical expectation that higher-order direct photon production and photon fragmentation contributions can strongly modify the rate of diphoton pairs in this region. We suggest that much better agreement with current and future data will be obtained if an addition requirement of $Q_{T}<Q$ is applied. With this cut, the fragmentation contributions are largely suppressed. With the cut $Q_{T}<Q$ cut applied to the Tevatron data, the enhancement at low $\Delta\varphi$ and intermediate $Q_{T}$ (the shoulder region) should disappear. We urge the CDF and D\O\, collaborations to apply these cuts in future analyses of the diphoton data. In our calculation, we identify an interesting spin-flip contribution (with $\cos2\varphi_{*}$ dependence) in the $gg$ channel, cf. Ref.~, and we suggest that measurements be made of the distribution of $\varphi_{*}$ as a function of $Q_{T}$. All-orders resummation of the gluon spin-flip contribution may be needed when a larger statistical sample of diphoton data is available. The contributions from $qg+{\bar{q}}g$ processes become more important at the LHC than at the Tevatron, and calculations at a higher order of precision may be warranted eventually. To improve the theoretical prediction in the region of phase space with $Q_{T}<E_{T}^{iso}$ and $\varphi_{*}\sim0$ or $\pi$, a joint resummation calculation is needed in which the effects of both the initial- and final-state multiple parton emissions are treated simultaneously. Although we emphasize that better agreement of our predictions with data should be apparent if the selection $Q_{T}<Q$ is made, we also point out that the region $Q_{T} > Q$ should manifest very interesting physics of a different sort. Additional logarithmic singularities of the form $\log(Q/Q_{T})$ are encountered in the region $Q_{T} \gg Q$. These logarithms are associated with the fragmentation of a parton carrying large transverse momentum $Q_{T}$ into a system of small invariant mass $Q$ , a light $\gamma\gamma$ pair in our case. Small-$Q$ $\gamma\gamma$ fragmentation of this kind is not implemented yet in theoretical models. Experimental study of the region $Q_{T} \gg Q$ may offer the opportunity to measure the parton to two-photon fragmentation function $D_{\gamma\gamma}(z_{1},z_{2})$. \section*{Acknowledgments} Research in the High Energy Physics Division at Argonne is supported in part by US Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The work of C.-P. Y. is supported by the U. S. National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0555545. C. B. thanks the Fermilab Theoretical Physics Department, where a part of this work was done, for its hospitality and financial support. The diagrams in Figs.~ and~ were drawn with aid of the program \textsc{JaxoDraw} . \appendix \section{Summary of perturbative coefficients } In this appendix we present an overview of the perturbative QCD expressions for the resummed and asymptotic cross sections used in our computation. The functions $\mathcal{A}_{a}(C_{1},\bar{\mu}),$ $\mathcal{B}_{a}(C_{1},C_{2},\bar{\mu}),$ $\mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}(x,b;C_{1}/C_{2},\mu)$, and $h_{a}(Q,\theta_{*})$ are introduced in Sec.~. These functions are derived as perturbative expansions in the small parameter $\alpha_{s}/\pi$:\begin{eqnarray*} & & \mathcal{A}_{a}(C_{1},\bar{\mu})=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{A}_{a}^{(n)}(C_{1})\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}(\bar{\mu})}{\pi}\right)^{n};\,\mathcal{B}_{a}(C_{1},C_{2},\bar{\mu})=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{B}_{a}^{(n)}(C_{1},C_{2})\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}(\bar{\mu})}{\pi}\right)^{n};\\ & & \mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}\left(x,b;\frac{C_{1}}{C_{2}},\mu\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}^{(n)}(x,b\mu,\frac{C_{1}}{C_{2}})\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}{\pi}\right)^{n};\, h_{a}(Q,\theta_{*})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}h_{a}^{(n)}(\theta_{*})\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}(Q)}{\pi}\right)^{n}.\end{eqnarray*} The value of a perturbative coefficient $F^{(n)}$ for a set of scales $C_{1}/b$ and $C_{2}Q$ can be expressed in terms of its value $F^{(n,c)}$ obtained for the {}``canonical'' combination $C_{1}=c_{0}$ and $C_{2}=1.$ Here $c_{0}\equiv2e^{-\gamma_{E}}\approx1.123$, where $\gamma_{E}=0.5772\dots$ is the Euler constant. The relationships between $F^{(n)}$ and $F^{(n,c)}$ take the form \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{A}_{a}^{(1)}(C_{1}) & = & \mathcal{{\mathcal{A}}}_{a}^{(1,c)};\\ \mathcal{A}_{a}^{(2)}(C_{1}) & = & \mathcal{{\mathcal{A}}}_{a}^{(2,c)}-\mathcal{{\mathcal{A}}}_{a}^{(1,c)}\beta_{0}\ln\frac{c_{0}}{C_{1}};\\ \mathcal{A}_{a}^{(3)}(C_{1}) & = & \mathcal{A}_{a}^{(3,c)}-2\mathcal{A}_{a}^{(2,c)}\beta_{0}\ln\frac{c_{0}}{C_{1}}-\frac{\mathcal{A}_{a}^{(1,c)}}{2}\beta_{1}\ln\frac{c_{0}}{C_{1}}+\mathcal{A}_{a}^{(1,c)}\beta_{0}^{2}\left(\ln\frac{c_{0}}{C_{1}}\right)^{2};\\ \mathcal{B}_{a}^{(1)}(C_{1},C_{2}) & = & \mathcal{B}_{a}^{(1,c)}-\mathcal{A}_{a}^{(1,c)}\ln\frac{c_{0}^{2}C_{2}^{2}}{C_{1}^{2}};\\ \mathcal{B}_{a}^{(2)}(C_{1},C_{2}) & = & \mathcal{B}_{a}^{(2,c)}-\mathcal{{\mathcal{A}}}_{a}^{(2,c)}\ln\frac{c_{0}^{2}C_{2}^{2}}{C_{1}^{2}}\nonumber \\ & + & \beta_{0}\left[\mathcal{{\mathcal{A}}}_{a}^{(1,c)}\ln^{2}\frac{c_{0}}{C_{1}}+\mathcal{B}_{a}^{(1,c)}\ln C_{2}-\mathcal{{\mathcal{A}}}_{a}^{(1,c)}\ln^{2}C_{2}\right];\\ \mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}^{(1)}(x,b\mu,\frac{C_{1}}{C_{2}}) & = & \mathcal{C}_{a/a_{1}}^{(1,c)}(x)+\delta_{aa_{1}}\delta(1-x)\left(\frac{\mathcal{B}_{a}^{(1,c)}}{2}\ln\frac{c_{0}^{2}C_{2}^{2}}{C_{1}^{2}}-\frac{\mathcal{A}_{a}^{(1,c)}}{4}\left(\ln\frac{c_{0}^{2}C_{2}^{2}}{C_{1}^{2}}\right)^{2}\right)\nonumber \\ & - & P_{a/a_{1}}(x)\ln\frac{\mu b}{c_{0}}.\end{eqnarray} They depend on the QCD beta-function coefficients $\beta_{0}=(11N_{c}-2N_{f})/6$, $\beta_{1}=(17N_{c}^{2}-5N_{c}N_{f}-3C_{F}N_{f})/6$ for $N_{c}$ colors and $N_{f}$ active quark flavors, with $C_{F}=(N_{c}^{2}-1)/(2N_{c})=4/3$ for $N_{c}=3$. The relevant ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_{s})$ splitting functions $P_{a/a_{1}}(x)$ are\begin{eqnarray} & & P_{q/q}=C_{F}\left(\frac{1+z^{2}}{1-x}\right)_{+};\, P_{q/g}=\frac{1}{2}(1+2x+2x^{2});\, P_{g/q_{S}}=C_{F}\frac{(1-x)^{2}+1}{x};\\ & & P_{g/g}=2C_{A}\left[\frac{x}{(1-x)_{+}}+\frac{1-x}{x}+x(1-x)\right]+\beta_{0}\delta(1-x).\end{eqnarray} The coefficients $h^{(1)}(\theta_{*})$, ${\cal B}^{(2)}$, and $\mathcal{C}^{(1)}$ depend on the resummation scheme. The hard-scattering function is \begin{equation} h_{a}(Q,\theta_{*})=1+\delta_{s}\frac{\alpha_{s}(Q)}{\pi}\frac{\mathcal{V}_{a}(\theta_{*})}{4}+...,\end{equation} where $\delta_{s}=0$ in the CSS scheme and $\delta_{s}=1$ in the CFG scheme. The functions $\mathcal{V}_{q}(\theta_{*})$ for $q\bar{q}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ scattering and $\mathcal{V}_{g}(\theta_{*})$ for $gg\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ scattering are derived in Refs.~ and , respectively. For the $q\bar{q}+qg$ initial state, we obtain the following expressions for the coefficients $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$, and ${\mathcal{C}}$: \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{A}_{q}^{(1,c)} & = & C_{F};\nonumber \\ \mathcal{A}_{q}^{(2,c)} & = & C_{F}\left[\left(\frac{67}{36}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{12}\right)C_{A}-\frac{5}{9}T_{R}N_{f}\right];\\ \mathcal{A}_{q}^{(3,c)} & = & \frac{C_{F}^{2}N_{f}}{2}\left(\zeta(3)-\frac{55}{48}\right)-\frac{C_{F}N_{f}^{2}}{108}+C_{A}^{2}C_{F}\left(\frac{11\zeta(3)}{24}+\frac{11\pi^{4}}{720}-\frac{67\pi^{2}}{216}+\frac{245}{96}\right)\nonumber \\ & + & C_{A}C_{F}N_{f}\left(-\frac{7\zeta(3)}{12}+\frac{5\pi^{2}}{108}-\frac{209}{432}\right);\nonumber \\ \mathcal{B}_{q}^{(1,c)} & = & -\frac{3}{2}C_{F};\nonumber \\ \mathcal{B}_{q}^{(2,c)} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\left[{C_{F}}^{2}\,\left(\frac{3}{8}-\frac{\pi^{2}}{2}+6\zeta(3)\right)\right.+C_{F}C_{A}\left(\frac{17}{24}+\frac{11\pi^{2}}{18}-3\zeta(3)\right)\nonumber \\ & - & \left.C_{F}N_{f}T_{R}\left(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{2\pi^{2}}{9}\right)\right]+\beta_{0}\left[\frac{C_{F}\pi^{2}}{12}+(1-\delta_{s})\frac{\mathcal{V}_{q}(\theta_{*})}{4}\right];\nonumber \\ \mathcal{C}_{j/k}^{(0)}(x) & = & \delta_{jk}\delta(1-x);\,\,\mathcal{C}_{j/g}^{(0)}(x)=0;\nonumber \\ \mathcal{C}_{j/k}^{(1,c)}(x) & = & \delta_{jk}\left\{ \frac{C_{F}}{2}(1-x)+\delta(1-x)(1-\delta_{s})\frac{\mathcal{V}_{q}(\theta_{*})}{4}\right\} ;\nonumber \\ \mathcal{C}_{j/g}^{(1,c)}(x) & = & {\frac{1}{2}}x(1-x).\end{eqnarray} Here $C_{A}=N_{c},$ $T_{R}=1/2$, and the Riemann constant $\zeta(3)=1.202\dots$ . The ${\mathcal{C}}$ functions are given for $j,k=u,\bar{u},d,\bar{d},\dots$. These coefficients are taken from . Similarly, the ${\mathcal{A}}$, ${\mathcal{B}}$, and ${\mathcal{C}}$ coefficients in the $gg+gq_{S}$ channel are \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{A}_{g}^{(k,c)} & = & (C_{A}/C_{F})\mathcal{A}_{q}^{(k,c)},\mbox{ for }k=1,2,3;\nonumber \\ \mathcal{B}_{g}^{(1,c)} & = & -\beta_{0};\nonumber \\ \mathcal{B}_{g}^{(2,c)} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\Biggl[C_{A}^{2}\left(\frac{8}{3}+3\zeta(3)\right)-C_{F}T_{R}N_{f}-\frac{4}{3}C_{A}T_{R}N_{f}\Biggr]+\beta_{0}\left[\frac{C_{A}\pi^{2}}{12}+(1-\delta_{s})\frac{\mathcal{V}_{g}(\theta_{*})}{4}\right];\nonumber \\ \mathcal{C}_{g/a}^{(0)}\left(x\right) & = & \delta_{ga}\delta(1-x);\,\,\mathcal{C}_{g/g}^{(1,c)}\left(x\right)=\delta(1-x)(1-\delta_{s})\frac{\mathcal{V}_{g}(\theta_{*})}{4};\,\,\mathcal{C}_{g/q_{S}}^{(1,c)}\left(x\right)=\frac{C_{F}}{2}x.\end{eqnarray} These coefficients are taken from Refs.~. \section{Components of the asymptotic cross sections } In Sec.~ we introduce asymptotic small-$Q_{T}$ approximations for the $q\bar{q}+qg$ and $gg+gq_{S}$ NLO cross sections,\begin{equation} A_{q\bar{q}}(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*})=\sum_{i=u,\bar{u},d,\bar{d},...}\frac{\Sigma_{i}(\theta_{*})}{S}\left\{ \delta(\vec{Q}_{T})F_{i,\delta}(Q,y,\theta_{*})+F_{i,+}(Q,y,Q_{T})\right\} ,\end{equation} and\begin{eqnarray} A_{gg}(Q,Q_{T},y,\Omega_{*}) & = & \frac{1}{S}\Biggl\{\Sigma_{g}(\theta_{*})\left[\delta(\vec{Q}_{T})F_{g,\delta}(Q,y,\theta_{*})+F_{g,+}(Q,y,Q_{T})\right]\nonumber \\ & & \hspace{12pt}+\Sigma_{g}^{\prime}(\theta_{*},\varphi_{*})F_{g}^{\prime}(Q,y,Q_{T})\Biggr\}.\end{eqnarray} The functions $F$ in these equations are defined as\begin{eqnarray} & & F_{i,\delta}(Q,y,\theta_{*})\equiv f_{q_{i}/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})f_{\bar{q}_{i}/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F})\left(1+2\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}h_{q}^{(1)}(\theta_{*})\right)\nonumber \\ & + & \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\Biggl\{\left(\left[\mathcal{C}_{q_{i}/a}^{(1,c)}\otimes f_{a/h_{1}}\right](x_{1},\mu_{F})-\left[P_{q_{i}/a}\otimes f_{a/h_{1}}\right](x_{1},\mu_{F})\,\ln\frac{\mu_{F}}{Q}\right)\, f_{\bar{q}_{i}/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F})\nonumber \\ & & \hspace{26pt}+f_{q_{i}/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})\left(\left[\mathcal{C}_{\bar{q}_{i}/a}^{(1,c)}\otimes f_{a/h_{2}}\right](x_{2},\mu_{F})-\left[P_{\bar{q}_{i}/a}\otimes f_{a/h_{2}}\right](x_{2},\mu_{F})\,\ln\frac{\mu_{F}}{Q}\right)\Biggr\};\end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} F_{q,+} & = & \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\Biggl\{ f_{q_{i}/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})f_{\bar{q}_{i}/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F})\left(\mathcal{A}_{q}^{(1,c)}\left[\frac{1}{Q_{T}^{2}}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{Q_{T}^{2}}\right]_{+}+\mathcal{B}_{q}^{(1,c)}\left[\frac{1}{Q_{T}^{2}}\right]_{+}\right)\nonumber \\ & + & \left[\frac{1}{Q_{T}^{2}}\right]_{+}\Bigl(\left[P_{q_{i}/a}\otimes f_{a/h_{1}}\right](x_{1},\mu_{F})\, f_{\bar{q}_{i}/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F})\nonumber \\ & & \hspace{47pt}+f_{q_{i}/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})\left[P_{\bar{q}_{i}/a}\otimes f_{a/h_{2}}\right](x_{2},\mu_{F})\Bigr)\Biggr\};\end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} & & F_{g,\delta}\equiv f_{g/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})f_{g/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F})\left(1+2\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}h_{g}^{(1)}(\theta_{*})\right)\nonumber \\ & + & \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\Biggl\{\left(\left[\mathcal{C}_{g/a}^{(1,c)}\otimes f_{a/h_{1}}\right](x_{1},\mu_{F})-\left[P_{g/a}\otimes f_{a/h_{1}}\right](x_{1},\mu_{F})\,\ln\frac{\mu_{F}}{Q}\right)\, f_{g/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F})\nonumber \\ & & \hspace{27pt}+f_{g/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})\left(\left[\mathcal{C}_{g/a}^{(1,c)}\otimes f_{a/h_{2}}\right](x_{2},\mu_{F})-\left[P_{g/a}\otimes f_{a/h_{2}}\right](x_{2},\mu_{F})\,\ln\frac{\mu_{F}}{Q}\right)\Biggr\};\end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} F_{g,+} & = & \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\Biggl\{ f_{g/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})f_{g/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F})\left(\mathcal{A}_{g}^{(1,c)}\left[\frac{1}{Q_{T}^{2}}\ln\frac{Q^{2}}{Q_{T}^{2}}\right]_{+}+\mathcal{{\mathcal{B}}}_{g}^{(1,c)}\left[\frac{1}{Q_{T}^{2}}\right]_{+}\right)\nonumber \\ & + & \left[\frac{1}{Q_{T}^{2}}\right]_{+}\Bigl(\left[P_{g/a}\otimes f_{a/h_{1}}\right](x_{1},\mu_{F})\, f_{g/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F})\nonumber \\ & & \hspace{47pt}+f_{g/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})\left[P_{g/a}\otimes f_{a/h_{2}}\right](x_{2},\mu_{F})\Bigr)\Biggr\};\end{eqnarray} and\begin{eqnarray} F_{g,+}^{\prime} & = & \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\left[\frac{1}{Q_{T}^{2}}\right]_{+}\Bigl(\left[P_{g/g}^{\prime}\otimes f_{g/h_{1}}\right](x_{1},\mu_{F})\, f_{g/h_{2}}(x_{2},\mu_{F})\nonumber \\ & & \hspace{77pt}+f_{g/h_{1}}(x_{1},\mu_{F})\left[P_{g/g}^{\prime}\otimes f_{g/h_{2}}\right](x_{2},\mu_{F})\Bigr)\Biggr\}.\end{eqnarray} Expressions for the coefficients $\mathcal{A}_{a}^{(1,c)},$ $\mathcal{B}_{a}^{(1,c)}$, $h_{a}^{(1)}(\theta_{*}),$ $\mathcal{C}_{a/a^{\prime}}^{(1,c)}(x),$ and splitting functions $P_{a/c}(x)$, are listed in Appendix~. Summation over all relevant parton flavors $a^{\prime}=g,u,\bar{u,}d,\bar{d},...$ for $a=q$ and $a^{\prime}=g,q_{S}$ for $a=g$ is assumed. In addition, the $\varphi_{*}$-dependent part $\Sigma_{g}^{\prime}(\theta_{*},\varphi_{*})F_{g}^{\prime}(Q,y,Q_{T})$ of the $gg+gq_{S}$ asymptotic cross section $A_{gg}$ contains a splitting function\begin{equation} P_{gg}^{\prime}(x)=2C_{A}(1-x)/x,\end{equation} contributed by the interference of splitting amplitudes with opposite gluon polarizations in the helicity amplitude formalism . The origin and behavior of this spin-flip function are discussed in Ref.~. } \begin{thebibliography}{49} \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2} \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{} \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Acosta et~al.}(2005)}]{Acosta:2004sn} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Acosta}} \bibnamefont{et~al.} (\bibinfo{collaboration}{CDF Collaboration}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{95}}, \bibinfo{pages}{022003} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Balazs et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Balazs, Berger, Nadolsky, and Yuan}}]{Balazs:2006cc} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Balazs}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~L.} \bibnamefont{Berger}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Nadolsky}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B637}}, \bibinfo{pages}{235} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nadolsky et~al.}(2007)\citenamefont{Nadolsky, Balazs, Berger, and Yuan}}]{Nadolsky:2007ba} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Nadolsky}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Balazs}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Berger}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}), \eprint{hep-ph/0702003}. \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aurenche et~al.}(1985)\citenamefont{Aurenche, Douiri, Baier, Fontannaz, and Schiff}}]{Aurenche:1985yk} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Aurenche}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Douiri}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Baier}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Fontannaz}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Schiff}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Z. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C29}}, \bibinfo{pages}{459} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bailey et~al.}(1992)\citenamefont{Bailey, Owens, and Ohnemus}}]{Bailey:1992br} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Bailey}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~F.} \bibnamefont{Owens}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Ohnemus}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D46}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2018} (\bibinfo{year}{1992}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berger et~al.}(1984)\citenamefont{Berger, Braaten, and Field}}]{Berger:1983yi} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~L.} \bibnamefont{Berger}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Braaten}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~D.} \bibnamefont{Field}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B239}}, \bibinfo{pages}{52} (\bibinfo{year}{1984}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Balazs et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Balazs, Nadolsky, Schmidt, and Yuan}}]{Balazs:1999yf} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Balazs}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Nadolsky}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Schmidt}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B489}}, \bibinfo{pages}{157} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{de~Florian and Kunszt}(1999)}]{deFlorian:1999tp} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{de~Florian}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Kunszt}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B460}}, \bibinfo{pages}{184} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bern et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Bern, De~Freitas, and Dixon}}]{Bern:2001df} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Bern}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{De~Freitas}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~J.} \bibnamefont{Dixon}}, \bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{09}}, \bibinfo{pages}{037} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bern et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Bern, Dixon, and Schmidt}}]{Bern:2002jx} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Bern}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~J.} \bibnamefont{Dixon}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Schmidt}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{074018} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Collins et~al.}(1985)\citenamefont{Collins, Soper, and Sterman}}]{Collins:1984kg} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Collins}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Soper}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Sterman}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B250}}, \bibinfo{pages}{199} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Balazs et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Balazs, Berger, Mrenna, and Yuan}}]{Balazs:1997hv} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Balazs}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~L.} \bibnamefont{Berger}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Mrenna}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D57}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6934} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nadolsky and Schmidt}(2003)}]{Nadolsky:2002gj} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~M.} \bibnamefont{Nadolsky}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~R.} \bibnamefont{Schmidt}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B558}}, \bibinfo{pages}{63} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Binoth et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Binoth, Guillet, Pilon, and Werlen}}]{Binoth:1999qq} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Binoth}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.} \bibnamefont{Guillet}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Pilon}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Werlen}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C16}}, \bibinfo{pages}{311} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Collins and Soper}(1977)}]{Collins:1977iv} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Collins}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Soper}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D16}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2219} (\bibinfo{year}{1977}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Collins and Soper}(1982)}]{Collins:1981va} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Collins}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Soper}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B197}}, \bibinfo{pages}{446} (\bibinfo{year}{1982}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Collins and Soper}(1981)}]{Collins:1981uk} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Collins}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Soper}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B193}}, \bibinfo{pages}{381} (\bibinfo{year}{1981}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Konychev and Nadolsky}(2006)}]{Konychev:2005iy} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~V.} \bibnamefont{Konychev}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~M.} \bibnamefont{Nadolsky}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B633}}, \bibinfo{pages}{710} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pumplin et~al.}(2002)}]{Pumplin:2002vw} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Pumplin}} \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{07}}, \bibinfo{pages}{012} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berge et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont{Berge, Nadolsky, Olness, and Yuan}}]{Berge:2004nt} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Berge}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Nadolsky}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Olness}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D72}}, \bibinfo{pages}{033015} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Catani et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Catani, de~Florian, and Grazzini}}]{Catani:2000vq} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Catani}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{de~Florian}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Grazzini}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B596}}, \bibinfo{pages}{299} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berger et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Berger, Guo, and Qiu}}]{Berger:1996vy} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~L.} \bibnamefont{Berger}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Guo}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Qiu}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D54}}, \bibinfo{pages}{5470} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Catani et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Catani, Fontannaz, and Pilon}}]{Catani:1998yh} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Catani}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Fontannaz}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Pilon}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D58}}, \bibinfo{pages}{094025} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Catani et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Catani, Fontannaz, Guillet, and Pilon}}]{Catani:2002ny} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Catani}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Fontannaz}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.} \bibnamefont{Guillet}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Pilon}}, \bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{05}}, \bibinfo{pages}{028} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Frixione}(1998)}]{Frixione:1998jh} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Frixione}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B429}}, \bibinfo{pages}{369} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Catani and Seymour}(1997)}]{Catani:1996vz} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Catani}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~H.} \bibnamefont{Seymour}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B485}}, \bibinfo{pages}{291} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berger et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Berger, Gordon, and Klasen}}]{Berger:1998ev} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~L.} \bibnamefont{Berger}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~E.} \bibnamefont{Gordon}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Klasen}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D58}}, \bibinfo{pages}{074012} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berger et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Berger, Qiu, and Zhang}}]{Berger:2001wr} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~L.} \bibnamefont{Berger}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Qiu}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Zhang}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{034006} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ladinsky and Yuan}(1994)}]{Ladinsky:1993zn} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~A.} \bibnamefont{Ladinsky}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D50}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4239} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Landry et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Landry, Brock, Nadolsky, and Yuan}}]{Landry:2002ix} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Landry}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Brock}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~M.} \bibnamefont{Nadolsky}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D67}}, \bibinfo{pages}{073016} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Balazs and Yuan}(1997)}]{Balazs:1997xd} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Balazs}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D56}}, \bibinfo{pages}{5558} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Balazs}(1999)}]{Balazs:1999gh} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Balazs}} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}), \eprint{hep-ph/9906422}. \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Eidelman et~al.}(2004)}]{Eidelman:2004wy} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Eidelman}} \bibnamefont{et~al.} (\bibinfo{collaboration}{Particle Data Group}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B592}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bourhis et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Bourhis, Fontannaz, and Guillet}}]{Bourhis:1997yu} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Bourhis}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Fontannaz}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.} \bibnamefont{Guillet}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C2}}, \bibinfo{pages}{529} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dyer}()}]{Dyer:2006} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Dyer}}, \bibinfo{note}{private communication}. \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berger and Qiu}(2003)}]{Berger:2002ut} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~L.} \bibnamefont{Berger}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Qiu}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D67}}, \bibinfo{pages}{034026} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{\protect ATLAS~Collaboration}(1999)}]{ATLAS:1999fr} \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{\protect ATLAS~Collaboration}}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{\protect{ATLAS detector and physics performance. Technical design report. Vol.~2}}} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}), \bibinfo{note}{\protect{CERN-LHCC-99-15}}. \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Balazs and Yuan}(2000)}]{Balazs:2000wv} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Balazs}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B478}}, \bibinfo{pages}{192} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Catani et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Catani, de~Florian, Grazzini, and Nason}}]{Catani:2003zt} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Catani}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{de~Florian}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Grazzini}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Nason}}, \bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{07}}, \bibinfo{pages}{028} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bozzi et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Bozzi, Catani, de~Florian, and Grazzini}}]{Bozzi:2005wk} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Bozzi}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Catani}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{de~Florian}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Grazzini}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B737}}, \bibinfo{pages}{73} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Binosi and Theussl}(2004)}]{Binosi:2003yf} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Binosi}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Theussl}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Comput. Phys. Commun.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{161}}, \bibinfo{pages}{76} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{de~Florian and Grazzini}(2000)}]{deFlorian:2000pr} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{de~Florian}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Grazzini}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4678} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Moch et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Moch, Vermaseren, and Vogt}}]{Moch:2004pa} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Moch}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Vermaseren}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Vogt}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B688}}, \bibinfo{pages}{101} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yuan}(1992)}]{Yuan:1991we} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-P.} \bibnamefont{Yuan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B283}}, \bibinfo{pages}{395} (\bibinfo{year}{1992}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vogt et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Vogt, Moch, and Vermaseren}}]{Vogt:2004mw} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Vogt}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Moch}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Vermaseren}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B691}}, \bibinfo{pages}{129} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bern et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Bern, Dixon, and Kosower}}]{Bern:1993mq} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Bern}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~J.} \bibnamefont{Dixon}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Kosower}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2677} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bern et~al.}(1994{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Bern, Chalmers, Dixon, and Kosower}}]{Bern:1993qk} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Bern}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Chalmers}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~J.} \bibnamefont{Dixon}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Kosower}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{72}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2134} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}{\natexlab{a}}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bern et~al.}(1994{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Bern, Dixon, Dunbar, and Kosower}}]{Bern:1994zx} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Bern}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~J.} \bibnamefont{Dixon}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~C.} \bibnamefont{Dunbar}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Kosower}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B425}}, \bibinfo{pages}{217} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}{\natexlab{b}}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bern et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Bern, Dixon, and Kosower}}]{Bern:1994fz} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Bern}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~J.} \bibnamefont{Dixon}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Kosower}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B437}}, \bibinfo{pages}{259} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0002
|
Title: Sparsity-certifying Graph Decompositions
Abstract: We describe a new algorithm, the $(k,\ell)$-pebble game with colors, and use
it obtain a characterization of the family of $(k,\ell)$-sparse graphs and
algorithmic solutions to a family of problems concerning tree decompositions of
graphs. Special instances of sparse graphs appear in rigidity theory and have
received increased attention in recent years. In particular, our colored
pebbles generalize and strengthen the previous results of Lee and Streinu and
give a new proof of the Tutte-Nash-Williams characterization of arboricity. We
also present a new decomposition that certifies sparsity based on the
$(k,\ell)$-pebble game with colors. Our work also exposes connections between
pebble game algorithms and previous sparse graph algorithms by Gabow, Gabow and
Westermann and Hendrickson.
Body: \pdfoutput=1 \maketitle \begin{abstract} We describe a new algorithm, the $(k,\ell)$-pebble game with colors, and use it to obtain a characterization of the family of $(k,\ell)$-sparse graphs and algorithmic solutions to a family of problems concerning tree decompositions of graphs. Special instances of sparse graphs appear in rigidity theory and have received increased attention in recent years. In particular, our colored pebbles generalize and strengthen the previous results of Lee and Streinu and give a new proof of the Tutte-Nash-Williams characterization of arboricity. We also present a new decomposition that certifies sparsity based on the $(k,\ell)$-pebble game with colors. Our work also exposes connections between pebble game algorithms and previous sparse graph algorithms by Gabow , Gabow and Westermann and Hendrickson . \end{abstract} \section{Introduction and preliminaries} The focus of this paper is decompositions of $(k,\ell)$-sparse graphs into edge-disjoint subgraphs that certify sparsity. We use {\bf graph} to mean a multigraph, possibly with loops. We say that a graph is {\bf $(k,\ell)$-sparse} if no subset of $n'$ vertices spans more than $kn'-\ell$ edges in the graph; a $(k,\ell)$-sparse graph with $kn'-\ell$ edges is {\bf $(k,\ell)$-tight}. We call the range $k\le \ell\le 2k-1$ the upper range of sparse graphs and $0\le \ell\le k$ the lower range. In this paper, we present efficient algorithms for finding decompositions that certify sparsity in the upper range of $\ell$. Our algorithms also apply in the lower range, which was already addressed by . A decomposition certifies the sparsity of a graph if the sparse graphs and graphs admitting the decomposition coincide. Our algorithms are based on a new characterization of sparse graphs, which we call the {\bf pebble game with colors}. The pebble game with colors is a simple graph construction rule that produces a sparse graph along with a sparsity-certifying decomposition. We define and study a canonical class of pebble game constructions, which correspond to previously studied decompositions of sparse graphs into edge disjoint trees. Our results provide a unifying framework for all the previously known special cases, including Nash-Williams-Tutte and . Indeed, in the lower range, canonical pebble game constructions capture the properties of the augmenting paths used in matroid union and intersection algorithms. Since the sparse graphs in the upper range are not known to be unions or intersections of the matroids for which there are efficient augmenting path algorithms, these do not easily apply in the upper range. Pebble game with colors constructions may thus be considered a strengthening of augmenting paths to the upper range of matroidal sparse graphs. \subsection{Sparse graphs} A graph is {\bf $(k,\ell)$-sparse} if for any non-empty subgraph with $m'$ edges and $n'$ vertices, \( m' \le kn'-\ell. \) We observe that this condition implies that $0\le \ell\le 2k-1$, and from now on in this paper we will make this assumption. A sparse graph that has $n$ vertices and exactly $kn-\ell$ edges is called {\bf tight}. For a graph $G=(V,E)$, and $V'\subset V$, we use the notation $\grsp (V')$ for the number of edges in the subgraph induced by $V'$. In a directed graph, $\out (V')$ is the number of edges with the tail in $V'$ and the head in $V-V'$; for a subgraph induced by $V'$, we call such an edge an {\bf out-edge}. There are two important types of subgraphs of sparse graphs. A {\bf block} is a tight subgraph of a sparse graph. A {\bf component} is a maximal block. \begin{table} \begin{tabular} {|l|l|} \hline {\bf Term} & {\bf Meaning} \\ \hline \hline Sparse graph $G$ & Every non-empty subgraph on $n'$ vertices has $\le kn'-\ell$ edges\\ \hline Tight graph $G$ & $G=(V,E)$ is sparse and $\card{V}=n$, $\card{E}=kn-\ell$ \\ \hline Block $H$ in $G$ & $G$ is sparse, and $H$ is a tight subgraph \\ \hline Component $H$ of $G$ & $G$ is sparse and $H$ is a maximal block \\ \hline Map-graph & Graph that admits an out-degree-exactly-one orientation \\ \hline $(k,\ell)$-maps-and-trees & Edge-disjoint union of $\ell$ trees and $(k-\ell)$ map-grpahs\\ \hline \ellteekay & Union of $\ell$ trees, each vertex is in exactly $k$ of them \\ \hline Set of tree-pieces of an $\ellteekay$ induced on $V'\subset V$ & Pieces of trees in the \ellteekay spanned by $E(V')$ \\ \hline Proper \ellteekay & Every $V'\subset V$ contains $\ge\ell$ pieces of trees from the \ellteekay \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Sparse graph and decomposition terminology used in this paper.} \end{table} Table summarizes the sparse graph terminology used in this paper. \subsection{Sparsity-certifying decompositions} A $k$-arborescence is a graph that admits a decomposition into $k$ edge-disjoint spanning trees. \reffig{colored-3-tree} shows an example of a $3$-arborescence. The $k$-arborescent graphs are described by the well-known theorems of Tutte and Nash-Williams as exactly the $(k,k)$-tight graphs. A {\bf map-graph} is a graph that admits an orientation such that the out-degree of each vertex is exactly one. A $k$-{\bf map-graph} is a graph that admits a decomposition into $k$ edge-disjoint map-graphs. \reffig{colored-2-map} shows an example of a 2-map-graphs; the edges are oriented in one possible configuration certifying that each color forms a map-graph. Map-graphs may be equivalently defined (see, e.g., ) as having exactly one cycle per connected component.}sz in . In the matroid literature map-graphs are sometimes known as bases of the bicycle matroid or spanning pseudoforests.} A {\bf $(k,\ell)$-maps-and-trees} is a graph that admits a decomposition into $k-\ell$ edge-disjoint map-graphs and $\ell$ spanning trees. Another characterization of map-graphs, which we will use extensively in this paper, is as the $(1,0)$-tight graphs . The $k$-map-graphs are evidently $(k,0)$-tight, and show that the converse holds as well. A \ellteekay is a decomposition into $\ell$ edge-disjoint (not necessarily spanning) trees such that each vertex is in exactly $k$ of them. \reffig{2-3-t-a-t} shows an example of a $3{\mathsf T}2$. Given a subgraph $G'$ of a \ellteekay graph $G$, the {\bf set of tree-pieces} in $G'$ is the collection of the components of the trees in $G$ induced by $G'$ (since $G'$ is a subgraph each tree may contribute multiple pieces to the set of tree-pieces in $G'$). We observe that these tree-pieces may come from the same tree or be single-vertex ``empty trees.'' It is also helpful to note that the definition of a tree-piece is {\it relative to a specific subgraph}. An \ellteekay decomposition is \textbf{proper} if the set of tree-pieces in any subgraph $G'$ has size at least $\ell$. \reffig{2-3-t-a-t} shows a graph with a $3\mathsf{T}2$ decomposition; we note that one of the trees is an isolated vertex in the bottom-right corner. The subgraph in \reffig{2-3-t-a-t-b} has three black tree-pieces and one gray tree-piece: an isolated vertex at the top-right corner, and two single edges. These count as three tree-pieces, even though they come from the same back tree when the whole graph in considered. \reffig{2-3-t-a-t-c} shows another subgraph; in this case there are three gray tree-pieces and one black one. Table contains the decomposition terminology used in this paper. \paragraph{The decomposition problem.} We define the {\bf decomposition} problem for sparse graphs as taking a graph as its input and producing as output, a decomposition that can be used to certify sparsity. In this paper, we will study three kinds of outputs: maps-and-trees; proper \ellteekay decompositions; and the pebble-game-with-colors decomposition, which is defined in the next section. \section{Historical background} The well-known theorems of Tutte and Nash-Williams relate the $(k,k)$-tight graphs to the existence of decompositions into edge-disjoint spanning trees. Taking a matroidal viewpoint, Edmonds gave another proof of this result using matroid unions. The equivalence of maps-and-trees graphs and tight graphs in the lower range is shown using matroid unions in , and matroid augmenting paths are the basis of the algorithms for the lower range of . In rigidity theory a foundational theorem of Laman shows that $(2,3)$-tight (Laman) graphs correspond to generically minimally rigid bar-and-joint frameworks in the plane. Tay proved an analogous result for body-bar frameworks in any dimension using $(k,k)$-tight graphs. Rigidity by counts motivated interest in the upper range, and Crapo proved the equivalence of Laman graphs and proper $3\mathsf{T}2$ graphs. Tay used this condition to give a direct proof of Laman's theorem and generalized the $3\mathsf{T}2$ condition to all $\ell\mathsf{T}k$ for $k\le \ell\le 2k-1$. Haas studied \ellteekay decompositions in detail and proved the equivalence of tight graphs and proper \ellteekay graphs for the general upper range. We observe that aside from our new pebble-game-with-colors decomposition, all the combinatorial characterizations of the upper range of sparse graphs, including the counts, have a geometric interpretation . A pebble game algorithm was first proposed in as an elegant alternative to Hendrickson's Laman graph algorithms . Berg and Jordan , provided the formal analysis of the pebble game of and introduced the idea of playing the game on a directed graph. Lee and Streinu generalized the pebble game to the entire range of parameters $0\le \ell\le 2k-1$, and left as an open problem using the pebble game to find sparsity certifying decompositions. \section{The pebble game with colors} Our {\bf pebble game with colors} is a set of rules for constructing graphs indexed by nonnegative integers $k$ and $\ell$. We will use the pebble game with colors as the basis of an efficient algorithm for the decomposition problem later in this paper. Since the phrase ``with colors'' is necessary only for comparison to , we will omit it in the rest of the paper when the context is clear. We now present the pebble game with colors. The game is played by a single player on a fixed finite set of vertices. The player makes a finite sequence of moves; a move consists in the addition and/or orientation of an edge. At any moment of time, the state of the game is captured by a directed graph $H$, with colored pebbles on vertices and edges. The edges of $H$ are colored by the pebbles on them. While playing the pebble game all edges are directed, and we use the notation $vw$ to indicate a directed edge from $v$ to $w$. We describe the pebble game with colors in terms of its initial configuration and the allowed moves. \medskip {\bf Initialization:} In the beginning of the pebble game, $H$ has $n$ vertices and no edges. We start by placing $k$ pebbles on each vertex of $H$, one of each color $c_i$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,k$. {\bf Add-edge-with-colors:} Let $v$ and $w$ be vertices with at least $\ell+1$ pebbles on them. Assume (w.l.o.g.) that $v$ has at least one pebble on it. Pick up a pebble from $v$, add the oriented edge $vw$ to $E(H)$ and put the pebble picked up from $v$ on the new edge. \reffig{colored-add-edge} shows examples of the {\bf add-edge} move. {\bf Pebble-slide:} Let $w$ be a vertex with a pebble $p$ on it, and let $vw$ be an edge in $H$. Replace $vw$ with $wv$ in $E(H)$; put the pebble that was on $vw$ on $v$; and put $p$ on $wv$. Note that the color of an edge can change with a {\bf pebble-slide} move. \reffig{colored-pebble-slide} shows examples. The convention in these figures, and throughout this paper, is that pebbles on vertices are represented as colored dots, and that edges are shown in the color of the pebble on them. From the definition of the {\bf pebble-slide} move, it is easy to see that a particular pebble is always either on the vertex where it started or on an edge that has this vertex as the tail. However, when making a sequence of {\bf pebble-slide} moves that reverse the orientation of a path in $H$, it is sometimes convenient to think of this path reversal sequence as bringing a pebble from the end of the path to the beginning. \medskip The output of playing the pebble game is its complete configuration. {\bf Output:} At the end of the game, we obtain the directed graph $H$, along with the location and colors of the pebbles. Observe that since each edge has exactly one pebble on it, the pebble game configuration colors the edges. We say that the underlying undirected graph $G$ of $H$ is {\bf constructed} by the $(k,\ell)$-pebble game or that $H$ is a {\bf pebble-game graph}. Since each edge of $H$ has exactly one pebble on it, the pebble game's configuration partitions the edges of $H$, and thus $G$, into $k$ different colors. We call this decomposition of $H$ a {\bf pebble-game-with-colors decomposition}. \reffig{k4-not-canonical-colors} shows an example of a $(2,2)$-tight graph with a pebble-game decomposition. \medskip Let $G=(V,E)$ be pebble-game graph with the coloring induced by the pebbles on the edges, and let $G'$ be a subgraph of $G$. Then the coloring of $G$ induces a set of monochromatic connected subgraphs of $G'$ (there may be more than one of the same color). Such a monochromatic subgraph is called a \textbf{map-graph-piece} of $G'$ if it contains a cycle (in $G'$) and a \textbf{tree-piece} of $G'$ otherwise. The \textbf{set of tree-pieces} of $G'$ is the collection of tree-pieces induced by $G'$. As with the corresponding definition for $\ellteekay$s, the set of tree-pieces is defined \emph{relative to a specific subgraph}; in particular a tree-piece may be part of a larger cycle that includes edges not spanned by $G'$. The properties of pebble-game decompositions are studied in Section , and \refthm{non-canonical-decomposition} shows that each color must be $(1,0)$-sparse. The orientation of the edges in \reffig{k4-not-canonical-colors} shows this. For example \reffig{k4-not-canonical-colors} shows a $(2,2)$-tight graph with one possible pebble-game decomposition. The whole graph contains a gray tree-piece and a black tree-piece that is an isolated vertex. The subgraph in \reffig{k4-not-canonical-colors-b} has a black tree and a gray tree, with the edges of the black tree coming from a cycle in the larger graph. In \reffig{k4-not-canonical-colors-c}, however, the black cycle does not contribute a tree-piece. All three tree-pieces in this subgraph are single-vertex gray trees. In the following discussion, we use the notation $\peb(v)$ for the number of pebbles on $v$ and $\peb_i(v)$ to indicate the number of pebbles of colors $i$ on $v$. Table lists the pebble game notation used in this paper. \begin{table} \begin{tabular} {|l|l|} \hline {\bf Notation} & {\bf Meaning} \\ \hline \hline $\grsp (V')$ & Number of edges spanned in $H$ by $V'\subset V$; i.e. $\card{E_{H}(V')}$\\ \hline $\peb (V')$ &Number of pebbles on $V'\subset V$ \\ \hline $\out (V')$ & Number of edges $vw$ in $H$ with $v\in V'$ and $w\in V-V'$ \\ \hline $\peb_{i} (v)$ &Number of pebbles of color $c_{i}$ on $v\in V$ \\ \hline $\out_{i} (v)$ & Number of edges $vw$ colored $c_i$ for $v\in V$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Pebble game notation used in this paper.} \end{table} \section{Our Results} We describe our results in this section. The rest of the paper provides the proofs. Our first result is a strengthening of the pebble games of to include colors. It says that sparse graphs are exactly pebble game graphs. Recall that from now on, all pebble games discussed in this paper are our pebble game with colors unless noted explicitly. \begin{theorem}[{\bf Sparse graphs and pebble-game graphs coincide}] \labelthm{sparse-graphs-are-pebble-graphs} A graph $G$ is $(k,\ell)$-sparse with $0\le\ell\le 2k-1$ if and only if $G$ is a pebble-game graph. \end{theorem} Next we consider pebble-game decompositions, showing that they are a generalization of proper \ellteekay decompositions that extend to the entire matroidal range of sparse graphs. \begin{theorem}[{\bf The pebble-game-with-colors decomposition}] \labelthm{non-canonical-decomposition} A graph $G$ is a pebble-game graph if and only if it admits a decomposition into $k$ edge-disjoint subgraphs such that each is $(1,0)$-sparse and every subgraph of $G$ contains at least $\ell$ tree-pieces of the $(1,0)$-sparse graphs in the decomposition. \end{theorem} The $(1,0)$-sparse subgraphs in the statement of \refthm{non-canonical-decomposition} are the colors of the pebbles; thus \refthm{non-canonical-decomposition} gives a characterization of the pebble-game-with-colors decompositions obtained by playing the pebble game defined in the previous section. Notice the similarity between the requirement that the set of tree-pieces have size at least $\ell$ in \refthm{non-canonical-decomposition} and the definition of a proper $\ellteekay$. Our next results show that for {\it any} pebble-game graph, we can specialize its pebble game construction to generate a decomposition that is a maps-and-trees or proper \ellteekay. We call these specialized pebble game constructions {\bf canonical}, and using canonical pebble game constructions, we obtain new {\it direct} proofs of existing arboricity results. We observe \refthm{non-canonical-decomposition} that maps-and-trees are special cases of the pebble-game decomposition: both spanning trees and spanning map-graphs are $(1,0)$-sparse, and each of the spanning trees contributes at least one piece of tree to every subgraph. The case of proper \ellteekay graphs is more subtle; if each color in a pebble-game decomposition is a forest, then we have found a proper \ellteekay, but this class is a subset of all possible proper \ellteekay decompositions of a tight graph. We show that this class of proper \ellteekay decompositions is sufficient to certify sparsity. We now state the main theorem for the upper and lower range. \begin{theorem}[{\bf Main Theorem (Lower Range): Maps-and-trees coincide with pebble-game graphs}] \labelthm{canonical-decomposition-I} Let $0\le \ell\le k$. A graph $G$ is a tight pebble-game graph if and only if $G$ is a $(k,\ell)$-maps-and-trees. \end{theorem} \begin{theorem}[{\bf Main Theorem (Upper Range): Proper \ellteekay graphs coincide with pebble-game graphs}] Let $k\le \ell\le 2k-1$. A graph $G$ is a tight pebble-game graph if and only if it is a proper \ellteekay with $kn-\ell$ edges. \labelthm{canonical-decomposition-II} \end{theorem} As corollaries, we obtain the existing decomposition results for sparse graphs. \begin{corollary} [\textbf{Nash-Williams , Tutte , White and Whiteley }] \labelcor{m-a-t-equals-tight} Let $\ell\le k$. A graph $G$ is tight if and only if has a $(k,\ell)$-maps-and-trees decomposition. \end{corollary} \begin{corollary} [\textbf{Crapo , Haas }] \labelcor{t-a-t-equals-tight} Let $k\le \ell\le 2k-1$. A graph $G$ is tight if and only if it is a proper \ellteekay. \end{corollary} \paragraph{Efficiently finding canonical pebble game constructions.} The proofs of \refthm{canonical-decomposition-I} and \refthm{canonical-decomposition-II} lead to an obvious algorithm with $O(n^3)$ running time for the {\bf decomposition} problem. Our last result improves on this, showing that a canonical pebble game construction, and thus a maps-and-trees or proper \ellteekay decomposition can be found using a pebble game algorithm in $O(n^2)$ time and space. These time and space bounds mean that our algorithm can be combined with those of without any change in complexity. \section{Pebble game graphs} In this section we prove \refthm{sparse-graphs-are-pebble-graphs}, a strengthening of results from to the pebble game with colors. Since many of the relevant properties of the pebble game with colors carry over directly from the pebble games of , we refer the reader there for the proofs. We begin by establishing some invariants that hold during the execution of the pebble game. \begin{lemma}[{\bf Pebble game invariants}] During the execution of the pebble game, the following invariants are maintained in $H$: \begin{enumerate} \item[{\bf (I1)}] There are at least $\ell$ pebbles on $V$. \item[{\bf (I2)}] For each vertex $v$, $\grsp (v) + \out (v) + \peb (v)=k$. \item[{\bf (I3)}] For each $V'\subset V$, $\grsp (V')+\out (V')+\peb (V')=kn'$. \item[{\bf (I4)}] For every vertex $v\in V$, $\out_i (v)+\peb_i (v)=1$. \item[{\bf (I5)}] Every maximal path consisting only of edges with color $c_i$ ends in either the first vertex with a pebble of color $c_i$ or a cycle. \end{enumerate} \labellem{pebble-game-invariants} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} {\bf (I1)}, {\bf (I2)}, and {\bf (I3)} come directly from . {\bf (I4)} This invariant clearly holds at the initialization phase of the pebble game with colors. That {\bf add-edge} and {\bf pebble-slide} moves preserve {\bf (I4)} is clear from inspection. {\bf (I5)} By {\bf (I4)}, a monochromatic path of edges is forced to end only at a vertex with a pebble of the same color on it. If there is no pebble of that color reachable, then the path must eventually visit some vertex twice. \end{proof} From these invariants, we can show that the pebble game constructible graphs are sparse. \begin{lemma}[{\bf Pebble-game graphs are sparse }]\labellem{pebble-graphs-are-sparse} Let $H$ be a graph constructed with the pebble game. Then $H$ is sparse. If there are exactly $\ell$ pebbles on $V(H)$, then $H$ is tight. \end{lemma} The main step in proving that every sparse graph is a pebble-game graph is the following. Recall that by bringing a pebble to $v$ we mean reorienting $H$ with {\bf pebble-slide} moves to reduce the out degree of $v$ by one. \begin{lemma}[{\bf The $\ell+1$ pebble condition} ]\labellem{can-bring-another-pebble} Let $vw$ be an edge such that $H+vw$ is sparse. If $\peb (\{v,w\})<\ell+1$, then a pebble not on $\{v,w\}$ can be brought to either $v$ or $w$. \end{lemma} It follows that any sparse graph has a pebble game construction. \begin{restate}{sparse-graphs-are-pebble-graphs}[{\bf Sparse graphs and pebble-game graphs coincide}] A graph $G$ is $(k,\ell)$-sparse with $0\le\ell\le 2k-1$ if and only if $G$ is a pebble-game graph. \end{restate} \section{The pebble-game-with-colors decomposition} In this section we prove \refthm{non-canonical-decomposition}, which characterizes all pebble-game decompositions. We start with the following lemmas about the structure of monochromatic connected components in $H$, the directed graph maintained during the pebble game. \begin{lemma}[{\bf Monochromatic pebble game subgraphs are $(1,0)$-sparse}]\labellem{each-color-is-map-sparse} Let $H_i$ be the subgraph of $H$ induced by edges with pebbles of color $c_i$ on them. Then $H_i$ is $(1,0)$-sparse, for $i=1,\ldots,k$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By {\bf (I4)} $H_i$ is a set of edges with out degree at most one for every vertex. \end{proof} \begin{lemma}[{\bf Tree-pieces in a pebble-game graph}] \labellem{subtrees} Every subgraph of the directed graph $H$ in a pebble game construction contains at least $\ell$ monochromatic tree-pieces, and each of these is rooted at either a vertex with a pebble on it or a vertex that is the tail of an out-edge. \end{lemma} Recall that an out-edge from a subgraph $H'=(V',E')$ is an edge $vw$ with $v\in V'$ and $vw\notin E'$. \begin{proof} Let $H'=(V',E')$ be a non-empty subgraph of $H$, and assume without loss of generality that $H'$ is induced by $V'$. By {\bf (I3)}, $\out (V')+\peb (V')\ge \ell$. We will show that each pebble and out-edge tail is the root of a tree-piece. Consider a vertex $v\in V'$ and a color $c_i$. By {\bf (I4)} there is a unique monochromatic directed path of color $c_i$ starting at $v$. By {\bf (I5)}, if this path ends at a pebble, it does not have a cycle. Similarly, if this path reaches a vertex that is the tail of an out-edge also in color $c_i$ (i.e., if the monochromatic path from $v$ leaves $V'$), then the path cannot have a cycle in $H'$. Since this argument works for any vertex in any color, for each color there is a partitioning of the vertices into those that can reach each pebble, out-edge tail, or cycle. It follows that each pebble and out-edge tail is the root of a monochromatic tree, as desired. \end{proof} Applied to the whole graph \reflem{subtrees} gives us the following. \begin{lemma}[{\bf Pebbles are the roots of trees}]\labellem{roots} In any pebble game configuration, each pebble of color $c_i$ is the root of a (possibly empty) monochromatic tree-piece of color $c_i$. \end{lemma} {\bf Remark:} Haas showed in that in a \ellteekay, a subgraph induced by $n'\ge 2$ vertices with $m'$ edges has exactly $kn'-m'$ tree-pieces in it. \reflem{subtrees} strengthens Haas' result by extending it to the lower range and giving a construction that finds the tree-pieces, showing the connection between the $\ell+1$ pebble condition and the hereditary condition on proper \ellteekay. We conclude our investigation of arbitrary pebble game constructions with a description of the decomposition induced by the pebble game with colors. \begin{restate}{non-canonical-decomposition}[{\bf The pebble-game-with-colors decomposition}] A graph $G$ is a pebble-game graph if and only if it admits a decomposition into $k$ edge-disjoint subgraphs such that each is $(1,0)$-sparse and every subgraph of $G$ contains at least $\ell$ tree-pieces of the $(1,0)$-sparse graphs in the decomposition. \end{restate} \begin{proof} Let $G$ be a pebble-game graph. The existence of the $k$ edge-disjoint $(1,0)$-sparse subgraphs was shown in \reflem{each-color-is-map-sparse}, and \reflem{subtrees} proves the condition on subgraphs. For the other direction, we observe that a color $c_i$ with $t_i$ tree-pieces in a given subgraph can span at most $n-t_i$ edges; summing over all the colors shows that a graph with a pebble-game decomposition must be sparse. Apply \refthm{sparse-graphs-are-pebble-graphs} to complete the proof. \end{proof} {\bf Remark: } We observe that a pebble-game decomposition for a Laman graph may be read out of the bipartite matching used in Hendrickson's Laman graph extraction algorithm . Indeed, pebble game orientations have a natural correspondence with the bipartite matchings used in . Maps-and-trees are a special case of pebble-game decompositions for tight graphs: if there are no cycles in $\ell$ of the colors, then the trees rooted at the corresponding $\ell$ pebbles must be spanning, since they have $n-1$ edges. Also, if each color forms a forest in an upper range pebble-game decomposition, then the tree-pieces condition ensures that the pebble-game decomposition is a proper $\ellteekay$. In the next section, we show that the pebble game can be specialized to correspond to maps-and-trees and proper \ellteekay decompositions. \section{Canonical Pebble Game Constructions} In this section we prove the main theorems (\refthm{canonical-decomposition-I} and \refthm{canonical-decomposition-II}), continuing the investigation of decompositions induced by pebble game constructions by studying the case where a minimum number of monochromatic cycles are created. The main idea, captured in \reflem{kill-m2-moves-locally} and illustrated in \reffig{m2-meta-picture}, is to avoid creating cycles while collecting pebbles. We show that this is always possible, implying that monochromatic map-graphs are created only when we add more than $k(n'-1)$ edges to some set of $n'$ vertices. For the lower range, this implies that every color is a forest. Every decomposition characterization of tight graphs discussed above follows immediately from the main theorem, giving new proofs of the previous results in a unified framework. In the proof, we will use two specializations of the pebble game moves. The first is a modification of the {\bf add-edge} move. {\bf Canonical add-edge:} When performing an {\bf add-edge} move, cover the new edge with a color that is on both vertices if possible. If not, then take the highest numbered color present. The second is a restriction on which {\bf pebble-slide} moves we allow. {\bf Canonical pebble-slide:} A {\bf pebble-slide} move is allowed only when it does not create a monochromatic cycle. We call a pebble game construction that uses only these moves {\bf canonical}. In this section we will show that every pebble-game graph has a canonical pebble game construction (\reflem{can-kill-m1-moves} and \reflem{kill-m2-moves-locally}) and that canonical pebble game constructions correspond to proper \ellteekay and maps-and-trees decompositions (\refthm{canonical-decomposition-I} and \refthm{canonical-decomposition-II}). We begin with a technical lemma that motivates the definition of canonical pebble game constructions. It shows that the situations disallowed by the canonical moves are {\it all} the ways for cycles to form in the lowest $\ell$ colors. \begin{lemma}[{\bf Monochromatic cycle creation}]\labellem{how-maps-form} Let $v\in V$ have a pebble $p$ of color $c_{i}$ on it and let $w$ be a vertex in the same tree of color $c_i$ as $v$. A monochromatic cycle colored $c_{i}$ is created in exactly one of the following ways: \begin{enumerate} \item[{\bf (M1)}] The edge $vw$ is added with an {\bf add-edge} move. \item[{\bf (M2)}] The edge $wv$ is reversed by a {\bf pebble-slide} move and the pebble $p$ is used to cover the reverse edge $vw$. \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Observe that the preconditions in the statement of the lemma are implied by \reflem{pebble-game-invariants}. By \reflem{roots} monochromatic cycles form when the last pebble of color $c_{i}$ is removed from a connected monochromatic subgraph. {\bf (M1)} and {\bf (M2)} are the only ways to do this in a pebble game construction, since the color of an edge only changes when it is inserted the first time or a new pebble is put on it by a {\bf pebble-slide} move. \end{proof} \reffig{m1-create-map} and \reffig{m2-create-map} show examples of {\bf (M1)} and {\bf (M2)} map-graph creation moves, respectively, in a $(2,0)$-pebble game construction. We next show that if a graph has a pebble game construction, then it has a canonical pebble game construction. This is done in two steps, considering the cases {\bf (M1)} and {\bf (M2)} separately. The proof gives two constructions that implement the {\bf canonical add-edge} and {\bf canonical pebble-slide} moves. \begin{lemma}[{\bf The canonical add-edge move}] Let $G$ be a graph with a pebble game construction. Cycle creation steps of type {\bf (M1)} can be eliminated in colors $c_{i}$ for $1\le i\le \ell'$, where $\ell'=\min\{k,\ell\}$. \labellem{can-kill-m1-moves} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} For {\bf add-edge} moves, cover the edge with a color present on both $v$ and $w$ if possible. If this is not possible, then there are $\ell+1$ distinct colors present. Use the highest numbered color to cover the new edge. \end{proof} {\bf Remark:} We note that in the upper range, there is always a repeated color, so {\it no} {\bf canonical add-edge} moves create cycles in the upper range. The {\bf canonical pebble-slide} move is defined by a global condition. To prove that we obtain the same class of graphs using only {\bf canonical pebble-slide} moves, we need to extend \reflem{can-bring-another-pebble} to only canonical moves. The main step is to show that if there is {\it any } sequence of moves that reorients a path from $v$ to $w$, then there is a sequence of canonical moves that does the same thing. \begin{lemma}[{\bf The canonical pebble-slide move}]\labellem{kill-m2-moves-locally} Any sequence of {\bf pebble-slide} moves leading to an {\bf add-edge} move can be replaced with one that has no {\bf (M2)} steps and allows the same {\bf add-edge} move. \end{lemma} In other words, if it is possible to collect $\ell+1$ pebbles on the ends of an edge to be added, then it is possible to do this without creating any monochromatic cycles. \reffig{m2-move-eliminate} and \reffig{m2-move-eliminate-2} illustrate the construction used in the proof of \reflem{kill-m2-moves-locally}. We call this the {\bf shortcut construction} by analogy to matroid union and intersection augmenting paths used in previous work on the lower range. \reffig{m2-meta-picture} shows the structure of the proof. The shortcut construction removes an {\bf (M2)} step at the beginning of a sequence that reorients a path from $v$ to $w$ with pebble-slides. Since one application of the shortcut construction reorients a simple path from a vertex $w'$ to $w$, and a path from $v$ to $w'$ is preserved, the shortcut construction can be applied inductively to find the sequence of moves we want. \begin{proof} Without loss of generality, we can assume that our sequence of moves reorients a simple path in $H$, and that the first move (the end of the path) is {\bf (M2)}. The {\bf (M2)} step moves a pebble of color $c_i$ from a vertex $w$ onto the edge $vw$, which is reversed. Because the move is {\bf (M2)}, $v$ and $w$ are contained in a maximal monochromatic tree of color $c_i$. Call this tree $H'_i$, and observe that it is rooted at $w$. Now consider the edges reversed in our sequence of moves. As noted above, before we make any of the moves, these sketch out a simple path in $H$ ending at $w$. Let $z$ be the first vertex on this path in $H'_i$. We modify our sequence of moves as follows: delete, from the beginning, every move before the one that reverses some edge $yz$; prepend onto what is left a sequence of moves that moves the pebble on $w$ to $z$ in $H'_i$. Since no edges change color in the beginning of the new sequence, we have eliminated the {\bf (M2)} move. Because our construction does not change any of the edges involved in the remaining tail of the original sequence, the part of the original path that is left in the new sequence will still be a simple path in $H$, meeting our initial hypothesis. The rest of the lemma follows by induction. \end{proof} Together \reflem{can-kill-m1-moves} and \reflem{kill-m2-moves-locally} prove the following. \begin{lemma} If $G$ is a pebble-game graph, then $G$ has a canonical pebble game construction. \labellem{canonical-constructions-exist} \end{lemma} Using canonical pebble game constructions, we can identify the tight pebble-game graphs with maps-and-trees and \ellteekay\, graphs. \begin{restate}{canonical-decomposition-I}[{\bf Main Theorem (Lower Range): Maps-and-trees coincide with pebble-game graphs}] Let $0\le \ell\le k$. A graph $G$ is a tight pebble-game graph if and only if $G$ is a $(k,\ell)$-maps-and-trees. \end{restate} \begin{proof} As observed above, a maps-and-trees decomposition is a special case of the pebble game decomposition. Applying \refthm{non-canonical-decomposition}, we see that any maps-and-trees must be a pebble-game graph. For the reverse direction, consider a canonical pebble game construction of a tight graph. From \reflem{pebble-graphs-are-sparse}, we see that there are $\ell$ pebbles left on $G$ at the end of the construction. The definition of the {\bf canonical add-edge} move implies that there must be at least one pebble of each $c_i$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,\ell$. It follows that there is exactly one of each of these colors. By \reflem{roots}, each of these pebbles is the root of a monochromatic tree-piece with $n-1$ edges, yielding the required $\ell$ edge-disjoint spanning trees. \end{proof} \begin{restatecor}{m-a-t-equals-tight} [\textbf{Nash-Williams , Tutte , White and Whiteley }] Let $\ell\le k$. A graph $G$ is tight if and only if has a $(k,\ell)$-maps-and-trees decomposition. \end{restatecor} We next consider the decompositions induced by canonical pebble game constructions when $\ell\ge k+1$. \begin{restate}{canonical-decomposition-II}[{\bf Main Theorem (Upper Range): Proper Trees-and-trees coincide with pebble-game graphs}] Let $k\le \ell\le 2k-1$. A graph $G$ is a tight pebble-game graph if and only if it is a proper \ellteekay with $kn-\ell$ edges. \end{restate} \begin{proof} As observed above, a proper \ellteekay decomposition must be sparse. What we need to show is that a canonical pebble game construction of a tight graph produces a proper \ellteekay. By \refthm{non-canonical-decomposition} and \reflem{canonical-constructions-exist}, we already have the condition on tree-pieces and the decomposition into $\ell$ edge-disjoint trees. Finally, an application of {\bf (I4)}, shows that every vertex must in in exactly $k$ of the trees, as required. \end{proof} \begin{restatecor}{t-a-t-equals-tight}[\textbf{Crapo , Haas }] Let $k\le \ell\le 2k-1$. A graph $G$ is tight if and only if it is a proper \ellteekay. \end{restatecor} \section{Pebble game algorithms for finding decompositions} A naïve implementation of the constructions in the previous section leads to an algorithm requiring $\Theta(n^2)$ time to collect each pebble in a canonical construction: in the worst case $\Theta(n)$ applications of the construction in \reflem{kill-m2-moves-locally} requiring $\Theta(n)$ time each, giving a total running time of $\Theta(n^3)$ for the \textbf{decomposition} problem. In this section, we describe algorithms for the {\bf decomposition} problem that run in time $O(n^2)$. We begin with the overall structure of the algorithm. \begin{algorithm} [\textbf{The canonical pebble game with colors}]\labelalg{canonical-pebble-game} \qquad \noindent {\bf Input:} A graph $G$. \\ {\bf Output:} A pebble-game graph $H$. \\ {\bf Method:} \begin{itemize} \item Set $V(H)=V(G)$ and place one pebble of each color on the vertices of $H$. \item For each edge $vw\in E(G)$ try to collect at least $\ell+1$ pebbles on $v$ and $w$ using {\bf pebble-slide} moves as described by \reflem{kill-m2-moves-locally}. \item If at least $\ell+1$ pebbles can be collected, add $vw$ to $H$ using an {\bf add-edge} move as in \reflem{can-kill-m1-moves}, otherwise discard $vw$. \item Finally, return $H$, and the locations of the pebbles. \end{itemize} \end{algorithm} \paragraph{Correctness.} \refthm{sparse-graphs-are-pebble-graphs} and the result from that the sparse graphs are the independent sets of a matroid show that $H$ is a maximum sized sparse subgraph of $G$. Since the construction found is canonical, the main theorem shows that the coloring of the edges in $H$ gives a maps-and-trees or proper \ellteekay decomposition. \paragraph{Complexity.} We start by observing that the running time of \refalg{canonical-pebble-game} is the time taken to process $O(n)$ edges added to $H$ and $O(m)$ edges not added to $H$. We first consider the cost of an edge of $G$ that is added to $H$. Each of the pebble game moves can be implemented in constant time. What remains is to describe an efficient way to find and move the pebbles. We use the following algorithm as a subroutine of \refalg{canonical-pebble-game} to do this. \begin{algorithm} [\textbf{Finding a canonical path to a pebble.}]\labelalg{find-one-pebble} \qquad \\ \noindent{\bf Input:} Vertices $v$ and $w$, and a pebble game configuration on a directed graph $H$. \\ \noindent {\bf Output:} If a pebble was found, `yes', and `no' otherwise. The configuration of $H$ is updated. \\ \noindent {\bf Method:} \begin{itemize} \item Start by doing a depth-first search from from $v$ in $H$. If no pebble not on $w$ is found, stop and return `no.' \item Otherwise a pebble was found. We now have a path $v=v_{1},e_{1},\ldots,e_{p-1},v_{p}=u$, where the $v_{i}$ are vertices and $e_{i}$ is the edge $v_{i}v_{i+1}$. Let $c[e_{i}]$ be the color of the pebble on $e_{i}$. We will use the array $c[]$ to keep track of the colors of pebbles on vertices and edges after we move them and the array $s[]$ to sketch out a canonical path from $v$ to $u$ by finding a successor for each edge. \item Set\, $s[u]=`end'$ and set\, $c[u]$ to the color of an arbitrary pebble on $u$. We walk on the path in reverse order: $v_{p},e_{p-1}, e_{p-2}, \ldots, e_{1},v_{1}$. For each $i$, check to see if $c[v_{i}]$ is set; if so, go on to the next $i$. Otherwise, check to see if $c[v_{i+1}]=c[e_{i}]$. \item If it is, set $s[v_{i}]=e_{i}$ and set $c[v_{i}]=c[e_{i}]$, and go on to the next edge. \item Otherwise $c[v_{i+1}]\neq c[e_{i}]$, try to find a monochromatic path in color $c[v_{i+1}]$ from $v_{i}$ to $v_{i+1}$. If a vertex $x$ is encountered for which $c[x]$ is set, we have a path $v_{i}=x_{1},f_{1},x_{2},\ldots,f_{q-1},x_{q}=x$ that is monochromatic in the color of the edges; set $c[x_{i}]=c[f_{i}]$ and $s[x_{i}]=f_{i}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,q-1$. If $c[x]=c[f_{q-1}]$, stop. Otherwise, recursively check that there is not a monochromatic $c[x]$ path from $x_{q-1}$ to $x$ using this same procedure. \item Finally, slide pebbles along the path from the original endpoints $v$ to $u$ specified by the successor array $s[v]$, $s[s[v]]$, $\ldots$ \end{itemize} \end{algorithm} The correctness of \refalg{find-one-pebble} comes from the fact that it is implementing the shortcut construction. Efficiency comes from the fact that instead of potentially moving the pebble back and forth, \refalg{find-one-pebble} pre-computes a canonical path crossing each edge of $H$ at most three times: once in the initial depth-first search, and twice while converting the initial path to a canonical one. It follows that each accepted edges takes $O(n)$ time, for a total of $O(n^2)$ time spent processing edges in $H$. Although we have not discussed this explicity, for the algorithm to be efficient we need to maintain components as in . After each accepted edge, the components of $H$ can be updated in time $O(n)$. Finally, the results of show that the rejected edges take an amortized $O(1)$ time each. Summarizing, we have shown that the canonical pebble game with colors solves the {\bf decomposition} problem in time $O(n^2)$. \section{An important special case: Rigidity in dimension $2$ and slider-pinning} In this short section we present a new application for the special case of practical importance, $k=2$, $\ell=3$. As discussed in the introduction, Laman's theorem characterizes minimally rigid graphs as the $(2,3)$-tight graphs. In recent work on slider pinning, developed after the current paper was submitted, we introduced the slider-pinning model of rigidity . Combinatorially, we model the bar-slider frameworks as simple graphs together with some loops placed on their vertices in such a way that there are no more than $2$ loops per vertex, one of each color. We characterize the minimally rigid bar-slider graphs as graphs that are: \begin{enumerate} \item $(2,3)$-sparse for subgraphs containing no loops. \item $(2,0)$-tight when loops are included. \end{enumerate} We call these graphs $(2,0,3)$-graded-tight, and they are a special case of the graded-sparse graphs studied in our paper . The connection with the pebble games in this paper is the following. \begin{corollary}[{\bf Pebble games and slider-pinning}] In any $(2,3)$-pebble game graph, if we replace pebbles by loops, we obtain a $(2,0,3)$-graded-tight graph. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Follows from invariant {\bf (I3)} of \reflem{pebble-game-invariants}. \end{proof} In , we study a special case of slider pinning where every slider is either vertical or horizontal. We model the sliders as pre-colored loops, with the color indicating $x$ or $y$ direction. For this axis parallel slider case, the minimally rigid graphs are characterized by: \begin{enumerate} \item $(2,3)$-sparse for subgraphs containing no loops. \item Admit a $2$-coloring of the edges so that each color is a forest (i.e., has no cycles), and each monochromatic tree spans exactly one loop of its color. \end{enumerate} This also has an interpretation in terms of colored pebble games. \begin{corollary}[{\bf The pebble game with colors and slider-pinning}] In any canonical $(2,3)$-pebble-game-with-colors graph, if we replace pebbles by loops of the same color, we obtain the graph of a minimally pinned axis-parallel bar-slider framework. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Follows from \refthm{canonical-decomposition-II}, and \reflem{roots}. \end{proof} \section{Conclusions and open problems} We presented a new characterization of $(k,\ell)$-sparse graphs, the \textbf{pebble game with colors}, and used it to give an efficient algorithm for finding decompositions of sparse graphs into edge-disjoint trees. Our algorithm finds such sparsity-certifying decompositions in the upper range and runs in time $O(n^2)$, which is as fast as the algorithms for recognizing sparse graphs in the upper range from . We also used the pebble game with colors to describe a new sparsity-certifying decomposition that applies to the entire matroidal range of sparse graphs. We defined and studied a class of canonical pebble game constructions that correspond to either a maps-and-trees or proper \ellteekay decomposition. This gives a new proof of the Tutte-Nash-Williams arboricity theorem and a unified proof of the previously studied decomposition certificates of sparsity. Canonical pebble game constructions also show the relationship between the $\ell+1$ pebble condition, which applies to the upper range of $\ell$, to matroid union augmenting paths, which do not apply in the upper range. \paragraph{Algorithmic consequences and open problems.} In , Gabow and Westermann give an $O(n^{3/2})$ algorithm for recognizing sparse graphs in the lower range and extracting sparse subgraphs from dense ones. Their technique is based on efficiently finding matroid union augmenting paths, which extend a maps-and-trees decomposition. The $O(n^{3/2})$ algorithm uses two subroutines to find augmenting paths: {\bf cyclic scanning}, which finds augmenting paths one at a time, and {\bf batch scanning}, which finds groups of disjoint augmenting paths. We observe that \refalg{canonical-pebble-game} can be used to replace cyclic scanning in Gabow and Westermann's algorithm without changing the running time. The data structures used in the implementation of the pebble game, detailed in are simpler and easier to implement than those used to support cyclic scanning. The two major open algorithmic problems related to the pebble game are then: \begin{problem} Develop a pebble game algorithm with the properties of {\bf batch scanning} and obtain an implementable $O(n^{3/2})$ algorithm for the lower range. \end{problem} \begin{problem} Extend {\bf batch scanning} to the $\ell+1$ pebble condition and derive an $O(n^{3/2})$ pebble game algorithm for the upper range. \end{problem} In particular, it would be of practical importance to find an implementable $O(n^{3/2})$ algorithm for decompositions into edge-disjoint spanning trees. \begin{thebibliography}{21} \providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1} \providecommand{\url}[1]{#1} \providecommand{\urlprefix}{URL } \expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax \providecommand{\doi}[1]{DOI~\discretionary{}{}{}#1}\else \providecommand{\doi}{DOI~\discretionary{}{}{}\begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi \bibitem[{Berg and Jord\'{a}n(2003)}]{berg:jordan:2003} Berg, A.R., Jord\'{a}n, T.: Algorithms for graph rigidity and scene analysis. \newblock In: Proc. 11th European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA '03), LNCS, vol. 2832, pp. 78--89. (2003) \bibitem[{Crapo(1988)}]{crapo:rigidity:88} Crapo, H.: On the generic rigidity of plane frameworks. \newblock Tech. Rep. 1278, Institut de recherche d'informatique et d'automatique (1988) \bibitem[{Edmonds(1965)}]{Ed65} Edmonds, J.: Minimum partition of a matroid into independent sets. \newblock J. Res. Nat. Bur. Standards Sect. B \textbf{69B}, 67--72 (1965) \bibitem[{Edmonds(2003)}]{edmonds:matroidpolyhedra} Edmonds, J.: Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra. \newblock In: Combinatorial Optimization---Eureka, You Shrink!, no. 2570 in LNCS, pp. 11--26. Springer (2003) \bibitem[{Gabow(1995)}]{gabow:jcss-1995} Gabow, H.N.: A matroid approach to finding edge connectivity and packing arborescences. \newblock Journal of Computer and System Sciences \textbf{50}, 259--273 (1995) \bibitem[{Gabow and Westermann(1992)}]{gabow:forests:1992} Gabow, H.N., Westermann, H.H.: Forests, frames, and games: Algorithms for matroid sums and applications. \newblock Algorithmica \textbf{7}(1), 465--497 (1992) \bibitem[{Haas(2002)}]{haas:2002} Haas, R.: Characterizations of arboricity of graphs. \newblock Ars Combinatorica \textbf{63}, 129--137 (2002) \bibitem[{Haas et~al.(2007)Haas, Lee, Streinu, and Theran}]{maps} Haas, R., Lee, A., Streinu, I., Theran, L.: Characterizing sparse graphs by map decompositions. \newblock Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing \textbf{62}, 3--11 (2007) \bibitem[{Hendrickson(1992)}]{hendrickson:uniqueRealizability:1992} Hendrickson, B.: Conditions for unique graph realizations. \newblock SIAM Journal on Computing \textbf{21}(1), 65--84 (1992) \bibitem[{Jacobs and Hendrickson(1997)}]{jacobs:hendrickson:PebbleGame:1997a} Jacobs, D.J., Hendrickson, B.: An algorithm for two-dimensional rigidity percolation: the pebble game. \newblock Journal of Computational Physics \textbf{137}, 346--365 (1997) \bibitem[{Laman(1970)}]{laman} Laman, G.: On graphs and rigidity of plane skeletal structures. \newblock Journal of Engineering Mathematics \textbf{4}, 331--340 (1970) \bibitem[{Lee and Streinu(2008)}]{pebblegame} Lee, A., Streinu, I.: Pebble game algorihms and sparse graphs. \newblock Discrete Mathematics \textbf{308}(8), 1425--1437 (2008) \bibitem[{Lee et~al.(2005)Lee, Streinu, and Theran}]{cccg} Lee, A., Streinu, I., Theran, L.: Finding and maintaining rigid components. \newblock In: Proc. Canadian Conference of Computational Geometry. Windsor, Ontario (2005). \newblock \bibitem[{Lee et~al.(2007{\natexlab{a}})Lee, Streinu, and Theran}]{graded} Lee, A., Streinu, I., Theran, L.: Graded sparse graphs and matroids. \newblock Journal of Universal Computer Science \textbf{13}(10) (2007{\natexlab{a}}) \bibitem[{Lee et~al.(2007{\natexlab{b}})Lee, Streinu, and Theran}]{sliders} Lee, A., Streinu, I., Theran, L.: The slider-pinning problem. \newblock In: Proceedings of the 19th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry (CCCG'07) (2007{\natexlab{b}}) \bibitem[{Lov{\'{a}}sz(1979)}]{lovasz:combinatorial-problems} Lov{\'{a}}sz, L.: Combinatorial Problems and Exercises. \newblock Akademiai Kiado and North-Holland, Amsterdam (1979) \bibitem[{Nash-Williams(1964)}]{nash-williams:decomposition-into-forests:1964} Nash-Williams, C.S.A.: Decomposition of finite graphs into forests. \newblock Journal of the London Mathematical Society \textbf{39}, 12 (1964) \bibitem[{Oxley(1992)}]{oxley:matroid} Oxley, J.G.: Matroid theory. \newblock The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York (1992) \bibitem[{Roskind and Tarjan(1985)}]{RoTa85} Roskind, J., Tarjan, R.E.: A note on finding minimum cost edge disjoint spanning trees. \newblock Mathematics of Operations Research \textbf{10}(4), 701--708 (1985) \bibitem[{Streinu and Theran(2008)}]{genericity} Streinu, I., Theran, L.: Combinatorial genericity and minimal rigidity. \newblock In: SCG '08: Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, pp. 365--374. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008). \bibitem[{Tay(1984)}]{tay:rigidityMultigraphs-I:1984} Tay, T.S.: Rigidity of multigraphs {I}: linking rigid bodies in $n$-space. \newblock Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B \textbf{26}, 95--112 (1984) \bibitem[{Tay(1993)}]{Tay93} Tay, T.S.: A new proof of {L}aman's theorem. \newblock Graphs and Combinatorics \textbf{9}, 365--370 (1993) \bibitem[{Tutte(1961)}]{tutte:decomposing-graph-in-factors-1961} Tutte, W.T.: On the problem of decomposing a graph into $n$ connected factors. \newblock Journal of the London Mathematical Society \textbf{142}, 221--230 (1961) \bibitem[{Whiteley(1988)}]{whiteley:union-matroids} Whiteley, W.: The union of matroids and the rigidity of frameworks. \newblock SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics \textbf{1}(2), 237--255 (1988) \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0010
|
Title: Partial cubes: structures, characterizations, and constructions
Abstract: Partial cubes are isometric subgraphs of hypercubes. Structures on a graph
defined by means of semicubes, and Djokovi\'{c}'s and Winkler's relations play
an important role in the theory of partial cubes. These structures are employed
in the paper to characterize bipartite graphs and partial cubes of arbitrary
dimension. New characterizations are established and new proofs of some known
results are given.
The operations of Cartesian product and pasting, and expansion and
contraction processes are utilized in the paper to construct new partial cubes
from old ones. In particular, the isometric and lattice dimensions of finite
partial cubes obtained by means of these operations are calculated.
Body: \title{Partial cubes: structures, characterizations, and constructions} \author{Sergei~Ovchinnikov\\ Mathematics Department\\San Francisco State University\\San Francisco, CA 94132\\sergei@sfsu.edu} \date{May 8, 2006} \maketitle \begin{abstract}\noindent Partial cubes are isometric subgraphs of hypercubes. Structures on a graph defined by means of semicubes, and Djokovi\'{c}'s and Winkler's relations play an important role in the theory of partial cubes. These structures are employed in the paper to characterize bipartite graphs and partial cubes of arbitrary dimension. New characterizations are established and new proofs of some known results are given. The operations of Cartesian product and pasting, and expansion and contraction processes are utilized in the paper to construct new partial cubes from old ones. In particular, the isometric and lattice dimensions of finite partial cubes obtained by means of these operations are calculated. \end{abstract} \vtl\noindent \emph{Key words:} Hypercube, partial cube, semicube \section{Introduction} A hypercube $\HHH(X)$ on a set $X$ is a graph which vertices are the finite subsets of $X$; two vertices are joined by an edge if they differ by a singleton. A partial cube is a graph that can be isometrically embedded into a hypercube. \vtl There are three general graph-theoretical structures that play a prominent role in the theory of partial cubes; namely, semicubes, Djokovi\'{c}'s relation $\hh$, and Winkler's relation $\Theta$. We use these structures, in particular, to characterize bipartite graphs and partial cubes. The characterization problem for partial cubes was considered as an important one and many characterizations are known. We list contributions in the chronological order: Djokovi\'{c}~ (1973), Avis~ (1981), Winkler~ (1984), Roth and Winkler~ (1986), Chepoi~ (1988 and 1994). In the paper, we present new proofs for the results of Djokovi\'{c}~, Winkler~, and Chepoi~, and obtain two more characterizations of partial cubes. \vtl The paper is also concerned with some ways of constructing new partial cubes from old ones. Properties of subcubes, the Cartesian product of partial cubes, and expansion and contraction of a partial cube are investigated. We introduce a construction based on pasting two graphs together and show how new partial cubes can be obtained from old ones by pasting them together. \vtl The paper is organized as follows. \vtl Hypercubes and partial cubes are introduced in Section~ together with two basic examples of infinite partial cubes. Vertex sets of partial cubes are described in terms of well graded families of finite sets. \vtl In Section~ we introduce the concepts of a semicube, Djokovi\'{c}'s $\hh$ and Winkler's $\Theta$ relations, and establish some of their properties. Bipartite graphs and partial cubes are characterized by means of these structures. One more characterization of partial cubes is obtained in Section~, where so-called fundamental sets in a graph are introduced. \vtl The rest of the paper is devoted to constructions: subcubes and the Cartesian product (Section~), pasting (Section~), and expansions and contractions (Section~). We show that these constructions produce new partial cubes from old ones. Isometric and lattice dimensions of new partial cubes are calculated. These dimensions are introduced in Section~. \vtl Few words about conventions used in the paper are in order. The {\sl sum {\rm(}disjoint union{\rm)}} $A+B$ of two sets $A$ and $B$ is the union $$ (\{1\}\times A) \cup (\{2\}\times B). $$ All graphs in the paper are simple undirected graphs. In the notation $G=(V,E)$, the symbol $V$ stands for the set of vertices of the graph $G$ and $E$ stands for its set of edges. By abuse of language, we often write $ab$ for an edge in a graph; if this is the case, $ab$ is an unordered pair of distinct vertices. We denote $\langle U\rangle$ the graph induced by the set of vertices $U\SB V$. If $G$ is a connected graph, then $d_G(a,b)$ stands for the distance between two vertices $a$ and $b$ of the graph $G$. Wherever it is clear from the context which graph is under consideration, we drop the subscript $G$ in $d_G(a,b)$. A subgraph $H\SB G$ is an {\sl isometric subgraph} if $d_H(a,b)=d_G(a,b)$ for all vertices $a$ and $b$ of $H$; it is {\sl convex} if any shortest path in $G$ between vertices of $H$ belongs to $H$. \section{Hypercubes and partial cubes} Let $X$ be a set. We denote $\PPP_f(X)$ the set of all finite subsets of $X$. \begin{definition} {\rm A graph $\HHH(X)$ has the set $\PPP_f(X)$ as the set of its vertices; a pair of vertices $PQ$ is an edge of $\HHH(X)$ if the symmetric difference $P\Delta Q$ is a singleton. The graph $\HHH(X)$ is called the {\sl hypercube on $X$}~. If $X$ is a finite set of cardinality $n$, then the graph $\HHH(X)$ is the {\sl $n$-cube} $Q_n$. The {\sl dimension} of the hypercube $\HHH(X)$ is the cardinality of the set $X$. } \end{definition} The shortest path distance $d(P,Q)$ on the hypercube $\HHH(X)$ is the {\sl Hamming distance} between sets $P$ and $Q$: \begeq d(P,Q)=|P\Delta Q|\quad\text{for $P,Q\in\PPP_f$.} \edeq The set $\PPP_f(X)$ is a metric space with the metric $d$. \begin{definition} {\rm A graph $G$ is a {\sl partial cube} if it can be isometrically embedded into a hypercube $\HHH(X)$ for some set $X$. We often identify $G$ with its isometric image in the hypercube $\HHH(X)$, and say that $G$ is a {\sl partial cube on the set} $X$. } \end{definition} { } An example of a partial cube and its isometric embedding into the cube $Q_3$ is shown in Figure~. \vtl Clearly, a family $\FFF$ of finite subsets of $X$ induces a partial cube on $X$ if and only if for any two distinct subsets $P,Q\in\FFF$ there is a sequence $$ R_0=P,R_1,\ldots,R_n=Q $$ of sets in $\FFF$ such that \begeq d(R_i,R_{i+1})=1\quad\text{for all $0\leq i<n$,}\quad\text{and}\quad d(P,Q)=n. \edeq The families of sets satisfying condition~() are known as well graded families of sets~. Note that a sequence $(R_i)$ satisfying~() is a shortest path from $P$ to $Q$ in $\HHH(X)$ (and in the subgraph induced by $\FFF$). \begin{definition} {\rm A family $\FFF$ of arbitrary subsets of $X$ is a {\sl wg-family} ({\sl well graded family of sets}) if, for any two distinct subsets $P,Q\in\FFF$, the set $P\Delta Q$ is finite and there is a sequence $$ R_0=P,R_1,\ldots,R_n=Q $$ of sets in $\FFF$ such that $|R_i\Delta R_{i+1}|=1$ for all $0\leq i<n$ and $|P\Delta Q|=n$. } \end{definition} \begin{example} {\rm The induced graph can be a partial cube on a different set if the family $\FFF$ is not well graded. Consider, for instance, the family $$ \FFF=\{\es,\{a\},\{a,b\},\{a,b,c\},\{b,c\}\} $$ of subsets of $X=\{a,b,c\}$. The graph induced by this family is a path of length $4$ in the cube $Q_3$ (cf. Figure~). Clearly, $\FFF$ is not well graded. On the other hand, as it can be easily seen, any path is a partial cube. } \end{example} { } Any family $\FFF$ of subsets of $X$ defines a graph $G_\FFF=(\FFF,E_\FFF)$, where $$ E_\FFF=\{\{P,Q\}\SB\FFF:|P\Delta Q|=1\}. $$ \begin{theorem} The graph $G_\FFF$ defined by a family $\FFF$ of subsets of a set $X$ is isomorphic to a partial cube on $X$ if and only if the family $\FFF$ is well graded. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We need to prove sufficiency only. Let $S$ be a fixed set in $\FFF$. We define a mapping $f:\FFF\rightarrow\PPP_f(X)$ by $f(R)=R\Delta S$ for $R\in\FFF$. Then $$ d(f(R),f(T))=|(R\Delta S)\Delta(T\Delta S)|=|R\Delta T|. $$ Thus $f$ is an isometric embedding of $\FFF$ into $\PPP_f(X)$. Let $(R_i)$ be a sequence of sets in $\FFF$ such that $R_0=P$, $R_n=Q$, $|P\Delta Q|=n$, and $|R_i\Delta R_{i+1}|=1$ for all $0\leq i<n$. Then the sequence $(f(R_i))$ satisfies conditions~(). The result follows. \end{proof} \vtl A set $R\in\PPP_f(X)$ is said to be {\sl lattice between} sets $P,Q\in\PPP_f(X)$ if $$ P\cap Q\SB R\SB P\cup Q. $$ It is {\sl metrically between} $P$ and $Q$ if $$ d(P,R)+d(R,Q)=d(P,Q). $$ The following theorem is a well-known result about these two betweenness relations on $\PPP_f(X)$ (see, for instance,~). \begin{theorem} Lattice and metric betweenness relations coincide on $\PPP_f(X)$. \end{theorem} Let $\FFF$ be a family of finite subsets of $X$. The set of all $R\in\FFF$ that are between $P,Q\in\FFF$ is the {\sl interval $\III(P,Q)$ between $P$ and $Q$ in $\FFF$}. Thus, $$ \III(P,Q)=\FFF\cap[P\cap Q,P\cup Q], $$ where $[P\cap Q,P\cup Q]$ is the usual interval in the lattice $\PPP_f$. \vtl Two distinct sets $P,Q\in\FFF$ are {\sl adjacent in $\FFF$} if $\JJJ(P,Q)=\{P,Q\}$. If sets $P$ and $Q$ form an edge in the graph induced by $\FFF$, then $P$ and $Q$ are adjacent in $\FFF$, but, generally speaking, not vice versa. For instance, in Example~, the vertices $\es$ and $\{b,c\}$ are adjacent in $\FFF$ but do not define an edge in the induced graph (cf. Figure~). \vtl The following theorem is a `local' characterization of wg-families of sets. \begin{theorem} A family $\FFF\SB\PPP_f(X)$ is well graded if and only if $d(P,Q)=1$ for any two sets $P$ and $Q$ that are adjacent in $\FFF$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} (Necessity.) Let $\FFF$ be a wg-family of sets. Suppose that $P$ and $Q$ are adjacent in $\FFF$. There is a sequence $R_0=P,R_1,\ldots,R_n=Q$ that satisfies conditions~(). Since the sequence $(R_i)$ is a shortest path in $\FFF$, we have $$ d(P,P_i)+d(P_i,Q)=d(P,Q)\quad\text{for all $0\leq i\leq n$.} $$ Thus, $P_i\in\III(P,Q)=\{P,Q\}$. It follows that $d(P,Q)=n=1$. \vtl (Sufficiency.) Let $P$ and $Q$ be two distinct sets in $\FFF$. We prove by induction on $n=d(P,Q)$ that there is a sequence $(R_i)\in\FFF$ satisfying conditions~(). The statement is trivial for $n=1$. Suppose that $n>1$ and that the statement is true for all $k<n$. Let $P$ and $Q$ be two sets in $\FFF$ such that $d(P,Q)=n$. Since $d(P,Q)>1$, the sets $P$ and $Q$ are not adjacent in $\FFF$. Therefore there exists $R\in\FFF$ that lies between $P$ and $Q$ and is distinct from these two sets. Then $d(P,R)+d(R,Q)=d(P,Q)$ and both distances $d(P,R)$ and $d(R,Q)$ are less than $n$. By the induction hypothesis, there is a sequence $(R_i)\in\FFF$ such that $$ P=R_0,\;R=R_j,\;Q=R_n\quad\text{~for some $0<j<n$}, $$ satisfying conditions~() for $0\leq i<j$ and $j\leq i<n$. It follows that $\FFF$ is a wg-family of sets. \end{proof} \vtl We conclude this section with two examples of infinite partial cubes (more examples are found in~). \begin{example} {\rm Let $\ZZZ$ be the graph on the set $\Zee$ of integers with edges defined by pairs of consecutive integers. This graph is a partial cube since its vertex set is isometric to the wg-family of intervals $\{(-\infty,m): m\in\Zee\}$ in $\Zee$. } \end{example} \begin{example} {\rm Let us consider $\Zee^n$ as a metric space with respect to the $\ell_1$-metric. The graph $\ZZZ^n$ has $\Zee^n$ as the vertex set; two vertices in $\ZZZ^n$ are connected if they are on the unit distance from each other. We will show in Section~ (Corollary~) that $\ZZZ^n$ is a partial cube. } \end{example} \section{Characterizations} Only connected graphs are considered in this section. \begin{definition} {\rm Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $d$ be its distance function. For any two adjacent vertices $a,b\in V$ let $W_{ab}$ be the set of vertices that are closer to $a$ than to $b$: $$ W_{ab}=\{w\in V: d(w,a)<d(w,b)\}. $$ Following , we call the sets $W_{ab}$ and induced subgraphs $\langle W_{ab}\rangle$ {\sl semicubes} of the graph $G$. The semicubes $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$ are called {\sl opposite semicubes}. } \end{definition} \begin{remark} {\rm The subscript $ab$ in $W_{ab}$ stands for an ordered pair of vertices, not for an edge of $G$. In his original paper~, Djokovi\'{c} uses notation $G(a,b)$ (cf.~). We use the notation from~. } \end{remark} Clearly, two opposite semicubes are disjoint. They can be used to characterize bipartite graphs as follows. \begin{theorem} A graph $G=(V,E)$ is bipartite if and only if the semicubes $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$ form a partition of $V$ for any edge $ab\in E$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let us recall that a connected graph $G$ is bipartite if and only if for every vertex $x$ there is no edge $ab$ with $d(x,a)=d(x,b)$ (see, for instance,~). For any edge $ab\in E$ and vertex $x\in V$ we clearly have $$ d(x,a)=d(x,b)\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad x\notin W_{ab}\cup W_{ba}. $$ The result follows. \end{proof} The following lemma is instrumental and will be used frequently in the rest of the paper. \begin{lemma} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $w\in W_{ab}$ for some edge $ab\in E$. Then $$ d(w,b)=d(w,a)+1. $$ Accordingly, $$ W_{ab}=\{w\in V:d(w,b)=d(w,a)+1\}. $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By the triangle inequality, we have $$ d(w,a)<d(w,b)\leq d(w,a)+d(a,b)=d(w,a)+1. $$ The result follows, since $d$ takes values in $\Na$. \end{proof} There are two binary relations on the set of edges of a graph that play a central role in characterizing partial cubes. \begin{definition} {\rm Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $e=xy$ and $f=uv$ be two edges of $G$. \roster \item[(i)](Djokovi\'{c}~) The relation $\hh$ on $E$ is defined by $$ e\,\hh f\;\eq\;\text{$f$ joins a vertex in $W_{xy}$ with a vertex in $W_{yx}$.} $$ The notation can be chosen such that $u\in W_{xy}$ and $v\in W_{yx}$. \item[(ii)] (Winkler~) The relation $\Theta$ on $E$ is defined by $$ e\,\Theta f\quad\eq\quad d(x,u)+d(y,v)\not=d(x,v)+d(y,u). $$ \endroster } \end{definition} It is clear that both relations $\hh$ and $\Theta$ are reflexive and $\Theta$ is symmetric. \begin{lemma} The relation $\hh$ is a symmetric relation on $E$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Suppose that $xy\,\hh\,uv$ with $u\in W_{xy}$ and $v\in W_{yx}$. By Lemma~ and the triangle inequality, we have \begin{align*} d(u,x)&=d(u,y)-1\leq d(u,v)+d(v,y)-1=d(v,y)= \\ &=d(v,x)-1\leq d(v,u)+d(u,x)-1=d(u,x). \end{align*} Hence, $d(u,x)=d(v,x)-1$ and $d(v,y)=d(u,y)-1$. Therefore, $x\in W_{uv}$ and $y\in W_{vu}$. It follows that $uv\,\hh\,xy$. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} $\hh\SB\Theta$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Suppose that $xy\,\hh\,uv$ with $u\in W_{xy},\;v\in W_{yx}$. By Lemma~, $$ d(x,u)+d(y,v)=d(x,v)-1+d(y,u)-1\not=d(x,v)+d(y,u). $$ Hence, $xy\,\Theta\,uv$. \end{proof} \begin{example} {\rm It is easy to verify that $\hh$ is the identity relation on the set of edges of the cycle $C_3$. On the other hand, any two edges of $C_3$ stand in the relation $\Theta$. Thus, $\hh\not=\Theta$ in this case. } \end{example} Bipartite graphs can be characterized in terms of relations $\hh$ and $\Theta$ as follows. \begin{theorem} A graph $G=(V,E)$ is bipartite if and only if $\hh=\Theta$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} (Necessity.) Suppose that $G$ is a bipartite graph, two edges $xy$ and $uv$ stand in the relation $\Theta$, that is, $$ d(x,u)+d(y,v)\not=d(x,v)+d(y,u), $$ and that edges $xy$ and $uv$ do not stand in the relation $\hh$. By Theorem~, we may assume that $u,v\in W_{xy}$. By Lemma~, we have $$ d(x,u)+d(y,v)=d(y,u)-1+d(x,v)+1=d(x,v)+d(y,u), $$ a contradiction. It follows that $\Theta\SB\hh$. By Lemma~, $\hh=\Theta$. \vtl (Sufficiency.) Suppose that $G$ is not bipartite. By Theorem~, there is an edge $xy$ such that $W_{xy}\cup W_{yx}$ is a proper subset of $V$. Since $G$ is connected, there is an edge $uv$ with $u\notin W_{xy}\cup W_{yx}$ and $v\in W_{xy}\cup W_{yx}$. Clearly, $uv$ does not stand in the relation $\hh$ to $xy$. On the other hand, $$ d(x,u)+d(y,v)\not=d(x,v)+d(y,u), $$ since $u\notin W_{xy}\cup W_{yx}$ and $v\in W_{xy}\cup W_{yx}$. Thus, $xy\,\Theta\,uv$, a contradiction, since we assumed that $\hh=\Theta$. \end{proof} \vtl By Theorem~, the relations $\hh$ and $\Theta$ coincide on bipartite graphs. For this reason we use the relation $\hh$ in the rest of the paper. \vtl \begin{lemma} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a bipartite graph such that all its semicubes are convex sets. Then two edges $xy$ and $uv$ stand in the relation $\hh$ if and only if the corresponding pairs of mutually opposite semicubes form equal partitions of $V$: $$ xy\,\hh\,uv\quad\eq\quad\{W_{xy},W_{yx}\}=\{W_{uv},W_{vu}\}. $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} (Necessity) We assume that the notation is chosen such that $u\in W_{xy}$ and $v\in W_{yx}$. Let $z\in W_{xy}\cap W_{vu}$. By Lemma~, $d(z,u)=d(z,v)+d(v,u)$. Since $z,u\in W_{xy}$ and $W_{xy}$ is convex, we have $v\in W_{xy}$, a contradiction to the assumption that $v\in W_{yx}$. Thus $W_{xy}\cap W_{vu}=\es$. Since two opposite semicubes in a bipartite graph form a partition of $V$, we have $W_{uv}=W_{xy}$ and $W_{vu}=W_{yx}$. A similar argument shows that $W_{uv}=W_{yx}$ and $W_{vu}=W_{xy}$, if $u\in W_{yx}$ and $v\in W_{xy}$. \vtl (Sufficiency.) Follows from the definition of the relation $\hh$. \end{proof} \vtl We need another general property of the relation $\hh$ (cf.~Lemma~2.2 in~). \begin{lemma} Let $P$ be a shortest path in a graph $G$. Then no two distinct edges of $P$ stand in the relation $\hh$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $i<j$ and $x_i x_{i+1}$ and $x_j x_{j+1}$ be two edges in a shortest path $P$ from $x_0$ to $x_n$. Then $$ d(x_i,x_j)<d(x_i,x_{j+1})\quad\text{and}\quad d(x_{i+1},x_j)<d(x_{i+1},x_{j+1}), $$ so $x_i,x_{i+1}\in W_{x_jx_{j+1}}$. It follows that edges $x_i x_{i+1}$ and $x_j x_{j+1}$ do not stand in the relation $\hh$. \end{proof} The converse statement is true for bipartite graphs (we omit the proof); a counterexample is the cycle $C_5$ which is not bipartite. \begin{lemma} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a bipartite graph. The following statements are equivalent \roster \item[{\rm(i)}] All semicubes of $G$ are convex. \item[{\rm(ii)}] The relation $\hh$ is an equivalence relation on $E$. \endroster \end{lemma} \begin{proof} (i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii). Follows from Lemma~. \vtl (ii) $\Rightarrow$ (i). Suppose that $\hh$ is transitive and there is a nonconvex semicube $W_{ab}$. Then there are two vertices $u,v\in W_{ab}$ and a shortest path $P$ from $u$ to $v$ that intersects $W_{ba}$. This path contains two distinct edges $e$ and $f$ joining vertices of semicubes $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$. The edges $e$ and $f$ stand in the relation $\hh$ to the edge $ab$. By transitivity of $\hh$, we have $e\,\hh f$. This contradicts the result of Lemma~. Thus all semicubes of $G$ are convex. \end{proof} \vtl We now establish some basic properties of partial cubes. \vtl \begin{theorem} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a partial cube. Then \roster \item[{\rm(i)}] $G$ is a bipartite graph. \item[{\rm(ii)}] Each pair of opposite semicubes form a partition of $V$. \item[{\rm(iii)}] All semicubes are convex subsets of $V$. \item[{\rm(iv)}] $\hh$ is an equivalence relation on $E$. \endroster \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We may assume that $G$ is an isometric subgraph of some hypercube $\HHH(X)$, that is, $G=(\FFF,E_\FFF)$ for a wg-family $\FFF$ of finite subsets of $X$. \vtl (i) It suffices to note that if two sets in $\HHH(X)$ are connected by an edge then they have different parity. Thus, $\HHH(X)$ is a bipartite graph and so is $G$. \vtl (ii) Follows from (i) and Theorem~. \vtl (iii) Let $W_{AB}$ be a semicube of $G$. By Lemma~ and Theorem~, we have $$ W_{AB}=\{S\in\FFF:S\cap B\SB A\SB S\cup B\}. $$ Let $Q,R\in W_{AB}$ and $P$ be a vertex of $G$ such that $$ d(Q,P)+d(P,R)=d(Q,R). $$ By Theorem~, $$ Q\cap R\SB P\SB Q\cup R. $$ Since $Q,R\in W_{AB}$, we have $$ Q\cap B\SB A\SB Q\cup B\quad\text{and}\quad R\cap B\SB A\SB R\cup B, $$ which implies $$ P\cap B\SB(Q\cup R)\cap B\SB A\SB(Q\cap R)\cup B\SB S\cup B. $$ Hence, $P\in W_{AB}$, and the result follows. \vtl (iv) Follows from (iii) and Lemma~. \end{proof} \begin{remark} {\rm Since semicubes of a partial cube $G=(V,E)$ are convex subsets of the metric space $V$, they are {\sl half-spaces} in $V$~. This terminology is used in~. } \end{remark} The following theorem presents four characterizations of partial cubes. The first two are due to Djokovi\'{c}~ and Winkler~ (cf. Theorem~2.10 in~). \begin{theorem} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph. The following statements are equivalent: \roster \item[{\rm(i)}] $G$ is a partial cube. \item[{\rm(ii)}] $G$ is bipartite and all semicubes of $G$ are convex. \item[{\rm(iii)}] $G$ is bipartite and $\hh$ is an equivalence relation. \item[{\rm(iv)}] $G$ is bipartite and, for all $xy,uv\in E$, \begeq xy\,\hh\,uv\quad\imp\quad\{W_{xy},W_{yx}\}=\{W_{uv},W_{vu}\}. \edeq \item[{\rm(v)}] $G$ is bipartite and, for any pair of adjacent vertices of $G$, there is a unique pair of opposite semicubes separating these two vertices. \endroster \end{theorem} \begin{proof} By Lemma~, the statements (ii) and (iii) are equivalent and, by Theorem~, (i) implies both (ii) and (iii). \vtl (iii) $\Rightarrow$ (i). By Theorem~, each pair $\{W_{ab},W_{ba}\}$ of opposite semicubes of $G$ form a partition of $V$. We orient these partitions by calling, in an arbitrary way, one of the two opposite semicubes in each partition a {\sl positive semicube}. Let us assign to each $x\in V$ the set $W^+(x)$ of all positive semicubes containing $x$. In the next paragraph we prove that the family $\FFF=\{W^+(x)\}_{x\in V}$ is well graded and that the assignment $x\mapsto W^+(x)$ is an isometry between $V$ and $\FFF$. \vtl Let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct vertices of $G$. We say that a positive semicube $W_{ab}$ {\sl separates} $x$ and $y$ if either $x\in W_{ab},\;y\in W_{ba}$ or $x\in W_{ba},\;y\in W_{ab}$. It is clear that $W_{ab}$ separates $x$ and $Y$ if and only if $W_{ab}\in W^+(x)\Delta W^+(y)$. Let $P$ be a shortest path $x_0=x,x_1,\ldots,x_n=y$ from $x$ to $y$. By Lemma~, no two distinct edges of $P$ stand in the relation $\hh$. By Lemma~, distinct edges of $P$ define distinct positive semicubes; clearly, these semicubes separate $x$ and $y$. Let $W_{ab}$ be a positive semicube separating $x$ and $y$, and, say, $x\in W_{ab}$ and $y\in W_{ba}$. There is an edge $f\in P$ that joins vertices in $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$. Hence, $f$ stands in the relation $\hh$ to $ab$ and, by Lemma~, $W_{ab}$ is defined by $f$. It follows that any semicube in $W^+(x)\Delta W^+(y)$ is defined by a unique edge in $P$ and any edge in $P$ defines a semicube in $W^+(x)\Delta W^+(y)$. Therefore, $d(W^+(x),W^+(y))=d(x,y)$, that is $x\mapsto W^+(x)$ is an isometry. Clearly, $\FFF$ is a wg-family of sets. By Theorem~, the family $\FFF$ is isometric to a wg-family of finite sets. Hence, $G$ is a partial cube. \vtl (iv) $\Rightarrow $ (ii). Suppose that there exist an edge $ab$ such that semicube $W_{ba}$ is not convex. Let $p$ and $q$ be two vertices in $W_{ba}$ such that there is a shortest path $P$ from $p$ to $q$ that intersects $W_{ab}$. There are two distinct edges $xy$ and $uv$ in $P$ such that $x,u\in W_{ab}$ and $y,v\in W_{ba}$. Since $ab\,\hh\,xy$ and $ab\,\hh\,uv$, we have, by~(), $$ W_{ab}=W_{xy}=W_{uv}. $$ Hence, $u\in W_{xy}$ and $v\in W_{yx}$. By Lemma~, $$ d(x,u)=d(x,v)-1=1+d(v,y)-1=d(v,y), $$ a contradiction, since $P$ is a shortest path from $p$ to $q$. \vtl (ii) $\Rightarrow $ (iv). Follows from Lemma~. \vtl It is clear that (iv) and (v) are equivalent. \end{proof} \section{Fundamental sets in partial cubes} Semicubes played an important role in the previous section. In this section we introduce three more classes of useful subsets of graphs. We also establish one more characterization of partial cubes. \vtl Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph. For a given edge $e=ab\in E$, we define the following sets (cf.~): \begin{align*} F_{ab} &= \{f\in E : e\,\hh f\} = \{uv\in E: u\in W_{ab},v\in W_{ba}\}, \\ U_{ab} &= \{w\in W_{ab}:\text{$w$ is adjacent to a vertex in $W_{ba}$}\}, \\ U_{ba} &= \{w\in W_{ba}:\text{$w$ is adjacent to a vertex in $W_{ab}$}\}. \end{align*} The five sets are schematically shown in Figure~. { } \begin{remark} {\rm In the case of a partial cube $G=(V,E)$, the semicubes $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$ are complementary half-spaces in the metric space $V$ (cf. Remark~). Then the set $F_{ab}$ can be regarded as a `hyperplane' separating these half-spaces (see~ where this analogy is formalized in the context of hyperplane arrangements). } \end{remark} The following theorem generalizes the result obtained in~ for median graphs (see also~). \begin{theorem} Let $ab$ be an edge of a connected bipartite graph $G$. If the semicubes $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$ are convex, then the set $F_{ab}$ is a matching and induces an isomorphism between the graphs $\langle U_{ab}\rangle$ and $\langle U_{ba}\rangle$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Suppose that $F_{ab}$ is not a matching. Then there are distinct edges $xu$ and $xv$ with, say, $x\in U_{ab}$ and $u,v\in U_{ba}$. By the triangle inequality, $d(u,v)\leq 2$. Since $G$ does not have triangles, $d(u,v)\not=1$. Hence, $d(u,v)=2$, which implies that $x$ lies between $u$ and $v$. This contradicts convexity of $W_{ba}$, since $x\in W_{ab}$. Therefore $F_{ab}$ is a matching. To show that $F_{ab}$ induces an isomorphism, let $xy,uv\in F_{ab}$ and $xu\in E$, where $x,u\in U_{ab}$ and $y,v\in U_{ba}$. Since $G$ does not have odd cycles, $d(v,y)\not=2$. By the triangle inequality, $$ d(v,y)\leq d(v,u)+d(u,x)+d(x,y)=3. $$ Since $W_{ba}$ is convex, $d(v,y)\not=3$. Thus $d(v,y)=1$, that is, $vy$ is an edge. The result follows by symmetry. \end{proof} By Theorem~(ii), we have the following corollary. \begin{corollary} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a partial cube. For any edge $ab$ the set $F_{ab}$ is a matching and induces an isomorphism between induced graphs $\langle U_{ab}\rangle$ and $\langle U_{ba}\rangle$. \end{corollary} { } \begin{example} {\rm Let $G$ be the graph depicted in Figure~. The set $$F_{ab}=\{ab,xu,yv\}$$ is a matching and defines an isomorphism between the graphs induced by subsets $U_{ab}=\{a,x,y\}$ and $U_{ba}=\{b,u,v\}$. The set $W_{ba}$ is not convex, so $G$ is not a partial cube. Thus the converse of Corollary~ does not hold. } \end{example} We now establish another characterization of partial cubes that utilizes a geometric property of families $F_{ab}$. \begin{theorem} For a connected graph $G$ the following statements are equivalent: \roster \item[{\rm(i)}] $G$ is a partial cube. \item[{\rm (ii)}] $G$ is bipartite and \begeq d(x,u)=d(y,v)\quad\text{and}\quad d(x,v)=d(y,u), \edeq for any $ab\in E$ and $xy,uv\in F_{ab}$. \endroster \end{theorem} \begin{proof} (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii). We may assume that $x,u\in W_{ab}$ and $y,v\in W_{ba}$. Since $\hh$ is an equivalence relation, we have $xy\,\hh\,uv\,\hh ab$. By Lemma~, $W_{uv}=W_{xy}=W_{ab}$. By Lemma~, $$ d(x,u)=d(x,v)-1=d(v,y)+1-1=d(y,v). $$ We also have $$ d(x,v)=d(y,v)+1=d(y,u), $$ by the same lemma. \vtl (ii)$\Rightarrow$(i). Suppose that $G$ is not a partial cube. Then, by Theorem~, there exist an edge $ab$ such that, say, semicube $W_{ba}$ is not convex. Let $p$ and $q$ be two vertices in $W_{ba}$ such that there is a shortest path $P$ from $p$ to $q$ that intersects $W_{ab}$. Let $uv$ be the first edge in $P$ which belongs to $F_{ab}$ and $xy$ be the last edge in $P$ with the same property (see Figure~). { } \noindent Since $P$ is a shortest path, we have $$ d(v,y)=d(v,u)+d(u,x)+d(x,y)\not=d(x,u), $$ which contradicts condition~(). Thus all semicubes of $G$ are convex. By Theorem~, $G$ is a partial cube. \end{proof} \vtl \begin{remark} {\rm One can say that four vertices satisfying conditions~() define a {\sl rectangle} in $G$. Then Theorem~ states that a connected graph is a partial cube if and only if it is bipartite and for any edge $ab$ pairs of edges in $F_{ab}$ define rectangles in $G$. } \end{remark} \section{Dimensions of partial cubes} There are many different ways in which a given partial cube can be isometrically embedded into a hypercube. For instance, the graph $K_2$ can be isometrically embedded in different ways into any hypercube $\HHH(X)$ with $|X|>2$. \vtl Following Djokovi\'{c}~ (see also~), we define the {\sl isometric dimension}, $\dim_I(G)$, of a partial cube $G$ as the minimum possible dimension of a hypercube $\HHH(X)$ in which $G$ is isometrically embeddable. Recall (see Section~) that the dimension of $\HHH(X)$ is the cardinality of the set $X$. \begin{theorem} {\rm(Theorem~2 in~.)} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a partial cube. Then \begeq \dim_I(G)=|E\slash\hh|, \edeq where $\hh$ is Djokovi\'{c}'s equivalence relation on $E$ and $E\slash\hh$ is the set of its equivalence classes {\rm(}the quotient-set{\rm)}. \end{theorem} The quotient-set $E\slash\hh$ can be identified with the family of all distinct sets $F_{ab}$ (see Section~). If $G$ is a finite partial cube, we may consider it as an isometric subgraph of some hypercube $Q_n$. Then the edges in each family $F_{ab}$ are parallel edges in $Q_n$ (cf. Theorem~). This observation essentially proves~() in the finite case. \vtl Let $G$ be a partial cube on a set $X$. The vertex set of $G$ is a wg-family $\FFF$ of finite subsets of $X$ (see Section~). We define the {\sl retraction} of $\FFF$ as a family $\FFF'$ of subsets of $X'=\cup\,\FFF\setminus\cap\,\FFF$ consisting of the intersections of sets in $\FFF$ with $X'$. It is clear that $\FFF'$ satisfies conditions \begeq \cap\,\FFF'=\es\quad\text{and}\quad\cup\FFF'=X'. \edeq \begin{proposition} The partial cubes induced by a wg-family $\FFF$ and its retraction $\FFF'$ are isomorphic. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} It suffices to prove that metric spaces $\FFF$ and $\FFF'$ are isometric. Clearly, $\aa:P\mapsto P\cap X'$ is a mapping from $\FFF$ onto $\FFF'$. For $P,Q\in\FFF$, we have $$ (P\cap X')\Delta(Q\cap X')=(P\Delta Q)\cap X'=(P\Delta Q)\cap(\cup\FFF\setminus\cap\FFF)=P\Delta Q. $$ Thus, $d(\aa(P),\aa(Q))=d(P,Q)$. Consequently, $\aa$ is an isometry. \end{proof} \vtl Let $G$ be a partial cube on some set $X$ induced by a wg-family $\FFF$ satisfying conditions~(), and let $PQ$ be an edge of $G$. By definition, there is $x\in X$ such that $P\Delta Q=\{x\}$. The following two lemmas are instrumental. \begin{lemma} Let $PQ$ be an edge of a partial cube $G$ on $X$ and let $P\Delta Q=\{x\}$. The two sets $$ \{R\in\FFF: x\in R\}\quad\text{and}\quad\{R\in\FFF: x\notin R\} $$ form the same bipartition of the family $\FFF$ as semicubes $W_{PQ}$ and $W_{QP}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We may assume that $Q=P+\{x\}$. Then, for any $R\in\FFF$, $$ R\Delta Q = R\Delta(P+\{x\}) = \begin{cases} (R\Delta P)+\{x\}, &\text{if $x\in R$,}\\ R\Delta P, &\text{if $x\notin R$.} \end{cases} $$ Hence, $|R\Delta P|<|R\Delta Q|$ if and only if $x\in R$. It follows that $$ W_{PQ}=\{R\in\FFF: x\in R\}. $$ A similar argument shows that $W_{QP}=\{R\in\FFF: x\notin R\}$. \end{proof} \vtl \begin{lemma} If $\FFF$ is a wg-family of sets satisfying conditions~{\rm()}, then for any $x\in X$ there are sets $P,Q\in\FFF$ such that $P\Delta Q=\{x\}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By conditions~, for a given $x\in X$ there are sets $S$ and $T$ in $\FFF$ such that $x\in S$ and $x\notin T$. Let $R_0=S,R_1,\ldots,R_n=T$ be a sequence of sets in $\FFF$ satisfying conditions~(). It is clear that there is $i$ such that $x\in R_i$ and $x\notin R_{i+1}$. Hence, $R_i\Delta R_{i+1}=\{x\}$, so we can choose $P=R_i$ and $Q=R_{i+1}$. \end{proof} \vtl By Lemmas~ and~, there is one-to-one correspondence between the set $X$ and the quotient-set $E\slash\hh$. From Theorem~ we obtain the following result. \vtl \begin{theorem} Let $\FFF$ be a wg-family of finite subsets of a set $X$ such that $\cap\,\FFF=\es$ and $\cup\,\FFF=X$, and let $G$ be a partial cube on $X$ induced by $\FFF$. Then $$ \dim_I(G)=|X|. $$ \end{theorem} \vtl Clearly, a graph which is isometrically embeddable into a partial cube is a partial cube itself. We will show in Section~ (Corollary~) that the integer lattice $\ZZZ^n$ is a partial cube. Thus a graph which is isometrically embeddable into an integer lattice is a partial cube. It follows that a finite graph is a partial cube if and only if it is embeddable in some integer lattice. Examples of infinite partial cubes isometrically embeddable into a finite dimensional integer lattice are found in~. \vtl We call the minimum possible dimension $n$ of an integer lattice $\ZZZ^n$, in which a given graph $G$ is isometrically embeddable, its {\sl lattice dimension} and denote it $\dim_Z(G)$. The lattice dimension of a partial cube can be expressed in terms of maximum matchings in so-called semicube graphs~. \begin{definition} {\rm The {\sl semicube graph} $\text{Sc}(G)$ has all semicubes in $G$ as the set of its vertices. Two vertices $W_{ab}$ and $W_{cd}$ are connected in $\text{Sc}(G)$ if \begin{equation} W_{ab}\cup W_{cd}=V\quad\text{and}\quad W_{ab}\cap W_{cd}\not=\emptyset. \end{equation} } \end{definition} If $G$ is a partial cube, then condition~() is equivalent to each of the two equivalent conditions: \begin{equation} W_{ba}\subset W_{cd}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad W_{dc}\subset W_{ab}, \end{equation} where $\subset$ stands for the proper inclusion. \vtl \begin{theorem} {\rm (Theorem~1 in~.)} Let $G$ be a finite partial cube. Then $$ \dim_Z(G) = \dim_I(G)-|M|, $$ where $M$ is a maximum matching in the semicube graph $\text{{\rm Sc}}(G)$. \end{theorem} \begin{example} {\rm Let $G$ be the graph shown in Figure~. It is easy to see that $$ \dim_I(G)=3\quad\text{and}\quad\dim_Z(G)=2. $$ } \end{example} \begin{example} {\rm Let $T$ be a tree with $n$ edges and $m$ leaves. Then $$ \dim_I(T)=n\quad\text{and}\quad\dim_Z(T)=\lceil m\slash 2\rceil $$ (cf.~ and~, respectively). } \end{example} \begin{example} {\rm For the cycle $C_6$ we have (see Figure~) $$ \dim_I(C_6)=\dim_Z(C_6)=3. $$ } \end{example} \section{Subcubes and Cartesian products} Let $G$ be a partial cube. We say that $G'$ is a {\sl subcube} of $G$ if it is an isometric subgraph of $G$. \vtl Clearly, a subcube is itself a partial cube. The converse does not hold; a subgraph of a graph $G$ can be a partial cube but not an isometric subgraph of $G$ (cf. Example~). \vtl If $G'$ is a subcube of a partial cube $G$, then $\dim_I(G')\leq\dim_I(G)$ and $\dim_Z(G')\leq\dim_Z(G)$. In general, the two inequalities are not strict. For instance, the cycle $C_6$ is an isometric subgraph of the cube $Q_3$ (see Figure~) and $$ \dim_I(C_6)=\dim_Z(C_6)=\dim_I(Q_3)=\dim_Z(Q_3)=3. $$ Semicubes of a partial cube are examples of subcubes. Indeed, by Theorem~, semicubes are convex subgraphs and therefore isometric. In general, the converse is not true; a path connecting two opposite vertices in $C_6$ is an isometric subgraph but not a convex one. \vtl Another common way of constructing new partial cubes from old ones is by forming their Cartesian products (see~ for details and proofs). \begin{definition} {\rm Given two graphs $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$, their {\sl Cartesian product} $$ G=G_1\Box\,G_2 $$ has vertex set $V=V_1\times V_2$; a vertex $u=(u_1,u_2)$ is adjacent to a vertex $v=(v_1,v_2)$ if and only if $u_1v_1\in E_1$ and $u_2=v_2$, or $u_1=v_1$ and $u_2v_2\in E_2$. } \end{definition} The operation $\Box$ is associative, so we can write $$ G=G_1\Box\cdots\Box\,G_n=\prod_{i=1}^n G_i $$ for the Cartesian product of graphs $G_1,\ldots,G_n$. A Cartesian product $\prod_{i=1}^n G_i$ is connected if and only if the factors are connected. Then we have \begeq d_G(u,v)=\sum_{i=1}^n d_{G_i}(u_i,v_i). \edeq \begin{example} {\rm Let $\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n$ be a family of sets and $Y=\sum_{i=1}^n$ be their sum. Then the Cartesian product of the hypercubes $\HHH(X_i)$ is isomorphic to the hypercube $\HHH(Y)$. The isomorphism is established by the mapping $$ f:(P_1,\ldots,P_n)\mapsto \sum_{i=1}^n P_i. $$ } \end{example} Formula~() yields immediately the following results. \begin{proposition} Let $H_i$ be isometric subgraphs of graphs $G_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq n$. Then the Cartesian product $\prod_{i=1}^n H_i$ is an isometric subgraph of the Cartesian product $\prod_{i=1}^n G_i$. \end{proposition} \begin{corollary} The Cartesian product of a finite family of partial cubes is a partial cube. In particular, the integer lattice $\ZZZ^n$ (cf. Examples~ and~) is a partial cube. \end{corollary} The results of the next two theorems can be easily extended to arbitrary finite products of finite partial cubes. \begin{theorem} Let $G=G_1\Box\,G_2$ be the Cartesian product of two finite partial cubes. Then $$ \dim_I(G)=\dim_I(G_1)+\dim_I(G_2). $$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We may assume that $G_1$ (resp. $G_2$) is induced by a wg-family $\FFF_1$ (resp. $\FFF_2$) of subsets of a finite set $X_1$ (resp. $X_2$) such that $\cap\,\FFF_1=\es$ and $\cup\,\FFF_1= X_1$ (resp. $\cap\,\FFF_2=\es$ and $\cup\,\FFF_2= X_1$) (see Section~). By Theorem~, $$ \dim_I(G_1)=|X_1|\quad\text{and}\quad\dim_I(G_2)=|X_2|. $$ It is clear that the graph $G$ is induced by the wg-family $\FFF=\FFF_1+\FFF_2$ of subsets of the set $X=X_1+X_2$ (cf. Example~) with $\cap\,\FFF=\es,\;\cup\,\FFF= X$. By Theorem~, $$ \dim_I(G)=|X|=|X_1|+|X_2|=\dim_I(G_1)+\dim_I(G_2). $$ \end{proof} \begin{theorem} Let $G=(V,E)$ be the Cartesian product of two finite partial cubes $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$. Then $$ \dim_Z(G)=\dim_Z(G_1)+\dim_Z(G_2). $$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $W_{(a,b)(c,d)}$ be a semicube of the graph $G$. There are two possible cases: \vtl (i) $c=a,\;bd\in E_2$. Let $(x,y)$ be a vertex of G. Then, by~(), $$ d_G((x,y),(a,b))=d_{G_1}(x,a)+d_{G_2}(y,b) $$ and $$ d_G((x,y),(c,d))=d_{G_1}(x,c)+d_{G_2}(y,d). $$ Hence, $$ d_G((x,y),(a,b))<d_G((x,y),(c,d))\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad d_{G_2}(y,b)<d_{G_2}(y,d). $$ It follows that \begeq W_{(a,b)(c,d)}=V_1\times W_{bd}. \edeq \vtl (ii) $d=b,\;ac\in E_1$. Like in (i), we have \begeq W_{(a,b)(c,d)}=W_{ac}\times V_2. \edeq \vtl Clearly, two semicubes given by~() form an edge in the semicube graph $\text{Sc}(G)$ if and only if their second factors form an edge in the semicube graph $\text{Sc}(G_2)$. The same is true for semicubes in the form~() with respect to their first factors. It is also clear that semicubes in the form~() and in the form~() are not connected by an edge in $\text{Sc}(G)$. Therefore the semicube graph $\text{Sc}(G)$ is isomorphic to the disjoint union of semicube graphs $\text{Sc}(G_1)$ and $\text{Sc}(G_2)$. If $M_1$ is a maximum matching in $\text{Sc}(G_1)$ and $M_2$ is a maximum matching in $\text{Sc}(G_2)$, then $M=M_1\cup M_2$ is a maximum matching in $\text{Sc}(G)$. The result follows from theorems~ and~. \end{proof} \begin{remark} {\rm The result of Corollary~ does not hold for infinite Cartesian products of partial cubes, as these products are disconnected. On the other hand, it can be shown that arbitrary {\sl weak} Cartesian products (connected components of Cartesian products~) of partial cubes are partial cubes. } \end{remark} \section{Pasting partial cubes} In this section we use the set pasting technique~\cite[ch.I, \S2.5]{nB66} to build new partial cubes from old ones. \vtl Let $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$ be two graphs, $H_1=(U_1,F_1)$ and $H_2=(U_2,F_2)$ be two isomorphic subgraphs of $G_1$ and $G_2$, respectively, and $\psi:U_1\rightarrow U_2$ be a bijection defining an isomorphism between $H_1$ and $H_2$. The bijection $\psi$ defines an equivalence relation $R$ on the sum $V_1+V_2$ as follows: any element in $(V_1\setminus U_1)\cup(V_2\setminus U_2)$ is equivalent to itself only and elements $u_1\in U_1$ and $u_2\in U_2$ are equivalent if and only if $u_2=\psi(u_1)$. We say that the quotient set $V=(V_1+V_2)\slash R$ is obtained by {\sl pasting together the sets $V_1$ and $V_2$ along the subsets $U_1$ and $U_2$}. Since the graphs $H_1$ and $H_2$ are isomorphic, the pasting of the sets $V_1$ and $V_2$ can be naturally extended to a pasting of sets of edges $E_1$ and $E_2$ resulting in the set $E$ of edges joining vertices in $V$. We say that the graph $G=(E,V)$ is obtained by {\sl pasting together the graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ along the isomorphic subgraphs $H_1$ and $H_2$}. The pasting construction allows for identifying in a natural way the graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ with subgraphs of $G$, and the isomorphic graphs $H_1$ and $H_2$ with a common subgraph $H$ of both graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$. We often follow this convention below. \begin{remark} {\rm Note that in the above construction the resulting graph $G$ depends not only on graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ and their isomorphic subgraphs $H_1$ and $H_2$ but also on the bijection $\psi$ defining an isomorphism from $H_1$ onto $H_2$ (see the drawings in Figures~ and~). } \end{remark} { } { } In general, pasting of two partial cubes $G_1$ and $G_2$ along two isomorphic subgraphs $H_1$ and $H_2$ does not produce a partial cube even under strong assumptions about these subgraphs as the next example illustrates. { } \begin{example} {\rm Pasting of two partial cubes $G_1=C_6$ and $G_2=C_6$ along subgraphs $H_1$ and $H_2$ is shown in Figure~. The resulting graph $G$ is not a partial cube. Indeed, the semicube $W_{ab}$ is not a convex set. Note that subgraphs $H_1$ and $H_2$ are convex subgraphs of the respective partial cubes. } \end{example} In this section we study two simple pastings of connected graphs together, the vertex-pasting and the edge-pasting, and show that these pastings produce partial cubes from partial cubes. We also compute the isometric and lattice dimensions of the resulting graphs. \vtl Let $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$ be two connected graphs, $a_1\in V_1$, $a_2\in V_2$, and $H_1=(\{a_1\},\es),\;H_2=(\{a_2\},\es)$. Let $G$ be the graph obtained by pasting $G_1$ and $G_2$ along subgraphs $H_1$ and $H_2$. In this case we say that the graph $G$ is obtained from graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ by {\sl vertex-pasting}. We also say that $G$ is obtained from $G_1$ and $G_2$ by {\sl identifying} vertices $a_1$ and $a_2$. Figure~ illustrates this construction. Note that the vertex $a=\{a_1,a_2\}$ is a cut vertex of $G$, since $G_1\cup G_2=G$ and $G_1\cap G_2=\{a\}$. (We follow our convention and identify graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ with subgraphs of $G$.) { } In what follows we use superscripts to distinguish subgraphs of the graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$. For instance, $W^{(2)}_{ab}$ stands for the semicube of $G_2$ defined by two adjacent vertices $a,b\in V_2$. \begin{theorem} A graph $G=(V,E)$ obtained by vertex-pasting from partial cubes $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$ is a partial cube. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We denote $a=\{a_1,a_2\}$ the vertex of $G$ obtained by identifying vertices $a_1\in V_1$ and $a_2\in V_2$. Clearly, $G$ is a bipartite graph. Let $xy$ be an edge of $G$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $xy\in E_1$ and $a\in W_{xy}$. Note that any path between vertices in $V_1$ and $V_2$ must go through $a$. Since $a\in W_{xy}$, we have, for any $v\in V_2$, $$ d(v,x)=d(v,a)+d(a,x)<d(v,a)+d(a,y)=d(v,y), $$ which implies $V_2\SB W_{xy}$ and $W_{yx}\SB V_1$. It follows that $W_{xy}=W^{(1)}_{xy}\cup V_2$ and $W_{yx}=W^{(1)}_{yx}$. The sets $W^{(1)}_{xy},\;W^{(1)}_{yx}$ and $V_2$ are convex subsets of $V$. Since $W^{(1)}_{xy}\cap V_2=\{a\}$, the set $W_{xy}=W^{(1)}_{xy}\cup V_2$ is also convex. By Theorem~(ii), the graph $G$ is a partial cube. \end{proof} \vtl The vertex-pasting construction introduced above can be generalized as follows. Let $\GGG=\{G_i=(V_i,E_i)\}_{i\in J}$ be a family of connected graphs and $\AAA=\{a_i\in G_i\}_{i\in J}$ be a family of distinguished vertices of these graphs. Let $G$ be the graph obtained from the graphs $G_i$ by identifying vertices in the set $\AAA$. We say that $G$ is obtained by {\sl vertex-pasting together the graphs $G_i$} (along the set $\AAA$). \begin{example} {\rm Let $J=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with $n\geq 2$, $$ \GGG=\{G_i=(\{a_i,b_i\},\{a_ib_i\})\}_{i\in J},\quad\text{and}\quad\AAA=\{a_i\}_{i\in J}. $$ Clearly, each $G_i$ is $K_2$. By vertex-pasting these graphs along $\AAA$, we obtain the $n$-star graph $K_{1,n}$. } \end{example} Since the star $K_{1,n}$ is a tree it can be also obtained from $K_1$ by successive vertex-pasting as in Example~. \begin{example} {\rm Let $G_1$ be a tree and $G_2=K_2$. By vertex-pasting these graphs we obtain a new tree. Conversely, let $G$ be a tree and $v$ be its leaf. Let $G_1$ be a tree obtained from $G$ by deleting the leaf $v$. Clearly, $G$ can be obtained by vertex-pasting $G_1$ and $K_2$. It follows that any tree can obtained from the graph $K_1$ by successive vertex-pasting of copies of $K_2$ (cf. Theorem~2.3(e) in~). } \end{example} Any connected graph $G$ can be constructed by successive vertex-pasting of its blocks using its {\sl block cut-vertex tree}~ structure. Let $G_1$ be an endblock of $G$ with a cut vertex $v$ and $G_2$ be the union of the remaining blocks of $G$. Then $G$ can be obtained from $G_1$ and $G_2$ by vertex-pasting along the vertex $v$. It follows that any connected graph can be obtained from its blocks by successive vertex-pastings. \vtl Let $G=(V,E)$ be a partial cube. We recall that the isometric dimension $\dim_I(G)$ of $G$ is the cardinality of the quotient set $E\slash\hh$, where $\hh$ is Djokovi\'{c}'s equivalence relation on the set $E$ (cf. formula~()). \begin{theorem} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a partial cube obtained by vertex-pasting together partial cubes $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$. Then $$ \dim_I(G)=\dim_I(G_1)+\dim_I(G_2). $$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} It suffices to prove that there are no edges $xy\in E_1$ and $uv\in E_2$ which are in Djokovi\'{c}'s relation $\hh$ with each other. Suppose that $G_1$ and $G_2$ are vertex-pasted along vertices $a_1\in E_1$ and $a_2\in E_2$ and let $a=\{a_1,a_2\}\in E$. Let $xy\in E_1$ and $uv\in E_2$ be two edges in $E$. We may assume that $u\in W_{xy}$. Since $a$ is a cut-vertex of $G$ and $u\in W_{xy}$, we have $$ d(u,a)+d(a,x)=d(u,x)<d(u,y)=d(u,a)+d(a,y). $$ Hence, $d(a,x)<d(a,y)$, which implies $$ d(v,x)=d(v,a)+d(a,x)<d(v,a)+d(a,y)=d(v,y). $$ It follows that $v\in W_{xy}$. Therefore the edge $xy$ does not stand in the relation $\hh$ to the vertex $uv$. \end{proof} The next result follows immediately from the previous theorem. Note that blocks of a partial cube are partial cubes themselves. \begin{corollary} Let $G$ be a partial cube and $\{G_1,\ldots,G_n\}$ be the family of its blocks. Then $$ \dim_I(G)=\sum_{i=1}^n\dim_I(G_i). $$ \end{corollary} \vtl In the case of the lattice dimension of a partial cube we can claim only much weaker result than one stated in Theorem~ for the isometric dimension. We omit the proof. \begin{theorem} Let $G$ be a partial cube obtained by vertex-pasting together partial cubes $G_1$ and $G_2$. Then $$ \max\{\dim_Z(G_1),\dim_Z(G_2)\}\leq\dim_Z(G)\leq\dim_Z(G_1)+\dim_Z(G_2). $$ \end{theorem} The following example illustrate possible cases for inequalities in Theorem~. Let us recall that the lattice dimension of a tree with $m$ leaves is $\lceil m\slash 2\rceil$ (cf.~). \begin{example} {\rm The star $K_{1,6}$ can be obtained from the stars $K_{1,2}$ and $K_{1,4}$ by vertex-pasting these two stars along their centers. Clearly, $$ \max\{\dim_Z(K_{1,2}),\dim_Z(K_{1,4})\}<\dim_Z(K_{1,6})=\dim_Z(K_{1,2})+\dim_Z(K_{1,4}). $$ The same star $K_{1,6}$ is obtained from two copies of the star $K_{1,3}$ by vertex-pasting along their centers. We have $\dim_Z(K_{1,3})=2,\;\dim_Z(K_{1,6})=3$, so $$ \max\{\dim_Z(K_{1,3}),\dim_Z(K_{1,3})\}<\dim_Z(K_{1,6})<\dim_Z(K_{1,3})+\dim_Z(K_{1,3}). $$ Let us vertex-paste two stars $K_{1,3}$ along their two leaves. The resulting graph $T$ is a tree with four vertices. Therefore, $$ \max\{\dim_Z(K_{1,3}),\dim_Z(K_{1,3})\}=\dim_Z(T)<\dim_Z(K_{1,3})+\dim_Z(K_{1,3}). $$ } \end{example} \vtl We now consider another simple way of pasting two graphs together. \vtl Let $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$ be two connected graphs, $a_1b_1\in E_1$, $a_2b_2\in E_2$, and $H_1=(\{a_1,b_1\},\{a_1b_1\}),\;H_2=(\{a_2,b_2\},\{a_2b_2\})$. Let $G$ be the graph obtained by pasting $G_1$ and $G_2$ along subgraphs $H_1$ and $H_2$. In this case we say that the graph $G$ is obtained from graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ by {\sl edge-pasting}. Figures~,~, and~ illustrate this construction. { } As before, we identify the graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ with subgraphs of the graph $G$ and denote $a=\{a_1,a_2\},\;b=\{b_1,b_2\}$ the two vertices obtained by pasting together vertices $a_1$ and $a_2$ and, respectively, $b_1$ and $b_2$. The edge $ab\in E$ is obtained by pasting together edges $a_1b_1\in E_1$ and $a_2b_2\in E_2$ (cf. Figure~). Then $G=G_1\cup G_2,\;V_1\cap V_2=\{a,b\}$ and $E_1\cap E_2=\{ab\}$. We use these notations in the rest of this section. \begin{proposition} A graph $G$ obtained by edge-pasting together bipartite graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ is bipartite. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Let $C$ be a cycle in $G$. If $C\SB G_1$ or $C\SB G_2$, then the length of $C$ is even, since the graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ are bipartite. Otherwise, the vertices $a$ and $b$ separate $C$ into two paths each of odd length. Therefore $C$ is a cycle of even length. The result follows. \end{proof} \vtl The following lemma is instrumental; it describes the semicubes of the graph $G$ in terms of semicubes of graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$. \begin{lemma} Let $uv$ be an edge of $G$. Then \roster \item[{\rm(i)}] For $uv\in E_1,\quad$$a,b\in W_{uv}\quad\imp\quad W_{uv}=W_{uv}^{(1)}\cup V_2,\;W_{vu}=W_{vu}^{(1)}$. \item[{\rm(ii)}] For $uv\in E_2,\quad$$a,b\in W_{uv}\quad\imp\quad W_{uv}=W_{uv}^{(2)}\cup V_1,\;W_{vu}=W_{vu}^{(2)}$. \item[{\rm(iii)}] $a\in W_{uv}$, $b\in W_{vu}\quad\imp\quad W_{uv}=W_{ab}$. \endroster \end{lemma} { } \begin{proof} We prove parts (i) and (iii) (see Figure~). \vtl (i) Since any path from $w\in V_2$ to $u$ or $v$ contains $a$ or $b$ and $a,b\in W_{uv}$, we have $w\in W_{uv}$. Hence, $W_{uv}=W_{uv}^{(1)}\cup V_2$ and $W_{vu}=W_{vu}^{(1)}$. \vtl (iii) Since $ab\,\hh\,uv$ in $G_1$, we have $W^{(1)}_{uv}=W^{(1)}_{ab}$, by Theorem~(iv). Let $w$ be a vertex in $W^{(2)}_{uv}$. Then, by the triangle inequality, $$ d(w,u)<d(w,v)\leq d(w,b)+d(b,v)<d(w,b)+d(b,u). $$ Since any shortest path from $w$ to $u$ contains $a$ or $b$, we have $$ d(w,a)+d(a,u)=d(w,u). $$ Therefore, $$ d(w,a)+d(a,u)<d(w,b)+d(b,u). $$ Since $ab\,\hh\,uv$ in $G_1$, we have $d(a,u)=d(b,v)$, by Theorem~. It follows that $d(w,a)<d(w,b)$, that is, $w\in W^{(2)}_{ab}$. We proved that $W^{(2)}_{uv}\SB W^{(2)}_{ab}$. By symmetry, $W^{(2)}_{vu}\SB W^{(2)}_{ba}$. Since two opposite semicubes form a partition of $V_2$, we have $W^{(2)}_{uv}=W^{(2)}_{ab}$. The result follows. \end{proof} \begin{theorem} A graph $G$ obtained by edge-pasting together partial cubes $G_1$ and $G_2$ is a partial cube. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} By Theorem~(ii) and Proposition~, we need to show that for any edge $uv$ of $G$ the semicube $W_{uv}$ is a convex subset of $V$. There are two possible cases. \vtl (i) $uv=ab$. The semicube $W_{ab}$ is the union of semicubes $W^{(1)}_{ab}$ and $W^{(2)}_{ab}$ which are convex subsets of $V_1$ and $V_2$, respectively. It is clear that any shortest path connecting a vertex in $W^{(1)}_{ab}$ with a vertex in $W^{(2)}_{ab}$ contains vertex $a$ and therefore is contained in $W_{ab}$. Hence, $W_{ab}$ is a convex set. A similar argument proves that the set $W_{ba}$ is convex. \vtl (ii) $uv\not=ab$. We may assume that $uv\in E_1$. To prove that the semicube $W_{uv}$ is a convex set, we consider two cases. \vtl (a) $a,b\in W_{uv}$. (The case when $a,b\in W_{vu}$ is treated similarly.) By Lemma~(i), the semicube $W_{uv}$ is the union of the semicube $W^{(1)}_{uv}$ and the set $V_2$ which are both convex sets. Any shortest path $P$ from a vertex in $V_2$ to a vertex in $W^{(1)}_{uv}$ contains either $a$ or $b$. It follows that $P\SB W_{uv}^{(1)}\cup V_2=W_{uv}$. Therefore the semicube $W_{uv}$ is convex. \vtl (b) $a\in W_{uv}$, $b\in W_{vu}$. (The case when $b\in W_{uv}$, $a\in W_{vu}$ is treated similarly.) By Lemma~(ii), $W_{uv}=W_{ab}$. The result follows from part (i) of the proof. \end{proof} \vtl \begin{theorem} Let $G$ be a graph obtained by edge-pasting together finite partial cubes $G_1$ and $G_2$. Then $$ \dim_I(G)=\dim_I(G_1)+\dim_I(G_2)-1. $$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $\hh$, $\hh_1$, and $\hh_2$ be Djokovi\'{c}'s relations on $E$, $E_1$, and $E_2$, respectively. By Lemma~, for $uv,xy\in E_1$ (resp. $uv,xy\in E_2$) we have $$ uv\,\hh\,xy\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad uv\,\hh_1 xy\quad\text{(resp. $uv\,\hh\,xy\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad uv\,\hh_2 xy$).} $$ Let $uv\in E_1$, $xy\in E_2$, and $uv\,\hh \,xy$. Suppose that $(uv,ab)\notin\hh$. We may assume that $a,b\in W_{uv}$. By Lemma~(i), $V_2\subset W_{uv}$, a contradiction, since $xy\in E_2$. Hence, $uv\,\hh\,xy\,\hh\,ab$. It follows that each equivalence class of the relation $\hh$ is either an equivalence class of $\hh_1$, an equivalence class of $\hh_2$ or the class containing the edge $ab$. Therefore $$ |E\slash\hh|=|E_1\slash\hh_1|+|E_2\slash\hh_2|-1. $$ The result follows, since the isometric dimension of a partial cube is equal to the cardinality of the set of equivalence classes of Djokovi\'{c}'s relation (formula~()). \end{proof} We need some results about semicube graphs in order to prove an analog of Theorem~ for a partial cube obtained by edge-pasting of two partial cubes. \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be a partial cube and $W_{pq}W_{uv},\;W_{qp}W_{xy}$ be two edges in the graph $\text{Sc}(G)$. Then $W_{xy}W_{uv}$ is an edge in $\text{Sc}(G)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By condition~(), $W_{qp}\subset W_{uv}$ and $W_{yx}\subset W_{qp}$. Hence, $W_{yx}\subset W_{uv}$. By the same condition, $W_{xy}W_{uv}\in\text{Sc}(G)$. \end{proof} \vtl As before, we identify partial cubes $G_1$ and $G_2$ with subgraphs of the partial cube $G$. Then $G_1\cup G_2=G$ and $G_1\cap G_2=(\{a,b\},\{ab\})=K_2$ (cf.~Figure~). \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be a partial cube obtained by edge-pasting together partial cubes $G_1$ and $G_2$. Let $W_{uv}^{(1)}W_{xy}^{(1)}$ {\rm(}resp. $W_{uv}^{(2)}W_{xy}^{(2)}${\rm)} be an edge in the semicube $\text{Sc}(G_1)$ {\rm(}resp. $\text{Sc}(G_2)${\rm)}. Then $W_{uv}W_{xy}$ is an edge in $\text{Sc}(G)$. \end{lemma} { } \begin{proof} It suffices to consider the case of $\text{Sc}(G_1)$ (see Figure~). By condition~(), $W_{vu}^{(1)}\subset W_{xy}^{(1)}$ and $W_{yx}^{(1)}\subset W_{uv}^{(1)}$. Suppose that $a\in W_{vu}^{(1)}$ and $b\in W_{yx}^{(1)}$ (the case when $b\in W_{vu}^{(1)}$ and $a\in W_{yx}^{(1)}$ is treated similarly). Then $ab\,\hh_1 xy$ and $ab\,\hh_1 uv$. By transitivity of $\hh_1$, we have $uv\,\hh_1 xy$, a contradiction, since semicubes $W_{uv}^{(1)}$ and $W_{xy}^{(1)}$ are distinct. Therefore we may assume that, say, $a,b\in W_{uv}^{(1)}$. Then, by Lemma~, $W_{vu}=W_{vu}^{(1)}\subset V_1$. Since $W_{vu}^{(1)}\subset W_{xy}^{(1)}\SB W_{xy}$, we have $W_{vu}\subset W_{xy}$. By condition~(), $W_{uv}W_{xy}$ is an edge in $\text{Sc}(G)$. \end{proof} \vtl \begin{lemma} Let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be matchings in graphs $\text{Sc}(G_1)$ and $\text{Sc}(G_2)$. There is a matching $M$ in $\text{Sc}(G)$ such that $$ |M|\geq |M_1|+|M_2|-1. $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By Lemma~, $M_1$ and $M_2$ induce matchings in $\text{Sc}(G)$ which we denote by the same symbols. The intersection $M_1\cap M_2$ is either empty or a subgraph of the empty graph with vertices $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$. If $M_1\cap M_2$ is empty, then $M=M_1\cup M_2$ is a matching in $\text{Sc}(G)$ and the result follows. If $M_1\cap M_2$ is an empty graph with a single vertex, say, in $M_1$, we remove from $M_1$ the edge that has this vertex as its end vertex, resulting in the matching $M'_1$. Clearly, $M=M'_1\cup M_2$ is a matching in $\text{Sc}(G)$ and $|M|=|M_1|+|M_2|-1$. Suppose now that $M_1\cap M_2$ is the empty graph with vertices $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$. Let $W_{ab}W_{uv},\;W_{ba}W_{pq}$ (resp. $W_{ab}W_{xy},\;W_{ba}W_{rs}$) be edges in $M_1$ (resp. $M_2$). By Lemma~, $W_{xy}W_{rs}$ is an edge in $\text{Sc}(G_2)$. Let us replace edges $W_{ab}W_{xy}$ and $W_{ba}W_{rs}$ in $M_2$ by a single edge $W_{xy}W_{rs}$, resulting in the matching $M'_2$. Then $M=M_1\cup M'_2$ is a matching in $\text{Sc}(G)$ and $|M|=|M_1|+|M_2|-1$. \end{proof} \vtl \begin{corollary} Let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be maximum matchings in $\text{Sc}(G_1)$ and $\text{Sc}(G_2)$, respectively, and $M$ be a maximum matching in $\text{Sc}(G)$. Then \begeq |M|\geq |M_1|+|M_2|-1. \edeq \end{corollary} \vtl By Theorem~, we have $$ \dim_I(G_1)=\dim_Z(G_1)+|M_1|,\quad \dim_I(G_2)=\dim_Z(G_2)+|M_2|, $$ and $$ \dim_I(G)=\dim_Z(G)+|M|, $$ where $M_1$ and $M_2$ are maximum matchings in $\text{Sc}(G_1)$ and $\text{Sc}(G_2)$, respectively, and $M$ is a maximum matching in $\text{Sc}(G)$. Therefore, by Theorem~ and~(), we have the following result (cf. Theorem~). \begin{theorem} Let $G$ be a partial cube obtained by edge-pasting from partial cubes $G_1$ and $G_2$. Then $$ \max\{\dim_Z(G_1),\dim_Z(G_2)\}\leq\dim_Z(G)\leq\dim_Z(G_1)+\dim_Z(G_2). $$ \end{theorem} \vtl \begin{example} {\rm Let us consider two edge-pastings of the stars $G_1=K_{1,3}$ and $G_2=K_{1,3}$ of lattice dimension $2$ shown in figures~ and~. In the first case the resulting graph is the star $G=K_{1,5}$ of lattice dimension $3$. Then we have $$ \max\{\dim_Z(G_1),\dim_Z(G_2)\}<\dim_Z(G)<\dim_Z(G_1)+\dim_Z(G_2). $$ In the second case the resulting graph is a tree with $4$ leaves. Therefore, $$ \max\{\dim_Z(G_1),\dim_Z(G_2)\}=\dim_Z(G)<\dim_Z(G_1)+\dim_Z(G_2). $$ Let $c_1a_1$ and $c_2a_2$ be edges of stars $G_1=K_{1,4}$ and $G_2=K_{1,4}$ (each of which has lattice dimension $2$), where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are centers of the respective stars. Let us edge-paste these two graphs by identifying $c_1$ with $c_2$ and $a_1$ with $a_2$, respectively. The resulting graph $G$ is the star $K_{1,7}$ of lattice dimension $4$. Thus, $$ \max\{\dim_Z(G_1),\dim_Z(G_2)\}\leq\dim_Z(G)=\dim_Z(G_1)+\dim_Z(G_2). $$ } \end{example} \section{Expansions and contractions of partial cubes} The graph expansion procedure was introduced by Mulder in~, where it is shown that a graph is a median graph if and only if it can be obtained from $K_1$ by a sequence of convex expansions (see also~). A similar result for partial cubes was established in~ (see also~) as a corollary to a more general result concerning isometric embeddability into Hamming graphs; it was also established in~ in the framework of oriented matroids theory. \vtl In this section we investigate properties of (isometric) expansion and contraction operations and, in particular, prove in two different ways that a graph is a partial cube if and only if it can be obtained from the graph $K_1$ by a sequence of expansions. \vtl A remark about notations is in order. In the product $\{1,2\}\times (V_1\cup V_2)$, we denote $V'_i=\{i\}\times V_i$ and $x^i=(i,x)$ for $x\in V_i$, where $i,j=1,2$. \begin{definition} {\rm Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph, and let $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$ be two isometric subgraphs of $G$ such that $G=G_1\cup G_2$. The {\sl expansion of $G$ with respect to $G_1$ and $G_2$} is the graph $G'=(V',E')$ constructed as follows from $G$ (see Figure~): \roster \item[(i)] $V'=V_1+V_2=V'_1\cup V'_2$; \item[(ii)] $E'=E_1+E_2+M$, where $M$ is the matching $\bigcup_{x\in V_1\cap V_2}\{x^1x^2\}$. \endroster In this case, we also say that $G$ is a {\sl contraction} of $G'$. } \end{definition} { } It is clear that the graphs $G_1$ and $\langle V'_1\rangle$ are isomorphic, as well as the graphs $G_2$ and $\langle V'_2\rangle$. \vtl We define a {\sl projection} $p:V'\rightarrow V$ by $p(x^i)=x$ for $x\in V$. Clearly, the restriction of $p$ to $V'_1$ is a bijection $p_1:V'_1\rightarrow V_1$ and its restriction to $V'_2$ is a bijection $p_2:V'_2\rightarrow V_2$. These bijections define isomorphisms $\langle V'_1\rangle\rightarrow G_1$ and $\langle V'_2\rangle\rightarrow G_2$. \vtl Let $P'$ be a path in $G'$. The vertices of $G$ obtained from the vertices in $P'$ under the projection $p$ define a walk $P$ in $G$; we call this walk $P$ the {\sl projection} of the path $P'$. It is clear that \begeq \ell(P)=\ell(P'),\quad\text{if $P'\SB\langle V'_1\rangle$ or $P'\SB\langle V'_2\rangle$.} \edeq In this case, $P$ is a path in $G$ and either $P=p_1(P')$ or $P=p_2(P')$. On the other hand, \begeq \ell(P)<\ell(P'),\quad\text{if $P'\cap\langle V'_1\rangle\not=\es$ and $P'\cap\langle V'_2\rangle\not=\es$,} \edeq and $P$ is not necessarily a path. \vtl We will frequently use the results of the following lemma in this section. \begin{lemma} {\rm(i)} For $u^1,v^1\in V'_1$, any shortest path $P_{u^1v^1}$ in $G'$ belongs to $\langle V'_1\rangle$ and its projection $P_{uv}=p_1(P_{u^1v^1})$ is a shortest path in $G$. Accordingly, $$ d_{G'}(u^1,v^1)=d_G(u,v) $$ and $\langle V'_1\rangle$ is a convex subgraph of $G'$. A similar statement holds for $u^2,v^2\in V'_2$. \vtl {\rm(ii)} For $u^1\in V'_1$ and $v^2\in V'_2$, $$ d_{G'}(u^1,v^2)=d_G(u,v)+1. $$ Let $P_{u^1v^2}$ be a shortest path in $G'$. There is a unique edge $x^1x^2\in M$ such that $x^1,x^2\in P_{u^1v^2}$ and the sections $P_{u^1x^1}$ and $P_{x^2v^2}$ of the path $P_{u^1v^2}$ are shortest paths in $\langle V'_1\rangle$ and $\langle V'_2\rangle$, respectively. The projection $P_{uv}$ of $P_{u^1v^2}$ in $G'$ is a shortest path in $G$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} (i) Let $P_{u^1v^1}$ be a path in $G'$ that intersects $V'_2$. Since $\langle V_1\rangle$ is an isometric subgraph of $G$, there is a path $P_{uv}$ in $G$ that belongs to $\langle V_1\rangle$. Then $p_1^{-1}(P_{uv})$ is a path in $\langle V'_1\rangle$ of the same length as $P_{uv}$. By~() and~(), $$ \ell(p_1^{-1}(P_{uv}))<\ell(P_{u^1v^1}). $$ Therefore any shortest path $P_{u^1v^1}$ in $G'$ belongs to $\langle V'_1\rangle$. The result follows. \vtl (ii) Let $P_{u^1v^2}$ be a shortest path in $G'$ and $P_{uv}$ be its projection to $V$. By~(), $$ d_{G'}(u^1,v^2)=\ell(P_{u^1v^2})>\ell(P_{uv})\geq d_G(u,v). $$ Since there is no edge of $G$ joining vertices in $V_1\setminus V_2$ and $V_2\setminus V_1$, a shortest path in $G$ from $u$ to $v$ must contain a vertex $x\in V_1\cap V_2$. Since $G_1$ and $G_2$ are isometric subgraphs, there are shortest paths $P_{ux}$ in $G_1$ and $P_{xv}$ in $G_2$ such that their union is a shortest path from $u$ to $v$. Then, by the triangle inequality and part (i) of the proof, we have (cf. Figure~) $$ d_{G'}(u^1,v^2)\leq d_{G'}(u^1,x^1)+d_{G'}(x^1,x^2)+d_{G'}(x^2,v^2)=d_G(u,v)+1. $$ The last two displayed formulas imply $d_{G'}(u^1,v^2)=d_G(u,v)+1$. Since $u^1\in V'_1$ and $v^2\in V'_2$ the path $P_{u^1v^2}$ must contain an edge, say $x^1x^2$, in $M$. Since this path is a shortest path in $G'$, this edge is unique. Then the sections $P_{u^1x^1}$ and $P_{x^2v^2}$ of $P_{u^1v^2}$ are shortest paths in $\langle V'_1\rangle$ and $\langle V'_2\rangle$, respectively. Clearly, $P_{uv}$ is a shortest path in $G$. \end{proof} \vtl Let $a^1a^2$ be an edge in the matching $M=\cup_{x\in V_1\cap V_2}\{x^1x^2\}$. This edge defines five fundamental sets (cf. Section~): the semicubes $W_{a^1a^2}$ and $W_{a^2a^1}$, the sets of vertices $U_{a^1a^2}$ and $U_{a^2a^1}$, and the set of edges $F_{a^1a^2}$. The next theorem follows immediately from Lemma~. It gives a hint to a connection between the expansion process and partial cubes. \begin{theorem} Let $G'$ be an expansion of a connected graph $G$ and notations are chosen as above. Then \roster \item[{\rm(i)}] $W_{a^1a^2}=V'_1$ and $W_{a^2a^1}=V'_2$ are convex semicubes of $G'$. \item[{\rm(ii)}] $F_{a^1a^2}=M$ defines an isomorphism between induced subgraphs $\langle U_{a^1a^2}\rangle$ and $\langle U_{a^2a^1}\rangle$, which are isomorphic to the subgraph $G_1\cap G_2$. \endroster \end{theorem} The result of Theorem~ justifies the following constructive definition of the contraction process. \begin{definition} {\rm Let $ab$ be an edge of a connected graph $G'=(V',E')$ such that \roster \item[(i)] semicubes $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$ are convex and form a partition of $V'$; \item[(ii)] the set $F_{ab}$ is a matching and defines an isomorphism between subgraphs $\langle U_{ab}\rangle$ and $\langle U_{ba}\rangle$. \endroster A graph $G$ obtained from the graphs $\langle W_{ab}\rangle$ and $\langle W_{ba}\rangle$ by pasting them along subgraphs $\langle U_{ab}\rangle$ and $\langle U_{ba}\rangle$ is said to be a {\sl contraction} of the graph $G'$. } \end{definition} \begin{remark} {\rm If $G'$ is bipartite, then semicubes $W_{ab}$ and $W_{ba}$ form a partition of its vertex set. Then, by Theorem~, condition (i) implies condition (ii). Thus any pair of opposite convex semicubes in a connected bipartite graph defines a contraction of this graph. } \end{remark} By Theorem~, a graph is a contraction of its expansion. It is not difficult to see that any connected graph is also an expansion of its contraction. \vtl The following three examples give geometric illustrations for the expansion and contraction procedures. \begin{example} {\rm Let $a$ and $b$ be two opposite vertices in the graph $G=C_4$. Clearly, the two distinct paths $P_1$ and $P_2$ from $a$ to $b$ are isometric subgraphs of $G$ defining an expansion $G'=C_6$ of $G$ (see Figure~). Note that $P_1$ and $P_2$ are not convex subsets of $V$. } \end{example} { } { } \begin{example} {\rm Another isometric expansion of the graph $G=C_4$ is shown in Figure~. Here, the path $P_1$ is the same as in the previous example and $G_2=G$. } \end{example} \begin{example} {\rm Lemma~ claims, in particular, that the projection of a shortest path in an extension $G'$ of a graph $G$ is a shortest path in $G$. Generally speaking, the converse is not true. Consider the graph $G$ shown in Figure~ and two paths in $G$: $$ V_1=abcef\quad\text{and}\quad V_2=bde. $$ The graph $G'$ in Figure~ is the convex expansion of $G$ with respect to $V_1$ and $V_2$. The path $abde\!f$ is a shortest path in $G$; it is not a projection of a shortest path in $G'$. } \end{example} { } One can say that, in the case of finite partial cubes, the contraction procedure is defined by an orthogonal projection of a hypercube onto one of its facets. \vtl By Theorem~, the sets $V'_1$ and $V'_2$ are opposite semicubes of the graph $G'$ defined by edges in $M$. Their projections are the sets $V_1$ and $V_2$ which are not necessarily semicubes of $G$. For other semicubes in $G'$ we have the following result. \begin{lemma} For any two adjacent vertices $u,v\in V$, $$ W_{u^iv^i}=p^{-1}(W_{uv})\quad\text{for $u,v\in V_i$ and $i=1,2$.} $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By Lemma~, $$ d_{G'}(x^j,u^i)<d_{G'}(x^j,v^i)\quad\eq\quad d_G(x,u)<d_G(x,v) $$ for $x\in V$ and $i,j=1,2$. The result follows. \end{proof} \vtl \begin{corollary} If $uv$ is an edge of $G_1\cap G_2$, then $W_{u^1v^1}=W_{u^2v^2}$. \end{corollary} The following lemma is an immediate consequence of Lemma~. We shall use it implicitly in our arguments later. \begin{lemma} Let $u,v\in V_1$ and $x\in V_1\cap V_2$. Then $$ x^1\in W_{u^1v^1}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad x^2\in W_{u^1v^1}. $$ The same result holds for semicubes in the form $W_{u^2v^2}$. \end{lemma} Generally speaking, the projection of a convex subgraph of $G'$ is not a convex subgraph of $G$. For instance, the projection of the convex path $b^2d^2e^2$ in Figure~ is the path $bde$ which is not a convex subgraph of $G$. On the other hand, we have the following result. \begin{theorem} Let $G'=(V',E')$ be an expansion of a graph $G=(V,E)$ with respect to subgraphs $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$. The projection of a convex semicube of $G'$ different from $\langle V'_1\rangle$ and $\langle V'_2\rangle$ is a convex semicube of $G$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} It suffices to consider the case when $W_{uv}=p(W_{u^1v^1})$ for $u,v\in V_1$ (cf. Theorem~). Let $x,y\in W_{uv}$ and $z\in V$ be a vertex such that $$ d_G(x,z)+d_G(z,y)=d_G(x,y). $$ We need to show that $z\in W_{uv}$. { } (i) $x,y\in V_1$ (the case when $x,y\in V_2$ is treated similarly). Suppose that $z\in V_1$. Then $x^1,y^1,z^1\in V'_1$ and, by Lemma~, $$ d_{G'}(x^1,z^1)+d_{G'}(z^1,y^1)=d_{G'}(z^1,y^1). $$ Since $x^1,y^1\in W_{u^1v^1}$ and $W_{u^1v^1}$ is convex, $z^1\in W_{u^1v^1}$. Hence, $z\in W_{uv}$. Suppose now that $z\in V_2\setminus V_1$. Consider a shortest path $P_{xy}$ in $G$ from $x$ to $y$ containing $z$. This path contains vertices $x',y'\in V_1\cap V_2$ such that (see Figure~) $$ d_G(x,x')+d_G(x',z)=d_G(x,z)\quad\text{and}\quad d_G(y,y')+d_G(y',z)=d_G(y,z). $$ Since $P_{xy}$ is a shortest path in $G$, we have $$ d_G(x,x')+d_G(x',y)=d_G(x,y),\quad d_G(x,y')+d_G(y',y)=d_G(x,y), $$ and $$ d_G(x',z)+d_G(z,y')=d_G(x',y'). $$ Since $x,x',y\in V_1$, we have $x^1,x'^1,y^1\in V'_1$. Because $x^1,y^1\in W_{u^1v^1}$ and $W_{u^1v^1}$ is convex, $x'^1\in W_{u^1v^1}$. Hence, $x'\in W_{uv}$ and, similarly, $y'\in W_{uv}$. Since $x'^2,y'^2,z^2\in V'_2$ and $W_{u^1v^1}$ is convex, $z^2\in W_{u^1v^1}$. Hence, $z\in W_{uv}$. \vtl (ii) $x\in V_1\setminus V_2$ and $y\in V_2\setminus V_1$. We may assume that $z\in V_1$. By Lemma~, \begin{align*} d_{G'}(x^1,y^2)&=d_G(x,y)+1=d_G(x,z)+d_G(z,y)+1\\ &=d_{G'}(x^1,z^1)+d_{G'}(z^1,y^2). \end{align*} Since $x^1,y^2\in W_{u^1v^1}$ and $W_{u^1v^1}$ is convex, $z^1\in W_{u^1v^1}$. Hence, $z\in W_{uv}$. \end{proof} By using the results of Lemma~, it is not difficult to show that the class of connected bipartite graphs is closed under the expansion and contraction operations. The next theorem establishes this result for the class of partial cubes. \begin{theorem} {\rm(i)} An expansion $G'$ of a partial cube $G$ is a partial cube. \vtl {\rm(ii)} A contraction $G$ of a partial cube $G'$ is a partial cube. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} (i) Let $G=(V,E)$ be a partial cube and $G'=(V',E')$ be its expansion with respect to isometric subgraphs $G_1=(V_1,E_1)$ and $G_2=(V_2,E_2)$. By Theorem~(ii), it suffices to show that the semicubes of $G'$ are convex. \vtl By Lemma~, the semicubes $\langle V'_1\rangle$ and $\langle V'_2\rangle$ are convex, so we consider a semicube in the form $W_{u^1v^1}$ where $uv\in E_1$ (the other case is treated similarly). Let $P_{x'y'}$ be a shortest path connecting two vertices in $W_{u^1v^1}$ and $P_{xy}$ be its projection to $G$. By Theorem~, $x,y\in W_{uv}$ and, by Lemma~, $P_{xy}$ is a shortest path in $G$. Since $W_{uv}$ is convex, $P_{xy}$ belongs to $W_{uv}$. Let $z'$ be a vertex in $P_{x'y'}$ and $z=p(z')\in P_{xy}$. By Lemma~, $$ d_G(z,u)<d_G(z,v)\quad\Rightarrow\quad d_{G'}(z',u^1)\leq d_{G'}(z',v^1). $$ Since $G'$ is a bipartite graph, $d_{G'}(z',u^1)<d_{G'}(z',v^1)$. Hence, $P_{x'y'}\SB W_{u^1v^1}$, so $W_{u^1v^1}$ is convex. \vtl (ii) Let $G=(V,E)$ be a contraction of a partial cube $G'=(V',E')$. By Theorem~, we need to show that the semicubes of $G$ are convex. By Theorem~, all semicubes of $G$ are projections of semicubes of $G'$ distinct from $\langle V'_1\rangle$ and $\langle V'_2\rangle$. By Theorem~, the semicubes of $G$ are convex. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} {\rm(i)} A finite connected graph is a partial cube if and only if it can be obtained from $K_1$ by a sequence of expansions. {\rm(ii)} The number of expansions needed to produce a partial cube $G$ from $K_1$ is $\dim_I(G)$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} (i) Follows immediately from Theorem~. \vtl (ii) Follows from theorems~ and~ (see the discussion in Section~ just before Theorem~ ). \end{proof} \vtl The processes of expansion and contraction admit useful descriptions in the case of partial cubes on a set. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a partial cube on a set $X$, that is an isometric subgraph of the hypercube $\HHH(X)$. Then it is induced by some wg-family $\FFF$ of finite subsets of $X$ (cf. Theorem~). We may assume (see Section~) that $\cap\,\FFF=\es$ and $\cup\,\FFF=X$. \vtl In what follows we present proofs of the results of Theorem~ and Corollary~ given in terms of wg-families of sets. \vtl The expansion process for a partial cube $G$ on $X$ can be described as follows: Let $\FFF_1$ and $\FFF_2$ be wg-families of finite subsets of $X$ such that $\FFF_1\cap\FFF_2\not=\es$, $\FFF_1\cup\FFF_2=\FFF$, and the distance between any two sets $P\in\FFF_1\setminus\FFF_2$ and $Q\in\FFF_2\setminus\FFF_1$ is greater than one. Note that $\langle\FFF_1\rangle$ and $\langle\FFF_2\rangle$ are partial cubes, $\langle\FFF_1\rangle\cap\langle\FFF_2\rangle\not=\es$, and $\langle\FFF_1\rangle\cup\langle\FFF_2\rangle=\langle\FFF\rangle=G$. Let $X'=X+\{p\}$, where $p\notin X$, and $$ \FFF'_2=\{Q+\{p\}: Q\in\FFF_2\},\quad\FFF'=\FFF_1\cup\FFF'_2. $$ It is quite clear that the graphs $\langle\FFF'_2\rangle$ and $\langle\FFF_2\rangle$ are isomorphic and the graph $G'=\langle\FFF'\rangle$ is an isometric expansion of the graph $G$. \begin{theorem} An expansion of a partial cube is a partial cube. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We need to verify that $\FFF'$ is a wg-family of finite subsets of $X'$. By Theorem~, it suffices to show that the distance between any two adjacent sets in $\FFF'$ is $1$. It is obvious if each of these two sets belong to one of the families $\FFF_1$ or $\FFF'_2$. Suppose that $P\in\FFF_1$ and $Q+\{p\}\in\FFF'_2$ are adjacent, that is, for any $S\in\FFF'$ we have \begeq P\cap(Q+\{p\})\SB S\SB P\cup(Q+\{p\})\quad\Rightarrow\quad S=P\text{~or~}S=Q+\{p\}. \edeq If $Q\in\FFF_1$, then $$ P\cap(Q+\{p\})\SB Q\SB P\cup(Q+\{p\}), $$ since $p\notin P$. By~(), $Q=P$ implying $d(P,Q+\{p\})=1$. \vtl If $Q\in\FFF_2\setminus\FFF_1$, there is $R\in\FFF_1\cap\FFF_2$ such that $$ d(P,R)+d(R,Q)=d(P,Q), $$ since $\FFF$ is well graded. By Theorem~, $$ P\cap Q\SB R\SB P\cup Q, $$ which implies $$ P\cap(Q+\{p\})\SB R+\{p\}\SB P\cup(Q+\{p\}). $$ By~(), $R+\{p\}=Q+\{p\}$, a contradiction. \end{proof} \vtl It is easy to recognize the fundamental sets (cf. Section~) in an isometric expansion $G'$ of a partial cube $G=\langle\FFF\rangle$. Let $P\in\FFF_1\cap\FFF_2$ and $Q=P+\{p\}\in\FFF'_2$ be two vertices defining an edge in $G'$ according to Definition~(ii). Clearly, the families $\FFF_1$ and $\FFF'_2$ are the semicubes $W_{PQ}$ and $W_{QP}$ of the graph $G'$ (cf. Lemma~) and therefore are convex subsets of $\FFF'$. The set $F_{PQ}$ is the set of edges defined by $p$ as in Lemma~. In addition, $U_{PQ}=\FFF_1\cap\FFF_2$ and $U_{QP}=\{R+\{p\}: R\in\FFF_1\cap\FFF_2\}$. \vtl Let $G$ be a partial cube induced by a wg-family $\FFF$ of finite subsets of a set $X$. As before, we assume that $\cap\,\FFF=\es$ and $\cup\,\FFF= X$. Let $PQ$ be an edge of $G$. We may assume that $Q=P+\{p\}$ for some $p\notin P$. Then (see Lemma~) $$ W_{PQ}=\{R\in\FFF: p\notin R\}\quad\text{and}\quad W_{QP}=\{R\in\FFF: p\in R\}. $$ Let $X'=X\setminus\{p\}$ and $\FFF'=\{R\setminus\{p\}: R\in\FFF\}$. It is clear that the graph $G'$ induced by the family $\FFF'$ is isomorphic to the contraction of $G$ defined by the edge $PQ$. Geometrically, the graph $G'$ is the orthogonal projection of the graph $G$ along the edge $PQ$ (cf. figures~ and~). \begin{theorem} {\rm(i)} A contraction $G'$ of a partial cube $G$ is a partial cube. {\rm(ii)} If $G$ is finite, then $\dim_I(G')=\dim_I(G)-1$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} (i) For $p\in X$ we define $\FFF_1=\{R\in\FFF: p\notin R\}$, $\FFF_2=\{R\in\FFF: p\in R\}$, and $\FFF'_2=\{R\setminus\{p\}\in\FFF: p\in R\}$. Note that $\FFF_1$ and $\FFF_2$ are semicubes of $G$ and $\FFF'_2$ is isometric to $\FFF_2$. Hence, $\FFF_1$ and $\FFF'_2$ are wg-families of finite subsets of $X'$. We need to prove that $\FFF'=\FFF_1\cup\FFF'_2$ is a wg-family. By Theorem~, it suffices to show that $d(P,Q)=1$ for any two adjacent sets $P,Q\in\FFF'$. This is true if $P,Q\in\FFF_1$ or $P,Q\in\FFF'_2$, since these two families are well graded. For $P\in\FFF_1\setminus\FFF'_2$ and $Q\in\FFF'_2\setminus\FFF_1$, the sets $P$ and $Q+\{p\}$ are not adjacent in $\FFF$, since $\FFF$ is well graded and $Q\notin\FFF$. Hence there is $R\in\FFF_1$ such that $$ P\cap(Q+\{p\})\SB R\SB P\cup(Q+\{p\}) $$ and $R\not= P$. Since $p\notin R$, we have $$ P\cap Q\SB R\SB P\cup Q. $$ Since $R\not= P$ and $R\not= Q$, the sets $P$ and $Q$ are not adjacent in $\FFF'$. The result follows. \vtl (ii) If $G$ is a finite partial cube, then, by Theorem~, $$ \dim_I(G')=|X'|=|X|-1=\dim_I(G)-1. $$ \end{proof} \section{Conclusion} The paper focuses on two themes of a rather general mathematical nature. \vtl 1. {\sl The characterization problem.} It is a common practice in mathematics to characterize a particular class of object in different terms. We present new characterizations of the classes of bipartite graphs and partial cubes, and give new proofs for known characterization results. \vtl 2. {\sl Constructions.} The problem of constructing new objects from old ones is a standard topic in many branches of mathematics. For the class of partial cubes, we discuss operations of forming the Cartesian product, expansion and contraction, and pasting. It is shown that the class of partial cubes is closed under these operations. \vtl Because partial cubes are defined as graphs isometrically embeddable into hypercubes, the theory of partial cubes has a distinctive geometric flavor. The three main structures on a graph---semicubes and Djokovi\'{c}'s and Winkler's relations---are defined in terms of the metric structure on a graph. One can say that this theory is a branch of discrete metric geometry. Not surprisingly, geometric structures play an important role in our treatment of the characterization and construction problems. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{aA98} A.S.~Asratian, T.M.J.~Denley, and R.~H\"{a}ggkvist, Bipartite Graphs and their Applications, Cambridge University Press, 1998. \bibitem{dA81} D.~Avis, Hypermetric spaces and the Hamming cone, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 33 (1981) 795--802. \bibitem{lB53} L.~Blumenthal, Theory and Applications of Distance Geometry, Oxford University Press, London, Great Britain, 1953. \bibitem{jB95} J.A. Bondy, Basic graph theory: Paths and circuits, in: R.L.~Graham, M.~Gr\"{o}tshel, and L.~Lov\'{a}sz (Eds.), Handbook of Combinatorics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995, pp. 3--110. \bibitem{nB66} N.~Bourbaki, General Topology, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., 1966. \bibitem{vC88} V.~Chepoi, Isometric subgraphs of Hamming graphs and $d$-convexity, Control and Cybernetics 24 (1988) 6--11. \bibitem{vC94} V.~Chepoi, Separation of two convex sets in convexity structures, Journal of Geometry 50 (1994) 30--51. \bibitem{mD97} M.M.~Deza and M.~Laurent, Geometry of Cuts and Metrics, Springer, 1997. \bibitem{dD73} D.\v{Z}.~Djokovi\'{c}, Distance preserving subgraphs of hypercubes, J. Combin. Theory Ser.~B 14 (1973) 263--267. \bibitem{jDjF97} J.-P. Doignon and J.-Cl.~Falmagne, Well-graded families of relations, Discrete Math. 173 (1997) 35--44. \bibitem{dE05} D.~Eppstein, The lattice dimension of a graph, European J. Combinatorics 26 (2005) 585--592, doi: 10.1016/j.ejc.2004.05.001. \bibitem{aF95} A.~Frank, Connectivity and network flows, in: R.L.~Graham, M.~Gr\"{o}tshel, and L.~Lov\'{a}sz (Eds.), Handbook of Combinatorics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995, pp. 111--177. \bibitem{kF93} K.~Fukuda and K.~Handa, Antipodal graphs and oriented matroids, Discrete Mathematics 111 (1993) 245--256. \bibitem{fH78} F.~Hadlock and F.~Hoffman, Manhattan trees, Util. Math. 13 (1978) 55--67. \bibitem{wI00} W.~Imrich and S.~Klav\v{z}ar, Product Graphs, John Wiley \& Sons, 2000. \bibitem{hM80} H.M.~Mulder, The Interval Function of a Graph, Mathematical Centre Tracts 132, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1980. \bibitem{sO06} S.~Ovchinnikov, Media theory: representations and examples, Discrete Applied Mathematics, (in review, e-print available at\\ http://arxiv.org/abs/math.CO/0512282). \bibitem{rR86} R.I.~Roth and P.M.~Winkler, Collapse of the metric hierarchy for bipartite graphs, European Journal of Combinatorics 7 (1986) 371--375. \bibitem{mV93} M.L.J.~van~de~Vel, Theory of Convex Structures, Elsevier, The Netherlands, 1993. \bibitem{pW84} P.M.~Winkler, Isometric embedding in products of complete graphs, Discrete Appl. Math. 8 (1984) 209--212. \end{thebibliography} \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem} \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma} \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition} \newtheorem{definition}{Definition} \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary} \newtheorem{example}{Example} \newtheorem{remark}{Remark} \numberwithin{theorem}{section} \numberwithin{definition}{section} \numberwithin{lemma}{section} \numberwithin{corollary}{section} \numberwithin{equation}{section} \numberwithin{proposition}{section} \numberwithin{example}{section} \numberwithin{remark}{section} \numberwithin{figure}{section} \def\udl{\underline} \def\vtl{\vskip 1mm} \def\tl{\vskip 2mm} \def\wl{\vskip 4mm} \def\es{\varnothing} \def\SB{\subseteq} \def\aa{\alpha} \def\bb{\beta} \def\gg{\gamma} \def\dd{\delta} \def\ee{\epsilon} \def\vee{\varepsilon} \def\zz{\zeta} \def\hh{\theta} \def\vhh{\vartheta} \def\ii{\iota} \def\kk{\kappa} \def\ll{\lambda} \def\rr{\rho} \def\ss{\sigma} \def\oo{\omega} \def\ba{\boldsymbol a} \def\bB{\boldsymbol b} \def\bc{\boldsymbol c} \def\be{\boldsymbol e} \def\bx{\boldsymbol x} \def\by{\boldsymbol y} \def\bz{\boldsymbol z} \def\bm{\boldsymbol m} \def\bn{\boldsymbol n} \def\bp{\boldsymbol p} \def\bq{\boldsymbol q} \def\bs{\boldsymbol s} \def\br{\boldsymbol r} \def\bu{\boldsymbol u} \def\bv{\boldsymbol v} \def\bw{\boldsymbol w} \def\bl{\boldsymbol l} \def\bo{\boldsymbol o} \def\b0{\boldsymbol 0} \def\Bee{\mathbb B} \def\Ree{\mathbb R} \def\Na{\mathbb N} \def\Inter{\mathbb I} \def\Qu{\mathbb Q} \def\Zee{\mathbb Z} \def\imp{\Rightarrow} \def\EQ{\Longleftrightarrow} \def\eq{\Leftrightarrow} \def\EOP{\phantom{a}\hfill $\square$} \def\AAA{{\cal A}} \def\FFF{{\cal F}} \def\EEE{{\cal E}} \def\CCC{{\cal C}} \def\DDD{{\cal D}} \def\GGG{{\cal G}} \def\HHH{{\cal H}} \def\III{{\cal I}} \def\JJJ{{\cal J}} \def\KKK{{\cal K}} \def\BBB{{\cal B}} \def\VVV{{\cal V}} \def\WWW{{\cal W}} \def\ZZZ{{\cal Z}} \def\LLL{{\cal L}} \def\MMM{{\cal M}} \def\NNN{{\cal N}} \def\OOO{{\cal O}} \def\PPP{{\cal P}} \def\QQQ{{\cal Q}} \def\RRR{{\cal R}} \def\SSS{{\cal S}} \def\TTT{{\cal T}} \def\UUU{{\cal U}} \def\XXX{{\cal X}} \def\YYY{{\cal Y}} \def\BU{\bold U} \def\BB{\bold B} \def\BC{\bold C} \def\BD{\bold D} \def\BR{\bold R} \def\BL{\bold L} \def\BH{\bold H} \def\BI{\bold I} \def\BJ{\bold J} \def\BF{\bold F} \def\BS{\bold S} \def\BX{\bold X} \def\BY{\bold Y} \def\BZ{\bold Z} \def\BT{\bold T} \def\BV{\bold V} \def\BW{\bold W} \def\BM{\bold M} \def\BN{\bold N} \def\BG{\bold G} \def\POW{\mathfrak P} \def\POWF{\mathfrak P_{\text{\sc f}}} \def\bfy{\bold y} \def\bfx{\bold x} \def\bfz{\bold z} \def\begeq{\begin{equation}} \def\edeq{\end{equation}} \def\roster{\begin{enumerate}} \def\endroster{\end{enumerate}} \def\fp{\noindent} \makeindex
|
0704.0014
|
Title: Iterated integral and the loop product
Abstract: In this article we discuss a relation between the string topology and
differential forms based on the theory of Chen's iterated integrals and the
cyclic bar complex.
Body: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section] \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma} \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The purpose of this paper is to describe string topology from the viewpoint of Chen's iterated integrals. Let $M$ be a compact closed oriented $d$-manifold and $LM$ be the free loop space of $M$, the set of unbased smooth maps from $S^1$ to $M$. Let $\mathbb{H}_*(LM)$ be the homology of the free loop space shifted by the dimension of the manifold i.e. $\mathbb{H}_*(LM)$ = $H_{*+d}(LM)$. Chas and Sullivan found the product on $\mathbb{H}_*(LM)$ which they called {\it loop product} : $$ \mathbb{H}_p(LM) \otimes \mathbb{H}_q(LM) \rightarrow \mathbb{H}_{p+q}(LM). $$ They showed that this product makes $\mathbb{H}_*(LM)$ an associative, commutative algebra. Merkulov constructed a model for this product based on the theory of iterated integrals, especially of the formal power series connection . He showed that there is an isomorphism of algebras $$ \mathbb{H}_*(LM) \cong H_*(\Lambda M \otimes \mathbb{R} \bigl\langle \langle X \rangle \bigr\rangle ) $$ where $\Lambda M$ is the de Rham differential graded algebra of $M$ and $\mathbb{R} \bigl\langle \langle X \rangle \bigr\rangle$ is the formal completion of the free graded associative algebra generated by some noncommutative indeterminates. On the other hand, Chen showed that the cohomology of the free loop space of the simply-connected manifold is isomorphic to the cohomology of the cyclic bar complex of differential forms via Chen's iterated integrals (see or ): $$ H^*(LM) \cong H^*(C(\Lambda M)). $$ In this paper, we construct a model for the loop product based on the theory of the cyclic bar complex. We define a complex ${\rm{Hom}}(B(\Lambda M), \Lambda M)$ and its subcomplex ${\rm{\overline{Hom}}}(B(\Lambda M), \Lambda M)$ so that the $\rm{Poincar\acute{e}}$ duality induces the isomorphism of vector spaces $$ H_*({\rm{Hom}}(C(\Lambda M), \mathbb{R})) \cong H_{*-d}(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(\Lambda M), \Lambda M)). $$ We can define a product on ${\rm{\overline{Hom}}}(B(\Lambda M), \Lambda M)$ which realizes the loop product. \begin{theorem} Let $M$ be a compact closed oriented simply-connected manifold. Assume that $H_*(M)$ is of finite type. Let $A$ be a differential graded subalgebra of $\Lambda M$ such that $H^*(A)$ $\cong$ $H^*(\Lambda M)$ by the inclusion. Then there is an isomorphism of associative, commutative algebras $$ \mathbb{H}_*(LM) \cong H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)). $$ The product defined on $H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A))$ corresponds to the loop product under the isomorphism. \end{theorem} The paper is organized in the following way. In section 2, we briefly review Chen's iterated integrals. In section 3, we give a construction of a complex ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)$, and discuss its properties. In section 4, we give a proof of theorem 1.1. In section 5, we study the iterated integrals on the free loop space of the non-simply-connected manifolds. In section 6, we describe a relation between the product on ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)$ and the Goldman bracket. In this paper, all the homologies have their coefficients in the field of real numbers. {\it Acknowledgement}: The author would like to thank Professor Toshitake Kohno much for helpful comments and gentle support. \section{Chen's iterated integrals} We briefly review Chen's iterated integrals (see , or ). Let $M$ be a finite dimensional smooth manifold and let $LM$ be the free loop space of $M$, that is the space of all smooth maps from $S^1$ to $M$. Let $\Delta_k$ be the $k$-simplex $$ \{(t_1, \cdots, t_k) \in \mathbb{R}^k \ | \ 0 \leq t_1 \leq \cdots \leq t_k \leq 1 \}. $$ We have an evaluation map $$ \Phi_k : \Delta_k\times LM \rightarrow M^k \\ $$ defined by $$ \Phi_k(t_1, \cdots, t_k; \gamma) = (\gamma(t_1), \cdots, \gamma(t_k)). $$ Then define $P_k$ to be the composition $$ (\Lambda^*M)^{\otimes k} \rightarrow \Lambda^*M^k \buildrel \Phi_k^* \over \rightarrow \Lambda^*(\Delta_k\times LM) \buildrel p_* \over \rightarrow \Lambda^{*-k}LM $$ where $p_*$ is the integration along the fiber of the projection $p : \Delta_k\times LM \rightarrow LM $. Given $\omega_1$, $\cdots \omega_k$ $\in$ $\Lambda^*M$, the {\it iterated integral} $$ \int\omega_1\cdots\omega_k $$ is a differential form on $LM$ of total degree $|\omega_1|+\cdots|\omega_k|-k$, defined by the formula $$ \int \omega_1\cdots \omega_k = (-1)^{(k-1)|\omega_1|+(k-2)|\omega_2|+\cdots+|\omega_{k-1}|+k(k-1)/2}P_k(\omega_1,\cdots, \omega_k). $$ \section{Preliminaries} In this section, we give a construction of some complexes. Let $A$ be an arbitrary differential graded algebra in this section. Let $A^{\vee}$ denote the dual of $A$. The bar complex of $A$, $(B(A), d_B)$, is defined by $$ B(A) = \oplus_{r \geq 0}\otimes^{r} sA, $$ \begin{eqnarray*} d_{B}(\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r} ) = -(-1)^{\varepsilon_{i-1}}\sum_i(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_{i-1},d\omega_i, \omega_{i+1}, \cdots, \omega_r) \\ - (-1)^{\varepsilon_{i}}\sum_i(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_{i-1}, \omega_{i}\wedge\omega_{i+1},\omega_{i+2}, \cdots, \omega_r). \end{eqnarray*} Here $(sA)^q = A^{q+1}$ or $A^q$ according as 0 $\leq$ $q$ or 0 $<$ $q$, and $\varepsilon_i = deg(\omega_1,\cdots,\omega_i)$. We denote the totality of degree $n$ elements by $B(A)_n$. The coproduct $H^*(B(A))$ $\rightarrow$ $H^*(B(A))\otimes H^*(B(A))$ is defined by $$ (\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_n) \mapsto \sum_i (\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_i) \otimes (\omega_{i+1}, \cdots, \omega_n). $$ \\ Chen proved the following theorem. \begin{theorem}[Chen ] Let $M$ be a simply-connected manifold and $H_*(M)$ be of finite type. Let $A$ be a differential graded algebra of $\Lambda M$ such that $A^0$ = $\mathbb{R}$ and $H^*(A)$ $\cong$ $H^*(\Lambda M)$ by the inclusion. Then there is an isomorphism of coalgebras $$ H^*(B(A)) \cong H^*(\Omega M) $$ given by $$ (\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_n) \mapsto \int \omega_1 \cdots \omega_n. $$ \end{theorem} Let $F^pB(A)$ be a filtration of $B(A)$ such that $$ F^pB(A) = \oplus_{0 \leq r \leq p}\otimes^{r} sA. $$ Let ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})_n$ = $\sum_{p+q=n}{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A)_p, A^{q\vee})$ and ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})$ = \\ $\sum_n{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})_n$. Its boundary is defined by \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\delta\varphi(\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{r})(\omega) }\\ & = & \varphi(\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{r}) (d\omega) + (-1)^{|\omega|}\varphi(d_{B}(\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{r}))(\omega) \\ && \mbox{}-(-1)^{|\omega|}\varphi(\omega_{2},\cdots,\omega_{r})(\omega \wedge \omega_{1}) \\ && +(-1)^{|\omega |+\varepsilon_{r-1}(|\omega_r |+1)}\varphi (\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r-1})(\omega \wedge \omega_{r}). \end{eqnarray*} Let us define the subcomplex of ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})$, $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee}$), according to the Chen's normalization of the cyclic bar complex (see or ). We define $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee}$) to be the set of elements in ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})$ which satisfy the following equations for any $\omega, \omega_i$ $\in$ $A^{>0}$ and $f$ $\in$ $A^0$: \begin{eqnarray*} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} -\varphi (\cdots \omega_{i-2}, f\omega_{i-1}, \omega_i, \cdots)( \omega ) + \varphi (\cdots, \omega_{i-1} ,f\omega_{i}, \omega_{i+1}, \cdots)( \omega ) \\ \hspace{3.16cm} + \varphi ( \cdots ,\omega_{i-1} ,df, \omega_{i}, \cdots )(\omega ) = 0, \ \ \mbox{$1\leq i\leq r-1$}, \\ - \varphi (\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r})(f\omega) + \varphi(f\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r})(\omega)+ \varphi(df,\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r})(\omega)=0, \\ - \varphi (\omega_1,\cdots,fw_r)(\omega) + \varphi(\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r})(f\omega)+ \varphi (\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r},df)(\omega)=0. \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray*} It can be easily seen that it is isomorphic to the dual of the normalized cyclic bar complex of $A$: $$ \overline{\rm{Hom}}(B(A), A^{\vee}) \cong C(A)^{\vee} $$ Similarly, let ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)_n$ = $\sum_{p-q=n}{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A)_p, A^q)$ and ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)$ = $\sum_n{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)_n$. Its boundary is defined by \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\delta\varphi(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_r) }\\ & = & (-1)^{|\varphi|-\varepsilon_r}d\varphi(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_r) -(-1)^{|\varphi|-\varepsilon_r}\varphi(d_B(\omega_1,\cdots, \omega_r)) \\ && + (-1)^{|\varphi|-\varepsilon_r}\omega_1\wedge\varphi(\omega_2,\cdots, \omega_r) \\ && -(-1)^{(|\omega_r|+1)(|\varphi|+1)}\varphi(\omega_1\cdots,\omega_{r-1})\wedge\omega_r. \end{eqnarray*} We define $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)$ to be the set of elements in ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)$ which satisfy the following equations for any $\omega, \omega_i$ $\in$ $A^{>0}$ and $f$ $\in$ $A^0$: \begin{eqnarray*} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} -\varphi (\cdots \omega_{i-2}, f\omega_{i-1}, \omega_i, \cdots) + \varphi (\cdots, \omega_{i-1} ,f\omega_{i}, \omega_{i+1}, \cdots) \\ \hspace{2.53cm} + \varphi ( \cdots ,\omega_{i-1} ,df, \omega_{i}, \cdots ) = 0, \ \ \mbox{$1 \leq i \leq r-1$}, \\ - f\wedge\varphi (\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r})+ \varphi(f\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r}) + \varphi(df,\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r}) =0, \\ - \varphi (\omega_1,\cdots,fw_r) + \varphi(\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r})\wedge f+ \varphi (\omega_{1},\cdots ,\omega_{r},df)=0. \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray*} The cup product on ${{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A),A)$ is defined by \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\varphi_1\cup \varphi_2(\omega_1,\cdots, \omega_r) } \\ & = & \sum_{0\leq i \leq r}(-1)^{|\varphi_1|(|\varphi_2|+\varepsilon_r-\varepsilon_i)}\varphi_1(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_i)\wedge\varphi_2(\omega_{i+1},\cdots, \omega_r). \end{eqnarray*} Since $\delta(\varphi_1\cup\varphi_2) = \delta\varphi_1\cup \varphi_2 + (-1)^{|\varphi_1|}\varphi_1\cup\delta\varphi_2$, $H_*({{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A))$ becomes an algebra. This product can be induced on $H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A))$. The $E_1$-term of their spectral sequences associated with the filtration $F^pB(A)$ can be calculated from the cohomology of $A$. \begin{proposition} There is an isomorphism of vector spaces $$ H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A)/F^{p-1}B(A), A^{\vee})) \cong {{\rm{Hom}}}(\otimes^p sH(A), H(A)^{\vee}) $$ \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Let $\overline{A}$ be a differential graded subalgebra of $A$ such that $\overline{A}^p$ = $A^p$ for $p$ $>$ 1, $\overline{A}^0$ = $\mathbb{R}$ and $$ A^1 = dA^0 \oplus \overline{A}^1. $$ There is an isomorphism of vector spaces $$ \overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^qB(A)/F^{q-1}B(A), A^{\vee}) \cong {{\rm{Hom}}}(F^qB(\overline{A})/F^{q-1}B(\overline{A}), \overline{A}^{\vee}). \\ $$ Since $\overline{A}^0$ = $\mathbb{R}$, there is an isomorphism $$ H_0({{\rm{Hom}}}(F^qB(\overline{A})/F^{q-1}B(\overline{A}), \overline{A}^{\vee})) \cong {{\rm{Hom}}}(\otimes sH(\overline{A}), H(\overline{A})^{\vee}). $$ Therefore we obtain the proposition. \end{proof} \section{Proof of Theorem 1.1} We give the proof of theorem 1.1 in this section. There is a differential graded subalgebra of $A$, $\overline{A}$, such that $\overline{A}^0$ = $\mathbb{R}$ and $H(A)$ $\cong$ $H(\overline{A})$ by the inclusion. Then we obtain the isomorphism of algebras $$ H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)) \cong H_*({{\rm{Hom}}}(B(\overline{A}), \overline{A})) $$ by proposition 3.2. Therefore it suffices to verify the theorem in the case $A^0 = \mathbb{R}$. The following result is due to Chen. \begin{theorem}[Chen ] $ H_*(LM) \cong H_*({{\rm{\overline{Hom}}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})). $ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We define $\psi : C_*(LM) \rightarrow {{\rm{\overline{Hom}}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})$ by $$ \psi(\sigma)(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_n)(\omega) = \int_\sigma \pi^*\omega\wedge\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_n. $$ Let $F_pC_*(LM)$ be a filtration of $C_*(LM)$ such that \begin{eqnarray*} F_pC_r(LM) = \mbox{ \{ $\sigma$ : $\Delta^r$ $\rightarrow$ $LM$ $|$ $\pi$ $\circ$ $\sigma$ = $\sigma'$ $\circ$ $\pi'$ for some $\sigma'$ $\in$ $C_q(M)$, } \\ \mbox{ $q$ $\leq$ $p$, $\pi'$ : $\Delta^r$ $\rightarrow$ $\Delta^q$ \} }. \end{eqnarray*} Let $\{ E^r_{p,q} \}$ be the associated spectral sequence. Define a filtration of ${{\rm{\overline{Hom}}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})$ by $$ F_p{{\rm{\overline{Hom}}}}(B(A), A) = \{ f\in {{\rm{\overline{Hom}}}}(B(A), A^{\vee}) \ | \ f(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_n)(\omega) = 0, \ \forall \omega \in A^{\geq p+1} \}. $$ It can be easily shown that $\psi$ preserves the filtrations of $C_*(LM)$ and ${{\rm{\overline{Hom}}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})$. On $E_2$-level, the map $$ \psi : H_p(M) \otimes H_q(\Omega M) \rightarrow H_p(A^{\vee}) \otimes H_q(B(A)^{\vee}) $$ is given by $$ \sigma_1\otimes\sigma_2 \longmapsto \Bigr(\omega \mapsto \int_{\sigma_1}\omega \Bigl) \otimes \Bigr( (\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_n \mapsto \int_{\sigma_2}\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_n)\Bigl). $$ Theorem 3.1 asserts that this is an isomorphism. Therefore we obtain the theorem. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} $H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)) \cong H_{*-d}(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})).$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We define a chain map $P$ : $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A) \rightarrow \overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})$ by $$ P(\varphi)(\omega_1,\cdots, \omega_n)(\omega) = \int_M \omega\wedge\varphi(\omega_1,\cdots, \omega_n). $$ Define a filtration of $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)$ by $$ F_p\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A) = \{ \varphi \in \overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A) \ | \ \varphi(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_n) \in A^{\geq d-p} \}. $$ The map $P$ preserves those filtrations. On $E_2$-level, the map $$ P : H^{d-p}(A) \otimes H_q(B(A)^{\vee}) \rightarrow H_p(A^{\vee}) \otimes H_q(B(A)^{\vee}) $$ is given by $$ \omega\otimes\varphi \longmapsto \Bigr( \tau \mapsto \int_M \omega\wedge\tau \Bigl) \otimes \varphi. $$ This is isomorphic and we obtain the lemma. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[\it Proof of theorem 1.1] \: We can verify that $\mathbb{H}_*(LM)$ is isomorphic to \\ $H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A))$ as vector spaces by composing the maps in theorem 4.1 and lemma 4.2. We can also verify that there is an isomorphism of associative, commutative algebras. Indeed, the cup product of $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A)$ on $E_2$-level $$ H^{d-p}(A) \otimes H_q(B(A)^{\vee}) \otimes H^{d-s}(A) \otimes H_t(B(A)^{\vee}) \rightarrow H^{2d-p-s}(A) \otimes H_{q+t}(B(A)^{\vee}) $$ is given by $$ a\otimes g \otimes b \otimes h \mapsto (-1)^{(d-p+q)(d-s)} a \wedge b \otimes g\cdot h, $$ where $g\cdot h$ satisfies $$ g\cdot h(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_n) = \sum_i g(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_i)h(\omega_{i+1}, \cdots, \omega_n). $$ Then the following theorem asserts that the loop product and the cup product coincide on $E_2$-level. \begin{theorem}[Cohen-Jones-Yan ] Let $M$ be a simply-connected manifold. Then $\{ E^r_{p,q} \}$ becomes an algebra and converges to $H_*(LM)$ as algebras. On $E_2$-level, the product $$ \mu : H_p(M ; H_q(LM)) \otimes H_s(M ; H_t(LM)) \rightarrow H_{p+q-d}(M ; H_{s+t}(LM)) $$ is given by $$ \mu((a\otimes g)\otimes(b\otimes h)) = (-1)^{(d-s)(p+q-d)}(a\cdot b)\otimes(gh) $$ where $a\in H_p(M), b\in H_s(M), g\in H_q(\Omega M), h\in H_t(\Omega M)$, $a\cdot b$ is the intersection product and $gh$ is the Pontryagin product. \end{theorem} Therefore we obtain the theorem. \end{proof} \section{The conjugacy classes of fundamental groups} Let $\pi$ denote a fundamental group of a smooth manifold $M$ and $J$ denote an augmentation ideal of the group ring of $\pi$, $\mathbb{R}\pi$. Chen showed that the completion of the fundamental group with respect to the powers of its augmentation ideal is isomorphic to the dual of the 0-th cohomology of the bar complex of differential forms via iterated integrals : $$ \varprojlim_p\mathbb{R}\pi/J^p \cong H^0(B(A))^{\vee} $$ where $A$ is a differential graded subalgebra of $\Lambda M$ such that $A^0 = \mathbb{R}$ and $H^*(A) \cong H^*(M)$. Based on this work, we study iterated integrals on the free loop space of the non-simply-connected manifold. Let $\tilde{\pi}$ denote the set of conjugacy classes of $\pi$ and $\tilde{J^p}$ denote pr($J^p$) where pr is the projection of $\mathbb{R}\pi$ onto $\mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}$. \begin{theorem} Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and $H_*(M)$ is of finite type. Let $A$ be a differential graded subalgebra of $\Lambda M$ such that the map $H^q(A) \rightarrow H^q(\Lambda M)$ induced by the inclusion is isomorphic if $q$ = 0, 1 and injective if $q$ = 2. Then there is an isomorphism of vector spaces $$ \varprojlim_p\mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}/\tilde{J^p} \cong H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee}). $$ \end{theorem} We give the proof of this theorem in this section. Let $*$ be a fixed point in $S^1$. In this section, let $LM$ be a set of smooth maps from $S^1$ to $M$ which are constant maps near $*$. Let $\Omega_xM$ be a subspace of $LM$ whose elements send $*$ to $x$ $\in$ $M$. Let Diff$(S^1,*)$ denote diffeomorphisms of $S^1$ which coincide with identity map near $*$. We define $\alpha$, $\beta$ : $\Delta^q$ $\rightarrow$ $LM$ to be {\it equivalent by a reparameterization} iff there is a smooth map $\tau$ : $\Delta^q$ $\rightarrow$ Diff($S^1, *$) such that $$ \beta (\xi)(t) = \alpha (\xi)(\tau(t,\xi)), \ \ \ \ \forall (t, \xi) \in S^1 \times \Delta^q. $$ Let $\overline{C}_*(LM)$ be a chain complex having as a basis the totality of equivalence classes of smooth simplexes of $LM$. Let $\overline{C}_*(\Omega_xM)$ be a chain complex having as a basis the totality of equivalence classes of smooth simplexes of $\Omega_xM$. $\overline{C_*}(\Omega_{x}M)$ becomes a noncommutative associative algebra as follows. The product of $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ in $\overline{C_*}(\Omega_{x}M)$ is defined to be the path product or 0 according as deg$\sigma_1$+deg$\sigma_2$ $\leq$ 1 or $>$ 1. The augmentation $\varepsilon$ : $\overline{C_*}(\Omega_xM)$ $\rightarrow$ $\mathbb{R}$ is given by $\varepsilon\sigma$ = 1 or 0 according as deg$\sigma$ = 0 or $>$ 0. Let $\sigma$ be a smooth simplex of $M$. Define for each $\sigma$ $$ \overline{C_q}(LM)(\sigma) = \{ \sum n_i\tau_i \in \overline{C_q}(LM) \ | \ \pi_{\sharp}\tau_i=\sigma \}. $$ $\overline{C_q}(LM)(\sigma)$ becomes a noncommutative associative algebra. Let $\varepsilon(\sigma)$ denote the augmentation of $\overline{C_q}(LM)(\sigma)$, given by $\sum{n_i\tau_i}$ $\mapsto$ $\sum{n_i}$. Define a filtration of $\overline{C_q}(LM)(\sigma)$ by $$ F_p\overline{C_q}(LM) = ({\rm{ker}}\varepsilon)^p \oplus (\oplus_{\sigma : \Delta^q \to M} ({\rm{ker}}\varepsilon(\sigma))^p). $$ \\ \begin{proposition} The map $\psi_p$ : $F_p\overline{C_q}(LM)$ $\rightarrow$ $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^{p-1}B(A), A^{\vee})$ given by $$ \sigma \mapsto \Bigl( (\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_p) \mapsto \Bigl( \omega \mapsto \int_{\sigma} \pi^* \omega \wedge \int \omega_1 \cdots \omega_p \Bigr) \Bigr) $$ is well-defined, chain map and $F_p\overline{C_q}(LM) \subset {\rm{ker}}\psi_p$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} The well-definedness can be verified by the following lemma which can be verified as in proposition 1.5, proposition 4.1.1 , and in proposition 1.5.3 . \begin{lemma}[Chen] (1) If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ $\in$ $C_*(LM)$ are equivalent by a reparameterization, then $$ \alpha^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_n = \beta^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_n. $$ (2) If $\tau_1,\tau_2 \in \overline{C_q}(LM)(\sigma)$, then $$ \ \ \ (\tau_1\cdot\tau_2)^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_n = \sum\tau_1^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_i\wedge\tau_2^*\int\omega_{i+1}\cdots\omega_n. $$ (3) If f $\in$ $\Lambda^0M$, then for any i $$ \ \ - \int\omega_1\cdots f\omega_{i-1}\cdots\omega_n + \int\omega_1\cdots f\omega_i\cdots\omega_n + \int\omega_1\cdots\omega_{i-1} \hspace{0.03cm} df \hspace{0.03cm} \omega_i\cdots\omega_n = 0. $$ \end{lemma} To verify $F_p\overline{C_q}(LM) \subset {\rm{ker}}\psi_p$, it suffices to show $({\rm{ker}} \varepsilon(\sigma))^p \subset {\rm{ker}} \psi_p$. Let $s$ denote the section of $\pi$, which sends points of $M$ to the constant map. Take ($\sigma_1-s_\sharp\sigma$) $\cdot$ ($\sigma_2-s_\sharp\sigma$) $\cdot$ $\cdots$ $\cdot$($\sigma_p-s_\sharp\sigma$) $\in $ (${\rm{ker}}\varepsilon (\sigma))^p$, where $\sigma \in C_q(M)$ and $\sigma_i \in \overline{C_q}(LM)(\sigma)$. Then \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{ \int_{\Delta^q} (\sigma_1-s_\sharp\sigma)\cdot(\sigma_2-s\sigma) \cdot\cdots\cdot(\sigma_p-s_\sharp\sigma)^*\Bigr(\pi^*\omega\wedge\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_{p-1}\Bigl) } \\ & = & \sum_{k = 1}^p \int_{\Delta^q} \sigma^*\omega\wedge(\sigma_1-s_\sharp\sigma)^*\int\omega_1\cdots(\sigma_k-s_\sharp\sigma)^*1\cdots\wedge(\sigma_p-s_\sharp\sigma)^*\int\omega_{p-1} \\ & = & 0. \end{eqnarray*} Therefore we obtain the proposition. \end{proof} Let $C_*(M,x)$ denote a set of smooth simplexes of $M$ neighborhood of whose vertices are at $x$ in $M$. We define $$ C\otimes sC^{\otimes p} = C_*(M,x)\otimes sC_*(M,x)^{\otimes{p}}. $$ Here $(sC_*(M, x))_q = C_{q+1}(M, x)$ or 0 according as $q > 0$ or $q \leq 0$. Its boundary is given by the sum of the boundary on each complex. Let us construct a chain map $\Phi$ : $C\otimes sC^{\otimes p}$ $\rightarrow$ $F_p\overline{C_*}(LM)/F_{p+1}\overline{C_*}(LM)$ considering the following three cases:\\ {\bf case 1:} If $(\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p)$ $\in$ $\Bigr( sC(M,x)^{\otimes p} \Bigl)_1$, then $$ \Phi : (\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p) \longmapsto (\sigma_1-x)\cdot(\sigma_2-x) \cdot\cdots\cdot(\sigma_p-x) $$ where $x$ is regarded as a constant map.\\ {\bf case 2:} If $(\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p)$ $\in$ $\Bigr( sC(M,x)^{\otimes p} \Bigl)_1$, then $$ \Phi : (\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p) \longmapsto (\sigma_1-x)\cdot(\sigma_2-x) \cdots\overline{\sigma_i}\cdots(\sigma_p-x) $$ where $\overline{\sigma_i}$ : $\Delta^1$ $\ni$ $\xi$ $\mapsto$ $\overline{\sigma_i}(\xi)(t)$ $\in$ $\Omega_xM$ is \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\overline{\sigma_i} (\xi) (t) } \\ & = & \begin{cases} \sigma_i((1- \xi )((1-t)v_0+tv_2)+ \xi (1-2t)v_0+2 \xi tv_1), & \mbox{if} \ 0 \leq t \leq 1/2 \\ \sigma_i ((1- \xi )((1-t)v_0+tv_2)+ \xi (2-2t)v_1+ \xi (2t-1)v_2), & \mbox{if} \ 1/2 \leq t \leq 1\\ \end{cases} \end{eqnarray*} Here $v_0, v_1, v_2$ are the vertices of the standard simplex $\Delta^2$. \\ {\bf case 3:} If $(\gamma, \sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p)$ $\in$ $C_1(M,x) \otimes\Bigr( sC(M,x)^{\otimes p} \Bigl)_0$, then $$ \Phi : (\gamma, \sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p) \longmapsto \gamma_t^{-1}(\sigma_1-x)\gamma_t\cdots\gamma_t^{-1}(\sigma_p-x)\gamma_t $$ where $\gamma_t : [0, 1] \ni s \mapsto \gamma (st)$ $\in$ $M$, $t$ $\in \Delta^1$. \\ \begin{lemma} The following diagram commutes: $$\begin{CD} \Bigr( C\otimes sC^{\otimes p} \Bigl)_1 @ > \Phi >> F_p\overline{C_1}(LM)/F_{p+1}\overline{C_1}(LM)\\ @VV\partial V @VV\partial' V\\ \Bigr( C\otimes sC^{\otimes p} \Bigl)_0 @ > \Phi >> F_p\overline{C_0}(LM)/F_{p+1}\overline{C_0}(LM)\\ \end{CD}$$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} For case 2, \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{ \partial'\Phi (\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p) - \Phi\partial (\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p) } \\ & = & (\sigma_1-x)\cdots(\sigma_i^{(0)}\cdot\sigma_i^{(2)}-\sigma_i^{(1)}-\sigma_i^{(0)}+\sigma_i^{(1)}-\sigma_i^{(2)}+x)\cdots ( \sigma_p -x) \\ & = & ( \sigma_1 -x) \cdots (\sigma_i^{(0)}-x) \cdot ( \sigma_i^{(2)} -x)\cdots (\sigma_p-x) \in F_{p+1}\overline{C_0}(LM) \end{eqnarray*} where $\sigma_i^{(1)}$, $\sigma_i^{(2)}$, $\sigma_i^{(3)}$ are the faces of $\sigma_i$. \\ \ \ For case 3, \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{ \partial'\Phi(\gamma, \sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p) - \Phi\partial'(\gamma, \sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p)} \\ & = & \gamma^{-1}\cdot(\sigma_1-x)\cdot\gamma\cdots\gamma^{-1}\cdot(\sigma_p-x)\cdot\gamma -(\sigma_1-x)\cdots(\sigma_p-x) \\ & \in & \! \! \! \! F_{p+1}\overline{C_0}(LM). \end{eqnarray*} Therefore we obtain the lemma. \end{proof} Proposition 5.2 gives the map $$ H_q(F_p\overline{C}(LM)/F_{p-1}\overline{C}(LM)) \rightarrow H_q(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A)/F^{p-1}B(A),A^{\vee})). $$ \begin{lemma} For $q$ = 0, the following map is isomorphic: $$ H_0(F_p\overline{C}(LM)/F_{p+1}\overline{C}(LM)) \cong H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A)/F^{p-1}B(A),A^{\vee})). $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We obtain the following surjection by lemma 5.4. $$ \Phi : H_0(C\otimes sC^{\otimes p}) \twoheadrightarrow H_0(F_p\overline{C}(LM)/F_{p+1}\overline{C}(LM)). $$ Composing with the isomorphism $\otimes^pH_1(M) \cong H_0(C\otimes sC^{\otimes p})$, the map $$ \otimes^pH_1(M) \twoheadrightarrow H_0(F_p\overline{C}(LM)/F_{p+1}\overline{C}(LM)) \rightarrow {\rm{Hom}}(\otimes^pH^1(A), \mathbb{R})\\ $$ is given by $$ (\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_n) \mapsto \Bigr( (\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_p) \mapsto \int_{\sigma_1}\omega_1\cdots\int_{\sigma_p}\omega_p \Bigl). $$ This is isomorphic and we obtain the lemma. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} For $q$ = 1, the following map surjective: $$ H_1(F_p\overline{C}(LM)/F_{p+1}\overline{C}(LM)) \twoheadrightarrow H_1({\rm{Hom}}(F^pB(A)/F^{p-1}B(A),A^{\vee})). $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} It suffices to show that the following map obtained by lemma 5.4 is surjective. $$ {\rm{ker}} \partial \rightarrow H_1(F_p\overline{C}(LM)/F_{p+1}\overline{C}(LM)) \rightarrow {\rm{Hom}}(\otimes^p sH(A),H(A)^{\vee})_1 \\ $$ If $(\gamma, \sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p)$ $\in$ ${\rm{ker}}\partial$ $\cap$ $\biggr( C_0(M,x)\otimes\Bigr( sC(M,x)^{\otimes p} \Bigl)_1 \biggl)$, then $$ (\gamma, \sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p) \mapsto \Biggr( (\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_p) \mapsto \biggr( \omega \mapsto \begin{cases} \int_\gamma \omega \int_{\sigma_1}\omega_1\cdots\int_{\sigma_p}\omega_p, & \mbox{if} \ deg \ \omega = 0 \\ 0, & \mbox{otherwise} \\ \end{cases} \biggl) \Biggl) $$ through the above map. \\ If $(\gamma, \sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p)$ $\in$ ${\rm{ker}}\partial$ $\cap$ $\biggr($ $C_1(M,x) \otimes\Bigr( sC(M,x)^{\otimes p} \Bigl)_0$ $\biggl)$, then $$ (\gamma, \sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_p) \mapsto \Biggr( (\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_p) \mapsto \biggr( \omega \mapsto \int_{\gamma}\omega\int_{\sigma_1}\omega_1\cdots\int_{\sigma_p}\omega_p \biggl) \Biggl) $$ when deg $\omega$ = 1. Then we can verify the surjectivity and obtain the lemma. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[\it Proof of theorem 1.1] Consider the spectral sequences of $\overline{C}(LM)/F_p\overline{C}(LM)$ and $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^{p-1}B(A),A^{\vee})$ associated with $F_q\overline{C}(LM)$ and $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^qB(A),A^{\vee})$, respectively. Lemma 5.5 asserts that $\psi_p$ is isomorphic on $E_1$-level at degree $0$: $$ H_0(F_q\overline{C}(LM)/F_{q+1}\overline{C}(LM)) \cong H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^{q}B(A)/F^{q-1}B(A),A^{\vee})). $$ Lemma 5.6 asserts that $\psi_p$ is surjective on $E_1$-level at degree $1$: $$ H_1(F_q\overline{C}(LM)/F_{q+1}\overline{C}(LM)) \twoheadrightarrow H_1(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^qB(A)/F^{q-1}B(A),A^{\vee})). $$ Then there is an isomorphism on $E_r$-level at degree 0 for $r$ $\geq$ $1$. We have $$ \mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}/\tilde{J^p} \cong H_0(\overline{C}(LM)/F_p\overline{C}(LM)) \cong H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A), A^{\vee})). $$ Therefore we obtain the theorem. \end{proof} \section{The Goldman bracket} This section is devoted to the proof of the following theorem. \begin{theorem} Let $M$ be a compact closed oriented surface with genus g. Then the Goldman bracket induces a Lie algebra structure on $\varprojlim_p\mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}/\tilde{J^p}$and there is an isomorphism of Lie algebras $$ \varprojlim_p\mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}/\tilde{J^p} \cong H_0({{\rm{Hom}}}(B(H^*(M)), H^*(M)^{\vee})). $$ \end{theorem} Goldman showed that the vector space spanned by the free homotopy classes of closed curves on a closed oriented surface has a Lie algebra structure . This work led Chas and Sullivan to the string topology. We would verify that this structure makes $\varprojlim_p\mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}/\tilde{J^p}$ a Lie algebra. On the other hand, we can construct a bracket on $H_0({{\rm{Hom}}}(B(H^*(M)), H^*(M)^{\vee}))$ by the cup product defined in section 3 and the Connes's operator. Here we regard $H^*(M)$ as a differential graded algebra with a trivial differential. Theorem 6.1 asserts that those two Lie algebras are isomorphic. First we describe a relation between this bracket and the augmentation ideal of the group ring of the surface group to induce a Lie algebra structure on $\varprojlim_p\mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}/\tilde{J^p}$. Then we construct a bracket on $H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee}))$ and verify the isomorphism of Lie algebras $$ \varprojlim_p\mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}/\tilde{J^p} \cong H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})). $$ Finally we verify the isomorphism $$ H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})) \cong H_0({\rm{Hom}}(B(H^*(M)), H^*(M)^{\vee}). $$ The following proposition makes $\varprojlim_p\mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}/\tilde{J^p}$ a Lie algebra. \begin{proposition} (1) If $p$ $\geq$ $1$ and $q$ $\geq$ $2$, then $[\tilde{J^p}, \tilde{J^q}] \subset \tilde{J}^{p+q-2}.$ \\ (2) If p $\geq $ $2$ , then $[\tilde{J^p}, \mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}] \subset \tilde{J}^{p-1}.$ \end{proposition} \begin{proof} We give a proof of {\it(1)}. Take $(\sigma_1-x)\cdots(\sigma_p-x)$ $\in$ $\tilde{J^p}$, $(\tau_1-y)\cdots(\tau_q-y)$ $\in$ $\tilde{J^q}$, where $\sigma_i$ $\in$ $\Omega_xM$ and $\tau_i$ $\in$ $\Omega_yM$. Assume that all curves are immersions and $\sigma_i$ $\tau_j$ intersect transversally for any $i, j$. Let $\{\sigma_i\sharp\tau_j\}$ denote the set of intersection points of $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_j$. Also assume that all the intersection points are distinct i.e. $\{\sigma_i\sharp\tau_j\}$ $\cap$ $\{\sigma_k\sharp\tau_l\}$ = $\phi$ if $i$ $\not=$ $k$ or $j$ $\not=$ l. Then, \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{[\sigma, \tau] = \sum_{i,j}\sum_{s\in\sigma_i\sharp\tau_j} \{ \varepsilon(s ; \sigma_i, \tau_j) \gamma_{s,x}\cdot (\sigma_i-x) \cdots (\sigma_p-x) (\sigma_1-x) \cdots } \\ & & \ \ \ \ \ \ \cdot (\sigma_{i-1}-x) \cdot\gamma_{s,x}^{-1}\cdot \cdot \gamma_{s,y}\cdot ( \tau_j-y) \cdots( \tau_q-y )( \tau_1-y) \cdots ( \tau_{j-1}-y)\cdot\gamma_{s,y}^{-1} \\ & & \ \ - \gamma_{s,x}\cdot (\sigma_{i+1}-x) \cdots (\sigma_p-x) (\sigma_1-x) \cdots (\sigma_{i-1}-x) \cdot \gamma_{s,x}^{-1}\cdot \\ & & \ \ \ \ \ \ \cdot \gamma_{s,y}\cdot ( \tau_ {j+1}-y) \cdots( \tau_q-y )( \tau_1-y) \cdots ( \tau_{j-1}-y)\cdot\gamma_{s,y}^{-1} \} \\ && \in \tilde{J}^{p+q-2}. \end{eqnarray*} Here $\gamma_{s,x}$ is a path from $s$ to $x$ along $\sigma_i$ and $\gamma_{s,y}$ is a path from $s$ to $y$ along $\tau_j$. The proof of {\it(2)} can be verified in the same way. \end{proof} Let A be a differential graded subalgebra of $\Lambda M$ such that $H^*(A) \cong H^*(\Lambda M)$ by the inclusion. \begin{proposition} There is an isomorphism of vector spaces $$ H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A), A)) \cong H_{*-2}(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A), A^{\vee})). $$ \end{proposition} \begin{proof} We define $P : H_{*-2}(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A), A)) \rightarrow H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A), A^{\vee}))$ by $$ P(\varphi)(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_p)(\omega) = \int_M \omega\wedge\varphi(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_p). $$ This map preserves the filtrations. On $E^1$-level, the map $$ {\rm{Hom}}(\otimes^qH(A), H(A)) \rightarrow {\rm{Hom}}(\otimes^qH(A), H(A)^{\vee}) $$ is isomorphic. Therefore we obtain the proposition. \end{proof} Now we construct a bracket on $H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee}))$. First, we define the {\it Connes's operator} $B : H_*(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A), A^{\vee})) \rightarrow H_{*+1}(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^{p-1}B(A), A^{\vee}))$ by \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{B(\varphi)(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_{p-1})(\omega)} \\ & = & \sum_{0\leq k\leq p-1}(-1)^{(\varepsilon_k+1)(\varepsilon_{p-1}-\varepsilon_k)}\varphi(\omega_{k+1}, \cdots ,\omega_{p-1},\omega,\omega_1,\cdots\omega_k)(1). \end{eqnarray*} Composing these maps and the cup product, we can define a bracket on \\ $H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A), A^{\vee}))$ by $$ [\varphi_1, \varphi_2] = -P(P^{-1}B\varphi_1\cup P^{-1}B\varphi_2) \in H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^{p-1}B(A), A^{\vee})). $$ Take 2$g$ closed 1-forms on $M$, $\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_g,\beta_1,\cdots\beta_g$, such that $\int_M \alpha_i\wedge\beta_j = \delta_{ij}$. Let $\{ \overline{E}^r_{p. q} \}$ denote the spectral sequence of $\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee})$ associated with $F^pB(A)$. Notice that the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ acts on $\overline{E}^1_{p, -p}$ $\cong$ ${\rm{Hom}}(\otimes^pH^1(A), \mathbb{R})$ by $$ \iota\varphi(\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_p) = \varphi(\omega_2, \cdots, \omega_p, \omega_1) $$ where $\iota$ is a generator of $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$. The bracket $ [ \ , \ ] : \overline{E}^1_{p, -p} \otimes \overline{E}^1_{q, -q} \rightarrow \overline{E}^1_{p+q-2, -p-q+2} $ is \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{[\varphi_1, \varphi_2](\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_{p+q-2})} \\ & & = \sum_{i, m, n}\iota^m\varphi_1(\alpha_i, \omega_1, \cdots, \omega_{p-1})\varrho^n \varphi_2(\beta_i, \omega_p, \cdots, \omega_{p+q-2}) \\ & & \hspace{2cm} -\iota^m\varphi_1(\beta_i, \omega_1, \cdots, \omega_{p-1})\varrho^n \varphi_2(\alpha_i, \omega_p, \cdots, \omega_{p+q-2}) \\ \end{eqnarray*} where $\iota$ and $\varrho$ are generators of $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}/q\mathbb{Z}$, respectively. \\ \begin{proposition} The following diagram commutes for $p, q$ $\geq $ 1: $$\begin{CD} \tilde{J^p}/\tilde{J^{p+1}} \otimes \tilde{J^q}/\tilde{J^{q+1}} @ >>> \overline{E}_{\infty }^{p, -p} \otimes \overline{E}_{\infty }^{q, -q} \\ @ V [ \ , \ ] VV @ V [ \ , \ ] VV \\ \tilde{J}^{p+q-2}/\tilde{J}^{p+q-1} @ >>> \overline{E}_{\infty }^{p+q-2, -p-q+2} \end{CD}$$ \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Take $\sigma$ = $(\sigma_1-x)\cdots(\sigma_p-x)$ $\in$ $F_p\overline{C_0}(LM)$, $\tau$ = $(\tau_1-y)\cdots(\tau_q-y)$ $\in$ $F_q\overline{C_0}(LM)$. Take 2$g$ curves in $M$, $a_i, b_i$, as in Figure 1. Assume that $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_j$, $a_k$, or $b_k$, intersect transversally for any $i, j, k$. Also assume that $\tau_j$ and $a_k$, or $b_k$, intersect transversally for any $j, k$. Assume that all the intersection points are distinct. Then for any $i, j, k$, we can take each tubular neighborhoods of $a_i$ and $b_i$ so that it does not include some neighborhoods of intersection points of $\sigma_j$ and $\tau_k$. We fix such neighborhoods of intersection points and denote them by $U_p$ for each $p$. We can also take a tubular neighborhood of the diagonal map from $M$ to $M$$\times$$M$ outside those neighborhoods of intersection points of $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_j$ for any $i, j$ i.e. $$ N_{\Delta} \cap \Bigr(\sigma_i \bigr(S^1\setminus\cup_p \sigma_i^{-1}(U_p) \bigl) \times \tau_j \bigr(S^1\setminus\cup_p \tau_j^{-1}(U_p) \bigl) \Bigl) = \phi, \ \forall i, j. $$ Here $N_{\Delta}$ denotes the tubular neighborhood of the diagonal map. Thom class $\Phi$ of this tubular neighborhood satisfies $$ \int_{\sigma_i|_{\sigma_i^{-1}(U_p)}\times\tau_j|_{\tau_j^{-1}(U_p)}} \Phi = -\varepsilon(p; \sigma_i,\tau_j), $$ where $\varepsilon(p; \sigma_i,\tau_j)$ is the intersecion number of $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_j$ at $p$. Define $e_\sharp$ : $C_0(LM)$ $\rightarrow$ $C_1(LM)$ by $e_\sharp\gamma(\xi)(t) = \gamma(\xi + t)$. Let $\omega_k$, $1 \leq k \leq n$, be differential forms on $M$ which has its support inside the tubular neighborhoods of $a_i$ and $b_i$. Then \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{ \int_{[\sigma_i, \tau_j]} \int \omega_1\cdots \omega_{n} } \\ && = \sum_{p \in \sigma_i\sharp\tau_j, k}\varepsilon(p ; \sigma_i, \tau_j)\int_{(\sigma_i)_p} \int\omega_1\cdots\omega_k \int_{(\tau_j)_p}\int\omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_n \\ & & = - \sum_{p\in\sigma_i\sharp\tau_j, k} \int_{\sigma_i|_{\sigma_i^{-1}(U_p)} \times\tau_j|_{\tau_j^{-1}(U_p)}} \Phi \int_{(\sigma_i)_p}\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_k\int_{(\tau_j)_p} \int\omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_n \\ && = - \sum_k \int_{e_\sharp \sigma_i\times e_\sharp \tau_j} \pi^*\Phi \wedge p_1^*\int \omega_1\cdots \omega_k \wedge p_2^* \int \omega_{k+1} \cdots \omega_n. \end{eqnarray*} Here $p_1, p_2 : LM \times LM \rightarrow LM$ are the projections. The last equality is obtained by the following lemma. \begin{lemma} If $p$ $\in$ $\sigma_i\sharp\tau_j$ and $p'$ $\in$ $U_p\cap\sigma_i([0, 1])$, then $$ \int_{(\sigma_i)_p}\int \omega_1\cdots\omega_n = \int_{(\sigma_i)_{p'}}\int \omega_1\cdots\omega_n. $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof}F Let $\gamma$ be the curve from $p$ to $p'$ along $\sigma_i$ inside $U_p$. If $\gamma$ and $\sigma$ are in the same direction, then \begin{eqnarray*} \begin{split} \int_{(\sigma_i)_{p'}} & \int \omega_1\cdots\omega_n = \int_{\gamma\cdot(\sigma_i)_{p'}} \int\omega_1\cdots\omega_n = \int_{(\sigma)_p\cdot\gamma}\int \omega_1\cdots\omega_n \\ & =\int_{(\sigma)_p}\int \omega_1\cdots\omega_n. \end{split} \end{eqnarray*} We can also verify the case where $\gamma$ is in the direction opposite to $\sigma$ in the same way. \end{proof} We have the equality \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{ \sum_k - \int_{e_\sharp\sigma \times e_\sharp\tau } \pi^* \Phi \wedge p_1^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_k \wedge p_2^*\int\omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_{p+q-2} } \\ && = \sum_{j, k}\int_{e_\sharp\sigma\times e_\sharp\tau} \pi^*\Bigr( -p_1^*(\alpha_1\wedge\beta_1)-p_2^*(\alpha_1\wedge\beta_1) + p_1^*\alpha_j\wedge p_2^*\beta_j - p_1^*\beta_j\wedge p_2^*\alpha_j \Bigl) \\ && \hspace{2cm} \wedge p_1^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_k\wedge p_2^*\int \omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_{p+q-2} \\ \end{eqnarray*} In fact, if $\eta$ $\in$ $\Lambda (M \times M)$ then \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{ (-1)^{|\eta|+1}\int_{e_\sharp\sigma \times e_\sharp\tau } \pi^*d\eta \wedge p_1^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_k\wedge p_2^*\int\omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_{p+q-2}} \\ & & = \int_{e_\sharp\sigma \times e_\sharp\tau } \pi^*\eta\wedge d\Bigr( p_1^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_k\wedge p_2^*\int\omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_{p+q-2} \Bigl) \\ & & \hspace{1cm}+ (e_\sharp\sigma)^*\int\omega_1\cdots \omega_k \bigwedge (e_\sharp\tau)^*\int\omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_j\wedge\omega_{j+1}\cdots\omega_{p+q-2} \Bigl) \\ & & = 0. \end{eqnarray*} The last equality is obtained by the following lemma. \begin{lemma} If $\sigma \in F_p\overline{C_0}(LM)$, then $$ (e_\sharp\sigma)^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_{p-2} = 0. $$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} It suffices to show the case $\sigma$ = $(\tau_1-x)\cdots(\tau_p-x)$ where $x$ $\in$ M and $\tau_i$ $\in$ $\Omega_xM$. We define $\bar{\tau_i}$ $\in$ $\Omega_xM$ by $$ \bar{\tau_i}(t) = \begin{cases} \tau_i(pt), & \mbox{if}\; (i-1)/p\leq t\leq i/p \\ 0, & \mbox{otherwise}. \\ \end{cases} $$ Let $\bar{\sigma}$ denote $(\bar{\tau_1}-x)\cdots(\bar{\tau_p}-x)$. It can be shown that $e_\sharp\bar{\sigma}$ restricted on $[(i-1)/p , i/p]$ is contained in $F_{p-1}\overline{C_1}(LM)$ for any $i$. Therefore $$ (e_\sharp\sigma)^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_{p-2} =(e_\sharp\bar{\sigma})^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_{p-2} = 0. $$ \end{proof} Jones, Geztler, and Petrack describes the map $e_\sharp$ in terms of iterated integrals by the following theorem. \begin{theorem}[Geztler-Jones-Petrack ] If $\sigma$ $\in$ $C_0(LM)$ and $\omega, \omega_i$ $\in$ $\Lambda^1 M$, 1 $\leq$ i $\leq$ p, then $$ \int_{e_\sharp\sigma} \pi^*\omega\wedge\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_p = \sum_k\int_\sigma\int\omega_k\cdots\omega_p\omega\omega_1\cdots\omega_{k-1}. $$ \end{theorem} This theorem asserts the equality \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{ \sum_{j, k}\int_{e_\sharp\sigma\times e_\sharp\tau} \pi^*\Bigr( -p_1^*(\alpha_1\wedge\beta_1)-p_2^*(\alpha_1\wedge\beta_1) + p_1^*\alpha_j\wedge p_2^*\beta_j - p_1^*\beta_j\wedge p_2^*\alpha_j \Bigl) } \\ && \hspace{2cm} \wedge p_1^*\int\omega_1\cdots\omega_k\wedge p_2^*\int \omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_n \\ && = \sum_{j, k, l} \int_{\sigma} \int \omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_{p-1}\alpha_j\omega_1\cdots\omega_k \int_{\tau} \int \omega_{l+1}\cdots\omega_{p+q-2}\beta_j\omega_p\cdots\omega_l \\ && - \int_{\sigma} \int \omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_{p-1}\beta_j\omega_1\cdots\omega_k \int_{\tau} \int \omega_{l+1}\cdots\omega_{p+q-2}\alpha_j\omega_p\cdots\omega_l \end{eqnarray*} Finally we obtain the equality \begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{ \int_{[\sigma, \tau]} \int \omega_1\cdots \omega_{p+q-2} } \\ && = \sum_{j, k, l} \int_{\sigma} \int \omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_{p-1}\alpha_j\omega_1\cdots\omega_k \int_{\tau} \int \omega_{l+1}\cdots\omega_{p+q-2}\beta_j\omega_p\cdots\omega_l \\ && - \int_{\sigma} \int \omega_{k+1}\cdots\omega_{p-1}\beta_j\omega_1\cdots\omega_k \int_{\tau} \int \omega_{l+1}\cdots\omega_{p+q-2}\alpha_j\omega_p\cdots\omega_l \end{eqnarray*} Since we can take $\omega_i$ $\in$ $H^1(M)$, $1 \leq i \leq p+q-2$, so that their support are inside the tubular neighborhoods of $a_j$ and $b_j$, we obtain the proposition. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[\it Proof of theorem 6.1.] We obtain the following isomorphism of Lie algebras by proposition 6.4. $$ \varprojlim_p\mathbb{R}\tilde{\pi}/\tilde{J^p} \cong H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee}). $$ To obtain the isomorphism of Lie algebras $$ H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A), A^{\vee}) \cong H_0({\rm{Hom}}(B(H^*(M)), H^*(M)^{\vee}), $$ we introduce the following lemma, which asserts the formality of the compact ${\rm K\ddot{a}hler}$ manifolds. \begin{lemma}[$dd^c Lemma$, Deligne-Griffiths-Morgan-Sullivan ] Let X be a compact $K\ddot{a}hler$ manifold and $d^c = J^{-1}dJ$ where J gives the complex structure in the cotangent bundle. If $\alpha$ is a differential form on X such that d$\alpha$ = 0 and $d^c\alpha$ = 0, and such that $\alpha = d\gamma$, then $\alpha = dd^c\beta$ for some $\beta$. \end{lemma} {\bf Cor.} {\it There are quasi-isomorphisms of differential graded algebras } $$ (\Lambda X, d) \leftarrow ({\rm{ker}}d^c, d) \rightarrow (H_{d^c}^*(X), 0). $$ Notice that a closed oriented surface endowed with a complex structure become a $\rm{K\ddot{a}hler}$ manifolds for the dimensional reason. Therefore the following lemma completes the proof of the theorem. \begin{lemma} If $f : A_1 \rightarrow A_2$ is a quasi-isomorphism of differential graded algebras, then the map induced by $f$ $$ H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A_1), A_1^{\vee}) \rightarrow H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(B(A_2), A_2^{\vee}) $$ is an isomorphism. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} It suffices to verify that the map induced by $f$ $$ \overline{f} : H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A_1), A_1^{\vee}) \rightarrow H_0(\overline{{\rm{Hom}}}(F^pB(A_2), A_2^{\vee}) $$ is an isomorphism for any $p$. On $E^1$-level, the map induced by $f$ $$ {\rm Hom}(\otimes sH(A_1), H(A_1)^{\vee}) \rightarrow {\rm Hom}(\otimes sH(A_2), H(A_2)^{\vee})) $$ is an isomorphism because $f$ is quasi-isomorphism. Therefore we obtain the lemma. \end{proof} Therefore we obtain the theorem. \end{proof} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{chassullivan} M. Chas and D. Sullivan, {\it String topology}, preprint, 1999, http://arXiv.org /abs/math.GT/9911159. \bibitem{chen73} K.T. Chen, {\it Iterated integrals of differential forms and loop space homology}, Ann. of Math. (2) {\bf97}(1973), 217-246. \bibitem{chen75} K.T. Chen, {\it Iterated integrals, fundamental groups and covering spaces}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. {\bf206} (1975), 83-98. \bibitem{chen77.1} K.T. Chen, {\it Reduced bar constructions on de Rham complexes}, in:A.Haller and M.Tierney (eds), ({\it Algebra, topology and category theory}, 1977, pp. 19-32). \bibitem{chen77.2} K.T. Chen, {\it Iterated path integrals}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. {\bf83} (1977), no.5, 831-879. \bibitem{cjy} R.L. Cohen, J.D.S. Jones and J. Yan, {\it The loop homology algebra of spheres and projective spaces}, Categorical Decomposition Techniques in Algebraic Topology (Isle of Skye, 2001), Progr. Math., vol. 215. $Birkh\ddot{a}user$, Basel, 2004, pp.77-92. \bibitem{dgms} P. Deligne, P. Griffiths, J. Morgan and D. Sullivan, {\it Real homotopy theory of $K\ddot{a}hler$ manifolds}, Invent. Math. {\bf 29} (1975), 245-274. \bibitem{gjp} E. Getzler, J.D.S. Jones and S. Petrack {\it Differential forms on loop spaces and the cyclic bar complex}, Topology {\bf30} (1991), no.3, 339-371. \bibitem{goldman} W.M. Goldman, {\it Invariant functions on Lie groups and Hamlitonian flows of surface group representation}, Invent. Math. {\bf85} (1986), no.2, 263-302. \bibitem{merkulov} S.A. Merkulov, {\it De Rham Model for String Topology}, International Mathematics Research Notices {\bf55} (2004), 2955-2981. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0016
|
Title: Lifetime of doubly charmed baryons
Abstract: In this work, we evaluate the lifetimes of the doubly charmed baryons
$\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ and $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$. We carefully calculate
the non-spectator contributions at the quark level where the Cabibbo-suppressed
diagrams are also included. The hadronic matrix elements are evaluated in the
simple non-relativistic harmonic oscillator model. Our numerical results are
generally consistent with that obtained by other authors who used the diquark
model. However, all the theoretical predictions on the lifetimes are one order
larger than the upper limit set by the recent SELEX measurement. This
discrepancy would be clarified by the future experiment, if more accurate
experiment still confirms the value of the SELEX collaboration, there must be
some unknown mechanism to be explored.
Body: \title{Lifetime of doubly charmed baryons} \author{Chao-Hsi Chang$^{1,2}$ \footnote{email: zhangzx@itp.ac.cn}, Tong Li$^{3}$\footnote{email: allongde@mail.nankai.edu.cn}, Xue-Qian Li$^{3}$\footnote{email: lixq@nankai.edu.cn} and Yu-Ming Wang$^{4}$\footnote{email: wangym@mail.ihep.ac.cn}} \address{$^1$CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, P.R. China\\ $^2$Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O.Box 2735, Beijing 100080, P.R. China\\ $^3$ Department of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, P.R. China\\ $^4$Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O.Box 918, Beijing 100049, P.R. China} \begin{abstract} In this work, we evaluate the lifetimes of the doubly charmed baryons $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ and $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$. We carefully calculate the non-spectator contributions at the quark level where the Cabibbo-suppressed diagrams are also included. The hadronic matrix elements are evaluated in the simple non-relativistic harmonic oscillator model. Our numerical results are generally consistent with that obtained by other authors who used the diquark model. However, all the theoretical predictions on the lifetimes are one order larger than the upper limit set by the recent SELEX measurement. This discrepancy would be clarified by the future experiment, if more accurate experiment still confirms the value of the SELEX collaboration, there must be some unknown mechanism to be explored. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The quite large difference of the lifetimes between $D^{\pm}$ and $D^0$ and the lifetimes close to each other for $B^{\pm}$ and $B^0$ are well explained by taking into account the non-spectator effects. This success implies that the mechanism which governs the reactions at quark level is well understood. When we apply the mechanism to the heavy baryon case, some problems emerge. The famous puzzle in the heavy-flavor field that the lifetime of $\Lambda_b$ is remarkably shorter than that of $B$ meson is much alleviated recently when the operators of higher dimensions are taken into account. The more recent experimental value of the ratio $\tau(\Lambda_b)/\tau(B^0) =1.041\pm 0.057$ is close to the theoretical evaluation. However, in the theoretical works, one can notice that the evaluation of hadronic matrix elements is still very rough and based on some approximations. The possible errors brought up by the uncertainties in the hadronic matrix elements are still uncontrollable. In our recent work, we find that the short-distance contributions to the branching ratio of $\Lambda_b\rightarrow \Lambda \gamma$ which is evaluated in the PQCD approach, are much smaller than that from long-distance effects. Therefore, even though one has a full reason to believe that the low-energy QCD should solve the discrepancy if it exists, he must find a proper way to deal with the hadronic matrix elements. The observation of doubly charmed baryon $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$ by the SELEX Collaboration at FERMILAB provides an opportunity to investigate the hidden problems. Hopefully the study may shed some lights on the unknown non-perturbative QCD effects which result in obvious difference between baryons and mesons. Because $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$ contains two heavy quarks, by the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) the situation may become relatively simple and clear compared to the case of $\Lambda_b$ or $\Lambda_c$ which possesses only one heavy quark. Thus a careful study on the $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$ is necessary and interesting. Several groups already investigated the two-heavy-flavor baryons a long time ago. In their work, the evaluation of the hadronic matrix elements is based on the quark-diquark structure of the baryons. This is definitely reasonable, it is believed that two heavy quarks can constitute a more stable and compact color-anti-triplet diquark. However, since charm quark, even b-quark, is not so heavy that the degree of freedom of the light flavor can be ignored, the diquark scenario may bring up certain errors, especially when evaluating lifetimes of baryons, because only inclusive processes are concerned. In this work, we do not use the diquark picture, but instead, adopt a simpler non-relativistic model for the baryon and re-evaluate the hadronic matrix elements. As a by-product, one can compare the results by the diquark picture with that by the three valence-quark picture. It may help us to better understand the diquark picture and its application range. The advantage is obvious, that we only concern the inclusive processes in terms of the optical theorem when calculating the lifetime. Therefore, we do not need to deal with the hadronization to light hadrons. The only non-perturbative effects come from the wave function of the heavy baryon. Moreover, since there are two heavy quarks in the baryon, the relativistic effects are not so significant and the framework of non-relativistic harmonic oscillator model might lead to a reasonable result. Moreover, at the quark level, we carry out similar calculations as that in the literature, but we keep some new operators which are CKM suppressed and contribute to the lifetime. They appear at the non-spectator scattering at order of $\frac{1}{m_c^3}$ in heavy quark expansion(HQE). Later, our numerical results show that their contributions are indeed very tiny to make any substantial contributions. All the concerned parameters in the model are obtained by fitting data, therefore we avoid some theoretical uncertainties and obtain reasonable results. Comparing these results with data, we may gain information about the the whole picture. Our paper is organized as follows. In Section.II we derive the formulation for the lifetimes of $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ and $\Omega_{cc}^+$ which include the non-spectator effects. In Section.III, we use a simple model, i.e. the harmonic oscillator, to estimate the hadronic matrix elements. In Section.IV we present our numerical results along with the values of all the input parameters. The last section is devoted to our conclusion and discussion. \section{Formulation for Lifetimes of $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$, $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$ } \subsection{Spectator Contribution to Lifetimes of $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$, $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$ } The lifetime is determined by the inclusive decays. Thus one can use the optical theorem to obtain the total width (lifetime) of the heavy hadron by calculating the absorptive part of the forward-scattering amplitude. The total width is then written as \begin{eqnarray} \mathbf{\Gamma}(H_{Q}\rightarrow X)=\frac {1}{m_{H_{Q}}}\text{Im}\int d^{4}x\langle H_{Q}|\hat{T}|H_{Q}\rangle =\frac {1}{2 m_{H_{Q}}}\langle H_{Q}|\hat{\Gamma}|H_{Q}\rangle, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \hat{T}=T\{i\mathcal{L}_{eff}(x),\mathcal{L}_{eff}(0)\} \end{eqnarray} and $\mathcal{L}_{eff}$ is the relevant effective Lagrangian. $1/m_{Q}$ is the expansion parameter, and the non-local operator $\hat{T}$ is expanded as a sum of local operators and the corresponding Wilson coefficients include terms with increasing powers of $1/m_{Q}$. Definitely, the lowest dimensional term dominates in the limit $m_{Q}\rightarrow \infty$ and it is the dimension-three operator $\bar{c}c$. The total width of a charmed hadron $H_{c}$ is determined by $\text{Im}\langle H_c| \hat{T}|H_c\rangle$ with a proper normalization. \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma(H_{c}\rightarrow f)&=&\frac{G_{F}^{2}m_{c}^{5}} {192\pi^{3}}|V_{CKM}|^{2}\{ c_{3}(f)\langle H_{c}| \bar{c}c |H_{c}\rangle\nonumber \\ &&+c_{5}(f)\frac{\langle H_{c}| \bar{c} i \sigma_{\mu \nu} G^{\mu \nu} c |H_{c}\rangle}{m_{c}^{2}}+\nonumber \\ && \sum_{i}c_{6}^{(i)}(f) \frac{ \langle H_{c}| (\bar{c}\Gamma_{i} q) (\bar{q} \Gamma_{i} c) |H_{c}\rangle}{m_{c}^{3}} +\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{m_{c}^{4}})\}, \end{eqnarray} where the coefficients $c_{i}(f)$ depend on the masses of the internal quarks in the loop. The coefficient $c_{3}(f)$ has been calculated to one-loop order whereas the coefficient $c_{5}(f)$ is evaluated at the tree level. $V_{CKM}$ is the Cabibbo-Kabayashi-Maskawa mixing matrix elements and $G_{\mu\upsilon}$ is the gluonic field strength tensor. Since the third term involves light quarks, it can be different for charmed hadrons with various light flavors. Thus, the difference appears at the $1/m_{c}^3$ order and in the hadronic matrix elements of four-quark operators. The contributions at orders higher than $1/m_{c}^3$ are neglected. To the lowest order, the main contribution comes from the heavy quark(charm quark) decays, while the light flavors are treated as spectators. The contributions are due to the semileptonic and the nonleptonic decays as follows: \begin{eqnarray} &&\Gamma(c\rightarrow s)=\sum_{l=e,\mu}\Gamma_{c\rightarrow s \bar{l}\upsilon}+\sum_{q(q')=u,d,s} \Gamma_{c\rightarrow s \bar{q}q'} \end{eqnarray} The semileptonic and nonleptonic decay rates of the $c$ quark up to order $1/m_{c}^{2}$ has been evaluated by many authors, and here we would directly use their results. \subsection{Non-spectator Contributions to Inclusive Decays of $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$, $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$} The total width of hadrons which involve at least one charm quark $c$ can be decomposed into two parts�� \begin{eqnarray} &&\Gamma(H_{Q} \rightarrow f)=\Gamma^{spectator}+\Gamma^{nonspectator}. \end{eqnarray} For the spectator scenario, the contribution to the total width of the ($ccd$)-baryon ground state $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, the ($ccu$)-baryon ground state $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ and the ($ccs$)-baryon ground state $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$ should be a sum of decays rates of two $c-$quarks individually��namely \begin{eqnarray} &&\Gamma_{ccq}^{spec}\simeq 2\Gamma_{c}^{spec}\,,\;\;\;\; q=u,d,s. \end{eqnarray} To derive the non-spectator contributions for decays of $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ and $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$, we need the relevant effective Lagrangian: \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{L}_{eff}^{(\Delta c=1)}(\mu=m_{c})&=&-\frac{4G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} \{V_{cs} V_{ud}^{*}[C_{1}(\mu)\bar{s}\gamma^{\mu}Lc \bar{u}{\gamma_\mu}Ld+ C_{2}(\mu)\bar{u}\gamma^{\mu}Lc \bar{s}{\gamma_\mu}Ld ]\nonumber \\ &&+V_{cd} V_{ud}^{*}[C_{1}(\mu)\bar{d}\gamma^{\mu}Lc \bar{u}{\gamma_\mu}Ld+ C_{2}(\mu)\bar{u}\gamma^{\mu}Lc \bar{d}{\gamma_\mu}Ld ]\nonumber \\ &&+V_{cs} V_{us}^{*}[C_{1}(\mu)\bar{s}\gamma^{\mu}Lc \bar{u}{\gamma_\mu}Ls+ C_{2}(\mu)\bar{u}\gamma^{\mu}Lc \bar{s}{\gamma_\mu}Ls ]\nonumber \\ &&+V_{cs}\sum_{l=e,\mu}\bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}Lc \bar{\nu_{l}}\gamma^{\mu} L l\}+h.c. \end{eqnarray} where $L$ denotes ${1-\gamma_5\over 2}$.\\ (i) The inclusive decays of $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$:\\ There are four diagrams which contribute to the the width of $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, as shown in Fig.1. Here we also include the Feynman diagrams which are CKM suppressed. Fig 1.(a),(c) are the W-exchange diagrams (WE), while Fig 1.(b),(d) are the pauli-interference diagrams (PI). Here Fig 1.(d) is arisen from the semi-leptonic decay of the charm quarks with the $d-$quark in $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$. For the WE-type diagrams, we derive the contribution to the width as \begin{eqnarray} \hat{\Gamma}_{WE}^{\Xi_{cc}^{+}}&=&\frac{2G_{F}^{2}}{\pi} (|V_{cs}|^{2} |V_{ud}|^{2}C(z_{s+},z_{u+}) +|V_{cd}|^{2} |V_{ud}|^{2}C(z_{u+},z_{d+}))P_{+}^{2}\nonumber \\ &&\{[C_{1}^{2}(\mu)+C_{2}^{2}(\mu)] \bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}Lc \bar{d}{\gamma_\mu}Ld+ 2 C_{1}(\mu)C_{2}(\mu) \bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}Ld \bar{d}{\gamma_\mu}Lc\}, \end{eqnarray} where $P_{+}=p_{c}+p_{d}$, $z_{q+}=\frac{m_{q}^{2}}{P_{+}^{2}}(q=u,d,s)$. The definition of the function $C(z_1,z_2)$ is \begin{eqnarray} C(z_1,z_2)=-[-2(x_2^3-x_1^3)-(x_2^2-x_1^2)(3+2z_1-2z_2)+4z_1(x_2-x_1)], \end{eqnarray} where $x_{1,2}=\frac{(1+z_1-z_2)\mp\sqrt{(1+z_1-z_2)^2-4z_1}}{2}$. In the expressions $q $ and $\bar{q}$ are free field opearotors of quark and antiquark, and we will show in next section that all the non-perturbative QCD effects are included in the wavefunctions. Their explicit expressions are given as \begin{eqnarray} &&q=\int \frac {d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} \frac {m_{q}}{E_{q}}\sum_{\alpha=1,2}\left(b_{q_{\alpha}}(k) u_{q}^{\alpha}(k)e^{-ikx}+d_{q_{\alpha}}^{+}(k) \upsilon_{q}^{\alpha}(k)e^{+ikx}\right)\\ &&\bar{q}=\int \frac {d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} \frac {m_{q}}{E_{q}}\sum_{\alpha=1,2}\left(b_{q_{\alpha}}^{+}(k) \bar{u}_{q}^{\alpha}(k)e^{ikx}+d_{q_{\alpha}}(k) \bar{\upsilon}_{q}^{\alpha}(k)e^{-ikx}\right). \end{eqnarray} For $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, $q$=$c, u$. The contributions from the Pauli-interference(PI) non-spectator diagrams to the width of $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$ are: \begin{eqnarray} \hat{\Gamma}_{PI}^{\Xi_{cc}^{+}}&=&-\frac{2G_{F}^{2}} {3\pi}\{|V_{ud}|^{2}|V_{cd}|^{2}F_{\mu \nu}(z_{u-},z_{d-}) [N C_1^2(\mu) \bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}L d \bar{d}{\gamma^\nu}L c +C_2^2(\mu) \bar{c}^i\gamma^{\mu}L d^j \bar{d}^j{\gamma^\nu}L c^i\nonumber \\ &&+2C_1(\mu) C_2(\mu) \bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}L d \bar{d}{\gamma^\nu}L c] +2|V_{cd}|^{2}F_{\mu \nu}(0,z_{l-})\bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}L d \bar{d}{\gamma^\nu}L c \}, \end{eqnarray} where $z_{q-}=\frac{m_{q}^{2}}{P_{-}^{2}}(q=u,d,e,\mu)$ and $P_{-}=p_{c}-p_{d}$. The definition of the function $F_{\mu \nu }(z_1,z_2)$ is \begin{eqnarray} F_{\mu \nu }(z_1,z_2)&=&-[2(x_2^3-x_1^3)-\frac{3}{2}(2+z_1-z_2) (x_2^2-x_1^2)+3(x_2-x_1)]P_{-}^2 g_{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\ &&+[2(x_2^3-x_1^3)-3(x_2^2-x_1^2)]P_{-\mu}P_{-\nu}, \end{eqnarray} where the definitions of $z_1$ and $z_2$ are the same as before.\\ (ii) The inclusive decays of $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$:\\ The non-spectator contribution to the width of $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$come from the diagrams shown in Fig.2. That is caused by an interference of the produced $u-$quark from decay of one of the charm quarks with the $u-$quark in $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$. Here we also include the $CKM$ suppressed Feynman diagrams. The contribution is \begin{eqnarray} \hat{\Gamma}_{PI}^{\Xi_{cc}^{++}}&=&-\frac{2G_{F}^{2}}{3\pi}\{|V_{cs}|^{2}|V_{ud}|^{2} F_{\mu \nu}(z_{s-},z_{d-})+|V_{cs}|^{2}|V_{us}|^{2}F_{\mu \nu}(z_{s-},z_{s-})\nonumber \\ &&+|V_{cd}|^{2}|V_{ud}|^{2}F_{\mu \nu}(z_{d-},z_{d-})\}\nonumber \\ &&\{C_{1}^{2}(\mu)\bar{c}^{i}\gamma^{\mu}Lu^{j}\bar{u}^{j}\gamma^{\nu}Lc^{i}+ N C_{2}^{2}(\mu)\bar{u}\gamma^{\mu}L c \bar{c}{\gamma^{\nu}}L u +2C_{1}(\mu)C_{2}(\mu)\bar{u}\gamma^{\mu}Lc \bar{c}L^{\nu} u\},\nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} where $z_{-}=\frac{m_{q}^{2}}{P_{-}^{2}}(q=s,d)$, $P_{-}=p_{c}-p_{u}$.\\ (iii) For the inclusive decays of $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$:\\ The non-spectator contributions for $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$ not only come from the Pauli interference of the $s-$ quark produced in the non-leptonic, but also from the semi-leptonic decay of the charm quarks with the $s-$quark in $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$, the later one is suggested by Voloshin et al.. As above, here we include the CKM suppressed WE non-spectator diagrams. The WE non-spectator contribution to the width $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$ is \begin{eqnarray} \hat{\Gamma}_{WE}^{\Omega_{cc}^{+}}&=&\frac{2G_{F}^{2}}{\pi} |V_{us}|^{2} |V_{cs}|^{2}C(z_{u+},z_{s+}) P_{+}^{2}\nonumber \\ &&\{[C_{1}^{2}(\mu)+C_{2}^{2}(\mu)] \bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}L c \bar{s}{\gamma_\mu}L s+ 2 C_{1}(\mu)C_{2}(\mu) \bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}L s \bar{s}{\gamma_\mu}L c\}, \nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} where $z_{q+}=\frac{m_{q}^{2}}{P_{+}^{2}}$, $q=u,s$ and $P_{+}=p_{c}+p_{s}$. \\ The PI non-spectator contribution to the width of $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$ is \begin{eqnarray} \hat{\Gamma}_{PI}^{\Omega_{cc}^{+}}&=&-\frac{2G_{F}^{2}}{3\pi} \{|V_{cs}|^{2} |V_{ud}|^{2}F_{\mu \nu}(z_{u-},z_{d-}) +|V_{cs}|^{2} |V_{us}|^{2}F_{\mu \nu}(z_{u-},z_{s-})\} \nonumber \\ &&\{NC_{1}^{2}(\mu)\bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}L s \bar{s}\gamma^{\nu}L c+C_{2}^{2}(\mu) \bar{c}^{i}\gamma^{\mu}Ls^{j} \bar{s}^{j}{\gamma^\nu}L c^{i} +2C_{1}(\mu)C_{2}(\mu)\bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}L s \bar{s}\gamma^{\nu}L c\} \nonumber \\ &&-2\frac{2G_{F}^{2}}{3\pi}|V_{cs}|^{2}F_{\mu\nu}(0,z_{l-})\bar{c}\gamma^{\mu}L s\bar{s}\gamma^{\nu}L c, \end{eqnarray} where $z_{q-}=\frac{m_{q}^{2}}{P_{-}^{2}}$, $q=u,d,s,e,\mu$ and $P_{-}=p_{c}-p_{s}$. Sandwiching the operators between initial and final $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$, $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$ states, we obtain the hadronic matrix elements: \begin{eqnarray} &&\Gamma_{WE/PI}^{\Xi_{cc}^{+}}=\langle\Xi_{cc}^{+}(\mathbf{P}=0,s) |\hat{\Gamma}_{WE/PI}^{\Xi_{cc}^{+}}|\Xi_{cc}^{+}(\mathbf{P}=0,s)\rangle \nonumber \\ &&\Gamma_{PI}^{\Xi_{cc}^{++}}=\langle\Xi_{cc}^{++}(\mathbf{P}=0,s) |\hat{\Gamma}_{PI}^{\Xi_{cc}^{++}}|\Xi_{cc}^{++}(\mathbf{P}=0,s)\rangle \nonumber \\ &&\Gamma_{WE/PI}^{\Omega_{cc}^{+}}=\langle\Omega_{cc}^{+}(\mathbf{P}=0,s) |\hat{\Gamma}_{WE/PI}^{\Omega_{cc}^{+}}| \Omega_{cc}^{+}(\mathbf{P}=0,s)\rangle. \end{eqnarray} \section{The hadronic matrix elements} Because the hadronic matrix elements are fully determined by the non-perturbative QCD effects which cannot be reliably evaluated at present yet, we need to invoke concrete phenomenological models to carry out the computations. In this work, we adopt a simple non-relativistic model, i.e. the harmonic oscillator\cite{Le Yaouanc}. This model has been widely employed in similar researches. In fact, an advantage of the calculations of the lifetimes of heavy hadrons is that one does not need to deal with the hadronization process of lighter products (quarks or even gluons) and the heavy hadrons can be well described by such simple non-relativistic models, and the results are relatively reliable than for light hadron decays.\\ (i)The inclusive decays of $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$:\\ In the harmonic oscillator model, the wavefunction of $\Xi^+_{cc}$ is expressed as $|\Xi^+_{cc}\rangle$ and \begin{eqnarray} |\Xi_{cc}^{+}(\mathbf{P},s)\rangle&=&A_{B}\sum_{color,spin}\chi_{spin,flavor}\varphi_{color}\nonumber \\ &&\int d^{3}p_{\rho}d^{3}p_{\lambda}\Psi_{\Xi_{cc}^{+}}(\mathbf{p_{\rho},p_{\lambda}}) |c_{i}(\mathbf{p}_{q_{1}},s_{q_{1}}),c_{j}(\mathbf{p}_{q_{2}},s_{q_{2}}),d_{k}(\mathbf{p}_{q_{3}},s_{q_{3}})\rangle. \nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} The normalization condition for $|\Xi_{cc}^{+}(\mathbf{P},s)\rangle$ is \begin{eqnarray} &&\langle\Xi_{cc}^{+}(\mathbf{P},s)|\Xi_{cc}^{+}(\mathbf{P'},s')\rangle=(2\pi)^{3}\frac{M_{\Xi_{cc}}} {\omega_{P}}\delta^{3}(\mathbf{P}-\mathbf{P'})\delta_{s,s'}, \end{eqnarray} where $\chi_{spin,flavor}$��$\varphi_{color}$ are the spin-flavor and color wavefunctions respectively. Their explicit expressions are \begin{eqnarray} &&\chi_{s=\frac{1}{2},flavor}=\frac {1}{\sqrt{6}}(2|c_{\uparrow}c_{\uparrow}d_{\downarrow}\rangle-|c_{\uparrow}c_{\downarrow}d_{\uparrow}\rangle-|c_{\downarrow}c_{\uparrow}d_{\uparrow}\rangle)\\ &&\varphi_{color}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\epsilon_{ijk}. \end{eqnarray} $A_{B}$ is the normalization constant. The spatial wavefunction $\Psi_{\Xi_{cc}^{+}}$ is a three-body harmonic oscillator wavefunction and expressed as \begin{eqnarray} &&\Psi_{\Xi_{cc}^{+}}=\mathrm{exp}(-\frac{\mathbf{p_{\rho}^{2}}}{2a_{\rho}^{2}}-\frac {\mathbf{p}_{\lambda}^{2}}{2a_{\lambda}^{2}}). \end{eqnarray} Here $a_{\rho}$ and $a_{\lambda}$ parameters reflecting the non-perturbative effects. In the above expressions, the Jacobi transformations of $\mathbf{p_{1}}$, $\mathbf{p_{2}}$, $\mathbf{p_{3}}$ which are the momenta of the three valence quarks $ccd$, and variables $\mathbf{p_{\rho}}$, $\mathbf{p_{\lambda}}$, $\mathbf{P}$ are \begin{eqnarray} \mathbf{p_{\rho}}=\frac {\mathbf{p_{1}-p_{2}}}{\sqrt{2}}, \mathbf{p_{\lambda}}=\frac {\mathbf{p_{1}+p_{2}}-\frac {2m_{c}}{m_{d}}\mathbf{p_{3}}}{\sqrt{2 \frac {2m_{c}+m_{d}}{m_{d}}}}, \mathbf{P}=\mathbf{p_{1}+p_{2}+p_{3}}. \end{eqnarray} We choose the center-of-mass frame of $\Xi^+_{cc}$, i.e. ($\mathbf{P}$=0) to calculate the hadronic matrix elements. Substituting the four-quark operators into the expressions, we obtain the non-spectator WE contributions to the width of $\Xi^+_{cc}$ as \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{WE}^{\Xi_{cc}^{+}} &=& 64\pi^2 G_F^2 P_+^2(|V_{cs}|^{2} |V_{ud}|^{2}C(z_{s+},z_{u+}) +|V_{cd}|^{2} |V_{ud}|^{2}C(z_{u+},z_{d+}))(C_1(\mu)-C_2(\mu))^2\nonumber \\ &&|A_B|^2[2(1+{2m_c\over m_d})]^{3/2} \sum_{spin}\int d^3\mathbf{p}_\rho d^3\mathbf{p}_\lambda d^3\mathbf{p'_\rho}\nonumber \\ &&\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{\mathbf{p}_\lambda^2\over 2a^2_\lambda}]\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{(\mathbf{p}_\lambda+\sqrt{1+{2m_c\over m_d}}(\mathbf{p}_\rho-\mathbf{p'_\rho}))^2\over 2a^2_\lambda }]\bar{u}_{c}\gamma_\mu L u_{c} \bar{u}_{d}\gamma^\mu L u_{d},\nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} and the PI contribution is \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{PI}^{\Xi_{cc}^{+}} &=& -{64\over 3}\pi^2 G_F^2 \{|V_{cd}|^{2} |V_{ud}|^{2} F_{\mu\nu}(z_{u-},z_{d-})[-NC_1^2(\mu)+C_2^2(\mu)-2C_1(\mu)C_2(\mu)]\nonumber \\ &&-2|V_{cd}|^{2}F_{\mu\nu}(0,z_{l-})\} |A_B|^2[2(1+{2m_c\over m_d})]^{3/2} \sum_{spin}\int d^3\mathbf{p}_\rho d^3\mathbf{p}_\lambda d^3\mathbf{p'_\rho}\nonumber \\ &&\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{\mathbf{p}_\lambda^2\over 2a^2_\lambda}]\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{(\mathbf{p}_\lambda+\sqrt{1+{2m_c\over m_d}}(\mathbf{p}_\rho-\mathbf{p'_\rho}))^2\over 2a^2_\lambda }]\bar{u}_{c}\gamma^\mu L u_{d}\ \bar{u}_{d}\gamma^\nu L u_{c},\nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} where the sum over spin means a sum over the polarizations of the three valence quarks of $\Xi^+_{cc}$ with their corresponding C-G coefficients in the spin-flavor wavefunction. $u_{q}$, $\bar{u}_{q}$ denote the Dirac spinors of free quarks $q$ and the expression is \begin{eqnarray} u_{q}=\sqrt{\frac{E_{q}+m_{q}}{2m_{q}}} \left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \frac {\mathbf{\sigma} \cdot{\mathbf{p}}}{E_{q}+m_{q}} \\ \end{array} \right)\chi\\ \bar{u}_{q}=\sqrt{\frac{E_{q}+m_{q}}{2m_{q}}}\chi^{\dagger} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & - \frac {\mathbf{\sigma} \cdot{\mathbf{p}}}{E_{q}+m_{q}}\\ \end{array} \right) \end{eqnarray} in our case $q$ denotes $c$ and $d$ quarks.\\ (ii)The inclusive decays of $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$:\\ The contribution from the PI non-spectator diagrams to the width of $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ is \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{PI}^{\Xi_{cc}^{++}}&= &-{64\over 3}\pi^2 G_F^2 \{|V_{cs}|^{2} |V_{ud}|^{2} F_{\mu\nu}(z_{s-},z_{d-})+ |V_{cs}|^{2} |V_{us}|^{2} F_{\mu\nu}(z_{s-},z_{s-})\nonumber \\ &&+|V_{cd}|^{2} |V_{ud}|^{2} F_{\mu\nu}(z_{d-},z_{d-})\} (C_1^2(\mu)-N C_2^2(\mu)-2C_1(\mu)C_2(\mu))|A_B|^2[2(1+{2m_c\over m_u})]^{3/2} \nonumber \\ &&\sum_{spin}\int d^3\mathbf{p}_\rho d^3\mathbf{p}_\lambda d^3\mathbf{p'_\rho}\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{\mathbf{p}_\lambda^2\over 2a^2_\lambda}]\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{(\mathbf{p}_\lambda+\sqrt{1+{2m_c\over m_u}}(\mathbf{p}_\rho-\mathbf{p'_\rho}))^2\over 2a^2_\lambda }]\nonumber \\ &&\bar{u}_{c}\gamma^\mu L u_{u}\ \bar{u}_{u}\gamma^\nu L u_{c}. \end{eqnarray} Similar to the case of $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$, the sum over spin means a sum of the polarizations of the three valence quarks of $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ with their C-G coefficients. One only needs to replace $u$ by $d$ in $\mathbf{p_{\rho}}$, $\mathbf{p_{\lambda}}$ and other expressions are similar to that for $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$.\\ (iii)The inclusive decays of $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$:\\ The contribution from the W-boson exchange(WE) non-spectator diagrams to the width of $\Omega_{cc}^{+}$ is \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{WE}^{\Omega_{cc}^{+}} &=& 64\pi^2 G_F^2 P_+^2 |V_{us}|^{2} |V_{cs}|^{2}C(z_{u+},z_{s+}) (C_1(\mu)-C_2(\mu))^2\nonumber \\ &&|A_B|^2[2(1+{2m_c\over m_s})]^{3/2} \sum_{spin}\int d^3\mathbf{p}_\rho d^3\mathbf{p}_\lambda d^3\mathbf{p'_\rho}\nonumber \\ &&\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{\mathbf{p}_\lambda^2\over 2a^2_\lambda}]\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{(\mathbf{p}_\lambda+\sqrt{1+{2m_c\over m_s}}(\mathbf{p}_\rho-\mathbf{p'_\rho}))^2\over 2a^2_\lambda }]\bar{u}_{c}\gamma_\mu L u_{c} \bar{u}_{s}\gamma^\mu L u_{s},\nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} whereas that from the Pauli-interference(PI) non-spectator diagrams is \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{PI}^{\Omega_{cc}^{+}} &=& -{64\over 3}\pi^2 G_F^2 \{[|V_{cs}|^{2}|V_{ud}|^{2}F_{\mu\nu}(z_{u-},z_{d-})+|V_{cs}|^{2}|V_{us}|^{2}F_{\mu\nu}(z_{u-},z_{s-})]\nonumber \\ &&[-N C_1^2(\mu)+ C_2^2(\mu)-2C_1(\mu)C_2(\mu)]- 2|V_{cs}|^{2}F_{\mu\nu}(0,z_{l-})\}|A_B|^2[2(1+{2m_c\over m_s})]^{3/2}\nonumber \\ &&\sum_{spin}\int d^3\mathbf{p}_\rho d^3\mathbf{p}_\lambda d^3\mathbf{p'_\rho}\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{\mathbf{p}_\lambda^2\over 2a^2_\lambda}]\mathrm{exp}[-{\mathbf{p}_\rho^2\over 2a^2_\rho}-{(\mathbf{p}_\lambda+\sqrt{1+{2m_c\over m_s}}(\mathbf{p}_\rho-\mathbf{p'_\rho}))^2\over 2a^2_\lambda }]\nonumber \\ && \bar{u}_{c}\gamma^\mu L u_{s} \bar{u}_{s}\gamma^\nu L u_{c}. \end{eqnarray} The sum over polarizations is similar to that for $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ and $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$. \\ \section{Input parameters and Numerical results} To obtain the decay amplitudes, we adopt the input parameters as follows: $G_{F}=1.166 \times10^{-5} \mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, $|V_{cs}| = 0.9737$, $|V_{ud}| = 0.9745$, $C_1(m_c)=1.3$, $C_2(m_c)=-0.57$, $m_c = 1.60$ GeV, $m_s = 0.45$ GeV, $m_u = m_d = 0.3$ GeV, $m_s^{*} = 0.2$GeV, $m_u^{*} = m_d^{*} = 0$, $M_{\Xi^+_{cc}} = M_{\Xi^{++}_{cc}} = 3.519$ GeV, $M_{\Omega^+_{cc}} = 3.578$ GeV, $M_{\Xi^{+*}_{cc}}-M_{\Xi^+_{cc}}=M_{\Xi^{++*}_{cc}}-M_{\Xi^{++}_{cc}} =M_{\Omega^{+*}_{cc}}-M_{\Omega^+_{cc}}=0.132$ GeV. Here $m_{q^{*}}$ denotes the current quark mass of flavor $q$. The non-perturbative parameters $a_{\rho}$, $a_{\lambda}$ in the harmonic oscillator wavefunctions are selected as follows: for $J/\psi$, in ref., $a_{\rho}^{2}= 0.33 \mathrm{GeV}^{2}$, for $D-$mesons, $a_{\rho}^{2}= 0.25\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. For the doubly charmed baryons, because $a_{\rho}$ reflects the coupling between two charm quarks, we set it to be the same as that for $J/\psi$. $a_{\lambda}$ reflects the coupling of the light quark with these two charm quark, thus we can reasonably set it to be the same as $a_{\rho}$ in D-mesons. With these parameters as input, the lifetimes of the doubly charmed baryons can be evaluated out (see TABLE.I), if the non-spectator effects are taken into account. \\ \begin{table} \caption{The numerical results about the contributions from the different components and the evaluated lifetime for the doubly charmed baryons. For a comparison, in the following table, we list the corresponding lifetimes predicted by the authors of ref. where the diquark picture was employed. It is noted that in ref., the authors used various input parameters and obtained slightly diverse results, we take average values of the numbers in the table. There is only one datum for the lifetimes on $\tau_{\Xi_{cc}^+}$ given by the SELEX collaboration which is also listed the table.} \vspace{2mm} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $\Xi^+_{cc}$ & $\Gamma_{spec}(10^{-12}\mathrm{GeV})$ & $\Gamma^{WE}_{non} ( 10^{-13}\mathrm{GeV})$ & $\Gamma^{PI}_{non}( 10^{-15} \mathrm{GeV})$ & $\tau_{\Xi_{cc}^+}(\mathrm{ps})$ & $\tau_{\Xi_{cc}^+}(\mathrm{ps})$ in ref. & exp($\mathrm{ps}$)\\ \hline &2.01 & 6.43 & -3.36 & 0.25 & 0.19 & 0.033\\ \hline $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$& $\Gamma_{spec}( 10^{-12}\mathrm{GeV})$& & $\Gamma^{PI}_{non} ( 10^{-12}\mathrm{GeV})$ & $\tau_{\Xi_{cc}^{++}}(\mathrm{ps})$ & $\tau_{\Xi_{cc}^{++}}(\mathrm{ps})$ in ref. &\\ \hline & 2.01 & & -1.02 & 0.67 & 0.52 & $-$\\ \hline $\Omega^{+}_{cc}$ & $\Gamma_{spec}( 10^{-12}\mathrm{GeV})$ & $\Gamma^{WE}_{non}( 10^{-14}\mathrm{GeV})$ &$\Gamma^{PI}_{non} ( 10^{-12}\mathrm{GeV})$ & $\tau_{\Omega_{cc}^+}(\mathrm{ps})$ & $\tau_{\Omega_{cc}^{+}}(\mathrm{ps})$ in ref. & \\ \hline & 2.01 & 4.25 & 1.10 & 0.21 & 0.22 & $-$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \section{Conclusion and Discussion} In this work, we evaluate the lifetimes of doubly charmed baryons with the non-spectator effects being properly taken into account. As argued in the introduction, to evaluate the lifetimes (the total widths), only the inclusive processes are concerned, and then the non-perturbative effects are all from the wavefunctions of the doubly charmed baryons. Due to existence of the two heavy charm quarks, the non-relativistic harmonic oscillator model should apply in this case. Mainly, we carefully calculate the contribution of non-perturbative effects to the lifetimes in the model, which are closely related to the bound states of the baryons. Our numerical results indicate that the non-spectator contributions to the lifetimes of $\Xi^+_{cc}$, $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ and $\Omega^+_{cc}$ are substantial. The non-spectator contributions to the width of $\Xi^+_{cc}$ are mainly from the WE diagrams (the PI diagrams which contribute are CKM suppressed), since the WE contribution is constructive, therefore the lifetime of $\Xi^+_{cc}$ is much suppressed. By contraries, for $\Xi^{++}_{c}$ and $\Omega^+_{cc}$, the non-spectator contributions are mainly from the PI diagrams and the net effect is destructive. It is noted that for $\Omega^+_{cc}$ there still are Cabibbo-suppressed WE diagrams, but for $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ there are only PI diagrams. Therefore the predicted lifetime of $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ is larger than that of other two baryons. We also employ other values for parameters $a_\rho, a_\lambda$ and find that the resultant values can vary within 20\ Our results are $$ \tau(\Xi^+_{cc})=0.25\; {\rm ps}��\;\;\; \tau(\Xi^{++}_{cc})= 0.67\;{\rm ps}��\;\;\;\;{\rm and}\;\;\;\; \tau(\Omega^+_{cc})= 0.21\;{\rm ps}.$$ These are generally consistent with the results obtained by Kiselev et al. and Guberina et al., even though they used different models for calculating the hadronic matrix elements. Concretely, they used the diquark picture and attributed the non-perturbative effects into the wavefunction of the diaquark at origin. Kiselev et al. gave $\tau(\Xi^+_{cc})\sim 0.16-0.22$ ps $\tau(\Xi^{++}_{cc})\sim 0.40-0.65$ ps and $\tau(\Omega^+_{cc})\sim 0.24-0.28$. Although all the theoretical predictions based on different models agree with each other, they are obviously one order larger than the upper limit of the measured value on the lifetime of $\Xi^+_{cc}$ (0.033 ps) by the SELEX collaboration. This deviation, as suggested by some authors, may come from experiments. So far the difference between theoretical predictions and experimental data may imply some unknown physics mechanisms which drastically change the value, if the future experiment, say at LHCb, confirms the measurement of the SELEX. Recently, several groups have studied the possibility of doubly heavy baryon production at hadron collider LHC and future linear collider ILC and the effective field theories for two heavy quarks system are also further investigated. We are expecting the new data from more accurate experiments at LHC and ILC to improve our theoretical framework and determine if there are contributions from new physics beyond the standard model.\\ \noindent Acknowledgement: This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.\\ \vspace{1cm} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Bigi1}I. Bigi, N. Uraltsev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B280} (1992) 120; I. Bigi, N. Uraltsev and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. {\bf B293} (1992) 430, (E){\bf B297} (1993) 477; B. Blok and M. Shifman, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B399} (1993) 441, 459; G. Belliui et al., Phys. Rep. {\bf 289} (1997) 1. \bibitem{Franco}E. Franco, V. Lubicz, F. Mescia and C. Tarantino, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B63} (2002) 212. \bibitem{Gabbiani}N.G. Uraltsev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B376} (1996) 303; F. Gabbiani, A.I. Onischenko and A.A. Petrov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D70} (2004) 094031; E. Franco, V. Lubicz, F. Mescia and C. Tarantino, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B633} (2002) 212. \bibitem{Lambdabexp}CDF Collaboration: A. Abulencia et al., arXiv:hep-ex/0609021. \bibitem{He1}X.G. He, T. Li, X.Q. Li and Y.M. Wang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D74} (2006) 034026. \bibitem{SELEX}The SELEX Collaboration, M. Mattson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89} (2002) 112001. \bibitem{Kiselev}V.V. Kiselev, A.K. Likhoded and A.I. Onishchenko, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 014007; A.I. Onishchenko, arXiv:hep-ph/9912424. \bibitem{Guberina}B. Guberina, B. Meli$\mathrm{\acute{c}}$, H. $\mathrm{\breve{S}}$tefan$\mathrm{\breve{c}}$i$\mathrm{\acute{c}}$, Eur. Phys. J {\bf C9} (1999) 213. \bibitem{Wise}A.F. Falk, M.E. Luke, M.J. Savage and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 555. \bibitem{B Decays}I. Bigi, B. Blok, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev et al., "B Decays", ed. S. Stone, Word Scientific, Singapore (1994); M. Neubert and C.T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B483} (1997) 339; B. Guberina, B. Meli$\mathrm{\acute{c}}$ and H. $\mathrm{\breve{S}}$tefan$\mathrm{\breve{c}}$i$\mathrm{\acute{c}}$, Eur. Phys. J {\bf C13} (2000) 551. \bibitem{Wuyl}A. Datta, E.A. Paschos and Y.L. Wu, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B311} (1988) 35. \bibitem{Hokim}Q. Hokim and X.Y. Pham, Phys. Lett. {\bf B122} (1989) 297. \bibitem{Nir}Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. {\bf B221} (1989) 184. \bibitem{Bagan}E. Bagan, P. Ball, V.M. Braun and P. Gosdzinsky, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B432} (1994) 3, Phys. Lett. {\bf B342} (1995) 362, [E:{\bf B374} (1996) 363]; E. Bagan, P. Ball, B. Fiol and P. Gosdzinsky, Phys. Lett. {\bf B351} (1995) 546. \bibitem{Bigi2}I.I. Bigi, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. {\bf B293} (1992) 430, [E:{\bf B297} (1993) 477]; I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}(1993) 496. \bibitem{Falk}A.F. Falk, Z. Ligeti, M. Neubert and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. {\bf B326} (1994) 145. \bibitem{H.Y.Cheng1}H.Y. Cheng, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997) 2783; M. Luke, M.J. Savage and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. {\bf B345} (1995) 301; I. Bigi, Phys. Lett. {\bf B371}(1996) 105, arXiv:hep-ph/9508408. \bibitem{Buccella}F. Buccella, M. Lusignoli, G. Miele, A. Pugliese and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. {\bf D51} (1995) 3478. \bibitem{Voloshin}M.B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. {\bf B385} (1996) 369. \bibitem{Le Yaouanc}A.L. Yaouanc, L. Olivier, O. P$\grave{e}$ne and J.C. Raynal, "Hadron Transitions in the Quark Model", Gordon and Breach Science Publish Publish (1998). \bibitem{M.Oda}M. Oda, K. Nishimura, M. Ishida, and S. Ishida, arXiv:hep-ph/0005102; R. Mohanta, A. Giri, M. Khanna, M. Ishida and S. Ishida, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 102} (1995) 645; R. Mohanta, A. Giri, M. Khanna, M. Ishida and S. Ishida, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 101} (1999) 1083; R. Mohanta, A. Giri, M. Khanna, M. Ishida and S. Ishida, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 101} (1999) 959; M. Ishida, S. Ishida and M. Oda, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 98} (1997)159. \bibitem{A.Hosaka}A. Hosaka, M. Takayama and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A678} (2000) 147. \bibitem{Bonnaz}R. Bonnaz, B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Gignoux, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf A107} (2002) 363. \bibitem{Barnes}T. Barnes, AIP Conf. Proc. {\bf 619} (2002) 673; Nuovo, Cim. {\bf A107} (1994) 2491. \bibitem{H.Y.Cheng2}H.Y. Cheng and B. Tseng, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53} (1996) 1457, [E:{\bf D55} (1997) 1697]. \bibitem{Amundson}J. Amundson, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 373. \bibitem{pdg}W.-M. Yao et al., Particle Data Group, J. Phys. {\bf G33}, 1 (2006). \bibitem{Kiselev2}V.V. Kiselev and A.K. Likhoded, arXiv:hep-ph/0208231. \bibitem{hadroncollider}C.H. Chang, J.X. Wang and X.G. Wu, arXiv:hep-ph/0702054; C.H. Chang, J.P. Ma, C.F. Qiao and X.G. Wu, arXiv:hep-ph/0610205; C.H. Chang, C.F. Qiao, J.X. Wang and X.G. Wu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D73} (2006) 094022. \bibitem{linearcollider}S.Y. Li, Z.G. Si and Z.J. Yang, arXiv:hep-ph/0701212; J.P. Ma and Z.G. Si, Phys. Lett. {\bf B568} (2003) 135. \bibitem{EFT}N. Brambilla, arXiv:hep-ph/0609237; N. Brambilla, T. Roesch and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. {\bf D72} (2005) 034021. \end{thebibliography} \pagebreak \pagebreak \pagebreak
|
0704.0021
|
Title: Molecular Synchronization Waves in Arrays of Allosterically Regulated
Enzymes
Abstract: Spatiotemporal pattern formation in a product-activated enzymic reaction at
high enzyme concentrations is investigated. Stochastic simulations show that
catalytic turnover cycles of individual enzymes can become coherent and that
complex wave patterns of molecular synchronization can develop. The analysis
based on the mean-field approximation indicates that the observed patterns
result from the presence of Hopf and wave bifurcations in the considered
system.
Body: \title[Molecular Synchronization Waves]{Molecular Synchronization Waves in Arrays of Allosterically Regulated Enzymes} \author{Vanessa Casagrande} \affiliation{Hahn-Meitner-Institut, Glienicker Stra{\ss}e 100, 14109 Berlin, Germany} \author{Yuichi Togashi} \altaffiliation[Present address: ]{Nanobiology Laboratories, Graduate School of Frontier Biosciences, Osaka University, 1-3 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan} \email{togashi@phys1.med.osaka-u.ac.jp} \affiliation{Fritz-Haber-Institut der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany} \author{Alexander S. Mikhailov} \email{mikhailov@fhi-berlin.mpg.de} \affiliation{Fritz-Haber-Institut der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany} \begin{abstract} Spatiotemporal pattern formation in a product-activated enzymic reaction at high enzyme concentrations is investigated. Stochastic simulations show that catalytic turnover cycles of individual enzymes can become coherent and that complex wave patterns of molecular synchronization can develop. The analysis based on the mean-field approximation indicates that the observed patterns result from the presence of Hopf and wave bifurcations in the considered system. \end{abstract} \pacs{82.40.Ck, 87.18.Pj, 82.39.Fk, 05.45.Xt} \maketitle Molecular machines, such as molecular motors, ion pumps and some enzymes, play a fundamental role in biological cells and can be also used in the emerging soft-matter nanotechnology . A protein machine is a cyclic device, where each cycle consists of conformational motions initiated by binding of an energy-bringing ligand . In motors, such internal motions generate mechanical work , while in enzymes they enable or facilitate chemical reaction events (see, e.g., ). Much attention has been attracted to studies of biomembranes with ion pumps and molecular motors, where membrane instabilities and synchronization effects have been analyzed . Here, a different class of distributed active molecular systems --- formed by enzymes --- is considered. The catalytic activity of an allosteric enzyme protein is activated or inhibited by binding of small regulatory molecules; the role of such regulatory molecules can be played by products of the same reaction . Previous investigations of simple product-regulated enzymic systems and enzymic networks in small spatial volume with full diffusional mixing have shown that spontaneous synchronization of molecular turnover cycles can take place there. External molecular synchronization of enzymes of the photosensitive P-450 dependent monooxygenase system by periodic optical forcing has been experimentally demonstrated . In this Letter, spatiotemporal pattern formation in enzymic arrays is investigated. In such systems, immobile enzymes are attached to a solid planar support immersed into a solution through which fresh substrate is supplied and product molecules are continuously removed. Product molecules released by an enzyme diffuse through the solution and activate catalytic turnover cycles of neighbouring enzymes in the array. A simple stochastic model of an enzyme as a cyclic machine (a stochastic phase oscillator), shown in Fig. 1, is used. Binding of a substrate molecule to an enzyme $i$ initiates an ordered internal conformational motion, described by the conformational phase coordinate $\phi_{i}$. The initial state corresponds to the phase $\phi_{i}=0$. The catalytic conversion event takes place and the product is released at the state $\phi_{p}$ inside the cycle. After that, the conformational motion continues until the equilibrium state of the enzyme ($\phi_{i}=1$) is finally reached. Initiation of a turnover cycle is a random event, occurring at a certain probability rate. We assume that substrate is present in abundance, and its concentration is not affected by the reactions. Conformational motion inside the cycle is modeled as a stochastic diffusional drift process, described by equation $\overset{.}{\phi}_{i}=v+\eta_{i}(t)$, where $v$ is the mean drift velocity and $\eta_{i}(t)$ is an internal white noise with $\left\langle \eta_{i}(t)\eta_{j}(t^{\prime})\right\rangle = 2\sigma \delta_{ij}\delta(t-t^{\prime})$ where $\sigma$ specifies intensity of intramolecular fluctuations. Allosterically activated enzymes possess a site on their surface where regulatory molecules can become bound. Binding of a regulatory molecule leads to conformational change that enhances catalytic activity of the enzyme. A regulatory molecule binds to an enzyme with rate constant $\beta$ and dissociate from it with rate constant $\kappa$. Binding of a regulatory molecule at an enzyme raises its probability to start a cycle from $\alpha_{0}$ to $\alpha_{1}$. We assume that a regulatory molecule can bind to an enzyme only in its rest state and this molecule is released when the cycle is started. The role of regulatory molecules is played by product molecules of the same reaction. Immobile enzymes are randomly distributed in space with concentration $c$. Product diffuses at diffusion constant $D$ and undergoes decay at rate constant $\gamma$. The characteristic diffusion length of product molecules is $l_{diff} = \sqrt{D/\gamma}$. In our stochastic 2D simulations, the medium was discretized into spatial cells (up to $256 \times 256$), each containing a number of enzyme molecules. The cells were so small that diffusional mixing of product molecules in a cell within the shortest characteristic time of the reaction could always take place. Each enzyme was described by the stochastic model given above; diffusion of product molecules was modeled as a random walk over a discrete cell lattice. The mean cycle time $\tau =1/v$ was chosen as the time unit ($\tau = 1$). Systems including up to 655 360 enzymes were used in the simulations. Figure 2a,b (see also Videos 1 and 2 in ref. ) shows two typical examples of stochastic 2D simulations. Here, spatial distributions of product molecules are displayed. Waves of product concentration are propagating through the medium. In a peak of a wave, many locally present enzymes are simultaneously releasing product molecules. Since product release can take place only at a certain stage inside the cycle, this means that the cycles of enzymes are locally synchronized. Not only regular wave structures, such as rotating spiral waves or target patterns (Fig. 2a), but also complex regimes of wave turbulence (Fig. 2b) have been observed. To understand and interpret stochastic simulation results, an analytical study of the system in the mean-field approximation, which holds in the limit of high enzyme concentrations, has been performed. In this approximation, the system is characterised by three continuous variables $n_{0}(\mathbf{r},t)$, $n_{1}(\mathbf{r},t)$ and $m(\mathbf{r},t)$ which represent local concentrations of enzymes in the rest state without or with regulatory molecules attached ($n_{0}$ and $n_{1}$) and local concentration of the product ($m$). For simplicity, internal fluctuations in enzymes are neglected ($\sigma = 0$). Thus, all enzymes which have started their cycles at some time $t$ would release their products at a definite time $t+\tau_{p}$ (with $\tau_{p}=\phi_{p}/v$) and finish their cycles, returning to the rest state, at time $t+\tau$. Therefore, the system is described by a set of three reaction-diffusion equations with time delays, \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial n_{1}}{\partial t} &=& \beta mn_{0}-\kappa n_{1}-\alpha_{1}n_{1} \\ \frac{\partial n_{0}}{\partial t} &=& -\beta mn_{0}+\kappa n_{1}-\alpha_{0}n_{0} + \alpha_{0}n_{0}(t-\tau) \notag \\ && + \alpha_{1}n_{1}(t-\tau) \\ \frac{\partial m}{\partial t} &=& -\beta mn_{0}+\kappa n_{1}+\alpha_{1}n_{1}-\gamma m + \alpha_{0}n_{0}(t-\tau_{p}) \notag \\ && + \alpha_{1}n_{1}(t-\tau_{p}) + D\nabla^{2}m. \end{eqnarray} The system always has a uniform stationary state with certain concentrations $\overline{n}_{0}$, $\overline{n}_{1}$ and $\overline{m}$, which can be found as solutions of the respective algebraic equations. This state corresponds to the absence of synchronization. However, it may become unstable if allosteric activation is strong enough. To analyze stability, small perturbations $\delta n_{0}$, $\delta n_{1}$ and $\delta m$ are added to the stationary state, equations (1) are linearized and their solutions are sought as $\delta n_{0} \sim \delta n_{1} \sim \delta m \sim \exp \left( \lambda_{q}t-iqx \right)$ with $\lambda_{q}=\mu_{q}+i\omega_{q}$. Thus, each spatial mode with wavevector $q$ is characterized by its frequency $\omega_{q}$ and its rate of growth $\mu_{q}$. The properties $\mu_{q}$ and $\omega_{q}$ are given by the roots of a characteristic equation which is determined by the linearization matrix of equations (1). The steady state becomes unstable when at least one spatial mode with some wavenumber $q_{0}$ starts to grow ($\mu_{q_{0}}>0$). As the bifurcation parameter, coefficient $\beta$ can be chosen. If regulatory molecules cannot bind to enzymes ($\beta = 0$), feedback is absent and instabilities are not possible. On the other hand, allosteric activation becomes strong if regulatory molecules can easily bind and, in this case, emergence of oscillations and wave patterns can be expected. Our bifurcation analysis reveals that, depending on the parameters of the system, it can exhibit either a Hopf or a wave bifurcation . As a result of the Hopf bifurcation, uniform oscillations with $q=0$ develop. Because of the presence of delays in equations (1), the characteristic equation is nonpolynomial in terms of $\lambda$ and, generally, a number of oscillatory solutions with different frequencies $\omega$ are possible. Physically, such solutions correspond to formation of several synchronous enzymic groups. This effect has been previously extensively investigated for similar systems in small spatial volumes with full diffusional mixing and we shall not further discuss it here. The most robust uniform oscillations, which we consider, are characterized by the frequency $\omega \approx 2\pi / \tau$ and correspond to the single-group synchronization. As the result of a wave bifurcation (also known as the Hopf bifurcation with a finite wave number ), the first unstable modes are traveling waves with a certain wavenumber $q_{0}$. Figure 3 shows the bifurcation diagram in the parameter plane ($\tau_{p}$, $\beta$). Note the presence of a codimension-2 bifurcation point where the boundaries of the Hopf and the wave bifurcations join. To investigate nonlinear dynamics of the system, numerical simulations of equations (1) have been performed . The explicit Euler integration method has been used; no-flux boundary conditions were applied. Results of 1D simulations are summarized in Fig. 3 and examples of typical observed patterns are shown in Fig. 4. Standing waves (Fig. 4a) develop when the boundary of the wave bifurcation (dash-dotted curve) is crossed and uniform oscillations are observed above the boundary of the Hopf bifurcation. Near the codimension-2 point, more complex behavior was found. This included rippled oscillations (Fig. 4b), self-organized pacemakers (Fig. 4c) and modulated traveling waves (Fig. 4d). The observed patterns are similar to those previously found in reaction-diffusion systems with the wave bifurcation . In the right upper corner of the diagram in Fig. 3, higher frequency oscillations with several synchronous groups take place. Two-dimensional simulations of reaction-diffusion equations (1) with time delay have been performed for selected parameter values. In 2D simulations, spontaneously developing concentric waves (target patterns) and spiral waves have been observed; target patterns were however unstable and evolved into pairs of rotating spiral waves (Fig. 2c and Video 3 ). Complex wave regimes, which can be qualitatively characterized as turbulence of standing waves, have also been observed (Fig. 2d and Video 4 ). The mean-field approximation is based on neglecting statistical fluctuations in concentrations of reacting species and, therefore, it should hold in the high concentration limit. In Fig. 4, two upper panel rows display spatiotemporal patterns which are observed in stochastic simulations with parameter values corresponding to the respective mean-field simulations. To compare mean-field simulations with different enzyme densities, the following property of equations (1) can be used: introducing relative concentrations $\widetilde{n}_{0}=n_{0}/c$, $\widetilde{n}_{1}=n_{1}/c$ and $\widetilde{m}=m/c$, it can be noticed that they obey the same equations, but with a rescaled coefficient $\widetilde{\beta}=\beta c$. Thus, essentially the same patterns are observed as long as the parameter combination $\beta c$ remains constant. In the stochastic simulations in Fig. 4, the coefficient $\beta$ has been increased to compensate for a decrease in the enzyme concentration. For larger enzyme concentrations, good agreement between mean-field predictions and stochastic simulations has been found. In the mean-field equations (1), intramolecular fluctuations are not taken into account ($\sigma =0$ and therefore each turnover cycle has the same fixed duration $\tau$). Stochastic simulations have been, however, also performed when such fluctuations were present. Synchronization waves could still be found even at internal noise levels which corresponded to the mean relative dispersion $\xi$ of turnover times of about 10\ $\xi = \left\langle \delta \tau^{2} \right\rangle^{1/2} / \tau \simeq \left(2\sigma \tau \right)^{1/2}$). Although the emphasis in this Letter is on the phenomena in two-dimensional enzymic arrays, analogous effects should be expected for three-dimensional systems representing aqueous enzymic solutions. The linear stability analysis, yielding Hopf and wave bifurcation boundaries (see Fig. 3), is valid also for the 3D geometry. We have performed preliminary stochastic simulations for thin solution layers with high enzyme concentrations and could observe synchronization patterns similar to those found for the enzymic arrays. A product molecule, released by an enzyme, diffuses in the solution until it either binds, as a regulatory molecule, to another enzyme or undergoes a decay. Here, it should be taken into account that a regulatory molecule can bind to an allosteric enzyme only at a certain binding site of characteristic radius $R$. Using the theory of diffusion-controlled reactions, the average time $t_{transit}$ after which a regulatory product would find a binding site of one of the enzymes can be roughly estimated as $t_{transit} = 1/cDR$, if enzymes are uniformly distributed inside the reaction volume with concentration $c$. Therefore, binding typically occurs within the distance $L_{corr}=\left( Dt_{transit} \right)^{1/2}=\left( cR \right)^{-1/2}$ from the point where a molecule is released. Obviously, it can only take place if the product molecule has not undergone decay until that moment, i.e. if $\gamma t_{transit}<1$. This condition puts a restriction on the enzyme concentration $c$, which must be higher than the critical concentration $c^{\ast} = \gamma / DR$. Choosing $\gamma =10^{3}$ s$^{-1}$, $D=10^{-5}$ cm$^{2}$s$^{-1}$ and $R=10^{-7}$ cm, the critical enzyme concentration is $c^{\ast} = 10^{15}$ cm$^{-3} = 10^{-6}$ M. A similar estimate can be obtained when enzymes are immobilized on a plane immersed into a reactive solution; in this case the mean distance between the enzymes on the plane should be less than $l_{c}=\left( R l_{diff} \right)^{1/2}$ \footnote{Diffusion perpendicular to the plane is considered as dilution within a layer of effective thickness $\simeq l_{diff}$.}. Although the required enzyme concentrations are relatively large, they are within the range characteristic for biological cells (glycolytic enzymes are present in a cell at even higher concentration of more than 10$^{-5}$ M). The characteristic temporal period of developing patterns is determined by the enzyme turnover time $\tau$, which typically varies from milliseconds to seconds. The characteristic length scale of developing wave patterns is determined by the diffusion length $l_{diff}$, which can vary under these conditions from a fraction of a micrometer to tens of micrometers. Our analysis shows that spontaneous molecular synchronization of allosteric product-activated enzymes can be observed in enzymic arrays. Artificial arrays formed by immobilized protein machines (molecular motors) are already used in experiments on active nanoscale transport (see ). Many enzymes in biological cells are membrane-bound, thus forming natural enzymic arrays. Similar phenomena are possible in dense enzyme solutions. In the study by Petty et al. , traveling waves of NAD(P)H and proton concentrations with the wavelength of about a micrometer were observed inside neutrophil cells. These metabolic waves had the temporal period of about 300 ms, which is by two orders of magnitude shorter than the characteristic period of glycolytic oscillations in the cells and lies closer to the time scales of turnover cycles of individual enzymes. An intriguing question, requiring further detailed analysis, is whether molecular synchronization waves may have already been seen in these experiments. Molecular synchronization waves are principally different from classical concentration waves in reaction-diffusion systems. Under synchronization conditions, internal conformational states of individual enzyme molecules in their turnover cycles become strongly correlated. In optics, a similar situation is found when a transition to coherent laser generation has taken place. Our theoretical analysis may open a way to the investigations of a new class of spatio-temporal pattern formation in chemically active molecular systems. The authors are grateful to M. Falcke and P. Stange for valuable discussions. Financial support of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science through a fellowship for research abroad (Y. T.) is acknowledged. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Kinbara} K. Kinbara, T. Aida, \textit{Chem. Rev.} \textbf{105}, 1377 (2005). \bibitem{Blumenfeld} L. A. Blumenfeld, A. N. Tikhonov, \textit{Biophysical Thermodynamics of Intracellular Processes: Molecular Machines of the Living Cell} (Springer, Berlin 1994). \bibitem{Gerstein} M. Gerstein, A. M. Lesk, C. Chothia, \textit{Biochemistry} \textbf{33}, 6739 (1994). \bibitem{Prost-review} F. J\"{u}licher, A. Ajdari, J. Prost, \textit{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{69}, 1269 (1997). \bibitem{Lerch1} H.-Ph. Lerch, A. S. Mikhailov, B. Hess, \textit{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA)} \textbf{99}, 15410 (2002). \bibitem{Lerch2} H.-Ph. Lerch, R. Rigler, A. S. Mikhailov, \textit{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA)} \textbf{102}, 10807 (2005). \bibitem{Prost1} S. Ramaswamy, J. Toner, J. Prost, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{84}, 3494 (2000). \bibitem{Prost2} P. Lenz, J.-F. Joanny, F. J\"{u}licher, J. Prost, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{91}, 108104 (2003). \bibitem{Chen} H.-Y. Chen, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{92}, 168101 (2004). \bibitem{Goldbeter} A. Goldbeter, \textit{Biochemical Oscillations and Cellular Rhythms} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996). \bibitem{Stange1998} P. Stange, A. S. Mikhailov, B. Hess, \textit{J. Phys. Chem. B} \textbf{102}, 6273 (1998). \bibitem{Stange1999} P. Stange, A. S. Mikhailov, B. Hess, \textit{J. Phys. Chem. B} \textbf{103}, 6111 (1999). \bibitem{Ouyang} K. Sun, Q. Ouyang, \textit{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{64}, 026111 (2001). \bibitem{Gruler} M. Schienbein, H. Gruler, \textit{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{56}, 7116 (1997). \bibitem{epaps} See EPAPS Document No. E-PRLTAO-99-041730 for dynamical evolutions in the 2D simulations. For more information on EPAPS, see http://www.aip.org/pubservs/epaps.html . \bibitem{Thesis} V. Casagrande, Doctoral thesis, Technical University, Berlin (2006),\\ http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2006/1273/ . \bibitem{Walgraef} D. Walgraef, \textit{Spatio-Temporal Pattern Formation} (Springer, Berlin 1997). \bibitem{Zhabotinsky} A. M. Zhabotinsky, M. Dolnik, I. R. Epstein, \textit{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{103}, 10306 (1995). \bibitem{Hess1969} B. Hess, A. Boiteux, J. Kr\"{u}ger, \textit{Adv. Enzyme Regul.} \textbf{7}, 149 (1969). \bibitem{H-Hess} H. Hess, G. D. Bachand, \textit{Materials Today} \textbf{8} (12, Suppl. 1), 22 (2005). \bibitem{Petty} H. R. Petty, R. G. Worth, A. L. Kindzelskii, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{84}, 2754 (2000). \end{thebibliography} \end{subequations}
|
0704.0022
|
Title: Stochastic Lie group integrators
Abstract: We present Lie group integrators for nonlinear stochastic differential
equations with non-commutative vector fields whose solution evolves on a smooth
finite dimensional manifold. Given a Lie group action that generates transport
along the manifold, we pull back the stochastic flow on the manifold to the Lie
group via the action, and subsequently pull back the flow to the corresponding
Lie algebra via the exponential map. We construct an approximation to the
stochastic flow in the Lie algebra via closed operations and then push back to
the Lie group and then to the manifold, thus ensuring our approximation lies in
the manifold. We call such schemes stochastic Munthe-Kaas methods after their
deterministic counterparts. We also present stochastic Lie group integration
schemes based on Castell--Gaines methods. These involve using an underlying
ordinary differential integrator to approximate the flow generated by a
truncated stochastic exponential Lie series. They become stochastic Lie group
integrator schemes if we use Munthe-Kaas methods as the underlying ordinary
differential integrator. Further, we show that some Castell--Gaines methods are
uniformly more accurate than the corresponding stochastic Taylor schemes.
Lastly we demonstrate our methods by simulating the dynamics of a free rigid
body such as a satellite and an autonomous underwater vehicle both perturbed by
two independent multiplicative stochastic noise processes.
Body: \maketitle \begin{abstract} We present Lie group integrators for nonlinear stochastic differential equations with non-commutative vector fields whose solution evolves on a smooth finite dimensional manifold. Given a Lie group action that generates transport along the manifold, we pull back the stochastic flow on the manifold to the Lie group via the action, and subsequently pull back the flow to the corresponding Lie algebra via the exponential map. We construct an approximation to the stochastic flow in the Lie algebra via closed operations and then push back to the Lie group and then to the manifold, thus ensuring our approximation lies in the manifold. We call such schemes stochastic Munthe-Kaas methods after their deterministic counterparts. We also present stochastic Lie group integration schemes based on Castell--Gaines methods. These involve using an underlying ordinary differential integrator to approximate the flow generated by a truncated stochastic exponential Lie series. They become stochastic Lie group integrator schemes if we use Munthe-Kaas methods as the underlying ordinary differential integrator. Further, we show that some Castell--Gaines methods are uniformly more accurate than the corresponding stochastic Taylor schemes. Lastly we demonstrate our methods by simulating the dynamics of a free rigid body such as a satellite and an autonomous underwater vehicle both perturbed by two independent multiplicative stochastic noise processes. \end{abstract} \begin{keywords} stochastic Lie group integrators, stochastic differential equations on manifolds \end{keywords} \begin{AMS} 60H10, 60H35, 93E20 \end{AMS} \pagestyle{myheadings} \thispagestyle{plain} \markboth{Malham and Wiese}{Stochastic Lie group integrators} \section{Introduction} We are interested in designing Lie group numerical schemes for the strong approximation of nonlinear Stratonovich stochastic differential equations of the form \begin{equation} y_t=y_0+\sum_{i=0}^d\int_0^t V_i(y_\tau,\tau)\,\mathrm{d}W_\tau^i\,. \end{equation} Here $W^1,\ldots,W^d$ are $d$ independent scalar Wiener processes and $W_t^0\equiv t$. We suppose that the solution $y$ evolves on a smooth $n$-dimensional submanifold $\mathcal M$ of $\mathbb R^N$ with $n\leq N$ and $V_i\colon\M\times\R_+\rightarrow T\mathcal{M}$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$, are smooth vector fields which in local coordinates are $V_i=\sum_{j=1}^n V_i^j\partial_{y_j}$. The flow-map $\varphi_t\colon\mathcal M\rightarrow\mathcal M$ of the integral equation~\eqref{sde} is defined as the map taking the initial data $y_0$ to the solution $y_t$ at time~$t$, i.e.\ $y_t=\varphi_t\circ y_0$. Our goal in this paper is to show how the Lie group integration methods developed by Munthe-Kaas and co-authors can be extended to stochastic differential equations on smooth manifolds (see Crouch and Grossman~ and Munthe-Kaas~). Suppose we know that the exact solution of a given system of stochastic differential equations evolves on a smooth manifold $\M$ (see Malliavin~ or Emery~), but we can only find the solution pathwise numerically. How can we ensure that our approximate numerical solution also lies in the manifold? Suppose we are given a finite dimensional Lie group $\G$ and Lie group action $\Lambda_{y_0}$ that generates transport across the manifold $\M$ from the starting point $y_0\in\M$ via elements of $\G$. Then with any given elements $\xi$ in the Lie algebra $\g$ corresponding to the Lie group $\G$, we can associate the infinitesimal action $\lambda_\xi$ using the Lie group action $\Lambda_{y_0}$. The map $\xi\mapsto\lambda_\xi$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism from $\g$ to $\X(\M)$, the Lie algebra of vector fields over the manifold $\M$. Further the Lie subalgebra $\{\lambda_\xi\in\X(\M)\colon\xi\in\g\}$ is isomorphic to a finite dimensional Lie algebra with the same structure constants (see Olver~, p.~56). Conversely, suppose we know that the Lie algebra generated by the set of governing vector fields $V_i$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$, on $\M$ is finite dimensional, call this $\X_F(\M)$. Then we know there exists a finite dimensional Lie group $\G$ whose Lie algebra $\g$ has the same structure constants as $\X_F(\M)$ relative to some basis, and there is a Lie group action $\Lambda_{y_0}$ such that $V_i=\lambda_{\xi_i}$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$, for some $\xi_i\in\g$ (see Olver~, p.~56 or Kunita~, p.~194). The choice of group and action is not unique. In this paper we assume that there is a finite dimensional Lie group $\G$ and action $\Lambda_{y_0}$ such that our set of governing vector fields $V_i$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$, are each infinitesimal Lie group actions generated by some element in $\g$ via $\Lambda_{y_0}$, i.e.\ $V_i=\lambda_{\xi_i}$ for some $\xi_i\in\g$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$. They are said to be fundamental vector fields. This means that we can write down the set of governing vector fields $X_{\xi_i}$ for a system of stochastic differential equations on the Lie group $\G$ that, via the Lie group action $\Lambda_{y_0}$, generates the flow governed by the set of vector fields $V_i$ on the manifold. The vector fields $V_i$ on $\M$ are simply the push forward of the vector fields $X_{\xi_i}$ on $\G$ via the Lie group action $\Lambda_{y_0}$. Typically the flow on the Lie group also needs to be computed numerically. We thus want the approximation to remain in the Lie group so that the Lie group action takes us back to the manifold. To achieve this, we pull back the set of governing vector fields $X_{\xi_i}$ on $\G$ to the set of governing vector fields $v_{\xi_i}$ on $\g$, via the exponential map `$\exp$' from $\g$ to $\G$. Thus the stochastic flow generated on $\g$ by the vector fields $v_{\xi_i}$ generates the stochastic flow on $\G$ generated by the $X_{\xi_i}$. The set of governing vector fields on $\g$ are for each $\sigma\in\g$: \begin{equation} v_{\xi_i}\circ\sigma\equiv \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{B_k}{k!}\,(\mathrm{ad}_\sigma)^k\circ\xi_i\,, \end{equation} where $B_k$ is the $k$th Bernoulli number and the adjoint operator $\mathrm{ad}_\sigma$ is a closed operator on $\g$, in fact $\mathrm{ad}_\sigma\circ\zeta=[\sigma,\zeta]$, the Lie bracket on $\g$. Now the essential point is that $\xi_i\in\g$ and so the series on the right or any truncation of it is closed in $\g$. Hence if we construct an approximation to our stochastic differential equation on $\g$ using the vector fields $v_{\xi_i}$ or an approximation of them achieved by truncating the series representation, then that approximation must reside in the Lie algebra $\g$. We can then push the approximation in the Lie algebra forward onto the Lie group and then onto the manifold. Provided we compute the exponential map and action appropriately, our approximate solution lies in the manifold (to within machine accuracy). In summary, for a given $\xi\in\g$ and any $y_0\in\M$ we have the following commutative diagram: \begin{equation*} \begin{CD} \g @ >\exp_\ast>> \X(\G)@ >(\Lambda_{y_0})_\ast>> \X(\M) \\ @ A v_\xi AA @ AA X_\xi A @ AA \lambda_\xi A \\ \g @ >\exp>> \G @ >\Lambda_{y_0}>> \M \end{CD} \end{equation*} We have implicitly separated the governing set of vector fields $V_i$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$, from the driving path process $w\equiv(W^1,\ldots,W^d)$. Together they generate the unique solution process $y\in\M$ to the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sde}. When there is only one driving Wiener process ($d=1$) the It\^o map $w\mapsto y$ is continuous in the topology of uniform convergence. When there are two or more driving processes ($d\geq2$) the Universal Limit Theorem tells us that the It\^o map $w\mapsto y$ is continuous in the $p$-variation topology, in particular for $2\leq p<3$ (see Lyons~, Lyons and Qian~ and Malliavin~). A Wiener path with $d\geq2$ has finite $p$-variation for $p>2$. This means that from a pathwise perspective, approximations to $y$ constructed using successively refined approximations to $w$ are only guaranteed to converge to the correct solution $y$, if we include information about the L\'evy chordal areas of the driving path process. Note however that the $L^2$-norm of the $2$-variation of a Wiener process is finite. In the Lie group integration procedure prescribed above we must solve a stochastic differential system on the Lie algebra $\g$ defined by the set of governing vector fields $v_{\xi_i}$ and the driving path process $w\equiv(W^1,\ldots,W^d)$. In light of the Universal Limit Theorem and with stepsize adaptivity in mind in future (see Gaines and Lyons~), we for instance use in our examples order~$1$ stochastic numerical methods---that include the L\'evy chordal area---to solve for the flow on the Lie algebra $\g$. We have thus explained the idea behind Munthe-Kaas methods and how they can be generalized to the stochastic setting. The first half of this paper formalizes this procedure. In the second half of this paper, we consider autonomous vector fields and construct stochastic Lie group integration schemes using Castell--Gaines methods. This approach proceeds as follows. We truncate the stochastic exponential Lie series expansion corresponding to the flow $\varphi_t$ of the solution process $y$ to the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sde}. We then approximate the driving path process $w\equiv(W^1,\ldots,W^d)$ by replacing it by a suitable nearby piecewise smooth path in the appropriate variation topology. An approximation to the solution $y_t$ requires the exponentiation of the approximate truncated exponential Lie series. This can be achieved by solving the system of ordinary differential equations driven by the vector field that is the approximate truncated exponential Lie series. If we use ordinary Munthe-Kaas methods as the underlying ordinary differential integrator the Castell--Gaines method becomes a stochastic Lie group integrator. Further, based on the Castell--Gaines approach we then present \emph{uniformly accurate exponential Lie series integrators} that are globally more accurate than their stochastic Taylor counterpart schemes (these are investigated in detail in Lord, Malham and Wiese~ for linear stochastic differential equations). They require the assumption that a sufficiently accurate underlying ordinary differential integrator is used; that integrator could for example be an ordinary Lie group Munthe-Kaas method. In the case of two driving Wiener processes we derive the order~$1/2$, and in the case of one driving Wiener process the order~$1$ uniformly accurate exponential Lie series integrators. As a consequence we confirm the asymptotic efficiency properties for both these schemes proved by Castell and Gaines~ (see Newton~ for more details on the concept of asymptotic efficiency). We also present in the case of one driving Wiener process a new order~$3/2$ uniformly accurate exponential Lie series integrator (also see Lord, Malham and Wiese~). We present two physical applications that demonstrate the advantage of using stochastic Munthe-Kaas methods. First we consider a free rigid body which for example could model the dynamics of a satellite. We suppose that it is perturbed by two independent multiplicative stochastic noise processes. The governing vector fields are non-commutative and the corresponding exact stochastic flow evolves on the unit sphere. We show that the stochastic Munthe-Kaas method, with an order~$1$ stochastic Taylor integrator used to progress along the corresponding Lie algebra, preserves the approximate solution in the unit sphere manifold to within machine error. However when an order~$1$ stochastic Taylor integrator is used directly, the solution leaves the unit sphere. The contrast between these two methods is more emphatically demonstrated in our second application. Here we consider an autonomous underwater vehicle that is also perturbed by two independent multiplicative stochastic noise processes. The exact stochastic flow evolves on the manifold which is the dual of the Euclidean Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}(3)$; two independent Casimirs are conserved by the exact flow. Again the stochastic Munthe-Kass method preserves the Casimirs to within machine error. However the order~$1$ stochastic Taylor integrator is not only unstable for large stepsizes, but the approximation drifts off the manifold and makes a dramatic excursion off to infinity in the embedding space $\R^6$. Preserving the approximate flow on the manifold of the exact dynamics may be a required property for physical or financial systems driven by smooth or rough paths---for general references see Iserles, Munthe-Kaas, N\o rsett and Zanna~, Hairer, Lubich and Wanner~, Elworthy~, Lyons and Qian~ and Milstein and Tretyakov~. Stochastic Lie group integrators in the form of Magnus integrators for linear stochastic differential equations were investigated by Burrage and Burrage~. They were also used in the guise of M\"obius schemes (see Schiff and Shnider~) to solve stochastic Riccati equations by Lord, Malham and Wiese~ where they outperformed direct stochastic Taylor methods. Further applications where they might be applied include: backward stochastic Riccati equations arising in optimal stochastic linear-quadratic control (Kohlmann and Tang~); jump diffusion processes on matrix Lie groups for Bayesian inference (Srivastava, Miller and Grenander~); fractional Brownian motions on Lie groups (Baudoin and Coutin~) and stochastic dynamics triggered by DNA damage (Chickarmane, Ray, Sauro and Nadim~). Our paper is outlined as follows. In Section~2 we present the basic geometric setup, \emph{sans} stochasticity. In particular we present a generalized right translation vector field on a Lie group that forms the basis of our subsequent transformation from the Lie group to the manifold. Using a Lie group action, this vector field pushes forward to an infinitesimal Lie group action vector field that generates a flow on the smooth manifold. In Section~3 we specialize to the case of a matrix Lie group and using the exponential map, derive the pullback of the generalized right translation vector field on the Lie group to the corresponding vector field on the Lie algebra. To help give some context to our overall scheme, we provide in Section~4 illustrative examples of manifolds and natural choices for associated Lie groups and actions that generate flows on those manifolds. Then in Section~5 we show how a flow on a smooth manifold corresponding to a stochastic differential equation can be generated by a stochastic flow on a Lie algebra via a Lie algebra action. We explicitly present stochastic Munthe-Kaas Lie group integration methods in Section~6. We start the second half of our paper by reviewing the exponential Lie series for stochastic differential equations in Section~7. We show in Section~8 how to construct geometric stochastic Castell--Gaines numerical methods. In particular we also present uniformly accurate exponential Lie series numerical schemes that not only can be used as geometric stochastic integrators, but also are always more accurate than stochastic Taylor numerical schemes of the corresponding order. In Section~9 we present our concrete numerical examples. Finally in Section~10 we conclude and present some further future applications and directions. \section{Lie group actions} Suppose $\M$ is a smooth finite $n$-dimensional submanifold of $\R^N$ with $n\leq N$. We use $\X(\M)$ to denote the Lie algebra of vector fields on the manifold $\M$, equipped with the Lie--Jacobi bracket $[U,V]\equiv U\cdot\nabla V-V\cdot\nabla U$, for all $U,V\in\X(\M)$. Let $\G$ denote a finite dimensional Lie group. \begin{definition}[Lie group action] A left Lie group \emph{action} of a Lie group $\mathcal G$ on a manifold $\mathcal M$ is a smooth map $\Lambda\colon \mathcal G\times\mathcal M\rightarrow\mathcal M$ satisfying for all $y\in\mathcal M$ and $R,S\in\mathcal G$: (1) $\Lambda(\I,y)=y$; (2) $\Lambda(R,\Lambda(S,y))=\Lambda(RS,y)$. We denote $\Lambda_y\circ S\equiv\Lambda(S,y)$. \end{definition} Hereafter we suppose $y_0\in\M$ is fixed and focus on the action map $\Lambda_{y_0}\colon\G\ra\M$. We assume that the Lie group action $\Lambda$ is \emph{transitive}, i.e.\ transport across the manifold from any point $y_0\in\M$ to any other point $y\in\M$ can always be achieved via a group element $S\in\G$ with $y=\Lambda_{y_0}\circ S$ (Marsden and Ratiu~, p.~310). We define the Lie algebra $\g$ associated with the Lie group $\G$ to be the \emph{vector space of all right invariant vector fields on} $\G$. By standard construction this is isomorphic to the tangent space to $\G$ at the identity $\I\equiv\I_{\G}$ (see Olver~, p.~48 or Marsden and Ratiu~, p.~269). \begin{definition}[Generalized right translation vector field] Suppose we are given a smooth map $\xi\colon\M\ra\g$. With each such map $\xi$ we associate a vector field $X_\xi\colon\G\rightarrow\X(\G)$ defined as follows \begin{equation*} X_\xi\circ S\equiv\left.\partial_\tau \exp\bigl(\tau\,\xi(\Lambda_{y_0}\circ S)\bigr)\,S\right|_{\tau=0} \end{equation*} for $S\in\G$, where `$\exp$' is the usual local diffeomorphism $\exp\colon\g\rightarrow\G$ from a neighbourhood of the zero element $\oo\in\g$ to a neighbourhood of $\I\in\G$. \end{definition} \begin{definition}[Infinitesimal Lie group action] We associate with each vector field $X_\xi\colon\G\ra\X(\G)$ a vector field $\lambda_\xi\colon\M\ra\X(\M)$ as the push forward of $X_\xi$ from $\G$ to $\M$ by $\Lambda_{y_0}$, i.e. $\lambda_\xi\equiv\bigl(\Lambda_{y_0}\bigr)_\ast X_\xi$, so that if $S\in\G$ and $y=\Lambda_{y_0}\circ S\in\M$, then \begin{equation*} \lambda_\xi\circ y\equiv\left.\partial_\tau \Lambda_{y_0}\circ\gamma(\tau)\right|_{\tau=0}\,, \end{equation*} where $\gamma(t)\in\G$, $\gamma(0)=S$ and $\partial_\tau\gamma(\tau)=X_\xi\circ\gamma(\tau)$ (the flow generated on $\G$ by the vector field $X_\xi$ starting at $S\in\G$). Naturally, as a vector field $\lambda_\xi$ is linear, and also \begin{equation*} \lambda_\xi\circ y\equiv \mathcal L_{X_\xi}\circ\Lambda_{y_0}\circ S\,, \end{equation*} the Lie derivative of $\Lambda_{y_0}$ along $X_\xi$ at $S\in\G$. \end{definition} \emph{Remarks.} \begin{remunerate} \item The map $\Lambda(S)\colon\M\ra\M$ defined by $y\mapsto\Lambda(S)\circ y\equiv\Lambda_y\circ S$ represents a flow on $\M$. Hence if $y=\Lambda(S)\circ y_0$, the push forward of $\lambda_\xi$ by $\Lambda(S)$ is given by $\bigl(\Lambda(S)\bigr)_\ast\lambda_\xi\equiv\lambda_{\Ad_S\xi}$ (Marsden and Ratiu~, p.~317). \item We define the \emph{isotropy subgroup} at $y_0\in\M$ by $\G_{y_0}\equiv\{S\in\G\colon\Lambda_{y_0}\circ S=y_0\}$; it is a closed subgroup of $\G$ (see Helgason~, p.~121 or Warner~, p.~123). We define the \emph{global isotropy subgroup} by $\G_{\M}\equiv\cap_{y_0\in\M}\G_{y_0}\equiv\{S\in\G\colon\Lambda_{y_0}\circ S=y_0,~\forall y_0\in\M\}$; it is a normal subgroup of $\G$ (see Olver~, p.~38). \item A Lie group action is said to be is \emph{effective/faithful} if the map $S\mapsto\Lambda(S)$ from $\G$ to $\text{Diff}(\M)$, the group of diffeomorphisms on $\M$, is one-to-one. This is equivalent to the condition that different group elements have different actions, i.e.\ $\G_{\M}\equiv\{\I_\G\}$. A Lie group action is said to be \emph{free} if $\G_{y_0}=\{\I_\G\}$ for all $y_0\in\M$, i.e.\ $\Lambda_{y_0}$ is a diffeomorphism from $\G$ to $\M$. For more details see Marsden and Ratiu~, p.~310 and Olver~, p.~38. \item The map $\gamma\colon\G/\G_{y_0}\ra\M$ defined by $\gamma\colon S\cdot\G_{y_0}\mapsto\Lambda_{y_0}\circ S$ is a diffeomorphism, i.e.\ $\M\cong\G/\G_{y_0}$ for any $y_0\in\M$ (a manifold $\M$ with a Lie group action $\Lambda\colon\G\times\M\ra\M$ defined over it is thus diffeomorphic to a \emph{homogeneous manifold}; see Warner~, p.~123 or Olver~, p.~40). Further, the induced action of $\G/\G_{\M}$ on $\M$ is effective. Hence if $\Lambda$ is not an effective action of $\G$, we can replace it (without loss of generality) by the induced action of $\G/\G_{\M}$ (see Olver~, p.~38). \item Our definition for the generalized right translation vector field $X_\xi$ on $\G$ is motivated by the standard right translation vector field used to identify $\g$, the vector space of right invariant vector fields on $\G$, with $T_{\I}\G$, the tangent space to $\G$ at the identity. When $\xi\in\g$ is constant, $X_\xi\in\X(\G)$ is right invariant and a Lie bracket on $T_\I\G$ can be defined via right extension by the corresponding Lie--Jacobi bracket for the vector fields $X_\xi$ on $\X(\G)$. Unless $\xi\in\g$ is constant, $X_\xi$ is not in general right invariant. For further details see Varadarajan~, Olver~, or Marsden and Ratiu~. \item The infinitesimal generator map $\xi\mapsto\lambda_\xi$ from $\g$ to $\X(\M)$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism. If we identify $\g$ as the vector space of left invariant vector fields on $\G$ this map becomes an anti-homomorphism. The Lie--Jacobi bracket as defined above gives the right (rather than left) Lie algebra stucture over the group of diffeomorphisms on $\M$. If in addition we take the Lie--Jacobi bracket to be minus that defined above---associated with the left Lie algebra structure---then the infinitesimal generator map becomes a homomorphism again. See for example Marsden and Ratiu~, p.~324 or Munthe-Kaas~. \item The image of $\g$ under the infinitesimal generator map $\xi\mapsto\lambda_\xi$ forms a finite dimensional Lie algebra of vector fields on $\M$ which is isomorphic to the Lie algebra of the effectively acting quotient group $\G/\G_{\M}$ (see Olver~, p.~56). Thus the tangent space to $\M$ at any point is $\g$ and $\M$ inherents a connection from $\G/\G_\M$. Connections are necessary to define martingales on manifolds, but not for defining semimartingales (our focus here); see Malliavin~ and Emery~. \item A comprehensive study of the systematic construction of symmetry Lie groups from given vector fields can be found in Olver~. \item We assumed above that the vector fields $X_\xi$ and $\lambda_\xi$ are autonomous. However all results in this and subsequent sections up to Section~ can be straightforwardly extended to non-autonomous vector fields generated by $\xi\colon\M\times\R\ra\g$ with $(y,t)\mapsto\xi(y,t)$ for all $y\in\M$ and $t\in\R$. \item For full generality we want to suspend reference to embedding spaces as far as possible. However in subsequent sections to be concise we will more explicitly reclaim this context. \end{remunerate} \section{Pull back to the Lie algebra} For ease of presentation, we will assume in this section that $\G$ is a matrix Lie group. Recall that the exponential map $\exp\colon\g\rightarrow\G$ is a local diffeomorphism from a neighbourhood of $\oo\in\g$ to a neighbourhood of $\I\in\G$. Let $v_\xi\colon\g\ra\g$ be the pull back of the vector field $X_{\xi}\colon\G\ra\X(\G)$ from $\G$ to $\g$ via the exponential mapping $\exp\colon\g\ra\G$, i.e.\ $v_\xi\circ\sigma\equiv\exp^\ast X_{\xi}\circ\sigma$. If $\sigma\in\g$ then \begin{equation} v_\xi\circ\sigma=\mathrm{dexp}_\sigma^{-1}\circ \xi\bigl(\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\sigma\bigr)\,. \end{equation} Here $\mathrm{dexp}^{-1}_\sigma\colon\g\ra\g$ is the inverse of the right-trivialized tangent map of the exponential $\mathrm{dexp}_\sigma\colon\g\ra\g$ defined as follows. If $\beta(\tau)$ is a curve in $\g$ such that $\beta(0)=\sigma$ and $\beta'(0)=\eta\in\g$ then $\mathrm{dexp}\colon\g\times\g\ra\g$ is the local smooth map (Varadarajan~, p.~108) \begin{align*} \mathrm{dexp}_\sigma\circ\eta &\equiv\left.\partial_\tau\exp\beta(\tau)\right|_{\tau=0}\,\exp(-\sigma)\\ &=\left(\frac{\exp(\mathrm{ad}_\sigma)-\I}{\mathrm{ad}_\sigma}\right)\circ\eta\,. \end{align*} Note that as a tangent map $\mathrm{dexp}_\sigma\colon\g\ra\g$ is linear. The inverse operator $\mathrm{dexp}^{-1}_\sigma$ is the operator series~\eqref{vexplicit} generated by considering the reciprocal of $\mathrm{dexp}_\sigma$. To show that~\eqref{pullbacktog} is true, if $\exp\colon\g\ra\G$ with $\sigma\mapsto S=\exp\sigma$, and $\beta(\tau)\in\g$ with $\beta(0)=\sigma$ and $\partial_\tau\beta(\tau)=v_\xi\circ\beta(\tau)$, then: \begin{align*} \exp_\ast v_{\xi}\circ S =&\;\left.\partial_\tau\exp\beta(\tau)\right|_{\tau=0}\\ =&\;\bigl(\mathrm{dexp}_\sigma \circ v_\xi\circ\sigma\bigr)\,\exp(\sigma)\\ \equiv&\;X_\xi\circ S\,. \end{align*} Since `$\exp$' is a diffeomorphism in a neighbourhood of $\oo\in\g$, this push forward calculation establishes the pull back~\eqref{pullbacktog} for all $\sigma\in\g$ in that neighbourhood. \section{Illustrative examples} Suppose the vector field $V\colon\M\times\R\ra\X(\M)$ generates a flow solution $y_t\in\M$ starting from $y_0\in\M$. Then assume there exists a: \begin{enumerate} \item Lie group $\mathcal G$ with corresponding Lie algebra $\g$; \item Lie group action $\Lambda_{y_0}\colon\G\ra\M$ for which a starting point $y_0\in\M$ is fixed; \item Vector field $\lambda_{\xi}\colon\M\times\R\ra\X(\M)$ such that: $V\equiv\lambda_{\xi}$, i.e.\ $V$ is a fundamental vector field corresponding to the action $\Lambda_{y_0}$. \end{enumerate} Let us suppose $\G$ is a matrix Lie group (or can be embedded into a matrix Lie group, for example the Euclidean group $SE(3)$ is naturally embedded into the special linear group $SL(4;\R)$). We have for all $S\in\G$ and $t\in\R$, \begin{equation} X_\xi(S,t)\equiv\xi\bigl(\Lambda_{y_0}(S),t\bigr)\,S\,. \end{equation} If $V=\lambda_\xi$ for some $\xi\colon\M\ra\g$, some Lie group $\mathcal G$ and corresponding action $\Lambda_{y_0}$, then the flow generated by $X_\xi$ on $\G$ drives the flow generated by $V$ on $\M$. In each of the examples below, given the manifold $\M$, we present a natural Lie group and action associated with the manifold structure, and identify vector fields which generate flows on the manifold via the Lie group. \subsubsection*{Stiefel manifold $\mathbb V_{n,k}$} Suppose $\M=\mathbb V_{n,k}\equiv\{y\in\R^{n\times k}\colon y^{\text{T}}y=I\}$. Take $\G=SO(n)$, the special orthogonal group, and $\Lambda_{y_0}(S)\equiv Sy_0$, the action of left multiplication. The corresponding Lie algebra $\g=\mathfrak{so}(n)$. Then by direct calculation $\lambda_\xi(y)=\xi(y,t)\,y$. Hence if the given vector field $V(y,t)=\xi(y,t)\,y$, then the push forward of the flow generated by $X_\xi(S,t)$ on $\G$ in~\eqref{GVF} is the flow generated by $V$ on $\M$. Note that the unit sphere $\mathbb S^2\cong\mathbb V_{3,1}$, i.e.\ $\mathbb S^2$ is just a particular Stiefel manifold. In Section~9 as an application, we consider rigid body dynamics evolving on $\mathbb S^2$. \subsubsection*{Isospectral manifold $\mathbb S_n$} Suppose $\M=\mathbb S_n=\{y\in\R^{n\times n}\colon y^{\text{T}}=y\}$, the set of $n\times n$ real symmetric matrices. Take $\G=O(n)$, the orthogonal group and $\Lambda_{y_0}(S)\equiv Sy_0S^{\text{T}}$, which is an isospectral action (Munthe-Kaas~). The corresponding Lie algebra is $\g=\mathfrak{so}(n)$. Again, by direct calculation $\lambda_\xi(y)=\xi(y,t)\,y-y\,\xi(y,t)$. Hence if the given vector field $V(y,t)=\xi(y,t)\,y-y\,\xi(y,t)$, then the push forward of the flow generated by $X_\xi(S,t)$ on $\G$ in~\eqref{GVF} is the flow generated by $V$ on $\M$. \subsubsection*{Dual of the Euclidean algebra $\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$} Suppose $\M=\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast\cong\R^3$, the dual of the Euclidean algebra $\mathfrak{se}(3)$ of the Euclidean group $SE(3)=\bigl\{(s,\rho)\in SE(3)\colon s\in SO(3),~\rho\in\R^3\bigr\}$. Take $\G=SE(3)$ so $\g=\mathfrak{se}(3)$ and $\Lambda\equiv\mathrm{Ad}^\ast\colon\G\times\g^\ast\ra\g^\ast$, the coadjoint action of $\G$ on $\g^\ast$. Then by direct calculation $\lambda_\xi(y)=-\mathrm{ad}_{\xi}^\ast(y)$. Since $\lambda_\xi(y)$ in linear in $\xi$ and $-\lambda_\xi(y)\equiv\lambda_{-\xi}(y)$, it follows that if $V(y)=\mathrm{ad}_{\xi}^\ast(y)$, then the push forward of the flow generated by $X_{-\xi}(S,t)=-\xi\bigl(\Lambda_{y_0}(S),t\bigr)\,S$ on $\G$ is the flow generated by $V$ on $\M$. For more details see Section~9 where we investigate the dynamics of an autonomous underwater vehicle evolving on $\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$. \subsubsection*{Grassmannian manifold $\mathrm{Gr}(k,n)$} The Grassmannian manifold $\mathcal M=\text{Gr}(k,n)$ is the space of $k$-dimensional subspaces of $\mathbb R^n$. Take $\mathcal G=\text{GL}(n)$, the general linear matrix group, where if $S\in\text{GL}(n)$, we identify \begin{equation*} S=\begin{pmatrix}\alpha & \beta\\\gamma &\delta \end{pmatrix}\,, \end{equation*} where the block matrices $\alpha$, $ \beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are sizes $k\times k$, $k\times(n-k)$, $(n-k)\times k$ and $(n-k)\times(n-k)$, respectively (see Schiff and Shnider~; Munthe-Kaas~). We choose the action of $\text{GL}(n)$ on $\text{Gr}(k,n)$ to be the generalized M\"obius transformation $\Lambda_{y_0}(S)=(\alpha y_0+\beta)(\gamma y_0+\delta)^{-1}$. Hence if \begin{equation*} \xi(t)=\begin{pmatrix}a(t)&b(t)\\c(t)&d(t)\end{pmatrix}\,, \end{equation*} then direct calculation reveals that $\lambda_\xi(y)=a(t)y+b(t)-yc(t)y-yd(t)$. Hence if the given vector field $V(y)=a(t)y+b(t)-yc(t)y-yd(t)$, then the push forward of the flow generated by $X_\xi(S,t)=\xi(t)\,S$ on $\G$ is the flow generated by $V$ on $\text{Gr}(k,n)$. \section{Stochastic Lie group integration} We show that if a Lie group action $\Lambda\colon\G\times\M\ra\M$ exists, then for $y_0\in\M$ fixed, the Lie algebra action $\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\colon\g\ra\M$ carries a flow on $\g$ to a flow on $\M$. \begin{theorem} Suppose there exists a Lie group action $\Lambda\colon\G\times\M\ra\M$. Then if there exists a process $\sigma\in\g$ and a stopping time $T_*$ such that on $[0,T_*)$, $\sigma$ satisfies the Stratonovich stochastic differential equation \begin{equation} \sigma_t=\sum_{i=0}^d\int_0^t v_{\xi_i}\circ\sigma_\tau\,\mathrm{d}W_\tau^i\,, \end{equation} then the process $y=\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\sigma\in\M$ satisfies the Stratonovich stochastic differential equation on $[0,T_*)$: \begin{equation} y_t=y_0+\sum_{i=0}^d\int_0^t\lambda_{\xi_i}\circ y_\tau\,\mathrm{d}W_\tau^i\,. \end{equation} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Using It\^o's lemma, if $\sigma_t\in\g$ satisfies~\eqref{sigmaeqn} then $\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\sigma_t$ satisfies \begin{equation*} \Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\sigma_t=\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\oo +\sum_{i=0}^d\int_0^t\mathcal L_{v_{\xi_i}}\circ \Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\sigma_\tau \,\mathrm{d}W^i_\tau\,. \end{equation*} Now recall that for each $i=0,1,\ldots,d$, $X_{\xi_i}$ is the push forward of $v_{\xi_i}$ from $\g$ to $\G$ via the exponential map, and that $\lambda_{\xi_i}$ is the push forward of $X_{\xi_i}$ from $\G$ to $\M$ via $\Lambda_{y_0}$ and so the Lie derivative \begin{equation*} \mathcal L_{v_{\xi_i}}\circ\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\sigma_t \equiv\lambda_{\xi_i}\circ y_t\,. \end{equation*} Then since $y_t=\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\sigma_t$, we conclude that $y\in\M$ is a process satisfying the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{Msde}.\qquad\end{proof} \begin{corollary} Suppose that for each $i=0,1,\ldots,d$ there exists $\xi_i\colon\M\ra\g$ such that the vector field $V_i\colon\M\ra\X(\M)$ and $\lambda_{\xi_i}\colon\M\ra\X(\M)$ can be identified, i.e.\ \begin{equation} V_i\equiv\lambda_{\xi_i}\,. \end{equation} Then the push forward by `$\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp$' of the flow on the Lie algebra manifold $\g$ generated by the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sigmaeqn} is the flow on the smooth manifold $\M$ generated by the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{Msde}, whose solution can be expressed in the form $y_t=\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp\sigma_t$. \end{corollary} \emph{Remark.} If the action is free then `$\Lambda_{y_0}\circ\exp$' is a diffeomorphism from a neighbourhood of $\oo\in\g$ to a neighbourhood of $y_0\in\M$. \section{Stochastic Munthe-Kaas methods} Assuming that the vector fields in our original stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sde} are fundamental and satisfy \eqref{suitableform}, then stochastic Munthe-Kaas methods are constructed as follows: \begin{enumerate} \item Subdivide the global interval of integration $[0,T]$ into subintervals $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$. \item Starting with $t_0=0$, repeat the next two steps over successive intervals $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$ until $t_{n+1}=T$. \item Compute an approximate solution $\hat\sigma_{t_n,t_{n+1}}$ to~\eqref{sigmaeqn} across $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$ using a stochastic Taylor, stochastic Runge--Kutta or Castell--Gaines method. \item Compute the approximate solution $y_{t_{n+1}}\approx\Lambda_{y_{t_n}}\circ\exp\hat\sigma_{t_n,t_{n+1}}$. \end{enumerate} Note that by construction $\hat\sigma_{t_n,t_{n+1}}\in\g$ because the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sigmaeqn} (or any stochastic Taylor or other sensible approximation) evolves the solution locally on the Lie algebra~$\mathfrak g$ via the vector fields $v_{\xi_i}\colon\g\ra\g$. Suitable methods for approximating the exponential map to ensure it maps $\g$ to $\G$ appropriately can be found in Iserles and Zanna~. Then by construction $y_{t_{n+1}}\in\M$. For example, with two Wiener processes and autonomous vector fields $v_{\xi_i}\circ\sigma$, an order~$1$ stochastic Taylor Munthe-Kaas method is based on \begin{equation} \hat\sigma_{t_n,t_{n+1}}=\bigl(J_0v_{\xi_0}+J_1v_{\xi_1}+J_2v_{\xi_2} +\tfrac12J_1^2v_{\xi_1}^2+J_{12}v_{\xi_1}v_{\xi_2} +J_{21}v_{\xi_2}v_{\xi_1}+\tfrac12J_2^2v_{\xi_2}^2\bigr)\circ\oo\,, \end{equation} evaluated at the zero element $\oo\in\g$. Typically `$\mathrm{dexp}_\sigma^{-1}$' is truncated to only include the necessary low order terms to maintain the order of the numerical scheme. \emph{Remark.} It is natural to invoke Ado's Theorem (see for example Olver~ p.~54): any finite dimensional Lie algebra is isomorphic to a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$ (the general linear algebra) for some $n\in\mathbb N$. However as Munthe-Kaas~ points out, directly using a matrix representation for the given Lie group might not lead to the optimal computational implementation (other data structures might do so). \section{Exponential Lie series} The stochastic Taylor series is known in different contexts as the \emph{Neumann series}, \emph{Peano--Baker series} or \emph{Feynman--Dyson path ordered exponential}. If the vector fields in the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sde} are autonomous (which we assume henceforth), i.e.\ for all $i=0,1,\ldots,d$, $V_i=V_i(y)$ only, then the stochastic Taylor series for the flow is \begin{equation*} \varphi_t= \sum_{m=0}^\infty\,\sum_{\alpha\in\mathbb P_m} J_{\alpha_1\cdots \alpha_m}(t)\,V_{\alpha_1}\cdots V_{\alpha_m}\,. \end{equation*} Here $\mathbb P_m$ is the set of all combinations of multi-indices $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m)$ of length $m$ with $\alpha_i\in\{0,1,\ldots,d\}$ and \begin{equation*} J_{\alpha_1\cdots \alpha_m}(t)\equiv\int_0^t\cdots\int_0^{\tau_{m-1}} \mathrm{d}W^{\alpha_1}_{\tau_m}\,\cdots\,\mathrm{d}W^{\alpha_m}_{\tau_1} \end{equation*} are multiple Stratonovich integrals. The logarithm of $\varphi_t$ is the \emph{exponential Lie series}, \emph{Magnus expansion} (Magnus~) or \emph{Chen--Strichartz formula} (Chen~, Strichartz~). In other words we can express the flow map in the form $\varphi_t=\exp\psi_t$, where \begin{equation*} \psi_t=\sum_{i=0}^d J_i(t)V_i+\sum_{j>i=0}^d \tfrac12(J_{ij}-J_{ji})(t)[V_i,V_j]+\cdots \end{equation*} is the exponential Lie series for our system, and $[\cdot\,,\cdot]$ is the Lie--Jacobi bracket on $\X(\mathcal M)$. See Yamato~, Kunita~, Ben Arous~ and Castell~ for the derivation and convergence of the exponential Lie series expansion in the stochastic context; Strichartz~ for the full explicit expansion; Sussmann~ for a related product expansion and Lyons~ for extensions to rough paths. Let us denote the truncated exponential Lie series by \begin{equation} \hat\psi_t=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathbb Q_m}J_\alpha\, c_\alpha\,, \end{equation} where $\mathbb Q_m$ denotes the finite set of multi-indices $\alpha$ for which $\|J_\alpha\|_{L^2}$ is of order up to and including $t^m$, where $m=1/2,1,3/2,\ldots$. The terms $c_\alpha$ are linear combinations of finitely many (length $\alpha$) products of the smooth vector fields $V_i$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$. The following asymptotic convergence result can be established along the lines of the proof for linear stochastic differential equations in Lord, Malham and Wiese~; we provide a proof in Appendix~. \begin{theorem} Assume the vector fields $V_i$ have $2m+1$ uniformly bounded derivatives, for all $i=0,1,\ldots,d$. Then for $t\leq1$, the flow $\exp\hat\psi_t\circ y_0$ is square-integrable, where $\hat\psi_t$ is the truncated Lie series~\eqref{eq:orderm}. Further, if $y$ is the solution of the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sde}, there exists a constant $C\bigl(m,\|y_0\|_2\bigr)$ such that \begin{equation} \bigl\|y_t-\exp\hat\psi_t\circ y_0\bigr\|_{L^2} \leq C\bigl(m,\|y_0\|_2\bigr)\,t^{m+1/2}\,. \end{equation} \end{theorem} \section{Geometric Castell--Gaines methods} Consider the truncated exponential Lie series $\hat\psi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}$ across the interval $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$. We approximate higher order multiple Stratonovich integrals across each time-step by their expectations conditioned on the increments of the Wiener processes on suitable subdivisions (Gaines and Lyons~). An approximation to the solution of the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sde} across the interval $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$ is given by the flow generated by the truncated and conditioned exponential Lie series $\hat\psi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}$ via \begin{equation*} y_{t_{n+1}}\approx\exp\bigl(\hat\psi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}\bigr)\,\circ y_{t_n}\,. \end{equation*} Hence the solution to the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sde} can be approximately computed by solving the ordinary differential system (see Castell and Gaines~; Misawa~) \begin{equation} u'(\tau)=\hat\psi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}\circ u(\tau) \end{equation} across the interval $\tau\in[0,1]$. Then if $u(0)=y_{t_n}$ we will get $u(1)\approx y_{t_{n+1}}$. We must choose a sufficiently accurate ordinary differential integrator to solve~\eqref{castellgaines}---we implicitly assume this henceforth. The set of governing vector fields $V_i$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$, prescribes a map from the driving path process $w\equiv(W^1,\ldots,W^d)$ to the unique solution process $y\in\M$ to the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sde}. The map $w\mapsto y$ is called the It\^o map. Recall that we assume the vector fields are smooth. When there is only one driving Wiener process ($d=1$) the It\^o map is continuous in the topology of uniform convergence (Theorem~1.1.1.\ in Lyons and Qian~). When there are two or more driving processes ($d\geq2$) the Universal Limit Theorem (Theorem~6.2.2.\ in Lyons and Qian~) tells us that the It\^o map is continuous in the $p$-variation topology, in particular for $2\leq p<3$. A Wiener path with $d\geq2$ has $p$-variation with $p>2$, and the $p$-variation metric in this case includes information about the L\'evy chordal areas of the path (Lyons~). Hence we must choose suitable piecewise smooth approximations to the driving path process $w$. The following result follows from the corresponding result for ordinary differential equations in Hairer, Lubich and Wanner~ (p.~112) as well as directly from Chapter VIII in Malliavin~ on the Transfer Principle (see also Emery~). \begin{lemma} A necessary and sufficient condition for the solution to the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sde} to evolve on a smooth $n$-dimensional submanifold $\mathcal M$ of\/ $\R^N$ ($n\leq N$) up to a stopping time $T_*$ is that $V_i(y,t)\in T_y\mathcal M$ for all $y\in\mathcal M$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d$. \end{lemma} Hence the stochastic Taylor expansion for the flow $\varphi_t$ is a diffeomorphism on $\M$. However a truncated version of the stochastic Taylor expansion for the flow $\hat\varphi_t$ will not in general keep you on the manifold, i.e.\ if $y_0\in\M$ then $\hat\varphi_t\circ y_0$ need not necessarily lie in $\M$. On the other hand, the exponential Lie series $\psi_t$, or any truncation $\hat\psi_t$ of it, lies in $\mathfrak X(\mathcal M)$. By Lemma~ this is a necessary and sufficient condition for the corresponding flow-map $\exp\hat\psi_t$ to be a diffeomorphism on $\mathcal M$. Hence if $u(0)=y_{t_n}\in\mathcal M$, then $y_{t_{n+1}}\approx u(1)\in\mathcal M$. When solving the ordinary differential equation~\eqref{castellgaines}, classical geometric integration methods, for example Lie group integrators such as Runge--Kutta Munthe-Kaas methods, over the interval $\tau\in[0,1]$ will numerically ensure $y_{t_{n+1}}$ stays in $\mathcal M$. Additionally, as the following result reveals, numerical methods constructed using the Castell--Gaines Lie series approach can also be more accurate (a proof is provided in Appendix~). We define the \emph{strong global error} at time $T$ associated with an approximate solution $\hat y_T$ as $\mathcal E\equiv\|y_T-\hat y_T\|_{L^2}$. \begin{theorem} In the case of two independent Wiener processes and under the assumptions of Theorem~, for any initial condition $y_0\in\mathcal M$ and a sufficiently small fixed stepsize $h=t_{n+1}-t_n$, the order~$1/2$ Lie series integrator is globally more accurate in $L^2$ than the order~$1/2$ stochastic Taylor integrator. In addition, in the case of one Wiener process, the order~$1$ and $3/2$ \emph{uniformly accurate exponential Lie series integrators} generated by $\hat\psi^{(1)}_{t_n,t_{n+1}}=J_0V_0 +J_1V_1+\tfrac{h^2}{12}\bigl([V_1,[V_1,V_0]]\bigr)$ and \begin{equation*} \hat\psi^{(3/2)}_{t_n,t_{n+1}}=J_0V_0 +J_1V_1+\tfrac12(J_{01}-J_{10})[V_0,V_1] +\tfrac{h^2}{12}\bigl([V_1,[V_1,V_0]]\bigr)\,, \end{equation*} respectively, are globally more accurate in $L^2$ than their corresponding stochastic Taylor integrators. In other words, if $\mathcal E^{\mathrm{ls}}_m$ denotes the global error of the exponential Lie series integrators of order $m$ above, and $\mathcal E^{\mathrm{st}}_m$ is the global error of the stochastic Taylor integrators of the corresponding order, then $\mathcal E^{\mathrm{ls}}_m\leq\mathcal E^{\mathrm{st}}_m$ for $m=1/2,1,3/2$. \end{theorem} \emph{Remarks.} \begin{remunerate} \item The result for $\hat\psi^{(3/2)}$ is new. That the order-$1/2$ Lie series integrator (for two Wiener processes) and the order~$1$ integrator generated by $\hat\psi^{(1)}$ are uniformly more accurate confirms the asymptotically efficient properties of these schemes proved by Castell and Gaines~. The proof follows along the lines of an analogous result for linear stochastic systems considered in Lord, Malham and Wiese~. \item Consider the order~$1/2$ exponential Lie series with no vector field commutations. Solving the ordinary differential equation~\eqref{castellgaines} using an (ordinary) Euler Munthe-Kaas method and approximating $\mathrm{dexp}^{-1}_\sigma\approx\I$ is equivalent to the order~$1/2$ stochastic Taylor Munthe-Kaas method (for the same Lie group and action). \end{remunerate} \section{Numerical examples} \subsection{Rigid body} We consider the dynamics of a rigid body such as a satellite (see Marsden and Ratiu~). We will suppose that the rigid body is perturbed by two independent multiplicative stochastic processes $W^1$ and $W^2$ with the corresponding vector fields $V_i(y)\equiv\xi_i(y)\,y$, for $i=0,1,2$, with $\xi_i\in\mathfrak{so}(3)$. If we normalize the initial data $y_0$ so that $|y_0|=1$ then the dynamics evolves on $\M=\mathbb S^2$. We naturally suppose $\G=SO(3)$, and $\Lambda_{y_0}(S)\equiv Sy_0$ so that $\lambda_{\xi_i}(y)=\xi_i(y)\,y$, and we can pull back the flow generated by $V$ on $\M$ to the flow on $\G$ generated by $X_{\xi_i}(S,t)=\xi_i\bigl(\Lambda_{y_0}(S)\bigr)\,S$, $i=0,1,2$. We use the following matrix representation for the $\xi_i(y)\in\mathfrak{so}(3)$: \begin{equation*} \xi_i(y)=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -y_3/\alpha_{i,3} & y_2/\alpha_{i,2} \\ y_3/\alpha_{i,3} & 0 & -y_1/\alpha_{i,1} \\ -y_2/\alpha_{i,2} & y_1/\alpha_{i,1} & 0 \end{pmatrix}\,, \end{equation*} where the constants $\alpha_{i,j}$ for $j=1,2,3$ are chosen so that the vector fields $V_i$ and matrices $\xi_i$ do not commute for $i=0,1,2$: $\alpha_{0,1}=3$, $\alpha_{0,2}=1$, $\alpha_{0,3}=2$, $\alpha_{1,1}=1$, $\alpha_{1,2}=1/2$, $\alpha_{1,3}=3/2$, $\alpha_{2,1}=1/4$, $\alpha_{2,2}=1$, $\alpha_{2,3}=1/2$. The vector fields $V_i$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem~ since the manifold is compact in this case. We will numerically solve~\eqref{sde} using three different order~$1$ methods: stochastic Taylor, stochastic Taylor Munthe-Kaas based on~\eqref{STMK} and Castell--Gaines (a standard non-geometric Runge--Kutta method is used to solve the ordinary differential equation~\eqref{castellgaines}). The vector field compositions $V_iV_j$ needed for the stochastic Taylor and Castell--Gaines methods are readily computed. For the Munthe-Kaas method we note that we have $v_{\xi_i}\circ\oo=\xi_i(y_0)$ and \begin{equation*} v_{\xi_i}v_{\xi_j}\circ\oo=\hat A(y_0,y_0;\alpha_i,\alpha_j) -\tfrac12[\xi_i(y_0),\xi_j(y_0)]\,. \end{equation*} Here $\oo\in\mathfrak{so}(3)$ is the zero element on the Lie algebra, and for all $y,z\in\R^3$ we define \begin{equation*} A(y,z;\alpha,\beta)\equiv \begin{pmatrix} \bigl(\tfrac{y_2z_3}{\alpha_{2}}-\tfrac{y_3z_2}{\alpha_{3}}\bigr)\tfrac{1}{\beta_{1}}\\ \bigl(\tfrac{y_3z_1}{\alpha_{3}}-\tfrac{y_1z_3}{\alpha_{1}}\bigr)\tfrac{1}{\beta_{2}}\\ \bigl(\tfrac{y_1z_2}{\alpha_{1}}-\tfrac{y_2z_1}{\alpha_{2}}\bigr)\tfrac{1}{\beta_{3}} \end{pmatrix}\,, \end{equation*} and $\hat{\phantom{u}}\colon\R^3\ra\mathfrak{so}(3)$ denotes the vector space isomorphism $\sigma\mapsto\hat\sigma$ where \begin{equation*} \hat\sigma\equiv\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -\sigma_3 & \sigma_2 \\ \sigma_3 & 0 & -\sigma_1 \\ -\sigma_2 & \sigma_1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\,. \end{equation*} Note that $\hat y\,z\equiv y\wedge z$ (see Marsden and Ratiu~). Note also since $\sigma\in\mathfrak{so}(3)$, $\exp\sigma\in SO(3)$ can be conveniently and cheaply computed using Rodrigues' formula (see Marsden and Ratiu~ or Iserles \textit{et al.\ }~). In Figure~ we show the distance from the manifold $\mathbb S^2$ of each the three approximations; we start with initial data $y_0=(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 2, 0)^{\text{T}}$. The stochastic Taylor Munthe-Kaas method can be seen to preserve the solution in the unit sphere to within machine error. We also see that the stochastic Taylor method clearly drifts off the sphere as the integration time progresses, as does the non-geometric Castell-Gaines method---which does however remain markedly closer to the manifold than the stochastic Taylor scheme. \subsection{Autonomous underwater vehicle} The dynamics of an ellipsoidal autonomous underwater vehicle is prescribed by the state $y=(\pi,p)\in\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$ where $\pi\in\mathfrak{so}(3)^\ast$ is its angular momentum and $p\in(\R^3)^\ast$ its linear momentum (see Holmes, Jenkins and Leonard~, Egeland, Dalsmo and S\o rdalen~ and Marsden and Ratiu~). We suppose that the vehicle is perturbed by two independent multiplicative stochastic processes. The governing vector fields are for $i=0,1,2$: \begin{equation*} V_i(y)=\mathrm{ad}^\ast_{\xi_i}\circ y\,. \end{equation*} Here $\xi_i(y)=\bigl(\omega_i(y),u_i(y)\bigr)\in\mathfrak{se}(3)$ where $\omega_i(y)=I_i^{-1}\pi$ and $u_i(y)=M_i^{-1}p$ are the angular and linear velocity, and $I_i=\mathrm{diag}(\alpha_{i,1},\alpha_{i,2},\alpha_{i,3})$ and $M_i=\mathrm{diag}(\beta_{i,1},\beta_{i,2},\beta_{i,3})$ are the constant moment of inertia and mass matrices, respectively. Explicitly for $\xi\in\mathfrak{se}(3)$ we have \begin{equation*} \mathrm{ad}^\ast_{\xi}\circ y\equiv(\pi\wedge\omega+p\wedge u,p\wedge\omega)\,. \end{equation*} The system of vector fields $V_i$, $i=0,1,2$ represents the Lie--Poisson dynamics on $\M=\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$ (Marsden and Ratiu~). There are two independent Casimir functions $C_k\colon\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast\ra\R$, $k=1,2$, namely $C_1=\pi\cdot p$ and $C_2=|p|^2$; these are conserved by the flow on $\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$. Note that the Hamiltonian, i.e.\ total kinetic energy $\tfrac12(\pi\cdot\omega+p\cdot u)$, is also exactly conserved (and helpful for establishing the sufficiency conditions in Theorem~), but that is not our focus here. If $\G=SE(3)\cong SO(3)\times\R^3$, then the coadjoint action of $SE(3)$ on $\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$, $\mathrm{Ad}^\ast\colon SE(3)\times\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast\ra\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$ is defined for all $S=(s,\rho)\in SE(3)$, where $s\in SO(3)$ and $\rho\in\R^3$, and $y\in\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$ by: $\Lambda_y\circ S=\mathrm{Ad}^\ast_{S^{-1}}\circ y \equiv\bigl(s\pi+\rho\wedge(sp),sp\bigr)$. The corresponding infinitesimal action $\lambda\colon\mathfrak{se}(3)\times\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast\ra\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$ for all $\xi\in\mathfrak{se}(3)$ and $y\in\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$ is given by (see Marsden and Ratiu~, p.~477) \begin{equation*} \lambda_\xi\circ y=-\mathrm{ad}^\ast_{\xi}\circ y\,. \end{equation*} Since $\mathrm{ad}^\ast_{\xi}(y)=-\lambda_\xi(y)=\lambda_{-\xi}(y)$ the governing set of vector fields on $\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$ are \begin{equation*} V_i(y)=\lambda_{-\xi_i}\circ y\,. \end{equation*} We can now pull back this flow on $\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$ to a flow on $SE(3)$ via $\Lambda_{y_0}$. The corresponding flow on $SE(3)$ is generated by the governing set of vector fields for $i=0,1,2$: \begin{equation*} X_{-\xi_i}\circ S=-\bigl(\omega_i(y)\wedge s,\omega_i(y)\wedge\rho+u_i(y)\bigr)\,, \end{equation*} with $y=\Lambda_{y_0}(S)$. To aid implementation note that $SE(3)=\bigl\{(s,\rho)\in SE(3)\colon s\in SO(3),~\rho\in\R^3\bigr\}$ embeds into $SL(4;\R)$ via the map \begin{equation*} S=(s,\rho)\mapsto\begin{pmatrix} s & \rho \\ O^{\text{T}} & 1 \end{pmatrix}\,, \end{equation*} where $O$ is the three-vector of zeros. Also $\mathfrak{se}(3)$ is isomorphic to a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{sl}(4;\R)$ with elements of the form \begin{equation*} \sigma=(\theta,\zeta)\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \hat\theta & \zeta \\ O^{\text{T}} & 0 \end{pmatrix}\,. \end{equation*} Hence the governing vector fields on $SE(3)$ are of the form $X_{\xi_i}=-\xi_i(y)\,S$, where \begin{equation*} \xi_i(y)=\begin{pmatrix} \hat\omega_i(\pi) & u_i(p) \\ O^{\text{T}} & 0 \end{pmatrix}\,. \end{equation*} The governing vector fields on $\mathfrak{se}(3)$ are $v_{\xi_i}(\sigma)=-\mathrm{dexp}_\sigma\circ\xi_i\bigl(\Lambda_{y_0}(\exp\sigma)\bigr)$. Again the vector field compositions $V_iV_j$ needed for the stochastic Taylor and Castell--Gaines methods can be computed straightforwardly. Direct calculation also reveals that in block matrix form \begin{equation*} v_{\xi_i}v_{\xi_j}\circ\oo=\begin{pmatrix} \hat A(\pi_0,\pi_0;\alpha_i,\alpha_j)+\hat A(p_0,p_0;\beta_i,\alpha_j) & A(\pi_0,p_0;\alpha_i,\beta_j) \\ O^{\text{T}} & 0\end{pmatrix}-\tfrac12\,[\xi_i(y_0),\xi_j(y_0)]\,. \end{equation*} Here $A(y,z;\alpha,\beta)$ is defined as for the rigid body example. Note that the exponential map $\exp_{\mathfrak{se}(3)}\colon\mathfrak{se}(3)\ra SE(3)$ is defined for all $\sigma=(\theta,\zeta)\in\mathfrak{se}(3)$ by \begin{equation*} \exp_{\mathfrak{se}(3)}\sigma=\begin{pmatrix} \exp_{\mathfrak{so}(3)}\hat\theta & f(\theta)\zeta \\ O^{\text{T}} & 1\end{pmatrix}\,, \end{equation*} where $\exp_{\mathfrak{so}(3)}$ is the exponential map from $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ to $SO(3)$ which can be computed using Rodrigues' formula and (see Bullo and Murray~, p.~5) \begin{equation*} f(\theta)=I_{3\times 3}+(1-\cos\|\theta\|)\hat\theta/\|\theta\|^2 +\bigl(1-(\sin\|\theta\|)/\|\theta\|\bigr)\hat\theta^2/\|\theta\|^2\,. \end{equation*} In Figure~ we show the distance from the manifold $\mathfrak{se}(3)^\ast$ of each the three approximations; in particular how far the individual trajectories stray from the Casimirs $C_1=\pi\cdot p$ and $C_2=|p|^2$. We start with the initial data $y_0=(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 2, 0, 0, \sqrt 2,\sqrt 2)^{\text{T}}$. As before the stochastic Taylor Munthe-Kaas method can be seen to preserve the Casimirs to within machine error. We also see that the stochastic Taylor method clearly drifts off the manifold as the integration time progresses and at a particular time depending on the Wiener path shoots off very rapidly away from the manifold. Note also that for large stepsizes the stochastic Taylor method is unstable. However the non-geometric Castell--Gaines and stochastic Munthe-Kaas methods still give reliable results in that regime. Lastly, although the the stochastic Munthe-Kaas method adheres to the manifold to within machine error, the error of the non-geometric Castell--Gaines method is actually smaller. \section{Conclusions} We have established and implemented stochastic Lie group integrators based on stochastic Munthe-Kaas methods and also derived geometric Castell--Gaines methods. We have also revealed several aspects of these integrators that require further investigation. \begin{remunerate} \item We could construct a stochastic nonlinear Magnus method by approximating the solution to the stochastic differential equation~\eqref{sigmaeqn} on the Lie algebra using Picard iterations (see Casas and Iserles~). \item We would like to develop a practical procedure for implementing ordinary Munthe-Kaas methods for higher order Castell--Gaines integrators. We need to determine the element $\xi\colon\M\ra\g$ so that in~\eqref{castellgaines} we have $\hat\psi=\lambda_\xi$. \item We need to determine the properties of the local and global errors for the stochastic Munthe-Kaas methods. Also a thorough investigation of the stability properties of the stochastic Munthe-Kaas and Castell--Gaines methods is required. For the autonomous underwater vehicle simulations they were both superior to the direct stochastic Taylor method, especially for larger stepsizes. We also need to compare the relative efficiency of the methods concerned, in particular to compare an optimally efficient geometric Castell--Gaines method with the stochastic Munthe-Kaas method. \item Although we have chiefly confined ourselves to driving paths that are Wiener processes, we can extend Munthe-Kaas and Castell--Gaines methods to rougher driving paths (Lyons and Qian~, Friz~, Friz and Victoir~). Further, what happens when we consider processes involving jumps? For example Srivastava, Miller and Grenander~ consider jump diffusion processes on matrix Lie groups for Bayesian inference. Or what if we consider fractional Brownian driving paths; Baudoin and Coutin~ investigate fractional Brownian motions on Lie groups? \item Schiff and Shnider~ have used Lie group methods to derive M\"obius schemes for numerically integrating deterministic Riccati systems beyond finite time removable singularities and numerical instabilities. They integrate a linear system of equations on the general linear group $\mathrm{GL}(n)$ which corresponds to a Riccati flow on the Grassmannian manifold $\mathrm{Gr}(k,n)$ via the M\"obius action map. Lord, Malham and Wiese~ implemented stochastic M\"obius schemes and show that they can be more accurate and cost effective than directly solving stochastic Riccati systems using stochastic Taylor methods. We would like to investigate further their effectiveness for stochastic Riccati equations arising in Kalman filtering (Kloeden and Platen~) and to backward stochastic Riccati equations arising in optimal stochastic linear-quadratic control (see for example Kohlmann and Tang~ and Estrade and Pontier~). \item Other areas of potential application of the methods we have presented in this paper are for example: term-structure interest rate models evolving on finite dimensional invariant manifolds (see Filipovic and Teichmann~); stochastic dynamics triggered by DNA damage (Chickarmane, Ray, Sauro and Nadim~) and stochastic symplectic integrators for which the gradient of the solution evolves on the symplectic Lie group (see Milstein and Tretyakov~). \end{remunerate} \section*{Acknowledgments} We thank Alex Dragt, Peter Friz, Anders Hansen, Terry Lyons, Per-Christian Moan and Hans Munthe--Kaas for stimulating discussions. We also thank the anonymous referees, whose suggestions and encouragement improved the original manuscript significantly. SJAM would like to acknowledge the invaluable facilities of the Isaac Newton Institute where some of the final touches to this manuscript were completed. \appendix \section{Proof of Theorem~} We follow the proof for linear stochastic differential equations in Lord, Malham and Wiese~ (where further technical details on estimates for multiple Stratonovich integrals can be found). Suppose $\hat\psi_t\equiv\hat\psi_t(m)$ is the truncated Lie series~\eqref{eq:orderm}. First we show that $\exp\hat\psi_t\circ y_0\in L^2$. We see that for any number $k$, $\bigl(\hat\psi_t\bigr)^k\circ y_0$ is a sum of $|\mathbb Q_m|^k$ terms, each of which is a $k$-multiple product of terms $J_\alpha\, c_\alpha\circ y_0$. It follows that \begin{equation} \bigl\|\bigl(\hat\psi_t\bigr)^k\circ y_0\bigr\|_{L^2}\leq \Bigl(\,\max_{\alpha\in\mathbb Q_m}\|c_\alpha\circ y_0\|\Bigr)^k\,\cdot \sum_{\stackrel{\alpha_i \in\mathbb Q_m}{i=1,\ldots,k}} \|J_{\alpha_1}J_{\alpha_2}\cdots J_{\alpha_k}\|_{L^{2}}\,. \end{equation} Note that the maximum of the norm of the compositions of vector fields $c_\alpha\circ y_0$ is taken over a finite set. Repeated application of the product rule reveals that for $i=1,\ldots,k$, each term `$J_{\alpha_1}J_{\alpha_2}\cdots J_{\alpha_k}$' in \eqref{eq:product} is the sum of at most $2^{2mk-1}$ Stratonovich integrals $J_\beta$, where for $t\leq1$, $\|J_{\beta}\|_{L^{2}}\leq2^{4mk-1}\,t^{k/2}$. Since the right hand side of equation \eqref{eq:product} consists of $|\mathbb Q_m|^k\,2^{2mk-1}$ Stratonovich integrals $J_\beta$, we conclude that, \begin{equation*} \Bigl\|\bigl(\hat\psi_t\bigr)^k\circ y_0\Bigr\|_{L^2} \leq\Bigl(\,\max_{\alpha\in\mathbb Q_m}\|c_\alpha\circ y_0\| \cdot|\mathbb Q_m|\cdot2^{6m}\cdot t^{1/2}\Bigr)^k\,. \end{equation*} Hence $\exp\hat\psi_t\circ y_0$ is square-integrable. Second we prove~\eqref{eq:conv}. Let $\hat y_t$ denote the stochastic Taylor series solution, truncated to included terms of order up to and including $t^m$. We have \begin{equation*} \bigl\|y_t-\exp\hat\psi_t\circ y_0\bigr\|_{L^2}\leq \bigl\|y_t-\hat y_t\bigr\|_{L^2} +\bigl\|\hat y_t-\exp\hat\psi_t\circ y_0\bigr\|_{L^2}\,. \end{equation*} We know $y_t\in L^2$---see Lemma III.2.1 in Gihman and Skorohod~. Note that the assumptions there are fulfilled, since the uniform boundedness of the derivatives implies uniform Lipschitz continuity of the vector fields by the mean value theorem, and uniform Lipschitz continuity in turn implies a linear growth condition for the vector fields since they are autonomous. Note that $\hat y_t$ is a strong approximation to $y_t$ up to and including terms of order $t^m$, with the remainder consisting of $\mathcal O(t^{m+1/2})$ terms (see Proposition 5.9.1 in Kloeden and Platen~). It follows from the definition of the exponential Lie series as the logarithm of the stochastic Taylor series, that the terms of order up to and including $t^m$ in $\exp\hat\psi_t\circ y_0$ correspond with $\hat y_t$; the error consists of $\mathcal O(t^{m+1/2})$ terms. \section{Proof of Theorem~} Our proof follows along the lines of that for uniformly accurate Magnus integrators for linear constant coefficient systems (see Lord, Malham \& Wiese~ and Malham and Wiese~). Let $\varphi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}$ and $\hat\varphi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}$ denote the exact and approximate flow-maps constructed on the interval $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$ of length $h$. We define the local flow remainder as \begin{equation*} R_{t_n,t_{n+1}}\equiv \varphi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}-\hat\varphi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}\,, \end{equation*} and so the local remainder is $R_{t_n,t_{n+1}}\circ y_{t_n}$. Let $R^{\text{ls}}$ and $R^{\text{st}}$ denote the local flow remainders corresponding to the exponential Lie series and stochastic Taylor approximations, respectively. \subsection{Order $1/2$ integrator: two Wiener processes} For the global order~$1/2$ integrators we have to leading order $R^{\text{ls}}=\tfrac12(J_{12}-J_{21})[V_1,V_2]$ and $R^{\text{st}}=J_{12}V_1V_2+J_{21}V_2V_1$. Note that we have included the terms $J_{11}V_1^2$ and $J_{22}V_2^2$ in the integrators. A direct calculation reveals that \begin{equation} \mathbb E\bigl((R^{\text{st}}\circ y_0)^{\text{T}}R^{\text{st}}\circ y_0\bigr)= \mathbb E\bigl((R^{\text{ls}}\circ y_0)^{\text{T}}R^{\text{ls}}\circ y_0\bigr) +h^{2m}U^{\text{T}}BU +\mathcal O\bigl(h^{2m+\frac{1}{2}}\bigr)\,. \end{equation} Here $m=1/2$ (for the order~$1/2$ integrators), $U=(V_1V_2\circ y_0,V_2V_1\circ y_0)^{\text{T}}\in\mathbb R^{2n}$, and $B\in\mathbb R^{2n\times 2n}$ consists of $n\times n$ diagonal blocks of the form $b_{ij}I_{n\times n}$ where \begin{equation*} b=\tfrac14\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\,, \end{equation*} and $I_{n\times n}$ is the $n\times n$ identity matrix. Since $b$ is positive semi-definite, the matrix $B=b\otimes I_{n\times n}$ is positive semi-definite. Hence the order~$1/2$ exponential Lie series integrator is locally more accurate than the corresponding stochastic Taylor integrator. \subsection{Order $1$ integrator: one Wiener process} For the global order~$1$ integrators we have to leading order $R^{\text{ls}}=\tfrac12(J_{01}-J_{10})[V_0,V_1]$ and $R^{\text{st}}=J_{01}V_0V_1+J_{10}V_1V_0 +J_{111}V_1^3+\tfrac14h^2(V_0V_1^2+V_1^2V_0)$. The terms of order $h^2$ shown are significant when we consider the global error in Section~ below. The estimate~\eqref{eq:compare} also applies in this case with $m=1$ and $U=(V_0V_1\circ y_0,V_1V_0\circ y_0,V_1^3\circ y_0)^{\text{T}}\in\mathbb R^{3n}$; and $B\in\mathbb R^{3n\times 3n}$ consists of $n\times n$ diagonal blocks of the form $b_{ij}I_{n\times n}$ where \begin{equation*} b=\tfrac{1}{12}\begin{pmatrix} 3 & 3 & 3\\ 3 & 3 & 3\\ 3 & 3 & 5 \end{pmatrix}\,. \end{equation*} Since $b$ is positive semi-definite, the matrix $B=b\otimes I_{n\times n}$ is positive semi-definite. Hence the order~$1$ exponential Lie series integrator is locally more accurate than the corresponding stochastic Taylor integrator. \subsection{Order $3/2$ integrator: one Wiener process} The local flow remainders are $R^{\text{ls}}=\tfrac16\bigl(J_{110}-2J_{101}+J_{011} -\tfrac12h^2\bigr)[V_1,[V_1,V_0]]$ and $R^{\text{st}}=J_{011}V_0V_1^2+J_{101}V_1V_0V_1+J_{110}V_1^2V_0 +J_{1111}V_1^4-\tfrac14h^2(V_0V_1^2+V_1^2V_0+\tfrac12V_1^4)$. The terms of order $h^2$ shown are significant when we consider the global error---but for a different reason this time---see Section~ below. Again, the estimate~\eqref{eq:compare} applies in this case with $m=3/2$ and $U=(V_0V_1^2\circ y_0,V_1V_0V_1\circ y_0, V_1^2V_0\circ y_0,V_1^4\circ y_0)^{\text{T}}\in\mathbb R^{4n}$; and $B\in\mathbb R^{4n\times 4n}$ consists of $n\times n$ diagonal blocks of the form $b_{ij}I_{n\times n}$ where \begin{equation*} b=\tfrac{1}{144}\begin{pmatrix} 11 & 8 & 5 & 12\\ 8 & 8 & 8 & 12\\ 5 & 8 & 11 & 12\\ 12 & 12 & 12 & 24 \end{pmatrix}\,. \end{equation*} Again, $B$ is positive semi-definite and the order~$3/2$ exponential Lie series integrator is locally more accurate than the corresponding stochastic Taylor integrator. \subsection{Global error} Recall that we define the \emph{strong global error} at time $T$ associated with an approximate solution $\hat y_T$ as $\mathcal E\equiv\|y_T-\hat y_T\|_{L^2}$. The exact and approximate solutions can be constructed by successively applying the exact and approximate flow maps $\varphi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}$ and $\hat\varphi_{t_n,t_{n+1}}$ on the successive intervals $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$ to the initial data $y_0$. A straightforward calculation shows for a small fixed stepsize $h$, \begin{equation} \mathcal E^2 =\mathbb E\,(\mathcal R\circ y_0)^{\text{T}}\,\mathcal R\circ y_0\,, \end{equation} up to higher order terms, where $\mathcal R\equiv\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \varphi_{t_{n+1},t_N}\circ R_{t_n,t_{n+1}} \circ\varphi_{t_0,t_n}$ is the standard accumulated local error contribution to the global error. The important conclusion is that when we construct the global error~\eqref{eq:geest}, the terms of leading order in the local flow remainders $R^{\text{ls}}$ or $R^{\text{st}}$ with zero expectation lose only a half order of convergence in this accumulation effect. Hence in the local flow remainders shown above, for the terms of zero expectation, the local superior accuracy for the Lie series integrators transfers to the corresponding global errors (see Lord, Malham and Wiese~ for more details). Terms of non-zero expectation however behave like deterministic error terms losing a whole order (in the local to global convergence); they contribute to the global error through their expectations. Hence we include such terms of order $h^2$ in the order~$3/2$ integrators above and they appear as the terms subtracted from the remainders shown. For the order~$1$ integrators we do not need to include the order $h^2$ terms in the integrator to obtain the correct mean-square convergence. However to guarantee that the global error for the exponential Lie series integrator is always smaller than that for the stochastic Taylor scheme, we include this term in the integrator. \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{BA} \textsc{G.~Ben Arous}, \emph{Flots et series de Taylor stochastiques}, Probab. Theory Related Fields, 81 (1989), pp.~29--77. \bibitem{B} \textsc{F.~Baudoin}, \emph{An introduction to the geometry of stochastic flows}, Imperial College Press, 2004. \bibitem{BC} \textsc{F.Baudoin and L.~Coutin}, \emph{Self-similarity and fractional Brownian motions on Lie groups}, arXiv:math.PR/0603199 v1, 2006. \bibitem{BM} \textsc{F.~Bullo and R.~M. Murray}, \emph{Proportional derivative (PD) control on the Euclidean group}, CDS Technical Report 95-010, 1995. \bibitem{BB} \textsc{K.~Burrage and P.~M. Burrage}, \emph{High strong order methods for non-commutative stochastic ordinary differential equation systems and the Magnus formula}, Phys. D, 133 (1999), pp.~34--48. \bibitem{CI} \textsc{F.~Casas and A.~Iserles}, \emph{Explicit Magnus expansions for nonlinear equations}, Cambridge NA reports, 2005. \bibitem{C} \textsc{F.~Castell}, \emph{Asymptotic expansion of stochastic flows}, Probab. Theory Related Fields, 96 (1993), pp.~225--239. \bibitem{CG} \textsc{F.~Castell and J.~Gaines}, \emph{An efficient approximation method for stochastic differential equations by means of the exponential Lie series}, Math. Comp. Simulation, 38 (1995), pp.~13--19. \bibitem{Ch} \textsc{K.~T. Chen}, \emph{Integration of paths, geometric invariants and a generalized Baker--Hausdorff formula}, Annals of Mathematics, 65(1) (1957), pp.~163--178. \bibitem{CRSN} \textsc{V.~Chickarmane, A.~Ray, H.~M. Sauro and A.~Nadim}, \emph{A model for p53 dynamics triggered by DNA damage}, SIAM J. Applied Dynamical Systems, 6(1) (2007), pp.61--78. \bibitem{CrGr} \textsc{P.~E. Crouch and R.~Grossman}, \emph{Numerical integration of ordinary differential equations on manifolds}, J. Nonlinear Sci., 3 (1993), pp.~1--33. \bibitem{EDS} \textsc{O.~Egeland, M.~Dalsmo and O.~J. S\o rdalen}, \emph{Feedback control of a nonholonomic underwater vehicle with a constant desired configuration}, The International Journal of Robotics Research, 15(1) (1996), pp.~24--35. \bibitem{E} \textsc{K.~D. Elworthy}, \emph{Stochastic differential equations on manifolds}, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 70, Cambridge University Press, 1982. \bibitem{Emery} \textsc{M.~Emery}, \emph{Stochastic Calculus on manifolds}, Universitext, Springer--Verlag, 1989. \bibitem{Epaper} \sameauthor, \emph{On two transfer principles in stochastic differential geometry}, S\'eminaire de probabilit\'es (Strasbourg), 24 (1990), pp.~407--441. \bibitem{EP} \textsc{A.~Estrade and M.~Pontier}, \emph{Backward stochastic differential equations in a Lie group}, S\'eminaire de probabilit\'es (Strasbourg), 35 (2001), pp.~241--259. \bibitem{FT} \textsc{D.~Filipovi\'c and J.~Teichmann}, \emph{On the geometry of the term structure of interest rates}, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 460 (2004), pp.~129--167. \bibitem{F} \textsc{P.~Friz}, \emph{Continuity of the It\^o-map for H\"older rough paths with applications to the support theorem in H\"older norm}, arXiv:math.PR/0304501 v2, 2003. \bibitem{FV} \textsc{P.~Friz and N.~ Victoir}, \emph{Euler estimates for rough differential equations}, Preprint, 2007. \bibitem{GL} \textsc{J.~G. Gaines and T.~J. Lyons}, \emph{Variable step size control in the numerical solution of stochastic differential equations}, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 57(5) (1997), pp.~1455--1484. \bibitem{GS} \textsc{I.~I. Gihman, and A.~V. Skorohod}, \emph{The theory of stochastic processes III}, Springer, 1979. \bibitem{HLW} \textsc{E.~Hairer, C.~ Lubich and G.~ Wanner}, \emph{Geometric Numerical Integration}, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, 2002. \bibitem{Helgason} \textsc{S.~Helgason}, \emph{Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces}, Academic Press, 1978. \bibitem{HJL} \textsc{P.~Holmes, J.~Jenkins and N.~E. Leonard}, \emph{Dynamics of the Kirchoff Equations I: coincident centers of gravity and bouyancy}, Phys. D, 118 (1998), pp.~311--342. \bibitem{IMNZ} \textsc{A.~Iserles, H.~Z. Munthe-Kaas, S.~P. N\o rsett, and A.~Zanna}, \emph{Lie-group methods}, Acta Numer., (2000), pp.~215--365. \bibitem{IZ} \textsc{A.~Iserles and A.~Zanna}, \emph{Efficient computation of the matrix exponential by generalized polar decompositions}, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 42(5) (2005), pp.~2218--2256. \bibitem{KP} \textsc{P.~E. Kloeden and E.~Platen}, \emph{Numerical solution of stochastic differential equations}, Springer, 1999. \bibitem{KT} \textsc{M.~Kohlmann and S.~Tang}, \emph{Multidimensional backward stochastic Riccati equations and applications}, SIAM J. Control Optim., 41(6) (2003), pp.~1696--1721. \bibitem{Ku1980} \textsc{H.~Kunita}, \emph{On the representation of solutions of stochastic differential equations}, LNM 784, Springer--Verlag, 1980, pp.~282--304. \bibitem{Ku1990} \sameauthor, \emph{Stochastic flows and stochastic differential equations}, Cambridge University Press, 1990. \bibitem{LMW} \textsc{G.~Lord, S.~J.A. Malham and A.~Wiese}, \emph{Efficient strong integrators for linear stochastic systems}, 2006, Submitted. \bibitem{L} \textsc{T.~Lyons}, \emph{Differential equations driven by rough signals}, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 14(2) (1998), pp.~215--310. \bibitem{LQ} \textsc{T.~Lyons and Z.~Qian}, \emph{System control and rough paths}, Oxford University Press, 2002. \bibitem{Magnus} \textsc{W.~Magnus}, \emph{On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 7 (1954), pp.~649--673. \bibitem{MW} \textsc{S.~J.A. Malham and A.~Wiese}, \emph{Universal optimal stochastic expansions}, 2007, Preprint. \bibitem{Malliavin} \textsc{P.~Malliavin}, \emph{Stochastic analysis}, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 313, Springer, 1997. \bibitem{MR} \textsc{J.~E. Marsden and T.~S. Ratiu}, \emph{Introduction to mechanics and symmetry}, Second edition, Springer, 1999. \bibitem{MT} \textsc{G.~N. Milstein and M.~V. Tretyakov}, \emph{Stochastic numerics for mathematical physics}, Springer, 2004. \bibitem{Mi} \textsc{T.~Misawa}, \emph{A Lie algebraic approach to numerical integration of stochastic differential equations}, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 23(3) (2001), pp.~866--890. \bibitem{MK} \textsc{H.~Munthe-Kaas}, \emph{High order Runge--Kutta methods on manifolds}, Appl. Numer. Math., {29} (1999), pp.~115--127. \bibitem{N} \textsc{N.~J. Newton}, \emph{Asymptotically efficient Runge--Kutta methods for a class of It\^o and Stratonovich equations}, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 51 (1991), pp.~542--567. \bibitem{O2} \textsc{P.~J. Olver}, \emph{Equivalence, invariants, and symmetry}, Cambridge University Press, 1995. \bibitem{SS} \textsc{J.~Schiff and S.~Shnider}, \emph{A natural approach to the numerical integration of Riccati differential equations}, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 36(5) (1999), pp.~1392--1413. \bibitem{SMG} \textsc{A.~Srivastava, M.~I. Miller and U.~Grenander}, \emph{Jump-diffusion processes on matrix Lie groups for Bayesian inference}, preprint, 2000. \bibitem{S} \textsc{R.~S. Strichartz}, \emph{The Campbell--Baker--Hausdorff--Dynkin formula and solutions of differential equations}, J. Funct. Anal., 72 (1987), pp.~320--345. \bibitem{Su} \textsc{H.~J. Sussmann}, \emph{Product expansions of exponential Lie series and the discretization of stochastic differential equations, in Stochastic Differential Systems}, Stochastic Control Theory, and Applications, W.~Fleming and J.~Lions, eds., Springer IMA Series, Vol. 10 (1988), pp.~563--582. \bibitem{V} \textsc{V.~S. Varadarajan}, \emph{Lie groups, Lie algebras, and their representations}, Springer, 1984. \bibitem{W} \textsc{F.~W. Warner}, \emph{Foundations of differentiable manifolds and Lie groups}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer--Verlag, 1983. \bibitem{Y} \textsc{Y.~Yamato}, \emph{Stochastic differential equations and nilpotent Lie algebras}, Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete, 47(2) (1979), pp~213--229. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0032
|
Title: Probing non-standard neutrino interactions with supernova neutrinos
Abstract: We analyze the possibility of probing non-standard neutrino interactions
(NSI, for short) through the detection of neutrinos produced in a future
galactic supernova (SN).We consider the effect of NSI on the neutrino
propagation through the SN envelope within a three-neutrino framework, paying
special attention to the inclusion of NSI-induced resonant conversions, which
may take place in the most deleptonised inner layers. We study the possibility
of detecting NSI effects in a Megaton water Cherenkov detector, either through
modulation effects in the $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum due to (i) the passage of shock
waves through the SN envelope, (ii) the time dependence of the electron
fraction and (iii) the Earth matter effects; or, finally, through the possible
detectability of the neutronization $\nu_e$ burst. We find that the $\bar\nu_e$
spectrum can exhibit dramatic features due to the internal NSI-induced resonant
conversion. This occurs for non-universal NSI strengths of a few %, and for
very small flavor-changing NSI above a few$\times 10^{-5}$.
Body: \preprint{IFIC/07-03} \author{A.~Esteban-Pretel, R. Tom\`as and J.~W.~F.~Valle} \affiliation{AHEP Group, Institut de F\'{\i}sica Corpuscular - C.S.I.C/Universitat de Val\`encia\\ Edifici Instituts d'Investigaci\'o, Apt. 22085, E-46071 Val\`encia, Spain} \title{Probing non-standard neutrino interactions with supernova neutrinos} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} We analyze the possibility of probing non-standard neutrino interactions (NSI, for short) through the detection of neutrinos produced in a future galactic supernova (SN). We consider the effect of NSI on the neutrino propagation through the SN envelope within a three-neutrino framework, paying special attention to the inclusion of NSI-induced resonant conversions, which may take place in the most deleptonised inner layers. We study the possibility of detecting NSI effects in a Megaton water Cherenkov detector, either through modulation effects in the $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum due to (i) the passage of shock waves through the SN envelope, (ii) the time dependence of the electron fraction and (iii) the Earth matter effects; or, finally, through the possible detectability of the neutronization $\nu_e$ burst. We find that the $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum can exhibit dramatic features due to the internal NSI-induced resonant conversion. This occurs for non-universal NSI strengths of a few \ flavor-changing NSI above a few$\times 10^{-5}$. \end{abstract} \pacs{ 13.15.+g, 14.60.Lm, 14.60.Pq, 14.60.St, 97.60.Bw } \maketitle \section{Introduction} The very first data of the KamLAND collaboration~ have been enough to isolate neutrino oscillations as the correct mechanism explaining the solar neutrino problem~, indicating also that large mixing angle (LMA) was the right solution. The 766.3 ton-yr KamLAND data sample further strengthens the validity of the LMA oscillation interpretation of the data~. Current data imply that neutrino have mass. For an updated review of the current status of neutrino oscillations see~. Theories of neutrino mass~ typically require that neutrinos have non-standard properties such as neutrino electromagnetic transition moments~ or non-standard four-Fermi interactions (NSI, for short)~. The expected magnitude of the NSI effects is rather model-dependent. Seesaw-type models lead to a non-trivial structure of the lepton mixing matrix characterizing the charged and neutral current weak interactions~. The NSI which are induced by the charged and neutral current gauge interactions may be sizeable~. Alternatively, non-standard neutrino interactions may arise in models where neutrinos masses are radiatively ``calculable''~. Finally, in some supersymmetric unified models, the strength of non-standard neutrino interactions may arise from renormalization and/or threshold effects~. We stress that non-standard interactions strengths are highly model-dependent. In some models NSI strengths are too small to be relevant for neutrino propagation, because they are either suppressed by some large mass scale or restricted by limits on neutrino masses, or both. However, this need not be the case, and there are many theoretically attractive scenarios where moderately large NSI strengths are possible and consistent with the smallness of neutrino masses. In fact one can show that NSI may exist even in the limit of massless neutrinos~. Such may also occur in the context of fully unified models like $SO(10)$~. We argue that, in addition to the precision determination of the oscillation parameters, it is necessary to test for sub-leading non-oscillation effects that could arise from non-standard neutrino interactions. These are natural outcome of many neutrino mass models and can be of two types: flavor-changing (FC) and non-universal (NU). These are constrained by existing experiments (see below) and, with neutrino experiments now entering a precision phase~, an improved determination of neutrino parameters and their theoretical impact constitute an important goal in astroparticle and high energy physics~. Here we concentrate on the impact of non-standard neutrino interactions on supernova physics. We show how complementary information on the NSI parameters could be inferred from the detection of core-collapse supernova neutrinos. The motivation for the study is twofold. First, if a future SN event takes place in our Galaxy the number of neutrino events expected in the current or planned neutrino detectors would be enormous, $\mathcal{O}(10^4-10^5)$~. Moreover, the extreme conditions under which neutrinos have to travel since they are created in the SN core, in strongly deleptonised regions at nuclear densities, until they reach the Earth, lead to strong matter effects. In particular the effect of small values of the NSI parameters can be dramatically enhanced, possibly leading to observable consequences. This paper is planned as follows. In Sec.~ we summarize the current observational bounds on the parameters describing the NSI, including previous works on NSI in SNe. In Sec.~ we describe the neutrino propagation formalism as well as the SN profiles which will be used. In Sec.~ we analyze the effect of NSI on the $\nu$ propagation in the inner regions near the neutrinosphere and in the outer regions of the SN envelope. In Sec.~ we discuss the possibility of using various observables to probe the presence of NSI in the neutrino signal of a future galactic SN. Finally in Sec.~ we present our conclusions. \section{Preliminaries} A large class of non-standard interactions may be parametrized with the effective low-energy four-fermion operator: \begin{equation} \mathcal{L}_{NSI} = -\varepsilon^{fP}_{\alpha\beta} 2\sqrt{2}G_F(\bar\nu_\alpha\gamma_\mu L \nu_\beta) (\bar f\gamma^\mu P f)~, \end{equation} where $P=L,~R$ and $f$ is a first generation fermion: $e,~u,~d$. The coefficients $\varepsilon^{fP}_{\alpha\beta}$ denote the strength of the NSI between the neutrinos of flavors $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and the $P-$handed component of the fermion $f$. Current constraints on $\varepsilon^{fP}_{\alpha\beta}$ come from a variety of different sources, which we now briefly list. \subsection{Laboratory} Neutrino scattering experiments~ provide the following bounds, $|\varepsilon^{fP}_{\mu\mu}| \lesssim 10^{-3}-10^{-2},~ |\varepsilon^{fP}_{ee}|\lesssim 10^{-1}-1,~|\varepsilon^{fP}_{\mu\tau}|\lesssim 0.05,~ |\varepsilon^{fP}_{e\tau}|\lesssim 0.5$ at 90 \ C.L~. On the other hand the analysis of the $e^+e^-\to \nu\bar\nu\gamma$ cross section measured at LEP II leads to a bound on $|\varepsilon^{eP}_{\tau\tau}|\lesssim 0.5$~. Future prospects to improve the current limits imply the measurement of $\sin^2\theta_W$ leptonically in the scattering off electrons in the target, as well as in neutrino deep inelastic scattering in a future neutrino factory. The main improvement would be in the case of $|\varepsilon^{fP}_{ee}|$ and $|\varepsilon^{fP}_{e\tau}|$, where values as small as $10^{-3}$ and $0.02$, respectively, could be reached~. The search for flavor violating processes involving charged leptons is expected to restrict corresponding neutrino interactions, to the extent that the $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry is assumed. However, this can at most give indicative order-of-magnitude restrictions, since we know $SU(2)$ is not a good symmetry of nature. Using radiative corrections it has been argued that, for example, $\mu-e$ conversion on nuclei like in the case of $\mu^-Ti$ also constrains $|\varepsilon^{qP}_{\mu e}|\lesssim 7.7\times 10^{-4}$~. Non-standard interactions can also affect neutrino propagation through matter, probed in current neutrino oscillation experiments. The bounds so obtained apply to the vector coupling constant of the NSI, $\varepsilon^{fV}_{\alpha\beta} = \varepsilon^{fL}_{\alpha\beta} + \varepsilon^{fR}_{\alpha\beta}$, since only this appears in neutrino propagation in matter~\footnote{ Axial couplings would affect neutrino propagation in polarized media, see Ref.~.}. \subsection{Solar and reactor} The role of neutrino NSIs as subleading effects on the solar neutrino oscillations and KamLAND has been recently considered in Ref.~ with the following bounds at 90 \ \varepsilon^{dV}_{e\tau}$ with the allowed range $-0.93\lesssim \varepsilon \lesssim 0.30$, while for the diagonal term $\varepsilon'\equiv \sin^2\theta_{23}\varepsilon^{dV}_{\tau\tau}-\varepsilon^{dV}_{ee}$, the only forbidden region is $[0.20,0.78]$~. Only in the ideal case of infinitely precise solar neutrino oscillation parameters determination, the allowed range would ``close from the left'' for negative NSI parameter values, at $-0.6$ for $\varepsilon$ and $-0.7$ for $\varepsilon'$. \subsection{Atmospheric and accelerator neutrinos} Non-standard interactions involving muon neutrinos can be constrained by atmospheric neutrino experiments as well as accelerator neutrino oscillation searches at K2K and MINOS. In Ref.~ Super-Kamiokande and MACRO observations of atmospheric neutrinos were considered in the framework of two neutrinos. The limits obtained were $-0.05\lesssim \varepsilon^{dV}_{\mu\tau}<0.04$ and $|\varepsilon^{dV}_{\tau\tau}-\varepsilon^{dV}_{\mu\mu}|\lesssim 0.17$ at 99 \ considered in Refs.~ to study the nonstandard neutrino interactions in a three generation scheme under the assumption $\varepsilon_{e\mu}=\varepsilon_{\mu\mu}=\varepsilon_{\mu\tau}=0$. The allowed region of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ obtained for values of $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ smaller than $\mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$ becomes $\Sigma_{f=u,d,e}\varepsilon^{fV}_{\alpha\beta}N_f/N_e \lesssim 0.2$~ , where $N_f$ stands for the fermion number density. \subsection{Cosmology} If non-standard interactions with electrons were large they might also lead to important cosmological and astrophysical implications. For instance, neutrinos could be kept in thermal contact with electrons and positrons longer than in the standard case, hence they would share a larger fraction of the entropy release from $e^\pm$ annihilations. This would affect the predicted features of the cosmic background of neutrinos. As recently pointed out in Ref~ required couplings are, though, larger than the current laboratory bounds. \subsection{NSI in Supernovae} According to the currently accepted supernova (SN) paradigm, neutrinos are expected to play a crucial role in SN dynamics. As a result, SN physics provides a laboratory to probe neutrino properties. Moreover, many future large neutrino detectors are currently being discussed~. The enormous number of events, $\mathcal{O}(10^4-10^5)$ that would be ``seen'' in these detectors indicates that a future SN in our Galaxy would provide a very sensitive probe of non-standard neutrino interaction effects. The presence of NSI can lead to important consequences for the SN neutrino physics both in the highly dense core as well as in the envelope where neutrinos basically freely stream. The role of non-forward neutrino scattering processes on heavy nuclei and free nucleons giving rise to flavor change within the SN core has been recently analyzed in Ref.~. The main effect found was a reduction in the core electron fraction $Y_e$ during core collapse. A lower $Y_e$ would lead to a lower homologous core mass, a lower shock energy, and a greater nuclear photon-disintegration burden for the shock wave. By allowing a maximum $\Delta Y_e = -0.02$ it has been claimed that $\varepsilon_{e\alpha}\lesssim 10^{-3}$, where $\alpha=\mu,~\tau$~. On the other hand it has been noted since long ago that the existence of NSI plays an important role in the propagation of SN neutrinos through the envelope leading to the possibility of a new resonant conversion. In contrast to the well known MSW effect~ it would take place even for massless neutrinos~. Two basic ingredients are necessary: universal and flavor changing NSI. In the original scheme neutrinos were mixed in the leptonic charged current and universality was violated thanks to the effect of mixing with heavy gauge singlet leptons~. Such resonance would induce strong neutrino flavor conversion both for neutrinos and antineutrinos simultaneously, possibly affecting the neutrino signal of the SN1987A as well as the possibility of having $r-$process nucleosynthesis. This was first quantitatively considered within a two-flavor $\nu_e-\nu_\tau$ scheme, and bounds on the relevant NSI parameters were obtained using both arguments~. One of the main features of the such ``internal'' or ``massless'' resonant conversion mechanism is that it requires the violation of universality, its position being determined only by the matter chemical composition, namely the value of the electron fraction $Y_e$, and not by the density. In view of the experimental upper bounds on the NSI parameters such new resonance can only take place in the inner layers of the supernova, near the neutrinosphere, where $Y_e$ takes its minimum values. In this region the values of $Y_e$ are small enough to allow for resonance conversions to take place in agreement with existing bounds on the strengths of non-universal NSI parameters. The SN physics implications of another type of NSI present in supersymmetric R-parity violating models have also been studied in Ref.~, again for a system of two neutrinos. For definiteness NSI on $d-$quarks were considered, in two cases: (i) massless neutrinos without mixing in the presence of flavor-changing (FC) and non-universal (NU) NSIs, and (ii) neutrinos with eV masses and FC NSI. Different arguments have been used in order to constrain the parameters describing the NSI, namely, the SN1987A signal, the possibility to get successful $r-$process nucleosynthesis, and the possible enhancement of the energy deposition behind the shock wave to reactivate it. On the other hand several subsequent articles~ considered the effects of NSI on the neutrino propagation in a three--neutrino mixing scenario for the case $Y_e >0.4$, typical for the outer SN envelope. Together with the assumption that $\varepsilon^{dV}_{\alpha\beta}\lesssim 10^{-2}$ this prevents the appearance of internal resonances in contrast to previous references. Motivated by supersymmetric theories without R parity, in Ref.~ the authors considered the effects of small-strength NSI with $d-$quarks. Following the formalism developed in Refs.~ they studied the corrections that such NSI would have on the expressions for the survival probabilities in the standard resonances MSW-H and MSW-L. A similar analysis was performed in Ref.~ assuming Z-induced NSI interactions originated by additional heavy neutrinos. A phenomenological generalization of these results was carried out in Ref.~. The authors found an analytical compact expression for the survival probabilities in which the main effects of the NSI can be embedded through shifts of the mixing angles $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{13}$. In contrast to similar expressions found previously these directly apply to all mixing angles, and in the case with Earth matter effects. The main phenomenological consequence was the identification of a degeneracy between $\theta_{13}$ and $\varepsilon_{e\alpha}$, similar to the analogous ``confusion'' between $\theta_{13}$ and the corresponding NSI parameter noted to exist in the context of long-baseline neutrino oscillations~. We have now re-considered the general three--neutrino mixing scenario with NSI. In contrast to previous work~, we have not restricted ourselves to large values of $Y_e$, discussing also small values present in the inner layers. This way our generalized description includes both the possibility of neutrinos having the ``massless'' NSI-induced resonant conversions in the inner layers of the SN envelope~, as well as the ``outer'' oscillation-induced conversions~~\footnote{However we have confined ourselves to values of $\varepsilon_{e\alpha}$ small enough not to lead to drastic consequences during the core collapse.}. \section{Neutrino evolution} In this section we describe the main ingredients of our analysis. Our emphasis will be on the use of astrophysically realistic SN matter and $Y_e$ profiles, characterizing its density and the matter composition. Their details, in particular their time dependence, are crucial in determining the way the non-standard neutrino interactions affect the propagation of neutrinos in the SN medium. \subsection{Evolution Equation} As discussed in Sec.~ in an unpolarized medium the neutrino propagation in matter will be affected by the vector coupling constant of the NSI, $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}^{fV}= \varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}^{fL} + \varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}^{fR}$~\footnote{For the sake of simplicity we will omit the superindex $V$.}. The way the neutral current NSI modifies the neutrino evolution will be parametrized phenomenologically through the effective low-energy four-fermion operator described in Eq.~(). We also assume $\varepsilon^f_{\alpha\beta} \in\Re$, neglecting possible $CP$ violation in the new interactions. Under these assumptions the Hamiltonian describing the SN neutrino evolution in the presence of NSI can be cast in the following form~\footnote{The importance of collective flavor neutrino conversions driven by neutrino-neutrino interactions has been recently noted in Refs.~. Here we consider only the case where the effective potential felt by neutrinos comes from their interactions with electrons, protons and neutrons. In a future work we plan to include this effect and have a complete picture of the neutrino propagation.} \begin{equation} {\rm i}\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}r} \nu_\alpha = \left( H_{\rm kin} + H_{\rm int} \right)_{\alpha\beta} \nu_\beta ~, \end{equation} where $H_{\rm kin}$ stands for the kinetic term \begin{equation} H_{\rm kin} = U\frac{M^2}{2E}U^\dagger~, \end{equation} with $M^2={\rm diag}(m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)$, and $U$ the three-neutrino lepton mixing matrix~ in the PDG convention~ and with no $CP$ phases. The second term of the Hamiltonian accounts for the interaction of neutrinos with matter and can be split into two pieces, \begin{equation} H_{\rm int} = H^{\rm std}_{\rm int} + H^{\rm nsi}_{\rm int}~. \end{equation} The first term, $ H^{\rm std}_{\rm int}$ describes the standard interaction with matter and can be written as $H^{\rm std}_{\rm int}$ = diag $(V_{CC},0,0)$ up to one loop corrections due to different masses of the muon and tau leptons~. The standard matter potential for neutrinos is given by \begin{eqnarray} V_{CC} & = & \sqrt{2}G_F N_e = V_0 \rho Y_e~, \end{eqnarray} where $V_0\approx 7.6\times 10^{-14}$~eV, the density is given in ${\rm g/cm}^3$, and $Y_e$ stands for the relative number of electrons with respect to baryons. For antineutrinos the potential is identical but with the sign changed. The term in the Hamiltonian describing the non-standard neutrino interactions with a fermion $f$ can be expressed as, \begin{equation} (H_{\rm int}^{\rm nsi})_{\alpha\beta} = \sum_{f=e,u,d} (V_{\rm nsi}^{f})_{\alpha\beta}~, \end{equation} with $(V_{\rm nsi}^f)_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \sqrt{2}G_F N_f\varepsilon^f_{\alpha\beta}$. For definiteness and motivated by actual models, for example, those with broken R parity supersymmetry we take for $f$ the down-type quark. However, an analogous treatment would apply to the case of NSI on up-type quarks, the existence of NSI with electrons brings no drastic qualitative differences with respect to the pure oscillation case (see below). Therefore the NSI potential can be expressed as follows, \begin{equation} (V_{\rm nsi}^{d})_{\alpha\beta} =\varepsilon^{d}_{\alpha\beta}V_0\rho(2-Y_e)~. \end{equation} From now on we will not explicitely write the superindex $d$. In order to further simplify the problem we will redefine the diagonal NSI parameters so that $\varepsilon_{\mu\mu}=0$, as one can easily see that subtracting a matrix proportional to the identity leaves the physics involved in the neutrino oscillation unaffected. \subsection{Supernova matter profiles} Neutrino propagation depends on the supernova matter and chemical profile through the effective potential. This profile exhibits an important time dependence during the explosion. Fig.~ shows the density $\rho(t,r)$ and the electron fraction $Y_e(t,r)$ profiles for the SN progenitor as well as at different times post-bounce. Progenitor density profiles can be roughly parametrized by a power-law function \begin{equation} \rho(r) = \rho_0 \left(\frac{R_0}{r}\right)^n~, \end{equation} where $\rho_0 \sim 10^4$~g/cm$^3$, $R_0\sim 10^9$~cm, and $n\sim 3$. The electron fraction profile varies depending on the matter composition of the different layers. For instance, typical values of $Y_e$ between 0.42 and 0.45 in the inner regions are found in stellar evolution simulations~. In the intermediate regions, where the MSW $H$ and $L$-resonances take place $Y_e\approx 0.5$. This value can further increase in the most outer layers of the SN envelope due to the presence of hydrogen. After the SN core bounce the matter profile is affected in several ways. First note that a front shock wave starts to propagate outwards and eventually ejects the SN envelope. The evolution of the shock wave will strongly modify the density profile and therefore the neutrino propagation~. Following Ref.~ we shall assume that the structure of the shock wave is more complicated and an additional ``reverse wave'' appears due to the collision of the neutrino-driven wind and the slowly moving material behind the forward shock, as seen in the upper panel of Fig.~~\footnote{Here we neglect the possible effects of density fluctuations~ taking place during the shock wave propagation. For a detailed study of the phenomenological consequences see Refs.~.}. On the other hand, the electron fraction is also affected by the time evolution as the SN explosion proceeds. Once the collapse starts the core density grows so that the neutrinos become eventually effectively trapped within the so called ``neutrinosphere''. At this point the trapped electron fraction has decreased until values of the order of 0.33~. When the inner core reaches the nuclear density it can not contract any further and bounces. As a consequence a shock wave forms in the inner core and starts propagating outwards. When the newly formed supernova shock reaches densities low enough for the initially trapped neutrinos to begin streaming faster than the shock propagates~, a breakout pulse of $\nu_e$ is launched. In the shock-heated matter, which is still rich of electrons and completely disintegrated into free neutrons and protons, a large number of $\nu_e$ are rapidly produced by electron captures on protons. They follow the shock on its way out until they are released in a very luminous flash, the breakout burst, at about the moment when the shock penetrates the neutrinosphere and the neutrinos can escape essentially unhindered. As a consequence, the lepton number in the layer around the neutrinosphere decreases strongly and the matter neutronizes~. The value of $Y_e$ steadily decreases in these layers until values of the order of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-2})$. Outside the neutrinosphere there is a steep rise until $Y_e\approx 0.5$. This is a robust feature of the neutrino-driven baryonic wind. Neutrino heating drives the wind mass loss and causes $Y_e$ to rise within a few $10$~km from low to high values, between 0.45 and 0.55~, see bottom panel of Fig.~. Inspired in the numerical results of Ref.~ we have parametrized the behavior of the electron fraction near the neutrinosphere phenomenologically as, \begin{equation} Y_e = a + b\arctan[(r-r_0)/r_s]~, \end{equation} where $a\approx 0.23-0.26$ and $b\approx 0.16-0.20$. The parameters $r_0$ and $r_s$ describe where the rise takes place and how steep it is, respectively. As can be seen in Fig.~ both decrease with time. \section{The two regimes} In order to study the neutrino propagation through the SN envelope we will split the problem into two different regions: the inner envelope, defined by the condition $V_{CC}\gg \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/(2E)$ with $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm} \equiv m_3^2-m_2^2$, and the outer one, where $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/(2E) \gtrsim V_{CC}$. From the upper panel of Fig.~ one can see how the boundary roughly varies between $r\approx 10^8$~cm and $10^9$~cm, depending on the time considered. This way one can fully characterize all resonances that can take place in the propagation of supernova neutrinos, both the outer resonant conversions related to neutrino masses and indicated as the upper bands in Fig.~, and the inner resonances that follow from the presence of non-standard neutrino interactions, indicated by the band at the bottom of the same figure. Here we pay special attention to the use of realistic matter and chemical supernova profiles and three-neutrino flavors thus generalising previous studies. \subsection{Neutrino Evolution in the Inner Regions} Let us first write the Hamiltonian in the inner layers, where $H_{\rm int}\gg H_{\rm kin}$. In this case the Hamiltonian can be written as \begin{equation} H\approx H_{\rm int} = V_0\rho(2-Y_e) \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \frac{Y_e}{2-Y_e}+\varepsilon_{ee} & \varepsilon_{e\mu} & \varepsilon_{e\tau} \\ \varepsilon_{e\mu} & 0 & \varepsilon_{\mu\tau} \\ \varepsilon_{e\tau} & \varepsilon_{\mu\tau} & \varepsilon_{\tau\tau} \end{array} \right)~. \end{equation} When the value of the $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ is of the same order as the electron fraction $Y_e$ internal resonances can arise~. Taking into account the current constraints on the $\varepsilon$'s discussed in Sec.~ one sees that small values of $Y_e$ are required~. As a result, these can only take place in the most deleptonised inner layers, close to the neutrinosphere, where the kinetic terms of the Hamiltonian are negligible. Given the large number of free parameters $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ involved we consider one particular case where $|\varepsilon_{e\mu}|$ and $|\varepsilon_{e\tau}|$ are small enough to neglect a possible initial mixing between $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$ or $\nu_\tau$. Barring fine tuning, this basically amounts to $|\varepsilon_{e\mu}|,~|\varepsilon_{e\tau}|\ll 10^{-2}$. According to the discussion of Sec.~ $\varepsilon_{e\mu}$ automatically satisfies the condition, whereas one expects that the window $|\varepsilon_{e\tau}|\gtrsim 10^{-2}$ will eventually be probed in future experiments. Since the initial fluxes of $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ are expected to be basically identical, it is convenient to redefine the weak basis by performing a rotation in the $\mu-\tau$ sector: \begin{equation} \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu_e \\ \nu_\mu \\ \nu_\tau \end{array}\right) = U(\theta_{23}') \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu_e \\ \nu_\mu' \\ \nu_\tau' \end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & c_{23'} & s_{23'} \\ 0 & - s_{23'} & c_{23'} \end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu_e \\ \nu_\mu' \\ \nu_\tau' \end{array}\right)~, \end{equation} where $c_{23'}$ and $s_{23'}$ stand for $\cos(\theta_{23}')$ and $\sin(\theta_{23}')$, respectively. The angle $\theta_{23}'$ can be written as \begin{equation} \tan(2\theta_{23}') \approx \frac{2H_{23}}{H_{33}} = \frac{2\varepsilon_{\mu\tau}}{\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}}~. \end{equation} The Hamiltonian becomes in the new basis \begin{eqnarray} H'_{\alpha\beta} & = & U^\dagger(\theta_{23}')H_{\alpha\beta} U(\theta_{23}') \\ & = & V_0\rho(2-Y_e) \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \frac{Y_e}{2-Y_e}+\varepsilon_{ee} & \varepsilon_{e\mu}' & \varepsilon_{e\tau}' \\ \varepsilon_{e\mu}' & \varepsilon_{\mu\mu}' & 0 \\ \varepsilon_{e\tau}' & 0 & \varepsilon_{\tau\tau}' \end{array}\right)~, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \varepsilon_{e\mu}' & = & \varepsilon_{e\mu}c_{23'}- \varepsilon_{e\tau}s_{23'}\\ \varepsilon_{e\tau}' & = & \varepsilon_{e\mu}s_{23'}+ \varepsilon_{e\tau}c_{23'}\\ \varepsilon_{\mu\mu}' & = & (\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}- \sqrt{\varepsilon^2_{\tau\tau}+4\varepsilon^2_{\mu\tau}})/2~\\ \varepsilon_{\tau\tau}' & = & (\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}+ \sqrt{\varepsilon^2_{\tau\tau}+4\varepsilon^2_{\mu\tau}})/2~. \end{eqnarray} With our initial assumptions on $\varepsilon_{e\alpha}$ one notices that the new basis $\nu_\alpha'$ basically diagonalizes the Hamiltonian, and therefore coincides roughly with the matter eigenstate basis. A novel resonance can arise if the condition $H_{ee}'=H_{\tau\tau}'$ is satisfied, we call this $I$-resonance, $I$ standing for ``internal''~' = H_{\mu\mu}'$ would give rise to another internal resonance which can be studied using the same method. For brevity, we will not pursue this in this paper.}. The corresponding resonance condition can be written as \begin{equation} Y_e^{I} = \frac{2\varepsilon^{I}}{1+\varepsilon^{I}}~, \end{equation} where $\varepsilon^{I}$ is defined as $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}'- \varepsilon_{ee}$. In Fig.~ we represent the range of $\varepsilon_{ee}$ and $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}'$ leading to the $I$-resonance for an electron fraction profile between different $Y_e^{\rm min}$'s and $Y_e^{\rm max}=0.5$. It is important to notice that the value of $Y_e^{\rm min}$ depends on time. Right before the collapse the minimum value of the electron fraction is around $0.4$. Hence the window of NSI parameters that would lead to a resonance would be relatively narrow, as indicated by the shaded (yellow) band in Fig.~. As time goes on $Y_e^{\rm min}$ decreases to values of the order of a few \ $I$-resonance significantly widens. For example, in the range $|\varepsilon_{ee}| \leq 10^{-3}$ possibly accessible to future experiments one sees that the $I$-resonance can take place for values of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}'$ of the order of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-2})$. This indicates that the potential sensitivity on NSI parameters that can be achieved in supernova studies is better than that of the current limits. As seen in Fig.~ in order to fulfill the $I$-resonance condition for such small values of the NSI parameters the values of $Y_e$ must indeed lie, as already stated, in the inner layers. Several comments are in order: First, in contrast to the standard $H$ and $L$-resonances, related to the kinetic term, the density itself does not explicitly enter into the resonance condition, provided that the density is high enough to neglect the kinetic terms. Analogously the energy plays no role in the resonance condition, which is determined only by the electron fraction $Y_e$. Moreover, in contrast to the standard resonances, the $I$-resonance occurs for both neutrinos and antineutrinos simultaneously~. Finally, as indicated in Fig.~ the $\nu_e$'s ($\bar\nu_e$) are not created as the heaviest (lightest) state but as the intermediate state, therefore the flavor composition of the neutrinos arriving at the $H$-resonance is exactly the opposite of the case without NSI. As we show in Sec.~, this fact can lead to important observational consequences. In order to calculate the hopping probability between matter eigenstates at the $I$-resonance we use the Landau-Zener approximation for two flavors \begin{equation} P_{LZ}^{I} \approx e^{-\frac{\pi}{2}\gamma_{I}}~, \end{equation} where $\gamma_{I}$ stands for the adiabaticity parameter, which can be generally written as \begin{equation} \gamma_{I} = \left|\frac{E_2^{\rm m}-E_1^{\rm m}}{2\dot \theta^{\rm m}}\right|_{r_{I}}~, \end{equation} where $\dot \theta^{\rm m}\equiv {\rm d}\theta^{\rm m}/{\rm d}r$. If one applies this formula to the $e-\tau'$ box of Eq.~() assuming that $\tan 2\theta^{\rm m}_{I} = 2H_{e\tau}'/(H_{\tau\tau}'-H_{ee})$ and $E_2^{\rm m}-E_1^{\rm m} = \left[ (H_{\tau\tau}'-H_{ee})^2 + 4H_{e\tau}' \right]^{1/2}$ one gets \begin{eqnarray} \gamma_{I} & = & \left| \frac{4H_{e\tau}'^2}{(\dot H_{\tau\tau}'-\dot H_{ee})} \right|_{r_{I}} = \left| \frac{16V_0\rho \varepsilon_{e\tau}'^2}{(1+\varepsilon^{I})^3 \dot Y_e} \right|_{r_{I}} \nonumber \\ & \approx & 4\times10^{9} r_{s,5}\rho_{11} \varepsilon_{e\tau}'^2 f(\varepsilon^{I})~, \end{eqnarray} where the parametrization of the $Y_e$ profile has been defined as in Eq.~() with $b=0.16$. The density $\rho_{11}$ represents the density in units of $10^{11}$~g/cm$^3$, $r_{s,5}$ stands for $r_s$ in units of $10^5$~cm, and $f(\varepsilon^{I})$ is a function whose value is of the order $\mathcal{O}(1)$ in the range of parameters we are interested in. Taking all these factors into account it follows that the internal resonance will be adiabatic provided that $\varepsilon_{e\tau}'\gtrsim 10^{-5}$, well below the current limits, in full numerical agreement with, e.~g., Ref.~. In Fig.~ we show the resonance condition as well as the adiabaticity in terms of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ and $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ assuming the other $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}=0$. In order to illustrate the dependence on time we consider profiles inspired in the numerical profiles of Fig.~ at $t=2$~s (upper panel) and 15.7 s (bottom panel). For definiteness we take $Y_e^{\rm min}$ as the electron fraction at which the density has value of $5\times 10^{11}$g/cm$^3$. For comparison with Fig.~ we have assumed $Y_e^{\rm min}=10^{-2}$ in the case of 15.7~s. We observe how the border of adiabaticity depends on $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ through the value of the density at $r_I$ which in turn depends on time. Before moving to the discussion of the outer resonances a comment is in order, namely, how does the formalism change for other non-standard interaction models. First note that the whole treatment presented above also applies to the case of NSI on up-type quarks, except that the position of the internal resonance shifts with respect to the down-quark case. Indeed, in this case the NSI potential \begin{equation} (V_{\rm nsi}^{u})_{\alpha\beta} =\varepsilon^{u}_{\alpha\beta}V_0\rho(1+Y_e)~, \end{equation} would induce a similar internal resonance for the condition $Y_e=\varepsilon^I/(1-\varepsilon^I)$. In contrast, for the case of NSI with electrons, the NSI potential is proportional to the electron fraction, and therefore no internal resonance would appear. \subsection{Neutrino Evolution in the Outer Regions} In the outer layers of the SN envelope neutrinos can undergo important flavor transitions at those points where the matter induced potential equals the kinetic terms. In absence of NSI this condition can be expressed as $V_{CC}\approx \Delta m^2/(2E)$. Neutrino oscillation experiments indicate two mass scales, $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$ and $\Delta m^2_\odot\equiv m_2^2-m_1^2$~, hence two different resonance layers arise, the so-called $H$-resonance and the $L$-resonance, respectively. The presence of NSI with values of $|\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}| \lesssim 10^{-2}$ modifies the properties of the $H$ and $L$ transitions~. In particular one finds that the effects of the NSI can be described as in the standard case by embedding the $\varepsilon$'s into effective mixing angles~. An analogous ``confusion'' between $\sin\theta_{13}$ and the corresponding NSI parameter $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ has been pointed out in the context of long-baseline neutrino oscillations in Refs.~. In this section we perform a more general and complementary study for slightly higher values of the NSI parameters: $|\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}|\gtrsim {\rm few}~10^{-2}$, still allowed by current limits, and for which the $I$-resonance could occur. The phenomenological assumption of hierarchical squared mass differences, $|\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}|\gg \Delta m^2_\odot$, allows, for not too large $\varepsilon$'s, a factorization of the 3$\nu$ dynamics into two 2$\nu$ subsystems roughly decoupled for the $H$ and $L$ transitions~. To isolate the dynamics of the $H$ transition, one usually rotates the neutrino flavor basis by $U^\dagger(\theta_{23})$, and extracts the submatrix with indices (1,3)~. Whereas this method works perfectly for small values of $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ it can be dangerous for values above $10^{-2}$. In order to analyze how much our case deviates from the simplest approximation we have performed a rotation with the angle $\theta_{23}''\equiv \theta_{23}-\alpha$ instead of just $\theta_{23}$. By requiring that the new rotation diagonalizes the submatrix (2,3) at the $H$-resonance layer one obtains the following expression for the correction angle $\alpha$ \begin{eqnarray} \tan(2\alpha) & = & \left[\Delta_{\odot}s2_{12}s_{13} + V_{\tau\tau}^{NSI} s2_{23} - 2V_{\mu\tau}^{NSI} c2_{23}\right]/\nonumber \\ & & \left[(\Delta_{\rm atm}+ \frac{1}{2}\Delta_{\odot}) c^2_{13}+\frac{1}{4}\Delta_{\odot} c2_{12}(-3+c2_{13}) \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left.+ V_{\tau\tau}^{NSI} c2_{23} + 2 V_{\mu\tau}^{NSI} s2_{23}\right]~, \end{eqnarray} where $\Delta_{\rm atm}\equiv \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}/(2E)$ and $\Delta_{\odot}\equiv \Delta m^2_\odot/(2E)$. In our notation $s_{ij}$ and $s2_{ij}$ represent $\sin\theta_{ij}$ and $\sin(2\theta_{ij})$, respectively. The parameters $c_{ij}$ and $c2_{ij}$ are analogously defined. In the absence of NSI $\alpha$ is just a small correction to $\theta_{23}$~\footnote{Note that, in the limit of high densities one recovers the rotation angle obtained for the internal $I$-resonance $\theta_{23}'' \to \theta_{23}'$ after neglecting the kinetic terms. }, \begin{equation} \tan(2\alpha)\approx \Delta_{\odot}s2_{12}s_{13}/\Delta_{\rm atm}c^2_{13} \lesssim \mathcal{O}(10^{-3})~. \end{equation} In order to calculate $\alpha$ we need to know the $H$-resonance point. To calculate it one can proceed as in the case without NSI, namely, make the $\theta_{23}''$ rotation and analyze the submatrix $(1,3)$. The new Hamiltonian $H_{\alpha\beta}''$ has now the form \begin{eqnarray} H_{ee}'' & = & V_0\rho [Y_e + \varepsilon_{ee}(2-Y_e)] + \Delta_{\rm atm}s^2_{13} \nonumber \\ & & + \Delta_{\odot}(c^2_{13}s^2_{12}+s^2_{13})~, \nonumber\\ H_{\tau\tau}'' & = & V_0\rho (2-Y_e)\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}'' + \Delta_{\rm atm}c^2_{13}c^2_{\alpha} \nonumber \\ & & + \Delta_{\odot}\left[c^2_{13}c^2_{\alpha} + (s_{\alpha}c_{12}+c_{\alpha}s_{12}s_{13})^2 \right]~, \nonumber \\ H_{e\tau}'' & = & V_0\rho (2-Y_e)\varepsilon_{e\tau}'' + \frac{1}{2}\Delta_{\rm atm}s2_{13}c_{\alpha} \nonumber \\ & & + \frac{1}{2}\Delta_{\odot}(-c_{13}s_{\alpha}s2_{12} +c^2_{12}c_{\alpha}s2_{13})~. \end{eqnarray} We have defined $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}'' = \varepsilon_{\tau\tau}c^2_{23-\alpha} + \varepsilon_{\mu\tau}s2_{23-\alpha}$, and $\varepsilon_{e\tau}'' = \varepsilon_{e\tau}c_{23-\alpha} + \varepsilon_{e\mu}s_{23-\alpha}$, where $s_{23-\alpha}\equiv \sin(\theta_{23}-\alpha),~c_{23-\alpha}\equiv\cos(\theta_{23}-\alpha)$, and $s2_{23-\alpha}\equiv\sin(2\theta_{23}-2\alpha), ~c2_{23-\alpha}\equiv\cos(2\theta_{23}-2\alpha)$. The resonance condition for the $H$ transition, $H_{ee}''=H_{\tau\tau}''$ can be then written as \begin{eqnarray} V_0 \rho^H & [Y_e^H + (\varepsilon_{ee}-\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}'')(2-Y_e^H)] = \Delta_{\rm atm}(c^2_{13} c^2_{\alpha} -s^2_{13}) & \nonumber \\ & +\Delta_{\odot}[c^2_{12}(c^2_{13}-c^2_{\alpha}s^2_{13})- s^2_{\alpha}s^2_{12}+\frac{1}{2}s2_{\alpha}s2_{12} s_{13}] & . \end{eqnarray} It can be easily checked how in the limit of $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta} \to 0$ one recovers the standard resonance condition, \begin{equation} V_0 \rho^H Y_e^H\approx \Delta_{\rm atm}c2_{13}~. \end{equation} In the region where the $H$-resonance occurs $Y_e^H\approx 0.5$. Taking into account Eqs.~() and~() one can already estimate how the value of $\alpha$ changes with the NSI parameters. In Fig.~ we show the dependence of $\alpha$ on the $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ after fixing the value of the other NSI parameters. One can see how for $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}\gtrsim 10^{-2}$ the approximation of neglecting $\alpha$ significantly worsens. Assuming $\theta_{23}=\pi/4$ and a fixed value of $\varepsilon_{\mu\tau}$ one can easily see that $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ basically affects the numerator in Eq.~(). Therefore one expects a rise of $\alpha$ as the value of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ increases, as seen in Fig.~. The dependence of $\alpha$ on $\varepsilon_{\mu\tau}$ is correlated to the relative sign of the mass hierarchy and $\varepsilon_{\mu\tau}$. For instance, for normal mass hierarchy and positive values of $\varepsilon_{\mu\tau}$ the dependence is inverse, namely, higher values of $\varepsilon_{\mu\tau}$ lead to a suppression of $\alpha$. Apart from this general behavior, $\alpha$ also depends on the diagonal term $\varepsilon_{ee}$ as seen in Fig.~. This effect occurs by shifting the resonance point through the resonance condition in Eq.~(). One can now calculate the jump probability between matter eigenstates in analogy to the $I$-resonance by means of the Landau-Zener approximation, see Eqs.~(),~(), and~, \begin{equation} P_{LZ}^{H} \approx e^{-\frac{\pi}{2}\gamma_{H}}~, \end{equation} where $\gamma_{H}$ represents the adiabaticity parameter at the $H$-resonance, which can be written as \begin{equation} \gamma_{H} = \left| \frac{4H_{e\tau}''^2}{(\dot H_{\tau\tau}''-\dot H_{ee}'')} \right|_{r_{H}}~, \end{equation} where the expressions for $H_{\alpha\beta}''$ are given in Eqs~(). Let us first consider the case $|\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}|\lesssim 10^{-2}$. In this case $\alpha\approx 0$ and one can rewrite the adiabaticity parameter as \begin{equation} \gamma_{H} \approx \frac{\Delta_{\rm atm}\sin^2(2\theta_{13}^{eff})}{\cos(2\theta_{13}^{eff}) |{\rm d}\ln V /{\rm d}r|_{r_H}}~, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \theta_{13}^{eff} = \theta_{13} + \varepsilon_{e\tau}'' (2-Y_e)/Y_e \end{equation} in agreement with Ref.~. For slightly larger $\varepsilon$'s there can be significant differences. In Fig.~ we show $P_{LZ}^{H}$ in the $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$-$\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ plane for antineutrinos with energy $10$~MeV in the case of inverse mass hierarchy, using Eq.~() with (upper panel) and without (bottom panel) the $\alpha$ correction. The values of $\theta_{13}$ and $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ have been chosen so that the jump probability lies in the transition regime between adiabatic and strongly non adiabatic. In the limit of small $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$, $\alpha$ becomes negligible and therefore both results coincide. From Eq.~() one sees how as the value of $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ increases $\gamma_H$ gets larger and therefore the transition becomes more and more adiabatic. For negative values of $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ there can be a cancellation between $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ and $\theta_{13}$, and as a result the transition becomes non-adiabatic. An additional consequence of Eq.~() is that a degeneracy between $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ and $\theta_{13}$ arises. This is seen in Fig.~, which gives the contours of $P_{\rm LZ}^H$ in terms of $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ and $\theta_{13}$ for $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}=10^{-4}$. One sees clearly that the same Landau-Zener hopping probability is obtained for different combinations of $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ and $\theta_{13}$. This leads to an intrinsic ``confusion'' between the mixing angle and the corresponding NSI parameter, which can not be disentangled only in the context of SN neutrinos, as noted in Ref.~. We now turn to the case of $|\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}| \geq 10^{-2}$. As $|\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}|$ increases the role of $\alpha$ becomes relevant. Whereas in the bottom panel $P_{LZ}^{H}$ remains basically independent of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$, one can see how in the upper panel $P_{LZ}^{H}$ becomes strongly sensitive to $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ for $|\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}| \geq 10^{-2}$. One sees that for positive values of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ it tends to adiabaticity whereas for negative values to non-adiabaticity. This follows from the dependence of $H_{e\tau}''$ on $\alpha$, essentially through the term $-\Delta_\odot c_{13}s_\alpha s2_{12}$, see Eq.~(). For $|\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}| \geq 10^{-2}$ one sees that $\sin\alpha$ starts being important, and as a result this term eventually becomes of the same order as the others in $H_{e\tau}''$. At this point the sign of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$, and so the sign of $\sin\alpha$, is crucial since it may contribute to the enhancement or reduction of $H_{e\tau}''$. This directly translates into a trend towards adiabaticity or non-adiabaticity, seen in Fig.~. Thus, for the range of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ relevant for the NSI-induced internal resonance the adiabaticity of the outer $H$ resonance can be affected in a non-trivial way. Turning to the case of the $L$ transition a similar expression can be obtained by rotating the original Hamiltonian by $U(\theta_{13})^\dagger U(\theta_{23})^\dagger$~. However, in contrast to the case of the $H$-resonance, where the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ is still unknown, in the case of the $L$ transition the angle $\theta_{12}$ has been shown by solar and reactor neutrino experiments to be large~. As a result, for the mass scale $\Delta_\odot$ this transition will always be adiabatic irrespective of the values of $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}$, and will affect only neutrinos. \section{Observables and sensitivity} As mentioned in the introduction one of the major motivations to study NSI using the neutrinos emitted in a SN is the enhancement of the NSI effects on the neutrino propagation through the SN envelope due to the specific extreme matter conditions that characterize it. In this section we analyze how these effects translate into observable effects in the case of a future galactic SN. Schematically, the neutrino emission by a SN can be divided into four stages: Infall phase, neutronization burst, accretion, and Kelvin-Helmholtz cooling phase. During the infall phase and neutronization burst only $\nu_e$'s are emitted, while the bulk of neutrino emission is released in all flavors in the last two phases. Whereas the neutrino emission characteristics of the two initial stages are basically independent of the features of the progenitor, such as the core mass or equation of state (EoS), the details of the neutrino spectra and luminosity during the accretion and cooling phases may significantly change for different progenitor models. As a result, a straightforward extraction of oscillation parameters from the bulk of the SN neutrino signal seems hopeless. Only features in the detected neutrino spectra which are independent of unknown SN parameters should be used in such an analysis~. The question then arises as to how can one obtain information about the NSI parameters. Taking into account that the main effect of NSI is to generate new internal neutrino flavor transitions, one possibility is to invoke theoretical arguments that involve different aspects of the SN internal dynamics. In Ref.~ it was argued that such an internal flavor conversion during the first second after the core bounce might play a positive role in the so-called SN shock reheating problem. It is observed in numerical simulations~ that as the shock wave propagates it loses energy until it gets stalled at a few hundred km. It is currently believed that after neutrinos escape the SN core they can to some extent deposit energy right behind and help the shock wave continue outwards. On the other hand it is also believed that due to the composition in matter of the protoneutronstar (PNS) the mean energies of the different neutrino spectra obey $\langle E_{\nu_e} \rangle < \langle E_{\bar\nu_e} \rangle < \langle E_{\nu_\mu,\nu_\tau} \rangle$. This means that a resonant conversion between $\nu_e (\bar\nu_e)$ and $\nu_{\mu,\tau} (\bar\nu_{\mu,\tau})$ between the neutrinosphere and the position of the stalled shock wave would make the $\nu_e (\bar\nu_e)$ spectra harder, and therefore the energy deposition would be larger, giving rise to a shock wave regeneration effect. Another argument used in the literature was the possibility that the $r-$process nucleosynthesis, responsible for synthesizing about half of the heavy elements with mass number $A>70$ in nature, could occur in the region above the neutrinosphere in SNe~~. A necessary condition is $Y_e<0.5$ in the nucleosynthesis region. The value of the electron fraction depends on the neutrino absorption rates, which are determined in turn by the $\nu_e(\bar\nu_e)$ luminosities and energy distribution. These can be altered by flavor conversion in the inner layers due to the presence of NSI. Therefore by requiring the electron fraction be below 0.5 one can get information about the values of the NSI parameters. While it is commonly accepted that neutrinos will play a crucial role in both the shock wave re-heating as well as the $r-$process nucleosynthesis, there are still other astrophysical factors that can affect both. While the issue remains under debate we prefer to stick to arguments directly related to physical observables in a large water Cherenkov detector. There are several possibilities. \begin{itemize} \item[(A)] the modulations in the $\bar\nu_e$ spectra due to the passage of shock waves through the supernova~ \item[(B)] the modulation in the $\bar\nu_e$ spectra due to the time dependence of the electron fraction, induced by the $I$-resonance \item[(C)] the modulations in the $\bar\nu_e$ spectra due to the Earth matter~ \item[(D)] detectability of the neutronization $\nu_e$ burst~ \end{itemize} Three of these observables, 1, 3 and 4 have already been considered in the literature in the context of neutrino oscillations. Here we discuss the potential of the above promising observables in providing information about the NSI parameters. It is important to pay attention to the possible ocurrence of the internal $I$-resonance and to its effect in the external $H$ and $L$-resonances. The first can induce a genuinely new observable effect, item 2 above. Here we concentrate on neutral current-type non-standard interactions, hence there will be not effect in the main reaction in water Cherenkov and scintillator detectors, namely the inverse beta decay, $\bar\nu_e+p\to e^++n$~\footnote{For the case of NSI with electrons both the vector and axial components of $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}^e$ will contribute to the $\nu-e$ cross section.}. For definiteness we take NSI with $d$ (down) quarks, in which case the NSI effects will be confined to the neutrino evolution inside the SN and the Earth, through the vector component of the interaction. From all possible combinations of NSI parameters we will concentrate on those for which the internal $I$ transition does take place, namely $|\varepsilon^{I}|\gtrsim 10^{-2}$, see Fig.~. Concerning the FC NSI parameters we will consider $|\varepsilon_{e\tau}'|$ between ${\rm few}\times 10^{-5}$ and $10^{-2}$, range in which the $I$-resonance is adiabatic, see Fig.~. In the following discussion we will focus on the extreme cases defined in Table~. One of the motivations for considering these cases is the fact that the resonances involved become either adiabatic or strongly non adiabatic, and hence the survival probabilities in the absence of Earth effects or shock wave passage, become energy independent. This assumption simplifies the task of relating the observables with the neutrino schemes. \begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Scheme & Hierarchy & $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ & NSI & $P_{\rm surv}$ & $\bar P_{\rm surv}$ \\ \hline \hline $A$ & normal & $\gtrsim 10^{-4}$ & No & 0 & $\cos^2\theta_{12}$ \\ \hline $B$ & inverted & $\gtrsim 10^{-4}$ & No & $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ & 0 \\ \hline $C$ & any & $\lesssim 10^{-6}$ & No & $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ & $\cos^2\theta_{12}$\\ \hline \hline $AI$ & normal & $\gtrsim 10^{-4}$ & Yes & $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ & $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ \\ \hline $BI$ & inverted & $\gtrsim 10^{-4}$ & Yes & $\cos^2\theta_{12}$ & $\cos^2\theta_{12}$ \\ \hline $CIa$ & normal & $\lesssim 10^{-6}$ & Yes & 0 & $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ \\ \hline $CIb$ & inverted & $\lesssim 10^{-6}$ & Yes & $\cos^2\theta_{12}$ & 0 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Definition of the neutrino schemes considered in terms of the hierarchy, the value of $\theta_{13}$, and the presence of NSI, as described in the text. The values of the survival probabilities for $\nu_e$ ($P_{\rm surv}$) and $\bar\nu_e$ ($\bar P_{\rm surv}$) for each case are also indicated.} \end{table} \subsection{Shock wave propagation} During approximately the first two seconds after the core bounce, the neutrino survival probabilities are constant in time and in energy for all cases mentioned in Table~. Only the Earth effects could introduce an energy dependence. However, at $t\approx 2$ s the $H$-resonance layer is reached by the outgoing shock wave, see Fig.~. The way the shock wave passage affects the neutrino propagation strongly depends on the neutrino mixing scenario. In the absence of NSI cases $A$ and $C$ will not show any evidence of shock wave propagation in the observed $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum, either because there is no resonance in the antineutrino channel as in scenario $A$, or because the $H$-resonance is always strongly non-adiabatic as in scenario $C$. However, in scenario $B$, the sudden change in density breaks the adiabaticity of the resonance, leading to a time and energy dependence of the electron antineutrino survival probability $\bar P_{\rm surv}(E,t)$. In the upper panel of Fig.~ we show $\bar P_{\rm surv}(E,t)$ in the particular case that two shock waves are present, one forward and a reverse one~. The presence of the shocks results in the appearance of bumps in survival probability at those energies for which the resonance region is passed by the shock waves. All these structures move in time towards higher energies, as the shock waves reach regions with lower density, leading to observable consequences in the $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum. We now turn to the case where NSI are present, which opens the possibility of internal resonances. When such $I$-resonance is adiabatic the situation will be similar to the case without NSI. For normal mass hierarchy, $AI$ and $CIa$, $\bar\nu_e$ will not feel the $H$-resonance and therefore the adiabaticity-breaking effect will not basically alter their propagation. In contrast, for inverted mass hierarchy and large $\theta_{13}$, case $BI$, the $H$-resonance occurs in the antineutrino channel and therefore $\bar\nu_e$ will feel the shock wave passage. However, in contrast to case $B$ now $\bar\nu_e$ will reach the $H$-resonance in a different matter eigenstate: $\bar\nu_1^m$ instead of $\bar\nu_3^m$, see Fig.~. That means that before the shock wave reaches the $H$-resonance the $\bar\nu_e$ survival probability will be $\bar P_{\rm surv}\approx \cos^2\theta_{12}\approx 0.7$. Once the adiabaticity of the $H$-resonance is broken by the shock wave then $\bar\nu_e$ will partly leave as $\bar\nu_3^m$ and therefore the survival probability will decrease. As a consequence one expects a pattern in time and energy for the survival probability in the case $BI$ to be roughly {\em opposite} than in the case $B$, see bottom panel of Fig.~. The position of the peaks and dips en each panel do not exactly coincide as the value of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ roughly shifts the position of the $H$-resonance. In the left panels of Fig.~ we represent in light-shaded (yellow) the range of $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ and $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ for which this {\em opposite} shock wave imprint would be observable. In the upper panels we have assumed a minimum value of the electron fraction of $0.06$, based on the numerical profiles at $t=2$~s of Fig.~. In the bottom panels $Y_e^{\rm min}$ is set to $0.01$, inspired in the profiles at $t=15.7$~s. It can be seen how as time goes on the range of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$'s for which the $I$-resonance takes place widens towards to smaller and smaller values. This is a direct consequence of the steady deleptonization of the inner layers. For smaller $\theta_{13}$, case $CIb$, the situation is different. Except for relatively large $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ values the $H$-resonance will be strongly non-adiabatic, as in case $C$. Therefore the passage of the shock waves will not significantly change the $\bar\nu_e$ survival probability and will not lead to any observable effect. In the right panels of Fig.~ we show the same as in the left panels but for $\sin^2\theta_{13}=10^{-7}$. Whereas for large values of $\theta_{13}$, left panels, the $H$-resonance is always adiabatic and one has only to ensure the adiabaticity of the $I$-resonance, for smaller values of $\theta_{13}$ the adiabaticity of the $H$-resonance strongly depends on the values of $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ and $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$, as discussed in Sec.~. This can be seen as a significant reduction of the yellow area. Only large values of either $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ or $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ would still allow for a clear identification of the {\em opposite} shock wave effects. In dark-shaded (cyan) we show the region of parameters for which $P_H$ lies in the transition region between adiabatic and strongly non-adiabatic, and therefore could still lead to some effect. A useful observable to detect effects of the shock propagation is the average of the measured positron energies, $\langle E_e\rangle$, produced in inverse beta decays. In Fig.~, we show $\langle E_e \rangle$ together with the one sigma errors expected for a Megaton water Cherenkov detector and a SN at 10~kpc distance, with a time binning of 0.5~s, for different neutrino schemes: case $B$ and case $BI$ with different values of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$. For the neutrino fluxes we assumed the parametrization given by Refs.~ with $\langle E_0(\bar\nu_e) \rangle = 15$~MeV and $\langle E_0(\bar\nu_{\mu,\tau}) \rangle = 18$~MeV and the following ratio of the total neutrino fluxes $\Phi_0(\bar\nu_e)/\Phi_0(\bar\nu_{\mu,\tau})=0.8$~\footnote{We assume that for the values of the NSI parameters considered the initial neutrino spectra do not significantly change.}. One can see how the features of the average positron energy are a direct consequence of the shape of the survival probability, where dips have to be translated into bumps and vice-versa. Thus, it is important to stress that whereas in case $B$ one expects the presence of one or two dips (depending on the structure of the shock wave, see Ref~), or nothing in the other cases, one or two bumps are expected in case $BI$, as seen in the upper left panel of Fig.~. As discussed in Ref.~ the details of the dips/bump will depend on the exact shape of the neutrino fluxes, but as long as general reasonable assumptions like $\langle E_{\bar\nu_e} \rangle \lesssim \langle E_{\bar\nu_{\mu,\tau}} \rangle$ are considered the dips/bumps should be observed. \subsection{Time variation of $Y_e$} We have just seen how the distorsion of the density profile due to the shock wave passage through the outer SN envelope can induce a time-dependent modulation in the $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum in cases $B$ and $BI$. However the time dependence of the electron fraction $Y_e$ can also reveal the presence of NSI leaving a clear imprint in the observed $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum, as we now explain. As discussed in Sec.~ the region of NSI parameters leading to $I$-resonance is basically determined by the minimum and maximum values of the electron fraction, $Y_e^{\rm min}$ and $Y_e^{\rm max}$. The crucial point is that as the deleptonization of the proto-neutron star goes on, the value of $Y_e^{\rm min}$ steadily decreases with time. As a result, the range of NSI strengths for which the $I$-resonance takes place increases with time, as can be seen in Fig.~. Let us first discuss the observational consequences of the time dependence of the electron fraction in case $BI$. If $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ ($\varepsilon^I$ in general) is large enough the $I$-resonance will take place right after the core bounce. In this case, as seen in the upper left panel of Fig.~ the two bumps we have just discussed in Sec.~ would be clearly observed. However for smaller NSI parameter values it could happen that the $I$-resonance occurs only after several seconds. In particular for the specific $Y_e$ profile considered we show how this delay could be of roughly 2, 4 or 9 sec for values of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ of 0.025, 0.02 or 0.015, respectively, see last three panels Fig.~. As can be inferred from the figure this delay effect can lead to misidentification of the pure NSI effect. So, for instance, in the upper right panel, one sees how the two bumps might also be interpreted as two dips, given the astrophysical uncertainties. This subtle degeneracy can only be solved by extra information on, for example, the time dependence of the spectra or the velocity of the shock wave. Given the supernova model, however, the time structure of the signal could eventually not only point out the presence of NSI but even potentially indicate a range of NSI parameters. Let us now turn to the normal mass hierarchy scenario (cases $AI$ and $CIa$). In analogy to the $BI$ case, if $\varepsilon^I$ is relatively large the onset of the $I$-resonance will take place early on. As can be inferred from Fig.~ that implies that $\bar\nu_e$ will escape the SN as $\bar\nu_2$. For smaller values, though, it may happen that the $I$-resonance becomes effective only after a few seconds. This means that during the first seconds of the neutrino signal $\bar\nu_e$ would leave the star as $\bar\nu_1$ (cases $A$ and $C$). Then, after some point, the electron fraction would be low enough to switch on the $I$-resonance, and consequently $\bar\nu_e$ would enter the Earth as $\bar\nu_2$. This would result in a transition in the electron antineutrino survival probability from $\bar P_{\rm surv}\approx \cos^2\theta_{12}=0.7$ to $\sin^2\theta_{12}=0.3$. Given the expected hierarchy in the average neutrino energies $\langle E_{\bar\nu_e} \rangle \lesssim \langle E_{\bar\nu_{\mu,\tau}} \rangle$, it follows that the change in $Y_e$ would lead to a hardening of the observed positron spectrum. The effect is quantified in Fig.~ for different values of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$. The figure shows the average energy of the $\bar\nu p\to ne^+$ events for the case of a Megaton water Cherenkov detector exactly as in Fig.~, but for scenarios $AI$ and $CIa$. One can see how for $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}=0.07$ the $I$-resonance condition is always fulfilled and therefore there is no time dependence. However for smaller values one can see a rise at a certain moment which depends on the magnitude of $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$. A similar effect would occur in case $CIb$. \subsection{Earth matter effects} Before the shock wave reaches the $H$-resonance layer the dependence of the neutrino survival probability in the cases we are considering, on the neutrino energy $E$ is very weak. However, if neutrinos cross the Earth before reaching the detector, the conversion probabilities may become energy-dependent, inducing modulations in the neutrino energy spectrum. These modulations may be observed in the form of local peaks and valleys in the spectrum of the event rate $\sigma F_{\bar\nu_e}^D$ plotted as a function of $1/E$. These modulations arise in the antineutrino channel only when $\bar\nu_e$ leave the SN as $\bar\nu_1$ or $\bar\nu_2$. In the absence of NSI this happens in cases $A$ and $C$, where $\bar\nu_e$ leave the star as $\bar\nu_1$. In the presence of NSI $\bar\nu_e$ will arrive at the Earth as $\bar\nu_1$ in cases $BI$, and as $\bar\nu_2$ in case $AI$ and $CIa$. Therefore its observation would exclude cases $B$ and $CIb$. This distortion in the spectra could be measured by comparing the neutrino signal at two or more different detectors such that the neutrinos travel different distances through the Earth before reaching them~. However these Earth matter effects can be also identified in a single detector~. By analyzing the power spectrum of the detected neutrino events one can identify the presence of peaks located at the frequencies characterizing the modulation. These do not dependend on the primary neutrino spectra, and can be determined to a good accuracy from the knowledge of the solar oscillation parameters, the Earth matter density, and the position of the SN in the sky~. The latter can be determined with sufficient precision even if the SN is optically obscured using the pointing capability of water Cherenkov neutrino detectors~. This method turns out to be powerful in detecting the modulations in the spectra due to Earth matter effects, and thus in ruling out cases $B$ and $CIb$. However, the position of the peaks does not depend on how $\bar\nu_e$ enters the Earth, as $\bar\nu_1$ or $\bar\nu_2$. Hence it is not useful to discriminate case $AI$ and $CIa$ from the cases $A$, $C$, and $BI$. The time dependence of $Y_e$, however, can transform case $B$ into $BI$, and $C$ with inverse hierarchy into $CIb$, leading respectively to an appearance and disappearance of these Earth matter effects. In case $BI$ the presence of the shock wave modulation can spoil a clear identification of the Earth matter effects. Nevertheless, the disappearance of the Earth matter effects in the transition from case $C$ to $CIb$ allows us to pin down case $CIb$. \subsection{Neutronization burst} The prompt neutronization burst takes place during the first $\sim$ 25~ms after the core bounce with a typical full width half maximum of 5--7$\,$ms and a peak luminosity of 3.3--3.5$\times 10^{53}\,$erg$\,$s$^{-1}$. The striking similarity of the neutrino emission characteristics despite the variability in the properties of the pre-collapse cores is caused by a regulation mechanism between electron number fraction and target abundances for electron capture. This effectively establishes similar electron fractions in the inner core during collapse, leading to a convergence of the structure of the central part of the collapsing cores, with only small differences in the evolution of different progenitors until shock breakout~. Taking into account that the SN will be likely to be obscured by dust and a good estimation of the distance will not be possible, the time structure of the detected neutrino signal should be used as signature for the neutronization burst. In Ref.~ it was shown that such a time structure can be in principle cleanly seen in the case of a Megaton water Cherenkov detector. It was also shown how the time evolution of the signal depends strongly on the neutrino mixing scheme. In the absence of NSI the $\nu_e$ peak could be observed provided that the $\nu_e$ survival probability $P_{\nu_e\nu_e}$ is not zero. As can be seen in Table~ this happens for cases $B$ and $C$. However for case $A$ (normal mass hierarchy and ``large'' $\theta_{13}$), $\nu_e$ leaves the SN as $\nu_3$. This leads to a survival probability $P_{\nu_e\nu_e}\approx \sin^2\theta_{13}\lesssim 10^{-1}$, and therefore the peak remains hidden. Let us now consider the situation where NSI are prensent. For normal mass hierarchy $\nu_e$, which is born as $\nu_2^m$ passes through three different resonances, $I,~H$ and $L$. Whereas $I$ and $L$ will be adiabatic, the fate of $H$ will depend on the value of $\theta_{13}$. For ``large'' values, case $AI$, the $H$-resonance will also be adiabatic. This implies that $\nu_e$'s will leave as $\nu_2$, the survival probability will be $P_{\nu_e\nu_e}\approx \sin^2\theta_{12} \approx 0.3$, and therefore the peak will be seen, as in cases $B$ and $C$. If $\theta_{13}$ happens to be very small, case $CIa$, then $H$ will be strongly non-adiabatic and therefore $\nu_e$ will leave the star as $\nu_3$. As a consequence the neutronization peak will not be seen. For inverse mass hierarchy, $\nu_e$ is born as $\nu_1^m$ and traverses adiabatically $I$ and $L$. This implies that they will leave the star as $\nu_1$ and therefore the peak will also be observed. However now the survival probability will be larger, $P_{\nu_e\nu_e}\approx \cos^2\theta_{12} \approx 0.7$. Thus for a given known normalization, i.e. the distance to the SN, one expects a larger number of events during the neutronization peak in this case. In Fig.~ we show the expected number of events per time bin in a water Cherenkov detector in the case of a SN exploding at 10 kpc, for two different neutrino schemes, $C$ and $BI$, and for different SN progenitor masses. One can see how the difference due to the larger survival probability is bigger than the typical error bars, associated to the lack of knowledge of the progenitor mass. Two comments are in order. The neutronization $\nu_e$ burst takes place during the first milliseconds, before strong deleptonization takes place. As a result, in contrast to other observables we have considered in this paper, here the $I$-resonance will only occur for $\varepsilon^{I}\gtrsim 10^{-1}$. On the other hand in the presence of additional NSI with electrons this would significantly affect the $\nu-e$ cross sections, and consequently the results presented here. \section{Summary} We have analyzed the possibility of observing clear signatures of non-standard neutrino interactions from the detection of neutrinos produced in a future galactic supernova. In Secs.~ and~ we have re-considered effect of $\nu-d$ non-standard interactions on the neutrino propagation through the SN envelope within a three-neutrino framework. In contrast to previous works we have analyzed the neutrino evolution in both the more deleptonized inner layers and the outer regions of the SN envelope. We have also taken into account the time dependence of the SN density and electron fraction profiles. First we have found that the small values of the electron fraction typical of the former allows for internal NSI-induced resonant conversions, in addition to the standard MSW-H and MSW-L resonances of the outer envelope. These new flavor conversions take place for a relatively large range of NSI parameters, namely $|\varepsilon_{\alpha\alpha}|$ between $10^{-2}-10^{-1}$, and $|\varepsilon_{e\tau}|\gtrsim {\rm few}\times 10^{-5}$, currently allowed by experiment. For this range of strengths, in particular $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$, non-standard interactions can significantly affect the adiabaticity of the $H$-resonance. On the other hand the NSI-induced resonant conversions may also lead to the modulation of the $\bar\nu_e$ spectra as a result of the time dependence of the electron fraction. In Sec.~ we have studied the possibility of detecting NSI effects in a Megaton water Cherenkov detector using the modulation effects in the $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum due to (i) the passage of shock waves through the SN envelope, (ii) the time dependence of the electron fraction and (iii) the Earth matter effects; and, finally, through the possible detectability of the neutronization $\nu_e$ burst. Note that observable (ii) turns out to be complementary to the observation of the shock wave passage, (i), and offers the possibility to probe NSI effects also for normal hierarchy neutrino spectra. In Table~ we summarize the results obtained for different neutrino schemes. We have found that observable (i) can clearly indicate the existence of NSI in the case of inverse mass hierarchy and large $\theta_{13}$ (case $BI$). On the other hand, observable (ii) allows for an identification of NSI effects in the other cases, normal mass hierarchy (cases $AI$ and $CIa$) and inverse mass hierarchy and small $\theta_{13}$ (case $CIb$). Therefore a positive signal of either observable (i) or (ii) would establish the existence of NSI. In the latter case this would, however, leave a degeneracy among cases $AI$, $CIa$, and $CIb$. Such degeneracy can be broken with the help of observables (iii) and the observation of the neutronization $\nu_e$ burst. The detection of Earth matter effects during the whole supernova neutrino signal would rule out case $CIb$ since, as discussed in Sec.~, a disappearance of Earth matter effects would take place due to a transition from $C$ to $CIb$. Finally, the (non) observation of the neutronization burst can be used to distinguish between cases $AI$ and $CIa$. Similarly, other degeneracies in Table may be lifted by suitably combining different observables. For example, a negative of observable (ii) could mean either negligible NSI strengths or (NU) NSI parameter values so large that the internal resonance is always present. In this case one could use the observation of the neutronization burst in order to establish the presence of NSI for the case of inverse mass hierarchy. In addition the observation of the shock wave imprint in the $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum would provide additional information on $\theta_{13}$. In conclusion, by suitably combining all observables one may establish not only the presence of NSI, but also the mass hierarchy and probe the magnitude of $\theta_{13}$. \begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline Scheme & Hierarchy & $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ & NSI & shock & $Y_e$ & Earth & $\nu_e$ burst \\ \hline \hline $A$ & normal & $\gtrsim 10^{-4}$ & No & No & No & Yes & No \\ \hline $B$ & inverted & $\gtrsim 10^{-4}$ & No & Yes & No & No & Yes \\ \hline $C$ & any & $\lesssim 10^{-6}$ & No & No & No & Yes & Yes \\ \hline \hline $AI$ & normal & $\gtrsim 10^{-4}$ & Yes & No & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ \hline $BI$ & inverted & $\gtrsim 10^{-4}$ & Yes & Yes$^\star$ & No & Yes & Yes$^\star$ \\ \hline $CIa$ & normal & $\lesssim 10^{-6}$ & Yes & No & Yes & Yes & No \\ \hline $CIb$ & inverted & $\lesssim 10^{-6}$ & Yes & No & Yes & No & Yes$^\star$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Expectations for the observables discussed in the text: modulation of the $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum due to the shock wave passage, the time variation of $Y_e$, the Earth effect, and the observation of the $\nu_e$ burst within various neutrino schemes. Asterisks indicate that the effect differs from that expected in the absence of NSI. See text. } \end{table} \section*{Acknowledgments} The authors wish to thank H-Th. Janka, O.~Miranda, S.~Pastor, Th.~Schwetz, and M.~T\'ortola for fruitful discussions. Work supported by the Spanish grant FPA2005-01269 and European Network of Theoretical Astroparticle Physics ILIAS/N6 under contract number RII3-CT-2004-506222. A. E. has been supported by a FPU grant from the Spanish Government. R. T. has been supported by the Juan de la Cierva program from the Spanish Government and by an ERG from the European Commission. \section*{References} \def\baselinestretch{1.2} \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{Eguchi:2002dm} KamLAND collaboration, K.~Eguchi {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003), [hep-ex/0212021]. \bibitem{Pakvasa:2003zv} S.~Pakvasa and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock hep-ph/0301061, \newblock Proc. of the Indian National Academy of Sciences on Neutrinos, Vol. 70A, No.1, p.189 - 222 (2004), Eds. D. Indumathi, M.V.N. Murthy and G. Rajasekaran. \bibitem{Barger:2003qi} V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and K.~Whisnant, \newblock hep-ph/0308123. \bibitem{Araki:2004mb} KamLAND collaboration, T.~Araki {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 081801 (2004). \bibitem{Maltoni:2004ei} M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz, M.~A. Tortola and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock New J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 122 (2004), \newblock Appendix C in hep-ph/0405172 (v5) provides updated neutrino oscillation results taking into account new SSM, new SNO salt data, latest K2K and MINOS data; previous works by other groups are referenced therein. \bibitem{schechter:1980gr} J.~Schechter and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D22}, 2227 (1980). \bibitem{Valle:2006vb} J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock J. Phys. Conf. Ser. {\bf 53}, 473 (2006), [hep-ph/0608101], \newblock Review based on lectures at the Corfu Summer Institute on Elementary Particle Physics in September 2005. \bibitem{Schechter:1981hw} J.~Schechter and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D24}, 1883 (1981), \newblock Err. D25, 283 (1982). \bibitem{Lim:1987tk} C.-S. Lim and W.~J. Marciano, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D37}, 1368 (1988). \bibitem{Akhmedov:1988uk} E.~K. Akhmedov, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B213}, 64 (1988). \bibitem{Wolfenstein:1977ue} L.~Wolfenstein, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D17}, 2369 (1978). \bibitem{MS} {Mikheev, S. P. and Smirnov, A. Yu.}, \newblock (Editions Fronti\`eres, Gif-sur-Yvette, 1986, p.355.), \newblock 86 Massive Neutrinos in Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Proceedings of the Sixth Moriond Workshop, ed. by {Fackler}, O. and {Tran Thanh Van}, J. \bibitem{Valle:1987gv} J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B199}, 432 (1987). \bibitem{Mohapatra:1986bd} R.~N. Mohapatra and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D34}, 1642 (1986). \bibitem{Bernabeu:1987gr} J.~Bernabeu {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B187}, 303 (1987). \bibitem{Branco:1989bn} G.~C. Branco, M.~N. Rebelo and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B225}, 385 (1989). \bibitem{Rius:1989gk} N.~Rius and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B246}, 249 (1990). \bibitem{Deppisch:2004fa} F.~Deppisch and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D72}, 036001 (2005), [hep-ph/0406040]. \bibitem{Zee:1980ai} A.~Zee, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B93}, 389 (1980). \bibitem{Babu:1988ki} K.~S. Babu, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B203}, 132 (1988). \bibitem{Hall:1985dx} L.~J. Hall, V.~A. Kostelecky and S.~Raby, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B267}, 415 (1986). \bibitem{Malinsky:2005bi} M.~Malinsky, J.~C. Romao and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 161801 (2005), [hep-ph/0506296]. \bibitem{McDonald:2004dd} A.~B. McDonald, \newblock astro-ph/0406253. \bibitem{Scholberg:2007nu} K.~Scholberg, \newblock astro-ph/0701081. \bibitem{Auerbach:2001wg} LSND, L.~B. Auerbach {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 112001 (2001), [hep-ex/0101039]. \bibitem{Daraktchieva:2003dr} MUNU, Z.~Daraktchieva {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B564}, 190 (2003), [hep-ex/0304011]. \bibitem{Dorenbosch:1986tb} CHARM, J.~Dorenbosch {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B180}, 303 (1986). \bibitem{Vilain:1994qy} CHARM-II, P.~Vilain {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B335}, 246 (1994). \bibitem{Zeller:2001hh} NuTeV, G.~P. Zeller {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 091802 (2002), [hep-ex/0110059]. \bibitem{Barger:1991ae} V.~D. Barger, R.~J.~N. Phillips and K.~Whisnant, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D44}, 1629 (1991). \bibitem{Davidson:2003ha} S.~Davidson, C.~Pena-Garay, N.~Rius and A.~Santamaria, \newblock JHEP {\bf 03}, 011 (2003), [hep-ph/0302093]. \bibitem{Barranco:2005ps} J.~Barranco, O.~G. Miranda, C.~A. Moura and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D73}, 113001 (2006), [hep-ph/0512195]. \bibitem{Berezhiani:2001rs} Z.~Berezhiani and A.~Rossi, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B535}, 207 (2002), [hep-ph/0111137]. \bibitem{Friedland:2004pp} A.~Friedland, C.~Lunardini and C.~Pena-Garay, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B594}, 347 (2004), [hep-ph/0402266]. \bibitem{Guzzo:2004ue} M.~M. Guzzo, P.~C. de~Holanda and O.~L.~G. Peres, \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B591}, 1 (2004), [hep-ph/0403134]. \bibitem{Miranda:2004nb} O.~G. Miranda, M.~A. Tortola and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock JHEP {\bf 10}, 008 (2006), [hep-ph/0406280]. \bibitem{Fornengo:2001pm} N.~Fornengo {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 013010 (2002), [hep-ph/0108043]. \bibitem{Friedland:2004ah} A.~Friedland, C.~Lunardini and M.~Maltoni, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 111301 (2004), [hep-ph/0408264]. \bibitem{Friedland:2005vy} A.~Friedland and C.~Lunardini, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D72}, 053009 (2005), [hep-ph/0506143]. \bibitem{Mangano:2006ar} G.~Mangano {\em et~al.}, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B756}, 100 (2006), [hep-ph/0607267]. \bibitem{Katsanevas:2006} S.~K. Katsanevas, \newblock talk at Workshop on Neutrino Oscillation Physics (NOW 2006), Otranto, Lecce, Italy, 9-16 Sep 2006. \bibitem{Amanik:2004vm} P.~S. Amanik, G.~M. Fuller and B.~Grinstein, \newblock Astropart. Phys. {\bf 24}, 160 (2005), [hep-ph/0407130]. \bibitem{Amanik:2006ad} P.~S. Amanik and G.~M. Fuller, \newblock astro-ph/0606607. \bibitem{Mikheev:1986gs} S.~P. Mikheev and A.~Y. Smirnov, \newblock Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 42}, 913 (1985). \bibitem{Mikheev:1986wj} S.~P. Mikheev and A.~Y. Smirnov, \newblock Nuovo Cim. {\bf C9}, 17 (1986). \bibitem{Nunokawa:1996tg} H.~Nunokawa, Y.~Z. Qian, A.~Rossi and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 4356 (1996), [hep-ph/9605301]. \bibitem{Nunokawa:1996ve} H.~Nunokawa, A.~Rossi and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B482}, 481 (1996), [hep-ph/9606445]. \bibitem{Mansour:1997fi} S.~Mansour and T.-K. Kuo, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 013012 (1998), [hep-ph/9711424]. \bibitem{Bergmann:1998rg} S.~Bergmann and A.~Kagan, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B538}, 368 (1999), [hep-ph/9803305]. \bibitem{Fogli:2002xj} G.~L. Fogli, E.~Lisi, A.~Mirizzi and D.~Montanino, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}, 013009 (2002), [hep-ph/0202269]. \bibitem{Kuo:1987qu} T.-K. Kuo and J.~T. Pantaleone, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D37}, 298 (1988). \bibitem{Bergmann:1997mr} S.~Bergmann, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B515}, 363 (1998), [hep-ph/9707398]. \bibitem{huber:2001de} P.~Huber, T.~Schwetz and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 101804 (2002), [hep-ph/0111224]. \bibitem{huber:2002bi} P.~Huber, T.~Schwetz and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}, 013006 (2002), [hep-ph/0202048]. \bibitem{Yao:2006px} Particle Data Group, W.~M. Yao {\em et~al.}, \newblock J. Phys. {\bf G33}, 1 (2006). \bibitem{Botella:1986wy} F.~J. Botella, C.~S. Lim and W.~J. Marciano, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D35}, 896 (1987). \bibitem{2002RvMP...74.1015W} S.~E. {Woosley}, A.~{Heger} and T.~A. {Weaver}, \newblock Reviews of Modern Physics {\bf 74}, 1015 (2002). \bibitem{Schirato:2002tg} R.~C. Schirato, G.~M. Fuller, .~U.~. LANL), UCSD and LANL), \newblock astro-ph/0205390. \bibitem{Fogli:2003dw} G.~L. Fogli, E.~Lisi, D.~Montanino and A.~Mirizzi, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 033005 (2003), [hep-ph/0304056]. \bibitem{Tomas:2004gr} R.~Tomas {\em et~al.}, \newblock JCAP {\bf 0409}, 015 (2004), [astro-ph/0407132]. \bibitem{Cardall:2007dy} C.~Y. Cardall, \newblock astro-ph/0701831. \bibitem{Bethe:1980gq} H.~A. Bethe, J.~H. Applegate and G.~E. Brown, \newblock Astrophys. J. {\bf 241}, 343 (1980). \bibitem{burrows_mazurek} A.~Burrows and T.~J. Mazurek. \newblock Astrophys. J. {\bf 259}, 330 (1982). \bibitem{private} H.~Th.~Janka, \newblock private communication. \bibitem{Kuo:1989qe} T.-K. Kuo and J.~T. Pantaleone, \newblock Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 61}, 937 (1989). \bibitem{Kachelriess:2004vs} M.~Kachelriess and R.~Tomas, \newblock hep-ph/0412100. \bibitem{Liebendoerfer:2000cq} M.~Liebendoerfer {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 103004 (2001), [astro-ph/0006418]. \bibitem{Rampp:2002bq} M.~Rampp and H.~T. Janka, \newblock Astron. Astrophys. {\bf 396}, 361 (2002), [astro-ph/0203101]. \bibitem{Thompson:2002mw} T.~A. Thompson, A.~Burrows and P.~A. Pinto, \newblock Astrophys. J. {\bf 592}, 434 (2003), [astro-ph/0211194]. \bibitem{Sumiyoshi:2005ri} K.~Sumiyoshi {\em et~al.}, \newblock Astrophys. J. {\bf 629}, 922 (2005), [astro-ph/0506620]. \bibitem{Qian:2003wd} Y.-Z. Qian, \newblock Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 50}, 153 (2003), [astro-ph/0301422]. \bibitem{Pruet:2004vb} J.~Pruet, S.~E. Woosley, R.~Buras, H.-T. Janka and R.~D. Hoffman, \newblock Astrophys. J. {\bf 623}, 325 (2005), [astro-ph/0409446]. \bibitem{Lunardini:2001pb} C.~Lunardini and A.~Y. Smirnov, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B616}, 307 (2001), [hep-ph/0106149]. \bibitem{Dighe:2003be} A.~S. Dighe, M.~T. Keil and G.~G. Raffelt, \newblock JCAP {\bf 0306}, 005 (2003), [hep-ph/0303210]. \bibitem{Dighe:2003jg} A.~S. Dighe, M.~T. Keil and G.~G. Raffelt, \newblock JCAP {\bf 0306}, 006 (2003), [hep-ph/0304150]. \bibitem{Dighe:2003vm} A.~S. Dighe, M.~Kachelriess, G.~G. Raffelt and R.~Tomas, \newblock JCAP {\bf 0401}, 004 (2004), [hep-ph/0311172]. \bibitem{Takahashi:2003rn} K.~Takahashi, K.~Sato, A.~Burrows and T.~A. Thompson, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 113009 (2003), [hep-ph/0306056]. \bibitem{Kachelriess:2004ds} M.~Kachelriess {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 063003 (2005), [astro-ph/0412082]. \bibitem{MKeil} M.~T.~Keil, PhD thesis TU M\"unchen 2003 [astro-ph/0308228]. \bibitem{Keil:2002in} M.~T.~Keil, G.~G.~Raffelt and H.~T.~Janka, \newblock Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 590} (2003) 971 [astro-ph/0208035]. \bibitem{Tomas:2003xn} R.~Tomas, D.~Semikoz, G.~G. Raffelt, M.~Kachelriess and A.~S. Dighe, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 093013 (2003), [hep-ph/0307050]. \bibitem{Nunokawa:1997dp} H.~Nunokawa, V.~B. Semikoz, A.~Y. Smirnov and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B501}, 17 (1997), [hep-ph/9701420]. \bibitem{Duan:2006an} H.~Duan, G.~M. Fuller, J.~Carlson and Y.-Z. Qian, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D74}, 105014 (2006), [astro-ph/0606616]. \bibitem{Duan:2006jv} H.~Duan, G.~M. Fuller, J.~Carlson and Y.-Z. Qian, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 241101 (2006), [astro-ph/0608050]. \bibitem{Hannestad:2006nj} S.~Hannestad, G.~G. Raffelt, G.~Sigl and Y.~Y.~Y. Wong, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D74}, 105010 (2006), [astro-ph/0608695]. \bibitem{Raffelt:2007yz} G.~G. Raffelt and G.~G.~R. Sigl, \newblock hep-ph/0701182. \bibitem{balantekin:1996pp} A.~B. Balantekin, J.~M. Fetter and F.~N. Loreti, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 3941 (1996), [astro-ph/9604061]. \bibitem{nunokawa:1996qu} H.~Nunokawa, A.~Rossi, V.~B. Semikoz and J.~W.~F. Valle, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B472}, 495 (1996), [hep-ph/9602307]. \bibitem{Fogli:2006xy} G.~L. Fogli, E.~Lisi, A.~Mirizzi and D.~Montanino, \newblock JCAP {\bf 0606}, 012 (2006), [hep-ph/0603033]. \bibitem{Friedland:2006ta} A.~Friedland and A.~Gruzinov, \newblock astro-ph/0607244. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0039
|
Title: Scalar radius of the pion and zeros in the form factor
Abstract: The quadratic pion scalar radius, \la r^2\ra^\pi_s, plays an important role
for present precise determinations of \pi\pi scattering. Recently, Yndur\'ain,
using an Omn\`es representation of the null isospin(I) non-strange pion scalar
form factor, obtains \la r^2\ra^\pi_s=0.75\pm 0.07 fm^2. This value is larger
than the one calculated by solving the corresponding Muskhelishvili-Omn\`es
equations, \la r^2\ra^\pi_s=0.61\pm 0.04 fm^2. A large discrepancy between both
values, given the precision, then results. We reanalyze Yndur\'ain's method and
show that by imposing continuity of the resulting pion scalar form factor under
tiny changes in the input \pi\pi phase shifts, a zero in the form factor for
some S-wave I=0 T-matrices is then required. Once this is accounted for, the
resulting value is \la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.65\pm 0.05 fm^2. The main source of error
in our determination is present experimental uncertainties in low energy S-wave
I=0 \pi\pi phase shifts. Another important contribution to our error is the not
yet settled asymptotic behaviour of the phase of the scalar form factor from
QCD.
Body: \thispagestyle{empty} \vspace{2cm} \begin{center} {\Large{\bf Scalar radius of the pion and zeros in the form factor }} \end{center} \vspace{.5cm} \begin{center} {\large Jos\'e A. Oller and Luis Roca} \end{center} \begin{center} {\it {\it Departamento de F\'{\i}sica. Universidad de Murcia.\\ E-30071, Murcia. Spain.\\ {\small oller@um.es~,~luisroca@um.es}}} \end{center} \vspace{1cm} \begin{abstract} \noindent The quadratic pion scalar radius, $\la r^2\ra^\pi_s$, plays an important role for present precise determinations of $\pi\pi$ scattering. Recently, Yndur\'ain, using an Omn\`es representation of the null isospin(I) non-strange pion scalar form factor, obtains $\la r^2\ra^\pi_s=0.75\pm 0.07$~fm$^2$. This value is larger than the one calculated by solving the corresponding Muskhelishvili-Omn\`es equations, $\la r^2\ra^\pi_s=0.61\pm 0.04$~fm$^2$. A large discrepancy between both values, given the precision, then results. We reanalyze Yndur\'ain's method and show that by imposing continuity of the resulting pion scalar form factor under tiny changes in the input $\pi\pi$ phase shifts, a zero in the form factor for some S-wave I=0 $T-$matrices is then required. Once this is accounted for, the resulting value is $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.65\pm 0.05$~fm$^2$. The main source of error in our determination is present experimental uncertainties in low energy S-wave I=0 $\pi\pi$ phase shifts. Another important contribution to our error is the not yet settled asymptotic behaviour of the phase of the scalar form factor from QCD. \end{abstract} \vspace{2cm} \newpage \section{Introduction} \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}} \setcounter{equation}{0} The scalar form factor of the pion, $\Gamma_\pi(t)$, corresponds to the matrix element \be \Gamma_\pi(t)=\int d^4 x \,e^{-i(q'-q)x}\la \pi(q')|\left(m_u \bar{u}(x)u(x)+ m_d \bar{d}(x)d(x)\right) | \pi(q)\ra~,~~t=(q'-q)^2~. \ee Performing a Taylor expansion around $t=0$, \be \Gamma_\pi(t)=\Gamma_\pi(0)\left\{1+\frac{1}{6}t\la r^2\ra_s^\pi+{\cal O}(t^2)\right\}~, \ee where $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ is the quadratic scalar radius of the pion. The quantity $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ contributes around 10$\xxxpc$ to the values of the S-wave $\pi\pi$ scattering lengths $a_0^0$ and $a_0^2$ as determined in ref., by employing Roy equations and $\chi PT$ to two loops. If one takes into account that this reference gives a precision of 2.2$\xxxpc$ in its calculation of the scattering lengths, a 10$\xxxpc$ of contribution from $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ is a large one. Related to that, $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ is also important in $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ $\chi PT$ since it gives the low energy constant $\bar{\ell}_4$ that controls the departure of $F_\pi$ from its value in the chiral limit at leading order correction. Based on one loop $\chi PT$, Gasser and Leutwyler obtained $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.55\pm 0.15$~fm$^2$. This calculation was improved later on by the same authors together with Donoghue , who solved the corresponding Muskhelishvili-Omn\`es equations with the coupled channels of $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$. The update of this calculation, performed in ref., gives $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.61\pm 0.04$ fm$^2$, where the new results on S-wave I=0 $\pi\pi$ phase shifts from the Roy equation analysis of ref. are included. Moussallam employs the same approach and obtains values in agreement with the previous result. One should notice that solutions of the Muskhelishvili-Omn\`es equations for the scalar form factor rely on non-measured $T-$matrix elements or on assumptions about which are the channels that matter. Given the importance of $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$, and the possible systematic errors in the analyses based on Muskhelishvili-Omn\`es equations, other independent approaches are most welcome. In this respect we quote the works , and Yndur\'ain's ones . These latter works have challenged the previous value for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$, shifting it to the larger $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.75\pm 0.07$~fm$^2$. From ref. the equations, \be \delta a_0^0 = +0.027 \Delta_{r^2}~,~ \delta a_0^2 = -0.004 \Delta_{r^2}~, \ee give the change of the scattering lengths under a variation of $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ defined by $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.61(1+\Delta_{r^2})$~fm$^2$. For the difference between the central values of $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ given above from refs., one has $\Delta_{r^2}=+0.23$. This corresponds to $\delta a_0^0=+0.006$ and $\delta a_0^2=-0.001$, while the errors quoted are $a_0^0=0.220\pm 0.005$ and $a_0^2=-0.0444\pm 0.0010$. We then adduce about shifting the central values for the predicted scattering lengths at the level of one sigma. The value taken for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ is also important for determining the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ $\chi PT$ coupling $\bar{\ell}_4$. The value of ref. is $\bar{\ell}_4=4.4\pm 0.2$ while that of ref. is $\bar{\ell}_4=5.4\pm 0.5$. Both values are incompatible within errors. The papers have been questioned in refs.. The value of the $K\pi$ quadratic scalar radius, $\la r^2 \ra_s^{K\pi}$, obtained by Yndur\'ain in ref., $\la r^2 \ra_s^{K\pi}=0.31\pm0.06$~fm$^2$, is not accurate, because he relies on old experiments and on a bad parameterization of low energy S-wave I=1/2 $K\pi$ phase shifts by assuming dominance of the $\kappa$ resonance as a standard Breit-Wigner pole . Furthermore, $\la r^2\ra_s^{K\pi}$ was recently fixed by high statistics experiments in an interval in agreement with the sharp prediction of , based on dispersion relations (three-channel Muskhelishvili-Omn\`es equations from the $T-$matrix of ref.) and two-loop $\chi$PT . From the recent experiments , one has for the charged kaons $\la r^2\ra_s^{K^\pm \pi}=0.235\pm 0.014\pm 0.007$~fm$^2$, and for the neutral ones $\la r^2\ra_s^{K_L\pi}=0.165\pm 0.016$~fm$^2$. The prediction of , in an isospin limit, is $\la r^2\ra_s^{K\pi}=0.192\pm 0.012$~fm$^2$, lying just in the middle of the experimental determinations. Another issue is Yndur\'ain's more sound determination of the pionic scalar radius, whose (in)correctness is not settled yet. In this paper we concentrate on the approach of Yndur\'ain to evaluate the quadratic scalar radius of the pion based on an Omn\'es representation of the I=0 non-strange pion scalar form factor. Our main conclusion will be that this approach and the solution of the Muskhelishvili-Omn\`es equations , with $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$ as coupled channels, agree between each other if one properly takes into account, for some $T-$matrices, the presence of a zero in the pion scalar form factor at energies slightly below the $K\bar{K}$ threshold. Precisely these $T-$matrices are those used in and favoured in . Once this is considered we conclude that $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.63\pm 0.05$~fm$^2$. The contents of the paper are organized as follows. In section 2 we discuss the Omn\`es representation of $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ and derive the expression to calculate $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$. This calculation is performed in section 3, where we consider different parameterizations for experimental data and asymptotic phases for the scalar form factor. Conclusions are given in the last section. \section{Scalar form factor} \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}} \setcounter{equation}{0} The pion scalar form factor $\Gamma_\pi(t)$, eq.(), is an analytic function of $t$ with a right hand cut, due to unitarity, for $t\geq 4 m_\pi^2$. Performing a dispersion relation of its logarithm, with the possible zeroes of $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ removed, the Omn\`es representation results, \be \Gamma_\pi(t)=P(t)\exp\left[ \frac{t}{\pi} \int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty \frac{\phi(s)}{s(s-t)}ds \right]~. \ee Here, $P(t)$ is a polynomial made up from the zeroes of $\Gamma_\pi(t)$, with $P(0)=\Gamma_\pi(0)$. In the previous equation, $\phi(s)$ is the phase of $\Gamma_\pi(t)/P(t)$, taken to be continuous and such that $\phi(4m_\pi^2)=0$. In ref. the scalar form factor is assumed to be free of zeroes and hence $P(t)$ is just the constant $\Gamma_\pi(0)$ (the exponential factor is 1 for $t=0$). Thus, \be \Gamma_\pi(t)=\Gamma_\pi(0)\exp\left[ \frac{t}{\pi} \int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty \frac{\phi(s)}{s(s-t)}ds \right]~. \ee From where it follows that, \be \la r^2\ra_s^\pi=\frac{6}{\pi}\int_{4 m_\pi^2}^\infty \frac{\phi(s)}{s^2}ds~. \ee One of the features of the pion scalar form factor of refs., as discussed in ref., is the presence of a strong dip at energies around the $K\bar{K}$ threshold. This feature is also shared by the strong S-wave I=0 $\pi\pi$ amplitude, $t_{\pi\pi}$. This is so because $t_{\pi\pi}$ is in very good approximation purely elastic below the $K\bar{K}$ threshold and hence, neglecting inelasticity altogether in the discussion that follows, it is proportional to $\sin\delta_{\pi} e^{i\delta_\pi}$, with $\delta_\pi$ the S-wave I=0 $\pi\pi$ phase shift. It is an experimental fact that $\delta_\pi$ is very close to $ \pi$ around the $K\bar{K}$ threshold, as shown in fig.. Therefore, if $\delta_\pi=\pi$ happens before the opening of this channel the strong amplitude has a zero at that energy. On the other hand, if $\delta_\pi=\pi$ occurs after the $K\bar{K}$ threshold, because inelasticity is then substantial, see eq.() below, there is not a zero but a pronounced dip in $|t_{\pi\pi}|$. This dip can be arbitrarily close to zero if before the $K\bar{K}$ threshold $\delta_\pi$ approaches $\pi$ more and more, without reaching it. Because of Watson final state theorem the phase $\phi(s)$ in eq.() is given by $\delta_\pi(s)$ below the $K\bar{K}$ threshold, neglecting inelasticity due to $4\pi$ or $6\pi$ states as indicated by experiments . The situation above the $K\bar{K}$ threshold is more involved. Let us recall that \be t_{\pi\pi}=(\eta \,e^{2i\delta_\pi}-1)/2i~, \ee with $0\leq \eta \leq 1$ and the inelasticity is given by $1-\eta^2$, with $\eta$ the elasticity coefficient. We denote by $\varphi(s)$ the phase of $t_{\pi\pi}$, required to be continuous (below $4m_K^2$ it is given by $\delta_\pi(s)$). By continuity, close enough to the $K\bar{K}$ threshold and above it, $\eta\to 1$ and then we are in the same situation as in the elastic case. As a result, because of the Watson final state theorem and continuity, the phase $\phi(s)$ must still be given by $\varphi(s)$. For $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$, $s_K=4m_K^2$, $\varphi(s)$ does not follow the increasing trend with energy of $\delta_\pi(s)$ but drops as a result of eq.(), see fig. for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$. This is easily seen by writing explicitely the real and imaginary parts of $t_{\pi\pi}$ in eq.(), \be t_{\pi\pi}=\frac{1}{2}\eta\sin2\delta_\pi+\frac{i}{2}(1-\eta\cos 2\delta_\pi)~. \ee The imaginary part is always positive ($\eta<1$ above the $K\bar{K}$ threshold and 1.1 GeV ) while the real part is negative for $\delta_\pi<\pi$, but in an interval of just a few MeV the real part turns positive as soon as $\delta_\pi>\pi$, fig.. As a result, $\varphi(s)$ passes quickly from values below but close to $\pi$ to the interval $[0,\pi/2]$. This rapid motion of $\phi(s)$ gives rise to a pronounced minimum of $|\Gamma_\pi(t)|$ at this energy, as indicated in ref. and shown in fig.. The drop in $\phi(s)$ becomes more and more dramatic as $\delta_\pi(s_K)\to \pi^-$ (with the superscript $+(-)$ indicating that the limit is approached from values above(below), respectively); and in this limit, $\phi(s_k)=\varphi(s_K)$ is discontinuous at $s_K$. This is easily understood from eq.(). Let us call $s_1$ the point at which $\delta_\pi(s_1)=\pi$ with $s_1>s_K$. Close and above $s_1$, $\varphi(s)\in [0,\pi/2]$, for the reasons explained above, and $\varphi(s)$ has decreased very rapidly from almost $\pi$ at the $K\bar{K}$ threshold to values below $\pi/2$ just after $s_1$. Then, in the limit $s_1\to s_K^+$ one has $\phi(s_K^-)=\varphi(s_K^-)=\pi$ on the left, while on the right $\phi(s_K^+)=\varphi(s_K^+)<\pi/2$. As a result $\varphi(s)$ is discontinuous at $s=s_K$. We stress that this discontinuity of $\varphi(s)$ at $s_K$ when $\delta_\pi(s_K)\to\pi^-$ applies rigorously to $\phi(s_K)$ as well since $\eta(s_K)=1$. This discontinuity at $s=s_K$ implies also that the integrand in the Omn\`es representation for $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ develops a logarithmic singularity as, \be \frac{\phi(s_K^-)-\phi(s_K^+)}{\pi}\log\frac{\delta}{s_K}~, \ee with $\delta\to 0^+$. When exponentiating this result one has a zero for $\Gamma_\pi(s_K)$ as $(\delta/s_K)^\nu$, $\nu=(\phi(s_K^-)-\phi(s_K^+))/\pi>0$ and $\delta\to 0^+$. This zero is a necessary consequence when evolving continuously from $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ to $\delta_\pi(s_K)>\pi$.) that $\phi(s_K^-)-\phi(s_K^+)=\pi$. Here we are assuming $\eta=1$ for $s\leq s_K$, which is a very good approximation as indicated by experiment .} This in turn implies rigorously that in the Omn\`es representation of $\Gamma_\pi(t)$, eq.(), $P(t)$ must be a polynomial of first degree for those cases with $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$,\footnote{We are focusing in the physically relevant region of experimental allowed values for $\delta_\pi(s_K)$, which can be larger or smaller than $\pi$ but close to.} \be P(t)=\Gamma_\pi(0)\frac{s_1-t}{s_1}~, \ee with $s_1$ the position of the zero. Notice that the degree of the polynomial $P(t)$ is discrete and thus by continuity it cannot change unless a singularity develops. This is the case when $\delta_\pi(s_K)=\pi$, changing the degree from 0 to 1. Hence, if $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ for a given $t_{\pi\pi}$, instead of eqs.() and () one must then consider, \be \Gamma_\pi(t)=\Gamma_\pi(0)\frac{s_1-t}{s_1}\exp\left[\frac{t}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty \frac{\phi(s)}{s(s-t)}ds\right]~, \ee and \be \la r^2\ra_s^\pi=-\frac{6}{s_1}+\frac{6}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty \frac{\phi(s)}{s^2}ds~. \ee For those $t_{\pi\pi}$ for which $\delta_\pi(s_K)>\pi$ then $\varphi(s)$ follows $\delta_\pi(s)$ just after the $K\bar{K}$ threshold and there is no drop, as emphasized in ref., see fig.. Summarizing, we have shown that $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ has a zero at $s_1$ when $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ as a consequence of the assumption that $\phi(s)$ follows $\varphi(s)$ above the $K\bar{K}$ threshold, along the lines of ref., and by imposing continuity in $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ under small changes in $\delta_\pi(s_K)\simeq \pi$. As a result eqs.() and () should be used in the latter case, instead of eqs.() and (), valid for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$. This solution was overlooked in refs.. We show in appendix~A why the previous discussion on the zero of $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ for $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ at $s_1$ cannot be applied to all pion scalar form factors, in particular to the strange one. If eq.() were used for those $t_{\pi\pi}$ with $\delta_\pi(s_K) \geq \pi$ then a strong maximum of $|\Gamma_\pi(t)|$ would be obtained around the $K\bar{K}$ threshold, instead of the aforementioned zero or the minimum of refs., as shown in fig. by the dashed-dotted line. That is also shown in fig.10 of ref. or fig.2 of . This is the situation for the $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ of refs., and it is the reason why $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ obtained there is much larger than that of refs.. That is, Yndur\'ain uses eqs.(), () for $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$, instead of eqs.(), () (solid line in fig.). The unique and important role played by $\delta_\pi(s_K)$ (for elastic $t_{\pi\pi}$ below the $K\bar{K}$ threshold) is perfectly recognised in ref.. However, in this reference the astonishing conclusion that $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ has two radically different behaviours under tiny variations of $t_{\pi\pi}$ was sustained. These variations are enough to pass from $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ to $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ , while the $T-$ or $S-$matrix are fully continuous. Because of this instability of the solution of refs. under tiny changes of $\delta_\pi(s)$, we consider ours, that produces continuous $\Gamma_\pi(t)$, to be certainly preferred. We also stress that our solutions, either for $ \delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ and $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$, are the ones that agree with those obtained by solving the Muskhelishvili-Omn\`es equations and Unitary $\chi$PT . Let us now show how to fix $s_1$ in terms of the knowledge of $\delta_\pi(s)$ with $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$. For this purpose let us perform a dispersion relation of $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ with two subtractions, \be \Gamma_\pi(t)=\Gamma_\pi(0)+\frac{1}{6}\la r^2\ra_s^\pi t+\frac{t^2}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty \frac{\hbox{Im}\Gamma_\pi(s)}{s^2(s-t)}ds~, \ee From asymptotic QCD one expects that the scalar form factor vanishes at infinity , then the dispersion integral in eq.() should converge rather fast. Eq.() is useful because it tells us that the only point around 1 GeV where there can be a zero in $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ is at the energy $s_1$ for which the imaginary part of $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ vanishes. Otherwise, the integral in the right hand side of eq.() picks up an imaginary part and there is no way to cancel it as $\Gamma_\pi(0)$, $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ and $t$ are all real. Since $|\hbox{Im}\Gamma_\pi(t)|=|\Gamma_\pi(t)\,\sin\delta_\pi(t)|$ for $t\leq s_K$, it certainly vanishes at the point $s_1$ where $\delta_\pi(s_1)=\pi$. As there is only one zero at such energies, this determines $s_1$ exactly in terms of the given parameterization for $\delta_\pi(s)$. One could argue against the argument just given to determine $s_1$ that this energy could be complex. However, this would imply two zeroes at $s_1$ and $s_1^*$, and then the degree of $P(t)$ would be two instead of one. Notice that the degree of the polynomial $P(t)$ is discrete and thus, by softness in the continuous parameters of the $T-$matrix, its value should stay at 1 for some open domain in the parameters with $\delta_\pi(s_K)>\pi$ until a discontinuity develops. Physically, the presence of two zeroes would in turn require that $\phi(s)\to 3\pi$ so as to guarantee that $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ still vanishes as $-1/t$, as required by asymptotic QCD . This value for the asymptotic phase seems to be rather unrealistic as $\varphi(s)$ only reaches $2\pi$ at already quite high energy values, as shown in fig.. \section{Results} Our main result from the previous section is the sum rule to determine $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$, \be \la r^2\ra_s^\pi=-\frac{6}{s_1}\theta(\delta_\pi(s_K)-\pi)+ \frac{6}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty\frac{\phi(s)}{s^2}ds~, \ee where $\theta(x)=0$ for $x<0$ and 1 for $x\geq 0$. We split $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ in two parts: \ba \la r^2\ra_s^\pi&=&Q_H+Q_A~,\nn\\ Q_H&=&-\frac{6}{s_1}\theta(\delta_\pi(s_K)-\pi)+\frac{6}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^{s_H} \frac{\phi(s)}{s^2}ds~,\nn\\ Q_A&=&\frac{6}{\pi}\int_{s_H}^\infty \frac{\phi(s)}{s^2}~, \ea with $s_H=2.25$ GeV$^2$. Reasons for fixing $s_H$ to this value are given below. The main issue in the application of eq.() is to determine $\phi(s)$ in the integrand. Below the $K\bar{K}$ threshold and neglecting inelasticity, one has that $\phi(s)=\delta_\pi(s)$, $4m_\pi^2\leq s \leq 4 m_K^2$. This follows because of the Watson final state theorem, continuity and the equality $\phi(4m_\pi^2)=\delta_\pi(4m_\pi^2)=0$. For practical applications we shall consider the S-wave I=0 $\pi\pi$ phase shifts given by the $K-$matrix parameterization of ref. (from its energy dependent analysis of data from 0.6 GeV up to 1.9 GeV) and the parameterizations of ref. (CGL) and ref. (PY). The resulting $\delta_\pi(s)$ for all these parameterizations are shown in fig.. We use CGL from $\pi\pi$ threshold up to 0.8 GeV, because this is the upper limit of its analysis, while PY is used up to 0.9 GeV, because at this energy it matches well inside the experimental errors with the data of . The $K-$matrix of ref. is used for energies above 0.8 GeV, when using CGL below this energy (parameterization I), and above 0.9 GeV, when using PY for lower energies (parameterization II). We take the parameterizations CGL and PY as their difference below 0.8 GeV accounts well for the experimental uncertainties in $\delta_\pi$, see fig., and they satisfy constraints from $\chi PT$ (the former) and dispersion relations (both). The reason why we skip to use the parameterization of ref. for lower energies is because one should be there as precise as possible since this region gives the largest contribution to $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$, as it is evident from the right panel of fig.. It happens that the $K-$matrix of , that fits data above 0.6 GeV, is not compatible with data from $K_{e 4}$ decays . We show in the insert of fig. the comparison of the parameterizations CGL and PY with the $K_{e4}$ data of . We also show in the same figure the experimental points on $\delta_\pi$ from refs.. Both refs. are compatible within errors, with some disagreement above 1.5 GeV. This disagreement does not affect our numerical results since above 1.5 GeV we do not rely on data. The $K-$matrix of ref. is given by, \be K_{ij}(s)=\alpha_i\alpha_j/(x_1-s)+\beta_i\beta_j/(x_2-s)+\gamma_{ij}~, \ee where \be \begin{array}{lll} x_1^{1/2}=0.11\pm 0.15~ & x_2^{1/2}=1.19\pm 0.01 & \\ \alpha_1=2.28\pm 0.08~ & \alpha_2=2.02\pm 0.11 & \\ \beta_1=-1.00\pm 0.03~ & \beta_2=0.47\pm 0.05 &\\ \gamma_{11}=2.86\pm 0.15~ & \gamma_{12}=1.85\pm 0.18~ & \gamma_{22}=1.00\pm 0.53~, \end{array} \ee with units given in appropriate powers of GeV. In order to calculate the contribution from the phase shifts of this $K-$matrix we generate Monte-Carlo gaussian samples, taking into account the errors shown in eq.(), and evaluate $Q_H$ according to eq.(). The central value of $\delta_\pi(s_K)$ for the $K-$matrix of ref. is $3.05$, slightly below $\pi$. When generating Monte-Carlo gaussian samples according to eq.(), there are cases with $\delta_{\pi}(s_K)\geq \pi$, around $30\xxxpc$ of the samples. Note that for these cases one also has the contribution $-6/s_1$ in eq.(). The application of Watson final state theorem for $s>4m_K^2$ is not straightforward since inelastic channels are relevant. The first important one is the $K\bar{K}$ channel associated in turn with the appearance of the narrow $f_0(980)$ resonance, just on top of its threshold. This implies a sudden drop of the elasticity parameter $\eta$, but it again rapidly raises (the $f_0(980)$ resonance is narrow with a width around 30 MeV) and in the region $1.1^2\lesssim s\lesssim 1.5^2$ GeV$^2$ is compatible within errors with $\eta=1$ . For $\eta\simeq 1$, the Watson final state theorem would imply again that $\phi(s)=\varphi(s)$, but, as emphasized by , this equality only holds, in principle, modulo $\pi$. The reason advocated in ref. is the presence of the region $s_K<s<1.1^2$ GeV$^2$ where inelasticity can be large, and then continuity arguments alone cannot be applied to guarantee the equality $\phi(s)\simeq \varphi(s)$ for $s\gtrsim 1.1^2$~GeV$^2$. This argument has been proved in ref. to be quite irrelevant in the present case. In order to show this a diagonalization of the $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$ $S-$matrix is done. These channels are the relevant ones when $\eta$ is clearly different from 1, between 1 and 1.1 GeV. Above that energy one also has the opening of the $\eta\eta$ channel and the increasing role of multipion states. We reproduce here the arguments of ref., but deliver expressions directly in terms of the phase shifts and elasticity parameter, instead of $K-$matrix parameters as done in ref.. For two channel scattering, because of unitarity, the $T-$matrix can be written as: \be T=\left( \begin{array}{ll} \frac{1}{2i}(\eta e^{2i\delta_\pi}-1) & \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-\eta^2}e^{i(\delta_\pi+\delta_K)} \\ \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-\eta^2}e^{i(\delta_\pi+\delta_K)} & \frac{1}{2i}(\eta e^{2i \delta_K}-1) \end{array} \right)~, \ee with $\delta_K$ the elastic S-wave I=0 $K\bar{K}$ phase shift. In terms of the $T$-matrix the S-wave I=0 $S-$matrix is given by, \be S=I+2i T~, \ee satisfying $S S^\dagger=S^\dagger S =I$. The $T$-matrix can also be written as \be T=Q^{1/2}\left(K^{-1}-i Q\right)^{-1} Q^{1/2}~, \ee where the $K-$matrix is real and symmetric along the real axis for $s\geq 4m_\pi^2$ and $Q=diag(q_\pi,q_K)$, with $q_\pi(q_K)$ the center of mass momentum of pions(kaons). This allows one to diagonalize $K$ with a real orthogonal matrix $C$, and hence both the $T-$ and $S-$matrices are also diagonalized with the same matrix. Writing, \be C=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos\theta & \sin \theta \\ -\sin \theta & \cos \theta \end{array} \right)~, \ee one has \ba \cos\theta &=&\frac{\left[(1-\eta^2)/2\right]^{1/2}}{\left[ 1-\eta^2\cos^2\Delta-\eta|\sin\Delta|\sqrt{1-\eta^2\cos^2\Delta}\right]^{1/2}}~,\nn \\ \sin\theta &=&-\frac{\sin\Delta}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\eta-\sqrt{1+(1-\eta^2)\cot^2\Delta}}{\left[ 1-\eta^2\cos^2\Delta-\eta|\sin\Delta|\sqrt{1-\eta^2\cos^2\Delta}\right]^{1/2}}~, \ea with $\Delta=\delta_K-\delta_\pi$. On the other hand, the eigenvalues of the $S-$matrix are given by, \ba e^{2i \delta_{(+)}}&=&S_{11}\frac{1+e^{2i\Delta}}{2} \left[1-\frac{i}{\eta}\tan\Delta\, \sqrt{1+(1-\eta^2)\cot^2\Delta}\right]\\ e^{2i \delta_{(-)}}&=&S_{22}\frac{1+e^{-2i\Delta}}{2} \left[1+\frac{i}{\eta}\tan\Delta\, \sqrt{1+(1-\eta^2)\cot^2\Delta}\right]~. \ea The eigenvalue phase $\delta_{(+)}$ satisfies $\delta_{(+)}(s_K)=\delta_\pi(s_K)$. The expressions above for $\exp 2i\delta_{(+)}$ and $\exp 2i\delta_{(-)}$ interchange between each other when $\tan\Delta$ crosses zero and simultaneously the sign in the right hand side of eq.() for $\sin\theta$ changes. This diagonalization allows to disentangle two elastic scattering channels. The scalar form factors attached to every of these channels, $\Gamma'_1$ and $\Gamma'_2$, will satisfy the Watson final state theorem in the whole energy range and then one has, \ba \Gamma'&\equiv& \left( \begin{array}{c} \Gamma'_1\\ \Gamma'_2 \end{array}\right) =C^T Q^{1/2}\Gamma=C^T Q^{1/2}\left( \begin{array}{c} \Gamma_\pi \\ \Gamma_K \end{array}\right)~,\nn\\ \Gamma_\pi &=& q^{-1/2}_\pi\left( \lambda \cos \theta \,|\Gamma_1'| e^{i\delta_{(+)}} \pm \sin \theta \, |\Gamma_2'| e^{i\delta_{(-)}}\right)~,\nn\\ \Gamma_K &=& q_K^{-1/2}\left( \pm \cos \theta \, |\Gamma_2'| e^{i\delta_{(-)}} - \lambda \sin \theta\, |\Gamma_1'| e^{i\delta_{(+)}}\right)~. \ea The $\pm$ in front of $|\Gamma'_2|$ is due to the fact that $\Gamma'_2=0$ at $s_K$, as follows from its definition in the equation above. Since Watson final state theorem only fixes the phase of $\Gamma'_2$ up to modulo $\pi$, and the phase is not defined in the zero, we cannot fix the sign in front at this stage. Next, $\Gamma'_1$ has a zero at $s_1$ when $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$. For this case, $-|\Gamma_1'|$ must appear in the previous equation, so as to guarantee continuity of its ascribed phase, and this is why $\lambda=(-1)^{\theta(\delta_\pi(s_K)-\pi)}$. Now, when $\eta\to 1$ then $\sin\theta\to 0$ as $\sqrt{(1-\eta)/2}$ and $\phi(s)$ is then the eigenvalue phase $\delta_{(+)}$. This eigenvalue phase can be calculated given the $T-$matrix. For those $T-$matrices employed here, and those of refs., $\delta_{(+)}(s)$ follows rather closely $\varphi(s)$ in the whole energy range. This is shown in fig. and already discussed in detail in ref.. In this way, one guarantees that $\phi(s)$ and $\varphi(s)$ do not differ between each other in an integer multiple of $\pi$ when $\eta\simeq 1$, $1.1^2\lesssim s \lesssim 1.5^2$~GeV$^2$. For the calculation of $Q_H$ in eq.() we shall equate $\phi(s)=\varphi(s)$ for $4m_K^2<s<1.5^2$ GeV$^2$. Denoting, \ba I_H&=&\frac{6}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^{s_H}\frac{\varphi(s)}{s^2}= I_1+I_2+I_3~,\nn\\ I_1&=&\frac{6}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^{s_K} \frac{\varphi(s)}{s^2}ds~,\nn\\ I_2&=&\frac{6}{\pi}\int_{s_K}^{1.1^2} \frac{\varphi(s)}{s^2}ds~,\nn\\ I_3&=&\frac{6}{\pi}\int_{1.1^2}^{s_H} \frac{\varphi(s)}{s^2}ds~, \ea then \be Q_H\simeq I_H-\frac{6}{s_1}\theta(\delta_\pi(s_K)-\pi)~. \ee Now, eq.() can also be used to estimate the error of approximating $\phi(s)$ by $\varphi(s)$ in the range $4m_K^2< s < 1.5^2$ GeV$^2$ to calculate $I_2$ and $I_3$ as done in eq.(). We could have also used $\delta_{(+)}(s)$ in eq.(). However, notice that when $\eta\lesssim 1$ then $\varphi(s)\simeq \delta_{(+)}(s)$ and when inelasticity could be substantial the difference between $\delta_{(+)}(s)$ and $\varphi(s)$ is well taken into account in the error analysis that follows. Remarkably, consistency of our approach also requires $\phi(s)$ to be closer to $\varphi(s)$ than to $\delta_{(+)}(s)$. The reason is that $\varphi(s)$ for $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ is in very good approximation the $\varphi(s)$ for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ plus $\pi$, this is clear from fig.. This difference is $precisely$ the required one in order to have the same value for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ either for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ or $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ from eq.(). However, the difference for $\delta_{(+)}(s)$ between $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ and $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ is smaller than $\pi$. Indeed, we note that $\phi(s)$ follows closer $\varphi(s)$ than $\delta_{(+)}(s)$ for the explicit form factors of refs.. Let us consider first the range $1.1^2<s<1.5^2$ GeV$^2$ where from experiment $\eta\simeq 1$ within errors. With $\epsilon=\pm \tan\theta |\Gamma_2'/\Gamma_1'|$ and $\rho=\delta_{(-)}-\delta_{(+)}$, eq.() allows us to write, \ba \Gamma_\pi=\lambda \cos\theta\,|\Gamma_1'|e^{i\delta_{(+)}}(1+\epsilon \cos\rho) \left(1+i\frac{\epsilon\sin\rho}{1+\epsilon \cos\rho}\right)~. \ea When $\eta\to 1$ then $\epsilon\to 0$, according to the expansion,\footnote{The the ratio $\left|\Gamma_2'/\Gamma_1'\right|$, present in $\epsilon$, is not expected to be large since the $f_0(1300)$ couples mostly to $4\pi$ and similarly to $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$, and the $f_0(1500)$ does mostly to $\pi\pi$ .} \be \tan\theta=\frac{\sqrt{(1-\eta)/2}}{\sin\Delta}\left[1 -\frac{1+3\cos 2\Delta}{8\sin^2\Delta}(1-\eta)\right] +{\cal O}\left((1-\eta)^{5/2}\right)~. \ee Rewriting, \be 1+i\frac{\epsilon\sin\rho}{1+\epsilon \cos\rho}=\exp\left( i\frac{\epsilon\sin\rho}{1+\epsilon \cos\rho}\right)+{\cal O}(\epsilon^2)~, \ee which from eqs.() and () implies a shift in $\delta_{(+)}$ because of inelasticity effects, \be \delta_{(+)}\to \delta_{(+)}+\frac{\epsilon\sin\rho}{1+\epsilon \cos\rho}~. \ee Using $\eta=0.8$ in the range $1.1^2\lesssim s\lesssim 1.5^2$ GeV, $\eta\simeq 1$ from the energy dependent analysis of ref. given by the $K-$matrix of eq.(), one ends with $\epsilon\simeq 0.3$. Taking into account that $\delta_{(+)}$ is larger than $\gtrsim 3\pi/2$ for $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ (in this case $\delta_{(+)}\simeq \delta_\pi$), and around $3\pi/4$ for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$, see fig., one ends with relative corrections to $\delta_{(+)}$ around $6\xxxpc$ for the former case and $13\xxxpc$ for the latter. Although the $K-$matrix of ref., eq.(), is given up to 1.9 GeV, one should be aware that to take only the two channels $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$ in the whole energy range is an oversimplification, particularly above 1.2 GeV. Because of this we finally double the previous estimate. Hence $I_3$ is calculated with a relative error of $12\xxxpc$ for $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ and $25\xxxpc$ for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$. In the narrow region between $s_K<s<1.1^2$ GeV$^2$, $\eta$ can be rather different from 1, due to the $f_0(980)$ that couples very strongly to the just open $K\bar{K}$ channel. However, from the direct measurements of $\pi\pi\to K\bar{K}$ , where $1-\eta^2$ is directly measured,\footnote{Neglecting multipion states.} one has a better way to determine $\eta$ than from $\pi\pi$ scattering . It results from the former experiments, as shown also by explicit calculations , that $\eta$ is not so small as indicated in $\pi\pi$ experiments , and one has $\eta\simeq 0.6-0.7$ for its minimum value. Employing $\eta=0.6$ in eq.() then $\epsilon\simeq 0.5$. Taking $\delta_{(+)}$ around $\pi/2$ when $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ this implies a relative error of 30$\xxxpc$. For $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ one has instead $\delta_{(+)}\gtrsim \pi$, and a $15\xxxpc$ of estimated error. Regarding the ratio of the moduli of form factors entering in $\epsilon$ we expect it to be $\lesssim 1$ (see appendix A). Therefore, our error in the evaluation of $I_2$ is estimated to be $30\xxxpc$ and $15\xxxpc$ for the cases $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ and $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$, respectively. As a result of the discussion following eq.(), we consider that the error estimates done for $I_2$ and $I_3$ in the case $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ are too conservative and that the relative errors given for $\delta_\pi(s_K)>\pi$ are more realistic. Nonetheless, since the absolute errors that one obtains for $I_2$ and $I_3$ are the same in both cases (because $I_2$ and $I_3$ for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ are around a factor 2 smaller than those for $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$) we keep the errors as given above. To the previous errors for $I_2$ and $I_3$ due to inelasticity, we also add in quadrature the noise in the calculation of $Q_H$ due to the error in $t_{\pi\pi}$ from the uncertainties in the parameters of the $K-$matrix eqs.(), (), and those in the parameterizations CGL and PY. We finally employ for $s>2.25$ GeV$^2$ the knowledge of the asymptotic phase of the pion scalar form factor in order to evaluate $Q_A$ in eq.(). The function $\phi(s)$ is determined so as to match with the asymptotic behaviour of $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ as $-1/t$ from QCD. The Omn\`es representation of the scalar form factor, eqs.() and (), tends to $t^{-q/\pi}$ and $t^{-q/\pi+1}$ for $t\to\infty$, respectively. Here, $q$ is the asymptotic value of the phase $\phi(s)$ when $s\to \infty$. Hence, for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ the function $\phi(s)$ is then required to tend to $\pi$ while for $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ the asymptotic value should be $2\pi$. The way $\phi(s)$ is predicted to approach the limiting value is somewhat ambiguous , \be \phi_{as}(s)\simeq \pi\left( n\pm\frac{2d_m}{\log(s/\Lambda^2)}\right)~. \ee In this equation, $2d_m=24/(33-2 n_f)\simeq 1$, $\Lambda^2$ is the QCD scale parameter and $n=1,~2$ for $\delta_\pi(4m_K^2)<\pi,~\geq \pi$, respectively. The case $n=2$ was not discussed in refs. for the form factor given in eq.(). There is as well a controversy between and regarding the $\pm$ sign in eq.(). If leading twist contributions dominate then the limiting value is reached from above and one has the plus sign, while if twist three contributions are the dominant ones the minus sign has to be considered . In the left panel of fig. we show with the wide bands the values of $\phi(s)_{as}$ for $s>2.25$ GeV$^2$ from eq.(), considering both signs, for $n=1$ ($\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$) and $2$ ($\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$). We see in the figure that above $1.4-1.5$ GeV ($1.96-2.25$ GeV$^2$) both $\varphi(s)$ and $\phi(s)_{as}$ phases match and this is why we take $s_H=2.25$ GeV$^2$ in eq.(), similarly as done in refs.. In this way, we also avoid to enter into hadronic details in a region where $\eta<1$ with the onset of the $f_0(1500)$ resonance. The present uncertainty whether the $+$ or $-$ sign holds in eq.() is taken as a source of error in evaluating $Q_A$. The other source of uncertainty comes from the value taken for $\Lambda^2$, $0.1 <\Lambda^2<0.35$ GeV$^2$, as suggested in ref.. From fig. it is clear that our error estimate for $\phi_{as}(s)$ is very conservative and should account for uncertainties due to the onset of inelasticity for energies above $1.4-1.5$ GeV and to the appearance of the $f_0(1500)$ resonance. In the right panel of fig. we show the integrand for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$, eq.(), for parameterization I (dashed line) and II (solid line). Notice as the large uncertainty in $\phi_{as}(s)$ is much reduced in the integrand as it happens for the higher energy domain. \begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $\phi(s)$ & I & I & II & II \\ \hline $\delta_\pi(s_K)$ & $\geq \pi$ & $<\pi$ & $\geq \pi$ & $<\pi$ \\ \hline $I_1$ & $0.435\pm 0.013$ & $0.435\pm 0.013$ & $0.483\pm 0.013 $& $0.483\pm 0.013 $ \\ $I_2$ & $0.063\pm 0.010$ & $0.020\pm 0.006$ & $0.063\pm 0.010 $& $0.020\pm 0.006 $ \\ $I_3$ & $0.143\pm 0.017$ & $0.053\pm 0.013 $ & $0.143\pm 0.017$ & $0.053\pm 0.013 $ \\ $Q_H$ & $0.403\pm 0.024$ & $0.508\pm 0.019$ & $0.452\pm 0.024 $& $0.554\pm 0.019 $ \\ $Q_A$ & $0.21 \pm 0.03$ & $0.10\pm 0.03$ & $0.21\pm 0.03 $& $0.10\pm 0.03 $ \\ \hline $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ & $0.61\pm 0.04$ & $0.61\pm 0.04$ & $0.66\pm 0.04$& $0.66\pm 0.04 $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Different contributions to $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ as defined in eqs.() and (). All the units are $\textrm{fm}^2$. In the value for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ the errors due to $I_1$, $I_2$, $I_3$ and $Q_A$ are added in quadrature. } \end{center} \end{table} In table we show the values of $I_1$, $I_2$, $I_3$, $Q_H$, $Q_A$ and $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ for the parameterizations I and II and for the two cases $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ and $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$. This table shows the disappearance of the disagreement between the cases $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ and $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ from the $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$ $T-$matrix of eq.(), once the zero of $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ at $s_1<s_K$ is taken into account for the former case. This disagreement was the reason for the controversy between Yndur\'ain and ref. regarding the value of $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$. The fact that the parameterization II gives rise to a larger value of $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ than I is because PY follows the upper $\delta_\pi$ data below 0.9 GeV, while CGL follows lower ones, as shown in fig.. The different errors in table are added in quadrature. The final value for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ is the mean between those of parameterizations I and II and the error is taken such that it spans the interval of values in table at the level of two sigmas. One ends with: \ba \la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.63\pm 0.05~\hbox{fm}^2~. \ea The largest sources of error in $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ are the uncertainties in the experimental $\delta_\pi$ and in the asymptotic phase $\phi_{as}$. This is due to the fact that the former are enhanced because of its weight in the integrand, see fig., and the latter due to its large size. Our number above and that of refs., $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.61\pm 0.04$~fm$^2$, are then compatible. On the other hand, we have also evaluated $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ directly from the scalar form factor obtained with the dynamical approach of ref. from Unitary $\chi$PT and we obtain $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.64\pm 0.06$ fm$^2$, in perfect agreement with eq.(). Notice that the scalar form factor of ref. has $\delta_\pi(s_K)>\pi$ and we have checked that it has a zero at $s_1$, as it should. This is shown in fig. by the dashed-double-dotted line. The value $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.75\pm 0.07$~fm$^2$ from refs. is much larger than ours because the possibility of a zero at $s_1$ was not taking into account there and other solution was considered. This solution, however, has an unstable behaviour under the transition $\delta_\pi(s_K)=\pi-0^+$ to $\delta_\pi(s_K)=\pi+0^+$ and it cannot be connected continuously with the one for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$. Our solution for $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ from Yndur\'ain's method does not have this unstable behaviour and it is continuous under changes in the values of the parameters of the $K-$matrix, eqs.() and (). This is why, from our results, it follows too that the interesting discussion of ref., regarding whether $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$ or $\geq \pi$, is not any longer conclusive to explain the disagreement between the values of refs. and ref. for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$. We can also work out from our determination of $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$, eq.(), values for the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ $SU(2)$ $\chi PT$ low energy constant $\bar{\ell}_4$. We take the two loop expression in $\chi PT$ for $\la r^2 \ra_s^\pi$ , \be \la r^2 \ra_s^\pi=\frac{3}{8\pi^2 f_\pi^2}\left\{ \bar{\ell}_4-\frac{13}{12}+\xi \Delta_r\right\}~, \ee where $f_\pi=92.4$ MeV is the pion decay constant, $\xi=(M_\pi/4\pi f_\pi)^2$ and $M_\pi$ is the pion mass. First, at the one loop level calculation $\Delta_r=0$ and then one obtains, \ba \bar{\ell}_4&=&4.7\pm 0.3 ~. \ea We now move to the determination of $\bar{\ell}_4$ based on the full two loop relation between $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ and $\bar{\ell}_4$. The expression for $\Delta_r$ can be found in Appendix~C of ref.. $\Delta_r$ is given in terms of one ${\cal O}(p^6)$ $\chi PT$ counterterm, $\widetilde{r}_{S_2}$, and four ${\cal O}(p^4)$ ones. Taking the values of all these parameters, but for $\bar{\ell}_4$, from ref., and solving for $\bar{\ell}_4$, one arrives to \ba \bar{\ell}_4&=&4.5\pm 0.3~. \ea This number is in good agreement with $\bar{\ell}_4=4.4\pm 0.2$ . Ref. also points out that one loop $\chi$PT fits to the S-, P- and D-wave scattering lengths and effective ranges give rise to much larger values for $\bar{\ell}_2$ and $\bar{\ell}_4$ than those of ref.. For more details we refer to . \section{Conclusions} In this paper we have addressed the issue of the discrepancies between the values of the quadratic pion scalar radius of Leutwyler {\it et al.} , $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.61\pm 0.04$~fm$^2$, and Yndur\'ain's papers , $\la r^2\ra=0.75\pm 0.07$~fm$^2$. One of the reasons of interest for having a precise determination of $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ is its contribution of a 10$\xxxpc$ to $a_0^0$ and $a_0^2$, calculated with a precision of $2\xxxpc$ in ref.. The value taken for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ is also important for determining the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ $\chi$PT coupling $\bar{\ell}_4$. From our study it follows that Yndur\'ain's method to calculate $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ , based on an Omn\`es representation of the pion scalar form factor, and that derived by solving the two(three) coupled channel Muskhelishvili-Omn\`es equations , are compatible. It is shown that the reason for the aforementioned discrepancy is the presence of a zero in $\Gamma_\pi(t)$ for those S-wave I=0 $T-$matrices with $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ and elastic below the $K\bar{K}$ threshold, with $s_K=4 m_K^2$. This zero was overlooked in refs., though, if one imposes continuity in the solution obtained under tiny changes of the $\pi\pi$ phase shifts employed, it is necessarily required by the approach followed there. Once this zero is taken into account the same value for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ is obtained irrespectively of whether $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ or $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$. Our final result is $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi= 0.63\pm 0.05$~fm$^2$. The error estimated takes into account experimental uncertainty in the values of $\delta_\pi(s)$, inelasticity effects and present ignorance in the way the phase of the form factor approaches its asymptotic value $\pi$, as predicted from QCD. Employing our value for $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi$ we calculate $\bar{\ell}_4=4.5\pm 0.3$. The values $\la r^2\ra_s^\pi=0.61\pm 0.04$~fm$^2$ and $\bar{\ell}_4=4.5\pm 0.3$ of ref. are then in good agreement with ours. \section*{Acknowledgements} We thank Miguel Albaladejo for providing us numerical results from some unpublished $T-$matrices and Carlos Schat for his collaboration in a parallel research. We also thank F.J. Yndur\'ain for long discussions and B. Anathanarayan, I. Caprini, G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler for a critical reading of a previous version of the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the MEC (Spain) and FEDER (EC) Grants FPA2004-03470 and Fis2006-03438, the Fundaci\'on S\'eneca (Murcia) grant Ref. 02975/PI/05, the European Commission (EC) RTN Network EURIDICE under Contract No. HPRN-CT2002-00311 and the HadronPhysics I3 Project (EC) Contract No RII3-CT-2004-506078. \section*{Appendices} \appendix \section{Coupled channel dynamics} \def\theequation{A.\arabic{equation}} \setcounter{equation}{0} We take $\pi\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$ coupled channels and denote by $F_1$ and $F_2$ their respective I=0 scalar form factors. Unitarity requires, \be \hbox{Im}F_i=\sum_{j=1}^2 F_j \rho_j \theta(t-s'_j) t_{ji}^*~, \ee where $||t_{ij}||$ is the I=0 S-wave $T-$matrix, $s'_i$ is the threshold energy square of channel $i$ and $\rho_i=q_i/8\pi\sqrt{s}$, with $q_i$ its center of mass three momentum. A general solution to the previous equations is given by, \be F=T \,G~,~F=\left(\begin{array}{c} F_1 \\ F_2 \end{array}\right)~,~ G=\left(\begin{array}{c}G_1 \\ G_2\end{array}\right)~, \ee where the functions $G_i(t)$ do not have right hand cut. This equation is interesting as tells us that if pion dynamics dominate, $|G_1|>>|G_2|$, then $F_1\simeq G_1 t_{11}$ and the form factor phase $\phi(s)$ follows $\varphi(s)$. As a result, like $t_{11}$, it has a zero at $s_1$ below the $K\bar{K}$ threshold for $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$, as shown in section . On the other hand, if kaon dynamics dominates, $|G_2|>>|G_1|$, then $F_1\simeq G_2t_{12}$ and $\phi(s)$ follows the phase of $t_{12}$, that above the $K\bar{K}$ threshold is clearly above $\pi$. This is why for the pion strange scalar form factor there is no zero at $s_1\lesssim s_K$ for $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$, indeed there is a maximum like that shown in fig. by the dashed-dotted line. As in section we now proceed to the diagnolization above the $K\bar{K}$ threshold of the renormalized $T-$matrix $T'$, \ba && T'=\rho^{1/2} T \rho^{1/2}~,~ \rho=\left(\begin{array}{c}\rho_1^{1/2} \\ \rho_2^{1/2}\end{array}\right)~,~ \widetilde{T}=C^T T' C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widetilde{t}_{11} & 0 \\ 0 & \widetilde{t}_{22}\end{array}\right)~,\nn\\ &&\widetilde{t}_{11}=\sin \delta_{(+)}e^{i\delta_{(+)}}~,~ \widetilde{t}_{22}=\sin \delta_{(-)}e^{i\delta_{(-)}}~. \ea The corresponding diagonal form factors $F'_1$ and $F'_2$, collected in the vector $F'$, are \ba F'&=&C^T \rho^{1/2} F=\widetilde{T}C^T\rho^{-1/2}G=\left(\begin{array}{ll} \left\{\cos\theta \,\rho_1^{-1/2} G_1-\sin\theta \, \rho^{-1/2}_2 G_2\right\}\widetilde{t}_{11}\\ \left\{\sin\theta\, \rho_1^{-1/2}G_1+\cos \theta\, \rho_2^{-1/2}G_2\right\}\widetilde{t}_{22} \end{array}\right)~. \ea The previous expressions allow to obtaining $F_1$ directly in terms of the eigenphases and with clean separation between pion, $G_1$, and kaon dynamics, $G_2$. From eq.() it follows that, \ba \begin{aligned} F_1=&\left\{\cos^2\theta\,\rho^{-1}G_1-\cos\theta\,\sin \theta\,\rho_2^{-1/2}\rho_1^{-1/2}G_2\right\} \widetilde{t}_{11}\\ +&\left\{\sin^2\theta \,\rho_1^{-1}G_1+\cos\theta\,\sin\theta\,\rho_2^{-1/2}\rho_1^{-1/2}G_2\right\} \widetilde{t}_{22}~. \end{aligned} \ea For $\delta_\pi(s_K)\geq \pi$ typical values, somewhat above the $K\bar{K}$ threshold, are $e^{2 i\delta_{(+)}}\simeq +i$, $e^{2i\delta_{(-)}}\simeq -i$ and $\sin\theta>0$. For dominance of $G_1$ one has $F_1/G_1\simeq \rho_1^{-1}(i+\cos 2\theta)/2$ while for dominance of $G_2$ the result is $F_1/G_2\simeq -\sin\theta\,\cos\theta\,\rho_2^{-1/2}\rho_1^{-1/2}<0$. The factors $G_{1,2}$ do not introduce any change in $\phi(s)$ with respect to its value before the opening of the $K\bar{K}$ threshold since they are smooth functions in $s$.\footnote{Due to the Adler zeroes this is not necessarily case close to the $\pi\pi$ threshold.} In both cases the phase $\phi(s)$ is larger than $\pi$ and $F_1$ follows the upper trend of phases shown in fig. (note that in this case $\widetilde{t}_{11}$ is in the first quadrant though $\delta_\pi>\pi$). Now, doing the same exercise for $\delta_\pi(s_K)<\pi$, one has the typical values $e^{2 i\delta_{(+)}}\simeq -i$, $e^{2i\delta_{(-)}}\simeq +i$ and $\sin\theta<0$. For pion dominance then $F_1/G_1\simeq \rho_1^{-1}(i-\cos2\theta)/2$ and for the kaon one $F_1/G_2\simeq +\sin\theta \cos\theta \rho_2^{-1/2} \rho_1^{-1/2}<0$. Thus, in the former case the phase is $\gtrsim \pi/2$, and follows the lower trend of phases of fig., while in the latter is $\gtrsim \pi$ and follows again the upper trend (this is the case of the strange scalar form factor). The demonstration in section that $\phi(s_K)$ is discontinuous in the limit $\delta_\pi(s_K)\to\pi^-$ by taking $s_1\to s_K^+$, cannot be applied in the case of kaon dominance (e.g. pion strange scalar form factor). From eq.() it follows that, \be F_1(t)\simeq -\cos\theta\sin\theta \rho_2^{-1/2}\rho_1^{-1/2} G_2\left(\widetilde{t}_{11}-\widetilde{t}_{22}\right)~. \ee The point is that $\widetilde{t}_{22}$ for $t\geq s_1$ ($s_1\to s_K^+$) is of size comparable with that of $\widetilde{t}_{11}$ (both tend to zero) and the phase does not follow $\delta_{(+)}$. This is not the case for pion dominance because for $s_1\to s_K^+$ then $\sin^2\theta\to 0$, $F_1(t)\simeq \cos^2\theta \,\rho_1^{-1} G_1 \widetilde{t}_{11}$, eq.(), and $\phi(s)$ follows $\delta_{(+)}$. From eq.() we can also write $|\Gamma'_2/\Gamma'_2|\simeq |\widetilde{t}_{11} \tan\theta/\widetilde{t}_{22}|$ for the case of pion dominance. Since typically $|\widetilde{t}_{11}/\widetilde{t}_{22}|\simeq 1$, as shown above for energies somewhat above the $K\bar{K}$ threshold, then $|\Gamma'_2/\Gamma'_1|\simeq |\tan\theta|<1$. This is why we consider that equating it to 1 in section is a conservative estimate. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{pipiscat} G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B603}, 125 (2001). \bibitem{gl83}J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. {\bf B125}, 325 (1983). \bibitem{cd04}G. Colangelo and S. D\"ur, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C33}, 543 (2004). \bibitem{dgl90} J. F. Donoghue, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B343}, 341 (1990). \bibitem{acgl01}B. Ananthanarayan, G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rep. {\bf 353}, 207 (2001). \bibitem{m00}B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C14}, 111 (2000). \bibitem{gu91}J. Gasser and U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B357}, 90 (1991). \bibitem{ou00}U.~G.~Mei{\ss}ner and J.~A.~Oller, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A679}, 671 (2001). \bibitem{bct98}J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and P. Talavera, JHEP {\bf 9805}, 014 (1998). \bibitem{y04}F. J. Yndur\'ain, Phys. Lett. {\bf B578}, 99 (2004); (E)-$ibid$ {\bf B586}, 439 (2004). \bibitem{y05}F. J. Yndur\'ain, Phys. Lett. {\bf B612}, 245 (2005). \bibitem{y06}F. J. Yndur\'ain, arXiv:hep-ph/0510317. \bibitem{accgl05}B. Ananthanarayan, I. Caprini, G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. {\bf B602}, 218 (2004). \bibitem{ccl}I. Caprini, G. Colangelo and H. Leutwyler, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf A21}, 954 (2006). \bibitem{opj04}M. Jamin, J.A. Oller and A. Pich, JHEP {\bf 0402}, 047 (2004); Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D74}, 074009 (2006). \bibitem{opj00}M. Jamin, J.A. Oller and A. Pich, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 587}, 331 (2000). \bibitem{bt04}J.~Bijnens and P.~Talavera, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B669}, 341 (2003). \bibitem{istra}O. P. Yushchenko {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B581}, 31 (2004). \bibitem{ktev}T.~Alexopoulos {\it et al.} [KTeV Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D70}, 092007 (2004). \bibitem{hyams}B. Hyams {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B64}, 134 (1973). \bibitem{kaminski} R.~Kaminski, L.~Lesniak and K.~Rybicki, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 74}, 79 (1997). \bibitem{paquito} F.~Guerrero and J.~A.~Oller, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B537}, 459 (1999); (E)-$ibid$.\ {\bf B602}, 641 (2001). \bibitem{brodsky} S. J. Brodsky and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. {\bf D22}, 2157 (1980). \bibitem{py03}J. R. Pel\'aez and F. J. Yndur\'ain, Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 074005 (2003); $ibid$ {\bf D71}, 074016 (2005). \bibitem{bnl} S Pislak {\it et al.} [BNL-E865 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 221801; Phys. Rev. {\bf D67}, 072004 (2003). \bibitem{na48} L.~Masetti [NA48/2 Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0610071. \bibitem{grayer} G.~Grayer {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 75} (1974) 189. \bibitem{pdg} W.-M. Yao {\it et al.}, Journal of Physics {\bf G33}, 1 (2006). \bibitem{expipikk}W. Wetzel {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B115}, 208 (1976); V. A. Polychromatos {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D19}, 1317 (1979); D. Cohen {\it et al.} Phys. Rev. {\bf D22}, 2595 (1980); E. Etkin {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D25}, 1786 (1982). \bibitem{npa}J.~A.~Oller and E.~Oset, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 620} (1997) 438 (E)-$ibid$.\ A {\bf 652} (1999) 407]. \bibitem{nd} J.~A.~Oller and E.~Oset, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 074023. \bibitem{ao07}M. Albaladejo and J. A. Oller, forthcoming. Here the $4\pi$ channel is included. \bibitem{mixing} J.~A.~Oller, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf A727}, 353 (2003). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0044
|
Title: Astrophysical gyrokinetics: kinetic and fluid turbulent cascades in
magnetized weakly collisional plasmas
Abstract: We present a theoretical framework for plasma turbulence in astrophysical
plasmas (solar wind, interstellar medium, galaxy clusters, accretion disks).
The key assumptions are that the turbulence is anisotropic with respect to the
mean magnetic field and frequencies are low compared to the ion cyclotron
frequency. The energy injected at the outer scale scale has to be converted
into heat, which ultimately cannot be done without collisions. A KINETIC
CASCADE develops that brings the energy to collisional scales both in space and
velocity. Its nature depends on the physics of plasma fluctuations. In each of
the physically distinct scale ranges, the kinetic problem is systematically
reduced to a more tractable set of equations. In the "inertial range" above the
ion gyroscale, the kinetic cascade splits into a cascade of Alfvenic
fluctuations, which are governed by the RMHD equations at both the collisional
and collisionless scales, and a passive cascade of compressive fluctuations,
which obey a linear kinetic equation along the moving field lines associated
with the Alfvenic component. In the "dissipation range" between the ion and
electron gyroscales, there are again two cascades: the kinetic-Alfven-wave
(KAW) cascade governed by two fluid-like Electron RMHD equations and a passive
phase-space cascade of ion entropy fluctuations. The latter cascade brings the
energy of the inertial-range fluctuations that was damped by collisionless
wave-particle interaction at the ion gyroscale to collisional scales in the
phase space and leads to ion heating. The KAW energy is similarly damped at the
electron gyroscale and converted into electron heat. Kolmogorov-style scaling
relations are derived for these cascades. Astrophysical and space-physical
applications are discussed in detail.
Body: \title{ASTROPHYSICAL GYROKINETICS: KINETIC AND FLUID TURBULENT CASCADES IN MAGNETIZED WEAKLY COLLISIONAL PLASMAS} \author{A.~A.~Schekochihin,\altaffilmark{1,2} S.~C.~Cowley,\altaffilmark{2,3} W.~Dorland,\altaffilmark{4} G.~W.~Hammett,\altaffilmark{5} G.~G.~Howes,\altaffilmark{6} E.~Quataert,\altaffilmark{7} and T.~Tatsuno\altaffilmark{4}} \email{a.schekochihin1@physics.ox.ac.uk} \altaffiltext{1}{Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford~OX1~3NP, UK.} \altaffiltext{2}{Plasma Physics, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London~SW7~2AZ, UK.} \altaffiltext{3}{Euratom/UKAEA Fusion Association, Culham Science Centre, Abington OX14 3DB, UK.} \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD~20742-3511.} \altaffiltext{5}{Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ~08543-0451.} \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA~52242-1479.} \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3411.} \begin{abstract} This paper presents a theoretical framework for understanding plasma turbulence in astrophysical plasmas. It is motivated by observations of electromagnetic and density fluctuations in the solar wind, interstellar medium and galaxy clusters, as well as by models of particle heating in accretion disks. All of these plasmas and many others have turbulent motions at weakly collisional and collisionless scales. The paper focuses on turbulence in a strong mean magnetic field. The key assumptions are that the turbulent fluctuations are small compared to the mean field, spatially anisotropic with respect to it and that their frequency is low compared to the ion cyclotron frequency. The turbulence is assumed to be forced at some system-specific outer scale. The energy injected at this scale has to be dissipated into heat, which ultimately cannot be accomplished without collisions. A {\em kinetic cascade} develops that brings the energy to collisional scales both in space and velocity. The nature of the kinetic cascade in various scale ranges depends on the physics of plasma fluctuations that exist there. There are four special scales that separate physically distinct regimes: the electron and ion gyroscales, the mean free path and the electron diffusion scale. In each of the scale ranges separated by these scales, the fully kinetic problem is systematically reduced to a more physically transparent and computationally tractable system of equations, which are derived in a rigorous way. In the {\em ``inertial range''} above the ion gyroscale, the kinetic cascade separates into two parts: a cascade of Alfv\'enic fluctuations and a passive cascade of density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations. The former are governed by the Reduced Magnetohydrodynamic (RMHD) equations at both the collisional and collisionless scales; the latter obey a linear kinetic equation along the (moving) field lines associated with the Alfv\'enic component (in the collisional limit, these compressive fluctuations become the slow and entropy modes of the conventional MHD). In the {\em ``dissipation range''} below ion gyroscale, there are again two cascades: the kinetic-Alfv\'en-wave (KAW) cascade governed by two fluid-like Electron Reduced Magnetohydrodynamic (ERMHD) equations and a passive cascade of ion entropy fluctuations both in space and velocity. The latter cascade brings the energy of the inertial-range fluctuations that was Landau-damped at the ion gyroscale to collisional scales in the phase space and leads to ion heating. The KAW energy is similarly damped at the electron gyroscale and converted into electron heat. Kolmogorov-style scaling relations are derived for all of these cascades. The relationship between the theoretical models proposed in this paper and astrophysical applications and observations is discussed in detail. \end{abstract} \keywords{ magnetic fields---methods: analytical---MHD---plasmas---turbulence } \section{Introduction} As observations of velocity, density and magnetic fields in astrophysical plasmas probe ever smaller scales, turbulence---i.e., broadband disordered fluctuations usually characterized by power-law energy spectra---emerges as a fundamental and ubiquitous feature. One of the earliest examples of observed turbulence in space was the detection of a Kolmogorov $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum of magnetic fluctuations in the solar wind over a frequency range of about three decades (first reported by \citealt{Matthaeus_Goldstein,Bavassano_etal} and confirmed to a high degree of accuracy by a multitude of subsequent observations, e.g., \citealt{Marsch_Tu_z,Horbury_etal96,Leamon_etal98,Bale_etal}; see \figref{fig_bale}). Another famous example in which the Kolmogorov power law appears to hold is the electron density spectrum in the interstellar medium (ISM)---in this case it emerges from observations by various methods in several scale intervals and, when these are pieced together, the power law famously extends over as many as 12 decades of scales \citep{Armstrong_Cordes_Rickett,Armstrong_Rickett_Spangler,Lazio_etal_review}, a record that has earned it the name of ``the Great Power Law in the Sky.'' Numerous other measurements in space and astrophysical plasmas, from the magnetosphere to galaxy clusters, result in Kolmogorov (or consistent with Kolmogorov) spectra but also show steeper power laws at very small (microphysical) scales (these observations are discussed in more detail in \secref{sec_astro}). Power-law spectra spanning broad bands of scales are symptomatic of the fundamental role of turbulence as a mechanism of transferring energy from the {\em outer scale(s)} (henceforth denoted $\lf$), where the energy is injected to the {\em inner scale(s)}, where it is dissipated. As these scales tend to be widely separated in astrophysical systems, one way for the system to bridge this scale gap is to fill it with fluctuations; the power-law spectra then arise due to scale invariance at the intermediate scales. Besides being one of the more easily measurable characteristics of the multi-scale nature of turbulence, power-law (and, particularly, Kolmogorov) spectra evoke a number of fundamental physical ideas that lie at the heart of the turbulence theory: universality of small-scale physics, energy cascade, locality of interactions, etc. In this paper, we shall revisit and generalize these ideas for the problem of {\em kinetic} plasma turbulence,\footnote{An outline of a Kolmogorov-style approach to kinetic turbulence was given in a recent paper by \citet{SCDHHPQT_crete}. It can be read as a conceptual introduction to the present paper, which is much more detailed and covers a much broader set of topics.} so it is perhaps useful to remind the reader how they emerge in a standard argument that leads to the $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum \citep{K41,Obukhov_K41}. \subsection{Kolmogorov Turbulence} Suppose the average energy per unit time per unit volume that the system dissipates is $\varepsilon$. This energy has to be transferred from some (large) outer scale $\lf$ at which it is injected to some (small) inner scale(s) at which the dissipation occurs (see \secref{sec_scales}). It is assumed that in the range of scales intermediate between the outer and the inner (the {\em inertial range}), the statistical properties of the turbulence are universal (independent of the macrophysics of injection or of the microphysics of dissipation), spatially homogeneous and isotropic and the energy transfer is local in scale space. The flux of kinetic energy through any inertial-range scale $\lambda$ is independent of~$\lambda$: \bea {\ul^2\over\taul}\sim\varepsilon = \const, \eea where the (constant) density of the medium is absorbed into $\varepsilon$, $\ul$ is the typical velocity fluctuation associated with the scale $\lambda$, and $\taul$ is the cascade time.\footnote{This is the version of Kolmogorov's theory due to \citealt{Obukhov_K41}.} Since interactions are assumed local, $\taul$ must be expressed in terms of quantities associated with scale $\lambda$. It is then dimensionally inevitable that $\taul\sim\lambda/\ul$ (the nonlinear interaction time, or turnover time), so we get \bea \ul\sim (\varepsilon\lambda)^{1/3}. \eea This corresponds to a $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum of kinetic energy. \subsection{MHD Turbulence and Critical Balance} That astronomical data appear to point to a ubiquitous nature of what, in its origin, is a dimensional result for the turbulence in a neutral fluid, might appear surprising. Indeed, the astrophysical plasmas in question are highly conducting and support magnetic fields whose energy is at least comparable to the kinetic energy of the motions. Let us consider a situation where the plasma is threaded by a uniform dynamically strong magnetic field $B_0$ (the {\em mean}, or {\em guide, field}; see \secref{sec_two_regimes} for a brief discussion of the validity of this assumption). In the presence of such a field, there is no dimensionally unique way of determining the cascade time $\taul$ because besides the nonlinear interaction time $\lambda/\ul$, there is a second characteristic time associated with the fluctuation of size $\lambda$, namely the Alfv\'en time $\lparl/v_A$, where $v_A$ is the Alfv\'en speed and $\lparl$ is the typical scale of the fluctuation along the magnetic field. The first theories of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence \citep{Iroshnikov,Kraichnan,Dobrowolny_Mangeney_Veltri} calculated $\taul$ by assuming an isotropic cascade ($\lparl\sim\lambda$) of weakly interacting Alfv\'en-wave packets ($\taul\gg\lparl/v_A$) and obtained a $k^{-3/2}$ spectrum. The failure of the observed spectra to conform to this law (see references above) and especially the observational (see references at the end of this subsection) and experimental \citep{Robinson_Rusbridge,Zweben_Menyuk_Taylor} evidence of anisotropy of MHD fluctuations led to the isotropy assumption being discarded \citep{Montgomery_Turner}. \pseudofigureone{fig_bale}{bale.ps}{f1.ps}{Spectra of electric and magnetic fluctuations in the solar wind at 1~AU (see \tabref{tab_scales} for the solar-wind parameters corresponding to this plot). This figure is adapted with permission from Fig.~3 of \citet{Bale_etal} (copyright 2005 by the American Physical Society). We have added the reference slopes for Alfv\'en-wave and kinetic-Alfv\'en-wave turbulence in bold dashed (red) lines and labeled ``KRMHD,'' ``GK ions,'' and ``ERMHD'' the wavenumber intervals where these analytical descriptions are valid (see \secref{sec_GK}, \secref{sec_KRMHD} and \secref{sec_ERMHD}).} The modern form of MHD turbulence theory is commonly associated with the names of \citet[][henceforth, GS]{GS95,GS97}. It can be summarized as follows. Assume that (a) all electromagnetic perturbations are strongly anisotropic, so that their characteristic scales along the mean field are much larger than those across it, $\lparl\gg\lambda$, or, in terms of wavenumbers, $\kpar\ll\kperp$; (b) the interactions between the Alfv\'en-wave packets are strong and the turbulence at sufficiently small scales always arranges itself in such a way that the Alfv\'en timescale and the perpendicular nonlinear interaction timescale are comparable to each other, i.e., \bea \omega\sim\kpar v_A\sim\kperp\uperp, \eea where $\omega$ is the typical frequency of the fluctuations and $\uperp$ is the velocity fluctuation perpendicular to the mean field. Taken scale by scale, this assumption, known as the {\em critical balance}, removes the dimensional ambiguity of the MHD turbulence theory. Thus, the cascade time is $\taul\sim {\lparl/v_A} \sim \lambda/\ul$, whence \bea \ul&\sim&(\eps\lparl/v_A)^{1/2}\sim \(\eps\lambda\)^{1/3},\\ \lparl&\sim&\lo^{1/3}\lambda^{2/3}, \eea where $\lo=v_A^3/\eps$. The scaling relation \exref{GS_scaling} is equivalent to a $\kperp^{-5/3}$ spectrum of kinetic energy, while \eqref{GS_aniso} quantifies the anisotropy by establishing the relationship between the perpendicular and parallel scales. Note that \eqref{GS_scaling} implies that in terms of the parallel wavenumbers, the kinetic-energy spectrum is $\sim\kpar^{-2}$. The above considerations apply to Alfv\'enic fluctuations, i.e., {\em perpendicular} velocities and magnetic-field perturbations from the mean given (at each scale) by $\dBperp\sim\uperp\sqrt{4\pi\rho_0}$, where $\rho_0$ is the mean mass density of the plasma (see \figref{fig_bale} and discussion in \secref{sec_SW_Alfvenic}). Other low-frequency MHD modes---slow waves and the entropy mode---turn out to be passively advected by the Alfv\'enic component of the turbulence \citep[this follows from the anisotropy; see][and \secsdash{sec_sw_fluid}{sec_scalings_passive}, \secref{sec_sw}, and \secref{sec_par_cascade} for further discussion of the compressive fluctuations]{Lithwick_Goldreich}. As we have mentioned above, the anisotropy was, in fact, incorporated into MHD turbulence theory already by \citet{Montgomery_Turner}. However, these authors' view differed from the GS theory in that they thought of MHD turbulence as essentially two dimensional, described by a Kolmogorov-like cascade \citep{Fyfe_Joyce_Montgomery}, with an admixture of Alfv\'en waves having some spectrum in $\kpar$ unrelated to the perpendicular structure of the turbulence (note that \citealt{Higdon}, while adopting a similar view, anticipated the scaling relation \exref{GS_aniso}, but did not seem to consider it to be anything more than the confirmation of an essentially 2D nature of the turbulence). In what we are referring to here as GS turbulence, the 2D and Alfv\'enic fluctuations are not separate components of the turbulence. The turbulence is three dimensional, with correlations parallel and perpendicular to the (local) mean field related at each scale by the critical balance assumption. Indeed, intuitively, we cannot have $\kpar v_A\ll\kperp\uperp$: the turbulence cannot be any more 2D than allowed by the critical balance because fluctuations in any two planes perpendicular to the mean field can only remain correlated if an Alfv\'en wave can propagate between them in less than their perpendicular decorrelation time. In the opposite limit, weakly interacting Alf\'en waves with fixed $\kpar$ and $\omega=\kpar v_A\gg\kperp\uperp$ can be shown to give rise to an energy cascade towards smaller perpendicular scales where the turbulence becomes strong and \eqref{crit_bal} is satisfied \citep{GS97,Galtier_etal,YSN_aw}. Thus, there is a natural tendency towards critical balance in a system containing nonlinearly interacting Alfv\'en waves. We will see in what follows that critical balance may, in fact, be taken as a general physical principle relating parallel scales (associated with linear propagation) and perpendicular scales (associated with nonlinear interaction) in anisotropic plasma turbulence (see \secref{sec_KAW_turb}, \secref{sec_par_with_KAW}, \secref{sec_par_no_KAW}). We emphasize that, the anisotropy of astrophysical plasma turbulence is an observed phenomenon. It is seen most clearly in the spacecraft measurements of the turbulent fluctuations in the solar wind \citep{Belcher_Davis,Matthaeus_Goldstein_Roberts,Bieber_etal,Dasso_etal,Bigazzi_etal,SorrisoValvo_etal,Horbury_etal_review,Horbury_etal_aniso,Osman_Horbury,Hamilton_etal} and in the magnetosheath . In a recent key development, solar-wind data analysis by \citet{Horbury_etal_aniso} approaches quantitative corroboration of the critical balance conjecture by confirming the scaling of the spectrum with the parallel wavenumber $\sim\kpar^{-2}$ that follows from the first scaling relation in \eqref{GS_scaling}. Anisotropy is also observed indirectly in the ISM \citep{Wilkinson_Narayan_Spencer,Trotter_Moran_Rodriguez,Rickett_etal_aniso,DennettThorpe_deBruyn}, including recently in molecular clouds \citep{Heyer_etal}, and, with unambiguous consistency, in numerical simulations of MHD turbulence \citep{Shebalin_Matthaeus_Montgomery,Oughton_Priest_Matthaeus,CV_aniso,Maron_Goldreich,CLV_aniso,Mueller_Biskamp_Grappin}.\footnote{The numerical evidence is much less clear on the scaling of the spectrum. The fact that the spectrum is closer to $\kperp^{-3/2}$ than to $\kperp^{-5/3}$ in numerical simulations \citep{Maron_Goldreich,Mueller_Biskamp_Grappin,Mason_Cattaneo_Boldyrev2,Perez_Boldyrev,Perez_Boldyrev_imb,Beresnyak_Lazarian2} prompted \citet{Boldyrev_spectrum2} to propose a scaling argument that allows an anisotropic Alfv\'enic turbulence with a $\kperp^{-3/2}$ spectrum. His argument is based on the conjecture that the fluctuating velocity and magnetic fields tend to partially align at small scales, an idea that has had considerable numerical support \citep{Maron_Goldreich,Beresnyak_Lazarian1,Beresnyak_Lazarian2,Mason_Cattaneo_Boldyrev,Matthaeus_etal08}. The alignment weakens nonlinear interactions and alters the scalings. Another modification of the GS theory leading to an anisotropic $\kperp^{-3/2}$ spectrum was proposed by \citet{Gogoberidze07}, who assumed that MHD turbulence with a strong mean field is dominated by non-local interactions with the outer scale. However, in both arguments, the basic assumption that the turbulence is strong is retained. This is the main assumption that we make in this paper: the critical balance conjecture~\exref{crit_bal} is used below not as a scaling prescription but in a weaker sense of an ordering assumption, i.e., we simply take the wave propagation terms in the equations to be comparable to the nonlinear terms. It is not hard to show that the results derived in what follows remain valid whether or not the alignment is present. We note that observationally, only in the solar wind does one measure the spectra with sufficient accuracy to state that they are consistent with $\kperp^{-5/3}$ but {\em not} with $\kperp^{-3/2}$ (see \secref{sec_SW_Alfvenic}). } \subsection{MHD Turbulence with and without a Mean Field} In the discussion above, treating MHD turbulence as turbulence of Alfv\'enic fluctuations depended on assuming the presence of a mean (guide) field $B_0$ that is strong compared to the magnetic fluctuations, $\dB/B_0\sim u/v_A \ll1$. We will also need this assumption in the formal developments to follow (see \secref{sec_RMHDordering}, \secref{sec_params}). Is it legitimate to expect that such a spatially regular field will be generically present? \citet{Kraichnan} argued that in a generic situation in which all magnetic fields are produced by the turbulence itself via the dynamo effect, one could assume that the strongest field will be at the outer scale and that this field will play the role of an (approximately) uniform guide field for the Alfv\'en waves in the inertial range. Formally, this amounts to assuming that in the inertial range, \bea {\dB\over B_0}\ll1,\quad\kpar\lf\ll1. \eea It is, however, by no means obvious that this should be true. When a strong mean field is imposed by some external mechanism, the turbulent motions cannot bend it significantly, so only small perturbations are possible and $\dB\ll B_0$. In contrast, without a strong imposed field, the energy density of the magnetic fluctuations is at most comparable to the kinetic-energy density of the plasma motions, which are then sufficiently energetic to randomly tangle the field, so $\dB\gg B_0$. In the weak-mean-field case, the dynamically strong stochastic magnetic field is a result of saturation of the {\em small-scale, or fluctuation, dynamo}---amplification of magnetic field due to random stretching by the turbulent motions \citep[see review by][]{SC_mhdbook}. The definitive theory of this saturated state remains to be discovered. Both physical arguments and numerical evidence \citep{SCTMM_stokes,YRS_exact} suggest that the magnetic field in this case is organized in folded flux sheets (or ribbons). The length of these folds is comparable to the outer scale, while the scale of the field-direction reversals transverse to the fold is determined by the dissipation physics: in MHD with isotropic viscosity and resistivity, it is the resistive scale. In weakly collisional astrophysical plasmas, such a description is not applicable: the field reversal scale is most probably determined by more complicated and as yet poorly understood kinetic plasma effects; below this scale, an Alfv\'enic turbulence of the kind discussed in this paper may exist \citep{SC_dpp05}.} Although Alfv\'en waves propagating along the folds may exist \citep{SCTMM_stokes,SC_mhdbook}, the presence of the small-scale direction reversals means that there is no scale-by-scale equipartition between the velocity and magnetic fields: while the magnetic energy is small-scale dominated due to the direction reversals, for an alternative view. Note also that the numerical evidence cited above pertains to {\em forced} simulations. In {\em decaying} MHD turbulence simulations, the magnetic energy does indeed appear to be at the outer scale \citep{Biskamp_Mueller}, so one might expect an Alfv\'enic cascade deep in the inertial range.} the kinetic energy should be contained primarily at the outer scale, with some scaling law in the inertial range. Thus, at the current level of understanding we have to assume that there are two asymptotic regimes of MHD turbulence: anisotropic Alfv\'enic turbulence with $\dB\ll B_0$ and isotropic MHD turbulence with small-scale field reversals and $\dB\gg B_0$. In this paper, we shall only discuss the first regime. The origin of the mean field may be external (as, e.g., in the solar wind, where it is the field of the Sun) or due to some form of {\em mean-field dynamo} (rather than small-scale dynamo), as usually expected for galaxies \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Shukurov_review}. Note finally that the condition $\dB\ll B_0$ need not be satisfied at the outer scale and in fact is not satisfied in most space or astrophysical plasmas, where more commonly $\dB\sim B_0$ at the outer scale. This, however, is sufficient for the Kraichnan hypothesis to hold and for an Alf\'enic cascade to be set up, so at small scales (in the inertial range and beyond), the assumptions \exref{outer_scale_assumption} are satisfied. \subsection{Kinetic Turbulence} The GS theory of MHD turbulence (\secref{sec_GS}) allows us to make sense of the magnetized turbulence observed in cosmic plasmas exhibiting the same statistical scaling as turbulence in a neutral fluid (although the underlying dynamics are very different in these two cases!). However, there is an aspect of the observed astrophysical turbulence that undermines the applicability of any type of fluid description: in most cases, the inertial range where the Kolmogorov scaling holds extends to scales far below the mean free path deep into the collisionless regime. For example, in the case of the solar wind, the mean free path is close to 1~AU, so all scales are collisionless---an extreme case, which also happens to be the best studied, thanks to the possibility of in situ measurements (see \secref{sec_astro}). The proper way of treating such plasmas is using kinetic theory, not fluid equations. The basis for the application of the MHD fluid description to them has been the following well known result from the linear theory of plasma waves: while the fast, slow and entropy modes are damped at the mean-free-path scale both by collisional viscosity \citep[][see \secref{sec_visc_diss}]{Braginskii} and by collisionless wave--particle interactions \citep[][see \secref{sec_barnes}]{Barnes}, the Alfv\'en waves are only damped at the ion gyroscale. It has, therefore, been assumed that the MHD description, inasmuch as it concerns the Alfv\'en-wave cascade, can be extended to the ion gyroscale, with the understanding that this cascade is decoupled from the damped cascades of the rest of the MHD modes. This approach and its application to the turbulence in the ISM are best explained by \citet{Lithwick_Goldreich}. While the fluid description may be sufficient to understand the Alfv\'enic fluctuations in the inertial range, it is certainly inadequate for everything else: the compressive fluctuations in the inertial range and turbulence in the dissipation range (below the ion gyroscale), where power-law spectra are also detected \citep[e.g.,][see also \figref{fig_bale}]{Denskat_Beinroth_Neubauer,Leamon_etal98,Czaykowska_etal,Smith_etal06,Sahraoui_etal,Alexandrova_sw,Alexandrova_msheath}. The fundamental challenge that a comprehensive theory of astrophysical plasma turbulence must meet is to give the full account of how the turbulent fluctuation energy injected at the outer scale is cascaded to small scales and deposited into particle heat. We shall see (\secsand{sec_en_GK}{sec_heating}) that the familiar concept of an energy cascade can be generalized in the kinetic framework as the {\em kinetic cascade} of a single quantity that we call the {\em generalized energy} \citep[see also][and references therein]{SCDHHPQT_crete}. The small scales developed in the process are small scales both in the position and velocity space. The fundamental reason for this is the low collisionality of the plasma: since heating cannot ultimately be accomplished without collisions, large gradients in phase space are necessary for the collisions to be effective. The idea of a generalized energy cascade in phase space as the engine of kinetic plasma turbulence is the central concept of this paper. In order to understand the physics of the kinetic cascade in various scale ranges, we derive in what follows a hierarchy of simplified, yet rigorous, reduced kinetic, fluid and hybrid descriptions. While the full kinetic theory of turbulence is very difficult to handle either analytically or numerically, the models we derive are much more tractable. For all, the regimes of applicability (scale/parameter ranges, underlying assumptions) are clearly stated. In each of these regimes, the kinetic cascade splits into several channels of energy transfer, some of them familiar (e.g., the Alfv\'enic cascade, \secsand{sec_AW}{sec_AW_coll}), others conceptually new (e.g., the kinetic cascade of collisionless compressive fluctuations, \secref{sec_colless}, or the entropy cascade, \secsdash{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_ent_els}). So as to introduce this theoretical framework in a way that is both analytically systematic and physically intelligible, let us first consider the characteristic scales that are relevant to the problem of astrophysical turbulence (\secref{sec_scales}). The models we derive are previewed in \secref{sec_models}, at the end of which the plan of further developments is given. \subsection{Scales in the Problem} \begin{deluxetable}{llllll} \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{Representative Parameters for Astrophysical Plasmas.} \tablehead{ \coltab{Parameter} & \coltab{Solar\\ wind\\ at\\ 1~AU\tablenotemark{(a)}} & \coltab{Warm\\ionized\\ ISM\tablenotemark{(b)}} & \coltab{Accretion\\ flow~near\\ Sgr~A$^*$\tablenotemark{(c)}} & \coltab{Galaxy\\ clusters\\ (cores)\tablenotemark{(d)}} } \startdata $n_e=n_i$, cm$^{-3}$ & $30$ & $0.5$ & $10^6$ & $6\times10^{-2}$\\ $T_e$, K & $\sim T_i$\tablenotemark{(e)} & $8000$ & $10^{11}$ & $3\times10^7$\\ $T_i$, K & $5\times10^5$ & $8000$ & $\sim10^{12}$\tablenotemark{(f)} & ?\tablenotemark{(e)}\\ $B$, G & $10^{-4}$ & $10^{-6}$ & $30$ & $7\times10^{-6}$\\ $\beta_i$ & $5$ & $14$ & $4$ & $130$\\\\ $\vthi$, km/s & $90$ & $10$ & $10^5$ & $700$\\ $v_A$, km/s & $40$ & $3$ & $7\times10^4$ & $60$\\ $\uo$, km/s\tablenotemark{(f)} & $\sim10$ & $\sim10$ & $\sim10^4$ & $\sim10^2$\\\\ $\lf$, km\tablenotemark{(f)} & $\sim10^5$ & $\sim10^{15}$ & $\sim10^8$ & $\sim10^{17}$\\ $(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}\mfp$, km & $10^{10}$ & $2\times10^8$ & $4\times10^{10}$ & $4\times10^{16}$\\ $\mfp$, km\tablenotemark{(g)} & $3\times10^8$ & $6\times10^6$ & $10^9$ & $10^{15}$\\ $\rho_i$, km & $90$ & $1000$ & 0.4 & $10^4$\\ $\rho_e$, km & $2$ & $30$ & 0.003 & $200$ \enddata \tablenotetext{a}{Values for slow wind (mean flow speed $\Vsw=350$~km/s in this case) measured by Cluster spacecraft and taken from \citet{Bale_etal}, except the value of $T_e$, which they do not report, but which is expected to be of the same order as $T_i$ \citep{Newbury_etal}. Note that the data interval studied by \citet{Bale_etal} is slightly atypical, with $\beta_i$ higher than usual in the solar wind (the full range of $\beta_i$ variation in the solar wind is roughly between $0.1$ and $10$; see \citealt{Howes_etal2} for another, perhaps more typical, fiducial set of slow-wind parameters and Appendix A of the review by \citealt{Bruno_Carbone} for slow- and fast-wind parameters measured by Helios 2). However, we use their parameter values as our representative example because the spectra they report show with particular clarity both the electric and magnetic fluctuations in both the inertial and dissipation ranges (see \figref{fig_bale}). See further discussion in \secsand{sec_SW_ir}{sec_SW_dr}.} \tablenotetext{b}{Typical values \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Norman_Ferrara,Ferriere_review}. See discussion in \secref{sec_ISM}.} \tablenotetext{c}{Values based on observational constraints for the radio-emitting plasma around the Galactic Center (Sgr~A$^*$) as interpreted by \citet{Loeb_Waxman} \citep[see also][]{Quataert_SgrA}. See discussion in \secref{sec_disks}.} \tablenotetext{d}{Values for the core region of the Hydra A cluster taken from \citet{Ensslin_Vogt_cores}; see \citealt{SC_dpp05} for a consistent set of numbers for the hot plasmas outside the cores. See discussion in \secref{sec_clusters}.} \tablenotetext{e}{We assume $T_i\sim T_e$ for these estimates.} \tablenotetext{f}{Rough order-of-magnitude estimate.} \tablenotetext{g}{Defined $\mfp=\vthi/\nui$, where $\nui$ is given by \eqref{nui_def}.} \end{deluxetable} \pseudofigurewide{fig_validity_reduced}{validity_reduced.ps}{f2.ps}{ Partition of the wavenumber space by characteristic scales. The wavenumbers are normalized by $\lo\sim v_A^3/\eps$, where $\eps$ is the total power input (see \secref{sec_GS}). Dotted line shows the path an Alfv\'en-wave cascade starting at the outer scale $\lf\sim\lo$ takes through the wavenumber space. We also show the regions of validity of the three tertiary approximations. They all require $\kpar\ll k_\perp$ (anisotropic fluctuations) and $\kpar\rho_i\ll1$ (i.e., $\kpar\vthi\ll\Omega_i$, low-frequency limit). Reduced MHD (RMHD, \secref{sec_RMHD}) is valid when $\kperp\rho_i \ll \kpar\mfp \ll(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ (strongly magnetized collisional limit, adiabatic electrons). The regions of validity of Kinetic Reduced MHD (KRMHD, \secref{sec_KRMHD}) and Electron Reduced MHD (ERMHD, \secref{sec_ERMHD}) lie within that of the isothermal electron/gyrokinetic ion approximation (\figref{fig_validity_isoth}) with the additional requirement that $\kperp\rho_i\ll\min(1, \kpar\mfp)$ (strongly magnetized ions) for KRMHD or $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$ (unmagnetized ions) for ERMHD. The collisional limit of KRMHD (\secref{sec_visc} and \apref{ap_visc}), $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}\ll\kpar\mfp\ll1$, is similar to RMHD, except electrons are isothermal. The dotted line is the scaling of $\kpar$ vs $\kperp$ from critical balance in both the Alfv\'en-wave [\secref{sec_GS}, \eqref{GS_aniso}] and kinetic-Alfv\'en-wave [\secref{sec_KAW_turb}, \eqref{KAW_aniso_scaling}] regimes.} \subsubsection{Outer Scale} It is a generic feature of turbulent systems that energy is injected via some large-scale mechanism: ``large scale'' here means some scale (or a range of scales) comparable to the size of the system, depending on its global properties, and much larger than the microphysical scales at which energy is dissipated and converted into heat (\secref{sec_microscales}). Examples of large-scale stirring of turbulent fluctuations include the solar activity in the corona (launching Alfv\'en waves to produce turbulence in the solar wind); supernova explosions in the ISM \citep[e.g.,][]{Norman_Ferrara,Ferriere_review}; the magnetorotational instability in accretion disks \citep{Balbus_Hawley_review}; merger events, galaxy wakes and active galactic nuclei in galaxy clusters \citep[e.g.,][]{Subramanian_Shukurov_Haugen,Ensslin_Vogt_cores,Chandran_agns}. Since in this paper we are concerned with the local properties of astrophysical plasmas, let us simply assume that energy injection occurs at some characteristic {\em outer scale} $\lf$. All further considerations will apply to scales that are much smaller than $\lf$ and we will assume that the particular character of the energy injection does not matter at these small scales. In most astrophysical situations, one cannot assume that equilibrium quantities such as density, temperature, mean velocity and mean magnetic field are uniform at the outer scale. However, at scales much smaller than $\lf$, the gradients of the small-scale fluctuating fields are much larger than the outer-scale gradients (although the fluctuation amplitudes are much smaller; for the mean magnetic field, this assumption is discussed in some detail in \secref{sec_two_regimes}), so we may neglect the equilibrium gradients and consider the turbulence to be homogeneous. Specifically, this is a good assumption if $\kpar\lf\gg1$ [\eqref{outer_scale_assumption}], i.e., not only the perpendicular scales but also the much larger parallel ones are still shorter than the outer scale. Note that we cannot generally assume that the outer-scale energy injection is anisotropic, so the anisotropy is also the property of small scales only. \subsubsection{Microscales} There are four microphysical scales that mark the transitions between distinct physical regimes: \paragraph{Electron diffusion scale.} At $\kpar\mfp(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}\gg1$, the electron response is isothermal (\secref{sec_dTe}, \apref{ap_isoth_els}). At $\kpar\mfp(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}\ll1$, it is adiabatic (\secref{sec_isoth_els}, \apref{ap_MHD}).\\ \paragraph{Mean free path.} At $\kpar\mfp\gg1$, the plasma is collisionless. In this regime, wave--particle interactions can damp compressive fluctuations via Barnes damping (\secref{sec_barnes}), so kinetic description becomes essential. At $\kpar\mfp\ll1$, the plasma is collisional and fluid-like (\secref{sec_visc}, \apsand{ap_Brag}{ap_visc}). \paragraph{Ion gyroscale.} At $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$, ions (as well as the electrons) are magnetized and the magnetic field is frozen into the ion flow (the $\vE\times\vB$ velocity field). At $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$, ions can exchange energy with electromagnetic fluctuations via wave--particle interactions (and ion heating eventually occurs via a kinetic ion-entropy cascade, see \secsdash{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_ent_no_KAW}). At $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$, the ions are unmagnetized and have a Boltzmann response (\secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}). Note that the ion inertial scale $d_i= \rho_i/\sqrt{\beta_i}$ is comparable to the ion gyroscale unless the plasma beta $\beta_i=8\pi n_i T_i/B^2$ is very different from unity. In the theories developed below, $d_i$ does not play a special role except in the limit of $T_i\ll T_e$, which is not common in astrophysical plasmas (see further discussion in \secref{sec_transition} and \apref{ap_Hall}). \paragraph{Electron gyroscale.} At $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$, electrons are magnetized and the magnetic field is frozen into the electron flow (\secsref{sec_els}{sec_ERMHD}, \apref{ap_nongyro}). At $\kperp\rho_e\sim1$, the electrons absorb the energy of the electromagnetic fluctuations via wave--particle interactions (leading to electron heating via a kinetic electron-entropy cascade, see \secref{sec_ent_els}).\\ Typical values of these scales and of several other key parameters are given in \tabref{tab_scales}. In \figref{fig_validity_reduced}, we show how the wavenumber space, $(\kperp,\kpar)$, is divided by these scales into several domains, where the physics is different. Further partitioning of the wavenumber space results from comparing $\kperp\rho_i$ and $\kpar\mfp$ ($\kperp\rho_i\ll\kpar\mfp$ is the limit of strong magnetization, see \apref{ap_strongly_mag}) and, most importantly, from comparing parallel and perpendicular wavenumbers. As we explained above, observational and numerical evidence tells us that Alfv\'enic turbulence is anisotropic, $\kpar\ll\kperp$. In \figref{fig_validity_reduced}, we sketch the path the turbulent cascade is expected to take in the wavenumber space (we use the scalings of $\kpar$ with $\kperp$ that follow from the GS argument for the Alfv\'en waves and an analogous argument for the kinetic Alfv\'en waves, reviewed in \secsand{sec_GS}{sec_KAW_turb}, respectively). \subsection{Kinetic and Fluid Models} What is the correct analytical description of the turbulent plasma fluctuations along the (presumed) path of the cascade? As we promised above, it is going to be possible to simplify the full kinetic theory substantially. These simplifications can be obtained in the form of a hierarchy of approximations and as these emerge, specific physical mechanisms that control the turbulent cascade in various physical regimes become more transparent. \paragraph{Gyrokinetics (\secref{sec_GK}).} The starting point for these developments and the primary approximation in the hierarchy is {\em gyrokinetics}, a low-frequency kinetic theory resulting from averaging over the cyclotron motion of the particles. Gyrokinetics is appropriate for the study of subsonic plasma turbulence in virtually all astrophysically relevant parameter ranges \citep{Howes_etal}. For fluctuations at frequencies lower than the ion cyclotron frequency, $\omega\ll\Omega_i$, gyrokinetics can be systematically derived by making use of the following two assumptions, which also underpin the GS theory (\secref{sec_GS}): (a) anisotropy of the turbulence, so $\epsilon\sim \kpar/\kperp$ is used as the small parameter, and (b) strong interactions, i.e., the fluctuation amplitudes are assumed to be such that wave propagation and nonlinear interaction occur on comparable timescales: from \eqref{crit_bal}, $\uperp/v_A\sim\epsilon$. The first of these assumptions implies that fluctuations at Alfv\'enic frequencies satisfy $\omega\sim\kpar v_A\ll\Omega_i$ even when their perpendicular scale is such $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$. This makes gyrokinetics an ideal tool both for analytical theory and for numerical studies of astrophysical plasma turbulence; the numerical approaches are also made attractive by the long experience of gyrokinetic simulations accumulated in the fusion research and by the existence of publicly available gyrokinetic codes \citep{Kotschenreuther_Rewoldt_Tang,Jenko_etal,Candy_Waltz,Chen_Parker}. A concise review of gyrokinetics is provided in \secref{sec_GK} (see \citealt{Howes_etal} for a detailed derivation). The reader is urged to pay particular attention to \secsand{sec_en_GK}{sec_heating}, where the concept of the {\em kinetic cascade} of {\em generalized energy} is introduced and the particle heating in gyrokinetics is discussed (\apref{ap_inv} introduces additional conservation laws that arise in 2D and sometimes also in 3D). This establishes the conceptual framework in which most of the subsequent physical arguments are presented. The region of validity of gyrokinetics is illustrated in \figref{fig_validity_gk}: it covers virtually the entire path of the turbulent cascade, except the largest (outer) scales, where one cannot assume anisotropy. Note that the two-fluid theory, which is the starting point for the MHD theory (see \apref{ap_Brag}), is not a good description at collisionless scales. It is important to mention, however, that the formulation of gyrokinetics that we adopt, while appropriate for treating fluctuations at collisionless scales, does nevertheless require a certain (weak) degree of collisionality (see discussion in \secref{sec_order_coll} and an extended treatment of collisions in gyrokinetics in \apref{ap_coll}). \paragraph{Isothermal Electron Fluid (\secref{sec_els}).} While gyrokinetics constitutes a significant simplification, it is still a fully kinetic description. Further progress towards simpler models is achieved by showing that, for parallel scales smaller than the electron diffusion scale, $\kpar\mfp\gg(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$, and perpendicular scales larger than the electron gyroscale, $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$, the electrons are a magnetized isothermal fluid while ions must be treated (gyro)kinetically. This is the secondary approximation in our hierarchy, derived in \secref{sec_els} via an asymptotic expansion in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ (see also \apref{ap_el_eqns}). The plasma is described by the ion gyrokinetic equation and two fluid-like equations that contain electron dynamics---these are summarized in \secref{sec_els_sum}. The region of validity of this approximation is illustrated in \figref{fig_validity_isoth}: it does not capture the dissipative effects around the electron diffusion scale or the electron heating, but it remains uniformly valid as the cascade passes from collisional to collisionless scales and also as it crosses the ion gyroscale.\\ In order to elucidate the nature of the turbulence above and below the ion gyroscale, we derive two tertiary approximations, one of which is valid for $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ (\secsand{sec_KRMHD}{sec_damping}) and the other for $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$ (\secref{sec_ERMHD}; see also \apref{ap_nongyro}, which gives a non-rigorous, non-gyrokinetic, but perhaps more intuitive, derivation of the results of \secsand{sec_els}{sec_ERMHD_eqns}). \paragraph{Kinetic Reduced MHD (\secsand{sec_KRMHD}{sec_damping}).} On scales above the ion gyroscale, known as the {\em ``inertial range''} we demonstrate that the decoupling of the Alfv\'en-wave cascade and its indifference to both collisional and collisionless damping are explicit and analytically provable properties. We show rigorously that the Alfv\'en-wave cascade is governed by a closed set of two fluid-like equations for the stream and flux functions---the Reduced Magnetohydrodynamics (RMHD)---independently of the collisionality (\secref{sec_AW} and \secref{sec_AW_coll}; the derivation of RMHD from MHD and its properties are presented in \secref{sec_RMHD}). The cascade proceeds via interaction of oppositely propagating wave packets and is decoupled from the density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations (the ``compressive'' modes; in the collisional limit, these are the entropy and slow modes; see \secref{sec_visc} and \apref{ap_visc}). The latter are passively mixed by the Alfv\'en waves, but, unlike in the fluid (collisional) limit, this passive cascade is governed by a (simplified) kinetic equation for the ions (\secref{sec_sw}). Together with RMHD, it forms a hybrid fluid-kinetic description of magnetized turbulence in a weakly collisional plasma, which we call {\em Kinetic Reduced MHD (KRMHD)}. The KRMHD equations are summarized in \secref{sec_KRMHD_sum}. Their collisional and collisionless limits are explored in \secsand{sec_visc}{sec_colless}, respectively. Whereas the Alfv\'en waves are undamped in this approximation, the compressive fluctuations are subject to damping both in the collisional (\citealt{Braginskii} viscous damping, \secref{sec_visc_diss}) and collisionless (\citealt{Barnes} damping, \secref{sec_barnes}) limits. In the collisionless limit, the compressive component of the turbulence is a simple example of an essentially kinetic turbulence, including such features as conservation of generalized energy despite collisionless damping and (parallel) phase mixing, possibly leading to ion heating (\secsdash{sec_inv_compr}{sec_en_compr}). How strongly the compressive fluctuations are damped depends on the parallel scale of these fluctuations. Since the ion kinetic equation turns out to be linear along the moving field lines associated with the Alfv\'en waves, the compressive fluctuations do not, in the absence of finite-gyroradius effects, develop small parallel scales and their cascade may be only weakly damped above the ion gyroscale---this is discussed~in~\secref{sec_par_cascade}. \paragraph{Electron Reduced MHD (\secref{sec_ERMHD}).} At the ion gyroscale, the Alfv\'enic and the compressive cascades are no longer decoupled and their energy is partially damped via collisionless wave--particle interactions (\secref{sec_transition}). This part of the energy is channeled into ion heat. The rest of it is converted into a cascade of kinetic Alfv\'en waves (KAW). This cascade extends through what is known as the {\em ``dissipation range''} to the electron gyroscale, where its turn comes to be damped via wave--particle interaction and transferred into electron heat. The KAW turbulence is again anisotropic with $\kpar\ll\kperp$. It is governed by a pair of fluid-like equations, also derived from gyrokinetics. We call them {\em Electron Reduced MHD (ERMHD)}. In the high-beta limit, they coincide with the reduced (anisotropic) form of the previously known Electron MHD \citep{Kingsep_Chukbar_Yankov}. The ERMHD equations are derived in \secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns} (see also \apref{ap_EMHD}) and the KAW cascade is considered in \secsdash{sec_KAW}{sec_KAW_turb}. The fate of the inertial-range energy collisionlessly damped at the ion gyroscale is investigated in \secsdash{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_superposed}; an analogous consideration for the KAW energy damped at the electron gyroscale is presented in \secref{sec_ent_els}. In these sections, we introduce the notion of the {\em entropy cascade}---a nonlinear phase-mixing process whereby the collisionless damping occurring at the ion and electron gyroscales is made irreversible and particles are heated. This part of the cascade is purely kinetic and its salient feature is the particle distribution functions developing small scales in the gyrokinetic phase space. Note that besides deriving rigorous sets of equations for the dissipation-range turbulence, \secref{sec_ERMHD} also presents a number of Kolmogorov-style scaling predictions---both for the KAW cascade (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}) and for the entropy cascade (\secref{sec_KAW_scalings}, \secref{sec_electrost}, \secref{sec_mag}, \secref{sec_ent_els}). \paragraph{Hall Reduced MHD (\apref{ap_Hall}).} The reduced (anisotropic) form of the popular Hall MHD system can be derived as a special limit of gyrokinetics ($\kperp\rho_i\ll1$, $T_i\ll T_e$, $\beta_i\ll1$). The resulting {\em Hall Reduced MHD (HRMHD)} equations are a convenient model for some purposes because they simultaneously capture the cold-ion, low-beta limits of both the KRMHD and ERMHD systems. However, they are usually not strictly applicable in space and astrophysical plasmas of interest, where ions are rarely cold and $\beta_i$ is not particularly low. The HRMHD equations are derived in \secref{ap_HRMHD}, the kinetic cascade of generalized energy in the Hall limit is discussed in \secref{ap_Hall_en}, and the circumstances under which the ion inertial and ion sound scales become important in theories of plasma turbulence are summarized in \secref{ap_Hall_sum}. Theories of the dissipation-range turbulence based on Hall MHD are briefly discussed in \secref{sec_dr_alt}.\\ The regions of validity of the tertiary approximations---KRMHD and ERMHD---are illustrated in \figref{fig_validity_reduced}. In this figure, we also show the region of validity of the RMHD system derived from the standard compressible MHD equations by assuming anisotropy of the turbulence and strong interactions. This derivation is the fluid analog of the derivation of gyrokinetics. We present it in \secref{sec_RMHD}, before embarking on the gyrokinetics-based path outlined above, in order to make a connection with the conventional MHD treatment and to demonstrate with particular simplicity how the assumption of anisotropy leads to a reduced fluid system in which the decoupling of the cascades of the Alfv\'en waves and of the compressive modes is manifest (\apref{ap_Brag} extends this derivation to \citealt{Braginskii} two-fluid equations in the limit of strong magnetization; it also works out rigorously the transition from the fluid limit to the KRMHD equations). The main formal developments of this paper are contained in \secsdash{sec_GK}{sec_ERMHD}. The outline given above is meant to help the reader navigate these sections. In \secref{sec_astro}, we discuss at some length how our results apply to various astrophysical plasmas with weak collisionality: the solar wind and the magnetosheath, the ISM, accretion disks, and galaxy clusters (\secsand{sec_SW_ir}{sec_SW_dr} can also be read as an overall summary of the paper in light of the evidence available from space-plasma measurements). Finally, in \secref{sec_conc}, we provide a brief epilogue and make a few remarks about future directions of inquiry. \section{Reduced MHD and the Decoupling of Turbulent Cascades} Consider the equations of compressible MHD \bea {d\rho\over dt} &=& -\rho\vdel\cdot\vu,\\ \rho\,{d\vu\over dt} &=& -\vdel\lt(p+{B^2\over8\pi}\rt) + {\vB\cdot\vdel\vB\over4\pi},\\ {ds\over dt} &=& 0,\quad s={p\over\rho^\gamma},\quad \gamma={5\over3},\\ {d\vB\over dt} &=& \vB\cdot\vdel\vu - \vB\vdel\cdot\vu, \eea where $\rho$ is the mass density, $\vu$ velocity, $p$ pressure, $\vB$ magnetic field, $s$ the entropy density, and $d/dt=\dd/\dd t + \vu\cdot\vdel$ (the conditions under which these equations are valid are discussed in \apref{ap_Brag}). Consider a uniform static equilibrium with a straight mean field in the $z$ direction, so \bea \rho = \rho_0 + \drho,\quad p = p_0 + \dpr,\quad \vB = B_0\vz + \dvB, \eea where $\rho_0$, $p_0$, and $B_0$ are constants. In what follows, the subscripts $\parallel$ and $\perp$ will be used to denote the projections of fields, variables and gradients on the mean-field direction $\vz$ and onto the plane $(x,y)$ perpendicular to this direction, respectively. \subsection{RMHD Ordering} As we explained in the Introduction, observational and numerical evidence makes it safe to assume that the turbulence in such a system will be anisotropic with $\kpar\ll\kperp$ (at scales smaller than the outer scale, $\kpar\lf\gg1$; see \secsand{sec_two_regimes}{sec_outer_scale}). Let us, therefore, introduce a small parameter $\epsilon\sim\kpar/\kperp$ and carry out a systematic expansion of \eqsdash{MHD_rho}{MHD_B} in $\epsilon$. In this expansion, the fluctuations are treated as small, but not arbitrarily so: in order to estimate their size, we shall adopt the critical-balance conjecture~\exref{crit_bal}, which is now treated {\em not} as a detailed scaling prescription but as an ordering assumption. This allows us to introduce the following ordering: \bea {\drho\over\rho_0} \sim {\uperp\over v_A} \sim {\upar\over v_A} \sim {\dpr\over p_0} \sim {\dBperp\over B_0} \sim {\dBpar\over B_0} \sim {\kpar\over\kperp} \sim \epsilon, \eea where $v_A=B_0/\sqrt{4\pi\rho_0}$ is the Alfv\'en speed. Note that this means that we order the Mach number \bea M\sim {u\over c_s} \sim {\epsilon\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}, \eea where $c_s=(\gamma p_0/\rho_0)^{1/2}$ is the speed of sound and \bea \beta={8\pi p_0\over B_0^2}={2\over\gamma}{c_s^2\over v_A^2} \eea is the plasma beta, which is ordered to be order unity in the $\epsilon$ expansion (subsidiary limits of high and low $\beta$ can be taken after the $\epsilon$ expansion is done; see \secref{sec_sw_fluid}). In \eqref{RMHD_ordering}, we made two auxiliary ordering assumptions: that the velocity and magnetic-field fluctuations have the character of Alfv\'en and slow waves ($\dBperp/B_0\sim\uperp/v_A$, $\dBpar/B_0\sim\upar/v_A$) and that the relative amplitudes of the Alfv\'en-wave-polarized fluctuations ($\dBperp/B_0$, $\uperp/v_A$), slow-wave-polarized fluctuations ($\dBpar/B_0$, $\upar/v_A$) and density/pressure/entropy fluctuations ($\drho/\rho_0$, $\dpr/p_0$) are all the same order. Strictly speaking, whether this is the case depends on the energy sources that drive the turbulence: as we shall see, if no slow waves (or entropy fluctuations) are launched, none will be present. However, in astrophysical contexts, the outer-scale energy input may be assumed random and, therefore, comparable power is injected into all types of fluctuations. We further assume that the characteristic frequency of the fluctuations is $\omega\sim\kpar v_A$ [\eqref{crit_bal}], meaning that the fast waves, for which $\omega\simeq\kperp(v_A^2+c_s^2)^{1/2}$, are ordered out. This restriction must be justified empirically. Observations of the solar-wind turbulence confirm that it is primarily Alfv\'enic \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Bale_etal} and that its compressive component is substantially pressure-balanced \citep[][see \eqref{MHD_pr_bal} below]{Roberts_prbal,Burlaga_etal_prbal,Marsch_Tu_prbal,Bavassano_etal_prbal}. A weak-turbulence calculation of compressible MHD turbulence in low-beta plasmas \citep{Chandran_fast_waves} suggests that only a small amount of energy is transferred from the fast waves to Alfv\'en waves with large $\kpar$. A similar conclusion emerges from numerical simulations \citep{Cho_Lazarian_low_beta,Cho_Lazarian_mnras}. As the fast waves are also expected to be subject to strong collisionless damping and/or to strong dissipation after they steepen into shocks, we eliminate them from our consideration of the problem and concentrate on low-frequency turbulence. \subsection{Alfv\'en Waves} We start by observing that the Alfv\'en-wave-polarized fluctuations are two-dimensionally solenoidal: since, from \eqref{MHD_rho}, \bea \vdel\cdot\vu = - {d\over dt}{\drho\over\rho_0} = O(\epsilon^2) \eea and $\vdel\cdot\dvB=0$ exactly, separating the $O(\epsilon)$ part of these divergences gives $\vdperp\cdot\vuperp=0$ and $\vdperp\cdot\dvBperp=0$. To lowest order in the $\epsilon$ expansion, we may, therefore, express $\vuperp$ and $\dvBperp$ in terms of scalar stream (flux) functions: \bea \vuperp = \vz\times\vdperp\Phi,\qquad {\dvBperp\over\sqrt{4\pi\rho_0}} = \vz\times\vdperp\Psi. \eea Evolution equations for $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are obtained by substituting the expressions \exref{Phi_Psi_def} into the perpendicular parts of the induction equation~\exref{MHD_B} and the momentum equation~\exref{MHD_u}---of the latter the curl is taken to annihilate the pressure term. Keeping only the terms of the lowest order, $O(\epsilon^2)$, we get \bea {\dd\Psi\over\dd t} + \lt\{\Phi,\Psi\rt\} &=& v_A{\dd\Phi\over\dd z},\\ {\dd\over\dd t}\dperp^2\Phi + \lt\{\Phi,\dperp^2\Phi\rt\} &=& v_A\dpar\dperp^2\Psi + \lt\{\Psi,\dperp^2\Psi\rt\}, \eea where $\lt\{\Phi,\Psi\rt\}=\vz\cdot(\vdperp\Phi\times\vdperp\Psi)$ and we have taken into account that, to lowest order, \bea {d\over dt} &=& {\dd\over\dd t} + \vuperp\cdot\vdperp={\dd\over\dd t} + \lt\{\Phi,\cdots\rt\},\\ \Dpar &=& \dpar + {\dvBperp\over B_0}\cdot\vdperp = \dpar + {1\over v_A}\lt\{\Psi,\cdots\rt\}. \eea Here $\vb=\vB/B_0$ is the unit vector along the perturbed field line. \Eqsdash{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi} are known as the Reduced Magnetohydrodynamics (RMHD). The first derivations of these equations (in the context of fusion plasmas) are due to \citet{Kadomtsev_Pogutse} and to \citet{Strauss76}. These were followed by many systematic derivations and generalizations employing various versions and refinements of the basic expansion, taking into account the non-Alfv\'enic modes (which we will do in \secref{sec_sw_fluid}), and including the effects of spatial gradients of equilibrium fields \citep[e.g.,][]{Strauss77,Montgomery,Hazeltine83,Zank_Matthaeus1,Kinney_McWilliams1,Bhattacharjee_Ng_Spangler,Kruger_Hegna_Callen}. A comparative review of these expansion schemes and their (often close) relationship to ours is outside the scope of this paper. One important point we wish to emphasize is that we do not assume the plasma beta [defined in \eqref{beta_def}] to be either large or small. \Eqsand{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi} form a closed set, meaning that the Alfv\'en-wave cascade decouples from the slow waves and density fluctuations. It is to the turbulence described by \eqsdash{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi} that the GS theory outlined in \secref{sec_GS} applies.\footnote{The Alfv\'en-wave turbulence in the RMHD system has been studied by many authors. Some of the relevant numerical investigations are due to \citet{Kinney_McWilliams2}, \citet{Dmitruk_Gomez_Matthaeus}, \citet{Oughton_Dmitruk_Matthaeus}, \citet{Rappazzo_etal1,Rappazzo_etal2}, \citet{Perez_Boldyrev,Perez_Boldyrev_imb}. Analytical theory has mostly been confined to the weak-turbulence paradigm \citep{Ng_Bhattacharjee1,Ng_Bhattacharjee2,Bhattacharjee_Ng,Galtier_etal02,Lithwick_Goldreich_imb,Galtier_Chandran,Nazarenko}. We note that adopting the critical balance [\eqref{crit_bal}] as an ordering assumption for the expansion in $\kpar/\kperp$ does not preclude one from subsequently attempting a weak-turbulence approach: the latter should simply be treated as a subsidiary expansion. Indeed, implementing the anisotropy assumption on the level of MHD equations rather than simultaneously with the weak-turbulence closure \citep{Galtier_etal} significantly reduces the amount of algebra. One should, however, bear in mind that the weak-turbulence approximation always breaks down at some sufficiently small scale---namely, when $\kperp\sim (v_A/\uo)^2\kpar^2\lf$, where $\lf$ is the outer scale of the turbulence, $\uo$ velocity at the outer scale, and $\kpar$ the parallel wavenumber of the Alfv\'en waves (see \citealt{GS97} or the review by \citealt{SC_mhdbook}). Below this scale, interactions cannot be assumed weak.} In \secref{sec_AW}, we will show that \eqsand{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi} correctly describe inertial-range Alfv\'enic fluctuations even in a collisionless plasma, where the full MHD description [\eqsdash{MHD_rho}{MHD_B}] is not valid. \subsection{Elsasser Fields} The MHD equations~\exsdash{MHD_rho}{MHD_B} in the incompressible limit ($\rho=\const$) acquire a symmetric form if written in terms of the Elsasser fields ${\bf z}^\pm=\vu\pm\dvB/\sqrt{4\pi\rho}$ \citep{Elsasser}. Let us demonstrate how this symmetry manifests itself in the reduced equations derived above. We introduce {\em Elsasser potentials} $\zeta^\pm=\Phi\pm\Psi$, so that ${\bf z}^\pm_\perp=\vz\times\vdperp\zeta^\pm$. For these potentials, \eqsdash{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi} become \bea \nonumber {\dd\over\dd t}\dperp^2\zeta^\pm \mp v_A\dpar\dperp^2\zeta^\pm &=& -{1\over2}\lt(\lt\{\zeta^+,\dperp^2\zeta^-\rt\} + \lt\{\zeta^-,\dperp^2\zeta^+\rt\}\rt.\\ &&\lt.\mp\dperp^2\lt\{\zeta^+,\zeta^-\rt\}\rt).\quad \eea These equations show that the RMHD has a simple set of exact solutions: if $\zeta^-=0$ or $\zeta^+=0$, the nonlinear term vanishes and the other, non-zero, Elsasser potential is simply a fluctuation of arbitrary shape and magnitude propagating along the mean field at the Alfv\'en speed~$v_A$: $\zeta^\pm = f^\pm(x,y,z\mp v_A t)$. These solutions are finite-amplitude Alfv\'en-wave packets of arbitrary shape. Only counterpropagating such solutions can interact and thereby give rise to the Alfv\'en-wave cascade \citep{Kraichnan}. Note that these interactions are conservative in the sense that the ``$+$'' and ``$-$'' waves scatter off each other without exchanging energy. Note that the individual conservation of the ``$+$'' and ``$-$'' waves' energies means that the energy fluxes associated with these waves need not be equal, so instead of a single Kolmogorov flux $\eps$ assumed in the scaling arguments reviewed in \secref{sec_GS}, we could have $\eps^+\neq\eps^-$. The GS theory can be generalized to this case of {\em imbalanced} Alfv\'enic cascades \citep{Lithwick_Goldreich_Sridhar,Beresnyak_Lazarian_imb,Chandran_imb}, but here we will focus on the balanced turbulence, $\eps^+\sim\eps^-$. If one considers the turbulence forced in a physical way (i.e., without forcing the magnetic field, which would break the flux conservation), the resulting cascade would always be balanced. In the real world, imbalanced Alfv\'enic fluxes are measured in the fast solar wind, where the influence of initial conditions in the solar atmosphere is more pronounced, while the slow-wind turbulence is approximately balanced (\citealt{Marsch_Tu_z}; see also reviews by \citealt{Tu_Marsch_review,Bruno_Carbone} and references therein). \subsection{Slow Waves and the Entropy Mode} In order to derive evolution equations for the remaining MHD modes, let us first revisit the perpendicular part of the momentum equation and use \eqref{RMHD_ordering} to order terms in it. In the lowest order, $O(\epsilon)$, we get the pressure balance \bea \vdperp\lt(\dpr + {B_0\dBpar\over 4\pi}\rt) = 0 \quad\Rightarrow\quad {\dpr\over p_0} = -\gamma\,{v_A^2\over c_s^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}. \eea Using \eqref{MHD_pr_bal} and the entropy equation \exref{MHD_p}, we get \bea {d\ds\over dt} = 0,\quad {\ds\over s_0} = {\dpr\over p_0} - \gamma{\drho\over\rho_0} = - \gamma\lt({\drho\over\rho_0} + {v_A^2\over c_s^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt), \eea where $s_0=p_0/\rho_0^\gamma$. Now, substituting \eqref{divu_eq} for $\vdel\cdot\vu$ in the parallel component of the induction equation~\exref{MHD_B}, we get \bea {d\over dt}\lt({\dBpar\over B_0} - {\drho\over\rho_0}\rt) - \Dpar\upar = 0. \eea Combining \eqsand{eq_ds}{eq1}, we obtain \bea {d\over dt}{\drho\over\rho_0} &=& - {1\over 1+ c_s^2/v_A^2}\,\Dpar\upar,\\ {d\over dt}{\dBpar\over B_0} &=& {1\over 1 + v_A^2/c_s^2}\,\Dpar\upar. \eea Finally, we take the parallel component of the momentum equation~\exref{MHD_u} and notice that, due to the pressure balance~\exref{MHD_pr_bal} and to the smallness of the parallel gradients, the pressure term is $O(\epsilon^3)$, while the inertial and tension terms are $O(\epsilon^2)$. Therefore, \bea {d\upar\over dt} = v_A^2\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0}. \eea \Eqsdash{eq_Bpar}{eq_upar} describe the slow-wave-polarized fluctuations, while \eqref{eq_ds} describes the zero-frequency entropy mode, which is decoupled from the slow waves.\footnote{For other expansion schemes leading to reduced sets of equations for these ``compressive'' fluctuations see references in \secref{sec_AW_fluid}. Note that the nature of the density fluctuations described above is distinct from the so called ``pseudosound'' density fluctuations that arise in the ``nearly incompressible'' MHD theories \citep{Montgomery_Brown_Matthaeus,Matthaeus_Brown,Matthaeus_etal91,Zank_Matthaeus2}. The ``pseudosound'' is essentially the density response caused by the nonlinear pressure fluctuations calculated from the incompressibility constraint. The resulting density fluctuations are second order in Mach number and, therefore, order $\epsilon^2$ in our expansion [see \eqref{RMHD_Mach}]. The passive density fluctuations derived in this section are order $\epsilon$ and, therefore, supersede the ``pseudosound'' (see review by \citealt{Tu_Marsch_review} for a discussion of the relevant solar-wind evidence).} The nonlinearity in \eqsdash{eq_Bpar}{eq_upar} enters via the derivatives defined in \eqsdash{dt_def}{dpar_def} and is due solely to interactions with Alfv\'en waves. Thus, both the slow-wave and the entropy-mode cascades occur via passive scattering/mixing by Alfv\'en waves, in the course of which there is no energy exchange between the cascades. Note that in the high-beta limit, $c_s\gg v_A$ [see \eqref{beta_def}], the entropy mode is dominated by density fluctuations [\eqref{eq_ds}, $c_s\gg v_A$], which also decouple from the slow-wave cascade [\eqref{eq_drho}, $c_s\gg v_A$]. and are passively mixed by the Alfv\'en-wave turbulence: \bea {d\drho\over dt}=0. \eea The high-beta limit is equivalent to the incompressible approximation for the slow waves. In \secref{sec_sw}, we will derive a kinetic description for the inertial-range compressive fluctuations (density and magnetic-field strength), which is more generally valid in weakly collisional plasmas and which reduces to \eqsdash{eq_Bpar}{eq_upar} in the collisional limit (see \apref{ap_visc}). While these fluctuations will in general satisfy a kinetic equation, they will remain passive with respect to the Alfv\'en waves. \subsection{Elsasser Fields for the Slow Waves} The original \citet{Elsasser} symmetry was derived for incompressible MHD equations. However, for the ``compressive'' slow-wave fluctuations, we may introduce generalized Elsasser fields: \bea \zpar^\pm = \upar\pm{\dBpar\over\sqrt{4\pi\rho_0}}\lt(1+{v_A^2\over c_s^2}\rt)^{1/2}. \eea Straightforwardly, the evolution equation for these fields~is \bea \nonumber {\dd\zpar^\pm\over\dd t} &\mp& {v_A\over\sqrt{1+v_A^2/c_s^2}}{\dd\zpar^\pm\over\dd z}=\\ \nonumber &-&{1\over2}\lt(1\mp{1\over\sqrt{1+v_A^2/c_s^2}}\rt)\bl\{\zeta^+,\zpar^\pm\br\}\\ &-&{1\over2}\lt(1\pm{1\over\sqrt{1+v_A^2/c_s^2}}\rt)\bl\{\zeta^-,\zpar^\pm\br\}. \eea In the high-beta limit ($v_A\ll c_s$), the generalized Elsasser fields~\exref{zpar_def} become the parallel components of the conventional incompressible Elsasser fields. We see that only in this limit do the slow waves interact exclusively with the counterpropagating Alfv\'en waves, and so only in this limit does setting $\zeta^-=0$ or $\zeta^+=0$ gives rise to finite-amplitude slow-wave-packet solutions $\zpar^\pm = f^\pm(x,y,z\mp v_A t)$ analogous to the finite-amplitude Alfv\'en-wave packets discussed in \secref{sec_elsasser_AW}. $\zeta^\pm=0$ does always enable these finite-amplitude slow-wave solutions. More non-trivially, such finite-amplitude solutions exist in the Lagrangian frame associated with the Alfv\'en waves---this is discussed in detail in \secref{sec_par_cascade}.} For general $\beta$, the phase speed of the slow waves is smaller than that of the Alfv\'en waves and, therefore, Alfv\'en waves can ``catch up'' and interact with the slow waves that travel in the same direction. All of these interactions are of scattering type and involve no exchange of energy. \subsection{Scalings for Passive Fluctuations} The scaling of the passively mixed scalar fields introduced above is slaved to the scaling of the Alfv\'enic fluctuations. Consider for example the entropy mode [\eqref{eq_ds}]. As in Kolmogorov--Obukhov theory (see \secref{sec_K41}), one assumes a local-in-scale-space cascade of scalar variance and a constant flux $\epss$ of this variance. Then, analogously to \eqref{const_flux}, \bea {\vthi^2\over s_0^2}{\dsl^2\over\taul}\sim\epss. \eea Since the cascade time is $\taul^{-1}\sim\vuperp\cdot\vdperp\sim v_A/\lparl\sim\varepsilon/\upl^2$, \bea {\dsl\over s_0}\sim\lt(\epss\over\eps\rt)^{1/2}{\upl\over\vthi}, \eea so the scalar fluctuations have the same scaling as the turbulence that mixes them \citep{Obukhov,Corrsin}. In GS turbulence, the scalar-variance spectrum should, therefore, be $\kperp^{-5/3}$ \citep{Lithwick_Goldreich}. The same argument applies to all passive fields. It is the (presumably) passive electron-density spectrum that provides the main evidence of the $k^{-5/3}$ scaling in the interstellar turbulence \citep[][see further discussion in \secref{sec_el_den_ISM}]{Armstrong_Cordes_Rickett,Armstrong_Rickett_Spangler,Lazio_etal_review}. The explanation of this spectrum in terms of passive mixing of the entropy mode, originally proposed by \citet{Higdon}, was developed on the basis of the GS theory by \citet{Lithwick_Goldreich}. The turbulent cascade of the compressive fluctuations and the relevant solar-wind data is discussed further in \secref{sec_par_cascade}. In particular, it will emerge that the anisotropy of these fluctuations remains a non-trivial issue: is there an analog of the scaling relation~\exref{GS_aniso}? The scaling argument outlined above does not invoke any assumptions about the relationship between the parallel and perpendicular scales of the compressive fluctuations (other than the assumption that they are anisotropic). \citet{Lithwick_Goldreich} argue that the parallel scales of the Alfv\'enic fluctuations will imprint themselves on the passively advected compressive ones, so \eqref{GS_aniso} holds for the latter as well. In \secref{sec_par_cascade}, we examine this conclusion in view of the solar-wind evidence and of the fact that the equations for the compressive modes become linear in the Lagrangian frame associated with the Alfv\'enic turbulence. \subsection{Five RMHD Cascades} Thus, the anisotropy and critical balance~\exref{crit_bal} taken as ordering assumptions lead to a neat decomposition of the MHD turbulent cascade into a decoupled Alfv\'en-wave cascade and cascades of slow waves and entropy fluctuations passively scattered/mixed by the Alfv\'en waves. More precisely, Eqs.~\exref{eq_ds}, \exref{eq_zeta} and \exref{eq_zpar} imply that, for arbitrary $\beta$, there are five conserved quantities:\footnote{Note that magnetic helicity of the perturbed field is not an invariant of RMHD, except in two dimensions (see \apref{ap_hel_RMHD}). In 2D, there is also conservation of the mean square flux, $\intr|\Psi|^2$ (see \apref{ap_Aparsq}).} \bea \Wperp^\pm &=& {1\over2}\intr\rho_0 |\vdperp\zeta^\pm|^2 \qquad {\rm (Alfven~waves),}\\ \Wpar^\pm &=& {1\over2}\intr\rho_0 |\zpar^\pm|^2 \qquad\quad {\rm (slow~waves),}\\ \Ws &=& {1\over2}\intr{\ds^2\over s_0^2} \qquad\qquad\ \,{\rm (entropy~fluctuations).} \eea $\Wperp^+$ and $\Wperp^-$ are always cascaded by interaction with each other, $\Ws$ is passively mixed by $\Wperp^+$ and $\Wperp^-$, $\Wpar^\pm$ are passively scattered by $\Wperp^\mp$ and, unless $\beta\gg1$, also by $\Wperp^\pm$. This is an example of splitting of the overall energy cascade into several channels (recovered as a particular case of the more general kinetic cascade in \apref{ap_en_RMHD})---a concept that will repeatedly arise in the kinetic treatment to follow. The decoupling of the slow- and Alfv\'en-wave cascades in MHD turbulence was studied in some detail and confirmed in direct numerical simulations by \citet[][for $\beta\gg1$]{Maron_Goldreich} and by \citet[][for a range of values of $\beta$]{Cho_Lazarian_low_beta,Cho_Lazarian_mnras}. The derivation given in \secsand{sec_AW_fluid}{sec_sw_fluid} \citep[cf.][]{Lithwick_Goldreich} provides a straightforward theoretical basis for these results, assuming anisotropy of the turbulence (which was also confirmed in these numerical studies). It turns out that the decoupling of the Alfv\'en-wave cascade that we demonstrated above for the anisotropic MHD turbulence is a uniformly valid property of plasma turbulence at both collisional and collisionless scales and that this cascade is correctly described by the RMHD equations \exsdash{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi} all the way down to the ion gyroscale, while the fluctuations of density and magnetic-field strength do not satisfy simple fluid evolution equations anymore and require solving the kinetic equation. In order to prove this, we adopt a kinetic description and apply to it the same ordering (\secref{sec_RMHDordering}) as we used to reduce the MHD equations. The kinetic theory that emerges as a result is called gyrokinetics. \section{Gyrokinetics} The gyrokinetic formalism was first worked out for linear waves by \citet{Rutherford_Frieman} and by \citet{Taylor_Hastie} \cite[see also][]{Catto,Antonsen_Lane,Catto_Tang_Baldwin} and subsequently extended to the nonlinear regime by \citet{Frieman_Chen}. Rigorous derivations of the gyrokinetic equation based on the Hamiltonian formalism were developed by \citet[][electrostatic]{Dubin_etal} and \citet[][electromagnetic]{Hahm_Lee_Brizard}. This approach is reviewed in \citet{Brizard_Hahm_review}. A more pedestrian, but perhaps also more transparent exposition of the gyrokinetics in a straight mean field can be found in \citet{Howes_etal}, who also provide a detailed explanation of the gyrokinetic ordering in the context of astrophysical plasma turbulence and a treatment of the linear waves and damping rates. Here we review only the main points so as to allow the reader to understand the present paper without referring elsewhere. In general, a plasma is completely described by the distribution function $f_s(t,\vr,\vv)$---the probability density for a particle of species~$s$ ($=i,e$) to be found at the spatial position $\vr$ moving with velocity $\vv$. This function obeys the kinetic Vlasov--Landau (or Boltzmann) equation \bea {\dd f_s\over\dd t} + \vv\cdot\vdel f_s + {\qs\over m_s}\(\vE + {\vv\times\vB\over c}\)\cdot{\dd f_s\over\dd\vv} = \({\dd f_s\over\dd t}\)_{\rm c}, \eea where $\qs$ and $m_s$ are the particle's charge and mass, $c$ is the speed of light, and the right-hand side is the collision term (quadratic in $f$). The electric and magnetic fields are \bea \vE = -\vdel\ephi - {1\over c}{\dd\vA\over \dd t},\quad \vB = \vdel\times\vA. \eea The first equality is Faraday's law uncurled, the second the magnetic-field solenoidality condition; we shall use the Coulomb gauge, $\vdel\cdot\vA=0$. The fields satisfy the Poisson and the Amp\`ere--Maxwell equations with the charge and current densities determined by $f_s(t,\vr,\vv)$: \bea \vdel\cdot\vE &=& 4\pi\sum_s \qs n_s = 4\pi\sum_s \qs\int d^3\vv\,f_s,\\ \vdel\times\vB &-& {1\over c}{\dd \vE\over\dd t} = {4\pi\over c}\,\vj = {4\pi\over c}\sum_s \qs \int d^3\vv\,\vv f_s. \eea \pseudofigurewide{fig_validity_gk}{validity_gk.ps}{f3.ps}{ Regions of validity in the wavenumber space of two primary approximations---the two-fluid (\apref{ap_two_fluid}) and gyrokinetic (\secref{sec_GK}). The gyrokinetic theory holds when $\kpar \ll \kperp$ and $\omega \ll \Omega_i$ [when $\kpar \ll \kperp < \rho_i^{-1}$, the second requirement is automatically satisfied for Alfv\'en, slow and entropy modes; see \eqref{omega_order}]. The two-fluid equations hold when $\kpar\mfp \ll 1$ (collisional limit) and $\kperp\rho_i \ll 1$ (magnetized plasma). Note that the gyrokinetic theory holds for all but the very largest (outer) scales, where anisotropy cannot be assumed.} \subsection{Gyrokinetic Ordering and Dimensionless Parameters} As in \secref{sec_RMHD} we set up a static equilibrium with a uniform mean field, $\vB_0=B_0\vz$, $\vE_0=0$, assume that the perturbations will be anisotropic with $\kpar\ll\kperp$ (at scales smaller than the outer scale, $\kpar\lf\gg1$; see \secsand{sec_two_regimes}{sec_outer_scale}), and construct an expansion of the kinetic theory around this equilibrium with respect to the small parameter $\epsilon\sim\kpar/\kperp$. We adopt the ordering expressed by \eqsand{crit_bal}{RMHD_ordering}, i.e., we assume the perturbations to be strongly interacting Alfv\'en waves plus electron density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations. Besides $\epsilon$, several other dimensionless parameters are present, all of which are formally considered to be of order unity in the gyrokinetic expansion: the electron--ion mass ratio $m_e/m_i$, the charge ratio \bea Z={\qi/|\qe|}={\qi/e} \eea (for hydrogen, this is 1, which applies to most astrophysical plasmas of interest to us), the temperature ratio\footnote{It can be shown that equilibrium temperatures change on the timescale $\sim (\epsilon^2\omega)^{-1}$ \citep{Howes_etal}. On the other hand, from standard theory of collisional transport \citep[e.g.,][]{Helander_Sigmar}, the ion and electron temperatures equalize on the timescale $\sim \nuie^{-1}\sim (m_i/m_e)^{1/2}\nui^{-1}$ [see \eqref{nuie_def}]. Therefore, $\tau$ can depart from unity by an amount of order $\epsilon^2(\omega/\nui)(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}$. In our ordering scheme [\eqref{omega_vs_nu}], this is $O(\epsilon^2)$ and, therefore, we should simply set $\tau=1 + O(\epsilon^2)$. However, we shall carry the parameter $\tau$ because other ordering schemes are possible that permit arbitrary values of~$\tau$. These are appropriate to plasmas with very weak collisions. For example, in the solar wind, $\tau$ appears to be order unity but not exactly 1 \citep{Newbury_etal}, while in accretion flows near the black hole, some models predict $\tau\gg1$ (see \secref{sec_disks}). } \bea \tau={T_i/ T_e}, \eea and the plasma (ion) beta \bea \beta_i={\vthi^2\over v_A^2}={8\pi n_iT_i\over B_0^2} = \beta\(1+{Z\over\tau}\)^{-1}, \eea where $\vthi=(2 T_i/m_i)^{1/2}$ is the ion thermal speed and the total $\beta$ was defined in \eqref{beta_def} based on the total pressure $p=n_iT_i + n_eT_e$. We shall occasionally also use the electron beta \bea \beta_e={8\pi n_eT_e\over B_0^2}={Z\over \tau}\,\beta_i. \eea The total beta is $\beta=\beta_i+\beta_e$. \subsubsection{Wavenumbers and Frequencies} As we want our theory to be uniformly valid at all (perpendicular) scales above, at or below the ion gyroscale, we order \bea \kperp\rho_i \sim 1, \eea where $\rho_i=\vthi/\Omega_i$ is the ion gyroradius, $\Omega_i=\qi B_0/cm_i$ the ion cyclotron frequency. Note that \bea \rho_e = {Z\over\sqrt{\tau}}\sqrt{{m_e\over m_i}}\,\rho_i. \eea Assuming Alfv\'enic frequencies implies \bea {\omega\over\Omega_i}\sim{\kpar v_A\over\Omega_i}\sim {\kperp\rho_i\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}\,\epsilon. \eea Thus, gyrokinetics is a low-frequency limit that averages over the timescales associated with the particle gyration. Because we have assumed that the fluctuations are anisotropic and have (by order of magnitude) Alfv\'enic frequencies, we see from \eqref{omega_order} that their frequency remains far below $\Omega_i$ at all scales, including the ion and even electron gyroscale---the gyrokinetics remains valid at all of these scales and the cyclotron-frequency effects are negligible \citep[cf.][]{Quataert_Gruzinov}. \subsubsection{Fluctuations} \Eqref{crit_bal} allows us to order the fluctuations of the scalar potential: on the one hand, we have from \eqref{crit_bal} $\uperp\sim\epsilon v_A$; on the other hand, the plasma mass flow velocity is (to the lowest order) the $\vE\times\vB$ drift velocity of the ions, $\uperp\sim c\Eperp/B_0\sim c\kperp\ephi/B_0$, so \bea {e\ephi\over T_e} \sim {\tau\over Z}{1\over\kperp\rho_i\sqrt{\beta_i}}\,\epsilon. \eea All other fluctuations (magnetic, density, parallel velocity) are ordered according to \eqref{RMHD_ordering}. Note that the ordering of the flow velocity dictated by \eqref{crit_bal} means that we are considering the limit of small Mach numbers: \bea M\sim {u\over\vthi}\sim {\epsilon\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}. \eea This means that the gyrokinetic description in the form used below does not extend to large sonic flows that can be present in many astrophysical systems. It is, in principle, possible to extend the gyrokinetics to systems with sonic flows \citep[e.g., in the toroidal geometry; see][]{Artun_Tang,Sugama_Horton97}. However, we do not follow this route because such flows belong to the same class of non-universal outer-scale features as background density and temperature gradients, system-specific geometry etc.---these can all be ignored at small scales, where the turbulence should be approximately homogeneous and subsonic (as long as $\kpar\lf\gg1$, see discussion in \secref{sec_outer_scale}). \subsubsection{Collisions} Finally, we want our theory to be valid both in the collisional and the collisionless regimes, so we do not assume $\omega$ to be either smaller or larger than the (ion) collision frequency~$\nui$: \bea {\omega\over\nui}\sim {\kpar\mfp\over\sqrt{\beta_i}} \sim 1, \eea where $\mfp=\vthi/\nui$ is the ion mean free path \citep[this ordering can actually be inferred from equating the gyrokinetic entropy production terms to the collisional entropy production; see extended discussion in][]{Howes_etal}. Note that the ordering \exref{omega_vs_nu} holds on the understanding that we have ordered $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ [\eqref{kperp_order}] because the fluctuation frequency can depend on $\kperp\rho_i$ in the dissipation range (see \secref{sec_KAW}). Other collision rates are related to $\nui$ via a set of standard formulae \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Helander_Sigmar}, which will be useful in what follows: \bea \nue &=& Z\nuee = {\tau^{3/2}\over Z^2}\sqrt{m_i\over m_e}\,\nui,\\ \nuie &=& {8\over3\sqrt{\pi}}{\tau^{3/2}\over Z}\sqrt{m_e\over m_i}\,\nui,\\ \nui &=& {\sqrt{2}\pi Z^4 e^4 n_i \ln\Lambda\over m_i^{1/2} T_i^{3/2}}, \eea where $\ln\Lambda$ is the Coulomb logarithm and the numerical factor in the definition of $\nuie$ has been inserted for future notational convenience (see \apref{ap_Brag}). We always define \bea \mfp={\vthi\over\nui},\quad \mfpe={\vthe\over\nue} = \lt({Z\over\tau}\rt)^2\mfp. \eea The ordering of the collision frequency expressed by \eqref{omega_vs_nu} means that collisions, while not dominant as in the fluid description (\apref{ap_Brag}), are still retained in the version of the gyrokinetic theory adopted by us. Their presence is required in order for us to be able to assume that the equilibrium distribution is Maxwellian [\eqref{fs_exp} below] and for the heating and entropy production to be treated correctly (\secsand{sec_en_GK}{sec_heating}). However, our ordering of collisions and of the fluctuation amplitudes (\secref{sec_fluct}) imposes certain limitations: thus, we cannot treat the class of nonlinear phenomena involving particle trapping by parallel-varying fluctuations, non-Maxwellian tails of particle distributions, plasma instabilities arising from the equilibrium pressure anisotropies (mirror, firehose) and their possible nonlinear evolution to large amplitudes (see discussion in \secref{sec_pressure_aniso}).\\ The region of validity of the gyrokinetic approximation in the wavenumber space is illustrated in \figref{fig_validity_gk}---it embraces all of the scales that are expected to be traversed by the anisotropic energy cascade (except the scales close to the outer scale). As we explained above, $m_e/m_i$, $\beta_i$, $\kperp\rho_i$ and $\kpar\mfp$ (or $\omega/\nui$) are assigned order unity in the gyrokinetic expansion. Subsidiary expansions in small $m_e/m_i$ (\secref{sec_els}) and in small or large values of the other three parameters (\secsdash{sec_KRMHD}{sec_ERMHD}) can be carried out at a later stage as long as their values are not so large or small as to interfere with the primary expansion in $\epsilon$. These expansions will yield simpler models of turbulence with more restricted domains of validity than gyrokinetics. \subsection{Gyrokinetic Equation} Given the gyrokinetic ordering introduced above, the expansion of the distribution function up to first order in $\epsilon$ can be written as \bea f_s(t,\vr,\vv) = \fMs(v) - {\qs\ephi(t,\vr)\over\Ts}\fMs(v) + \hs(t,\vR_s,\vperp,\vpar). \eea To zeroth order, it is a Maxwellian:\footnote{The use of isotropic equilibrium is a significant idealization---this is discussed in more detail in \secref{sec_pressure_aniso}.} \bea \fMs(v) = {\ns\over(\pi\vths^2)^{3/2}}\exp\(-{v^2\over\vths^2}\), \quad \vths=\sqrt{2\Ts\over m_s}, \eea with uniform density $\ns$ and temperature $\Ts$ and no mean flow. As will be explained in more detail in \secref{sec_heating}, $\fMs$ has a slow time dependence via the equilibrium temperature, $\Ts = \Ts(\epsilon^2 t)$. This reflects the slow heating of the plasma as the turbulent energy is dissipated. However, $\Ts$ can be treated as a constant with respect to the time dependence of the first-order distribution function (the timescale of the turbulent fluctuations). The first-order part of the distribution function is composed of the Boltzmann response [second term in \eqref{fs_exp}, ordered in \eqref{phi_order}] and the {\em gyrocenter distribution function}~$\hs$. The spatial dependence of the latter is expressed not by the particle position $\vr$ but by the position $\vR_s$ of the particle gyrocenter (or guiding center)---the center of the ring orbit that the particle follows in a strong guide field: \bea \vR_s = \vr + {\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s}. \eea Thus, some of the velocity dependence of the distribution function is subsumed in the $\vR_s$ dependence of $\hs$. Explicitly, $\hs$ depends only on two velocity-space variables: it is customary in the gyrokinetic literature for these to be chosen as the particle energy $\varepsilon_s=m_sv^2/2$ and its first adiabatic invariant $\mu_s=m_s\vperp^2/2B_0$ (both conserved quantities to two lowest orders in the gyrokinetic expansion). However, in a straight uniform guide field $B_0\vz$, the pair $(\vperp,\vpar)$ is a simpler choice, which will mostly be used in what follows (we shall sometimes find an alternative pair, $v$ and $\xi=\vpar/v$, useful, especially where collisions are concerned). It must be constantly kept in mind that derivatives of $\hs$ with respect to the velocity-space variables are taken at constant $\vR_s$, {\em not} at constant $\vr$. The function $\hs$ satisfies {\em the gyrokinetic equation:} \beq {\dd\hs\over\dd t} + \vpar{\dd\hs\over\dd z} + {c\over B_0}\lt\{\avchi,\hs\rt\} = {\qs\fMs\over\Ts}\,{\dd\avchi\over\dd t} + \dtcolls, \eeq where \bea \chi(t,\vr,\vv) = \ephi - {\vpar\Apar\over c} - {\vvperp\cdot\vAperp\over c}, \eea the Poisson brackets are defined in the usual way: \bea \{\avchi,\hs\} = \vz\cdot\({\dd\avchi\over\dd\vR_s}\times{\dd \hs\over\dd\vR_s}\), \eea and the ring average notation is introduced: \bea \<\chi(t,\vr,\vv)\>_{\vR_s} = {1\over2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}d\gktheta\, \chi\(t,\vR_s-{\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s},\vv\), \eea where $\gktheta$ is the angle in the velocity space taken in the plane perpendicular to the guide field $B_0\vz$. Note that, while $\chi$ is a function of $\vr$, its ring average is a function of $\vR_s$. Note also that the ring averages depend on the species index, as does the gyrocenter variable $\vR_s$. \Eqref{GK_eq} is derived by transforming the first-order kinetic equation to the gyrocenter variable~\exref{R_def} and ring averaging the result \cite[see][or the references given at the beginning of \secref{sec_GK}]{Howes_etal}. The ring-averaged collision integral $(\dd\hs/\dd t)_{\rm c}$ is discussed in \apref{ap_coll}. \subsection{Field Equations} To \eqref{GK_eq}, we must append the equations that determine the electromagnetic field, namely, the potentials $\ephi(t,\vr)$ and $\vA(t,\vr)$ that enter the expression for $\chi$ [\eqref{chi_def}]. In the non-relativistic limit ($\vthi\ll c$), these are the plasma quasi-neutrality constraint [which follows from the Poisson equation~\exref{Max_Poisson} to lowest order in $\vthi/c$]: \bea 0 = \sum_s \qs\dn_s = \sum_s \qs\lt[-{\qs\ephi\over\Ts}\ns + \int d^3\vv\<\hs\>_\vr\rt] \eea and the parallel and perpendicular parts of Amp\`ere's law [\eqref{Max_Ampere} to lowest order in $\epsilon$ and in $\vthi/c$]: \bea \dperp^2\Apar &=& - {4\pi\over c}\,\jpar = -{4\pi\over c}\sum_s \qs\int d^3\vv\,\vpar\<\hs\>_\vr,\\ \nonumber \dperp^2\dBpar &=& - {4\pi\over c}\,\vz\cdot\bl(\vdperp\times\vjperp\br)\\ &=& -{4\pi\over c}\,\vz\cdot\lt[\vdperp\times\sum_s \qs \int d^3\vv\<\vvperp\hs\>_\vr\rt], \eea where we have used $\dBpar = \vz\cdot\(\vdperp\times\vAperp\)$ and dropped the displacement current. Since field variables $\ephi$, $\Apar$ and $\dBpar$ are functions of the spatial variable $\vr$, not of the gyrocenter variable $\vR_s$, we had to determine the contribution from the gyrocenter distribution function $\hs$ to the charge distribution at fixed $\vr$ by performing a gyroaveraging operation dual to the ring average defined in \eqref{ring_def}: \beq \<\hs(t,\vR_s,\vperp,\vpar)\>_{\vr} = {1\over2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}d\gktheta\, \hs\(t,\vr+{\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s},\vperp,\vpar\). \eeq In other words, the velocity-space integrals in \eqsdash{quasineut}{Amp_perp} are performed over $\hs$ at constant $\vr$, rather than constant $\vR_s$. If we Fourier transform $\hs$ in $\vR_s$, the gyroaveraging operation takes a simple mathematical form: \bea \nonumber \<\hs\>_\vr &=& \sum_\vk \<e^{i\vk\cdot\vR_s}\>_\vr \hks(t,\vperp,\vpar)\\ \nonumber &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \lt<\exp\(i\vk\cdot{\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s}\)\rt>_\vr \hks(t,\vperp,\vpar) \\ &=&\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}J_0(\kr_s)\hks(t,\vperp,\vpar), \eea where $\kr_s=\kperp\vperp/\Omega_s$ and $J_0$ is a Bessel function that arose from the angle integral in the velocity space. In \eqref{Amp_perp}, an analogous calculation taking into account the angular dependence of $\vvperp$ leads to \beq \dBpar = -{4\pi\over B_0}\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \sum_s\int d^3\vv\,m_s\vperp^2{J_1(\kr_s)\over\kr_s}\,\hks(t,\vperp,\vpar). \eeq Note that \eqref{Amp_perp} [and, therefore, \eqref{dBpar_eq}] is the gyrokinetic equivalent of the perpendicular pressure balance that appeared in \secref{sec_RMHD} [\eqref{MHD_pr_bal}]: \bea \nonumber \dperp^2{B_0\dBpar\over4\pi} = \vdperp\cdot\sum_s {\qs B_0\over c}\int d^3\vv\<{\vz\times\vvperp}\hs\>_\vr \qquad\qquad\quad\\ \nonumber = \vdperp\cdot\sum_s\Omega_s m_s\int d^3\vv\,{\dd\vvperp\over\dd\gktheta}\, \hs\(t,\vr + {\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s},\vperp,\vpar\) \quad\ \ \\ = -\vdperp\vdperp:\sum_s\int d^3\vv\,m_s\<\vvperp\vvperp\,\hs\>_\vr = -\vdperp\vdperp:\delta{\bf P}_\perp,\quad \eea where we have integrated by parts with respect to the gyroangle $\gktheta$ and used $\dd\vvperp/\dd\gktheta = \vz\times\vvperp$, $\dd^2\vvperp/\dd\gktheta^2 = -\vvperp$ \citep[cf.\ the Appendix of ][]{Roach_etal}. Once the fields are determined, they have to be substituted into $\chi$ [\eqref{chi_def}] and the result ring averaged [\eqref{ring_def}]. Again, we emphasize that $\ephi$, $\Apar$ and $\dBpar$ are functions of $\vr$, while $\avchi$ is a function of $\vR_s$. The transformation is accomplished via a calculation analogous to the one that led to \eqsand{int_h}{dBpar_eq}: \bea \avchi &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vR_s}\avchik,\\ \avchik &=& J_0(\kr_s)\(\ephi_\vk - {\vpar\Apark\over c}\) + {\Ts\over \qs}{2\vperp^2\over\vths^2}{J_1(\kr_s)\over\kr_s}{\dBpark\over B_0}. \quad \eea The last equation establishes a correspondence between the Fourier transforms of the fields with respect to $\vr$ and the Fourier transform of $\avchi$ with respect to $\vR_s$. \subsection{Generalized Energy and the Kinetic Cascade} As promised in \secref{sec_kinetic}, the central unifying concept of this paper is now introduced. If we multiply the gyrokinetic equation \exref{GK_eq} by $\Ts\hs/\fMs$ and integrate over the velocities and gyrocenters, we find that the nonlinear term conserves the variance of $\hs$ and \bea \nonumber {d\over dt}\int d^3\vv\intRs{\Ts\hs^2\over2\fMs} = \int d^3\vv\intRs\qs\,{\dd\avchi\over\dd t}\,\hs\\ + \int d^3\vv\intRs{\Ts\hs\over\fMs}\dtcolls.\quad \eea Let us now sum this equation over all species. The first term on the right-hand side is \bea \nonumber &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_s\qs\int d^3\vv\intRs{\dd\avchi\over\dd t}\,\hs\\ \nonumber &=& \int d^3\vr\sum_s\qs\int d^3\vv\lt<{\dd\chi\over\dd t}\,\hs\rt>_\vr\\ \nonumber &=& \int d^3\vr\lt[{\dd\ephi\over\dd t}\sum_s\qs\int d^3\vv\<\hs\>_\vr - {1\over c}{\dd\vA\over\dd t}\cdot\sum_s\qs\int d^3\vv\<\vv\,\hs\>_\vr\rt]\\ &=& {d\over dt}\int d^3\vr\sum_s{\qs^2\ephi^2\ns\over2\Ts} + \intr\vE\cdot\vj, \eea where we have used \eqref{quasineut} and Amp\`ere's law [\eqsdash{Amp_par}{Amp_perp}] to express the integrals of $\hs$. The second term on the right-hand side is the total work done on plasma per unit time. Using Faraday's law [\eqref{E_B_def}] and Amp\`ere's law [\eqref{Max_Ampere}], it can be written~as \bea \intr\vE\cdot\vj = - {d\over dt}\intr{|\dvB|^2\over8\pi} + \Pa, \eea where $\Pa\equiv-\intr\vE\cdot\vja$ is the total power injected into the system by the external energy sources (outer-scale stirring; in terms of the Kolmogorov energy flux $\eps$ used in the scaling arguments in \secref{sec_GS}, $\Pa=Vm_i\ni\eps$, where $V$ is the system volume). Combining \eqsdash{hsq_eq}{power}, we find \citep{Howes_etal} \bea \nonumber {dW\over dt}&\equiv& {d\over dt}\int d^3\vr\lt[\sum_s\(\int d^3\vv\,{\Ts\<\hs^2\>_\vr\over2\fMs} -{\qs^2\ephi^2\ns\over2\Ts}\) + {|\dvB|^2\over8\pi}\rt]\\ &=& \Pa + \sum_s\int d^3\vv \intRs{\Ts\hs\over\fMs}\dtcolls. \eea $W$ is a positive definite quantity---this becomes explicit if we use \eqref{quasineut} to express it in terms of the total perturbed distribution function $\dfs = -\qs\ephi\fMs/\Ts + \hs$ [see \eqref{fs_exp}]: \bea W = \int d^3\vr\lt(\sum_s\int d^3\vv\,{\Ts\dfs^2\over2\fMs} + {|\dvB|^2\over8\pi}\rt). \eea We will refer to $W$ as the {\em generalized energy}. We use this term to emphasize the role of $W$ as the cascaded quantity in gyrokinetic turbulence (see below). This quantity is, in fact, the gyrokinetic version of a collisionless kinetic invariant variously referred to as the {\em generalized grand canonical potential} \citep[see][who points out the fundamental role of this quantity in plasma turbulence simulations]{Hallatschek} or {\em free energy} \citep[e.g.,][]{Fowler,Scott}. The non-magnetic part of $W$ is related to the perturbed entropy of the system \citep[][see discussion in \secref{sec_heating}]{Krommes_Hu,Sugama_etal,Howes_etal,SCDHHPQT_crete}.\footnote{ Note also that a quadratic form involving both the perturbed distribution function and the electromagnetic field appears, in a more general form than \eqref{W_def}, in the formulation of the energy principle for the Kinetic MHD approximation \citep{Kruskal_Oberman,Kulsrud_KO,Kulsrud_Varenna}. Regarding the relationship between Kinetic MHD and gyrokinetics, see footnote .} \Eqref{W_cons} is a conservation law of the generalized energy: $\Pa$ is the source and the second term on the right-hand side, which is negative definite, represents collisional dissipation. This suggests that we might think of kinetic plasma turbulence in terms of the generalized energy $W$ injected by the outer-scale stirring and dissipated by collisions. In order for the dissipation to be important, the collisional term in \eqref{W_cons} has to become comparable to $\Pa$. This can happen in two ways: \begin{enumerate} \item At collisional scales ($\kpar\mfp\sim1$) due to deviations of the perturbed distribution function from a local perturbed Maxwellian (see \secref{sec_visc} and \apref{ap_visc}); \item At collisionless scales ($\kpar\mfp\gg1$) due the development of small scales in the velocity space---large gradients in $\vpar$ (see \secref{sec_par_phase}) or $\vperp$ (which is accompanied by the development of small perpendicular scales in the position space; see \secref{sec_small_scales}). \end{enumerate} Thus, the dissipation is only important at particular (small) scales, which are generally well separated from the outer scale. The generalized energy is transferred from the outer scale to the dissipation scales via a nonlinear cascade. We shall call it {\em the kinetic cascade.} It is analogous to the energy cascade in fluid or MHD turbulence, but a conceptually new feature is present: the small scales at which dissipation happens are small scales both in the velocity and position space. Whereas the large gradients in $\vpar$ are produced by the {\em linear} parallel phase mixing, whose role in the kinetic dissipation processes has been appreciated for some time \citep[][see \secref{sec_par_phase}]{Landau_damping,Hammett_Dorland_Perkins,Krommes_Hu,Krommes_df,Watanabe_Sugama04}, the emergence of large gradients in $\vperp$ is due to an essentially {\em nonlinear} phase mixing mechanism (\secref{sec_small_scales}). At spatial scales smaller than the ion gyroradius, this nonlinear perpendicular phase mixing turns out to be a faster and, therefore, presumably the dominant way of generating small-scale structure in the velocity space. It was anticipated in the development of gyrofluid moment hierarchies by \citet{Dorland_Hammett}. Here we treat it for the first time as a phase-space turbulent cascade: this is done in \secsand{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_ent_no_KAW} \citep[see also][]{SCDHHPQT_crete}. In the sections that follow, we shall derive particular forms of $W$ for various limiting cases of the gyrokinetic theory (\secref{sec_en_els}, \secref{sec_en_KRMHD}, \secref{sec_en_compr}, \secref{sec_en_ERMHD}, \apsand{ap_en_RMHD}{ap_Hall_en}). We shall see that the kinetic cascade of $W$ is, indeed, a direct generalization of the more familiar fluid cascades (such as the RMHD cascades discussed in \secref{sec_RMHD}) and that $W$ contains the energy invariants of the fluid models in the appropriate limits. In these limits, the cascade of the generalized energy will split into several decoupled cascades, as it did in the case of RMHD (\secref{sec_RMHD_cascades}). Whenever one of the physically important scales (\secref{sec_microscales}) is crossed and a change of physical regime occurs, these cascades are mixed back together into the overall kinetic cascade of $W$, which can then be split in a different way as it emerges on the ``opposite side'' of the transition region in the scale space. The conversion of the Alfv\'enic cascade into the KAW cascade and the entropy cascade at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ is the most interesting example of such a transition, discussed in \secref{sec_ERMHD}. The generalized energy appears to be the only quadratic invariant of gyrokinetics in three dimensions; in two dimensions, many other invariants appear (see \apref{ap_inv}). \subsection{Heating and Entropy} In a stationary state, all of the the turbulent power injected by the external stirring is dissipated and thus transferred into heat. Mathematically, this is expressed as a slow increase in the temperature of the Maxwellian equilibrium. In gyrokinetics, the heating timescale is ordered as $\sim (\epsilon^2\omega)^{-1}$. Even though the dissipation of turbulent fluctuations may be occurring ``collisionlessly'' at scales such that $\kpar\mfp\gg1$ (e.g., via wave--particle interaction at the ion gyroscale; \secref{sec_transition}), the resulting heating must ultimately be effected with the help of collisions. This is because heating is an irreversible process and it is a small amount of collisions that make ``collisionless'' damping irreversible. In other words, slow heating of the Maxwellian equilibrium is equivalent to entropy production and Boltzmann's $H$-theorem rigorously requires collisions to make this possible. Indeed, the total entropy of species $s$ is \bea \nonumber S_s&=&-\int d^3\vr\int d^3\vv\,f_s\ln f_s\\ &=& -\int d^3\vr\int d^3\vv\lt(\fMs\ln\fMs + {\dfs^2\over 2\fMs}\rt) + O(\epsilon^3), \eea where we took $\intr\dfs=0$. It is then not hard to show that \beq {3\over2}\,V\ns\,{1\over\Ts}{d\Ts\over dt} = \overline{dS_s\over dt} = -\overline{\int d^3\vv\intRs{\Ts\hs\over\fMs}\dtcolls}, \eeq where the overlines mean averaging over times longer than the characteristic time of the turbulent fluctuations $\sim\omega^{-1}$ but shorter than the typical heating time $\sim(\epsilon^2\omega)^{-1}$ (see \citealt{Howes_etal,SCDHHPQT_crete} for a detailed derivation of this and related results on heating in gyrokinetics; see also earlier discussions of the entropy production in gyrokinetics by \citealt{Krommes_Hu,Krommes_df,Sugama_etal}). We have omitted the term describing the interspecies collisional temperature equalization. Note that both sides of \eqref{avg_heating} are order~$\epsilon^2\omega$. If we now time average \eqref{W_cons} in a similar fashion, the left-hand side vanishes because it is a time derivative of a quantity fluctuating on the timescale $\sim\omega^{-1}$ and we confirm that the right-hand side of \eqref{avg_heating} is simply equal to the average power $\overline{\Pa}$ injected by external stirring. The import of \eqref{avg_heating} is that it tells us that heating can only be effected by collisions, while \eqref{W_cons} implies that the injected power gets to the collisional scales in velocity and position space by means of a kinetic cascade of generalized energy. The first term in the expression for the generalized energy \exref{W_def} is $-\sum_s\Ts\delta S_s$, where $\delta S_s$ is the perturbed entropy [see \eqref{ent_def}]. The second term in \eqref{W_def} is magnetic energy. Collisionless damping of electromagnetic fluctuations can be thought of as a redistribution of the generalized energy, transferring the electromagnetic energy into entropy fluctuations, while the total $W$ is conserved (a simple example of how that happens for collisionless compressive fluctuations in the inertial range is worked out in \secref{sec_inv_compr}). The contribution to the perturbed entropy from the gyrocenter distribution is the integral of $-\hs^2/2\fMs$, whose evolution equation \exref{hsq_eq} can be viewed as the gyrokinetic version of the $H$-theorem. The first term on the right-hand side of this equation represents the wave--particle interaction (collisionless damping). Under time average, it is related to the work done on plasma [\eqref{chi_term}] and hence to the average externally injected power $\overline{\Pa}$ via time-averaged \eqref{power}. Note that \eqref{power} is valid not only in the integral form but also individually for each wavenumber: indeed, using the Fourier-transformed Faraday and Amp\`ere's laws, we have $\vE_\vk\cdot\vj_\vk^* + \vE_\vk^*\cdot\vj_\vk = \vE_\vk\cdot\vjak^* + \vE_\vk^*\cdot\vjak - (1/4\pi){\dd|\dvB_\vk|^2/\dd t}$. In a stationary state, time averaging eliminates the time derivative of the magnetic-fluctuation energy, so $\overline{\vE_\vk\cdot\vj_\vk^* + \vE_\vk^*\cdot\vj_\vk} = 0$ at all $\vk$ except those corresponding to the outer scale, where the external energy injection occurs. This means that below the outer scale, the work done on one species balances the work done on the other. The wave--particle interaction term in the gyrokinetic equation is responsible for this energy exchange.} In a stationary state, this is balanced by the second term in the right-hand side of \eqref{hsq_eq}, which is the collisional-heating, or entropy-production, term that also appears in \eqref{avg_heating}. Thus, the generalized energy channeled by collisionless damping into entropy fluctuations is eventually converted into heat by collisions. The sub-gyroscale entropy cascade, which brings the perturbed distribution function $\hs$ to collisional scales, will be discussed further in \secsand{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_ent_no_KAW} \citep[see also][]{SCDHHPQT_crete}.\\ This concludes a short primer on gyrokinetics necessary (and sufficient) for adequate understanding of what is to follow. Formally, all further analytical derivations in this paper are simply subsidiary expansions of the gyrokinetics in the parameters we listed in \secref{sec_params}: in \secref{sec_els}, we expand in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$, in \secref{sec_KRMHD} in $\kperp\rho_i$ (followed by further subsidiary expansions in large and small $\kpar\mfp$ in \secref{sec_damping}), and in \secref{sec_ERMHD} in $1/\kperp\rho_i$. \section{Isothermal Electron Fluid} In this section, we carry out an expansion of the electron gyrokinetic equation in powers of $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}\simeq0.02$ (for hydrogen plasma). In virtually all cases of interest, this expansion can be done while still considering $\sqrt{\beta_i}$, $\kperp\rho_i$, and $\kpar\mfp$ to be order unity.\footnote{One notable exception is the LAPD device at UCLA, where $\beta\sim10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ (due mostly to the electron pressure because the ions are cold, $\tau\sim0.1$, so $\beta_i\sim\beta_e/10$; see, e.g., \citealt{Morales_etal_LAPD,Carter_etal06}). This interferes with the mass-ratio expansion.} Note that the assumption $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ together with \eqref{rho_ratio} mean that \bea \kperp\rho_e\sim \kperp\rho_i(m_e/m_i)^{1/2} \ll 1, \eea i.e., the expansion in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ means also that we are considering scales larger than the electron gyroradius. The idea of such an expansion of the electron kinetic equation has been utilized many times in plasma physics literature. The mass-ratio expansion of the gyrokinetic equation in a form very similar to what is presented below is found in \citet{Snyder_Hammett}. The primary import of this section will be technical: we shall dispense with the electron gyrokinetic equation and thus prepare the necessary ground for further approximations. The main results are summarized in \secref{sec_els_sum}. A reader who is only interested in following qualitatively the major steps in the derivation may skip to this summary. \subsection{Ordering the Terms in the Kinetic Equation} In view of \eqref{alphae_order}, $\kr_e\ll1$, so we can expand the Bessel functions arising from averaging over the electron ring motion: \bea J_0(\kr_e)=1 - {1\over4}\,{\kr_e^2} + \cdots,\quad {J_1(\kr_e)\over\kr_e}={1\over2}\(1 - {1\over8}\,\kr_e^2 + \cdots\). \eea Keeping only the lowest-order terms of the above expansions in \eqref{avchik_eq} for $\avchie$, then substituting this $\avchie$ and $\qe=-e$ in the electron gyrokinetic equation, we get the following kinetic equation for the electrons, accurate up to and including the first order in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ (or in $\kperp\rho_e$): \bea \nonumber \order{1}{{\dd\he\over\dd t}} + \order{0}{\vpar{\dd\he\over\dd z}} + {c\over B_0}\biggl\{\order{1}{\ephi} - \order{0}{{\vpar\Apar\over c}} - \order{1}{{\Te\over e}{\vperp^2\over\vthe^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}},\he\biggr\}\\ = -{e\fMe\over\Te}{\dd\over\dd t} \biggl(\order{1}{\ephi} - \order{0}{{\vpar\Apar\over c}} - \order{1}{{\Te\over e}{\vperp^2\over\vthe^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}}\biggr) + \order{0}{\dtcolle}. \eea Note that $\ephi$, $\Apar$, $\dBpar$ in \eqref{he_eq} are taken at $\vr=\vR_e$. We have indicated the lowest order to which each of the terms enters if compared with $\vpar\dd\he/\dd z$. In order to obtain these estimates, we have assumed that the physical ordering introduced in \secref{sec_params} holds with respect to the subsidiary expansion in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ as well as for the primary gyrokinetic expansion in $\epsilon$, so we can use \eqsand{crit_bal}{RMHD_ordering} to order terms with respect to $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$. We have also made use of \eqsref{rho_ratio}, \exref{phi_order}, and of the following three relations: \bea {\kpar\vpar\over\omega}&\sim& {\vthe\over v_A}\sim \sqrt{\beta_i\over\tau}\sqrt{m_i\over m_e},\\ {(\vpar/c)\Apar\over\ephi}&\sim& {\vthe\dBperp\over c\kperp\ephi} \sim {1\over\kperp\rho_e}{\Te\over e\ephi}{\dBperp\over B_0} \sim \sqrt{\beta_i\over\tau}\sqrt{m_i\over m_e},\quad\\ {\Te\over e\ephi}{\vperp^2\over\vthe^2}{\dBpar\over B_0} &\sim& {Z\over\tau}\,\kperp\rho_i\sqrt{\beta_i}. \eea The collision term is estimated to be zeroth order because [see \eqsref{omega_vs_nu}, \exref{nue_def}] \bea {\nue\over\omega} \sim {\tau^{3/2}\sqrt{\beta_i}\over Z^2}\sqrt{m_i\over m_e} {1\over\kpar\mfp}. \eea The consequences of other possible orderings of the collision terms are discussed in \secref{sec_els_validity}. We remind the reader that all dimensionless parameters except $\kpar/\kperp\sim\epsilon$ and $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ are held to be order unity. We now let $\he=\hezero + \heone + \dots$ and carry out the expansion to two lowest orders in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$. \subsection{Zeroth Order} To zeroth order, the electron kinetic equation is \bea \vpar\Dpar\hezero = \vpar\,{e\fMe\over c\Te}{\dd\Apar\over\dd t} + \({\dd\hezero\over\dd t}\)_{\rm c}, \eea where we have assembled the terms in the left-hand side to take the form of the derivative of the distribution function along the perturbed magnetic field: \bea \Dpar = \dpar + {\dvBperp\over B_0}\cdot\vdel = \dpar - {1\over B_0}\lt\{\Apar,\cdots\rt\}. \eea We now multiply \eqref{hezero_eq} by $\hezero/\fMe$ and integrate over $\vv$ and $\vr$ (since we are only retaining lowest-order terms, the distinction between $\vr$ and $\vR_e$ does not matter here). Since $\vdel\cdot\vB=0$, the left-hand side vanishes (assuming that all perturbations are either periodic or vanish at the boundaries) and we get \beq \int d^3\vr\int d^3\vv\, {\hezero\over\fMe}\({\dd\hezero\over\dd t}\)_{\rm c} = - {e\ne\over c\Te}\int d^3\vr {\dd\Apar\over\dd t}\,\upare^{(0)} = 0. \eeq The right-hand side of this equation is zero because the electron flow velocity is zero in the zeroth order, $\upare^{(0)} = (1/\ne)\int d^3\vv \vpar\hezero = 0$. This is a consequence of the parallel Amp\'ere's law [\eqref{Amp_par}], which can be written as follows \bea \upare = {c\over4\pi e\ne}\vdperp^2\Apar + \upari, \eea where \bea \upari = \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\intvi \vpar J_0(\kr_i)\hki. \eea The three terms in \eqref{upare_eq} can be estimated as follows \bea {\upare^{(0)}\over v_A} &\sim& {\epsilon\vthe\over v_A} \sim \sqrt{\beta_i\over\tau}\sqrt{m_i\over m_e}\,\epsilon,\\ {\upari\over v_A} &\sim& \epsilon,\\ {c\vdperp^2\Apar\over 4\pi e\ne v_A} &\sim& {\kperp\rho_i\over Z\sqrt{\beta_i}}\,\epsilon, \eea where we have used the fundamental ordering \exref{RMHD_ordering} of the slow waves ($\upari\sim \epsilon v_A$) and Alfv\'en waves ($\dBperp\sim\epsilon B_0$). Thus, the two terms in the right-hand side of \eqref{upare_eq} are one order of $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ smaller than $\upare^{(0)}$, which means that to zeroth order, the parallel Amp\`ere's law is $\upare^{(0)}=0$. The collision operator in \eqref{coll_int_zero} contains electron--electron and electron--ion collisions. To lowest order in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$, the electron--ion collision operator is simply the pitch-angle scattering operator [see \eqref{Cgk_ei} in \apref{ap_coll} and recall that $\upari$ is first order]. Therefore, we may then rewrite \eqref{coll_int_zero} as follows \bea \nonumber &&\int d^3\vr\int d^3\vv\, {\hezero\over\fMe}\,\dC_{ee}[\hezero]\\ &&- \int d^3\vr\int d^3\vv\, {\nuDei(v)\over\fMe}{1-\xi^2\over2} \({\dd\hezero\over\dd\xi}\)^2 = 0. \eea Both terms in this expression are negative definite and must, therefore, vanish individually. This implies that $\hezero$ must be a perturbed Maxwellian distribution with zero mean velocity \citep[this follows from the proof of Boltzmann's H theorem; see, e.g.,][]{Longmire_book}, i.e., the full electron distribution function to zeroth order in the mass-ratio expansion is [see \eqref{fs_exp}]: \bea f_e = \fMe + {e\ephi\over\Te} + \hezero = {n_e\over\(2\pi T_e/m_e\)^{3/2}}\exp\(-{m_e v^2\over2 T_e}\), \eea where $n_e=\ne+\dne$, $T_e=\Te + \dTe$. Expanding around the unperturbed Maxwellian $\fMe$, we get \bea \hezero = \lt[{\dne\over\ne} - {e\ephi\over\Te} + \({v^2\over\vthe^2} - {3\over2}\){\dTe\over\Te}\rt]\fMe, \eea where the fields are taken at $\vr=\vR_e$. Now substitute this solution back into \eqref{hezero_eq}. The collision term vanishes and the remaining equation must be satisfied at all values of $v$. This gives \bea {1\over c}{\dd\Apar\over\dd t} + \Dpar\ephi &=& \Dpar{\Te\over e}{\dne\over\ne},\\ \Dpar{\dTe\over\Te} &=& 0. \eea The collision term is neglected in \eqref{Apar_eq} because, for $\hezero$ given by \eqref{hezero_formula_temp}, it vanishes to zeroth order. \subsection{Flux Conservation} \Eqref{Apar_eq} implies that the magnetic flux is conserved and magnetic-field lines cannot be broken to lowest order in the mass-ratio expansion. Indeed, we may follow \citet{Cowley_thesis} and argue that the left-hand side of \eqref{Apar_eq} is minus the projection of the electric field on the total magnetic field [see \eqref{E_B_def}], so we have \bea \vE\cdot\vb = -\vb\cdot\vdel\({\Te\over e}{\dne\over\ne}\); \eea hence the total electric field is \bea \vE = \(\unity - \vb\vb\)\cdot\(\vE + \vdel{\Te\over e}{\dne\over\ne}\) - \vdel{\Te\over e}{\dne\over\ne} \eea and Faraday's law becomes \bea {\dd\vB\over\dd t} &=& -c\vdel\times\vE = \vdel\times\(\vueff\times\vB\),\\ \vueff &=& {c\over B^2}\(\vE + \vdel{\Te\over e}{\dne\over\ne}\)\times\vB, \eea i.e., the magnetic field lines are frozen into the velocity field $\vueff$. In \apref{ap_el_eqns}, we show that this effective velocity is the part of the electron flow velocity $\vu_e$ perpendicular to the total magnetic field $\vB$ [see \eqref{uperpe_eq}]. The flux conservation is broken in the higher orders of the mass-ratio expansion. In the first order, Ohmic resistivity formally enters in \eqref{Apar_eq} (unless collisions are even weaker than assumed so far; if they are downgraded one order as is done in \secref{sec_weaker_colls}, resistivity enters in the second order). In the second order, the electron inertia and the finiteness of the electron gyroradius also lead to unfreezing of the flux. This can be seen formally by keeping second-order terms in \eqref{he_eq}, multiplying it by $\vpar$ and integrating over velocities. The relative importance of these flux unfreezing mechanisms is evaluated in \secref{sec_unfreezing}. \subsection{Isothermal Electrons} \Eqref{dTe_const} mandates that the perturbed electron temperature must remain constant along the perturbed field lines. Strictly speaking, this does not preclude $\dTe$ varying across the field lines. However, we shall now assume $\dTe=\const$ (has no spatial variation), which is justified, e.g., if the field lines are stochastic. Assuming that no spatially uniform perturbations exist, we may set $\dTe=0$. \Eqref{hezero_formula_temp} then reduces to \bea \hezero = \({\dne\over\ne} - {e\ephi\over\Te}\)\fMe(v), \eea or, using \eqref{fs_exp}, \bea \dfe = {\dne\over\ne}\,\fMe(v). \eea Hence follows the equation of state for isothermal electrons: \bea \dpe = {\Te\dne}. \eea \subsection{First Order} We now integrate \eqref{he_eq} over the velocity space and retain the lowest (first) order terms only. Using \eqref{hezero_formula}, we get \bea \nonumber {\dd\over\dd t}\({\dne\over\ne}-{\dBpar\over B_0}\) + {c\over B_0}\lt\{\ephi,{\dne\over\ne}-{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt\}\qquad\qquad&&\\ +\ {\dd\upare\over\dd z} - {1\over B_0}\lt\{\Apar,\upare\rt\} + {c\Te\over eB_0}\lt\{{\dne\over\ne},{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt\} &=& 0,\qquad \eea where the parallel electron velocity is first order: \bea \upare = \upare^{(1)}={1\over\ne}\int d^3\vv\,\vpar\heone. \eea The velocity-space integral of the collision term does not enter because it is subdominant by at least one factor of $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$: indeed, as shown in \apref{ap_int_coll}, the velocity integration leads to an extra factor of $\kperp^2\rho_e^2$, so that \bea \nonumber {1\over\ne}\int d^3\vv \({\dd\he\over\dd t}\)_{\rm c} &\sim&\nue\kperp^2\rho_e^2\,{\dne\over\ne}\\ &\sim&\sqrt{\tau\,{m_e\over m_i}} \kperp^2\rho_i^2\nui\,{\dne\over\ne}, \eea where we have used \eqsand{rho_ratio}{nue_def}. The collision term is subdominant because of the ordering of the ion collision frequency given by \eqref{omega_vs_nu}. \subsection{Field Equations} Using \eqref{hezero_formula} and $\qi=Ze$, $\ne=Z\ni$, $\Te=\Ti/\tau$, we derive from the quasi-neutrality equation~\exref{quasineut} [see also \eqref{int_h}] \bea {\dne\over\ne} = {\dni\over\ni} = -{Ze\ephi\over\Ti} + \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\intvi J_0(\kr_i)\hki, \eea and, from the perpendicular part of Amp\`ere's law [\eqref{dBpar_eq}, using also \eqref{quasineut2}], \bea \nonumber {\dBpar\over B_0} &=& {\beta_i\over2}\Biggl\{\(1+{Z\over\tau}\){Ze\ephi\over\Ti} -\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\Biggr.\\ &&\times\Biggl.\intvi\lt[{Z\over\tau}\,J_0(\kr_i) + {2\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{J_1(\kr_i)\over\kr_i}\rt]\hki\Biggr\}. \eea The parallel electron velocity, $\upare$, is determined from the parallel part of Amp\`ere's law, \eqref{upare_eq}. The ion distribution function $\hi$ that enters these equations has to be determined by solving the ion gyrokinetic equation: \eqref{GK_eq} with $s=i$. \subsection{Generalized Energy} The generalized energy (\secref{sec_en_GK}) for the case of isothermal electrons is calculated by substituting \eqref{dfe_formula} into~\eqref{W_def}: \beq W = \int d^3\vr\lt(\int d^3\vv\,{\Ti\dfi^2\over2\fMi} + {\ne\Te\over2}{\dne^2\over\ne^2} + {|\dvB|^2\over8\pi}\rt), \eeq where $\dfi=\hi - \lt(Ze\ephi/\Ti\rt)\fMi$ [see \eqref{fs_exp}]. \subsection{Validity of the Mass-Ratio Expansion} \pseudofigurewide{fig_validity_isoth}{validity_isoth.ps}{f4.ps}{ Region of validity in the wavenumber space of the secondary approximation---isothermal electrons and gyrokinetic ions (\secref{sec_els}). It is the region of validity of the gyrokinetic approximation (\figref{fig_validity_gk}) further circumscribed by two conditions: $\kpar\mfp \gg (m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ (isothermal electrons) and $k_\perp\rho_e \ll 1$ (magnetized electrons). The region of validity of the strongly magnetized two-fluid theory (\apref{ap_strongly_mag}) is also shown. It is the same as for the full two-fluid theory plus the additional constraint $\kperp\rho_i\ll\kpar\mfp$. The region of validity of MHD (or one-fluid theory) is the subset of this with $\kpar\mfp\ll(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ (adiabatic electrons).} Let us examine the range of spatial scales in which the equations derived above are valid. In carrying out the expansion in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$, we ordered $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ [\eqref{alphae_order}] and $\kpar\mfp\sim1$ [\eqref{ecoll_order}]. Formally, this means that the perpendicular and parallel wavelengths of the perturbations must not be so small or so large as to interfere with the mass ratio expansion. We now discuss the four conditions that this requirement leads to and whether any of them can be violated without destroying the validity of the equations derived above. \subsubsection{$\kperp\rho_i\ll(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}$.} This is equivalent to demanding that $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$, a condition that was, indeed, essential for the expansion to hold [\eqref{alphae_exp}]. This is not a serious limitation because electrons can be considered well magnetized at virtually all scales of interest for astrophysical applications. However, we do forfeit the detailed information about some important electron physics at $\kperp\rho_e\sim1$: for example such effects as wave damping at the electron gyroscale and the electron heating (although the total amount of the electron heating can be deduced by subtracting the ion heating from the total energy input). The breaking of the flux conservation (resistivity) is also an effect that requires incorporation of the finite electron gyroscale physics. \subsubsection{$\kperp\rho_i\gg(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$.} If this condition is broken, the small-$\kperp\rho_i$ expansion, carried out in \secref{sec_KRMHD}, must, formally speaking, precede the mass-ratio expansion. However, it turns out that the small-$\kperp\rho_i$ expansion commutes with the mass-ratio expansion \citep[][see also footnote~]{SCD_kiev}, so we may use the equations derived in \secsdash{sec_els_zero}{sec_els_fields} when $\kperp\rho_i\lesssim(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$. \subsubsection{$\kpar\mfp\ll(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}$.} Let us consider what happens if this condition is broken and $\kpar\mfp\gtrsim(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}$. In this case, the collisions become even weaker and the expansion procedure must be modified. Namely, the collision term picks up one extra order of $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$, so it is first order in \eqref{he_eq}. To zeroth order, the electron kinetic equation no longer contains collisions: instead of \eqref{hezero_eq}, we have \bea \vpar\Dpar\hezero = \vpar\,{e\fMe\over c\Te}{\dd\Apar\over\dd t}. \eea We may seek the solution of this equation in the form $\hezero=H(t,\vR_e)\fMe + \tH$, where $H(t,\vR_e)$ is an unknown function to be determined and $\tH$ is the homogeneous solution satisfying \bea \Dpar\tH = 0, \eea i.e., $\tH$ must be constant along the perturbed magnetic field. This is a generalization of \eqref{dTe_const}. Again assuming stochastic field lines, we conclude that $\tH$ is independent of space. If we rule out spatially uniform perturbations, we may set $\tH=0$. The unknown function $H(t,\vR_e)$ is readily expressed in terms of $\dne$ and $\ephi$: \bea {\dne\over\ne} = {e\ephi\over\Te} + {1\over\ne}\int d^3\vv\hezero \quad\Rightarrow\quad H = {\dne\over\ne} - {e\ephi\over\Te}, \eea so $\hezero$ is again given by \eqref{hezero_formula}, so the equations derived in \secsdash{sec_els_zero}{sec_els_fields} are unaltered. Thus, the mass-ratio expansion remains valid at $\kpar\mfp\gtrsim(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}$. \subsubsection{$\kpar\mfp\gg(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$.} If the parallel wavelength of the fluctuations is so long that this is violated, $\kpar\mfp\lesssim(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$, the collision term in \eqref{he_eq} is minus first order. This is the lowest-order term in the equation. Setting it to zero obliges $\hezero$ to be a perturbed Maxwellian again given by \eqref{hezero_formula_temp}. Instead of \eqref{hezero_eq}, the zeroth-order kinetic equation is \bea \vpar\Dpar\hezero = \vpar\,{e\fMe\over c\Te}{\dd\Apar\over\dd t} + \({\dd\heone\over\dd t}\)_{\rm c}. \eea Now the collision term in this order contains $\heone$, which can be determined from \eqref{heone_eq} by inverting the collision operator. This sets up a perturbation theory that in due course leads to the Reduced MHD version of the general MHD equations---this is what was considered in \secref{sec_RMHD}. \Eqref{dTe_const} no longer needs to hold, so the electrons are not isothermal. In this true one-fluid limit, both electrons and ions are adiabatic with equal temperatures [see \eqref{equal_temperatures} below]. The collisional transport terms in this limit (parallel and perpendicular resistivity, viscosity, heat fluxes, etc.) were calculated [starting not from gyrokinetics but from the general Vlasov--Landau equation \exref{Vlasov_eq}] in exhaustive detail by \citet{Braginskii}. His results and the way RMHD emerges from them are reviewed in \apref{ap_Brag}. In physical terms, the electrons can no longer be isothermal if the parallel electron diffusion time becomes longer than the characteristic time of the fluctuations (the Alfv\'en time): \beq {1\over\vthe\mfp\kpar^2} \gtrsim {1\over\kpar v_A} \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad \kpar\mfp \lesssim {1\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}\sqrt{m_e\over m_i}. \eeq Furthermore, under a similar condition, electron and ion temperatures must equalize: this happens if the ion--electron collision time is shorter than the Alfv\'en time, \bea {1\over\nuie}\lesssim {1\over\kpar v_A} \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad \kpar\mfp \lesssim \sqrt{\beta_i}\sqrt{m_e\over m_i}\quad \eea (see \citealt{Lithwick_Goldreich} for a discussion of these conditions in application to the ISM). \subsection{Summary} The original gyrokinetic description introduced in \secref{sec_GK} was a system of two kinetic equations [\eqref{GK_eq}] that evolved the electron and ion distribution functions $\he$, $\hi$ and three field equations [\eqsdash{quasineut}{Amp_perp}] that related $\ephi$, $\Apar$ and $\dBpar$ to $\he$ and $\hi$. In this section, we have taken advantage of the smallness of the electron mass to treat the electrons as an isothermal magnetized fluid, while ions remained fully gyrokinetic. In mathematical terms, we solved the electron kinetic equation and replaced the gyrokinetics with a simpler closed system of equations that evolve 6 unknown functions: $\ephi$, $\Apar$, $\dBpar$, $\dne$, $\upare$ and $\hi$. These satisfy two fluid-like evolution equations~\exsand{Apar_eq}{dne_eq}, three integral relations~\exref{quasineut2}, \exref{dBpar_eq2}, and \exref{upare_eq} which involve $\hi$, and the kinetic equation~\exref{GK_eq} for $\hi$. The system is simpler because the full electron distribution function has been replaced by two scalar fields $\dne$ and $\upare$. We now summarize this new system of equations: denoting $\kr_i={\kperp\vperp/\Omega_i}$, we have \bea {1\over c}{\dd\Apar\over\dd t} + \Dpar\ephi &=& \Dpar{\Te\over e}{\dne\over\ne},\\ {d\over d t}\({\dne\over\ne}-{\dBpar\over B_0}\) +\Dpar\upare &=& -{c\Te\over eB_0}\lt\{{\dne\over\ne},{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt\}, \eea \bea {\dne\over\ne} &=& -{Ze\ephi\over\Ti} + \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\intvi J_0(\kr_i)\hki,\\ \upare &=& {c\over4\pi e\ne}\vdperp^2\Apar + \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\intvi \vpar J_0(\kr_i)\hki,\quad\\ \nonumber {\dBpar\over B_0} &=& {\beta_i\over2}\Biggl\{\(1+{Z\over\tau}\){Ze\ephi\over\Ti} -\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\Biggr.\\ &&\times\Biggl.\intvi\lt[{Z\over\tau}\,J_0(\kr_i) + {2\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{J_1(\kr_i)\over\kr_i}\rt]\hki\Biggr\}, \eea and \eqref{GK_eq} for $s=i$ and ion--ion collisions only: \beq {\dd\hi\over\dd t} + \vpar{\dd\hi\over\dd z} + {c\over B_0}\lt\{\avchii,\hi\rt\} = {Ze\over\Ti}{\dd\avchii\over\dd t}\,\fMi + \lt<\dC_{ii}[\hi]\rt>_{\vR_i}, \eeq where $\lt<\dC_{ii}[\dots]\rt>_{\vR_i}$ is the gyrokinetic ion--ion collision operator (see \apref{ap_coll}) and the ion--electron collisions have been neglected to lowest order in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ [see \eqref{nuie_def}]. Note that \eqsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{dne_eq_sum} have been written in a compact form, where \bea {d\over dt} = {\dd\over\dd t} + \vu_E\cdot\vdel = {\dd\over\dd t} + {c\over B_0}\lt\{\ephi,\cdots\rt\} \eea is the convective derivative with respect to the $\vE\times\vB$ drift velocity, $\vu_E=-c{\vdperp\ephi\times\vz/B_0}$, and \bea \Dpar = \dpar + {\dvBperp\over B_0}\cdot\vdel = \dpar - {1\over B_0}\lt\{\Apar,\cdots\rt\} \eea is the gradient along the total magnetic field (mean field plus perturbation). The generalized energy conserved by \eqsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{GK_ions_sum} is given by \eqref{W_els}. It is worth observing that the left-hand side of \eqref{Apar_eq_sum} is simply minus the component of the electric field along the total magnetic field [see \eqref{E_B_def}]. This was used in \secref{sec_flux} to prove that the magnetic flux described by \eqref{Apar_eq_sum} is exactly conserved (see \secref{sec_unfreezing} for a discussion of scales at which this conservation is broken). \Eqref{Apar_eq_sum} is the projection of the generalized Ohm's law onto the total magnetic field---the right-hand side of this equation is the so-called thermoelectric term. This is discussed in more detail in \apref{ap_el_eqns}, where we also show that \eqref{dne_eq_sum} is the parallel part of Faraday's law and give a qualitative non-gyrokinetic derivation of \eqsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{dne_eq_sum}. We will refer to \eqsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{GK_ions_sum} as {\em the equations of isothermal electron fluid.} They are valid in a broad range of scales: the only constraints are that $\kpar\ll\kperp$ (gyrokinetic ordering, \secref{sec_params}), $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$ (electrons are magnetized, \secref{sec_mag_els}) and $\kpar\mfp\gg(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ (electrons are isothermal, \secref{sec_isoth_els}). The region of validity of \eqsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{GK_ions_sum} in the wavenumber space is illustrated in \figref{fig_validity_isoth}. A particular advantage of this hybrid fluid-kinetic system is that it is uniformly valid across the transition from magnetized to unmagnetized ions (i.e., from $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ to $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$). \section{Turbulence in the Inertial Range: Kinetic RMHD} Our goal in this section is to derive a reduced set of equations that describe the magnetized plasma in the limit of small $\kperp\rho_i$. Before we proceed with an expansion in $\kperp\rho_i$, we need to make a formal technical step, the usefulness of which will become clear shortly. A reader with no patience for this or any of the subsequent technical developments may skip to the summary at the end of this section (\secref{sec_KRMHD_sum}). \subsection{A Technical Step} Let us formally split the ion gyrocenter distribution function into two parts: \bea \nonumber \hi &=& {Ze\over\Ti}\lt\<\ephi-{\vvperp\cdot\vAperp\over c}\rt\>_{\vR_i}\fMi + \gi\\ &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vR_i}\lt[J_0(\kr_i){Ze\ephi_\vk\over \Ti} + {2\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{J_1(\kr_i)\over\kr_i}{\dBpark\over B_0}\rt]\fMi + \gi.\quad\ \eea Then $\gi$ satisfies the following equation, obtained by substituting \eqref{g_ansatz} and the expression for $\dd\Apar/\dd t$ that follows from \eqref{Apar_eq_sum} into the ion gyrokinetic equation~\exref{GK_ions_sum}: \bea \nonumber \order{0}{{\dd\gi\over\dd t} + \vpar{\dd\gi\over\dd z} + {c\over B_0}\lt\{\avchii,\gi\rt\} - \lt<\dC_{ii}[\gi]\rt>_{\vR_i}} = \\ \nonumber -{Ze\over\Ti}\,\vpar\lt\<\order{1}{{1\over B_0}\lt\{\Apar,\ephi-\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i}\rt\}}\rt.\\ \nonumber + \lt. \order{0}{\Dpar\({\Te\over e}{\dne\over\ne}- \lt\<{\vvperp\cdot\vAperp\over c}\rt\>_{\vR_i}\)} \rt\>{\vphantom{\Biggr>}}_{\vR_i}\,\fMi\\ + {Ze\over\Ti}\lt<\dC_{ii}\biggl[\biggl\<\order{1}{\ephi} -\order{0}{{\vvperp\cdot\vAperp\over c}}\biggr\>{\vphantom{\biggr>}}_{\vR_i}\,\fMi\biggr]\rt>{\vphantom{\Biggr>}}_{\vR_i}\,. \eea In the above equation, we have used compact notation in writing out the nonlinear terms: e.g., $\lt<\lt\{\Apar,\ephi-\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i}\rt\}\rt\>_{\vR_i} = \lt<\lt\{\Apar(\vr),\ephi(\vr)\rt\}\rt\>_{\vR_i} -\lt\{\<\Apar\>_{\vR_i},\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i}\rt\}$, where the first Poisson bracket involves derivatives with respect to $\vr$ and the second with respect to $\vR_i$. The field equations~\exsdash{quasineut_sum}{dBpar_eq_sum} rewritten in terms of~$\gi$~are \bea \nonumber \order{0}{{\dnek\over\ne}} - \order{0}{\Gamma_1(\krsq_i){\dBpark\over B_0}} + \order{1}{\bl[1-\Gamma_0(\krsq_i)\br]{Ze\ephi_\vk\over\Ti}}\\ = \order{0}{\intvi J_0(\kr_i)\gki}, \eea \beq \order{0}{\uparek} + \order{1}{{c\over4\pi e\ne}\,\kperp^2\Apark} = \order{0}{\intvi \vpar J_0(\kr_i)\gki} = \uparik, \eeq \bea \nonumber \order{0}{{Z\over\tau}{\dnek\over\ne}} + \order{0}{\lt[\Gamma_2(\krsq_i)+{2\over\beta_i}\rt]{\dBpark\over B_0}} - \order{1}{\bl[1-\Gamma_1(\krsq_i)\br]{Ze\ephi_\vk\over\Ti}}\\ = -\order{0}{\intvi {2\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{J_1(\kr_i)\over\kr_i}\gki}, \eea where $\kr_i=\kperp\vperp/\Omega_i$, $\krsq_i=\kperp^2\rho_i^2/2$ and we have defined \bea \nonumber \Gamma_0(\krsq_i) &=& \intvi\lt[J_0(\kr_i)\rt]^2\fMi\\ &=& I_0(\krsq_i)\,e^{-\krsq_i} = 1-\krsq_i + \cdots,\\ \nonumber \Gamma_1(\krsq_i) &=& \intvi{2\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}J_0(\kr_i) {J_1(\kr_i)\over\kr_i}\fMi = -\Gamma_0'(\krsq_i)\\ &=& \lt[I_0(\krsq_i)-I_1(\krsq_i)\rt]\,e^{-\krsq_i} = 1 - {3\over2}\,\krsq_i + \cdots,\\ \Gamma_2(\krsq_i) &=& \intvi\lt[{2\vperp^2\over\vthi^2} {J_1(\kr_i)\over\kr_i}\rt]^2\fMi = 2\Gamma_1(\krsq_i). \eea Underneath each term in \eqsdash{g_eq}{dBpark_from_g}, we have indicated the lowest order in $\kperp\rho_i$ to which this term enters. \subsection{Subsidiary Ordering in $\kperp\rho_i$} In order to carry out a subsidiary expansion in small $\kperp\rho_i$, we must order all terms in \eqsdash{Apar_eq}{dne_eq} and \exsdash{g_eq}{dBpark_from_g} with respect to $\kperp\rho_i$. Let us again assume, like we did when expanding the electron equation (\secref{sec_els}), that the ordering introduced for the gyrokinetics in \secref{sec_params} holds also for the subsidiary expansion in $\kperp\rho_i$. First note that, in view of \eqref{phi_order}, we must regard $Ze\ephi/\Ti$ to be minus first order: \bea {Ze\ephi\over\Ti}\sim {\epsilon\over\kperp\rho_i\sqrt{\beta_i}}. \eea Also, as $\dBperp/B_0\sim\epsilon$ [\eqref{RMHD_ordering}], \bea {(\vpar/c)\Apar\over\ephi}\sim {\vthi\dBperp\over c\kperp\ephi} \sim {1\over\kperp\rho_i}{\Ti\over Ze\ephi}{\dBperp\over B_0} \sim \sqrt{\beta_i}, \eea so $\ephi$ and $(\vpar/c)\Apar$ are same order. Since $\upar=\upari$ (electrons do not contribute to the mass flow), assuming that slow waves and Alfv\'en waves have comparable energies implies $\upari\sim\uperp$. As $\upari$ is determined by the second equality in \eqref{uparek_from_g}, we can order~$\gi$ [using \eqref{RMHD_ordering}]: \bea {\gi\over\fMi}\sim {\upar\over\vthi}\sim{\uperp\over\vthi} \sim{\epsilon\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}, \eea so $\gi$ is zeroth order in $\kperp\rho_i$. Similarly, $\dne/\ne\sim\dBpar/B_0\sim\epsilon$ are zeroth order in $\kperp\rho_i$---this follows directly from \eqref{RMHD_ordering}. Together with \eqref{crit_bal}, the above considerations allow us to order all terms in our equations. The ordering of the collision term involving $\ephi$ is explained in \apref{ap_ii}. \subsection{Alfv\'en Waves: Kinetic Derivation of RMHD} We shall now show that the RMHD equations~\exsdash{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi} hold in this approximation. There is a simple correspondence between the stream and flux functions defined in \eqref{Phi_Psi_def} and the electromagnetic potentials $\ephi$ and $\Apar$: \bea \Phi = {c\over B_0}\,\ephi,\quad \Psi = -{\Apar\over\sqrt{4\pi m_i\ni}}. \eea The first of these definitions says that the perpendicular flow velocity $\vuperp$ is the $\vE\times\vB$ drift velocity; the second definition is the standard MHD relation between the magnetic flux function and the parallel component of the vector potential. \subsubsection{Derivation of \eqref{RMHD_Psi}} Deriving \eqref{RMHD_Psi} is straightforward: in \eqref{Apar_eq}, we retain only the lowest---minus first---order terms (those that contain $\ephi$ and $\Apar$). The result is \bea {\dd\Apar\over\dd t} + c{\dd\ephi\over\dd z} - {c\over B_0}\lt\{\Apar,\ephi\rt\} = 0. \eea Using \eqref{Phi_Psi_def2} and the definition of the Alfv\'en speed, $v_A=B_0/\sqrt{4\pi m_i\ni}$, we get \eqref{RMHD_Psi}. By the argument of \secref{sec_flux}, \eqref{RMHD_Apar} expresses the fact that that magnetic-field lines are frozen into the $\vE\times\vB$ velocity field, which is the mean flow velocity associated with the Alfv\'en waves (see \secref{sec_AW_coll}). \subsubsection{Derivation of \eqref{RMHD_Phi}} As we are about to see, in order to derive \eqref{RMHD_Phi}, we have to separate the first-order part of the $\kperp\rho_i$ expansion. The easiest way to achieve this, is to integrate \eqref{g_eq} over the velocity space (keeping $\vr$ constant) and expand the resulting equation in small $\kperp\rho_i$. Using \eqsand{dnek_from_g}{uparek_from_g} to express the velocity-space integrals of $\gi$, we get \bea \nonumber \order{1}{{\dd\over\dd t}\bl[1-\Gamma_0(\krsq_i)\br]{Ze\ephi_\vk\over\Ti}} &+& \order{0}{{\dd\over\dd t}\biggl[{\dnek\over\ne} - \Gamma_1(\krsq_i){\dBpark\over B_0}\biggr]}\\ \nonumber &+& \dpar\biggl(\order{0}{\uparek} + \order{1}{{c\over4\pi e\ne}\,\kperp^2\Apark}\biggr)\\ \nonumber &+& \order{0}{{c\over B_0}\intvi J_0(\kr_i)\lt\{\avchii,\gi\rt\}_\vk}\\ \nonumber = \intvi J_0(\kr_i)&&\hspace{-0.75em} \Biggl<\dC_{ii}\biggl[{Ze\over\Ti}\biggr\<\order{3}{\ephi} -\order{2}{{\vvperp\cdot\vAperp\over c}}\biggl\>{\vphantom{\biggr>}}_{\vR_i}\!\!\!\fMi \biggr.\Biggr.\\ &+& \Biggl.\biggr. \order{2}{\gi} \biggr]\Biggr>{\vphantom{\Biggr>}}_{\vR_i,\vk}\,. \eea Underneath each term, the lowest order in $\kperp\rho_i$ to which it enters is shown. We see that terms containing $\ephi$ are all first order, so it is up to this order that we shall retain terms. The collision term integrated over the velocity space picks up two extra orders of $\kperp\rho_i$ (see \apref{ap_int_coll}), so it is second order and can, therefore, be dropped. As a consequence of quasi-neutrality, the zeroth-order part of the above equation exactly coincides with \eqref{dne_eq}, i.e, $\dni/\ni=\dne/\ne$ satisfy the same equation. Indeed, neglecting second-order terms (but not first-order ones!), the nonlinear term in \eqref{dni_eq} (the last term on the left-hand side)~is \bea \nonumber {c\over B_0}\lt\{\ephi,\intvi\gi\rt\} - {1\over B_0}\lt\{\Apar,\intvi \vpar\gi\rt\}\\ +\ {c\Ti\over Ze B_0}\lt\{{\dBpar\over B_0},\intvi {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}\gi\rt\}, \eea and, using \eqsdash{dnek_from_g}{dBpark_from_g} to express velocity-space integrals of $\gi$ in the above expression, we find that the zeroth-order part of the nonlinearity is the same as the nonlinearity in \eqref{dne_eq}, while the first-order part is \beq -{c\over B_0}\lt\{\ephi,{1\over2}\,\rho_i^2\dperp^2{Ze\ephi\over\Ti}\rt\} + {1\over B_0}\lt\{\Apar,{c\over 4\pi e\ne}\,\dperp^2\Apar\rt\}, \eeq where we have used the expansion~\exref{G0_def} of $\Gamma_0(\krsq_i)$ and converted it back into $x$~space. Thus, if we subtract \eqref{dne_eq} from \eqref{dni_eq}, the remainder is first order and reads \bea \nonumber {\dd\over\dd t}{1\over2}\,\rho_i^2\dperp^2{Ze\ephi\over\Ti} + {c\over B_0}\lt\{\ephi,{1\over2}\,\rho_i^2\dperp^2{Ze\ephi\over\Ti}\rt\} \qquad\quad&&\\ +\ \dpar{c\over 4\pi e\ne}\dperp^2\Apar - {1\over B_0}\lt\{\Apar,{c\over 4\pi e\ne}\,\dperp^2\Apar\rt\} &=& 0.\quad \eea Multiplying \eqref{RMHD_phi} by $2\Ti/Ze\rho_i^2$ and using \eqref{Phi_Psi_def2}, we get the second RMHD equation~\exref{RMHD_Phi}. We have established that the Alfv\'en-wave component of the turbulence is decoupled and fully described by the RMHD equations \exsand{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi}. This result is the same as that in \secref{sec_AW_fluid} but now we have proven that collisions do not affect the Alfv\'en waves and that a fluid-like description only requires $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ to be valid. \subsection{Why Alfv\'en Waves Ignore Collisions} Let us write explicitly the distribution function of the ion gyrocenters [\eqref{g_ansatz}] to two lowest orders in $\kperp\rho_i$: \bea \hi = {Ze\over\Ti}\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i}\fMi + {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\,\fMi + \gi + \cdots, \eea where, up to corrections of order $\kperp^2\rho_i^2$, the ring-averaged scalar potential is $\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i} = \ephi(\vR_i)$, the scalar potential taken at the position of the ion gyrocenter. Note that in \eqref{hi_KRMHD}, the first term is minus first order in $\kperp\rho_i$ [see \eqref{order_phi2}], the second and third terms are zeroth order [\eqref{order_g}], and all terms of first and higher orders are omitted. In order to compute the full ion distribution function given by \eqref{fs_exp}, we have to convert $\hi$ to the $\vr$ space. Keeping terms up to zeroth order, we get \bea \nonumber {Ze\over\Ti}\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i} \simeq {Ze\over\Ti}\ephi(\vR_i) &=& {Ze\over\Ti}\lt[\ephi(\vr) + {\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_i}\cdot\vdel\ephi(\vr) + \cdots\rt]\\ &=& {Ze\over\Ti}\,\ephi(\vr) + {2\vvperp\cdot\vu_E\over\vthi^2} + \dots, \eea where $\vu_E = -c\vdel\ephi(\vr)\times\vz/B_0$, the $\vE\times\vB$ drift velocity. Substituting \eqref{phi_exp} into \eqref{hi_KRMHD} and then \eqref{hi_KRMHD} into \eqref{fs_exp}, we find \bea f_i = \fMi + {2\vvperp\cdot\vu_E\over\vthi^2}\,\fMi + {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\,\fMi + \gi + \cdots. \eea The first two terms can be combined into a Maxwellian with mean perpendicular flow velocity $\vuperp=\vu_E$. These are the terms responsible for the Alfv\'en waves. The remaining terms, which we shall denote $\tdfi$, are the perturbation of the Maxwellian in the moving frame of the Alfv\'en waves---they describe the passive (compressive) component of the turbulence (see \secref{sec_sw}). Thus, the ion distribution function is \bea f_i = {\ni\over (\pi\vthi^2)^{3/2}}\,\exp\lt[-{(\vvperp-\vu_E)^2 + \vpar^2\over\vthi}\rt] + \tdfi. \eea This sheds some light on the indifference of Alfv\'en waves to collisions: Alfv\'enic perturbations do not change the Maxwellian character of the ion distribution. Unlike in a neutral fluid or gas, where viscosity arises when particles transport the local mean momentum a distance $\sim\mfp$, the particles in a magnetized plasma instantaneously take on the local $\vE\times\vB$ velocity (they take a cyclotron period to adjust, so, roughly speaking, $\rho_i$ plays the role of the mean free path). Thus, there is no memory of the mean perpendicular motion and, therefore, no perpendicular momentum transport. Some readers may find it illuminating to notice that \eqref{RMHD_phi} can be interpreted as stating simply $\vdel\cdot\vj=0$: the first two terms represent the divergence of the polarization current, which is perpendicular to the magnetic field;\footnote{The polarization-drift velocity is formally higher order than $\vu_E$ in the gyrokinetic expansion. However, since $\vu_E$ does not produce any current, the lowest-order contribution to the perpendicular current comes from the polarization drift. The higher-order contributions to the gyrocenter distribution function did not need to be calculated explicitly because the information about the polarization charge is effectively carried by the quasi-neutrality condition \exref{quasineut}. We do not belabor this point because, in our approach, the notion of polarization charge is only ever brought in for interpretative purposes, but is not needed to carry out calculations. For further qualitative discussion of the role of the polarization charge and polarization drift in gyrokinetics, we refer the reader to \citealt{Krommes_lectures} and references therein.} the last two terms are $\Dpar\jpar$. No contribution to the current arises from the collisional term in \eqref{dni_eq} as ion--ion collisions cause no particle transport to lowest order in $\kperp\rho_i$. \subsection{Compressive Fluctuations} The equations that describe the density ($\dne$) and magnetic-field-strength ($\dBpar$) fluctuations follow immediately from \eqsdash{g_eq}{dBpark_from_g} if only zeroth-order terms are kept. In these equations, terms that involve $\ephi$ and $\Apar$ also contain factors $\sim\kperp^2\rho_i^2$ and are, therefore, first-order [with the exception of the nonlinearity on the left-hand side of \eqref{g_eq}]. The fact that $\lt<\dC_{ii}[\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i}\fMi]\rt>_{\vR_i}$ in \eqref{g_eq} is first order is proved in \apref{ap_ii}. Dropping these terms along with all other contributions of order higher than zeroth and making use of \eqref{avchik_eq} to write out $\<\chi\>_{\vR_i}$, we find that \eqref{g_eq} takes the form \bea \nonumber {d\gi\over dt} + \vpar\,\Dpar\lt[\gi+ \lt({Z\over\tau}{\dne\over\ne} + {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt)\fMi\rt] &&\\ = \lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[\gi+{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\fMi\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i},&& \eea where we have used definitions~\exsdash{def_ddt}{def_Bdgrad} of the convective time derivative $d/dt$ and the total gradient along the magnetic field $\Dpar$ to write our equation in a compact form. Note that, in view of the correspondence between $\Phi$, $\Psi$ and $\ephi$, $\Apar$ [\eqref{Phi_Psi_def2}], these nonlinear derivatives are the same as those defined in \eqsdash{dt_def}{dpar_def}. The collision term in the right-hand side of the above equation is the zeroth-order limit of the gyrokinetic ion--ion collision operator: a useful model form of it is given in \apref{ap_ss} [\eqref{Cgk_lowest}]. To zeroth order, \eqsdash{dnek_from_g}{dBpark_from_g} are \bea {\dne\over\ne} - {\dBpar\over B_0} &=& \intvi\gi,\\ \upar &=& \intvi \vpar\gi,\\ {Z\over\tau}{\dne\over\ne} + 2\(1+{1\over\beta_i}\){\dBpar\over B_0} &=& - \intvi {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}\,\gi. \eea Note that $\upar$ is not an independent quantity---it can be computed from the ion distribution but is not needed for the determination of the latter. \Eqsdash{sw_g}{sw_Bpar} evolve the ion distribution function $\gi$, the ``slow-wave quantities'' $\upar$, $\dBpar$, and the density fluctuations~$\dne$. The nonlinearities in \eqref{sw_g}, contained in $d/dt$ and $\Dpar$, involve the Alfv\'en-wave quantities $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ (or, equivalently, $\ephi$ and $\Apar$) determined separately and independently by the RMHD equations~\exsdash{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi}. The situation is qualitatively similar to that in MHD (\secref{sec_sw_fluid}), except now a kinetic description is necessary---\eqsdash{sw_g}{sw_Bpar} replace \eqsdash{eq_drho}{eq_upar}---and the nonlinear scattering/mixing of the slow waves and the entropy mode by the Alfv\'en waves takes the form of passive advection of the distribution function~$\gi$. The density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations are velocity-space moments of~$\gi$. Another way to understand the passive nature of the compressive component of the turbulence discussed above is to think of it as the perturbation of a local Maxwellian equilibrium associated with the Alfv\'en waves. Indeed, in \secref{sec_AW_coll}, we split the full ion distribution function [\eqref{fi_AW}] into such a local Maxwellian and its perturbation \bea \tdfi = \gi + {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\,\fMi. \eea It is this perturbation that contains all the information about the compressive component; the second term in the above expression enforces to lowest order the conservation of the first adiabatic invariant $\mu_i=m_i\vperp^2/2B$. In terms of the function \exref{dfi_def}, \eqsdash{sw_g}{sw_Bpar} take a somewhat more compact form \citep[cf.][]{SCD_kiev}: \bea \nonumber {d\over dt}\lt(\tdfi - {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\,\fMi\rt) + \vpar\Dpar\lt(\tdfi + {Z\over\tau}{\dne\over\ne}\,\fMi\rt)&&\\ = \lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[\tdfi\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i},&& \eea \bea {\dne\over\ne} &=& \intvi\tdfi,\\ {\dBpar\over B_0} &=& - {\beta_i\over2}\intvi\lt({Z\over\tau} + {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}\rt)\tdfi. \eea \pseudofigureone{fig_cascade_channels}{cascade_channels.ps}{f5.ps}{Channels of the kinetic cascade of generalized energy (\secref{sec_en_GK}) from large to small scales: see \secref{sec_RMHD_cascades} and \apref{ap_en_RMHD} (inertial range, collisional regime), \secsand{sec_en_KRMHD}{sec_en_compr} (inertial range, collisionless regime), \secref{sec_en_ERMHD} and \secref{sec_ent_els} (dissipation range). Note that some ion heating probably also results from the collisional and collisionless damping of the compressive fluctuations in the inertial range (see \secsand{sec_visc_diss}{sec_par_phase}).} \subsection{Generalized Energy: Three KRMHD Cascades} The generalized energy (\secref{sec_en_GK}) in the limit $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ is calculated by substituting into \eqref{W_els} the perturbed ion distribution function $\dfi = 2\vvperp\cdot\vu_E\fMi/\vthi^2 + \tdfi$ [see \eqsand{fi_KRMHD}{dfi_def}]. After performing velocity integration, we get \bea \nonumber W &=& \int d^3\vr \lt[{m_i\ni u_E^2\over2} + {\dBperp^2\over8\pi} \rt.\\ \nonumber &&+\ \lt.{\ni\Ti\over2} \lt({Z\over\tau}{\dne^2\over\ne^2} + {2\over\beta_i}{\dBpar^2\over B_0^2} + \intvi{\tdfi^2\over\fMi}\rt)\rt]\\ &=& W_{\rm AW} + \Wcompr. \eea We see that the kinetic energy of the Alfv\'enic fluctuations has emerged from the ion-entropy part of the generalized energy. The first two terms in \eqref{W_KRMHD} are the total (kinetic plus magnetic) energy of the Alfv\'en waves, denoted $W_{\rm AW}$. As we learned from \secref{sec_AW}, it cascades independently of the rest of the generalized energy, $\Wcompr$, which contains the compressive component of the turbulence (\secref{sec_sw}) and is the invariant conserved by \eqsdash{KRMHD_dfi}{KRMHD_dfi_Bpar}. In terms of the potentials used in our discussion of RMHD in \secref{sec_RMHD}, we have \bea \nonumber W_{\rm AW} &=& \intr{m_i\ni\over2}\lt(|\vdperp\Phi|^2 + |\vdperp\Psi|^2\rt)\\ \nonumber &=&\intr{m_i\ni\over2}\lt(|\vdperp\zeta^+|^2 + |\vdperp\zeta^-|^2\rt)\\ &=& \Wperp^+ + \Wperp^- \eea where $\Wperp^+$ and $\Wperp^-$ are the energies of the ``$+$'' and ``$-$'' waves [\eqref{Wperp_def}], which, as we know from \secref{sec_elsasser_AW}, cascade by scattering off each other but without exchanging energy. Thus, the kinetic cascade in the limit $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ is split, independently of the collisionality, into three cascades: of $\Wperp^+$, $\Wperp^-$ and $\Wcompr$. The compressive cascade is, in fact, split into three independent cascades---the splitting is different in the collisional limit (\apref{ap_en_RMHD}) and in the collisionless one (\secref{sec_en_compr}). \Figref{fig_cascade_channels} schematically summarizes both the splitting of the kinetic cascade that we have worked out so far and the upcoming developments. \subsection{Summary} In \secref{sec_els}, gyrokinetics was reduced to a hybrid fluid-kinetic system by means of an expansion in the electron mass, which was valid for $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$. In this section, we have further restricted the scale range by taking $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ and as a result have been able to achieve a further reduction in the complexity of the kinetic theory describing the turbulent cascades. The reduced theory derived here evolves 5 unknown functions: $\Phi$, $\Psi$, $\dBpar$, $\dne$ and $\gi$. The stream and flux functions, $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are related to the fluid quantities (perpendicular velocity and magnetic field perturbations) via \eqref{Phi_Psi_def} and to the electromagnetic potentials $\ephi$, $\Apar$ via \eqref{Phi_Psi_def2}. They satisfy a closed system of equations, \eqsdash{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi}, which describe the decoupled cascade of Alfv\'en waves. These are the same equations that arise from the MHD approximations, but we have now proven that their validity does not depend on the assumption of high collisionality (the fluid limit) and extends to scales well below the mean free path, but above the ion gyroscale. The physical reasons for this are explained in \secref{sec_AW_coll}. The density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations (the ``compressive'' fluctuations, or the slow waves and the entropy mode in the MHD limit) now require a kinetic description in terms of the ion distribution function $\gi$ [or $\tdfi$, \eqref{dfi_def}], evolved by the kinetic equation \exref{sw_g} [or \eqref{KRMHD_dfi}]. The kinetic equation contains $\dne$ and $\dBpar$, which are, in turn calculated in terms of the velocity-space integrals of $\gi$ via \eqsand{sw_n}{sw_Bpar} [or \eqsand{KRMHD_dfi_n}{KRMHD_dfi_Bpar}]. The nonlinear evolution (turbulent cascade) of $\gi$, $\dBpar$ and $\dne$ is due solely to passive advection of $\gi$ by the Alfv\'en-wave turbulence. Let us summarize the new set of equations: \bea {\dd\Psi\over\dd t} &=& v_A\Dpar\Phi,\\ {d\over dt}\dperp^2\Phi &=& v_A\Dpar\dperp^2\Psi,\\ \nonumber {d\gi\over dt} + \vpar\,\Dpar\lt[\phantfrac\gi\rt.&+&\lt. \lt({Z\over\tau}{\dne\over\ne} + {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt)\fMi\rt]\\ &=& \lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[\gi+{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\fMi\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i}, \eea \beq {\dne\over\ne} = -\lt[{Z\over\tau} + 2\(1 + {1\over\beta_i}\)\rt]^{-1}\!\!\! \intvi\lt[{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2} - 2\(1+{1\over\beta_i}\)\rt]\gi, \eeq \beq {\dBpar\over B_0} = -\lt[{Z\over\tau} + 2\(1 + {1\over\beta_i}\)\rt]^{-1}\!\!\! \intvi\({\vperp^2\over\vthi^2} + {Z\over\tau}\)\gi, \eeq where \bea {d\over dt} = {\dd\over\dd t} + \lt\{\Phi,\cdots\rt\},\quad \Dpar = \dpar + {1\over v_A}\lt\{\Psi,\cdots\rt\}. \eea An explicit form of the collision term in the right-hand side of \eqref{sw_g_sum} is provided in \apref{ap_ss} [\eqref{Cgk_lowest}]. The generalized energy conserved by \eqsdash{RMHD_Psi_sum}{sw_Bpar_sum} is given by \eqref{W_KRMHD}. The kinetic cascade is split, the Alfv\'enic cascade proceeding independently of the compressive one (see \figref{fig_cascade_channels}). The decoupling of the Alfv\'enic cascade is manifested by \eqsdash{RMHD_Psi_sum}{RMHD_Phi_sum} forming a closed subset. As already noted in \secref{sec_els_sum}, \eqref{RMHD_Psi_sum} is the component of Ohm's law along the total magnetic field, $\vB\cdot\vE=0$. \Eqref{RMHD_Phi_sum} can be interpreted as the evolution equation for the vorticity of the perpendicular plasma flow velocity, which is the $\vE\times\vB$ drift velocity. We shall refer to the system of equations~\exsdash{RMHD_Psi_sum}{sw_Bpar_sum} as {\em Kinetic Reduced Magnetohydrodynamics (KRMHD)}. The term is introduced by analogy with a popular fluid-kinetic system known as Kinetic MHD, or KMHD \citep[see][]{Kulsrud_Varenna,Kulsrud_HPP}. KMHD is derived for magnetized plasmas ($\rho_i\ll\mfp$) under the assumption that $k\rho_s\ll1$ and $\omega\ll\Omega_s$ but without assuming either strong anisotropy ($\kpar\ll\kperp$) or small fluctuations ($|\dvB|\ll B_0$). The KRMHD equations~\exsdash{RMHD_Psi_sum}{sw_Bpar_sum} can be recovered from KMHD by applying to it the GK-RMHD ordering [\eqref{RMHD_ordering} and \secref{sec_params}] and an expansion in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ \citep{SCD_kiev}. This means that the $\kperp\rho_i$ expansion (\secref{sec_KRMHD}), which for KMHD is the primary expansion, commutes with the gyrokinetic expansion (\secref{sec_GK}) and the $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ expansion (\secref{sec_els}), both of which preceded it in this paper.} It is a hybrid fluid-kinetic description of low-frequency turbulence in strongly magnetized weakly collisional plasma that is uniformly valid at all scales satisfying $\kperp\rho_i\ll\min(1, \kpar\mfp)$ (ions are strongly magnetized)\footnote{The condition $\kperp\rho_i\ll\kpar\mfp$ must be satisfied because in our estimates of the collision terms (\apref{ap_ii}) we took $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ while assuming that $\kpar\mfp\sim1$.} and $\kpar\mfp\gg(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ (electrons are isothermal), as illustrated in \figref{fig_validity_reduced}. Therefore, it smoothly connects the collisional and collisionless regimes and is the appropriate theory for the study of the turbulent cascades in the inertial range. The KRMHD equations generalize rather straightforwardly to plasmas that are so collisionless that one cannot assume a Maxwellian equilibrium distribution function \citep{Chen_etal_KRMHD}---a situation that is relevant in some of the solar-wind measurements (see further discussion in \secref{sec_pressure_aniso}). KRMHD describe what happens to the turbulent cascade at or below the ion gyroscale---we shall move on to these scales in \secref{sec_ERMHD}, but first we would like to discuss the turbulent cascades of density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations and their damping by collisional and collisionless mechanisms. \section{Compressive Fluctuations in the Inertial Range} Here we first derive the nonlinear equations that govern the evolution of the compressive (density and magnetic-field-strength) fluctuations in the collisional ($\kpar\mfp\ll1$, \secref{sec_visc} and \apref{ap_visc}) and collisionless ($\kpar\mfp\gg1$, \secref{sec_colless}) limits, discuss the linear damping that these fluctuations undergo in the two limits and work out the form the generalized energy takes for compressive fluctuations (which is particularly interesting in the collisionless limit, \secsdash{sec_inv_compr}{sec_en_compr}). As in previous sections, an impatient reader may skip to \secref{sec_par_cascade} where the results of the previous two subsections are summarized and the implications for the structure of the turbulent cascades of the density and field-strength fluctuations are discussed. \subsection{Collisional Regime} \subsubsection{Equations} In the collisional regime, $\kpar\mfp\ll1$, the fluid limit is recovered by expanding \eqsdash{RMHD_Psi_sum}{sw_Bpar_sum} in small $\kpar\mfp$. The calculation that is necessary to achieve this is done in \apref{ap_visc} (see also \apref{ap_isoth_els}). The result is a closed set of three fluid equations that evolve $\dBpar$, $\dne$ and $\upar$: \bea {d\over dt}{\dBpar\over B_0} &=& \Dpar\upar + {d\over dt}{\dne\over\ne},\\ {d\upar\over dt} &=& v_A^2\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0} + \nupar\Dpar\lt(\Dpar\upar\rt),\\ {d\over dt}{\dTi\over\Ti} &=& {2\over3}{d\over dt}{\dne\over\ne} + \kappar\Dpar\lt(\Dpar{\dTi\over\Ti}\rt), \eea where \beq \lt(1+ {Z\over\tau}\rt){\dne\over\ne} = - {\dTi\over\Ti} - {2\over\beta_i}\lt({\dBpar\over B_0} + {1\over 3v_A^2} \nupar\Dpar\upar\rt), \eeq and $\nupar$ and $\kappar$ are the coefficients of parallel ion viscosity and thermal diffusivity, respectively. The viscous and thermal diffusion are anisotropic because plasma is magnetized, $\mfp\gg\rho_i$ \citep{Braginskii}. The method of calculation of $\nupar$ and $\kappar$ is explained in \apref{ap_transport}. Here we shall ignore numerical prefactors of order unity and give order-of-magnitude values for these coefficients: \bea \nupar\sim\kappar\sim {\vthi^2\over\nui}\sim\vthi\mfp. \eea If we set $\nupar=\kappar=0$, \eqsdash{coll_dBpar}{coll_pr_bal} are the same as the RMHD equations of \secref{sec_RMHD} with the sound speed defined~as \bea c_s = v_A\sqrt{{\beta_i\over2}\({Z\over\tau} + {5\over3}\)} = \sqrt{{Z\Te\over m_i} + {5\over3}{\Ti\over m_i}}. \eea This is the natural definition of $c_s$ for the case of adiabatic ions, whose specific heat ratio is $\gamma_i=5/3$, and isothermal electrons, whose specific heat ratio is $\gamma_e=1$ [because $\dpe=\Te\dne$; see \eqref{dpe_eq}]. Note that \eqref{coll_pr_bal} is equivalent to the pressure balance [\eqref{MHD_pr_bal} of \secref{sec_RMHD}] with $p=n_i T_i + n_e T_e$ and $\dpe=\Te\dne$. As in \secref{sec_RMHD}, the fluctuations described by \eqsdash{coll_dBpar}{coll_pr_bal} separate into the zero-frequency entropy mode and the left- and right-propagating slow waves with \bea \omega = \pm {\kpar v_A\over \sqrt{1+v_A^2/c_s^2}} \eea [see \eqref{eq_zpar}]. All three are cascaded independently of each other via nonlinear interaction with the Alfv\'en waves. In \apref{ap_en_RMHD}, we show that the generalized energy $\Wcompr$ for this system, given in \secref{sec_en_KRMHD}, splits into the three familiar invariants $\Wpar^+$, $\Wpar^-$, and $\Ws$, defined by \eqsdash{Wpar_def}{Ws_def} (see \figref{fig_cascade_channels}). \subsubsection{Dissipation} The diffusion terms add dissipation to the equations. Because diffusion occurs along the field lines of the total magnetic field (mean field plus perturbation), the diffusive terms are nonlinear and the dissipation process also involves interaction with the Alfv\'en waves. We can estimate the characteristic parallel scale at which the diffusion terms become important by balancing the nonlinear cascade time and the typical diffusion time: \bea \kpar v_A \sim \vthi\mfp\kpar^2 \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad \kpar\mfp\sim {1/\sqrt{\beta_i}}, \eea where we have used \eqref{nupar_kappar_est}. Technically speaking, the cutoff given by \eqref{coll_cutoff} always lies in the range of $\kpar$ that is outside the region of validity of the small-$\kpar\mfp$ expansion adopted in the derivation of \eqsdash{coll_dBpar}{coll_dTi}. In fact, in the low-beta limit, the collisional cutoff falls manifestly in the collisionless scale range, i.e., the collisional (fluid) approximation breaks down before the slow-wave and entropy cascades are damped and one must use the collisionless (kinetic) limit to calculate the damping (see \secref{sec_barnes}). The situation is different in the high-beta limit: in this case, the expansion in small $\kpar\mfp$ can be reformulated as an expansion in small $1/\sqrt{\beta_i}$ and the cutoff falls within the range of validity of the fluid approximation. \Eqsdash{coll_dBpar}{coll_dTi} in this limit are \bea {d\over dt}{\dBpar\over B_0} &=& \Dpar\upar,\\ {d\upar\over dt} &=& v_A^2\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0} + \nupar\Dpar\lt(\Dpar\upar\rt),\\ {d\over dt}{\dne\over\ne} &=& {1+Z/\tau\over 5/3 + Z/\tau}\,\kappar\Dpar\lt(\Dpar{\dne\over\ne}\rt). \eea As in \secref{sec_RMHD} [\eqref{drho_cascade}], the density fluctuations [\eqref{coll_dne_inc}] have decoupled from the slow waves [\eqsdash{coll_dBpar_inc}{coll_upar_inc}]. The former are damped by thermal diffusion, the latter by viscosity. The corresponding linear dispersion relations are \bea \omega &=& -i{1+Z/\tau\over 5/3 + Z/\tau}\,\kappar\kpar^2,\\ \omega &=& \pm\kpar v_A\sqrt{1-\({\nupar\kpar\over2v_A}\)^2} - i\,{\nupar\kpar^2\over2}. \eea \Eqref{disp_rln_n} describes strong diffusive damping of the density fluctuations. The slow-wave dispersion relation~\exref{disp_rln_sw_coll} has two distinct regimes: \begin{enumerate} \item When $\kpar<2v_A/\nupar$, it describes viscously damped slow waves. In particular, in the limit $\kpar\mfp\ll1/\sqrt{\beta_i}$, we have \bea \omega \simeq \pm\kpar v_A - i\,{\nupar\kpar^2\over2}. \eea \item For $\kpar>2v_A/\nupar$, both solutions become purely imaginary, so the slow waves are converted into aperiodic decaying fluctuations. The stronger-damped (diffusive) branch has $\omega\simeq-i\nupar\kpar^2$, the weaker-damped one has \bea \omega \simeq -i\,{v_A^2\over\nupar} \sim -{i\over\beta_i}{\vthi\over\mfp} \sim -{i\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}{v_A\over\mfp}. \eea This damping effect is called viscous relaxation. It is valid until $\kpar\mfp\sim1$, where it is replaced by the collisionless damping discussed in \secref{sec_barnes} [see \eqref{damping_high_beta}]. \end{enumerate} The viscous and thermal-diffusive dissipation mechanisms described above lead, in the limits where they are efficient, to ion heating via the standard fluid (collisional) route, involving the development of small parallel scales in the position space, but not in velocity space (see \secsand{sec_en_GK}{sec_heating}). \subsection{Collisionless Regime} \subsubsection{Equations} In the collisionless regime, $\kpar\mfp\gg1$, the collision integral in the right-hand side of the kinetic equation \exref{sw_g_sum} can be neglected. The $\vperp$ dependence can then be integrated out of \eqref{sw_g_sum}. Indeed, let us introduce the following two auxiliary functions: \bea \nonumber \Gn(\vpar) &=& -\lt[{Z\over\tau} + 2\(1 + {1\over\beta_i}\)\rt]^{-1}\\ && \times\,{2\pi\over\ni}\int_0^\infty d\vperp\,\vperp \lt[{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2} - 2\(1+{1\over\beta_i}\)\rt]\gi,\\ \nonumber \GB(\vpar) &=& -\lt[{Z\over\tau} + 2\(1 + {1\over\beta_i}\)\rt]^{-1}\\ && \times\,{2\pi\over\ni}\int_0^\infty d\vperp\,\vperp \({\vperp^2\over\vthi^2} + {Z\over\tau}\)\gi. \eea In terms of these functions, \bea {\dne\over\ne} = \intvpar\Gn,\quad {\dBpar\over B_0} = \intvpar\GB \eea and \eqref{sw_g_sum} reduces to the following two coupled one-dimensional kinetic equations \bea \nonumber {d\Gn\over dt} &+& \vpar\Dpar\Gn = -\lt[{Z\over\tau} + 2\(1 + {1\over\beta_i}\)\rt]^{-1}\vpar\FM(\vpar)\\ &&\times\Dpar\lt[{Z\over\tau}\(1+{2\over\beta_i}\){\dne\over\ne} + {2\over\beta_i}{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt],\\ \nonumber {d\GB\over dt} &+& \vpar\Dpar\GB = \lt[{Z\over\tau} + 2\(1 + {1\over\beta_i}\)\rt]^{-1}\vpar\FM(\vpar)\\ &&\times\Dpar\lt[{Z\over\tau}\(1+{Z\over\tau}\){\dne\over\ne} + \(2 + {Z\over\tau}\){\dBpar\over B_0}\rt], \eea where $\FM(\vpar) = (1/\sqrt{\pi}\vthi)\exp(-\vpar^2/\vthi^2)$ is a one-dimensional Maxwellian. This system can be diagonalized, so it splits into two decoupled equations \beq {dG^\pm\over dt} + \vpar\Dpar G^\pm = {\vpar\FM(\vpar)\over\Lambda^\pm}\,\Dpar \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}d\vpar'\,G^\pm(\vpar'), \eeq where \bea \Lambda^\pm = -{\tau\over Z} + {1\over\beta_i} \pm \sqrt{\(1+{\tau\over Z}\)^2 + {1\over\beta_i^2}} \eea and we have introduced a new pair of functions \bea G^+ = \GB + {1\over\sigma}\(1+{Z\over\tau}\)\Gn,\quad G^- = \Gn + {1\over\sigma}{\tau\over Z}{2\over\beta_i}\GB, \eea where \bea \sigma = 1 + {\tau\over Z} + {1\over\beta_i} + \sqrt{\(1+{\tau\over Z}\)^2 + {1\over\beta_i^2}}. \eea \Eqref{Gpm_eq} describes two decoupled kinetic cascades, which we will discuss in greater detail in \secsdash{sec_inv_compr}{sec_en_compr}. \subsubsection{Collisionless Damping} Fluctuations described by \eqref{Gpm_eq} are subject to collisionless damping. Indeed, let us linearize \eqref{Gpm_eq}, Fourier transform in time and space, divide through by $-i(\omega-\kpar\vpar)$, and integrate over $\vpar$. This gives the following dispersion relation (the ``$-$'' branch is for $\tGn$, the ``$+$'' branch for $\tGB$) \bea \zeta_iZ\(\zeta_i\) = \Lambda^\pm - 1, \eea where $\zeta_i=\omega/|\kpar|\vthi=\omega/|\kpar|v_A\sqrt{\beta_i}$ and we have used the plasma dispersion function \citep{Fried_Conte} \bea Z\(\zeta_i\) = {1\over\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\,{e^{-x^2}\over x-\zeta_i} \eea (the integration is along the Landau contour). This function is not to be confused with the ion charge parameter $Z=q_i/e$. Formally, \eqref{disp_rln_colless} has an infinite number of solutions. When $\beta_i\sim1$, they are all strongly damped with damping rates ${\rm Im}(\omega)\sim |\kpar|\vthi\sim|\kpar|v_A$, so the damping time is comparable to the characteristic timescale on which the Alfv\'en waves cause these fluctuations to cascade to smaller scales. It is interesting to consider the high- and low-beta limits. \paragraph{High-Beta Limit.} \pseudofigureone{fig_gamma_plot}{gamma_plot.ps}{f6.ps}{Schematic log-log plot (artist's impression) of the ratio of the damping rate of magnetic-field-strength fluctuations to the Alfv\'en frequency $\kpar v_A$ in the high-beta limit [see \eqsand{disp_rln_sw_coll}{damping_high_beta}]. In \citet{Barnes_etal}, this plot is reproduced via a direct numerical solution of the linearized ion gyrokinetic equation with collisions.} When $\beta_i\gg1$, we have in \eqref{disp_rln_colless} \bea \Lambda^- -1 &\simeq& -2\lt(1 + {\tau\over Z}\rt), \qquad \tGn \simeq \Gn,\\ \Lambda^+ -1 &\simeq& {1\over\beta_i}, \qquad\qquad\quad\ \ \,\tGB \simeq \GB + {1\over2}{Z\over\tau}\,\Gn. \eea The ``$-$'' branch corresponds to the density fluctuations. The solution of \eqref{disp_rln_colless} has ${\rm Im}(\zeta_i)\sim 1$, so these fluctuations are strongly damped: \bea \omega\sim-i|\kpar|v_A\sqrt{\beta_i}. \eea The damping rate is much greater than the Alfv\'enic rate $\kpar v_A$ of the nonlinear cascade. In contrast, for the ``$+$'' branch, the damping rate is small: it can be obtained by expanding $Z(\zeta_i)=i\sqrt{\pi}+O\(\zeta_i\)$, which gives\footnote{This is the gyrokinetic limit ($\kpar/\kperp\ll1$) of the more general damping effect known in astrophysics as the \citet{Barnes} damping and in plasma physics as transit-time damping. We remind the reader that our approach was to carry out the gyrokinetic expansion (in small $\kpar/\kperp$) first, and then take the high-beta limit as a subsidiary expansion. A more standard approach in the linear theory of plasma waves is to take the limit of high $\beta_i$ while treating $\kpar/\kperp$ as an arbitrary quantity. A detailed calculation of the damping rates done in this way can be found in \citet{Foote_Kulsrud}.} \bea \omega = - i\,{|\kpar|\vthi\over\sqrt{\pi}\beta_i} = - i\,{|\kpar|v_A\over\sqrt{\pi\beta_i}}. \eea Since $\Gn$ is strongly damped, \eqref{tGB_high_beta} implies $\tGB\simeq\GB$, i.e., the fluctuations that are damped at the rate \exref{damping_high_beta} are predominantly of the magnetic-field strength. The damping rate is a constant (independent of $\kpar$) small fraction $\sim1/\sqrt{\beta_i}$ of the Alfv\'enic cascade rate. In \figref{fig_gamma_plot}, we give a schematic plot of the damping rate of the magnetic-field-strength fluctuations (slow waves) connecting the fluid and kinetic limits for $\beta_i\gg1$. \paragraph{Low-Beta Limit.} When $\beta_i\ll1$, we have \bea \Lambda^- -1 &\simeq& -\lt(1+{\tau\over Z}\rt), \qquad \tGn \simeq \Gn + {\tau\over Z}\,\GB,\\ \Lambda^+ -1 &\simeq& {2\over\beta_i}, \qquad\qquad\quad\,\tGB \simeq \GB. \eea For the ``$-$'' branch, we again have ${\rm Im}(\zeta_i)\sim1$, so \bea \omega\sim-i|\kpar|v_A\sqrt{\beta_i}, \eea which now is much smaller than the Alfv\'enic cascade rate $\kpar v_A$. For the ``$+$'' branch (predominantly the field-strength fluctuations), we seek a solution with $\zeta=-i\tilde\zeta_i$ and $\tilde\zeta_i\gg1$. Then \eqref{disp_rln_colless} becomes $\zeta_iZ(\zeta_i) \simeq 2\sqrt{\pi}\,\tilde\zeta_i\exp(\tilde\zeta_i) = 2/\beta_i$. Up to logarithmically small corrections, this gives $\tilde\zeta_i\simeq\sqrt{|\ln\beta_i|}$, whence \bea \omega\sim-i|\kpar|v_A\sqrt{\beta_i|\ln\beta_i|}. \eea While this damping rate is slightly greater than that of the ``$-$'' branch, it is still much smaller than the Alfv\'enic cascade rate. \subsubsection{Collisionless Invariants} \Eqref{Gpm_eq} obeys a conservation law, which is very easy to derive. Multiplying \eqref{Gpm_eq} by $G^\pm/\FM$ and integrating over space and velocities and performing integration by parts in the right-hand side, we get \bea \nonumber {d\over dt}\intr\intvpar {(G^\pm)^2\over2\FM} \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\\ = -{1\over\Lambda^\pm}\intr\lt(\intvpar G^\pm\rt) \Dpar\intvpar\vpar G^\pm.\quad \eea On the other hand, integrating \eqref{Gpm_eq} over $\vpar$ gives \bea {d\over dt}\intvpar G^\pm = - \Dpar\intvpar\vpar G^\pm. \eea Using this to express the right-hand side of \eqref{Gsq_eq} as a full time derivative, we find \bea {d\Wcompr^\pm\over dt} = 0, \eea where the two invariants are \beq \Wcompr^\pm = \intr{\ni\Ti\over2}\lt[\intvpar{(G^\pm)^2\over\FM} - {1\over\Lambda^\pm}\lt(\intvpar G^\pm\rt)^2\rt]. \eeq It is useful (and always possible) to split \bea G^\pm = \FM\intvpar G^\pm + \tilde G^\pm, \eea where $\intvpar\tilde G^\pm=0$ by construction. Then \bea \nonumber \Wcompr^\pm &=& \intr {\ni\Ti\over2}\lt[ \intvpar{(\tilde G^\pm)^2\over\FM} \rt.\\ &&+ \lt.\lt(1- {1\over\Lambda^\pm}\rt)\lt(\intvpar G^\pm\rt)^2\rt]. \eea Written in this form, the two invariants $\Wcompr^\pm$ are manifestly positive definite quantities because $\Lambda^+>1$ and $\Lambda^-<0$. The invariants regulate the two decoupled kinetic cascades of compressive fluctuations in the collisionless regime. The collisionless damping derived in \secref{sec_barnes} leads to exponential decay of the density and field-strength fluctuations, or, equivalently, of $\intvpar G^\pm$, while conserving $\Wcompr^\pm$. This means that the damping is merely a redistribution of the conserved quantity $\Wcompr^\pm$: the first term in \eqref{Wcompr_positive} grows to compensate for the decay of the second. \subsubsection{Linear Parallel Phase Mixing} In dynamical terms, how does the kinetic system \eqref{Gpm_eq} arrange for the integral of the distribution function $G^\pm(\vpar)$ to decay while allowing its norm to grow? This is a very well known phenomenon of (linear) phase mixing \citep{Landau_damping,Hammett_Dorland_Perkins,Krommes_Hu,Krommes_df,Watanabe_Sugama04}. To put it in simple terms, the solution of the linearized \eqref{Gpm_eq} consists of the inhomogeneous part, which contains the collisionless damping and the homogeneous part (solution of the left-hand side $=0$) given by $G^\pm \propto e^{-i\kpar\vpar t}$, the so-called ballistic response (this is also the nonlinear solution if $t$ and $\kpar$ are interpreted as Lagrangian variables in the frame of the Alfv\'en waves; see \secref{sec_par_cascade}). As time goes on, this part of the solution becomes increasingly oscillatory in $\vpar$, so its velocity integral tends to zero, while its amplitude does not decay. It is such ballistic contributions that make up the $\tilde G^\pm$ term in \eqref{Wcompr_positive}. As the velocity gradient of $\tilde G^\pm$ increases with time, $\dd\tilde G^\pm/\dd\vpar \sim \kpar t G^\pm$, at some point it can become sufficiently large to activate the collision integral [the right-hand side of \eqref{sw_g_sum}], which has so far been neglected. This way the collisionless damping of compressive fluctuations can be turned into ion heating---a simple example of a more general principle of how electromagnetic fluctuation energy is transferred into heat via the entropy part of the generalized energy (\secref{sec_heating}). Indeed, we will prove in \secref{sec_en_compr} that the invariants $\Wcompr^\pm$ are constituent parts of the overall generalized energy functional for the compressive fluctuations, so their cascade to small scales in phase space is part of the overall kinetic cascade introduced in \secref{sec_en_GK}. It is not entirely clear how efficient is the parallel-phase-mixing route to ion heating and, therefore, whether the collisionlessly damped energy of compressive fluctuations ends up in the ion heat or rather reaches the ion gyroscale and couples back to the Alfv\'enic component of the turbulence (\secref{sec_transition}). The answer to this question will depend on whether compressive fluctuations can develop large $\kpar$---a non-trivial issue further discussed in \secref{sec_par_cascade}. \subsubsection{Generalized Energy: Three Collisionless Cascades} We will now show how the generalized energy for compressive fluctuations in the collisionless regime incorporates the two invariants derived in \secref{sec_inv_compr}. Rewriting the compressive part of the KRMHD generalized energy [\eqref{W_KRMHD}] in terms of the function $\gi$ [see \eqref{dfi_def}], we get \bea \nonumber \Wcompr = {\ni\Ti\over2}\intr\lt\{\intvi{\gi^2\over\fMi}\rt. \qquad\qquad\\ \lt.+\, {Z\over\tau}\lt({\dne\over\ne} - {\dBpar\over B_0}\rt)^2 - \lt[{Z\over\tau} + 2\lt(1+{1\over\beta_i}\rt)\rt]{\dBpar^2\over B_0^2}\rt\}. \eea Using \eqsand{nB_from_GnB}{Gpm_def}, we can express $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ in terms of $\intvpar G^\pm$ as follows \bea {\dne\over\ne} &=& {1\over\kappa}\lt(\sigma \intvpar G^- - {\tau\over Z}{2\over\beta_i} \intvpar G^+\rt),\\ {\dBpar\over B_0} &=& {1\over\kappa}\lt[\sigma \intvpar G^+ - \lt(1+{Z\over\tau}\rt) \intvpar G^-\rt], \eea where $\sigma$ was defined in \eqref{sigma_def} and \bea \kappa = \sqrt{\(1+{\tau\over Z}\)^2 + {1\over\beta_i^2}}. \eea In order to express $\gi$ in terms of $G^\pm$, we have to reconstruct the $\vperp$ dependence of $g$, which we integrated out at the beginning of \secref{sec_colless_eqns}. Let us represent the distribution function as follows \bea \gi = {\ni\over\pi\vthi^2}\,e^{-x}\hat\gi(x,\vpar),\quad \hat\gi(x,\vpar) = \sum_{l=0}^\infty L_l(x) G_l(\vpar), \eea where $x=\vperp^2/\vthi^2$ and we have expanded $\hat\gi$ in Laguerre polynomials $L_l(x)=(e^x/l!)(d^l/dx^l)x^le^{-x}$. Since Laguerre polynomials are orthogonal, the first term in \eqref{Wcompr_g} splits into a sum of ``energies'' associated with the expansion coefficients: \bea \intvi {\gi^2\over\fMi} = \sum_{l=0}^\infty\intvpar {G_l^2\over\FM}. \eea The expansion coefficients are determined via the Laguerre transform: \bea G_l(\vpar) = \int_0^\infty dx\, e^{-x} L_l(x)\hat\gi(x,\vpar). \eea As $L_0=1$ and $L_1=1-x$, it is easy to see that $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ can be expressed as linear combinations of $\intvpar G_0$ and $\intvpar G_1$ [see \eqsdash{Gn_def}{nB_from_GnB}]. Using \eqsref{Gn_def}, \exref{GB_def}, and \exref{Gpm_def}, we can show that \bea G_0 &=& -{1\over\kappa}\lt[\lt(\sigma - {2\over\beta_i}\rt)\Lambda^+ G^+ + {Z\over\tau}\lt(\sigma - 1 - {\tau\over Z}\rt)\Lambda^- G^-\rt],\quad\\ G_1 &=& {1\over\kappa}\lt[\sigma\Lambda^+ G^+ - \lt(1+{Z\over\tau}\rt)\Lambda^- G^-\rt], \eea where $G^\pm$ satisfy \eqref{Gpm_eq}. As follows from \eqref{sw_g_sum} (neglecting the collision integral), all higher-order expansion coefficients satisfy a simple homogeneous equation: \bea {d G_l\over dt} + \vpar\Dpar G_l &=& 0,\quad l>1. \eea Thus, the distribution function can be explicitly written in terms of $G^\pm$: \bea \gi = \lt[G_0(\vpar) + \lt(1-{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}\rt)G_1(\vpar)\rt] {\ni\over\pi\vthi^2}\,e^{-\vperp^2/\vthi^2} + \tilde\gi, \eea where $G_0$ and $G_1$ are given by \eqsdash{G0_eq}{G1_eq} and $\tilde\gi$ comprises the rest of the Laguerre expansion (all $G_l$ with $l>1$), i.e., it is the homogeneous solution of \eqref{sw_g_sum} that does not contribute to either density or magnetic-field strength: \bea {d\tilde\gi\over dt} + \vpar\Dpar\tilde\gi = 0,\ \intv\,\tilde\gi = 0,\ \intv\,{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}\,\tilde\gi = 0. \eea Now substituting \eqsand{G0_eq}{G1_eq} into \eqref{gsq_exp} and then substituting the result and \eqsdash{dne_Gpm}{dBpar_Gpm} into \eqref{Wcompr_g}, we find after some straightforward manipulations \bea \nonumber \Wcompr &=& \intr\intv {\Ti\tilde\gi^2\over2\fMi}\\ \nonumber && +\,\,4\lt[1+{1\over\kappa}\lt(1+{\tau\over Z}\rt)\rt] (\Lambda^+)^2\Wcompr^+\\ && +\,\, 2\,{Z^2\over\tau^2}\lt(1 + {1\over\kappa}{1\over\beta_i}\rt) (\Lambda^-)^2\Wcompr^-, \eea where $\kappa$ is defined by \eqref{kappa_def} and $\Wcompr^\pm$ are the two independent invariants that we derived in \secref{sec_inv_compr}. Thus, the generalized energy for compressive fluctuations splits into three independently cascading parts: $\Wcompr^\pm$ associated with the density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations and a purely kinetic part given by the first term in \eqref{Wcompr_colless} (see \figref{fig_cascade_channels}). The dynamical evolution of this purely kinetic component is described by \eqref{gt_eq}---it is a passively mixed, undamped ballistic-type mode. All three cascade channels lead to small perpendicular spatial scales via passive mixing by the Alfv\'enic turbulence and also to small scales in $\vpar$ via the parallel phase mixing process discussed in \secref{sec_par_phase} (note that $\tilde\gi$ is subject to this process as well). \subsection{Parallel and Perpendicular Cascades} Let us return to the kinetic equation \exref{sw_g_sum} and transform it to the Lagrangian frame associated with the velocity field $\vuperp=\vz\times\vdperp\Phi$ of the Alfv\'en waves: $(t,\vr) \to (t, \vr_0)$, where \bea \vr(t,\vr_0) = \vr_0 + \int_0^t dt'\vuperp(t',\vr(t',\vr_0)). \eea In this frame, the convective derivative $d/dt$ defined in \eqref{dd_def_sum} turns into $\dd/\dd t$, while the parallel spatial gradient $\Dpar$ can be calculated by employing the Cauchy solution for the perturbed magnetic field $\dvBperp=\vz\times\vdperp\Psi$: \bea \vb(t,\vr) = \vz + {\dvBperp(t,\vr)\over B_0} = \vb(0,\vr_0)\cdot\vdel_0\vr, \eea where $\vr$ is given by \eqref{r_Lagr} and $\vdel_0=\dd/\dd\vr_0$. Then \bea \Dpar = \vb(0,\vr_0)\cdot\bl(\vdel_0\vr\br)\cdot\vdel = \vb(0,\vr_0)\cdot\vdel_0 = {\dd\over\dd s_0}, \eea where $s_0$ is the arc length along the perturbed magnetic field taken at $t=0$ [if $\dvBperp(0,\vr_0)=0$, $s_0=z_0$]. Thus, in the Lagrangian frame associated with the Alfv\'enic component of the turbulence, \eqref{sw_g_sum} is linear. This means that, if the effect of finite ion gyroradius is neglected, the KRMHD system does not give rise to a cascade of density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations to smaller scales along the moving (perturbed) field lines, i.e., $\Dpar\dne$ and $\Dpar\dBpar$ do not increase. In contrast, there is a perpendicular cascade (cascade in $\kperp$): the perpendicular wandering of field lines due to the Alfv\'enic turbulence causes passive mixing of $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ in the direction transverse to the magnetic field (see \secref{sec_scalings_passive} for a quick recapitulation of the standard scaling argument on the passive cascade that leads to a $\kperp^{-5/3}$ in the perpendicular direction). \Figref{fig_cartoon} illustrates this situation. Note that effectively, there is also a cascade in $\kpar$ if the latter is measured along the unperturbed field---more precisely, a cascade in $k_z$. This is due to the perpendicular deformation of the perturbed magnetic field by the Alfv\'en-wave turbulence: since $\vdperp$ grows while $\vb\cdot\vdel$ remains the same, we have from \eqref{def_Bdgrad} $\dd/\dd z \simeq -(\dvBperp/B_0)\cdot\vdperp$.} \pseudofigureone{fig_cartoon}{cartoon.ps}{f7.ps}{Lagrangian mixing of passive fields: fluctuations develop small scales across, but not along the exact field lines.} We emphasize that this lack of nonlinear refinement of the scale of $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ along the moving field lines is a particular property of the compressive component of the turbulence, not shared by the Alfv\'en waves. Indeed, unlike \eqref{sw_g_sum}, the RMHD equations \exsdash{RMHD_Psi_sum}{RMHD_Phi_sum}, do not reduce to a linear form under the Lagrangian transformation \exref{r_Lagr}, so the Alfv\'en waves should develop small scales both across and along the perturbed magnetic field. Whether the density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations develop small scales along the magnetic field has direct physical and observational consequences. Damping of these fluctuations, both in the collisional and collisionless regimes, discussed in \secsand{sec_visc_diss}{sec_barnes}, respectively, depends precisely on their scale along the perturbed field: indeed, the linear results derived there are exact in the Lagrangian frame \exref{r_Lagr}. To summarize these results, the damping rate of $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ at $\beta_i\sim 1$~is \bea \gamma &\sim& \vthi\mfp\kparo^2,\quad \kparo\mfp\ll1,\\ \gamma &\sim& \vthi\kparo,\quad\qquad \kparo\mfp\gg1, \eea where $\kparo\sim\Dpar$ is the wavenumber along the perturbed field (i.e., if there is no parallel cascade, the wavenumber of the large-scale stirring). Whether this damping cuts off the cascades of $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ depends on the relative magnitudes of the damping rate $\gamma$ for a given $\kperp$ and the characteristic rate at which the Alfv\'en waves cause $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ to cascade to higher $\kperp$. This rate is $\omega_A\sim\kparA v_A$, where $\kparA$ is the parallel wave number of the Alfv\'en waves that have the same $\kperp$. Since the Alfv\'en waves do have a parallel cascade, assuming scale-by-scale critical balance \exref{crit_bal} leads to [\eqref{GS_aniso}] \bea \kparA\sim\kperp^{2/3}\lo^{-1/3}. \eea If, in contrast to the Alfv\'en waves, $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ have no parallel cascade, $\kparo$ does not grow with $\kperp$, so, for large enough $\kperp$, $\kparo\ll\kparA$ and $\gamma\ll\omega_A$. This means that, despite the damping, the density and field-strength fluctuations should have perpendicular cascades extending to the ion gyroscale. The validity of the argument at the beginning of this section that ruled out the parallel cascade of $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ is not quite as obvious as it might appear. \citet{Lithwick_Goldreich} argued that the dissipation of $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ at the ion gyroscale would cause these fluctuations to become uncorrelated at the same parallel scales as the Alfv\'enic fluctuations by which they are mixed, i.e., $\kparo\sim\kparA$. The damping rate then becomes comparable to the cascade rate, cutting off the cascades of density and field-strength fluctuations at $\kpar\mfp\sim1$. The corresponding perpendicular cutoff wavenumber is [see \eqref{kpar_vs_kperp}] \bea \kperp \sim \lo^{1/2}\mfp^{-3/2}. \eea Asymptotically speaking, in a weakly collisional plasma, this cutoff is far above the ion gyroscale, $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$. However, the relatively small value of $\mfp$ in the warm ISM, which was the main focus of \citealt{Lithwick_Goldreich}, meant that the numerical value of the perpendicular cutoff scale given by \eqref{kperp_LG} was, in fact, quite close both to the ion gyroscale (see \tabref{tab_scales}) and to the observational estimates for the inner scale of the electron-density fluctuations in the ISM \citep{Spangler_Gwinn,Armstrong_Rickett_Spangler}. Thus, it was not possible to tell whether \eqref{kperp_LG}, rather than $\kperp\sim\rho_i^{-1}$, represented the correct prediction. The situation is rather different in the nearly collisionless case of the solar wind, where the cutoff given by \eqref{kperp_LG} would mean that very little density or field-strength fluctuations should be detected above the ion gyroscale. Observations do not support such a conclusion: the density fluctuations appear to follow a $k^{-5/3}$ law at all scales larger than a few times $\rho_i$ \citep{Lovelace_etal,Woo_Armstrong,Celnikier_etal83,Celnikier_etal87,Coles_Harmon,Marsch_Tu_compr,Coles_etal}, consistently with the expected behavior of an undamped passive scalar field (see \secref{sec_scalings_passive}). An extended range of $k^{-5/3}$ scaling above the ion gyroscale is also observed for the fluctuations of the magnetic-field strength \citep{Marsch_Tu_compr,Bershadskii_Sreeni_Bpar,Hnat_Chapman_Rowlands2,Alexandrova_sw}. These observational facts suggest that the cutoff formula \exref{kperp_LG} does not apply. This does not, however, conclusively vitiate the \citet{Lithwick_Goldreich} theory. Heuristically, their argument is plausible, although it is, perhaps, useful to note that in order for the effect of the perpendicular dissipation terms, not present in the KRMHD equations \exsdash{sw_g_sum}{sw_Bpar_sum}, to be felt, the density and field-strength fluctuations should reach the ion gyroscale in the first place. Quantitatively, the failure of the compressive fluctuations in the solar wind to be damped could still be consistent with the \citet{Lithwick_Goldreich} theory because of the relative weakness of the collisionless damping, especially at low beta (\secref{sec_barnes})---the explanation they themselves favor. The way to check observationally whether this explanation suffices would be to make a comparative study of the compressive fluctuations for solar-wind data with different values of $\beta_i$. If the strength of the damping is the decisive factor, one should always see cascades of both $\dne$ and $\dBpar$ at low $\beta_i$, no cascades at $\beta_i\sim1$, and a cascade of $\dBpar$ but not $\dne$ at high $\beta_i$ (in this limit, the damping of the density fluctuations is strong, of the field-strength weak; see \secref{sec_barnes}). If, on the other hand, the parallel cascade of the compressive fluctuations is intrinsically inefficient, very little $\beta_i$ dependence is expected and a perpendicular cascade should be seen in all cases. Obviously, an even more direct observational (or numerical) test would be the detection or non-detection of near-perfect alignment of the density and field-strength structures with the moving field lines ({\em not} with the mean magnetic field---see footnote~), but it is not clear how to measure this reliably. It is interesting, in this context, that in near-the-Sun measurements, the density fluctuations are reported to have the form of highly anisotropic filaments aligned with the magnetic field \citep{Armstrong_etal_aniso,Grall_etal_aniso,Woo_Habbal}. Another intriguing piece of observational evidence is the discovery that the local structure of the magnetic-field-strength and density fluctuations at 1~AU is, in a certain sense, correlated with the solar cycle \citep{Kiyani_etal,Hnat_etal,Wicks_Chapman_Dendy}---this suggests a dependence on initial conditions that is absent in the Alfv\'enic fluctuations and that presumably should also disappear in the compressive fluctuations if the latter are fully mixed both in the perpendicular and parallel directions. \section{Turbulence in the Dissipation Range: Electron RMHD and the Entropy Cascade} \pseudofigurewide{fig_omegas}{omegas2.ps}{f8.ps}{Numerical solutions of the linear gyrokinetic dispersion relation \citep[for a detailed treatment of the linear theory, see][]{Howes_etal} showing the transition from the Alfv\'en wave to KAW between the inertial range ($\kperp\rho_i\ll1$) and the dissipation range ($\kperp\rho_i\gtrsim1$). We show three cases: low beta ($\beta_i=0.01$), $\beta_i=1$, and high beta ($\beta_i=100$). In all three cases, $\tau=1$ and $Z=1$. Bold solid lines show the real frequency $\omega$, bold dashed lines the damping rate $\gamma$, both normalized by $\kpar v_A$ (in gyrokinetics, $\omega/\kpar v_A$ and $\gamma/\kpar v_A$ are functions of $\kperp$ only). Dotted lines show the asymptotic KAW solution \exref{omega_KAW}. Horizontal solid line shows the Alfv\'en wave $\omega=\kpar v_A$. Vertical solid lines show $\kperp\rho_i=1$ and $\kperp\rho_e=1$. Note that the damping can be considered strong if the characteristic decay time is comparable or shorter than the wave period, i.e., $\gamma/\omega\gtrsim 1/2\pi$. Thus, in these plots, the damping at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ is relatively weak for $\beta_i=1$, relatively strong for low beta and very strong for high beta.} \subsection{Transition at the Ion Gyroscale} The validity of the theory discussed in \secsand{sec_KRMHD}{sec_damping} breaks down when $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$. As the ion gyroscale is approached, the Alfv\'en waves are no longer decoupled from the rest of the plasma dynamics. All modes now contain perturbations of density and magnetic-field strength and can be collisionlessly damped. Because of the low-frequency nature of the Alfv\'en-wave cascade, $\omega\ll\Omega_i$ even at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ [\eqref{omega_order}], so the ion cyclotron resonance ($\omega-\kpar\vpar=\pm\Omega_i$) is not important, while the Landau one ($\omega=\kpar\vpar$) is. The linear theory of this collisionless damping in the gyrokinetic approximation is worked out in detail in \citet{Howes_etal} \citep[see also][]{Gary_Borovsky}. \Figref{fig_omegas} shows the solutions of their dispersion relation that illustrate how the Alfv\'en wave becomes a dispersive {\em kinetic Alfv\'en wave (KAW)} (see \secref{sec_KAW}) and collisionless damping becomes important as the ion gyroscale is reached. We stress that this transition occurs at the ion gyroscale, not at the ion inertial scale $d_i=\rho_i/\sqrt{\beta_i}$ (except in the limit of cold ions, $\tau=\Ti/\Te\ll1$; see \apref{ap_Hall}). This statement is true even when $\beta_i$ is not order unity, as illustrated in \figref{fig_omegas}: for the three cases plotted there, $\kperp d_i=1$ corresponds to $\kperp\rho_i=0.1$, $1$ and $10$ for $\beta_i=0.01$, $1$ and $100$, respectively, but there is no trace of the ion inertial scale in the solutions of the linear dispersion relation. Nonlinearly, in the limit $\beta_i\ll1$, we may consider the scales $\kperp d_i\sim1$ and expand the gyrokinetics in $\kperp\rho_i=\kperp d_i\sqrt{\beta_i}\ll1$ in a way similar to how it was done in \secref{sec_KRMHD} and obtain precisely the same results: Alfv\'enic fluctuations described by the RMHD equations and compressive fluctuations passively advected by them and satisfying the reduced kinetic equation derived in \secref{sec_sw}. Thus, even though $d_i\gg\rho_i$ at low beta, there is no change in the nature of the turbulent cascade until $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ is reached. The nonlinear theory of what happens at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ is very poorly understood. It is, however, possible to make progress by examining what kind of fluctuations emerge on the other side of the transition, at $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$. As we will demonstrate below, it turns out that another turbulent cascade---this time of KAW---is possible in this so-called {\em dissipation range}. It can transfer the energy of KAW-like fluctuations down to the electron gyroscale, where electron Landau damping becomes important (see \citealt{Howes_etal}). Some observational evidence of KAW is, indeed, available in the solar wind and the magnetosphere \citep[][see further discussion in \secref{sec_dr_spectra}]{Bale_etal,Grison_etal}. Below we derive the equations that describe KAW-like fluctuations in the scale range $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$, $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$ (\secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}) and work out a Kolmogorov-style scaling theory for this cascade (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}). Because of the presence of the collisionless damping at the ion gyroscale, only a certain fraction of the turbulent power arriving there from the inertial range is converted into the KAW cascade, while the rest is Landau-damped. The damping leads to the heating of the ions, but the process of depositing the collisionlessly damped fluctuation energy into the ion heat is non-trivial because, as we explained in \secref{sec_heating}, collisions do need to play a role in order for true heating to occur. As we explained in \secref{sec_heating} and will see specifically for the dissipation range in \secref{sec_en_ERMHD}, the electromagnetic-fluctuation energy does not disappear as a result of the Landau damping but is converted into ion entropy fluctuations, while the generalized energy is conserved. Collisions are then accessed and ion heating achieved via a purely kinetic phenomenon: the ion entropy cascade in phase space (nonlinear phase mixing), for which a theory is developed in \secsand{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_ent_no_KAW}. A similar process of conversion of the KAW energy into electron entropy fluctuations and then electron heat is treated in \secref{sec_ent_els}. \Figref{fig_cascade_channels} illustrates the routes energy takes from the ion gyroscale towards heating. Crucially, it is at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ that it is decided how much energy would eventually go into the ions and how much into electrons.\footnote{Some of the energy of compressive fluctuations may go into ion heat via collisional (\secref{sec_visc_diss}) or collisionless (\secref{sec_barnes}) damping of these fluctuations in the inertial range. Whether this is a significant ion heating mechanism depends on the efficiency of the parallel cascade (see \secsand{sec_par_phase}{sec_par_cascade}).} How this distribution of energy depends on plasma parameters ($\beta_i$ and $\Ti/\Te$) is an open theoretical question\footnote{How much energy is converted into ion entropy fluctuations in the process of a {\em nonlinear} turbulent cascade is not necessarily directly related to the strength of the {\em linear} collisionless damping.} of considerable astrophysical interest: e.g., the efficiency of ion heating is a key unknown in the theory of advection-dominated accretion flows \citep[][see discussion in \secref{sec_disks}]{Quataert_Gruzinov} and of the solar corona \citep[e.g.,][]{Cranmer_vanBallegooijen}; we will also see in \secref{sec_superposed} that it may determine the form of the observed dissipation-range spectra in space plasmas. A short summary of this section is given in \secref{sec_ERMHD_sum}. \subsection{Equations of Electron Reduced MHD} The derivation is straightforward: when $\kr_i\sim\kperp\rho_i\gg1$, all Bessel functions in \eqsdash{quasineut_sum}{dBpar_eq_sum} are small, so the integrals of the ion distribution function vanish and \eqsdash{quasineut_sum}{dBpar_eq_sum} become \bea {\dne\over\ne} &=& -{Ze\ephi\over\Ti} = - {2\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}{\Phi\over\rho_i v_A},\\ \upare &=& {c\over4\pi e\ne}\dperp^2\Apar = - {\rho_i\dperp^2\Psi\over\sqrt{\beta_i}},\qquad \upari = 0,\\ {\dBpar\over B_0} &=& {\beta_i\over2}\(1+{Z\over\tau}\){Ze\ephi\over\Ti} = \sqrt{\beta_i}\(1+{Z\over\tau}\){\Phi\over\rho_i v_A}, \eea where we used the definitions~\exref{Phi_Psi_def2} of the stream and flux functions $\Phi$ and $\Psi$. These equations are a reflection of the fact that, for $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$, the ion response is effectively purely Boltzmann, with the gyrokinetic part $\hi$ contributing nothing to the fields or flows [see \eqref{fs_exp} with $\hi$ omitted; $\hi$ does, however, play an important role in the energy balance and ion heating, as explained in \secsdash{sec_en_ERMHD}{sec_ent_no_KAW} below]. The Boltzmann response for ion density is expressed by \eqref{EMHD_dne}. \Eqref{EMHD_upar} states that the parallel ion flow velocity can be neglected. Finally, \eqref{EMHD_dBpar} expresses the pressure balance for Boltzmann (and, therefore, isothermal) electrons [\eqref{dpe_eq}] and ions: if we write \beq {B_0\dBpar\over4\pi} = -\dpi - \dpe = -\Ti\dni - \Te\dne, \eeq it follows that \beq {\dBpar\over B_0} = -{\beta_i\over2}\lt(1+{Z\over\tau}\rt){\dne\over\ne}, \eeq which, combined with \eqref{EMHD_dne}, gives \eqref{EMHD_dBpar}. We remind the reader that the perpendicular Amp\`ere's law, from which \eqref{EMHD_dBpar} was derived [\eqref{dBpar_eq} via \eqref{dBpar_eq_sum}] is, in gyrokinetics, indeed equivalent to the statement of perpendicular pressure balance (see \secref{sec_GK_field_eq}). Substituting \eqsdash{EMHD_dne}{EMHD_dBpar} into \eqsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{dne_eq_sum}, we obtain the following closed system of equations \bea {\dd\Psi\over\dd t} &=& v_A\(1+{Z\over\tau}\)\Dpar\Phi,\\ {\dd\Phi\over\dd t} &=& -{v_A\over2 + \beta_i\(1+Z/\tau\)}\,\Dpar\(\rho_i^2\dperp^2\Psi\). \eea Note that, using \eqref{EMHD_dBpar}, \eqsand{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} can be recast as two coupled evolution equations for the perpendicular and parallel components of the perturbed magnetic field, respectively [\eqsref{ERMHD_eqns_ap} in \apref{ap_EMHD}]. We shall refer to \eqsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} as {\em Electron Reduced MHD (ERMHD)}. They are related to the Electron Magnetohydrodynamics (EMHD)---a fluid-like approximation that evolves the magnetic field only and arises if one assumes that the magnetic field is frozen into the electron flow velocity $\vu_e$, while the ions are immobile, $\vu_i=0$ \citep{Kingsep_Chukbar_Yankov}: \bea {\dd\vB\over\dd t} = -{c\over4\pi e\ne}\vdel\times\lt[\lt(\vdel\times\vB\rt)\times\vB\rt]. \eea As explained in \apref{ap_EMHD}, the result of applying the RMHD/gyrokinetic ordering (\secsand{sec_RMHDordering}{sec_params}) to \eqref{EMHD_eq}, where $\vB=B_0\vz + \dvB$ and \bea {\dvB\over B_0} = {1\over v_A}\vz\times\vdperp\Psi + \vz\,{\dBpar\over B_0}, \eea coincides with our \eqsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} in the effectively incompressible limits of $\beta_i\gg1$ or $\beta_e=\beta_iZ/\tau\gg1$. When betas are arbitrary, density fluctuations cannot be neglected compared to the magnetic-field-strength fluctuations [\eqref{dBpar_via_dne}] and give rise to perpendicular ion flows with $\vdel\cdot\vu_i\neq0$. Thus, our ERMHD system constitutes the appropriate generalization of EMHD for low-frequency anisotropic fluctuations without the assumption of incompressibility. A (more tenuous) relationship also exists between our ERMHD system and the so-called Hall MHD, which, like EMHD, is based on the magnetic field being frozen into the electron flow, but includes the ion motion via the standard MHD momentum equation [\eqref{MHD_u}]. Strictly speaking, Hall MHD can only be used in the limit of cold ions, $\tau=\Ti/\Te\ll1$ \citep[see, e.g.,][and \apref{ap_Hall}]{Ito_etal,Hirose_etal}, in which case it can be shown to reduce to \eqsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} in the appropriate small-scale limit (\apref{ap_Hall}). Although $\tau\ll1$ is not a natural assumption for most space and astrophysical plasmas, Hall MHD has, due to its simplicity, been a popular theoretical paradigm in the studies of space and astrophysical plasma turbulence (see \secref{sec_dr_alt}). We have therefore devoted \apref{ap_Hall} to showing how this approximation fits into the theoretical framework proposed here: namely, we derive the anisotropic low-frequency version of the Hall MHD approximation from gyrokinetics under the assumption $\tau\ll1$ and discuss the role of the ion inertial and ion sound scales, which acquire physical significance in this limit. However, outside this Appendix, we assume $\tau\sim1$ everywhere and shall not use Hall MHD. The validity of the ERMHD equations as a model for plasma dynamics in the dissipation range is further discussed in \secref{sec_validity_ERMHD}. \subsection{Kinetic Alfv\'en Waves} The linear modes supported by ERMHD are kinetic Alfv\'en waves (KAW) with frequencies \bea \omega_\vk = \pm\sqrt{1+Z/\tau\over2+\beta_i\(1+Z/\tau\)}\, \kperp\rho_i\kpar v_A. \eea This dispersion relation is illustrated in \figref{fig_omegas}: note that the transition from Alfv\'en waves to dispersive KAW always occurs at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$, even when $\beta_i\ll1$ or $\beta_i\gg1$. In the latter case, there is a sharp frequency jump at the transition (accompanied by very strong ion Landau damping). The eigenfunctions corresponding to the two waves with frequencies \exref{omega_KAW} are \beq \Theta^\pm_\vk = \sqrt{\(1+{Z\over\tau}\)\lt[2+\beta_i\(1+{Z\over\tau}\)\rt]} \,{\Phi_\vk\over\rho_i} \mp \kperp\Psi_\vk. \eeq Using \eqsand{dB_decomp}{EMHD_dBpar}, the perturbed magnetic-field vector can be expressed as follows \beq {\dvB_\vk\over B_0} = -i\vz\times{\vkperp\over\kperp}{\Theta^+_\vk - \Theta^-_\vk\over 2v_A} +\vz\,\sqrt{1+Z/\tau\over2+\beta_i\(1+Z/\tau\)}\, {\Theta^+_\vk + \Theta^-_\vk\over 2v_A}, \eeq so, for a single ``$+$'' or ``$-$'' wave (corresponding to $\Theta^-_\vk=0$ or $\Theta^+_\vk=0$, respectively), $\dvB_\vk$ rotates in the plane perpendicular to the wave vector $\vkperp$ clockwise with respect to the latter, while the wave propagates parallel or antiparallel to the guide field (\figref{fig_kaw}). The waves are elliptically right-hand polarized. Indeed, using \eqref{EMHD_dBpar}, the perpendicular electric field is: \bea \nonumber \vEperpk &=& -i\vkperp\ephi + {i\omega_\vk\over c}\,\vAperpk\\ &=& \lt[-i\vkperp + \vz\times\vkperp{\omega_\vk\over\Omega_i} {\beta_i\over\kperp^2\rho_i^2}\lt(1+{Z\over\tau}\rt)\rt]\ephi \eea \citep[cf.][]{Gary_KAW,Hollweg_KAW}. The second term is small in the gyrokinetic expansion, so this is a very elongated ellipse (\figref{fig_kaw}). \pseudofigureone{fig_kaw}{kaw.ps}{f9.ps}{Polarization of the kinetic Alfv\'en wave, see \eqsand{dB_KAW}{Eperp_KAW}.} \subsection{Finite-Amplitude Kinetic Alfv\'en Waves} As we are about to argue for a critically balanced KAW turbulence in a fashion analogous to the GS theory for the Alfv\'en waves (\secref{sec_GS}), it is a natural question to ask how similar the nonlinear properties of a putative KAW cascade will be to an Alfv\'en-wave cascade. As in the case of Alfv\'en waves, there are two counterpropagating linear modes [\eqsand{omega_KAW}{KAW_ef}], and it turns out that certain superpositions of these modes (KAW packets) are also exact {\em nonlinear} solutions of \eqsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi}. Let us show that this is the case. We might look for the nonlinear solutions of \eqsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} by requiring that the nonlinear terms vanish. Since $\Dpar={\dd/\dd z} + (1/v_A)\{\Psi,\cdots\}$, this gives \bea \{\Psi,\Phi\} = 0 &\quad\Rightarrow\quad& \Psi = c_1\Phi,\\ \{\Psi,\rho_i^2\dperp^2\Psi\} = 0 &\quad\Rightarrow\quad& \rho_i^2\dperp^2\Psi = c_2\Psi, \eea where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants. Whether such solutions are possible is determined by substituting \eqsand{eq_c1}{eq_c2} into \eqsand{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} and demanding that the two resulting {\em linear} equations be consistent with each other (both equations now just evolve $\Psi$). This is achieved if\footnote{Formally speaking, $c_1$ and $c_2$ can depend on $t$ and $z$. If this is allowed, we still recover \eqref{c1c2_constraint}, but in addition to it, we get the evolution equation $c_1\dd c_1/\dd t = v_A(1+Z/\tau)\dd c_1/\dd z$. This allows $c_1=\const$, but there are, of course, other solutions. We shall not consider them here.} \bea c_1^2 = -{1\over c_2}\lt(1+{Z\over\tau}\rt)\lt[2+\beta_i\lt(1+{Z\over\tau}\rt)\rt], \eea so real solutions exist if $c_2<0$. In particular, wave packets consisting of KAW given by one of the linear eigenmodes \exref{KAW_ef} with an arbitrary shape in $z$ but confined to a single shell $|\vkperp|=\kperp=\const$, satisfy \eqsdash{eq_c1}{c1c2_constraint} with $c_2=-\kperp^2\rho_i^2$. This outcome is, in fact, only mildly non-trivial: in gyrokinetics, the Poisson bracket nonlinearity [\eqref{PB_def}] vanishes for any monochromatic (in $\vkperp$) mode because the Poisson bracket of two modes with wavenumbers $\vkperp$ and $\vkperp'$ is $\propto\vz\cdot(\vkperp\times\vkperp')$. Therefore, any monochromatic solution of the linearized equations is also an exact nonlinear solution. As we have shown above, a superposition of monochromatic KAW that have a fixed $\kperp$, or, somewhat more generally, satisfy \eqref{eq_c2} with a fixed $c_2$, is still an exact solution. Note that a similar procedure applied to the RMHD equations \exsdash{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi} returns the Elsasser solutions: perturbations of arbitrary shape that satisfy $\Phi=\pm\Psi$. The physical difference between these finite-amplitude Alfven-wave packets and the finite-amplitude KAW packets discussed above is that nonlinear interactions can occur not just between counterpropagating KAW but also between copropagating ones---a natural conclusion because KAW are dispersive (their group velocity along the guide field is $\propto v_A\kperp\rho_i$), so copropagating waves with different $\kperp$ can ``catch up'' with each other and interact.\footnote{The calculation above is analogous to the calculation by \citet{Mahajan_Krishan} for incompressible Hall MHD (i.e., essentially, the high-$\beta_e$ limit of the equations discussed in \apref{ap_Hall}), but the result is more general in the sense that it holds at arbitrary ion and electron betas. The Mahajan--Krishan solution in the EMHD limit amounts to noticing that \eqref{EMHD_eq} becomes linear for force-free (Beltrami) magnetic perturbations, $\vdel\times\dvB=\lambda\dvB.$ Substituting \eqref{dB_decomp} into this equation and using \eqref{EMHD_dBpar}, we see that the force-free equation is equivalent to \eqsdash{eq_c1}{c1c2_constraint} if $c_2=-\lambda^2$ and the incompressible limit ($\beta_i\gg1$ or $\beta_e=\beta_iZ/\tau\gg1$) is taken.} \subsection{Scalings for KAW Turbulence} A scaling theory for the turbulence described by \eqsdash{EMHD_dne}{EMHD_Phi} can be constructed along the same lines as the GS theory for the Alfv\'en-wave turbulence (\secref{sec_GS}). Namely, we shall assume that the turbulence below the ion gyroscale consists of KAW-like fluctuations with $\kpar\ll\kperp$ \citep{Quataert_Gruzinov} and that the interactions between them are critically balanced \citep{Cho_Lazarian_EMHD}, i.e., that the propagation time and nonlinear interaction time are comparable at every scale. We stress that none of these assumptions are, strictly speaking, inevitable\footnote{In fact, the EMHD turbulence was thought to be weak by several authors, who predicted a $k^{-2}$ spectrum of magnetic energy assuming isotropy \citep{Goldreich_Reisenegger} or $\kperp^{-5/2}$ for the anisotropic case \citep{Voitenko2,Galtier_Bhattacharjee,Galtier_HMHD}.} (and, in fact, neither were they inevitable in the case of Alfv\'en waves). Since we have derived \eqsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} from gyrokinetics, the anisotropy of the fluctuations described by these equations is hard-wired, but it is not guaranteed that the actual physical cascade below the ion gyroscale is indeed anisotropic, although analysis of solar-wind measurements does seem to indicate that at least a significant fraction of it is \citep[see][]{Leamon_etal98,Hamilton_etal}. Numerical simulations based on \eqref{EMHD_eq} \citep{Biskamp_etal_EMHD1,Biskamp_etal_EMHD2,Ghosh_etal,Ng_etal_EMHD,Cho_Lazarian_EMHD,Shaikh_Zank05} have revealed that the spectrum of magnetic fluctuations scales as $\kperp^{-7/3}$, the outcome consistent with the assumptions stated above. Let us outline the argument that leads to this scaling. First assume that the fluctuations are KAW-like and that $\Theta^+$ and $\Theta^-$ [\eqref{KAW_ef}] have similar scaling. This implies \bea \Psil\sim\sqrt{1+\beta_i}\,{\lambda\over\rho_i}\,{\Phil} \eea (for the purposes of scaling arguments and order-of-magnitude estimates, we set $Z/\tau=1$, but keep the $\beta_i$ dependence so low- and high-beta limits could be recovered if necessary). The fact that fixed-$\kperp$ KAW packets, which satisfy \eqref{KAW_fluct} with $\lambda=1/\kperp$, are exact nonlinear solutions of the ERMHD equations (\secref{sec_KAW_nlin}) lends some credence to this assumption. Assuming scale-space locality of interactions implies a constant-flux KAW cascade: analogously to \eqref{const_flux}, \bea {(\Psil/\lambda)^2\over\tKAW} \sim {(1+\beta_i)(\Phil/\rho_i)^2\over\tKAW} \sim \epsB = \const, \eea where $\tKAW$ is the cascade time and $\epsB$ is the KAW energy flux proportional to the fraction of the total flux $\eps$ (or the total turbulent power $\overline{\Pa}$; see \secref{sec_en_GK}) that was converted into the KAW cascade at the ion gyroscale. Using \eqsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} and \eqref{KAW_fluct}, it is not hard to see that the characteristic nonlinear decorrelation time is $\lambda^2/\Phil$. If the turbulence is strong, then this time is comparable to the inverse KAW frequency [\eqref{omega_KAW}] scale by scale and we may assume the cascade time is comparable to either: \bea \tKAW\sim {\lambda^2\over\Phil} \sim {1\over\sqrt{1+\beta_i}}{\rho_i\over\lambda}{v_A\over\lparl}. \eea In other words, this says that $\dd/\dd z\sim (\dvBperp/B_0)\cdot\vdperp$ and so $\dBpl/B_0\sim\lambda/\lparl$ (note that the last relation confirms that our scaling arguments do not violate the gyrokinetic ordering; see \secsand{sec_RMHDordering}{sec_params}). \Eqref{crit_bal_KAW} is the critical-balance assumption for KAW. As in the case of the Alfv\'en waves (\secref{sec_GS}), we might argue physically that the critical balance is set up because the parallel correlation length $\lparl$ is determined by the condition that a wave can propagate the distance $\lparl$ in one nonlinear decorrelation time corresponding to the perpendicular correlation length $\lambda$. Combining \eqsand{const_flux_KAW}{crit_bal_KAW}, we get the desired scaling relations for the KAW turbulence: \bea \Phil &\sim& \({\epsB\over\eps}\)^{1/3} {v_A\over(1+\beta_i)^{1/3}}\,\lo^{-1/3}\rho_i^{2/3}\lambda^{2/3},\\ \lparl &\sim& \({\eps\over\epsB}\)^{1/3} {\lo^{1/3}\rho_i^{1/3}\lambda^{1/3}\over(1+\beta_i)^{1/6}}, \eea where $\lo=v_A^3/\eps$, as in \secref{sec_GS}. The first of these scaling relations is equivalent to a $\kperp^{-7/3}$ spectrum of magnetic energy, the second quantifies the anisotropy (which is stronger than for the GS turbulence). Both scalings were confirmed in the numerical simulations of \citet{Cho_Lazarian_EMHD}---it is their detection of the scaling \exref{KAW_aniso_scaling} that makes a particularly strong case that KAW turbulence is not weak and that the critical balance hypothesis applies. For KAW-like fluctuations, the density [\eqref{EMHD_dne}] and magnetic field [\eqsand{EMHD_dBpar}{KAW_ef}] have the same spectrum as the scalar potential, i.e., $\kperp^{-7/3}$, while the electric field $E\sim\kperp\ephi$ has a $\kperp^{-1/3}$ spectrum. The solar-wind fluctuation spectra reported by \citet{Bale_etal} indeed are consistent with a transition to KAW turbulence around the ion gyroscale: $k^{-5/3}$ magnetic and electric-field power spectra at $k\rho_i\ll1$ are replaced, for $k\rho_i\gtrsim1$, with what appears to be consistent with a $k^{-7/3}$ scaling for the magnetic-field spectrum and a $k^{-1/3}$ for the electric one (see \figref{fig_bale}). A similar result is recovered in fully gyrokinetic simulations with $\beta_i=1$, $\tau=1$ \citep{Howes_etal3}. However, not all solar-wind observations are quite as straightforwardly supportive of the notion of the KAW cascade and much steeper magnetic-fluctuation spectra have also been reported \citep[e.g.,][]{Denskat_Beinroth_Neubauer,Leamon_etal98,Smith_etal06}. Possible reasons for this will emerge in \secsand{sec_validity_ERMHD}{sec_superposed} and the solar-wind data are further discussed in \secsand{sec_dr_spectra}{sec_dr_variability}. \subsection{Validity of the Electron RMHD and the Effect of Electron Landau Damping} The ERMHD equations derived in \secref{sec_ERMHD} are valid provided $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$ and also provided it is sufficient to use the leading order in the mass-ratio expansion (isothermal electrons; see \secref{sec_els}). In particular, this means that the electron Landau damping is neglected. Asymptotically speaking, this is a rigorous limit, but one must be cautious in applying it to real plasmas. Since the width of the scale range where $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$ and $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$ is only $\sim(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}\simeq43$, for some values of the plasma parameters ($\Ti/\Te$ and $\beta_i$) there may not be a very broad interval of scales where the electron Landau damping is truly negligible. Consider, for example, the low-beta limit, $\beta_i\ll1$. In this limit, the KAW frequency is $\omega\sim\kperp\rho_i\kpar v_A$ [\eqref{omega_KAW}]. The electron Landau damping becomes important when $\omega\sim\kpar\vthe$, or $\kperp\rho_e\sim\sqrt{\beta_i}\ll1$, so the ERMHD approximation breaks down and, consequently, the KAW cascade, if any, should be interrupted well before the electron gyroscale is reached. \Figref{fig_omegas} shows the solution of the full gyrokinetic dispersion relation \citep{Howes_etal} for small, unity and large $\beta_i$. One can judge for which scales and how well (or how badly) the ERMHD approximation holds from the precision with which the exact frequency follows the asymptotic solution \eqref{omega_KAW} and from the relative strength of the damping compared to the real frequency of the waves. Non-negligible electron Landau damping may affect turbulence spectra because one can no longer assume a constant flux of KAW energy as we did in \secref{sec_KAW_turb}. To evaluate the consequences of this effect, \citet{Howes_etal2} constructed a simple model of spectral energy transfer and concluded that Landau damping leads to steepening of the KAW spectra---one of several possible reasons for steep dissipation-range spectra observed in space plasmas (see also \secref{sec_superposed}). \subsection{Unfreezing of Flux} As ERMHD is a limit of the isothermal-electron-fluid system (\secref{sec_els}), the magnetic-field lines remain unbroken (see \secref{sec_flux}). Within the orderings employed above (small mass ratio, $\nui\sim\omega$, $\beta_i\sim1$, $\tau\sim1$), the flux unfreezes only in the vicinity of the electron gyroscale. It is interesting to evaluate somewhat more precisely the scale at which this happens as a function of plasma parameters. Physically, there are three kinds of mechanisms by which the flux conservation is broken: electron inertia, the effects of finite electron gyroradius, and Ohmic resistivity. Let us take the $\vpar$ moment of the electron gyrokinetic equation [\eqref{GK_eq}, $s=e$, integration at constant $\vr$] and use \eqref{EMHD_upar} to evaluate the inertial term in the resulting parallel electron momentum equation: \bea {cm_e\over e}{\dd\upare\over\dd t} = {\dd\over\dd t}\,d_e^2\dperp^2\Apar, \eea where $d_e=\rho_e/\sqrt{\beta_e}$ is the electron inertial scale and $\beta_e= Z\beta_i/\tau$. Comparing this with the $\dd\Apar/\dd t$ term in the right-hand side of the electron momentum equation, we see that the electron inertia becomes important when $\kperp\rho_e\sim\sqrt{\beta_e}$. The finite-gyroradius effects enter when $\kperp\rho_e\sim1$. Thus, at low $\beta_e$, the electron inertia becomes important above the electron gyroscale, whereas at high $\beta_e$, the finite-gyroradius effects enter first. Finally, the Ohmic resistivity comes from the collision term (see \apref{ap_ei}): \beq {cm_e\over e}\intve\vpar\dtcolle\sim {cm_e\over e}\nue\upare \sim \nue \kperp^2 d_e^2\Apar. \eeq Thus, resistivity starts to act when $\kperp d_e\sim (\omega/\nue)^{1/2}$. Using the KAW frequency [\eqref{omega_KAW}] to estimate $\omega$ and assuming that $\tau$ is not small, we get \bea \kperp\rho_e \sim \kpar\mfp\sqrt{\beta_i\over 1+\beta_i}{Z^2\over\tau^2}. \eea Thus, the resistive scale can only be larger the electron gyroscale if the plasma is collisional ($\kpar\mfp\ll1$) and/or electrons are much colder than ions ($\tau\gg1$) and/or $\beta_i\ll1$. Note if only the last of these conditions is satisfied, the electron inertia still becomes important at larger scales than resistivity. \subsection{Generalized Energy: KAW and Entropy Cascades} The generalized energy (\secref{sec_en_GK}) in the limit $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$ is calculated by substituting \eqsand{EMHD_dne}{EMHD_dBpar} into \eqref{W_els}: \bea \nonumber W &=& \int d^3\vr\lt\{\int d^3\vv\,{\Ti\<\hi^2\>_\vr\over2\fMi} + {\dBperp^2\over8\pi} \rt.\\ \nonumber &&\lt.+\ {\ni\Ti\over2}\(1+{Z\over\tau}\)\lt[1+{\beta_i\over2}\(1+{Z\over\tau}\)\rt] \lt({Ze\ephi\over\Ti}\rt)^2\rt\}\\ &=& \Whi + W_{\rm KAW}. \eea Here the first term, $\Whi$, is the total variance of $\hi$, which is proportional to minus the entropy of the ion gyrocenter distribution (see \secref{sec_heating}) and whose cascade to collisional scales will be discussed in \secsand{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_ent_no_KAW}. The remaining two terms are the independently cascaded KAW energy: \bea \nonumber W_{\rm KAW} &=& \intr{m_i\ni\over2}\Biggl\{|\vdperp\Psi|^2 \Biggr.\\ \nonumber &&\Biggl. +\ \(1+{Z\over\tau}\)\lt[1+{\beta_i\over2}\(1+{Z\over\tau}\)\rt] {\Phi^2\over\rho_i^2}\Biggr\}\\ &=& \intr{m_i\ni\over2}\lt(|\Theta^+|^2 + |\Theta^-|^2\rt). \eea Although we can write $W_{\rm KAW}$ as the sum of the energies of the ``$+$'' and ``$-$'' linear KAW eigenmodes [\eqref{KAW_ef}], which are also exact nonlinear solutions (\secref{sec_KAW_nlin}), the two do not cascade independently and can exchange energy. Note that the ERMHD equations also conserve $\intr\Psi\Phi$, which is readily interpreted as the helicity of the perturbed magnetic field (see \apref{ap_hel_els}). However, it does not affect the KAW cascade discussed in \secref{sec_KAW_turb} because it can be argued to have a tendency to cascade inversely (\apref{ap_inv_scalings}). Comparing the way the generalized energy is split above and below the ion gyroscale (see \secref{sec_en_KRMHD} for the $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ limit), we interpret what happens at the $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ transition as a redistribution of the power that arrived from large scales between a cascade of KAW and a cascade of the (minus) gyrocenter entropy in the phase space (see \figref{fig_cascade_channels}). The latter cascade is the way in which the energy diverted from the electromagnetic fluctuations by the collisionless damping (wave--particle interaction) can be transferred to the collisional scales and deposited into heat (\secref{sec_transition}). The concept of entropy cascade as the key agent in the heating of the plasma was introduced in \secref{sec_heating}, where we promised a more detailed discussion later on. We now proceed to this discussion. \subsection{Entropy Cascade} The ion-gyrocenter distribution function $\hi$ satisfies the ion gyrokinetic equation \exref{GK_ions_sum}, where ion--electron collisions are neglected under the mass-ratio expansion. At $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$, the dominant contribution to $\avchii$ comes from the electromagnetic fluctuations associated with KAW turbulence. Since the KAW cascade is decoupled from the entropy cascade, $\hi$ is a passive tracer of the ring-averaged KAW turbulence in phase space. Expanding the Bessel functions in the expression for $\avchiik$ [$\kr_i\gg1$ in \eqref{avchik_eq} with $s=i$] and making use of \eqsdash{EMHD_upar}{EMHD_dBpar} and of the KAW scaling $\Psi\sim\Phi/\kperp\rho_i$ [\eqref{KAW_ef}], it is not hard to show that \bea {Ze\over\Ti}\,\avchiik \simeq {Ze\over\Ti}\,\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i,\vk} = {2\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}{J_0(\kr_i)\Phi_\vk\over\rho_i v_A}, \eea where \bea J_0(a_i)\simeq\sqrt{2\over\pi\kr_i}\,\cos\(\kr_i-{\pi\over 4}\),\quad \kr_i=\kperp\rho_i\,{\vperp\over\vthi}, \eea so $\hi$ satisfies [\eqref{GK_ions_sum}] \beq {\dd\hi\over\dd t} + \vpar{\dd\hi\over\dd z} + \lt\{\<\Phi\>_{\vR_i},\hi\rt\} = {2\over\sqrt{\beta_i}\,\rho_i v_A} {\dd\<\Phi\>_{\vR_i}\over\dd t}\,\fMi + \lt<\dC_{ii}[\hi]\rt>_{\vR_i} \eeq with the conservation law [\eqref{hsq_eq}, $s=i$] \bea \nonumber {1\over\Ti}{d\Whi\over dt} &\equiv& {d\over dt}\int d^3\vv\intRi{\hi^2\over2\fMi}\\ \nonumber &=& {2\over\sqrt{\beta_i}\,\rho_i v_A}\int d^3\vv\intRi{\dd\<\Phi\>_{\vR_i}\over\dd t}\,\hi\\ &&+\ \int d^3\vv\intRi{\hi\lt<\dC_{ii}[\hi]\rt>_{\vR_i}\over\fMi}. \qquad \eea \subsubsection{Nonlinear Perpendicular Phase Mixing} The wave--particle interaction term (the first term on the right hand sides of these two equations) will shortly be seen to be subdominant at $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$. It represents the source of the invariant $\Whi$ due to the collisionless damping at the ion gyroscale of some fraction of the energy arriving from the inertial range. In a stationary turbulent state, we should have $\overline{d\Whi/dt} = 0$ and this source should be balanced on average by the (negative definite) collisional dissipation term (~=~heating; see \secref{sec_heating}). This balance can only be achieved if $\hi$ develops small scales in the velocity space and carries the generalized energy, or, in this case, entropy, to scales in the phase space at which collisions are important. A quick way to see this is by recalling that the collision operator has two velocity derivatives and can only balance the terms on the left-hand side of \eqref{hi_eq_KAW}~if \bea \nui\vthi^2\({\dd\over\dd\vv}\)^2\sim \omega \quad\Rightarrow\quad {\delta v\over\vthi}\sim\Biggl({\nui\over\omega}\Biggr)^{1/2}, \eea where $\omega$ is the characteristic frequency of the fluctuations of $\hi$. If $\nui\ll\omega$, $\delta v/\vthi\ll1$. This is certainly true for $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$: taking $\omega\sim\kpar v_A$ and using $\kpar\mfp\gg1$ (which is the appropriate limit at and below the ion gyroscale for most of the plasmas of interest; cf.\ footnote~), we have $\nui/\omega\sim\sqrt{\beta_i}/\kpar\mfp\ll1$. \pseudofigureone{fig_gyroorbits}{gyroorbits2.ps}{f10.ps}{Nonlinear perpendicular phase-mixing mechanism: the gyrocenter distribution function at $\vR_i$ of particles with velocities $\vperp$ and $\vperp'$ is mixed by turbulent fluctuations of the potential $\Phi$ ($\vE\times\vB$ flows) averaged over particle orbits separated by a distance greater than the correlation length of~$\Phi$.} The condition \exref{dv_small} means that the collision rate can be arbitrarily small---this will always be compensated by the sufficiently fine velocity-space structure of the distribution function to produce a finite amount of entropy production (heating) independent of $\nui$ in the limit $\nui\to +0$. The situation bears some resemblance to the emergence of small spatial scales in neutral-fluid turbulence with arbitrarily small but non-zero viscosity \citep{K41}. The analogy is not perfect, however, because the ion gyrokinetic equation \exref{hi_eq_KAW} does not contain a nonlinear interaction term that would explicitly cause a cascade in the velocity space. Instead, the (ring-averaged) KAW turbulence mixes $\hi$ in the gyrocenter space via the nonlinear term in \eqref{hi_eq_KAW}, so $\hi$ will have small-scale structure in $\vR_i$ on characteristic scales much smaller than $\rho_i$. Let us assume that the dominant nonlinear effect is a local interaction of the small-scale fluctuations of $\hi$ with the similarly small-scale component of $\<\Phi\>_{\vR_i}$. Since ring averaging is involved and $\kperp\rho_i$ is large, the values of $\<\Phi\>_{\vR_i}$ corresponding to two velocities $\vv$ and $\vv'$ will come from spatially decorrelated electromagnetic fluctuations if $\kperp\vperp/\Omega_i$ and $\kperp\vperp'/\Omega_i$ [the argument of the Bessel function in \eqref{avchi_KAW}] differ by order unity, i.e., for \bea {\delta v_\perp\over\vthi}={|\vperp-\vperp'|\over\vthi}\sim {1\over\kperp\rho_i} \eea (see \figref{fig_gyroorbits}). This relation gives a correspondence between the decorrelation scales of $\hi$ in the position and velocity space. Combining \eqsand{dv_vs_kperp}{dv_small}, we see that there is a collisional cutoff scale determined by $\kperp\rho_i\sim(\omega/\nui)^{1/2}\gg1$.\footnote{Another source of small-scale spatial smoothing comes from the perpendicular gyrocenter-diffusion terms $\sim-\nui(v/\vthi)^2\kperp^2\rho_i^2\hki$ that arise in the ring-averaged collision operators, e.g., the second term in the model operator \exref{Cgk_formula}. These terms again enforce a cutoff wavenumber such that $\kperp\rho_i\sim(\omega/\nui)^{1/2}\gg1$.} The cutoff scale is much smaller than the ion gyroscale. In the range between these scales, collisional dissipation is small. The ion entropy fluctuations are transferred across this scale range by means of a cascade, for which we will construct a scaling theory in \secref{sec_KAW_scalings} (and, for the case without the background KAW turbulence, in \secref{sec_ent_no_KAW}). It is important to emphasize that no matter how small the collisional cutoff scale is, all of the generalized energy channeled into the entropy cascade at the ion gyroscale eventually reaches it and is converted into heat. Note that the rate at which this happens is in general amplitude-dependent because the process is nonlinear, although we will argue in \secref{sec_par_with_KAW} (see also \secref{sec_par_no_KAW}) that the nonlinear cascade time and the parallel linear propagation (particle streaming) time are related by a critical-balance-like condition (we will also argue there that the linear parallel phase mixing, which can generate small scales in $\vpar$, is a less efficient process than the nonlinear perpendicular one discussed above). It is interesting to note the connection between the entropy cascade and certain aspects of the gyrofluid closure formalism developed by \citet{Dorland_Hammett}. In their theory, the emergence of small scales in $\vperp$ manifested itself as the growth of high-order $\vperp$ moments of the gyrocenter distribution function. They correctly identified this effect as a consequence of the nonlinear perpendicular phase mixing of the gyrocenter distribution function caused by a perpendicular-velocity-space spread in the ring-averaged $\vE\times\vB$ velocities (given by $\<\vu_E\>_{\vR_i} = \vz\times\vdel\<\Phi\>_{\vR_i}$ in our notation) arising at and below the ion gyroscale. \subsubsection{Scalings} Since entropy is a conserved quantity, we will follow the well trodden Kolmogorov path, assume locality of interactions in scale space and constant entropy flux, and conclude, analogously to \eqref{const_flux}, \bea {\vthi^8\over\ni^2}{\hl^2\over\th}\sim\epsh=\const, \eea where $\epsh$ is the entropy flux proportional to the fraction of the total turbulent power $\eps$ (or $\overline{\Pa}$; see \secref{sec_en_GK}) that was diverted into the entropy cascade at the ion gyroscale, and $\th$ is the cascade time that we now need to find. By the critical-balance assumption, the decorrelation time of the electromagnetic fluctuations in KAW turbulence is comparable at each scale to the KAW period at that scale and to the nonlinear interaction time [\eqref{crit_bal_KAW}]: \beq \tKAW\sim {\lambda^2\over\Phil} \sim \({\eps\over\epsB}\)^{1/3}(1+\beta_i)^{1/3} {\lo^{1/3}\rho_i^{-2/3}\lambda^{4/3}\over v_A}. \eeq The characteristic time associated with the nonlinear term in \eqref{hi_eq_KAW} is longer than $\tKAW$ by a factor of $(\rho_i/\lambda)^{1/2}$ due to the ring averaging, which reduces the strength of the nonlinear interaction. This weakness of the nonlinearity makes it possible to develop a systematic analytical theory of the entropy cascade \citep{SC_entropy}. It is also possible to estimate the cascade time $\th$ via a more qualitative argument analogous to that first devised by \citet{Kraichnan} for the weak turbulence of Alfv\'en waves: during each KAW correlation time $\tKAW$, the nonlinearity changes the amplitude of $\hi$ by only a small amount: \bea \Delta\hl \sim (\lambda/\rho_i)^{1/2}\hl \ll \hl; \eea these changes accumulate with time as a random walk, so after time $t$, the cumulative change in amplitude is $\Delta\hl (t/\tKAW)^{1/2}$; finally, the cascade time $t=\th$ is the time after which the cumulative change in amplitude is comparable to the amplitude itself, which gives, using \eqref{tKAW_scaling}, \beq \th \sim {\rho_i\over\lambda}\,\tKAW \sim \({\eps\over\epsB}\)^{1/3}(1+\beta_i)^{1/3} {\lo^{1/3}\rho_i^{1/3}\lambda^{1/3}\over v_A}. \eeq Substituting this into \eqref{const_flux_h}, we get \beq \hl \sim {\ni\over\vthi^3}\Biggl({\epsh\over\eps}\Biggr)^{1/2} \({\eps\over\epsB}\)^{1/6} {(1+\beta_i)^{1/6}\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}\, \lo^{-1/3}\rho_i^{1/6}\lambda^{1/6}, \eeq which corresponds to a $\kperp^{-4/3}$ spectrum of entropy. In the argument presented above, we assumed that the scaling of $\hi$ was determined by the nonlinear mixing of $\hi$ by the ring-averaged KAW fluctuations rather than by the wave--particle interaction term on the right-hand side of \eqref{hi_eq_KAW}. We can now confirm the validity of this assumption. The change in amplitude of $\hi$ in one KAW correlation time $\tKAW$ due to the wave--particle interaction term is \bea \nonumber \Delta\hl &\sim& {\ni\over\vthi^3}\({\lambda\over\rho_i}\)^{1/2} {\Phil\over\sqrt{\beta_i}\,\rho_i v_A}\\ &\sim& {\ni\over\vthi^3}\({\epsB\over\eps}\)^{1/3} {1\over\sqrt{\beta_i}\,(1+\beta_i)^{1/3}}\, \lo^{-1/3}\rho_i^{-5/6}\lambda^{7/6},\qquad \eea where we have used \eqref{KAW_Phi_scaling}. Comparing this with \eqref{Delta_h} and using \eqref{hi_scaling_KAW}, we see that $\Delta\hl$ in \eqref{h_steep} is a factor of $(\lambda/\rho_i)^{1/2}$ smaller than $\Delta\hl$ due to the nonlinear mixing. \subsubsection{Phase-Space Cutoff} To work out the cutoff scales both in the position and velocity space, we use \eqsand{dv_small}{dv_vs_kperp}: in \eqref{dv_small}, $\omega\sim 1/\th$, where $\th$ is the characteristic decorrelation time of $\hi$ given by \eqref{tau_h}; using \eqref{dv_vs_kperp}, we find the cutoffs: \beq {\delta v_\perp\over\vthi}\sim {1\over\kperp\rho_i}\sim (\nui\taur)^{3/5} = \Do^{-3/5}, \eeq where $\taur$ is the cascade time [\eqref{tau_h}] taken at $\lambda=\rho_i$. By a recently established convention, the dimensionless number $\Do=1/\nui\taur$ is called the Dorland number. It plays the role of Reynolds number for kinetic turbulence, measuring the scale separation between the ion gyroscale and the collisional dissipation scale \citep{SCDHHPQT_crete,Tatsuno_etal1,Tatsuno_etal2}. \subsubsection{Parallel Phase Mixing} Another assumption, which was made implicitly, was that the parallel phase mixing due to the second term on the left-hand side of \eqref{hi_eq_KAW} could be ignored. This requires justification, especially because it is with this ``ballistic'' term that one traditionally associates the emergence of small-scale structure in the velocity space \citep[e.g.,][]{Krommes_Hu,Krommes_df,Watanabe_Sugama04}. The effect of the parallel phase mixing is to produce small scales in velocity space $\delta\vpar\sim1/\kpar t$. Let us assume that the KAW turbulence imparts its parallel decorrelation scale to $\hi$ and use the scaling relation \exref{KAW_aniso_scaling} to estimate $\kpar\sim\lparl^{-1}$. Then, after one cascade time $\th$ [\eqref{tau_h}], $\hi$ is decorrelated on the parallel velocity scales \bea {\delta\vpar\over\vthi}\sim {\lparl\over\vthi\th} \sim {1\over\sqrt{\beta_i(1+\beta_i)}}\sim1. \eea We conclude that the nonlinear perpendicular phase mixing [\eqref{cutoffs_KAW}] is more efficient than the linear parallel one. Note that up to a $\beta_i$-dependent factor \eqref{vpar_KAW} is equivalent to a critical-balance-like assumption for $\hi$ in the sense that the propagation time is comparable to the cascade time, or $\kpar\vpar\sim \th^{-1}$ [see \eqref{hi_eq_KAW}]. \subsection{Entropy Cascade in the Absence of KAW Turbulence} It is not currently known how one might determine analytically what fraction of the turbulent power arriving from the inertial range to the ion gyroscale is channeled into the KAW cascade and what fraction is dissipated via the kinetic ion-entropy cascade introduced in \secref{sec_ent_KAW} (perhaps it can only be determined by direct numerical simulations). It is certainly a fact that in many solar-wind measurements, the relatively shallow magnetic-energy spectra associated with the KAW cascade (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}) fail to appear and much steeper spectra are detected \citep[close to $k^{-4}$; see][]{Leamon_etal98,Smith_etal06}. In view of this evidence, it is interesting to ask what would be the nature of electromagnetic fluctuations below the ion gyroscale if the KAW cascade failed to be launched, i.e., if all (or most) of the turbulent power were directed into the entropy cascade (i.e., if $W\simeq\Whi$ in \secref{sec_en_ERMHD}). \subsubsection{Equations} It is again possible to derive a closed set of equations for all fluctuating quantities. Let us assume (and verify a posteriori; \secref{sec_mag}) that the characteristic frequency of such fluctuations is much lower than the KAW frequency [\eqref{omega_KAW}] so that the first term in \eqref{Apar_eq_sum} is small and the equation reduces to the balance of the other two terms. This gives \bea {\dne\over\ne} = {e\ephi\over\Te}, \eea meaning that the electrons are purely Boltzmann [$\he=0$ to lowest order; see \eqref{hezero_formula}]. Then, from \eqref{quasineut_sum}, \beq {Ze\ephi\over\Ti} \equiv {2\Phi\over\rho_i\vthi} = \(1+{\tau\over Z}\)^{-1}\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \intvi J_0(\kr_i)\hki \eeq Using \eqref{phi_from_h}, we find from \eqref{dBpar_eq_sum} that the field-strength fluctuations are \beq {\dBpar\over B_0} = -{\beta_i\over2}\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \intvi {2\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{J_1(\kr_i)\over\kr_i}\,\hki, \eeq which is smaller than $Ze\ephi/\Ti$ by a factor of $\beta_i/\kperp\rho_i$. Therefore, we can neglect $\dBpar/B_0$ compared to $\dne/\ne$ in \eqref{dne_eq_sum}. Using \eqref{Boltzmann_els}, we get what is physically the electron continuity equation: \bea {\dd\over\dd t}{e\ephi\over\Te} + \Dpar\({c\over4\pi e\ne}\,\vdperp^2\Apar + \upari\) = 0,\\ \upari = \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\intvi \vpar J_0(\kr_i)\hki. \eea Note that in terms of the stream and flux functions, \eqref{Apar_no_KAW} takes the form \bea {\dd\over\dd z}\,\rho_i^2\vdperp^2\Psi = \sqrt{\beta_i}\lt( {2\tau\over Z}{1\over\vthi}{\dd\Phi\over\dd t} + \rho_i\,{\dd\upari\over\dd z}\rt), \eea where we have approximated $\Dpar\simeq\dd/\dd z$, which will, indeed, be shown to be correct in \secref{sec_mag}. Together with the ion gyrokinetic equation, which determines $\hi$, \eqsdash{Boltzmann_els}{Apar_no_KAW} form a closed set. They describe low-frequency fluctuations of the density and electromagnetic field due solely to the presence of fluctuations of $\hi$ below the ion gyroscale. It follows from \eqref{Bpar_no_KAW} that $\dBpar/B_0$ contributes subdominantly to $\avchii$ [\eqref{avchik_eq} with $s=i$ and $\kr_i\gg1$]. It will be verified a posteriori (\secref{sec_mag}) that the same is true for $\Apar$. Therefore, \eqsand{avchi_KAW}{hi_eq_KAW} continue to hold, as in the case with KAW. This means that \eqsand{hi_eq_KAW}{phi_from_h} form a closed subset. Thus the kinetic ion-entropy cascade is self-regulating in the sense that $\hi$ is no longer passive (as it was in the presence of KAW turbulence; \secref{sec_ent_KAW}) but is mixed by the ring-averaged ``electrostatic'' fluctuations of the scalar potential, which themselves are produced by $\hi$ according to \eqref{phi_from_h}. The magnetic fluctuations are passive and determined by the electrostatic and entropy fluctuations via \eqsand{Bpar_no_KAW}{Apar_no_KAW}. \subsubsection{Scalings} From \eqref{phi_from_h}, we can establish a correspondence between $\Phil$ and $\hl$ (the electrostatic fluctuations and the fluctuations of the ion-gyrocenter distribution function): \beq \Phil\sim {\rho_i\vthi}\({\lambda\over\rho_i}\)^{1/2} {\hl\vthi^3\over\ni}\({\delta\vperp\over\vthi}\)^{1/2} \sim {\vthi^4\over\ni}\,\hl\lambda, \eeq where the factor of $(\lambda/\rho_i)^{1/2}$ comes from the Bessel function [\eqref{Bessel_osc}] and the factor of $(\delta\vperp/\vthi)^{1/2}$ results from the $\vperp$ integration of the oscillatory factor in the Bessel function times $\hi$, which decorrelates on small scales in the velocity space and, therefore, its integral accumulates in a random-walk-like fashion. The velocity-space scales are related to the spatial scales via \eqref{dv_vs_kperp}, which was arrived at by an argument not specific to KAW-like fluctuations and, therefore, continues to hold. Using \eqref{phi_from_h_scaling}, we find that the wave--particle interaction term in the right-hand side of \eqref{hi_eq_KAW} is subdominant: comparing it with $\dd\hi/\dd t$ shows that it is smaller by a factor of $(\lambda/\rho_i)^{3/2}\ll1$. Therefore, it is the nonlinear term in \eqref{hi_eq_KAW} that controls the scalings of $\hl$ and $\Phil$. We now assume again the scale-space locality and constancy of the entropy flux, so \eqref{const_flux_h} holds. The cascade (decorrelation) time is equal to the characteristic time associated with the nonlinear term in \eqref{hi_eq_KAW}: $\th\sim (\rho_i/\lambda)^{1/2}\lambda^2/\Phil$. Substituting this into \eqref{const_flux_h} and using \eqref{phi_from_h_scaling}, we arrive at the desired scaling relations for the entropy cascade \citep{SCDHHPQT_crete}: \bea \hl &\sim& {\ni\over\vthi^3}\({\epsh\over\eps}\)^{1/3} {1\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}\, \lo^{-1/3}\rho_i^{1/6}\lambda^{1/6},\\ \Phil &\sim& \({\epsh\over\eps}\)^{1/3} {\vthi\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}\,\lo^{-1/3}\rho_i^{1/6}\lambda^{7/6},\\ \th &\sim& \({\eps\over\epsh}\)^{1/3} {\sqrt{\beta_i}\over\vthi}\, \lo^{1/3}\rho_i^{1/3}\lambda^{1/3}, \eea where $\lo=v_A^3/\eps$, as in \secref{sec_GS}. Note that since the existence of this cascade depends on it not being overwhelmed by the KAW fluctuations, we should have $\epsB\ll\eps$ and $\epsh=\eps-\epsB\approx\eps$. The scaling for the ion-gyrocenter distribution function, \eqref{hi_scaling_no_KAW}, implies a $\kperp^{-4/3}$ spectrum---the same as for the KAW turbulence [\eqref{hi_scaling_KAW}]. The scaling for the the cascade time, \eqref{tau_scaling_no_KAW}, is also similar to that for the KAW turbulence [\eqref{tau_h}]. Therefore the velocity- and gyrocenter-space cutoffs are still given by \eqref{cutoffs_KAW}, where $\taur$ is now given by \eqref{tau_scaling_no_KAW} taken at $\lambda=\rho_i$. A new feature is the scaling of the scalar potential, given by \eqref{phi_scaling_no_KAW}, which corresponds to a $\kperp^{-10/3}$ spectrum (unlike the KAW spectrum, \secref{sec_KAW_turb}). This is a measurable prediction for the electrostatic fluctuations: the implied electric-field spectrum is $\kperp^{-4/3}$. From \eqref{Boltzmann_els}, we also conclude that the density fluctuations should have the same spectrum as the scalar potential, $\kperp^{-10/3}$---another measurable prediction. The scalings derived above for the spectra of the ion distribution function and of the scalar potential have been confirmed in the numerical simulations by \citet{Tatsuno_etal1,Tatsuno_etal2}, who studied decaying electrostatic gyrokinetic turbulence in two spatial dimensions. They also found velocity-space scalings in accord with \eqref{dv_vs_kperp} (using a spectral representation of the correlation functions in the $\vperp$ space based on the Hankel transform of the distribution function; see \citealt{Plunk_etal}). \subsubsection{Parallel Cascade and Parallel Phase Mixing} We have again ignored the ballistic term (the second on the left-hand side) in \eqref{hi_eq_KAW}. We will estimate the efficiency of the parallel spatial cascade of the ion entropy and of the associated parallel phase mixing by making a conjecture analogous to the critical balance: assuming that any two perpendicular planes only remain correlated provided particles can stream between them in one nonlinear decorrelation time (cf.\ \secsand{sec_GS}{sec_par_with_KAW}), we conclude that the parallel particle-streaming frequency $\kpar\vpar$ should be comparable at each scale to the inverse nonlinear time $\th^{-1}$, so \bea \kpar\vthi\th\sim1. \eea As we explained in \secref{sec_par_with_KAW}, the parallel scales in the velocity space generated via the ballistic term are related to the parallel wavenumbers by $\delta\vpar\sim1/\kpar t$. From \eqref{kin_crit_bal}, we find that after one cascade time $\th$, the typical parallel velocity scale is $\delta\vpar/\vthi\sim 1$, so the parallel phase mixing is again much less efficient than the perpendicular one. Note that \eqref{kin_crit_bal} combined with \eqref{tau_scaling_no_KAW} means that the anisotropy is again characterized by the scaling relation $\kpar\sim\kperp^{1/3}$, similarly to the case of KAW turbulence [see \eqref{KAW_aniso_scaling} and \secref{sec_par_with_KAW}]. \subsubsection{Scalings for the Magnetic Fluctuations} The scaling law for the fluctuations of the magnetic-field strength follows immediately from \eqsand{Bpar_no_KAW}{phi_scaling_no_KAW}: \bea {\dBparl\over B_0}\sim\beta_i\,{\lambda\over\rho_i} {\Phil\over\rho_i\vthi}\sim \sqrt{\beta_i}\,\lo^{-1/3}\rho_i^{-11/6}\lambda^{13/6}, \eea whence the spectrum of these fluctuations is $\kperp^{-16/3}$. The scaling of $\Apar$ (the perpendicular magnetic fluctuations) depends on the relation between $\kpar$ and $\kperp$. Indeed, the ratio between the first and the third terms on the left-hand side of \eqref{Apar_no_KAW} [or, equivalently, between the first and second terms on the right-hand side of \eqref{Psi_no_KAW}] is $\sim\(\kpar\vthi\th\)^{-1}$. For a critically balanced cascade, this makes the two terms comparable [\eqref{kin_crit_bal}]. Using the first term to work out the scaling for the perpendicular magnetic fluctuations, we get, using \eqref{phi_scaling_no_KAW}, \beq {\dBpl\over B_0}\sim {1\over\lambda}{\Psil\over v_A} \sim \beta_i\,{\lambda\over\rho_i}{\Phil\over\rho_i\vthi} \sim \sqrt{\beta_i}\,\lo^{-1/3}\rho_i^{-11/6}\lambda^{13/6}, \eeq which is the same scaling as for $\dBpar/B_0$ [\eqref{Bpar_scaling_no_KAW}]. Using \eqref{Bperp_scaling_no_KAW} together with \eqsand{phi_scaling_no_KAW}{tau_scaling_no_KAW}, it is now straightforward to confirm the three assumptions made in \secref{sec_eqs_no_KAW} that we promised to verify a posteriori: \begin{enumerate} \item In \eqref{Apar_eq_sum}, $\dd\Apar/\dd t\ll c\Dpar\ephi$, so \eqref{Boltzmann_els} holds (the electrons remain Boltzmann). This means that no KAW can be excited by the cascade. \item $\dBperp/B_0\ll\kpar/\kperp$, so $\Dpar\simeq\dd/\dd z$ in \eqref{Apar_no_KAW}. This means that field lines are not significantly perturbed. \item In the expression for $\avchii$ [\eqref{avchik_eq}], $\vpar\Apar/c\ll\ephi$, so \eqref{hi_eq_KAW} holds. This means that the electrostatic fluctuations dominate the cascade. \end{enumerate} \subsection{Cascades Superposed?} The spectra of magnetic fluctuations obtained in \secref{sec_mag} are very steep---steeper, in fact, than those normally observed in the dissipation range of the solar wind (\secref{sec_dr_variability}). One might speculate that the observed spectra may be due to a superposition of the two cascades realizable below the ion gyroscale: a high-frequency cascade of KAW (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}) and a low-frequency cascade of electrostatic fluctuations due to the ion entropy fluctuations (\secref{sec_ent_no_KAW}). Such a superposition could happen if the power going into the KAW cascade is relatively small, $\epsB\ll\eps$. One then expects an electrostatic cascade to be set up just below the ion gyroscale with the KAW cascade superseding it deeper into the dissipation range. Comparing \eqsand{KAW_Phi_scaling}{phi_scaling_no_KAW}, we can estimate the position of the spectral break: \bea \kperp\rho_i \sim \lt(\eps/\epsB\rt)^{2/3}. \eea Since $\rho_i/\rho_e\sim (\tau m_i/m_e)^{1/2}/Z$ is not a very large number, the dissipation range is not very wide. It is then conceivable that the observed spectra are not true power laws but simply non-asymptotic superpositions of the electrostatic and KAW spectra with the observed range of ``effective'' spectral exponents due to varying values of the spectral break \exref{kperp_break} between the two cascades.\footnote{Several alternative theories that aim to explain the dissipation-range spectra exist: see \secref{sec_dr_alt}.} The value of $\epsB/\eps$ specific to any particular set of parameters ($\beta_i$, $\tau$, etc.) is set by what happens at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ (\secref{sec_transition}; see \secref{sec_dr_transition}, \secref{sec_dr_variability}, and \secref{sec_disks} for further discussion). \subsection{Below the Electron Gyroscale: The Last Cascade} Finally, let us consider what happens when $\kperp\rho_e\gg1$. At these scales, we have to return to the full gyrokinetic system of equations. The quasi-neutrality [\eqref{quasineut}], parallel [\eqref{Amp_par}] and perpendicular [\eqref{dBpar_eq}] Amp\`ere's law become \bea {e\ephi\over\Te} = -\lt(1+{Z\over\tau}\rt)^{-1}\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \intve J_0(\kr_e)\hke,\\ {c\over4\pi e\ne}\,\dperp^2\Apar = \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \intve \vpar J_0(\kr_e)\hke,\\ {\dBpar\over B_0} = -{\beta_e\over2}\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \intve {2\vperp^2\over\vthe^2}{J_1(\kr_e)\over\kr_e}\,\hke, \eea where $\beta_e=\beta_iZ/\tau$. We have discarded the velocity integrals of $\hi$ both because the gyroaveraging makes them subdominant in powers of $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$ and because the fluctuations of $\hi$ are damped by collisions [assuming the collisional cutoff given by \eqref{cutoffs_KAW} lies above the electron gyroscale]. To \eqsdash{phi_from_he}{Bpar_from_he}, we must append the gyrokinetic equation for $\he$ [\eqref{GK_eq} with $s=e$], thus closing the system. The type of turbulence described by these equations is very similar to that discussed in \secref{sec_ent_no_KAW}. It is easy to show from \eqsdash{phi_from_he}{Bpar_from_he} that \bea {\dBperp\over B_0}\sim{\dBpar\over B_0}\sim {\beta_e\over\kperp\rho_e}\,{e\ephi\over\Te}. \eea Hence the magnetic fluctuations are subdominant in the expression for $\avchie$ [\eqref{avchik_eq} with $s=e$ and $\kr_e\gg1$], so $\avchie\simeq\<\ephi\>_{\vR_e}$. The electron gyrokinetic equation then is \bea {\dd\he\over\dd t} + \vpar\,{\dd\he\over\dd z} + {c\over B_0}\lt\{\<\ephi\>_{\vR_e},\he\rt\} = \dtcolle, \eea where the wave--particle interaction term in the right-hand side has been dropped because it can be shown to be small via the same argument as in \secref{sec_electrost}. Together with \eqref{phi_from_he}, \eqref{he_eq_electrost} describes the kinetic cascade of electron entropy from the electron gyroscale down to the scale at which electron collisions can dissipate it into heat. This cascade the result of collisionless damping of KAW at $\kperp\rho_e\sim1$, whereby the power in the KAW cascade is converted into the electron-entropy fluctuations: indeed, in the limit $\kperp\rho_e\gg1$, the generalized energy is simply \bea W = \int d^3\vv\intRe{\Te\he^2\over2\fMe} = \Whe \eea (see \figref{fig_cascade_channels}). The same scaling arguments as in \secref{sec_electrost} apply and scaling relations analogous to \eqsdash{hi_scaling_no_KAW}{tau_scaling_no_KAW}, and \exref{Bpar_scaling_no_KAW} duly follow: \bea \hle &\sim& {\ne\over\vthe^3} \({\epsB\over\eps}\)^{1/3}\lt({1\over\beta_e}{m_e\over m_i}\rt)^{1/2} \lo^{-1/3}\rho_e^{1/6}\lambda^{1/6},\\ \Phil &\sim& \({\epsB\over\eps}\)^{1/3}\lt({1\over\beta_e}{m_e\over m_i}\rt)^{1/2} \vthe\,\lo^{-1/3}\rho_e^{1/6}\lambda^{7/6},\\ \th &\sim& \({\eps\over\epsB}\)^{1/3}\lt({\beta_e}{m_i\over m_e}\rt)^{1/2} {\lo^{1/3}\rho_e^{1/3}\lambda^{1/3}\over\vthe},\\ {\dBl\over B_0}&\sim& \({\epsB\over\eps}\)^{1/3}\lt(\beta_e{m_e\over m_i}\rt)^{1/2} \lo^{-1/3}\rho_e^{-11/6}\lambda^{13/6}, \eea where $\lo=v_A^3/\eps$, as in \secref{sec_GS}. The formula for the collisional cutoffs in the wavenumber and velocity space is analogous to \eqref{cutoffs_KAW}: \bea {\delta v_\perp\over\vthi}\sim {1\over\kperp\rho_i}\sim (\nue\taure)^{3/5}, \eea where $\taure$ is the cascade time \exref{tau_scaling_els} taken at $\lambda=\rho_e$. \subsection{Validity of Gyrokinetics in the Dissipation Range} As the kinetic cascade takes the (generalized) energy to ever smaller scales, the frequency $\omega$ of the fluctuations increases. In applying the gyrokinetic theory, one must be mindful of the need for this frequency to stay smaller than $\Omega_i$. Using the scaling formulae for the characteristic times of the fluctuations derived above [\eqsref{tKAW_scaling}, \exref{tau_scaling_no_KAW} and \exref{tau_scaling_els}], we can determine the conditions for $\omega\ll\Omega_i$. Thus, for the gyrokinetic theory to be valid everywhere in the inertial range, we must have \bea \kperp\rho_i\ll \beta_i^{3/4} \({\lo\over\rho_i}\)^{1/2} \eea at all scales down to $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$, i.e., $\rho_i/\lo\ll\beta_i^{3/2}$, not a very stringent condition. Below the ion gyroscale, the KAW cascade (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}) remains in the gyrokinetic regime as long as \beq \kperp\rho_i\ll \({\eps\over\epsB}\)^{1/4}\beta_i^{3/8}(1+\beta_i)^{1/4} \({\lo\over\rho_i}\)^{1/4} \eeq (we are assuming $T_i/T_e\sim1$ everywhere). The condition for this still to be true at the electron gyroscale~is \beq {\rho_i\over\lo}\ll {\eps\over\epsB}\,\beta_i^{3/2}(1+\beta_i) \({m_e\over m_i}\)^2. \eeq The ion entropy fluctuations passively mixed by the KAW turbulence (\secref{sec_ent_KAW}) satisfy \eqref{KAW_validity} at all scales down to the ion collisional cutoff [\eqref{cutoffs_KAW}] if \beq {\mfp\over\lo}\ll \({\eps\over\epsB}\)^{3/4}\beta_i^{9/8}(1+\beta_i)^{3/4} \({\rho_i\over\lo}\)^{1/4}. \eeq Note that the condition for the ion collisional cutoff to lie above the electron gyroscale is \beq {\mfp\over\lo}\ll \({\eps\over\epsB}\)^{1/3}\sqrt{\beta_i}(1+\beta_i)^{1/3} \({m_i\over m_e}\)^{5/6}\({\rho_i\over\lo}\)^{2/3}. \eeq In the absence of KAW turbulence, the pure ion-entropy cascade (\secref{sec_ent_no_KAW}) remains gyrokinetic~for \beq \kperp\rho_i\ll \beta_i^{3/2}{\lo\over\rho_i}. \eeq This is valid at all scales down to the ion collisional cutoff provided ${\mfp/\lo}\ll \beta_i^3(\lo/\rho_i)$, an extremely weak condition, which is always satisfied. This is because the ion-entropy fluctuations in this case have much lower frequencies than in the KAW regime. The ion collisional cutoff lies above the electron gyroscale if, similarly to \eqref{cutoff_KAW_above}, \beq {\mfp\over\lo}\ll\sqrt{\beta_i}\({m_i\over m_e}\)^{5/6} \({\rho_i\over\lo}\)^{2/3}. \eeq If the condition \exref{cutoff_KAW_above} is satisfied, all fluctuations of the ion distribution function are damped out above the electron gyroscale. This means that below this scale, we only need the electron gyrokinetic equation to be valid, i.e., $\omega\ll\Omega_e$. The electron-entropy cascade (\secref{sec_ent_els}), whose characteristic timescale is given by \eqref{tau_scaling_els}, satisfies this condition for \beq \kperp\rho_e\ll \({\eps\over\epsB}\) \beta_e^{3/2} \({m_i\over m_e}\)^{3/2}{\lo\over\rho_e}. \eeq This is valid at all scales down to the electron collisional cutoff [\eqref{cutoffs_els}] provided $\mfpe/\lo\ll(\eps/\epsB)^2\beta_e^3(m_i/m_e)^3(\lo/\rho_e)$, which is always satisfied. Within the formal expansion we have adopted ($\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ and $\kpar\mfp\sim\sqrt{\beta_i}$), it is not hard to see that $\mfp/\lo\sim\epsilon^2$ and $\rho_i/\lo\sim\epsilon^3$. Since all other parameters ($m_e/m_i$, $\beta_i$, $\beta_e$ etc.) are order unity with respect to $\epsilon$, all of the above conditions for the validity of the gyrokinetics are asymptotically correct by construction. However, in application to real astrophysical plasmas, one should always check whether this construction holds. For example, substituting the relevant parameters for the solar wind shows that the gyrokinetic approximation is, in fact, likely to start breaking down somewhere between the ion and electron gyroscales \citep{Howes_etal2}.\footnote{See this paper also for a set of numerical tests of the validity of gyrokinetics in the dissipation range, a linear theory of the conversion of KAW into ion-cyclotron-damped Bernstein waves, and a discussion of the potential (un)importance of ion cyclotron damping for the dissipation of turbulence.} This releases a variety of high-frequency wave modes, which may be participating in the turbulent cascade around and below the electron gyroscale (see, e.g., the recent detailed observations of these scales in the magnetosheath by \citealt{Mangeney_etal06,Lacombe_etal06} or the early measurements of high-frequency fluctuations in the solar wind by \citealt{Denskat_Beinroth_Neubauer,Coroniti_etal}). \subsection{Summary} In this section, we have analyzed the turbulence in the dissipation range, which turned out to have many more essentially kinetic features than the inertial range. At the ion gyroscale, $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$, the kinetic cascade rearranged itself into two distinct components: part of the (generalized) energy arriving from the inertial range was collisionlessly damped, giving rise to a purely kinetic cascade of ion-entropy fluctuations, the rest was converted into a cascade of Kinetic Alfv\'en Waves (KAW) (\figref{fig_cascade_channels}; see \secsand{sec_transition}{sec_en_ERMHD}). The KAW cascade is described by two fluid-like equations for two scalar functions, the magnetic flux function $\Psi=-\Apar/\sqrt{4\pi m_i\ni}$ and the scalar potential, expressed, for continuity with the results of \secref{sec_KRMHD}, in terms of the function $\Phi=(c/B_0)\ephi$. The equations are (see \secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}) \bea {\dd\Psi\over\dd t} &=& v_A\(1+{Z\over\tau}\)\Dpar\Phi,\\ {\dd\Phi\over\dd t} &=& -{v_A\over2 + \beta_i\(1+Z/\tau\)}\,\Dpar\(\rho_i^2\dperp^2\Psi\), \eea where $\Dpar=\dd/\dd z + (1/v_A)\{\Psi,\cdots\}$. The density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations are directly related to the scalar potential: \bea {\dne\over\ne} = -{2\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}{\Phi\over\rho_i v_A},\quad {\dBpar\over B_0} = \sqrt{\beta_i}\lt(1+{Z\over\tau}\rt){\Phi\over\rho_i v_A}. \eea We call \eqsdash{ERMHD_Psi_sum}{ERMHD_nB_sum} the {\em Electron Reduced Magnetohydrodynamics (ERMHD)}. The ion-entropy cascade is described by the ion gyrokinetic equation: \beq {\dd\hi\over\dd t} + \vpar{\dd\hi\over\dd z} + \lt\{\<\Phi\>_{\vR_i},\hi\rt\} = \lt<\dC_{ii}[\hi]\rt>_{\vR_i}. \eeq The ion distribution function is mixed by the ring-averaged scalar potential and undergoes a cascade both in the velocity and gyrocenter space---this phase-space cascade is essential for the conversion of the turbulent energy into the ion heat, which can ultimately only be done by collisions (see \secref{sec_ent_KAW}). If the KAW cascade is strong (its power $\epsB$ is an order-unity fraction of the total injected turbulent power $\eps$), it determines $\Phi$ in \eqref{ERMHD_hi_sum}, so the ion-entropy cascade is passive with respect to the KAW turbulence. \Eqsdash{ERMHD_Psi_sum}{ERMHD_Phi_sum} and \exref{ERMHD_hi_sum} form a closed system that determines the three functions $\Phi$, $\Psi$, $\hi$, of which the latter is slaved to the first two. One can also compute $\dne$ and $\dBpar$, which are proportional to $\Phi$ [\eqref{ERMHD_nB_sum}]. The generalized energy conserved by these equations is given by \eqref{W_ERMHD}. If the KAW cascade is weak ($\epsB\ll\eps$), the ion-entropy cascade dominates the turbulence in the dissipation range and drives low-frequency mostly electrostatic fluctuations, with a subdominant magnetic component. These are given by the following relations (see \secref{sec_ent_no_KAW}) \bea \Phi &=& {\rho_i\vthi\over 2(1+\tau/Z)} \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \intvi J_0(\kr_i)\hki,\\ {\dne\over\ne} &=& {2Z\over\tau} {\Phi\over\rho_i\vthi},\\ \nonumber \Psi &=& \rho_i\sqrt{\beta_i} \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\times\\ &&\intvi \lt({1\over1+Z/\tau}{i\over\kpar}{\dd\over\dd t} - \vpar\rt) {J_0(\kr_i)\over\kperp^2\rho_i^2}\,\hki,\\ {\dBpar\over B_0} &=& -{\beta_i\over2}\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \intvi {2\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{J_1(\kr_i)\over\kr_i}\,\hki, \eea where $\kr_i={\kperp\vperp/\Omega_i}$, \Eqsand{ERMHD_hi_sum}{Phi_sum} form a closed system for $\Phi$ and $\hi$. The rest of the fields, namely $\dne$, $\Psi$ and $\dBpar$, are slaved to $\hi$ via \eqsdash{dne_sum}{Bpar_sum}. The fluid and kinetic models summarized above are valid between the ion and electron gyroscales. Below the electron gyroscale, the collisionless damping of the KAW cascade converts it into a cascade of electron entropy, similar in nature to the ion-entropy cascade (\secref{sec_ent_els}). The KAW cascade and the low-frequency turbulence associated with the ion-entropy cascade have distinct scaling behaviors. For the KAW cascade, the spectra of the electric, density and magnetic fluctuations are (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}) \beq E_E(\kperp)\propto \kperp^{-1/3},\quad E_n(\kperp)\propto \kperp^{-7/3},\quad E_B(\kperp)\propto \kperp^{-7/3}. \eeq For the ion- and electron-entropy cascades (\secsand{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_ent_els}), \beq E_E(\kperp)\propto \kperp^{-4/3},\quad E_n(\kperp)\propto \kperp^{-10/3},\quad E_B(\kperp)\propto \kperp^{-16/3}. \eeq We argued in \secref{sec_superposed} that the observed spectra in the dissipation range of the solar wind could be the result of a superposition of these two cascades, although a number of alternative theories exist (\secref{sec_dr_alt}). \section{Discussion of Astrophysical Applications} We have so far only occasionally referred to some relevant observational evidence for space and astrophysical plasmas. We now discuss in more detail how the theoretical framework laid out above applies to real plasma turbulence in space. Although we will discuss the interstellar medium, accretion disks and galaxy clusters towards the end of this section, the most rewarding source of observational information about plasma turbulence in astrophysical conditions is the solar wind and the magnetosheath because only there direct in situ measurements of all the interesting quantities are possible. Measurements of the fluctuating magnetic and velocity fields in the solar wind have been available since the 1960s \citep{Coleman} and a vast literature now exists on their spectra, anisotropy, Alfv\'enic character and many other aspects (a short recent review is \citealt{Horbury_etal_review}; two long ones are \citealt{Tu_Marsch_review,Bruno_Carbone}). It is not our aim here to provide a comprehensive survey of what is known about plasma turbulence in the solar wind. Instead, we shall limit our discussion to a few points that we consider important in light of the theoretical framework proposed in this paper.\footnote{An extended quantitative discussion of the applicability of the gyrokinetic theory to the turbulence in the slow solar wind was given by \citet{Howes_etal2}.} As we do this, we shall provide copious references to the main body of the paper, so this section can be read as a data-oriented guide to it, aimed both at a thorough reader who has arrived here after going through the preceding sections and an impatient one who has skipped to this one hoping to find out whether there is anything of ``practical'' use in the theoretical developments above. \subsection{Inertial-Range Turbulence in the Solar Wind} In the inertial range, i.e., for $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$, the solar-wind turbulence should be described by the reduced hybrid fluid-kinetic theory derived in \secref{sec_KRMHD} (KRMHD). Its applicability hinges on three key assumptions: (i) the turbulence is Alfv\'enic, i.e., consists of small ($\dB/B_0\ll1$) low-frequency ($\omega\sim\kpar v_A\ll\Omega_i$) perturbations of an ambient mean magnetic field and corresponding velocity fluctuations; (ii) it is strongly anisotropic, $\kperp\gg\kpar$; (iii) the equilibrium distribution can be approximated or, at least, reasonably modeled by a Maxwellian without loss of essential physics (this will be discussed in \secref{sec_pressure_aniso}). If these assumptions are satisfied, KRMHD (summarized in \secref{sec_KRMHD_sum}) is a rigorous set of dynamical equations for the inertial range, a set of Kolmogorov-style scaling predictions for the Alfv\'enic component of the turbulence can be produced (the GS theory, reviewed in \secref{sec_GS}), while to the compressive fluctuations, the considerations of \secref{sec_damping} apply. So let us examine the observational evidence. \subsubsection{Alfv\'enic Nature of the Turbulence} The presence of Alfv\'en waves in the solar wind was reported already the early works of \citet{Unti_Neugebauer} and \citet{Belcher_Davis}. Alfv\'en waves are detected already at very low frequencies (large scales)---and, at these low frequencies, have a $k^{-1}$ spectrum.\footnote{Inferred from the frequency spectrum $f^{-1}$ via the \citet{Taylor_hyp} hypothesis, $f\sim \vk\cdot\vVsw$, where $\vVsw$ is the mean velocity at which the wind blows past the spacecraft. The Taylor hypothesis is a good assumption for the solar wind because $\Vsw$ ($\sim800$~km/s in the fast wind, $\sim300$~km/s in the slow wind) is highly supersonic, super-Alfv\'enic and far exceeds the fluctuating velocities.} This spectrum corresponds to a uniform distribution of scales/frequencies of waves launched by the coronal activity of the Sun. Nonlinear interaction of these waves gives rise to an Alfv\'enic turbulent cascade of the type that was discussed above. The effective outer scale of this cascade can be detected as a spectral break where the $k^{-1}$ scaling steepens to the Kolmogorov slope $k^{-5/3}$ (see \citealt{Bavassano_etal,Marsch_Tu_z,Horbury_etal96} for fast-wind results on the spectral break; for a discussion of the effective outer scale in the slow wind at 1~AU, see \citealt{Howes_etal2}). The particular scale at which this happens increases with the distance from the Sun \citep{Bavassano_etal}, reflecting the more developed state of the turbulence at later stages of evolution. At 1~AU, the outer scale is roughly in the range of $10^5-10^6$~km; the $k^{-5/3}$ range extends down to scales/frequencies that correspond to a few times the ion gyroradius ($10^2-10^3$~km; see \tabref{tab_scales}). The range between the outer scale (the spectral break) and the ion gyroscale is the inertial range. In this range, $\dB/B_0$ decreases with scale because of the steep negative spectral slope. Therefore, the assumption of small fluctuations, $\dB/B_0\ll1$, while not necessarily true at the outer scale, is increasingly better satisfied further into the inertial range (cf.\ \secref{sec_two_regimes}). Are these fluctuations Alfv\'enic? In a plasma such as the solar wind, they ought to be because, as showed in \secref{sec_AW}, for $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$, these fluctuations are rigorously described by the RMHD equations. The magnetic flux is frozen into the ion motions, so displacing a parcel of plasma should produce a matching (Alfv\'enic) perturbation of the magnetic field line and vice versa: in an Alfv\'en wave, $\vuperp = \pm\dvBperp/\sqrt{4\pi m_i\ni}$. The strongest confirmation that this is indeed true for the inertial-range fluctuations in the solar wind was achieved by \citet{Bale_etal}, who compared the spectra of electric and magnetic fluctuations and found that they both scale as $k^{-5/3}$ and follow each other with remarkable precision (see \figref{fig_bale}). The electric field is a very good measure of the perpendicular velocity field because, for $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$, the plasma velocity is the $\vE\times\vB$ drift velocity, $\vuperp = c\vE\times\vz/B_0$ (see \secref{sec_AW_coll}). This picture of agreement between basic theory and observations is upset in a disturbing fashion by an extraordinary recent result by \citet{Chapman_Hnat,Podesta_Roberts_Goldstein} and J.~E.~Borovsky (2008, private communication), who claim different spectral indices for velocity and magnetic fluctuations---$k^{-3/2}$ and $k^{-5/3}$, respectively. This result is puzzling because if it is asymptotically correct in the inertial range, it implies either $\uperp\gg\dBperp$ or $\uperp\ll\dBperp$ and it is not clear how perpendicular velocity fluctuations in a near-ideal plasma could fail to produce Alfv\'enic displacements and, therefore, perpendicular magnetic field fluctuations with matching energies. Plausible explanations may be either that the velocity field in these measurements is polluted by a non-Alfv\'enic component parallel to the magnetic field (although data analysis by \citealt{Chapman_Hnat} does not support this) or that the flattening of the velocity spectrum is due to some form of a finite-gyroradius effect or even an energy injection into the velocity fluctuations at scales approaching the ion gyroscale (e.g., from the pressure-anisotropy-driven instabilities, \secref{sec_pressure_aniso}). \subsubsection{Energy Spectrum} How solid is the statement that the observed spectrum has a $k^{-5/3}$ scaling? In individual measurements of the magnetic-energy spectra, very high accuracy is claimed for this scaling: the measured spectral exponent is between 1.6 and 1.7; agreement with Kolmogorov value 1.67 is often reported to be within a few percent \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Horbury_etal96,Leamon_etal98,Bale_etal,Narita_Glassmeier_Treumann,Alexandrova_sw,Horbury_etal_aniso}). There is a somewhat wider scatter of spectral indices if one considers large sets of measurement intervals \citep{Smith_etal06}, but overall, the observational evidence does not appear to be consistent with a $\kperp^{-3/2}$ spectrum consistently found in the MHD simulations with a strong mean field \citep{Maron_Goldreich,Mueller_Biskamp_Grappin,Mason_Cattaneo_Boldyrev2,Perez_Boldyrev,Perez_Boldyrev_imb,Beresnyak_Lazarian2} and defended on theoretical grounds in the recent modifications of the GS theory by \citet{Boldyrev_spectrum2} and by \citet{Gogoberidze07} (see footnote ). This discrepancy between observations and simulations remains an unresolved theoretical issue. It is probably best addressed by numerical modeling of the RMHD equations (\secref{sec_AW_fluid}) and by a detailed comparison of the structure of the Alfv\'enic fluctuations in such simulations and in the solar wind. \subsubsection{Anisotropy} Building up evidence for anisotropy of turbulent fluctuations has progressed from merely detecting their elongation along the magnetic field \citep{Belcher_Davis}---to fitting data to an ad hoc model mixing a 2D perpendicular and a 1D parallel (``slab'') turbulent components in some proportion\footnote{These techniques originate from the view of MHD turbulence as a superposition of a 2D turbulence and an admixture of Alfv\'en waves \citep{Fyfe_Joyce_Montgomery,Montgomery_Turner}. As we discussed in \secref{sec_GS}, we consider the \citet{GS95,GS97} view of a critically balanced Alfv\'enic cascade to be better physically justified.} \citep{Matthaeus_Goldstein_Roberts,Bieber_etal,Dasso_etal,Hamilton_etal}---to formal systematic unbiased analyses showing the persistent presence of anisotropy at all scales \citep{Bigazzi_etal,SorrisoValvo_etal}--- to direct measurements of three-dimensional correlation functions \citep{Osman_Horbury}---and finally to computing spectral exponents at fixed angles between $\vk$ and $\vB_0$ \citep{Horbury_etal_aniso}. The latter authors appear to have achieved the first direct quantitative confirmation of the GS theory by demonstrating that the magnetic-energy spectrum scales as $\kperp^{-5/3}$ in wavenumbers perpendicular to the mean field and as $\kpar^{-2}$ in wavenumbers parallel to it [consistent with the first scaling relation in \eqref{GS_scaling}]. This is the closest that observations have got to confirming the GS relation $\kpar\sim\kperp^{2/3}$ [see \eqref{GS_aniso}] in a real astrophysical turbulent plasma. \subsubsection{Compressive Fluctuations} According to the theory developed in \secref{sec_KRMHD}, the density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations are passive, energetically decoupled from and mixed by the Alfv\'enic cascade (\secref{sec_sw}; these are slow and entropy modes in the collisional MHD limit---see \secsand{sec_sw_fluid}{sec_visc}). These fluctuations are expected to be pressure-balanced, as expressed by \eqref{MHD_pr_bal} or, more generally in gyrokinetics, by \eqref{GK_pr_bal}. There is, indeed, strong evidence that magnetic and thermal pressures in the solar wind are anticorrelated, although there are some indications of the presence of compressive, fast-wave-like fluctuations as well \citep{Roberts_prbal,Burlaga_etal_prbal,Marsch_Tu_prbal,Bavassano_etal_prbal}. Measurements of density and field-strength fluctuations done by a variety of different methods both at 1~AU \citep{Celnikier_etal83,Celnikier_etal87,Marsch_Tu_compr,Bershadskii_Sreeni_Bpar,Hnat_Chapman_Rowlands2,Kellogg_Horbury,Alexandrova_sw} and near the Sun \citep{Lovelace_etal,Woo_Armstrong,Coles_Harmon,Coles_etal} show fluctuation levels of order 10\ spectra that appear to have a $k^{-5/3}$ scaling above scales of order $10^2-10^3$~km, which approximately corresponds to the ion gyroscale. The Kolmogorov value of the spectral exponent is, as in the case of Alfv\'enic fluctuations, measured quite accurately in individual cases \citep[$1.67\pm0.03$ in][]{Celnikier_etal87}. Interestingly, the higher-order structure function exponents measured for the magnetic-field strength show that it is a more intermittent quantity than the velocity or the vector magnetic field (i.e., than the Alfv\'enic fluctuations) and that the scaling exponents are quantitatively very close to the values found for passive scalars in neutral fluids \citep{Bershadskii_Sreeni_Bpar,Bruno_etal}. One might argue that this lends some support to the theoretical expectation of passive magnetic-field-strength fluctuations. Considering that in the collisionless regime these fluctuations are supposed to be subject to strong kinetic damping (\secref{sec_barnes}), the presence of well-developed Kolmogorov-like and apparently undamped turbulent spectra is more surprising than has perhaps been publicly acknowledged. An extended discussion of this issue was given in \secref{sec_par_cascade}. Without the inclusion of the dissipation effects associated with the finite ion gyroscale, the passive cascade of the density and field strength is purely perpendicular to the (exact) local magnetic field and does not lead to any scale refinement along the field. This implies highly anisotropic field-aligned structures, whose length is determined by the initial conditions (i.e., conditions in the corona). The kinetic damping is inefficient for such fluctuations. While this would seem to explain the presence of fully fledged power-law spectra, it is not entirely obvious that the parallel cascade is really absent once dissipation is taken into account \citep{Lithwick_Goldreich}, so the issue is not yet settled. This said, we note that there is plenty of evidence of a high degree of anisotropy and field alignment of the density microstructure in the inner solar wind and outer corona \citep[e.g.,][]{Armstrong_etal_aniso,Grall_etal_aniso,Woo_Habbal}. There is also evidence that the local structure of the compressive fluctuations at 1~AU is correlated with the coronal activity, implying some form of memory of initial conditions \citep{Kiyani_etal,Hnat_etal,Wicks_Chapman_Dendy}. We note, finally, that whether compressive fluctuations in the inertial range can develop short parallel scales should also tell us how much ion heating can result from their damping (see \secref{sec_par_phase}). \subsection{Dissipation-Range Turbulence in the Solar Wind and the Magnetosheath} At scales approaching the ion gyroscale, $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$, effects associated with the finite extent of ion gyroorbits start to matter. Observationally, this transition manifests itself as a clear break in the spectrum of magnetic fluctuations, with the inertial-range $k^{-5/3}$ scaling replaced by a steeper slope (see \figref{fig_bale}). While the electrons at these scales can be treated as an isothermal fluid (as long as we are considering fluctuations above the electron gyroscale, $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$; see \secref{sec_els}), the fully gyrokinetic description (\secref{sec_GK}) has to be adopted for the ions. It is, indeed, to understand plasma dynamics at and around $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ that gyrokinetics was first designed in fusion plasma theory \citep{Frieman_Chen,Brizard_Hahm_review}. In order for gyrokinetics and further dissipation-range approximations that follow from it (\secref{sec_ERMHD}) to be a credible approach in the solar wind and other space plasmas, it has to be established that fluctuations at and below the ion gyroscale are still strongly anisotropic, $\kpar\ll\kperp$. If that is the case, then their frequencies ($\omega\sim\kpar v_A\kperp\rho_i$, see \secref{sec_KAW}) will still be smaller than the cyclotron frequency in at least a part of the ``dissipation range''\footnote{This term, customary in the space-physics literature, is somewhat of a misnomer because, as we have seen in \secref{sec_ERMHD}, rich dissipationless turbulent dynamics are present in this range alongside what is normally thought of as dissipation.}---the range of scales $\kperp\rho_i\gtrsim1$ (see \secref{sec_gk_validity}). Note that additional information about the dissipation-range turbulence can be extracted from the measurements in the magnetosheath---while scales above the ion gyroscale are probably non-universal there, the dissipation range appears to display universal behavior, mostly similar to the solar wind \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Alexandrova_review}. This complements the observational picture emerging from the solar-wind data and allows us to learn more as fluctuation amplitudes in the magnetosheath are larger and much smaller scales can be probed than in the solar wind \citep{Mangeney_etal06,Lacombe_etal06,Alexandrova_msheath}. \subsubsection{Anisotropy} We know with a fair degree of certainty that the fluctuations that cascade down to the ion gyroscale from the inertial range are strongly anisotropic (\secref{sec_ir_aniso}). While it appears likely that the anisotropy persists at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$, it is extremely important to have a clear verdict on this assumption from solar wind measurements. While \citet{Leamon_etal98} and, more recently, \citet{Hamilton_etal} did present some evidence that magnetic fluctuations in the solar wind have a degree of anisotropy below the ion gyroscale, no definitive study similar to \citet{Horbury_etal_aniso} or \citet{Bigazzi_etal,SorrisoValvo_etal} exists as yet. In the magnetosheath, where the dissipation-range scales are easier to measure than in the solar wind, recent analysis by \citet{Sahraoui_etal,Alexandrova_msheath} does show evidence of strong anisotropy. Besides confirming the presence of the anisotropy, it would be interesting to study its scaling characteristics: e.g., check the scaling prediction $\kpar\sim\kperp^{1/3}$ [\eqref{KAW_aniso_scaling}; see also \secsand{sec_par_with_KAW}{sec_par_no_KAW}] in a similar fashion as the GS relation $\kpar\sim\kperp^{2/3}$ [\eqref{GS_aniso}] was corroborated by \citet{Horbury_etal_aniso}. In this paper, we have proceeded on the assumption that the anisotropy, and, therefore, low frequencies ($\omega\ll\Omega_i$) do characterize fluctuations in the dissipation range---or, at least, that the low-frequency anisotropic fluctuations are a significant energy cascade channel and can be considered decoupled from any possible high-frequency dynamics. \subsubsection{Transition at the Ion Gyroscale: Collisionless Damping and Heating} If the fluctuations at the ion gyroscale have $\kpar\ll\kperp$ and $\omega\ll\Omega_i$ (\secref{sec_dr_aniso}), they are not subject to the cyclotron resonance ($\omega-\kpar\vpar=\pm\Omega_i$), but are subject to the Landau one ($\omega=\kpar\vpar$). Alfv\'enic fluctuations at the ion gyroscale are no longer decoupled from the compressive fluctuations and can be Landau-damped (\secref{sec_transition}). It seems plausible that it is the inflow of energy from the Alfv\'enic cascade that accounts for a pronounced local flattening of the spectrum of density fluctuations in the solar wind observed just above the ion gyroscale \citep{Woo_Armstrong,Celnikier_etal83,Celnikier_etal87,Coles_Harmon,Marsch_Tu_compr,Coles_etal,Kellogg_Horbury}. proposed that the flattening might be a $k^{-1}$ spectrum analogous to Batchelor's spectrum of passive scalar variance in the viscous-convective range. We think this analogy cannot apply because density is not passive at or below the ion gyroscale.} In energetic terms, Landau damping amounts to a redistribution of generalized energy from electromagnetic fluctuations to entropy fluctuations (\secsref{sec_en_GK}{sec_en_ERMHD}). This gives rise to the entropy cascade, ultimately transferring the Landau-damped energy into ion heat (\secref{sec_heating}, \secsand{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_ent_no_KAW}). However, only part of the inertial-range cascade is so damped because an alternative, electron, cascade channel exists: the kinetic Alfv\'en waves (\secsdash{sec_ERMHD_eqns}{sec_en_ERMHD}). The energy transferred into the KAW-like fluctuations can cascade to the electron gyroscale, where it is Landau damped on electrons, converting first into the electron entropy cascade and then electron heat (\secref{sec_ent_els}). Thus, the transition at the ion gyroscale ultimately decides in what proportion the turbulent energy arriving from the inertial range is distributed between the ion and electron heat. How the fraction of power going into either depends on parameters---$\beta_i$, $T_i/T_e$, amplitudes, \dots---is a key unanswered question both in space and astrophysical (see, e.g., \secref{sec_disks}) plasmas. Gyrokinetics appears to be an ideal tool for addressing this question both analytically and numerically \citep{Howes_etal3}. Within the framework outlined in this paper, the minimal model appropriate for studying the transition at the ion gyroscale is the system of equations for isothermal electrons and gyrokinetic ions derived in \secref{sec_els} (it is summarized in \secref{sec_els_sum}). \subsubsection{Ion Gyroscale vs.\ Ion Inertial Scale} It is often assumed in the space physics literature that it is at the ion inertial scale, $d_i=\rho_i/\sqrt{\beta_i}$, rather than at the ion gyroscale $\rho_i$ that the spectral break between the inertial and dissipation range occurs. The distinction between $d_i$ and $\rho_i$ becomes noticeable when $\beta_i$ is significantly different from unity, a relatively rare occurrence in the solar wind. While some attempts to determine at which of these two scales a spectral break between the inertial and dissipation ranges occurs have produced claims that $d_i$ is a more likely candidate \citep{Smith_etal01}, more comprehensive studies of the available data sets conclude basically that it is hard to tell \citep{Leamon_etal00,Markovskii_Vasquez_Smith}. In the gyrokinetic approach advocated in this paper, the ion inertial scale does not play a special role (see \secref{sec_transition}). The only parameter regime in which $d_i$ does appear as a special scale is $T_i\ll T_e$ (``cold ions''), when the Hall MHD approximation can be derived in a systematic way (see \apref{ap_Hall}). This, however, is not the right limit for the solar wind or most other astrophysical plasmas of interest because ions are rarely cold. Hall MHD is discussed further in \secref{sec_dr_alt} and \apref{ap_Hall}. \subsubsection{KAW Turbulence} If gyrokinetics is valid at scales $\kperp\rho_i\gtrsim1$ (i.e., if $\kpar\ll\kperp$, $\omega\ll\Omega_i$ and it is acceptable to at least model the equilibrium distribution as a Maxwellian; see \secref{sec_pressure_aniso}), the electromagnetic fluctuations below the ion gyroscale will be described by the fluid approximation that we derived in \secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns} and referred to ERMHD. The wave solutions of this system of equations are the kinetic Alfv\'en waves (\secsdash{sec_KAW}{sec_KAW_nlin}) and it is possible to argue for a GS-style critically balanced cascade of KAW-like electromagnetic fluctuations (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}) between the ion and electron gyroscales (Landau damped on electrons at $\kperp\rho_e\sim1$; the expression for the KAW damping rate in the gyrokinetic limit is given in \citealt{Howes_etal}; see also \figref{fig_omegas}). Individual KAW have, indeed, been detected in space plasmas \citep[e.g.,][]{Grison_etal}. What about KAW turbulence? How does one tell whether any particular spectral slope one is measuring corresponds to the KAW cascade or fits some alternative scheme for the dissipation-range turbulence (\secref{sec_dr_alt})? It appears to be a sensible program to look for specific relationships between different fields predicted by theory (\secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}) and for the corresponding spectral slopes and scaling relations for the anisotropy (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}). This means that simultaneous measurements of magnetic, electric, density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations are needed. For the solar wind, the spectra of electric and magnetic fluctuations below the ion gyroscale reported by \citet{Bale_etal} are consistent with the $k^{-1/3}$ and $k^{-7/3}$ scalings predicted for an anisotropic critically balanced KAW cascade (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}; see \figref{fig_bale} for theoretical scaling fits superimposed on a plot taken from \citealt{Bale_etal}; note, however, that \citealt{Bale_etal} themselves interpreted their data in a somewhat different way and that their resolution was in any case not sufficient to be sure of the scalings). They were also able to check that their fluctuations satisfied the KAW dispersion relation---for critically balanced fluctuations, this is, indeed, plausible. Magnetic-fluctuation spectra recently reported by \citet{Alexandrova_sw} are only slightly steeper than the theoretical $k^{-7/3}$ KAW spectrum. These authors also find a significant amount of magnetic-field-strength fluctuations in the dissipation range, with a spectrum that follows the same scaling---this is again consistent with the theoretical picture of KAW turbulence [see \eqref{EMHD_dBpar}]. Measurements reported by \citet{Czaykowska_etal,Alexandrova_msheath} for the magnetosheath appear to present a similar picture. The density spectra measured by \citet{Celnikier_etal83,Celnikier_etal87} steepen below the ion gyroscale following the flattened segment around $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ (discussed in \secref{sec_dr_transition}). For a KAW cascade, the density spectrum should be $k^{-7/3}$ (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}); without KAW, $k^{-10/3}$ (\secref{sec_electrost}). The slope observed in the papers cited above appears to be somewhat shallower even than $k^{-2}$ (cf.\ a similar result by \citealt{Spangler_Gwinn} for the ISM; see \secref{sec_el_den_ISM}), but, given imperfect resolution, neither seriously in contradiction with the prediction based on the KAW cascade, nor sufficient to corroborate it. Unfortunately, we have not found published simultaneous measurements of density- and magnetic- or electric-fluctuation spectra. \subsubsection{Variability of the Spectral Slope} While many measurements consistent with the KAW picture can be found, there are also many in which the spectra are much steeper \citep{Denskat_Beinroth_Neubauer,Leamon_etal98}. Analysis of a large set of measurements of the magnetic-fluctuation spectra in the dissipation range of the solar wind reveals a wide spread in the spectral indices: roughly between $-1$ and $-4$ \citep{Smith_etal06}. There is evidence of a weak positive correlation between steeper dissipation-range spectra and higher ion temperatures \citep{Leamon_etal98} or higher cascade rates calculated from the inertial range \citep{Smith_etal06}. This suggests that a larger amount of ion heating may correspond to a fully or partially suppressed KAW cascade, which is in line with our view of the ion heating and the KAW cascade as the two competing channels of the overall kinetic cascade (\secref{sec_en_ERMHD}). With a weakened KAW cascade, all or part of the dissipation range would be dominated by the ion entropy cascade---a purely kinetic phenomenon manifested by predominantly electrostatic fluctuations and very steep magnetic-energy spectra (\secref{sec_ent_no_KAW}). This might account both for the steepness of the observed spectra and for the spread in their indices (\secref{sec_superposed}), although many other theories exist (see \secref{sec_dr_alt}). While we may thus have a plausible argument, this is not yet a satisfactory quantitative theory that would allow us to predict when the KAW cascade is present and when it is not or what dissipation-range spectrum should be expected for given values of the solar-wind parameters ($\beta_i$, $T_i/T_e$, etc.). Resolution of this issue again appears to hinge on the question of how much turbulent power is diverted into the ion entropy cascade (equivalently, into ion heat) at the ion gyroscale (see \secref{sec_dr_transition}). \subsubsection{Alternative Theories of the Dissipation Range} A number of alternative theories and models have been put forward to explain the observed spectral slopes (and their variability) in the dissipation range. It is not our aim to review or critique them all in detail, but perhaps it is useful to provide a few brief comments about some of them in light of the theoretical framework constructed in this paper. This entire theoretical framework hinges on adopting gyrokinetics as a valid description or, at least, a sensible model that does not miss any significant channels of energy cascade and dissipation. While we obviously believe this to be the right approach, it is worth spelling out what effects are left out ``by construction.'' \paragraph{Parallel Alfv\'en-wave cascade and ion cyclotron damping.} The use of gyrokinetics assumes that fluctuations stay anisotropic at all scales, $\kpar\ll\kperp$, and, therefore, $\omega\ll\Omega_i$, so the cyclotron resonances are ordered out. However, if one insists on routing the Alfv\'en-wave energy into a parallel cascade, e.g., by forcibly setting $\kperp=0$, it is possible to construct a weak turbulence theory in which it is dissipated by the ion cyclotron damping \citep{Yoon_Fang}. Numerical simulations of 3D MHD turbulence do not support the possibility of a parallel Alfv\'en-wave cascade \citep{Shebalin_Matthaeus_Montgomery,Oughton_Priest_Matthaeus,CV_aniso,Maron_Goldreich,CLV_aniso,Mueller_Biskamp_Grappin}. Solar-wind evidence that the perpendicular cascade dominates is quite strong for the inertial range (\secref{sec_ir_aniso}) and less so for the dissipation range (\secref{sec_dr_aniso}). While, as stated in \secref{sec_dr_aniso}, one cannot yet definitely claim that observations tell us that $\omega\ll\Omega_i$ at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$, it has been argued that observations do not appear to be consistent with cyclotron damping being the main mechanism for the dissipation of the inertial-range Alfv\'enic turbulence at the ion gyroscale \citep{Leamon_etal98,Leamon_etal00,Smith_etal01}. Ion-cyclotron resonance could conceivably be reached somewhere in the dissipation range (see \secref{sec_gk_validity}). At this point gyrokinetics will formally break down, although, as argued by \citet[][see their \S\,3.6]{Howes_etal2}, this does not necessarily mean that ion cyclotron damping will become the dominant dissipation channel for the turbulence. \paragraph{Parallel whistler cascade.} A parallel magnetosonic/whistler cascade eventually damped by the electron cyclotron resonance \citep{Stawicki_Gary_Li} is also excluded in the construction of gyrokinetics. The whistler cascade has been given some consideration in the Hall MHD approximation (further discussed at the end of this section). Both weak-turbulence theory \citep{Galtier_HMHD} and 3D numerical simulations \citep{Cho_Lazarian_EMHD} concluded that, like in MHD, the turbulent cascade is highly anisotropic, with perpendicular energy transfer dominating over the parallel one.\footnote{It is possible to produce a parallel cascade artificially by running 1D simulations \citep{Matthaeus_Servidio_Dmitruk_comment}.} The same conclusion appears to have been reached in recent 2D kinetic PIC simulations by \citet{Gary_etal_PIC,Saito_etal_PIC}. Thus, the turbulence again seems to be driven into the gyrokinetically accessible regime.\\ While theory and numerical simulations appear to make arguing in favor of a parallel cascade and cyclotron heating difficult, there exists some observational evidence in support of them, especially for the near-Sun solar wind \citep[e.g.,][]{Harmon_Coles05}. Thus, the presence or relative importance of the cyclotron heating in the solar wind and, more generally, the mechanism(s) responsible for the observed perpendicular ion heating \citep{Marsch_etal83} remain a largely open problem. Besides the theories mentioned above, many other ideas have been proposed, some of which attempted to reconcile the dominance of the low-frequency perpendicular cascade with the possibility of cyclotron heating (e.g., \citealt{Chandran_fast_waves,Markovskii_etal}; see \citealt{Hollweg_review} for a concise recent review of the problem). \paragraph{Mirror cascade.} \citet{Sahraoui_etal} analyzed a set of Cluster multi-spacecraft measurements in the magnetosheath and reported a broad power-law ($\sim k^{-8/3}$) spectrum of mirror structures at and below the ion gyroscale. They claim that these are {\em not} KAW-like fluctuations because their frequency is zero in the plasma frame. Although these structures are highly anisotropic with $\kpar\ll\kperp$, they cannot be described by the gyrokinetic theory in its present form because $\dBpar/B_0$ is very large ($\sim40\ particle trapping by fluctuations, which is likely to be important in the nonlinear physics of the mirror instability \citep{Kivelson_Southwood_nlin,Pokhotelov_etal_mirror,Rincon_etal_mirror}, is ordered out in gyrokinetics. Thus, if a ``mirror cascade'' exists, it is not captured in our description. More generally, the effect of the pressure-anisotropy-driven instabilities on the turbulence in the dissipation range is a wide open area, requiring further analytical effort (see \secref{sec_pressure_aniso}).\\ If $\kpar\ll\kperp$, $\omega\ll\Omega_i$, and $\dB/B_0\ll1$ are accepted for the dissipation range and plasma instabilities at the ion gyroscale (\secref{sec_pressure_aniso}) are ignored, the formal gyrokinetic theory and its asymptotic consequences derived above should hold. There are two essential features of the linear physics at and below the ion gyroscale that must play some role: the collisionless (Landau) damping and the dispersive nature of the wave solutions (see \figref{fig_omegas} and \secref{sec_KAW}; cf., e.g., \citealt{Leamon_etal99,Stawicki_Gary_Li}). Both of these features have been employed to explain the spectral break at the ion gyroscale and the spectral slopes below it. \paragraph{Landau damping and instrumental effects.} In most of our discussion, (\secref{sec_ERMHD}, \secsdash{sec_dr_spectra}{sec_dr_variability}), we effectively assumed that the Landau damping is only important at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$ and $\kperp\rho_e\sim1$, but not in between, so we could talk about asymptotic scalings and dissipationless cascades. However, as was noted in \secref{sec_validity_ERMHD}, a properly asymptotic scaling behavior in the dissipation range is probably impossible in nature because the scale separation between the ion and electron gyroscales is only about $(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}\simeq43$. In particular, there is not always a wide scale interval where the kinetic damping is negligibly small (especially at low $\beta_i$; see \figref{fig_omegas}; cf.\ \citealt{Leamon_etal99}). \citet{Howes_etal2} proposed a model of how the presence of damping combined with instrumental effects (a resolution floor) could lead to measured spectra that look like power laws steeper than $k^{-7/3}$, with the effective spectral exponent depending on plasma parameters (we refer the reader to that paper for a discussion of how this compares with previous models of a similar kind, e.g., \citealt{Li_Gary_Stawicki}). A key physical assumption of theirs and similar models is that the amount of power drained from the Alfv\'en-wave and KAW cascades into the ion heat is set by the strength of the {\em linear} damping. Whether this is justified is not yet clear. \paragraph{Hall and Electron MHD.} If Landau damping is deemed unimportant in some part of the dissipation range \citep[which can be true in some regimes; see \figref{fig_omegas} and][]{Howes_etal,Howes_etal2,Howes_etal3} and the wave dispersion is considered to be the salient feature, it might appear that a fluid, rather than kinetic, description should be sufficient. Hall MHD \citep{Mahajan_Yoshida} or its $k d_i\gg1$ limit the Electron MHD \citep{Kingsep_Chukbar_Yankov} have been embraced by many authors as such a description, suitable both for analytical arguments \citep{Goldreich_Reisenegger,Krishan_Mahajan,Gogoberidze05,Galtier_Bhattacharjee,Galtier_HMHD,Alexandrova_sw} and numerical simulations \citep{Biskamp_etal_EMHD1,Biskamp_etal_EMHD2,Ghosh_etal,Ng_etal_EMHD,Cho_Lazarian_EMHD,Shaikh_Zank05,Galtier_Buchlin,Matthaeus_Servidio_Dmitruk_comment}. To what extent does this constitute an approach {\em alternative} to (and better than?) gyrokinetics \citep[as suggested, e.g., by][]{Matthaeus_Servidio_Dmitruk_comment}? For fluctuations with $\kpar\ll\kperp$, Hall MHD is merely a particular limit of gyrokinetics: $\beta_i\ll1$ and $T_i/T_e\ll1$ (cold-ion limit; see \apref{ap_Hall}). If $\kpar$ is not small compared to $\kperp$, then the gyrokinetics is not valid, while Hall MHD continues to describe the cold-ion limit correctly \citep[e.g.,][]{Ito_etal,Hirose_etal}, capturing in particular the whistler branch of the dispersion relation. However, as we have already mentioned above, the dominance of the perpendicular energy transfer ($\kpar\ll\kperp$) is supported both by weak-turbulence theory for Hall MHD \citep{Galtier_HMHD} and by 3D numerical simulations of the Electron MHD \citep{Cho_Lazarian_EMHD}. Thus, the gyrokinetic theory and its rigorous limits, such as ERMHD (\secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}), supersede Hall MHD for anisotropic turbulence. Since ions are generally not cold in the solar wind (or any other plasma discussed here), Hall MHD is not formally a relevant approximation. It also entirely misses the kinetic damping and the associated entropy cascade channel leading to particle heating (\secref{sec_transition}, \secsand{sec_ent_KAW}{sec_ent_no_KAW}). However, Hall MHD does capture the Alfv\'en waves becoming dispersive and numerical simulations of it do show a spectral break, although, technically speaking, at the wrong scale ($d_i$ instead of $\rho_i$; see \secref{sec_transition}). Although Hall MHD cannot be rigorously used as quantitative theory of the spectral break and the associated change in the nature of the turbulent cascade, the Hall MHD equations in the limit $k d_i\gg1$ are mathematically similar to our ERMHD equations (see \secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns} and \apref{ap_Hall}) to within constant coefficients probably not essential for qualitative models of turbulence. Therefore, results of numerical simulations of Hall and Electron MHD cited above are directly useful for understanding the KAW cascade---and, indeed, in the limit $k d_i\gg1$, $k d_e\ll1$, they are mostly consistent with the scaling arguments of \secref{sec_KAW_turb}. \paragraph{Alfv\'en vortices.} Finally we mention an argument pertaining to the dissipation-range spectra that is not based on energy cascades at all. Based on the evidence of Alfv\'en vortices in the magnetosheath, \citet{Alexandrova_review} speculated that steep power-law spectra observed in the dissipation range at least in some cases could reflect the geometry of the ion-gyroscale structures rather than a local energy cascade. If Alfv\'en vortices are a common feature, this possibility cannot be excluded. However, the resulting geometrical spectra are quite steep ($k^{-4}$ and steeper), so they can become important only if the KAW cascade is weak or suppressed---somewhat similarly to the steep spectra associated with the entropy cascade (\secref{sec_superposed}). \subsection{Is Equilibrium Distribution Isotropic and Maxwellian?} In rigorous theoretical terms, the weakest point of this paper is the use of a Maxwellian equilibrium. Formally, this is only justified when the collisions are weak but not too weak: we ordered the collision frequency as similar to the fluctuation frequency [\eqref{omega_vs_nu}]. This degree of collisionality is sufficient to prove that a Maxwellian equilibrium distribution $\fMs(v)$ does indeed emerge in the lowest order of the gyrokinetic expansion \citep{Howes_etal}. This argument works well for plasmas such as the ISM (\secref{sec_ISM}), where collisions are weak ($\mfp\gg\rho_i$) but non-negligible ($\mfp\ll\lf$). In space plasmas, the mean free path is of the order of 1~AU---the distance between the Sun and the Earth (see \tabref{tab_scales}). Strictly speaking, in so highly collisionless a plasma, the equilibrium distribution does not have to be either Maxwellian or isotropic. The conservation of the first adiabatic invariant, $\mu=\vperp^2/2B$, suggests that temperature anisotropy with respect to the magnetic-field direction ($\Tperp\neq\Tpar$) may exist. When the relative anisotropy is larger than (roughly) $1/\beta_i$, it triggers several very fast growing plasma instabilities: most prominently the firehose ($\Tperp<\Tpar$) and mirror ($\Tperp>\Tpar$) modes \citep[e.g.,][]{Gary_etal76}. Their growth rates peak around the ion gyroscale, thus giving rise to additional energy injection at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$. No definitive analytical theory of how these fluctuations saturate, cascade and affect the equilibrium distribution has been proposed. It appears to be a reasonable expectation that the fluctuations resulting from temperature anisotropy will saturate by limiting this anisotropy. This idea has some support in solar-wind observations: while the degree of anisotropy of the core particle distribution functions varies considerably between data sets, the observed anisotropies do seem to populate the part of the parameter plane $(\Tperp/\Tpar,\beta_i)$ circumscribed in a rather precise way by the marginal stability boundaries for the mirror and firehose \citep{Gary_etal_ACE,Kasper_Lazarus_Gary,Marsch_Ao_Tu,Hellinger_etal,Matteini_etal}. measure the electric-field fluctuations in the ion-cyclotron frequency range, estimate the resulting velocity-space diffusion and argue that it is sufficient to isotropize the ion distribution} If we want to study turbulence in data sets that do not lie too close to these stability boundaries, assuming an isotropic Maxwellian equilibrium distribution [\eqref{fs_exp}] is probably an acceptable simplification, although not an entirely rigorous one. Further theoretical work is clearly possible on this subject: thus, it is not a problem to formulate gyrokinetics with an arbitrary equilibrium distribution \citep{Frieman_Chen} and starting from that, once can generalize the results of this paper \citep[for the KRMHD system, \secref{sec_KRMHD}, this has been done by][]{Chen_etal_KRMHD}. Treating the instabilities themselves might prove more difficult, requiring the gyrokinetic ordering to be modified and the expansion carried to higher orders to incorporate features that are not captured by gyrokinetics, e.g., short parallel scales \citep{Rosin_etal_firehose}, particle trapping \citep{Pokhotelov_etal_mirror,Rincon_etal_mirror}, or nonlinear finite-gyroradius effects \citep{Califano_etal_mirror}. Note that the theory of the dissipation-range turbulence will probably need to be modified to account for the additional energy injection from the instabilities and for the (yet unclear) way in which this energy makes its way to dissipation and into heat. Besides the anisotropies, the particle distribution functions in the solar wind (especially the electron one) exhibit non-Maxwellian suprathermal tails \citep[see][and references therein]{Maksimovic_etal,Marsch_review}. These contain small ($\sim5\ energetic particles. Both the origin of these particles and their effect on turbulence have to be modeled kinetically. Again, it is possible to formulate gyrokinetics for general equilibrium distributions of this kind and examine the interaction between them and the turbulent fluctuations, but we leave such a theory outside the scope of this paper. Thus, much remains to be done to incorporate realistic equilibrium distribution functions into the gyrokinetic description of the solar wind plasma. In the meanwhile, we believe that the gyrokinetic theory based on a Maxwellian equilibrium distribution as presented in this paper, while idealized and imperfect, is nevertheless a step forward in the analytical treatment of the space-plasma turbulence compared to the fluid descriptions that have prevailed thus far. \subsection{Interstellar Medium} While the solar wind is unmatched by other astrophysical plasmas in the level of detail with which turbulence in it can be measured, the interstellar medium (ISM) also offers an observer a number of ways of diagnosing plasma turbulence, which, in the case of the ISM, is thought to be primarily excited by supernova explosions \citep{Norman_Ferrara}. The accuracy and resolution of this analysis are due to improve rapidly thanks to many new observatories, e.g., LOFAR, Planck \citep{EWVS_bologna}, and, in more distant future, the SKA \citep{Lazio_etal_review}. The ISM is a spatially inhomogeneous environment consisting of several phases that have different temperatures, densities and degrees of ionization \citep{Ferriere_review}.\footnote{And, therefore, different degrees of importance of the neutral particles and the associated ambipolar damping effects---these will not be discussed here; see \citealt{Lithwick_Goldreich}.} We will use the Warm ISM phase (see \tabref{tab_scales}) as our fiducial interstellar plasma and discuss briefly what is known about the two main observationally accessible quantities---the electron density and magnetic fields---and how this information fits into the theoretical framework proposed here. \subsubsection{Electron Density Fluctuations} The electron-density fluctuations inferred from the interstellar scintillation measurements appear to have a spectrum with an exponent $\simeq-1.7$, consistent with the Kolmogorov scaling (\citealt{Armstrong_Cordes_Rickett,Armstrong_Rickett_Spangler,Lazio_etal_review}; see, however, dissenting evidence by \citealt{Smirnova_Gwinn_Shishov}, who claim a spectral exponent closer to $-1.5$). This holds over about 5 decades of scales: $\lambda\in(10^5,10^{10})$~km. Other observational evidence at larger and smaller scales supports the case for this presumed inertial range to be extended over as many as 12 decades: $\lambda\in(10^2,10^{15})$~km, a fine example of scale separation that prompted an impressed astrophysicist to dub the density scaling ``The Great Power Law in the Sky.'' The upper cutoff here is consistent with the estimates of the supernova scale of order $100$~pc---presumably the outer scale of the turbulence \citep{Norman_Ferrara} and also roughly the scale height of the galactic disk (obviously the upper bound on the validity of any homogeneous model of the ISM turbulence). The lower cutoff is an estimate for the inner scale below which the logarithmic slope of the density spectrum steepens to about $-2$ \citep{Spangler_Gwinn}. \citet{Higdon} was the first to realize that the electron-density fluctuations in the ISM could be attributed to a cascade of a passive tracer mixed by the ambient turbulence (the MHD entropy mode; see \secref{sec_scalings_passive}). This idea was brought to maturity by \citet{Lithwick_Goldreich}, who studied the passive cascades of the slow and entropy modes in the framework of the GS theory \citep[see also][]{Maron_Goldreich}. If the turbulence is assumed anisotropic, as in the GS theory, the passive nature of the density fluctuations with respect to the decoupled Alfv\'en-wave cascade becomes a rigorous result both in MHD (\secref{sec_sw_fluid}) and, as we showed above, in the more general gyrokinetic description appropriate for weakly collisional plasmas (\secref{sec_sw}). Anisotropy of the electron-density fluctuations in the ISM is, indeed, observationally supported \citep[][see also \citealt{Lazio_etal_review} for a concise discussion]{Wilkinson_Narayan_Spencer,Trotter_Moran_Rodriguez,Rickett_etal_aniso,DennettThorpe_deBruyn,Heyer_etal}, although detailed scale-by-scale measurements are not currently possible. If the underlying Alfv\'en-wave turbulence in the ISM has a $\kperp^{-5/3}$ spectrum, as predicted by GS, so should the electron density (see \secref{sec_scalings_passive}). As we discussed in \secref{sec_par_cascade}, the physical nature of the inner scale for the density fluctuations depends on whether they have a cascade in $\kpar$ and are efficiently damped when $\kpar\mfp\sim1$ or fail to develop small parallel scales and can, therefore, reach $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$. The observationally estimated inner scale is consistent with the ion gyroscale, $\rho_i\sim10^3$~km (see \tabref{tab_scales}; note that the ion inertial scale $d_i= \rho_i/\sqrt{\beta_i}$ is similar to $\rho_i$ at the moderate values of $\beta_i$ characteristic of the ISM---see further discussion of the (ir)relevance of $d_i$ in \secref{sec_transition}, \secref{sec_dr_scale} and \apref{ap_Hall}). However, since the mean free path in the ISM is not huge (\tabref{tab_scales}), it is not possible to distinguish this from the perpendicular cutoff $\kperp^{-1}\sim\mfp^{3/2}\lf^{-1/2}\sim500$~km implied by the parallel cutoff at $\kpar\mfp\sim1$ [see \eqref{kperp_LG}], as advocated by \citet{Lithwick_Goldreich}. Note that the relatively short mean free path means that much of the scale range spanned by the Great Power Law in the Sky is, in fact, well described by the MHD approximation either with adiabatic (\secref{sec_RMHD}) or isothermal (\secref{sec_visc} and \apref{ap_visc}) electrons. Below the ion gyroscale, the $-2$ spectral exponent reported by \citet{Spangler_Gwinn} is measured sufficiently imprecisely to be consistent with the $-7/3$ expected for the density fluctuations in the KAW cascade (\secref{sec_KAW_turb}). However, given the high degree of uncertainty about what happens in this ``dissipation range'' even in the much better resolved case of the solar wind (\secref{sec_SW_dr}), it would probably be wise to reserve judgment until better data are available. \subsubsection{Magnetic Fluctuations} The second main observable type of turbulent fluctuations in the ISM are the magnetic fluctuations, accessible indirectly via the measurements of the Faraday rotation of the polarization angle of the pulsar light travelling through the ISM. The structure function of the rotation measure (RM) should have the Kolmogorov slope of $2/3$ if the magnetic fluctuations are due to Alfv\'enic turbulence described by the GS theory. There is a considerable uncertainty in interpreting the available data, primarily due to insufficient spatial resolution (rarely better than a few parsec). Structure function slopes consistent with $2/3$ have been reported \citep{Minter_Spangler}, but, depending on where one looks, shallower structure functions that seem to steepen at scales of a few parsec are also observed \citep{Haverkorn_etal_ApJ}. A recent study by \citet{Haverkorn_etal_arms} detected an interesting trend: the RM structure functions computed for regions that lie in the galactic spiral arms are nearly perfectly flat down to the resolution limit, while in the interarm regions, they have detectable slopes (although these are mostly shallower that $2/3$). Observations of magnetic fields in external galaxies also reveal a marked difference in the magnetic-field structure between arms and interarms: the spatially regular (mean) fields are stronger in the interarms, while in the arms, the stochastic fields dominate \citep{Beck_structure}. This qualitative difference between the magnetic-field structure in the arms and interarms has been attributed to smaller effective outer scale in the arms \citep[$\sim1$~pc, compared to $\sim10^2$~pc in the interarms; see][]{Haverkorn_etal_arms2} or to the turbulence in the arms and interarms belonging to the two distinct asymptotic regimes described in \secref{sec_two_regimes}: closer to the anisotropic Alfv\'enic turbulence with a strong mean field in the interarms and to the isotropic saturated state of small-scale dynamo in the arms \citep{SCD_kiev}. \subsection{Accretion Disks} Accretion of plasma onto a central black hole or neutron star is responsible for many of the most energetic phenomena observed in astrophysics (see, e.g., \citealt{Narayan_Quataert_Sci} for a review). It is now believed that a linear instability of differentially rotating plasmas---the magnetorotational instability (MRI)---amplifies magnetic fields and gives rise to MHD turbulence in astrophysical disks \citep{Balbus_Hawley_review}. Magnetic stresses due to this turbulence transport angular momentum, allowing plasma to accrete. The MRI converts the gravitational potential energy of the inflowing plasma into turbulence at the outer scale that is comparable to the scale height of the disk. This energy is then cascaded to small scales and dissipated into heat---powering the radiation that we see from accretion flows. Fluid MHD simulations show that the MRI-generated turbulence in disks is subsonic and has $\beta\sim10-100$. Thus, on scales much smaller than the scale height of the disk, homogeneous turbulence in the parameter regimes considered in this paper is a valid idealization and the kinetic models developed above should represent a step forward compared to the purely fluid approach. Turbulence is not yet directly observable in disks, so models of turbulence are mostly used to produce testable predictions of observable properties of disks such as their X-ray and radio emission. One of the best observed cases is the (presumed) accretion flow onto the black hole coincident with the radio source Sgr~A$^*$ in the center of our Galaxy \citep[see review by][]{Quataert_SgrA}. Depending on the rate of heating and cooling in the inflowing plasma (which in turn depend on accretion rate and other properties of the system under consideration), there are different models that describe the physical properties of accretion flows onto a central object. In one class of models, a geometrically thin optically thick accretion disk \citep{Shakura_Sunyaev}, the inflowing plasma is cold and dense and well described as an MHD fluid. When applied to Sgr~A$^*$, these models produce a prediction for its total luminosity that is several orders of magnitude larger than observed. Another class of models, which appears to be more consistent with the observed properties of Sgr~A$^*$, is called radiatively inefficient accretion flows (RIAFs; see \citealt{Rees_etal,Narayan_Yi} and review by \citealt{Quataert_SgrA} of the applications and observational constraints in Sgr~A$^*$). In these models, the inflowing plasma near the black hole is believed to adopt a two-temperature configuration, with the ions ($T_i\sim10^{11}-10^{12}$~K) hotter than the electrons ($T_e\sim10^9-10^{11}$~K).\footnote{It is partly with this application in mind that we carried the general temperature ratio in our calculations; see footnote .} The electron and ion thermodynamics decouple because the densities are so low that the temperature equalization time $\sim\nuie^{-1}$ is longer than the time for the plasma to flow into the black hole. Thus, like the solar wind, RIAFs are macroscopically collisionless plasmas (see \tabref{tab_scales} for plasma parameters in the Galactic center; note that these parameters are so extreme that the gyrokinetic description, while probably better than the fluid one, cannot be expected to be rigorously valid; at the very least, it needs to be reformulated in a relativistic form). At the high temperatures appropriate to RIAFs, electrons radiate energy much more efficiently than the ions (by virtue of their much smaller mass) and are, therefore, expected to contribute dominantly to the observed emission, while the thermal energy of the ions is swallowed by the black hole. Since the plasma is collisionless, the electron heating by turbulence largely determines the thermodynamics of the electrons and thus the observable properties of RIAFs. The question of which fraction of the turbulent energy goes into ion and which into electron heating is, therefore, crucial for understanding accretion flows---and the answer to this question depends on the detailed properties of the small-scale kinetic turbulence \citep[e.g.,][]{Quataert_Gruzinov,Sharma_etal07}, as well as on the linear properties of the collisionless MRI \citep{Quataert_Dorland_Hammett,Sharma_Hammett_Quataert}. Since all of the turbulent power coming down the cascade must be dissipated into either ion or electron heat, it is really the amount of generalized energy diverted at the ion gyroscale into the ion entropy cascade (\secsdash{sec_en_ERMHD}{sec_ent_KAW}) that decides how much energy is left to heat the electrons via the KAW cascade (\secsdash{sec_ERMHD_eqns}{sec_KAW_turb}, \secref{sec_ent_els}). Again, as in the case of the solar wind (\secsand{sec_dr_transition}{sec_dr_variability}), the transition around the ion gyroscale from the Alfv\'enic turbulence at $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ to the KAW turbulence at $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$ emerges as a key unsolved problem. \subsection{Galaxy Clusters} Galaxy clusters are the largest plasma objects in the Universe. Like the other examples discussed above, the intracluster plasma is in the weakly collisional regime (see \tabref{tab_scales}). Fluctuations of electron density, temperature and of magnetic fields are measured in clusters by X-ray and radio observatories, but the resolution is only just enough to claim that a fairly broad scale range of fluctuations exists \citep{Schuecker_etal,Vogt_Ensslin2}. No power-law scalings have yet been established beyond reasonable doubt. What fundamentally hampers quantitative modeling of turbulence and related effects in clusters is that we do not have a definite theory of the basic properties of the intracluster medium: its (effective) viscosity, magnetic diffusivity or thermal conductivity. In a weakly collisional and strongly magnetized plasma, all of these depend on the structure of the magnetic field \citep{Braginskii}, which is shaped by the turbulence. If (or at scales where) a reasonable {\em a priori} assumption can be made about the field structure, further analytical progress is possible: thus, the theoretical models presented in this paper assume that the magnetic field is a sum of a slowly varying in space ``mean field'' and small low-frequency perturbations ($\dB\ll B_0$). In fact, since clusters do not have mean fields of any magnitude that could be considered dynamically significant, but do have stochastic fields, the outer-scale MHD turbulence in clusters falls into the weak-mean-field category (see \secref{sec_two_regimes}). The magnetic field should be highly filamentary, organized in long folded direction-reversing structures. It is not currently known what determines the reversal scale. for a detailed presentation of our views on the interplay between turbulence, magnetic field and plasma effects in cluster; for further discussions and disagreements, see \citet{Ensslin_Vogt_cores,Subramanian_Shukurov_Haugen,Brunetti_Lazarian}.} Observations, while tentatively confirming the existence of very long filaments \citep{Clarke_Ensslin}, suggest that the reversal scale is much larger than the ion gyroscale: thus, the magnetic-energy spectrum for the Hydra A cluster core reported by \citet{Vogt_Ensslin2} peaks at around $1$~kpc, compared to $\rho_i\sim10^5$~km. Below this scale, an Alfv\'en-wave cascade should exist (as is, indeed, suggested by Vogt \& En{\ss}lin's spectrum being roughly consistent with $k^{-5/3}$ at scales below the peak). As these scales are collisionless ($\mfp\sim100$~pc in the cores and $\sim10$~kpc in the bulk of the clusters), it is to this turbulence that the theory developed in this paper should be applicable. Another complication exists, similar to that discussed in \secref{sec_pressure_aniso}: pressure anisotropies could give rise to fast plasma instabilities whose growth rate peaks just above the ion gyroscale. As was pointed out by \citet{SCKHS_brag}, these are, in fact, an inevitable consequence of any large-scale fluid motions that change the strength of the magnetic field. Although a number of interesting and plausible arguments can be made about the way the instabilities might determine the magnetic-field structure \citep{SC_dpp05,SCKRH_firehose,Rosin_etal_firehose,Rincon_etal_mirror}, it is not currently understood how the small-scale fluctuations resulting from these instabilities coexist with the Alfv\'enic cascade. The uncertainties that result from this imperfect understanding of the nature of the intracluster medium are exemplified by the problem of its thermal conductivity. The magnetic-field reversal scale in clusters is certainly not larger than the electron diffusion scale, $(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}\mfp$, which varies from a few kpc in the cores to a few hundred kpc in the bulk. Therefore, one would expect that the approximation of isothermal electron fluid (\secref{sec_els}) should certainly apply at all scales below the reversal scale, where $\dB\ll B_0$ presumably holds. Even this, however, is not absolutely clear. One could imagine the electrons being effectively adiabatic if (or in the regions where) the plasma instabilities give rise to large fluctuations of the magnetic field ($\dB/B_0\sim1$) at the ion gyroscale reducing the mean free path to $\mfp\sim\rho_i$ \citep{SCKRH_firehose,Rosin_etal_firehose,Rincon_etal_mirror}. Such fluctuations cannot be described by the gyrokinetics in its current form. The current state of the observational evidence does not allow one to exclude either of these possibilities. Both isothermal \citep{Fabian_etal_Perseus3,Sanders_Fabian} and non-isothermal \citep{Markevitch_Vikhlinin_review} coherent structures that appear to be shocks are observed. Disordered fluctuations of temperature can also be detected, which allows one to infer an upper limit for the scale at which the isothermal approximation can start being valid: thus, \citet{Markevitch_etal03} find temperature variations at all scales down to $\sim100$~kpc, which is the statistical limit that defines the spatial resolution of their temperature map. In none of these or similar measurements is the magnetic field data available that would make possible a pointwise comparison of the magnetic and thermal structure. Because of this lack of information about the state of the magnetized plasma in clusters, theories of the intracluster medium are not sufficiently constrained by observations, so no one theory is in a position to prevail. This uncertain state of affairs might be improved by analyzing the observationally much better resolved case of the solar wind, which should be quite similar to the intracluster medium at very small scales (except for somewhat lower values of $\beta_i$ in the solar wind). \section{Conclusion} In this paper, we have considered magnetized plasma turbulence in the astrophysically prevalent regime of weak collisionality. We have shown how the energy injected at the outer scale cascades in phase space, eventually to increase the entropy of the system and heat the particles. In the process, we have explained how one combines plasma physics tools---in particular, the gyrokinetic theory---with the ideas of a turbulent cascade of energy to arrive at a hierarchy of tractable models of turbulence in various physically distinct scale intervals. These models represent the branching pathways of a generalized energy cascade in phase space (the ``kinetic cascade''; see \figref{fig_cascade_channels}) and make explicit the ``fluid'' and ``kinetic'' aspects of plasma turbulence. A detailed outline of these developments was given in the Introduction. Intermediate technical summaries were provided in \secref{sec_els_sum}, \secref{sec_KRMHD_sum}, and \secref{sec_ERMHD_sum}. An astrophysical summary and discussion of the observational evidence was given in \secref{sec_astro}, with a particular emphasis on space plasmas (\secsdash{sec_SW_ir}{sec_pressure_aniso}). Our view of how the transformation of the large-scale turbulent energy into heat occurs was encapsulated in the concept of a kinetic cascade of generalized energy. It was previewed in \secref{sec_kinetic} and developed quantitatively in \secsdash{sec_en_GK}{sec_heating}, \secref{sec_en_els}, \secref{sec_en_KRMHD}, \secsdash{sec_inv_compr}{sec_en_compr}, \secsdash{sec_en_ERMHD}{sec_ent_els}, \apsand{ap_en_RMHD}{ap_Hall_en}. \lastpagefootnotes Following a series of analytical contributions that set up a theoretical framework for astrophysical gyrokinetics \citep[][and this paper]{Howes_etal,Howes_etal2,SCD_kiev,SCDHHPQT_crete}, an extensive program of fluid, hybrid fluid-kinetic, and fully gyrokinetic code (developed originally for fusion applications; see http://gs2.sourceforge.net) and the purpose-built {\tt AstroGK} code (see http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/\textasciitilde ghowes/astrogk/).} numerical simulations of magnetized plasma turbulence is now underway \citep[for the first results of this program, see][]{Howes_etal3,Tatsuno_etal1,Tatsuno_etal2}. Careful comparisons of the fully gyrokinetic simulations with simulations based on the more readily computable models derived in this paper (RMHD---\secref{sec_RMHD}, isothermal electron fluid---\secref{sec_els}, KRMHD---\secref{sec_KRMHD}, ERMHD---\secref{sec_ERMHD}, HRMHD---\apref{ap_Hall}) as well as with the numerical studies based on various Landau fluid \citep{Snyder_Hammett_Dorland,Goswami_Passot_Sulem,Ramos,Sharma_etal06,Sharma_etal07,Passot_Sulem07} and gyrofluid \citep{Hammett_Dorland_Perkins,Dorland_Hammett,Snyder_Hammett,Scott} closures appear to be the way forward in developing a comprehensive numerical model of the kinetic turbulent cascade from the outer scale to the electron gyroscale. Of the many astrophysical plasmas to which these results apply, the solar wind and, perhaps, the magnetosheath, due to the high quality of turbulence measurements possible in them, appear to be the most suitable test beds for direct and detailed quantitative comparisons of the theory and simulation results with observational evidence. The objective of all this work remains a quantitative characterization of the scaling-range properties (spectra, anisotropy, nature of fluctuations and their interactions), the ion and electron heating, and the transport properties of the magnetized plasma turbulence. \acknowledgements We thank O.~Alexandrova, S.~Bale, J.~Borovsky, T.~Carter, S.~Chapman, C.~Chen, E.~Churazov, T.~En{\ss}lin, A.~Fabian, A.~Finoguenov, A.~Fletcher, M.~Haverkorn, B.~Hnat, T.~Horbury, K.~Issautier, C.~Lacombe, M.~Markevitch, K.~Osman, T.~Passot, F.~Sahraoui, A.~Shukurov, and A.~Vikhlinin for helpful discussions of experimental and observational data; I.~Abel, M.~Barnes, D.~Ernst, J.~Hastie, P.~Ricci, C.~Roach, and B.~Rogers for discussions of collisions in gyrokinetics; and G.~Plunk for discussions of the theory of gyrokinetic turbulence in two spatial dimensions. The authors' travel was supported by the US DOE Center for Multiscale Plasma Dynamics and by the Leverhulme Trust (UK) International Academic Network for Magnetized Plasma Turbulence. A.A.S.\ was supported in part by a PPARC/STFC Advanced Fellowship and by the STFC Grant ST/F002505/1. He also thanks the UCLA Plasma Group for its hospitality on several occasions. S.C.C.\ and W.D.\ thank the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics and the Aspen Center for Physics for their hospitality. G.W.H.\ was supported by the US DOE contract DE-AC02-76CH03073. G.G.H.\ and T.T.\ were supported by the US DOE Center for Multiscale Plasma Dynamics. E.Q.\ and G.G.H.\ were supported in part by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. \begin{appendix} \section{Braginskii's Two-Fluid Equations and Reduced MHD} Here we explain how the standard one-fluid MHD equations used in \secref{sec_RMHD} and the collisional limit of the KRMHD system (\secref{sec_visc}, derived in \apref{ap_visc}) both emerge as limiting cases of the two-fluid theory. For the case of anisotropic fluctuations, $\kpar/\kperp\ll1$, all of this can, of course, be derived from gyrokinetics, but it is useful to provide a connection to the more well known fluid description of collisional plasmas. \subsection{Two-Fluid Equations} The rigorous derivation of the fluid equations for a collisional plasma was done in the classic paper of \citet{Braginskii}. His equations, valid for $\omega/\nui\ll1$, $\kpar\mfp\ll1$, $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ (see \figref{fig_validity_gk}), evolve the densities $n_s$, mean velocities $\vu_s$ and temperatures $T_s$ of each plasma species ($s=i,e$): \bea \lt({\dd\over\dd t} + \vu_s\cdot\vdel\rt)n_s &=& - n_s\vdel\cdot\vu_s,\\ m_s n_s \lt({\dd\over\dd t} + \vu_s\cdot\vdel\rt)\vu_s &=& - \vdel p_s - \vdel\cdot\vPi_s + \qs n_s\lt(\vE + {\vu_s\times\vB\over c}\rt) + \vF_s,\\ {3\over2}\,n_s \lt({\dd\over\dd t} + \vu_s\cdot\vdel\rt)T_s &=& - p_s\vdel\cdot\vu_s - \vdel\cdot\vGamma_s - \vPi_s:\vdel\vu_s + Q_s, \eea where $p_s=n_s T_s$ and the expressions for the viscous stress tensor $\vPi_s$, the friction force $\vF_s$, the heat flux $\vGamma_s$ and the interspecies heat exchange $Q_s$ are given in \citet{Braginskii}. \Eqsdash{Brag_ns}{Brag_Ts} are complemented with the quasi-neutrality condition, $n_e=Zn_i$, and the Faraday and Amp\`ere laws, which are (in the non-relativistic limit) \bea {\dd\vB\over\dd t} = - c\vdel\times\vE,\quad \vj = en_e(\vu_i-\vu_e) = {c\over4\pi}\vdel\times\vB. \eea Because of quasi-neutrality, we only need one of the continuity equations, say the ion one. We can also use the electron momentum equation [\eqref{Brag_us}, $s=e$] to express $\vE$, which we then substitute into the ion momentum equation and the Faraday law. The resulting system is \bea {d\rho\over dt} &=& - \rho\vdel\cdot\vu,\\ \rho {d\vu\over dt} &=& - \vdel\lt(p+{B^2\over 8\pi}\rt) - \vdel\cdot\vPi + {\vB\cdot\vdel\vB\over4\pi} - {Zm_e\over m_i}\rho\lt({\dd\over\dd t} + \vu_e\cdot\vdel\rt)\vu_e,\\ {\dd\vB\over\dd t} &=& \vdel\times\lt[\vu\times\vB - {\vj\times\vB\over en_e} + {c\vdel p_e\over en_e} + {c\vdel\cdot\vPi_e\over en_e} - {c\vF_e\over en_e} + {cm_e\over e}\lt({\dd\over\dd t} + \vu_e\cdot\vdel\rt)\vu_e\rt], \eea where $\rho=m_in_i$, $\vu=\vu_i$, $p=p_i+p_e$, $\vPi=\vPi_i+\vPi_e$, $\vu_e=\vu-\vj/en_e$, $n_e=Zn_i$, $d/dt=\dd/\dd t + \vu\cdot\vdel$. The ion and electron temperatures continue to satisfy \eqref{Brag_Ts}. \subsection{Strongly Magnetized Limit} In this form, the two-fluid theory starts resembling the standard one-fluid MHD, which was our starting point in \secref{sec_RMHD}: \eqsdash{Brag_rho}{Brag_B} already look similar to the continuity, momentum and induction equations. The additional terms that appear in these equations and the temperature equations \exref{Brag_Ts} are brought under control by considering how they depend on a number of dimensionless parameters: $\omega/\nui$, $\kpar\mfp$, $\kperp\rho_i$, $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$. While all these are small in Braginskii's calculation, no assumption is made as to how they compare to each other. We now specify that \bea {\omega\over\nui}\sim {\kpar\mfp\over\sqrt{\beta_i}},\quad \kperp\rho_i\ll\kpar\mfp\sim\sqrt{m_e\over m_i}\ll1 \eea (see \figref{fig_validity_isoth}). Note that the first of these relations is equivalent to assuming that the fluctuation frequencies are Alfv\'enic---the same assumption as in gyrokinetics [\eqref{omega_vs_nu}]. The second relation in \eqref{Brag_small} will be referred to by us as the {\em strongly magnetized limit}. Under the assumptions~\exref{Brag_small}, the two-fluid equations reduce to the following closed set: is best understood by realizing that $\rho\nupar\lt(\vb\vb:\vdel\vu - \vdel\cdot\vu/3\rt)=\pperp-\ppar$, the difference between the perpendicular and parallel (ion) pressures. Since the total pressure is $p=(2/3)\pperp + (1/3)\ppar$, \eqref{Brag_u2} can be written \bea \rho {d\vu\over dt} = - \vdel\lt(\pperp+{B^2\over 8\pi}\rt) + \vdel\cdot\lt[\vb\vb\lt(\pperp-\ppar\rt)\rt] + {\vB\cdot\vdel\vB\over4\pi}. \eea This is the general form of the momentum equation that is also valid for collisionless plasmas, when $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ but $\kpar\mfp$ is order unity or even large. \Eqref{Brag_u3} together with the continuity equation \exref{Brag_u2}, the induction equation \exref{Brag_B2} and a kinetic equation for the particle distribution function (from the solution of which $\pperp$ and $\ppar$ are determined) form the system known as Kinetic MHD \citep[KMHD, see][]{Kulsrud_Varenna,Kulsrud_HPP}. The collisional limit, $\kpar\mfp\ll1$, of KMHD is again \eqsdash{Brag_rho2}{Brag_Te}. } \bea {d\rho\over dt} &=& - \rho\vdel\cdot\vu,\\ \rho {d\vu\over dt} &=& - \vdel\lt[p+{B^2\over 8\pi} + {1\over3}\,\rho\nupar\lt(\vb\vb:\vdel\vu - {1\over3}\,\vdel\cdot\vu\rt)\rt] + \vdel\cdot\lt[\vb\vb\rho\nupar\lt(\vb\vb:\vdel\vu - {1\over3}\,\vdel\cdot\vu\rt)\rt] + {\vB\cdot\vdel\vB\over4\pi},\\ {d\vB\over d t} &=& \vB\cdot\vdel\vu - \vB\vdel\cdot\vu,\\ {d T_i\over dt} &=& - {2\over 3}T_i\vdel\cdot\vu + {1\over\rho}\vdel\cdot\lt(\vb\rho\kappar\vb\cdot\vdel T_i\rt) - \nuie\lt(T_i-T_e\rt) + {2\over3}\,m_i\nupar\lt(\vb\vb:\vdel\vu - {1\over3}\,\vdel\cdot\vu\rt)^2,\\ {d T_e\over dt} &=& - {2\over 3}T_e\vdel\cdot\vu + {1\over\rho}\vdel\cdot\lt(\vb\rho\kappare\vb\cdot\vdel T_e\rt) - {1\over Z}\,\nuie\lt(T_e-T_i\rt), \eea where $\nupar=0.90 \vthi\mfp$ is the parallel ion viscosity, $\kappar=2.45 \vthi\mfp$ parallel ion thermal diffusivity, $\kappare =1.40 \vthe \mfpe \sim \lt(Z^2/\tau^{5/2}\rt)(m_i/m_e)^{1/2}\kappar$ parallel electron thermal diffusivity [here $\mfp=\vthi/\nui$ with $\nui$ defined in \eqref{nui_def}], and $\nuie$ ion--electron collision rate [defined in \eqref{nuie_def}]. Note that the last term in \eqref{Brag_Ti} represents the viscous heating of the ions. \subsection{One-Fluid Equations (MHD)} If we now restrict ourselves to the low-frequency regime where ion--electron collisions dominate over all other terms in the ion-temperature equation \exref{Brag_Ti}, \bea {\omega\over\nuie} \sim {\kpar\mfp\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}\sqrt{m_i\over m_e} \ll1 \eea [see \eqsand{Brag_small}{nuie_def}], we have, to lowest order in this new subsidiary expansion, $T_i=T_e=T$. We can now write $p=(n_i+n_e)T=(1+Z)\rho T/m_i$ and, adding \eqsand{Brag_Ti}{Brag_Te}, find the equation for pressure: \bea {d p\over dt} + {5\over3}\,p\vdel\cdot\vu = \vdel\cdot\lt(\vb n_e\kappare\vb\cdot\vdel T\rt) + {2\over3}\,m_i\nupar\lt(\vb\vb:\vdel\vu - {1\over3}\,\vdel\cdot\vu\rt)^2, \eea where we have neglected the ion thermal diffusivity compared to the electron one, but kept the ion heating term to maintain energy conservation. \Eqref{Brag_p} together with \eqsdash{Brag_rho2}{Brag_B2} constitutes the conventional one-fluid MHD system. With the dissipative terms [which are small because of \eqref{one_fluid}] neglected, this was the starting point for our fluid derivation of RMHD in \secref{sec_RMHD}. Note that the electrons in this regime are adiabatic because the electron thermal diffusion is small \bea {\kappare\kpar^2\over\omega}\sim \kpar\mfp\sqrt{\beta_i}\sqrt{m_i\over m_e} \ll 1, \eea provided \eqref{one_fluid} holds and $\beta_i$ is order unity. If we take $\beta_i\gg1$ instead, we can still satisfy \eqref{one_fluid}, so $T_i=T_e$ follows from the ion temperature equation \exref{Brag_Ti} and the one-fluid equations emerge as an expansion in high $\beta_i$. However, these equations now describe two physical regimes: the adiabatic long-wavelength regime that satisfies \eqref{ad_cond} and the shorter-wavelength regime in which $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}/\sqrt{\beta_i} \ll \kpar\mfp \ll (m_e/m_i)^{1/2}\sqrt{\beta_i}$, so the fluid is isothermal, $T=T_0=\const$, $p=[(1+Z)T_0/m_i]\rho = c_s^2\rho$ [\eqref{MHD_p} holds with $\gamma=1$]. \subsection{Two-Fluid Equations with Isothermal Electrons} Let us now consider the regime in which the coupling between the ion and electron temperatures is small and the electron diffusion is large [the limit opposite to \eqsand{one_fluid}{ad_cond}]: \bea {\omega\over\nuie} \sim {\kpar\mfp\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}\sqrt{m_i\over m_e} \gg 1,\quad {\kappare\kpar^2\over\omega}\sim \kpar\mfp\sqrt{\beta_i}\sqrt{m_i\over m_e} \gg 1, \eea Then the electrons are isothermal, $T_e=\Te=\const$ (with the usual assumption of stochastic field lines, so $\Dpar T_e=0$ implies $\vdel T_e=0$, as in \secref{sec_dTe}), while the ion temperature satisfies \bea {d T_i\over dt} = - {2\over 3}T_i\vdel\cdot\vu + {1\over\rho}\vdel\cdot\lt(\vb\rho\kappar\vb\cdot\vdel T_i\rt) + {2\over3}\,m_i\nupar\lt(\vb\vb:\vdel\vu - {1\over3}\,\vdel\cdot\vu\rt)^2. \eea \Eqref{Brag_Ti2} together with \eqsdash{Brag_rho2}{Brag_B2} and $p=\rho(T_i + Z\Te)/m_i$ are a closed system that describes an MHD-like fluid of adiabatic ions and isothermal electrons. Applying the ordering of \secref{sec_RMHDordering} to these equations and carrying out an expansion in $\kpar/\kperp\ll1$ entirely analogously to the way it was done in \secref{sec_RMHD}, we arrive at the RMHD equations \exsdash{RMHD_Psi}{RMHD_Phi} for the Alfv\'en waves and the following system for the compressive fluctuations (slow and entropy modes): \bea &&{d\over dt}\lt({\drho\over\rho_0} - {\dBpar\over B_0}\rt) + \Dpar\upar = 0,\\ &&{d\upar\over dt} - v_A^2\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0} = \nupar\,\Dpar\lt(\Dpar\upar + {1\over3}{d\over dt}{\drho\over\rho_0}\rt),\\ &&{d\over dt}{\dTi\over\Ti} - {2\over3}{d\over dt}{\drho\over\rho_0} = \kappar\Dpar\lt(\Dpar{\dTi\over\Ti}\rt), \eea and the pressure balance \bea \lt(1+ {Z\over\tau}\rt){\drho\over\rho_0} = - {\dTi\over\Ti} - {2\over\beta_i}\lt[{\dBpar\over B_0} + {1\over 3v_A^2}\nupar\lt(\Dpar\upar + {1\over3}{d\over dt}{\drho\over\rho_0}\rt)\rt]. \eea Recall that these equations, being the consequence of Braginskii's two-fluid equations (\secref{ap_two_fluid}), are an expansion in $\kpar\mfp\ll1$ correct up to first order in this small parameter. Since the dissipative terms are small, we can replace $(d/dt)\drho/\rho_0$ in the viscous terms of \eqsand{Brag_mom}{Brag_pr_bal} by its value computed from \eqsref{Brag_cont}, \exref{Brag_en} and \exref{Brag_pr_bal} in neglect of dissipation: $(d/dt)\drho/\rho_0 = -\Dpar\upar/(1+c_s^2/v_A^2)$ [cf.\ \eqref{eq_drho}], where the speed of sound $c_s$ is defined by \eqref{cs_def}. Substituting this into \eqsand{Brag_mom}{Brag_pr_bal}, we recover the collisional limit of KRMHD derived in \apref{ap_visc}, see \eqsdash{cont_eq_diff}{en_eq_diff} and \exref{pr_bal_diff}. \section{Collisions in Gyrokinetics} The general collision operator that appears in \eqref{Vlasov_eq} is \citep{Landau_co} \bea \({\dd f_s\over\dd t}\)_{\rm c} = 2\pi\ln\Lambda\sum_{s'} {\qs^2\qsp^2\over m_s} {\dd\over\dd\vv}\cdot\int d^3\vv'{1\over w}\(\phantfrac\unity - {\vw\vw\over w^2}\)\cdot \lt[{1\over m_s}\,f_{s'}(\vv')\,{\dd f_s(\vv)\over\dd\vv} -{1\over m_{s'}}\,f_s(\vv)\,{\dd f_{s'}(\vv')\over\dd\vv'} \rt], \eea where $\vw=\vv-\vv'$ and $\ln\Lambda$ is the Coulomb logarithm. We now take into account the expansion of the distribution function~\exref{fs_exp}, use the fact that the collision operator vanishes when it acts on a Maxwellian, and retain only first-order terms in the gyrokinetic expansion. This gives us the general form of the collision term in \eqref{GK_eq}: it is the ring-averaged linearized form of the Landau collision operator~\exref{Landau_C}, $(\dd\hs/\dd t)_{\rm c} = \lt<\dC_s[\hh]\rt>_{\vR_s}$, where \bea \dC_s[\hh] = 2\pi\ln\Lambda\sum_{s'} {\qs^2\qsp^2\over m_s} {\dd\over\dd\vv}\cdot\int d^3\vv'{1\over w}\(\phantfrac\unity - {\vw\vw\over w^2}\)\cdot \lt[\fMsp(v')\({\vv'\over T_{0s'}} + {1\over m_s}{\dd\over\dd\vv}\)\hs(\vv) - \fMs(v)\({\vv\over T_{0s}} + {1\over m_{s'}}{\dd\over\dd\vv'}\)\hh_{s'}(\vv')\rt]. \eea Note that the velocity derivatives are taken at constant $\vr$, i.e., the gyrocenter distribution functions that appear in the integrand should be understood as $\hs(\vv)\equiv\hs(t,\vr+{\vvperp\times\vz/\Omega_s},\vperp,\vpar)$. The explicit form of the gyrokinetic collision operator can be derived in $k$ space as follows: \bea \dtcolls = \lt<\dC_s\lt[\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vR}\hk\rt]\rt>_{\vR_s} = \sum_\vk\lt\<e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\dC_s\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho}\hk\rt]\rt\>_{\vR_s} = \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vR_s}\lt\<e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\dC_s\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho}\hk\rt]\rt\>, \eea where $\vrho_s(\vv)=-\vvperp\times\vz/\Omega_s$ and $\vR_s=\vr-\vrho_s(\vv)$. Angle brackets with no subscript refer to averages over the gyroangle $\gktheta$ of quantities that do not depend on spatial coordinates. Note that inside the operator $\dC_s[\dots]$, $\hh$ occurs both with index $s$ and velocity $\vv$ and with index $s'$ and velocity $\vv'$ (over which summation/integration is done). In the latter case, $\vrho=\vrho_{s'}(\vv')=-\vvperp'\times\vz/\Omega_{s'}$ in the exponential factor inside the operator. Most of the properties of the collision operator that are used in the main body of this paper to order the collision terms can be established in general, already on the basis of \eqref{Cgk_eq} (\secsdash{ap_int_coll}{ap_ii}). If the explicit form of the collision operator is required, we could, in principle, perform the ring average on the linearized operator $\dC$ [\eqref{dC_def}] and derive an explicit form of $(\dd\hs/\dd t)_{\rm c}$. In practice, in gyrokinetics, as in the rest of plasma physics, the full collision operator is only used when it is absolutely unavoidable. In most problems of interest, further simplifications are possible: the same-species collisions are often modeled by simpler operators that share the full collision operator's conservation properties (\secref{ap_ss}), while the interspecies collision operators are expanded in the electron--ion mass ratio (\secref{ap_ei}). \subsection{Velocity-Space Integral of the Gyrokinetic Collision Operator} Many of our calculations involve integrating the gyrokinetic equation~\exref{GK_eq} over the velocity space while keeping $\vr$ constant. Here we estimate the size of the integral of the collision term when $\kperp\rho_s\ll1$. Using \eqref{Cgk_eq}, \bea \nonumber \int d^3\vv \lt<\dtcolls\rt>_\vr &=& \sum_\vk\int d^3\vv\,e^{i\vk\cdot\vr - i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)} \lt\<e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\dC_s\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho}\hk\rt]\rt\>\\ \nonumber &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} 2\pi\int_0^\infty d\vperp\,\vperp\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}d\vpar \lt\<e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\rt\> \lt\<e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\dC_s\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho}\hk\rt]\rt\>\\ \nonumber &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \int d^3\vv \lt\<e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\rt\> e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\dC_s\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho}\hk\rt] = \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \int d^3\vv\, J_0(\kr_s)\, e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\dC_s\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho}\hk\rt]\\ &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr} \int d^3\vv\, \lt[1-i\vk\cdot{\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s} -{1\over2}\,\(\vk\cdot{\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s}\)^2 - {1\over4}\({\kperp\vperp\over\Omega_s}\)^2 + \dots\rt]\dC_s\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho}\hk\rt]. \eea Since the (linearized) collision operator $\dC_s$ conserves particle number, the first term in the expansion vanishes. The operator $\dC_s=\dC_{ss}+\dC_{ss'}$ is a sum of the same-species collision operator [the $s'=s$ part of the sum in \eqref{dC_def}] and the interspecies collision operator (the $s'\neq s$ part). The former conserves total momentum of the particles of species $s$, so it gives no contribution to the second term in the expansion in \eqref{int_C_exp}. Therefore, \bea \int d^3\vv \lt\<\<\dC_{ss}[\hs]\>_{\vR_s}\rt\>_\vr \sim \nu_{ss}\kperp^2\rho_s^2\dn_s. \eea The interspecies collisions do contribute to the second term in \eqref{int_C_exp} due to momentum exchange with the species $s'$. This contribution is readily inferred from the standard formula for the linearized friction force \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Helander_Sigmar}: \bea m_s\int d^3\vv\,\vv\,\dC_{ss'}\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho}\hk\rt] &=& - \int d^3\vv\,\vv\lt[m_s\nuS^{ss'}(v)e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\hks + m_{s'}\nuS^{s's}(v)e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_{s'}(\vv)}\hksp\rt],\\ \nuS^{ss'}(v) &=& {\sqrt{2}\pi\nsp \qs^2\qsp^2\ln\Lambda\over m_s^{1/2}\Ts^{3/2}} \({\vths\over v}\)^3\(1+{m_s\over m_{s'}}\) \lt[\erf\lt({v\over\vthsp}\rt) - {v\over\vthsp}\,\erf'\lt({v\over\vthsp}\rt)\rt], \eea where $\erf(x) = (2/\sqrt{\pi})\int_0^x dy\,\exp(-y^2)$ is the error function. From this, via a calculation of ring averages analogous to \eqref{vperp_avg}, we get \bea \nonumber \int d^3\vv\(-i\vk\cdot{\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s}\)\dC_{ss'}\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho}\hk\rt] &=& -\int d^3\vv \lt[\nuS^{ss'}(v)\Bigl\<i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)\,e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\Bigr\>\hks + {m_{s'}\over m_s}{\Omega_{s'}\over\Omega_s} \nuS^{s's}(v)\Bigl\<i\vk\cdot\vrho_{s'}(\vv)\,e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_{s'}(\vv)}\Bigr\>\hksp\rt]\\ &=& -\int d^3\vv \lt[\nuS^{ss'}(v)\kr_s J_1(\kr_s)\hks + {\qsp\over \qs}\,\nuS^{s's}(v)\kr_{s'}J_1(\kr_{s'})\hksp\rt] \sim \nu_{ss'}\kperp^2\rho_s^2\dn_s + \nu_{s's}\kperp^2\rho_{s'}^2\dn_{s'}.\qquad \eea For the ion--electron collisions ($s=i$, $s'=e$), using \eqsand{rho_ratio}{nuie_def}, we find that both terms are $\sim(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}\nui\kperp^2\rho_i^2\dni$. Thus, besides an extra factor of $\kperp^2\rho_i^2$, the ion--electron collisions are also subdominant by one order in the mass-ratio expansion compared to the ion--ion collisions. The same estimate holds for the interspecies contributions to the third and fourth terms in \eqref{int_C_exp}. In a similar fashion, the integral of the electron--ion collision operator ($s=e$, $s'=i$), is $\sim\nue\kperp^2\rho_e^2\dne$, which is the same order as the integral of the electron--electron collisions. The conclusion of this section is that, both for ion and for electron collisions, the velocity-space integral (at constant $\vr$) of the gyrokinetic collision operator is higher order than the collision operator itself by two orders of $\kperp\rho_s$. This is the property that we relied on in neglecting collision terms in \eqsand{dne_eq}{dni_eq}. \subsection{Ordering of Collision Terms in \eqsand{g_eq}{dni_eq}} In \secref{sec_KRMHD}, we claimed that the contribution to the ion--ion collision term due to the $(Ze\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i}/\Ti)\fMi$ part of the ion distribution function [\eqref{g_ansatz}] was one order of $\kperp\rho_i$ smaller than the contributions from the rest of $\hi$. This was used to order collision terms in \eqsand{g_eq}{dni_eq}. Indeed, from \eqref{Cgk_eq}, \bea \nonumber \lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[{Ze\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i}\over\Ti}\,\fMi\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i} &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vR_i}\lt\<e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_i} \dC_{ii}\lt[e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_i}J_0(\kr_i)\fMi\rt]\rt\>{Ze\ephi_\vk\over\Ti}\\ &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vR_i}\lt\<e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_i} \dC_{ii}\lt[\(1-i\vk\cdot\vrho_i - {1\over2}\(\vk\cdot\vrho_i\)^2 - {\kr_i^2\over4}+\cdots\)\fMi\rt]\rt\>{Ze\ephi_\vk\over\Ti} \sim \nui\kperp^2\rho_i^2\,{Ze\ephi\over\Ti}\,\fMi. \eea This estimate holds because, as it is easy to ascertain using \eqref{dC_def}, the operator $\dC_{ii}$ annihilates the first two terms in the expansion and only acts non-trivially on an expression that is second order in $\kperp\rho_i$. With the aid of \eqref{phi_order}, the desired ordering of the term~\exref{Cii_phi} in \eqref{g_eq} follows. When \eqref{Cii_phi} is integrated over velocity space, the result picks up two extra orders in $\kperp\rho_i$ [a general effect of integrating the gyroaveraged collision operator over the velocity space; see \eqref{int_C_exp}]: \bea \intvi \lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[{Ze\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i}\over\Ti}\,\fMi\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i} \sim \nui \kperp^4\rho_i^4\, {Ze\ephi\over\Ti}, \eea so the resulting term in \eqref{dni_eq} is third order, as stated in~\secref{sec_AW}. \subsection{Model Pitch-Angle-Scattering Operator for Same-Species Collisions} A popular model operator for same-species collisions that conserves particle number, momentum, and energy is constructed by taking the test-particle pitch-angle-scattering operator and correcting it with an additional term that ensures momentum conservation (\citealt{Rosenbluth_Hazeltine_Hinton}; see also \citealt{Helander_Sigmar}): \bea \Cpa[\hs] &=& \nuDs(v)\lt\{{1\over2}\lt[{\dd\over\dd\xi}\(1-\xi^2\){\dd\hs\over\dd\xi} + {1\over1-\xi^2}{\dd^2\hs\over\dd\gktheta^2}\rt] + {2\vv\cdot\vU[\hs]\over\vths^2}\,\fMs\rt\},\quad \vU[\hs] = {3\over2}{\int d^3\vv\,\vv\,\nuDs(v)\,\hs \over\int d^3\vv\,(v/\vths)^2\nuDs(v)\fMs(v)},\\ &&\nuDs(v) = \nuss\({\vths\over v}\)^3 \lt[\(1-{1\over2}{\vths^2\over v^2}\)\erf\lt({v\over\vths}\rt) + {1\over2}{\vths\over v}\,\erf'\lt({v\over\vths}\rt)\rt],\quad \nuss = {\sqrt{2}\pi\ns \qs^4\ln\Lambda\over m_s^{1/2}\Ts^{3/2}}, \eea where the velocity derivatives are at constant $\vr$. The gyrokinetic version of this operator is \citep[cf.][]{Catto_Tsang,Dimits_Cohen} \bea \lt<\Cpa[\hs]\rt>_{\vR_s} &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vR_s} \nuDs(v)\lt\{{1\over2}{\dd\over\dd\xi}\(1-\xi^2\){\dd\hks\over\dd\xi} - {v^2(1+\xi^2)\over4\vths^2}\,\kperp^2\rho_s^2\hks + 2\,{\vperp J_1(\kr_s)\Uperp[\hks] + \vpar J_0(\kr_s)\Upar[\hks]\over\vths^2}\,\fMs\rt\},\\ \nonumber &&\Uperp[\hks] = {3\over2}{\int d^3\vv\,\vperp J_1(\kr_s)\,\nuDs(v)\hks(\vperp,\vpar) \over\int d^3\vv\,(v/\vths)^2\nuDs(v)\fMs(v)},\quad \Upar[\hks] = {3\over2}{\int d^3\vv\,\vpar J_0(\kr_s)\,\nuDs(v)\hks(\vperp,\vpar) \over\int d^3\vv\,(v/\vths)^2\nuDs(v)\fMs(v)}, \eea where $\kr_s=\kperp\vperp/\Omega_s$. The velocity derivatives are now at constant $\vR_s$. The spatial diffusion term appearing in the ring-averaged collision operator is physically due to the fact that a change in a particle's velocity resulting from a collision can lead to a change in the spatial position of its gyrocenter. In order to derive \eqref{Cgk_formula}, we use \eqref{Cgk_eq}. Since, $\vrho_s(\vv)=\(-\vx v\sqrt{1-\xi^2}\sin\gktheta + \vy v\sqrt{1-\xi^2}\cos\gktheta\)/\Omega_s$, it is not hard to see that \bea {\dd\over\dd\xi}\,e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\hks = e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\lt[{\dd\over\dd\xi} - {\xi\over1-\xi^2}{i\vkperp\cdot\bl(\vvperp\times\vz\br)\over\Omega_s}\rt]\hks,\quad {\dd\over\dd\gktheta}\,e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\hks = e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho(\vv)}\({\dd\over\dd\gktheta} + {i\vkperp\cdot\vvperp\over\Omega_s}\)\hks. \eea Therefore, \beq \lt\<e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}{\dd\over\dd\xi}\(1-\xi^2\){\dd\over\dd\xi}\,e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\hks\rt\> = {\dd\over\dd\xi}\(1-\xi^2\){\dd\hks\over\dd\xi} - {v^2\xi^2\over2\Omega_s^2}\,\kperp^2\hks, \quad \lt\<e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}{\dd^2\over\dd\gktheta^2}\,e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\hks\rt\> = -{v^2\(1-\xi^2\)\over2\Omega_s^2}\,\kperp^2\hks. \eeq Combining these formulae, we obtain the first two terms in \eqref{Cgk_formula}. Now let us work out the $\vU$ term: \beq \lt\<e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\vv\cdot\int d^3\vv'\,\vv'\nuDs(v')e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv')} \hks\bl(\vperp',\vpar'\br)\rt\> = \Bigl\<\vv\,e^{i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\Bigr\>\cdot 2\pi\int_0^\infty d\vperp'\,\vperp'\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}d\vpar' \nuDs(v')\Bigl\<\vv'e^{-i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv')}\Bigr\> \hks\bl(\vperp',\vpar'\br). \eeq Since $\lt\<\vv\,e^{\pm i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\rt\> = \vz\vpar\lt\<e^{\pm i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\rt\> + \lt\<\vvperp e^{\pm i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\rt\>$, where $\lt\<e^{\pm i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\rt\> = J_0(\kr_s)$ and \beq \lt\<\vvperp e^{\pm i\vk\cdot\vrho_s(\vv)}\rt\> = \vz\times\lt\<\bl(\vvperp\times\vz\br)\exp\(\mp i\vkperp\cdot{\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s}\)\rt\> = \pm i\Omega_s \vz\times{\dd\over\dd\vkperp} \lt\<\exp\(\mp i\vkperp\cdot{\vvperp\times\vz\over\Omega_s}\)\rt\> = \pm i\, {\vz\times\vkperp\over\kperp}\,\vperp J_1(\kr_s), \eeq we obtain the third term in \eqref{Cgk_formula}. It is useful to give the lowest-order form of the operator~\exref{Cgk_formula} in the limit $\kperp\rho_s\ll1$: \bea \lt<\Cpa[\hs]\rt>_{\vR_s} = \nuDs(v)\lt[{1\over2}{\dd\over\dd\xi}\(1-\xi^2\){\dd\hs\over\dd\xi} + {3\vpar\int d^3\vv'\vpar'\nuDs(v')\hs(\vperp',\vpar') \over\int d^3\vv'v^{\prime2}\nuDs(v')\fMs(v')}\,\fMs\rt] + O(\kperp^2\rho_s^2). \eea This is the operator that can be used in the right-hand side of \eqref{sw_g} (as, e.g., is done in the calculation of collisional transport terms in \apref{ap_transport}). In practical numerical computations of gyrokinetic turbulence, the pitch-angle scattering operator is not sufficient because the distribution function develops small scales not only in $\xi$ but also in $v$ (M.~Barnes, W.~Dorland and T.~Tatsuno 2006, unpublished). This is, indeed, expected because the phase-space entropy cascade produces small scales in $\vperp$, rather than just in $\xi$ (see \secref{sec_small_scales}). In order to provide a cut off in $v$, an energy-diffusion operator must be added to the pitch-angle-scattering operator derived above. A numerically tractable model gyrokinetic energy-diffusion operator was proposed by \citet{Abel_etal,Barnes_etal}.\footnote{The collision operator now used the {\tt GS2} and {\tt AstroGK} codes (see footnote ) is their energy-diffusion operator plus the pitch-angle-scattering operator~\exref{Cgk_formula}.} \subsection{Electron--Ion Collision Operator} This operator can be expanded in $m_e/m_i$ and to the lowest order is \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Helander_Sigmar} \bea \dC_{ei}[\hh] = \nuDei(v)\lt\{{1\over2}\lt[{\dd\over\dd\xi}\(1-\xi^2\){\dd\he\over\dd\xi} + {1\over1-\xi^2}{\dd^2\he\over\dd\gktheta^2}\rt] + {2\vv\cdot\vu_i\over\vthe^2}\,\fMe\rt\},\quad \nuDei(v) = \nue\({\vthe\over v}\)^3. \eea The corrections to this form are $O(m_e/m_i)$. This is second order in the expansion of \secref{sec_els} and, therefore, we need not keep these corrections. The operator \exref{Cei_exp} is mathematically similar to the model operator for the same-species collisions [\eqref{Cgk_formula}]. The gyrokinetic version of this operator is derived in the way analogous to the calculation in \apref{ap_ss}. The result is \bea \nonumber \lt<\dC_{ei}[\hh]\rt>_{\vR_e} &=& \sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vR_e} \nuDei(v)\lt[{1\over2}{\dd\over\dd\xi}\(1-\xi^2\){\dd\hke\over\dd\xi} - {v^2(1+\xi^2)\over4\vthe^2}\,\kperp^2\rho_e^2\hke\rt.\\ &&-\lt. {Zm_e\over m_i}{\vperp^2\over\vthe^2}{J_1(\kr_e)\over\kr_e}\fMe \kperp^2\rho_i^2 {1\over\ni}\int d^3\vv' {2\vperp^{\prime2}\over\vthi^2} {J_1(\kr_i')\over\kr_i'}\,\hki + {2\vpar J_0(\kr_e)\uparik\over\vthe^2}\fMe\rt]. \eea At scales not too close to the electron gyroscale, namely, such that $\kperp\rho_e\sim(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$, the second and third terms are manifestly second order in $(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}$, so have to be neglected along with other $O(m_e/m_i)$ contributions to the electron--ion collisions. is, in fact, never important: at the electron scales, $\kperp\rho_e\sim1$, it is negligible because of the Bessel function in the velocity integral \citep{Abel_etal}.} The remaining two terms are first order in the mass-ratio expansion: the first term vanishes for $\he=\hezero$ [\eqref{hezero_formula}], so its contribution is first order; in the fourth term, we can use \eqref{upare_eq} to express $\upari$ in terms of quantities that are also first order. Keeping only the first-order terms, the gyrokinetic electron--ion collision operator is \bea \lt<\dC_{ei}[\hh]\rt>_{\vR_e} = \nuDei(v)\lt[{1\over2}{\dd\over\dd\xi}\(1-\xi^2\){\dd\heone\over\dd\xi} + {2\vpar\upari\over\vthe^2}\fMe\rt]. \eea Note that the ion drag term is essential to represent the ion--electron friction correctly and, therefore, to capture the Ohmic resistivity (which, however, is rarely more important for unfreezing flux than the electron inertia and the finiteness of the electron gyroradius; see \secref{sec_unfreezing}). \section{A Heuristic Derivation of the Electron Equations} Here we show how the equations~\exsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{dne_eq_sum} of \secref{sec_els} and the ERMHD equations~\exsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} of \secref{sec_ERMHD} can be derived heuristically from electron fluid dynamics and a number of physical assumptions, without the use of gyrokinetics (\secref{ap_el_eqns}). This derivation is {\em not} rigorous. Its role is to provide an intuitive route to the isothermal electron fluid and ERMHD approximations. \subsection{Derivation of \eqsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{dne_eq_sum}} We start with the following three equations: \bea {\dd \vB\over\dd t} = -c \vdel\times\vE,\qquad {\dd n_e\over\dd t} + \vdel\cdot\(n_e\vu_e\) = 0,\qquad \vE + {\vu_e\times\vB\over c} = - {\vdel p_e\over e n_e}. \eea These are Faraday's law, the electron continuity equation, and the generalized Ohm's law, which is the electron momentum equation with all electron inertia terms neglected (i.e., effectively, the lowest order in the expansion in the electron mass~$m_e$). The electron pressure is assumed to be scalar by {\em fiat} (this can be justified in certain limits: for example in the collisional limit, as in \apref{ap_Brag}, or for the isothermal electron fluid approximation derived in \secref{sec_els}). The electron-pressure term in the right-hand side of Ohm's law is sometimes called the thermoelectric term. We now assume the same static uniform equilibrium, $\vE_0=0$, $\vB_0=B_0\vz$, that we have used throughout this paper and apply to \eqsref{el_fluid} the fundamental ordering discussed in \secref{sec_params}. First consider the projection of Ohm's law onto the {\em total} magnetic field $\vB$, use the definition of $\vE$ [\eqref{E_B_def}], and keep the leading-order terms in the $\epsilon$ expansion: \bea \vE\cdot\vb = -{1\over en_e}\,\Dpar p_e \quad\Rightarrow\quad {1\over c}{\dd\Apar\over\dd t} + \Dpar\ephi = \Dpar {\dpe\over e\ne}. \eea This turns into \eqref{Apar_eq_sum} if we also assume isothermal electrons, $\dpe=\Te\dne$ [see \eqref{dpe_eq}]. With the aid of Ohm's law, Faraday's law turns into \bea {\dd\vB\over\dd t} = \vdel\times\(\vu_e\times\vB\) = -\vu_e\cdot\vdel\vB + \vB\cdot\vdel\vu_e - \vB\vdel\cdot\vu_e. \eea Keeping the leading-order terms, we find, for the components of \eqref{ind_eq_els} perpendicular and parallel to the mean field, \bea \({\dd\over\dd t} + \vuperpe\cdot\vdperp\){\dvBperp\over B_0} = \Dpar\vuperpe,\qquad \({\dd\over\dd t} + \vuperpe\cdot\vdperp\)\({\dBpar\over B_0} - {\dne\over\ne}\) = \Dpar\upare. \eea In the last equation, we have used the electron continuity equation to write \bea \vdel\cdot\vu_e = -\({\dd\over\dd t} + \vuperpe\cdot\vdperp\){\dne\over\ne}. \eea From Ohm's law, we have, to lowest order, \bea \vuperpe = - \vz\times{c\over B_0}\(\vEperp + \vdperp{\dpe\over e\ne}\) = \vz\times\vdperp {c\over B_0}\(\ephi - {\dpe\over e\ne}\). \eea Using this expression in the second of the equations \exref{ind_eq_reduced} gives \bea {d\over dt}\({\dBpar\over B_0} - {\dne\over\ne}\) - \Dpar\upare = {c\over B_0}\lt\{{\dpe\over e\ne},{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt\} - {c\over B_0}\lt\{{\dpe\over e\ne},{\dne\over\ne}\rt\}, \eea where $d/dt$ is defined in the usual way [\eqref{def_ddt}]. Assuming isothermal electrons ($\dpe = \Te\dne$) annihilates the second term on the right-hand side and turns the above equation into \eqref{dne_eq_sum}. As for the first of the equations \exref{ind_eq_reduced}, the use of \eqref{uperpe_eq} and substitution of $\dvBperp = -\vz\times\vdperp\Apar$ turns it into the previously derived \eqref{Ohm_par}, whence follows \eqref{Apar_eq_sum}. Thus, we have shown that \eqsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{dne_eq_sum} can be derived as a direct consequence of Faraday's law, electron fluid dynamics (electron continuity equation and the electron force balance, a.~k.~a.\ the generalized Ohm's law), and the assumption of isothermal electrons---all taken to the leading order in the gyrokinetic ordering given in \secref{sec_params} (i.e., assuming strongly interacting anisotropic fluctuations with $\kpar\ll\kperp$). We have just proved that \eqsand{Apar_eq_sum}{dne_eq_sum} are simply the perpendicular and parallel part, respectively, of \eqref{ind_eq_els}. The latter equation means that the magnetic-field lines are frozen into the electron flow velocity $\vu_e$, i.e., the flux is conserved, the result formally proven in \secref{sec_flux} [see \eqref{Far_law}]. \subsection{Electron MHD and the Derivation of \eqsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi}} One route to \eqsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi}, already explained in \secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}, is to start with \eqsand{Ohm_par}{dBdn_eq} and assume Boltzmann electrons and ions and the total pressure balance. Another approach, more standard in the literature on the Hall and Electron MHD, is to start with \eqref{ind_eq_els}, which states that the magnetic field is frozen into the electron flow. The electron velocity can be written in terms of the ion velocity and the current density, and the latter then related to the magnetic field via Amp\`ere's law: \beq \vu_e = \vu_i - {\vj\over en_e} = \vu_i - {c\over4\pi e n_e}\,\vdel\times\vB. \eeq To the leading order in $\epsilon$, the perpendicular and parallel parts of \eqref{ind_eq_els} are \eqsref{ind_eq_reduced}, respectively, where the perpendicular and parallel electron velocities are [from \eqref{Hall}] \beq \vuperpe = \vuperpi + {c\over4\pi e\ne}\,\vz\times\vdperp\dBpar, \quad \upare = \upari + {c\over4\pi e\ne}\,\vdperp^2\Apar. \eeq The relative size of the two terms in each of these expressions is controlled by the size of $\kperp d_i$, where $d_i=\rho_i/\sqrt{\beta_i}$ is the ion inertial scale. When $\kperp d_i\gg1$, we may set $\vu_i=0$. Note, however, that the ion motion is not totally neglected: indeed, in the second of the equations \exref{ind_eq_reduced}, the $\dne/ne$ terms comes, via \eqref{div_ue}, from the divergence of the ion velocity [from \eqref{Hall}, $\vdel\cdot\vu_i=\vdel\cdot\vu_e$]. To complete the derivation, we relate $\dne$ to $\dBpar$ via the assumption of total pressure balance, as explained in \secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}, giving us \eqref{dBpar_via_dne}. Substituting this equation and \eqsref{Hall_perp_par} into \eqsref{ind_eq_reduced}, we obtain \bea {\dd\Psi\over\dd t} = v_A^2 d_i\,\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0}, \qquad {\dd\over\dd t}{\dBpar\over B_0} = - {d_i\over1+2/\beta_i(1+Z/\tau)}\,\Dpar\vdperp^2\Psi, \eea where $\Psi=-\Apar/\sqrt{4\pi m_i\ni}$. \Eqsref{ERMHD_eqns_ap} evolve the perturbed magnetic field. These equations become the ERMHD equations \exsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} if $\dBpar/B_0$ is expressed in terms of the scalar potential via \eqref{EMHD_dBpar}. Note that there are two special limits in which the assumption of immobile ions suffices to derive \eqsref{ERMHD_eqns_ap} from \eqref{ind_eq_els} without the need for the pressure balance: $\beta_i\gg1$ (incompressible ions) or $\tau=\Ti/\Te\ll1$ (cold ions) but $\beta_e=\beta_iZ/\tau\gg1$. In both cases, \eqref{dBpar_via_dne} shows that $\dne/\ne\ll\dBpar/B_0$, so the density perturbation can be ignored and the coefficient of the right-hand side of the second of the equations~\exref{ERMHD_eqns_ap} is equal to~1. The limit of cold ions is discussed further in \apref{ap_Hall}. \section{Fluid Limit of the Kinetic RMHD} Taking the fluid (collisional) limit of the KRMHD system (summarized in \secref{sec_KRMHD_sum}) means carrying out another subsidiary expansion---this time in $\kpar\mfp\ll1$. The expansion only affects the equations for the density and magnetic-field-strength fluctuations (\secref{sec_sw}) because the Alfv\'en waves are indifferent to collisional effects. The calculation presented below follows a standard perturbation algorithm used in the kinetic theory of gases and in plasma physics to derive fluid equations with collisional transport coefficients \citep{Chapman_Cowling}. For magnetized plasma, this calculation was carried out in full generality by \citet{Braginskii}, whose starting point was the full plasma kinetic theory [\eqsdash{Vlasov_eq}{Max_Ampere}]. While what we do below is, strictly speaking, merely a particular case of his calculation (see \apref{ap_Brag}), it has the advantage of relative simplicity and also serves to show how the fluid limit is recovered from the gyrokinetic formalism---a demonstration that we believe to be of value. It will be convenient to use the KRMHD system written in terms of the function $\tdfi = g + (\vperp^2/\vthi^2)(\dBpar/B_0)\fMi$, which is the perturbation of the local Maxwellian in the frame of the Alfv\'en waves [\eqsdash{KRMHD_dfi}{KRMHD_dfi_Bpar}]. We want to expand \eqref{KRMHD_dfi} in powers of $\kpar\mfp$, so we let $\tdfi = \dfzero + \dfone + \dots$, $\dBpar = \dBzero + \dBone + \dots$, etc. \subsection{Zeroth Order: Ideal Fluid Equations} Since [see \eqref{omega_vs_nu}] \bea {\omega\over\nui}\sim {\kpar v_A\over\nui}\sim {\kpar\mfp\over\sqrt{\beta_i}},\quad {\kpar\vpar\over\nui}\sim {\kpar\vthi\over\nui}\sim \kpar\mfp, \eea to zeroth order \eqref{KRMHD_dfi} becomes $\lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[\dfzero\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i} = 0$. The zero mode of the collision operator is a Maxwellian. Therefore, we may write the full ion distribution function up to zeroth order in $\kpar\mfp$ as follows [see \eqref{fi_AW}] \bea f_i= {n_i\over\(2\pi T_i/m_i\)^{3/2}}\,\exp\lt\{ - {m_i[(\vvperp-\vu_E)^2+(\vpar-\upar)^2]\over2 T_i}\rt\}, \eea where $n_i=\ni + \dni$ and $T_i=\Ti+\dTi$ include both the unperturbed quantities and their perturbations. The $\vE\times\vB$ drift velocity $\vu_E$ comes from the Alfv\'en waves (see \secref{sec_AW_coll}) and does not concern us here. Since the perturbations $\dni$, $\upar$ and $\dTi$ are small in the original gyrokinetic expansion, \eqref{Max_unexpanded} is equivalent to \bea \dfzero = \lt[{\dnzero\over\ne} + \({v^2\over\vthi^2}-{3\over2}\){\dTzero\over\Ti} + {2\vpar\over\vthi^2}\,\uzero\rt]\fMi, \eea where we have used quasi-neutrality to replace $\dni/\ni=\dne/\ne$. This automatically satisfies \eqref{KRMHD_dfi_n}, while \eqref{KRMHD_dfi_Bpar} gives us an expression for the ion-temperature perturbation: \bea {\dTzero\over\Ti} = -\(1+{Z\over\tau}\){\dnzero\over\ne} - {2\over\beta_i}{\dBzero\over B_0}. \eea Note that this is consistent with the interpretation of the perpendicular Amp\`ere's law [\eqref{Amp_perp}, which is the progenitor of \eqref{KRMHD_dfi_Bpar}] as the pressure balance [see \eqref{GK_pr_bal}]: indeed, recalling that the electron pressure perturbation is $\dpe=\Te\dne$ [\eqref{dpe_eq}], we have \bea \delta\,{B^2\over8\pi} = {B_0^2\over4\pi}{\dBpar\over B_0} = -\dpe - \dpi = -\dne\Te -\dni\Ti - \ni\dTi, \eea whence follows \eqref{dTi_eq} by way of quasi-neutrality ($Zn_i=n_e$) and the definitions of $Z$, $\tau$, $\beta_i$ [\eqsdash{Z_def}{betai_def}]. Since the collision operator conserves particle number, momentum and energy, we can obtain evolution equations for $\dnzero/\ne$, $\uzero$ and $\dBzero/B_0$ by multiplying \eqref{KRMHD_dfi} by $1$, $\vpar$, $v^2/\vthi^2$, respectively, and integrating over the velocity space. The three moments that emerge this way are \bea \intvi \dfzero = {\dnzero\over\ne},\qquad \intvi \vpar\dfzero = \uzero,\qquad \intvi {v^2\over\vthi^2}\,\dfzero = {3\over2}\lt({\dnzero\over\ne} + {\dTzero\over\Ti}\rt). \eea The three evolution equations for these moments are \bea &&{d\over dt}\({\dnzero\over\ne} - {\dBzero\over B_0}\) + \Dpar\uzero = 0,\\ &&{d\uzero\over dt} - v_A^2\,\Dpar{\dBzero\over B_0} = 0,\\ &&{d\over dt}\lt[{3\over2}\lt({\dnzero\over\ne} + {\dTzero\over\Ti}\rt) - {5\over2}{\dBzero\over B_0}\rt] + {5\over2}\,\Dpar\uzero = 0. \eea These allow us to recover the fluid equations we derived in \secref{sec_sw_fluid}: \eqref{mom_eq} is the parallel component of the MHD momentum equation~\exref{eq_upar}; combining \eqsref{cont_eq}, \exref{en_eq} and \exref{dTi_eq}, we obtain the continuity equation and the parallel component of the induction equation---these are the same as \eqsand{eq_drho}{eq_Bpar}: \bea {d\over dt}{\dnzero\over\ne} = - {1\over1+ c_s^2/v_A^2}\,\Dpar\uzero,\quad {d\over dt}{\dBzero\over B_0} = {1\over1+ v_A^2/c_s^2}\,\Dpar\uzero, \eea where the sound speed $c_s$ is defined by \eqref{cs_def}. From \eqsand{cont_eq}{en_eq}, we also find the analog of the entropy equation~\exref{eq_ds}: \bea {d\over dt}{\dTzero\over\Ti} = {2\over3}{d\over dt}{\dnzero\over\ne} \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad {d\over dt}{\dszero\over s_0} = 0,\quad {\dszero\over s_0} = {\dTzero\over\Ti} - {2\over3}{\dnzero\over\ne} = -\({5\over3}+{Z\over\tau}\)\({\dnzero\over\ne}+{v_A^2\over c_s^2}{\dBzero\over B_0}\). \eea This implies that the temperature changes due to compressional heating only. \subsection{Generalized Energy: Five RMHD Cascades Recovered} We now calculate the generalized energy by substituting $\tdfi$ from \eqref{dfzero_expr} into \eqref{W_KRMHD} and using \eqsand{dTi_eq}{comp_heat_eq}: \bea \nonumber W &=& \int d^3\vr\lt[{m_i\ni u_E^2\over2} + {\dBperp^2\over8\pi} + {m_i\ni\upar^2\over2} + {\dBpar^2\over8\pi} \(1+{v_A^2\over c_s^2}\) + {3\over4}\,\ni\Ti\,{1+Z/\tau\over5/3+Z/\tau}{\ds^2\over s_0^2}\rt]\\ &=& \Wperp^+ + \Wperp^- + \Wpar^+ + \Wpar^- + {3\over2}\,\ni\Ti\,{1+Z/\tau\over5/3+Z/\tau}\,\Ws. \eea The first two terms are the Alfv\'en-wave energy [\eqref{W_AW}]. The following two terms are the slow-wave energy, which splits into the independently cascaded energies of ``$+$'' and ``$-$'' waves (see \secref{sec_elsasser_SW}): \bea W_{\rm SW} = \Wpar^+ + \Wpar^- = \intr{m_i\ni\over2}\lt(|\zpar^+|^2 + |\zpar^-|^2\rt). \eea The last term is the total variance of the entropy mode. Thus, we have recovered the five cascades of the RMHD system (\secref{sec_RMHD_cascades}; \figref{fig_cascade_channels} maps out the fate of these cascades at kinetic scales). \subsection{First Order: Collisional Transport} Now let us compute the collisional transport terms for the equations derived above. In order to do this, we have to determine the first-order perturbed distribution function $\dfone$, which satisfies [see \eqref{KRMHD_dfi}] \bea \lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[\dfone\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i} = {d\over dt}\lt(\dfzero - {\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBzero\over B_0}\rt) + \vpar\,\Dpar\lt(\dfzero+{Z\over\tau}{\dnzero\over\ne}\fMi\rt). \eea We now use \eqref{dfzero_expr} to substitute for $\dfzero$ and \eqsdash{den_eq}{comp_heat_eq} and \exref{mom_eq} to compute the time derivatives. \Eqref{dfone_eq} becomes \bea \lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[\dfone\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i} = \lt[- \(1-3\xi^2\){v^2\over\vthi^2} {2/3 + c_s^2/v_A^2\over 1 + c_s^2/v_A^2}\, \Dpar\uzero + \xi v\({v^2\over\vthi^2}-{5\over2}\) \Dpar{\dTzero\over\Ti}\rt]\fMi(v), \eea where $\xi=\vpar/v$. Note that the right-hand side gives zero when multiplied by $1$, $\vpar$ or $v^2$ and integrated over the velocity space, as it must do because the collision operator in the left-hand side conserves particle number, momentum and energy. Solving \eqref{dfone_eq2} requires inverting the collision operator. While this can be done for the general Landau collision operator \citep[see][]{Braginskii}, for our purposes, it is sufficient to use the model operator given in \apref{ap_ss}, \eqref{Cgk_lowest}. This simplifies calculations at the expense of an order-one inaccuracy in the numerical values of the transport coefficients. As the exact value of these coefficients will never be crucial for us, this is an acceptable loss of precision. Inverting the collision operator in \eqref{dfone_eq2} then gives \bea \dfone = {1\over\nuDi(v)}\lt[{1-3\xi^2\over 3}{v^2\over\vthi^2} {2/3 + c_s^2/v_A^2\over 1 + c_s^2/v_A^2}\, \Dpar\uzero - \xi v\({v^2\over\vthi^2}-{5\over2}\) \Dpar{\dTzero\over\Ti}\rt]\fMi(v), \eea where $\nuDi(v)$ is a collision frequency defined in \eqref{nuD_def} and we have chosen the constants of integration in such a way that the three conservation laws are respected: $\int d^3\vv\,\dfone=0$, $\int d^3\vv\,\vpar\dfone=0$, $\int d^3\vv\,v^2\dfone=0$. These relations mean that $\dnone=0$, $\uone=0$, $\dTone=0$ and that, in view of \eqref{KRMHD_dfi_Bpar}, we have \bea {\dBone\over B_0} = - {1\over 3v_A^2}{2/3 + c_s^2/v_A^2\over 1 + c_s^2/v_A^2}\, \nupar\Dpar\upar, \eea where $\nupar$ is defined below [\eqref{nupar_def}]. \Eqsdash{dfone_sln}{dBone_sln} are now used to calculate the first-order corrections to the moment equations \exsdash{cont_eq}{en_eq}. They become \bea &&{d\over dt}\lt({\dne\over\ne} - {\dBpar\over B_0}\rt) + \Dpar\upar = 0,\\ &&{d\upar\over dt} - v_A^2\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0} = {2/3 + c_s^2/v_A^2\over 1 + c_s^2/v_A^2}\,\nupar\,\Dpar\lt(\Dpar\upar\rt),\\ &&{d\over dt}{\dTi\over\Ti} - {2\over3}{d\over dt}{\dne\over\ne} = \kappar\Dpar\lt(\Dpar{\dTi\over\Ti}\rt), \eea where we have introduced the coefficients of parallel viscosity and parallel thermal diffusivity: \bea \nupar = {2\over15}\intvi {v^4\over\nuDi(v)\vthi^2}\,\fMi(v),\qquad \kappar = {2\over9}\intvi {v^4\over\nuDi(v)\vthi^2} \({v^2\over\vthi^2}-{5\over2}\)\fMi(v). \eea All perturbed quantities are now accurate up to first order in $\kpar\mfp$. Note that in \eqref{mom_eq_diff}, we used \eqref{dBone_sln} to express $\dBzero = \dBpar - \dBone$. We do the same in \eqref{dTi_eq} and obtain \bea \lt(1+ {Z\over\tau}\rt){\dne\over\ne} = - {\dTi\over\Ti} - {2\over\beta_i}\lt({\dBpar\over B_0} + {1\over 3v_A^2}{2/3 + c_s^2/v_A^2\over 1 + c_s^2/v_A^2}\, \nupar\Dpar\upar\rt). \eea This equation completes the system \exsdash{cont_eq_diff}{en_eq_diff}, which allows us to determine $\dne$, $\upar$, $\dTi$ and $\dBpar$. In \secref{sec_visc}, we use the equations derived above, but absorb the prefactor $(2/3 + c_s^2/v_A^2)/(1+c_s^2/v_A^2)$ into the definition of $\nupar$. The same system of equations can also be derived from Braginskii's two-fluid theory (\apref{ap_isoth_els}), from which we can borrow the quantitatively correct values of the viscosity and ion thermal diffusivity: $\nupar=0.90\vthi^2/\nui$, $\kappar=2.45\vthi^2/\nui$, where $\nui$ is defined in \eqref{nui_def}. \section{Hall Reduced MHD} The popular Hall MHD approximation consists in assuming that the magnetic field is frozen into the electron flow velocity [\eqref{ind_eq_els}]. The latter is calculated from the ion flow velocity and the current determined by Amp\`ere's law [\eqref{Hall}]: \bea {\dd\vB\over\dd t} = \vdel\times\lt[\lt(\vu_i-{c\over4\pi e\ne}\vdel\times\vB\rt)\times\vB\rt], \eea where the ion flow velocity $\vu_i$ satisfies the conventional MHD momentum equation \exref{MHD_u}. The Hall MHD is an appealing theoretical model that appears to capture both the MHD behavior at long wavelengths (when $\vu_e\simeq\vu_i$) and some of the kinetic effects that become important at small scales due to decoupling between the electron and ion flows (the appearance of dispersive waves) without bringing in the full complexity of the kinetic theory. However, unlike the kinetic theory, it completely ignores the collisionless damping effects and suggests that the key small-scale physical change is associated with the ion inertial scale $d_i=\rho_i/\sqrt{\beta_i}$ (or, when $\beta_e\ll1$, the ion sound scale $\rho_s=\rho_i\sqrt{Z/2\tau}$; see \secref{ap_Hall_lin}), rather than the ion gyroscale $\rho_i$. Is this an acceptable model for plasma turbulence? \Figref{fig_omegas} illustrates the fact that at $\tau\sim1$, the ion inertial scale does {\em not} play a special role linearly, the MHD Alfv\'en wave becomes dispersive at the ion gyroscale, not at $d_i$, and that the collisionless damping cannot in general be neglected. A detailed comparison of the Hall MHD linear dispersion relation with full hot plasma dispersion relation leads to the conclusion that Hall MHD is only a valid approximation in the limit of cold ions, namely, $\tau=\Ti/\Te\ll1$ \citep{Ito_etal,Hirose_etal}. In this Appendix, we show that a reduced (low-frequency, anisotropic) version of Hall MHD can, indeed, be derived from gyrokinetics in the limit $\tau\ll1$.\footnote{Note that, strictly speaking, our ordering of the collision frequency does not allow us to take this limit (see footnote~), but this is a minor betrayal of rigor, which does not, in fact, invalidate the results.} This demonstrates that the Hall MHD model fits into the theoretical framework proposed in this paper as a special limit. However, the parameter regime that gives rise to this special limit is not common in space and astrophysical plasmas of interest. \subsection{Gyrokinetic Derivation of Hall Reduced MHD} Let us start with the equations of isothermal electron fluid, \eqsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{GK_ions_sum}, i.e., work within the assumptions that allowed us to carry out the mass-ratio expansion (\secref{sec_els_validity}). In \eqref{dBpar_eq_sum} (perpendicular Amp\`ere's law, or gyrokinetic pressure balance), taking the limit $\tau\ll1$ gives \bea {\dBpar\over B_0} = {\beta_i\over2}{Z\over\tau}\Biggl\{{Ze\ephi\over\Ti} -\sum_\vk e^{i\vk\cdot\vr}\intvi J_0(\kr_i)\hki\Biggr\} = -{\beta_e\over2}{\dne\over\ne}, \eea where we have used \eqref{quasineut_sum} to express the $\hi$ integral and the expression for the electron beta $\beta_e=\beta_i Z/\tau$. Note that the above equation is simply the statement of a balance between the magnetic and electron thermal pressure (the ions are relatively cold, so they have fallen out of the pressure balance). Using \eqref{dne_Hall} to express $\dne$ in terms of $\dBpar$ in \eqsand{Apar_eq_sum}{dne_eq_sum} and also substituting for $\upare$ from \eqref{upare_eq_sum} [or, equivalently, \eqref{upare_eq}], we get \bea {\dd\Psi\over\dd t} = v_A\Dpar\lt(\Phi + v_A d_i\,{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt), \qquad {d\over dt}{\dBpar\over B_0} = {1\over 1+{2/\beta_e}}\, \Dpar\lt(\upari - d_i\dperp^2\Psi\rt), \eea where we have used our usual definitions of the stream and flux functions [\eqref{Phi_Psi_def2}] and of the full derivatives [\eqref{dd_def_sum}]. These equations determine the evolution of the magnetic field, but we still need the ion gyrokinetic equation \exref{GK_ions_sum} to calculate the ion motion ($\Phi=c\ephi/B_0$ and $\upari$) via \eqsand{quasineut_sum}{upari_def}. There are two limits in which the ion kinetics can be reduced to simple fluid models. \subsubsection{High-Ion-Beta Limit, $\beta_i\gg1$} In this limit, $\kperp\rho_i=\kperp d_i\sqrt{\beta_i}\gg1$ as long as $\kperp d_i$ is not small. Then the ion motion can be neglected because it is averaged out by the Bessel functions in \eqsand{quasineut_sum}{upari_def}---in the same way as in \secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}. So we get $\Phi=(\tau/Z)v_Ad_i\dBpar/B_0$ [using \eqref{dne_Hall}; this is the $\tau\ll1$ limit of \eqref{EMHD_dBpar}] and $\upari=0$. Noting that $\beta_e=\beta_i Z/\tau\gg1$ in this limit, we find that \eqsref{Hall_B} reduce to \bea {\dd\Psi\over\dd t} = v_A^2d_i\,\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0}, \qquad {\dd\over\dd t}{\dBpar\over B_0} = -d_i\,\Dpar\dperp^2\Psi, \eea which is the $\tau\ll1$ limit of our ERMHD equations \exsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} [or, equivalently, \eqsref{ERMHD_eqns_ap}]. \subsubsection{Low-Ion-Beta Limit, $\beta_i\sim\tau\ll1$ (the Hall Limit)} This limit is similar to the RMHD limit worked out in \secref{sec_KRMHD}: we take, for now, $\kperp d_i\sim1$ and $\beta_e\sim1$ (in which subsidiary expansions can be carried out later), and expand the ion gyrokinetics in $\kperp\rho_i=\kperp d_i\sqrt{\beta_i}\ll1$. Note that ordering $\beta_e\sim1$ means that we have ordered $\beta_i\sim\tau\ll1$. We now proceed analogously to the way we did in \secref{sec_KRMHD}: express the ion distribution in terms of the $\gi$ function defined by \eqref{g_ansatz} and, using the relation \exref{dne_Hall} between $\dBpar/B_0$ and $\dne/\ne$, write \eqsdash{g_eq}{uparek_from_g} as follows: \bea \nonumber \order{\!\!\!-1}{{\dd\gi\over\dd t}} &+& \order{0}{\vpar{\dd\gi\over\dd z}} + {c\over B_0}\Biggl\{\biggl\<\order{\!\!\!-1}{\ephi} - \order{0}{{\vpar\Apar\over c}} - \order{1}{{\vvperp\cdot\vAperp\over c}}\Biggr\>_{\vR_i},\gi\Biggr\} - \order{0}{\lt<\dC_{ii}[\gi]\rt>_{\vR_i}}\\ &=& {Ze\over\Ti}\Biggl[\vpar\lt\<\order{1}{-{1\over B_0}\lt\{\Apar,\ephi-\<\ephi\>_{\vR_i}\rt\}} + \Dpar\Biggl(\order{\!\!\!-1}{{\Te\over e}{2\over\beta_e}{\dBpar\over B_0}} +\order{1}{\lt\<{\vvperp\cdot\vAperp\over c}\rt\>_{\vR_i}}\Biggr)\rt\>{\vphantom{\Biggr>}}_{\vR_i}\,\fMi + \lt<\dC_{ii}\biggl[\biggl\<\order{1}{\ephi} -\order{1}{{\vvperp\cdot\vAperp\over c}}\biggr\>{\vphantom{\biggr>}}_{\vR_i}\,\fMi\biggr]\rt>{\vphantom{\Biggr>}}_{\vR_i}\Biggr],\quad \eea \bea -\order{0}{\lt[\Gamma_1(\krsq_i)+{2\over\beta_e}\rt]{\dBpark\over B_0}} + \order{0}{\bl[1-\Gamma_0(\krsq_i)\br]{Ze\ephi_\vk\over\Ti}} = \order{\!\!\!-1}{\intvi J_0(\kr_i)\gki},\qquad \order{\!\!\!-1}{\uparik} = \order{\!\!\!-1}{\intvi \vpar J_0(\kr_i)\gki}. \eea All terms in these equations can be ordered with respect to the small parameter $\sqrt{\beta_i}$ (an expansion subsidiary to the gyrokinetic expansion in $\epsilon$ and the Hall expansion in $\tau\ll1$). The lowest order to which they enter is indicated underneath each term. The ordering we use is the same as in \secref{sec_sub_order}, but now we count the powers of $\sqrt{\beta_i}$ and order formally $\kperp d_i\sim1$ and $\beta_e\sim1$. It is easy to check that this ordering can be summarized as follows \bea {Ze\ephi\over\Ti}\sim{1\over\beta_i}{\dBpar\over B_0},\quad {\dBperp\over B_0}\sim{\dBpar\over B_0},\quad {g\over\fMi}\sim{\upar\over\vthi}\sim{1\over\sqrt{\beta_i}}{\dBpar\over B_0} \eea and that the ion and electron terms in \eqsref{Hall_B} are comparable under this ordering, so their competition is retained (in fact, this could be used as the underlying assumption behind the ordering). The fluctuation frequency continues to be ordered as the Alfv\'en frequency, $\omega\sim\kpar v_A$. The collision terms are ordered via $\omega/\nui\sim \kpar\mfp/\sqrt{\beta_i}$ and $\kpar\mfp\sim1$, although the latter assumption is not essential for what follows, because collisions turn out to be negligible and it is fine to take $\kpar\mfp\gg1$ from the outset and neglect them completely. In \eqsref{Hall_fields}, we use \eqsand{G0_def}{G1_def} to write $1-\Gamma_0(\krsq_i)\simeq\krsq_i=\kperp^2\rho_i^2/2$ and $\Gamma_1(\krsq_i)\simeq1$. These equations imply that if we expand $\gi = \gi^{(-1)}+\gi^{(0)}+\dots$, we must have $\int d^3\vv\gi^{(-1)}=0$, so the contribution to the right-hand side of the first of the equations \exref{Hall_fields} (the quasi-neutrality equation) comes from $\gi^{(0)}$, while the parallel ion flow is determined by $\gi^{(-1)}$. Retaining only the lowest (minus first) order terms in \eqref{Hall_g}, we find the equation for $\gi^{(-1)}$, the $\vpar$ moment of which gives an equation for $\upari$: \bea {\dd\gi^{(-1)}\over\dd t} + {c\over B_0}\,\{\ephi,\gi^{(-1)}\} = {2\over\beta_i}\,\vpar\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0}\,\fMi \quad\Rightarrow\quad {d\upari\over dt} = v_A^2\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0}. \eea Now integrating \eqref{Hall_g} over the velocity space (at constant $\vr$), using the first of the equations \exref{Hall_fields} to express the integral of $\gi^{(0)}$, and retaining only the lowest (zeroth) order terms, we find \bea {d\over dt}\lt[-{1\over2}\rho_i^2\dperp^2{Ze\ephi\over\Ti} -\lt(1+{2\over\beta_e}\rt){\dBpar\over B_0}\rt] + \Dpar\upari = 0 \quad\Rightarrow\quad {d\over dt}\dperp^2\Phi = v_A\Dpar\dperp^2\Psi, \eea where we have used the second of the equations~\exref{Hall_B} to express the time derivative of $\dBpar/B_0$. Together with \eqsref{Hall_B}, \eqsand{Hall_upar_ap}{Hall_Phi_ap} form a closed system, which it is natural to call {\em Hall Reduced MHD (HRMHD)} because these equations can be straightforwardly derived by applying the RMHD ordering (\secref{sec_RMHDordering}) to the MHD equations \exsdash{MHD_u}{MHD_B} with the induction equation \exref{MHD_B} replaced by \eqref{Hall_MHD}. Indeed, \eqsand{Hall_upar_ap}{Hall_Phi_ap} exactly coincide with \eqsand{eq_upar}{RMHD_Phi}, which are the parallel and perpendicular components of the MHD momentum equation \exref{MHD_u} under the RMHD ordering; \eqsref{Hall_B} should be compared \eqsand{RMHD_Psi}{eq_Bpar} while noticing that, in the limit $\tau\ll1$, the sound speed is $c_s=v_A\sqrt{\beta_e/2}$ [see \eqref{cs_def}]. The incompressible case \citep{Mahajan_Yoshida} is recovered in the subsidiary limit $\beta_e\gg1$ (i.e., $1\gg\beta_i\gg\tau$). \subsection{Generalized Energy for Hall RMHD and the Passive Entropy Mode} To work out the generalized energy (\secref{sec_en_GK}) for the HRMHD regime, we start with the generalized energy for the isothermal electron fluid [\eqref{W_els}] and use \eqref{dne_Hall} to express the density perturbation: \bea W = \int d^3\vr\lt[\int d^3\vv\,{\Ti\dfi^2\over2\fMi} + {\dBperp^2\over8\pi} + \lt(1+{2\over\beta_e}\rt){\dBpar^2\over8\pi}\rt], \eea where $\dvBperp=\vz\times\vdperp\Psi$. The perturbed ion distribution function can be written in the same form as it was done in \secref{sec_AW_coll} [\eqref{fi_KRMHD}]: to lowest order in the $\sqrt{\beta_i}$ expansion (\secref{ap_Hall_low_beta}), \bea \dfi^{(-1)} = {2\vvperp\cdot\vuperp\over\vthi^2}\,\fMi + \gi^{(-1)} = {2\vvperp\cdot\vuperp\over\vthi^2}\,\fMi + {2\vpar\upari\over\vthi^2}\,\fMi + \tilde\gi, \eea where $\vuperp=\vz\times\vdperp\Phi$. The last equality above is achieved by noticing that, since $\gi^{(-1)}$ satisfies \eqref{Hall_upar_ap}, we may split it into a perturbed Maxwellian with parallel velocity $\upari$ and the remainder: $\gi^{(-1)} = 2\vpar\upari\fMi/\vthi^2 + \tilde\gi$. Then $\tilde\gi$ is the homogeneous solution of the leading-order kinetic equation [see \eqref{Hall_upar_ap}]: \bea {\dd\tilde\gi\over\dd t} + \{\Phi,\tilde\gi\} = 0, \quad \int d^3\vv\,\tilde\gi=0. \eea Substituting \eqref{dfi_HRMHD} into \eqref{W_Hall} and keeping only the leading-order terms in the $\sqrt{\beta_i}$ expansion, we get \bea W = \int d^3\vr\lt[{m_i\ni \uperp^2\over2} + {\dBperp^2\over8\pi} + {m_i\ni\upar^2\over2} + {\dBpar^2\over8\pi} \(1+{2\over\beta_e}\) + \int d^3\vv\,{\Ti\tilde\gi^2\over2\fMi}\rt]. \eea The first four terms are the energy of the Alfv\'enic and slow-wave-polarized fluctuations [cf.\ \eqref{W_RMHD}]. Unlike in RMHD, these are not decoupled in HRMHD, unless a further subsidiary long-wavelength limit is taken (see \secref{ap_Hall_sum}). It is easy to verify that the sum of these four terms is indeed conserved by \eqsref{Hall_B}, \exsand{Hall_upar_ap}{Hall_Phi_ap}. The last term in \eqref{W_HRMHD} is an individually conserved kinetic quantity. Its conservation reflects the fact that $\tilde\gi$ is decoupled from the wave dynamics and passively advected by the Alfv\'enic velocities via \eqref{tgi_eq}.\footnote{A similar splitting of the generalized energy cascade into a fluid-like cascade plus a passive cascade of a zero-density part of the distribution function occurs in the Hasegawa--Mima regime, which is the electrostatic version of the Hall limit \citep{Plunk_etal}.} The passive kinetic mode $\tilde\gi$ can be thought of as a kinetic version of the MHD entropy mode and, indeed, reduces to it if the collision operator in \eqref{Hall_g} is upgraded to the leading order by ordering $\omega/\nui\sim1$ (i.e., by considering long parallel wavelengths, $\kpar\mfp\sim\sqrt{\beta_i}$). In such a collisional limit, $\tilde\gi$ has to be a perturbed Maxwellian with no density or velocity perturbation [because $\int d^3\vv\tilde\gi = 0$, while the velocity perturbation is explicitly separated from $\tilde\gi$ in \eqref{dfi_HRMHD}]. Therefore, \bea \tilde\gi = \lt({v^2\over\vthi^2} - {3\over2}\rt){\dTi\over\Ti}\,\fMi \quad\Rightarrow\quad {d\over dt}{\dTi\over\Ti} = 0,\quad \int d^3\vr\int d^3\vv\,{\Ti\tilde\gi^2\over2\fMi} = \int d^3\vr\, {3\over 4}\,\ni\Ti\,{\dTi^2\over\Ti^2}. \eea This is to be compared with the $\beta_i\sim\tau\ll1$ limit of \eqsand{comp_heat_eq}{W_RMHD}. As we have established, in the $\sqrt{\beta_i}$ expansion, $\dTi=\dTi^{(-1)}$, $\dni=\dni^{(0)}$, $\dBpar = \dBpar^{(0)}$, so to lowest order $\ds/s_0 = \dTi/\Ti$ and \eqref{Hall_ds} describes the entropy mode in the Hall limit. \subsection{Hall RMHD Dispersion Relation} Linearizing the Hall RMHD equations \exref{Hall_B}, \exref{Hall_upar_ap} and \exref{Hall_Phi_ap} (derived in \secref{ap_Hall_low_beta} assuming the ordering $\beta_i\sim\tau\ll1$), we obtain the following dispersion relation:\footnote{The full gyrokinetic dispersion relation in a similar limit was worked out in \citet{Howes_etal}, Appendix D.2.1.} \bea \lt(\omega^2-\kpar^2v_A^2\rt)\lt(\omega^2-{\kpar^2v_A^2\over1+2/\beta_e}\rt) = \omega^2\kpar^2 v_A^2{\kperp^2 d_i^2\over1+2/\beta_e}. \eea When the coupling term on the right-hand side is negligible, $\kperp d_i/\sqrt{1+2/\beta_e}\ll1$, we recover the MHD Alfv\'en wave, $\omega^2=\kpar^2v_A^2$, and the MHD slow wave, $\omega^2=\kpar^2v_A^2/(1+v_A^2/c_s^2)$ [\eqref{sw_disp_rln}], where $c_s=v_A\sqrt{\beta_e/2}$ in the limit $\tau\ll1$ [\eqref{cs_def}]. In the opposite limit, we get the kinetic Alfv\'en wave, $\omega^2=\kpar^2v_A^2\kperp^2d_i^2/(1+2/\beta_e)$ [same as \eqref{omega_KAW} with $\tau\ll1$]. The solution of the dispersion relation \exref{HRMHD_disp_rln} is \bea \omega^2 = {\kpar^2 v_A^2\over 1+{2/\beta_e}} \lt[1+{1\over\beta_e} + {\kperp^2 d_i^2\over2} \pm \sqrt{{1\over\beta_e^2} + \lt(1+{1\over\beta_e}\rt)\kperp^2 d_i^2 + {\kperp^4d_i^4\over 4}}\rt]. \eea The corresponding eigenfunctions then satisfy\footnote{Note that wave packets with $|\vkperp|=\kperp$ and satisfying \eqref{HRMHD_sln} with $\kpar v_A/\omega$ as a function of $\kperp$ given by \eqref{HRMHD_omega} are exact nonlinear solutions of the HRMHD equations \exref{Hall_B} and \exsdash{Hall_upar_ap}{Hall_Phi_ap}. This can be shown via a calculation analogous to that in \secref{sec_KAW} \citep[for the incompressible Hall MHD, this was done by][]{Mahajan_Krishan}.} \bea \Psi = -{\kpar v_A\over\omega}\lt(\Phi + v_A d_i\,{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt),\quad \upari = -{\kpar v_A^2\over\omega}{\dBpar\over B_0},\quad \Phi = -{\kpar v_A\over\omega}\,\Psi. \eea \Eqref{HRMHD_omega} takes a particularly simple form in the subsidiary limits of high and low electron beta $\beta_e=\beta_iZ/\tau$: \bea \beta_e\gg1: \ \omega^2 = \kpar^2v_A^2\lt[1+{\kperp^2 d_i^2\over2} \pm \sqrt{\lt(1+{\kperp^2 d_i^2\over2}\rt)^2-1}\rt],\qquad \beta_e\ll1: \ \omega^2 = \kpar^2v_A^2\lt(1+\kperp^2\rho_s^2\rt) \ {\rm and}\ \omega^2 = {\kpar^2 c_s^2\over1+\kperp^2\rho_s^2}, \eea where $\rho_s=d_i\sqrt{\beta_e/2}=\rho_i\sqrt{Z/2\tau}=c_s/\Omega_i$ is called the ion sound scale. The Alfv\'en wave and the slow wave (known as the ion acoustic wave in the limit of $\tau\ll1$, $\beta_e\ll1$) become dispersive at the ion inertial scale ($\kperp d_i\sim1$) when $\beta_e\gg1$ and at the ion sound scale ($\kperp\rho_s\sim1$) when $\beta_e\ll1$. \subsection{Summary of Hall RMHD and the Role of the Ion Inertial and Ion Sound Scales} We have shown that in the limit of cold ions and low ion beta ($\beta_i\sim\tau\ll1$, ``the Hall limit''), gyrokinetic turbulence can be described by five scalar functions: the stream and flux functions $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ for the Alfv\'enic fluctuations, the parallel velocity and magnetic-field perturbations $\upari$ and $\dBpar$ for the slow-wave-polarized fluctuations, and $\tilde\gi$, the zero-density, zero-velocity part of the ion distribution function, which is the kinetic version of the MHD entropy mode. The first four of these functions satisfy a closed set of four fluid-like equations, derived in \secref{ap_HRMHD} and collected here: \bea &&{\dd\Psi\over\dd t} = v_A\Dpar\lt(\Phi + v_A d_i\,{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt), \qquad {d\over dt}{\dBpar\over B_0} = {1\over 1+{2/\beta_e}}\, \Dpar\lt(\upari - d_i\dperp^2\Psi\rt),\\ &&{d\over dt}\dperp^2\Phi = v_A\Dpar\dperp^2\Psi, \qquad\qquad\quad {d\upari\over dt} = v_A^2\Dpar{\dBpar\over B_0}. \eea We call these equations the {\em Hall Reduced Magnetohydrodynamics (HRMHD)}. To fully account for the generalized energy cascade, one must append to the four HRMHD equations the fifth, kinetic equation \exref{tgi_eq} for $\tilde\gi$, which is energetically decoupled from HRMHD and slaved to the Alfv\'enic velocity fluctuations (\secref{ap_Hall_en}). The equations given above are valid above the ion gyroscale, $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$. They contain a special scale, $d_i/\sqrt{1+2/\beta_e}$, which is the ion inertial scale $d_i$ for $\beta_e\gg1$ and the ion sound scale $\rho_s=c_s/\Omega_i$ for $\beta_e\ll1$. As becomes clear from the linear theory (\secref{ap_Hall_lin}), the Alfv\'en and slow waves become dispersive at this scale. Nonlinearly, this scale marks the transition from the regime in which the Alfv\'enic and slow-wave-polarized fluctuations are decoupled to the regime in which they are mixed. Namely, when $\kperp d_i/\sqrt{1+2/\beta_e}\ll1$, HRMHD turns into RMHD: \eqsref{B_HRMHD_sum} become \eqsand{RMHD_Psi}{eq_Bpar}, while \eqsref{u_HRMHD_sum} remain unchanged and identical to \eqsand{RMHD_Phi}{eq_upar}; in the opposite limit, $\kperp d_i/\sqrt{1+2/\beta_e}\gg1$, the ion motion decouples from the magnetic-field evolution and \eqsref{B_HRMHD_sum} turn into the ERMHD equations~\exsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi}. Since we are considering the case $\beta_i\ll1$, both $d_i$ and $\rho_s$ are much larger than the ion gyroscale $\rho_i$. In the opposite limit of $\beta_i\gg1$ (\secref{ap_Hall_high_beta}), while $d_i$ is the only scale that appears explicitly in \eqsref{Hall_high_beta}, we have $d_i\ll\rho_i$ and the equations themselves represent the dynamics at scales much smaller than the ion gyroscale, so the transition between the RMHD and ERMHD regimes occurs at $\kperp\rho_i\sim1$. The same is true for $\beta_i\sim1$, when $d_i\sim\rho_i$. The ion sound scale $\rho_s\gg\rho_i$ does not play a special role when $\beta_i$ is not small: it is not hard to see that for $\kperp\rho_s\sim1$, the ion motion terms in \eqsref{B_HRMHD_sum} dominate and we simply recover the inertial-range KRMHD model (\secref{sec_KRMHD}) by expanding in $\kperp\rho_i=\kperp\rho_s\sqrt{2\tau/Z}\ll1$. Various theories of the dissipation-range turbulence based on Hall and Electron MHD are further discussed in \secref{sec_dr_alt}. \section{Two-Dimensional Invariants in Gyrokinetics} Since gyrokinetics is in a sense a ``quasi-two-dimensional'' approximation, it is natural to inquire if this gives rise to additional conservation properties (besides the conservation of the generalized energy discussed in \secref{sec_en_GK}) and how they are broken by the presence of parallel propagation terms. It is important to emphasize that, except in a few special cases, these invariants are only invariants in 2D, so gyrokinetic turbulence in 2D and 3D has fundamentally different properties, despite its seemingly ``quasi-2D'' nature. It is, therefore, generally not correct to think of the gyrokinetic turbulence (or its special case the MHD turbulence) as essentially a 2D turbulence with an admixture of parallel-propagating waves \citep{Fyfe_Joyce_Montgomery,Montgomery_Turner}. In this Appendix, we work out the 2D invariants. Without attempting to present a complete analysis of the 2D conservation properties of gyrokinetics, we limit our discussion to showing how some more familiar fluid invariants (most notably, magnetic helicity) emerge from the general 2D invariants in the appropriate asymptotic limits. \subsection{General 2D Invariants} In deriving the generalized energy invariant, we used the fact that $\intRs\hs\{\avchi,\hs\}=0$, so \eqref{GK_eq} after multiplication by $\Ts\hs/\fMs$ and integration over space contains no contribution from the Poisson-bracket nonlinearity. Since we also have $\intRs\avchi\{\avchi,\hs\}=0$, multiplying \eqref{GK_eq} by $\qs\avchi$ and integrating over space has a similar outcome. Subtracting the latter integrated equation from the former and rearranging terms gives \bea {\dd\Is\over\dd t}\equiv {\dd\over\dd t}{\Ts\over2\fMs}\intRs\lt(\hs - {\qs\avchi\over\Ts}\,\fMs\rt)^2 = \qs\vpar\intRs\avchi{\dd\hs\over\dd z} + {\Ts\over\fMs}\intRs\lt(\hs - {\qs\avchi\over\Ts}\,\fMs\rt)\dtcolls. \eea We see that in a purely 2D situation, when $\dd/\dd z=0$, we have an infinite family of invariants $\Is=\Is(\vperp,\vpar)$ whose conservation (for each species and for every value of $\vperp$ and $\vpar$!) is broken only by collisions. In 3D, the parallel particle streaming (propagation) term in the gyrokinetic equation generally breaks these invariants, although special cases may arise in which the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{Is_def} vanishes and a genuine 3D invariant appears. \subsection{``$\Apar^2$-Stuff''} Let apply the mass-ratio expansion (\secref{IEF_ordering}) to \eqref{Is_def} for electrons. Using the solution \exref{hezero_formula} for the electron distribution function, we find \bea \nonumber {\dd\Ie\over\dd t} &=& {\dd\over\dd t}{\Te\fMe\over2} \intr\lt({\dne\over\ne} - {e\over\Te}{\vpar\Apar\over c} - {\vperp^2\over\vthe^2}\,{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt)^2 = {\dd\over\dd t}\lt[ {e^2\vpar^2\over c^2}{\fMe\over\Te}\intr{\Apar^2\over2} - {e\vpar\over c}\,\fMe\intr\Apar\lt({\dne\over\ne}-{\vperp^2\over\vthe^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt) + \cdots\rt]\\ &=&-e\vpar\intr\lt[\lt(\ephi - {\vpar\Apar\over c} - {\Te\over e}{\vperp^2\over\vthe^2}\,{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt) {\dd\over\dd z}\lt({\dne\over\ne} - {e\ephi\over\Te}\rt)\fMe - {\vpar\Apar\over c}{\dd\heone\over\dd z}\rt] -{e\vpar\over c}\intr\Apar\dtcolle, \eea where we have kept terms to two leading orders in the expansion. To lowest order, the above equation reduces to \bea {d\over dt}\intr{\Apar^2\over2} = c\intr\Apar{\dd\over\dd z}\lt({\Te\over e}{\dne\over\ne} - \ephi\rt). \eea This equation can also be obtained directly from \eqref{Apar_eq_sum} (multiply by $\Apar$ and integrate). In 2D, it expresses a well known conservation law of the ``$\Apar^2$-stuff.'' As this 2D invariant exists already on the level of the mass-ratio expansion of the electron kinetics, with no assumptions about the ions, it is inherited both by the RMHD equations in the limit of $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$ (\secref{sec_AW}) and by the ERMHD equations in the limit of $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$ (\secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}). In the former limit, $\dne/\ne$ on the right-hand side of \eqref{Apar_stuff} is negligible (under the ordering explained in \secref{sec_sub_order}); in the latter limit, it is expressed in terms of $\ephi$ via \eqref{EMHD_dne}. The conservation of ``$\Apar^2$-stuff'' is a uniquely 2D feature, broken by the parallel propagation term in 3D. \subsection{Magnetic Helicity in the Electron Fluid} If we now divide \eqref{Ie_IEF} through by $e\vpar/c$ and integrate over velocities, we get, after some integrations by parts, another relation that becomes a conservation law in 2D and that can also easily be derived directly from the equations of the isothermal electron fluid \exsdash{Apar_eq_sum}{dne_eq_sum}: \bea {d\over dt}\intr\Apar\lt({\dne\over\ne}-{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt) = -\,c\intr\lt[{\dne\over\ne}{\dd\ephi\over\dd z} + {\dBpar\over B_0}{\dd\over\dd z}\lt({\Te\over e}{\dne\over\ne}-\ephi\rt) + \Apar\,{\dd\upare\over\dd z}\rt]. \eea In the ERMHD limit $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$ (\secref{sec_ERMHD_eqns}), we use \eqsdash{EMHD_dne}{EMHD_dBpar} to simplify the above equation and find that the integral on the right-hand side vanishes and we get a genuine 3D conservation law: \bea {d\over dt}\intr\Apar\dBpar = 0. \eea This can also be derived directly from the ERMHD equations \exsdash{EMHD_Psi}{EMHD_Phi} [using \eqref{EMHD_dBpar}]. The conserved quantity is readily seen to be the helicity of the perturbed magnetic field: \bea \intr\vA\cdot\dvB = \intr\lt[\vAperp\cdot\lt(\vdperp\times\Apar\vz\rt) + \Apar\dBpar\rt] = \intr\lt[\Apar\vz\cdot\lt(\vdperp\times\vAperp\rt) + \Apar\dBpar\rt] = 2\intr\Apar\dBpar. \eea \subsection{Magnetic Helicity in the RMHD Limit} Unlike in the case of ERMHD, the helicity of the perturbed magnetic field in RMHD is conserved only in 2D. This is because the induction equation for the perturbed field has an inhomogeneous term associated with the mean field [\eqref{MHD_B} with $\vB=B_0\vz+\dvB$] \citep[this issue has been extensively discussed in the literature; see][]{Matthaeus_Goldstein,Stribling_Matthaeus_Ghosh,Berger,Montgomery_Bates,Brandenburg_Matthaeus}. Directly from the induction equation or from its RMHD descendants \eqsand{RMHD_Psi}{eq_Bpar}, we obtain [note the definitions \exref{Phi_Psi_def2}] \bea {d\over dt}\intr\Apar\dBpar = \intr\lt(c\ephi\,{\dd\dBpar\over\dd z} + {B_0\Apar\over1+v_A^2/c_s^2}{\dd\upar\over\dd z}\rt), \eea so helicity is conserved only if $\dd/\dd z=0$. For completeness, let us now show that this 2D conservation law is a particular case of \eqref{Is_def} for ions. Let us consider the inertial range ($\kperp\rho_i\ll1$). We substitute \eqref{g_ansatz} into \eqref{Is_def} for ions and expand to two leading orders in $\kperp\rho_i$ using the ordering explained in \secref{sec_sub_order}: \bea \nonumber {\dd\Ii\over\dd t} &=& {\dd\over\dd t}{\Ti\over2\fMi}\intRi \lt(\gi + {Ze\over\Ti}{\vpar\avApari\over c}\,\fMi\rt)^2 = {\dd\over\dd t}\lt({Z^2e^2\vpar^2\over c^2}{\fMi\over\Ti}\intr{\Apar^2\over2} + {Ze\vpar\over c}\intr\Apar\gi + \cdots\rt)\\ &=& -{Z^2e^2\vpar^2\over c}{\fMi\over\Ti}\intr\Apar {\dd\over\dd z}\lt(\ephi+{\Ti\over Ze}{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt) + Ze\vpar\intr\lt(\ephi - {\vpar\Apar\over c}\rt){\dd\gi\over\dd z} + {Ze\vpar\over c}\intr\Apar\dtcolli. \eea The lowest-order terms in the above equations (all proportional to $\vpar^2\fMi$) simply reproduce the 2D conservation of ``$\Apar^2$-stuff,'' given by \eqref{Apar_stuff}. We now subtract \eqref{Apar_stuff} multiplied by $(Ze\vpar/c)^2\fMi/\Ti$ from \eqref{Ii_g}. This leaves us with \bea {\dd\over\dd t}\intr\Apar\gi = c\intr\lt(\ephi-{\vpar\Apar\over c}\rt){\dd\gi\over\dd z} +\vpar\fMi\intr\lt({Z\over\tau}{\dne\over\ne} +{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\rt){\dd\Apar\over\dd z} +\intr\Apar\dtcolli. \eea This equation is a general 2D conservation law of the KRMHD equations (see \secref{sec_KRMHD_sum}) and can also be derived directly from them. If we integrate it over velocities and use \eqsand{sw_n}{sw_upar}, we simply recover \eqref{IEF_helicity}. However, since \eqref{KRMHD_helicity} holds for every value of $\vpar$ and $\vperp$, it carries much more information than \eqref{IEF_helicity}. To make connection to MHD, let us consider the fluid (collisional) limit of KRMHD worked out in \apref{ap_visc}. The distribution function to lowest order in the $\kpar\mfp\ll1$ expansion is $g=-(\vperp^2/\vthi^2)\dBpar/B_0 + \dfzero$, where $\dfzero$ is the perturbed Maxwellian given by \eqref{dfzero_expr}. We can substitute this expression into \eqref{KRMHD_helicity}. Since in this expansion the collision integral is applied to $\dfone$ and is the same order as the rest of the terms (see \secref{ap_transport}), conservation laws are best derived by taking $1$, $\vpar$, and $v^2/\vthi^2$ moments of \eqref{KRMHD_helicity} so as to make the collision term vanish. In particular, multiplying \eqref{KRMHD_helicity} by $1+(2\tau/3Z)v^2/\vthi^2$, integrating over velocities and using \eqsand{dTi_eq}{moments}, we obtain the evolution equation for $\intr\Apar\dBpar$, which coincides with \eqref{RMHD_helicity}. Note that, either proceeding in an analogous way, one can derive similar equations for $\intr\Apar\dne$ and $\intr\Apar\upar$---these are also 2D invariants of the RMHD system, broken in 3D by the presence of the propagation terms. The same result can be derived directly from the evolution equations \exsand{mom_eq}{den_eq}. \subsection{Electrostatic Invariant} Interestingly, the existence of the general 2D invariants introduced in \secref{ap_inv_gen} alongside the generalized energy invariant given by \eqref{W_cons} means that one can construct a 2D invariant of gyrokinetics that does not involve any velocity-space quantities. In order to do that, one must integrate \eqref{Is_def} over velocities, sum over species, and subtract \eqref{W_cons} from the resulting equation (thus removing the $\hs^2$ integrals). The result is not particularly edifying in the general case, but it takes a simple form if one considers electrostatic perturbations ($\dvB=0$). In this case, $\chi=\ephi$, and the manipulations described above lead to the following equation \beq {dY\over dt}\equiv {d\over dt}\lt(\sum_s\intv\,\Is - W\rt) = -{d\over dt}\sum_s\sum_\vk{\qs^2\ns\over2\Ts}\bl[1-\Gamma_0(\krsq_s)\br]|\ephi_\vk|^2 = \intr\Epar\jpar -\sum_s\qs\intv\intRs\lt\<\ephi\rt>_{\vR_s}\dtcolls, \eeq where $\Epar=-{\dd\ephi/\dd z}$, $\krsq_s=\kperp^2\rho_s^2/2$ and $\Gamma_0$ is defined by \eqref{G0_def}. In 2D, $\Epar=0$ and the above equation expresses a conservation law broken only by collisions. The complete derivation and analysis of 2D conservation properties of gyrokinetics in the electrostatic limit, including the invariant \exref{Y_def}, the electrostatic version of \eqref{Is_def}, and their consequences for scalings and cascades, was given by \citet{Plunk_etal}. Here we briefly consider a few relevant limits. For $\kperp\rho_i\ll1$, we have $\Gamma_0(\krsq)= 1-\krsq_s + \dots$, so the invariant given by \eqref{Y_def} is simply the kinetic energy of the $\vE\times\vB$ flows: $Y=\sum_s (m_s\ns/2)\intr|\vdperp\Phi|^2$, where $\Phi=c\ephi/B_0$. In the limit $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$, $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$, we have $Y=-\ni\intr Z^2e^2\ephi^2/2\Ti$. In the limit $\kperp\rho_e\gg1$, we have $Y=-(1+Z/\tau)\ne\intr e^2\ephi^2/2\Te$. Whereas we are not interested in electrostatic fluctuations in the inertial range, electrostatic turbulence in the dissipation range was discussed in \secsand{sec_ent_no_KAW}{sec_ent_els}. The electrostatic 2D invariant in the limits $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$, $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$ and $\kperp\rho_e\gg1$ can also be derived directly from the equations given there [in the former limit, use \eqref{Apar_no_KAW} to express $\upari$ in terms of $\jpar$ in order to get \eqref{Y_def}]. Note that, taken separately and integrated over velocities, \eqref{Is_def} for ions (when $\kperp\rho_i\gg1$, $\kperp\rho_e\ll1$) and for electrons (when $\kperp\rho_e\gg1$), reduces to lowest order to the statement of 3D conservation of $\intv\intRi\Ti\hi^2/2\fMi$ [$\Whi$ in \eqref{W_ERMHD}] and $\intv\intRe\Te\he^2/2\fMe$ [\eqref{W_last}], respectively. \subsection{Implications for Turbulent Cascades and Scalings} Since invariants other than the generalized energy or its constituent parts are present in 2D and, in some limits, also in 3D, one might ask how their presence affects the turbulent cascades and scalings. As an example, let us consider the magnetic helicity in KAW turbulence, which is a 3D invariant of the ERMHD equations (\secref{ap_hel_els}). A Kolmogorov-style analysis of a local KAW cascade based on a constant flux of helicity gives (proceeding as in \secref{sec_KAW_turb}): \bea {\Psil\Phil\over\tKAW} \sim\sqrt{1+\beta_i}\,{\lambda\over\rho_i}{\Phil^2\over\tKAW} \sim\sqrt{1+\beta_i}\,{\Phil^3\over\rho_i\lambda}\sim\epshel=\const \quad\Rightarrow\quad \Phil\sim {\epshel\over(1+\beta_i)^{1/6}}\,\rho_i^{1/3}\lambda^{1/3}, \eea where $\epshel$ is the helicity flux (omitting constant dimensional factors, the helicity is now defined as $\intr\Psi\Phi$ and assumed to be non-zero). This corresponds to a $\kperp^{-5/3}$ spectrum of magnetic energy. In order to decide whether we expect the scalings to be determined by the constant-helicity flux or by the constant-energy flux (as assumed in \secref{sec_KAW_turb}), we adapt a standard argument originally due to \citet{Fjortoft}. If the helicity flux of the KAW turbulence originating at the ion gyroscale (via partial conversion from the inertial-range turbulence; see \secref{sec_ERMHD}) is $\epshel$, its energy flux is $\epsB\sim\epshel$ [set $\lambda=\rho_i$ in \eqref{KAW_hel_scaling} and compare with \eqref{const_flux_KAW}]. If the cascade between the ion and electron gyroscales is controlled by maintaining a constant flux of helicity, then the helicity flux arriving to the electron gyroscale is still $\epshel$, while the associated energy flux is $\epshel\rho_i/\rho_e\gg\epsB$, i.e., more energy arrives to $\rho_e$ than there was at $\rho_i$! This is clearly impossible in a stationary state. The way to resolve this contradiction is to conclude that the helicity cascade is, in fact, inverse (i.e., directed towards larger scales), while the energy cascade is direct (to smaller scales). A similar argument based on the constancy of the energy flux $\epsB$ then leads to the conclusion that the helicity flux arriving to the electron gyroscale is $\epsB\rho_e/\rho_i\ll\epshel\sim\epsB$, i.e., the helicity indeed does not cascade to smaller scales. It does not, in fact, cascade to large scales either because the ERMHD equations are not valid above the ion gyroscale and the helicity of the perturbed magnetic field in the inertial range is not a 3D invariant (\secref{ap_hel_RMHD}). The situation would be different if an energy source existed either at the electron gyroscale or somewhere in between $\rho_e$ and $\rho_i$. In such a case, one would expect an inverse helicity cascade and the consequent shallower scaling [\eqref{KAW_hel_scaling}] between the energy-injection scale and the ion gyroscale. Other invariants introduced above can in a similar fashion be argued to give rise to inverse cascades in the hypothetical 2D situations where they are valid and provided there is energy injection at small scales (for the electrostatic case, see \citealt{Plunk_etal} and numerical simulations by \citealt{Tatsuno_etal2}). The view of turbulence advanced in this paper does not generally allow for this to happen. First, the fundamentally 3D nature of the turbulence is imposed via the critical balance conjecture and supported by the argument that ``two dimensionality'' can only be maintained across parallel distances that do not exceed the distance a parallel-propagating wave (or parallel-streaming particles) travels over one nonlinear decorrelation time (see \secref{sec_GS}, \secref{sec_KAW_turb} and \secref{sec_par_no_KAW}). Secondly, the lack of small-scale energy injection was assumed at the outset. This can, however, be violated in real astrophysical plasmas by various small-scale plasma instabilities (e.g., triggered by pressure anisotropies; see discussion in \secref{sec_pressure_aniso}). Treatment of such effects falls outside the scope of this paper and remains a matter for future work. \end{appendix} \begin{thebibliography}{} \bibitem[Abel et al.(2008)]{Abel_etal} Abel, I.~G., Barnes, M., Cowley, S.~C., Dorland, W., \& Schekochihin, A.~A. 2008, Phys.\ Plasmas, 15, 122509 \bibitem[Alexandrova(2008)]{Alexandrova_review} Alexandrova, O. 2008, Nonlinear Process.\ Geophys., 15, 95 \bibitem[Alexandrova et al.(2008a)]{Alexandrova_sw} Alexandrova, O., Carbone, V., Veltri, P., \& Sorriso-Valvo, L. 2008a, \apj, 674, 1153 \bibitem[Alexandrova et al.(2008b)]{Alexandrova_msheath} Alexandrova, O., Lacombe, C., \& Mangeney, A. 2008b, Ann.\ Geophys., 26, 3585 \bibitem[Antonsen \& Lane(1980)]{Antonsen_Lane} Antonsen, T.~M. \& Lane, B. 1980, Phys.\ Fluids, 23, 1205 \bibitem[Armstrong et al.(1990)]{Armstrong_etal_aniso} Armstrong, J.~W., Coles, W.~A., Kojima, M., \& Rickett, B.~J. 1990, \apj, 358, 685 \bibitem[Armstrong et al.(1981)]{Armstrong_Cordes_Rickett} Armstrong, J.~W., Cordes, J.~M., \& Rickett, B.~J. 1981, Nature, 291, 561 \bibitem[Armstrong et al.(1995)]{Armstrong_Rickett_Spangler} Armstrong, J.~W., Rickett, B.~J., \& Spangler, S.~R. 1995, \apj, 443, 209 \bibitem[Artun \& Tang(1994)]{Artun_Tang} Artun, M. \& Tang, W.~M. 1994, Phys.\ Plasmas, 1, 2682 \bibitem[Balbus \& Hawley(1998)]{Balbus_Hawley_review} Balbus, S.~A. \& Hawley, J.~F. 1998, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys., 70, 1 \bibitem[Bale et al.(2005)]{Bale_etal} Bale, S.~D., Kellogg, P.~J., Mozer, F.~S., Horbury, T.~S., \& Reme, H. 2005, \prl, 94, 215002 \bibitem[Barnes(1966)]{Barnes} Barnes, A. 1966, Phys.\ Fluids, 9, 1483 \bibitem[Barnes et al.(2009)]{Barnes_etal} Barnes, M.~A., Abel, I.~G., Dorland, W., Ernst, D.~R., Hammett, G.~W., Ricci, P., Rogers, B.~N., Schekochihin, A.~A., and Tatsuno, T. 2009, Phys.\ Plasmas, submitted (arXiv:0809.3945) \bibitem[Bavassano et al.(1982)]{Bavassano_etal} Bavassano, B., Dobrowolny, M., Fanfoni, G., Mariani, F., \& Ness, N.~F. 1982, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 87, 3617 \bibitem[Bavassano et al.(2004)]{Bavassano_etal_prbal} Bavassano, B., Pietropaolo, E., \& Bruno, R. 2004, Ann.\ Geophys., 22, 689 \bibitem[Beck(2007)]{Beck_structure} Beck, R. 2007, in Polarisation 2005, ed.\ F.~Boulanger \& M.~A.~Miville-Deschenes, EAS Pub.\ Ser., 23, 19 \bibitem[Belcher \& Davis(1971)]{Belcher_Davis} Belcher, J.~W. \& Davis, L. 1971, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 76, 3534 \bibitem[Beresnyak \& Lazarian(2006)]{Beresnyak_Lazarian1} Beresnyak, A. \& Lazarian, A. 2006, \apj, 640, L175 \bibitem[Beresnyak \& Lazarian(2008a)]{Beresnyak_Lazarian_imb} Beresnyak, A. \& Lazarian, A. 2008a, \apj, 682, 1070 \bibitem[Beresnyak \& Lazarian(2008b)]{Beresnyak_Lazarian2} Beresnyak, A. \& Lazarian, A. 2008b, arXiv:0812.0812 \bibitem[Berger(1997)]{Berger} Berger, M. 1997, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 102, 2637 \bibitem[Bershadskii \& Sreenivasan(2004)]{Bershadskii_Sreeni_Bpar} Bershadskii, A. \& Sreenivasan, K.~R. 2004, \prl, 93, 064501 \bibitem[Bhattacharjee \& Ng(2001)]{Bhattacharjee_Ng} Bhattacharjee, A. \& Ng, C.~S. 2001, \apj, 548, 318 \bibitem[Bhattacharjee et al.(1998)]{Bhattacharjee_Ng_Spangler} Bhattacharjee, A., Ng, C.~S., Spangler, S.~R. 1998, \apj, 494, 409 \bibitem[Bieber et al.(1996)]{Bieber_etal} Bieber, J.~W., Wanner, W., \& Matthaeus, W.~H. 1996, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 101, 2511 \bibitem[Bigazzi et al.(2006)]{Bigazzi_etal} Bigazzi, A., Biferale, L., Gama, S.~M.~A., \& Velli, M. 2006, \apj, 638, 499 \bibitem[Biskamp \& M\"uller(2000)]{Biskamp_Mueller} Biskamp, D. \& M\"uller, W.-C. 2000, Phys.\ Plasmas, 7, 4889 \bibitem[Biskamp et al.(1996)]{Biskamp_etal_EMHD1} Biskamp, D., Schwartz, E., \& Drake, J.~F. 1996, \prl, 76, 1264 \bibitem[Biskamp et al.(1999)]{Biskamp_etal_EMHD2} Biskamp, D., Schwartz, E., Zeiler, A., Celani, A., \& Drake, J.~F. 1999, Phys.\ Plasmas, 6, 751 \bibitem[Boldyrev(2006)]{Boldyrev_spectrum2} Boldyrev, S.~A. 2006, \prl, 96, 115002 \bibitem[Braginskii(1965)]{Braginskii} Braginskii, S.~I. 1965, Rev.\ Plasma Phys., 1, 205 \bibitem[Brandenburg \& Matthaeus(2004)]{Brandenburg_Matthaeus} Brandenburg, A. \& Matthaeus, W.~H. 2004, \pre, 69, 056407 \bibitem[Brizard \& Hahm(2007)]{Brizard_Hahm_review} Brizard, A.~J. \& Hahm, T.~S. 2007, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys., 79, 421 \bibitem[Brunetti \& Lazarian(2007)]{Brunetti_Lazarian} Brunetti, G. \& Lazarian, A. 2007, \mnras, 378, 245 \bibitem[Bruno \& Carbone(2005)]{Bruno_Carbone} Bruno, R. \& Carbone, V. 2005, Living Rev.\ Solar Phys., 2, 4 \bibitem[Bruno et al.(2007)]{Bruno_etal} Bruno, R., Carbone, V., Chapman, S., Hnat, B., Noullez, A., \& Sorriso-Valvo, L. 2007, Phys.\ Plasmas, 14, 032901 \bibitem[Burlaga et al.(1990)]{Burlaga_etal_prbal} Burlaga, L.~F., Scudder, J.~D., Klein, L.~W., \& Isenburg, P.~A. 1990, J.\ Geophys.\ Res., 95, 2229 \bibitem[Califano et al.(2008)]{Califano_etal_mirror} Califano, F., Hellinger, P., Kuznetsov, E., Passot, T., Sulem, P.-L., \& Tr\'avn\'icek 2008, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 113, A08219 \bibitem[Candy \& Waltz(2003)]{Candy_Waltz} Candy, J. \& Waltz, R.~E. 2003, J.~Comput.\ Phys., 186, 545 \bibitem[Carter et al.(2006)]{Carter_etal06} Carter, T.~A., Brugman, B., Pribyl, P., \& Lybarger, W. 2006, \prl, 96, 155001 \bibitem[Catto(1978)]{Catto} Catto, P.~J. 1978, Plasma Phys., 20, 719 \bibitem[Catto et al.(1981)]{Catto_Tang_Baldwin} Catto, P.~J., Tang, W.~M., \& Baldwin, D.~E. 1981, Plasma Phys., 23, 639 \bibitem[Catto \& Tsang(1977)]{Catto_Tsang} Catto, P.~J. \& Tsang, K.~T. 1977, Phys.\ Fluids, 20, 396 \bibitem[Celnikier et al.(1983)]{Celnikier_etal83} Celnikier, L.~M., Harvey, C.~C., Jegou, R., Kemp, M., \& Moricet, P. 1983, \aap, 126, 293 \bibitem[Celnikier et al.(1987)]{Celnikier_etal87} Celnikier, L.~M., Muschietti, L., \& Goldman, M.~V. 1987, \aap, 181, 138 \bibitem[Chandran(2005a)]{Chandran_agns} Chandran, B.~D.~G. 2005a, \apj, 632, 809 \bibitem[Chandran(2005b)]{Chandran_fast_waves} Chandran, B.~D.~G. 2005b, \prl, 95, 265004 \bibitem[Chandran(2008)]{Chandran_imb} Chandran, B.~D.~G. 2008, \apj, 685, 646 \bibitem[Chapman \& Cowling(1970)]{Chapman_Cowling} Chapman, S. \& Cowling, T.~G. 1970, The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.\ Press) \bibitem[Chapman \& Hnat(2007)]{Chapman_Hnat} Chapman, S.~C. \& Hnat, B. 2007, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 34, L17103 \bibitem[Chen \& Parker(2003)]{Chen_Parker} Chen, Y. \& Parker, S.~E. 2003, J.~Comput.\ Phys., 189, 463 \bibitem[Chen et al.(2009)]{Chen_etal_KRMHD} Chen, C.~H.~K., Schekochihin, A.~A., Cowley, S.~C., \& Horbury, T.~S. 2009, \apj, submitted \bibitem[Cho \& Lazarian(2002)]{Cho_Lazarian_low_beta} Cho, J. \& Lazarian, A. 2002, \prl, 88, 245001 \bibitem[Cho \& Lazarian(2003)]{Cho_Lazarian_mnras} Cho, J. \& Lazarian, A. 2003, \mnras, 345, 325 \bibitem[Cho \& Lazarian(2004)]{Cho_Lazarian_EMHD} Cho, J. \& Lazarian, A. 2004, \apj, 615, L41 \bibitem[Cho \& Vishniac(2000)]{CV_aniso} Cho, J. \& Vishniac, E.~T. 2000, \apj, 539, 273 \bibitem[Cho et al.(2002)]{CLV_aniso} Cho, J., Lazarian, A., \& Vishniac, E.~T. 2002, \apj, 564, 291 \bibitem[Cho et al.(2003)]{CLV_visc} Cho, J., Lazarian, A., \& Vishniac, E.~T. 2003, \apj, 595, 812 \bibitem[Clarke \& En{\ss}lin(2006)]{Clarke_Ensslin} Clarke, T.~E. \& En{\ss}lin T.~A. 2006, \aj, 131, 2900 \bibitem[Coleman(1968)]{Coleman} Coleman, P.~J. 1968, \apj, 153, 371 \bibitem[Coles \& Harmon(1989)]{Coles_Harmon} Coles, W.~A. \& Harmon, J.~K. 1989, \apj, 337, 1023 \bibitem[Coles et al.(1991)]{Coles_etal} Coles, W.~A., Liu, W., Harmon, J.~K., \& Martin, C.~L. 1991, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 96, 1745 \bibitem[Coroniti et al.(1982)]{Coroniti_etal} Coroniti, F.~W., Kennel, C.~F., Scarf, F.~L., \& Smith, E.~J. 1982, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 87, 6029 \bibitem[Corrsin(1951)]{Corrsin} Corrsin, S. 1951, J.~Appl.\ Phys., 22, 469 \bibitem[Cowley(1985)]{Cowley_thesis} Cowley, S.~C. 1985, Ph.~D.~Thesis, Princeton University \bibitem[Cranmer \& van Ballegooijen(2003)]{Cranmer_vanBallegooijen} Cranmer, S.~R. \& van Ballegooijen, A.~A. 2003, \apj, 594, 573 \bibitem[Czaykowska et al.(2001)]{Czaykowska_etal} Czaykowska, A., Bauer, T.~M., Treumann, R.~A., \& Baumjohann, W. 2001, Ann.\ Geophys., 19, 275 \bibitem[Dasso et al.(2005)]{Dasso_etal} Dasso, S., Milano, L.~J., Matthaeus, W.~H., \& Smith, C.~W. 2005, \apj, 635, L181 \bibitem[Dennett-Thorpe \& de Bruyn(2003)]{DennettThorpe_deBruyn} Dennett-Thorpe, J. \& de Bruyn, A.~G. 2003, \aap, 404, 113 \bibitem[Denskat et al.(1983)]{Denskat_Beinroth_Neubauer} Denskat, K.~U., Beinroth, H.~J., \& Neubauer, F.~M. 1983, J.~Geophys., 54, 60 \bibitem[Dimits \& Cohen(1994)]{Dimits_Cohen} Dimits, A.~M. \& Cohen, B.~I. 1994, \pre, 49, 709 \bibitem[Dmitruk et al.(2003)]{Dmitruk_Gomez_Matthaeus} Dmitruk, P., Gomez, D.~O., \& Matthaeus, W.~H. 2003, Phys.\ Plasmas, 10, 3584 \bibitem[Dobrowolny et al.(1980)]{Dobrowolny_Mangeney_Veltri} Dobrowolny, M., Mangeney, A., \& Veltri, P.-L. 1980, \prl, 45, 144 \bibitem[Dorland \& Hammett(1993)]{Dorland_Hammett} Dorland, W. \& Hammett, G.~W. 1993, Phys.\ Fluids~B, 5, 812 \bibitem[Dubin et al.(1983)]{Dubin_etal} Dubin, D.~H.~E., Krommes, J.~A., Oberman, C., \& Lee, W.~W. 1983, Phys.\ Fluids, 26, 3524 \bibitem[Elsasser(1950)]{Elsasser} Elsasser, W.~M. 1950, Phys.\ Rev., 79, 183 \bibitem[En{\ss}lin \& Vogt(2006)]{Ensslin_Vogt_cores} En{\ss}lin, T.~A. \& Vogt, C. 2006, \aap, 453, 447 \bibitem[En{\ss}lin et al.(2006)]{EWVS_bologna} En{\ss}lin, T.~A., Waelkens, A., Vogt, C., \& Schekochihin, A.~A. 2006, Astron.\ Nachr., 327, 626 \bibitem[Fabian et al.(2006)]{Fabian_etal_Perseus3} Fabian, A.~C., Sanders, J.~S., Taylor, G.~B., Allen, S.~W., Crawford, C.~S., Johnstone, R.~M., \& Iwasawa, K. 2006, \mnras, 366, 417 \bibitem[Ferri\`ere(2001)]{Ferriere_review} Ferriere, K.~M. 2001, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys., 73, 1031 \bibitem[Fj{\o}rtoft(1953)]{Fjortoft} Fj{\o}rtoft, R. 1953, Tellus, 5, 225 \bibitem[Foote \& Kulsrud(1979)]{Foote_Kulsrud} Foote, E.~A. \& Kulsrud, R.~M. 1979, \apj, 233, 302 \bibitem[Fowler(1968)]{Fowler} Fowler, T.~K. 1968, Adv.\ Plasma Phys., 1, 201 \bibitem[Fried \& Conte(1961)]{Fried_Conte} Fried, B.~D. \& Conte, S.~D. 1961, The Plasma Dispersion Function (San Diego, CA: Academic Press) \bibitem[Frieman \& Chen(1982)]{Frieman_Chen} Frieman, E.~A. \& Chen, L. 1982, Phys.\ Fluids, 25, 502 \bibitem[Fyfe et al.(1977)]{Fyfe_Joyce_Montgomery} Fyfe, D., Joyce, G., \& Montgomery, D. 1977, J.~Plasma Phys., 17, 317 \bibitem[Galtier(2006)]{Galtier_HMHD} Galtier, S. 2006, J.~Plasma Phys., 72, 721 \bibitem[Galtier \& Bhattacharjee(2003)]{Galtier_Bhattacharjee} Galtier, S. \& Bhattacharjee, A. 2003, Phys.\ Plasmas, 10, 3065 \bibitem[Galtier \& Buchlin(2007)]{Galtier_Buchlin} Galtier, S. \& Buchlin, E. 2007, \apj, 656, 560 \bibitem[Galtier \& Chandran(2006)]{Galtier_Chandran} Galtier, S. \& Chandran, B.~D.~G. 2006, Phys.\ Plasmas, 13, 114505 \bibitem[Galtier et al.(2000)]{Galtier_etal} Galtier, S., Nazarenko, S.~V., Newell, A.~C., \& Pouquet, A. 2000, J.~Plasma Phys., 63, 447 \bibitem[Galtier et al.(2002)]{Galtier_etal02} Galtier, S., Nazarenko, S.~V., Newell, A.~C., \& Pouquet, A. 2002, \apj, 564, L49 \bibitem[Gary et al.(1976)]{Gary_etal76} Gary, S.~P., Montgomery, M.~D., Feldman, W.~C., \& Forslund, D.~W. 1976, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 81, 1241 \bibitem[Gary(1986)]{Gary_KAW} Gary, S.~P. 1986, J.~Plasma Phys., 35, 431 \bibitem[Gary \& Borovsky(2008)]{Gary_Borovsky} Gaty, S.~P. \& Borovsky, J. 2008, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 113, A12104 \bibitem[Gary et al.(2008)]{Gary_etal_PIC} Gary, S.~P., Saito, S., \& Li, H. 2008, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 35, L02104 \bibitem[Gary et al.(2001)]{Gary_etal_ACE} Gary, S.~P., Skoug, R.~M., Steinberg, J.~T., \& Smith, C.~W. 2001, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 28, 2759 \bibitem[Ghosh et al.(1996)]{Ghosh_etal} Ghosh, S., Siregar, E., Roberts, D.~A., \& Goldstein, M.~L. 1996, \jgr, 101, 2493 \bibitem[Gogoberidze(2005)]{Gogoberidze05} Gogoberidze, G. 2005, \pre, 72, 046407 \bibitem[Gogoberidze(2007)]{Gogoberidze07} Gogoberidze, G. 2007, Phys.\ Plasmas, 14, 022304 \bibitem[Goldreich \& Reisenegger(1992)]{Goldreich_Reisenegger} Goldreich, P. \& Reisenegger, A. 1992, \apj, 395, 250 \bibitem[Goldreich \& Sridhar(1995)]{GS95} Goldreich, P. \& Sridhar, S. 1995, \apj, 438, 763 \bibitem[Goldreich \& Sridhar(1997)]{GS97} Goldreich, P. \& Sridhar, S. 1997, \apj, 485, 680 \bibitem[Goswami et al.(2005)]{Goswami_Passot_Sulem} Goswami, P., Passot, T., \& Sulem, P.~L. 2005, Phys.\ Plasmas, 12, 102109 \bibitem[Grall et al.(1997)]{Grall_etal_aniso} Grall, R.~R., Coles, W.~A., Spangler, S.~R., Sakurai, T., \& Harmon, J.~K. 1997, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 102, 263 \bibitem[Grison et al.(2005)]{Grison_etal} Grison, B., Sahraoui, F., Lavraud, B., Chust, T., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., R\`eme, H., Balogh, A., \& Andr\'e, M. 2005, Ann.\ Geophys., 23, 3699 \bibitem[Hahm et al.(1988)]{Hahm_Lee_Brizard} Hahm, T.~S., Lee, W.~W., \& Brizard, A. 1988, Phys.\ Fluids, 31, 1940 \bibitem[Hallatschek(2004)]{Hallatschek} Hallatschek, K. 2004, \prl, 93, 125001 \bibitem[Hamilton et al.(2008)]{Hamilton_etal} Hamilton, K., Smith, C.~W., Vasquez, B.~J., \& Leamon, R.~J. 2008, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 113, A01106 \bibitem[Hammett et al.(1991)]{Hammett_Dorland_Perkins} Hammett, G.~W., Dorland, W., \& Perkins, F.~W. 1991, Phys.\ Fluids~B, 4, 2052 \bibitem[Harmon \& Coles(2005)]{Harmon_Coles05} Harmon, J.~K. \& Coles, W.~A. 2005, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 110, A03101 \bibitem[Haugen et al.(2004)]{HBD_pre} Haugen, N.~E.~L., Brandenburg, A., \& Dobler, W. 2004, \pre, 70, 016308 \bibitem[Haverkorn et al.(2004)]{Haverkorn_etal_ApJ} Haverkorn, M., Gaensler, B.~M., McClure-Griffiths, N.~M., Dickey, J.~M., \& Green, A.~J. 2004, \apj, 609, 776 \bibitem[Haverkorn et al.(2005)]{Haverkorn_etal_arms} Haverkorn, M., Gaensler, B.~M., Brown, J.~C., Bizunok, N.~S., McClure-Griffiths, N.~M., Dickey, J.~M., \& Green, A.~J. 2005, \apjl, 637, L33 \bibitem[Haverkorn et al.(2008)]{Haverkorn_etal_arms2} Haverkorn, M., Brown, J.~C., Gaensler, B.~M., \& McClure-Griffiths, N.~M. 2008, \apj, 680, 362 \bibitem[Hazeltine(1983)]{Hazeltine83} Hazeltine, R.~D. 1983, Phys.\ Fluids, 26, 3242 \bibitem[Helander \& Sigmar(2002)]{Helander_Sigmar} Helander, P. \& Sigmar, D.~J. 2002, Collisional Transport in Magnetized Plasmas (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.\ Press) \bibitem[Hellinger et al.(2006)]{Hellinger_etal} Hellinger, P., Tr\'avn\'icek, P., Kasper, J.~C., \& Lazarus, A.~J., 2006, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 33, L09101 \bibitem[Heyer et al.(2008)]{Heyer_etal} Heyer, M., Gong, H., Ostriker, E., \& Brunt, C. 2008, \apj, 680, 420 \bibitem[Higdon(1984)]{Higdon} Higdon, J.~C. 1984, \apj, 285, 109 \bibitem[Hirose et al.(2004)]{Hirose_etal} Hirose, A., Ito, A., Mahajan, S.~M., \& Ohsaki, S. 2004, Phys.\ Lett.~A, 330, 474 \bibitem[Hnat et al.(2005)]{Hnat_Chapman_Rowlands2} Hnat, B., Chapman, S.~C., \& Rowlands, G. 2005, \prl, 94, 204502 \bibitem[Hnat et al.(2007)]{Hnat_etal} Hnat, B., Chapman, S.~C., Kiyani, K., Rowlands, G., \& Watkins, N.~W. 2007, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 34, L15108 \bibitem[Hollweg(1999)]{Hollweg_KAW} Hollweg, J.~V. 1999, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 104, 14811 \bibitem[Hollweg(2008)]{Hollweg_review} Hollweg, J.~V. 2008, J.~Astrophys.\ Astr., 29, 217 \bibitem[Horbury et al.(1996)]{Horbury_etal96} Horbury, T.~S., Balogh, A., Forsyth, R.~J., \& Smith E.~J. 1996, \aap, 316, 333 \bibitem[Horbury et al.(2005)]{Horbury_etal_review} Horbury, T.~S., Forman, M.~A., \& Oughton, S. 2005, Plasma Phys.\ Control.\ Fusion, 47, B703 \bibitem[Horbury et al.(2008)]{Horbury_etal_aniso} Horbury, T.~S., Forman, M., \& Oughton, S. 2008, \prl, 101, 175005 \bibitem[Howes et al.(2006)]{Howes_etal} Howes, G.~G., Cowley, S.~C., Dorland, W., Hammett, G.~W., Quataert, E., \& Schekochihin, A.~A. 2006, \apj, 651, 590 \bibitem[Howes et al.(2008a)]{Howes_etal2} Howes, G.~G., Cowley, S.~C., Dorland, W., Hammett, G.~W., Quataert, E., \& Schekochihin, A.~A., 2008a, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 113, A05103 \bibitem[Howes et al.(2008b)]{Howes_etal3} Howes, G.~G., Cowley, S.~C., Dorland, W., Hammett, G.~W., Quataert, E., Schekochihin, A.~A., \& Tatsuno, T. 2008b, \prl, 100, 065004 \bibitem[Iroshnikov(1963)]{Iroshnikov} Iroshnikov, R.~S. 1963, Astron.\ Zh., 40, 742 [English translation: 1964, Sov.\ Astron, 7, 566] \bibitem[Ito et al.(2004)]{Ito_etal} Ito, A., Hirose, A., Mahajan, S.~M., \& Ohsaki, S. 2004, Phys.\ Plasmas, 11, 5643 \bibitem[Jenko et al.(2000)]{Jenko_etal} Jenko, F., Dorland, W., Kotschenreuther, M., \& Rogers, B.~N. 2000, Phys.\ Plasmas, 7, 1904 \bibitem[Kadomtsev \& Pogutse(1974)]{Kadomtsev_Pogutse} Kadomtsev, B.~B. \& Pogutse, O.~P. 1974, Sov.\ Phys.---JETP, 38, 283 \bibitem[Kasper et al.(2002)]{Kasper_Lazarus_Gary} Kasper, J.~C., Lazarus, A.~J., \& Gary, S.~P. 2002, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 29, 20 \bibitem[Kellogg \& Horbury(2005)]{Kellogg_Horbury} Kellogg, P.~J. \& Horbury, T.~S. 2005, Ann.\ Geophys., 23, 3765 \bibitem[Kellogg et al.(2006)]{Kellogg_etal06} Kellogg, P.~J., Bale, S.~D., Mozer, F.~S., Horbury, T.~S., \& Reme, H. 2006, \apj, 645, 704 \bibitem[Kingsep et al.(1990)]{Kingsep_Chukbar_Yankov} Kingsep, A.~S., Chukbar, K.~V., \& Yankov, V.~V. 1990, Rev.\ Plasma Phys., 16, 243 \bibitem[Kinney \& McWilliams(1997)]{Kinney_McWilliams1} Kinney, R. \& McWilliams, J.~C., 1997, J.~Plasma Phys., 57, 73 \bibitem[Kinney \& McWilliams(1998)]{Kinney_McWilliams2} Kinney, R.~M. \& McWilliams, J.~C. 1998, \pre, 57, 7111 \bibitem[Kivelson \& Southwood(1996)]{Kivelson_Southwood_nlin} Kivelson, M.~G. \& Southwood, D.~J. 1996, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 101, 17365 \bibitem[Kiyani et al.(2007)]{Kiyani_etal} Kiyani, K., Chapman, S.~C., Hnat, B. \& Nicol, R.~M. 2007, \prl, 98, 211101 \bibitem[Kolmogorov(1941)]{K41} Kolmogorov, A.~N. 1941, Dokl.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR, 30, 299 [English translation: 1991, Proc.\ R.\ Soc.~A, 434, 9] \bibitem[Kotschenreuther et al.(1995)]{Kotschenreuther_Rewoldt_Tang} Kotschenreuther, M., Rewoldt, G., \& Tang, W.~M. 1995, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun., 88, 128 \bibitem[Kraichnan(1965)]{Kraichnan} Kraichnan, R.~H. 1965, Phys.\ Fluids, 8, 1385 \bibitem[Krishan \& Mahajan(2004)]{Krishan_Mahajan} Krishan, V. \& Mahajan, S.~M. 2004, \jgr, 109, A11105 \bibitem[Krommes(1999)]{Krommes_df} Krommes, J.~A. 1999, Phys.\ Plasmas, 6, 1477 \bibitem[Krommes(2006)]{Krommes_lectures} Krommes, J.~A. 2006, in Turbulence and Coherent Structures in Fluids, Plasmas and Nonlinear Medium, eds.\ M.~Shats \& H.~Punzmann (Singapore: World Scientific), 115 \bibitem[Krommes \& Hu(1994)]{Krommes_Hu} Krommes, J.~A. \& Hu, G. 1994, Phys.\ Plasmas, 1, 3211 \bibitem[Kruger et al.(1998)]{Kruger_Hegna_Callen} Kruger, S.~E., Hegna, C.~C., \& Callen, J.~D. 1998, Phys.\ Plasmas, 5, 4169 \bibitem[Kruskal \& Oberman(1958)]{Kruskal_Oberman} Kruskal, M.~D. \& Oberman, C.~R. 1958, Phys.\ Fluids, 1, 275 \bibitem[Kulsrud(1962)]{Kulsrud_KO} Kulsrud, R. 1962, Phys.\ Fluids, 5, 192 \bibitem[Kulsrud(1964)]{Kulsrud_Varenna} Kulsrud, R.~M. 1964, in Teoria dei plasmi, ed.\ M.~N.~Rosenbluth (London: Academic Press),~54 \bibitem[Kulsrud(1983)]{Kulsrud_HPP} Kulsrud, R.~M. 1983, in Handbook of Plasma Physics, Vol.~1, ed.\ A.~A.~Galeev \& R.~N.~Sudan (Amsterdam: North--Holland),~115 \bibitem[Lacombe et al.(2006)]{Lacombe_etal06} Lacombe, C., Samsonov, A.~A., Mangeney, A., Maksimovic, M., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., Harvey, C.~C., Bosqued, J.-M., \& Tr\'avn\'icek, P. 2006, Ann.\ Geophys., 24, 3523 \bibitem[Landau(1936)]{Landau_co} Landau, L. 1936, Zh.\ Exp.\ Teor.\ Fiz., 7, 203 \bibitem[Landau(1946)]{Landau_damping} Landau, L. 1946, Zh.\ Exp.\ Teor.\ Fiz., 16, 574 [English translation: 1946, J.~Phys.\ U.S.S.R., 10, 25] \bibitem[Lazio et al.(2004)]{Lazio_etal_review} Lazio, T.~J.~W., Cordes, J.~M., de Bruyn, A.~G., \& Macquart, J.-P. 2004, New Astron.\ Rev., 48, 1439 \bibitem[Leamon et al.(1998)]{Leamon_etal98} Leamon, R.~J., Smith, C.~W., Ness, N.~F., Matthaeus, W.~H., \& Wong, H.~K. 1998, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 103, 4775 \bibitem[Leamon et al.(1999)]{Leamon_etal99} Leamon, R.~J., Smith, C.~W., Ness, N.~F., \& Wong, H.~K. 1998, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 104, 22331 \bibitem[Leamon et al.(2000)]{Leamon_etal00} Leamon, R.~J., Matthaeus, W.~H., Smith, C.~W., Zank, G.~P., \& Mullan, D.~J. 2000, \apj, 537, 1054 \bibitem[Li et al.(2001)]{Li_Gary_Stawicki} Li, H., Gary, P., \& Stawicki, O. 2001, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 28, 1347 \bibitem[Lithwick \& Goldreich(2001)]{Lithwick_Goldreich} Lithwick, Y. \& Goldreich, P. 2001, \apj, 562, 279 \bibitem[Lithwick \& Goldreich(2003)]{Lithwick_Goldreich_imb} Lithwick, Y. \& Goldreich, P. 2003, \apj, 582, 1220 \bibitem[Lithwick et al.(2007)]{Lithwick_Goldreich_Sridhar} Lithwick, Y., Goldreich, P., \& Sridhar, S. 2007, \apj, 655, 269 \bibitem[Loeb \& Waxman(2007)]{Loeb_Waxman} Loeb, A. \& Waxman, E. 2007, J.~Cosmol.\ Astropart.\ Phys., 03, 011 \bibitem[Longmire(1963)]{Longmire_book} Longmire, C.~L. 1963, Elementary Plasma Physics (New York: Interscience) \bibitem[Lovelace et al.(1970)]{Lovelace_etal} Lovelace, R.~V.~E., Salpeter, E.~E., Sharp, L.~E., \& Harris, D.~E. 1970, \apj, 159 \bibitem[Mahajan \& Krishan(2005)]{Mahajan_Krishan} Mahajan, S.~M. \& Krishan, V. 2005, \mnras, 359, L27 \bibitem[Mahajan \& Yoshida(1998)]{Mahajan_Yoshida} Mahajan, S.~M. \& Yoshida, Z. 1998, \prl, 81, 4863 \bibitem[Maksimovic et al.(2005)]{Maksimovic_etal} Maksimovic, M., Zouganelis, I., Chaufray, J.-Y., Issautier, K., Scime, E.~E., Littleton, J.~E., Marsch, E., McComas, D.~J., Salem, C., Lin, R.~P., \& Elliott, H. 2005, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 110, A09104 \bibitem[Mangeney et al.(2006)]{Mangeney_etal06} Mangeney, A., Lacombe, C., Maksimovic, M., Samsonov, A.~A., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., Harvey, C.~C., Bosqued, J.-M., \& Tr\'avn\'icek, P. 2006, Ann.\ Geophys., 24, 3507 \bibitem[Markevitch \& Vikhlinin(2007)]{Markevitch_Vikhlinin_review} Markevitch, M. \& Vikhlinin, A. 2007, Phys.\ Rep., 443, 1 \bibitem[Markevitch et al.(2003)]{Markevitch_etal03} Markevitch, M., Mazzotta, P., Vikhlinin, A., Burke, D., Butt, Y., David, L., Donnelly, H., Forman, W.~R., Harris, D., Kin, D.-W., Virani, S., \& Vrtilek, J. 2003, \apj, 586, L19 \bibitem[Markovskii et al.(2006)]{Markovskii_etal} Markovskii, S.~A., Vasquez, B.~J., Smith, C.~W., \& Holweg, J.~V. 2006, \apj, 639, 1177 \bibitem[Markovskii et al.(2008)]{Markovskii_Vasquez_Smith} Markovskii, S.~A., Vasquez, B.~J., \& Smith, C.~W. 2008, \apj, 675, 1576 \bibitem[Maron \& Goldreich(2001)]{Maron_Goldreich} Maron, J. \& Goldreich, P. 2001, \apj, 554, 1175 \bibitem[Marsch(2006)]{Marsch_review} Marsch, E. 2006, Living Rev.\ Solar Phys., 3, 1 \bibitem[Marsch \& Tu(1990a)]{Marsch_Tu_z} Marsch, E. \& Tu, C.-Y. 1990a, J.~Gephys.\ Res, 95, 8211 \bibitem[Marsch \& Tu(1990b)]{Marsch_Tu_compr} Marsch, E. \& Tu, C.-Y. 1990b, J.~Gephys.\ Res, 95, 11945 \bibitem[Marsch \& Tu(1993)]{Marsch_Tu_prbal} Marsch, E. \& Tu, C.-Y. 1993, Ann.\ Geophys., 11, 659 \bibitem[Marsch et al.(2004)]{Marsch_Ao_Tu} Marsch, E., Ao, X.-Z.,\& Tu, C.-Y. 2004, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 109, A04102 \bibitem[Marsch et al.(1983)]{Marsch_etal83} Marsch, E., M\"uhlh\"auser, K.~H., Rosenbauer, H., \& Schwenn, R. 1983, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 88, 2982 \bibitem[Mason et al.(2006)]{Mason_Cattaneo_Boldyrev} Mason, J., Cattaneo, F., \& Boldyrev, S. 2006, \prl, 97, 255002 \bibitem[Mason et al.(2007)]{Mason_Cattaneo_Boldyrev2} Mason, J., Cattaneo, F., \& Boldyrev, S. 2007, \pre, 77, 036403 \bibitem[Matteini et al.(2007)]{Matteini_etal} Matteini, L., Landi, S., Hellinger, P., Pantellini, F., Maksimovic, M., Velli, M., Goldstein, B.~E., \& Marsch, E. 2007, Geophys.\ Res.\ Lett., 34, L20105 \bibitem[Matthaeus \& Goldstein(1982)]{Matthaeus_Goldstein} Matthaeus, W.~H. \& Goldstein, M.~L. 1982, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 87, 6011 \bibitem[Matthaeus \& Brown(1988)]{Matthaeus_Brown} Matthaeus, W.~H. \& Brown, M.~R. 1988, Phys.\ Fluids, 31, 3634 \bibitem[Matthaeus et al.(1990)]{Matthaeus_Goldstein_Roberts} Matthaeus, W.~H., Goldstein, M.~L., \& Roberts, D.~A. 1990, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 95, 20673 \bibitem[Matthaeus et al.(1991)]{Matthaeus_etal91} Matthaeus, W.~H., Klein, K.~W., Ghosh, S., \& Brown, M.~R. 1991, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 96, 5421 \bibitem[Matthaeus et al.(2008a)]{Matthaeus_etal08} Matthaeus, W.~H., Pouquet, A., Mininni, P.~D., Dmitruk, P., \& Breech, B. 2008a, \prl, 100, 085003 \bibitem[Matthaeus et al.(2008b)]{Matthaeus_Servidio_Dmitruk_comment} Matthaeus, W.~H., Servidio, S., \& Dmitruk, P. 2008b, \prl, 101, 149501 \bibitem[Minter \& Spangler(1996)]{Minter_Spangler} Minter, A.~H. \& Spangler, S.~R. 1996, \apj, 458, 194 \bibitem[Montgomery(1982)]{Montgomery} Montgomery, D.~C. 1982, Phys.\ Scripta, T2/1, 83 \bibitem[Montgomery \& Bates(1999)]{Montgomery_Bates} Montgomery, D.~C. \& Bates, J.~W. 1999, Phys.\ Plasmas, 6, 2727 \bibitem[Montgomery \& Turner(1981)]{Montgomery_Turner} Montgomery, D. \& Turner, L. 1981, Phys.\ Fluids, 24, 825 \bibitem[Montgomery et al.(1987)]{Montgomery_Brown_Matthaeus} Montgomery, D., Brown, M.~R., \& Matthaeus, W.~H. 1987, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 92, 282 \bibitem[Morales et al.(1999)]{Morales_etal_LAPD} Morales, G.~J., Maggs, J.~E., Burke, A.~T., \& Pe\~nano, J.~R. 1999, Plasma Phys.\ Control.\ Fusion, 41, A519 \bibitem[M\"uller et al.(2003)]{Mueller_Biskamp_Grappin} M\"uller, W.-C., Biskamp, D., \& Grappin, R. 2003, \pre, 67, 066302 \bibitem[Narayan \& Quataert(2005)]{Narayan_Quataert_Sci} Narayan, R. \& Quataert, E. 2005, Science, 307, 77 \bibitem[Narayan \& Yi(1995)]{Narayan_Yi} Narayan, R. \& Yi, I. 1995, \apj, 452, 710 \bibitem[Narita et al.(2006)]{Narita_Glassmeier_Treumann} Narita, Y., Glassmeier, K.-H., \& Treumann, R.~A. 2006, \prl, 97, 191101 \bibitem[Nazarenko(2008)]{Nazarenko} Nazarenko, S. 2007, New J.~Phys, 9, 307 \bibitem[Newbury et al.(1998)]{Newbury_etal} Newbury, J.~A., Russell, C.~T., Phillips, J.~L., \& Gary, S.~P. 1998, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 103, 9553 \bibitem[Ng \& Bhattacharjee(1996)]{Ng_Bhattacharjee1} Ng, C.~S. \& Bhattacharjee, A. 1996, \apj, 465, 845 \bibitem[Ng \& Bhattacharjee(1997)]{Ng_Bhattacharjee2} Ng, C.~S. \& Bhattacharjee, A. 1997, Phys.\ Plasmas, 4, 605 \bibitem[Ng et al.(2003)]{Ng_etal_EMHD} Ng, C.~S., Bhattacharjee, A., Germaschewski, K., \& Galtier, S. 2003, Phys.\ Plasmas, 10, 1954 \bibitem[Norman \& Ferrara(1996)]{Norman_Ferrara} Norman, C.~A. \& Ferrara, A. 1996, \apj, 467, 280 \bibitem[Obukhov(1941)]{Obukhov_K41} Obukhov, A.~M. 1941, Izv.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR Ser.\ Geogr.\ Geofiz., 5, 453 \bibitem[Obukhov(1949)]{Obukhov} Obukhov, A.~M. 1949, Izv.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR Ser.\ Geogr.\ Geofiz., 13, 58 \bibitem[Osman \& Horbury(2007)]{Osman_Horbury} Osman, K.~T. \& Horbury, T.~S. 2007, 654, L103 \bibitem[Oughton et al.(2004)]{Oughton_Dmitruk_Matthaeus} Oughton, S., Dmitruk, P., \& Matthaeus, W.~H. 2004, Phys.\ Plasmas, 11, 2214 \bibitem[Oughton et al.(1994)]{Oughton_Priest_Matthaeus} Oughton, S., Priest, E.~R., \& Matthaeus, W.~H. 1994, J.~Fluid Mech., 280, 95 \bibitem[Passot \& Sulem(2007)]{Passot_Sulem07} Passot, T. \& Sulem, P.~L. 2007, Phys.\ Plasmas, 14, 082502 \bibitem[Perez \& Boldyrev(2008)]{Perez_Boldyrev} Perez, J.~C. \& Boldyrev, S. 2008, \apj, 672, L61 \bibitem[Perez \& Boldyrev(2009)]{Perez_Boldyrev_imb} Perez, J.~C. \& Boldyrev, S. 2009, \prl, 102, 025003 \bibitem[Plunk et al.(2009)]{Plunk_etal} Plunk, G.~G., Cowley, S.~C., Schekochihin, A.~A., \& Tatsuno, T. 2009, J.~Fluid Mech., submitted (arXiv:0904.0243) \bibitem[Podesta et al.(2006)]{Podesta_Roberts_Goldstein} Podesta, J.~J., Roberts, D.~A., \& Goldstein, M.~L. 2006, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 111, A10109 \bibitem[Pokhotelov et al.(2008)]{Pokhotelov_etal_mirror} Pokhotelov, O.~A., Sagdeev, R.~Z., Balikhin, M.~A., Onishchenko, O.~G., \& Fedun, V.~N. 2008, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 113, A04225 \bibitem[Quataert(2003)]{Quataert_SgrA} Quataert, E. 2003, Astron.\ Nachr., 324, 435 \bibitem[Quataert \& Gruzinov(1999)]{Quataert_Gruzinov} Quataert, E. \& Gruzinov, A. 1999, \apj, 520, 248 \bibitem[Quataert et al.(2002)]{Quataert_Dorland_Hammett} Quataert, E., Dorland, W., \& Hammett, G.~W. 2002, \apj, 577, 524 \bibitem[Ramos(2005)]{Ramos} Ramos, J.~J. 2005, Phys.\ Plasmas, 12, 052102 \bibitem[Rappazzo et al.(2007)]{Rappazzo_etal1} Rappazzo, A.~F., Velli, M., Einaudi, G., \& Dahlburg, R.~B. 2007, \apj, 657, L47 \bibitem[Rappazzo et al.(2008)]{Rappazzo_etal2} Rappazzo, A.~F., Velli, M., Einaudi, G., \& Dahlburg, R.~B. 2008, \apj, 677, 1348 \bibitem[Rees et al.(1982)]{Rees_etal} Rees, M.~J., Begelman, M.~C., Blandford, R.~D., \& Phinney, E.~S. 1982, Nature, 295, 17 \bibitem[Rickett et al.(2002)]{Rickett_etal_aniso} Rickett, B.~J., Kedziora-Chudczer, L., \& Jauncey, D.~L. 2002, \apj, 581, 103 \bibitem[Rincon et al.(2009)]{Rincon_etal_mirror} Rincon, F., Schekochihin, A.~A., \& Cowley, S.~C. 2009, \mnras, submitted \bibitem[Roach et al.(2005)]{Roach_etal} Roach, C.~M., Applegate, D.~J., Connor, J.~W., Cowley, S.~C., Dorland, W.~D., Hastie, R.~J., Joiner, N., Saarelma, S., Schekochihin, A.~A., Akers, R.~J., Brickley, C., Field, A.~R., Valovic, M., \& MAST Team 2005, Plasma Phys.\ Control.\ Fusion, 47, B323 \bibitem[Roberts(1990)]{Roberts_prbal} Roberts, D.~A. 1990, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 95, 1087 \bibitem[Robinson \& Rusbridge(1971)]{Robinson_Rusbridge} Robinson, D.~C. \& Rusbridge, M.~G. 1971, Phys.\ Fluids, 14, 2499 \bibitem[Rosenbluth et al.(1972)]{Rosenbluth_Hazeltine_Hinton} Rosenbluth, M.~N., Hazeltine, R.~D., \& Hinton, F.~L. 1972, Phys.\ Fluids, 15, 116 \bibitem[Rosin et al.(2009)]{Rosin_etal_firehose} Rosin, M.~S., Rincon, F., Schekochihin, A.~A., \& Cowley, S.~C. 2009, \mnras, submitted \bibitem[Rutherford \& Frieman(1968)]{Rutherford_Frieman} Rutherford, P.~H. \& Frieman, E.~A. 1968, Phys.\ Fluids, 11, 569 \bibitem[Sahraoui et al.(2006)]{Sahraoui_etal} Sahraoui, F., Belmont, G., Rezeau, L., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., Pin\c{c}on, J.~L., \& Balogh, A. 2006, \prl, 96, 075002 \bibitem[Saito et al.(2008)]{Saito_etal_PIC} Saito, S., Gary, S.~P., Li, H., \& Narita, Y. 2008, Phys.\ Plasmas, 15, 102305 \bibitem[Sanders \& Fabian(2006)]{Sanders_Fabian} Sanders, J.~S. \& Fabian, A.~C. 2006, \mnras, 371, L65 \bibitem[Schekochihin \& Cowley(2006)]{SC_dpp05} Schekochihin, A.~A. \& Cowley, S.~C. 2006, Phys.\ Plasmas, 13, 056501 \bibitem[Schekochihin \& Cowley(2007)]{SC_mhdbook} Schekochihin, A.~A. \& Cowley, S.~C. 2007, in Magnetohydrodynamics: Historical Evolution and Trends, ed.\ S.~Molokov, R.~Moreau, \& H.~K.~Moffatt, (Berlin: Springer), 85 (arXiv:astro-ph/0507686) \bibitem[Schekochihin \& Cowley(2009)]{SC_entropy} Schekochihin, A.~A. \& Cowley, S.~C. 2009, \prl, submitted \bibitem[Schekochihin et al.(2004)]{SCTMM_stokes} Schekochihin, A.~A., Cowley, S.~C., Taylor, S.~F., Maron, J.~L., \& McWilliams, J.~C. 2004, \apj, 612, 276 \bibitem[Schekochihin et al.(2005)]{SCKHS_brag} Schekochihin, A.~A., Cowley, S.~C., Kulsrud, R.~M., Hammett, G.~W., \& Sharma, P. 2005, \apj, 629, 139 \bibitem[Schekochihin et al.(2007)]{SCD_kiev} Schekochihin, A.~A., Cowley, S.~C., \& Dorland, W. 2007, Plasma Phys.\ Control.\ Fusion, 49, A195 \bibitem[Schekochihin et al.(2008a)]{SCKRH_firehose} Schekochihin, A.~A., Cowley, S.~C., Kulsrud, R.~M., Rosin, M.~S., \& Heinemann, T. 2008a, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett., 100, 081301 \bibitem[Schekochihin et al.(2008b)]{SCDHHPQT_crete} Schekochihin, A.~A., Cowley, S.~C., Dorland, W., Hammett, G.~W., Howes, G.~G., Plunk, G.~G., Quataert, E., \& Tatsuno, T. 2008b, Plasma Phys.\ Control.\ Fusion, 50, 124024 \bibitem[Schuecker et al.(2004)]{Schuecker_etal} Schuecker, P., Finoguenov, A., Miniati, F., B\"ohringer, H., \& Briel, U.~G. 2004, \aap, 426, 387 \bibitem[Scott(2007)]{Scott} Scott, B.~D. 2007, Phys.\ Plasmas, submitted (arXiv:0710.4899) \bibitem[Shaikh \& Zank(2005)]{Shaikh_Zank05} Shaikh, D. \& Zank, G.~P. 2005, Phys.\ Plasmas, 12, 122310 \bibitem[Shakura \& Sunyaev(1973)]{Shakura_Sunyaev} Shakura, N.~I. \& Sunyaev, R.~A. 1973, \aap, 24, 337 \bibitem[Sharma et al.(2003)]{Sharma_Hammett_Quataert} Sharma, P., Hammett, G.~W., \& Quataert, E. 2003, \apj, 596, 1121 \bibitem[Sharma et al.(2006)]{Sharma_etal06} Sharma, P., Hammett, G.~W., Quataert, E., \& Stone, J.~M. 2006, \apj, 637, 952 \bibitem[Sharma et al.(2007)]{Sharma_etal07} Sharma, P., Quataert, E., Hammett, G.~W., \& Stone, J.~M. 2007, \apj, 667, 714 \bibitem[Shebalin et al.(1983)]{Shebalin_Matthaeus_Montgomery} Shebalin, J.~V., Matthaeus, W.~H., \& Montgomery, D. 1983, J.~Plasma Phys., 29, 525 \bibitem[Shukurov(2007)]{Shukurov_review} Shukurov, A. 2007, in Mathematical Aspects of Natural Dynamos, eds.\ E.~Dormy \& A.~M.~Soward (London: CRC Press), 313 (arXiv:astro-ph/0411739) \bibitem[Smirnova et al.(2006)]{Smirnova_Gwinn_Shishov} Smirnova, T.~V., Gwinn, C.~R., \& Shishov, V.~I. 2006, \aap, 453, 601 \bibitem[Smith et al.(2001)]{Smith_etal01} Smith, C.~W., Mullan, D.~J., Ness, N.~F., Skoug, R.~M., \& Steinberg, J. 2001, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 106, 18625 \bibitem[Smith et al.(2006)]{Smith_etal06} Smith, C.~W., Hamilton, K., Vasquez, B.~J., \& Leamon, R.~J. 2006, \apj, 645, L85 \bibitem[Snyder \& Hammett(2001)]{Snyder_Hammett} Snyder, P.~B. \& Hammett, G.~W. 2001, Phys.\ Plasmas, 8, 3199 \bibitem[Snyder et al.(1997)]{Snyder_Hammett_Dorland} Snyder, P.~B., Hammett, G.~W., \& Dorland, W. 1997, Phys.\ Plasmas, 4, 3974 \bibitem[Sorriso-Valvo et al.(2006)]{SorrisoValvo_etal} Sorriso-Valvo, L., Carbone, V., Bruno, R., \& Veltri, P. 2006, Europhys.\ Lett., 75, 832 \bibitem[Spangler \& Gwinn(1990)]{Spangler_Gwinn} Spangler, S.~R. \& Gwinn, C.~R. 1990, \apj, 353, L29 \bibitem[Stawicki et al.(2001)]{Stawicki_Gary_Li} Stawicki, O., Gary, S.~P., \& Li, H. 2001, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 106, 8273 \bibitem[Strauss(1976)]{Strauss76} Strauss, H.~R. 1976, Phys.\ Fluids, 19, 134 \bibitem[Strauss(1977)]{Strauss77} Strauss, H.~R. 1977, Phys.\ Fluids, 20, 1354 \bibitem[Stribling et al.(1994)]{Stribling_Matthaeus_Ghosh} Stribling, T., Matthaeus, W.~H., \& Ghosh, S. 1994, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 99, 2567 \bibitem[Subramanian et al.(2006)]{Subramanian_Shukurov_Haugen} Subramanian, K., Shukurov, A., \& Haugen, N.~E.~L. 2006, \mnras, 366, 1437 \bibitem[Sugama \& Horton(1997)]{Sugama_Horton97} Sugama, H. \& Horton, W. 1997, Phys.\ Plasmas, 4, 405 \bibitem[Sugama et al.(1996)]{Sugama_etal} Sugama, H., Okamoto, M., Horton, W., \& Wakatani, M. 1996, Phys.\ Plasmas, 3, 2379 \bibitem[Tatsuno et al.(2009a)]{Tatsuno_etal1} Tatsuno, T., Dorland, W., Schekochihin, A.~A., Plunk, G.~G., Barnes, M.~A., Cowley, S.~C., \& Howes, G.~G. 2009a, \prl, submitted (arXiv:0811.2538) \bibitem[Tatsuno et al.(2009b)]{Tatsuno_etal2} Tatsuno, T., Dorland, W., Schekochihin, A.~A., Plunk, G.~G., Barnes, M.~A., Cowley, S.~C., \& Howes, G.~G. 2009b, Phys.\ Plasmas, submitted \bibitem[Taylor(1938)]{Taylor_hyp} Taylor, G.~I. 1938, Proc.\ R.~Soc.~A, 164, 476 \bibitem[Taylor \& Hastie(1968)]{Taylor_Hastie} Taylor, J.~B. \& Hastie, R.~J. 1968, Plasma Phys., 10, 479 \bibitem[Trotter et al.(1998)]{Trotter_Moran_Rodriguez} Trotter, A.~S., Moran, J.~M., \& Rodr\'iguez, L.~F. 1998, \apj, 493, 666 \bibitem[Tu \& Marsch(1995)]{Tu_Marsch_review} Tu, C.-Y. \& Marsch, E. 1995, Space Sci.\ Rev., 73, 1 \bibitem[Unti \& Neugebauer(1968)]{Unti_Neugebauer} Unti, T.~W.~J. \& Neugebauer, M. 1968, Phys.\ Fluids, 11, 563 \bibitem[Vogt \& En{\ss}lin(2005)]{Vogt_Ensslin2} Vogt, C. \& En{\ss}lin, T.~A. 2005, \aap, 434, 67 \bibitem[Voitenko(1998)]{Voitenko2} Voitenko, Yu.~M. 1998, J.~Plasma Phys., 60, 515 \bibitem[Watanabe \& Sugama(2004)]{Watanabe_Sugama04} Watanabe, T.-H. \& Sugama, H. 2004, Phys.\ Plasmas, 11, 1476 \bibitem[Wicks et al.(2009)]{Wicks_Chapman_Dendy} Wicks, R.~T., Chapman, S.~C., \& Dendy, R.~O. 2009, \apj, 690, 734 \bibitem[Wilkinson et al.(1994)]{Wilkinson_Narayan_Spencer} Wilkinson, P.~N., Narayan, R., \& Spencer, R.~E. 1994, \mnras, 269, 67 \bibitem[Woo \& Armstrong(1979)]{Woo_Armstrong} Woo, R. \& Armstrong, S.~R. 1979, J.~Geophys.\ Res., 84, 7288 \bibitem[Woo \& Habbal(1997)]{Woo_Habbal} Woo, R. \& Habbal, S.~R. 1997, \apj, 474, L139 \bibitem[Yoon \& Fang(2008)]{Yoon_Fang} Yoon, P.~H. \& Fang, T.-M. 2008, Plasma Phys.\ Control.\ Fusion, 50, 085007 \bibitem[Yousef et al.(2007)]{YRS_exact} Yousef, T., Rincon, F., \& Schekochihin, A. 2007, J.~Fluid Mech., 575, 111 \bibitem[Yousef et al.(2009)]{YSN_aw} Yousef, T.~A., Schekochihin, A.~A., \& Nazarenko, S.~V. 2009, \prl, submitted \bibitem[Zank \& Matthaeus(1992)]{Zank_Matthaeus1} Zank, G.~P. \& Matthaeus, W.~H., 1992, J.~Plasma Phys., 48, 85 \bibitem[Zank \& Matthaeus(1993)]{Zank_Matthaeus2} Zank, G.~P. \& Matthaeus, W.~H., 1993, Phys.\ Fluids~A, 5, 257 \bibitem[Zweben et al.(1979)]{Zweben_Menyuk_Taylor} Zweben, S.~J., Menyuk, C.~R. \& Taylor, R.~J., 1979, \prl,42, 1270 \end{thebibliography} \bea \nonumber {\dd\Ii\over\dd t} &=& {\dd\over\dd t}{\Ti\over2\fMi}\intRi \lt(\gi + {Ze\over\Ti}{\vpar\avApari\over c}\,\fMi\rt)^2 = {\dd\over\dd t}\lt[{Z^2e^2\vpar^2\over c^2}{\fMi\over\Ti}\intRi{\avApari^2\over2} + {Ze\vpar\over c}\intRi\avApari\gi + \intRi{\Ti\gi^2\over2\fMi}\rt]\\ &=& -{Z^2e^2\vpar^2\over c}{\fMi\over\Ti}\intRi\avApari {\dd\over\dd z}\lt<\ephi-{\vvperp\cdot\vAperp\over c}\rt>_{\vR_i} + Ze\vpar\intRi\avchii{\dd\gi\over\dd z} + \intRi\lt({\Ti\gi\over\fMi} + {Ze\vpar\avApari\over c}\rt)\dtcolli,\quad \eea If we now expand this equation in small $\kperp\rho_i$ using the ordering explained in \secref{sec_sub_order}, to lowest order we simply recover the conservation of ``$\Apar^2$-stuff'': \eqref{Ii_g} reduces to \eqref{Apar_stuff} without the $\dne/\ne$ term, which is higher order in $\kperp\rho_i$. The terms in \eqref{Ii_g} that give rise to this lowest-order equation---the first term on the left-hand side and the first term on the right-hand side---are both proportional to $\vpar^2\fMi$ and have no other $\vpar$ dependence. Therefore, they can be eliminated by subtracting $\Ii(\vpar)-\Ii(-\vpar)$. Having done this, we divide the resulting equation through by $2\vpar$ and integrate over velocities: after some straightforward manipulations, we get \bea \nonumber &&{d\over dt}\intv\intRi\Biggl\{{Ze\over c}\avApari\gi + {\Ti\lt[\gi(\vpar)^2-\gi(-\vpar)^2\rt]\over4\vpar\fMi}\Biggr\}\\ &&\qquad= \intv\intRi\Biggl\{Ze\avchii{\dd\gi\over\dd z} + {Ze\avApari\over c}\dtcolli + {\Ti\over2\vpar\fMi}\lt[\gi\dtcolli(\vpar) - \gi\dtcolli(-\vpar)\rt]\Biggr\}. \eea The integrals that have $\vpar$ in the denominators are finite if $\gi$ can be assumed analytic at small $\vpar$. We now note that the first term under the time derivative on the left-hand side of \eqref{Ii_gg} is \bea {Ze\over c}\intv\intRi\avApari\gi = {Ze\over c}\intr\Apar\intv\<\gi\>_\vr = {Ze\ni\over c}\intr\Apar\lt({\dne\over\ni} - {\dBpar\over B_0} - {1\over2}\,\rho_i^2\vdperp^2{Ze\ephi\over\Ti} + \cdots\rt), \eea where we have used \eqref{dnek_from_g} to express the velocity integral of $\gi$ and retained terms to two leading orders in $\kperp\rho_i$. The first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{Ii_gg} is treated in a similar vein, using \eqsdash{dnek_from_g}{dBpark_from_g} and expanding in $\kperp\rho_i$. We now subtract \eqref{IEF_helicity} multiplied by $Ze\ni/c$ from \eqref{Ii_gg} and get, after some integrations by parts, \bea \nonumber &&{d\over dt}\Biggl\{ {Z^2e^2\ni\rho_i^2\over2c\Ti}\intr\bl(\vdperp\Apar\br)\cdot\bl(\vdperp\ephi\br) + \intv\intRi{\Ti\lt[\gi(\vpar)^2-\gi(-\vpar)^2\rt]\over4\vpar\fMi}\Biggr\}\\ &&\qquad = \intv\intRi{\Ti\over2\vpar\fMi}\Biggl\{ \gi\lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[\gi+{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\fMi\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i}(\vpar) -\gi\lt<\dC_{ii}\lt[\gi+{\vperp^2\over\vthi^2}{\dBpar\over B_0}\fMi\rt]\rt>_{\vR_i}(-\vpar)\Biggr\}. \eea Notably, as a result of the manipulations described above, the terms in the right-hand side containing the $\dd/\dd z$ have vanished, so \eqref{KRMHD_inv} expresses a genuine 3D conservation law that is only broken by collisions. In fact, it is two conservation laws: the first term under the time derivative on the left-hand side of \eqref{KRMHD_inv} is equal to minus the cross-helicity of the Alfv\'enic fluctuations, $-(m_i\ni/v_A)\intr(\vdperp\Phi)\cdot(\vdperp\Psi)$, which is easily shown to be an invariant of the RMHD equations \exsdash{RMHD_Psi_sum}{RMHD_Phi_sum}; as readily follows from \eqsdash{sw_g}{sw_Bpar}, the terms involving $\gi$ on the left- and right-hand sides of \eqref{KRMHD_inv} are equal to each other, i.e., the phase-space integral of $\lt[\gi(\vpar)^2-\gi(-\vpar)^2\rt]/\vpar\fMi$ is a collisionless invariant. Interestingly, the existence of the 2D invariants introduced above alongside the generalized energy invariant given by \eqref{W_cons} means that we can construct a 2D invariant of gyrokinetics that does not involve any velocity-space quantities. In order to do that, we integrate \eqref{Is_def} over velocities, sum over species, and subtract \eqref{W_cons} from the resulting equation, and notice that \bea \intr\sum_s\qs\intv\<\chi\hs\>_\vr = \intr\lt[\sum_s{\qs^2\ephi^2\ns\over\Ts} - {1\over c}\,\vA\cdot\vj\rt] = \intr\lt[\sum_s{\qs^2\ephi^2\ns\over\Ts} + {|\dvB|^2\over4\pi} - {1\over c}\,\vA\cdot\vja\rt], \eea where we have used the quasi-neutrality equation \exref{quasineut} and Amp\`ere's law [\eqref{Max_Ampere}], into which we have inserted an external current density $\vja$ to account for the external energy injection into the system at the outer scale [the same way this was done in \eqref{power} while deriving \eqref{W_cons} in \secref{sec_en_GK}]. The outcome of all these manipulations is \bea \nonumber {dY\over dt}\equiv {d\over dt}\lt(\sum_s\intv\,\Is - W\rt) &=& {d\over dt}\intr\lt[\sum_s\lt(\intv{\qs^2\<\avchi^2\>_\vr\over2\Ts}\,\fMs - {\qs^2\ephi^2\ns\over2\Ts}\rt) + {|\dvB|^2\over8\pi}\rt]\\ &=& -{1\over c}\intr \vA\cdot{\dd\vja\over\dd t} +\intr\sum_s\qs\intv\lt[\vpar\lt\<\chi\,{\dd\hs\over\dd z}\rt\>_\vr -\lt\<\chi\dtcolls\rt\>_\vr\rt]. \eea Using \eqref{avchik_eq} and doing the velocity integrals explicitly, we get \bea \nonumber Y &=& \sum_\vk\Biggl\{-\sum_s{\qs^2\ns\over2\Ts}\bl[1-\Gamma_0(\krsq_s)\br]|\ephi_\vk|^2 \Biggr.\\ &&\qquad\qquad\Biggl. +\biggl[1+\sum_s{\beta_s\over2}{\Gamma_0(\krsq_s)\over\krsq_s}\biggr]{|\dvBperpk|^2\over8\pi} + \biggl[1+\sum_s\beta_s\Gamma_1(\krsq_s)\biggr]{|\dBpark|^2\over8\pi} - \sum_s\qs\ns\bl[1-\Gamma_1(\krsq_s)\br]{\rm Re}\lt(\ephi_\vk{\dBpark^*\over B_0}\rt)\Biggr\} \eea where $\krsq_s=\kperp^2\rho_s^2/2$ and $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_1$ are defined by \eqsand{G0_def}{G1_def}.
|
0704.0047
|
Title: Intelligent location of simultaneously active acoustic emission sources:
Part I
Abstract: The intelligent acoustic emission locator is described in Part I, while Part
II discusses blind source separation, time delay estimation and location of two
simultaneously active continuous acoustic emission sources.
The location of acoustic emission on complicated aircraft frame structures is
a difficult problem of non-destructive testing. This article describes an
intelligent acoustic emission source locator. The intelligent locator comprises
a sensor antenna and a general regression neural network, which solves the
location problem based on learning from examples. Locator performance was
tested on different test specimens. Tests have shown that the accuracy of
location depends on sound velocity and attenuation in the specimen, the
dimensions of the tested area, and the properties of stored data. The location
accuracy achieved by the intelligent locator is comparable to that obtained by
the conventional triangulation method, while the applicability of the
intelligent locator is more general since analysis of sonic ray paths is
avoided. This is a promising method for non-destructive testing of aircraft
frame structures by the acoustic emission method.
Body: \title{Intelligent location of simultaneously active acoustic emission sources: \\ Part I} \author{Tadej Kosel and Igor Grabec\\ Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana,\\A\v sker\v ceva 6, POB 394, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia \\e-mail: tadej.kosel@guest.arnes.si; igor.grabec@fs.uni-lj.si \thanks{Manuscript generated: January 31, 2007} } \maketitle \begin{abstract} The intelligent acoustic emission locator is described in Part I, while Part II discusses blind source separation, time delay estimation and location of two simultaneously active continuous acoustic emission sources. The location of acoustic emission on complicated aircraft frame structures is a difficult problem of non-destructive testing. This article describes an intelligent acoustic emission source locator. The intelligent locator comprises a sensor antenna and a general regression neural network, which solves the location problem based on learning from examples. Locator performance was tested on different test specimens. Tests have shown that the accuracy of location depends on sound velocity and attenuation in the specimen, the dimensions of the tested area, and the properties of stored data. The location accuracy achieved by the intelligent locator is comparable to that obtained by the conventional triangulation method, while the applicability of the intelligent locator is more general since analysis of sonic ray paths is avoided. This is a promising method for non-destructive testing of aircraft frame structures by the acoustic emission method. \end{abstract} \IEEEpeerreviewmaketitle \section*{Introduction} Acoustic emission (AE) concerns non-destructive testing methods and is used to locate and characterize developing cracks and defects in material. In non-destructive testing of aviation frame structures, acoustic emission is a well accepted method . The location problem is usually solved by various triangulation techniques based on the analysis of ultrasonic ray trajectories . Solving and programming the related equation is rather cumbersome and cannot be simply performed if the structure of the tested specimen is geometrically complicated. Acoustic emission testing of aircraft structures is a challenging and difficult problem. The structures involve bolts, fasteners and plates, all of which move relative to one another due to differential structural loading during flight. The complex geometry of the airframe results in multiple mode conversions of AE source signals, compounding the difficulty of relating the source event to the detected signal. In order to avoid difficulties with equation solving and programming of the triangulation procedure, several empirical approaches based on learning from examples have already been proposed . We developed an intelligent locator capable of learning from examples which we therefore called an intelligent locator. The purpose of developing the intelligent locator is to replace information obtained from the analysis of sonic ray trajectories by information obtained directly from simulated AE events on the specimen under test. In this way, the calibration procedure, which has to be performed anyway, could be generalized to the training of the intelligent locator. The development of such an intelligent locator has been described elsewhere . In the locator developed a general regression neural network (GRNN) is employed , which acquires data about the detected AE signals and parameters of their sources during learning. The GRNN uses these data in testing when estimating the unknown source position from detected AE signals. For this purpose, associative GRNN operation is utilized. The basis of such operation is statistical estimation determined by the conditional average . Consequently, the accuracy of the intelligent locator also depends on the learning procedure, and must be examined before testing. This article describes the results obtained by testing the intelligent locator on experimental continuous AE sources. The purpose of this study was to test and examine the advantages of the intelligent locator compared to a conventional locator. as described in Part I. In Part II an experiment will be explained in which an intelligent locator was used to locate two simultaneously active continuous AE sources generated by leakage air flow. Location of more than one source at the same time on the test specimen is a new approach in acoustic emission testing, and is a very promising method for aircraft and airspace structural testing. When preparing the experiments, we focused on locating evolving defects in stressed materials and constructions, and leakage of vessels. We therefore performed location experiments on four different specimens with three different AE sources. The specimens comprised bands, plates, rings, and vessels, while the AE sources were simulated by rupture of a pencil lead (pen test), material deformation during tensile test, and leakage air flow through a small hole in a sample. The positions of AE sources used in testing were well specified. Actual positions were compared with estimated ones, and the discrepancy was used to describe the inaccuracy of the locator. In this article, only the experiment with leakage air flow through a small hole in a sample is explained. In Part I, location of one continuous AE source is explained. This Part is intended for better understanding of Part II and comparison of results. In Part II, a new approach to the location of two simultaneously active continuous AE sources is explained. Below, the article first explains the theoretical background for application of the conditional average to the location problem, then describes auxiliary AE signal processing, and finally demonstrates performance of the experimental intelligent locator. \section*{Theoretical background} In this section we describe a non-parametric approach to empirical modeling of AE phenomena and solving the location problem. This modeling stems from a description of physical laws in terms of probability distributions. Since it has been explained in detail elsewhere, we present here just its basic concepts . The object of empirical modeling is the relationship between variables which are simultaneously measured by a set of sensors. In our example the variables are source coordinates and AE signal characteristics. Let them be represented by a vector of $M$ components: $\vec{x}=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_M)$. In the empirical description of an AE phenomenon we repeat the observation $N$ times to create a database of prototype vectors $\{\vec{x}_1,\ldots,\vec{x}_N \}$. Instead of formulating a relation between the components of $\vec{x}$ we instead treat this vector as a random variable and express the joint probability density function $f$ by the estimator \begin{align} f(\vec{x})=\frac1N\,\sum_{n=1}^{N} \delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_n)\,. \end{align} Here $\delta$ denotes Dirac's delta function. For the purposes of modelling, we must also estimate the probability density in the space between the prototype points. This is achieved by expressing the singular delta function in Eqs.~ by a smooth function, such as for example the Gaussian \begin{align} w_n(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_n,\sigma)=\exp \left [ {{-\Vert \vec{x}-\vec{x}_n \Vert^2}\over 2\,\sigma^2} \right]\,, \hspace{0.5cm} n=1,\ldots,N\,. \end{align} in which $\sigma$ denotes the smoothing parameter. The data vectors determine an empirical model of the probability density function. Their acquisition corresponds to the learning phase of the empirical modeling. Let us further assume that observation of AE phenomenon provides only partial information that is {\em given} by a truncated vector \begin{align} \vec{g}=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_S;\emptyset)\,, \end{align} in which $\emptyset$ denotes missing components. The problem is to estimate the complementary vector of missing or {\em hidden} components: \begin{align} \vec{h}=(\emptyset;\xi_{S+1},\ldots,\xi_M) ; \end{align} such that the complete data vector is determined by concatenation \begin{align} \vec{x}=\vec{g} \oplus \vec{h} = (\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_S,\xi_{S+1},\ldots,\xi_M)\,. \end{align} A statistically optimal solution to this problem is determined by the conditional average estimator, which is expressed by a superposition of terms \begin{align} \hat{\vec{h}}=\sum_{n=1}^{N} B_n(\vec{g})\,\vec{h}_n,\quad {\rm where}\quad \\ B_n(\vec{g})={{w(\vec{g}-\vec{g}_n,\sigma)}\over \sum_{k=1}^{N} w(\vec{g}-\vec{g}_k,\sigma)}\,. \end{align} The basis functions $B_n(\vec{g})$ represent a measure of similarity between the truncated vector $\vec{g}$ given by a particular observation and truncated vectors from the database $\vec{g}_n$. The higher the value of $B_n(g)$ the higher the contribution of $\vec{h}_n$ to the sum estimating $\hat{\vec{h}}$. Hence, estimation of the hidden vector $\hat{\vec{h}}$ resembles associative recall, which is characteristic of intelligence. The conditional average represents a general non-parametric regression . During the learning phase of operation an intelligent locator of AE sources accepts AE signals and source coordinates and stores prototype data vectors, while during application it accepts only AE signals and estimates the corresponding source position. Each of these phases can be performed in a separate unit which can be interpreted as a layer of a sensory-neural network. In order to ensure acceptable properties of the locator, the smoothing parameter $\sigma$ must be properly chosen. The purpose of $\delta$ function smoothing is to estimate the probability density function between the prototype data points. A unique method for optimal specification of the smoothing parameter is as yet unknown. In this case, it is numerically simpler to specify $\sigma$ by the half distance to the closest neighbor point: \begin{align} \sigma_n=0.5\,\min_{i} \Vert \vec{g}_{i}-\vec{g}_n \Vert\,, \hspace{0.5cm} \text{for all}\,\, i \ne n\,. \end{align} \subsection*{Signal pre-processing} The intelligent locator comprised a sensor antenna, signal pre-processing unit and source locating unit, as shown in Fig.~. The first unit calculates the time delay $\Delta t$ from AE signals $y_1(t)$ and $y_2(t)$, while the second unit estimates the source position $\hat{z}$ from the time delay $\Delta t$. AE signals $y_1(t)$ and $y_2(t)$ are detected by sensors and filtered using a Butterworth bandpass filter. Without the bandpass filter, time delays cannot be easily mapped to source positions on the sample band, and therefore the applicability of this method depends on the proper choice of bandpass filter function $H(f)$. We found on dispersive specimens that information in the continuous AE signal about source position is located in a narrow frequency band. A wave packet with approximately constant wave velocity along the specimen must be extracted by this filter. The filter function $H(f)$ is determined during training procedure of the locator. Two conventional methods for time delay estimation between two signals are known: threshold function and cross-correlation function. Estimation of time delay by the threshold function is simple, but only applicable in the case of discrete AE. More general, but also more demanding, is time delay estimation from the cross-correlation function of AE signals . The cross-correlation function: \begin{align} R_{y_1y_2}(\tau)=\sum_{t=1}^T y_1(t)\,y_2(t+\tau)\,, \end{align} generally exhibits a peak when parameter $\tau$ corresponds to the time delay $\Delta t$ between signals $y_1(t)$ and $y_2(t)$. The time delay is thus determined from the position of the peak of the cross-correlation function. One advantage of the application of the cross-correlation function is that it does not depend on the discrete or continuous character of AE signals. This method for time delay estimation is only applicable when one AE source is active at the time of detection. In the event of two or more simultaneously active continuous AE sources, a different approach should be used which will be discussed in the Part II. A filter function is calculated during calibration of the intelligent locator as follows. During calibration, a set of prototype sources is generated on the test specimen by a pen test at a prepared coordinate net. This net in most cases has linear sections, where the prototype sources are positioned on a straight line. In this case, we know that time delays between signals are also linearly dependent. If we have a test specimen with a complicated geometrical structure, then a pre-calibration process has to be performed in which we have to choose a geometrically simple part of the specimen and carry out a pre-calibration procedure on this part such that time delays between signals are linearly dependent. For calibration we used AE signals generated by a pen test. We obtained 12 pairs of AE signals from two sensors concatenated with known coordinates of sources. The positions of simulated sources were uniformly distributed along a straight line on a specimen. In such cases, time delay $\Delta t$ is linearly related to source position $z$. This is of advantage for optimal determination of bandpass filter because the reference is a straight line. Calculation of time delays on the same set of prototype AE signals was repeated 70 times. The bandpass filter of $\Delta f=10$~kHz was shifted by 1~kHz at each repetition from 5 to 75~kHz. Time delays were calculated at each repetition and the distribution obtained was compared with a straight line, as shown in Fig.~. The frequency bandwidth was considered optimal when the root mean square error (RMSE) was minimal, as shown in Fig.~. The optimal frequency band for this specimen was 35-45~kHz and the velocity of elastic waves was 1.7\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The filter was further used for pre-processing samples of prototype as well as test sources. As shown in Fig.~, the pairs $(z,\Delta t)$, estimated from filtered signals, fit a straight line, except one outlier, which results from experimental error. \section*{Experiment} The intelligent AE source locator is shown schematically in Fig.~. It includes an automatic data-acquisition system controlled by computer and a network of AE sensors. The AE sensors are piezoelectric transducers (pinducers). The diameter of the transducer active area is 1.3\,mm, And so it can be considered a point-like sensor. The signals from sensors are fed to a digital oscilloscope where they are digitized and transferred to a PC. Operation of the intelligent locator is determined by software in the PC that controls data acquisition and estimates the position of unknown AE sources. The locator operates in two different modes: \begin{enumerate} \item In learning or calibration mode, a set of $N$ pen tests is performed in which complete information about the AE phenomenon is acquired. The operator must prepare an orientation net the shape of which depends on the shape of the test specimen. The recommended shape is an equidistant net, since such position of prototype sources yield a minimum error of the locator. >From source coordinates and time delays between pre-processed AE signals, the prototype vectors are created and stored in the memory of the neural network as a data base. \item In application mode, only time delays between AE signals are provided. There are then associated in the neural network with the estimated source coordinates. \end{enumerate} In the case of discrete AE, the time delay can visually be estimated from a marked jump in the burst of the AE signal, or can be instrumentally determined using a threshold function. Hence, in the case of continuous AE, time delays cannot be simply estimated, although a cross-correlation function has already been used for this purpose. In our approach, we therefore applied a cross-correlation function. The purpose of this experiment was to determine the accuracy of location of continuous AE sources on a one-dimensional specimen. Two experiments on aluminum band specimen are explained in this article. We tested the locator on an aluminum band specimen of dimensions $4000\times 40\times 5$\,mm$^3$. Reflection of AE signals at the ends of the band specimen was reduced by sharpening the ends. For testing we selected a test area in the middle of the band specimen where 23 holes were prepared. The distance between holes was 100\,mm and the diameter of holes was 2\,mm. Two AE sensors were mounted 100\,mm away from the terminal holes. For the purpose of locator training, we generated 12 prototype sources separated by 200\,mm, while all 23 holes were applied for locator testing. In this experiment, we calibrate the locator by pen test and examine it by continuous AE generated by air flow. The air flow was produced by expansion of compressed air through nozzle of 1\,mm diameter. The nozzle was mounted 1\,mm above the band specimen surface. Two experiments were performed. In the first experiment, only one continuous AE source was active on the band specimen, while in the second experiment two continuous AE sources were active simultaneously on the band specimen. Successive simultaneous location of two sources is explained in Part II. \ Signals were processed as shown in Fig.~. The first step in processing was calculation of cross-correlation function of AE signals. The corresponding signal was sent through a bandpass Butterworth filter of bandpass from 35 to 45 kHz. Determination of this filter is explained earlier in this article. \section*{Results} The results of locator testing are shown in Fig.~. The absolute location error for each test source is shown in Fig.~. Location error in the experiment ranges from 1.3\,mm to 60\,mm with average value $\varepsilon_a=20$\,mm (ignoring the outlier). If we describe the error with respect to the distance between sensors (2.4\,m), the relative value is less than 1\ Despite the complexity of continuous AE signals, the location problem was solved satisfactorily with respect to The accuracy required in non-destructive testing. Results also show that a standard calibration procedure with discrete AE signals generated by pen test can be used for locator training. \section*{Discussion and Conclusion} Estimation of source coordinates by the conditional average is subject to systematic error caused by smoothing of the delta function . This error can be reduced by increasing the number of prototype sources. Since it is not always possible to increase the number of prototype sources due to the complexity of experiments, a compromise must be found by trial and error. Experimental error is acceptable, so we decided to make additional tests, as will be discussed in Part II. This study shows that a conventional AE locator operating on the triangulation method can be successfully replaced by an intelligent locator that learns from examples. The results show that the intelligent locator can locate sources with acceptable accuracy in cases of: (1) discrete AE on band and plate, (2) continuous AE on band, (3) discrete AE on plate with hole (ring), (4) discrete AE generated by specimen rupture during the tensile test, and (5) discrete AE on pressure vessel. Is has been also shown that the locator can perform zonal locating. Comparing mean errors of all experiments and the distances between prototype sources, we find that the average error is always less than 30\ the distance between prototype sources, while the maximal error is always less than 50\ between prototype sources. The accuracy of the locator can be controlled by the number of prototype sources excited during training. The experimental error of the locator is a consequence of wave dispersion on a specimen that operates as a waveguide, reflections from boundaries, and attenuation. We found for dispersive waves that an optimal wave packet must be found which has approximately constant velocity along the test specimen. Estimation of time delay between AE signals by the cross-correlation function is only applicable for one active AE source. If there are several simultaneously active AE sources, then blind source separation should be used, as will be shown in Part II. \begin{thebibliography}{1} \bibitem{chan94} Chan, Y.~T. Ho, K.~C. 1994 , A simple and efficient estimator for hyperbolic location, {\em {IEEE} Transactions on Signal Processing} {\bf 42}(8),~1905--1915. \bibitem{cherkassky} Cherkassky, V. Mulier, F. 1998 , {\em Leraning from Data: Concepts, Theory, and Methods}, John Wiley \& Sons inc., New York. \bibitem{friedlander87} Friedlander, B. 1987 , A passive localization algorithm and its accuracy analysis, {\em {IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering}} {\bf {OE-12}}(1),~234--245. \bibitem{grabec94} Grabec, I. Antolovi\v{c}, B. 1994 , Intelligent locator of {AE} sources, {\em in} T.~Kishi, Y.~Mori M.~Enoki, eds, The 12th International Acoustic Emission Symposium, Vol.~7 of {\em Progress in Acoustic Emission}, The Japanese Society for Non-Destructive Inspection, Tokyo, Japan, pp.~565--570. \bibitem{grabec91} Grabec, I. Sachse, W. 1991 , `Automatic modeling of physical phenomena: Application to ultrasonic data', {\em J. Appl. Phys.} {\bf 69}(9),~6233--6244. \bibitem{grabecbook} Grabec, I. Sachse, W. 1997 , {\em Synergetics of Measurement, Prediction and Control}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. \bibitem{kosel98b} Kosel, T. Grabec, I. 1998 , Intelligent locator of discrete and continuous acoustic emission sources, {\em in} J.~Grum, ed., Application of Contemporary Non-destructive Testing in Engineering, The 5th International Conference of Slovenian Society for Nondestructive Testing, Slovenian Society for Nondestructive Testing, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp.~39--54. \bibitem{NTH} McIntire, P. Miller, R.~K., eds 1987 , {\em Acoustic Emission Testing}, Vol.~5 of {\em Nondestructive Testing Handbook}, 2 edn, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Philadelphia, USA. \bibitem{specht91} Specht, D.~F. 1991 , A general regression neural network, {\em {IEEE} Trans. on Neural Networks} {\bf 2}(6),~568--576. \bibitem{tobias76} Tobias, A. 1976 , Acoustic emission source location in two dimensions by an array of three sensors, {\em Non-Destructive Testing} {\bf 9}(2),~9--12. \bibitem{ziola91} Ziola, S.~M. Gorman, M.~R. 1991 , Source location in thin plates using cross-correlation, {\em J. Acoust. Soc. Am.} {\bf 90}(5),~2551--2556. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0050
|
Title: Intelligent location of simultaneously active acoustic emission sources:
Part II
Abstract: Part I describes an intelligent acoustic emission locator, while Part II
discusses blind source separation, time delay estimation and location of two
continuous acoustic emission sources.
Acoustic emission (AE) analysis is used for characterization and location of
developing defects in materials. AE sources often generate a mixture of various
statistically independent signals. A difficult problem of AE analysis is
separation and characterization of signal components when the signals from
various sources and the mode of mixing are unknown. Recently, blind source
separation (BSS) by independent component analysis (ICA) has been used to solve
these problems. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the applicability
of ICA to locate two independent simultaneously active acoustic emission
sources on an aluminum band specimen. The method is promising for
non-destructive testing of aircraft frame structures by acoustic emission
analysis.
Body: \title{Intelligent location of two simultaneously active acoustic emission sources: \\ Part II} \author{Tadej Kosel and Igor Grabec\\ Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana,\\A\v sker\v ceva 6, POB 394, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia \\e-mail: tadej.kosel@guest.arnes.si; igor.grabec@fs.uni-lj.si \thanks{Manuscript generated: January 31, 2007} } \maketitle \begin{abstract} Part I describes an intelligent acoustic emission locator, while Part II discusses blind source separation, time delay estimation and location of two continuous acoustic emission sources. Acoustic emission (AE) analysis is used for characterization and location of developing defects in materials. AE sources often generate a mixture of various statistically independent signals. A difficult problem of AE analysis is separation and characterization of signal components when the signals from various sources and the mode of mixing are unknown. Recently, blind source separation (BSS) by independent component analysis (ICA) has been used to solve these problems. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the applicability of ICA to locate two independent simultaneously active acoustic emission sources on an aluminum band specimen. The method is promising for non-destructive testing of aircraft frame structures by acoustic emission analysis. \end{abstract} \IEEEpeerreviewmaketitle \section*{Introduction} A common goal of many non-destructive testing methods is to detect defects in materials. Acoustic emission analysis (AE) is a passive testing method used to locate and characterize defects which emit sound. There are many ways to deduce the location of an AE source from electrical signals detected by a chain of sensors. The corresponding problems may be classified by the type of acoustic source mechanism as the location of a continuous emission source, such as that generated by a leak, or as the location of discrete emission, such as an AE burst caused by a growing crack. This paper describes a method for processing continuous AE signals to determine the time delay (T-D) between signals and thus to provide information for location of AE sources. It should be pointed out that application of AE source characteristics, such as count, count rate, amplitude distribution, and conventional time delay measurement, becomes meaningless when dealing with continuous acoustic sources. The basic information for AE source location consists of T-D between stress waves detected at different positions on a specimen. In the case of only one active AE source, T-D of continuous acoustic waves can be estimated using the cross-correlation function (CCF) of sensor signals described in Part I of this article. In the case of two (or more) simultaneously active AE sources, this method is not applicable, since analysis of the CCF leads only to the T-D of the most powerful AE signal. Detection of simultaneously active independent AE source signals therefore requires a more sophisticated approach. The purpose of our study was to find a suitable method for processing a mixture of two simultaneously active continuous AE signals to determine the T-D and, related to this, the coordinates of both AE sources. We found that the Blind Source Separation (BSS) method solves this problem satisfactorily. BSS is a general signal processing method involving the recovery of the contributions of different sources from a finite set of observations recorded by sensors, independent of the propagation medium and without any prior knowledge of the sources. BSS has already been successfully applied in medicine, telecommunications, image processing etc. However, it is also a promising method for AE analysis of aircraft structures, because AE signals are often hidden in a mixture of signals from various sources. BSS could extract the specific signature of each AE source, which can further be used for location and characterization purposes, or to isolate AE sources from background noise. We conducted experiments with BSS on an aluminum beam on which two continuous AE sources were generated simultaneously by air flow. \section*{Methods} In this section we explain two different methods for time delay estimation of AE sources. The first method is based on analysis of the CCF and is convenient for T-D estimation of one active continuous AE source as is described in Part I. The CCF exhibits a peak when the delay parameter compensates the T-D between the sensor signals . The T-D is thus determined by the position of the highest peak of the CCF. The second method is based on BSS algorithm and is convenient for T-D estimation of two (or more) simultaneously active continuous AE sources. Location of two simultaneously active AE sources was performed by an intelligent locator based on a general regression neural network as is described in Part I. Multichannel Blind Source Separation has recently received increased attention due to the importance of its potential applications. It occurs in many fields of engineering and applied sciences, including processing of signals from antenna array, speech and geophysical data processing, noise reduction, biological system analysis, etc. It consists of recovering signals emitted by unknown sources and mixed by an unknown medium (material where waves propagate), using only several observations of the mixtures. The only assumptions made are the linearity of the mixing system and the statistical independence of original signals. BSS methods may be classified in several ways. One possible classification that can be made depends on whether the mixtures are instantaneous or convolutive . Convolutive mixtures correspond to a mixing system with time dependent memory. They represent a more general case than instantaneous mixtures, and they have in particular acoustic applications. Recently, the principle of independent component analysis (ICA) was applied in BSS, and it was found to be a simple and powerful tool. This study deals with the separation of two convolutively mixed independent continuous AE signals by ICA and the intelligent locator was used to locate two independent continuous AE sources based on T-D . The mixing and filtering processes of unknown input signals $s_j(t)$ may have different mathematical or physical backgrounds, depending on specific applications. In this paper, we focus mainly on the simplest cases with $n$ signals $x_i(t)$ linearly mixed in $n$ unknown statistically independent, zero mean source signals $s_j(t)$. The composition is expressed in matrix notation as $\vec{x}=\vec{A} * \vec{s}$ , where `*' denotes a convolution, $\vec{x}=[x_1(t),\ldots,x_n(t)]^{\text{T}}$ is the vector of sensor signals, $\vec{s}=[s_1(t),\ldots,s_n(t)]^{\text{T}}$ is the vector of source signals and $\vec{A}$ is an unknown full rank $n \times n$ mixing matrix whose elements are finite inpulse response (FIR) filters. We assume that only vector $\vec{x}$ is available. The goal of ICA is to find a matrix $\vec{W}$, by which vector $\vec{x}$ can be transformed into source signals $\vec{u}=\vec{W} * \vec{x}$. Matrix $\vec{W}$ is simply the inverse of $\vec{A}$. However, when noise corrupts the signals, matrix $\vec{W}$ must be found by an optimal statistical treatment of the inverse problem. The optimal matrix $\vec{W}$ can be estimated by a feed-forward neural network operating in the frequency domain. A learning algorithm with Amari's natural gradient can be written as: $\tilde{\vec{u}} =\tilde{\vec{W}} \cdot \tilde{\vec{x}}$, $\tilde{\vec{W}}(\tau+1) =\tilde{\vec{W}}(\tau)+\alpha\,\Delta \tilde{\vec{W}}(\tau)+\eta\,\Delta \tilde{\vec{W}}(\tau-1)$, $\Delta \tilde{\vec{W}} = [\vec{I}-\tilde{\vec{y}}\cdot \tilde{\vec{u}}^{\text{H}}]\,\tilde{\vec{W}}$, $\tilde{\vec{y}} = \tanh(\Re[\tilde{\vec{u}}])+\imath\,\tanh(\Im[\tilde{\vec{u}}])$, where $\alpha$ is the learning rate, $\eta$ is the constant of learning, $\vec{I}$ is the identity matrix and the tilde `\~\,'represents a frequency domain. The ICA algorithm runs off-line and proceeds as follows (Fig.~): \begin{enumerate} \setlength{\itemsep}{-3pt} \item Pre-process the time-domain input signals, $\vec{x}(t)$: substract the mean from each signal. \item Initialize the frequency domain unmixing filters, $\tilde{\vec{W}}$. \item Take a block of input data and convert it into the frequency domain using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). \item Filter the frequency domain input block, $\tilde{\vec{x}}$, through $\tilde{\vec{W}}$ to get the estimated source signals, $\tilde{\vec{u}}$. \item Pass $\tilde{\vec{u}}$ through the frequency domain nonlinearity, $\tilde{\vec{y}}$. \item Use $\tilde{\vec{W}}$, $\tilde{\vec{u}}$ and $\tilde{\vec{y}}$ along with the natural gradient extension to compute the change in the unmixing filter, $\Delta \tilde{\vec{W}}$. \item Take the next block of input data, covert it into the frequency domain, and proceed from step 4. Repeat this process until the unmixing filters have converged upon a solution, passing several times through the data. \item Normalize $\tilde{\vec{W}}$ and convert it back into the time domain, using the Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT). \item Convolve the time domain unmixing filters, $\vec{W}$, with $\vec{x}$ to get the estimated sources. \end{enumerate} \section*{Experiments} We performed experiments with two independent continuous AE sources on an aluminum band of dimensions $4000 \times 40 \times 5\,\text{mm}^3$. Reflections at the end of the band were reduced by wrapping the ends in putty. The testing area was on the longitudinal axis in the middle of the band, where 23 holes of diameter 2\,mm and mutual separation 100\,mm were prepared as shown in Fig. . Two AE sensors were mounted 100\,mm away from the terminal holes, that is 2.4\,m from each other. The origin of the coordinate system was in the middle of the band and the testing area extended from $-1.1$\,m to $+1.1$\,m. AE signals were excited by two independent air jets flowing through the holes. The source position was arbitrarily selected at $+100$\,mm and $+800$\,mm. Air jets were formed by two nozzles of diameter 1\,mm using pressure 7 bar. The experimental set-up consisted of the test specimen (aluminum band), two AE sensors (pinducers), two AE sources (air jets), two amplifiers, a digital oscilloscope (A/D converter) and a computer (BSS module, locator, plotter) as shown in Fig.\ . Three experiments were performed : (1) T-D estimation using a CCF of two AE signals that were not simultaneously active; (2) T-D estimation using a CCF of two AE signals which were simultaneously active and (3) T-D estimation of AE signals using ICA. Location of sources, based on T-D, by the intelligent locator was performed in all three cases. In the first experiment only one air jet was activated for a particular measurement. In the second experiment both air jets were activated. Sensor signals were linear convolutive mixtures of two independent continuous AE sources as shown in Fig. . The auto-correlation $R_{11}$, $R_{22}$ and cross-correlation functions $R_{12}$, $R_{21}$ were calculated from sensor signals. Only one T-D of two signals can be estimated from the highest peak in both CCF, regardless of the number of independent AE sources on the test specimen as shown in Fig. . This means that a CCF can not be used for automatic T-D estimation of multiple AE signals on the test specimen. The CCF exhibits various peaks which belong to various independent AE sources, but it is ussually impossible to relate these peaks to corresponding coordinates of AE sources. In the third experiment the ICA algorithm was used to solve this problem satisfactorily. The ICA algorithm results in demixing FIR filters which extract the independent source signals from sensory signals. By inverting the demixing filters $\vec{W}$ we obtain mixing filters $\vec{A}$. In the case of two independent AE sources and two sensors, the components of $\vec{A}$ are four FIR mixing filters, as shown in Fig.\ . There are two direct $a_{11}$, $a_{22}$ and two cross mixing filters $a_{12}$, $a_{21}$. The first index of the filter represents the number of the sensor, while the second index represents the number of the source. The position of the highest peak of the cross FIR filters determines the T-D between two signals from two sensors. If we substract the coordinate of the highest peak of a direct mixing FIR filter $a_{11}$ from the coordinate of the highest peak of cross filter $a_{21}$ we obtain the T-D of first independent AE source, since each of the highest peaks in the FIR filters belongs to different independent AE signals. \section*{Results} The results of T-D estimation of two continuous independent AE sources are shown in Fig.\ . Three experiments were done. In the first experiment, the T-D was estimated by a CCF of two AE sources which were not active simultaneously as marked by `{\Large $\circ$}'. Locations of these two sources estimated by the intelligent locator were +181\,mm and +784\,mm. The second experiment was performed with both AE sources active simultaneously. T-D were also estimated by a CCF. The highest peak position corresponds to the source location marked by `$-$~$-$' and was +784\,mm. The third experiment was performed using ICA for T-D estimation and location by intelligent locator. The result is marked by `{\footnotesize $\Box$}'. Estimated positions of this two sources were +179\,mm and +784\,mm respectively. If we compare the coordinates of both independent AE sources estimated by the first experiment and by the third experiment, we find a good correspondence. If we compare estimated AE source coordinates with actual coordinates, which were +100\,mm and +800\,mm respectively, we observe a slight disagreement due to experimental error. Experimental error is about 3\ in this case is 79\,mm and 16\,mm respectively. The results also depend on the number and distribution of prototype sources marked by `{$\bullet$}', which are essential for operation of the intelligent locator. If the number of prototype sources is increased, location error is reduced. In our case the prototype sources were distributed along the beam from $-1.1$\,m to $+1.1$\,m separated by $0.1$\,m, so that systematic error of the locator was set to several procents. \section*{Discussion and Conclusion} CCF is applicable to T-D estimation only in the case of one active AE source. The goal of our research is to develop a new method to estimate T-D between AE signals in the case of multiple simultaneously active continuous AE sources. We have shown that, for this purpose, ICA is an applicable option. ICA finds a linear coordinate system (the unmixing filters) such that the resulting signals are statistically independent. This is an advantage of ICA over CCF. It represents a new approach to processing of AE data and further expands the applicability of AE analysis in the field of non-destructive testing. In machines or in an industrial environment, multiple sources are usually active Simultaneously, often representing environmental disturbances. The corresponding complex signals are not directly applicable to characterization of particular sources. However, separation of contributions by ICA analysis in fact represents a kind of filtering, increasing the applicability of filtered signals to characterization of sources in complex environments. Future research will be focused on location of multiple AE sources on two-dimensional and three-dimensional specimens. \begin{thebibliography}{1} \bibitem{amari98a} Amari, S.-I. 1998 , Natural gradient works efficiently in learning, {\em Neural Computation} {\bf 10},~251--276. \bibitem{amari96a} Amari, S.-I., Cichocki, A. Yang, H.~H. 1996 , A new learning algorithm for blind signal separation, {\em in} D.~Touretzky, M.~Mozer M.~Hasselmo, eds, `Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems', Vol.~8, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp.~752--763. \bibitem{burel92} Burel, G. 1992 , Blind separation of sources: A nonlinear algorithm, {\em Neural Networks} {\bf 5},~937--947. \bibitem{deville97a} Deville, Y. Charkani, N. 1997 , Analysis of the stability of time-domain source separation algorithms for convolutively mixed signals, {\em in} International Comference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp.~1835--1838. \bibitem{grabecbook} Grabec, I. Sachse, W. 1997 , {\em Synergetics of Measurement, Prediction and Control}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. \bibitem{oja00} Hyvarinen, A. Oja, E. 2000 , Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications, {\em Neural Networks} {\bf 13},~411--430. \bibitem{kosel00a} Kosel, T., Grabec, I. Mu\v{z}i\v{c}, P. 2000 , Location of continuous acoustic emission sources generated by air flow, {\em Ultrasonics} {\bf 38}(1--8),~824--826. \bibitem{leebook98} Lee, T.-W. 1998 , {\em Independent Component Analysis, Theory and Applications}, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston etc. \bibitem{lee97} Lee, T.-W., Bell, A.~J. Lambert, R. 1997 , Blind separation of convolved and delayed sources, {\em Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems} {\bf 9},~758--764. \bibitem{NTH} McIntire, P. Miller, R.~K., eds 1987 , {\em Acoustic Emission Testing}, Vol.~5 of {\em Nondestructive Testing Handbook}, 2 edn, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Philadelphia, USA. \bibitem{westner96} Westner, A.~G. 1996 , Object-based audio capture: Separating acoustically-mixed sources, {MSc Thesis}, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. \bibitem{ziola91} Ziola, S.~M. Gorman, M.~R. 1991 , Source location in thin plates using cross-correlation, {\em J. Acoust. Soc. Am.} {\bf 90}(5),~2551--2556. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0051
|
Title: Visualizing Teleportation
Abstract: A novel way of picturing the processing of quantum information is described,
allowing a direct visualization of teleportation of quantum states and
providing a simple and intuitive understanding of this fascinating phenomenon.
The discussion is aimed at providing physicists a method of explaining
teleportation to non-scientists. The basic ideas of quantum physics are first
explained in lay terms, after which these ideas are used with a graphical
description, out of which teleportation arises naturally.
Body: \title{Visualizing Teleportation} \author{Scott M. Cohen} \email{cohensm@duq.edu} \affiliation{Department of Physics, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15282} \affiliation{Department of Physics, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213} \begin{abstract} \noindent A novel way of picturing the processing of quantum information is described, allowing a direct visualization of teleportation of quantum states and providing a simple and intuitive understanding of this fascinating phenomenon. The discussion is aimed at providing physicists a method of explaining teleportation to non-scientists. The basic ideas of quantum physics are first explained in lay terms, after which these ideas are used with a graphical description, out of which teleportation arises naturally. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} One of the most exciting and fastest-growing fields of physics today is quantum information. Especially since the discovery by Shor that there exist calculations for which a quantum computer is apparently far more efficient than a classical computer, interest in understanding quantum information has increased at an impressive rate. One widely publicized discovery that has emerged from work in this field is teleportation . While not precisely equivalent to the process enjoying widespread fame amongst fans of Star Trek (``Beam me up, Scotty"), the phenomenon referred to here is nonetheless fascinating, and perhaps even astonishing. The reason for the widespread publicity of this rigorously proven (and experimentally tested , though not yet unambiguously demonstrated) scientific prediction is almost certainly in large part due to the fact that it shares the same name as the just-mentioned, intriguing idea from science-fiction. The usual way of describing teleportation is through mathematical equations, and this mathematics is relatively straightforward, as has been amply demonstrated elsewhere . Hence, an understanding of this phenomenon is accessible to physicists, other scientists, and those possessing a reasonably strong level of mathematical skill. There does, on the other hand, seem to be a good deal of misunderstanding of teleportation amongst non-scientists, with the notion floating around that the amazing phenomenon shown regularly in episodes of Star Trek -- that is, of material objects being teleported from one place to another -- has actually turned out to be possible in real life. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, so we are left wondering how to rectify this unfortunate state of affairs. The question I address here is the following: can the true (scientific) phenomenon of teleportation be understood by others, those without much skill in mathematics? The usual explanations will certainly fail in this regard, even if carefully presented by a competent physicist, because mathematics has a well-known tendency to scare people away, and in any case, the mathematics of teleportation is not all \textit{that} simple. The paper is addressed to physicists possessing a solid understanding of quantum physics (including graduate students), with the aim to provide a method by which such a physicist can explain teleportation to someone who is not mathematically inclined. Thus, the objective is ultimately, though indirectly, to educate the general public about teleportation, and by extension, quantum mechanics itself. The approach involves only the most basic ideas about quantum physics, and while it does not entirely avoid mathematical expressions, it uses only the simplest mathematics (one only needs to accept that certain objects are either $0$ or $1$) and relies almost entirely on ``pictures", allowing the layperson to visualize -- and thus, understand -- what is happening. In the following sections, I will describe my method of directly visualizing teleportation. These sections are written as if addressed to the layperson. The next section explains the probabilistic nature of quantum physics by considering ``quantum coins", which are examples of two-level systems. This section describes how one should think about measurements, what is meant by probabilities for classical systems, and then how these ideas can be used to describe quantum systems. Then, in Section~, I present my graphical approach to understanding the dynamics of quantum information processing, which is then used in Section~ to explain in pictures how teleportation of quantum states is possible. One of the crucial observations will be that a shared entangled state on, say, systems $a$ and $b$, provides the parties with multiple ``images" of the state of an additional system $A$. The ability to manipulate these images -- independently by each party, and differently from one image to the next -- is what allows teleportation to be accomplished. More generally, these ideas provide important insights into why entanglement is a valuable resource, as I have described in detail elsewhere, and they have been useful in understanding other aspects of quantum information processing . \section{Probabilities} Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of quantum theory is that it can only make predictions in terms of probabilities. In general even if one has a complete description of the state of a quantum system, one will not know ahead of time what the outcome of a given measurement will be. This is in direct contradiction with our everyday experience, which we refer to as ``classical". For example, a flipped classical coin which lands heads (``heads" is then a complete description of the state of this coin), is known with certainty to be heads, and also with certainty to \textit{not} be tails. That is, if we know the state of a classical coin (in this case ``heads"), we can predict with certainty the answer to any reasonable question we choose to ask (or ``measure") about that coin (for example, ``Is it tails?"). We therefore need to understand what is meant by the ``state" of a quantum system and how this state relates to probabilities and outcomes of measurements. The following definition of a measurement will be adequate for our purposes. \textbf{Definition:} A \textit{measurement} is a procedure that provides answers to a collection of yes-no questions, which is both mutually exclusive (when the answer to one of the questions is ``yes", the answer to all the others is ``no") and complete (all possibilities are included; that is, one of the questions will always be answered in the affirmative). The single question that receives the ``yes" answer is referred to as the \textit{outcome} of the measurement. For example, since a classical coin is either heads or tails, and these two possibilities are mutually exclusive, a measurement on a classical coin is a procedure that answers the two questions ``Is it heads?" and ``Is it tails?" Since the coin will always be one or the other, there will always be a ``yes" answer to one of these questions, and then the other question is always answered ``no". Hence these two questions do indeed constitute a measurement according to the above definition. If ``Is it heads?" is answered affirmatively, then ``heads" is the outcome of the measurement. It turns out that these two questions also constitute a measurement on quantum coins. However, in contrast to the classical case in which this is the \textit{only} possible measurement, there is a vast array of possible measurements on quantum coins. This will become clearer from the discussion in the following sections, where we introduce a compact way of describing these things, a way commonly used in quantum mechanics. \subsection{Classical coins and classical probabilities} Consider again a flipped classical coin. The coin lands either heads or tails. It will be useful to use a somewhat abbreviated notation: $|H\rangle$ for heads and $|T\rangle$ for tails. The statement that ``if it is heads, it is not tails" (that is, has zero probability of being tails) will be represented as \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber\nonumber \langle T|H\rangle = 0. \end{eqnarray} The left-facing bracket $|H\rangle$ represents the known initial state (``It is heads.") and the right-facing bracket $\langle T|$ represents the question (``Is it tails?"). The number ($0$) appearing on the right-hand side of the equal sign then gives the probability that with this initial state, the answer to this question will be yes. For the above example, we have that the probability is $0$, which is as expected since when the coin is $H$ it will never be $T$. Note that it is useful to use the left- and right-facing brackets, so that we can easily read off what is the initial state and what is the question being asked about it. Simply writing $TH=0$ in the above equation would lead to confusion when we discuss two coins (see below), which might have an initial state where one is tails, the other heads, represented by $|TH\rangle$. Perhaps an even more trivial statement ``if it is heads, then it is heads" (with certainty, or with probability one), will similarly be represented as \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \langle H|H\rangle = 1. \end{eqnarray} Again, the right-facing bracket contains the question $\langle H\vert$, or ``Is it heads?", and the fact that the expression is equal to $1$ indicates that the answer to this question will \textit{always} be ``yes" when the initial state is $\vert H\rangle$. These statements are trivial because if we know the state of a classical coin, we can predict with certainty whether it will be heads or tails when we look at it. Although the remaining equations will look a bit more involved, the only mathematics the reader need understand is contained in the above two equations, along with two others that are almost exactly the same. The discussion in the remainder of this paper will follow from the four simple statements, $\langle H|H\rangle = 1$, $\langle T|T\rangle = 1$, $\langle T|H\rangle = 0$, $\langle H|T\rangle = 0$. Next let us consider two coins. In this case, a complete list of mutually exclusive possibilities is $HH,~HT,~TH,~TT$. We can make statements in exactly the same way we did above, for example ``if they are $HH$, then they are not $HT$", which in our notation is written \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \langle H_1T_2|H_1H_2\rangle = \langle H_1|H_1\rangle\times\langle T_2|H_2\rangle = (1)\times(0) = 0, \end{eqnarray} where the subscripts ($1,2$) have been inserted for clarity to indicate which coin is which. Note that in this equation, we have equated the expression $\langle H_1T_2|H_1H_2\rangle$ with the product of two expressions, $\langle H_1|H_1\rangle$ and $\langle T_2|H_2\rangle$. This is because any question about the two coins jointly is the same as two questions, one about each of the coins separately. It is obviously also true that ``if they are $HH$, then they are $HH$", so \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \langle H_1H_2|H_1H_2\rangle = \langle H_1|H_1\rangle\times\langle H_2|H_2\rangle = (1)\times(1) = 1. \end{eqnarray} For three coins, there are eight possibilities ($HHH,~HHT,~HTH,~THH,~HTT,~THT,~TTH,~TTT$) and the same notation will readily account for this case, as well. We will not need to consider more than three coins here, though it is in principle straightforward to do so. \subsection{Quantum coins and quantum probabilities} Quantum coins behave very differently as compared to their classical counterparts, and quantum probabilities must be understood in very different ways. We still have heads and tails, $|H\rangle$ and $|T\rangle$, as possible states of a quantum coin. We refer to these two states as being ``orthogonal" to each other, by which we simply mean that they are mutually exclusive: if the quantum coin is $H$, it is definitely (with certainty) not $T$, and vice-versa. We note that the four equations appearing in the previous section are equally true for both quantum and classical coins. However, there now exist some very strange possibilities. If I were to suggest that a classical coin can be both $H$ and $T$ at one and the same time, you would be completely justified in thinking I'd gone slightly crazy. I am going to tell you, though, that at least in a certain (though very real) sense, this is the case for quantum coins (though you may still wonder a bit about my sanity). The point is that, in the quantum case, it makes complete sense to ask questions such as: ``If the coin is $H$, is it half $H$ and half $T$?"; or we can turn this around and ask ``If the coin is half $H$ and half $T$, is it $H$?" Neither of these questions makes any sense whatsoever when referred to a classical coin. On the other hand, for a quantum coin these are not only legitimate questions, but they are in fact very important ones (we do not consider the negligible possibility of a classical coin landing on its edge, and in any case this bears no relationship to what we mean by a quantum coin being half $H$ and half $T$). To represent these questions, we can write the state ($Q$) of a quantum coin that is half $H$ and half $T$ as \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber |Q\rangle = \frac{1}{2}|H\rangle + \frac{1}{2}|T\rangle. \end{eqnarray} Then the answer to the question, ``If the coin is half $H$ and half $T$, is it $H$?" is answered by the equation, \begin{eqnarray} \langle H|Q\rangle & = & \langle H|~\left(~\frac{1}{2}|H\rangle + \frac{1}{2}|T\rangle~\right)\nonumber \\ & = & \frac{1}{2}\langle H|H\rangle + \frac{1}{2}\langle H|T\rangle\nonumber \\ & = & \frac{1}{2}(1) + \frac{1}{2}(0) = \frac{1}{2}\nonumber, \end{eqnarray} which should be interpreted as meaning ``yes, with probability $1/2$", implying also ``no, with probability $1-1/2=1/2$" [In quantum mechanics, it is actually the square of the object on the left-hand side of the foregoing equation that represents the probability, rather than that object itself, which is known as the ``probability amplitude"; however, although the difference between probabilities and probability amplitudes is crucial to the understanding of quantum mechanics, I have chosen in the present discussion to overlook this distinction for the benefit of the layperson to whom these ideas are aimed, as they would only serve to complicate matters, causing unnecessary confusion amongst the intended audience]. The left-facing bracket $|Q\rangle$ represents the known initial state, and the right-facing bracket $\langle H|$ represents the question (``Is it heads?"). The number $1/2$ appearing on the right-hand side of the last line then gives the probability that with this initial state, the answer to this question will be yes. The point to understand here is that even though we have a complete description ($Q$) of the state of the quantum coin, we do not generally know in advance whether the coin will be $H$ or $T$ when we look at it. We can only predict in terms of probabilities: if we perform this experiment many times, half the time the answer will be yes and the other half of the time it will be no. Furthermore, there are many more questions we can ask in the quantum, as compared to the classical, case. We are no longer restricted to asking ``is the coin $H$?" or ``is it $T$?", but we can ask other questions, such as the reverse of the question we just answered, \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \langle Q|H\rangle & = & \left(\frac{1}{2}\langle H| + \frac{1}{2}\langle T|\right)|H\rangle\nonumber \\ & = & \frac{1}{2}\langle H|H\rangle + \frac{1}{2}\langle T|H\rangle\nonumber \\ & = & \frac{1}{2}(1) + \frac{1}{2}(0) = \frac{1}{2}\nonumber. \end{eqnarray} We see that the question ``If the coin is $H$, is it half $H$ and half $T$?" has the same answer as the previous question: ``yes, with probability $1/2$; and no, with probability $1/2.$" We note that in the remainder of the paper, instead of phrasing questions as ``is the coin half $H$ and half $T$?", we instead ask whether it is ``equal parts" $H$ and $T$. While there is no real difference between these two questions, this rephrasing allows us to simplify the notation by dispensing with the factors of $1/2$ that have appeared in the above discussion. In doing so, the equations will not yield the same numbers as probabilities for the various questions, but this will not hamper the presentation since the numerical values of the probabilities are not crucial to the ideas we wish to convey: we just need to remember that certain objects are equal to $1$ and others are equal to $0$. \section{Teleportation} What exactly do we mean by teleportation in the context of quantum information? It is not a material object that is being teleported, but rather the state of a quantum system. We will assume that the system is a quantum coin, with a complete set of mutually exclusive (orthogonal) states being ``heads" and ``tails", which we may denote as $|H\rangle$ and $|T\rangle$. Suppose Alice and Bob are physicists in locations widely separated from each other. They each have a quantum coin -- labeled $a$ and $b$, respectively -- and these two coins are in the state \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber |B_0\rangle_{ab} = |H_aH_b\rangle + |T_aT_b\rangle, \end{eqnarray} where the subscripts used here refer to system \textit{a} (\textit{b}) in Alice's (Bob's) possession. This state of two quantum coins has a very strange property, which is known as entanglement, and the state itself is an example of a maximally entangled state. Entanglement is a rather strange sort of correlation between quantum systems, which manifests itself in the state $B_0$ by the fact that neither system \textit{a} nor \textit{b} can be considered to have a definite ``state of its own" independent of the other system: whatever is the state of coin $a$, coin $b$ will have the same state, but one cannot say anything about the state of either coin independent of the other one. It is this property of entanglement that is credited with enabling Alice and Bob to accomplish teleportation. Alice is given another coin (system \textit A), prepared in a state \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber |S_A\rangle=c_H|H_A\rangle+c_T|T_A\rangle \end{eqnarray} with arbitrary coefficients $c_H$ and $c_T$ that are completely unknown to her and to Bob. If $c_H=1/2$ and $c_T=1/2$, we have the case discussed in the previous section, where the coin is equally likely to be found to be $H$ or $T$. For other values of these coefficients, the two possibilities will in general not be equally likely. Alice's task is to perform operations on the systems in her possession (\textit a and \textit A) in such a way that Bob will end up with his system (\textit b) in precisely the state $|S_b\rangle$, which is the same state as $|S_A\rangle$, but now on the distant system \textit b. It turns out that this task can be accomplished if Alice communicates information to Bob (perhaps via a telephone) about what she ended up doing to her systems, after which Bob performs a rather simple quantum operation, dependent on the information obtained from Alice, on system \textit b. An important point to understand in what follows is that nothing either of them does in this process provides even the slightest information about the coefficients $c_H$ and $c_T$, so the state ($S$) that has been teleported remains completely unknown to the parties. This aspect of teleportation becomes even more amazing if one considers the amount of information that is conveyed: the information contained in a quantum state is far greater than the amount actually transmitted from Alice to Bob via the telephone (as we will see below, the amount transmitted via the telephone is two classical bits, enough to convey which one of four possibilities has been chosen). True, the $\textit{classical}$ information one can encode in a two-level quantum system cannot exceed one bit (one bit is the amount of information needed to choose between two possibilities, such as $|H\rangle$ and $|T\rangle$). But if Alice wanted to tell Bob how to create the state in his own lab by communicating with him over a phone line, this would require an $\textit{infinite}$ amount of classical information; that is, enough information to completely describe the arbitrary numbers, $c_H$ and $c_T$ (it is infinite because one of these numbers might well be an irrational number such as $\pi$, having a decimal expansion that is unending, never repeating itself). Of course, Alice and Bob are both \textit{completely ignorant} of what these numbers are, so even if it were possible to transmit an infinite amount of information, they don't even know what information they would need to send! Nonetheless, when they share entanglement, it is possible for the two of them, by working together, to create the unknown state on Bob's coin $b$ with the communication of only two classical bits. \subsection{Visualizing quantum information processing} Let us now introduce the pictorial method which will be used to visualize teleportation. The simple diagrams we will use to depict states of multiple quantum coins, held by two different parties, are familiar to many researchers working in quantum information. We will now illustrate how these diagrams are used to represent quantum states, and then how they can be used to follow what happens to these coins when measurements are performed by one of the parties. Then, we will be ready to use them for visualizing teleportation. \subsubsection{States of quantum coins} To depict the state of a single quantum coin labeled $A$ (standing for Alice; she will also have the other coin labeled $a$, while Bob's single coin is labeled $b$), we may use a simple box diagram, \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} The coefficients $c_H$ and $c_T$ appearing in the boxes indicate ``how much" is in that part of the state $S_A$ of coin $A$. The next example illustrates the case where there are two coins ($A$ and $b$) held by two different parties. Then, the state of these two coins might be \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} with $S_A$ as given above. The empty squares on the right-hand side of this diagram represent the fact that system \textit b is ``not $T$" (has zero probability of being tails); the $c_H$ in the upper-left corner represents the probability the coins are both heads; and the $c_T$ in the lower-left, the probability Bob's coin is heads and Alice's is tails. If there are three parties involved, a three-dimensional cube could be used to represent this situation. However, it will serve our present purposes to represent both of Alice's systems along the vertical dimension of the diagram. We might have coins $A$ and $b$ as in the previous example, and coin $a$ being heads, the overall state of these three coins represented as \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} If instead the \textit{a,b} systems are both $T$, this picture is \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} Now consider what happens if we add the previous two equations together. Then our two coins \textit{a,b} are ``equal parts in $HH$ and in $TT$", which is what we previously referred to as the ``maximally entangled state" $|B_0\rangle_{ab} = |H_aH_b\rangle + |T_aT_b\rangle$. The corresponding diagram looks like \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} Notice how there are now two images of the state $|S_A\rangle$. This observation turns out to be rather useful in understanding entanglement , but we will not need to discuss such issues here. Let us now look at how to represent measurements by use of these diagrams. \subsubsection{Measurements on quantum coins} Suppose Alice and Bob share three quantum coins in the state represented in the last equation of the previous section , and Alice wants to know something about her coins. If she measures coin $a$ and discovers it is $H$, then we have \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} Recall that when the right-facing bracket $\langle H_a|$ is attached to the left-facing one $|H_a\rangle$ on the left of this equation, we get $\langle H_a|H_a\rangle = 1$, which ``preserves" the upper row, whereas $\langle H_a|T_a\rangle=0$, indicating that the bottom row is annihilated (multiplied by $0$), which is why it no longer appears on the far right of this equation. The interpretation is as follows: when the question ``Is coin $a$ heads?" is answered in the affirmative the other coins are left in the state $|S_AH_b\rangle$. We see how this measurement acts on \textit{both} of the images simultaneously, rather than on the two independently. The upper-left image has been preserved intact, but the other image was annihilated, disappearing altogether. On the other hand, if the outcome of Alice's measurement had been that coin $a$ was $T$, this would be represented as \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} In this case, the upper-left image has disappeared and the one in the lower-right has been preserved intact. In each of these cases, the state of coin $A$ is unchanged, but that of coin $b$ is left in a state that corresponds directly to the outcome of Alice's measurement on $a$. If she discovers that coin $a$ was $H$ (or $T$), then coin $b$ ends up $H$ (or $T$). Alternatively, she could do a measurement that includes the question ``Is coin $a$ equal parts $H$ and $T$?" If the answer to this question is yes, then \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} which is just a sum of the previous two equations (notice how after each of the three measurement outcomes we have just considered, the two images have been collapsed into a single row). Once again we see that the state of coin $b$ ends up corresponding to the outcome of Alice's measurement on coin $a$. This illustrates some of the strangeness that resides in entangled states of quantum systems: no matter what measurement Alice makes on coin $a$ and no matter what outcome she obtains from that measurement, the resulting state of coin $b$ will correspond directly to that outcome. The way the images of $S_A$ appear in the diagram is crucial. The fact that the two start out in different rows \textit{and} in different columns will be important in what is to come. If entanglement between systems \textit{a,b} was absent, for example if they were in the (unentangled) state $\left(|H_a\rangle +|T_a\rangle \right)|H_b\rangle$, then this would be represented by (recall that $|S_A\rangle = c_H|H_A\rangle + c_T|T_A\rangle$) \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} Under these circumstances, Bob's view of the lower image of $S_A$ is ``obstructed" by the presence of the upper image; the two images effectively appear as one to him. As will become clear in the following section, the presence of entanglement between the \textit{a,b} coins will be necessary for them to accomplish teleportation. We will see that it is Bob's (and Alice's) ability to ``see" the two images separately, and the consequent ability for each of them to act \textit{differently} on one of the images as compared to the other, that is crucial to their success. In the next section, we turn to the task of teleporting the state $S_A$ onto Bob's coin $b$. To begin this process, Alice will perform a measurement that asks ``joint" questions; that is, questions about both coins in her possession simultaneously. As an example, she could ask if they are both $H$. That is, \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} The $c_H$ appearing in the box on the right corresponds to the probability that the answer to this question will be ``yes". More important for our purposes is to recognize that when this is the outcome of the measurement, coin $b$ ends up $H$, once again a consequence of the initial entanglement between coins $a$ and $b$. Now let us see how teleportation is possible. \subsection{Visualizing teleportation} Teleportation is accomplished with the aid of the extra systems $a,b$ in the entangled state $|B_0\rangle_{ab}$. System $A$ starts in state $|S_A\rangle$, discussed above, and this is the state they will teleport. Alice will ask a set of joint questions, which together constitute a measurement, about the state of the two coins in her possession, $a$ and $A$. The first question she asks is whether these two coins are equal parts $HH$ and $TT$. When the answer is yes, we have \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} Notice how the middle two rows are annihilated by this outcome (because these rows correspond to a situation where the two coins are different -- one $H$ and one $T$ -- whereas we are asking if they are the same), and the remaining rows are collapsed into a single row. Now, if we look carefully (or perhaps, not even so carefully) at the final diagram in this picture, we will arrive at a rather startling conclusion. We see that the state of Bob's system \textit b is now $|S_b\rangle = c_H |H_b\rangle + c_T|T_b\rangle$. That is, the unknown state $|S_A\rangle$, originally on system \textit A, is now on Bob's system \textit b. Furthermore, the question asked by Alice had nothing whatsoever to do with the coefficients $c_H$ and $c_T$, which determine what the original state of coin $A$ was. Hence, the parties remain completely ignorant of the state $S$, yet that state has been successfully teleported! We are not quite finished, however, since we would like for Alice and Bob to be able to teleport no matter which joint question ends up being the outcome of Alice's measurement. Because of the probabilistic nature of the quantum world, she cannot choose the outcome of her measurement. Instead, Alice effectively asks all of the questions in her chosen measurement and then must wait for Nature to decide which question she (Nature, that is) will choose as the outcome. The nice thing about Nature is that she will tell Alice which question was chosen. There must be four questions in a complete set of questions making up a joint measurement on coins $A,a$. Let me illustrate with one other question how Alice and Bob can succeed with teleportation, and then the reader is asked to believe that they can also succeed with either of the remaining two questions (these can be treated in a very similar way to the one shown here ). The second question is: Are coins $A,a$ equal parts $TH$ and $HT$? The corresponding diagram is \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \centering \end{eqnarray} Here, the first and last rows are annihilated by this outcome, and the middle two are collapsed into a single row. Looking at the final diagram, we see that coin $b$ is left in the state $c_T|H_b\rangle+c_H|T_b\rangle$, which has the coefficients $c_H$ and $c_T$ exchanged in comparison to the state $S$ that we want it to be in. However, Alice knows that this is the question to which Nature answered yes, and she can call Bob on the telephone and inform him of this fact. Once he knows this is the question that was answered affirmatively, all he needs to do is ``flip his quantum coin". Recall that this is a quantum coin, which he cannot simply pick up and turn over. Instead what we mean by this is that he exchanges $H$ for $T$ and vice-versa. In turns out that this is a legitimate action that can be performed on a quantum coin, and it will leave coin $b$ in the desired state: $c_T|H_b\rangle+c_H|T_b\rangle \rightarrow c_T|T_b\rangle+c_H|H_b\rangle=|S_b\rangle$. Notice also that they again remain completely ignorant of the coefficients $c_H$ and $c_T$ -- nothing that has happened has provided them with any such information, nor have they needed it. It turns out that no matter which of the four outcomes of Alice's measurement she obtains, once she informs Bob of that outcome, he will be able to perform a legitimate action on his quantum coin that will leave his coin in the state $|S_b\rangle$. All Bob needs to know, in order to choose which action to perform, is the outcome of Alice's measurement: Alice needs only to send him two bits of information, enough to choose between one of the four possible outcomes. Furthermore, none of the four outcomes provides either party with any information about the coefficients, $c_H$ and $c_T$, so they both remain completely ignorant of the original state they have just successfully teleported. The diagrams provide a great deal of insight into what is going on. The crucial observation is the presence of two images of the state $S$, resulting from the entanglement between coins $a,b$. Alice does a measurement that, while not acting independently on these two images, does act \textit{differently} on them, as we alluded to above. This measurement picks out \textit{different} parts of $S$ from the different images in a way such that all of $S$ is preserved and none of it is repeated. For example, in the previous example, the $H$ part is preserved from the lower-right image, and the $T$ part from the upper-left one (and vice-versa in the example before that). This suggests (and it is indeed the case) that for coins that have more than two sides (a six-sided quantum die, for example), the parties can teleport the state of such an $n$-sided coin by sharing a maximally-entangled state that is ``large enough" to provide them with $n$ images of the unknown state $S$. Then Alice can design her measurement such that \textit{for each outcome}: (1) a different part of $S$ is extracted from each image; and (2) the whole state is preserved across the $n$ images. Afterward, Bob can recover the state simply by rearranging the various parts, which he will be able to do once Alice informs him of the outcome of her measurement. Alice's measurement does not provide them with any information about the original state they are attempting to teleport, nor does Bob's rearrangement require that they know anything about it. In all cases, they remain ignorant of the state they are teleporting. The reader is encouraged to draw a diagram (perhaps for coins with $n=3$ sides each; see the following paragraph) and follow through the argument to be sure it is clear how this is done. The diagram will have $n\times n=n^2$ horizontal rows (representing Alice's two $n$-sided coins $A,a$, each row corresponding to one of the combinations of sides of these two coins: $HH,~HT,~HU,~HV,~\cdots$, where $H,T,U,V,\cdots$ label the various sides), and $n$ vertical columns (representing Bob's coin $b$). A complete measurement for the $n=3$ case will include $n^2=9$ outcomes, but an essentially complete understanding can be gained if the reader considers only the three outcomes corresponding to (1) $\langle H_AH_a| + \langle T_AT_a| + \langle U_AU_a|$; (2) $\langle H_AT_a| + \langle T_AU_a| + \langle U_AH_a|$; and (3) $\langle H_AU_a| + \langle T_AH_a| + \langle U_AT_a|$, where $U$ is the third side of these coins (the other six outcomes involve additional complications that I have not explained here, but these outcomes are not crucial for the general kind of understanding we are aiming for here). In this case the appropriate generalization of $B_0$ is the state $|H_aH_b\rangle + |T_aT_b\rangle + |U_aU_b\rangle$, and the three terms in this expression yield the three images needed for teleportation. \section{Teleporting classical coins} In this section, I consider teleportation of classical coins, which turns out to be possible using a method that bears a striking resemblance to the method used for quantum coins. Imagine that Chloe prepares a classical coin (labeled $A$) as either $H$ or $T$, and gives it to Alice, who is not allowed to look at the coin. Chloe also prepares classical coins $a$ and $b$ such that they are either $HH$ (both $H$) or $TT$ (both $T$). She then gives coin $a$ to Alice and coin $b$ to Bob, but again does not allow these parties to look at their coins. Alice now asks Chloe the following two questions: Are coins $A$ and $a$ the same? Or are they different? This pair of ``yes-no" questions represents a measurement, as defined earlier, on this pair of coins. If Chloe informs her they are the same, then Alice knows that coin $b$, which is guaranteed to be the same as $a$, is also the same as $A$; if, on the other hand, Chloe says coins $A$ and $a$ are different, then coin $b$ is also different from $A$. Alice now calls Bob on the telephone and tells him to ``flip" or ``don't flip". In the first case ($A$ same as $a$) she tells him not to flip, while when $A$ and $a$ are different, she tells him to flip. After he follows her instruction, Bob's coin $b$ will with certainty match coin $A$. The state of coin $A$ has been teleported onto coin $b$. It is instructive to look at why the quantum case is astonishing while the classical one is rather mundane. There are three important differences between classical and quantum teleportation. The first difference has to do with the information that Alice would need to transmit to Bob in order to inform him of the state of coin $A$, if she happened to know that state. For a classical coin, there are only two possibilities, $H$ or $T$, so she would need to transmit only one bit to Bob. This is the same amount of information that is actually transmitted when she tells him ``flip" or ``don't flip" -- again, two possibilities. In contrast, as was discussed at the beginning of Section~ for the case of quantum coins, it would require an \textit{infinite} amount of information for Alice to inform Bob of the state of coin $A$, whereas she only actually transmits two bits of information when informing him which of her four questions was the outcome of her measurement. We see that the two cases, classical vs. quantum, are dramatically different in terms of the amounts of information involved. The second difference between these two cases is a bit more subtle. In the classical case, if Alice were to cheat and actually look at coin $A$, she would automatically know what state that coin is in and be able to tell Bob what to do with his coin -- turn it $H$ or turn it $T$; another one-bit message encompassing these two possibilities. This absolutely will not work for a quantum coin, which Alice cannot simply ``look" at to discover its state. The reason is the following: To begin with, in contrast to a classical coin, when Alice looks at her quantum coin, she invariably disturbs it in the process. That is, no matter what state the coin was in before she looked at it, the state after she looks at it is with certainty given by the outcome of her measurement. For example, even if the state is ``equal parts $H$ and $T$" before she asks if it is $H$ or $T$, if the answer is $H$ ($T$), then the coin is now $H$ ($T$). Or if it is $H$ to begin with and she does a measurement that answers yes to the question ``Is it equal parts $H$ and $T$?", then the state of the coin will now be equal parts $H$ and $T$. Hence, when she looks at it, she will get one of two answers (those being the two possible outcomes of her measurement) as to the state of the coin, but if she looks at it \textit{wrong}, that answer will not tell her \textit{what the state was beforehand}, but only what it is now. Furthermore, since she has now disturbed the state, there is no way to go back and try again, since the coin is now in a completely different state than the one she is trying to discover. The moral of this story is twofold: With quantum coins (1) don't bother trying to cheat; and (2) there's no point in asking for a ``do-over". The third difference between the quantum and classical cases is even more subtle and is related to entanglement, for which there is no counterpart with classical coins. For classical teleportation, Chloe must tell Alice whether or not coins $a,A$ are the same or different. When these coins are classical, and since Chloe is the one that prepared them, she is certainly able to do so. However, in the quantum case coins $a,b$ are entangled, which means that neither one has a definite state of its own. Since coin $a$ does not have a definite state, the question whether coins $a,A$ are the same (have the same state) \textit{has no answer}! Even if we assume that Chloe prepared coins $a,b$ in their entangled state, there is nothing whatsoever that she (or anyone else) can say about the state of coin $a$, except that it is entangled with $b$ and has no definite state of its own. It is worth noting that in both the quantum and classical cases, coins $a,b$ are correlated with each other in ways that at first glance appear to be very similar -- when one is measured and found to be $H$ ($T$), the other one will also be $H$ ($T$). Nonetheless, the correlations present in the entangled state $B_0$ of quantum coins $a,b$ have \textit{no analog} in the case of classical coins. One reason is precisely what we have just discussed: that the quantum coins can be correlated in this way even though neither of the individual coins has a definite state of its own (a classical coin \textit{always} has a definite state of its own). \section{Conclusion} I have described a novel way to visualize the processing of quantum information, and used this picture to give a simple way to ``see" how teleportation is possible. The picture turns out to be useful beyond just providing an understanding of previously known phenomena (teleportation), however. Indeed, it has given us a deeper understanding of the process of deterministically implementing non-local unitaries by local operations and classical communication (when shared entanglement is available as a resource), allowing us to construct new protocols that go far beyond what was previously known to be possible . We have also used this picture to study the question of what entanglement resources are required to locally implement other non-local operations, such as measurement protocols for the purpose of distinguishing sets of quantum states that are indistinguishable without the extra entangled resource . \begin{acknowledgments} This work has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation through Grant No. PHY-0456951. I am very grateful for numerous discussions with Bob Griffiths and others in his research group. \end{acknowledgments} \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{ShorFactor} P.~W. Shor, in {\em Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science}, edited by S. Goldwasser (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 1994). \bibitem{Gerjuoy} E. Gerjuoy, Am. J. Phys. {\bf 73}, 521 (2005). \bibitem{BennettTele} C. Bennett {\it et~al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 1895 (1993). \bibitem{ExptTele1} M. Barrett {\it et~al.}, Nature {\bf 429}, 737 (2004). \bibitem{ExptTele2} M. Riebe {\it et~al.}, Nature {\bf 429}, 734 (2004). \bibitem{ExptTele3} D. Bouwmeester {\it et~al.}, Nature {\bf 390}, 575 (1997). \bibitem{ExptTele4} A. Furusawa {\it et~al.}, Science {\bf 282}, 706 (1998). \bibitem{ExptTele5} J.~F. Sherson {\it et~al.}, Nature {\bf 443}, 557 (2006). \bibitem{NielsenChuang} M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, {\em Quantum Computation and Quantum Information} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000). \bibitem{ourNLU} L. Yu, R. B. Griffiths, and S.M. Cohen, to be published. \bibitem{inpressNote} S. M. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 77}, 012304: 1 (2008). \bibitem{minusNote} The other two questions involve minus signs and are represented as (3) $\langle H_AH_a|-\langle T_AT_a|$ and (4) $\langle H_AT_a|-\langle T_AH_a|$, respectively. Multiplying one or the other of the states $H$ and $T$ by a minus sign is another valid quantum operation, which Bob can perform on his coin. By doing so, he effectively turns each of these cases into one of the two already shown explicitly in the paper. When question (3) is answered affirmatively, multiplication of $T_b$ by the minus sign is all that is needed to complete the teleportation; and for question (4), the minus sign operation need only be followed by Bob flipping his quantum coin. \bibitem{ReznikStator} B. Reznik, Y. Aharonov, and B. Groisman, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 65}, 032312: 1 (2002). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0052
|
Title: Quantum Field Theory on Curved Backgrounds. II. Spacetime Symmetries
Abstract: We study space-time symmetries in scalar quantum field theory (including
interacting theories) on static space-times. We first consider Euclidean
quantum field theory on a static Riemannian manifold, and show that the
isometry group is generated by one-parameter subgroups which have either
self-adjoint or unitary quantizations. We analytically continue the
self-adjoint semigroups to one-parameter unitary groups, and thus construct a
unitary representation of the isometry group of the associated Lorentzian
manifold. The method is illustrated for the example of hyperbolic space, whose
Lorentzian continuation is Anti-de Sitter space.
Body: \begin{abstract} We study space-time symmetries in scalar quantum field theory (including interacting theories) on static space-times. We first consider Euclidean quantum field theory on a static Riemannian manifold, and show that the isometry group is generated by one-parameter subgroups which have either self-adjoint or unitary quantizations. We analytically continue the self-adjoint semigroups to one-parameter unitary groups, and thus construct a unitary representation of the isometry group of the associated Lorentzian manifold. The method is illustrated for the example of hyperbolic space, whose Lorentzian continuation is Anti-de Sitter space. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The extension of quantum field theory to curved space-times has led to the discovery of many qualitatively new phenomena which do not occur in the simpler theory on Minkowski space, such as Hawking radiation; for background and historical references, see . The reconstruction of quantum field theory on a Lorentz-signature space-time from the corresponding Euclidean quantum field theory makes use of Osterwalder-Schrader (OS) positivity and analytic continuation. On a curved background, there may be no proper definition of time-translation and no Hamiltonian; thus, the mathematical framework of Euclidean quantum field theory may break down. However, on static space-times there is a Hamiltonian and it makes sense to define Euclidean QFT. This approach was recently taken by the authors , in which the fundamental properties of Osterwalder-Schrader quantization and some of the fundamental estimates of constructive quantum field theory\footnote{For background on constructive field theory in flat space-times, see .} were generalized to static space-times. The previous work , however, did not address the analytic continuation which leads from a Euclidean theory to a real-time theory. In the present article, we initiate a treatment of the analytic continuation by constructing unitary operators which form a representation of the isometry group of the Lorentz-signature space-time associated to a static Riemannian space-time. Our approach is similar in spirit to that of Fr\"ohlich and of Klein and Landau , who showed how to go from the {E}uclidean group to the {P}oincar\'e group without using the field operators on flat space-time. This work also has applications to representation theory, as it provides a natural (functorial) quantization procedure which constructs nontrivial unitary representations of those Lie groups which arise as isometry groups of static, Lorentz-signature space-times. These groups are typically noncompact. For example, when applied to $AdS_{d+1}$, our procedure gives a unitary representation of the identity component of $SO(d,2)$. Moreover, our procedure makes use of the Cartan decomposition, a standard tool in representation theory. \section{Classical Space-Time} \subsection{Structure of Static Space-Times} \begin{definition} A {\bf quantizable static space-time} is a complete, connected orientable Riemannian manifold $(M, g_{ab})$ with a globally-defined (smooth) Killing field $\xi$ which is orthogonal to a codimension-one hypersurface $\Sigma \subset M$, such that the orbits of $\xi$ are complete and each orbit intersects $\Sigma$ exactly once. \end{definition} Throughout this paper, we assume that $M$ is a quantizable static space-time. Definition implies that there is a global time function $t$ defined up to a constant by the requirement that $\xi = \d / \d t$. Thus $M$ is foliated by time-slices $M_t$, and \[ M = \Om_- \cup \Sigma \cup \Om_+ \] where the unions are disjoint, $\Sigma = M_0$, and $\Om_{\pm}$ are open sets corresponding to $t>0$ and $t<0$ respectively. We infer existence of an isometry $\th$ which reverses the sign of $t$, \[ \th : \Om_\pm \to \Om_\mp\ \te{ such that } \ \th^2 = 1, \ \ \th|_\Sigma = \text{id} . \] Fix a self-adjoint extension of the Laplacian, and let $C = (- \De + m^2)^{-1}$ be the resolvent of the Laplacian (also called the \emph{free covariance}), where $m^2 > 0$. Then $C$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator on $L^2(M)$. For each $s \in \R$, the Sobolev space $\Sob_s(M)$ is a real Hilbert space, defined as completion of $C_c^{\infty}(M)$ in the norm \bel{SobolevNorm} \|f \|^2_s = \< f, C^{-s} f \> . \ee The inclusion $\Sob_s \hookrightarrow \Sob_{s+k}$ for $k > 0$ is Hilbert-Schmidt. Define $\cS := \bigcap_{s <0} \Sob_s(M)$ and $\cS' := \bigcup_{s>0} \Sob_s(M)$. Then \[ \cS \ \ \subset \ \ \Sob_{-1}(M) \ \ \subset \ \ \cS' \] form a Gelfand triple, and $\cS$ is a nuclear space. Recall that $\cS'$ has a natural $\sigma$-algebra of measurable sets (see for instance ). There is a unique Gaussian probability measure $\mu$ with mean zero and covariance $C$ defined on the cylinder sets in $\cS'$ (see ). More generally, one may consider a non-Gaussian, countably-additive measure $\mu$ on $\cS'$ and the space \[ \cE\ := \ L^2(\cS', \mu ). \] We are interested in the case that the monomials of the form $A(\Phi) = \Phi(f_1) \ldots \Phi(f_n)$ for $f_i \in \cS$ are all elements of $\cE$, and for which their span is dense in $\cE$. This is of course true if $\mu$ is the Gaussian measure with covariance $C$. For an open set $\Om \subset M$, let $\cE_\Om$ denote the closure in $\cE$ of the set of monomials $A(\Phi) = \prod_i \Phi(f_i)$ where $\supp(f_i) \subset \Om$ for all $i$. Of particular importance for Euclidean quantum field theory is the positive-time subspace \[ \cE_+ \ :=\ \cE_{\Om_+}\, . \] \subsection{The Operator Induced by an Isometry} Isometries of the underlying space-time manifold act on a Hilbert space of classical fields arising in the study of a classical field theory. For $f \in C^\infty(M)$ and $\psi : M \to M$ an isometry, define \[ f^\psi \ \equiv\ (\psi^{-1})^* f = f \circ \psi^{-1}. \] Since $\det(d\psi) = 1$, the operation $f \to f^\psi$ extends to a bounded operator on $\Sob_{\pm1}(M)$ or on $L^2(M)$. A treatment of isometries for static space-times appears in . \begin{definition} Let $\psi$ be an isometry, and $A(\Phi) = \Phi(f_1) \ldots \Phi(f_n) \in \cE$ a monomial. Define the induced operator \bel{WickOrderedGamma} \Gamma(\psi) {A} \ \equiv\ { \Phi({f_1}^\psi) \ldots \Phi({f_n}^\psi) }\,, \ee and extend $\Gamma(\psi)$ by linearity to the domain of polynomials in the fields, which is dense in $\cE$. \end{definition} \section{Osterwalder-Schrader Quantization} \subsection{Quantization of Vectors (The Hilbert Space $\cH$ of Quantum Theory)} In this section we define the quantization map $\cE_+\to\cH$, where $\cH$ is the Hilbert space of quantum theory. The existence of the quantization map relies on a condition known as Osterwalder-Schrader (or reflection) positivity. A probability measure $\mu$ on $\cS'$ is said to be \emph{reflection positive} if \bel{action} \int \overline{ \Gamma(\theta)F}\, F \ d\mu \geq 0 \ee for all $F$ in the positive-time subspace $\cE_+\subset \cE$. Let $\Th = \Gamma(\theta)$ be the reflection on $\cE$ induced by $\theta$. Define the sesquilinear form $(A,B)$ on $\cE_+\times\cE_+$ as $( A, B ) = \< \Th A, B\>_{\cE}$, so \er{action} states that $(F,F) \geq 0$. \begin{assumption}[O-S Positivity] Any measure $d\mu$ that we consider is reflection positive with respect to the time-reflection $\Theta$. \end{assumption} \begin{definition}[OS-Quantization] Given a reflection-positive measure $d\mu$, the Hilbert space $\cH$ of quantum theory is the completion of $\cE_+ /\cN$ with respect to the inner product given by the sesquilinear form $( A, B )$. Denote the quantization map $\Pi$ for vectors $\cE_+\to\cH$ by $\Pi(A) = \hat A$, and write \bel{bform} \<\hat A, \hat B \>_{\cH} = ( A, B ) = \< \Th A, B\>_{\cE} \quad \te{ for } \quad A, B \in \cE_+ \, . \ee \end{definition} \subsection{Quantization of Operators} The basic quantization theorem gives a sufficient condition to map a (possibly unbounded) linear operator $T$ on $\cE$ to its quantization, a linear operator $\hat T$ on $\cH$. Consider a densely-defined operator $T$ on $\cale$, the unitary time-reflection $\Th$, and the adjoint $T^+ = \Theta T^* \Theta$. A preliminary version of the following was also given in . \begin{definition} [Quantization Condition I] The operator $T$ satisfies QC-I if: \begin{itemize} \item[i.] The operator $T$ has a domain $\cD(T)$ dense in $\cE$. \item[ii.] There is a subdomain $\cD_0\subset\cE_+\cap\cD(T)\cap\cD(T^+)$, for which $\widehat\cD_0\subset\cH$ is dense. \item[iii.] The transformations $T$ and $T^+$ both map $\cD_0$ into $\cE_+$. \end{itemize} \end{definition} \begin{theorem}[Quantization I] If $T$ satisfies QC-I, then \begin{itemize} \item[i.] The operators $T\hook\cD_0$ and $T^+\hook\cD_0$ have quantizations $\hat T$ and $\widehat{ T^+}$ with domain $\hat\cD_0$. \item[ii.] The operators $\hat T^*= \lrp{\hat T\hook{\hat\cD_0} }^*$ and $\widehat{T^+}$ agree on $\hat\cD_0$. \item[iii.] The operator $\hat T\hook\cD_0$ has a closure, namely ${\hat T}^{**}$. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We wish to define the quantization $\hat T$ with the putative domain $\hat \cD_0$ by \bel{OperatorQuantization} \hat T\hat A=\widehat{TA}\;. \ee For any vector $A\in\cD_0$ and for any $B\in\lrp{\cD_0\cap\cN}$, it is the case that $\hat{A}=\widehat{A+B}$. The transformation $\hat T$ is defined by \eqref{OperatorQuantization} iff $\widehat{TA}=\widehat{T(A+B)}=\widehat{TA}+\widehat{TB}$. Hence one needs to verify that $T:{\cD_0\cap\cN}\to \cN$, which we now do. The assumption $\cD_0\subset\cD(T^+)$, along with the fact that $\Theta$ is unitary, ensures that $\Theta\cD_0\subset\cD(T^*)$. Therefore for any $F \in \cD_0$, \bel{QuantizationAdjoint} \< \Th F, T B \>_{\cE} = \< T^*\Th F, B \>_{\cE} = \<\Th\lrp{\Th T^* \Th F}, B \>_{\cE}\ = \<\Th T^+F, B \>_{\cE}\ = \< \widehat{T^+ F}, \hat B \>_{\cH}\;. \ee In the last step we use the fact assumed in part (iii) of QC-I that $T^+:\cD_0\to\cE_+$, yielding the inner product of two vectors in $\cH$. We infer from the Schwarz inequality in $\cH$ that \[ \abs{\< \Th F, T B \>_{\cE}} \le \norm{\widehat{T^+ F}}_{\cH}\;\norm{\hat B }_{\cH} =0\;. \] As $\< \Th F, T B \>_{\cE}=\<\hat F,\widehat{TB}\>_{\cH}$, this means that $\widehat{TB}\perp\hat\cD_0$. As $\hat\cD_0$ is dense in $\cH$ by QC-I.ii, we infer $\widehat{TB}=0$. In other words, $T B\in\cN$ as required to define $\hat T$. In order show that $\hat\cD_0\subset\cD(\hat T^*)$, perform a similar calculation to \eqref{QuantizationAdjoint} with arbitrary $A\in\cD_0$ replacing $B$, namely \bel{Adjoint1} \< \hat F, \hat{T}{\hat A} \>_{\cH} = \< \Th F, T A \>_{\cE} = \<\Th\lrp{\Th T^* \Th F}, A \>_{\cE}\ = \<\Th{ T^+ F}, A \>_{\cE}\ = \< \widehat{T^+ F}, \hat A \>_{\cH}\;. \ee The right side is continuous in $\hat A\in\cH$, and therefore $\hat F\in\cD(T^*)$. Furthermore $T^*\hat F=\widehat{T^+F}$. This identity shows that if $F\in\cN$, then $\widehat{T^+F}=0$. Hence $T^+\hook\cD_0$ has a quantization $\widehat{T^+}$, and we may write \eqref{Adjoint1} as \bel{Adjoint2} T^*\hat F = \widehat{T^+} \hat F\;, \quad\text{for all}\ \ F\in\cD_0\;. \ee In particular $\hat T^*$ is densely defined so $\hat T$ has a closure. This completes the proof. \end{proof} \begin{definition} [Quantization Condition II] The operator $T$ satisfies QC-II if \begin{itemize} \item[i.] Both the operator $T$ and its adjoint $T^*$ have dense domains $\cD(T), \cD(T^*)\subset \cE$. \item[ii.] There is a domain $\cD_0\subset\cE_+$ in the common domain of $T$, $T^+$, $T^+T$, and $TT^+$. \item[iii.] Each operator $T$, $T^+$, $T^+T$, and $TT^+$ maps $\cD_0$ into $\cE_+$. \end{itemize} \end{definition} \begin{theorem}[Quantization II] If $T$ satisfies QC-II, then \begin{itemize} \item[i.] The operators $T\hook\cD_0$ and $T^+\hook\cD_0$ have quantizations $\hat T$ and $\widehat{ T^+}$ with domain $\hat\cD_0$. \item[ii.] If $A,B\in\cD_0$, one has $\< \hat B, \hat{T}{\hat A} \>_{\cH}=\< \widehat{T^+}\hat B, {\hat A} \>_{\cH}$. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} \mbni{Remarks.} \begin{enumerate} \item[i.] In Theorem we drop the assumption that the domain $\hat\cD_0$ is dense, obtaining quantizations $\hat T$ and $\widehat{T^+}$ whose domains are not necessarily dense. In order to compensate for this, we assume more properties concerning the domain and the range of $T^+$ on $\cE$. \item[ii.] As $\hat\cD_0$ need not be dense in $\cH$, the adjoint of $\hat T$ need not be defined. Nevertheless, one calls the operator $\hat T$ {\em symmetric} in case one has \bel{Symmetric} \< \hat B, \hat{T}{\hat A} \>_{\cH} = \< \hat{T}\hat B, {\hat A} \>_{\cH}\;, \qquad\text{for all}\ \ A,B\in\cD_0\;. \ee \item[iii.] If $\hat S\supset \hat T$ is a densely-defined extension of $\hat T$, then ${\hat S}^*=\widehat{T^+}$ on the domain $\hat\cD_0$. \end{enumerate} \begin{proof} We define the quantization $\hat T$ with the putative domain $\hat \cD_0$. As in the proof of Theorem , this quantization $\hat T$ is well-defined iff it is the case that $T:{\cD_0\cap\cN}\to \cN$. For any $F\in\cD_0\cap\cN$, by definition $\norm{\hat F}_{\cH}=0$. Also \[ \<TF,TF\>_{\cH} = (TF,TF) = \lra{\Th T F, TF }_{\cE} = \lra{F, T^*\Th TF }_{\cE}\;, \] where one uses the fact that $\cD_0\subset\cD(T^+T)$. Thus \[ \<TF,TF\>_{\cH} = \lra{\Th F, T^+TF }_{\cE} = \<F,T^+TF\>_{\cH}\;. \] Here we use the fact that $T^+T$ maps $\cD_0$ to $\cE_+$. Thus one can use the Schwarz inequality on $\cH$ to obtain \[ \<TF,TF\>_{\cH} \le \norm{\hat{F}}_{\cH} \; \norm{\widehat{T^+TF}}_{\cH} =0\;. \] Hence $T:\cD_0\cap\cN\to\cN$, and $T$ has a quantization $\hat T$ with domain $\hat\cD_0$. In order verify that $T^+\hook\cD_0$ has a quantization, one needs to show that $T^+:\cD_0\cap\cN\subset\cN$. Repeat the argument above with $T^+$ replacing $T$. The assumption $TT^+: \cD_0\to \cE_+$ yields for $F\in\cD_0\cap\cN$, \[ \<T^+F,T^+F\>_{\cH} = \<T^*\Th F,T^+ F\>_{\cE} = \<\Th F, T T^+ F\>_{\cE} = \< \hat F, \widehat{TT^+F} \>_{\cH}\;. \] Use the Schwarz inequality in $\cH$ to obtain the desired result that \[ \<T^+F,T^+F\>_{\cH} \le \norm{\hat F}_{\cH}\norm{\widehat{TT^+F}}_{\cH}=0\;. \] Hence $T^+$ has a quantization $\widehat{T^+}$ with domain $\hat\cD_0$, and for $B\in\cD_0$ one has $\widehat{T^+B}=\widehat{T^+}\hat B$. In order to establish (ii), assume that $A,B\in\cD_0$. Then \bea \< \hat B, \hat{T}{\hat A} \>_{\cH} &=& \< \Th B, T A \>_{\cE} = \<\Th\lrp{\Th T^* \Th B}, A \>_{\cE}\ = \<\Th{ T^+ B}, A \>_{\cE}\nn\\ &=& \< \widehat{T^+ B}, \hat A \>_{\cH} = \<\widehat {T^+} \hat B,\hat A\>_{\cH}\;. \eea \end{proof} This completes the proof. \section{Structure and Representation of the Lie Algebra of Killing Fields} For the remainder of this paper we assume the following, which is clearly true in the Gaussian case as the Laplacian commutes with the isometry group $G$. (A further explanation was given in .) \begin{assumption} The isometry groups $G$ that we consider leave the measure $d\mu$ invariant, in the sense that $\Ga$, defined above, is a unitary representation of $G$ on $\cE$. \end{assumption} \subsection{The Representation of $\g$ on $\cE$} \begin{lemma} Let $G_i$ be an analytic group with Lie algebra $\g_i$ ($i=1,2$), and let $\la : \g_1 \to \g_2$ be a homomorphism. There cannot exist more than one analytic homomorphism $\pi : G_1 \to G_2$ for which $d\pi = \la$. If $G_1$ is simply connected then there is always one such $\pi$. \end{lemma} Let $D = d/dt$ denote the canonical unit vector field on $\R$. Let $G$ be a real Lie group with algebra $\g$, and let $X \in \g$. The map $t D \to t X (t \in \R)$ is a homomorphism of $\Lie(\R) \to \g$, so by the Lemma there is a unique analytic homomorphism $\xi_X : R \to G$ such that $d\xi_X(D) = X$. Conversely, if $\eta$ is an analytic homomorphism of $\R \to G$, and if we let $X = d\eta(D)$, it is obvious that $\eta = \xi_X$. Thus $X \mapsto \xi_X$ is a bijection of $\g$ onto the set of analytic homomorphisms $\R \to G$. The exponential map is defined by $\exp(X) := \xi_X(1)$. For complex Lie groups, the same argument applies, replacing $\R$ with $\C$ throughout. Since $\g$ is connected, so is $\exp(\g)$. Hence $\exp(\g) \subseteq G^0$, where $G^0$ denotes the connected component of the identity in $G$. It need not be the case for a general Lie group that $\exp(\g) = G^0$, but for a large class of examples (the so-called \emph{exponential groups}) this does hold. For any Lie group, $\exp(\g)$ contains an open neighborhood of the identity, so the subgroup generated by $\exp(\g)$ always coincides with $G^0$. We will apply the above results with $G = \Iso(M)$, the isometry group of $M$, and $\g =\Lie(G)$ the algebra of global Killing fields. Thus we have a bijective correspondence between Killing fields and 1-parameter groups of isometries. This correspondence has a geometric realization: the 1-parameter group of isometries \[ \phi_s = \xi_X(s) = \exp(s X) \] corresponding to $X \in \g$ is the flow generated by $X$. Consider the two different 1-parameter groups of unitary operators: \begin{enumerate} \item the unitary group $\phi_s^*$ on $L^2(M)$, and \item the unitary group $\Ga(\phi_s)$ on $\cE$. \end{enumerate} Stone's theorem applies to both of these unitary groups to yield densely-defined self-adjoint operators on the respective Hilbert spaces. In the first case, the relevant self-adjoint operator is simply an extension of $-i X$, viewed as a differential operator on $C_c^\infty(M)$. This is because for $f \in C_c^\infty(M)$ and $p \in M$, we have: \[ X_p f = (\cL_X f)(p) = \f{d}{ds} f(\phi_s(p)) |_{s=0} . \] Thus $-i X$ is a densely-defined symmetric operator on $L^2(M)$, and Stone's theorem implies that $-i X$ has self-adjoint extensions. In the second case, the unitary group $\Ga(\phi_s)$ on $\cE$ also has a self-adjoint generator $\Ga(X)$, which can be calculated explicitly. By definition, \[ e^{-i s \Ga(X)} \Big[\prod_{i=1}^n \Phi(f_i)\Big] = \prod_{i=1}^n \Phi(f_i \circ \phi_{-s}) . \] Now replace $s \to -s$ and calculate $d/ds |_{s=0}$ applied to both sides of the last equation to see that \[ \Ga(X) \Big[ \prod_{i=1}^n \Phi(f_i) \Big] = \sum_{j=1}^n \Phi(f_1) \ldots \Phi(-i X f_j) \Phi(f_{j+1}) \ldots \Phi(f_n) \, . \] One may check that $\Ga$ is a Lie algebra representation of $\g$, i.e. $\Ga([X,Y]) = [ \Ga(X), \Ga(Y)]$. \subsection{The Cartan Decomposition of $\g$} For each $\xi \in \g$, there exists some dense domain in $\cE$ on which $\Ga(\xi)$ is self-adjoint, as discussed previously. However, the quantizations $\widehat \Ga(\xi)$ acting on $\cH$ may be hermitian, anti-hermitian, or neither depending on whether there holds a relation of the form \bel{ThetaPM} \Ga(\xi) \Theta = \pm \Theta\Ga(\xi), \ee with one of the two possible signs, or whether no such relation holds. Even if \er{ThetaPM} holds, to complete the construction of a unitary representation one must prove that there exists a dense domain in $\cH$ on which $\widehat \Ga(\xi)$ is self-adjoint or skew-adjoint. This nontrivial problem will be dealt with in a later section using Theorems and and the theory of symmetric local semigroups . Presently we determine \emph{which} elements within $\g$ satisfy relations of the form \er{ThetaPM}. Let $\vth := \th^*$ as an operator on $C^\infty(M)$, and consider a Killing field $X \in \g$ also as an operator on $C^\infty(M)$. Define $\cT : \g \to \g$ by \bel{def-cT} \cT(X) := \vth X \vth . \ee From \er{def-cT} it is not obvious that the range of $\cT$ is contained in $\g$. To prove this, we recall some geometric constructions. Let $M, N$ be manifolds, let $\psi : M \to N$ be a diffeomorphism, and $X \in \Vect(M)$. Then \bel{push-forward} \psi^{-1 *} X \psi^* = X(\cdot \circ \psi) \circ \psi^{-1} . \ee defines an operator on $C^\infty(N)$. One may check that this operator is a derivation, thus \er{push-forward} defines a vector field on $N$. The vector field \er{push-forward} is usually denoted \[ \psi_* X = d\psi(X_{\psi^{-1}(p)}) \] and referred to as the \emph{push-forward} of $X$. We now wish to show that $\g = \g_+ \oplus \g_-$, where $\g_\pm$ are the $\pm 1$-eigenspaces of $\cT$. This is proven by introducing an inner product $(X,Y)_\g$ on $\g$ with respect to which $\cT$ is self-adjoint. \begin{theorem} Consider $\g$ as a Hilbert space with inner product $(X,Y)_\g$. The operator $\cT : \g \to \g$ is self-adjoint with $\cT^2 = I$; hence \bel{g-decomp} \g = \g_+ \oplus \g_- \ee as an orthogonal direct sum of Hilbert spaces, where $\g_\pm$ are the $\pm 1$-eigenspaces of $\cT$. Further, $\d_t \in \g_-$ hence $\dim(\g_-) \geq 1$. Elements of $\g_-$ have hermitian quantizations, while elements of $\g_+$ have anti-hermitian quantizations.\footnote{It is not the case that $\g_-$ consists only of $\d_t$. In particular, $\dim(\g_-) = 2$ for $M = \bH_2$. It can occur that $\dim \g_+ = 0$.} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Write \er{def-cT} as \bel{ct2} \cT(X) = \th^{-1 *} X \th^* = \th_* X \, . \ee Thus $\cT$ is the operator of push-forward by $\th$. The push-forward of a Killing field by an isometry is another Killing field, hence the range of $\cT$ is contained in $\g$. Also, $\cT$ must have a trivial kernel since $\cT^2 = I$, and this implies that $\cT$ is surjective. It follows from \er{ct2} that $\cT$ is a Hermitian operator on $\g$. Hence $\cT$ is diagonalizable and has real eigenvalues which are square roots of 1. This establishes the decomposition \er{g-decomp}. That elements of $\g_-$ have hermitian quantizations, while elements of $\g_+$ have anti-hermitian quantizations follows from Theorem . \end{proof} A \emph{Cartan involution} is a Lie algebra homomorphism $\g \to \g$ which squares to the identity. It follows from \er{def-cT} that $\cT$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism; thus, Theorem implies that $\cT$ is a Cartan involution of $\g$. This implies that the eigenspaces $(\g_+, \g_-)$ form a \emph{Cartan pair}, meaning that \bel{cartanpair} [\g_+,\g_+] \subset \g_+, \quad [\g_+, \g_-] \subset \g_-, \quad \text{and} \quad [\g_-, \g_-] \subset \g_+ \, . \ee Clearly $\g_+$ is a subalgebra while $\g_-$ is not, and any subalgebra contained in $\g_-$ is abelian. \section{Reflection-Invariant and Reflected Isometries} Let $G = \Iso(M)$ denote the isometry group of $M$, as above. Then $G$ has a $\Z_2$ subgroup containing $\{ 1, \theta \}$. This subgroup acts on $G$ by conjugation, which is just the action $\psi \to \psi^\th := \th \psi \th$. Conjugation is an (inner) automorphism of the group, so \[ (\psi\phi)^\th = \psi^\th \phi^\th, \qquad (\psi^\th)^{-1} = (\psi^{-1})^\th . \] \begin{definition} We say that $\psi \in G$ is {\bf reflection-invariant} if \[ \psi^\th = \psi, \] and that $\psi$ is {\bf reflected} if \[ \psi^\th = \psi^{-1}. \] Let $G_{RI}$ denote the subgroup of $G$ consisting of reflection-invariant elements, and let $G_R$ denote the subset of reflected elements. \end{definition} Note that $G_{RI}$ is the stabilizer of the $\Z_2$ action, hence a subgroup. An alternate proof of this proceeds using $G_{RI} = \exp(\g_+)$. Although $G_R$ is closed under the taking of inverses and does contain the identity, the product of two reflected isometries is no longer reflected unless they commute. Generally, the product of an element of $G_R$ with an element of $G_{RI}$ is neither an element of $G_R$ nor of $G_{RI}$. The only isometry that is both reflection-invariant and reflected is $\th$ itself. Thus we have: \[ G_R \cap G_{RI} \ = \ \{ 1, \th \} \ \subset\ G_R \cup G_{RI} \ \subsetneq\ G . \] \begin{theorem} Let $G^0$ denote the connected component of the identity in $G$. Then $G^0$ is generated by $G_R \cup G_{RI}$. (This is a form of the Cartan decomposition for $G$.) \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Since $\g = \g_+ \oplus \g_-$ as a direct sum of vector spaces (though not of Lie algebras), we have \[ G^0 = \lrabig{ \!\exp(\g) } = \lrabig{ \!\exp(\g_+) \cup \exp(\g_-) } . \] Choose bases $ \{ \xi_{\pm, i} \}_{i = 1, \ldots, n_\pm} \text{ for } \g_\pm $ respectively. Then we have: \[ G^0 = \lrabig{ \{ \exp(s \xi_{+, i}) : 1 \leq i \leq n_+,\, s \in \R \} \cup \{ \exp(s \xi_{-, j}) : 1 \leq j \leq n_-,\, s \in \R \} } . \] Furthermore, $\exp(s \xi_{-, i})$ is reflected, while $\exp(s \xi_{+, i})$ is reflection-invariant, completing the proof. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} The Lie algebra of the subgroup $G_{RI}$ is $\g_+$. \end{corollary} To summarize, the isometry group of a static space-time can always be generated by a collection of $n$ ($=\dim \g$) one-parameter subgroups, each of which consists either of reflected isometries, or reflection-invariant isometries. \section{Construction of Unitary Representations} \subsection{Self-adjointness of Semigroups} In this section, we recall several known results on self-adjointness of semigroups. Roughly speaking, these results imply that if a one-parameter family $S_\al$ of unbounded symmetric operators satisfies a semigroup condition of the form $S_\al S_\beta = S_{\al + \beta}$, then under suitable conditions one may conclude essential self-adjointness. A theorem of this type appeared in a 1970 paper of Nussbaum , who assumed that the semigroup operators have a common dense domain. The result was rediscovered independently by Fr\"ohlich, who applied it to quantum field theory in several important papers . For our intended application to quantum field theory, it turns out to be very convenient to drop the assumption that $\exists \, a$ such that the $S_\al$ all have a common dense domain for $|\al| < a$, in favor of the weaker assumption that $\bigcup_{\al > 0} D(S_\al)$ is dense. A generalization of Nussbaum's theorem which allows the domains of the semigroup operators to vary with the parameter, and which only requires the \emph{union} of the domains to be dense, was later formulated and two independent proofs were given: one by Fr\"ohlich , and another by Klein and Landau . The latter also used this theorem in their construction of representations of the Euclidean group and the corresponding analytic continuation to the Lorentz group . In order to keep the present article self-contained, we first define symmetric local semigroups and then recall the refined self-adjointness theorem of Fr\"ohlich, and Klein and Landau. \begin{definition} Let $\cH$ be a Hilbert space, let $T > 0$ and for each $\al \in [0,T]$, let $S_\al$ be a symmetric linear operator on the domain $\cD_\al \subset \cH$, such that: \begin{enumerate} \item[{\rm (i)}] $\cD_\al \supset \cD_\beta$ if $\al \leq \beta$ and $ \cD := \bigcup_{0 < \al \leq T} \cD_\al \ \te{ is dense in } \ \cH ,$ \item[{\rm (ii)}] $\al \to S_\al$ is weakly continuous, \item[{\rm (iii)}] $S_0 = I$, $S_\beta(\cD_\al) \subset \cD_{\al-\beta}$ for $0 \leq \beta \leq \al \leq T$, and \item[{\rm (iv)}] $S_\al S_\beta = S_{\al+\beta}$ on $\cD_{\al+\beta}$ for $\al,\beta,\al+\beta \in [0,T]$. \end{enumerate} In this situation, we say that $(S_\al, \cD_\al, T)$ is a \emph{symmetric local semigroup}. \end{definition} It is important that $\cD_\al$ is \emph{not} required to be dense in $\cH$ for each $\al$; the only density requirement is (i). \def\FootNoteText{The authors of also showed that \[ \Dhat := \bigcup_{0 < \al \leq S} \Big[ \bigcup_{0 < \beta < \al} S_\beta(\cD_\al) \Big], \quad \te{ where } \quad 0 < S \leq T , \] is a \emph{core} for $A$, i.e. $(A, \Dhat)$ is essentially self-adjoint.} \begin{theorem}[] For each symmetric local semigroup $(S_\al, \cD_\al, T)$, there exists a unique self-adjoint operator $A$ such that \[ \cD_\al \subset D(e^{-\al A}) \ \text{ and } \ S_\al = e^{-\al A}|_{\cD_\al} \ \text{ for all } \al \in [0,T] . \] Also, $A \geq -c$ if and only if $\norm{S_\al f} \leq e^{c \al} \norm{f}$ for all $f \in \cD_\al$ and $0 < \al < T$. \end{theorem} \subsection{Reflection-Invariant Isometries} \begin{lemma} Let $\psi$ be a reflection-invariant isometry and assume $\exists \, p \in \Om_+$ such that $\psi(p) \in \Om_+$. Then $\psi$ preserves the positive-time subspace, i.e. $\psi(\Om_+) \subseteq \Om_+$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We first prove that $\psi(\Sigma) \subseteq \Sigma$. Suppose not; then $\exists \, p \in \Sigma$ with $\psi(p) \not\in \Sigma$. Assume $\psi(p) \in \Om_+$ (without loss of generality: we could repeat the same argument with $\psi(p) \in\Om_-$). Then $\Om_+$ contains $(\theta \psi \theta)(p) = \theta\psi(p) \in \Om_-$, a contradiction since $\Om_- \cap \Om_+ = \emptyset$. We used the fact that $\theta|_\Sigma = \text{id}$ so $\th(p) = p$. Hence $\psi$ restricts to an isometry of $\Sigma$. It follows that the restriction of $\psi$ to $M' = M \setminus \Sigma$ is also an isometry. However, $M' = \Om_- \sqcup \Om_+$, where $\sqcup$ denotes the disjoint union. Therefore $\psi(\Om_+)$ is wholly contained in either $\Om_+$ or $\Om_-$, since $\psi$ is a homeomorphism and so $\psi(\Om_+)$ is connected. The possibility that $\psi(\Om_+) \subseteq \Om_-$ is ruled out by our assumption, so $\psi(\Om_+) \subseteq \Om_+$. \end{proof} Lemma has the immediate consequence that if $\xi \in \g_+$ then the one-parameter group associated to $\xi$ is positive-time-invariant. This result plays a key role in the proof of Theorem . \subsection{Construction of Unitary Representations} The rest of this section is devoted to proving that the theory of symmetric local semigroups can be applied to the quantized operators on $\cH$ corresponding to each of a set of 1-parameter subgroups of $G = \Iso(M)$. The proof relies upon Lemma , and Theorems , and . \begin{theorem} Let $(M, g_{ab})$ be a quantizable static space-time. Let $\xi$ be a Killing field which lies in $\g_+$ or $\g_-$, with associated one-parameter group of isometries $\{ \phi_\al \}_{\al \in \R}$. Then there exists a densely-defined self-adjoint operator $A_\xi$ on $\cH$ such that \[ \widehat{\Ga}(\phi_\al) = \begin{cases} e^{-\al A_\xi}, & \te{ if } \ \xi \in \g_- \\ e^{i \al A_\xi} & \te{ if } \ \xi \in \g_+ . \end{cases} \] \end{theorem} \begin{proof} First suppose that $\xi \in \g_-$, which implies that the isometries $\phi_\al$ are reflected, and so $\Ga(\phi_\al)^+ = \Ga(\phi_\al)$. Define \[ \Om_{\xi,\al} := \phi_\al^{-1}(\Om_+) . \] For all $\al$ in some neighborhood of zero, $\Om_{\xi,\al}$ is a nonempty open subset of $\Om_+$, and moreover, as $\al \to 0^+$, $\Om_{\xi,\al}$ increases to fill $\Om_+$ with $\Om_{\xi,0} = \Om_+$. These statements follow immediately from the fact that, for each $p \in \Om_+$, $\phi_\al(p)$ is continuous with respect to $\al$, and $\phi_0$ is the identity map. Since $\phi_\al(\Om_{\xi,\al}) \subseteq \Om_+$, we infer that $\Ga(\phi_\al) \cE_{\Om_{\xi,\al}} \subseteq \cE_+$. By Theorem , $\Ga(\phi_\al)$ has a quantization which is a symmetric operator on the domain \[ \cD_{\xi,\al} := \Pi(\cE_{\Om_{\xi,\al}}). \] Note that $\cD_{\xi,\al}$ is not necessarily dense in $\cH$. $ would be implied by a Reeh-Schlieder theorem, which we do not prove except in the free case. Theorem removes the need for a Reeh-Schlieder theorem in this argument.} We now show that Theorem can be applied. Fix some positive constant $a$ with $\Om_{\xi,a}$ nonempty. Note that \[ \bigcup_{0 < \al \leq a} \Om_{\xi,\al} = \Om_+ \quad \Rightarrow \quad \bigcup_{0 < \al \leq a} \cE_{\Om_{\xi,\al}} = \cE_+. \] It follows that \[ \cD_\xi := \bigcup_{0 < \al \leq a} \cD_{\xi,\al} \] is dense in $\cH$. This establishes condition (i) of Definition , and the other conditions are routine verifications. Theorem implies existence of a densely-defined self-adjoint operator $A_\xi$ on $\cH$, such that \[ \widehat{\Ga}(\phi_\al) = \exp(-\al A_\xi) \ \te{ for all } \ \al \in [0,a] \, . \] This proves the theorem in case $\xi \in \g_-$. Now suppose that $\xi \in \g_+$, implying that the isometries $\phi_\al$ are reflection-invariant, and \[ \Ga(\phi_\al)^+ = \Ga(\phi_\al)^{-1} = \Ga(\phi_{-\al}) \ \te{ on } \ \cE. \] Lemma implies that $\Ga(\phi_\al)\cE_+ \subseteq \cE_+$. By Theorem , $\Ga(\phi_\al)$ has a quantization $\widehat{\Ga}(\phi_\al)$ which is defined and satisfies \[ \widehat{\Ga}(\phi_\al)^* = \widehat{\Ga}(\phi_\al)^{-1} \] on the domain $\Pi(\cE_+)$, which is dense in $\cH$ by definition. In this case we do not need Theorem ; for each $\al$, $\widehat{\Ga}(\phi_\al)$ extends by continuity to a one-parameter unitary group defined on all of $\cH$ (not only for a dense subspace). By Stone's theorem, \[ \widehat{\Ga}(\phi_\al) = \exp(i \al A_\xi) \] for $A_\xi$ self-adjoint and for all $\al \in \R$. The proof is complete. \end{proof} \section{Analytic Continuation} Each Riemannian static space-time $(M,g_{ab})$ has a Lorentzian continuation $\Lor{M}$, which we construct as follows. In adapted coordinates, the metric $g_{ab}$ on $M$ takes the form \bel{smetric} ds^2 = \cF(x) dt^2 + \cG_{\mu\nu}(x) dx^\mu dx^\nu . \ee The analytic continuation $t \to -i t$ of \er{smetric} is standard and gives a metric of Lorentz signature, $\Lor{ds^2} = -\cF\, dt^2 + \cG \, dx^2$, by which we define the Lorentzian space-time $\Lor{M}$. Einstein's equation $\mathrm{Ric}_g = k \, g$ is preserved by the analytic continuation, but we do not use this fact anywhere in the present paper. Let $\{ \xi_i^{(\pm)} : 1 \leq i \leq n_\pm \}$ be bases of $\g_\pm$, respectively. Let $A_i^{(\pm)} = A_{\xi_i^{(\pm)}}$ be the densely-defined self-adjoint operators on $\cH$, constructed by Theorem . Let \bel{UnitaryGroups} U_i^{(\pm)}(\al) = \exp(i \al A_i^{(\pm)}) \, , \ \te{ for } \ 1 \leq i \leq n_\pm \ee be the associated one-parameter unitary groups on $\cH$. We claim that the group generated by the $n = n_+ + n_-$ one-parameter unitary groups \er{UnitaryGroups} is isomorphic to the identity component of \[ \Lor{G} := \Iso(\Lor{M}), \] the group of Lorentzian isometries. Since locally, the group structure is determined by its Lie algebra, it suffices to check that the generators satisfy the defining relations of $\Lor{\g} := \Lie(\Lor{G})$. Since quantization of operators preserves multiplication, we have \bel{pres-mult} X,Y,Z \in \g, \ [X,Y]=Z \quad \Rightarrow \quad [\widehat \Ga(X), \widehat \Ga(Y)] = \widehat \Ga(Z) . \ee In what follows, we will use the notation $\widehat{\g}_\pm$ for $\{ \widehat\Ga(X) : X \in \g_\pm \}$. Quantization converts the elements of $\g_-$ from skew operators into Hermitian operators; i.e. elements of $\widehat{\g}_-$ are Hermitian on $\cH$ and hence, elements of $i \, \widehat{\g}_-$ are skew-symmetric on $\cH$. Thus $\widehat{\g}_+ \oplus i \, \widehat{\g}_-$ is a Lie algebra represented by skew-symmetric operators on $\cH$. \begin{theorem} We have an isomorphism of Lie algebras: \bel{Isomorphism} \Lor{\g} \ \cong\ \widehat{\g}_+ \oplus i \, \widehat{\g}_- \, . \ee \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $M_\C$ be the manifold obtained by allowing the $t$ coordinate to take values in $\C$. Define $\psi : M_\C \to M_\C$ by $t \mapsto -i t$. Then $\Lor{\g}$ is generated by \[ \{ \xi_i^{(+)} \}_{1 \leq i \leq n_+} \cup \{ \eta_j \}_{1 \leq j \leq n_- }, \quad \te{ where } \quad \eta_j := i \psi^*\big(\xi_j^{(-)}\big) . \] It is possible to define a set of real structure constants $f_{ijk}$ such that \bel{StructConst} [\xi_i^{(-)}, \xi_j^{(-)}] = \sum_{k=1}^{n_+} f_{ijk} \xi_k^{(+)} \, . \ee Applying $\psi^*$ to both sides of \er{StructConst}, the commutation relations of $\Lor{\g}$ are seen to be \bel{g-lor-relns} [\eta_i, \eta_j] = - f_{ijk} \xi_k^{(+)}, \ee together with the same relations for $\g_+$ as before. Now \er{pres-mult} implies that \er{g-lor-relns} are the precisely the commutation relations of $\widehat{\g}_+ \oplus i \, \widehat{\g}_-$, completing the proof of \er{Isomorphism}. \end{proof} \begin{corollary} Let $(M, g_{ab})$ be a quantizable static space-time. The unitary groups \er{UnitaryGroups} determine a unitary representation of $\Lor{G^0}$ on $\cH$. \end{corollary} \subsection{Conclusions} We have obtained the following conclusions. There is a unitary representation of the group $\Lor{G^0}$ on the physical Hilbert space $\cH$ of quantum field theory on the static space-time $M$. This representation maps the time-translation subgroup into the unitary group $\exp(it H)$, where the energy $H \geq 0$ is a positive, densely-defined self-adjoint operator corresponding to the Hamiltonian of the theory. The Hilbert space $\cH$ contains a ground state $\Psi_0 = \hat 1$ which is such that $H\Psi_0 = 0$ and $\Psi_0$ is invariant under the action of all spacetime symmetries. We obtain these results via analytic continuation from the Euclidean path integral, under mild assumptions on the measure which should include all physically interesting examples. This is done without introducing the field operators; nonetheless, Theorems and do suffice to construct field operators. In the special case $M = \R^d$ with $G = \SO(4)$, we obtain a unitary representation of the proper orthochronous Lorentz group, $\Lor{G^0} = L_+^\uparrow = \SO^0(3,1)$. \section{Hyperbolic Space and Anti-de Sitter Space} Consider Euclidean quantum field theory on $M = \bH^d$. The metric is \[ ds^2 = r^{-2} \sum_{i=1}^{d} dx_i^2, \] where we define $r = x^{d}$ for convenience. The Laplacian is \bel{eq:hyp-lapl} \De_{\bH^d} = (2-d) r \f{\d}{\d r} + r^2 \De_{\R^d} \, . \ee The $d-1$ coordinate vector fields $\{ \d / \d x^i : i \ne d \}$ are all static Killing fields, and any one of the coordinates $x^i \ (i \ne d)$ is a satisfactory representation of time in this space-time. It is convenient to define $t = x^1$ as before, and to identify $t$ with time. The time-zero slice is $M_0 = \bH^{d-1}$. From \[ \bH^d = \{ v \in \R^{d,1} \mid \<v,v\> = -1,\, v_0 > 0\} \] it follows that $\Isom(\bH^d) = O^+(d,1)$ and the orientation-preserving isometry group is $SO^+(d,1)$. For constant curvature spaces, one may solve Killing's equation $\cL_K g = 0$ explicitly. Let us illustrate the solutions and their quantizations for $d=2$. The three Killing fields \bel{H2Fields} \xi = \d_t, \quad \eta = t \d_t + r \d_r, \quad \zeta = (t^2 - r^2) \d_t + 2tr \, \d_r \ee are a convenient basis for $\g$. Any $d$-dimensional manifold satisfies $\dim \g \leq d(d+1)/2$, manifolds saturating the bound are said to be \emph{maximally symmetric}, and $\bH^d$ is maximally symmetric. Now, $\d_t f(-t) = -f'(-t)$ so $\d_t\Theta = -\Theta \d_t$, hence $\d_t \in \g_-$. Similar calculations show $[\Theta, \eta] = 0$ and $\Theta \zeta = - \zeta \Theta$. Thus $\eta$ spans $\g_+$, while $\d_t, \zeta$ span $\g_-$. The commutation relations\footnote{Note that quite generally $[\g_-, \g_-] \subseteq \g_+$ so it's automatic that $[\zeta, \d_t]$ is proportional to $\eta$.} for $\g$ are: \[ [\eta, \zeta] = \zeta, \quad [\eta, \d_t] = - \d_t, \quad [\zeta, \d_t] = -2 \eta . \] These calculations verify that $(\g_+, \g_-)$ forms a Cartan pair, as defined in \er{cartanpair}. The flows associated to \er{H2Fields} are easily visualized: $\xi$ is a right-translation, and $\eta$ flow-lines are radially outward from the Euclidean origin. The flows of $\zeta$ are Euclidean circles, indicated by the darker lines in Figure . Hence the flows of $\eta$ are defined on all of $\cE_+$, while the flows of $\zeta$ are analogous to space-time rotations in $\R^2$, and hence, must be defined on a wedge of the form \[ W_\al = \{ (t,r) \ :\ t,r > 0,\ \tan^{-1}(r/t) < \al\}. \] The simple geometric idea of Section is nicely confirmed in this case: the flows of $\eta$ (the generator of $\g_+$) preserve the $t=0$ plane, and are separately isometries of $\Om_+$ and $\Om_-$. Corollary implies that the procedure outlined above defines a unitary representation of the identity component of $\Iso(AdS_2)$ on the physical Hilbert space $\cH$ for quantum field theory on this background, including theories with interactions that preserve the symmetry. Since $\Iso(AdS_{d+1}) = \SO(d,2)$, we have a unitary representation of $\SO^0(1,2)$. The latter is a noncompact, semisimple real Lie group, and thus it has no finite-dimensional unitary representations, but a host of interesting infinite-dimensional ones. \appendix \section{Euclidean Reeh-Schlieder Theorem} We prove the Euclidean Reeh-Schlieder property for free theories on curved backgrounds. It is reasonable to expect this property to extend to \emph{interacting} theories on curved backgrounds, but it would have to be established for each such model since it depends explicitly on the two-point function. The Reeh-Schlieder theorem guarantees the existence of a dense quantization domain based on any open subset of $\Om_+$. For this reason, one could use the Reeh-Schlieder (RS) theorem with Nussbaum's theorem to construct a second proof of Theorem under the additional assumption that $M$ is real-analytic. Fortunately, our proof of Theorem is completely independent of the Reeh-Schlieder property. This has two advantages: we do not have to assume $M$ is a real-analytic manifold and, more importantly, our proof of Theorem generalizes immediately and transparently to interacting theories as long as the Hilbert space $\cH$ is not modified by the interaction. We state and prove this using the one-particle space; however, the result clearly extends to the quantum-field Hilbert space. \begin{theorem} Let $M$ be a quantizable static space-time endowed with a real-analytic structure, and assume that $g_{ab}$ is real-analytic. Let $\cO \subset \Om_+$ and $\cD = C^\infty(\cO) \subset L^2(\Om_+)$. Then $\widehat{\cD}^\perp = \{ 0 \}$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let $f \in L^2(\Om_+)$ with $\hat f \perp \cD$. For $x \in \Om_+$, define \[ \eta(x) := \< \hat f, \hat \delta_x\>_{\cH} = \< \Th f, C \de_x \>_{L^2} . \] Real-analyticity of $\eta(x)$ follows from the real-analyticity of (the integral kernel of) $C$, which in turn follows from the elliptic regularity theorem in the real-analytic category (see for instance \cite[Sec.~II.1.3]{Bers}). Now by assumption, for any $g \in C_c^\infty(\cO)$, we have \[ 0 = \< \hat g, \hat f\>_{\cH} = \< \Th f, Cg \>_{L^2(M)} . \] Let $g \to \de_x$ for $x \in \cO$. Then $ 0 = \< \Th f, C \de_x \>_{L^2} \equiv \eta(x) . $ Since $\eta|_{\cO} = 0$, by real-analyticity we infer the vanishing of $\eta$ on $\Om_+$, completing the proof. \end{proof} \subsection*{Acknowledgements} We are grateful to Hanno Gottschalk and Alexander Strohmaier for helpful discussions, and G.R. is grateful to the Universit\"at Bonn for their hospitality during February 2007. \bibliographystyle{plain} \def\cprime{$'$} \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{Bers} Lipman Bers, Fritz John, and Martin Schechter. \newblock {\em Partial differential equations}. \newblock American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1979. \newblock Lectures in Applied Mathematics 3. \bibitem{BirrellDavies} N.~D. Birrell and P.~C.~W. Davies. \newblock {\em Quantum fields in curved space}, volume~7 of {\em Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics}. \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982. \bibitem{DF:77} W.~Driessler and J.~Fr{\"o}hlich. \newblock The reconstruction of local observable algebras from the {E}uclidean {G}reen's functions of relativistic quantum field theory. \newblock {\em Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e Sect. A (N.S.)}, 27(3):221--236, 1977. \bibitem{Fr:80} J.~Fr{\"o}hlich. \newblock Unbounded, symmetric semigroups on a separable {H}ilbert space are essentially selfadjoint. \newblock {\em Adv. in Appl. Math.}, 1(3):237--256, 1980. \bibitem{Fr:76} J{\"u}rg Fr{\"o}hlich. \newblock The pure phases, the irreducible quantum fields, and dynamical symmetry breaking in {S}ymanzik-{N}elson positive quantum field theories. \newblock {\em Ann. Physics}, 97(1):1--54, 1976. \bibitem{Fulling} Stephen~A. Fulling. \newblock {\em Aspects of quantum field theory in curved space-time}, volume~17 of {\em London Mathematical Society Student Texts}. \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. \bibitem{GV} I.~M. Gel{\cprime}fand and N.~Ya. Vilenkin. \newblock {\em Generalized functions. {V}ol. 4}. \newblock Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers], New York, 1964 [1977]. \newblock Applications of harmonic analysis, Translated from the Russian by Amiel Feinstein. \bibitem{GJ} James Glimm and Arthur Jaffe. \newblock {\em Quantum physics}. \newblock Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1987. \newblock A functional integral point of view. \bibitem{Jaffe:2000a} Arthur Jaffe. \newblock Constructive quantum field theory. \newblock In {\em Mathematical physics 2000}, pages 111--127. Imp. Coll. Press, London, 2000. \bibitem{Jaffe:2005a} Arthur Jaffe. \newblock {\em Introduction to Quantum Field Theory}. \newblock 2005. \newblock Lecture notes from Harvard Physics 289r, available in part online at\\ {\tt\small http://www.arthurjaffe.com/Assets/pdf/IntroQFT.pdf}. \bibitem{JR:CurvedSp} Arthur Jaffe and Gordon Ritter. \newblock Quantum field theory on curved backgrounds. i. the euclidean functional integral. \newblock {\em Comm. Math. Phys.}, 270(2):545--572, 2007. \bibitem{KL:81} Abel Klein and Lawrence~J. Landau. \newblock Construction of a unique selfadjoint generator for a symmetric local semigroup. \newblock {\em J. Funct. Anal.}, 44(2):121--137, 1981. \bibitem{KL:87} Abel Klein and Lawrence~J. Landau. \newblock From the {E}uclidean group to the {P}oincar\'e group via {O}sterwalder-{S}chrader positivity. \newblock {\em Comm. Math. Phys.}, 87(4):469--484, 1983. \bibitem{Nussbaum} A.~E. Nussbaum. \newblock Spectral representation of certain one-parametric families of symmetric operators in {H}ilbert space. \newblock {\em Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.}, 152:419--429, 1970. \bibitem{OS1} Konrad Osterwalder and Robert Schrader. \newblock Axioms for {E}uclidean {G}reen's functions. \newblock {\em Comm. Math. Phys.}, 31:83--112, 1973. \bibitem{OS2} Konrad Osterwalder and Robert Schrader. \newblock Axioms for {E}uclidean {G}reen's functions. {II}. \newblock {\em Comm. Math. Phys.}, 42:281--305, 1975. \newblock With an appendix by Stephen Summers. \bibitem{Simon} Barry Simon. \newblock {\em The {$P(\phi )\sb{2}$} {E}uclidean (quantum) field theory}. \newblock Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1974. \newblock Princeton Series in Physics. \bibitem{WaldSurvey} Robert~M. Wald. \newblock Quantum field theory in curved space-time. \newblock In {\em Gravitation et quantifications (Les Houches, 1992)}, pages 63--167. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1995. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0062
|
Title: On-line Viterbi Algorithm and Its Relationship to Random Walks
Abstract: In this paper, we introduce the on-line Viterbi algorithm for decoding hidden
Markov models (HMMs) in much smaller than linear space. Our analysis on
two-state HMMs suggests that the expected maximum memory used to decode
sequence of length $n$ with $m$-state HMM can be as low as $\Theta(m\log n)$,
without a significant slow-down compared to the classical Viterbi algorithm.
Classical Viterbi algorithm requires $O(mn)$ space, which is impractical for
analysis of long DNA sequences (such as complete human genome chromosomes) and
for continuous data streams. We also experimentally demonstrate the performance
of the on-line Viterbi algorithm on a simple HMM for gene finding on both
simulated and real DNA sequences.
Body: \section{On-line Viterbi algorithm} In our algorithm, we represent the back pointer matrix $B$ in the Viterbi algorithm by a tree structure (see ), with node $(i,j)$ for each sequence position $i$ and each state $j$. Parent of node $(i,j)$ is the node $(i-1,B(i,j))$. In this data structure, the most probable state path is a path from the leaf node $(n,j)$ with the highest probability $P(n,j)$ to the root of the tree (see Figure ). This tree is built as the Viterbi algorithm progresses from left to right. After processing sequence position $i$, all edges that do not lie on one of the paths ending in a level $i$ node can be removed; these edges will not be used in the most probable path . The remaining $m$ paths represent all possible initial segments of the most probable state path. These paths are not necessarily edge disjoint; in fact, often all the paths share the same prefix up to some node called \emph{coalescence point} (see Figure ). Left of the coalescence point, there is only a single candidate for the initial segment of the most probable state path. Therefore we can output this segment and remove all edges and nodes of the tree up to the coalescence point. Forney describes an algorithm that after processing $D$ symbols of the input sequence checks whether a coalescence point has been reached; in such case, the initial segment of the most probable state path is outputted. If the coalescence point was not reached, one potential initial segment is chosen heuristicaly. Several studies suggest how to choose $D$ to limit the expected error caused by such heuristic steps in the context of convolution codes. Here we show how to detect the existence of a coalescence point dynamically without introducing significant overhead to the whole computation. We maintain a compressed version of the back pointer tree, where we omit all internal nodes that have less than two children. Any path consisting of such nodes will be contracted to a single edge. This compressed tree has $m$ leaves and at most $m-1$ internal nodes. Each node stores the number of its children and a pointer to its parent node. We also keep a linked list of all the nodes of the compressed tree ordered by the sequence position. Finally, we also keep the list of pointers to all the leaves. When processing the $k$-th sequence position in the Viterbi algorithm, we update the compressed tree as follows. First, we create a new leaf for each node at position $i$, link it to its parent (one of the former leaves), and insert it into the linked list. Once these new leaves are created, we remove all the former leaves that have no children, and recursively all of their ancestors that would not have any children. Finally, we need to compress the new tree: we examine all the nodes in the linked list in order of decreasing sequence position. If the node has zero or one child and is not a current leaf, we simply delete it. For each leaf or node that has at least two children, we follow the parent links until we find its first ancestor (if any) that has at least two children and link the current node directly to that ancestor. A node $(\ell,j)$ that does not have an ancestor with at least two children is the coalescence point; it will become a new root. We can output the most probable state path for all sequence positions up to $\ell$, and remove all results of computation for these positions from memory. The running time of this update is $O(m)$ per sequence position, and the representation of the compressed tree takes $O(m)$ space. Thus the asymptotic running time of the Viterbi algorithm is not increased by the maintanance of the compressed tree. Moreover, we have implemented both the standard Viterbi algorithm and our new on-line extension, and the time measurements suggest that the overhead required for the compressed tree updates is less than 5\ The worst-case space required by this algorithm is still $O(nm)$. However, this is rarely the case for realistic data; required space changes dynamically depending on the input. In the next section, we show that for simple HMMs the expected maximum space required for processing sequence of length $n$ is $\Theta(m\log n)$. This is much better than checkpointing, which requires space of $\Theta(m\sqrt{n})$ with a significant increase in running time. We conjecture that this trend extends to more complex cases. We also present experimental results on a gene finding HMM and real DNA sequences showing that the on-line Viterbi algorithm leads to significant savings in memory. Another advantage of our algorithm is that it can construct initial segments of the most probable state path before the whole input sequence is read. This feature makes it ideal for on-line processing of signal streams (such as sensor readings). \section{Conclusion} In this paper, we introduced the on-line Viterbi algorithm. Our algorithm is based on efficient detection of coalescence points in trees representing the state-paths under consideration of the dynamic programming algorithm. The algorithm requires variable space that depends on the HMM and on the local properties of the analyzed sequence. For two-state symmetric HMMs, we have shown that the expected maximum memory used for analysis of sequence of length $n$ is approximately only $(2K^2/\pi ^2)\ln n$. Our experiments on both simulated and real data suggest that the asymptotic bound $\Theta(m\ln n)$ also extend to multi-state HMMs, and in fact, for most of the time throughout the execution of the algorithm, much less memory is used. Further advantage of our algorithm is that it can be used for on-line processing of streamed sequences; all previous algorithms that are guaranteed to produce the optimal state path require the whole sequence to be read before the output can be started. There are still many open problems. We have only been able to analyze the algorithm for two-state HMMs, though trends predicted by our analysis seem to generalize even to more complex cases. Can our analysis be extended to multi-state HMMs? Apparently, design of the HMM affects the memory needed for the decoding algorithm; for example, presence of states with similar emission probabilities tends to increase memory requirements. Is it possible to characterize HMMs that require large amounts of memory to decode? Can we characterize the states that are likely to serve as coalescence points? \paragraph{Acknowledgments:} Authors would like to thank Richard Durrett for useful discussions. Recently, we have found out that parallel work on this problem is also performed by another research group . Focus of their work is on implementation of an algorithm similar to our on-line Viterbi algorithm in their gene finder, and possible applications to parallelization, while we focus on the expected space analysis. For the real-world data, we used 18th revision of the human genome (project?) chromosomes, downloaded from http://hgdownload.cse.ucsc.edu/goldenPath/hg18/chromosomes/. These chromozomes were cut into known regions (regions that do not contain any unknown bases), and first 20MB of data from each of these regions were taken, if the region itself was at least 20MB long. We did this in order to reduce the possibility of artifacts in the data, which could be caused by unusually short required memory lengths for long strings of unknown bases. For random models, the distribution of bases was the same, as the distribution of known bases in the whole \#1 chromosome. Generated data were 20MB long sequences generated by an identical gene-finding model. Graphs (\rref{fg:1a}\rref{fg:2a}...) show the actual memory length required at time $t$. Graphs (\rref{fg:1b}...) show the maximum memory up to time t, averaged over all 20MB sequences of corresponding type. \section{Introduction} Hidden Markov models (HMMs) are generative probabilistic models that have been succesfuly used for annotation of sequence data, such as DNA and protein sequences, natural langauge texts, and sequences of observations or measurements. Their numerous applications include gene finding , protein secondary structure prediction , and speech recognition . The linear-time Viterbi algorithm is the most commonly used algorithm for these tasks. Unfortunately, the space required by the Viterbi algorithm grows linearly with the length of the sequence (with a high constant factor), which makes it unsuitable for analysis of continuous or very long sequences. For example, DNA sequence of a single chromosome can be hundreds of megabases long. In this paper, we address this problem by proposing an on-line Viterbi algorithm that on average requires much less memory and that can annotate continuous streams of data on-line without reading the complete input sequence first. An HMM, composed of states and transitions, is a probabilistic model that generates sequences over a given alphabet. In each step of this generative process, the current state generates one symbol of the sequence according to the \emph{emission probabilities} associated with that state. Then, an outgoing transition is randomly chosen according to the \emph{transition probability table}, and this transition is followed to the new state. This process is repeated until the whole sequence is generated. The states in the HMM represent distinct features of the observed sequences (such as protein coding and non-coding sequences in a genome), and the emission probabilities in each state represent statistical properties of these features. The HMM thus defines a joint probability $\Pr(X,S)$ over all possible sequences $X$ and all \emph{state paths} $S$ through the HMM that could generate these sequences. To annotate a given sequence $X$, we want to recover the state path $S$ that maximizes this joint probability. For example, in an HMM with one state for protein-coding sequences, and one state for non-coding sequences, the most probable state path marks each symbol of the input sequence $X$ as either protein coding or non-coding. To compute the most probable state path, we use the Viterbi dynamic programming algorithm . For every prefix $X_1\dots X_i$ of the given sequence $X$ and for every state $j$, we compute the most probable state path generating this prefix ending in state $j$. We store the probability of this path in table $P(i,j)$ and its second last state in table $B(i,j)$. These values can be computed from left to right, using the recurrence $P(i,j)=\max_k\{P(i-1,k)\cdot t_k(j) \cdot e_j(X_i)\}$, where $t_k(j)$ is the transition probability from state $k$ to state $j$, and $e_j(X_i)$ is the emission probability of the $i$-th symbol of X in state $j$. Back pointer $B(i,j)$ is the value of $k$ that maximizes $P(i,j)$. After computing these values, we can recover the most probable state path $S=s_1,\allowbreak{}\dots,\allowbreak{}s_n$ by setting the last state as $s_n=\arg\max_k\{P(n,k)\}$, and then following the back pointers $B(i,j)$ from right to left (i.e., $s_i = B(i+1,s_{i+1})$). For an HMM with $m$ states and a sequence $X$ of length $n$, the running time of the Viterbi algorithm is $\Theta(nm^2)$, and the space is $\Theta(nm)$. This algorithm is well suited for sequences and models of moderate size. However, to annotate all 250 million symbols of the human chromosome 1 with a gene finding HMM consisting of hundred states, we would require 25~GB of memory just to store the back pointers $B(i,j)$. This is clearly impractical on most computational platforms. Several solutions are used in practice to overcome this problem. For example, most practical gene finding programs process only sequences of limited size. The long input sequence is split into several shorter sequences which are processed separately. Afterwards, the results are merged and conflicts are resolved heuristically. This approach leads to suboptimal solutions, especially if the genes we are looking for cross the boundaries of the split. Grice et al. proposed a practical checkpointing algorithm that trades running time for space. We divide the input sequence into $K$ blocks of $L$ symbols, and during the forward pass, we only keep the first column of each block. To obtain the most probable state path, we recompute the last block of $L$ columns, and use back pointers to recover the last $L$ states of the most probable path, as well as the last state of the previous block. The information about this last state can now be used to recompute the most probable state path within the previous block in the same way, and the process is repeated for all blocks. Since every value of $P(i,j)$ will be computed twice, this means two-fold slow-down compared to the Viterbi algorithm, but if we set $K=L=\sqrt{n}$, this algorithm only requires $\Theta(\sqrt{n}m)$ memory. Checkpointing can be further generalized to trade $L$-fold slow-down for memory of $\Theta(\sqrt[L]{n}m)$ . In this paper, we propose and analyze an on-line Viterbi algorithm that does not use fixed amount of memory for a given sequence. Instead, the amount of memory varies depending on the properties of the HMM and the input sequence. In the worst case, our algorithm still requires $\Theta(nm)$ memory; however, in practice the requirements are much lower. We prove, by demonstrating analogy to random walks and using results from the theory of extreme values, that in simple cases the expected space for a sequence of length $n$ is as low as $\Theta(m\log n)$. We also experimentally demonstrate that the memory requirements are low for more complex HMMs. \title{On-line Viterbi Algorithm and Its Relationship to Random Walks} \author{Rastislav \v{S}r\'amek\inst{1} \and Bro\v{n}a Brejov\'a\inst{2} \and Tom\'a\v{s} Vina\v{r}\inst{2}} \institute{Department of Computer Science, Comenius University,\\842~48 Bratislava, Slovakia, e-mail: rasto@ksp.sk \and Department of Biological Statistics and Computational Biology, Cornell University,\\ Ithaca, NY 14853, USA, e-mail: \{bb248,tv35\}@cornell.edu} \maketitle \begin{abstract} In this paper, we introduce the on-line Viterbi algorithm for decoding hidden Markov models (HMMs) in much smaller than linear space. Our analysis on two-state HMMs suggests that the expected maximum memory used to decode sequence of length $n$ with $m$-state HMM can be as low as $\Theta(m\log n)$, without a significant slow-down compared to the classical Viterbi algorithm. Classical Viterbi algorithm requires $O(mn)$ space, which is impractical for analysis of long DNA sequences (such as complete human genome chromosomes) and for continuous data streams. We also experimentally demonstrate the performance of the on-line Viterbi algorithm on a simple HMM for gene finding on both simulated and real DNA sequences. \paragraph{Keywords:} hidden Markov models, on-line algorithms, Viterbi algorithm, gene finding \end{abstract} \input intro \input alg \input sym \input conclusion \bibliographystyle{splncs} \bibliography{hmmmem} \section{Memory requirements of the on-line Viterbi algorithm} In this section, we analyze the memory requirements of the on-line Viterbi algorithm. The memory used by the algorithm is variable throughout the execution of the algorithm, but of special interest are asymptotic bounds on the expected maximum amount of memory used by the algorithm while decoding a sequence of length $n$. We use analogy to random walks and results in extreme value theory to argue that for a symmetric two-state HMMs, the expected maximum memory is $\Theta(m\log n)$. We also conduct experiments on an HMM for gene finding, and both real and simulated DNA sequences. \subsection{Symmetric two-state HMMs} Consider a two-state HMM over a binary alphabet as shown in Figure a. For simplicity, we assume $t<1/2$ and $e<1/2$. The back pointers between the sequence positions $i$ and $i+1$ can form one of the configurations i--iii shown in Figure b. Denote $p_A=\log P(i,A)$ and $p_B=\log P(i,B)$, where $P(i,j)$ is the table of probabilities from the Viterbi algorithm. The recurrence used in the Viterbi algorithm implies that the configuration i occurs when $\log t-\log(1-t)\le p_A-p_B\le \log (1-t) - \log t$, configuration ii occurs when $p_A-p_B\ge \log(1-t)-\log t$, and configuration iii occurs when $p_A-p_B\le \log t - \log(1-t)$. Configuration iv never happens for $t<1/2$. Note that for a two-state HMM, a coalescence point occurs whenever one of the configurations ii or iii occur. Thus the memory used by the HMM is proportional to the length of continuous sequence of configurations i. We will call such a sequence of configurations a \emph{run}. First, we analyze the length distribution of runs under the assumption that the input sequence $X$ is a sequence of uniform i.i.d. binary random variables. In such case, we represent the run by a symmetric random walk corresponding to a random variable $X=\frac{p_A-p_B}{\log (1-e) - \log e} - (\log t-\log(1-t)).$ Whenever this variable is within the interval $(0,K)$, where $K = \left\lceil 2 \frac{\log(1-t)-\log(t)}{\log(1-e)-\log(e)}\right\rceil,$ the configuration i occurs, and the quantity $p_A-p_B$ is updated by $\log(1-e)-\log e$, if the symbol at the corresponding sequence position is 0, or $\log e - \log(1-e)$, if this symbol is 1. These shifts correspond to updating the value of $X$ by $+1$ or $-1$. When $X$ reaches 0, we have a coalescence point in configuration iii, and the $p_A-p_B$ is initialized to $\log t - \log(1-t) \pm (\log e - \log 1-e)$, which either means initialization of $X$ to $+1$, or another coalescence point, depending on the symbol at the corresponding sequence position. The other case, when $X$ reaches $K$ and we have a coalescence point in configuration ii, is symmetric. We can now apply the classical results from the theory of random walks (see \cite[ch.14.3,14.5]{Feller1968}) to analyze the expected length of runs. \begin{lemma} Assuming that the input sequence is uniformly i.i.d., the expected length of a run of a symmetrical two-state HMM is $K-1$. \end{lemma} Therefore the larger is $K$, the more memory is required to decode the HMM. The worst case is achieved as $e$ approaches $1/2$. In such case, the two states are indistinguishable and being in state $A$ is equivalent to being in state $B$. Using the theory of random walks, we can also characterize the distribution of length of runs. \begin{lemma} Let $R_\ell$ be the event that the length of a run of a symmetrical two-state HMM is either $2\ell+1$ or $2\ell+2$. Then, assuming that the input sequence is uniformly i.i.d., for some constants $b,c>0$: \begin{equation} b\cdot\cos^{2\ell}\frac{\pi}{K}\le \Pr(R_\ell) \le c\cdot \cos^{2\ell}\frac{\pi}{K} \end{equation} \end{lemma} \def\pivk{\frac{\pi v}{K}} \def\pik{\frac{\pi}{K}} \begin{proof} For a symmetric random walk on interval $(0,K)$ with absorbing barriers and with starting point $z$, the probability of event $W_{z,n}$ that this random walk ends in point $0$ after $n$ steps is zero, if $n-z$ is odd, and the following quantity, if $n-z$ is even \cite[ch.14.5]{Feller1968}: \begin{equation} \Pr(W_{z,n}) = \frac{2}{K}\sum_{0<v<K/2} \cos^{n-1}\pivk \sin\pivk \sin\frac{\pi z v}{K} \end{equation} Using symmetry, note that the probability of the same random walk ending after $n$ steps at barrier $K$ is the same as probability of $W_{K-z,n}$. Thus, if $K$ is odd, we can state: \begin{eqnarray} \Pr(R_\ell) &=& \Pr(W_{1,2\ell+1}) + \Pr(W_{K-1,2\ell+1}) \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{2}{K}\sum_{0<v<K/2}\cos^{2\ell}\pivk \sin\pivk\left(\sin\pivk+(-1)^{v+1}\sin\pivk\right) \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{4}{K}\sum_{0<v<K/2,\mbox{ $v$ odd}} \cos^{2\ell}\pivk\sin^2\pivk \end{eqnarray} There are at most $K/4$ terms in the sum and they can all be bounded from above by $\cos^{2\ell}\pivk$. Thus, we can give both upper and lower bounds on $\Pr(R_\ell)$ using only the first term of the sum as follows: \begin{equation} \frac{4}{K}\sin^2\pik \cos^{2\ell}\pik \le \Pr(R_\ell) \le \cos^{2\ell}\pik \end{equation} Similarly, if $K$ is even, we can state: \begin{eqnarray} \Pr(R_\ell) &=& \Pr(W_{1,2\ell+1}) + \Pr(W_{K-1,2\ell+2})\nonumber \\ &=& \frac{2}{K}\sum_{0<v<K/2}\cos^{2\ell}\pivk \sin^2\pivk\left(1+(-1)^{v+1}\cos\pivk\right) \end{eqnarray} and thus we have a similar bound: \begin{equation} \frac{2}{K}\sin^2\pik\left(1+\cos\pik\right)\cos^{2\ell}\pik \le \Pr(R_\ell) \le 2\cos^{2\ell}\pik \end{equation} \qed \end{proof} The previous lemma characterizes the length distribution of a single run. However, to analyze memory requirements for a sequence of length $n$, we need to consider maximum over several runs whose total length is $n$. Similar problem was studied for the runs of heads in a sequence of $n$ coin tosses . For coin tosses, the length distribution of runs is geometric, while in our case the runs are only bounded by geometricaly decaying functions. Still, we can prove that the expected length of the longest run grows logarithmically with the length of the sequence, as is the case for the coin tosses. \begin{lemma} Let $X_1,X_2,\dots$ be a sequence of i.i.d. random variables drawn from a geometrically decaying distribution over positive integers, i.e. there exist constants $a,b,c$, $a\in (0,1)$, $0<b\le c$, such that for all integers $k\ge 1$, $b a^k \le \Pr(X_i > k) \le c a^k.$ Let $N_n$ be the largest index such that $\sum_{i=1\dots N_n} X_i\le n$, and let $Y_n$ be $\max\{X_1,X_2,\dots,X_{N_n},n-\sum_{i=1}^{N_n} X_i\}$. Then \begin{equation} E[Y_n] = \log_{1/a} n + o(\log n) \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $Z_n = \max_{i=1\dots n} X_n$ be the maximum of the first $n$ runs. Clearly, $\Pr(Z_n \le k) = \Pr(X_i \le k)^n$, and therefore $(1 - c a^k)^n \le \Pr(Z_n \le k) \le (1 - b a^k)^n$ for all integers $k\ge \log_{1/a}(c)$. \paragraph{Lower bound:} Let $t_n = \log_{1/a} n - \sqrt{\ln n}$. If $Y_n\le t_n$, we need at least $n/t_n$ runs to reach the sum $n$, i.e. $N_n\ge n/t_n-1$ (discounting the last incomplete run). Therefore \begin{equation} \Pr(Y_n\le t_n) \le \Pr(Z_{\frac{n}{t_n}-1} \le t_n) \le (1 - b a^{t_n})^{\frac{n}{t_n}-1}= (1-ba^{t_n})^{a^{-t_n}a^{t_n}(\frac{n}{t_n}-1)} \end{equation} Since $\lim_{n \to \infty} a^{t_n}(n/t_n-1) = \infty$ and $\lim_{x \to 0} (1-b x)^{1/x} = e^{-b}$, we get $\lim_{n\to\infty} \Pr(Y_n\le t_n) = 0$. Note that $E[Y_n] \ge t_n (1-\Pr(Y_n \le t_n))$, and thus we get the desired bound. \paragraph{Upper bound:} Clearly, $Y_n\le Z_n$ and so $E[Y_n] \le E[Z_n]$. Let $Z'_n$ be the maximum of $n$ i.i.d. geometric random variables $X'_1, \dots, X'_n$ such that $\Pr(X'_i\le k) = 1-a^k$. We will compare $E[Z_n]$ to the expected value of variable $Z'_n$. Without loss of generality, $c\ge 1$. For any real $x\ge \log_{1/a}(c)+1$ we have: \begin{eqnarray*} \Pr(Z_n\le x) &\ge& (1-c a^{\lfloor x\rfloor})^n \\ &=& \left(1-a^{\lfloor x\rfloor -\log_{1/a}(c)}\right)^n\\ &\ge& \left(1-a^{\lfloor x -\log_{1/a}(c)-1\rfloor}\right)^n\\ &=& \Pr(Z'_n\le x -\log_{1/a}(c)-1)\\ &=& \Pr(Z'_n+\log_{1/a}(c)+1 \le x) \end{eqnarray*} This inequality holds even for $x<\log_{1/a}(c)+1$, since the right-hand side is zero in such case. Therefore, $E[Z_n]\le E[Z'_n+\log_{1/a}(c)+1] =E[Z'_n] + O(1)$. Expected value of $Z'_n$ is $\log_{1/a}(n)+o(\log n)$ , which proves our claim.\qed \end{proof} Using results of Lemma together with the characterization of run length distributions by Lemma , we can conclude that for symmetric two-state HMMs, the expected maximum memory required to process a uniform i.i.d. input sequence of length $n$ is $(1/\ln(1/\cos(\pi/K)))\cdot \ln n + o(\log n)$. \footnote{ We omitted the first run, which has a different starting point and thus does not follow the distribution outlined in Lemma . However, the expected length of this run does not depend on $n$ and thus contributes only a lower-order term. We also omitted the runs of length one that start outside the interval $(0,K)$; these runs again contribute only to lower order terms of the lower bound.} Using the Taylor expansion of the constant term as $K$ grows to infinity, $1/\ln(1/\cos(\pi/K))) = 2K^2/\pi^2 + O(1)$, we obtain that the maximum memory grows approximately as $(2K^2/\pi^2)\ln n$. The asymptotic bound $\Theta(\log n)$ can be easily extended to the sequences that are generated by the symmetric HMM, instead of uniform i.i.d. The underlying process can be described as a random walk with approximately $2K$ states on two $(0,K)$ lines, each line corresponding to sequence symbols generated by one of the two states. The distribution of run lengths still decays geometrically as required by Lemma ; the base of the exponent is the largest eigenvalue of the transition matrix with absorbing states omitted (see e.g. \cite[Claim 2]{Buhler2005}). The situation is more complicated in the case of non-symmetric two-state HMMs. Here, our random walks proceed in steps that are arbitrary real numbers, different in each direction. We are not aware of any results that would help us to directly analyze distributions of runs in these models, however we conjecture that the size of the longest run is still $\Theta(\log n)$. Perhaps, to obtain bounds on the length distribution of runs, one can approximate the behaviour of such non-discrete random walks by a different model (for example, \cite[ch.7]{Durrett1996}). \subsection{Multi-state HMMs} Our analysis technique cannot be easily extended to HMMs with many states. In two-state HMMs, each new coalescence event clears the memory, and thus the execution of the algorithm can be divided into more or less independent runs. A coalescent event in a multi-state HMM results in a non-trivial tree left in memory, sometimes with a substantial depth. Thus, the sizes of consecutive runs are no longer independent (see Figure a). To evaluate the memory requirements of our algorithm for multi-state HMMs, we have implemented the algorithm and performed several experiments on both simulated and biological sequences. First, we generalized the symmetric HMMs from the previous section to multiple states. The symmetric HMM with $m$ states emits symbols over $m$-letter alphabet, where each state emits one symbol with higher probability than the other symbols. The transition probabilities are equiprobable, except for self-transitions. We have tested the algorithm for $m\le 6$ and sequences generated both by a uniform i.i.d. process, and by the HMM itself. Observed data are consistent with the logarithmic growth of average maximum memory needed to decode a sequence of length $n$ (data not shown). We have also evaluated the algorithm using a simplified HMM for gene finding with 265 states. The emission probabilities of the states are defined using at most 4-th order Markov chains, and the structure of the HMM reflects known properties of genes (similar to the structure shown in ). The HMM was trained on RefSeq annotations of human chromosomes 1 and 22. In gene finding, we segment the input DNA sequence into exons (protein-coding sequence intervals), introns (non-coding sequence separating exons within a gene), and intergenic regions (sequence separating genes). Common measure of accuracy is exon sensitivity (how many of real exons we have succesfuly and exactly predicted). The implementation used here has exon sensitivity 37\ of genes by Guigo et al. . A realistic gene finder, such as ExonHunter , trained on the same data set achieves sensitivity of 53\ that are not implemented in our test, namely GC content levels, non-geometric length distributions, and sophisticated signal models. \iffalse masked sequence results this Genscan ExonHunter Gene Sensitivity 6.76 Gene Specificity 3.13 Exon Sensitivity 37.13 Exon Specificity 29.27 Nucleotide Sensitivity 71.48 Nucleotide Specificity 36.62 \fi We have tested the algorithm on 20~MB long sequences: regions from the human genome, simulated sequences generated by the HMM, and i.i.d. sequences. Regions of the human genome were chosen from hg18 assembly so that they do not contain sequencing gaps. The distribution for the i.i.d. sequences mirrors the distribution of bases in the human chromosome 1. The results are shown in Figure b. The average maximum length of the table over several samples appears to grow faster than logarithmically with the length of the sequence, though it seems to be bounded by a polylogarithmic function. It is not clear whether the faster growth is an artifact that would disapear with longer sequences or higher number of samples. The HMM for gene finding has a special structure, with three copies of the state for introns that have the same emission probabilities and the same self-transition probability. In two-state symmetric HMMs, similar emission probabilities of the two states lead to increase in the length of individual runs. Intron states of a gene finder are an extreme example of this phenomenon. Nonetheless, on average a table of length roughly 100,000 is sufficient to to process sequences of length 20~MB, which is a 200-fold improvement compared to the trivial Viterbi algorithm. In addition, the length of the table did not exceed 222,000 on any of the 20MB human segments. As we can see in Figure a, most of the time the program keeps only relatively short table; the average length on the human segments is 11,000. The low average length can be of a significant advantage if multiple processes share the same memory.
|
0704.0069
|
Title: Dynamical Objects for Cohomologically Expanding Maps
Abstract: The goal of this paper is to construct invariant dynamical objects for a (not
necessarily invertible) smooth self map of a compact manifold. We prove a
result that takes advantage of differences in rates of expansion in the terms
of a sheaf cohomological long exact sequence to create unique lifts of finite
dimensional invariant subspaces of one term of the sequence to invariant
subspaces of the preceding term. This allows us to take invariant cohomological
classes and under the right circumstances construct unique currents of a given
type, including unique measures of a given type, that represent those classes
and are invariant under pullback. A dynamically interesting self map may have a
plethora of invariant measures, so the uniquess of the constructed currents is
important. It means that if local growth is not too big compared to the growth
rate of the cohomological class then the expanding cohomological class gives
sufficient "marching orders" to the system to prohibit the formation of any
other such invariant current of the same type (say from some local dynamical
subsystem). Because we use subsheaves of the sheaf of currents we give
conditions under which a subsheaf will have the same cohomology as the sheaf
containing it. Using a smoothing argument this allows us to show that the sheaf
cohomology of the currents under consideration can be canonically identified
with the deRham cohomology groups. Our main theorem can be applied in both the
smooth and holomorphic setting.
Body: \title{Dynamical Objects for Cohomologically Expanding Maps.} \author{John W. Robertson} \maketitle \bigskip \noindent{John W. Robertson} \\ \noindent{Wichita State University} \\ \noindent{Wichita, Kansas 67260-0033} \\ \noindent{Phone: 316-978-3979} \\ \noindent{Fax: 316-978-3748} \\ \noindent{robertson@math.wichita.edu} \\ \begin{abstract} The goal of this paper is to construct invariant dynamical objects for a (not necessarily invertible) smooth self map of a compact manifold. We prove a result that takes advantage of differences in rates of expansion in the terms of a sheaf cohomological long exact sequence to create unique lifts of finite dimensional invariant subspaces of one term of the sequence to invariant subspaces of the preceding term. This allows us to take invariant cohomological classes and under the right circumstances construct unique currents of a given type, including unique measures of a given type, that represent those classes and are invariant under pullback. A dynamically interesting self map may have a plethora of invariant measures, so the uniquess of the constructed currents is important. It means that if local growth is not too big compared to the growth rate of the cohomological class then the expanding cohomological class gives sufficient ``marching orders'' to the system to prohibit the formation of any other such invariant current of the same type (say from some local dynamical subsystem). Because we use subsheaves of the sheaf of currents we give conditions under which a subsheaf will have the same cohomology as the sheaf containing it. Using a smoothing argument this allows us to show that the sheaf cohomology of the currents under consideration can be canonically identified with the deRham cohomology groups. Our main theorem can be applied in both the smooth and holomorphic setting. \end{abstract} \noindent{MSC: 37C05, 32H50, 18F20, 55N30 } \medskip \section{Introduction} Our purpose is to construct invariant dynamical objects for a self map $f\colon X\to X$ of a compact topological space. We make use of sheaf cohomology and differences in rates of expansion in different terms of a long exact sequence to construct invariant sections of a sheaf. We will show that there are invariant degree $1$ currents (or eigencurrents) corresponding to each expanding eigenvector of $H^1(X,\R)$. We also show that successive preimages of sufficiently regular degree one currents converge to one of these eigencurrents. We show that if most of the expansion $f\colon X\to X$ is ''along'' an invariant cohomological class $v\in H^k(X,\R)$ then there is an invariant current $c$ in that cohomology class and other sufficiently regular currents in the same class converge to $c$ under successive pullback. The group cohomology of $\Z$ acting on a space of functions on $X$ via pullback has been studied in the context of dynamical systems . This work seems related to ours, but to be pursued in an essentially different direction. Our map $f$ is not assumed to be invertible, so there is not necessarily a $\Z$ action, only an $\N$ action. Also, we use sheaves rather than functions and make substantial use of cohomological tools. Most importantly, we are particularly interested in the construction of invariant currents, especially when the current is some sense unique. Our results are actually motivated by results in higher dimensional holomorphic dynamics showing the existence of a unique closed positive $(1,1)$ current under a variety of circumstances (just about any recent paper on higher dimensional holomorphic dynamics either proves such results or makes essential use of such results, see e.g. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and ). While invariant measures have been a focal point in dynamics, it seems that invariant currents also have an imporant role to play. We will show under mild conditions that if some degree one cohomological class of a smooth self map $f$ of a compact manifold is invariant and expanded there is necessarily a invariant degree one current of a certain type representing that class. We obtain analogous results for higher degree currents given bounds on the local growth rates of $f$. The uniqueness of these classes is significant. It seems clear that one could modify a map locally near a fixed point to obtain other invariant currents of the same type without affecting the topology. Thus our results also say that any local modification that created an invariant current of the given type {\it must violate the local growth conditions}. In other words, as long as things do not grow too fast compared to the growth rate of the cohomology class, the expansion of the cohomology class gives sufficient ``marching orders'' to points that no other invariant cohomological class of the given type can be created by purely local dynamical behavior. Our results give explicit conditions under which uniqueness is guaranteed. For degree one currents, no restriction on local growth rates is necessary for our results. \section{Cohomomorphisms} We will make use of sheaves in this paper. There are two standard definitions of sheaves on a topological space $X$, one as a topological space (,), and one as a functor on the category $\topcat_X$ satisfying various axioms (,). Since we will often want to make use of a topology on sections of a sheaf $\sheaf{A}$ that differs from the topology these inherit using the topological definition of a sheaf, we will instead use the functor definition of a sheaf. Our sheaves will always be sheaves of $\sca$ modules over some fixed field $\sca$. We will require that $\sca$ have an absolute value for which $\sca$ is complete. Given a continuous map $f\colon X\to Y$ and sheaves $\sheaf{A}$ and $\sheaf{B}$ on $X$ and $Y$ respectively, an $f$-cohomomorphism is a generalized notion of a pullback from $\sheaf{B}$ to $\sheaf{A}$ through $f$. Different types of geometric objects pull back differently, and this allows us to handle all cases at once. We take the following facts from from page 14--15. \begin{definition} If $\sheaf{A}$ and $\sheaf{B}$ are sheaves on $X$ and $Y$ then an ``f-cohomomorphism'' $k\colon \sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{A}$ is a collection of homomorphisms $k_U\colon \sheaf{B}(U)\to \sheaf{A}(f^{-1}(U))$, for $U$ open in $Y$, compatible with restrictions. \end{definition} Note that if $\sheaf{A}$ is a sheaf on $X$ and $f\colon X\to Y$ is continuous then there is a canonical cohomomorphism $f_*\sheaf{A} \mto \sheaf{A}$ where $f_*\sheaf{A}$ is the direct image of $\sheaf{A}$, i.e. given an open $U\subset Y$, $f_*\sheaf{A}(U) = \sheaf{A}(f^{-1}(U))$. \begin{remark} Given a continuous map $f\colon X\to Y$ of topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ and sheaves $\sheaf{A}$ and $\sheaf{B}$ on $X$ and $Y$ respectively, all $f$-cohomomorphisms $f\colon \sheaf{B}\mto\sheaf{A}$ are given by a composition of the form \[\sheaf{B}\overset{j}{\to}f_*\sheaf{A}\overset{f_*}{\to}\sheaf{A}\] where $j\colon \sheaf{B}\to f_*\sheaf{A}$ is a sheaf homomorphism, and each such composition is seen to given an $f$-cohomomorphism. \end{remark} The usual notion of ``a morphism of sheaves on $X$'' is the same as an $\id{X}$ cohomomorphism of sheaves on $X$. \subsection{Cohomomorphisms and $\Gamma$.} The functor $\Gamma$ returns the global sections of that sheaf. Given a morphism $\phi\colon\sheaf{A}\to\sheaf{A'}$ of sheaves on $X$, $\mGamma{\phi}$ is just the homomorphism $\sheaf{A}(X)\to\sheaf{A'}(X)$. Given sheaves $\sheaf{A}$ and $\sheaf{B}$ on $X$ and $Y$ and given $f\colon X\to Y$ continuous then for a sheaf cohomomorphism $F\colon \sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{A}$ one defines $\mGamma{F}$ to be the homomorphism $\sheaf{B}(Y)\to\sheaf{A}(X)$. This extends $\Gamma$ to be a functor on the category of topological spaces with an associated sheaf where morphisms are given by cohomomorphisms. \section{Invariant Global Sections} Fix a continuous self map $f\colon X\to X$ of a topological space $X$. We will be interested in $f$ self cohomomorphisms of sheaves $\sheaf{A}$ on $X$. As we will typically have several sheaves of interest on $X$, each with a corresponding $f$ self cohomomorphism, we let $f\shsub{A}\colon \sheaf{A}\mto\sheaf{A}$ be the default notation for an $f$-cohomomorphism of $\sheaf{A}$. Assume that $X$ is a manifold and that \[\sheaf{A}\overset{p}{\to}\sheaf{B}\overset{q}{\to}\sheaf{C}\] is a short exact sequence of sheaves on $X$. Let $f\colon X\to X$ be a continuous self map of $X$ and assume further that we are given $f$ self cohomomorphisms of each of these sheaves and that \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ {\sheaf{A}} \ar[r]_p \ar[d]^{f\shsub{A}} & {\sheaf{B}} \ar[r]_q \ar[d]^{f\shsub{B}} & {\sheaf{C}} \ar[d]^{f\shsub{C}} \\ {\sheaf{A}} \ar[r]_p & {\sheaf{B}} \ar[r]_q & {\sheaf{C}} \\ } \end{equation} commutes. We will say that a commutative diagram as in~\eqref{shortexact} is an $f$ self-cohomomorphism of the sequence $\sheaf{A}\to\sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{C}$. Applying the functor $\Gamma$ to this diagram, the rows can be extended in the usual long exact sequence. The resulting diagram is commutative ( page 62). \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ {0} \ar[r] & {\sheaf{A}(X)} \ar[r]_{\mGamma{p}} \ar[d]^{\mshGamma{f}{A}} & {\sheaf{B}(X)} \ar[r]_{\mGamma{q}} \ar[d]^{\mshGamma{f}{B}} & {\sheaf{C}(X)} \ar[r]_{\delta} \ar[d]^{\mshGamma{f}{C}} & {\shHone{X}{A}} \ar[r]_{H^1p} \ar[d]^{\mshHone{f}{A}} & {\dotsb}\\ {0} \ar[r] & {\sheaf{A}(X)} \ar[r]_{\mGamma{p}} & {\sheaf{B}(X)} \ar[r]_{\mGamma{q}} & {\sheaf{C}(X)} \ar[r]_{\delta} & {\shHone{X}{A}} \ar[r]_{H^1p} & {\dotsb }\\ } \end{equation} One can think of $\sheaf{B}$ as providing local potentials for members of $\sheaf{C}$ and of $\sheaf{A}$ as being those potentials which give rise to the zero member of $\sheaf{C}$. It will be assumed that the reader is familiar with interpreting $\shHone{X}{A}$ as classifying equivalence classes of bundles with transition functions in $\sheaf{A}$. We will frequently refer to members of $\shHone{X}{A}$ as bundles. Sections of such bundles will be assumed to be given locally by local sections of $\sheaf{B}$, so that every member $c$ of $\shGamma{C}$ is given locally by potentials in $\sheaf{B}$, and these potentials, taken together, are a section of the corresponding bundle $\delta(c)\in \shHone{X}{A}$. \begin{convention} We will frequently refer to a member $v$ of $\shHone{X}{A}$ as a {\it bundle}, to a member $c\in\shGamma{C}$ as a {\it divisor} and if $\delta(c)=v$ we will call $c$ a {\it divisor of the bundle $v$}. We think this substantially adds to the readability of the paper. \end{convention} \begin{definition} The {\it support} of a divisor $c\in\shGamma{C}$ is defined to be the complement of the union of all open sets $U$ such that $c\rest{U}=0$. \end{definition} \begin{lemma} If an open set $U$ lies outside the support of some $c\in \shGamma{C}$ then $f^{-1}(U)$ lies outside the support of $f\shsub{C}(c)$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We note that by the definition of an $f$-cohomomorphism $f\shsub{C}\colon \sheaf{C}\to\sheaf{C}$, since the cohomomorphism $f\shsub{C}$ on $\sheaf{C}(U)$ is a homomorphism from $\sheaf{C}(U)$ to $\sheaf{C}(f^{-1}(U))$ and the induced action of $f\shsub{C}$ on $\shGamma{C}$ restricted to $U$ must agree with its action $\sheaf{C}(U)\to\sheaf{C}(f^{-1}(U))$, then if an open set $U$ is outside the support of $c$ then $f^{-1}(U)$ is outside the support of of $f\shsub{C}(c)$. \end{proof} The following conditions for a given $v\in \shHone{X}{A}$ will be of interest: \begin{definition} We will refer to a bundle $v\in \shHone{X}{A}$ for which $(H^1p)(v)=0$ as being {\it closed}. \end{definition} Note that this notion depends upon the exact sequence $\sheaf{A}\to\sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{C}$, and not just on $v$. If $\sheaf{B}$ is $\gamma$ acyclic then every member of $\shHone{X}{A}$ is closed. \begin{definition} We will call a bundle $v\in \shHone{X}{A}$ {\it base point free} if for every $x\in X$ there is some divisor $c\in \shGamma{C}$ associated to $v$ whose support does not contain $x$. \end{definition} \begin{lemma} If $\sheaf{B}$ is soft, $X$ is a regular topological space, and $a\in\shHone{X}{A}$ is a closed bundle then $a$ is base point free. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} From the long exact sequence there is some $c'\in \shGamma{C}$ with $\delta(c')=a$ and given any point $x\in X$, from the fact that $\sheaf{B}\overset{q}{\onto}\sheaf{C}$ the germ $c'_x$ of $c'$ at $x$ is the image under $q_x$ of some germ $b''_x$ of $\shGamma{B}$ at $x$. Choose an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$ on which there is some $b'\in \sheaf{B}(U)$ with $b'_x=b''_x$. The topological assumption on $X$ implies that there is a neighborhood $V\Subset U$ of $x$. The fact that $\sheaf{B}$ is soft implies there is some $b\in\shGamma{B}$ such that $b\rest{{\overline{V}}}=b'\rest{{\overline{V}}}$. Then $c=c'-b\in\shGamma{C}$ has $\delta(c)=a$ and $x\not\in\supp(c)$. \end{proof} \begin{definition} We will refer to a bundle $a\in \shHone{X}{A}$ such that $f\shsub{A}(a)=\lambda\cdot a$ for some $\lambda\in \C$ as a $\lambda$ {\it eigenbundle}. \end{definition} We also find it useful to introduce a relevant notion of expansiveness of a map $f\colon X\to X$ relative to a base point free closed eigenbundle $v\in\shHone{X}{A}$. \begin{definition} Given a base point free closed eigenbundle $v\in \shHone{X}{A}$ then we say that $f$ is cohomologically expansive at $x$ for $v$ if for any open neighborhood $U$ of $x$ and any divisor $c\in\shGamma{C}$ of $v$, the set $U$ intersects the support of $f\shsub{C}^k(c)$ for all sufficiently large $k$. \end{definition} \begin{remark} It is a corollary of the definition that the set of points at which $f$ is cohomologically expansive for $v$ is closed and forward invariant. If $\supp f\shsub{C}^k(c)=f^{-k}(\supp(c))$ for each $c\in \shGamma{C}$ then the set of cohomologically expansive points is totally invariant. \end{remark} The notion of being cohomologically expansive at $x$ for $v$ means roughly that under iteration by $f$ small neighborhoods $U$ of $x$ always grow to cover enough of $X$ that the pullback of the bundle $v$ to the set $f^k(U)$ is a nontrivial bundle on $f^k(U)$ whenever $k$ is large. We show that if $\sheaf{B}$ is soft and $X$ is a compact metric space then some minimal expansion takes place at points where $f$ is cohomologically expansive for a closed eigenbundle $a\in \shHone{X}{A}$. We use $B_\epsilon(x)$ to denote the ball of radius $\epsilon$ about $x$. \begin{lemma} Let $X$ be a compact metric space. If $\sheaf{B}$ is soft and $v$ is a closed eigenbundle then there exists $\delta > 0$ such that for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists some $K > 0$ such that if $f$ is cohomologically expanding at $x$ then for every $k > K$, $\diam f^k(B_\epsilon (x)) > \delta$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The bundle $v$ is base point free by Lemma~. Using compactness we can conclude that there is a finite open cover $U_1,\dotsc,U_\ell$ of $X$ such that for each $j$, $U_j$ is disjoint from $\supp c_j$ for some $c_j\in\shGamma{C}$ with $\delta(c_j)=v$. We will prove the lemma by contradiction. Let $\delta$ be the Lebesgue number of the cover $U_1,\dotsc,U_\ell$. If the lemma is false there is some $\epsilon > 0$ and some increasing sequence $k_n$ and points $x_n$ at which $f$ is cohomologically expansive such that $\diam f^{k_n}(B_\epsilon (x_n))\leq \delta$ for each $n$. By going to a subsequence if necessary we can assume $x_n$ converges to a point $x_\infty$. Letting $U=B_{\frac{1}{2}\epsilon} (x_\infty)$ we see that $U\subset B_\epsilon (x_n)$ for all large $n$ and thus there is some one $c_j$ of $c_1,\dotsc,c_\ell$ such that $f^{k_n}(U)$ is disjoint from $\supp c_j$ for infinitely many values of $n$. Consequently $U$ is disjoint from $\supp f\shsub{C}^{k_n}(c_j)$ for infinitely many $n$, contrary to $x_\infty$ being a point at which $f$ is cohomologically expansive for $v$. \end{proof} We included Lemma~ to show that our notion of cohomological expansion is genuinely expansive. However, depending on the nature of $\sheaf{A}$, being cohomologically expansive can imply that neighborhoods grow a great deal under iteration indeed. In Lemma~ we show that given any closed set $K$ such that the pullback of a fixed point free closed eigenbundle $a\in\shHone{X}{A}$ to $K$ is a trivial bundle then any neighborhood $U$ of a point at which $f$ is cohomologically expanding for $a$ is so expanded under iteration that $f^k(U)\not\subset \interior K$ for all sufficiently large $k$. The collection of such sets $K$ typically contains very large sets about every point so no matter where $f^k(x)$ is the conclusion that $f^k(U)$ does not lie in any $\interior K$ implies some points of $f^k(U)$ must lie far away from $f^k(x)$. The point is roughly that large iterates of any neighborhood of $x$ can not be homotopically contracted to a point in $X$. \begin{lemma} If $\sheaf{B}$ is soft, then for any closed set $K\subset X$ such that the image of $H^1(X,\sheaf{A})\to H^1(K,\sheaf{A}\rest{K})$ is zero, given any divisor $c\in \shGamma{C}$, there is another divisor $c'\in\shGamma{C}$ associated to the same bundle and $c'$ is supported outside the interior of $K$. Consequently, if $f$ is cohomologically expansive at $x\in X$ for some base point free closed eigenbundle $a\in \shHone{X}{A}$ then necessarily for any neighborhood $U$ of $x$, $f^k(U)\not\subset \interior K$ for all large $k$, where $\interior K$ is the interior of $K$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We use the commutative diagram \[ \xymatrix{ {H^0(X,\sheaf{B})} \ar[r]^{\mGamma{q}} \ar[d] & {H^0(X,\sheaf{C})} \ar[r]^\delta \ar[d] & {\shHone{X}{A}} \ar[d] \\ {H^0(K,\sheaf{B}\rest{K})} \ar[r]^{\mGamma{q}} & {H^0(K,\sheaf{C}\rest{K})} \ar[r]^\delta & {0} } \] which we have written using $H^0$ instead of $\Gamma$ so it is clear what the ambient space is in each case. From exactness there exists some $\beta\in H^0(K,\sheaf{B}\rest{K})$ such that $\delta(\beta)=c\rest{K}$. Then since $\sheaf{B}$ is soft the map $H^0(X,\sheaf{B})\to H^0(K,\sheaf{B}\rest{K})$ is surjective so there is some $b\in\shGamma{B}=H^0(X,\sheaf{B})$ such that $b\rest{K}=\beta$. Then $c'=c-(\Gamma q)(b)$ has $\delta(c')=\delta(c)$ and $c'\rest{K}=0$ so $\supp(c')$ is disjoint from the interior of $K$. It is easy to see that if $f$ is cohomologically expansive at $x\in X$ for some fixed point free closed eigenbundle $a\in \shHone{X}{A}$ then necessarily for any neighborhood $U$ of $x$, $f^k(U)\cap \supp c\nempty$ for all large $k$ for any $c\in\shGamma{C}$ such that $\delta(c)=a$. Hence $f^k(U)$ can not lie in the interior of $K$ for any large $k$. \end{proof} \begin{convention} We let $\K$ be either $\R$ or $\C$, although our central theorems only require $\K$ to be a complete field with an absolute value. \end{convention} The following Theorem takes advantage of the fact that in an exact sequence the eigenvalues of members of nonadjacent members of the sequence do not have to agree to give conditions under which one can uniquely ``lift'' fixed members of one term of the exact sequence to a fixed member of the preceding term. Interpreted as a statement in the context of sheaf cohomology we will be able to use this Theorem to make dynamical conclusions. The theorem shows that each closed eigenbundle of the induced map $f\shsub{A}\colon\shHone{X}{A}\to\shHone{X}{A}$ with sufficiently large eigenvalue has a unique associated invariant divisor $c\in\shGamma{C}$. \begin{definition} Given any finite dimensional $\K$ vector space $V$ along with a linear map $g\colon V\to V$ and any positive real number $r$, we let the $r$ chronically expanding subspace of $V$ be the span of the subspaces associated\footnote{Meaning for each eigenvector $\lambda$ we include not just the $\lambda$ eigenspace, but also every $v\in V$ such that $(g-\lambda\cdot\id{V})^n(v)=0$ for some positive integer $n$.} to eigenvalues of absolute value greater than $r$. We refer to the $1$ chronically expanding subspace simply as the chronically expanding subspace. \end{definition} \begin{theorem}[Unique Invariant Subspace Theorem] We will assume the following: \begin{itemize} \item $f\colon X\to X$ is a continuous self map of a topological space $X$. \item We are given an $f$ self cohomomorphism of a short exact sequence of sheaves on $X$, \[\sheaf{A}\overset{p}{\to}\sheaf{B}\overset{q}{\to}\sheaf{C}\] \item $\shGamma{B}$ is a Banach space over $\K$, and there exists some $\alpha,d\in \positive$ such that $\|\mshGamma{f}{B}^k(\divisor{B})\|\leq d \cdot\alpha^k\| \divisor{B}\|$ for $k\in\N$, $\divisor{B}\in \shGamma{B}$, \item $\shGamma{C}$ is a topological vector space over $\K$. \item If a sequence $\divisor{C}_i\in \shGamma{C}$ of divisors converges to another divisor $\divisor{C}_\infty$ then the support of $\divisor{C}_\infty$ is contained in the closure of the union of the supports of $\divisor{C}_i$. \item The maps $\mshGamma{f}{C}$ and $\mGamma{q}$ are continuous. \item We are given a finite dimensional $H^1(f\shsub{A})$ invariant subspace $W$ of the $\alpha$ chronically expanding subspace of $\shHone{X}{A}$. We also require $W$ to be comprised only of closed bundles. \end{itemize} Then given any $\K$ linear map $s\colon W\to\shGamma{C}$ such that $\delta s=\id{W}$ there is a $\K$ linear map $\tau\colon W\to\shGamma{B}$ satisfying \begin{equation} \kappa :=\lim_{k\to\infty} (\mshGamma{f}{C})^ksg^k=s+(\Gamma q)\tau \end{equation} where $g\colon W\to W$ is the inverse of $H^1f\shsub{A}\rest{W}$. Under iterated pullback the rescaled pullbacks of any divisor $\divisor{C}\in\shGamma{C}$ of a bundle $w\in W$ converge toward the invariant plane of divisors $\kappa(W)\subset\shGamma{C}$. The map $\kappa\colon W\to\shGamma{C}$ is the unique map making the diagram \[ \xymatrix@=12pt{ & & & & & {W} \ar '[d] [ddd] ^{g} \ar [rd] ^{\iota} \ar@{-->}[lld]_{\kappa} & \\ {\shGamma{B}} \ar[rrr]_{\mGamma{q}} \ar[ddd]_{\mshGamma{f}{B}} & & & {\shGamma{C}} \ar [ddd]_{\mshGamma{f}{C}} \ar [rrr] _(.4){\delta} & & & {\shHone{X}{A}} \ar [ddd] ^{H^1 f\shsub{A}} \\ \\ & & & & & {W} \ar [rd] ^{\iota} \ar@{-->}[lld]_{\kappa} \\ {\shGamma{B}} \ar[rrr]_{\mGamma{q}} & & & {\shGamma{C}} \ar [rrr] _(.4){\delta} & & & {\shHone{X}{A}} } \] commute. Finally, for any basepoint free eigenbundle $v\in W$ the support of the corresponding invariant divisor $\kappa(v)\in\shGamma{C}$ is contained in the set of points on which $f$ is cohomologically expansive for $v$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We note that $\delta\bigl((\mshGamma{f}{C})sg-s\bigr)=0$ and so there is a map $\sigma\colon W\to \shGamma{B}$ such that $(\Gamma q)\sigma=(\mshGamma{f}{C})sg-s$. Define $\Phi\colon \Hom(W,\shGamma{B})\to \Hom(W,\shGamma{B})$ by $\Phi(\sigma)=(\mshGamma{f}{B})\sigma g^{-1}$. We will show that the sequence of maps $\Phi^k$ is exponentially contracting on $\Hom(W,\shGamma{B})$. Fix a norm $\|\cdot\|$ on $W$. The assumption that $W$ lies in the $\alpha$ chronically expanding subspace of $\shHone{X}{A}$ implies that there exists some $\beta > \alpha$ and some $c > 0$ such that $\|g^{-k}(w)\|\leq c\beta^{-k}\|w\|$ for $k\in \N$, $w\in W$. This with the assumption on the rate of expansion of $\mshGamma{f}{B}$ easily implies that \[\|\Phi^k(\phi)(w)\|=\|(\mshGamma{f}{B})^k(\phi(g^{-k}(w)))\| \leq cd\Bigl(\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\Bigr)^k\|\phi\|\cdot \|w\|\] Thus $\Phi^k$ is an operator of norm no more than $cd\Bigl(\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\Bigr)^k$, where $\alpha < \beta$. Letting $\tau_k=\sigma+\Phi(\sigma)+\Phi^2(\sigma)+\dotsb+\Phi^k(\sigma)$ then $\lim_{k\to\infty} \tau_k$ converges to some map $\tau$. It is easily confirmed that $(\Gamma q)\tau_k=(\mshGamma{f}{C})^ksg^{-k}-s$. Equation~\eqref{iterationFormula} then follows by continuity of $\Gamma q$. The conclusions about the map $\kappa$ are easy consequences of its definition. For the final conclusion note that if we just let $W$ be the span of $v$ then we have already shown that if $\divisor{C}$ is the unique invariant member of $\shGamma{C}$ associated to $v$ then for any divisor $c'\in\shGamma{C}$ satisfying $\delta(c')=v$ letting $\lambda$ be the eigenvalue of $v$ we can write $c'=\kappa(v)+(\Gamma q)(b)$ and equation~ becomes $(\mshGamma{f}{C})^k{c'}/\lambda^k=\kappa(v)+(\Gamma q)(\mshGamma{f}{B})^k b\lambda^k$ where the final term goes to zero as $k\to\infty$ (by our assumptions on growth rates of $g^{-1}$ and $\mshGamma{f}{B}$). Hence $(\mshGamma{f}{C})^k(c')/\lambda^k$ converges to $c=\kappa(v)$. If $U$ is any open subset of $X$ and if the support of $c'$ is disjoint from $f^n(U)$ for arbitrarily large values of $n$, then the support of $(\mshGamma{f}{C})^n(c')$ must be disjoint from $U$ for arbitrarily large values of $n$. Since, rescaled, these converge to $c$ then $U$ must lie outside the support of $c$. \end{proof} \begin{remark} While we have not formally required $X$ to be compact, the requirement that $\shGamma{B}$ be a Banach space makes this the main case in which Theorem~ is apt to have interesting applications. \end{remark} Theorem~ shows that among all members of $\shGamma{C}$ representing a cohomology class in $W$ there is a unique invariant linear subspace which can be identified with $W$ and all other such members of $\shGamma{C}$ are contracted to this invariant copy of $W$ in $\shGamma{C}$ under (rescaled) pullback. \begin{corollary} Assume that the hypothesis of Theorem~ are satisfied, and that $g\colon W\to W$ is dominated by a single simple real eigenvalue $r > 0$ with eigenvector $v$. Let $\divisor{C}\equiv\kappa(v)$ be the unique invariant divisor of $v$. Then given a divisor $\divisor{C}'\in \shGamma{C}$ of any $w\in W$ the successive rescaled pullbacks $f\shsub{C}^k(\divisor{C}')/r^k$ converge to a multiple (possibly zero) of $\current{C}$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} This is a direct consequence of equation~\eqref{iterationFormula}. \end{proof} The assumption that $g\colon W\to W$ is dominated by a single simple real eigenvalue is meant to handle the most typical situation, and is not an essential restriction. \begin{remark} Given that for a fixed $f\colon X\to X$ the category of $\cat{C}$ sheaves $\sheaf{A}$ on $X$ endowed with an $f$ self cohomomorphism $F$ is an abelian category with enough injectives, then the functor $\fixed\Gamma$ which gives the fixed global sections of $\sheaf{A}$ under $F$ will be left exact and its right derived functors should be of dynamical interest. In the case where $\sheaf{A}$ is a sheaf of functions and $f$ is invertible this is just group cohomology with the group $\Z$ acting on $\shGamma{A}$ and has been an object of study for some time (see, e.g. ). We anticipate studying the case of more general sheaves $\sheaf{A}$ and the right derived functors of the composition $\fixed\Gamma$ in a future paper, including the case of endomorphisms. \end{remark} \subsection{Regularity and Positivity} Typically our regularity results for the members invariant plane $\kappa(W)$ will be most easily described in terms of $\sheaf{B}$ rather than $\sheaf{C}$. We therefore make the following definition. \begin{definition} Given a subsheaf $\sheaf{B}'\subset\sheaf{B}$ we will say a divisor $\divisor{C}\in\shGamma{C}$ has local $\sheaf{B}'$ potentials if $\divisor{C}\in\Gamma(q(\sheaf{B}'))$. This is equivalent to requiring that about each point $x\in X$ there is an open neighborhood $U$ and some $\divisor{B}'\in\sheaf{B}'(U)$ such that $q(\divisor{B}')=\divisor{C}\rest{U}$. \end{definition} The proof of Theorem~ implicitly provides a method to prove regularity results for members of the invariant plane $\kappa(W)$. We make this explicit as a corollary (of the proof). \begin{corollary} Assume we are given $f\colon X\to X$ and a short exact sequence of sheaves $\sheaf{A}\lto{p}\sheaf{B}\lto{q}\sheaf{C}$ satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem~. Assume that $\sheaf{B}'$ is a subsheaf of $\sheaf{B}$ and that $\mshGamma{f}{B}(\sheaf{B}')\subset \sheaf{B}'$. Let $\sheaf{C}'$ be the image of $\sheaf{B}'$ under $q\colon\sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{C}$. Let $\sheaf{A}'\subset \sheaf{A}$ be the kernel of $q\colon \sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{C}'$. Assume that the canonical map $H^1(X,\sheaf{A}')\to H^1(X,\sheaf{A})$ is injective. Assume that there are basis members $w_1,\dotsc,w_k$ of $W$ with divisors each of which has local potentials in $\sheaf{B}'$. Let $r$ be the the inverse of the absolute value of the largest eigenvalue of $g^{-1}$ (so for all $j\geq 0$, $g^{-j}$ is an operator of norm no more than $cr^{-j}$ for some $c > 0$) Finally assume that for any sequence of numbers $a_j, j=0,1,2,\dotsc$ such that $\abs{a_j}$ is no more than a constant times $r^{-j}$ as $j\to \infty$ then for $\current{B}\in\shGamma{B'}$ the exponentially decaying sequence \begin{equation} a_0\, \current{B} + a_1 \,(\mshGamma{f}{B})(\current{B})+ a_2\,(\mshGamma{f}{B})^2(\current{B})+\dotsb \end{equation} converges in the Banach space structure on $\shGamma{B}$ to a member of $\shGamma{B'}$. Then the map $\kappa\colon W\to\shGamma{C}$ lands in $\shGamma{C'}$. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Since $W$ lies in the $\alpha$ chronically expanding subspace of $W$ then necessarily $\alpha / r < 1$. Thus the terms of equation~\eqref{geometricSeries} have exponentially decreasing norms and the series is exponentially decaying. By the assumption of a divisor in $\shGamma{C'}$ for each member $w_j$ of a basis then the map $s\colon W\to \shGamma{C}$ in Theorem~ can be assumed to land in $\shGamma{C'}$. Then $(\mshGamma{f}{C})sg^{-1}-s$ lands in $\shGamma{C'}$ and satisfies $\delta((\mshGamma{f}{C})sg^{-1}-s)=0$. Since $H^1(X,\sheaf{A'})\to H^1(X,\sheaf{A})$ injects it easily follows that for each $w_j$ one can choose $\sigma(w_j)$ to be a member $\current{B}_j$ of $\shGamma{B}'$. Using the basis $w_1,\dotsc,w_k$ to write $g^{-1}$ as a matrix $A$, and letting $a_{ij,\ell}$ be the $ij$ entry of $A^\ell$ (so for each $ij$, $a_{ij,\ell}$ is bounded by a constant times $r^{-\ell}$) we see that $\tau_\ell(w_j)=\current{B}_j + (\mshGamma{f}{B})(a_{1j,1}\current{B}_1 + \dotsb + a_{kj,1}\current{B}_k) + (\mshGamma{f}{B})^2(a_{1j,2}\current{B}_2+\dotsb + a_{kj,2}\current{B}_k) + \dotsb + (\mshGamma{f}{B})^\ell(a_{1j,\ell}\current{B}_1+\dotsb+a_{kj,\ell}\current{B}_k)$. Gathering all the $\current{B}_1$ terms, $\current{B}_2$ terms, etc... from the right hand side we see that $\tau=\lim_{k\to\infty} \tau_k$ is a member of $\shGamma{B'}$ and thus that $\kappa$ lands in $\shGamma{C'}$ by equation~\eqref{iterationFormula}. \end{proof} The following trivial observation will suffice for our needed positivity conclusions. \begin{observation} Assume we have an $f$ self cohomomorphism of a short exact sequence of sheaves $\sheaf{A}\overset{p}{\to}\sheaf{B}\overset{q}{\to}\sheaf{C}$ satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem~, and also a subsheaf $\sheaf{C}'\subset\sheaf{C}$ such that \begin{enumerate} \item $\sheaf{C}'$ is closed under multiplication by $\positive$. Note that $\sheaf{C}'$ is not necessarily a sheaf of $\K$ modules, or even of groups. \item $f\shsub{C}(\sheaf{C}')\subset \sheaf{C}'$ \item $\Gamma(\sheaf{C}')$ is closed in $\shGamma{C}$. \end{enumerate} Then for any closed eigenbundle $v\in \shHone{X}{A}$ with eigenvalue in $\positiveK$ and at least one divisor $\divisor{C}'\in\shGamma{C'}$ the unique invariant divisor $\divisor{C}\in\shGamma{C}$ of $v$ also lies in $\shGamma{C'}$. \end{observation} \begin{proof} The proof is trivial since $\divisor{C}=\lim_{k\to\infty} (\mshGamma{f}{C})^k(\divisor{C}')/\lambda^k$ where $\lambda\in\positive$ is the eigenvalue of $v$. \end{proof} \section{Subsheaf Cohomology} In applications of Theorem~ it is common that there is a well understood exact sequence of sheaves \begin{equation} \sheaf{S}_0\lto{d_0}\sheaf{S}_1\lto{d_1}\sheaf{S}_2\lto{d_2}\dotsb \end{equation} and that $\sheaf{B}$ is a subsheaf of $\sheaf{S}_k$ for some $k$, $\sheaf{A}$ is the kernel of ${d_k}\rest{\sheaf{B}}\colon\sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{S}_{k+1}$ and $\sheaf{C}$ is the image of $\sheaf{B}$ in $\sheaf{S}_{k+1}$. Moreover, in these cases the self cohomomorphism $f$ on $\sheaf{A}\to\sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{C}$ is induced by an $f$ self cohomomorphism of the sequence~\eqref{niceSheafSequence}. In order to apply Theorem~ to these cases we need to understand the $R$ module $H^1(X,\sheaf{A})$ and its induced self map. There does not seem to be a computationally useful way to extract an injective resolution of $\sheaf{A}$ using subsheaves of $\sheaf{S}_0\lto{d_0}\sheaf{S}_1\lto{d_1}\dotsb$ even if this last sequence is acyclic. Consider for example the case where for each $n$, $\sheaf{S}_n$ is the sheaf of currents of degree $n$ and $\sheaf{B}\subset\sheaf{S}_k$ is a subsheaf of mildly regular currents. It is not clear one could make the regularization method of work to compare $H^1(X,\sheaf{A})$ to deRham cohomology groups because his chain homotopy operator $A$ does not restrict well to $\sheaf{B}$ since $\ed A$ does not preserve regularity. We use a standard sheaf cohomological trick, which we include here as a proposition which we will need and which we expect to be commonly used in conjuction with Theorem~ because of the requirement that $\shGamma{B}$ be a Banach space. \begin{theorem}[Subsheaf Cohomology] Assume we are given an exact sequence of sheaves $\sheaf{S}_0\lto{d_0}\sheaf{S}_1\lto{d_1}\sheaf{S}_2\lto{d_2}\dotsb$ and that $\sheaf{B}$ is a subsheaf of $\sheaf{S}_k$ for some $k\geq 1$. Let $\sheaf{A}=\ker{d_k}\rest{\sheaf{B}}$, and $\sheaf{B'}$ be the preimage of $\sheaf{B}$ under $d_{k-1}$. Further assume that for each $j \geq 1$ we have $H^{j}(X,\sheaf{B'})=0$, $H^j(X,\sheaf{B})=0$ and for any $m$ satisfying $0\leq m\leq k-1$ we have $H^j(X,\sheaf{S}_m)=0$ for $j\geq 1$. Then for each $n\geq 1$ there is a canonical isomorphism \[H^n(X,\sheaf{A})\cong H^{n+k}(X,\ker d_0).\] \end{theorem} \begin{proof} While this result is essential for us, its proof is a standard cohomological trick. First one notes that $\ker d_{k-1}\rest{\sheaf{B'}}=\ker d_{k-1}$ by the definition of $\sheaf{B'}$. One has the short exact sequences of sheaves: \[\ker d_{k-1}\to \sheaf{B'}\to (d_k(\sheaf{B'})=\sheaf{A})\] and \[\ker d_j\to \sheaf{S}_j\to \ker d_{j+1}, \quad j=0,\dotsc,k-2.\] Considering the long exact sequences for these shows that the induced maps $H^n(X,\sheaf{A})\to H^{n+1}(X,\ker d_{k-1})$ and $H^{n+j}(X,\ker d_{k-j})\to H^{n+j-1}(X,\ker d_{k-j-1})$ are isomorphisms for $j=1,\dotsc,k-1$. Composing each of these canonical isomorphisms gives a canonical isomorphism from $H^n(X,\sheaf{A})\to H^{n+k}(X,\ker d_0)$. \end{proof} \begin{remark} We take it as clear from the functorality of the $\delta$ map in the long exact sequence that given an $f$-self cohomomorphism of $\sheaf{S}_0\lto{d_0}\sheaf{S}_1\lto{d_1}\sheaf{S}_2\lto{d_2}\dotsb$ which maps $\sheaf{B}$ to itself that the induced map of $H^1(X,\sheaf{A})$ is identified with the induced map of $H^{k+1}(X,\ker d_0)$ via the above isomorphism. \end{remark} We will need one more tool be able to make effective use of Theorem~ for calculating sheaf cohomology of subsheaves of sheaves of currents. \begin{definition} By an {\it interval flow} $h$ on a bounded open interval $I\subset \R$ we will mean the flow obtained by integrating a vector field of the form $\sigma(t)\dvect{t}$ where $\sigma$ is positive exactly on $I$ and zero elsewhere. We use $h(x,t)$ to denote the location of $x\in R$ after following the flow for time $t$. \end{definition} \begin{definition} By an $n$-box in $\R^n$ we will mean an open subset which is a product of $n$ bounded open intervals $I_1,\dotsc,I_n$. By an $n$-box in an $n$ dimensional manifold we will mean an $n$-box which is compactly supported in some coordinate patch. By an $n$-subbox of an $n$ box $U=I_1\times \dotsb\times I_n$ we will mean an $n$ box of the form $I'_1\times \dotsb\times I'_n$ where $I'_k$ is a subinterval of $I_k$ for each $k\in 1,\dotsc,n$. \end{definition} \begin{definition} By an $n$-box flow we will mean the $\R^n$ action $h$ on $\R^n$ which is the product of $n$ interval flows $h_1(t_1),\dotsc,h_n(t_n)$ on $\R^n$. That is $h(x,t)=(h_1(x_1,t_1),\dotsc,h_n(x_n,t_n))$ where $x=(x_1,\dotsc,x_n)$, $t=(t_1,\dotsc,t_n)$ and $h_1,\dotsc,h_n$ are interval flows on $I_1,\dotsc,I_n$ respectively. We refer to the $n$-box $I_1\times\dotsb\times I_n$ as the {open support} of the $n$-box flow. We will often $h_t$ to denote the diffeomorphism $h(\cdot,t)\colon\R^n\to\R^n$. \end{definition} \begin{definition} Let $h$ be an $n$-box flow on an $n$-box $B$. Let $\rho$ be a compactly supported smooth volume form on $\R^n$. With this data we define an operator $\smear_{h,\rho}$ on smooth $k$ forms on any $n$ box $U$ containing $B$ by \begin{equation} \smear_{h,\rho}(\phi)=\int_{R^n} h_t^*(\phi) \rho(t) \end{equation} We say $\smear_{h,\rho}$ defines a {\it box smear} on $U$, or {\it smears} $U$. We will omit the subscript from $\smear_{h,\rho}$ when the meaning is clear from context. It is clear $\smear(\phi)$ is compactly supported in $U$ if $\phi$ is. \end{definition} It is clear from the definition of $\smear$ that if $\psi$ is an $n-k$ form on $U$ then \[\int_U \smear_{H,\rho}(\phi)\wedge \psi =\int_U \phi\wedge \smear_{-H,\rho}(\psi)\] where $-H$ is the family $H_t$ with the parameter negated. From this motivation we define a smear of a current. \begin{definition} Given $h,\rho$ defining a smear on an $n$ box $U$ we define the smear $\smear_{h,\rho}$ on currents on $U$ via \[<\smear_{h,\rho}(\current{C}),\phi>\equiv<\current{C},\smear_{-h,\rho}(\phi)>.\] \end{definition} \begin{lemma} Given $h$, $\rho$ defining a smear $\smear$ on an $n$ box $U$ then $\ed \bigl(\smear(\current{C})\bigr)=\smear(\ed \current{C})$ for currents $\current{C}$ on any open subset of $U$ containing the open support of the smear. Also, restricted to the open support of the smear, $\smear(\current{C})$ is a smooth form on $V$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We remark that it is clear that $\ed \bigl(\smear(\phi)\bigr)=\smear(\ed \phi)$ for forms $\phi$, and consequently for currents $\phi$ via the definition. Because on the open support of the smear, a smear is just convolution with a smooth function, then we see that if $V$ is an open subset of the open support of smear $\smear$ on $U$ then for any current $\current{C}$ on $U$, $\smear(\current{C})\rest{V}$ is a smooth form on $V$. \end{proof} \begin{proposition} Let $\sheaf{B}$ be a sheaf of degree $k$ currents. Assume that $\sheaf{B}$ contains the sheaf of smooth $k$ forms on $X$, and that $\sheaf{B}(U)$ is closed under smears on any $n$-box $U\subset X$. Let $\sheaf{B'}$ be the preimage under $\ed$ of $\sheaf{B}$ in the sheaf of degree $k-1$ currents. Then $\sheaf{B'}$ is soft, and therefore, $\Gamma$-acyclic. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} To show that $\sheaf{B'}$ is soft it is sufficient to show that $\sheaf{B'}$ is locally soft ( page 69). Given an $n$-box $U$ in $X$ we therefore only need to show that if $K$ is a closed subset of $X$ in $U$ and if $W$ is an open neighborhood of $K$ then given any member $\current{B}_0'$ of $\sheaf{B'}(W)$ there is an open neighborhood $W_0\subset W$ of $K$ and a member $\current{B}'\in \sheaf{B'}(U)$ such that $\current{B}'\rest{W_0}=\current{B}_0'\rest{W_0}$. Choose any pair of open sets $V_1,V_2$ such that $K\Subset V_1\Subset V_2\Subset W$. Then $\overline{V_2}\setminus V_1$ is compact and can therefore be covered by finitely many (open) $n$-subboxes $Y_1\dotsc,Y_N$ of $U$. Moreover these subboxes can all be chosen to be disjoint from $K$ and to lie inside $W$. Letting $\smear_1,\dotsc,\smear_n$ be smears on $U$ with open support $Y_1,\dotsc,Y_N$ respectively then let $\current{B}=\smear_1(\smear_2(\dotsb(\smear_N(\current{\current{B}_0'}))\dotsb))$. Then on each $Y_j$, $\current{B}$ is given by a smooth $k$ form. Also, $\current{B}\rest{W}=\current{B}_0'\rest{W}$. Finally, we choose a smooth function $\psi\colon U\to [0,1]$ which is one on a neighborhood of $\overline{V_1}$ and zero on a neighborhood of $U\setminus V_2$. Then the current $\current{B}'\equiv\psi \current{B}$ extends (by zero) to a current on all of $U$. Then for each $Y_j$, $\current{B'}\rest{Y_j}$ is a smooth function times a smooth form. Thus $\ed(\current{B'}\rest{Y_j})$ is a smooth form and lies in $\sheaf{B}(Y_j)$. The boxes $Y_j$ cover $\overline{V_2}\setminus V_1$. Outside $V_2$, $\current{B'}$ is identically zero. We know that $\ed\current{B}\in\sheaf{B}(W)$ by Lemma~. We also know that $\psi\equiv 1$ on an open neighborhood $W_1$ of $\overline{V_1}$. Thus $\ed(\current{B'}\rest{W_1})=\ed(\current{B}\rest{W_1})\in\sheaf{B}(W_1)$. We thus conclude that $\current{B'}\in\sheaf{B'}(U)$ since its restriction to each $Y_j$, to $W_1$ and to $U\setminus\overline{V_2}$ is a section of $\sheaf{B'}$. Letting $W_0=V_2\setminus \overline{(Y_1\cup Y_2\cup\dotsb\cup Y_N)}$ then $W_0$ is an open neighborhood of $K$, then $W_0\subset W_1$ so $\current{B'}\rest{W_0}=\current{B}\rest{W_0}=\current{B}_0'$ since $W_0$ is disjoint from the open support of each of the smears $\smear_1,\dotsc,\smear_N$. This completes the proof that $\sheaf{B'}$ is soft. \end{proof} The following gives a broad generalization of the equalivalence of the cohomology of currents with the deRham cohomology groups. To the author's knowledge, this result is new. \begin{corollary} Let $\sheaf{B}$ be a sheaf of degree $k$ currents. Assume that $\sheaf{B}$ contains the sheaf of smooth $k$ forms on $X$, and that $\sheaf{B}(U)$ is closed under smears on any $n$-box $U\subset X$. Letting $\sheaf{A}$ be the subsheaf of $\ed$ closed members of $\sheaf{B}$, then \[H^m(X,\sheaf{A})=H^{m+k}(X,\K),\] where $\K$ is $\R$ or $\C$ depending on whether or not we allow complex valued currents and forms. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} This is an immediate consequence of Proposition~ and Theorem~. \end{proof} \section{Invariant Currents} \begin{notation} If $\sheaf{G}$ is some sheaf of functions on a smooth orientable manifold $X$ we will use $\forms{k}(\sheaf{G})$ to denote the sheaf of $k$ forms on $X$ with coefficients in $\sheaf{G}$. We will let $\clForms{k}(\sheaf{G})$ be the subsheaf of closed (in the sense of currents) members of $\forms{k}(\sheaf{G})$. \end{notation} It will be convenient to use either degree or dimension of a current depending on the context (just as dimension and codimension are useful for discussing manifolds), so we will not stick to just one of these terms. We will let $\curDeg{k}$ denote the sheaf of degree $k$ currents with the index written above as is typical for cohomology since $\ed$ increases the degree. We will similarly write $\curDim{k}$ for the sheaf of dimension $k$ currents with the index written below since $\ed$ decreases dimension as is common for homology. We use the following convention to realize a form $\alpha$ as a current so that if $\alpha$ is $C^1$ then $\ed \alpha$ is the same whether computed as a current or a form. \begin{definition} Given an $k$ form $\alpha$ with $L^1$ coefficients on an $n$ manifold $X$ we realize $\alpha$ as a degree $k$ current via \[\beta\mapsto (-1)^{\binom{k+1}{2}}\int_X \alpha\wedge \beta\] \end{definition} \begin{definition} Given a (possibly complex) nonzero deRham cohomology class $c\in \deRham^k(X)$ with $f^*(c)=\alpha \cdot c$ for some scalar $\alpha \in\C$ we will refer to a current $\current{C}$ in the same cohomology class as $\alpha$ as an eigencurrent for $f$ if $f^*(\current{C})=\alpha \current{C}$. \end{definition} Currents naturally pushforward, rather than pullback. Because we are considering maps which are not necessarily invertible we need to address how this pullback is performed. If $f$ has critical points it is impossible to define a continuous pullback operation $f^*$ on all currents in a way that agrees with expected cases. For instance, consider $f(x)=x^2$ and let $\current{C}_a$ be the dimension one current on $\R$ with $\current{C}_a(h(x)\ed x)=h(a)$, i.e. $\current{C}_a$ is a unit mass vector. Then the pullback $f^*(\current{C}_a)$ should be the sum of weighted unit masses at the two preimages of this vector (just like the pullback of a point mass is a sum of point masses each weighted by multiplicity), that is, $f^*(\current{C}_a)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{a}}\bigl(\current{C}_{\sqrt{a}}-\current{C}_{-\sqrt{a}}\bigr)$. However, these pullbacks do not converge to a current as $a\to 0$ so $f^*(\current{C}_0)$ is not defined. Since we want $f^*$ to be continuous, we are forced to work with currents that have some extremely mild regularity. We address this in the next section. \subsection{Nimble Forms and Lenient Currents} Finding a good set of currents to use to study smooth finite self maps (not necessarily invertible) of compact manifolds turns out to be rather delicate. Our solution is to first expand our class of forms to include pushforwards (in the sense of currents) of forms through an appropriate class of smooth maps. Then we restrict our attention to currents which act on this extended class of forms. This solution has the very nice property that it can potentially be adapted directly to study the dynamics of other various other categories of smooth maps (by simply changing which forms are considered nimble, according to the class of maps used). It will convenient to first define the natural pushforward operator on forms: \begin{definition} Given a compact orientable manifold $X$ we let $\cat_X$ be the category of smooth maps $f\colon X\to X$ of nonzero degree and having the property that the critical set has measure zero. We use critical set here to mean the points at which $Df$ is not invertible. \end{definition} It follows from our definition that the image of any set of positive measure under some $f\in \cat_X$ has positive measure. \begin{definition} Given a compact orientable manifold $X$ we define $\nimble^k$ to be those currents $\varphi$ which are a finite sum of currents of the form $p_*(\sigma)$ where $p\colon X\to X$ is a map in $\cat_X$ and $\sigma$ is a form of degree $k$. The pushforward $p_*(\sigma)$ is computed in the sense of currents. \end{definition} We will later show that nimble forms are also, in fact, bona fide forms. \begin{definition} We topologize $\nimble^k$ by saying $\varphi_j\to \varphi$ in $\nimble^k$ if for sufficiently large $j$ there are maps $f_1,\dotsc,f_k$ and $k$ forms $\sigma_{1j},\dotsc,\sigma_{kj}$ as well as forms $\sigma_1,\dotsc,\sigma_k$ such that $\sum_i f_{i*}(\sigma_{ij})=\varphi_j$ and $\sum_i f_{i*}(\sigma_i)=\varphi$ (where pushforwards are taken in the sense of currents) and for each $i\in 1,\dotsc,k$, the forms $\sigma_{ij}$ converge to $\sigma_i$ in the strong sense (i.e. all derivatives converge uniformly). \end{definition} \begin{lemma} Given a compact orientable manifold $Y$, $\nimble^k(Y)$ is a topological vector space. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} This follows easily from our definition of the topology. \end{proof} We now define the corresponding space of currents. \begin{definition} We define the dimension $k$ {\it lenient currents} $\lenient_k(Y)$ to be the topological dual of $\nimble^k(Y)$. Every member of $\lenient_k(Y)$ is a dimension $k$ current, but with the added structure of its action on all nimble $k$ forms. We give $\lenient_k$ the weak topology, i.e. $\current{C}_i\to\current{C}$ in $\lenient_k$ iff $<\current{C}_i,\varphi>\to<\current{C},\varphi>$ for every $\varphi\in\nimble^k$. We write $\lenient^k$ for the lenient currents of degree $k$. \end{definition} We define operations of wedge products with smooth forms as is usual for currents. It is clear that the lenient dimension $k$ currents give a sheaf on $X$. The following properties of nimble forms are also immediately clear. \begin{lemma} Let $f\colon X\to X$ be a member of $\cat_X$. The pushforward (as a current) of a nimble $k$ form by $f$ is again a nimble form. Moreover $f_*\colon \nimble^k(X)\to\nimble^k(X)$ is continuous (in the topology of nimble forms). Also the exterior derivative of a nimble form (as a current) is a nimble form and $\ed \colon \nimble^k(X)\to \nimble^{k+1}(X)$ is continuous. \end{lemma} The basic necessary facts about pulling back lenient currents are then immediate. We state them here: \begin{lemma} Given $f\colon X\to X$ a member of $\cat_X$ the induced map $f^*$ on the sheaf of lenient degree $k$ currents is an $f$ cohomomorphism of sheaves. Both $f^*\colon \lenient^k(X)\to\lenient^k(X)$ and $\ed\colon \lenient^k(X)\to\lenient^{k+1}(X)$ are continuous. Lastly, $f^*\ed =\ed f^*\colon\lenient^k(Y)\to\lenient^{k+1}(X)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proposition} Assume that $f\colon X\to X$ is a member of $\cat_X$. Let $R$ be the regular set of $f$. By Sard's theorem $R$ has full measure. Since the critical set is compact then $R$ is an open subset of $X$. Since the preimage of a measure zero set has measure zero for $\cat_X$ maps then $f^{-1}(R)$ is also a full measure open set in $X$. There is a well defined operation $f_\star$ which maps $k$ forms on $f^{-1}(R)$ to $k$ forms on $R$. Given a $k$ form $\beta$ on $X$, $f_\star(\beta)$ is defined on any open subset $V\subset R$ such that each component $U_1,\dotsc,U_m$ of $f^{-1}(V)$ maps diffeomorphically onto $V$ by the formula \begin{equation} f_\star(\beta)\rest{V}\equiv \frac{1}{\deg f}\sum_i\Bigl((f\rest{U_i})^{-1}\Bigr)^\star(\beta)\cdot \sigma_i \end{equation} where $\sigma_i\in\{\pm 1\}$ is the oriented degree of $f\rest{U_i}\colon U_i\to V$. The pushforward $f_\star$ satisfies: \begin{itemize} \item $f_\star \ed=\ed f_\star$ (keeping in mind that $f_\star$ returns a current on $R$) \item $f_\star(1)=1$ \item $f_\star(f^*(\beta)\wedge \alpha)=\beta\wedge f_\star(\alpha)$ \item $(f_\star)^n=(f^n)_\star$ \item The formula \begin{equation} \ds{\int_X f^*(\beta)\wedge\alpha = \int_X \beta\wedge f_\star(\alpha)} \end{equation} holds for any $k$ form $\beta$ with $\bounded$ coefficients on $Y$ and any smooth $n-k$ form $\alpha$ on $X$. This justifies using $f_\star$ to pullback currents. (Part of the conclusion is that both sides are integrable.) \end{itemize} \end{proposition} \begin{proof} Each statement is a consequence of formula~\eqref{pushforward} except the integrability conclusion for equation~\eqref{fundamental}. Local charts can be given which are bounded subsets of $\R^n$ and for which $Df$ remains uniformly bounded (over each of the charts) and thus $f^*(\beta)$ will be a form with $\bounded$ coefficients in these charts. Thus the left hand side of \eqref{fundamental} is the integral of a bounded function over a finite union of bounded charts and is therefore absolutely integrable. Since $f_\star(f^*(\beta)\wedge \alpha)=\beta\wedge f_\star(\alpha)$ it is sufficient to show that if $\gamma$ is an $n$ form with $\bounded$ coefficients then \begin{equation} \int_{f^{-1}(R)} \gamma=\int_R f_\star(\gamma). \end{equation} Typicaly $f_\star(\gamma)$ is unbounded so we need to show that the right hand side of \eqref{whatToProve} is integrable. About any point $x\in R$ we can find an open $V$ such that each of the preimages $U_1,\dotsc,U_k$ of $V$ is mapped diffeomorphically onto $V$. Since $X$ is orientable and $n$ dimensional there is a well defined notion of the absolute value of an $n$ form. Then \[\int_V \abs{f_\star(\gamma)}\leq \frac{1}{\deg f}\sum_i \int_{V} \Big\arrowvert\Bigl((f\rest{U_i})^{-1}\Bigr)^\star(\gamma)\Big\arrowvert =\sum_i \int_{U_i} \abs{\gamma}=\int_{f^{-1}(V)} \abs{\gamma}.\] Now $R$ is covered by countably many such sets $V$ and listing them as $V_0,V_1,V_2,\dotsc,$ we can let $V'_0=V_0, V'_1=V_1\setminus V_0, V'_2=V_2\setminus (V_0\cup V_1),\dotsc$. Then $R$ is the union of the countable collection of disjoint measurable sets $V'_j$ and \[\int_R \abs{f_\star(\gamma)} = \sum_j \int_{V_j} \abs{f_\star(\gamma)}\leq \sum_j \int_{f^{-1}(V_j)} \abs{\gamma}=\int_{f^{-1}(R)} \abs{\gamma}.\] Since $\int_{f^{-1}(R)} \abs{\gamma}$ is finite then $f_\star(\gamma)$ is an $L^1$ form. Using precisely the same argument but with the absolute values removed and the inequalities replaced with equalities then shows $\int_R f_\star(\gamma)=\int_{f^{-1}(R)} \gamma$. \end{proof} Since $R$ and $f^{-1}(R)$ are open and full measure then $f_\star$ is an operator which takes in forms on $X$ and returns forms defined almost everywhere on $X$. We now show that nimble forms are bona fide forms. \begin{lemma} If $g\colon X\to X$ is a map in $\cat_X$ and $\sigma$ is a smooth $k$ form on $X$ then the current $g_*(\sigma)$ is the current of integration against the form $g_\star(\sigma)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} If $\varphi$ is a smooth $n-k$ form then by definition $<g_*(\sigma),\varphi>=<\sigma,g^*(\varphi)>= (-1)^{\binom{k+1}{2}}\int_X \sigma\wedge g^*(\varphi)= (-1)^{\binom{k+1}{2}}\int_X g_\star(\sigma)\wedge \varphi= <g_\star(\sigma),\varphi>$ by formula \eqref{fundamental} of Proposition~ \end{proof} As described in , an inner product on a vector space $V$ can be viewed as an isomorphism $\ell\colon V\to V^*$ satisfying certain properties. The inverse of $\ell$ gives the induced inner product on $V^*$. The fact that $<v,w>\leq \|v\|\cdot \|w\|$ with equality iff $v$ and $w$ are scalar multiples implies that the inner product norm on $V^*$ is the same as the operator norm of $V^*$ acting on $V$. The induced map $\bigwedge^k\ell\colon \bigwedge^k V\to \bigwedge^k V^*$ gives an inner product on $\bigwedge^k V$. We call this the canonical inner product on $\bigwedge^k V$ induced by the inner product on $V$. Hence, given a Riemannian metric on $X$, there are canonical smoothly varying inner products on $\bigwedge^k T_x X$ and $\bigwedge^k T_x^* X$ for each $x\in X$. At any point $x\in X$ we define $\| \bigwedge^k D_xf\|$ to be the operator norm of the linear function $\bigwedge^k D_xf\colon \bigwedge^k T_x X\to \bigwedge^k T_{f(x)} X$. We define $\| \bigwedge^k Df\|$ to be the $\bounded$ norm of the map $x\mapsto \|\bigwedge^k D_x f\|$. Also, given a $k$ form $\varphi$ we define the {\it comass} $\|\varphi\|_{\bounded}$ of $\varphi$ to be the $\bounded$ norm of the function $x\mapsto \|\bigwedge^k \varphi_x \|$. It is clear that the $k$ forms with the comass norm is a Banach space. We now show that the $k$ forms with $\bounded$ coefficients are naturally lenient currents. We start by defining the action on nimble forms. \begin{definition} Given an $n-k$ form $\current{C}$ with $\bounded$ coefficients we define \[<\current{C},p_*(\sigma)>=(-1)^{\binom{n-k+1}{2}}\int_X \current{C}\wedge p_\star(\sigma)\] \end{definition} \begin{lemma} The space $\forms{n-k}(\bounded)$ of $n-k$ forms with $\bounded$ coefficients under the comass norm includes continuously into $\lenient_{k}(X)$ where the action of $\current{C}\in\forms{n-k}(\bounded)$ on some $\varphi=\sum_i f_{i*}(\sigma_i)\in\nimble^k(X)$, with each $f_i\in \cat_X$ and each $\sigma_i\in\forms{k}(\smooth)$ is given by \[<\current{C},\varphi>\equiv \sum_i\int_X f_i^*(C)\wedge \sigma_i.\] \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The assumption that $X$ is compact means that any two Riemannian metrics on $X$ are comparable. Choose one so the notion of the comass norm makes sense. The result is then a straightforward consequence of equation~\eqref{fundamental}, Lemma~, and our definitions. \end{proof} \begin{remark} It follows that a current with local $\forms{k}(\bounded)$ potentials is also a lenient current. \end{remark} \begin{remark} Given a member $\current{C}$ of $\forms{k}(\bounded)$ then $f^*(\current{C})$ is the same whether done as a lenient current or as a form. This, along with the fact that $\ed f^*=f^*\ed$ justifies the ad hoc pullback of closed positive $(1,1)$ currents used so successfully in holomorphic dynamics. Similarly $\ed \current{C}$ gives the same result whether calculated as a lenient current or a form if $\current{C}\in \forms{k}(C^1)$. \end{remark} \subsection{H\"older Lemmas} We will want to apply Corollary~ to show that each eigencurrent we construct has local $\ed$ potentials (or $\ed\ed^c$ potentials in the holomorphic case) which are forms with H\"older continuous coefficients. In order to do this we will need a few facts which we include here in order to avoid having to include regularization results as afterthoughts to our main theorems. \begin{observation} Let $\holder_\alpha$ be the functions with coefficients that are H\"older of exponent at least equal to some fixed $\alpha > 0$. Since diffeomorphisms preserve H\"older exponents and averages of H\"older functions are H\"older then we take it as clear that Corollary~ applies to show that $H^1(X,\sheaf{A'})=H^1(X,\sheaf{A})$ where $\sheaf{A'}$ is the closed members of $\forms{k}(\holder_\alpha))$ and $\sheaf{A}$ is the closed degree $k$ currents. \end{observation} \begin{lemma} Let $X$ be a compact manifold (real or complex) with a Riemannian metric and of real dimension $n$. Let $f\colon X\to X$ be a smooth map. Then local coordinate charts $U_i$ can be chosen on $X$ (each representing a convex open subset of $\R^n$) so that there is a positive constant $1 < M$ so that for any $k$ form $\varphi$, there exist constants $c,C > 0$ such that writing each $f^{k*}(\varphi)$ in any of the charts $U_i$ as \[f^{k*}(\varphi)=\sum a_{ki} \ed x^{\wedge i}\] then each function $a_{ki}$ satisfies \begin{equation} \sup_{x\in U_i} \abs{a_{ki}} \leq c\cdot \comassNorm{f^{k*}(\varphi)} \end{equation} and for each $j\in 1,\dotsc,n$, \[\sup_{x\in U_i} \Big\arrowvert\pder{a_{ki}}{{x_j}}\Big\arrowvert\leq C\cdot M^k.\] \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Equation~\eqref{firstFact} is a basic fact. The rest is a straightforward consequence of realizing a self map of a manifold as being made up of a bunch of maps between different coordinate patches in $\R^n$. That is, one chooses an open cover of patches $U_i$ of $X$. Each patch is realized in $\R^n$ as a round ball. Thinking of each patch as lying in $\R^n$ then we can find explicit maps from between open subsets of $\R^n$ of the form $p_{ij}\colon U_i\cap f^{-1}(U_j)\to U_j$. By shrinking each open ball $U_i$ a small amount the resulting patches still cover $X$ but the derivatives of the maps $p_{ij}$ are all now bounded (since we are working on relatively compact subsets of the previous maps $p_{ij}$). Then given any $x$ we can keep track of which patch $f^k(x)$ is in at each time and can then realize the map $f^k(x)$ as a composition $p_{i_1i_2}\circ p_{i_2i_3}\circ\dotsb\circ p_{i_{k-1}i_k}$. Since each partial derivative of each $p_{ij}$ is uniformly bounded then any partial derivative of the composition grows at most exponentially with $k$ and we are done. \end{proof} The following observation will also be useful: \begin{lemma} If there are positive constants $c,C,m,M$ with $m < 1 < M$ such that a sequence of smooth functions $h_k$ on an open convex set $U\subset \R^n$ satisfies \[\supNorm{h_k} < c\cdot m^k\] and \[\Big\Arrowvert \pder{h_k}{x_j}\Big\Arrowvert_{\text{sup}} < C\cdot M^k\] for all $k\in 0,1,2,\dotsc$ then $h_1+h_2+h_3+\dotsc$ converges to a bounded continuous function which is H\"older of any exponent $\alpha < \frac{\log(m)}{\log(m/M)}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The proof is elementary. \end{proof} \subsection{Eigencurrents for Cohomologically Expanding Smooth Maps} We will call a section $V$ of $\bigwedge^k TX$ a $k$-vector field. We define $\|V\|_{\bounded}$ to be the $\bounded$ norm of the function $x\mapsto \|V_x\|$. Whether Theorem~ applies to a map will depend the size of $\|\bigwedge^k Df\|$. Replacing $f$ with an iterate does not affect the needed estimate so we make the following definition. \begin{definition} We define $\maxMult_k$ to be the limit supremum as $j\to \infty$ of $\|\bigwedge^k D(f^j)\|^\frac{1}{j}$. It follows that $\maxMult_1 \geq e^\lambda$ for any Lyapunov exponent $\lambda$ and that $\maxMult_k \leq \maxMult_1^k$ ( page 33). \end{definition} We let $\sheaf{B}$ be the sheaf $\forms{k-1}(\bounded)$. The norm $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ clearly makes $\shGamma{B}$ into a Banach space. Given a member $\current{B}\in\shGamma{B}$, since the operator norm on each $\bigwedge^k T_xX$ is equal to the norm already defined on $\bigwedge^k T_x^*X$ for each $x\in X$ then $\|\current{B}\|_\infty$ is equal to supremum of the $\bounded$ norm of the function $x\mapsto \current{B}(V_x)$ as $V$ varies over all $\bounded$ $k$-vector fields of norm no more than one. \begin{theorem} Given $f\colon X\to X$ an a map in $\cat_X$ for the compact orientable manifold $X$, assume that $c\in \deRham^k(X)$ is a cohomology class (using either real or complex deRham cohomology) which is an eigenvector for $f^*$ with eigenvalue $\beta$. Assume also that $\vert \beta\vert > \maxMult^{k-1}$. Then there exists a unique eigencurrent $\current{C}$ with local $\forms{k-1}(\bounded)$ potentials representing the class $c$. Moreover $\current{C}$ has local $\forms{k-1}(\holder)$ potentials. Also, given any neighborhood $U\subset X$ of any point in the support of $\current{C}$, then for every lenient current $\current{C'}$ with local $\forms{k-1}(\bounded)$ potentials and which represents the cohomology class $c$ then $f^k(U)\cap \supp \current{C'}\nempty$ for all large $k$. Assume that the linear map $f^*\colon\deRham^k(X)\to\deRham^k(X)$ is dominated by a single simple real eigenvalue $r$. Given $\current{C}'$ any current which has local $\forms{k-1}(\bounded)$ potentials and which represents a cohomology class in the $\maxMult^{k-1}$ chronically expanding subspace of $\deRham^k(X)$, then the successive rescaled pullbacks $f^{k*}(\current{C}')/r^k$ of $\current{C}'$ converge to a multiple of $\current{C}$ in the sense of lenient currents (and thus also in the sense of currents). \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We let $\sheaf{B}=\forms{k-1}(\bounded)$, $\sheaf{A}$ and $\sheaf{C}$ be the kernel and image respectively of $\sheaf{B}\lto{\ed}\lenient^k$. By Theorem~, $H^1(X,\sheaf{A})$ can be canonically identified with $H^k(X,\K)$. Since $\sheaf{B}$ is $\Gamma$-acyclic then every member of $H^1(X,\sheaf{A})$ is a closed bundle with respect to the short exact sequence $\sheaf{A}\to\sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{C}$. From Lemma~ there is an induced $f$ cohomorphism of the short exact sequence $\sheaf{A}\lto{\iota}\sheaf{B}\lto{\ed}\sheaf{C}$. Also $\shGamma{C}$ is a space of lenient currents by Lemma~ and thus has a natural structure as a topological vector space. If a sequence $\current{B}_i\in\shGamma{B}$ converges to $\current{B}\in\shGamma{B}$ then $<\ed \current{B}_i,\varphi>=\int_X B_i\wedge \ed \varphi=\int_X B\wedge \ed\varphi=<\ed\current{B},\varphi>$ so the map $\ed\colon \shGamma{B}\to\shGamma{C}$ is continuous. The cohomomorphism $\mshGamma{f}{B}$ is pullback $f^*$ of differential forms. Fixing any real $\alpha$ satisfying $\maxMult_{k-1} < \alpha <\vert \beta\vert$ it is clear from the definition of $\maxMult_{k-1}$ that one can choose a real $d >0$ such that $\|\bigwedge^{k-1} D(f^\ell)\| \leq d\cdot \alpha^\ell$ for all $\ell\in \N$. The $\ell^\text{th}$ pullback $f^{\ell*}(\current{B})$ of $\current{B}\in\shGamma{B}$ satisfies $\|f^{\ell*}(\current{B})\|_\infty= \sup_{V}\|\current{B}(\bigwedge^k D(f^\ell)(V))\|_\infty$ where the supremum is taken over all $k$-covector fields $V$ with $\|V\|_\infty \leq 1$. However $\bigwedge^k D(f^\ell)(V)$ is a $k$-covector field of norm no more than $\|\bigwedge^k D(f^\ell)\|$, so $\|f^{\ell*}(\current{B})\|_\infty \leq \|\current{B}\|_\infty\cdot \bigwedge^k D(f^\ell)\|_\infty\leq d\cdot \alpha^\ell\|\current{B}\|_\infty$. Given any $W$ in the $\maxMult_{k-1}$ chronically expanding subspace of $H^k(X,\K)$, we can alter our choice of $\alpha > \maxMult_{k-1}$ so that $W$ also lies in the $\alpha$ chronically expanding subspace of $H^k(X,\K)$. We can therefore apply Theorem~ to conclude that there is a (unique) map $\kappa\colon W\to \shGamma{C}$ such that $f^*\kappa=\kappa f^*$, where the first $f^*$ is pullback of currents and the second is pullback on $H^k(X,\K)$. In fact $\kappa(W)$ lies in the space of currents with locally H\"older potentials (meaning $\forms{k-1}(\holder)$ potentials) by applying Corollary~ in conjunction with Observation~, Lemma~ and Lemma~. The second half of the Theorem is a consequence of equation~\eqref{iterationFormula}. \end{proof} \begin{remark} Theorem~ gives regular degree one eigencurrents for every eigenvalue of $f^*\colon H^1(X,\K)\to H^1(X,\K)$ of norm greater one without requiring any constraints on the local behavior of $f$. The degree one eigencurrents seem to be, in some sense, more robust than currents of lower dimension, including invariant measures. Moreover since codimension one closed submanifolds are closed currents with local $\forms{0}(\bounded)$ potentials then successive rescaled preimages of such manifolds in the right cohomological class will converge to the eigencurrent. \end{remark} \begin{remark} The fact that eigencurrents constructed via Theorem~ have local potentials which are forms does not imply their support has positive Lebesgue measure as the classical example of a monotonic nonconstant function which is constant on a set of full measure shows. \end{remark} \begin{remark} The assumption that $f^*\colon \deRham^1(X)\to\deRham^1(X)$ is dominated by a single simple real eigenvalue $r$ is not essential, but just meant to handle the simplest case. In fact the proof actually shows that if $W$ lies in the $\maxMult_{k-1}$ chronically expanding subspace of $H^k(X,\K)$ then every current in the invariant plane $\kappa(W)\subset \shGamma{C}$ of currents has local $\forms{k-1}(\holder)$ potentials and any current with cohomological class in $W$ with local $\forms{k-1}(\bounded)$ potentials is attracted to $\kappa(W)$ under successive rescaled pullback. \end{remark} Since measures are of particular interest in dynamics, we note that $H^1(X,\forms{n-1}(\bounded))=H^n(X,\K)=\K$ by Corollary~ so there is a unique $f^*$ eigenvalue and it is precisely the topological degree of $f$. We thus obtain: \begin{corollary} Given that $\maxMult_{n-1} < \deg f$ then there is a unique dimension zero eigencurrent $\current{C}$ with $\forms{k-1}(\bounded)$ potentials (and in fact it has $\forms{k-1}(\holder)$ potentials) and the successive rescaled preimages of any $\current{C}'$ with $\forms{k-1}(\bounded)$ potentials converge to $\current{C}$. If additionally there is no point $x\in X$ about which $f$ is locally an orientation reversing diffeomorphism then $\current{C}$ (and every other member of $\kappa(W)$) is a positive distribution and is therefore a Radon measure. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Since $f^*$ pulls back dimension zero currents (i.e. distributions) which are positive to distributions which are positive then by Corollary~ the distribution $\current{C}$ is positive. It is therefore a Radon measure (see e.g. page 270). \end{proof} \begin{remark} In the case where $f$ is orientation reversing on some parts of $X$ (but not on all of $X$) some special remarks apply. If it happens that successive rescaled images of some point converge to a dimension zero eigencurrent then since preimages of points are counted with multiplicity then when pulled back through a portion of $X$ on which $f$ reverses orientation the sign of a point is flipped. Thus in this case the eigencurrent may not describe so much the distribution of preimages as the {\it relative density} of preimages counted negatively as compared to those counted positively. The number of actual preimages of a point may grow exponentially faster than the degree of the map in such cases so that dividing by the degree does not yield a measure in the limit unless some such ``cancellation'' takes place in the limit. One would expect that the corresponding eigencurrents have local potentials which are not of bounded variation in such a case. \end{remark} \subsection{Eigencurrents for Smooth Covering Maps} We will call a covering map which is locally a diffeomorphism a {\it smooth covering map}. We now consider the special case of smooth self covering maps $f\colon X\to X$ of a compact smooth orientable manifold $X$. We show that in this case we have a substantially broader collection of currents whose successive pullbacks converge to an eigencurrent, albeit we need different estimates for Theorem~ to apply. We will pull back currents by pushing forward forms with $f_\star$. Since the regular set of $f$ is all of $X$ then $f_\star$ is a well defined operator from smooth forms to smooth forms. \begin{definition} For a map satisfying the hypothesis of Proposition~ we define the operation $f^*$ from currents on $X$ to currents on $Y$ by \[<f^*(\current{C}),\alpha>\equiv <\current{C},f_\star(\alpha)>.\] Clearly $f^*$ preserves the dimension of a current. \end{definition} Let $\sheaf{M}_{k-1}$ be the sheaf for which $\sheaf{M}_{k-1}(U)$ is the Banach space of bounded linear operations on the topological vector space comprised of $\forms{k-1}(\smooth)(U)$ with the $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ norm. Equivalently, $\sheaf{M}_{k-1}$ is the sheaf of dimension $k-1$ currents of finite mass. Choose a Riemannian metric on $X$. If $f\colon X\to X$ is a smooth cover then for each $x\in X$ and each $\ell\in \N$, $D_x(f^\ell)\colon T_x X\to T_{f^\ell(x)}X$ is invertible. We let $\nu_k(x,\ell)$ be the operator norm of the inverse of $\bigwedge^k D_x(f^\ell)\colon \bigwedge^k T_xX\to\bigwedge^k T_{f^\ell(x)} X$. We define $\nu_k(\ell)=\sup_{x\in X} \nu_k(x,\ell)^{1/\ell}$. We define $\nu_k=\limsup_{\ell\to\infty}\nu_k(\ell)$. The iterated pushforward operation $f^\ell_\star\colon\forms{k-1}(\smooth)(X)\to\forms{k-1}(\smooth)(X)$ satisfies $\|f^\ell_\star(\varphi)\|_\infty\leq \nu_k(\ell)\cdot \|\varphi\|_\infty$ as is straightforward to verify. If $f$ is invertible then $\nu_k$ is a bound on the growth of the $k^\text{th}$ wedge product of the derivative under $f^{-1}$. For non-invertible $f$, $\nu_k$ represents a bound on the growth of the $k^\text{th}$ wedge product of the derivative under any sequence of successive branches of $f^{-1}$. \begin{theorem} Given $f\colon X\to X$ a smooth self covering map and that $c\in \deRham^k(X)$ is a cohomology class (using either real or complex deRham cohomology) which is an eigenvector for $f^*$ with eigenvalue $\beta$. Assume also that $\vert \beta\vert > \nu_{k-1}$. Then there exists a unique eigencurrent $\current{C}$ with local $\sheaf{M}_{k-1}$ potentials representing the class $c$. Moreover $\current{C}$ has local $\forms{k-1}(\continuous)$ potentials. Consequently $\current{C}$ is a current of order one. Also, given any neighborhood $U\subset X$ of any point in the support of $\current{C}$, then for every lenient current $\current{C'}$ with local $\sheaf{M}_{k-1}$ potentials and which represents the cohomology class $c$ then $f^k(U)\cap \supp \current{C'}\nempty$ for all large $k$. Assume that the linear map $f^*\colon\deRham^k(X)\to\deRham^k(X)$ is dominated by a single simple real eigenvalue $r$. Given $\current{C}'$ any current which has local $\sheaf{M}_{k-1}$ potentials and which represents a cohomology class in the $\nu^{k-1}$ chronically expanding subspace of $\deRham^k(X)$, then the successive rescaled pullbacks $f^{k*}(\current{C}')/r^k$ of $\current{C}'$ converge a multiple of $\current{C}$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} We let $\sheaf{A}$ and $\sheaf{C}$ be the kernel and image respectively of $\ed \colon \sheaf{M}_{k-1}\to \curDeg{k}$. Since $\ed f_\star=f_\star \ed$ then pullback of currents gives an $f$ cohomomorphism of the short exact sequence of sheaves $\sheaf{A}\to\sheaf{M}_{k-1}\to\sheaf{C}$. Since $\Gamma\sheaf{M}_{k-1}$ is the continuous linear operators on a normed vector space then it is a Banach space. From the observations previous to the statement of Theorem~ one concludes that for any $\alpha > \nu_{k-1}$ there is a constant $d > 0$ such that $\|f^{\ell *}(\current{B})\|\leq d\cdot \alpha^k \|\current{B}\|$ for all $\ell \in \N$. Since $\shGamma{C}$ is a space of currents it is naturally a topological vector space over $\K$. The map $f^*\colon\shGamma{C}\to\shGamma{C}$ is continuous since if $\current{C}_i\to \current{C}$ in $\shGamma{C}$ then $<f^*(\current{C}_i),\varphi>=<\current{C}_i,f_\star(\varphi)>\to <\current{C},f_\star(\varphi)>=<f^*(\current{C}),\varphi>$. If $\current{P}_i\to\current{P}$ in $\Gamma\sheaf{M}_{k-1}$ (using the Banach space structure) then $\|\current{P}_i-\current{P}\|\to 0$ by assumption then $\|\current{P}(\ed \varphi)-\current{P}_i(\ed \varphi)\|\leq \|\current{P}-\current{P}_i\|\cdot \|\ed \varphi\|\to 0$. Hence $<\ed \current{P}_i,\varphi>=\current{P}_i(\ed\varphi)\to\current{P}(\ed \varphi) =<\ed \current{P},\varphi>$ and so we conclude that the map $\ed\colon \Gamma\sheaf{M}_{k-1}\to\shGamma{C}$ is continuous. Given any $W$ in the $\nu_{k-1}$ chronically expanding subspace of $H^k(X,\K)$, we can alter our choice of $\alpha > \nu_{k-1}$ so that $W$ also lies in the $\alpha$ chronically expanding subspace of $H^k(X,\K)$. We can therefore apply Theorem~ to conclude that there is a (unique) map $\kappa\colon W\to \shGamma{C}$ such that $f^*\kappa=\kappa f^*$, where the first $f^*$ is pullback of currents and the second is pullback on $H^k(X,\K)$. In fact $\kappa(W)$ in the currents with locally continuous potentials by applying applying Corollary~ in conjunction with Observation~, Lemma~ and Lemma~. The second half of the Theorem is a consequence of equation~\eqref{iterationFormula}. \end{proof} \begin{proposition} Let $Y$ be an oriented codimension $k$ submanifold of $X$. If the cohomological class of $Y$ (as a current) lies in the $\nu_{k-1}$ chronically expanding subspace of $H^k(X,\K)$ then the successive rescaled preimages of $Y$ converge to the invariant plane of currents $\kappa(W)$. If $f^*\colon H^k(X,\K)\to H^k(X,\K)$ is dominated by a single real eigenvalue $r > \nu_{k-1}$ then the successive rescaled preimages of $Y$ converge to a multiple (possibly zero) of the $r$ eigencurrent. In particular, if $\nu_{n-1} < \deg f$ then the successive rescaled preimages of any point converge to the unique invariant measure with $\sheaf{M}_{n-1}$ potentials. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} This follows immediately from Theorem~ if we show that $Y$ has local potentials in $\sheaf{M}_{k-1}$. This is equivalent to showing that locally $Y=\ed P$ where $<P,\varphi> \leq a\cdot \|\varphi\|_\infty$ for some $a > 0$. Let $B$ be a ball in $\R^n$ and $Y_0$ a $k$-plane in $\R^n$. Then there is a $k+1$ half plane $P$ such that, as currents in $U$, $\partial P=Y_0$. Moreover it is clear that $<P,\varphi>\leq a\|\varphi\|_\infty$ for some real $a > 0$. (There are also local potentials for $Y$ which are given by forms with $L^1_\text{loc}$ coefficients. These can be constructed by choosing a projection $\pi$ from $U\setminus Y_0$ to a codimension one cylinder $C$ with axis $Y_0$, and choosing a volume form $\sigma$ on $C$. The local potential is the pullback $\pi^*(\sigma)$.) \end{proof} \begin{remark} As with Theorem~, Theorem~ gives regular degree one eigencurrents for every eigenvalue of $f^*\colon H^1(X,\K)\to H^1(X,\K)$ of norm greater one without requiring any constraints on the local behavior of $f$. In holomorphic dynamics much progress has been made in constructing degree one eigencurrents and then constructing dynamically important invariant measures via a generalized wedge product (see the references cited at the beginning of Section~). \end{remark} \begin{remark} The proof of Proposition~ could clearly be modified to apply to many singular manifolds as well. \end{remark} \section{Holomorphic Endomorphisms} We now restrict our interest to holomorphic dynamics. Thus all manifolds are assumed to be complex manifolds and all maps are assumed to be holomorphic unless stated otherwise. Holomorphic endomorphisms of the Riemann sphere have been studied in great detail. For endomorphisms much of the theory is still in its beginnings. Much attention has been paid to holomorphic automorphisms of $\C^2$ , , , , , , , , , , or K3 surfaces , , the major developments for endomorphisms have been on $\Proj^n$, , , , , , , , , , . Recent significant developments have been made for endomorphisms of Kahler manifolds in . The paper shows existence of eigencurrents (or Green's currents) for endomorphisms of Kahler manifolds under a simple condition on the comparative rates of growth of volume in two different dimensions. They also show that a specific weighted sum of an arbitrary closed positive smooth current will converge to the Green's current, and that the Green's current has a H\"older continuous potential. In this setting our theorem shows that arbitrary (rescaled) preimages of a broader class of currents will converge to the Green's current. A wide variety of results have been proven in these various circumstances either showing the existence of invariant currents, showing convergence of currents to invariant currents, or studying the properties of these invariant currents. We include here results that follow from the method of this paper, which we are sure substantially overlap with existing results. Presumably our cohomologicaly lifting theorem could be used in conjuction with Theorem~ to show existence of higher degree $(k,k)$ currents given certain bounds on local growth rates. \subsection{$\ed\ed^c$ Cohomology} Let $Z$ be a complex manifold and let $f\colon Z\to Z$ be a holomorphic self map of $Z$. Let $\pluriharmonic$ be the sheaf of pluriharmonic functions, let $\bounded$ be the sheaf of locally bounded functions, and let $\sheaf{C}$ be the sheaf of currents with local potentials in $\bounded$, i.e. currents locally of the form $\ed\ed^cb$, for $b$ a locally bounded function. The members of $\sheaf{C}$ are closed $(1,1)$ currents on $Z$. Using the usual pullback on functions, and the induced pullback on currents with function potentials (i.e. pullback the current by pulling back its local potentials), then we get a self cohomomorphism of the exact sequence of sheaves \begin{equation} \pluriharmonic\to \bounded\lto{\ed\ed^c}\sheaf{C}. \end{equation} We note that $H^1(Z,\pluriharmonic)$ is a finite dimensional $\R$ vector space as can be seen from the long exact sequence for the short exact sequence $\R\to \hol\to \pluriharmonic$ where the first map is inclusion and the second takes the imaginary part. The terms $H^1(Z,\hol)\to H^1(Z,\pluriharmonic)\to H^2(Z,\R)$ give the finite dimensionality since $\hol$ is a coherent analytic sheaf (see e.g. page 302). Then from Theorem~ we obtain: \begin{corollary} Given $v$ any closed eigenbundle of $\hbundles{Z}$ for $f^*$ with eigenvalue $r > 1$, there is a unique closed $(1,1)$ current $\current{C}$ such that $\lim_{k\to\infty} f^{k*}(\current{C}')/r^k$ converges to $\current{C}$ for any divisor $\current{C}'$ of $v$. \end{corollary} \begin{remark} We note that the terms ``closed eigenbundle'' and ``divisor'' in Corollary~ are understood using the long exact sequence for~\eqref{holSES}. \end{remark} We can apply Corollary~ to show that \begin{corollary} Any such invariant current $\current{C}$ so obtained has H\"older continuous local potentials. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} The result follows from Lemma~, Lemma~, the fact that the $\ed\ed^c$ closed H\"older continuous functions are the same as the $\ed\ed^c$ closed $\bounded$ functions and from Corollary~. \end{proof} Also from Observation~, \begin{corollary} If $v$ has a plurisubharmonic section the current $\current{C}$ is positive. \end{corollary} \section{Result via Invariant Sections} We stated early on that our construction of invariant members of $H^0(\sheaf{C})$ for a self cohomomorphism of a short exact sequence $\sheaf{A}\to\sheaf{B}\to\sheaf{C}$ of sheaves could be done in terms of finding invariant sections of bundles. We illustrate this here in a specific case where we can take advantage of geometry to make further conclusions. Finding an invariant section of a bundle is equivalent to finding an invariant trivialization of the bundle, and we will make our initial statement in terms of a trivialization. Let $Z$ be a compact complex manifold. Let $f\colon Z\to Z$ be a holomorphic endomorphism. Let $p\in\hbundles{Z}$ be an eigenvector for $f^*$ with real eigenvalue $\lambda$ of norm greater than one. If $f^*$ were to have complex eigenvalues of interest, an analogous construction can be made to the one that follows. We note that there is a canonical bundle map $\tilde{f}\colon f^*(p)\to p$ which gives the map $f$ on the base space. It is easy to show that there is a map $\sigma\colon p\to \lambda p$ which is the identity on the base space and takes the form $r\mapsto \lambda r + b$ on the fibers, where $b$ is a constant. What is more, the map $\tau_\lambda$ is easily seen to be unique up to the addition of a constant. Then define the map $\lift{f}\colon p\to p$ to be the composition of \[ p\overset{\tau_\lambda}{\to} \lambda p=f^*(p)\overset{\tilde{f}}\to p.\] Then $\lift{f}$ is the map $f$ on the base space and takes the form $r\mapsto \lambda r + b$ on the fibers. Since every pluriharmonic bundle is trivial as a smooth bundle, then we can choose a smooth trivialization $t\colon p\to \R$, i.e. $t(a+r)=\sigma(a)+r$ for any $a\in p$, $r\in R$, where $a+r$ is computed in the fiber containing $a$. \begin{theorem} There is a unique continuous trivialization $\greens\colon p\to \R$ such that: \[\greens(a+r)=\greens(a)+r\text{\quad for $a\in p$ and $r\in \R$},\] \[\greens(\lift{f}(a))=\lambda\cdot \greens(a)\text{\quad for $a\in p$},\] moreover \[\greens=\lim_{k\to\infty} \lambda^{-k}\circ t\circ \lift{f}\cp{k}\] and the limit converges uniformly. Finally, the zero set of $\greens$ is the image of a section $g\colon Z\to p$ and is exactly the set of points whose forward image under $\lift{f}$ remains bounded. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Define a function $T\colon p\to\R$ by \[T(a)\equiv t\bigl(\lift{f}(a)\bigr)-\lambda\cdot t(a).\] Note that $T$ descends to a well defined continuous function $T\colon Z\to \R$ since for an arbitrary $r\in \R$ one has $T(a+r)=t\bigl(\lift{f}(a+r)\bigr)-\lambda\cdot t(a+r) =t(\lift{f}(a)+\lambda r)-\lambda\cdot(t(a)+r)=T(a)$. One notes that since the function $T$ is necessarily bounded if $Z$ is compact then defining \[\greens(a)\equiv t(a)+\lambda^{-1} \cdot T(a) + \lambda^{-2}T(\lift{f}(a)) + \lambda^{-3}T(\lift{f}\cp{2}(a))+\dotsb\] gives a continuous function $\greens\colon p\to \R$ satisfying the above two properties. Assume $\greens_1$ and $\greens_2$ are two such functions. Then $\Delta\equiv \greens_1-\greens_2\colon p\to \R$ is a function satisfying $\Delta(a+r)=\Delta(a)$ for $a\in p$ and $r\in \R$ so $\Delta$ descends to a continuous function $\Delta\colon p\to \R$ satisfying $\Delta(\lift{f}(a))=\lambda\cdot \Delta(a)$. However since $\lambda > 1$ one concludes that this is only possible if $\Delta\equiv 0$ since $M$ is compact so $\Delta(M)$ has compact image in $\R$. It is easy to check using the definition of $T$ that $\lambda^{-k}\circ t\circ\lift{f}\cp{k}(a)$ is exactly a partial sum of the first $k$ terms of the above series and this gives the convergence result. The conclusion about the section $g$ is trivial. \end{proof} The above construction can be carried through almost without modification for any subspace of $\hbundles{Z}$ on which $f^*$ is expanding. This gives an alternate way of understanding the convergence of preimages of sections. The point is that if $s$ is any section of $p$, i.e. the potential of a current $C$, then $\frac{1}{\lambda}f^*(C)$ is a current with potential which is the setwise preimage of $s$ under $\lift{f}$ (this is easy to confirm from the construction of $f$). The Green's trivialization $\greens$ shows that $\lift{f}$ is uniformly repelling away from the image of the invariant section $g$. Thus as long as $s$ is bounded in $p$, (not even necessarily continuous), then the successive preimages of $s$ will converge uniformly to the section $g$. Since uniform convergence of potentials implies convergence of currents then the rescaled pullbacks of a current $C$ converge to the current with potential $g$. We already have this as a theorem, so we have not restated it as such here. This is just an alternative approach. Note that in the case where $Z=\Proj^2$ has given far more precise control of when the successive rescaled preimages of a current will converge to the eigencurrent. \subsection{Sections version with an Invariant Ample Bundle} It is also interesting to consider the special case where there is an invariant ample bundle with eigenvalue $\lambda \geq 2$ an integer. Without loss of generality we assume $\ell$ is very ample. The morphism of sheaves $\logabs{\cdot}\colon \hol^*\to \pluriharmonic$ induces a map from holomorphic line bundles to pluriharmonic bundles. We let $p=\logabs{\ell}$ be the corresponding pluriharmonic bundle. It is easy to see that there is a holomorphic map $\ell\to \ell^\lambda$ which is of the form $\sigma_\lambda\colon z\mapsto a z^\lambda$, $a\in \C^*$ on each fiber and is the identity on the base space. There is also a canonical holomorphic map $\tilde{f}\colon f^*(\ell)\to \ell$ which is a line bundle map and is $f$ on the base space. One then defines the holomorphic map $\hollift{f}\colon \ell\to\ell$ which is the composition of \[\ell \overset{\sigma_k}{\to} \ell^k=f^*(\ell) \overset{\tilde{f}}{\to}\ell.\] This map is of the form $z\mapsto a z^k$ on each fiber and is equal to the map $f\colon Z\to Z$ on the base space. Let $\ell^*$ denote $\ell$ with its zero section removed, so that $\logabs{\cdot}\colon \ell\to p$ is a well defined continuous map. Since the preimage of the zero section of $\ell$ under $\hollift{f}$ is the zero section then $\hollift{f}$ is a holomorphic self map of $\ell^*$. It is easy to confirm that $\hollift{f}\colon \ell\to\ell$ can be rescaled so that the diagram \[ \xymatrix{ {\ell} \ar[r]_{\hollift{f}} \ar[d]^{\logabs{\cdot}} & {\ell} \ar[d]^{\logabs{\cdot}} \\ {p} \ar[r]_{\lift{f}} & {p} \\ } \] commutes. Our Greens trivialization $\greens\colon p\to \R$ can be pulled back to give a Green's function $\G\colon \ell^*\to\R$ on the punctured bundle $\ell^*$. It satisfies $\G(\tilde{f}(w))=\lambda\cdot \G(w)$ and $\G(\beta w)=\G(w)+\logabs{\beta}$ for $w\in \ell$ and $\beta\in\C^*$. Since $\greens$ is a trivialization of an $\R$ bundle over a compact space, $\greens$ is proper. Since $\logabs{\cdot}\colon \ell^*\to p$ is proper then $\G$ is proper. Thus, in this setting one can construct a Greens function that is exactly analogous to the Green's function constructed on $\C^{n+1}$ for a holomorphic endomorphism of $\Proj^n$. Potentially one could take advantage of the special geometry of very ample bundles to get information about the dynamics in this situation. \section{Bibliography} \bibliographystyle{alpha} \bibliography{refer}
|
0704.0074
|
Title: Injective Morita contexts (revisited)
Abstract: This paper is an exposition of the so-called injective Morita contexts (in
which the connecting bimodule morphisms are injective) and Morita
$\alpha$contexts (in which the connecting bimodules enjoy some local
projectivity in the sense of Zimmermann-Huisgen). Motivated by situations in
which only one trace ideal is in action, or the compatibility between the
bimodule morphisms is not needed, we introduce the notions of Morita
semi-contexts and Morita data, and investigate them. Injective Morita data will
be used (with the help of static and adstatic modules) to establish
equivalences between some intersecting subcategories related to subcategories
of modules that are localized or colocalized by trace ideals of a Morita datum.
We end up with applications of Morita $\alpha$-contexts to $\ast$-modules and
injective right wide Morita contexts.
Body: \title{\textbf{Injective Morita Contexts (Revisited)}\bigskip \\ {\large {\emph{Dedicated to Prof. Robert Wisbauer}}}} \author{\begin{tabular}{lll} {\bf J. Y. Abuhlail} \thanks{ Corresponding Author} & & {\bf S. K. Nauman} \\ Department of Mathematics $\&$ Statistics & & Department of Mathematics \\ King Fahd University of Petroleum & & King AbdulAziz University \\ \&\ Minerals, Box $\#$\ 5046 & & P.O.Box 80203 \\ 31261 Dhahran (KSA) & & 21589 Jeddah (KSA) \\ abuhlail@kfupm.edu.sa & & synakhaled@hotmail.com \end{tabular} } \date{} \maketitle \begin{abstract} This paper is an exposition of the so-called \emph{injective Morita contexts} (in which the connecting bimodule morphisms are injective) and \emph{Morita } $\alpha $\emph{-contexts} (in which the connecting bimodules enjoy some local projectivity in the sense of Zimmermann-Huisgen). Motivated by situations in which only one trace ideal is in action, or the compatibility between the bimodule morphisms is not needed, we introduce the notions of Morita \emph{semi-contexts} and \emph{Morita data}, and investigate them. Injective Morita data will be used (with the help of \emph{static }and \emph{ adstatic modules})\emph{\ }to establish equivalences between some \emph{ intersecting subcategories} related to subcategories of categories of modules that are localized or colocalized by trace ideals of a Morita datum. We end up with applications of Morita $\alpha $-contexts to $\ast $\emph{ -modules} and \emph{injective right wide Morita contexts.} \end{abstract} \section{Introduction} \qquad \emph{Morita contexts}, in general, and (\emph{semi-})\emph{strict Morita} contexts (with surjective connecting bilinear morphisms), in particular, were extensively studied and developed exponentially during the last few decades (e.g. ). However, we sincerely feel that there is a gap in the literature on \emph{injective Morita contexts} (i.e. those with injective connecting bilinear morphisms). Apart from the results in , (where the second author initially explored this notion) and from an application to Grothendieck groups in the recent paper (), it seems that injective Morita contexts were not studied \emph{systematically} at all. We noticed that in several results of (, and ) that are related to Morita contexts, only one trace ideal is used. Observing this fact, we introduce the notions of \emph{Morita semi-contexts} and \emph{Morita data} and investigate them. Several results are proved then for \emph{injective} Morita semi contexts and/or injective Morita data. Consider a Morita datum $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S}),$ with not necessarily compatible bimodule morphisms $<,>_{T}:P\otimes _{S}Q\rightarrow T$ and $<,>_{S}:Q\otimes _{T}P\rightarrow S.$ We say that $\mathcal{M}$ is \emph{injective}, iff $<,>_{T}$ and $<,>_{S}$ are injective, and to be a \emph{Morita }$\alpha $\emph{-datum}, iff the associated dual pairings $ \mathbf{P}_{l}:=(Q,$ $_{T}P),$ $\mathbf{P}_{r}:=(Q,P_{S}),$ $\mathbf{Q} _{l}:=(P,$ $_{S}Q)$ and $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})$ satisfy the $\alpha $ -condition (which is closely related to the notion of local projectivity in the sense of Zimmermann-Huisgen ). The $\alpha $-condition was introduced in and further investigated by the first author in . While (semi-)strict unital Morita contexts induce equivalences between the whole module categories of the rings under consideration, we show in this paper how injective Morita (semi-)contexts and injective Morita data play an important role in establishing equivalences between suitable \emph{ intersecting subcategories} of module categories (e.g. intersections of subcategories that are localized/colocalized by trace ideals of a Morita datum with subcategories of static/adstatic modules, etc.). Our main applications in addition to equivalences related to the Kato-Ohtake-M\"{u} ller \emph{localization-colocalization theory} (developed in , and ), will be to $\ast $\emph{-modules} (introduced by Menini and Orsatti ) and to \emph{right} \emph{ wide Morita contexts} (introduced by F. Casta\~{n}o Iglesias and J. G\'{o} mez-Torrecillas ). Most of our results will be stated for \emph{left modules}, while deriving the \textquotedblleft dual\textquotedblright\ versions for right modules is left to the interested reader. Moreover, for Morita contexts, some results are stated/proved for only one of the Morita semi-contexts, as the ones corresponding to the second semi-context can be obtained analogously. For the convenience of the reader, we tried to make the paper self-contained, so that it can serve as a reference on injective \emph{Morita }(\emph{semi-}) \emph{contexts} and their applications. In this respect, and for the sake of completeness, we have included some previous results of the authors that are (in most cases) either provided with new shorter proofs, or are obtained under weaker conditions. This paper is organized as follows: After this brief introduction, we give in Section 2 some preliminaries including the basic properties of \emph{dual }$\alpha $\emph{-pairings,} which play a central role in rest of the work. The notions of \emph{Morita semi-contexts} and \emph{Morita data} are introduced in Section 3, where we clarify their relations with the \emph{ dual pairings} and the so-called \emph{elementary rngs}. \emph{Injective Morita }(\emph{semi-})\emph{contexts} appear in Section 4, where we study their interplay with dual $\alpha $-pairings and provide some examples and a counter-example. In Section 5 we include some observations regarding \emph{ static} and \emph{adstatic} modules and use them to obtain equivalences among suitable \emph{intersecting subcategories} of modules related to a Morita (semi-)context. In the last section, more applications are presented, mainly to subcategories of modules that are \emph{localized} or \emph{ colocalized} by a trace ideal of an injective Morita (semi-)context, to $ \ast $\emph{-modules} and to \emph{injective right wide Morita contexts}. \section{Preliminaries} \qquad Throughout, $R$ denotes a commutative ring with $1_{R}\neq 0_{R}$ and $A,A^{\prime },B,B^{\prime }$ are unital $R$-algebras. We have reserved the term \textquotedblleft \emph{ring}\textquotedblright\ for an associative ring with a multiplicative unity, and we will use the term \textquotedblleft \emph{rng}\textquotedblright\ for a general associative ring (not necessarily with unity). All modules over rings are assumed to be unitary, and ring morphisms are assumed to respect multiplicative unities. If $ \mathfrak{T}$ and $\mathfrak{S}$ are categories, then we write $\mathfrak{T} \leq \mathfrak{S}$ ($\mathfrak{T}\leq \mathfrak{S}$) to mean that $\mathfrak{ T}$ is a (full) subcategory of $\mathfrak{S},$ and $\mathfrak{T}\approx \mathfrak{S}$ to indicate that $\mathfrak{T}$ and $\mathfrak{S}$ are equivalent. \subsection*{Rngs and their modules} \begin{punto} By an $A$\textbf{-rng} $(T,\mu _{T}),$ we mean an $(A,A)$-bimodule $T$ with an $(A,A)$-bilinear morphism $\mu _{T}:T\otimes _{A}T\rightarrow T,$ such that $\mu _{T}\circ (\mu _{T}\otimes _{A}id_{T})=\mu _{T}\circ (id_{T}\otimes _{A}\mu _{T}).$ We call an $A$-rng $(T,\mu _{T})$ an $A$ \textbf{-ring}, iff there exists in addition an $(A,A)$-bilinear morphism $ \eta _{T}:A\rightarrow T,$ called the \textbf{unity map}, such that $\mu _{T}\circ (\eta _{T}\otimes _{A}id_{T})=\vartheta _{T}^{l}$ and $\mu _{T}\circ (id_{T}\otimes _{A}\eta _{T})=\vartheta _{T}^{r}$ (where $A\otimes _{A}T\overset{\vartheta _{T}^{l}}{\simeq }T$ and $T\otimes _{A}A\overset{ \vartheta _{T}^{r}}{\simeq }T$ are the canonical isomorphisms). So, an $A$ -ring is a unital $A$-rng; and an $A$-rng is (roughly speaking) an $A$-ring not necessarily with unity. \end{punto} \begin{punto} A morphism of rngs $(\psi :\delta ):(T:A)\rightarrow (T^{\prime }:A^{\prime })$ consists of a morphism of $R$-algebras $\delta :A\rightarrow A^{\prime }$ and an $(A,A)$-bilinear morphism $\psi :T\rightarrow T^{\prime },$ such that $\mu _{T^{\prime }}\circ \chi _{(T^{\prime },T^{\prime })}^{(A,A^{\prime })}\circ (\psi \otimes _{A}\psi )=\psi \circ \mu _{T}$ (where $\chi _{(T^{\prime },T^{\prime })}^{(A,A^{\prime })}:T^{\prime }\otimes _{A}T^{\prime }\rightarrow T^{\prime }\otimes _{A^{\prime }}T^{\prime }$ is the canonical map induced by $\delta $). By $\mathbb{RNG}$ we denote the category of associative rngs with morphisms being rng morphisms, and by $ \mathbb{URNG}<\mathbb{RNG}$ the (non-full) subcategory of \emph{unital} rings with morphisms being the morphisms in $\mathbb{RNG}$ which respect multiplicative unities. \end{punto} \begin{punto} Let $(T,\mu _{T})$ be an $A$-rng. By a \textbf{left }$T$\textbf{-module} we mean a left $A$-module $N$ with a left $A$-linear morphism $\phi _{T}^{N}:T\otimes _{A}N\rightarrow N,$ such that $\phi _{T}^{N}\circ (\mu _{T}\otimes _{A}id_{N})=\phi _{T}^{N}\circ (id_{T}\otimes _{A}\phi _{T}^{N}). $ For left $T$-modules $M,N,$ we call a left $A$-linear morphism $ f:M\rightarrow N$ a $T$\textbf{-linear morphism}, iff $f(tm)=tf(m)$ for all $ t\in T.$ The category of left $T$-modules and left $T$-linear morphisms is denoted by $_{T}\mathbb{M}.$ The category $\mathbb{M}_{T}$ of right $T$ -modules is defined analogously. Let $(T:A)$ and $(T^{\prime }:A^{\prime })$ be rngs. We call an $(A,A^{\prime })$-bimodule $N$ a $(T,T^{\prime })$ \textbf{-bimodule}, iff $(N,\phi _{T}^{N})$ is a left $T$-module and $ (N,\phi _{T^{\prime }}^{N})$ is a right $T^{\prime }$-module, such that $ \phi _{T^{\prime }}^{N}\circ (\phi _{T}^{N}\otimes _{A^{\prime }}id_{T^{\prime }})=\phi _{T}^{N}\circ (id_{T}\otimes _{A}\phi _{T^{\prime }}^{N}).$ For $(T,T^{\prime })$-bimodules $M,N,$ we call an $(A,A^{\prime })$ -bilinear morphism $f:M\rightarrow N$ $(T,T^{\prime })$\textbf{-bilinear}, provided $f$ is left $T$-linear and right $T^{\prime }$-linear. The category of $(T,T^{\prime })$-bimodules is denoted by $_{T}\mathbb{M}_{T^{\prime }}.$ In particular, for any $A$-rng $T,$ a left (right) $T$-module $M$ has a canonical structure of a \emph{unitary} right (left) $S$-module, where $S:= \mathrm{End}(_{T}M)^{op}$ ($S:=\mathrm{End}(M_{T})$); and moreover, with this structure $M$ becomes a $(T,S)$-bimodule (an $(S,T)$-bimodule). \end{punto} \begin{remark} Similarly, one can define rngs over arbitrary (not-necessarily unital) ground rngs and rng morphisms between them. Moreover, one can define (bi)modules over such rngs and (bi)linear morphisms between them. \end{remark} \begin{notation} Let $T$ be an $A$-rng. We write $_{T}U$ ($U_{T}$) to denote that $U$ is a left (right) $T$-module. For a left (right) $T$-module $_{T}U,$ we consider the set $^{\ast }U:=\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(U,T)$ ($U^{\ast }:=\mathrm{Hom} _{-T}(U,T)$) of all left (right) $T$-linear morphisms from $U$ to $T$ with the canonical right (left) $T$-module structure. \end{notation} \subsection*{Generators and cogenerators} \begin{definition} Let $T$ be an $A$-rng. For a left $T$-module $_{T}U$ consider the following subclasses of $_{T}\mathbb{M}:$ \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lll} $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}U)$ & $:=$ & $\{_{T}V\mid \exists $ a set $\Lambda $ and an exact sequence $U^{(\Lambda )}\rightarrow V\rightarrow 0\};$ \\ $\mathrm{Cogen}(_{T}U)$ & $:=$ & $\{_{T}W\mid \exists $ a set $\Lambda $ and an exact sequence $0\rightarrow W\rightarrow U^{\Lambda }\};$ \\ $\mathrm{Pres}(_{T}U)$ & $:=$ & $\{_{T}V\mid \exists $ sets $\Lambda _{1},\Lambda _{2}$ and an exact sequence $U^{(\Lambda _{2})}\rightarrow U^{(\Lambda _{1})}\rightarrow V\rightarrow 0\};$ \\ $\mathrm{Copres}(_{T}U)$ & $:=$ & $\{_{T}W\mid \exists $ sets $\Lambda _{1},\Lambda _{2}$ and an exact sequence $0\rightarrow W\rightarrow U^{\Lambda _{1}}\rightarrow U^{\Lambda _{2}}\};$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} A left $T$-module in $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}U)$ (respectively $\mathrm{Cogen} (_{T}U),$ $\mathrm{Pres}(_{T}U),$ $\mathrm{Copres}(_{T}U)$) is said to be $U$ \textbf{-generated }(respectively $U$\textbf{-cogenerated}, $U$\textbf{ -presented}, $U$\textbf{-copresented}). Moreover, we say that $_{T}U$ is a \textbf{generator} (respectively \textbf{cogenerator}, \textbf{presentor}, \textbf{copresentor}), iff $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}U)=$ $_{T}\mathbb{M}$ (respectively $\mathrm{Cogen}(_{T}U)=$ $_{T}\mathbb{M},$ $\mathrm{Pres} (_{T}U)=$ $_{T}\mathbb{M},$ $\mathrm{Copres}(_{T}U)=$ $_{T}\mathbb{M}$). \end{definition} \qquad \subsection*{Dual $\protect\alpha $-pairings} \qquad In what follows we recall the definition and properties of dual $ \alpha $-pairings introduced in \cite[Definition 2.3.]{AG-TL2001} and studied further in . \begin{punto} Let $T$ be an $A$-rng. A \textbf{dual left }$T$\textbf{-pairing} $\mathbf{P} _{l}=(V,$ $_{T}W)$ consists of a left $T$-module $W$ and a right $T$-module $ V$ with a right $T$-linear morphism $\kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}}:V\rightarrow $ $^{\ast }W$ (equivalently a left $T$-linear morphism $\chi _{\mathbf{P} _{l}}:W\rightarrow V^{\ast }$). For dual left pairings $\mathbf{P}_{l}=(V,$ $ _{T}W),$ $\mathbf{P}_{l}^{\prime }=(V^{\prime },$ $_{T^{\prime }}W^{\prime }),$ a morphism of dual left pairings $(\xi ,\theta ):(V^{\prime },W^{\prime })\rightarrow (V,W)$ consists of a triple \begin{equation*} (\xi ,\theta :\varsigma ):(V,\text{ }_{T}W)\rightarrow (V^{\prime },\text{ } _{T^{\prime }}W^{\prime }), \end{equation*} where $\xi :V\rightarrow V^{\prime }$ and $\theta :W^{\prime }\rightarrow W$ are $T$-linear and $\varsigma :T\rightarrow T^{\prime }$ is a morphism of rngs, such that considering the induced maps $<,>_{T}:V\times W\rightarrow T$ and $<,>_{T^{\prime }}:V^{\prime }\times W^{\prime }\rightarrow T^{\prime }$ we have \begin{equation} <\xi (v),w^{\prime }>_{T^{\prime }}=\varsigma (<v,\theta (w^{\prime })>_{T}) \text{ for all }v\in V\text{ and }w^{\prime }\in W^{\prime }. \end{equation} The dual left pairings with the morphisms defined above build a category, which we denote by $\mathcal{P}_{l}.$ With $\mathcal{P}_{l}(T)\leq \mathcal{P }_{l}$ we denote the full subcategory of dual $T$-pairings. The category $ \mathcal{P}_{r}$ of dual right pairings and its full subcategory $\mathcal{P} _{r}(T)\leq \mathcal{P}_{r}$ of dual right $T$-pairings are defined analogously. \end{punto} \begin{remark} The reader should be warned that (in general) for a non-commutative rng $T$ and a dual left $T$-pairing $\mathbf{P}_{l}=(V,$ $_{T}W),$ the following map induced by the right $T$-linear morphism $\kappa _{\mathbf{P} _{l}}:V\rightarrow $ $^{\ast }W:$ \begin{equation*} <,>_{T}:V\times W\rightarrow T,\text{ }<v,w>_{T}:=\kappa _{\mathbf{P} _{l}}(v)(w) \end{equation*} is not necessarily $T$\emph{-balanced}, and so does not induce (in general) a map $V\otimes _{T}W\rightarrow T.$ In fact, for all $v\in V,$ $w\in W$ and $t\in T$ we have \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lllllllll} $<vt,w>$ & $=$ & $\kappa _{\mathcal{P}_{l}}(vt)(w)$ & $=$ & $[\kappa _{ \mathcal{P}_{l}}(v)t](w)$ & $=$ & $[\kappa _{\mathcal{P}_{l}}(v)(w)]t$ & $=$ & $<v,w>_{T}t;$ \\ $<v,tw>$ & $=$ & $\kappa _{\mathcal{P}_{l}}(v)(tw)$ & $=$ & $t[\kappa _{ \mathcal{P}_{l}}(v)(w)]$ & $=$ & $t<v,w>_{T}.$ & & \end{tabular} \end{equation*} \end{remark} \begin{punto} Let $T$ be an $A$-rng, $N,W$ be left $T$-modules and identify $N^{W}$ with the set of all mappings from $W$ to $N.$ Considering $N$ with the \emph{ discrete topology} and $N^{W}$ with the product topology, the induced \emph{ relative topology }on $\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(W,N)\hookrightarrow N^{W}$ is a linear topology (called the \textbf{finite topology}), for which the \emph{ basis of neighborhoods of }$0$ is given by the set of annihilator submodules: \begin{equation*} \mathcal{B}_{f}{\normalsize (0)}:=\{F^{\bot (\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(W,N))}\mid F=\{w_{1},...,w_{k}\}\subset W\text{ is a finite subset}\}, \end{equation*} where \begin{equation*} F^{\bot (\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(W,N))}:=\{f\in \mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(W,N))\mid f(W)=0\}. \end{equation*} \end{punto} \begin{punto} Let $T$ be an $A$-rng, $\mathbf{P}_{l}=(V,$ $_{T}W)$ a dual left $T$-pairing and consider for every right $T$-module $U_{T}$ the following canonical map \begin{equation} \alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{P}_{l}}:U\otimes _{T}W\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom} _{-T}(V,U),\text{ }\sum u_{i}\otimes _{T}w_{i}\mapsto \lbrack v\mapsto \sum u_{i}<v,w_{i}>_{T}]. \end{equation} We say that $\mathbf{P}_{l}=(V,$ $_{T}W)\in \mathcal{P}_{l}(T)$ \textbf{ satisfies the left }$\alpha $\textbf{-condition} (or is a \textbf{dual left } $\alpha $\textbf{-pairing}), iff $\alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{P}_{l}}$ is injective for every right $T$-module $U_{T}.$ By $\mathcal{P}_{l}^{\alpha }(T)\leq \mathcal{P}_{l}(T)$ we denote the \emph{full} subcategory of dual left $T$ -pairings satisfying the left $\alpha $-condition. The full subcategory of \textbf{dual right }$\alpha $\textbf{-pairings} $\mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T)\leq \mathcal{P}_{r}(T)$ is defined analogously. \end{punto} \begin{definition} Let $T$ be an $A$-rng, $\mathbf{P}_{l}=(V,$ $_{T}W)$ be a dual left $T$ -pairing and consider \begin{equation*} \kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}}:V\rightarrow \text{ }^{\ast }W\text{ and }\alpha _{V}^{\mathbf{P}_{l}}:V\otimes _{T}W\rightarrow \mathrm{End}(V_{T}). \end{equation*} We say $\mathbf{P}_{l}\in \mathcal{P}_{l}(T)$ is \textbf{dense,} iff $\kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}}(V)\subseteq $ $^{\ast }W$ is dense (w.r.t. the \emph{finite topology} on $^{\ast }W\hookrightarrow T^{W}$ \emph{)}; \textbf{injective} (resp. \textbf{semi-strict}, \textbf{strict}), iff $ \alpha _{V}^{\mathbf{P}_{l}}$ is injective (resp. surjective, bijective); \textbf{non-degenerate}, iff $V\overset{\kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}}}{ \hookrightarrow }$ $^{\ast }W$ and $W\overset{\chi _{\mathbf{P}_{l}}}{ \hookrightarrow }V^{\ast }$ canonically. \end{definition} \begin{punto} Let $T$ be an $A$-rng. We call a $T$-module $W$ \textbf{locally projective} (in the sense of B. Zimmermann-Huisgen ), iff for every diagram of $T$-modules \begin{equation*} \xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & F \ar@{.>}[dr]_{g' \circ \iota} \ar[r]^{\iota} & W \ar[dr]^{g} \ar@{.>}[d]^{g'} & & \\ & & L \ar[r]_{\pi} & N \ar[r] & 0} \end{equation*} with exact rows and finitely generated $T$-submodule $F\subseteq W$ : for every $T$-linear morphism $g:W\rightarrow N,$ there exists a $T$-linear morphism $g^{\prime }:W\rightarrow L,$ such that $g\circ \iota =\pi \circ g^{\prime }\circ \iota .$ \end{punto} \qquad For proofs of the following basic properties of \emph{locally projective modules} and \emph{dual }$\alpha $\emph{-pairings }see \cite {Abu-2005} and : \begin{proposition} \emph{\ }Let $T$ be an $A$-ring and $\mathbf{P}_{l}=(V,$ $ _{T}W)\in \mathcal{P}_{l}(T).$ \begin{enumerate} \item The left $T$-module $_{T}W$ is locally projective if and only if $ (^{\ast }W,W)$ is an $\alpha $-pairing. \item The left $T$-module $_{T}W$ is locally projective, iff for any finite subset $\{w_{1},...,w_{k}\}\subseteq W,$ there exists $\{(f_{i},\widetilde{w} _{i})\}_{i=1}^{k}\subset $ $^{\ast }W\times W$ such that $ w_{j}=\dsum\limits_{i=1}^{k}f_{i}(w_{j})\widetilde{w}_{i}$ for all $ j=1,...,k.$ \item If $_{T}W$ is locally projective, then $_{T}W$ is flat and $T$ -cogenerated. \item If $\mathbf{P}_{l}\in \mathcal{P}_{l}^{\alpha }(T),$ then $_{T}W$ is locally projective. \item If $_{T}W$ is locally projective and $\kappa _{P}(V)\subseteq $ $ ^{\ast }W$ is dense, then $\mathbf{P}_{l}\in \mathcal{P}_{l}^{\alpha }(T).$ \item Assume $T_{T}$ is an injective cogenerator. Then $\mathbf{P}_{l}\in \mathcal{P}_{l}^{\alpha }(T)$ if and only if $_{T}W$ is locally projective and $\kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}}(V)\subseteq $ $^{\ast }W$ is dense. \item If $T$ is a QF ring, then $\mathbf{P}_{l}\in \mathcal{P}_{l}^{\alpha }(T)$ if and only if $_{T}W$ is projective and $W\overset{\chi _{\mathbf{P} _{l}}}{\hookrightarrow }V^{\ast }.$ \end{enumerate} \end{proposition} \qquad The following result completes the nice observation \cite[42.13.] {BW-2003} about locally projective modules: \begin{proposition} Let $T$ be a ring, $_{T}W$ a left $T$-module, $S:=\mathrm{End }(_{T}W)^{op}$ and consider the canonical $(S,S)$-bilinear morphism \begin{equation*} \lbrack ,]_{W}:\text{ }^{\ast }W\otimes _{T}W\rightarrow \mathrm{End}(_{T}W), \text{ }f\otimes _{T}w\mapsto \lbrack \widetilde{w}\mapsto f(\widetilde{w} )w]. \end{equation*} \begin{enumerate} \item $_{T}W$ is \emph{finitely generated projective} if and only if $ [,]_{W} $ is surjective. \item $_{T}W$ is locally projective if and only if $\mathrm{Im} ([,]_{W})\subseteq \mathrm{End}(_{T}W)$ is dense. \end{enumerate} \end{proposition} \begin{Beweis} \begin{enumerate} \item This follows by \cite[12.8.]{Fai-1981}. \item Assume $_{T}W$ is locally projective and consider for every left $T$ -module $N$ the canonical mapping \begin{equation*} \lbrack ,]_{N}^{W}:^{\ast }W\otimes _{T}N\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(W,N), \text{ }f\otimes _{T}n\mapsto \lbrack \widetilde{w}\mapsto f(\widetilde{w} )n]. \end{equation*} It follows then by \cite[42.13.]{BW-2003}, that $\mathrm{Im} ([,]_{N}^{W})\subseteq \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(W,N)$ is dense. In particular, setting $N=W$ we conclude that $\mathrm{Im}([,]_{W})\subseteq \mathrm{End} (_{T}W)$ is dense. On the other hand, assume $\mathrm{Im}([,]_{W})\subseteq \mathrm{End}(_{T}W)$ is dense. Then for every finite subset $ \{w_{1},...,w_{k}\}\subseteq W,$ there exists $\dsum\limits_{i=1}^{n} \widetilde{g}_{i}\otimes _{T}\widetilde{w}_{i}\in $ $^{\ast }W\otimes _{T}W$ with \begin{equation*} w_{j}=id_{W}(w_{j})=[,]_{W}(\dsum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{g}_{i}\otimes _{T} \widetilde{w}_{i})(w_{j})=\dsum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{g}_{i}(w_{j})\widetilde{w }_{i}\text{ for }j=1,...,k. \end{equation*} It follows then by Proposition \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright\ that $_{T}W$ is locally projective.$\blacksquare $ \end{enumerate} \end{Beweis} \section{Morita (Semi)contexts} \qquad We noticed, in the proofs of some results on equivalences between subcategories of module categories associated to a given Morita context, that no use is made of the \emph{compatibility} between the connecting bimodule morphisms (or even that only one trace ideal is used and so only one of the two bilinear morphisms is really in action). Some results of this type appeared, for example, in , and \cite {Nau-1994-b}. Moreover, in our considerations some Morita contexts will be formed for arbitrary associative rngs (i.e. not necessarily unital rings). These considerations motivate us to make the following general definitions: \begin{punto} By a \textbf{Morita semi-context }we mean a tuple \begin{equation} \mathbf{m}_{T}=((T:A),(S:B),P,Q,<,>_{T},I), \end{equation} where $T$ is an $A$-rng, $S$ is a $B$-rng, $P$ is a $(T,S)$-bimodule, $Q$ is an $(S,T)$-bimodule, $<,>_{T}:P\otimes _{S}Q\rightarrow T$ is a $(T,T)$ -bilinear morphism and $I:=\func{Im}(<,>_{T})\vartriangleleft T$ (called the \textbf{trace ideal} \textbf{associated to} $\mathbf{m}_{T}).$ We drop the ground rings $A,B$ and the trace ideal $I\vartriangleleft T,$ if they are not explicitly in action. If $\mathbf{m}_{T}$ () is a Morita semi-context and $T,S$ are unital rings, then we call $\mathbf{m}_{T}$ a \textbf{unital Morita semi-context}. \end{punto} \begin{punto} Let $\mathbf{m}_{T}=((T:A),(S:B),P,Q,<,>_{T}),$ $\mathbf{m}_{T^{\prime }}=((T^{\prime }:A^{\prime }),(S^{\prime }:B^{\prime }),P^{\prime },Q^{\prime },<,>_{T^{\prime }})$ be Morita semi-contexts. By a \textbf{ morphism of Morita semi-contexts} from $\mathbf{m}_{T}$ to $\mathbf{m} _{T^{\prime }}$ we mean a four fold set of morphisms \begin{equation*} ((\beta :\delta ),(\gamma :\sigma ),\phi ,\psi ):((T:A),(S:B),P,Q)\rightarrow ((T^{\prime }:A^{\prime }),(S^{\prime }:B^{\prime }),P^{\prime },Q^{\prime }), \end{equation*} where $(\beta :\delta ):(T:A)\rightarrow (T^{\prime }:A^{\prime })$ and $ (\gamma :\sigma ):(S:B)\rightarrow (S^{\prime }:B^{\prime })$ are rng morphisms, $\phi :P\rightarrow P^{\prime }$ is $(T,S)$-bilinear and $\psi :Q\rightarrow Q^{\prime }$ is $(S,T)$-bilinear, such that \begin{equation*} \beta (<p,q>_{T})=<\phi (p),\psi (q)>_{T^{\prime }}\text{ for all }p\in P,q\in Q\text{ }. \end{equation*} Notice that we consider $P^{\prime }$ as a $(T,S)$-bimodule and $Q^{\prime }$ as an $(S,T)$-bimodule with actions induced by the morphism of rngs $(\beta :\delta )$ and $(\gamma :\sigma ).$ By $\mathbb{MSC}$ we denote the \emph{ category of Morita semi-contexts} with morphisms defined as above, and by $ \mathbb{UMSC}<\mathbb{MSC}$ the (non-full) subcategory of \emph{unital Morita semi-contexts.} \end{punto} Morita semi-contexts are closely related to \emph{dual pairings} in the sense of : \begin{punto} Let $(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T})\in \mathbb{MSC}$ and consider the canonical isomorphisms of Abelian groups \begin{equation*} \mathrm{Hom}_{(S,T)}(Q,\text{ }^{\ast }P)\overset{\xi }{\simeq }\text{ } \mathrm{Hom}_{(T,T)}(P\otimes _{S}Q,T)\overset{\zeta }{\simeq }\mathrm{Hom} _{(T,S)}(P,Q^{\ast }). \end{equation*} This means that we have two dual $T$-pairings $\mathbf{P}_{l}:=(Q,$ $ _{T}P)\in \mathcal{P}_{l}(T)$ and $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P} _{r}(T),$ induced by the canonical $T$-linear morphisms \begin{equation*} \kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}}:=\xi ^{-1}(<,>_{T}):Q\rightarrow \text{ }^{\ast }P \text{ and }\kappa _{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}:=\zeta (<,>_{T}):P\rightarrow Q^{\ast }. \end{equation*} On the other hand, let $(S,T,Q,P,<,>_{S})\in \mathbb{MSC}$ and consider the canonical isomorphisms of Abelian groups \begin{equation*} \mathrm{Hom}_{(S,T)}(Q,P^{\ast })\overset{\xi ^{\prime }}{\simeq }\text{ } \mathrm{Hom}_{(S,S)}(Q\otimes _{T}P,S)\overset{\zeta ^{\prime }}{\simeq } \mathrm{Hom}_{(T,S)}(P,\text{ }^{\ast }Q). \end{equation*} Then we have two dual $S$-pairings $\mathbf{P}_{r}:=(Q,P_{S})\in \mathcal{P} _{r}(S)$ and $\mathbf{Q}_{l}:=(P,$ $_{S}Q)\in \mathcal{P}_{l}(S),$ induced by the canonical morphisms \begin{equation*} \kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{r}}:=\xi ^{\prime -1}(<,>_{S}):Q\rightarrow P^{\ast } \text{ and }\kappa _{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}:=\zeta ^{\prime }(<,>_{S}):P\rightarrow \text{ }^{\ast }Q. \end{equation*} \end{punto} \begin{punto} By a \textbf{Morita datum }we mean a tuple \begin{equation} \mathcal{M}=((T:A),(S:B),P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J), \end{equation} where the following are Morita semi-contexts. \begin{equation} \mathcal{M}_{T}:=((T:A),(S:B),P,Q,<,>_{T},I)\text{ and }\mathcal{M} _{S}:=((S:B),(T:A),Q,P,<,>_{S},J) \end{equation} If, moreover, the bilinear morphisms $<,>_{T}:P\otimes _{S}Q\rightarrow T$ and $<-,>_{S}:Q\otimes _{T}P\rightarrow S$ are \emph{compatible, }in the sense that \begin{equation} <q,p>_{S}q^{\prime }=q<p,q^{\prime }>_{T}\text{ and }p<q,p^{\prime }>_{S} \text{ }=<p,q>_{T}p^{\prime }\text{ }\forall \text{ }p,p^{\prime }\in P, \text{ }q,q^{\prime }\in Q, \end{equation} then we call $\mathcal{M}$ a \textbf{Morita context}. If $T,$ $S$ in a Morita datum (context) $\mathcal{M}$ are unital, then we call $\mathcal{M}$ a \textbf{unital Morita datum (context).} \end{punto} \begin{punto} Let $\mathcal{M}=((T:A),(S:B),P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S})$ and $\mathcal{M}^{\prime }=((T^{\prime }:A^{\prime }),(S^{\prime }:B^{\prime }),P^{\prime },Q^{\prime },<,>_{T^{\prime }},<,>_{S^{\prime }})$ be Morita contexts. Extending \cite[ Page 275]{Ami-1971}, we mean by a \textbf{morphism of Morita contexts} from $ \mathcal{M}$ to $\mathcal{M}^{\prime }$ a four fold set of maps \begin{equation*} ((\beta :\delta ),(\gamma :\sigma ),\phi ,\psi ):((T:A),(S:B),P,Q)\rightarrow ((T^{\prime }:A^{\prime }),(S^{\prime }:B^{\prime }),P^{\prime },Q^{\prime }), \end{equation*} where $(\beta :\delta ):(T:A)\rightarrow (T^{\prime }:A^{\prime }),$ $ (\gamma :\sigma ):(S:B)\rightarrow (S^{\prime }:B^{\prime })$ are rng morphisms, $\phi :P\rightarrow P^{\prime }$ is $(T,S)$-bilinear and $\psi :Q\rightarrow Q^{\prime }$ is $(S,T)$-bilinear, such that \begin{equation*} \beta (<p,q>_{T})=<\phi (p),\psi (q)>_{T^{\prime }}\text{ and }\gamma (<q,p>_{S})=<\psi (q),\phi (p)>_{S^{\prime }}\text{ }\forall \text{ }p\in P,q\in Q.\text{ } \end{equation*} By $\mathbb{MC}$ we denote the \emph{category of Morita contexts} with morphisms defined as above, and by $\mathbb{UMC}<\mathbb{MC}$ the (non-full) subcategory of \emph{unital Morita contexts}. \end{punto} \begin{ex} If $R$ is commutative, then any Morita semi-context $(R,R,P,Q,<,>_{R})$ yields a Morita context $(R,R,P,Q,<,>_{R},[,]_{R}),$ where $ [,]_{R}:=Q\otimes _{R}P\simeq P\otimes _{R}Q\overset{<,>_{R}}{ \longrightarrow }R.\blacksquare $ \end{ex} \begin{punto} We call a Morita semi-context $\mathbf{m}_{T}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T})$ \textbf{ semi-derived }(\textbf{derived}),\textbf{\ }iff $S:=\mathrm{End}(_{T}P)^{op}$ (and $Q=$ $^{\ast }P$). We call a Morita datum, or a Morita context, $ \mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S})$ \textbf{semi-derived (derived)}, iff $ S=\mathrm{End}(_{T}P)^{op},$ or $T=\mathrm{End}(P_{S})$ ($S=\mathrm{End} (_{T}P)^{op}$ and $Q=$ $^{\ast }P,$ or $T=\mathrm{End}(P_{S})$ and $ Q=P^{\ast }$). \end{punto} \begin{remark} Following \cite[1.2.]{Cae1998} (however, dropping the condition that the bilinear map $<,>_{T}:P\otimes _{S}Q\rightarrow T$ is surjective), Morita semi-contexts $(T,S,P,Q,<>_{T})$ in our sense were called \emph{dual pairs} in . However, we think the terminology we are using is more informative and avoids confusion with other notions of dual pairings in the literature (e.g. the ones studied by the first author in ). The reason for this specific terminology (i.e. Morita semi-contexts) is that every Morita context contains two Morita semi-contexts as clear from the definition; and that any Morita semi-context can be \emph{extended} to a (not necessarily unital) Morita context in a natural way as explained below. \end{remark} \subsection*{Elementary rngs} \qquad In what follows we demonstrate how to build new Morita (semi-)contexts from a given Morita semi-context. These constructions are inspired by the notion of \emph{elementary rngs} in \cite[1.2.]{Cae1998} (and \cite[Remark 3.8.]{Ver-2006}): \begin{lemma} Let $\mathbf{m}_{T}:=((T:A),(S:B),P,Q,<,>_{T})\in \mathbb{MSC}.$ \begin{enumerate} \item The $(T,T)$-bimodule $\mathbb{T}:=P\otimes _{S}Q$ has a structure of a $T$-rng \emph{(}$A$-rng\emph{) }with multiplication \begin{equation*} (p\otimes _{S}q)\cdot _{\mathbb{T}}(p^{\prime }\otimes _{S}q^{\prime }):=<p,q>_{T}p^{\prime }\otimes _{S}\text{ }q^{\prime }\text{ }\forall \text{ }p,p^{\prime }\in P,\text{ }q,q^{\prime }\in Q, \end{equation*} such that $<,>_{T}:\mathbb{T}\rightarrow T$ is a morphism of $A$-rngs, $P$ is a $(\mathbb{T},S)$-bimodule and $Q$ is an $(S,\mathbb{T})$-bimodule, where \begin{equation*} (p\otimes _{S}q)\rightharpoonup \widetilde{p}:=<p,q>_{T}\widetilde{p}\text{ and }\widetilde{q}\leftharpoonup (p\otimes _{S}q):=\widetilde{q}<p,q>_{T}. \end{equation*} Moreover, we have morphisms of $T$-rngs \emph{(}$A$-rngs\emph{)} \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{llllllll} $\psi $ & $:$ & $\mathbb{T}$ & $\rightarrow $ & $\mathrm{End}(P_{S}),$ & $ p\otimes _{S}q$ & $\mapsto $ & $[\widetilde{p}\mapsto <p,q>_{T}\widetilde{p} ];$ \\ $\phi $ & $:$ & $\mathbb{T}$ & $\rightarrow $ & $\mathrm{End}(_{S}Q)^{op},$ & $p\otimes _{S}q$ & $\mapsto $ & $[\widetilde{q}\mapsto \widetilde{q} <p,q>_{T}],$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} $((\mathbb{T}:A),(S:B),P,Q,id_{\mathbb{T}})\in \mathbb{MSC}$ and we have a morphism of Morita semi-contexts \begin{equation*} (<,>_{T},id_{S},,id_{P},id_{Q}):(\mathbb{T},S,P,Q,id_{\mathbb{T} })\rightarrow (T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T}). \end{equation*} \item The $(S,S)$-bimodule $\mathbf{S}:=Q\otimes _{T}P$ has a structure of an $S$-rng \emph{(}$B$-rng\emph{) }with multiplication \begin{equation*} (q\otimes _{T}p)\cdot _{\mathbf{S}}(q^{\prime }\otimes _{T}p^{\prime }):=q<p,q^{\prime }>_{T}\otimes _{T}\text{ }p^{\prime }=q\otimes _{T}<p,q^{\prime }>_{T}p^{\prime }\text{ }\forall \text{ }p,p^{\prime }\in P, \text{ }q,q^{\prime }\in Q, \end{equation*} such that $<,>_{S}:\mathbf{S}\rightarrow S$ is a morphism of $B$-rngs, $P$ is a $(T,\mathbf{S})$-bimodule and $Q$ is an $(\mathbf{S},T)$-bimodule, where \begin{equation*} \widetilde{p}\leftharpoonup (q\otimes _{T}p):=<\widetilde{p},q>_{T}p\text{ and }(q\otimes _{T}p)\rightharpoonup \widetilde{q}:=q<p,\widetilde{q}>_{T}. \end{equation*} Moreover, we have morphisms of $S$-rngs \emph{(}$B$-rngs\emph{)} \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{llllllll} $\Psi $ & $:$ & $\mathbf{S}$ & $\rightarrow $ & $\mathrm{End}(_{T}P)^{op},$ & $q\otimes _{T}p$ & $\mapsto $ & $[\widetilde{p}\mapsto <\widetilde{p} ,q>_{T}p],$ \\ $\Phi $ & $:$ & $\mathbf{S}$ & $\rightarrow $ & $\mathrm{End}(Q_{T}),$ & $ q\otimes _{T}p$ & $\mapsto $ & $[\widetilde{q}\mapsto q<p,\widetilde{q} >_{T}],$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} and $\mathcal{M}:=((T:A),(\mathbf{S}:B),P,Q,<,>_{T},id_{\mathbf{S}})$ is a Morita context. \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{remarks} \begin{enumerate} \item Given $((S:B),(T:A),Q,P,<,>_{S})\in \mathbb{MSC},$ the $(S,S)$ -bimodule $\mathbb{S}:=Q\otimes _{T}P$ becomes an $S$-rng with multiplication \begin{equation*} (q\otimes _{T}p)\cdot _{\mathbb{S}}(q^{\prime }\otimes _{T}p^{\prime }):=<q,p>_{S}q^{\prime }\otimes _{T}\text{ }p^{\prime }\text{ }\forall \text{ }p,p^{\prime }\in P,\text{ }q,q^{\prime }\in Q; \end{equation*} and the $(T,T)$-bimodule $\mathbf{T}:=P\otimes _{S}Q$ becomes a $T$-rng with multiplication \begin{equation*} (p\otimes _{S}q)\cdot _{\mathbf{T}}(p^{\prime }\otimes _{S}q^{\prime }):=p<q,p^{\prime }>_{S}\otimes _{S}\text{ }q^{\prime }=p\otimes _{S}\text{ } <q,p^{\prime }>_{S}q^{\prime }\text{ }\forall \text{ }p,p^{\prime }\in P, \text{ }q,q^{\prime }\in Q. \end{equation*} Analogous results to those in Lemma can be obtained for the $S$ -rng $\mathbb{S}$ and the $T$-rng $\mathbf{T}.$ \item Given a Morita semi-context $(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T})$ several equivalent conditions for the $T$-rng $\mathbf{T}:=P\otimes _{S}Q$ to be unital and the modules $_{\mathbf{T}}P,$ $Q_{\mathbf{T}}$ to be \emph{firm} can be found in \cite[Theorem 3.3.]{Ver-2006}. Analogous results can be formulated for the $ S $-rng $Q\otimes _{T}P$ and the $S$-modules $P_{\mathbf{S}},$ $_{\mathbf{S} }Q$ corresponding to any $(S,T,Q,P,<,>_{S})\in \mathbb{MSC}.$ \end{enumerate} \end{remarks} \begin{proposition} \begin{enumerate} \item Let $\mathbf{m}_{T}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T})\in \mathbb{UMSC}$ and assume the $A$-rng $\mathbb{T}:=P\otimes _{S}Q$ to be unital. If $<,>_{T}:\mathbb{T} \rightarrow T$ respects unities \emph{(}and $\mathbf{m}_{T}$ is injective \emph{),} then $<,>_{T}$ is surjective \emph{(}$\mathbb{T}\overset{<,>_{T}}{ \simeq }T$ as $A$-rings\emph{)}. \item Let $\mathbf{m}_{S}=(S,T,Q,P,<,>_{S})\in \mathbb{UMSC}$ and assume the $B$-rng $\mathbb{S}:=Q\otimes _{S}P$ to be unital. If $<,>_{S}:\mathbb{S} \rightarrow S$ respects unities \emph{(}and $\mathbf{m}_{S}$ is injective \emph{)}, then $<,>_{S}$ is surjective \emph{(}$\mathbb{S}\overset{<,>_{S}}{ \simeq }S$ as $B$-rings\emph{)}. \item Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S})\in \mathbb{UMC}$ and assume the rngs $\mathbb{T}:=P\otimes _{S}Q,$ $T,$ $\mathbb{S}:=Q\otimes _{S}P$ to be unital. If $<,>_{T}:$ $P\otimes _{S}Q\rightarrow T$ and $<,>_{S}:\mathbb{S }\rightarrow S$ respect unities, then $\mathbb{T}\overset{<,>_{T}}{\simeq }T$ as $A$-ring, $\mathbb{S}\overset{<,>_{S}}{\simeq }S$ as $B$-rings and we have equivalences of categories $_{\mathbb{T}}\mathbb{M}\approx $ $_{\mathbb{ S}}\mathbb{M}$ \emph{(}and $\mathbb{M}_{\mathbb{T}}\approx \mathbb{M}_{ \mathbb{S}}$\emph{)}. \end{enumerate} \end{proposition} \begin{Beweis} Assume $\mathbb{T}$ is unital with $1_{\mathbb{T}}=\dsum_{i=1}^{n}p_{i} \otimes _{S}q_{i}.$ If $<,>_{T}$ respects unities, then we have $ \dsum_{i=1}^{n}<p_{i},q_{i}>_{T}=1_{T},$ and so for any $t\in T$ we get $ t=t1_{T}=\dsum_{i=1}^{n}t<p_{i},q_{i}>_{T}=\dsum_{i=1}^{n}<tp_{i},q_{i}>_{T} \in \mathrm{Im}(<,>_{T}).$ One can prove \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright\ analogously. As for \textquotedblleft 3\textquotedblright , it is well known that a unital Morita context with surjective connecting bimodule morphisms is strict (e.g. \cite[12.7.] {Fai-1981}), hence $\mathbb{T}\overset{<,>_{T}}{\simeq }T,$ $\mathbb{S} \overset{<,>_{S}}{\simeq }S.$ The equivalences of categories $_{\mathbb{T}} \mathbb{M}\simeq $ $_{T}\mathbb{M}\approx $ $_{S}\mathbb{M}\simeq $ $_{ \mathbb{S}}\mathbb{M}$ (and $\mathbb{M}_{\mathbb{T}}\simeq \mathbb{M} _{T}\approx \mathbb{M}_{S}\simeq \mathbb{M}_{\mathbb{S}}$)\emph{\ }follow then by classical Morita Theory (e.g. \cite[Chapter 12]{Fai-1981}).$ \blacksquare $ \end{Beweis} \begin{definition} Let $T$ be an $A$-rng, $V_{T}$ a right $T$-module and consider for every left $T$-module $_{T}L$ the annihilator \begin{equation*} \mathrm{ann}_{L}^{\otimes }(V_{T}):=\{l\in L\mid V\otimes _{T}l=0\}. \end{equation*} Following \cite[Exercises 19]{AF-1974}, we say $V_{T}$ is $L$\textbf{ -faithful}, iff $\mathrm{ann}_{L}^{\otimes }(V_{T})=0;$ and to be \textbf{ completely faithful}, iff $V_{T}$ is $L$-faithful for every left $T$-module $ _{S}L.$ Similarly, we can define completely faithful left $T$-modules. \end{definition} \qquad Under suitable conditions, the following result characterizes the Morita data, which are Morita contexts: \begin{proposition} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S})$ be a Morita datum. \begin{enumerate} \item If $\mathcal{M}\in \mathbb{MC}$, then $\mathbf{S}\overset{id}{\simeq } \mathbb{S}$ and $\mathbf{T}\overset{id}{\simeq }\mathbb{T}$ as rngs. \item Assume $_{T}P$ is $Q$-faithful and $Q_{T}$ is $P$-faithful. Then $ \mathcal{M}\in \mathbb{MC}$ if and only if $\mathbf{S}\overset{id}{\simeq } \mathbb{S}$ and $\mathbf{T}\overset{id}{\simeq }\mathbb{T}$ as rngs. \end{enumerate} \end{proposition} \begin{Beweis} \begin{enumerate} \item Obvious. \item Assume $\mathbf{S}\overset{id}{\simeq }\mathbb{S}$ and $\mathbf{T} \overset{id}{\simeq }\mathbb{T}$ as rngs. If $p\in P$ and $q,q^{\prime }\in Q $ are arbitrary, then we have for any $\widetilde{p}\in P:$ \begin{equation*} <q,p>_{S}q^{\prime }\otimes _{T}\text{ }\widetilde{p}=(q\otimes _{T}p)\cdot _{\mathbb{S}}(q^{\prime }\otimes _{T}\widetilde{p})=(q\otimes _{T}p)\cdot _{ \mathbf{S}}(q^{\prime }\otimes _{T}\widetilde{p})=q<p,q^{\prime }>_{T}\otimes _{T}\text{ }\widetilde{p}, \end{equation*} hence $<q,p>_{S}q^{\prime }-q<p,q^{\prime }>_{T}\in \mathrm{ann}_{Q}(P)=0$ (since $_{T}P$ is $Q$-faithful), i.e. $<q,p>_{S}q^{\prime }=q<p,q^{\prime }>_{T}$ for all $p\in P$ and $q,q^{\prime }\in Q.$ Assuming $Q_{T}$ is $P$ -faithful, one can prove analogously that $<p,q>_{T}p^{\prime }=p<q,p^{\prime }>_{S}$ for all $p,p^{\prime }\in P$ and $q\in Q.$ Consequently, $\mathcal{M}$ is a Morita context.$\blacksquare $ \end{enumerate} \end{Beweis} \section{Injective Morita (Semi-)Contexts} \begin{definition} We call a Morita semi-context $\mathbf{m}_{T}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},I):$ \textbf{injective} (resp. \textbf{semi-strict}, \textbf{strict}), iff $ <,>_{T}:P\otimes _{S}Q\rightarrow T$ is injective (resp. surjective, bijective); \textbf{non-degenerate}, iff $Q\hookrightarrow $ $^{\ast }P$ and $ P\hookrightarrow Q^{\ast }$ canonically; \textbf{Morita }$\alpha $\textbf{-semi-context}, iff $\mathbf{P}_{l}:=(Q,$ $ _{T}P)\in \mathcal{P}_{l}^{\alpha }(T)$ and $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T).$ \end{definition} \begin{notation} By $\mathbb{MSC}^{\alpha }\leq \mathbb{MSC}$ ($\mathbb{UMSC}^{\alpha }\leq \mathbb{UMSC}$) we denote the full subcategory of (unital) Morita semi-contexts satisfying the $\alpha $-condition. Moreover, we denote by $ \mathbb{IMSC}\leq \mathbb{MSC}$ ($\mathbb{IUMSC}\leq \mathbb{UMSC}$) the full subcategory of injective (unital) Morita semi-contexts. \end{notation} \begin{definition} We say a Morita datum (context) $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J):$ is \textbf{injective} (resp. \textbf{semi-strict}, \textbf{strict}), iff $ <,>_{T}:P\otimes _{S}Q\rightarrow T$ and $<,>_{S}:Q\otimes _{T}P\rightarrow S $ are injective (resp. surjective, bijective); is \textbf{non-degenerate}, iff $Q\hookrightarrow $ $^{\ast }P,$ $ P\hookrightarrow Q^{\ast },$ $Q\hookrightarrow P^{\ast }$ and $ P\hookrightarrow $ $^{\ast }Q$ canonically; \textbf{satisfies the left }$\alpha $\textbf{-condition}, iff $\mathbf{P} _{l}:=(Q,$ $_{T}P)\in \mathcal{P}_{l}^{\alpha }(T)$ and $\mathbf{Q}_{l}:=(P,$ $_{S}Q)\in \mathcal{P}_{l}^{\alpha }(S);$ \textbf{satisfies the right }$\alpha $\textbf{-condition,} iff $\mathbf{Q} _{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T)$ and $\mathbf{P} _{r}:=(Q,P_{S})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S);$ \textbf{satisfies the }$\alpha $\textbf{-condition,} or $\mathcal{M}$ is a \textbf{Morita }$\alpha $\textbf{-datum (Morita }$\alpha $-\textbf{context} ), iff $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies both the left and the right $\alpha $ -conditions. \end{definition} \begin{notation} By $\mathbb{MC}_{l}^{\alpha }<\mathbb{MC}$ ($\mathbb{UMC}_{l}^{\alpha }< \mathbb{UMC}$) we denote the full subcategory of Morita contexts satisfying the left $\alpha $-condition, and by $\mathbb{MC}_{r}^{\alpha }<\mathbb{MC}$ ($\mathbb{UMC}_{r}^{\alpha }<\mathbb{UMC}$) the full subcategory of (unital) Morita contexts satisfying the right $\alpha $-condition. Moreover, we set $ \mathbb{MC}^{\alpha }:=\mathbb{MC}_{l}^{\alpha }\cap \mathbb{MC}_{r}^{\alpha }$ and $\mathbb{UMC}^{\alpha }:=\mathbb{UMC}_{l}^{\alpha }\cap \mathbb{UMC} _{r}^{\alpha }.$ \end{notation} \begin{lemma} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)\in \mathbb{ MC}.$ Consider the Morita semi-context $\mathcal{M}_{S}:=(S,T,Q,P,<,>_{S}),$ the dual pairings $\mathbf{P}_{l}:=(Q,$ $_{T}P)\in \mathcal{P}_{l}(T),$ $ \mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}(T)$ and the canonical morphisms of rings \begin{equation*} \rho _{P}:S\rightarrow \mathrm{End}(_{T}P)^{op}\text{ and }\lambda _{Q}:S\rightarrow \mathrm{End}(Q_{T}). \end{equation*} \begin{enumerate} \item If $\mathbf{Q}_{r}$ is injective \emph{(}semi-strict\emph{)}, then $ \mathcal{M}_{S}$ is injective \emph{(}$\rho _{P}:S\rightarrow \mathrm{End} (_{T}P)^{op}$ is a surjective morphism of $B$-rngs\emph{)}. \item Assume $P_{S}$ is faithful and let $\mathbf{Q}_{r}$ be semi-strict. Then $S\simeq \mathrm{End}(_{T}P)^{op}$ \emph{(}an isomorphism of unital $B$ -rings\emph{) }and $\mathcal{M}_{S}$ is strict. \item If $\mathbf{P}_{l}$ is injective \emph{(}semi-strict\emph{)}, then $ \mathcal{M}_{S}$ is injective \emph{(}$\lambda _{Q}:S\rightarrow \mathrm{End} (Q_{T})$ is a surjective morphism of $B$-rngs\emph{)}. \item Assume $_{S}Q$ is faithful and let $\mathbf{P}_{l}$ is semi-strict. Then $S\simeq \mathrm{End}(Q_{T})$ \emph{(}an isomorphism of unital $B$-rings $\emph{)}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{S}$ is strict. \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{Beweis} We prove only \textquotedblleft 1\textquotedblright\ and \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright , as \textquotedblleft 3\textquotedblright\ and \textquotedblleft 4\textquotedblright\ can be proved analogously. Consider the following butterfly diagram with canonical morphisms \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ Q \otimes_T Q^{*} \ar[dddddd]_{[,]_Q ^{r}} & & & & & & {}^{*}P \otimes_T P \ar[dddddd]^{[,]_P ^{l}} \\ & & & Q \otimes_{T} P \ar[ulll]_{id_Q \otimes_T \kappa_{\mathbf{Q}_r}} \ar[urrr]^{\kappa_{\mathbf{P}_l} \otimes_T id_P} \ar[ddd]_{<,>_S} \ar[rrd]^{\alpha_P^Q} \ar[lld]_{\alpha_Q^P} \ar@{.>}[rrrddddd]_{\alpha_P^{\mathbf{Q}_r}} \ar@{.>}[dddddlll]^{\alpha_Q^{\mathbf{P}_l}}& & & \\ & {\rm Hom}_{-T}(^{*}P,Q) \ar[ddddl]_(0.3){(\kappa_{\mathbf{P}_l},Q)} & & & & {\rm Hom}_{-T}(Q^{*},P) \ar[ddddr]^(0.3){(\kappa_{\mathbf{Q}_r},P)} & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & S \ar[ddlll]^{\lambda_Q} \ar[ddrrr]_{\rho_P} & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ {\rm End}(Q_{T}) & & & & & & {\rm End}(_{T} P)^{op}} \end{equation} Let $\sum q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i}\in Q\otimes _{T}P$ be arbitrary. For every $ \widetilde{p}\in P$ we have \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lll} $\lbrack (\kappa _{\mathbf{Q}_{r}},P)\circ \alpha _{P}^{Q})(\sum q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i})](\widetilde{p})$ & $=$ & $\sum <\widetilde{p} ,q_{i}>_{T}p_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\sum \widetilde{p}<q_{i},p_{i}>_{S}$ \\ & $=$ & $\rho _{P}(\sum <q_{i},p_{i}>_{S})(\widetilde{p})$ \\ & $=$ & $(\rho _{P}\circ <,>_{S})(\sum q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i})(\widetilde{p} ),$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} i.e. $\alpha _{P}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}:=(\kappa _{\mathbf{Q}_{r}},P)\circ \alpha _{P}^{Q}=\rho _{P}\circ <,>_{S};$ and \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lll} $\lbrack ,]_{P}^{l}\circ (\kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}}\otimes _{T}id_{P}))(\sum q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i})](\widetilde{p})$ & $=$ & $\dsum \kappa _{\mathbf{P} _{l}}(q_{i})(\widetilde{p})p_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum <\widetilde{p},q_{i}>_{T}p_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum \widetilde{p}<q_{i},p_{i}>_{S}$ \\ & $=$ & $\rho _{P}(\dsum <q_{i},p_{i}>_{S})(\widetilde{p})$ \\ & $=$ & $[(\rho _{P}\circ <,>_{S})(\sum q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i})](\widetilde{p }),$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} i.e. $[,]_{P}^{l}\circ (\kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}}\otimes _{T}id_{P})=\rho _{P}\circ <,>_{S}.$ On the other hand, for every $\widetilde{q}\in Q$ we have \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lll} $((\kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}},Q)\circ \alpha _{Q}^{\mathbf{P}_{l}})(\sum q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i})(\widetilde{q})$ & $=$ & $\sum q_{i}<p_{i},\widetilde{ q}>_{T}$ \\ & $=$ & $(\sum <q_{i},p_{i}>_{S})\widetilde{q}$ \\ & $=$ & $\lambda _{Q}(\sum <q_{i},p_{i}>_{S})(\widetilde{q})$ \\ & $=$ & $(\lambda _{Q}\circ <,>_{S})(\sum q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i}),$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} i.e. $\alpha _{Q}^{\mathbf{P}_{l}}:=(\kappa _{\mathbf{P}_{l}},Q)\circ \alpha _{Q}^{\mathbf{P}_{l}}=\lambda _{Q}\circ <,>_{S}$ and \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lll} $([,]_{Q}^{r}\circ (id_{Q}\otimes _{T}\kappa _{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}))(\sum q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i})](\widetilde{q})$ & $=$ & $\dsum q_{i}\kappa _{ \mathbf{Q}_{r}}(p_{i})(\widetilde{q})$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum q_{i}<p_{i},\widetilde{q}>_{T}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum <q_{i},p_{i}>_{S}\widetilde{q}$ \\ & $=$ & $\lambda _{Q}(\dsum <q_{i},p_{i}>_{S})(\widetilde{q})$ \\ & $=$ & $[(\lambda _{Q}\circ <,>_{S})(\sum q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i})]( \widetilde{q}),$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} i.e. $[,]_{Q}^{r}\circ (id_{Q}\otimes _{T}\kappa _{\mathbf{Q}_{r}})=\lambda _{Q}\circ <,>_{S}.$ Hence Diagram () is commutative. (1) Follows directly from the assumptions and the equality $\alpha _{P}^{ \mathbf{Q}_{r}}=\rho _{P}\circ <,>_{S}.$ (2) Let $P_{S}$ be faithful, so that the canonical left $S$-linear map $\rho _{P}:S\rightarrow \mathrm{End}(_{T}P)^{op}$ is injective. Assume now that $ \mathbf{Q}_{r}$ is semi-strict. Then $\rho _{P}$ is surjective by \textquotedblleft 1\textquotedblright\ , whence bijective. Since rings of endomorphisms are unital, we conclude that $S\simeq \mathrm{End}(_{T}P)^{op}$ is a unital $B$-ring as well (with unity $\rho _{P}^{-1}(id_{P})$). Moreover, the surjectivity of $\alpha _{P}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}=\rho _{P}\circ <,>_{S}$ implies that $<,>_{S}$ is surjective (since $\rho _{P}$ is injective), say $1_{S}=\dsum_{j}<\widetilde{q}_{j},\widetilde{p}_{j}>_{S}$ for some $\{(\widetilde{q}_{j},\widetilde{p}_{j})\}_{J}\subseteq Q\times P.$ For any $\dsum_{i}q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i}\in \mathrm{Ker}(<,>_{S}),$ we have then \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lllll} $\dsum_{i}q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i}$ & $=$ & $(\dsum_{i}q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i})\cdot 1_{S}$ & $=$ & $\dsum_{i}(q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i})\cdot (\dsum_{j}<\widetilde{q}_{j},\widetilde{p}_{j}>_{S})$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum_{i,j}q_{i}\otimes _{T}p_{i}<\widetilde{q}_{j},\widetilde{p} _{j}>_{S}$ & $=$ & $\dsum_{i,j}q_{i}\otimes _{T}<p_{i},\widetilde{q}_{j}>_{T} \widetilde{p}_{j}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum_{i,j}q_{i}<p_{i},\widetilde{q}_{j}>_{T}\otimes _{T}\widetilde{ p}_{j}$ & $=$ & $\dsum_{i,j}<q_{i},p_{i}>_{S}\widetilde{q}_{j}\otimes _{T} \widetilde{p}_{j}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum_{j}(\dsum_{i}<q_{i},p_{i}>_{S})\widetilde{q}_{j}\otimes _{T} \widetilde{p}_{j}$ & $=$ & $0,$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} i.e. $<,>_{S}$ is injective, whence an isomorphism.$\blacksquare $ \end{Beweis} \qquad \qquad The following result shows that Morita $\alpha $-contexts are injective: \begin{corollary} $\mathbb{MC}_{l}^{\alpha }\cup \mathbb{MC}_{r}^{\alpha }\leq \mathbb{IMC}.$ \end{corollary} \begin{ex} Let $\mathbf{m}_{T}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T})$ be a non-degenerate Morita semi-context. If $T$ is a QF ring and the $T$-modules $_{T}P,$ $Q_{T}$ are projective, then by Proposition \textquotedblleft 7\textquotedblright\ $\mathbf{P}_{l}:=(Q,$ $_{T}P)\in \mathcal{P} _{l}^{\alpha }(T)$ and $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T)$ (i.e. $\mathbf{m}_{T}$ is a Morita $\alpha $-semi-context, whence injective). On the other hand, let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S})$ be a non-degenerate Morita datum. If $T,S$ are QF rings and the modules $ _{T}P,$ $Q_{T},$ $P_{S},$ $_{S}Q$ are projective, then $\mathcal{M}$ is an Morita $\alpha $-datum (whence injective).$\blacksquare $ \end{ex} Every semi-strict \emph{unital} Morita context is injective (whence strict, e.g. \cite[12.7.]{Fai-1981}). The following example, which is a modification of \cite[Example 18.30]{Lam-1999}), shows that the converse is not necessarily true: \begin{ex} Let $T=\mathrm{M}_{2}(\mathbb{Z}_{2})$ be the ring of $2\times 2$ matrices with entries in $\mathbb{Z}_{2}.$ Notice that $e=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] \in T$ is an idempotent, and that $eTe\simeq \mathbb{Z}_{2}$ as rings. Set \begin{equation*} P:=Te=\{\left[ \begin{array}{cc} a^{\prime } & 0 \\ c^{\prime } & 0 \end{array} \right] \mid a^{\prime },c^{\prime }\in \mathbb{Z}_{2}\}\text{ and }Q:=eT=\{ \left[ \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] \mid a,b\in \mathbb{Z}_{2}\}. \end{equation*} Then $P=Te$ is a $(T,eTe)$-bimodule and $Q=eT$ is an $(eTe,T)$-bimodule. Moreover, we have a Morita context \begin{equation*} \mathcal{M}_{e}=(T,eTe,Te,,eT,<,>_{T},<.>_{eTe}), \end{equation*} where the connecting bilinear maps are \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lllll} $<,>_{T}$ & $:$ & $Te\otimes _{eTe}eT$ & $\rightarrow $ & $T,$ \\ & & & & \\ & & $\left[ \begin{array}{cc} a^{\prime } & 0 \\ c^{\prime } & 0 \end{array} \right] \otimes _{eTe}\left[ \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] $ & $\mapsto $ & $\left[ \begin{array}{cc} a^{\prime }a & a^{\prime }b \\ c^{\prime }a & c^{\prime }b \end{array} \right] $ \\ & & & & \\ $<,>_{eTe}$ & $:$ & $eT\otimes _{T}Te$ & $\rightarrow $ & $eTe$ \\ & & & & \\ & & $\left[ \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] \otimes _{T}\left[ \begin{array}{cc} a^{\prime } & 0 \\ c^{\prime } & 0 \end{array} \right] $ & $\mapsto $ & $\left[ \begin{array}{cc} aa^{\prime }+bc^{\prime } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right] .$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} Straightforward computations show that $<,>_{T}$ is injective but not surjective (as $\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right] \notin \mathrm{Im}(<,>_{T})$) and that $<,>_{eTe}$ is in fact an isomorphism. This means that $\mathcal{M}_{e}$ is an injective Morita context that is not semi-strict (whence not strict).$\blacksquare $ \end{ex} \begin{definition} Let $T$ be a rng and $I\vartriangleleft T$ an ideal. For every left $T$-module $_{T}V$ consider the canonical $T$-linear map \begin{equation*} \zeta _{I,V}:V\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(I,V),\text{ }v\mapsto \lbrack t\mapsto tv]. \end{equation*} We say $_{T}I$ is \textbf{strongly }$V$\textbf{-faithful}, iff $\mathrm{ann} _{V}(I):=\mathrm{Ker}(\zeta _{I,V}):=0.$ Moreover, we say $I$ is \textbf{ strongly faithful}, if $_{T}I$ is $V$-faithful for every left $T$-module $ _{T}V.$ Strong faithfulness of $I$ w.r.t. right $T$-modules can be defined analogously. \end{definition} \begin{remark} Let $T$ be a rng, $I\vartriangleleft T$ an ideal and $_{T}U$ a left ideal. It's clear that $\mathrm{ann}_{U}^{\otimes }(I_{T})\subseteq \mathrm{ann} _{U}(I):=\mathrm{Ker}(\zeta _{I,U}).$ Hence, if $_{T}I$ is \emph{strongly }$ U $\emph{-faithful}, then $I_{T}$ is $U$\emph{-faithful} (which justifies our terminology). In particular, if $_{T}I$ is \emph{strongly faithful}, then $I_{T}$ is \emph{completely faithful}. \end{remark} \qquad Morita $\alpha $-contexts are injective by Corollary . The following result gives a partial converse: \begin{lemma} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)\in \mathbb{MC }$ and assume the Morita semi-context $\mathcal{M}_{S}:=(S,T,Q,P,<,>_{S},J)$ is injective. \begin{enumerate} \item If $_{S}J$ is strongly faithful, then $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T).$ \item If $J_{S}$ is strongly faithful, then $\mathbf{P}_{l}:=(Q,$ $_{T}P)\in \mathcal{P}_{l}^{\alpha }(T).$ \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{Beweis} We prove only \textquotedblleft 1\textquotedblright , since \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright\ can be proved similarly. Assume $ \mathcal{M}_{S}$ is injective and consider for every left $T$-module $U$ the following diagram \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ Q \otimes_{T} U \ar[rr]^{\alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}} \ar[dr]_{\zeta_{J,Q \otimes_T U}} & & {\rm Hom}_{T-}(P,U) \ar[dl]^{\psi_{Q,U}} \\ & {\rm Hom_{S-}}(J,Q \otimes_T U) & } \end{equation} where for all $f\in \mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,U)$ and $\dsum <q_{j},p_{j}>_{S}\in J $ we define \begin{equation*} \psi _{Q,U}(f)(\dsum <q_{j},p_{j}>_{S}):=\dsum q_{j}\otimes _{T}f(p_{j}). \end{equation*} Then we have for every $\dsum \widetilde{q}_{i}\otimes _{T}\widetilde{u} _{i}\in Q\otimes _{T}U$ and $s=\dsum_{j}<q_{j},p_{j}>_{S}\in J:$ \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lll} $(\psi _{Q,U}\circ \alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}})(\sum_{i}\widetilde{q} _{i}\otimes _{T}\widetilde{u}_{i})(s)$ & $=$ & $\dsum_{j}q_{j}\otimes _{T}[\alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}(\dsum_{i}\widetilde{q}_{i}\otimes _{T} \widetilde{u}_{i})](p_{j})$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum_{j}q_{j}\otimes _{T}\dsum_{i}<p_{j},\widetilde{q}_{i}>_{T} \widetilde{u}_{i}]$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum_{i,j}q_{j}\otimes _{T}<p_{j},\widetilde{q}_{i}>_{T}\widetilde{ u}_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum_{i,j}q_{j}<p_{j},\widetilde{q}_{i}>_{T}\otimes _{T}\widetilde{ u}_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum_{i,j}<q_{j},p_{j}>_{S}\widetilde{q}_{i}\otimes _{T}\widetilde{ u}_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\zeta _{J,Q\otimes _{T}U}(\sum_{i}\widetilde{q}_{i}\otimes _{T} \widetilde{u}_{i})(s),$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} i.e. diagram () is commutative. If $_{S}J$ is strongly faithful, then $\mathrm{Ker}(\zeta _{J,Q\otimes _{T}U})=\mathrm{ann}_{Q\otimes _{T}U}(J)=0,$ hence $\zeta _{J,Q\otimes _{T}U}$ is injective and it follows then that $\alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}$ is injective.$\blacksquare $ \end{Beweis} \begin{proposition} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)\in \mathbb{IMC}.$ If $_{T}I,$ $I_{T},$ $_{S}J$ and $J_{S}$ are strongly faithful, then $\mathcal{M}\in \mathbb{MC}^{\alpha }.$ \end{proposition} \section{Equivalences of Categories} \qquad In this section we give some applications of \emph{injective Morita }( \emph{semi-})\emph{contexts} and\emph{\ injective Morita data }to equivalences between suitable subcategories of modules arising in the Kato-M \"{u}ller-Ohtake localization-colocalization theory (as developed in (e.g. , , ). All rings, hence all Morita (semi-)contexts and data, in this section are unital. \subsection*{Static and Adstatic Modules} \begin{punto} ()\ Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be two complete cocomplete Abelian categories, $\mathbf{R}:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow \mathcal{B} $ an additive covariant functor with left adjoint $\mathbf{L}:\mathcal{B} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ and let \begin{equation*} \omega :\mathbf{LR}\rightarrow 1_{\mathcal{A}}\text{ and }\eta :1_{\mathcal{B }}\rightarrow \mathbf{RL} \end{equation*} be the induced natural transformations (called the \emph{counit} and the \emph{unit} of the adjunction, respectively). Related to the adjoint pair $( \mathbf{L},\mathbf{R})$ are two \emph{full} subcategories of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}:$ \begin{equation*} \mathrm{Stat}(\mathbf{R}):=\{X\in \mathcal{A}\mid \mathbf{LR}(X)\overset{ \omega _{X}}{\simeq }X\}\text{ and }\mathrm{Adstat}(\mathbf{R}):=\{Y\in \mathcal{B}\mid Y\overset{\eta _{Y}}{\simeq }\mathbf{RL}(Y)\}, \end{equation*} whose members are called $\mathbf{R}$-\textbf{static objects} and $\mathbf{R} $-\textbf{adstatic objects,} respectively. It is evident (from definition) that we have equivalence of categories $\mathrm{Stat}(\mathbf{R})\approx \mathrm{Adstat}(\mathbf{R}).$ \end{punto} \qquad A typical situation, in which static and adstatic objects arise naturally is the following: \begin{punto} Let $T,S$ be rings, $_{T}U_{S}$ a $(T,S)$-bimodule and consider the covariant functors \begin{equation*} \mathbf{H}_{U}^{l}:=\mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,-):\text{ }_{T}\mathbb{M}\rightarrow \text{ }_{S}\mathbb{M}\text{ and }\mathbf{T}_{U}^{l}:=U\otimes _{S}-:\text{ } _{S}\mathbb{M}\rightarrow \text{ }_{T}\mathbb{M}. \end{equation*} It is well-known that $(\mathbf{T}_{U}^{l},\mathbf{H}_{U}^{l})$ is an adjoint pair of covariant functors via the \emph{natural isomorphisms} \begin{equation*} \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U\otimes _{S}M,N)\simeq \mathrm{Hom}_{S}(M,\mathrm{Hom} _{T}(U,N))\text{ for all }M\in \text{ }_{S}\mathbb{M}\text{ and }N\in \text{ }_{T}\mathbb{M} \end{equation*} and the natural transformations \begin{equation*} \omega _{U}^{l}:U\otimes _{S}\mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,-)\rightarrow 1_{_{T}\mathbb{ M}}\text{ and }\eta _{U}^{l}:1_{_{S}\mathbb{M}}\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom} _{T}(U,U\otimes _{S}-) \end{equation*} yield for every $_{T}K$ and $_{S}L$ the canonical morphisms \begin{equation} \omega _{U,K}^{l}:U\otimes _{S}\mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,K)\rightarrow K\text{ and } \eta _{U,L}^{l}:L\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,U\otimes _{S}L). \end{equation} We call the $\mathbf{H}_{U}^{l}$\emph{-static }modules $U$\textbf{-static w.r.t. }$S$ and set \begin{equation*} \mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}U_{S}):=\mathrm{Stat}(\mathbf{H}_{U}^{l})=\{_{T}K\mid U\otimes _{S}\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(U,K)\overset{\omega _{U,K}^{l}}{\simeq }K\}; \end{equation*} and the $\mathbf{H}_{U}^{l}$\emph{-adstatic} modules $U$\textbf{-adstatic w.r.t. }$S$ and set \begin{equation*} \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}U_{S}):=\mathrm{Adstat}(\mathbf{H} _{U}^{l})=\{_{S}L\mid L\overset{\eta _{U,L}^{l}}{\simeq }\mathrm{Hom} _{T-}(U,U\otimes _{S}L)\}. \end{equation*} By and , there are equivalences of categories \begin{equation} \mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}U_{S})\approx \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}U_{S}). \end{equation} On the other hand, one can define the full subcategories $\mathrm{Stat} ^{r}(_{T}U_{S})\approx \mathrm{Adstat}^{r}(_{T}U_{S}):$ \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lll} $\mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{T}U_{S})$ & $:=$ & $\{K_{S}\mid \mathrm{Hom} _{-S}(U,K)\otimes _{T}U\simeq K\};$ \\ $\mathrm{Adstat}^{r}(_{T}U_{S})$ & $:=$ & $\{L_{T}\mid L\simeq \mathrm{Hom} _{-S}(U,L\otimes _{T}U)\}.$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} In particular, setting \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lllllll} $\mathrm{Stat}(_{T}U)$ & $:=$ & $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}U_{\mathrm{End} (_{T}U)^{op}});$ & & $\mathrm{Adstat}(_{T}U)$ & $:=$ & $\mathrm{Adstat} ^{l}(_{T}U_{\mathrm{End}(_{T}U)^{op}});$ \\ $\mathrm{Stat}(U_{S})$ & $:=$ & $\mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{\mathrm{End} (_{S}U)}U_{S});$ & & $\mathrm{Adstat}(U_{S})$ & $:=$ & $\mathrm{Adstat} ^{r}(_{\mathrm{End}(_{S}U)}U_{S}),$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} there are equivalences of categories: \begin{equation} \mathrm{Stat}(_{T}U)\simeq \mathrm{Adstat}(_{T}U)\text{ and }\mathrm{Stat} (U_{S})\simeq \mathrm{Adstat}(U_{S}). \end{equation} \end{punto} \begin{remark} The theory of static and adstatic modules was developed in a series of papers by the second author (see the references). They were also considered by several other authors (e.g. , ). For other terminologies used by different authors, the interested reader may refer to a comprehensive treatment of the subject by R. Wisbauer in . \end{remark} \subsection*{Intersecting subcategories} \qquad \qquad Several intersecting subcategories related to Morita contexts were introduced in the literature (e.g. , ). In what follows we introduce more and we show that many of these coincide, if one starts with an injective Morita semi-context. Moreover, other results on equivalences between some intersecting subcategories related to an injective Morita context will be reframed for arbitrary (not necessarily compatible) injective Morita data. \begin{definition} \begin{enumerate} \item For a right $T$-module $X,$ a $T$-submodule $X^{\prime }\subseteq X$ is called $K$\textbf{-pure} for some left $T$-module $_{T}K,$ iff the following sequence of Abelian groups is exact \begin{equation*} 0\rightarrow X^{\prime }\otimes _{T}K\rightarrow X\otimes _{T}K\rightarrow X/X^{\prime }\otimes _{T}K\rightarrow 0; \end{equation*} \item For a left $T$-module $Y,$ a $T$-submodule $Y^{\prime }\subseteq Y$ is called $L$\textbf{-copure} for some left $T$-module $_{T}L,$ iff the following sequence of Abelian groups is exact \begin{equation*} 0\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(Y/Y^{\prime },L)\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom} _{T}(Y,L)\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(Y^{\prime },L)\rightarrow 0. \end{equation*} \end{enumerate} \end{definition} \begin{definition} (Compare \cite[Theorems 1.3., 2.3.]{KO-1979}) Let $T$ be a ring, $ I\vartriangleleft T$ an ideal, $U$ a left $T$-module and consider the canonical $T$-linear morphisms \begin{equation*} \zeta _{I,U}:U\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(I,U)\text{ and }\xi _{I,U}:I\otimes _{T}U\rightarrow U. \end{equation*} \begin{enumerate} \item We say $_{T}U$ is $I$\textbf{-divisible}, iff $\xi _{I,U}$ is surjective (equivalently, iff $IU=U$). \item We say $_{T}U$ is $I$\textbf{-localized}, iff $U\overset{\zeta _{I,U}}{ \simeq }\mathrm{Hom}_{T}(I,U)$ canonically (equivalently iff $_{T}I$ is strongly $U$-faithful and $_{T}I\subseteq T$ is $U$-copure). \item We say a left $T$-module $U$ is $I$\textbf{-colocalized}, iff $ I\otimes _{T}U\overset{\xi _{I,U}}{\simeq }U$ canonically (equivalently, iff $_{T}U$ is $I$-divisible and $I_{T}\subseteq T$ is $U$-pure). \end{enumerate} \end{definition} \begin{notation} For a ring $T,$ an ideal $I\vartriangleleft T,$ and with morphisms being the canonical ones, we set \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lllllll} $_{I}\mathfrak{D}$ & $:=$ & $\{_{T}U\mid IU=U\};$ & & $_{I}\mathfrak{F}$ & $ :=$ & $\{_{T}U\mid U\hookrightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(I,U)\};$ \\ $_{I}\mathcal{L}$ & $:=$ & $\{_{T}U\mid U\simeq \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(I,U\};$ & & $_{I}\mathcal{C}$ & $:=$ & $\{_{T}U\mid I\otimes _{T}U\simeq U\};$ \\ $\mathfrak{D}_{I}$ & $:=$ & $\{U_{T}\mid UI=U\};$ & & $\mathfrak{F}_{I}$ & $ :=$ & $\{U_{T}\mid U\hookrightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{-T}(I,U)\};$ \\ $\mathcal{L}_{I}$ & $:=$ & $\{U_{T}\mid U\simeq \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(I,U\};$ & & $\mathcal{C}_{I}$ & $:=$ & $\{U_{T}\mid U\otimes _{T}I\simeq U\};.$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} \end{notation} \qquad The following result is due to T. Kato, K. Ohtake and B. M\"{u}ller (e.g. , , ): \begin{proposition} \emph{\ }Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)\in \mathbb{UMC}.$ Then there are equivalences of categories \begin{equation*} _{I}\mathcal{C}\approx \text{ }_{J}\mathcal{C},\text{ }\mathcal{C} _{I}\approx \mathcal{C}_{J},\text{ }_{I}\mathcal{L}\approx \text{ }_{J} \mathcal{L}\text{ and }\mathcal{L}_{I}\approx \mathcal{L}_{J}. \end{equation*} \end{proposition} \begin{punto} Let $\mathbf{m}_{T}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},I)\in \mathbb{UMSC}$ and consider the dual pairings $\mathbf{P}_{l}:=(Q,$ $_{T}P)\in \mathcal{P} _{l}(T)$ and $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}(T).$ For every left (right) $T$-module $U$ consider the canonical $S$-linear morphism induced by $<,>_{T}:$ \begin{equation*} \alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}:Q\otimes _{T}U\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,U) \text{ (}\alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{P}_{l}}:U\otimes _{T}P\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom} _{-T}(Q,U)\text{).} \end{equation*} We define \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lll} $\mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\{_{T}U\mid Q\otimes _{T}U \overset{\alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}}{\simeq }\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,U)\};$ \\ $\mathcal{D}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\{U_{T}\mid U\otimes _{T}P \overset{\alpha _{U}^{\mathbf{P}_{l}}}{\simeq }\mathrm{Hom}_{-T}(Q,U)\}.$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} Moreover, set \begin{equation} \begin{tabular}{lllllll} $\mathcal{U}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\cap \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{S}Q_{T});$ & & $\mathcal{U}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $ := $ & $\mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{S}Q_{T})\cap \mathrm{Adstat}^{r}(_{T}P_{S});$ \\ & & & & & & \\ \QTR{cal}{V}$_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathrm{Stat} ^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\cap \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T});$ & & \QTR{cal}{V}$_{r}( \mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{S}Q_{T})\cap \mathcal{D}_{r}( \mathbf{m}_{T});$ \\ $\mathbb{V}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $_{I}\mathcal{C}\cap \mathcal{D} _{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T});$ & & $\mathbb{V}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $ \mathcal{C}_{I}\cap \mathcal{D}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T});$ \\ $\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathcal{V}_{l}( \mathbf{m}_{T})\cap $ $_{I}\mathcal{L};$ & & $\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{r}( \mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathcal{V}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \mathcal{L} _{I};$ \\ & & & & & $:=$ & \\ $\mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathrm{Adstat} ^{l}(_{S}Q_{T})\cap \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T});$ & & $\mathcal{W}_{r}( \mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathrm{Adstat}^{r}(_{T}P_{S})\cap \mathcal{D} _{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T});$ \\ $\mathbb{W}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $_{I}\mathcal{L}\cap \mathcal{D} _{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T});$ & & $\mathbb{W}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $ \mathcal{L}_{I}\cap \mathcal{D}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T});$ \\ $\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathcal{W}_{l}( \mathbf{m}_{T})\cap $ $_{I}\mathcal{C};$ & & $\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{r}( \mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \mathcal{C} _{I};$ \\ & & & & & & \\ $\mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathbf{m} _{T})\cap \mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T});$ & & $\mathcal{X}_{r}(\mathbf{m} _{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathcal{V}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathbf{ m}_{T});$ \\ $\mathbb{X}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathbb{V}_{l}(\mathbf{m} _{T})\cap \mathbb{W}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T});$ & & $\mathbb{X}_{r}(\mathbf{m} _{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathbb{V}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \mathbb{W}_{r}(\mathbf{m} _{T}).$ \\ & & & & & & \\ $\mathcal{X}_{l}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\{_{S}(Q\otimes _{T}U)\mid V\in \mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\};$ & & $\mathcal{X} _{r}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\{(U\otimes _{T}P)_{S}\mid V\in \mathcal{X}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\};$ \\ $\mathbb{X}_{l}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\{_{S}(Q\otimes _{T}U)\mid V\in \mathbb{X}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\};$ & & $\mathbb{X} _{r}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\{(U\otimes _{T}P)_{S}\mid V\in \mathbb{X}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\}.$ \end{tabular} \end{equation} Given $\mathbf{m}_{S}=(S,T,Q,P,<,>_{S},J)\in \mathbb{UMSC}$ one can define analogously, the corresponding intersecting subcategories of $_{S}\mathbb{M}$ and $\mathbb{M}_{S}.$ \end{punto} As an immediate consequence of Proposition we get \begin{corollary} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)\in \mathbb{IUMC}$ and consider the associated Morita semi-contexts $\mathcal{M}_{T}$ and $ \mathcal{M}_{S}$ \emph{()}. \begin{enumerate} \item If $_{I}\mathcal{C}\leq \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})$ and $_{J} \mathcal{C}\leq \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}),$ then $\mathcal{V}_{l}( \mathcal{M}_{T})\approx \mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ Similarly, if $ \mathcal{C}_{I}\leq \mathcal{D}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T})$ and $\mathcal{C} _{J}\leq \mathcal{D}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S}),$ then $\mathcal{V}_{r}(\mathcal{M} _{T})\approx \mathcal{V}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ \item If $_{I}\mathcal{L}\leq \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})$ and $_{J} \mathcal{L}\leq \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}),$ then $\mathcal{W}_{l}( \mathcal{M}_{T})\approx \mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ Similarly, if $ \mathcal{L}_{I}\leq \mathcal{D}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T})$ and $\mathcal{L} _{J}\leq \mathcal{D}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S}),$ then $\mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M} _{T})\approx \mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ \end{enumerate} \end{corollary} \qquad Starting with a Morita context, the following result was obtained in \cite[Theorem 3.2.]{Nau-1993}. We restate the result for an arbitrary (not necessarily compatible) Morita datum and \emph{sketch} its proof: \begin{lemma} Let $\mathcal{M}=\mathbf{(}T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)$ be a unital Morita datum and consider the associated Morita semi-contexts $ \mathcal{M}_{T}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{S}$ in \emph{()}. Then there are equivalences of categories \begin{equation*} \mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\overset{\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,-)}{\underset{ \mathrm{Hom}_{S-}(Q,-)}{\approx }}\mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})\text{ and }\mathcal{X}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\overset{\mathrm{Hom}_{-T}(Q,-)}{\underset{ \mathrm{Hom}_{-S}(P,-)}{\approx }}\mathcal{X}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S}). \end{equation*} \end{lemma} \begin{Beweis} Let $_{T}V\in \mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T}).$ By the equivalence $\mathrm{ Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\overset{\mathrm{Hom}_{T}(P,-)}{\approx }\mathrm{A} \mathrm{dstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})$ in we have $\mathrm{Hom} _{T-}(P,V)\in \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S}).$ Moreover, $V\in \mathcal{D} _{l}(M),$ hence $\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,V)\simeq Q\otimes _{T}V$ canonically and it follows then from the equivalence $\mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{S}Q_{T}) \overset{Q\otimes _{T}-}{\approx }\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{S}Q_{T})$ that $ \mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,V)\in \mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{S}Q_{T}).$ Moreover, we have the following \emph{natural} isomorphisms \begin{equation} P\otimes _{S}\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,V)\simeq V\simeq \mathrm{Hom} _{S-}(Q,Q\otimes _{T}V)\simeq \mathrm{Hom}_{S-}(Q,\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,V)), \end{equation} i.e. $\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,V)\in \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ Consequently, $\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,V)\in \mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ Moreover, () yields a natural isomorphism $V\simeq \mathrm{Hom} _{S-}(Q,\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,V)).$ Analogously, one can show for every $W\in \mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})$ that $\mathrm{Hom}_{S-}(Q,W)\in \mathcal{X} _{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})$ and that $W\simeq \mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,\mathrm{Hom} _{S-}(Q,W))$ naturally. Consequently, $\mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M} _{T})\approx \mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})$. The equivalences $\mathcal{X} _{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\approx \mathcal{X}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S})$ can be proved analogously.$\blacksquare $ \end{Beweis} \begin{proposition} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)$ be a unital injective Morita datum and consider the associated Morita semi-contexts $ \mathcal{M}_{T}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{S}$ in \emph{().} \begin{enumerate} \item There are equivalences of categories \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lllllll} $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}I_{T})$ & $\approx $ & $\mathrm{Adstat} ^{l}(_{T}I_{T});$ & & $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{S}J_{S})$ & $\approx $ & $ \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{S}J_{S});$ \\ $\mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{T}I_{T})$ & $\approx $ & $\mathrm{Adstat} ^{r}(_{T}I_{T});$ & & $\mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{S}J_{S})$ & $\approx $ & $ \mathrm{Adstat}^{r}(_{S}J_{S}).$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} \item If $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}I_{T})\leq \mathcal{X}_{l}^{\ast }(\mathcal{M }_{S})$ and $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{S}J_{S})\leq \mathcal{X}_{l}^{\ast }( \mathcal{M}_{T}),$ then there are equivalences of categories \begin{equation*} \mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}I_{T})\approx \mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{S}J_{S})\text{ and } \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}I_{T})\approx \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{S}J_{S}). \end{equation*} \item If $\mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{T}I_{T})\leq \mathcal{X}_{r}^{\ast }(\mathcal{M }_{S})$ and $\mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{S}J_{S})\leq \mathcal{X}_{r}^{\ast }( \mathcal{M}_{T}),$ then there are equivalences of categories \begin{equation*} \mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{T}I_{T})\approx \mathrm{Stat}^{r}(_{S}J_{S})\text{ and } \mathrm{Adstat}^{r}(_{T}I_{T})\approx \mathrm{Adstat}^{r}(_{S}J_{S}). \end{equation*} \end{enumerate} \end{proposition} \begin{Beweis} To prove \textquotedblleft 1\textquotedblright , notice that since $\mathcal{ M}$ is an injective Morita datum, $P\otimes _{S}Q\overset{<,>_{T}}{\simeq }I$ and $Q\otimes _{T}P\overset{<,>_{S}}{\simeq }J$ as bimodules and so the four equivalences of categories result from . To prove \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright , one can use an argument similar to that in \cite[Theorem 3.9.]{Nau-1994-b} to show that the inclusion $\mathrm{ Stat}^{l}(_{T}I_{T})=\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}(P\otimes _{S}Q)_{T})\leq \mathcal{X}_{l}^{\ast }(\mathcal{M}_{S})$ implies $\mathrm{Stat} ^{l}(_{T}I_{T})=\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}(P\otimes _{S}Q)_{T})=\mathcal{X}_{l}( \mathcal{M}_{T})$ and that the inclusion $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{S}J_{S})= \mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{S}(Q\otimes _{T}P)_{S})\leq \mathcal{X}_{l}^{\ast }( \mathcal{M}_{T})$ implies $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{S}J_{S})=\mathrm{Stat} ^{l}(_{S}(Q\otimes _{T}P)_{S})=\mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ The result follows then by Lemma . The proof of \textquotedblleft 3\textquotedblright\ is analogous to that of \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright .$\blacksquare $ \end{Beweis} \qquad For injective Morita semi-contexts, several subcategories in (\ref {LIST}) are shown in the following result to be equal: \begin{theorem} Let $\mathbf{m}_{T}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},I)\in \mathbb{IUMS}.$ Then \begin{enumerate} \item $\mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{V}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T}),$ $ \mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{W}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T}),$ whence \begin{equation*} \widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{l}(\mathbf{m }_{T})=\mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{X}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\text{ }_{I}\mathcal{C}\cap \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \text{ }_{I} \mathcal{L}\text{ and }\mathcal{X}_{l}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{X} _{l}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m}_{T}). \end{equation*} \item $\mathcal{V}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{V}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T}),$ $ \mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{W}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T}),$ whence \begin{equation*} \widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{r}(\mathbf{m }_{T})=\mathcal{X}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{X}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})= \mathcal{C}_{I}\cap \mathcal{D}_{r}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \mathcal{L}_{I}\text{ and }\mathcal{X}_{r}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{X}_{r}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m }_{T}). \end{equation*} \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} \begin{Beweis} We prove only \textquotedblleft 1\textquotedblright\ as \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright\ can be proved analogously. Assume the Morita semi-context $\mathbf{m}_{T}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},I)$ is injective. By our assumption we have for every $V\in \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ the commutative diagram \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ P\otimes _{S}(Q\otimes _{T}V) \ar[rrrr]^{can} _{\simeq} \ar[dd]_{id_{P}\otimes _{S}(\alpha _{V}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}})}^{\simeq} & & & & (P\otimes _{S}Q)\otimes _{T}V \ar[dd]^{{<,>_{T}\otimes _{T}id_{V}}}_{\simeq} \\ & & & &\\ P\otimes _{S}\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,V) \ar[rr]_(.7){\omega _{P,V}^{l}} & & V & & I\otimes _{_{T}}V \ar[ll]^{\xi _{I,V}}} \end{equation} Then it becomes obvious that $\omega _{P,V}^{l}:P\otimes _{S}\mathrm{Hom} _{T}(P,V)\rightarrow V$ is an isomorphism if and only if $\xi _{I,V}:I\otimes _{T}V\rightarrow V$ is an isomorphism. Consequently \begin{equation*} \mathcal{V}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \mathrm{Stat} ^{l}(_{T}P_{S})=\mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \text{ }_{I}\mathcal{C}= \mathbb{V}(\mathbf{m}_{T}). \end{equation*} On the other hand, we have for every $V\in \mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ the following commutative diagram \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ \mathrm{Hom}_{S-}(Q,\mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P,V)) \ar[rrrr]^{can} _{\simeq} & & & & \mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(P\otimes _{S}Q,V) \\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{Hom}_{S-}(Q,Q\otimes _{T}V) \ar[uu]^{(Q,\alpha _{V}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}})}_{\simeq} & & V \ar[ll]^(.3){\eta_{P,L}^{l}} \ar[rr]_{\zeta_{I,V}}& & \mathrm{Hom}_{T-}(I,V) \ar[uu]_{(<,>_{T},V)}^{\simeq} } \end{equation} It follows then that $\eta _{P,L}^{l}:V\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom} _{S}(Q,Q\otimes _{T}P)$ is an isomorphism if and only if $\zeta _{I,V}:V\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(I,V)$ is an isomorphism. Consequently, \begin{equation*} \mathcal{W}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \mathrm{ Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})=\mathcal{D}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap _{I}\mathcal{L}= \mathbb{W}(\mathbf{m}_{T}). \end{equation*} Moreover, we have \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lllllll} $\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $:=$ & $\mathcal{V}_{l}( \mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \text{ }_{I}\mathcal{L}$ & $=$ & $\mathbb{V}_{l}(\mathbf{ m}_{T})\cap \text{ }_{I}\mathcal{L}$ & $=$ & $_{I}\mathcal{C}\cap \mathcal{D} _{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap $ $_{I}\mathcal{L}$ \\ & $=$ & $_{I}\mathcal{C}\cap \mathbb{W}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $=$ & $_{I} \mathcal{C}\cap \mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ & $=$ & $\widehat{\mathcal{W }}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T}).$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} On the other hand, we have \begin{equation*} \mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \mathcal{ W}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{V}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})\cap \mathbb{W}_{l}( \mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{X}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T}) \end{equation*} and so the equalities $\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\widehat{ \mathcal{W}}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{X} _{l}(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ and $\mathcal{X}_{l}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m}_{T})=\mathbb{X} _{l}^{\ast }(\mathbf{m}_{T})$ are established.$\blacksquare $ \end{Beweis} \qquad In addition to establishing several other equivalences of intersecting subcategories, the following results reframe the equivalence of categories $\widehat{\mathcal{V}}\approx \widehat{\mathcal{W}}$ in \cite[ Theorem 4.9.]{Nau-1994-b} for an arbitrary (not necessarily compatible) injective Morita datum: \begin{theorem} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)$ be an injective Morita datum and consider the associated Morita semi-contexts $\mathcal{M} _{T}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{S}$ \emph{()}. \begin{enumerate} \item The following subcategories are mutually equivalent: \begin{equation} \widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})=\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{l}( \mathcal{M}_{T})=\mathbb{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})=\mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M} _{T})\approx \mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})=\mathbb{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M} _{S})=\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})=\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{l}( \mathcal{M}_{S}). \end{equation} \item If $\mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\leq $ $_{I}\mathcal{L}$ and $ \mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})\leq \mathcal{\ }_{J}\mathcal{C},$ then $ \mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\approx \mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ If $\mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\leq $ $_{I}\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{V} _{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})\leq \mathcal{\ }_{J}\mathcal{L},$ then $\mathcal{W} _{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\approx \mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ \item The following subcategories are mutually equivalent: \begin{equation} \widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T})=\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{r}( \mathcal{M}_{T})=\mathbb{X}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T})=\mathcal{X}_{r}(\mathcal{M} _{T})\approx \mathcal{X}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S})=\mathbb{X}_{r}(\mathcal{M} _{S})=\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S})=\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{r}( \mathcal{M}_{S}). \end{equation} \item If $\mathcal{V}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\leq \mathcal{L}_{I}$ and $ \mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\leq \mathcal{C}_{J},$ then $\mathcal{V}_{r}( \mathcal{M}_{T})\approx \mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S}).$ If $\mathcal{W} _{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\leq \mathcal{C}_{J}$ and $\mathcal{V}_{r}(\mathcal{M} _{S})\leq \mathcal{L}_{I},$ then $\mathcal{V}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{S})\approx \mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M}_{T}).$ \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} \begin{Beweis} By Lemma , $\mathcal{X}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\approx \mathcal{X}_{l}( \mathcal{M}_{S})$ and so \textquotedblleft 1\textquotedblright\ follows by Theorem . If $\mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\leq $ $_{I}\mathcal{L }$ and $\mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})\leq \mathcal{\ }_{J}\mathcal{C},$ then we have \begin{equation*} \mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})=\mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\cap \text{ }_{I}\mathcal{L}=\widehat{\mathcal{V}}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\approx \widehat{ \mathcal{W}}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})=\mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})\cap \text{ }_{J}\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}). \end{equation*} On the other hand, if $\mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\leq $ $_{I}\mathcal{L }$ and $\mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})\leq \mathcal{\ }_{J}\mathcal{C},$ then \begin{equation*} \mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})=\mathcal{W}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\cap \text{ }_{I}\mathcal{C}=\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{T})\approx \widehat{ \mathcal{V}}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})=\mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S})\cap \text{ }_{J}\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{V}_{l}(\mathcal{M}_{S}). \end{equation*} So we have established \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright . The results in \textquotedblleft 3\textquotedblright\ and \textquotedblleft 4\textquotedblright\ can be obtained analogously.$\blacksquare $ \end{Beweis} \section{More applications} \qquad \qquad In this final section we give more applications of Morita $ \alpha $-(semi-)contexts and injective Morita (semi-)contexts. All rings in this section are \emph{unital}, whence all Morita (semi-)contexts are unital. Moreover, for any ring $T$ we denote with $_{T}\mathbf{E}$ an arbitrary, but fixed, injective cogenerator in $_{T}\mathbb{M}.$ \begin{notation} Let $T$ be an $A$-ring. For any left $T$-module $_{T}V,$ we set $^{\#}V:= \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(V,$ $_{T}\mathbf{E}).$ If moreover, $_{T}V_{S}$ is a $(T,S)$ -bimodule for some $B$-ring $S,$ then we consider $_{S}^{\#}V$\emph{\ }with the left $S$-module structure induced by that of $V_{S}.$ \end{notation} \begin{lemma} \emph{(Compare \cite[Lemma 3.2.]{Col1990}, \cite[Lemmas 2.1.2., 2.1.3.]{CF-2004})}\ Let $T$ be an $A$-ring, $S$ a $B$-ring and $ _{T}V_{S}$ a $(T,S)$-bimodule, \begin{enumerate} \item A left $T$-module $_{T}K$ is $V$-generated if and only if the canonical $T$-linear morphism \begin{equation} \omega _{V,K}^{l}:V\otimes _{S}\mathrm{Hom}_{T}(V,K)\rightarrow K \end{equation} is surjective. Moreover, $V\otimes _{S}W\subseteq \mathrm{Pres} (_{T}V)\subseteq \mathrm{Gen}(_{T}V)$ for every left $S$-module $_{S}W.$ \item A left $S$-module $_{S}L$ is $_{S}^{\#}V$-cogenerated if and only if the canonical $S$-linear morphism \begin{equation} \eta _{V,L}^{l}:L\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(V,V\otimes _{S}L) \end{equation} is injective. Moreover, $\mathrm{Hom}_{T}(V,M)\subseteq \mathrm{Copres} (_{S}^{\#}V)\subseteq \mathrm{Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}V)$ for every left $T$-module $ _{T}M.$ \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{remark} Let $T$ be an $A$-ring, $S$ a $B$-ring and $_{T}V_{S}$ a $(T,S)$-bimodule. Notice that for any left $S$-module $_{S}L$ we have \begin{equation*} \mathrm{ann}_{L}^{\otimes }(V_{S}):=\{l\in L\mid V\otimes _{S}l=0\}=\mathrm{ Ker}(\eta _{V,L}^{l}), \end{equation*} whence (by Lemma \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright\ ) $ V_{S}$ is $L$-faithful if and only if $_{S}L$ is $_{S}^{\#}V$-cogenerated. It follows then that $V_{S}$ is completely faithful if and only if $ _{S}^{\#}V$ is a cogenerator. \end{remark} \subsection*{Localization and colocalization} \qquad In what follows we clarify the relations between static (adstatic) modules and subcategories colocalized (localized) by a trace ideal of a Morita context satisfying the $\alpha $-condition. Recall that for any $(T,S)$-bimodule $_{T}P_{S}$ we have by Lemma \ref {gen-surj}: \begin{equation} \mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\subseteq \mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)\text{ and }\mathrm{ Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\subseteq \mathrm{Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P). \end{equation} \begin{theorem} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)\in \mathbb{ UMC}.$ Then we have \begin{equation} _{I}\mathcal{C}\subseteq \text{ }_{I}\mathfrak{D}\subseteq \mathrm{Gen} (_{T}P). \end{equation} Assume $\mathbf{P}_{r}:=(Q,P_{S})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S).$ Then \begin{enumerate} \item $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)=\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\subseteq $ $_{I} \mathfrak{F}.$ \item If $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)\subseteq $ $_{I}\mathcal{C},$ then $_{I} \mathcal{C}=$ $_{I}\mathfrak{D}=\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)=\mathrm{Stat} ^{l}(_{T}P_{S}).$ \item If $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T),$ then $ _{T}I\subseteq $ $_{T}T$ is pure and $_{I}\mathcal{C}=$ $_{I}\mathfrak{D}.$ \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} \begin{Beweis} For every left $T$-module $_{T}K,$ consider the following diagram with canonical morphisms and let $\alpha _{2}:=\zeta _{I,K}\circ \omega _{P,K}^{l}.$ It is easy to see that both rectangles and the two right triangles commutes: \begin{equation} {\xymatrix{P \otimes_S Q \otimes_T K \ar^{id_P \otimes _S \alpha_K^{{\bold Q}_r}}[rr] \ar_{<,>_{T} \otimes_T id_K}[dd] & & P \otimes_S {\rm Hom}_T(P,K) \ar^{\alpha^{{\bold P}_{r}}_{{\rm Hom}_T(P,K)}}[rr] \ar^{\omega_{P,K}^{l}}[dd] \ar@{.>}[rrdd]_{\alpha_2} & & {\rm Hom}_{S}(Q,{\rm Hom}_T(P,K)) \\& & & & {\rm Hom}_T(P \otimes_S Q,K) \ar_{\simeq}[u] \\ I \otimes_{T} K \ar_{\xi_{I,K}}[rr] \ar@{.>}[rruu]_{\alpha_1} & & K \ar_{\zeta_{I,K}}[rr] & & {\rm Hom}_T(I,K) \ar_{(<,>_T,K)}[u]}} \end{equation} It follows directly from the definitions that $_{I}\mathcal{C}\subseteq $ $ _{I}\mathfrak{D}$ and $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\subseteq \mathrm{Gen} (_{T}P).$ If $_{T}K$ is $I$-divisible, then $\xi _{I,K}\circ <,>_{T}\otimes _{T}id_{K}=\omega _{P,K}^{l}\circ id_{P}\otimes _{S}\alpha _{K}^{\mathbf{Q} _{r}}$ is surjective, whence $\omega _{P,K}^{l}$ is surjective and we conclude that $_{T}K$ is $P$-generated by Lemma \textquotedblleft 1\textquotedblright . Consequently, $_{I}\mathfrak{D} \subseteq \mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P).$ Assume now that $\mathbf{P}_{r}\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S).$ Considering the canonical map $\rho _{Q}:T\rightarrow \mathrm{End} (_{S}Q)^{op},$ the map $\rho _{Q}\circ <,>_{T}=\alpha _{Q}^{\mathbf{P}_{r}}$ is injective and so the bilinear map $<,>_{T}$ is injective (i.e. $P\otimes _{S}Q\overset{<,>_{T}}{\simeq }I$). Define $\alpha _{1}:=(id_{P}\otimes _{S}\alpha _{K}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}})\circ (<,>_{T}\otimes _{T}id_{K})^{-1},$ so that the left triangles commute. Notice that $\alpha _{\mathrm{Hom} _{T}(P,K)}^{\mathbf{P}_{r}}$ is injective and the commutativity of the upper right triangle in Diagram () implies that $\alpha _{2}$ is injective (whence $\omega _{P,K}^{l}$ is injective by the commutativity of the lower right triangle). \begin{enumerate} \item If $K\in \mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S}),$ then the commutativity of the lower right triangle ()\ and the injectivity of $\alpha _{2}$ show that $\zeta _{I,K}$ is injective; hence, $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S}) \subseteq $ $_{I}\mathfrak{F}.$ On the other hand, if $_{T}K$ is $P$ -generated, then $\omega _{P,K}^{l}$ is surjective by Lemma (1), thence bijective, i.e. $K\in \mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S}).$ Consequently, $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)=\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S}).$ \item This follows directly from the inclusions in () and \textquotedblleft 1\textquotedblright . \item Assume $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T).$ Since $\mathbf{P}_{r}\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S),$ it follows by analogy to Proposition \textquotedblleft 3\textquotedblright\ that $P_{S}$ is flat, hence $id_{P}\otimes _{S}\alpha _{K}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}$ is injective. The commutativity of the upper left triangle in Diagram (\ref {I}) implies then that $\alpha _{1}$ is injective, thence $\xi _{I,K}$ is injective by commutativity of the lower left triangle (i.e. $_{T}I\subseteq $ $_{T}T$ is $K$-pure). If $_{T}K$ is divisible, then $K\otimes _{T}I\overset{ \xi _{I,K}}{\simeq }K$ (i.e. $K\in $ $_{I}\mathcal{C}$).$\blacksquare $ \end{enumerate} \end{Beweis} \begin{theorem} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S},I,J)\in \mathbb{UMC} .$ Then we have \begin{equation*} _{J}\mathcal{L}\subseteq \text{ }_{J}\mathfrak{F}\subseteq \mathrm{Cogen} (_{S}^{\#}P)\text{ and }\mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\subseteq \mathrm{Cogen }(_{S}^{\#}P). \end{equation*} Assume $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T).$ Then \begin{enumerate} \item $J_{S}\subseteq S_{S}$ is pure and $_{J}\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathrm{ Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P).$ \item If $\mathbf{P}_{r}:=(Q,P_{S})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S),$ then $ _{J}\mathcal{L}\subseteq \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\subseteq \mathrm{ Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P)\subseteq $ $_{J}\mathfrak{F}.$ \item If $\mathbf{P}_{r}\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S)$ and $\mathrm{Cogen} (_{S}^{\#}P)\subseteq $ $_{J}\mathcal{L},$ then $_{J}\mathcal{L}=\mathrm{ Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P)=\mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S}).$ \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} \begin{Beweis} For every right $S$-module $L$ consider the commutative diagram with canonical morphisms and let $\alpha _{3}$ be so defined, that the left triangles become commutative \begin{equation} \xymatrix{J \otimes_S L\ar^{\xi_{J,L}}[rr] \ar@{.>}[rrdd]_{\alpha_3} & & L\ar_{\eta_{P,L}^{l}}[dd] \ar^{\zeta_{J,L}}[rr] & & {\rm Hom}_S(J,L) \ar^{(<,>_S,L)}[d]\\ & & & & {\rm Hom}_S(Q \otimes_T P,L) \ar^{\simeq \, \, {\rm can}}[d]\\ Q \otimes_T P \otimes_S L \ar^{(<,>_{S}) \otimes_S id_L }[uu] \ar_{\alpha^{{\bold Q}_r}_{P \otimes_S L}}[rr] & & {\rm Hom}_T (P, P\otimes_S L) \ar[rr]_{(P,\alpha^{{\bold P}_r}_L)} \ar@{.>}[rruu]_{\alpha_4} & & {\rm Hom}_T(P,{\rm Hom}_S(Q,L))} \end{equation} By definition $_{J}\mathcal{L}\subseteq $ $_{J}\mathfrak{F}$ and $\mathrm{ Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\subseteq \mathrm{Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P).$ If $_{S}L\in $ $ _{J}\mathfrak{F},$ then $\zeta _{J,L}$ is injective and it follows by commutativity of the right rectangle in Diagram () that $\eta _{P,L}^{l}$ is injective, hence $_{S}L$ is $_{S}^{\#}P$-cogenerated by Lemma \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright . Consequently, $_{J} \mathfrak{F}\subseteq \mathrm{Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P).$ Assume now that $\mathbf{Q}_{r}\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T).$ Then it follows from Lemma that $<,>_{S}$ is injective (hence $ Q\otimes _{T}P\overset{<,>_{S}}{\simeq }J$) and so $\alpha _{4}:=(\mathrm{can }\circ (<,>_{S},L))^{-1}\circ (P,\alpha _{L}^{\mathbf{P}_{r}})$ is injective. \begin{enumerate} \item Since $\alpha _{3}$ is injective, $\xi _{J,L}$ is also injective for every $_{S}L,$ i.e. $J_{S}\subseteq S_{S}$ is pure. If $_{S}L\in $ $_{J} \mathcal{C},$ then it follows from the commutativity of the left rectangle in Diagram () that $\eta _{P,L}^{l}$ is injective, hence $L\in \mathrm{Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P)$ by Lemma (2). \item Assume that $\mathbf{P}_{r}\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S),$ so that $ \alpha _{4}$ is injective. If $_{S}L\in $ $_{J}\mathcal{L},$ then $\zeta _{J,L}$ is an isomorphism, thence $\eta _{P,L}^{l}$ is surjective (notice that $\alpha _{4}$ is injective). Consequently, $_{J}\mathcal{L}\subseteq \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S}).$ \item This follows directly from the assumptions and \textquotedblleft 2\textquotedblright .$\blacksquare $ \end{enumerate} \end{Beweis} \subsection*{$\ast $-Modules} \qquad To the end of this section, we fix a unital ring $T,$ a left $T$ -module $_{T}P$ and set $S:=\mathrm{End}(_{T}P)^{op}.$ \bigskip \begin{definition} () We call $_{T}P$ a $\ast $\textbf{-module,} iff $\mathrm{Gen} (_{T}P)\approx \mathrm{Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P).$ \end{definition} \begin{remark} It was shown by J. Trlifaj that all $\ast $-modules are finitely generated. \end{remark} \qquad By definition, $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\leq $ $_{T}\mathbb{M}$ and $\mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})\leq $ $_{S}\mathbb{M}$ are the \emph{ largest} subcategories between which the adjunction $(P\otimes _{S}-,\mathrm{ Hom}_{T}(P,-))$ induces an equivalence. On the other hand, Lemma \ref {gen-surj} shows that $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)\leq $ $_{T}\mathbb{M}$ and $ \mathrm{Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P)\leq $ $_{S}\mathbb{M}$ are the \emph{largest} such subcategories (see \cite[Section 3]{Col1990} for more details). This suggests the following observation: \begin{proposition} \emph{(\cite[Lemma 2.3.]{Xin1999})} We have\emph{\ } \begin{equation*} _{T}P\text{ is a }\ast \text{-module}\Leftrightarrow \mathrm{Stat}(_{T}P)= \mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)\text{ and }\mathrm{Adstat}(_{T}P)=\mathrm{Cogen} (_{S}^{\#}P). \end{equation*} \end{proposition} \begin{definition} A left $T$-module $_{T}U$ is said to be \textbf{semi-}$\dsum $\textbf{-quasi-projective }(abbr. $s$\textbf{-}$\dsum $ \textbf{-quasi-projective}), iff for any left $T$-module $_{T}V\in \mathrm{ Pres}(_{T}U)$ and any $U$\emph{-presentation} \begin{equation*} U^{(\Lambda )}\rightarrow U^{(\Lambda ^{\prime })}\rightarrow V\rightarrow 0 \end{equation*} of $_{T}V$(if any), the following induced sequence is exact: \begin{equation*} \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,U^{(\Lambda )})\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,U^{(\Lambda ^{\prime })})\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,V)\rightarrow 0; \end{equation*} \textbf{weakly-}$\dsum $\textbf{-quasi-projective }(abbr. $w$\textbf{-}$ \dsum $\textbf{-quasi-projective}), iff for any left $T$-module $_{T}V$ and any short exact sequence \begin{equation*} 0\rightarrow K\rightarrow U^{(\Lambda ^{\prime })}\rightarrow V\rightarrow 0 \end{equation*} with $K\in \mathrm{Gen}(_{T}U)$ (if any), the following induced sequence is exact: \begin{equation*} 0\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,K)\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,U^{(\Lambda ^{\prime })})\rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,V)\rightarrow 0; \end{equation*} \textbf{self-tilting}, iff $_{T}U$ is $w$-$\dsum $-quasi-projective and $ \mathrm{Gen}(_{T}U)=\mathrm{Pres}(_{T}U);$ $\dsum $\textbf{-self-static}, iff any direct sum $U^{(\Lambda )}$ is $U$ -static. (\textbf{self})\textbf{-small, }iff $\mathrm{Hom}_{T}(U,-)$ commutes with direct sums (of $_{T}U$); \end{definition} \begin{proposition} Assume $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S})$ is a unital Morita context. \begin{enumerate} \item If $\mathbf{P}_{r}:=(Q,P_{S})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S),$ then: \begin{enumerate} \item $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)=\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S});$ \item there is an equivalence of categories $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)\approx \mathrm{Cop}(_{S}^{\#}P);$ \item $_{T}P$ is $\dsum $-self-static and $\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})$ is closed under factor modules. \item $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)=\mathrm{Pres}(_{T}P);$ \end{enumerate} \item If $\mathcal{M}\in \mathbb{UMC}_{r}^{\alpha }$ and $\mathrm{Cogen} (_{S}^{\#}P)\subseteq $ $_{J}\mathcal{L},$ then: \begin{enumerate} \item $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)=\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})$ and $\mathrm{Cogen} (_{S}^{\#}P)=\mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S});$ \item there is an equivalence of categories $\mathrm{Cogen} (_{S}^{\#}P)\approx \mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P);$ \item $_{T}P$ is a $\ast $-module; \item $_{T}P$ is self-tilting and self-small. \end{enumerate} \end{enumerate} \end{proposition} \begin{Beweis} \begin{enumerate} \item If $\mathbf{P}_{r}\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S),$ then it follows by Theorem that $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)=\mathrm{Stat} ^{l}(_{T}P_{S}),$ which is equivalent to each of \textquotedblleft b\textquotedblright\ and \textquotedblleft c\textquotedblright\ by \cite[4.4. ]{Wis2000} and to \textquotedblleft d\textquotedblright\ by \cite[4.3.] {Wis2000}. \item It follows by the assumptions, Theorems , and that $\mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)=\mathrm{Stat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S}) \approx \mathrm{Adstat}^{l}(_{T}P_{S})=\mathrm{Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P),$ whence $ \mathrm{Gen}(_{T}P)\approx \mathrm{Cogen}(_{S}^{\#}P)$ (which is the definition of $\ast $-modules). Hence \textquotedblleft a\textquotedblright\ $\Leftrightarrow $\textquotedblleft b\textquotedblright\ $\Leftrightarrow $ \textquotedblleft c\textquotedblright . The equivalence \textquotedblleft a\textquotedblright\ $\Leftrightarrow $ \textquotedblleft d\textquotedblright\ is evident by \cite[Corollary 4.7.]{Wis2000} and we are done.$\blacksquare $ \end{enumerate} \end{Beweis} \subsection*{Wide Morita Contexts} \qquad \emph{Wide Morita contexts} were introduced by F. Casta\~{n}o Iglesias and J. G\'{o}mez-Torrecillas and as an extension of classical \emph{Morita contexts} to Abelian categories. \begin{definition} Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be Abelian categories. A \textbf{right }( \textbf{left})\textbf{\ wide Morita context} between $\mathcal{A}$ and $ \mathcal{B}$ is a datum $\mathcal{W}_{r}=(G,\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},F,\eta ,\rho ),$ where $G:\mathcal{A}\rightleftarrows \mathcal{B}:F$ are right (left) exact covariant functors and $\eta :F\circ G\longrightarrow 1_{ \mathcal{A}},$ $\rho :G\circ F\longrightarrow 1_{\mathcal{B}}$ ($\eta :1_{ \mathcal{A}}\longrightarrow F\circ G,$ $\rho :1_{\mathcal{B}}\longrightarrow G\circ F$) are natural transformations, such that for every pair of objects $ (A,B)\in \mathcal{A}\times \mathcal{B}$ the compatibility conditions $G(\eta _{A})=\rho _{G(A)}$ and $F(\rho _{B})=\eta _{F(B)}\ $hold. \end{definition} \begin{definition} Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be Abelian categories and $\mathcal{W} =(G,\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},F,\eta ,\rho )$ be a right (left) wide Morita context. We call $\mathcal{W}$ \textbf{injective }(respectively \textbf{ semi-strict}, \textbf{strict}), iff $\eta $ and $\rho $ are monomorphisms (respectively epimorphisms, isomorphisms) \end{definition} \begin{remarks} Let $\mathcal{W}=(G,\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},F,\eta ,\rho )$ be a right (left) wide Morita context. \begin{enumerate} \item It follows by \cite[Propositions 1.1., 1.4.]{CDN2005} that if either $ \eta $ or $\rho $ is an epimorphism (monomorphism), then $\mathcal{W}$ is strict, whence $\mathcal{A}\approx \mathcal{B}.$ \item The resemblance of \emph{injective} left wide Morita contexts\textit{\ }is with the Morita-Takeuchi contexts for comodules of coalgebras, i.e. the so called \emph{pre-equivalence data} for categories of comodules introduced in (see for more details). \end{enumerate} \end{remarks} \subsubsection*{Injective Right wide Morita contexts} \qquad In a recent work \cite[5.1.]{CDN2005}, Chifan, et. al. clarified (for module categories) the relation between \emph{classical Morita contexts} and \emph{ right wide Morita contexts}\textit{. }For the convenience of the reader and for later reference, we include in what follows a brief description of this relation. \begin{punto} Let $T,S$ be rings, $\mathcal{A}:=$ $_{T}\mathbb{M}$ and $\mathcal{B}:=$ $ _{S}\mathbb{M}.\ $Associated to each Morita context\textit{\ }$\mathcal{M} =(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S})$ is a wide Morita context as follows: Define $G: \mathcal{A}\rightleftarrows \mathcal{B}:F$ by $G(-)=Q\otimes _{T}-$ and $ F(-)=P\otimes _{S}-.$ Then there are natural transformations $\eta :F\circ G\longrightarrow 1_{_{T}\mathbb{M}}$ and $\rho :G\circ F\longrightarrow 1_{_{S}\mathbb{M}}$ such that for each $_{T}V$ and $W_{S}:$ \begin{equation} \begin{tabular}{llllllll} $\eta _{V}$ & $:$ & $P\otimes _{S}(Q\otimes _{T}V)$ & $\rightarrow $ & $V,$ & $\dsum p_{i}\otimes _{S}(q_{i}\otimes _{T}v_{i})$ & $\mapsto $ & $\dsum <p_{i},q_{i}>_{T}v_{i},$ \\ $\rho _{W}$ & $:$ & $Q\otimes _{T}(P\otimes _{S}W)$ & $\rightarrow $ & $W,$ & $\dsum q_{i}\otimes _{T}(p_{i}\otimes _{S}w_{i})$ & $\mapsto $ & $\dsum <q_{i},p_{i}>_{S}w_{i}.$ \end{tabular} \end{equation} Then the datum $\mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M}):=(G,$ $_{T}\mathbb{M},$ $_{S} \mathbb{M},F,\eta ,\rho )$ is a right wide Morita context\textit{.} Conversely, let $T^{\prime },S^{\prime }$ be two rings and $\mathcal{W} _{r}^{\prime }=(G^{\prime },$ $_{T^{\prime }}\mathbb{M},$ $_{S^{\prime }} \mathbb{M},F^{\prime },\eta ^{\prime },\rho ^{\prime })$\textit{\ be a right wide }Morita context\textit{\ between }$_{T^{\prime }}\mathbb{M}$ and $ _{S^{\prime }}\mathbb{M}$ such that \textit{the right exact functors }$ G^{\prime }:$ $_{T^{\prime }}\mathbb{M}\rightleftarrows $ $_{S^{\prime }} \mathbb{M}:F^{\prime }$ \textit{commute with direct sums. By \emph{Watts' Theorems} \emph{(e.g. )},\ }there exists a\textit{\ }$(T,S)$ -bimodule $P^{\prime }$ (e.g. $F^{\prime }(S^{\prime }))$ such that $ F^{\prime }\simeq P^{\prime }\otimes _{S^{\prime }}-,$ an $(S,T)$-bimodule $ Q^{\prime }$ such that $G^{\prime }\simeq Q^{\prime }\otimes _{T^{\prime }}-$ and there should exist two bilinear forms \begin{equation*} <,>_{T^{\prime }}:P^{\prime }\otimes _{S^{\prime }}Q^{\prime }\rightarrow T^{\prime }\text{ and }<,>_{S^{\prime }}:Q^{\prime }\otimes _{T^{\prime }}P^{\prime }\rightarrow S^{\prime }, \end{equation*} such that the natural transformations $\eta ^{\prime }:F^{\prime }\circ G^{\prime }\rightarrow 1_{_{T^{\prime }}\mathbb{M}},$ $\rho :G^{\prime }\circ F^{\prime }\rightarrow 1_{_{S^{\prime }}\mathbb{M}}$ are given by \begin{equation*} \eta _{V^{\prime }}^{\prime }(p^{\prime }\otimes _{S^{\prime }}q^{\prime }\otimes _{T^{\prime }}v^{\prime })=<p^{\prime },q^{\prime }>_{T^{\prime }}v^{\prime }\text{ and }\rho _{W^{\prime }}^{\prime }(q^{\prime }\otimes _{T}p^{\prime }\otimes _{S}w^{\prime })=<q^{\prime },p^{\prime }>_{S^{\prime }}w^{\prime } \end{equation*} for all $V^{\prime }\in $ $_{T^{\prime }}\mathbb{M},$ $W^{\prime }\in $ $ _{S^{\prime }}\mathbb{M},$ $p^{\prime }\in P^{\prime },$ $q^{\prime }\in Q^{\prime },$ $v^{\prime }\in V^{\prime }$ and $w^{\prime }\in W^{\prime }.$ It can be shown that in this way one obtains a Morita context $\mathcal{M} ^{\prime }=\mathcal{M}^{\prime }(\mathcal{W}_{r}^{\prime }):=(T^{\prime },S^{\prime },P^{\prime },Q^{\prime },<,>_{T^{\prime }},<,>_{S^{\prime }}).$ \textit{Moreover, it turns out that given a wide Morita context }$\mathcal{W} _{r},$ we have $\mathcal{W}_{r}\simeq \mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{W} _{r})).$ \end{punto} \qquad The following result clarifies the relation between \emph{injective Morita contexts} and \emph{injective right wide Morita contexts.} \begin{theorem} Let $\mathcal{M}=(T,S,P,Q,<,>_{T},<,>_{S})$ be a Morita context, $\mathcal{A}:=$ $_{T}\mathbb{M},$ $\mathcal{B}:=$ $_{S}\mathbb{M}$ and consider the induced right wide Morita context $\mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{ M}):=(G,\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},F,\eta ,\rho ).$ \begin{enumerate} \item \textit{If }$\mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M})$ \textit{is an }injective right wide Morita context\textit{, then }$\mathcal{M}$ \textit{is an } injective Morita context\textit{.} \item If $\mathcal{M}\in \mathbb{UMC}_{r}^{\alpha },$ then\textit{\ }$ \mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M})$ \textit{is an }injective right wide Morita context\textit{.} \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} \begin{Beweis} \begin{enumerate} \item Let $\mathcal{W}_{r}(\mathcal{M})$ be an injective right wide Morita context.\textit{\ }Then in particular, $<,>_{T}=\eta _{T}$ and $<,>_{S}=\rho _{S}$ are injective, i.e. $\mathcal{M}$ is an injective Morita context. \item Assume that $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies the right $\alpha $-condition. Suppose there exists some $_{T}V$ and $\dsum p_{i}\otimes _{S}(q_{i}\otimes _{T}v_{i})\in \mathrm{Ker}(\eta _{V}).$ Then for any $q\in Q$ we have \begin{equation*} \text{ \begin{tabular}{lllll} $0$ & $=$ & $q\otimes _{T}\eta _{V}(\dsum (p_{i}\otimes _{S}q_{i})\otimes _{T}v_{i})$ & $=$ & $\dsum q\otimes _{T}<p_{i},q_{i}>_{T}v_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum q<p_{i},q_{i}>_{T}\otimes _{T}v_{i}$ & $=$ & $\dsum <q,p_{i}>_{S}q_{i}\otimes _{T}v_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum <q,p_{i}>_{S}(q_{i}\otimes _{T}v_{i})$ & $=$ & $\alpha _{Q\otimes _{T}V}^{\mathbf{P}_{r}}(\dsum p_{i}\otimes _{S}(q_{i}\otimes _{T}v_{i}))(q).$ \end{tabular} } \end{equation*} Since $\mathbf{P}_{r}:=(Q,P_{S})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(S),$ the morphism $\alpha _{Q\otimes _{T}V}^{\mathbf{P}_{r}}$ is injective and so $ \dsum p_{i}\otimes _{S}(q_{i}\otimes _{T}v_{i})=0,$ i.e. $\eta _{V}$ is injective. Analogously, suppose $\dsum q_{i}\otimes _{T}(p_{i}\otimes _{S}w_{i})\in \mathrm{Ker}(\rho _{W}).$ Then for any $p\in P$ we have \begin{equation*} \begin{tabular}{lllll} $0$ & $=$ & $p\otimes _{S}\rho _{W}(\dsum q_{i}\otimes _{T}(p_{i}\otimes _{S}w_{i})$ & $=$ & $\dsum p\otimes _{S}<q_{i},p_{i}>_{S}w_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum p<q_{i},p_{i}>_{S}\otimes _{S}w_{i}$ & $=$ & $\dsum <p,q_{i}>_{T}p_{i}\otimes _{S}w_{i}$ \\ & $=$ & $\dsum <p,q_{i}>_{T}(p_{i}\otimes _{S}w_{i})$ & $=$ & $\alpha _{P\otimes _{S}W}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}(\dsum q_{i}\otimes _{T}(p_{i}\otimes _{S}w_{i}))(p).$ \end{tabular} \end{equation*} Since $\mathbf{Q}_{r}:=(P,Q_{T})\in \mathcal{P}_{r}^{\alpha }(T),$ the morphism $\alpha _{P\otimes _{S}W}^{\mathbf{Q}_{r}}$ is injective and so $ \dsum q_{i}\otimes _{T}(p_{i}\otimes _{S}w_{i})=0,$ i.e. $\rho _{W}$ is injective. Consequently, the induced right wide Morita context $\mathcal{W} _{r}(\mathcal{M})$ is injective.$\blacksquare $ \end{enumerate} \end{Beweis} \textbf{Acknowledgement: }The authors thank the referee for his/her careful reading of the paper and for the fruitful suggestions, comments and corrections, which helped in improving several parts of the paper. Moreover, they acknowledge the excellent research facilities as well as the support of their respective institutions, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals and King AbdulAziz University. \begin{thebibliography}{M\"{u}l1974} \bibitem[Abr1983]{Abr-1983} G.D. Abrams, \emph{Morita equivalence for rings with local units}, Comm. Algebra \textbf{11 }(1983), 801-837. \bibitem[Abu2005]{Abu-2005} J.Y. Abuhlail, \emph{On the linear weak topology and dual pairings over rings}, Topology Appl. \textbf{149 }(2005)\textbf{,} 161-175. \bibitem[AF1974]{AF-1974} F. Anderson and K. Fuller, \emph{Rings and Categories of Modules, }Springer-Verlag (1974). \bibitem[AGH-Z1997]{AGH-Z1997} A.V. Arhange\'{l}skii, K.R. Goodearl and B. Huisgen-Zimmermann, \emph{Kiiti Morita, }(\emph{1915-1995}), Notices Amer. Math. Soc. \textbf{44(6)} (1997), 680-684. \bibitem[AG-TL2001]{AG-TL2001} J.Y. Abuhlail, J. G\'{o}mez-Torrecillas and F. Lobillo, \emph{Duality and rational modules in Hopf algebras over commutative rings}, J. Algebra \textbf{240} (2001), 165-184. \bibitem[Alp1990]{Alp1990} J.L. Alperin, \emph{Static modules and nonnormal Clifford theory}, J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A \textbf{49(3)} (1990), 347-353. \bibitem[AM1987]{AM-1987} P.N. \'{A}nh and L. M\'{a}rki, \emph{Morita equivalence for rings without identity}, Tsukuba J. Math \textbf{11} (1987), 1-16. \bibitem[Ami1971]{Ami-1971} S.A. Amitsur, \emph{Rings of quotients and Morita contexts, }J. Algebra \textbf{17} (1971), 273-298. \bibitem[Ber2003]{Ber2003} I. Berbee, \emph{The Morita-Takeuchi theory for quotient categories}, Comm. Algebra \textbf{31(2)} (2003), 843-858. \bibitem[C-IG-T1995]{C-IG-T1995} F. Casta\~{n}o Iglesias and J. Gomez-Torrecillas, \emph{Wide Morita contexts},\ Comm. Algebra \textbf{23} (1995), 601-622. \bibitem[C-IG-T1996]{C-IG-T1996} F. Casta\~{n}o Iglesias and J. Gomez-Torrecillas, \emph{Wide left Morita contexts and equivalences, }Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. \textbf{4(1-2)} (1996), 17-26. \bibitem[C-IG-T1998]{C-IG-T1998} F. Casta\~{n}o Iglesias and J. Gomez-Torrecillas, \emph{Wide Morita contexts and equivalences of comodule categories},\ J. Pure Appl. Algebra \textbf{131} (1998), 213-225. \bibitem[BW2003]{BW-2003} T. Brzezi\'{n}ski and R. Wisbauer, \emph{Corings and Comodules, }Lond. Math. Soc. Lec. Not. Ser. \textbf{309, }Cambridge University Press (2003). \bibitem[Cae1998]{Cae1998} S. Caenepeel, \emph{Brauer Groups, Hopf Algebras and Galois Theory, }Kluwer Academic Publishers (1998). \bibitem[C-IG-TW2003]{C-IG-TW2003} F. Casta\~{n}o Iglesias, J. G\'{o} mez-Torrecillas and R. Wisbauer, \emph{Adjoint functors and equivalence of subcategories, }Bull. Sci. Math. \textbf{127} (2003), 279-395. \bibitem[CDN2005]{CDN2005} N. Chifan, S. D\u{a}sc\u{a}lescu and C. N\u{a}st \u{a}sescu, \emph{Wide Morita contexts, relative injectivity and equivalence results}, J. Algebra \textbf{284} (2005), 705-736. \bibitem[Col1990]{Col1990} R. Colpi, \emph{Some remarks on equivalences between categories of modules}, Comm. Algebra \textbf{18} (1990), 1935-1951. \bibitem[CF2004]{CF-2004} R. Colby and K. Fuller, \emph{Equivalence and Duality for Module Categories. With Tilting and Cotilting for Rings,} Cambridge University Press (2004). \bibitem[Fai1981]{Fai-1981} C. Faith, \emph{Algebra }$I,$ \emph{Rings, Modules and Categories}, Springer-Verlag (1981). \bibitem[Gol1979]{Gol1979} J. Golan, \emph{An Introduction to Homological Algebra, }Academic Press (1979). \bibitem[HS1998]{HS1998} Z. Hao and K.-P. Shum, \emph{The Grothendieck groups of rings of Morita contexts}, Group theory (Beijing, 1996), 88-97, Springer (1998). \bibitem[Kat1978]{Kat-1978} T. Kato, \emph{Duality between colocalization and localization, }J. Algebra \textbf{55} (1978), 351-374. \bibitem[KO1979]{KO-1979} T. Kato and K. Ohtake, \emph{Morita contexts and equivalences.} J. Algebra \textbf{61} (1979), 360-366. \bibitem[Lam1999]{Lam-1999} T.Y. Lam, \emph{Lectures on Modules and Rings, } Springer (1999). \bibitem[MO1989]{MO-1989} C. Menini and A. Orsatti, \emph{Representable equivalences between categories of modules and applications.} Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova \textbf{82} (1989), 203-231. \bibitem[M\"{u}l1974]{Mul-1974} B.J. M\"{u}ller, \emph{The quotient category of a Morita context, }J. Algebra \textbf{28} (1974), 389-407. \bibitem[Nau1990a]{Nau-1990a} S.K. Nauman, \emph{Static modules, Morita contexts, and equivalences}. J. Algebra \textbf{135} (1990), 192-202. \bibitem[Nau1990b]{Nau1990b} S.K. Nauman, \emph{Static modules and stable Clifford theory}, J. Algebra \textbf{128(2)} (1990), 497-509. \bibitem[Nau1993]{Nau-1993} S.K. Nauman, \emph{Intersecting subcategories of static modules and their equivalences}, J. Algebra \textbf{155(1) }(1993), 252-265. \bibitem[Nau1994-a]{Nau-1994-a} S.K. Nauman, \emph{An alternate criterion of localized modules}, J. Algebra \textbf{164} (1994), 256-263. \bibitem[Nau1994-b]{Nau-1994-b} S.K. Nauman, \emph{Intersecting subcategories of static modules, stable Clifford theory and colocalization-localization}, J. Algebra \textbf{170(2)} (1994), 400-421. \bibitem[Nau2004]{Nau2004} S.K. Nauman, \emph{Morita similar matrix rings and their Grothendieck groups}, Aligarh Bull. Math. \textbf{23(1-2)} (2004), 49-60. \bibitem[Sat1978]{Sat1978} M. Sato, \emph{Fuller's Theorem of equivalences,} J. Algebra \textbf{52} (1978), 274-284. \bibitem[Tak1977]{Tak1977} M. Takeuchi, \emph{Morita theorems for categories of comodules}, J. Fac. Univ. Tokyo \textbf{24} (1977), 629-644. \bibitem[Trl1994]{Trl1994} J. Trlifaj, \emph{Every }$\ast $-\emph{module is finitely generated}, J. Algebra \textbf{169} (1994), 392-398. \bibitem[Ver2006]{Ver-2006} J. Vercruysse, \emph{Local units versus local dualisations: corings with local structure maps, }Commun. Algebra \textbf{34} (2006), 2079-2103. \bibitem[Wis1991]{Wis-1991} R.\thinspace Wisbauer, \emph{Foundations of Module and Ring Theory, a Handbook for Study and Research}, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers (1991). \bibitem[Wis1998]{Wis1998} R. Wisbauer, \emph{Tilting in module categories}, in \textquotedblleft Abelian groups, module theory and topology\textquotedblright , LNPAM \textbf{201} (1998), 421-444. \bibitem[Wis2000]{Wis2000} R. Wisbauer, \emph{Static modules and equivalences }, in \textquotedblleft Interactions between Ring Theory and Representation Theory\textquotedblright , Ed. V. Oystaeyen, M. Saorin, Marcel Decker (2000), 423-449. \bibitem[Xin1999]{Xin1999} Lin Xin, A note on $\ast $-modules, Algebra Colloq. \textbf{6(2)} (1999), 231-240. \bibitem[Z-H1976]{Z-H-1976} B. Zimmermann-Huisgen, \emph{Pure submodules of direct products of free modules}, Math. Ann. \textbf{224} (1976), 233-245. \end{thebibliography} \typeout{TCILATEX Macros for Scientific Word 3.0 <19 May 1997>.} \typeout{NOTICE: This macro file is NOT proprietary and may be freely copied and distributed.} \makeatletter \newcount\@hour\newcount\@minute\chardef\@x10\chardef\@xv60 \def\tcitime{ \def\@time{ \@minute\time\@hour\@minute\divide\@hour\@xv \ifnum\@hour<\@x 0\fi\the\@hour: \multiply\@hour\@xv\advance\@minute-\@hour \ifnum\@minute<\@x 0\fi\the\@minute }} \@ifundefined{hyperref}{\def\hyperref#1#2#3#4{#2#3}}{} \@ifundefined{qExtProgCall}{\def\qExtProgCall#1#2#3#4#5#6{\relax}}{} \def\FILENAME#1{#1} \def\QCTOpt[#1]#2{ \def\QCTOptB{#1} \def\QCTOptA{#2} } \def\QCTNOpt#1{ \def\QCTOptA{#1} \let\QCTOptB\empty } \def\Qct{ \@ifnextchar[{ \QCTOpt}{\QCTNOpt} } \def\QCBOpt[#1]#2{ \def\QCBOptB{#1} \def\QCBOptA{#2} } \def\QCBNOpt#1{ \def\QCBOptA{#1} \let\QCBOptB\empty } \def\Qcb{ \@ifnextchar[{ \QCBOpt}{\QCBNOpt} } \def\PrepCapArgs{ \ifx\QCBOptA\empty \ifx\QCTOptA\empty {} \else \ifx\QCTOptB\empty {\QCTOptA} \else [\QCTOptB]{\QCTOptA} \fi \fi \else \ifx\QCBOptA\empty {} \else \ifx\QCBOptB\empty {\QCBOptA} \else [\QCBOptB]{\QCBOptA} \fi \fi \fi } \newcount\GRAPHICSTYPE \GRAPHICSTYPE=\z@ \def\GRAPHICSPS#1{ \ifcase\GRAPHICSTYPE \special{ps: #1} \or \special{language "PS", include "#1"} \fi } \def\GRAPHICSHP#1{\special{include #1}} \def\graffile#1#2#3#4{ \bgroup \leavevmode \@ifundefined{bbl@deactivate}{\def~{\string~}}{\activesoff} \raise -#4 \BOXTHEFRAME{ \hbox to #2{\raise #3\hbox to #2{\null #1\hfil}}} \egroup } \def\draftbox#1#2#3#4{ \leavevmode\raise -#4 \hbox{ \frame{\rlap{\protect\tiny #1}\hbox to #2 {\vrule height#3 width\z@ depth\z@\hfil} } } } \newcount\draft \draft=\z@ \let\nographics=\draft \newif\ifwasdraft \wasdraftfalse \def\GRAPHIC#1#2#3#4#5{ \ifnum\draft=\@ne\draftbox{#2}{#3}{#4}{#5} \else\graffile{#1}{#3}{#4}{#5} \fi } \def\addtoLaTeXparams#1{ \edef\LaTeXparams{\LaTeXparams #1}} \newif\ifBoxFrame \BoxFramefalse \newif\ifOverFrame \OverFramefalse \newif\ifUnderFrame \UnderFramefalse \def\BOXTHEFRAME#1{ \hbox{ \ifBoxFrame \frame{#1} \else {#1} \fi } } \def\doFRAMEparams#1{\BoxFramefalse\OverFramefalse\UnderFramefalse\readFRAMEparams#1\end} \def\readFRAMEparams#1{ \ifx#1\end \let\next=\relax \else \ifx#1i\dispkind=\z@\fi \ifx#1d\dispkind=\@ne\fi \ifx#1f\dispkind=\tw@\fi \ifx#1t\addtoLaTeXparams{t}\fi \ifx#1b\addtoLaTeXparams{b}\fi \ifx#1p\addtoLaTeXparams{p}\fi \ifx#1h\addtoLaTeXparams{h}\fi \ifx#1X\BoxFrametrue\fi \ifx#1O\OverFrametrue\fi \ifx#1U\UnderFrametrue\fi \ifx#1w \ifnum\draft=1\wasdrafttrue\else\wasdraftfalse\fi \draft=\@ne \fi \let\next=\readFRAMEparams \fi \next } \def\IFRAME#1#2#3#4#5#6{ \bgroup \let\QCTOptA\empty \let\QCTOptB\empty \let\QCBOptA\empty \let\QCBOptB\empty #6 \parindent=0pt \leftskip=0pt \rightskip=0pt \setbox0 = \hbox{\QCBOptA} \@tempdima = #1\relax \ifOverFrame \typeout{This is not implemented yet} \show\HELP \else \ifdim\wd0>\@tempdima \advance\@tempdima by \@tempdima \ifdim\wd0 >\@tempdima \textwidth=\@tempdima \setbox1 =\vbox{ \noindent\hbox to \@tempdima{\hfill\GRAPHIC{#5}{#4}{#1}{#2}{#3}\hfill}\\ \noindent\hbox to \@tempdima{\parbox[b]{\@tempdima}{\QCBOptA}} } \wd1=\@tempdima \else \textwidth=\wd0 \setbox1 =\vbox{ \noindent\hbox to \wd0{\hfill\GRAPHIC{#5}{#4}{#1}{#2}{#3}\hfill}\\ \noindent\hbox{\QCBOptA} } \wd1=\wd0 \fi \else \ifdim\wd0>0pt \hsize=\@tempdima \setbox1 =\vbox{ \unskip\GRAPHIC{#5}{#4}{#1}{#2}{0pt} \break \unskip\hbox to \@tempdima{\hfill \QCBOptA\hfill} } \wd1=\@tempdima \else \hsize=\@tempdima \setbox1 =\vbox{ \unskip\GRAPHIC{#5}{#4}{#1}{#2}{0pt} } \wd1=\@tempdima \fi \fi \@tempdimb=\ht1 \advance\@tempdimb by \dp1 \advance\@tempdimb by -#2 \advance\@tempdimb by #3 \leavevmode \raise -\@tempdimb \hbox{\box1} \fi \egroup } \def\DFRAME#1#2#3#4#5{ \begin{center} \let\QCTOptA\empty \let\QCTOptB\empty \let\QCBOptA\empty \let\QCBOptB\empty \ifOverFrame #5\QCTOptA\par \fi \GRAPHIC{#4}{#3}{#1}{#2}{\z@} \ifUnderFrame \nobreak\par\nobreak#5\QCBOptA \fi \end{center} } \def\FFRAME#1#2#3#4#5#6#7{ } \newcount\dispkind \def\makeactives{ \catcode`\"=\active \catcode`\;=\active \catcode`\:=\active \catcode`\'=\active \catcode`\~=\active } \bgroup \makeactives \gdef\activesoff{ \def"{\string"} \def;{\string;} \def:{\string:} \def'{\string'} \def~{\string~} } \egroup \def\FRAME#1#2#3#4#5#6#7#8{ \bgroup \ifnum\draft=\@ne \wasdrafttrue \else \wasdraftfalse \fi \def\LaTeXparams{} \dispkind=\z@ \def\LaTeXparams{} \doFRAMEparams{#1} \ifnum\dispkind=\z@\IFRAME{#2}{#3}{#4}{#7}{#8}{#5}\else \ifnum\dispkind=\@ne\DFRAME{#2}{#3}{#7}{#8}{#5}\else \ifnum\dispkind=\tw@ \edef\@tempa{\noexpand\FFRAME{\LaTeXparams}} \@tempa{#2}{#3}{#5}{#6}{#7}{#8} \fi \fi \fi \ifwasdraft\draft=1\else\draft=0\fi{} \egroup } \def\TEXUX#1{"texux"} \def\BF#1{{\bf {#1}}} \def\NEG#1{\leavevmode\hbox{\rlap{\thinspace/}{$#1$}}} \def\limfunc#1{\mathop{\rm #1}} \def\func#1{\mathop{\rm #1}\nolimits} \def\unit#1{\mathop{\rm #1}\nolimits} \long\def\QQQ#1#2{ \long\expandafter\def\csname#1\endcsname{#2}} \@ifundefined{QTP}{\def\QTP#1{}}{} \@ifundefined{QEXCLUDE}{\def\QEXCLUDE#1{}}{} \@ifundefined{Qlb}{\def\Qlb#1{#1}}{} \@ifundefined{Qlt}{\def\Qlt#1{#1}}{} \def\QWE{} \long\def\QQA#1#2{} \def\QTR#1#2{{\csname#1\endcsname #2}} \long\def\TeXButton#1#2{#2} \long\def\QSubDoc#1#2{#2} \def\EXPAND#1[#2]#3{} \def\NOEXPAND#1[#2]#3{} \def\PROTECTED{} \def\LaTeXparent#1{} \def\ChildStyles#1{} \def\ChildDefaults#1{} \def\QTagDef#1#2#3{} \@ifundefined{correctchoice}{\def\correctchoice{\relax}}{} \@ifundefined{HTML}{\def\HTML#1{\relax}}{} \@ifundefined{TCIIcon}{\def\TCIIcon#1#2#3#4{\relax}}{} \if@compatibility \typeout{Not defining UNICODE or CustomNote commands for LaTeX 2.09.} \else \providecommand{\UNICODE}[2][]{} \providecommand{\CustomNote}[3][]{\marginpar{#3}} \fi \@ifundefined{StyleEditBeginDoc}{\def\StyleEditBeginDoc{\relax}}{} \def\QQfnmark#1{\footnotemark} \def\QQfntext#1#2{\addtocounter{footnote}{#1}\footnotetext{#2}} \@ifundefined{TCIMAKEINDEX}{}{\makeindex} \@ifundefined{abstract}{ \def\abstract{ \if@twocolumn \section*{Abstract (Not appropriate in this style!)} \else \small \begin{center}{\bf Abstract\vspace{-.5em}\vspace{\z@}}\end{center} \quotation \fi } }{ } \@ifundefined{endabstract}{\def\endabstract {\if@twocolumn\else\endquotation\fi}}{} \@ifundefined{maketitle}{\def\maketitle#1{}}{} \@ifundefined{affiliation}{\def\affiliation#1{}}{} \@ifundefined{proof}{\def\proof{\noindent{\bfseries Proof. }}}{} \@ifundefined{endproof}{\def\endproof{\mbox{\ \rule{.1in}{.1in}}}}{} \@ifundefined{newfield}{\def\newfield#1#2{}}{} \@ifundefined{chapter}{\def\chapter#1{\par(Chapter head:)#1\par } \newcount\c@chapter}{} \@ifundefined{part}{\def\part#1{\par(Part head:)#1\par }}{} \@ifundefined{section}{\def\section#1{\par(Section head:)#1\par }}{} \@ifundefined{subsection}{\def\subsection#1 {\par(Subsection head:)#1\par }}{} \@ifundefined{subsubsection}{\def\subsubsection#1 {\par(Subsubsection head:)#1\par }}{} \@ifundefined{paragraph}{\def\paragraph#1 {\par(Subsubsubsection head:)#1\par }}{} \@ifundefined{subparagraph}{\def\subparagraph#1 {\par(Subsubsubsubsection head:)#1\par }}{} \@ifundefined{therefore}{\def\therefore{}}{} \@ifundefined{backepsilon}{\def\backepsilon{}}{} \@ifundefined{yen}{\def\yen{\hbox{\rm\rlap=Y}}}{} \@ifundefined{registered}{ \def\registered{\relax\ifmmode{}\r@gistered \else$\m@th\r@gistered$\fi} \def\r@gistered{^{\ooalign {\hfil\raise.07ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm\text{R}$}\hfil\crcr \mathhexbox20D}}}}{} \@ifundefined{Eth}{\def\Eth{}}{} \@ifundefined{eth}{\def\eth{}}{} \@ifundefined{Thorn}{\def\Thorn{}}{} \@ifundefined{thorn}{\def\thorn{}}{} \def\TEXTsymbol#1{\mbox{$#1$}} \@ifundefined{degree}{\def\degree{{}^{\circ}}}{} \newdimen\theight \def\Column{ \vadjust{\setbox\z@=\hbox{\scriptsize\quad\quad tcol} \theight=\ht\z@\advance\theight by \dp\z@\advance\theight by \lineskip \kern -\theight \vbox to \theight{ \rightline{\rlap{\box\z@}} \vss } } } \def\qed{ \ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\ifmmode\ifinner\else\hskip5\p@\fi\fi \hbox{\hskip5\p@\vrule width4\p@ height6\p@ depth1.5\p@\hskip\p@} } \def\cents{\hbox{\rm\rlap/c}} \def\miss{\hbox{\vrule height2\p@ width 2\p@ depth\z@}} \def\vvert{\Vert} \def\tcol#1{{\baselineskip=6\p@ \vcenter{#1}} \Column} \def\dB{\hbox{{}}} \def\mB#1{\hbox{$#1$}} \def\nB#1{\hbox{#1}} \@ifundefined{note}{\def\note{$^{\dag}}}{} \def\newfmtname{LaTeX2e} \ifx\fmtname\newfmtname \DeclareOldFontCommand{\rm}{\normalfont\rmfamily}{\mathrm} \DeclareOldFontCommand{\sf}{\normalfont\sffamily}{\mathsf} \DeclareOldFontCommand{\tt}{\normalfont\ttfamily}{\mathtt} \DeclareOldFontCommand{\bf}{\normalfont\bfseries}{\mathbf} \DeclareOldFontCommand{\it}{\normalfont\itshape}{\mathit} \DeclareOldFontCommand{\sl}{\normalfont\slshape}{\@nomath\sl} \DeclareOldFontCommand{\sc}{\normalfont\scshape}{\@nomath\sc} \fi \def\alpha{{\Greekmath 010B}} \def\beta{{\Greekmath 010C}} \def\gamma{{\Greekmath 010D}} \def\delta{{\Greekmath 010E}} \def\epsilon{{\Greekmath 010F}} \def\zeta{{\Greekmath 0110}} \def\eta{{\Greekmath 0111}} \def\theta{{\Greekmath 0112}} \def\iota{{\Greekmath 0113}} \def\kappa{{\Greekmath 0114}} \def\lambda{{\Greekmath 0115}} \def\mu{{\Greekmath 0116}} \def\nu{{\Greekmath 0117}} \def\xi{{\Greekmath 0118}} \def\pi{{\Greekmath 0119}} \def\rho{{\Greekmath 011A}} \def\sigma{{\Greekmath 011B}} \def\tau{{\Greekmath 011C}} \def\upsilon{{\Greekmath 011D}} \def\phi{{\Greekmath 011E}} \def\chi{{\Greekmath 011F}} \def\psi{{\Greekmath 0120}} \def\omega{{\Greekmath 0121}} \def\varepsilon{{\Greekmath 0122}} \def\vartheta{{\Greekmath 0123}} \def\varpi{{\Greekmath 0124}} \def\varrho{{\Greekmath 0125}} \def\varsigma{{\Greekmath 0126}} \def\varphi{{\Greekmath 0127}} \def\nabla{{\Greekmath 0272}} \def\FindBoldGroup{ {\setbox0=\hbox{$\mathbf{x\global\edef\theboldgroup{\the\mathgroup}}$}} } \def\Greekmath#1#2#3#4{ \if@compatibility \ifnum\mathgroup=\symbold \mathchoice{\mbox{\boldmath$\displaystyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}} {\mbox{\boldmath$\textstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}} {\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}} {\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptscriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}} \else \mathchar"#1#2#3#4 \fi \else \FindBoldGroup \ifnum\mathgroup=\theboldgroup \mathchoice{\mbox{\boldmath$\displaystyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}} {\mbox{\boldmath$\textstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}} {\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}} {\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptscriptstyle\mathchar"#1#2#3#4$}} \else \mathchar"#1#2#3#4 \fi \fi} \newif\ifGreekBold \GreekBoldfalse \let\SAVEPBF=\pbf \def\pbf{\GreekBoldtrue\SAVEPBF} \@ifundefined{theorem}{\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}}{} \@ifundefined{lemma}{\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}}{} \@ifundefined{corollary}{\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}}{} \@ifundefined{conjecture}{\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}}{} \@ifundefined{proposition}{\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}}{} \@ifundefined{axiom}{\newtheorem{axiom}{Axiom}}{} \@ifundefined{remark}{\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}}{} \@ifundefined{example}{\newtheorem{example}{Example}}{} \@ifundefined{exercise}{\newtheorem{exercise}{Exercise}}{} \@ifundefined{definition}{\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}}{} \@ifundefined{mathletters}{ \newcounter{equationnumber} \def\mathletters{ \addtocounter{equation}{1} \edef\@currentlabel{\theequation} \setcounter{equationnumber}{\c@equation} \setcounter{equation}{0} \edef\theequation{\@currentlabel\noexpand\alph{equation}} } \def\endmathletters{ \setcounter{equation}{\value{equationnumber}} } }{} \@ifundefined{BibTeX}{ \def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}}{} \@ifundefined{AmS} {\def\AmS{{\protect\usefont{OMS}{cmsy}{m}{n} A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}}{} \@ifundefined{AmSTeX}{\def\AmSTeX{\protect\AmS-\protect\TeX\@}}{} \def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &}\or \def\@tempa{& &} \else \def\@tempa{&}\fi \@tempa \if@eqnsw \iftag@ \@taggnum \else \@eqnnum\stepcounter{equation} \fi \fi \global\tag@false \global\@eqnswtrue \global\@eqcnt\z@\cr} \def\TCItag{\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}} \def\@TCItag#1{ \global\tag@true \global\def\@taggnum{(#1)}} \def\@TCItagstar*#1{ \global\tag@true \global\def\@taggnum{#1}} \def\tfrac#1#2{{\textstyle {#1 \over #2}}} \def\dfrac#1#2{{\displaystyle {#1 \over #2}}} \def\binom#1#2{{#1 \choose #2}} \def\tbinom#1#2{{\textstyle {#1 \choose #2}}} \def\dbinom#1#2{{\displaystyle {#1 \choose #2}}} \def\QATOP#1#2{{#1 \atop #2}} \def\QTATOP#1#2{{\textstyle {#1 \atop #2}}} \def\QDATOP#1#2{{\displaystyle {#1 \atop #2}}} \def\QABOVE#1#2#3{{#2 \above#1 #3}} \def\QTABOVE#1#2#3{{\textstyle {#2 \above#1 #3}}} \def\QDABOVE#1#2#3{{\displaystyle {#2 \above#1 #3}}} \def\QOVERD#1#2#3#4{{#3 \overwithdelims#1#2 #4}} \def\QTOVERD#1#2#3#4{{\textstyle {#3 \overwithdelims#1#2 #4}}} \def\QDOVERD#1#2#3#4{{\displaystyle {#3 \overwithdelims#1#2 #4}}} \def\QATOPD#1#2#3#4{{#3 \atopwithdelims#1#2 #4}} \def\QTATOPD#1#2#3#4{{\textstyle {#3 \atopwithdelims#1#2 #4}}} \def\QDATOPD#1#2#3#4{{\displaystyle {#3 \atopwithdelims#1#2 #4}}} \def\QABOVED#1#2#3#4#5{{#4 \abovewithdelims#1#2#3 #5}} \def\QTABOVED#1#2#3#4#5{{\textstyle {#4 \abovewithdelims#1#2#3 #5}}} \def\QDABOVED#1#2#3#4#5{{\displaystyle {#4 \abovewithdelims#1#2#3 #5}}} \def\tint{\mathop{\textstyle \int}} \def\tiint{\mathop{\textstyle \iint }} \def\tiiint{\mathop{\textstyle \iiint }} \def\tiiiint{\mathop{\textstyle \iiiint }} \def\tidotsint{\mathop{\textstyle \idotsint }} \def\toint{\mathop{\textstyle \oint}} \def\tsum{\mathop{\textstyle \sum }} \def\tprod{\mathop{\textstyle \prod }} \def\tbigcap{\mathop{\textstyle \bigcap }} \def\tbigwedge{\mathop{\textstyle \bigwedge }} \def\tbigoplus{\mathop{\textstyle \bigoplus }} \def\tbigodot{\mathop{\textstyle \bigodot }} \def\tbigsqcup{\mathop{\textstyle \bigsqcup }} \def\tcoprod{\mathop{\textstyle \coprod }} \def\tbigcup{\mathop{\textstyle \bigcup }} \def\tbigvee{\mathop{\textstyle \bigvee }} \def\tbigotimes{\mathop{\textstyle \bigotimes }} \def\tbiguplus{\mathop{\textstyle \biguplus }} \def\dint{\mathop{\displaystyle \int}} \def\diint{\mathop{\displaystyle \iint }} \def\diiint{\mathop{\displaystyle \iiint }} \def\diiiint{\mathop{\displaystyle \iiiint }} \def\didotsint{\mathop{\displaystyle \idotsint }} \def\doint{\mathop{\displaystyle \oint}} \def\dsum{\mathop{\displaystyle \sum }} \def\dprod{\mathop{\displaystyle \prod }} \def\dbigcap{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigcap }} \def\dbigwedge{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigwedge }} \def\dbigoplus{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigoplus }} \def\dbigodot{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigodot }} \def\dbigsqcup{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigsqcup }} \def\dcoprod{\mathop{\displaystyle \coprod }} \def\dbigcup{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigcup }} \def\dbigvee{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigvee }} \def\dbigotimes{\mathop{\displaystyle \bigotimes }} \def\dbiguplus{\mathop{\displaystyle \biguplus }} \ifx\ds@amstex\relax \message{amstex already loaded}\makeatother\endinput \else \@ifpackageloaded{amsmath} {\message{amsmath already loaded}\makeatother\endinput} {} \@ifpackageloaded{amstex} {\message{amstex already loaded}\makeatother\endinput} {} \@ifpackageloaded{amsgen} {\message{amsgen already loaded}\makeatother\endinput} {} \fi \let\DOTSI\relax \def\RIfM@{\relax\ifmmode} \def\FN@{\futurelet\next} \newcount\intno@ \def\iint{\DOTSI\intno@\tw@\FN@\ints@} \def\iiint{\DOTSI\intno@\thr@@\FN@\ints@} \def\iiiint{\DOTSI\intno@4 \FN@\ints@} \def\idotsint{\DOTSI\intno@\z@\FN@\ints@} \def\ints@{\findlimits@\ints@@} \newif\iflimtoken@ \newif\iflimits@ \def\findlimits@{\limtoken@true\ifx\next\limits\limits@true \else\ifx\next\nolimits\limits@false\else \limtoken@false\ifx\ilimits@\nolimits\limits@false\else \ifinner\limits@false\else\limits@true\fi\fi\fi\fi} \def\multint@{\int\ifnum\intno@=\z@\intdots@ \else\intkern@\fi \ifnum\intno@>\tw@\int\intkern@\fi \ifnum\intno@>\thr@@\int\intkern@\fi \int} \def\multintlimits@{\intop\ifnum\intno@=\z@\intdots@\else\intkern@\fi \ifnum\intno@>\tw@\intop\intkern@\fi \ifnum\intno@>\thr@@\intop\intkern@\fi\intop} \def\intic@{ \mathchoice{\hskip.5em}{\hskip.4em}{\hskip.4em}{\hskip.4em}} \def\negintic@{\mathchoice {\hskip-.5em}{\hskip-.4em}{\hskip-.4em}{\hskip-.4em}} \def\ints@@{\iflimtoken@ \def\ints@@@{\iflimits@\negintic@ \mathop{\intic@\multintlimits@}\limits \else\multint@\nolimits\fi \eat@} \else \def\ints@@@{\iflimits@\negintic@ \mathop{\intic@\multintlimits@}\limits\else \multint@\nolimits\fi}\fi\ints@@@} \def\intkern@{\mathchoice{\!\!\!}{\!\!}{\!\!}{\!\!}} \def\plaincdots@{\mathinner{\cdotp\cdotp\cdotp}} \def\intdots@{\mathchoice{\plaincdots@} {{\cdotp}\mkern1.5mu{\cdotp}\mkern1.5mu{\cdotp}} {{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}} {{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}\mkern1mu{\cdotp}}} \def\RIfM@{\relax\protect\ifmmode} \def\text{\RIfM@\expandafter\text@\else\expandafter\mbox\fi} \let\nfss@text\text \def\text@#1{\mathchoice {\textdef@\displaystyle\f@size{#1}} {\textdef@\textstyle\tf@size{\firstchoice@false #1}} {\textdef@\textstyle\sf@size{\firstchoice@false #1}} {\textdef@\textstyle \ssf@size{\firstchoice@false #1}} \glb@settings} \def\textdef@#1#2#3{\hbox{{ \everymath{#1} \let\f@size#2\selectfont #3}}} \newif\iffirstchoice@ \firstchoice@true \def\Let@{\relax\iffalse{\fi\let\\=\cr\iffalse}\fi} \def\vspace@{\def\vspace##1{\crcr\noalign{\vskip##1\relax}}} \def\multilimits@{\bgroup\vspace@\Let@ \baselineskip\fontdimen10 \scriptfont\tw@ \advance\baselineskip\fontdimen12 \scriptfont\tw@ \lineskip\thr@@\fontdimen8 \scriptfont\thr@@ \lineskiplimit\lineskip \vbox\bgroup\ialign\bgroup\hfil$\m@th\scriptstyle{##}$\hfil\crcr} \def\Sb{_\multilimits@} \def\endSb{\crcr\egroup\egroup\egroup} \def\Sp{^\multilimits@} \let\endSp\endSb \newdimen\ex@ \ex@.2326ex \def\rightarrowfill@#1{$#1\m@th\mathord-\mkern-6mu\cleaders \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\mathord-\mkern-2mu$}\hfill \mkern-6mu\mathord\rightarrow$} \def\leftarrowfill@#1{$#1\m@th\mathord\leftarrow\mkern-6mu\cleaders \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\mathord-\mkern-2mu$}\hfill\mkern-6mu\mathord-$} \def\leftrightarrowfill@#1{$#1\m@th\mathord\leftarrow \mkern-6mu\cleaders \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\mathord-\mkern-2mu$}\hfill \mkern-6mu\mathord\rightarrow$} \def\overrightarrow{\mathpalette\overrightarrow@} \def\overrightarrow@#1#2{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr\rightarrowfill@#1\crcr \noalign{\kern-\ex@\nointerlineskip}$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr}}} \let\overarrow\overrightarrow \def\overleftarrow{\mathpalette\overleftarrow@} \def\overleftarrow@#1#2{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr\leftarrowfill@#1\crcr \noalign{\kern-\ex@\nointerlineskip}$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr}}} \def\overleftrightarrow{\mathpalette\overleftrightarrow@} \def\overleftrightarrow@#1#2{\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr \leftrightarrowfill@#1\crcr \noalign{\kern-\ex@\nointerlineskip}$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr}}} \def\underrightarrow{\mathpalette\underrightarrow@} \def\underrightarrow@#1#2{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil $\crcr\noalign{\nointerlineskip}\rightarrowfill@#1\crcr}}} \let\underarrow\underrightarrow \def\underleftarrow{\mathpalette\underleftarrow@} \def\underleftarrow@#1#2{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr$\m@th\hfil#1#2\hfil $\crcr\noalign{\nointerlineskip}\leftarrowfill@#1\crcr}}} \def\underleftrightarrow{\mathpalette\underleftrightarrow@} \def\underleftrightarrow@#1#2{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr$\m@th \hfil#1#2\hfil$\crcr \noalign{\nointerlineskip}\leftrightarrowfill@#1\crcr}}} \def\qopnamewl@#1{\mathop{\operator@font#1}\nlimits@} \let\nlimits@\displaylimits \def\setboxz@h{\setbox\z@\hbox} \def\varlim@#1#2{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr \hfil$#1\m@th\operator@font lim$\hfil\crcr \noalign{\nointerlineskip}#2#1\crcr \noalign{\nointerlineskip\kern-\ex@}\crcr}}}} \def\rightarrowfill@#1{\m@th\setboxz@h{$#1-$}\ht\z@\z@ $#1\copy\z@\mkern-6mu\cleaders \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\box\z@\mkern-2mu$}\hfill \mkern-6mu\mathord\rightarrow$} \def\leftarrowfill@#1{\m@th\setboxz@h{$#1-$}\ht\z@\z@ $#1\mathord\leftarrow\mkern-6mu\cleaders \hbox{$#1\mkern-2mu\copy\z@\mkern-2mu$}\hfill \mkern-6mu\box\z@$} \def\projlim{\qopnamewl@{proj\,lim}} \def\injlim{\qopnamewl@{inj\,lim}} \def\varinjlim{\mathpalette\varlim@\rightarrowfill@} \def\varprojlim{\mathpalette\varlim@\leftarrowfill@} \def\varliminf{\mathpalette\varliminf@{}} \def\varliminf@#1{\mathop{\underline{\vrule\@depth.2\ex@\@width\z@ \hbox{$#1\m@th\operator@font lim$}}}} \def\varlimsup{\mathpalette\varlimsup@{}} \def\varlimsup@#1{\mathop{\overline {\hbox{$#1\m@th\operator@font lim$}}}} \def\stackunder#1#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits_{#1}}} \begingroup \catcode `|=0 \catcode `[= 1 \catcode`]=2 \catcode `\{=12 \catcode `\}=12 \catcode`\\=12 |gdef|@alignverbatim#1\end{align}[#1|end[align]] |gdef|@salignverbatim#1\end{align*}[#1|end[align*]] |gdef|@alignatverbatim#1\end{alignat}[#1|end[alignat]] |gdef|@salignatverbatim#1\end{alignat*}[#1|end[alignat*]] |gdef|@xalignatverbatim#1\end{xalignat}[#1|end[xalignat]] |gdef|@sxalignatverbatim#1\end{xalignat*}[#1|end[xalignat*]] |gdef|@gatherverbatim#1\end{gather}[#1|end[gather]] |gdef|@sgatherverbatim#1\end{gather*}[#1|end[gather*]] |gdef|@gatherverbatim#1\end{gather}[#1|end[gather]] |gdef|@sgatherverbatim#1\end{gather*}[#1|end[gather*]] |gdef|@multilineverbatim#1\end{multiline}[#1|end[multiline]] |gdef|@smultilineverbatim#1\end{multiline*}[#1|end[multiline*]] |gdef|@arraxverbatim#1\end{arrax}[#1|end[arrax]] |gdef|@sarraxverbatim#1\end{arrax*}[#1|end[arrax*]] |gdef|@tabulaxverbatim#1\end{tabulax}[#1|end[tabulax]] |gdef|@stabulaxverbatim#1\end{tabulax*}[#1|end[tabulax*]] |endgroup \def\align{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@alignverbatim You are using the "align" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \let\endalign=\endtrivlist \@namedef{align*}{\@verbatim\@salignverbatim You are using the "align*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \expandafter\let\csname endalign*\endcsname =\endtrivlist \def\alignat{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@alignatverbatim You are using the "alignat" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \let\endalignat=\endtrivlist \@namedef{alignat*}{\@verbatim\@salignatverbatim You are using the "alignat*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \expandafter\let\csname endalignat*\endcsname =\endtrivlist \def\xalignat{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@xalignatverbatim You are using the "xalignat" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \let\endxalignat=\endtrivlist \@namedef{xalignat*}{\@verbatim\@sxalignatverbatim You are using the "xalignat*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \expandafter\let\csname endxalignat*\endcsname =\endtrivlist \def\gather{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@gatherverbatim You are using the "gather" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \let\endgather=\endtrivlist \@namedef{gather*}{\@verbatim\@sgatherverbatim You are using the "gather*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \expandafter\let\csname endgather*\endcsname =\endtrivlist \def\multiline{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@multilineverbatim You are using the "multiline" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \let\endmultiline=\endtrivlist \@namedef{multiline*}{\@verbatim\@smultilineverbatim You are using the "multiline*" environment in a style in which it is not defined.} \expandafter\let\csname endmultiline*\endcsname =\endtrivlist \def\arrax{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@arraxverbatim You are using a type of "array" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.} \let\endarrax=\endtrivlist \def\tabulax{\@verbatim \frenchspacing\@vobeyspaces \@tabulaxverbatim You are using a type of "tabular" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.} \let\endtabulax=\endtrivlist \@namedef{arrax*}{\@verbatim\@sarraxverbatim You are using a type of "array*" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.} \expandafter\let\csname endarrax*\endcsname =\endtrivlist \@namedef{tabulax*}{\@verbatim\@stabulaxverbatim You are using a type of "tabular*" construct that is only allowed in AmS-LaTeX.} \expandafter\let\csname endtabulax*\endcsname =\endtrivlist \def\endequation{ \ifmmode\ifinner \iftag@ \addtocounter{equation}{-1} $\hfil \displaywidth\linewidth\@taggnum\egroup \endtrivlist \global\tag@false \global\@ignoretrue \else $\hfil \displaywidth\linewidth\@eqnnum\egroup \endtrivlist \global\tag@false \global\@ignoretrue \fi \else \iftag@ \addtocounter{equation}{-1} \eqno \hbox{\@taggnum} \global\tag@false $$\global\@ignoretrue \else \eqno \hbox{\@eqnnum} $$\global\@ignoretrue \fi \fi\fi } \newif\iftag@ \tag@false \def\TCItag{\@ifnextchar*{\@TCItagstar}{\@TCItag}} \def\@TCItag#1{ \global\tag@true \global\def\@taggnum{(#1)}} \def\@TCItagstar*#1{ \global\tag@true \global\def\@taggnum{#1}} \@ifundefined{tag}{ \def\tag{\@ifnextchar*{\@tagstar}{\@tag}} \def\@tag#1{ \global\tag@true \global\def\@taggnum{(#1)}} \def\@tagstar*#1{ \global\tag@true \global\def\@taggnum{#1}} }{} \makeatother \endinput
|
0704.0075
|
Title: Strong decays of charmed baryons
Abstract: There has been important experimental progress in the sector of heavy baryons
in the past several years. We study the strong decays of the S-wave, P-wave,
D-wave and radially excited charmed baryons using the $^3P_0$ model. After
comparing the calculated decay pattern and total width with the available data,
we discuss the possible internal structure and quantum numbers of those charmed
baryons observed recently.
Body: \title{Strong decays of charmed baryons} \author{Chong Chen} \author{Xiao-Lin Chen} \author{Xiang Liu} \email{xiangliu@pku.edu.cn} \author{Wei-Zhen Deng} \author{Shi-Lin Zhu} \email{zhusl@phy.pku.edu.cn} \affiliation{Department of physics, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China} \vspace*{1.0cm} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} There has been important experimental progress in the sector of heavy baryons in the past several years. We study the strong decays of the S-wave, P-wave, D-wave and radially excited charmed baryons using the $^3P_0$ model. After comparing the calculated decay pattern and total width with the available data, we discuss the possible internal structure and quantum numbers of those charmed baryons observed recently. \end{abstract} \pacs{13.30.Eg, 12.39.Jh} \maketitle \section{Introduction} Babar and Belle collaborations observed several excited charmed baryons: $\Lambda_{c}(2880,2940)^+$, $\Xi_c(2980,3077)^{+,0}$ and $\Omega_{c}(2768)^0$ last year , which inspired several investigations of these states in literature . We collect the experimental information of these recently observed hadrons in Table \ref{charmed baryon}. Their quantum numbers have not been determined except $\Lambda_{c}(2880)^+$. In order to understand their structures using the present experimental information, we study the strong decay pattern of the excited charmed baryons systematically in this work. In the past decades, there has been some research work on heavy baryons . The quantum numbers and decay widths of S-wave and some P-wave charmed baryons are known . We first systematically analyze their strong decays in the framework of the $^{3}P_{0}$ strong decay model. Accordingly one can extract the parameters and estimate the accuracy of the $^{3}P_{0}$ model when it's applied in the charmed baryon system. Then we go one step further and extend the same formalism to study the decay patterns of these new charmed baryons $\Lambda_{c}(2880,2940)^+$, $\Xi(2980,3077)^{+,0}$ under different assignments of their quantum numbers. After comparing the theoretical results with the available experimental data, we can learn their favorable quantum numbers and assignments in the quark model. \begin{widetext} \begin{center} \begin{table}[htb] \begin{tabular}{c||c|c|ccccccccc} \hline State&Mass and Width (MeV)&Decay channels in experiments& Other information\\\hline\hline&$2881.5\pm 0.3$, $<8$ &$\Lambda_{c}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$& \\\cline{2-3} &$2881.9\pm0.1\pm0.5$ , $5.8\pm1.5\pm1.1$ &$D^0 p$& \raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$J^{P}$ favors $\frac{5}{2}^+$ ,}\\\cline{2-3}\raisebox{3ex}[0pt]{$\Lambda_{c}(2880)^{+}$}&$2881.2\pm0.2^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$, $5.5^{+0.7}_{-0.5}\pm0.4$ &$\Sigma_{ c}^{\star 0,++}(2520)\pi^{+,-}$&\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$\frac{\Gamma(\Sigma_{ c}^{\star}(2520)\pi^{\pm})} {\Gamma(\Sigma_{c}(2455)\pi^{\pm})}=0.225\pm0.062\pm0.025$ } \\\hline\hline &$2939.\pm1.3\pm1.0$, $17.5\pm5.2\pm5.9$ &$D^0 p$&\\ \cline{2-3}\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$\Lambda_{c}(2940)^+$}&$2937.9\pm1.0^{+1.8}_{-0.4}$, $10\pm4\pm5$ &$\Sigma_{c}(2455)^{0,++}\pi^{+,-}$ &\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{-}\\\hline\hline &$2967.1\pm1.9\pm1.0$, $23.6\pm2.8\pm1.3$ &$\Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-} \pi^{+}$&\\\cline{2-3} \raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$\Xi_{c}(2980)^+$}&$2978.5\pm2.1\pm2.0$, $43.5\pm7.5\pm7.0$ &$\Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-} \pi^{+}$&\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{-}\\\hline\hline $\Xi_{c}(2980)^0$&$2977.1\pm8.8\pm3.5$, $43.5$ &$\Lambda_{c}^{+}K_{S}^{0} \pi^{-}$&-\\\hline\hline &$3076.4\pm0.7\pm0.3$, $6.2\pm1.6\pm0.5$ &$\Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-} \pi^{+}$&\\\cline{2-3} \raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$\Xi_{c}(3077)^+$}&$3076.7\pm0.9\pm0.5$, $6.2\pm1.2\pm0.8$ &$\Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-} \pi^{+}$&\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{-}\\\hline\hline $\Xi_{c}(3077)^0$&$3082.8\pm1.8\pm1.5$, $5.2\pm3.1\pm1.8$ &$\Lambda_{c}^{+}K_{S}^{0} \pi^{-}$&-\\\hline\hline $\Omega_{c}(2768)^{0}$&$2768.3\pm 3.0$ &$\Omega_{c}^{0}\gamma$&$J^{P}=\frac{3}{2}^{+}$\\\hline \end{tabular} \caption{A summary of recently observed charmed baryons by Babar and Belle collaborations. } \end{table} \end{center} \end{widetext} Very recently CDF collaboration reported four particles , which are consistent with $\Sigma_{b}^{\pm}$ and $\Sigma_{b}^{*\pm}$ predicted in the quark model . Their masses are $ M_{\Sigma_{b}^{+}}=5808^{+2.0}_{-2.3}\pm1.7\; {\rm MeV}$, $ M_{\Sigma_{b}^{-}}=5816^{+1.0}_{-1.0}\pm1.7 {\rm MeV}$, $ M_{\Sigma_{b}^{*+}}=5829^{+1.6}_{-1.8}\pm1.7$, $ M_{\Sigma_{b}^{*-}}=5837^{+2.1}_{-1.9}\pm1.7 {\rm MeV}$. The mass splitting between $\Sigma_{b}$ and $\Sigma_{b}^{*}$ was discussed in Refs. while the strong decays of $\Sigma_{b}^{\pm(*)}$ were studied in Ref. . As a byproduct, we also calculate the strong decays of $\Sigma_{b}^{(*)\pm}$ and other S-wave bottom baryons in this work. This paper is organized as follows. We give a short theoretical review of S-wave, P-wave and D-wave charmed baryons and introduce our notations for them in Section . Then we give a brief review of $^{3}P_{0}$ model in Section . We present the strong decay amplitudes of charmed baryons in Section . Section is the numerical results. The last section is our discussion and conclusion. Some lengthy formulae are collected in the Appendix. \section{The notations and conventions of charmed baryon} We first introduce our notations for the excited charmed baryons. Inside a charmed baryon there are one charm quark and two light quarks ($u$, $d$ or $s$). It belongs to either the symmetric $6_F$ or antisymmetric $\bar{3}_F$ flavor representation (see Fig. ). For the S-wave charmed baryons, the total color-flavor-spin wave function and color wave function must be symmetric and antisymmetric respectively. Hence the spin of the two light quarks is S=1 for $6_F$ or S=0 for $\bar{3}_F$. The angular momentum and parity of the S-wave charmed baryons are $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^+$ or $\frac{3}{2}^{+}$ for $6_F$ and $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{+}$ for $\bar{3}_F$. The names of S-wave charmed baryons are listed in Fig. , where we use the star to denote $\frac{3}{2}^{+}$ baryons and the prime to denote the $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^{+}$ baryons in the ${6}_F$ representation. In Fig. we introduce our notations and conventions for the P-wave charmed baryons. $l_{\rho}$ is the orbital angular momentum between the two light quarks while $l_{\lambda}$ denotes the orbital angular momentum between the charm quark and the two light quark system. We use the prime to label the $\Xi_{cJ_{l}}$ baryons in the $6_F$ representation and the tilde to discriminate the baryons with $l_{\rho}=1$ from that with $l_{\lambda}=1$. The notation for D-wave charmed baryons is more complicated (see Fig. ). Besides the prime, $l_{\rho}$ and $l_{\lambda}$ defined above, we use the hat and check to denote the charmed baryons with $l_{\rho}=2$ and $l_{\rho}=1$ respectively. For the baryons with $l_{\rho}=1$ and $l_{\lambda}=1$, we use the superscript $L$ to denote the different total angular momentum in $\check{\Lambda}_{cJ_{l}}^{L}$, $\check{\Sigma}_{cJ_{l}}^{L}$ and $\check{\Xi}_{cJ_{l}}^{L}$. \begin{center} \end{center} \section{The $^3P_{0}$ model} The $^{3}P_{0}$ model was first proposed by Micu and further developed by Yaouanc et al. later . Now this model is widely used to study the strong decays of hadrons . According to this model, a pair of quarks with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ is created from the vacuum when a hadron decays, which is shown in Fig. for the baryon decay process $A\to B+C$. The new $q\bar{q}$ pair created from the vacuum together with the $qqq$ within the the initial baryon regroup into the outgoing meson and baryon via the quark rearrangement process. In the non-relativistic limit, the transition operator is written as \begin{eqnarray} T &=& - 3 \gamma \sum_m\: \langle 1\;m;1\;-m|0\;0 \rangle\, \int\!{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_4\; {\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_5 \delta^3({\textbf{k}}_4+{\textbf{k}}_5)\nonumber\\&&\times {\cal Y}^m_1\Big({{\textbf{k}}_4-{\textbf{k}_5}\over{2}}\Big)\; \chi^{4 5}_{1, -\!m}\; \varphi^{4 5}_0\;\, \omega^{4 5}_0\; b^\dagger_{4i}({\textbf{k}}_4)\; d^\dagger_{5j}({\textbf{k}}_5) \end{eqnarray} where $i$ and $j$ are the color indices of the created quark and anti-quark. $\varphi^{45}_{0}=(u\bar u +d\bar d +s \bar s)/\sqrt 3$ and $\omega_{0}^{45}=\delta_{ij}$ for the flavor and color singlet respectively. $\chi_{{1,-m}}^{45}$ is for the spin triplet state. $\mathcal{Y}_{1}^{m}(\mathbf{k})\equiv |\mathbf{k}|Y_{1}^{m}(\theta_{k},\phi_{k})$ is a solid harmonic polynomial corresponding to the p-wave quark pair. $\gamma$ is a dimensionless constant related to the strength of the quark pair creation from the vacuum, which was extracted by fitting to data. The hadron and meson state are defined as respectively according to the definition of mock state \begin{eqnarray} &&|A(n_A \mbox{}^{2S_A+1}L_A \,\mbox{}_{J_A M_{J_A}}) ({\textbf{P}}_A) \rangle \nonumber\\&=& \sqrt{2 E_A}\: \!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{M_{L_A},M_{S_A}}\!\!\! \langle L_A M_{L_A} S_A M_{S_A} | J_A M_{J_A} \rangle \nonumber\\ && \times \;\!\!\int\!{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_{1}{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_{2}{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_{3} \delta^3({\bf{k_{1}+k_{2}+k_{3}\!-\!P_A}})\nonumber\\&&\times\psi_{n_A L_A M_{L_A}}\!({\bf{k}}_{1},{\bf{k}}_{2},{\bf{k}}_{3}) \chi^{1 2 3}_{S_A M_{S_A}}\varphi^{1 2 3}_A\omega^{1 2 3}_A \nonumber\\&&\times|\;q_{1}({\textbf{k}}_{1}) {q}_{2}({\textbf{k}}_{2}){q}_{3}({\textbf{k}}_{3})\rangle,\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} &&|B(n_B \mbox{}^{2S_B+1}L_B \,\mbox{}_{J_B M_{J_B}}) ({\textbf{P}}_B) \rangle\nonumber\\ &=& \sqrt{2 E_B}\: \sum_{M_{L_B},M_{S_B}}\!\!\! \langle L_B M_{L_B} S_B M_{S_B} | J_B M_{J_B} \rangle \nonumber\\ && \times \;\!\!\int\!{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_a{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_b\delta^3({\bf{k_a+k_b\!-\!P_B}})\psi_{n_B L_B M_{L_B}}\!({\bf{k_a,k_b}})\nonumber\\&&\times\chi^{a b}_{S_B M_{S_B}}\varphi^{a b}_B\omega^{a b}_B |\;q_a({\textbf{k}}_a) \bar{q}_b({\textbf{k}}_b)\rangle \end{eqnarray} and satisfy the normalization condition \begin{eqnarray} \langle A({\textbf{P}}_A)|A({\textbf{P}}'_A) \rangle &=& 2E_A \delta^3({\textbf{P}}_A-{\textbf{P}}'_A),\nonumber\\ \langle B({\textbf{P}}_B)|B({\textbf{P}}'_B) \rangle &=& 2E_B \delta^3({\textbf{P}}_B-{\textbf{P}}'_B)\; . \end{eqnarray} The subscripts $1,\;2,\;3$ denote the quarks of parent hadron A. $a$ and $b$ refer to the quark and antiquark within the meson B respectively. ${\textbf{k}}_{i}(i=1,2,3)$ are the momentum of quarks in hadron A. ${\textbf{k}}_a$ and ${\textbf{k}}_b$ are the momentum of the quark and antiquark in meson B. ${\textbf{P}}_{A(B)}$ represents the momentum of state A(B). $S_{A(B)}$ and $J_{A(B)}$ denote the total spin and the total angular momentum of state A(B). The S-matrix is defined as \begin{eqnarray} \langle f|S|i\rangle&=&I-i2\pi \delta(E_f-E_i)\mathcal{M}^{M_{J_A} M_{J_B} M_{J_C}}\;. \end{eqnarray} The helicity amplitude of the process $A\rightarrow B+C$ in the center of mass frame of meson A is \begin{eqnarray} &&{\mathcal{M}}^{M_{J_A} M_{J_B} M_{J_C}}(A\rightarrow BC) \nonumber\\ &=&\sqrt{8 E_A E_B E_C}\;\;\gamma\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.5}\begin{array}[t]{l} \scriptstyle M_{L_A},M_{S_A},\\ \scriptstyle M_{L_B},M_{S_B},\\ \scriptstyle M_{L_C},M_{S_C},m \end{array}}\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \langle L_A M_{L_A} S_A M_{S_A} | J_A M_{J_A} \rangle \nonumber\\&&\times \langle L_B M_{L_B} S_B M_{S_B} | J_B M_{J_B} \rangle \langle L_C M_{L_C} S_C M_{S_C} | J_C M_{J_C} \rangle \nonumber\\ && \times \langle 1\;m;1\;-m|\;0\;0 \rangle\; \langle \chi^{235}_{S_C M_{S_C}}\chi^{1 4}_{S_B M_{S_B}} | \chi^{1 23}_{S_A M_{S_A}} \chi^{45}_{1 -\!m} \rangle \nonumber\\&&\times \langle\varphi^{235}_C \varphi^{1 4}_B | \varphi^{1 23}_A \varphi^{45}_0 \rangle \;I^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}({\textbf{p}}) \; \end{eqnarray} where the spatial integral $I^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}({\textbf{p}})$ is defined as \begin{eqnarray} &&I^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}({\textbf{p}})\nonumber\\&=&\; \int\!{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_1{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_2{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_3{\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_4 {\rm d}^3{\textbf{k}}_5 \delta^3({\bf{k_4+k_5}})\nonumber\\ &&\times\delta^3({\bf{k_1+k_2+k_{3}-P_{_A}}})\delta^3({\bf{k_1+k_4-P_{_B}}})\nonumber\\ &&\times\delta^3({\bf{k_2+k_3+k_{5}-P_{_C}}}) \nonumber\\ &&\times\psi^*_{n_B L_B M_{L_B}}\! ({\textbf{k}}_1,{\textbf{k}}_4)\psi^*_{n_C L_C M_{L_C}}\! ({\textbf{k}}_2,{\textbf{k}}_3,{\textbf{k}}_5)\;\nonumber\\&&\times \psi_{n_A L_A M_{L_A}}\! ({\textbf{k}}_1,{\textbf{k}}_2,{\textbf{k}}_3)\; {\cal Y}^m_1\big(\frac{{\bf{k_4-k_5}}}{2}\big). \end{eqnarray} $\langle \chi^{235}_{S_C M_{S_C}} \chi^{1 4}_{S_B M_{S_B}}| \chi^{1 23}_{S_A M_{S_A}} \chi^{45}_{1 -\!m} \rangle$ and $ \langle\varphi^{235}_C \varphi^{1 4}_B | \varphi^{1 23}_A \varphi^{45}_0 \rangle$ denote the spin and flavor matrix element respectively. The decay width of the process $A\to B+C$ is \begin{eqnarray*} \Gamma = \pi^2 \frac{{|\textbf{p}|}}{M_A^2}\frac{s}{2J_{A}+1}\sum_{M_{J_A},M_{J_B},M_{J_C}} \big|\mathcal{M}^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}}\big|^2, \end{eqnarray*} where $|\textbf{p}|$ is the momentum of the daughter baryon in the parent's center of mass frame. $s=1/(1+\delta_{BC})$ is a statistical factor which is needed if $B$ and $C$ are identical particles. \section{The strong decays of charmed baryon} According to the $^{3}P_{0}$ model, the decay occurs through the recombination of the five quarks from the initial charmed baryon and the created quark pair. So there are three ways of regrouping: \begin{eqnarray} &{\mathcal{A}}(q_1, q_2, c_3)+\mathcal{P}(q_4, \bar{q}_5)\rightarrow{\mathcal{B}}(q_2, q_4, c_3)+{\mathcal{C}}(q_1, \bar{q}_5),\\ &{\mathcal{A}}(q_1, q_2, c_3)+\mathcal{P}(q_4, \bar{q}_5)\rightarrow{\mathcal{B}}(q_1, q_4, c_3)+{\mathcal{C}}(q_2, \bar{q}_5),\\ &{\mathcal{A}}(q_1, q_2, c_3)+\mathcal{P}(q_4, \bar{q}_5)\rightarrow{\mathcal{B}}(q_1, q_2, q_4)+{\mathcal{C}}(c_3, \bar{q}_5) \end{eqnarray} where $q_{i}$ and $c_{3}$ denote the light quark and charm quark respectively. When the excited charmed baryon decays into a charmed baryon plus a light meson as shown in Eq. () and (), the total decay amplitude reads \begin{widetext} \begin{eqnarray} &&M^{M_{J_A}M_{J_B}M_{J_C}}\nonumber\\&&=-2\gamma \sqrt{8E_A E_B E_C}\sum_{M_{\rho_{A}}}\,\sum_{M_{L_A}}\,\sum_{M_{\rho_B}}\,\sum_{M_{L_B}}\,\sum_{m_1,m_3,m_4,m}\nonumber\\&&\times \langle \,J_{1 2}\,M_{1 2};\,s_3\,m_3|J_A\,M_{J_A}\rangle \langle l_{\rho A}m_{\rho A};\,l_{\lambda A}\,m_{\lambda A}|L_A\,M_{L_A}\rangle \langle L_A M_{L_A};\,S_{1\,2} m_{1\,2}|J_{1 2} M_{1 2}\rangle\nonumber\\&&\times \langle s_1 m_1;\,s_2\,m_2|S_{1\,2} m_{1\,2}\rangle\,\langle J_{1 4}\,M_{1 4};\,s_3\,m_3|J_B\,M_{J_B}\rangle \,\langle l_{\rho B}m_{\rho B};\,l_{\lambda B}m_{\lambda B}|L_B\,M_{L_B}\rangle\nonumber\\&&\times \langle L_B M_{L_B};\,S_{1\,4} m_{1\,4}|J_{1 4} M_{1 4}\rangle \langle s_1 m_1;\,s_4 m_4|S_{1\,4} m_{1\,4}\rangle \langle 1\,m;\, 1\, -m |0 0\rangle\,\langle s_4 m_4; s_5 m_5 |1\,-m \rangle\nonumber\\&&\times \langle L_C\, M_{L_C};\,S_C\,M_C|J_C\,M_{J_C} \rangle \langle s_2 m_2;\,s_5 m_5|S_C M_C\rangle \times \langle \phi^{1,4,3}_B \,\phi^{2,5}_C\,|\phi^{4,5}_0\,\phi^{1,2,3}_A\rangle\times I^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}({\mathbf{p}}), \end{eqnarray} \end{widetext} where the pre-factor 2 in front of $\gamma$ arises from the fact that the amplitude from the Eq. () is the same as that from Eq. (). The overlap integral in the momentum space is \begin{eqnarray} &&I^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}({{\mathbf{p}}})\nonumber\\&&=\delta^3({\mathbf{P}}_B-{\mathbf{P}}_C) \int {\rm d}^3 {\mathbf{p}}_1 {\rm d}^3 {\mathbf{p}}_2 \psi^{\ast}_B(l_{\rho B},m_{\rho B},l_{\lambda B},m_{\lambda B})\,\nonumber\\&&\times \psi^{\ast}_C (L_C\,M_{L_C})\,{\cal Y}^m_1\big(\frac{{\mathbf{p}}_4- {\mathbf{p}}_5}{2}\big) \psi_A(l_{\rho A},m_{\rho A},l_{\lambda A},m_{\lambda A}).\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} Since all hadrons in the final states are S-wave in this work, eq. () can be further expressed as \begin{eqnarray} &&I^{M_{L_A},m}_{M_{L_B},M_{L_C}}({{\mathbf{p}}})\nonumber\\ &&=\delta^3({\mathbf{P}}_B-{\mathbf{P}}_C)\Pi(l_{\rho A},m_{\rho A},l_{\lambda A},m_{\lambda A},m ), \end{eqnarray} where we have used the harmonic oscillator wave functions for both the meson and baryon. The expressions of $\Pi(l_{\rho A},m_{\rho A},l_{\lambda A},m_{\lambda A},m )$ for the decays of S-wave, P-wave and D-wave charmed baryons are collected in the Appendix. We also move the lengthy expressions of momentum space integration of S-wave, P-wave and D-wave charmed baryons to the Appendix. \section{Numerical results} The decay widths of charmed baryons from the $^3P_0$ model involve several parameters: the strength of quark pair creation from vacuum $\gamma$, the R value in the harmonic oscillator wave function of meson and the $\alpha_{\rho,\lambda}$ in the baryon wave functions. We follow the convention of Ref. and take $\gamma= 13.4$, which is considered as a universal parameter in the $^3P_0$ model. The R value of $\pi$ and $K$ mesons is $2.1$ GeV$^{-1}$ while it's $R=2.3$ GeV$^{-1}$ for the $D$ meson . $\alpha_{\rho}=\alpha_{\lambda}=0.5$ GeV for the proton and $\Lambda$ . For S-wave charmed baryons, the parameters $\alpha_{\rho}$ and $\alpha_{\lambda}$ in the harmonic oscillator wave functions can be fixed to reproduce the mass splitting through the contact term in the potential model . Their values are $\alpha_{\rho}=0.6$ GeV and $\alpha_{\lambda}=0.6$ GeV. For P-wave and D-wave charmed baryons, $\alpha_{\rho}$ and $\alpha_{\lambda}$ are expected to lie in the range $0.5\sim 0.7$ GeV. In the following, our numerical results are obtained with the typical values $\alpha_{\rho}=\alpha_{\lambda}=0.6$ GeV. The strong decay widths of the S-wave charmed baryons $\Sigma^{++,+,0}_{c}(2455)$, $\Sigma^{*++,+,0}_{c}(2520)$ and $\Xi^{*+,0}_c(2645)$ are listed in Table . Accordingly the decay widths of S-wave bottomed baryons are presented in Table . Because $\Xi_{b}$, $\Xi_{b}^{'}$ and $\Xi_{b}^{*}$ have not been observed so far, their masses are taken from the theoretical estimate in Ref. , which are $m_{\Xi_{b}}=5805.7$ MeV, $m_{\Xi_{b}^{'}}=5950$ MeV and $m_{\Xi_{b}^{*}}=5966.1$ MeV. The quantum number and internal structure of the following P-wave charmed baryons $\Lambda^{+}_{c}(2593)$, $\Lambda^{+}_{c}(2625)$, $\Xi_{c}^{+,0}(2790)$ and $\Xi_{c}^{+,0}(2815)$ are relatively known experimentally . Their strong decay modes and widths from the $^3P_0$ model are collected in Table . The quantum number of $\Sigma^{++}_{c}(2800)$ is still unknown . Thus under different P-wave assignments of $\Sigma^{++}_{c}(2800)$, we present the strong decay widths of its possible decay modes in Table . In the heavy quark limit, the process $\Sigma^{++}_{c}(2800)\to \Lambda_{c}^{+}\pi^{+}$ is forbidden if $\Sigma^{++}_{c}(2800)$ is assigned as $\Sigma_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{-})$, $\Sigma_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{-})$, $\tilde{\Sigma}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{-})$ and $\tilde\Sigma_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{-})$, which is observed in our calculation as can be seen from Table . $\Lambda_{c}(2880)^+$ and $\Lambda_{c}(2940)^+$ are observed in the invariant mass spectrum of $D^{0}p$ . The first radial excitation of $\Lambda_c$ does not decay into $D^{0}p$ from the $^3P_0$ model. Hence the possibility of $\Lambda_{c}(2880)^+$ and $\Lambda_{c}(2940)^+$ being a radial excitation is excluded. We calculate their strong decays assuming they are D-wave charmed baryons. The results are shown in Table and . With positive parity, $\Xi(2980)^{+,0}$ and $\Xi(3077)^{+,0}$ can be either the first radially excited charmed baryons or the D-wave charmed baryons. With different assumptions of their quantum numbers we present their strong decay widths in Table , and Fig. . The numerical results depend on the parameters $\alpha_{\rho}$ and $\alpha_{\lambda}$ in the harmonic oscillator wave functions of the charmed baryons. We illustrate such a dependence in Figs. , and using several typical decay channels: $\Sigma_{c}^{++}(2455)\to\Lambda_{c}^{+}\pi^{+}$, $\Lambda_{c}^{+}(2593)\to\Sigma_{c}^{++}(2455)\pi^{-}$ and $\Lambda_{c}^{+}(2880)\to\Sigma_{c}^{*++}(2520)\pi^{-}$, where $\Sigma_{c}^{++}(2455)$, $\Lambda_{c}^{+}(2593)$ and $\Lambda_{c}^{+}(2880)$ are S-wave, P-wave and D-wave baryons respectively. \begin{center} \end{center} \begin{center} \end{center} \begin{center} \end{center} \begin{table}[htb] \begin {center} \caption{The strong decay widths of S-wave charmed baryons $\Sigma^{++,+,0}_{c}(2455)$, $\Sigma^{*++,+,0}_{c}(2520)$ and $\Xi^{*+,0}_c(2645)$. Here all results are in units of MeV. }\vskip 0.3cm \begin{tabular}{c||ccc|c} \hline &\,\,\,$J^{P}$& \,\,\,Channel & \,\,Width &\,\, Total width (Exp) \\ \hline\hline $\Sigma^{++}_c(2455)$&$\frac{1}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^+_c\pi^+ $ & $1.24$&$2.23\pm0.30$\\ \hline $\Sigma^{+}_c(2455)$&$\frac{1}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^+_c\pi^0 $ & $1.40$&$<4.6$\\ \hline $\Sigma^0_c(2455)$&$\frac{1}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^+_c\pi^- $ & $1.24$&$2.2\pm0.40$\\ \hline \hline $\Sigma^{*++}_c(2520)$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^+_c\pi^+ $ & $11.9$&$14.9\pm1.9$\\ \hline $\Sigma^{*+}_c(2520)$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^+_c\pi^0 $ & $12.1$& $<17$\\ \hline $\Sigma^{*0}_c(2520)$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^+_c\pi^- $ & $11.9$&$16.1\pm2.1$\\ \hline \hline $\Xi^{*+}_c(2645)$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Xi^+_c\pi^0$&$0.64$&\\ \cline{1-4} $\Xi^{*+}_c(2645)$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Xi^0_c\pi^+$&$0.49$&\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$<3.1$}\\ \hline\hline $\Xi^{*0}_c(2645)$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Xi^+_c\pi^-$&$0.54$&\\ \cline{1-4} $\Xi^{*0}_c(2645)$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Xi^0_c\pi^0$&$0.54$&\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$<5.5$}\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \begin{table}[htb] \begin {center} \caption{The strong decay widths of S-wave bottom baryons $\Sigma_{b}$, $\Sigma^{*}_{b}$, $\Xi'_b$ and $\Xi^{*}_b$. Here all results are in units of MeV. }\vskip 0.3cm \begin{tabular}{c||ccc|c} \hline &\,\,\,$J^{P}$& \,\,\,Channel & \,\,Width &\,\, Experimental results \\ \hline\hline $\Sigma^{+}_b$&$\frac{1}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^0_b\pi^+ $ & $3.5 $&$ $\\ \cline{1-4} $\Sigma^-_b$&$\frac{1}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^0_b\pi^- $ & $ 4.7$&\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$\sim 8$}\\ \hline \hline $\Sigma^{*+}_b$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^0_b\pi^+ $ & $ 7.5$&$ $\\ \cline{1-4} $\Sigma^{*-}_b$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Lambda^0_b\pi^- $ & $ 9.2$&\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$\sim 15$}\\ \hline \hline $\Xi'_b$&$\frac{1}{2}^{+}$&$\Xi_b\pi$&$0.10 $&-\\ \cline{1-5} $\Xi^{*}_b$&$\frac{3}{2}^{+}$&$\Xi_b\pi$&$0.85$&-\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \begin {center} \begin{table}[htb] \caption{The decay widths of P-wave charmed baryons $\Lambda^{+}_{c}(2593,2625)$ and $\Xi_{c}^{+,0}(2790,2815)$ with the fixed structure and quantum number assignments. Here all results are in units of MeV. }\vskip 0.3cm \begin{tabular}{c||c|cc|c} \hline &Assignment& Channel & $\Gamma$ & $\Gamma_{Exp}$ \\ \hline &&$\Sigma^{++}_{c}\pi^- $ & $3.4$&$$\\ \cline{3-4} &&$\Sigma^{+}_{c}\pi^0 $ & $6.4$&$$\\ \cline{3-4} \raisebox{3ex}[0pt]{$\Lambda^+_c(2593)$}&\raisebox{3ex}[0pt] {$\Lambda_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{-})$}&$\Sigma^0_c\pi^+ $ & $3.4$&\raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{$3.6^{+2.0}_{-1.3}$}\\ \hline \hline &&$\Sigma^{++}_c\pi^- $ & $1.9\times10^{-3}$&$<0.10$\\ \cline{3-5} &&$\Sigma^{+}_c\pi^0 $ & $2.6\times10^{-3}$&$<1.9$\\ \cline{3-5} \raisebox{3ex}[0pt]{$\Lambda^+_c(2625)$}&\raisebox{3ex}[0pt]{$\Lambda_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{-})$}& $\Sigma^0_c\pi^+ $ & $1.9\times10^{-3}$&$<0.10$\\ \hline \hline &&$\Xi'^+_c\pi^0$&$5.0$&\\ \cline{3-4} \raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\Xi^+_c(2790)$}&\raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\Xi_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{-})$} &$\Xi'^0_c\pi^+$&$4.9$&\raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$<15$}\\ \hline &&$\Xi'^+_c\pi^-$&$5.2$&\\ \cline{3-4} \raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\Xi^0_c(2790)$}&\raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\Xi_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{-})$} &$\Xi'^0_c\pi^0$&$5.1$&\raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$<12$}\\ \hline \hline &&$\Xi^{\star+}_c\pi^0$&$2.7$&\\ \cline{3-4} \raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\Xi^+_c(2815)$} &\raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\Xi_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^-)$}&$\Xi^{\star0}_c\pi^+$&$2.6$ &\raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$<3.5$}\\ \hline &&$\Xi^{\star+}_c\pi^-$&$2.7$&\\ \cline{3-4} \raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\Xi^0_c(2815)$}&\raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt] {$\Xi_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^-)$}&$\Xi^{\star0}_c\pi^0$&$2.8$&\raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$<6.5$}\\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \end{center} \begin{table}[htb] \caption{The decay widths of $\Sigma^{++}_{c}(2800)$ in different P-wave charmed baryons assignments. $\mathcal{R}={\Sigma^{+,++}_{c} \pi^{+,0}}/{\Sigma^{\star+,++}_{c}\pi^{+,0}}$. The total width of $\Sigma^{++}_{c}(2800)$ is $75^{+22}_{-17}$ MeV . Here all results are in units of MeV. }\vskip 0.3cm \begin{tabular}{c||cccccccc}\hline Assignment & \,$\Lambda^{+}_{c} \pi^{+}$&\, $\Sigma^{+,++}_{c} \pi^{+,0}$&\, $\Sigma^{\star+,++}_{c}\pi^{+,0}$&\,$\mathcal{R}$\\\hline\hline $\Sigma_{c0}(\frac{1}{2}^{-})$&$307$&$0.0$&$ 0.0 $&- \\ $\Sigma_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{-})$&$ 0.0 $&$296 $&$ 0.4 $&740\\ $\Sigma_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{-})$ &$ 0.0 $&$ 0.7 $&$ 220 $&$3\times10^{-3}$\\ $\Sigma_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{-})$&$ 8.1 $&$ 1.3 $&$ 0.3 $ &4.3\\ $\Sigma_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{-})$ &$ 8.1 $&$ 0.6 $&$ 0.5 $&1.2\\ \hline $\tilde{\Sigma}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{-})$&$0.0 $&$ 75 $&$ 69 $&1.1\\ $\tilde{\Sigma}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{-})$&$ 0.0 $&$ 75 $&$ 69 $&1.1\\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \section{Discussion and conclusion} At present it is still too difficult to calculate the strong decay widths of hadrons from the first principles of QCD. For this purpose, some phenomenological strong decay models were proposed such as the $^{3}P_{0}$ model, flux tube model, QCD sum rule, lattice QCD etc, among which only the first two approaches can be applied to the strong decays of excited hadrons. To a large extent, the predictions from the $^{3}P_{0}$ and flux tube models roughly agree with each other. The $^{3}P_{0}$ model possesses inherent uncertainties . In certain cases, the result from the $^{3}P_{0}$ model may be a factor of $2\sim 3$ off the experimental width. The uncertainty source of the $^{3}P_{0}$ model arises from the strength of the quark pair creation from the vacuum $\gamma$, the approximation of non-relativity, and assuming the simple harmonic oscillator radial wave functions for the hadrons. Even with the above uncertainty, the $^{3}P_{0}$ model is still the most systematic, effective and widely used framework to study the hadron strong decays. In this work, we have calculated the strong decay widths of charmed baryons using the $^{3}P_{0}$ model. Our numerical results do not strongly depend on the parameters $\alpha_{\rho}$ and $\alpha_{\lambda}$ as shown in Figs. , and . Thus the following qualitative features and conclusions remain essentially unchanged with reasonable variations of $\alpha_{\rho}$ and $\alpha_{\lambda}$. Our results for the S-wave charmed baryons $\Sigma^{++,+,0}_{c}(2455)$, $\Sigma^{*++,+,0}_{c}(2520)$ and $\Xi^{*+,0}_c(2645)$ are roughly consistent with experimental data within the inherent uncertainty of the $^{3}P_{0}$ model. As a byproduct, we have also calculated the strong decays of $\Sigma_{b}^{\pm}$ and $\Sigma_{b}^{*\pm}$ observed by CDF Collaboration recently. The numerical results are consistent with the experimental values too. The decay width of P-wave baryon $\Lambda^{+}_{c}(2593)$ is three times larger than the experimental value. With the large experimental uncertainty and the inherent theoretical uncertainty of the the $^{3}P_{0}$ model, such a deviation is still acceptable. The decay widths of $\Lambda^{+}_{c}(2625)$ and $\Xi_{c}^{+,0}(2790,2815)$ are compatible with the experimental upper bound. By comparing our results with the experimental total width, we tend to exclude the $\Sigma_{c0}(\frac{1}{2}^{-})$ assignment for $\Sigma_{c}^{++}(2800)$. Since the $\Sigma_{c}^{++}(2800)$ is observed in $\Lambda_{c}^{+}\pi^{+}$ channel , there are only two assignments left for $\Sigma_{c}^{++}(2800)$, i.e. $\Sigma_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{-})$ or $\Sigma_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{-})$. More experimental information such as the ratio ${\Gamma [\Sigma_{c}^{++}(2800)\to \Sigma^{+,++}_{c} \pi^{+,0}]\over \Gamma [\Sigma_{c}^{++}(2800)\to \Sigma^{\star+,++}_{c}\pi^{+,0}]}$ will be helpful in the determination of the quantum number of $\Sigma_{c}^{++}(2800)$. We have also calculated the strong decay widths of newly observed $\Lambda_{c}(2880,2940)^+$, $\Xi(2980,3077)^{+,0}$ assuming they are candidates of D-wave charmed baryons. We find that the only possible assignment of $\Lambda_{c}(2880)^{+}$ is $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c3}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ after considering both its total decay width and the ratio ${\Gamma(\Sigma^{\star}_{c} \pi^{\pm})}/{\Gamma(\Sigma_{c} \pi^{\pm})}$, which agrees very well with the indication from Belle experiment that $\Lambda_{c}(2880)^{+}$ favors $J^{P}=\frac{5}{2}^{+}$ by the analysis of the angular distribution . Unfortunately the experiment information about the $\Lambda_{c}(2940)^+$, $\Xi(2980,3077)^{+,0}$ is scarce at present. From their calculated decay widths, we can only exclude some assignments which are marked with crosses in Tables , and . The decay width ratios of $\Lambda_{c}(2940)^+$, $\Xi(2980,3077)^{+,0}$ from the $^{3}P_{0}$ model will be useful in the identification of their quantum numbers in the future since the inherent uncertainty cancels largely. We have also discussed the strong decays of $\Xi(2980,3077)^{+,0}$ assuming they are radial excitations. Unfortunately the numerical results in Fig. depend quite strongly on the node of the spatial wave function which is related to the parameters of the harmonic oscillator wave functions as shown in Fig. . We are unable to make strong conclusions here. \section*{Appendix} \subsection{The harmonic oscillator wave functions used in our calculation} For the S-wave charmed baryon, \begin{eqnarray} \psi(0,0,0,0)=3^{3/4}\;(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\,(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\,\exp\Big[{-\frac{ {\mathbf{p}}^2_{\rho}}{2\alpha^2_{\rho}} -\frac{ {\mathbf{p}}^2_{\lambda}}{2\alpha^2_{\lambda}}}\Big].\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} For the P-wave charmed baryon, \begin{eqnarray} \psi(1,m,0,0)&=&-i\;3^{3/4}\,\Big(\frac{8}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\Big)^{{1}/{2}}\Big({1}/{ \alpha^2_{\rho}}\Big)^{ {5}/{4}}\,{\cal Y}^m_1({\mathbf{p}}_{\rho})\nonumber\\&&\times\Big(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}}\Big)^{{3}/{4}}\,\exp\Big[{-\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\rho}}{2\alpha^2_{\rho}} -\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\lambda}}{2\alpha^2_{\lambda}}}\Big],\\ \psi(0,0,1,m)&=&-i\;3^{3/4}\,\Big(\frac{8}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\Big)^{{1}/{2}}\Big(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\lambda}}\Big)^{{5}/{4}}\,{\cal Y}^m_1({\mathbf{p}}_{\lambda})\nonumber\\&&\times \Big(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}}\Big)^{{3}/{4}}\,\exp\Big[{-\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\rho}}{2\alpha^2_{\rho}} -\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\lambda}}{2\alpha^2_{\lambda}}}\Big]. \end{eqnarray} For the D-wave charmed baryon, \begin{eqnarray} \psi (2,m,0,0)&=&3^{3/4}\;\Big(\frac{16}{15\sqrt{\pi}}\Big)^{{1}/{2}}\Big(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\rho}}\Big)^{{7}/{4}}\,{\cal Y}^m_2({\mathbf{p}}_{\rho})\nonumber\\&&\times\Big(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}}\Big)^{{3}/{4}}\,\exp\Big[{-\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\rho}}{2\alpha^2_{\rho}} -\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\lambda}}{2\alpha^2_{\lambda}}}\Big],\\ \psi(0,0,2,m)&=&3^{3/4}\;\Big(\frac{16}{15\sqrt{\pi}}\Big)^{{1}/{2}}\Big(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\lambda}}\Big)^{{7}/{4}}\,{\cal Y}^m_2({\mathbf{p}}_{\lambda})\nonumber\\&&\times\Big(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}}\Big)^{{3}/{4}}\,\exp\Big[{-\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\rho}}{2\alpha^2_{\rho}} -\frac{ {\mathbf{p}}^2_{\lambda}}{2\alpha^2_{\lambda}}}\Big],\\ \psi(1,m,1,m')&=&-3^{3/4}\;\Big(\frac{8}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\Big)^{{1}/{2}}\Big(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\rho}}\Big)^{{5}/{4}}\,{\cal Y}^m_1( {\mathbf{p}}_{\rho})\nonumber\\&&\times\Big(\frac{8}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\Big)^{{1}/{2}}\Big(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\lambda}}\Big)^{{5}/{4}}{\cal Y}^{m'}_1({\mathbf{p}}_{\lambda})\nonumber\\&&\times \exp\Big[{-\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\rho}}{2\alpha^2_{\rho}} -\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\lambda}}{2\alpha^2_{\lambda}}}\Big]. \end{eqnarray} Here $\mathcal{Y}_{l}^{m}(\mathbf{p})$ is the solid harmonic polynomial. The ground state wave function of meson is \begin{eqnarray} \psi(0,0)=\Big(\frac{{R}^2}{\pi}\Big)^{{3}/{4}} \exp \Big[-\frac{R^2({\mathbf{p}}_2-{\mathbf{p}}_5)^2}{8}\Big]. \end{eqnarray} The the wave function of the first radially excited charmed baryon $\psi(n_\rho, n_\lambda)$ reads as \begin{eqnarray*} &&\psi(1,0)\nonumber\\&&=3^{3/4}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\;\Big(\frac{1}{\pi^{2} \alpha_{\rho}\alpha_{\lambda}}\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}} \Big[\frac{3}{2}-\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\rho}}{\alpha^{2}_{\rho}}\Big]\exp\Big[{-\frac{ {\mathbf{p}}^2_{\rho}}{2\alpha^2_{\rho}} -\frac{ {\mathbf{p}}^2_{\lambda}}{2\alpha^2_{\lambda}}}\Big],\\ &&\psi(0,1)\nonumber\\&&=3^{3/4}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\;\Big(\frac{1}{\pi^{2} \alpha_{\rho}\alpha_{\lambda}}\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}} \Big[\frac{3}{2}-\frac{{\mathbf{p}}^2_{\lambda}}{\alpha^{2}_{\lambda}}\Big]\exp\Big[{-\frac{ {\mathbf{p}}^2_{\rho}}{2\alpha^2_{\lambda}} -\frac{ {\mathbf{p}}^2_{\lambda}}{2\alpha^2_{\lambda}}}\Big], \end{eqnarray*} where $n_{\rho}$ and $n_{\lambda}$ denote the radial quantum number between the two light quarks and between heavy quark and the two light quarks respectively. Here ${\mathbf{p}}_{\rho}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}({\mathbf{p}}_1-{\mathbf{p}}_2)$ and $\mathbf{p}_{\lambda}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}(\mathbf{p}_1+\mathbf{p}_2-2\mathbf{p}_3)$ for the above expressions. All the above harmonic oscillator wave functions can be normalized as $\int d\mathbf{p}_{1}d \mathbf{p}_{2}d \mathbf{p}_{3}|\psi|^2=1$. \subsection{The momentum space integration} The momentum space integration $\Pi(l_{\rho A},m_{\rho A},l_{\lambda A},m_{\lambda A},m)$ includes: For the S-wave charmed baryon decay, \begin{eqnarray} \Pi(0,0,0,0,0)=\beta |\textbf{p}|\;\Delta_{0,0}. \end{eqnarray} For the P-wave charmed baryon decay, \begin{eqnarray*} \Pi(0,0,1,0,0)&=&\frac{1}{2f_1}\big[ f_2 \beta |\textbf{p}|^2-\zeta\big]\;\Delta_{0,1},\\ \Pi(0,0,1,1,-1)&=&\Pi(0,0,1,-1,1)=\frac{\zeta}{2f_1} \;\Delta_{0,1},\\ \nonumber\\ \Pi(1,0,0,0,0)&=&\Big[{\beta \varpi |\textbf{p}|^2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\lambda_1}+\frac{\lambda_2 \zeta}{4\lambda_1 f_1}\Big]\;\Delta_{1,0},\nonumber\\ \Pi(1,1,0,0,-1)&=&\Pi(1,-1,0,0,1)={\beta \varpi |\textbf{p}|^2}\;\Delta_{1,0}. \end{eqnarray*} For the D-wave charmed baryon decay, \begin{eqnarray*} \Pi(0,0,2,0,0)&=&-\frac{f_2}{f_1^2}\Big[\frac{ f_2}{2}\beta \,|\textbf{p}|^3+\zeta |\textbf{p}|\Big]\times\Delta_{0,2},\\ \Pi(0,0,2,1,-1)&=&\Pi(0,0,2,-1,1)=\frac{\sqrt{3}\zeta f_2}{2 f_1^2} |\textbf{p}| \Delta_{0,2},\\ \Pi(2,0,0,0,0)&=&-2\Big[(\beta \varpi^{2}|\textbf{p}|^{3}+\frac{1 }{\sqrt{2}\lambda_1}\varpi\,|\textbf{p}|\nonumber\\&&+\frac{\lambda_2 }{2\lambda_1 f_1}\zeta\,\varpi)\Big]\Delta_{2,0}, \\\Pi(2,1,0,0,-1)&=&\Pi(2,-1,0,0,1)\nonumber\\&=&\Big[(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\lambda_1}+\frac{\lambda_2 }{2\lambda_1 f_1}\zeta)\Big]\Delta_{2,0}, \\ \Pi(1,0,1,0,0)&=&\Big[\frac{f_2}{2 f_1}\beta \varpi |\textbf{p}|^3+\frac{1}{2 f_1}(\frac{\lambda_2 \zeta }{2\lambda_1} \beta+ \zeta \varpi\nonumber\\&&+\frac{\lambda_2 f_2}{4\lambda_1 f_1})|\textbf{p}|+\frac{f_2 }{4\sqrt{2}\lambda_1 f_1}|\textbf{p}|\Big]\Delta_{1,1},\\ \Pi(1,1,1,-1,0)&=&\Pi(1,-1,1,1,0)=\Big[\frac{ \lambda_2}{4\lambda_1 f_1}\beta |\textbf{p}|\Big]\Delta_{1,1},\\ \Pi(1,0,1,1,-1)&=&\Pi(1,0,1,-1,1)=\Big[\frac{1}{2 f_1}\varpi\,\zeta |\textbf{p}|\Big]\Delta_{1,1},\\ \Pi(1,1,1,0,-1)&=&\Pi(1,-1,1,0,1)\nonumber\\&=&\Big[(\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}\lambda_1} +\frac{\lambda_2}{4\lambda_1 f_1}\zeta)\times\frac{f_2}{2 f_1}|\textbf{p}|\Big]\Delta_{1,1}. \end{eqnarray*} For the strong decay of the radial excitation, the momentum space integrals denoted as $\Pi(n_{\rho}, n_{\lambda})$ are: \begin{eqnarray*} \Pi(0, 1)&=&\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\Big[-\frac{\beta f^2_2}{4\alpha^2_{\lambda}f^2_1}k^3+\frac{3\beta }{2}k-\frac{3\beta}{2f_1\alpha^2_{\lambda}}k\\&&+\frac{f_2\zeta}{2f^2_1\alpha^2_{\lambda}}k\Big]\Delta_{0,0},\\ \Pi(1,0)&=&\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\Big[\frac{1}{\alpha^2_{\rho}} (\beta\varpi^2k^3-\frac{3\beta\alpha^2_{\rho}}{2}k+\frac{3\beta}{2\lambda_1}k \\&&-\frac{\sqrt{2}\varpi}{2\lambda_1}k-\frac{\lambda_2\varpi\zeta}{3\lambda_1}k+\frac{\lambda^2_2}{4\lambda^2_1})\Big]\Delta_{0,0}. \end{eqnarray*} where \begin{eqnarray*} \lambda_1&=&\frac{1}{\alpha^2_{\rho}}+\frac{1}{4}R^2,\;\;\; \lambda_2=-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}R^2,\\ \lambda_3&=&\frac{1}{\alpha^2_{\lambda}}+\frac{1}{12}R^2,\;\;\; \lambda_4=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\alpha^2_{\rho}}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}R^2,\\ \lambda_5&=&-(\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}\alpha^2_{\lambda}}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}}R^2),\\ \lambda_6&=&\frac{1}{4\alpha^2_{\rho}}+\frac{1}{12\alpha^2_{\lambda}}+\frac{1}{8}R^2,\\ f_1&=&\lambda_3-\frac{\lambda_2^2}{4\lambda_1},\;\;\;f_2=\lambda_5-\frac{2\lambda_2\lambda_4}{4\lambda_1},\\ f_3&=&\lambda_6-\frac{\lambda_4^2}{4\lambda_1},\;\;\; \zeta=\frac{\lambda_2}{2\sqrt{2}\lambda_1}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}},\\ \varpi&=&\frac{\lambda_2 f_2}{4\lambda_1 f_1} -\frac{\lambda_4}{2\lambda_1},\\\beta&=&(1+\frac{\sqrt{3}\lambda_2f_2-2\sqrt{3} \lambda_4f_1+2\lambda_1f_2}{4\sqrt{6}\lambda_1f_1}),\\ \end{eqnarray*} and \begin{eqnarray*} \Delta_{0,0}&=&(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\,(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{R^2}{\pi})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{\pi^2}{\lambda_1f_1})^{\frac{3}{2}} \nonumber\\&&\times\exp\Big[-(f_3-\frac{f^2_2}{4f_1})|\textbf{p}|^2\Big]\nonumber\\&&\times\Big[-\sqrt{\frac{3}{4\pi}}(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\,(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\Big],\\ \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray*}\Delta_{0,1}&=&(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\,(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{R^2}{\pi})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{\pi^2}{\lambda_1f_1})^{\frac{3}{2}} \nonumber\\&&\exp\Big[-(f_3-\frac{f^2_2}{4f_1})|\textbf{p}|^2\Big]\nonumber\\&&\times\Big[\frac{3i}{4\pi}(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{8}{3\sqrt{\pi}})^{\frac{1}{2}}(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{5}{4}}\Big],\\ \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray*}\Delta_{1,0}&=&(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\,(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{R^2}{\pi})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{\pi^2}{\lambda_1f_1})^{\frac{3}{2}} \nonumber\\&&\exp\Big[-(f_3-\frac{f^2_2}{4f_1})|\textbf{p}|^2\Big]\nonumber\\&&\times\Big[\frac{3i}{4\pi}(\frac{8}{3\sqrt{\pi}})^{\frac{1}{2}}(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{5}{4}}(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\Big],\\ \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray*}\Delta_{0,2}&=&(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\,(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{R^2}{\pi})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{\pi^2}{\lambda_1f_1})^{\frac{3}{2}} \nonumber\\&&\exp\Big[-(f_3-\frac{f^2_2}{4f_1})|\textbf{p}|^2\Big]\nonumber\\&&\times\Big[\frac{\sqrt{15}}{8\pi}(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{16}{15\sqrt{\pi}})^{\frac{1}{2}}(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{7}{4}}\Big],\\ \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray*}\Delta_{2,0}&=&(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\,(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{R^2}{\pi})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{\pi^2}{\lambda_1f_1})^{\frac{3}{2}} \nonumber\\&&\exp\Big[-(f_3-\frac{f^2_2}{4f_1})|\textbf{p}|^2\Big]\nonumber\\&&\times\Big[\frac{\sqrt{15}}{8\pi}(\frac{16}{15\sqrt{\pi}})^{\frac{1}{2}}(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{7}{4}}(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\Big],\\ \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray*}\Delta_{1,1}&=&(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{3}{4}}\,(\frac{1}{\pi \alpha^2_{\lambda}})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{R^2}{\pi})^{\frac{3}{4}}(\frac{\pi^2}{\lambda_1f_1})^{\frac{3}{2}} \nonumber\\&&\exp\Big[-(f_3-\frac{f^2_2}{4f_1})|\textbf{p}|^2\Big]\nonumber\\&&\times\Big[-(\frac{3}{4\pi})^{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{8}{3\sqrt{\pi}}(\frac{1}{ \alpha^2_{\lambda}\alpha^2_{\rho}})^{\frac{5}{4}}\Big]. \end{eqnarray*} In the above expressions, $|\textbf{p}|$ reads as $$|\textbf{p}|=\frac{\sqrt{(m^2_A-(m_B+m_C)^2)(m^2_A-(m_B-m_C)^2)}}{2\,m_A}.$$ \vfill \section*{Acknowledgments} C.C. thanks W.J. Fu for the help in the numerical calculation and Y.R. Liu and B. Zhang for useful discussions. This project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 10421503 and 10625521, Chinese Ministry of Education and the China Postdoctoral Science foundation (No. 20060400376). \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{babar-2880}BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 98}, 012001 (2007). \bibitem{belle-2880}BELLE Collaboration, K. Abe et al., arXiv: hep-ex/0608043. \bibitem{babar-2980-3077}BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., arXiv: hep-ex/0607042. \bibitem{belle-2980-3077}BELLE Collaboration, R. Chistov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 162001 (2006). \bibitem{babar-omega}BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., arXiv: hep-ex/0608055. \bibitem{rosner}J.L. Rosner, arXiv: hep-ph/0612332; arXiv: hep-ph/0609195; arXiv: hep-ph/0606166. \bibitem{xiang}X.G. He, Xue-Qian Li, Xiang Liu and X.Q. Zeng, arXiv: hep-ph/0606015. \bibitem{cheng}H.Y. Cheng and C.K. Chua, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 75}, 014006 (2007). \bibitem{valcarce}H. Garcilazo, J. Vijande and A. Valcarce, arXiv: hep-ph/0703257. \bibitem{cleo-2880}CLEO Collaboration, M. Artuso et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 4479 (2001). \bibitem{charmed baryons}S. Tawfiq, P.J. O'Donnell, and J.G. K\"{o}rner, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 58}, 054010 (1998); M.A. Ivanov, J.G. K\"{o}rner, V.E. Lyubovitskij, and A.G. Rusetsky, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 60}, 094002 (1999); M.Q. Huang, Y.B. Dai, and C.S. Huang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 52}, 3986 (1995); ibid. {\bf D 55}, 7317(E) (1997); S.L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 61}, 114019 (2000). \bibitem{review}D. Pirjol and T.M. Yan, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 56}, 5483 (1997). \bibitem{PDG}W.M. Yao et al., Particle Data Group, J. Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006). \bibitem{CDF}CDF Collaboration, I.V.Gorelov, arXiv: hep-ex/0701056. \bibitem{CDF-1}I.V. Gorelov, arXiv: hep-ex/0701056. \bibitem{theory}E. Jenkins, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 54}, 4515 (1996); ibid. {\bf 55}, 10 (1997); M. Karlinear and H.J. Lipkin, arXiv: hep-ph/0307243; M. Karlinear and H.J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 575}, 249 (2003). \bibitem{rosner-1}J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 75}, 013009 (2007). \bibitem{lipkin}M. Karliner and H.J. Lipkin, arXiv: hep-ph/0611306. \bibitem{hwang}C.W. Hwang, arXiv: hep-ph/0611221. \bibitem{Micu} L. Micu, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B10}, 521 (1969). \bibitem{yaouanc}A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P\`{e}ne and J. Raynal, Phys. Rev. {\bf D8}, 2223 (1973); {\bf D9}, 1415 (1974); {\bf D11}, 1272 (1975); Phys. lett. {\bf B71}, 57 (1977); {\bf B71}, 397 (1977). \bibitem{yaouanc-1}A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P\`{e}ne and J. Raynal, Phys. Lett. {\bf B72}, 57 (1977). \bibitem{yaouanc-book} A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P\`{e}ne and J. Raynal, {\it Hadron Transitions in the Quark Model}, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York, 1987. \bibitem{qpc-1} H.G. Blundell and S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53}, 3700 (1996). \bibitem{qpc-2}P.R. Page, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B446}, 189 (1995); S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. {\bf D34}, 2809 (1986). \bibitem{qpc-90}S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49}, 4570 (1994). \bibitem{ackleh}E.S. Ackleh, T. Barnes and E.S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 6811 (1996). \bibitem{Zou}H.Q. Zhou, R.G. Ping and B.S. Zou, Phys. Lett. {\bf B611}, 123 (2005). \bibitem{liu}X.H. Guo, H.W. Ke, X.Q. Li, X. Liu and S.M. Zhao, arXiv: hep-ph/0510146. \bibitem{lujie}J. Lu, W.Z. Deng, X.L. Chen and S.L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 73} 054012, (2006); B. Zhang, X. Liu and S.L. Zhu, DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0221-y, arXiv: hep-ph/0609013. \bibitem{baryon-decay}S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 47}, 1994 (1993). \bibitem{mockmeson} C. Hayne and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 25}, 1944 (1982). \bibitem{potential}S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 34}, 2809 (1986). \bibitem{Godfrey}H. G. Blundell, S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 53}, 3700 (1996). \bibitem{parameter-2}F.E. Close and E.S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 72}, 094004 (2005). \bibitem{E.Jenkins}E. Jenkins, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 54}, 4515 (1996). \bibitem{belle-2800}Belle Collaboration, R. Mizuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 122002 (2005). \end{thebibliography} \begin{widetext} \begin{center} \begin{table} \caption{The decay widths of $\Lambda^{+}_{c}(2880)$ with different D-wave assignments. All results are in units of MeV.} \vskip 0.3cm \begin{tabular}{c||ccccccccccc} \hline Assignment & \,\,$\Sigma^{0,+,++}_{c} \pi^{+,0,-}$ \,\,\,\,\,& $\Sigma^{\star0,+,++}_{c} \pi^{+,0,-}$\,\,\,\,\, &$\frac{\Gamma(\Sigma^{\star}_{c} \pi^{\pm})}{\Gamma(\Sigma_{c} \pi^{\pm})}$\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, &$D^{0}p$\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,&Remark\\ \hline \hline $\Lambda_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$7.8$&$0.9$&$ 0.11$&$0.0$&$\times$ \\ $\Lambda_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$0.06$&$5.34$&$89 $&$0.0$&$\times$\\ \hline $\hat{\Lambda}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$78.3$&$59.1$&$0.75 $&$0.0$&$\times $\\ $\hat{\Lambda}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$78.3$&$59.1$&$0.75 $&$0.0 $&$\times $\\ \hline $\check{\Lambda}^{0}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$0.9$&$2.3$&$2.6 $&$ 2.3$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{0}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$ 0.22$&$6.0$&$ 27$&$ 2.3$&$\times $\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c0}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$132$&$ 144$&$ 1.1$&$ 0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$ 66.3$&$ 18.0$&$ 0.27$&$150 $&$\times $\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$16.5$&$ 45.0$&$ 2.7$&$ 150$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$ 82.8$&$ 9.0$&$ 0.10$&$0.0 $&$\times $\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$ 0.0$&$ 54.1$&$-$&$0.0 $&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$ 25.7$&$8.1$&$0.32 $&$64 $&$\times $\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$ 6.5$&$20.4$&$ 3.1$&$ 64$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$ 57.9$&$14.2$&$ 0.24$&$0.0$&$\times $\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$ 9.4$&$ 47.1$&$ 5.0$&$0.0$&$\times $\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c3}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$ 10.8$&$5.5$&$ 0.51$&$12$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c3}(\frac{7}{2}^{+})$&$ 6.1$&$ 7.4$&$ 1.2$&$12$&$\times $\\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{table} \caption{The decay widths of $\Lambda^{+}_{c}(2940)$ with different D-wave assignments. Here all results are in units of MeV. }\vskip 0.3cm \begin{tabular}{c||ccccccccccc} \hline Assignment & \,\,$\Sigma^{0,+,++}_{c} \pi^{+,0,-}$ \,\,\,\,\,& \;\;\;$\Sigma^{\star0,+,++}_{c} \pi^{+,0,-}$\,\,\,\,\, \,\,&$\frac{\Gamma(\Sigma^{\star}_{c} \pi^{\pm})}{\Gamma(\Sigma_{c} \pi^{\pm})}$\,\,\,\,\,\,&$D^{0}p$\,\,\,\,\,\,&Remark \\\hline \hline $\Lambda_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$11.7$&$9.1$&$0.77$&$0.0 $&$\times$\\ $\Lambda_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$0.2$&$9.1$&$46$&$ 0.0$&$\times$\\ \hline $\hat{\Lambda}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$170$ & $150$&$0.88$&$0.0 $&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Lambda}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$170$ & $150$&$0.88$&$0.0 $&$\times$\\ \hline $\check{\Lambda}^{0}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$2.2$ & $0.5$&$0.23$&$11 $&$$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{0}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$0.6 $ & $1.4$&$2.3$&$11 $&$$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c0}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$212$ & $ 259$&$1.2$&$0.0 $&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$106$ & $ 32.4$&$0.31$&$340 $&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$26.5$& $81.0$&$3.1$&$340 $&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$142$ & $16.2$&$0.11$&$0.0 $&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{1}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$ 0.0 $ & $97.0$&$-$&$0.0 $&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$34.5$ & $12.6$&$0.37$&$95$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$8.6 $ & $ 31.7$&$3.7$&$95$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$77.7$ & $ 27.7$&$0.36$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$19.5$ & $75.6$&$3.9$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c3}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$22.2$ & $12.9$&$0.58$&$49$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Lambda}^{2}_{c3}(\frac{7}{2}^{+})$&$12.4$ & $17.5$&$1.4$&$49$&$\times$\\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \end{center} \begin{center} \begin{table}[htb] \caption{The decay widths of $\Xi^{+}_{c}(2980)$ with different D-wave assignments. Here all results are in units of MeV. }\vskip 0.3cm \begin{tabular}{c||ccccccccccc} \hline Assignment & \,\,$\Xi^{0}_{c} \pi^{+}$&\,\,$\Xi'^{0}_{c} \pi^{+}$ & \,\,$\Xi^{\star0}_{c} \pi^{+}$&\,\,$\Sigma^{++}_{c}k^{-}$&\,\,\,$\Lambda^{+}_{c}\bar{k}^{0}$&Remark \\\hline\hline $\Xi_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $1.1$ &$0.11$ &$0.37$ &$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\Xi_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $0.12\times10^{-2}$ &$0.67$ &$0.11\times10^{-3}$ &$0.0$&$\times$\\ \\ $\Xi'_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$4.4$& $0.72$ &$0.18$ &$0.25$ &$5.3$&$$\\ $\Xi'_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$4.4$& $0.18$ &$0.46$ &$0.062$ &$5.3$&$$\\ $\Xi'_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $0.16$ &$0.17$ &$0.56$ &$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\Xi'_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $0.47\times10^{-2}$ &$1.0$ &$0.71\times10^{-4}$ &$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\Xi'_{c3}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$0.054$&$0.53\times10^{-2}$&$0.14\times10^{-2}$& $0.82\times10^{-4}$ &$0.053$&$\times$\\ $\Xi'_{c3}(\frac{7}{2}^{+})$&$0.054$& $0.30\times10^{-2}$ &$0.19\times10^{-2}$ &$0.46\times10^{-4}$ &$0.053$&$\times$\\ \hline $\hat{\Xi}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $9.5$ &$6.1$ &$0.61$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\hat{\Xi}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $9.5$ &$6.1$ &$0.61$ &$0.0$&$$\\ \\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$74$& $6.3$ &$1.0$ &$0.40$ &$78$&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$74$& $1.6$ &$2.5$ &$0.10$ &$78$&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $14$ &$4.5$ &$0.91$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $6.3$ &$7.1$ &$0.40$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c3}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$48$& $7.2$ &$2.9$ &$0.46$ &$50$&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c3}(\frac{7}{2}^{+})$ &$48$& $4.1$ &$3.9$ &$0.26$ &$50$&$\times$\\ \hline $\check{\Xi'}^{0}_{c0}(\frac{1}{2}^{+}) $&$0.0$& $0.30$ &$1.4$ &$1.3$ &$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{0}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$1.0$& $0.40$ &$0.46$ &$1.7$ &$0.46$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{0}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$1.0$& $0.10$ &$1.2$ &$0.43$ &$0.46$&$\times$\\ \\ $\check{\Xi'}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$0.0$& $18$ &$4.4$ &$5.5$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi'}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$0.0$& $4.5$ &$11$ &$1.4$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c0}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $18$ &$18$ &$5.5$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$62$& $9.1$ &$2.2$ &$2.8$ &$72$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$62$& $2.3$ &$5.5$ &$0.69$ &$72$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $11$ &$1.1$ &$0.34$ &$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$&$0.0$ &$6.6$ &$0.0$ &$0.0$&$\times$\\ \\ $\check{\Xi'}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$0.0$& $5.6$ &$1.8$ &$2.4$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi'}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$0.0$& $1.7$ &$4.32$ &$0.24$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$19$& $3.7$ &$1.1$ &$1.6$ &$23$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$19$& $0.93$ &$2.6$ &$0.40$ &$23$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $8.4$ &$1.7$ &$0.36$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $1.2$ &$6.0$ &$0.16$ &$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c3}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$8.1$& $1.3$ &$60$ &$0.19$ &$8.7$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c3}(\frac{7}{2}^{+})$ &$8.1$& $0.75$ &$0.81$ &$0.10$ &$8.7$&$$\\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \begin{table} \caption{The decay widths of $\Xi^{+}_{c}(3077)$ with different D-wave assignments. Here all results are in units of MeV. }\vskip 0.3cm \begin{tabular}{c||ccccccccccc} \hline Assignment & \,\,$\Xi^{0}_{c} \pi^{+}$&\,\,$\Xi'^{0}_{c} \pi^{+}$ & \,\,$\Xi^{\star0}_{c} \pi^{+}$&\,\,$\Sigma^{++}_{c}k^{-}$&\,\,$\Sigma^{++}_{c}k^{-}$&\,$\Lambda^{+}_{c}\bar{k}^{0}$ &\;\;\;$D^{+}\Lambda$&\;\;\; Remark\\\hline\hline $\Xi_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $2.1$ &$0.30$ &$0.73$ &$0.054$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$$\\ $\Xi_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $0.037$ &$1.7$ &$0.42\times10^{-2}$ &$0.32$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$$\\ \\ $\Xi'_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$7.0$& $1.4$ &$0.46$ &$0.49$ &$0.089$ &$4.4$&$3.2$&\\ $\Xi'_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$7.0$& $0.36$ &$1.1$ &$0.12$ &$0.22$ &$4.4$&$3.2$&\\ $\Xi'_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $3.2$ &$0.43$ &1.1$$ &$0.081$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$$\\ $\Xi'_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $0.025\times10^{-2}$ &$2.5$ &$0.28\times10^{-2}$ &$0.48$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\Xi'_{c3}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$0.19$&$0.029$&$0.012$ &$0.32\times10^{-2}$&$0.32\times10^{-3}$ &$0.12$&$0.026$&$\times$\\ $\Xi'_{c3}(\frac{7}{2}^{+})$&$0.19$&$0.016\times10^{-3}$ &$0.016$&$0.18\times10^{-2}$&$0.44\times10^{-3}$ &$0.12$&$0.026$&$\times$\\ \hline $\hat{\Xi}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $34$ &$29$ &$6.0$ &$2.0$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Xi}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $34$ &$29$ &$6.0$ &$2.0$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ \\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$201$& $23$ &$4.8$ &$4.0$ &$0.33$ &$130$&$38$&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$201$& $5.7$ &$12$ &$1.0$ &$0.83$ &$130$&$38$&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $51$ &$22$ &$8.9$ &$1.5$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $23$ &$34$ &$4.0$ &$2.3$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c3}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$129$& $26$ &$14$ &$4.5$ &$0.94$ &$84$&$25$&$\times$\\ $\hat{\Xi'}_{c3}(\frac{7}{2}^{+})$ &$129$& $15$ &$19$ &$2.6$ &$0.13$ &$84$&$25$&$\times$\\ \hline $\check{\Xi'}^{0}_{c0}(\frac{1}{2}^{+}) $&$0.0$& $0.69$ &$0.13$ &$0.29$ &$1.2$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{0}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$15$& $0.92$ &$0.044$ &$0.39$ &$0.38$ &$11$&$0.64\times10^{-3}$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{0}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$15$& $0.23$ &$0.11$ &$0.096$&$0.96$ &$11$&$0.64\times10^{-3}$&$\times$\\ \\ $\check{\Xi'}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$&$0.0$& $39$ &$12$ &$12$ &$0.21$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi'}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$0.0$& $9.9$ &$30$ &$3.0$ &$5.2$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c0}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $39$ &$47$ &$12$ &$8.3$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$110$& $20$ &$5.9$ &$6.1$ &$1.0$ &$69$&$42$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$110$& $5.0$ &$15$ &$1.5$ &$2.6$ &$69$&$42$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $25$ &$3.0$ &$7.6$ &$0.52$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{1}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $0.0$ &$18$ &$0.0$ &$3.1$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ \\ $\check{\Xi'}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$&$0.0$& $9.2$ &$6.0$ &$3.9$ &$0.75$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi'}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$&$0.0$& $5.8$ &$10$ &$1.1$ &$2.1$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c1}(\frac{1}{2}^{+})$ &$22$& $6.1$ &$2.3$ &$2.6$ &$0.54$ &$14$&$15$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c1}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$22$& $1.5$ &$5.6$ &$0.64$ &$1.3$ &$14$&$15$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{3}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $14$ &$5.2$ &$5.8$ &$0.77$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c2}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$0.0$& $3.9$ &$14$ &$0.74$ &$3.0$ &$0.0$&$0.0$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c3}(\frac{5}{2}^{+})$ &$21$& $4.4$ &$2.5$ &$0.85$ &$0.23$ &$14$&$4.3$&$\times$\\ $\check{\Xi}^{2}_{c3}(\frac{7}{2}^{+})$ &$21$& $2.5$ &$3.4$ &$0.48$ &$0.31$ &$14$&$4.3$&$\times$\\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} \end{center} \end{widetext}
|
0704.0076
|
Title: CP violation in beauty decays
Abstract: Precision tests of the Kobayashi-Maskawa model of CP violation are discussed,
pointing out possible signatures for other sources of CP violation and for new
flavor-changing operators. The current status of the most accurate tests is
summarized.
Body: \markboth{M. Gronau} {CP violation in beauty decays} \catchline{}{}{}{}{} \title{CP VIOLATION IN BEAUTY DECAYS\footnote{Based partially on review talks given at recent conferences.}} \author{\footnotesize MICHAEL GRONAU} \address{Physics Department, Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology\\ 32000 Haifa, Israel\\ gronau@physics.technion.ac.il} \maketitle \begin{abstract} Precision tests of the Kobayashi-Maskawa model of CP violation are discussed, pointing out possible signatures for other sources of CP violation and for new flavor-changing operators. The current status of the most accurate tests is summarized. \keywords{CP violation; CKM; New Physics.} \end{abstract} \ccode{PACS Nos.: 13.25.Hw, 11.30.Er, 12.15.Ji, 14.40.Nd} \section{Introduction} It took thirty-seven years from the discovery of a tiny CP violating effect of order $10^{-3}$ in $K_L\to\pi^+\pi^-$~ to a first observation of a breakdown of CP symmetry outside the strange meson system. A large CP asymmetry of order one between rates of initial $B^0$ and $\bar B^0$ decays to $J/\psi K_S$ was measured in summer 2001 by the Babar and Belle Collaborations. A sizable however smaller asymmetry had been anticipated twenty years earlier\, in the framework of the Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM) model of CP violation, in the absence of crucial information on $b$ quark couplings. The asymmetry was observed in a time-dependent measurement as suggested, thanks to the long $B^0$ lifetime and the large $B^0$-$\bar B^0$ mixing. The measured asymmetry, fixing (in the standard phase convention) the sine of the phase $2\beta~(\equiv 2\phi_1) \equiv 2{\rm arg}(V_{tb}V^*_{td})$ of the top-quark dominated $B^0$-$\bar B^0$ mixing amplitude, was found to be in good agreement with other determinations of Cabibbo-Kobayasi-Maskawa (CKM) parameters, including a recent precise measurement of $B_s$-$\bar B_s$ mixing. This showed that the CKM phase $\gamma~(\equiv \phi_3) \equiv {\rm arg}(V^*_{ub})$, which seems to be unable to account for the observed cosmological baryon asymmetry, is the dominant source of CP violation in flavor-changing processes. With this confirmation the next pressing question became whether small contributions beyond the CKM framework occur in CP violating flavor-changing processes, and whether such effects can be observed in beauty decays. One way of answering this question is by over-constraining the CKM unitarity triangle through precise CP conserving measurements related to the lengths of the sides of the triangle. An alternative and more direct way, focusing on the origin of CP violation in the CKM framework, is to measure $\beta$ and $\gamma$ in a variety of $B$ decay modes. Different values obtained from asymmetries in several processes, or values different from those imposed by other constraints, could provide clues for new sources of CP violation and for new flavor-changing interactions. Such phases and interactions occur in the low energy effective Hamiltonian of extensions of the Standard Model (SM) including models based on supersymmetry. In this presentation we will focus on the latter approach based primarily on CP asymmetries, using also complementary information on hadronic $B$ decay rates which are expected to be related to each other in the CKM framework. In the next section we outline several of the most relevant processes and the theoretical tools applied for their studies, quoting numerous papers where these ideas have been originally proposed and where more details can be found. Sections 3, 4 and 5 describe a number of methods in some detail, summarizing at the end of each section the current experimental situation. Section 6 discusses several tests for NP effects, while Section 7 concludes. \section{Processes, methods and New Physics effects} Whereas testing the KM origin of CP violation in most hadronic $B$ decays requires separating strong and weak interaction effects, in a few ``golden modes" CP asymmetries are unaffected by strong interactions. For instance, the decay $B^0\to J/\psi K_S$ is dominated by a single tree-level quark transition $\bar b\to \bar c c \bar s$, up to a correction smaller than a fraction of a percent. Thus, the asymmetries measured in this process and in other decays dominated by $\bar b\to \bar c c \bar s$ have already provided a rather precise measurement of $\sin 2\beta$, \beq \sin 2\beta = 0.678 \pm 0.025~. \eeq This value permits two solutions for $\beta$ at $21.3^\circ$ and at $68.7^\circ$. Time-dependent angular studies of $B^0\to J/\psi K^{*0}$, and time-dependent Dalitz analyses of $B^0 \to Dh^0~(D\to K_S\pi^+\pi^-, h^0=\pi^0, \eta, \omega)$ measuring $\cos 2\beta > 0$ have excluded the second solution at a high confidence level, implying \beq \beta = (21.3 \pm 1.0)^\circ~. \eeq Since $B^0\to J/\psi K_S$ proceeds through a CKM-favored quark transition, contributions to the decay amplitude from physics at a higher scale are expected to be very small, potentially identifiable by a tiny direct asymmetry in this process or in $B^+\to J/\psi K^+$. Another process where the determination of a weak phase is not affected by strong interactions is $B^+\to DK^+$, proceeding through tree-level amplitudes $\bar b\to \bar c u \bar s$ and $\bar b\to \bar u c \bar s$. The interference of these two amplitudes, from $\bar D^0$ and $D^0$ which can always decay to a common hadronic final state, leads to decay rates and a CP asymmetry which measure very cleanly the relative phase $\gamma$ between these amplitudes. The trick here lies in recognizing the measurements which yield this fundamental CP-violating quantity. Physics beyond the SM is expected to have a negligible effect on this determination of $\gamma$ which relies on the interference of two tree amplitudes. $B$ decays into pairs of charmless mesons, such as $B\to \pi\pi$ (or $B\to \rho\rho$) and $B\to K\pi$ (or $B\to K^*\rho$), involve contributions of both tree and penguin amplitudes which carry different weak and strong phases. Contrary to the case of $B\to DK$, the determination of $\beta$ and $\gamma$ using CP asymmetries in charmless $B$ decays involves two correlated aspects which must be considered: its dependence on strong interaction dynamics and its sensitivity to potential New Physics (NP) effects. This sensitivity follows from the CKM and loop suppression of penguin amplitudes, implying that new heavy particles at the TeV mass range, replacing the $W$ boson and the top-quark in the penguin loop, may have sizable effects.. In order to claim evidence for physics beyond the SM from a determination of $\beta$ and $\gamma$ in these processes one must handle first the question of dynamics. There are two approaches for treating the dynamics of charmless hadronic $B$ decays: \medskip (1) Study systematically strong interaction effects in the framework of QCD. (2) Identify by symmetry observables which do not depend on QCD dynamics. \medskip The first approach faces the difficulty of having to treat precisely long distance effects of QCD including final state interactions. Remarkable theoretical progress has been made recently in proving a leading-order (in $1/m_b$) factorization formula for these amplitudes in a heavy quark effective theory approach to perturbative QCD. However, there remain differences between ways of treating in different approaches power counting, the scale of Wilson coefficients, end-point quark distribution functions of light mesons, and nonperturbative contributions from charm loops. Also, the nonperturbative input parameters in these calculations involve non-negligible uncertainties. These parameters include heavy-to-light form factors at small momentum transfer, light-cone distribution amplitudes, and the average inverse momentum fraction of the spectator quark in the $B$ meson. The resulting inaccuracies in calculating magnitudes and strong phases of amplitudes prohibit a precise determination of $\gamma$ from measured decay rates and CP asymmetries. Also, the calculated rates and asymmetries cannot provide a clear case for physics beyond the SM in cases where the results of a calculation deviate slightly from the measurements. In the second approach one applies isospin symmetry to obtain relations among several decay amplitudes. For instance, using the distinct behavior under isospin of tree and penguin operators contributing in $B\to\pi\pi$, a judicious choice of observables permits a determination of $\gamma$ or $\alpha~(\equiv \phi_2) = \pi-\beta - \gamma$.~ The same analysis applies in $B$ decays to pairs of longitudinally polarized $\rho$ mesons. In case that an observable related to the subdominant penguin amplitude is not measured with sufficient precision, it may be replaced in the analysis by a CKM-enhanced SU(3)-related observable, in which a large theoretical uncertainty is translated to a small error in $\gamma$. The precision of this method is increased by including contributions of higher order electroweak penguin amplitudes, which are related by isospin to tree amplitudes. With sufficient statistics one should also take into account isospin-breaking corrections of order $(m_d - m_u)/\Lambda_{\rm QCD} \sim 0.02$, and an effect caused by the $\rho$ meson width. A similar analysis proposed for extracting $\gamma$ in $B\to K\pi$~ requires using flavor SU(3) instead of isospin for relating electroweak penguin contributions and tree amplitudes. While flavor SU(3) is usually assumed to be broken by corrections of order $(m_s-m_d)/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\sim 0.3$, in this particular case a rather precise recipe for SU(3) breaking is provided by QCD factorization, reducing the theoretical uncertainty in $\gamma$ to only a few degrees. Charmless $B$ decays, which are sensitive to physics beyond the SM~, provide a rich laboratory for studying various signatures of NP. A large variety of theories have been studied in this context, including supersymmetric models, models involving tree-level flavor-changing $Z$ or $Z'$ couplings, models with anomalous three-gauge-boson couplings and other models involving an enhanced chromomagnetic dipole operator. The following effects have been studied and will be discussed in Section 6 in a model-independent manner: \vskip 1mm (1) Within the SM, the three values of $\gamma$ extracted from $B\to\pi\pi$, $B\to K\pi$ and $B^+\to DK^+$ are equal. As we will explain, these three values are expected to be different in extensions of the SM involving new low energy four-fermion operators behaving as $\Delta I=3/2$ in $B\to\pi\pi$ and as $\Delta I = 1$ in $B\to K\pi$. \vskip 1mm (2) Other signatures of anomalously large $\Delta I = 1$ operators contributing to $B\to K\pi$ are violations of isospin sum rules, holding in the SM for both decay rates and CP asymmetries in these decays. \vskip 1mm (3) Time-dependent asymmetries in $B^0 \to \pi^0K_S$, $B^0\to \phi K_S$ and $B^0\to \eta'K_S$ and in other $b\to s$ penguin-dominated decays may differ substantially from the asymmetry $\sin 2\beta\sin\Delta mt$, predicted approximately in the SM. Significant deviations are expected in models involving anomalous $|\Delta S|=1$ operators behaving as $\Delta I=0$ or $\Delta I=1$. \vskip 1mm (4) An interesting question, which may provide a clue to the underlying New Physics once deviations from SM predictions are observed, is how to diagnose the value of $\Delta I$ in NP operators contributing to $|\Delta S|=1$ charmless $B$ decays. We will discuss an answer to this question which has been proposed recently. \section{Determining $\gamma$ in $B\to DK$} In this section we will discuss in some length a rather rich and very precise method for determining $\gamma$ in processes of the form $B\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)}$, which uses both charged and neutral $B$ mesons and a large variety of final states. It is based on a broad idea that any coherent admixture of a state involving a $\bar D^0$ from $\bar b\to \bar cu \bar s$ and a state with $D^0$ from $\bar b \to \bar uc\bar s$ can decay to a common final state. The interference between the two channels, $B\to D^{(*)0}K^{(*)},~D^0\to f_D$ and $B\to \bar D^{(*)0}K^{(*)},~\bar D^0\to f_D$, involves the weak phase difference $\gamma$, which may be determined with a high theoretical precision using a suitable choice of measurements. Effects of $D^0$-$\bar D^0$ mixing are negligible. While some of these processes are statistically limited, combining them together is expected to reduce the experimental error in $\gamma$. In addition to (quasi) two-body $B$ decays, the $D$ or $D^*$ in the final state may be accompanied by any multi-body final state with quantum numbers of a kaon. Each process in this large class of neutral and charged $B$ decays is characterized by two pairs of parameters, describing complex ratios of amplitudes for $D^0$ and $\bar D^0$ for the two steps of the decay chain (we use a convention $r_B, r_f \ge 0, 0\le \delta_B, \delta_f < 2\pi$), \beq \frac{A(B\to D^{(*)0}K^{(*)})}{A(B\to \bar D^{(*)0}K^{(*)})} = r_Be^{i(\delta_B +\gamma)}~, ~~~~\frac{A(D^0\to f_D)}{A(\bar D^0\to f_D)} = r_fe^{i\delta_f}~. \eeq In three-body decays of $B$ and $D$ mesons, such as $B\to DK\pi$ and $D\to K\pi\pi$, the two pairs of parameters $(r_B,\delta_B)$ and $(r_f,\delta_f)$ are actually functions of two corresponding Dalitz variables describing the kinematics of the above three-body decays. The sensitivity of determining $\gamma$ depends on $r_B$ and $r_f$ because this determination relies on an interference of $D^0$ and $\bar D^0$ amplitudes. For $D$ decay modes with $r_f\sim 1$ (see discussion below) the sensitivity increases with the magnitude of $r_B$. For each of the eight sub-classes of processes, $B^{+,0}\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)+,0}$, one may study a variety of final states in neutral $D$ decays. The states $f_D$ may be divided into four families, distinguished qualitatively by their parameters $(r_f,\delta_f)$ defined in Eq.~(): \medskip (1) $f_D=$ CP-eigenstate ($K^+K^-, K_S\pi^0, {\rm etc.}); r_f =1, \delta_f =0,\pi$. (2) $f_D=$ flavorless but non-CP state ($K^+K^{*-}, K^{*+}K^-, {\rm etc.}); r_f ={\cal O}(1)$. (3) $f_D=$ flavor state ($K^+\pi^-, K^+\pi^-\pi^0, {\rm etc.}); r_f \sim \tan^2\theta_c$. (4) $f_D=$ 3-body self-conjugate state ($K_S\pi^+\pi^-); r_f,\delta_f$ vary across the Dalitz\\ $~~~~~~~~~$ plane.\\ In the first family, CP-odd states occur in Cabibbo-favored $D^0$ and $\bar D^0$ decays, while CP-even states occur in singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays. The second family of states occurs in singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays, the third family occurs in Cabibbo-favored $\bar D^0$ decays and in doubly Cabibbo-suppressed $D^0$ decays, while the last state is formally a Cabibbo-favored mode for both $D^0$ and $\bar D^0$. \medskip The parameters $r_B$ and $\delta_B$ in $B\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)}$ depend on whether the $B$ meson is charged or neutral, and may differ for $K$ vs $K^*$, and for $D$ vs $D^*$, where a neutral $D^*$ can be observed in $D^*\to D\pi^0$ or $D^*\to D\gamma$. The ratio $r_B$ involves a CKM factor $|V_{ub}V_{cs}/V_{cb}V_{us}|\simeq 0.4$ in both $B^+$ and $B^0$ decays, and a color-suppression factor in $B^+$ decays, while in $B^0$ decays both $\bar b\to \bar cu \bar s$ and $\bar b \to \bar uc\bar s$ amplitudes are color-suppressed. A rough estimate of the color-suppression factor in these decays may be obtained from the color-suppression measured in corresponding CKM-favored decays, $B\to D\pi, D^*\pi, D\rho, D^*\rho$, where the suppression is found to be in the range $0.3-0.5$. Thus, one expects $r_B(B^0) \sim 0.4,~ r_B(B^+) = (0.3-0.5) r_B(B^0)$ in all the processes $B^{+,0}\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)+,0}$. We note that three-body $B^+$ decays, such as $B^+\to D^0 K^+\pi^0$, are not color-suppressed, making these processes advantageous by their potentially large value of $r_B$ which varies in phase space. The above comparison of $r_B(B^+)$ and $r_B(B^0)$ may be quantified more precisely by expressing the four ratios $r_B(B^0)/r_B(B^+)$ in $B\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)}$ in terms of reciprocal ratios of known magnitudes of amplitudes: \beq \frac{r_B(B^0\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)0})}{r_B(B^+\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)+})}\simeq \sqrt{\frac{\b(B^+\to \bar D^{(*)0}K^{(*)+})}{\b(B^0\to \bar D^{(*)0}K^{(*)0})}}~. \eeq This follows from an approximation, \beq A(B^0\to D^{(*)0}K^{(*)0}) \simeq A (B^+\to D^{(*)0}K^{(*)+})~, \eeq where the $B^0$ and $B^+$ processes are related to each other by replacing a spectator $d$ quark by a $u$ quark. While formally Eq.~() is not an isospin prediction, it may be obtained using an isospin triangle relation, \beq A(B^0\to D^{(*)0}K^{(*)0}) = A (B^+\to D^{(*)0}K^{(*)+}) + A(B^+\to D^{(*)+}K^{(*)0}), \eeq and neglecting the second amplitude on the right-hand-side which is ``pure annihilation". This amplitude is expected to be suppressed by a factor of four or five relative to the other two amplitudes appearing in () which are color-suppressed. Evidence for this kind of suppression is provided by corresponding ratios of CKM-favored amplitudes, $|A(B^0\to D^-_s K^+)/\sqrt{2}A(\bar D^0\pi^0)|=0.23 \pm 0.03, |A(B^0\to D^{*-}_s K^+)/\sqrt{2}A(\bar D^{*0}\pi^0)|<0.24$. Applying Eq.~() to measured branching ratios, one finds \beq \frac{r_B(B^0)}{r_B(B^+)} = \left\{ \begin{array}{cccc} ~~~B\to DK~~~& ~~B\to DK^*~~~& ~~B\to D^*K~~~ & ~~B \to D^*K^* \\ 2.9 \pm 0.4 & ~~3.7 \pm 0.3~~~~& ~~> 2.2~~~&~~ >3.0 \\ \end{array} \right. \eeq This agrees with values of $r_B(B^0)$ near 0.4 and $r_B(B^+)$ between 0.1 and 0.2. Note that in spite of the expected larger values of $r_B$ in $B^0$ decays, from the point of view of statistics alone (without considering the question of flavor tagging and the efficiency of detecting a $K_S$ in $B^0\to D^{(*)}K^0$), $B^+$ and $B^0$ decays may fare comparably when studying $\gamma$. This follows from () because the statistical error on $\gamma$ scales roughly as the inverse of the smallest of the two interfering amplitudes. We will now discuss the actual manner by which $\gamma$ can be determined using {\em separately} three of the above-mentioned families of final states $f_D$. We will mention advantages and disadvantages in each case. For illustration of the method we will consider $B^+\to f_DK^+$. We will also summarize the current status of these measurements in all eight decay modes $B^{+,0}\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)+,0}$. \subsection{$f_D=$ CP-eigenstates} One considers four observables consisting of two charge-averaged decay rates for even and odd CP states, normalized by the decay rate into a $D^0$ flavor state, \beq R_{{\rm CP}\pm} \equiv \frac{\Gamma(D_{{\rm CP}\pm} K^-) + \Gamma(D_{{\rm CP}\pm} K^+)}{\Gamma(D^0 K^-)}~, \eeq and two CP asymmetries for even and odd CP states, \beq A_{{\rm CP}\pm} \equiv \frac{\Gamma(D_{{\rm CP}\pm} K^-) - \Gamma(D_{{\rm CP}\pm} K^+)}{\Gamma(D_{{\rm CP}\pm} K^-) + \Gamma(D_{{\rm CP}\pm} K^+)}~. \eeq In order to avoid dependence of $R_{{\rm CP}\pm}$ on errors in $D^0$ and $D_{\rm CP}$ branching ratio measurements one uses a definition of $R_{{\rm CP}\pm}$ in terms of ratios of $B$ decay branching ratios into $DK$ and $D\pi$ final states. The four observables $R_{{\rm CP}\pm} $ and $A_{{\rm CP}\pm}$ provide three independent equations for $r_B, \delta_B$ and $\gamma$, \bea R_{{\rm CP}\pm} & = & 1 + r_B^2 \pm 2r_B\cos\delta_B\cos\gamma~,\\ A_{{\rm CP}\pm} & = & \pm 2r_B \sin\delta_B \sin\gamma/R_{{\rm CP}\pm}~. \eea While in principle this is the simplest and most precise method for extracting $\gamma$, up to a discrete ambiguity, in practice this method is sensitive to $r_B^2$, because $(R_{{\rm CP}+}+R_{{\rm CP}-})/2 = 1 +r_B^2$. This becomes very difficult for charged $B$ decays where one expects $r_B\sim 0.1-0.2$, but may be feasible for neutral $B$ decays where $r_B\sim 0.4$. An obvious signature for a non-zero value of $r_B$ would be observing a difference between $R_{{\rm CP}+}$ and $R_{{\rm CP}-}$ which is linear in this quantity. Studies of $B^+\to D_{\rm CP} K^+, B^+ \to D_{\rm CP}K^{*+}$ and $B^+\to D^*_{\rm CP}K^+$ have been carried out recently, each consisting of a few tens of events. A nonzero difference $R_{{\rm CP}+}-R_{{\rm CP}-}$ at $2.6$ standard deviations, measured in $B^+\to D_{\rm CP}K^{*+}$, is probably a statistical fluctuation. A larger difference is anticipated in $B^0\to D_{CP}K^{*0}$, as the value of $r_B$ in this process is expected to be three or four times larger than in $B^+\to DK^{*+}$. [See Eq. ().] Higher statistics is required for a measurement of $\gamma$ using this method. \subsection{$f_D=$ flavor state} Consider a flavor state $f_D$ in Cabibbo-favored $\bar D^0$ decays, accessible also to doubly Cabibbo-suppressed $D^0$ decays, such that one has $r_f\sim \tan^2\theta_c$ in Eq.~(). One studies the ratio of two charge-averaged decay rates, for decays into $\bar f_DK$ and $f_DK$, \beq R_f \equiv \frac{\Gamma(f_DK^-) + \Gamma(\bar f_DK^+)} {\Gamma(\bar f_DK^-) + \Gamma(f_DK^+)}~, \eeq and the CP asymmetry, \beq A_f \equiv \frac{\Gamma(f_DK^-) - \Gamma(\bar f_DK^+)} {\Gamma(f_DK^-) + \Gamma(\bar f_DK^+)}~. \eeq These observables are given by \bea R_f & = & r_B^2 + r^2_f + 2r_B\,r_f\,\cos(\delta_B - \delta_f)\,\cos\gamma~,\\ A_f &= & 2r\,r_f\,\sin(\delta_B - \delta_f)\,\sin\gamma/R_f~, \eea where a multiplicative correction $1+{\cal O}(r_Br_f)\sim 1.01$ has been neglected in (). These two observables involve three unknowns, $r_B, \delta_B-\delta_f$ and $\gamma$. One assumes $r_f$ to be given by the measured ratio of doubly Cabibbo-suppressed and Cabibbo-favored branching ratios. Thus, one needs at least two flavor states, $f_D$ and $f'_D$, for which two pairs of observables ($R_f, A_f$) and ($R_{f'}, A_{f'}$) provide four equations for the four unknowns, $r_B, \delta_B-\delta_f, \delta_B - \delta_{f'}, \gamma$. The strong phase differences $\delta_f, \delta_{f'}$ can actually be measured at a $\psi''$ charm factory, thereby reducing the number of unknowns to three. While the decay rate in the numerator of $R_f$ is rather low, the asymmetry $A_f$ may be large for small values of $r_B$ around 0.1, as it involves two amplitudes with a relative magnitude $r_f/r_B$. So far, only upper bounds have been measured for $R_f$ implying upper limits on $r_B$ in several processes, $r_B(B^+\to DK^+)<0.2$, $r_B(B^+\to D^*K^+) < 0.2$,~$r(B^+\to DK^{*+})<0.4$, and $r_B(B^0\to DK^{*0}) < 0.4$. Further constraints on $r_B$ in the first three processes have been obtained by studying D decays into CP-eigenstates and into the state $K_S\pi^+\pi^-$. Using $r_B(B^0\to DK^{*0})/r_B(B^+\to DK^{*+}) = 3.7 \pm 0.3$ in () and assuming that $r_B(B^+\to DK^{*+})$ is not smaller than about 0.1, one may conclude that a nonzero measurement of $r_B(B^0\to DK^{*0})$ should be measured soon. The signature for $B^0\to D^0K^{*0}$ events would be two kaons with opposite charges. \subsection{$f_D=K_S\pi^+\pi^-$} The amplitude for $B^+ \to (K_S\pi^+\pi^-)_DK^+$ is a function of the two invariant-mass variables, $m^2_{\pm} \equiv (p_{K_S}+p_{\pi^{\pm}})^2$, and may be written as \beq A(B^+ \to (K_S\pi^+\pi^-)_DK^+) = f(m^2_+,m^2_-) + r_Be^{i(\delta_B+\gamma)}f(m^2_-,m^2_+)~. \eeq In $B^-$ decay one replaces $m_+ \leftrightarrow m_-,~\gamma \to -\gamma$. The function $f$ may be written as a sum of about twenty resonant and nonresonant contributions modeled to describe the amplitude for flavor-tagged $\bar D^0\to K_S\pi^+\pi^-$ which is measured separately. This introduces a model-dependent uncertainty in the analysis. Using the measured function $f$ as an input and fitting the rates for $B^{\pm}\to (K_S\pi^+\pi^-)_DK^{\pm}$ to the parameters, $r_B,\delta_B$ and $\gamma$, one then determines these three parameters. The advantage of using $D\to K_S\pi^+\pi^-$ decays over CP and flavor states is being Cabibbo-favored and involving regions in phase space with a potentially large interference between $D^0$ and $\bar D^0$ decay amplitudes. The main disadvantage is the uncertainty introduced by modeling the function $f$. Two recent analyses of comparable statistics by Belle and Babar, combining $B^\pm\to DK^\pm, B^\pm \to D^*K^\pm$ and $B^\pm \to DK^{*\pm}$, obtained values\, $\gamma = [53^{+15}_{-18}\pm 3 \pm 9 ({\rm model})]^\circ$ and $\gamma = [92\pm 41\pm 11\pm 12 ({\rm model})]^\circ$. [This second value does not use the process $B^+\to D(K_S\pi^+)_{K^*}$, also studied by the same group,.] The larger errors in the second analysis are correlated with smaller values of the extracted parameters $r_B$ in comparison with those extracted in the first study. The model-dependent errors may be reduced by studying at CLEO-c the decays $D_{CP\pm}\to K_S\pi^+\pi^-$, providing further information on strong phases in $D$ decays. \medskip\noindent {\bf Conclusion}: The currently most precise value of $\gamma$ is $\gamma = [53^{+15}_{-18}\pm 3 \pm 9 ({\rm model})]^\circ$, obtained from $B^{\pm}\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)\pm}$ using $D\to K_S\pi^+\pi^-$. These errors may be reduced in the future by combining the study of {\em all $D$ decay modes} in $B^{+,0}\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)+,0}$. The decay $B^0\to DK^{*0}$ seems to carry a high potential because of its expected large value of $r_B$. Decays $B^0\to D^{(*)}K^0$ may also turn useful, as they have been shown to provide information on $\gamma$ without the need for flavor tagging of the initial $B^0$. \section{The currently most precise determination of $\gamma$: $B\to\pi\pi, \rho\rho, \rho\pi$} \subsection{$B\to\pi\pi$} The amplitude for $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ contains two terms, conventionally denoted ``tree" ($T$) and ``penguin" ($P$) amplitudes,~ involving a weak CP-violating phase $\gamma$ and a strong CP-conserving phase $\delta$, respectively: \beq A(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = |T| e^{i \gamma} + |P| e^{i \delta}~. \eeq Time-dependent decay rates, for an initial $B^0$ or a $\ob$, are given by \beq \Gamma(B^0(t)/\ob(t)\to\pi^+\pi^-) = e^{-\Gamma t}\Gamma_{\pi^+\pi^-}\,\left [ 1\pm \cpp\cos\Delta m t \mp \spp\sin\Delta m t\right ]~, \eeq where \beq \spp= \frac{2 {\rm Im}(\lpp)}{1 + |\lpp| ^2}~,~~~ \cpp = \frac{1 - |\lpp|^2}{1 + |\lpp|^2}~,~~~ \lpp \equiv e^{-2i \beta} \frac{A(\ob \to \pi^+ \pi^-)} {A(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}~. \eeq One has \bea \spp & = & \sin 2\alpha + 2|P/T|\cos 2\alpha\sin(\beta+\alpha)\cos\delta +{\cal O}(|P/T|^2)~,\cr \cpp & = & 2|P/T|\sin(\beta + \alpha)\sin\delta + {\cal O}(|P/T|^2)~. \eea This tells us two things:\\ (1) The deviation of $\spp$ from $\sin 2\alpha$ and the magnitude of $\cpp$ increase with $|P/T|$, which can be estimated to be $|P/T|\sim 0.5$ by comparing $B\to \pi\pi$ rates with penguin-dominated $B\to K\pi$ rates.\\ (2) $\Gamma_{\pi^+\pi^-}$, $\spp$ and $\cpp$ are insufficient for determining $|T|, |P|, \delta$ and $\gamma$ (or $\alpha$).\\ Further information on these quantities may be obtained by applying isospin symmetry to all $B\to\pi\pi$ decays. In order to carry out an isospin analysis, one uses the fact that the three physical $B\to\pi\pi$ decay amplitudes and the three $\bar B\to\pi\pi$ decay amplitudes, depending each on two isospin amplitudes, obey triangle relations of the form, \beq A(B^0\to \pi^+\pi^-)/\s + A(B^0\to \pi^0\pi^0)-A(B^+\to \pi^+\pi^0)=0~~. \eeq Furthermore, the penguin amplitude is pure $\Delta I= 1/2$; hence the $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitude carries a week phase $\gamma$, $A(B^+\to\pi^+\pi^0)=e^{2i\gamma} A(B^-\to\pi^-\pi^0)$. Defining $\sin 2\alpha_{\rm eff} \equiv S_{+-}/(1 - C^2_{+-})^{1/2}$, the difference $\alpha_{\rm eff}-\alpha$ is then determined by an angle between corresponding sides of the two isospin triangles sharing a common base, $|A(B^+\to\pi^+\pi^0)|= |A(B^-\to\pi^-\pi^0)|$. A sign ambiguity in $\alpha_{\rm eff}-\alpha$ is resolved by two model-independent features which are confirmed experimentally, $|P|/|T|\le 1, |\delta|\le \pi/2$. This implies $\alpha < \alpha_{\rm eff}$. \begin{table}[h] \tbl{Branching ratios and CP asymmetries in $B\to\pi\pi,~B\to\rho\rho$.} {\begin{tabular}{@{}cccc@{}} \toprule Decay mode & Branching ratio ($10^{-6}$) & $A_{CP}=-C$ & $S$ \\ \colrule $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ & $5.16\pm 0.22$ & $0.38 \pm 0.07$ & $-0.61 \pm 0.08$ \\ $B^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$ & $5.7\pm 0.4$ & $0.04\pm 0.05$ & \\ $B^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$ & $1.31\pm 0.21$ & $0.36^{+0.33}_{-0.31}$ & \\ $B^0\to\rho^+\rho^-$ & $23.1^{+3.2}_{-3.3}$ & $0.11\pm 0.13$ & $-0.06\pm 0.18$ \\ $B^+\to\rho^+\rho^0$ & $18.2\pm 3.0$ & $-0.08\pm 0.13$ & \\ $B^0\to\rho^0\rho^0$ & $1.07 \pm 0.38$ & & \\ \botrule \end{tabular}} \end{table} Current CP-averaged branching ratios and CP asymmetries for $B\to\pi\pi$ and $B\to\rho\rho$ decays are given in Table I, where $A_{CP}\equiv-C$ for decays to CP eigenstates. An impressive experimentally progress has been achieved in the past two years in extracting a precise value for $\alpha_{\rm eff}$, $\alpha_{\rm eff}=(110.6^{+3.6}_{-3.2})^\circ$. However, the error on $\alpha_{\rm eff}-\alpha$ using the isospin triangles is still large. An upper bound, given by CP-averaged rates and a direct CP asymmetry in $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$, \beq \cos 2(\alpha_{\rm eff}-\alpha) \ge \frac{\left( {1\over 2}\Gamma_{+-} + \Gamma_{+0} - \Gamma_{00} \right)^2 - \Gamma_{+-}\Gamma_{+0}}{\Gamma_{+-} \Gamma_{+0} \sqrt{1-C^2_{+-}}}~, \eeq leads to $0<\alpha_{\rm eff}-\alpha<31^\circ$ at $1\sigma$. Adding in quadrature the error in $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ and the uncertainty in $\alpha-\alpha_{\rm eff}$, this implies $\alpha=(95\pm 16)^\circ$ or $\gamma =(64\pm 16)^\circ$ by . A similar central value but a smaller error, $\alpha = (97\pm 11)^\circ$, has been reported recently by the Belle Collaboration. The possibility that a penguin amplitude in $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ may lead to a large CP asymmetry S for values of $\alpha$ near $90^\circ$ where $\sin 2\alpha=0$ was anticipated fifteen years ago. The bound on $\alpha_{\rm eff}-\alpha$ may be improved considerably by measuring a nonzero direct CP asymmetry in $B^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$. This asymmetry can be shown to be {\em large and positive} (see Eq.~() in Sec.~5.2), implying a large rate for $\bar B^0$ but a small rate for $B^0$. Namely, the triangle () is expected to be squashed, while the $\bar B$ triangle is roughly equal sided. An alternative way of treating the penguin amplitude in $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ is by combining within flavor SU(3) the decay rate and asymmetries in this process with rates and asymmetries in $B^0\to K^0\pi^+$ or $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$. The ratio of $\Delta S=1$ and $\Delta S=0$ tree amplitudes in these processes, excluding CKM factors, is taken to be given by $f_K/f_\pi$ assuming factorization, while the ratio of corresponding penguin amplitudes is allowed to vary by $\pm 0.22$ around one. A current update of this rather conservative analysis obtains~ \beq \gamma = (73\pm 4^{+10}_{-8})^\circ~, \eeq where the first error is experimental, while the second one is due to an uncertainty in SU(3) breaking. A discussion of SU(3) breaking factors relating $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$ is included in Section 5.2. \subsection{$B\to\rho\rho$} Angular analyses of the pions in $\rho$ decays have shown that $B^0\to \rho^+\rho^-$ is dominated almost $100\ This simplifies the isospin analysis of CP asymmetries in these decays to becoming similar to $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$. The advantage of $B\to \rho\rho$ over $B\to \pi\pi$ is the relative small value of $\b(\rho^0\rho^0)$ in comparison with $\b(\rho^+\rho^-)$ and $\b(\rho^+\rho^0)$ (see Table I), indicating a smaller $|P/T|$ in $B\to\rho^+\rho^-$ ($|P/T|< 0.3$~) than in $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ ($|P/T|\sim 0.5$\,). Eq.~() leads to an upper bound on $\alpha_{\rm eff}-\alpha$ in $B\to\rho\rho$, $0<\alpha_{\rm eff}-\alpha< 17^\circ$ (at $1\sigma$). The asymmetries for longitudinal $\rho$'s given in Table I imply $\alpha_{\rm eff} = (91.7^{+5.3}_{-5.2})^\circ$. Thus, one finds $\alpha = (83 \pm 10)^\circ$ or $\gamma = (76\pm 10)^\circ$ by adding errors in quadrature. A stronger bound on $|P/T|$ in $B^0\to\rho^+\rho^-$, leading to a more precise value of $\gamma$, may be obtained by relating this process to $B^+\to K^{*0}\rho^+$ within flavor SU(3).~ One uses the branching ratio and fraction of longitudinal rate measured for this process~, $\b(K^{*0}\rho^+)=(9.2 \pm 1.5)\times 10^{-6}, f_L(K^{*0}\rho^+)= 0.48\pm 0.08$, to normalize the penguin amplitude in $B^0\to\rho^+\rho^-$. Including a conservative uncertainty from SU(3) breaking and smaller amplitudes, one finds a value \beq \gamma = (71.4^{+5.8}_{-8.8}~^{+4.7}_{-1.7})^\circ~, \eeq where the first error is experimental and the second one theoretical. The current small theoretical error in $\gamma$ requires including isospin breaking effects in studies based on isospin symmetry. The effect of electroweak penguin amplitudes on the isospin analyses of $B\to\pi\pi$ and $B\to \rho\rho$ has been calculated and was found to move $\gamma$ slightly higher by an amount $\Delta\gamma_{\rm EWP}=1.5^\circ$. Other corrections, relevant to methods using $\pi^0$ and $\rho^0$, includng $\pi^0$-$\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing, $\rho$-$\omega$ mixing, and a small $I=1$ $\rho\rho$ contribution allowed by the $\rho$-width, are each smaller than one degree. \medskip\noindent {\bf Conclusion}: Taking an average of the two values of $\gamma$ in () and () obtained from $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B^0\to \rho^+\rho^-$, and including the above-mentioned EWP correction, one finds \beq \gamma=(73.5\pm 5.7)^\circ~. \eeq A third method of measuring $\gamma$ (or $\alpha$) in time-dependent Dalitz analyses of $B^0\to (\rho\pi)^0$ involves a much larger error, and has a small effect on the overall averaged value of the weak phase. We note that $\sin\gamma$ is close to one and its relative error is only $3\ relative error in $\sin 2\beta$ and slightly smaller than the relative error in $\sin\beta$. \section{Rates, asymmetries, and $\gamma$ in $B\to K\pi$} \subsection{Extracting $\gamma$ in $B\to K\pi$} The four decays $B^0\to K^+\pi^-, B^0\to K^0\pi^0, B^+\to K^0\pi^+, B^+\to K^+\pi^0$ involve a potential for extracting $\gamma$, provided that one is sensitive to interference between a dominant isoscalar penguin amplitude and a small tree amplitude contributing to these processes. This idea has led to numerous suggestions for determining $\gamma$ in these decays starting with a proposal made in 1994. An interference between penguin and tree amplitudes may be identified in two ways: (1) Two different properly normalized $B\to K\pi$ rates. (2) Nonzero direct CP asymmetries. \begin{table}[h] \tbl{Branching ratios and asymmetries in $B\to K\pi$.} {\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}} \toprule Decay mode & Branching ratio ($10^{-6}$) & $A_{CP}$ \\ \colrule $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$ & $19.4\pm 0.6$ & $-0.097 \pm 0.012$ \\ $B^+\to K^+\pi^0$ & $12.8\pm 0.6$ & $0.047\pm 0.026$ \\ $B^+\to K^0\pi^+$ & $23.1\pm 1.0$ & $0.009\pm 0.025$ \\ $B^0\to K^0\pi^0$ & $10.0\pm 0.6$ & $-0.12\pm 0.11$ \\ \botrule \end{tabular}} \end{table} \medskip\noindent Current branching ratios and CP asymmetries are summarized in Table II. Three ratios of rates, calculated using the ratio of $B^+$ and $B^0$ lifetimes, $\tau_+/\tau_0 = 1.076 \pm 0.008$, are: \bea R & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)} {\Gamma(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)} = 0.90 \pm 0.05~,\cr R_c & \equiv & \frac{2\Gamma(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)} {\Gamma(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)} = 1.11 \pm 0.07~,\cr R_n & \equiv & \frac{\Gamma(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)} {2\Gamma(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)} = 0.97 \pm 0.07~. \eea The largest deviation from one, observed in the ratio $R$ at 2$\sigma$, is insufficient for claiming unambiguous evidence for a non-penguin contribution. An upper limit, $R< 0.965$ at $90\ $\gamma \le 79^\circ$ using $\sin^2\gamma \le R$, which neglects however ``color-suppressed" EWP contributions. As we will argue now, these contributions and ``color-suppressed" tree amplitudes are actually not suppressed as naively expected. The nonzero asymmetry measured in $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$ provides first evidence for an interference between penguin ($P'$) and tree ($T'$) amplitudes with a nonzero relative strong phase. Such an interference occurs also in $B^+\to K^+\pi^0$ where no asymmetry has been observed. An assumption that other contributions to the latter asymmetry are negligible has raised some questions about the validity of the CKM framework. In fact, a color-suppressed tree amplitude ($C'$), also occurring in $B^+\to K^+\pi^0$, resolves this ``puzzle" if this amplitude is comparable in magnitude to $T'$. Indeed, several studies have shown that this is the case, also implying that color-suppressed and color-favored EWP amplitudes are of comparable magnitudes. For consistency between the two CP asymmetries in $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$ and $B^+\to K^+\pi^0$, the strong phase difference between $C'$ and $T'$ must be negative and cannot be very small. This seems to stand in contrast to QCD calculations using a factorization theorem. The small asymmetry $A_{CP}(B^+\to K^+\pi^0)$ implies bounds on the sine of the strong phase difference $\delta_c$ between $T'+C'$ and $P'$. The cosine of this phase affects $R_c-1$ involving the decay rates for $B^+\to K^0\pi^+$ and $B^+\to K^0\pi^+$. A question studied recently is whether the two upper bounds on $|\sin\delta_c|$ and $|\cos\delta_c|$ are consistent with each other or, perhaps, indicate effects of NP. Consistency was shown by proving a sum rule involving $A_{CP}(B^+\to K^+\pi^0)$ and $R_c-1$, in which an electroweak penguin (EWP) amplitude plays an important role. We will now present a proof of the sum rule, which may provide important information on $\gamma$. The two amplitudes for $B^+\to K^0\pi^+, K^+\pi^0$ are given in terms of topological contributions including $P', T'$ and $C'$, \bea A(B^+\to K^0\pi^+) & = & (P'-\frac{1}{3}P'^c_{EW}) + A'~,\cr A(B^+\to K^+\pi^0) & = & (P'-\frac{1}{3}P'^c_{EW}) + (T'+P'^c_{EW}) +(C'+P'_{EW}) +A'~, \eea where $P'_{EW}$ and $P'^c_{EW}$ are color-favored and color-suppressed EWP contributions. The small annihilation amplitude $A'$ and a small $u$ quark contribution to $P'$ involving a CKM factor $V^*_{ub}V_{us}$ will be neglected ($|V^*_{ub}V_{us}|/|V^*_{cb}V_{cs}|=0.02$). Evidence for the smallness of these terms can be found in the small CP asymmetry measured for $B^+\to K^0\pi^+$. Large terms would require rescattering and a sizable strong phase difference between these terms and $P'$. Flavor SU(3) symmetry relates $\Delta I=1, I(K\pi)=3/2$ electroweak penguin and tree amplitudes through a calculable ratio $\delta_{EW}$~, \bea T' + C' + P'_{EW} + P'^c_{EW} & = & (T' + C')(1-\delta_{EW}e^{-i\gamma})~~, \nonumber\\ \delta_{EW} & = & -\frac{3}{2}\frac{c_9 + c_{10}}{c_1 + c_2} \frac{|V^*_{tb}V_{ts}|}{|V^*_{ub}V_{us}|} = 0.60 \pm 0.05~~. \eea The error in $\delta_{EW}$ is dominated by the current uncertainty in $|V_{ub}|/|V_{cb}| = 0.104 \pm 0.007$~, including also a smaller error from SU(3) breaking estimated using QCD factorization. Eqs.~() and () imply \beq R_c = 1 - 2 r_c \cos \delta_c (\cos \gamma - \delta_{\rm EW}) + r_c^2(1 - 2 \delta_{\rm EW} \cos \gamma + \delta_{\rm EW}^2)~,~~ \eeq \beq A_{CP}(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0) = - 2 r_c \sin \delta_c \sin \gamma /R_c~~, \eeq where $r_c\equiv |T'+C'|/|P'-\frac{1}{3}P'^c_{EW}|$ and $\delta_c$ is the strong phase difference between $T'+C'$ and $P'-\frac{1}{3}P'^c_{EW}$. The parameter $r_c$ is calculable in terms of measured decay rates, using broken flavor SU(3) which relates $T'+C'$ and $T+C$ dominating $B^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$ by a factorization factor $f_K/f_\pi$ (neglecting a tiny EWP term in $B^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$), \beq |T'+C'| = \sqrt{2}\frac{V_{us}}{V_{ud}}\frac{f_K}{f_\pi}|A(B^+\to \pi^+\pi^0)|~~. \eeq Using branching ratios from Tables I and II, one finds \beq r_c = \sqrt{2}\frac{V_{us}}{V_{ud}}\frac{f_K}{f_\pi} \sqrt{\frac{\b(B^+\to\pi^+\pi^0)} {\b(B^+\to K^0\pi^+)}} = 0.198 \pm 0.008~~. \eeq The error in $r_c$ does not include an uncertainty from assuming factorization for SU(3) breaking in $T'+C'$. While this assumption should hold well for $T'$, it may not be a good approximation for $C'$ which as we have mentioned is comparable in magnitude to $T'$ and carries a strong phase relative to it. Thus one should allow a $10\ for relating $B \to K \pi$ and $B \to \pi \pi$ $T+C$ amplitudes, so that \beq r_c =0.20 \pm 0.01~({\rm exp}) \pm 0.02~({\rm th})~~. \eeq Eliminating $\delta_c$ in Eqs.~() and () by retaining terms which are linear in $r_c$, one finds \beq \left( \frac{R_c-1}{\cos \gamma - \delta_{\rm EW}} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{A_{CP}(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)}{\sin \gamma} \right)^2 = (2r_c)^2 + {\cal O}(r_c^3)~~. \eeq This sum rule implies that at least one of the two terms whose squares occur on the left-hand-side must be sizable, of the order of $2r_c=0.4$. The second term, $|A_{CP}(B^+\to K^+\pi ^0)|/\sin\gamma$, is already smaller than $\simeq 0.1$, using the current $2\sigma$ bounds on $\gamma$ and $|A_{CP}(B^+\to K^+\pi^0)|$. Thus, the first term must provide a dominant contribution. For $R_c\simeq 1$, this implies $\gamma\simeq \arccos\delta_{EW} \simeq (53.1\pm 3.5)^\circ$. This range is expanded by including errors in $R_c$ and $A_{CP}(B^+\to K^+\pi^0)$. For instance, an upper bound $R_c < 1.1$ would imply an inportant upper limit, $\gamma < 70^\circ$. Currently one only obtains an upper limit $\gamma \le 88^\circ$ at $90\ the value obtained in () from $B\to\pi\pi$ and $B\to\rho\rho$, but is not competitive with the latter precision. \medskip\noindent {\bf Conclusion}: The current constraint obtained from $R_c$ and $A_{CP}(B^+\to K^+\pi^0)$ is $\gamma \le 88^\circ$ at $90\ Further improvement in the measurement of $R_c$ (which may, in fact, be very close to one) is required in order to achieve a precision in $\gamma$ comparable to that obtained in $B\to\pi\pi, \rho\rho$. (A conclusion concerning the different CP asymmetries measured in $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$ and $B ^+\to K^+\pi^0$ will be given at the end of the next subsection.) \subsection{Symmetry relations for $B\to K\pi$ rates and asymmetries} The following two features imply rather precise sum rules in the CKM framework, both for $B\to K\pi$ decay rates and CP asymmetries: (1) The dominant penguin amplitude is $\Delta I=0$. (2) The four decay amplitudes obey a linear isospin relation, \beq A(K^+\pi^-) - A(K^0\pi^+) - \s A(K^+\pi^0) + \s A(K^0\pi^0)~. \eeq An immediate consequence of these features are two isospin sum rules, which hold up to terms which are quadratic in small ratios of non-penguin to penguin amplitudes, \bea \Gamma(K^+\pi^-) + \Gamma(K^0\pi^+) &=& 2\Gamma(K^+\pi^0) + 2\Gamma(K^0\pi^0)~,\\ \Delta(K^+\pi^-) +\Delta(K^0\pi^+) &=& 2\Delta(K^+\pi^0) + 2\Delta(K^0\pi^0)~, \eea where \beq \Delta(K\pi)\equiv \Gamma(\bar B\to\bar K\bar\pi) - \Gamma(B\to K \pi)~. \eeq Quadratic corrections to () have been calculated in the SM and were found to be a few percent. This is the level expected in general for isospin-breaking corrections which must therefore also be considered. The above two features imply that these $\Delta I=1$ corrections are suppressed by a small ratio of non-penguin to penguin amplitudes and are therefore negligible. Indeed, this sum rule holds experimentally within a $5\ One expects the other sum rule () to hold at a similar precision. The CP rate asymmetry sum rule (), relating the four CP asymmetries, leads to a prediction for the asymmetry in $B^0\to K^0\pi^0$ in terms of the other three asymmetries which have been measured with higher precision, \beq A_{CP}(B^0\to K^0\pi^0) = -0.140\pm 0.043~. \eeq While this value is consistent with experiment (see Table II), higher accuracy in this asymmetry measurement is required for testing this straightforward prediction. Relations between CP asymmetries in $B\to K\pi$ and $B\to\pi\pi$ following from approximate flavor SU(3) symmetry of QCD~ are not expected to hold as precisely as isospin relations, but may still be interesting and useful. An important question relevant to such relations is how to include SU(3)-breaking effects, which are expected to be at a level of 20-30$\ two SU(3) relations proposed twelve years ago, one of which holds experimentally within expectation, providing some lesson about SU(3) breaking, while the other has a an interesting implication for future applications of the isospin analysis in $B\to \pi\pi$. A most convenient proof of SU(3) relations is based on using a diagramatic approach, in which diagrams with given flavor topologies replace reduced SU(3) matrix elements. In this language, the amplitudes for $B^0$ decays into pairs of charged or neutral pions, and pairs of charged or neutral $\pi$ and $K$, are given by: \bea -A(B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-) & = & T+ \left (P+2P^c_{EW}/3\right ) + E + PA~,\cr -\s A(B^0\to\pi^0\pi^0) & = & C - \left(P-P_{EW}-P^c_{EW}/3\right) - E - PA~,\cr -A(B^0\to K^+\pi^-) & = & T'+ \left(P'+2P'^c_{EW}/3\right)~,\cr -\s A(B^0\to K^0\pi^0) & = & C' - \left(P'-P'_{EW}-P'^c_{EW}/3\right)~. \eea The combination $E+PA$, representing exchange and penguin annihilation topologies, is expected to be $1/m_b$-suppressed relative to $T$ and $C$, as demonstrated by the small branching ratio measured for $B^0\to K^+K^-$. This term will be neglected. Expressing topological amplitudes in terms of CKM factors, SU(3)-invariant amplitudes and SU(3) invariant strong phases, one may write \bea T & \equiv & V^*_{ub}V_{ud}|{\cal T}+{\cal P}_{uc}|~,~~~~~~P+2P^c_{EW}/3 \equiv V^*_{tb}V_{td}|{\cal P}_{tc}|e^{i\delta}~,\cr T' & \equiv & V^*_{ub}V_{us}|{\cal T}+{\cal P}_{uc}|~,~~~~~~P'+2P'^c_{EW}/3 \equiv V^*_{tb}V_{ts}|{\cal P}_{tc}|e^{i\delta}~,\\ C & \equiv & V^*_{ub}V_{ud}|{\cal C}-{\cal P}_{uc}|~,~~~~~~P-P_{EW}-P^c_{EW}/3 \equiv V^*_{tb}V_{td}|\tilde{\cal P}_{tc}|e^{i\tilde\delta}~,\cr C' & \equiv & V^*_{ub}V_{us}|{\cal C}-{\cal P}_{uc}|~,~~~~~~P'-P'_{EW}-P'^c_{EW}/3 \equiv V^*_{tb}V_{ts}|\tilde{\cal P}_{tc}|e^{i\tilde\delta}~.\nonumber \eea Unitarity of the CKM matrix, $V^*_{cb}V_{cd(s)} = - V^*_{tb}V_{td(s)} - V^*_{ub}V_{ud(s)}$, has been used to absorb in $T^{(')}$ and $C^{(')}$ a penguin term ${\cal P}_{uc}\equiv {\cal P}_u-{\cal P}_c$ multiplying $V^*_{ub}V_{ud(s)}$, while ${\cal P}_{tc}\equiv {\cal P}_t-{\cal P}_c$ and $\tilde{\cal P}_{tc}\equiv \tilde{\cal P}_t- \tilde{\cal P}_c$ contain two distinct combinations of EWP contributions. Using the identity \beq {\rm Im}\left(V^*_{ub}V_{ud}V_{tb}V^*_{td}\right) = -{\rm Im}\left(V^*_{ub}V_{us}V_{tb}V^*_{ts}\right)~, \eeq one finds \bea \Delta(B^0\to K^+\pi^-) & = & -\Delta(B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)~\\ \Delta(B^0\to K^0\pi^0) & = & - \Delta(B^0\to\pi^0\pi^0)~, \eea where $\Delta$ is the CP rate difference defined in (). Quoting products of branching ratios and asymmetries from Tables I and II, Eq.~() reads \beq -1.88 \pm 0.24 = -1.96 \pm 0.37~. \eeq This SU(3) relation works well and requires no SU(3)-breaking. An SU(3) breaking factor $f_K/f_\pi$ in ${\cal T}$ but not in ${\cal P}$, or in both ${\cal T}$ and ${\cal P}$, are currently excluded at a level of $1.0\sigma$, or $1.75\sigma$. More precise CP asymmetry measurements in $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$ and $B^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$ are required for determining the pattern of SU(3) breaking in tree and penguin amplitudes. Using the prediction () of the $B\to K\pi$ asymmetry sum rule, Eq.~() predicts \beq A_{CP}(B^0\to \pi^0\pi^0) = 1.07 \pm 0.38~. \eeq The error is dominated by current errors in CP asymmetries for $B^+\to K^0\pi^+$ and $B^+\to K^+\pi^0$, and to a less extent by the error in $\b(\pi^0\pi^0).$ SU(3) breaking in amplitudes could modify this prediction by a factor $f_\pi/f_K$ if this factor applies to ${\cal C}$, and less likely by $(f_\pi/f_K)^2$. A large positive CP asymmetry, favored in all three cases, will affect future applications of the isospin analysis in $B\to\pi\pi$. It implies that while the $\bar B$ isospin triangle is roughly equal-sided, the $B$ triangle is squashed. A twofold ambiguity in the value of $\gamma$ disappears in the limit of a flat $B$ triangle. \medskip\noindent {\bf Conclusion}: The isospin sum rule for $B\to K\pi$ decay rates holds well, while the CP asymmetry sum rule predicts $A_{CP}(B^0\to K^0\pi^0)=-0.140\pm 0.043$. The different asymmetries in $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$ and $B^+\to K^+\pi^0$ can be explained by an amplitude $C'$ comparable to $T'$ and involving a relative negative strong phase, and should not be considered a ``puzzle". An SU(3) relation for $B^0\to \pi\pi$ and $B^0\to K\pi$ CP asymmetries works well for charged modes. The corresponding relation for neutral modes predicts a large positive asymmetry in $B^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$. Improving asymmetry measurements can provide tests for SU(3) breaking factors. \section{Tests for small New Physics effects} \subsection{Values of $\gamma$} We have described three ways for extracting a value for $\gamma$ relying on interference of distinct pairs of quark amplitudes, $(b\to c\bar us,b\to u\bar c s), (b\to c\bar c s, b\to u\bar u s)$ and $(b\to c\bar c d, b\to u\bar u d)$. The three pairs provide a specific pattern for CP violation in the CKM framework, which is expected to be violated in many extensions of the SM. The rather precise value of $\gamma$ () extracted from $B\to \pi\pi, \rho\rho, \rho\pi$ is consistent with constraints on $\gamma$ from CP conserving measurements related to the sides of the unitarity triangle. The values of $\gamma$ obtained in $B\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)}$ and $B\to K\pi$ are consistent with those extracted in $B\to \pi\pi, \rho\rho, \rho\pi$, but are not yet sufficiently precise for testing small NP effects in charmless $B$ decays. Further experimental improvements are required, in particular in the former two types of processes. While the value of $\gamma$ in $B\to D^{(*)}K^{*)}$ is not expected to be affected by NP, the other two classes of processes involving penguin loops are susceptible to such effects. The extraction of $\gamma$ in $B\to\pi\pi~\rho\rho$ assumes that $\gamma$ is the phase of a $\Delta I=3/2$ tree amplitude, while an additional $\Delta I=3/2$ EWP contribution is included using isospin. The extracted value could be modified by a new $\Delta I=3/2$ effective operator originating in physics beyond the SM, but not by a new $\Delta I=1/2$ operator. Similarly, the value of $\gamma$ extracted in $B\to K\pi$ is affected by a potential new $\Delta I=1$ operator, but not by a new $\Delta I=0$ operator, because the amplitude (), playing an essential role in this method, is pure $\Delta I=1$. \subsection{$B\to K\pi$ sum rule} Charmless $|\Delta S|=1$ $B$ and $B_s$ decays are particularly sensitive to NP effects, as new heavy particles at the TeV mass range may replace the the $W$ boson and top-quark in the penguin loop dominating these amplitudes. The sum rule () for $B\to K\pi$ decay rates provides a test for such effects. However, as we have argued from isospin considerations, it is only affected by quadratic $\Delta I=1$ amplitudes including NP contributions. Small NP amplitudes, contributing quadratically to the sum rule, cannot be separated from SM corrections, which are by themselves at a level of a few percent. This is the level to which the sum rule has already been tested. We will argue below for evidence showing that potential NP contributions to $|\Delta S|=1$ charmless decays must be suppressed by roughly an order of magnitude relative to the dominant $b\to s$ penguin amplitudes. \subsection{Values of $S,C$ in $|\Delta S|=1$ $B^0\to f_{CP}$ decays} A class of $b\to s$ penguin-dominated $B^0$ decays to CP-eigenstates has recently attracted considerable attention. This includes final states $XK_S$ and $XK_L$, where $X=\phi, \pi^0, \eta', \omega, f_0, \rho^0, K^+K^-, K_SK_S, \pi^0\pi^0$, for which measured asymmetries $-\eta_{CP}S$ and $C$ are quoted in Table III. [The asymmetries $S$ and $C=-A_{CP}$ were defined in () for $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$. Observed modes with $K_L$ in the final states obey $\eta_{CP}(XK_L)=-\eta_{CP}(XK_S)$.] \begin{table}[h] \tbl{Asymmetries $S$ and $C$ in $B^0\to XK_S$.} {\begin{tabular}{@{}cccccc@{}} \toprule $X$&$\phi$&$\pi^0$&$\eta'$&$\omega$&$f_0(980)$\\ $-\eta_{CP}S$&$0.39\pm 0.18$&$0.33\pm 0.21$&$0.61\pm 0.07$& $0.48\pm 0.24$&$0.42\pm 0.17$\\ $C$&$0.01\pm 0.13$&$0.12\pm 0.11$&$-0.09\pm 0.06$& $-0.21\pm 0.19$&$-0.02\pm 0.13$\\ \colrule $X$&$\rho^0$&$K^+K^-$&$K_SK_S$&$\pi^0\pi^0$\\ $-\eta_{CP}S$&$0.20\pm 0.57$&$0.58^{+0.18}_{-0.13}$& $0.58\pm 0.20$&$-0.72\pm 0.71$\\ $C$&$0.64\pm 0.46$&$0.15\pm 0.09$&$-0.14\pm 0.15$&$0.23\pm 0.54$\\ \botrule \end{tabular}} \end{table} In these processes, a value $S= -\eta_{CP}\sin2 \beta$ (for states with CP-eigenvalue $\eta_{CP}$) is expected approximately. These predictions involve hadronic uncertainties at a level of several percent, of order $\lambda^2,~\lambda \sim 0.2$. It has been pointed out some time ago that it is difficult to separate these hadronic uncertainties within the SM from NP contributions to decay amplitudes if the latter are small. In the next subsection we will discuss indirect experimental evidence showing that NP contributions to $S$ and $C$ must be small. Corrections to $S= -\eta_{CP}\sin2 \beta$ and values for the asymmetries $C$ have been calculated in the SM using methods based on QCD factorization and flavor SU(3), and were found to be between a few percent up to above ten percent within hadronic uncertainties. Whereas the deviation of $S$ from $-\eta_{CP}\sin 2\beta$ is process-dependent, a generic result has been proven a long time ago for both $S$ and $C$, to first order in $|c/p|$, \bea \Delta S\equiv -\eta_{CP}S - \sin 2 \beta & = & 2\frac{|c|}{|p|}\cos 2\beta\sin\gamma\cos\Delta~,\cr C & = & 2\frac{|c|}{|p|}\sin\gamma\sin\Delta~. \eea Here $p$ and $c$ are penguin and color-suppressed tree amplitudes involving a small ratio and relative weak and strong phases $\gamma$ and $\Delta$, respectively. This implies $\Delta S > 0$ for $|\Delta|<\pi/2$, which can be argued for several of the above decays using QCD arguments or SU(3) fits. (Note that while $|p|$ is measurable in certain decay rates up to first order corrections, $|c|$ and $\Delta$ involve sizable hadronic uncertainties in QCD calculations.) In contrast to this expectation, the central values measured for $\Delta S$ are negative for all decays. (See Table III.) Consequently, one finds an averaged value $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}=0.53\pm 0.05$, to be compared with $\sin 2\beta = 0.678\pm 0.025$. Two measurements which seem particularly interesting are $-\eta_{CP}S_{\phi K_S}=0.39\pm 0.18$, where a positive correction of a few percent to $\sin 2\beta$ is expected in the SM, and $-\eta_{CP}S_{\pi^0 K_S}=0.33\pm 0.21$, where a rather large positive correction to $\sin 2\beta$ is expected shifting this asymmetry to a value just above $0.8$. While the current averaged value of $\sin 2\beta_{\rm eff}$ is tantalizing, experimental errors in $S$ and $C$ must be reduced further to make a clear case for physics beyond the SM. Assuming that the discrepancy between improved measurements and calculated values of $S$ and $C$ persists beyond theoretical uncertainties, can this provide a clue to the underlying New Physics? Since many models could give rise to a discrepancy, one would seek signatures characterizing classes of models rather than studying the effects in specific models. One way of classifying extensions of the SM is by the isospin behavior of the new effective operators contributing to $b\to s q\bar q$ transitions. \subsection{Diagnosis of $\Delta I$ for New Physics operators} Four-quark operators in the effective Hamiltonian associated with NP in $b \to s q \bar q$ transitions can be either isoscalar or isovector operators. We will now discuss a study proposed recently in order to isolate $\Delta I=0$ or $\Delta I=1$ operators, thus determining corresponding NP amplitudes and CP violating phases. We will show that since $S$ and $C$ in the above processes combine $\Delta I=0$ or $\Delta I=1$ contributions, separating these contributions requires using also information from other two asymmetries, which are provided by isospin-reflected decay processes. Two $|\Delta S|=1$ charmless $B$ (or $B_s$) decay processes, related by isospin reflection, $R_I: u\leftrightarrow d,~\bar u\leftrightarrow -\bar d$, can always be expressed in term of common $\Delta I=0$ and $\Delta I=1$ amplitudes $B$ and $A$ in the form: \beq A(B^+\to f) = B + A~,~~~~A(B^0\to R_If)= \pm(B - A)~. \eeq A proof of this relation uses a sign change of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients under $m \leftrightarrow -m$. The description () applies, in particular, to pairs of processes involving all the $B^0$ decay modes listed in Table III, and $B^+$ decay modes where final states are obtained by isospin reflection from corresponding $B^0$ decay modes. Decay rates for pairs of isospin-reflected $B$ decay processes, and for $\bar B$ decays to corresponding charge conjugate final states are therefore given by (we omit inessential common kinematic factors), \bea \Gamma_+ & = & |B+A|^2~,~~~~~~~\Gamma_0 = |B-A|^2~,\cr \Gamma_- & = & |\bar B + \bar A|^2~,~~~~~~~ \Gamma_{\bar 0} = |\bar B - \bar A|^2~. \eea The amplitudes $\bar B$ and $\bar A$ are related to $B$ and $A$ by a change in sign of all weak phases, whereas strong phases are left unchanged. For each pair of processes one defines four asymmetries: an isospin-dependent CP-conserving asymmetry, \beq A_I \equiv \frac{\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_- - \Gamma_0 - \Gamma_{\bar 0}} {\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_- + \Gamma_0 + \Gamma_{\bar 0}}~, \eeq two CP-violating asymmetries for $B^+$ and $B^0$, \beq A^+_{CP}\equiv\frac{\Gamma_- - \Gamma_+}{\Gamma_-+\Gamma_+}~~,~~~~~ -C\equiv A^0_{CP}\equiv\frac{\Gamma_{\bar 0}-\Gamma_0}{\Gamma_{\bar 0} + \Gamma_0}~, \eeq and the time-dependent asymmetry $S$ in $B^0$ decays, \beq S = \frac{2 {\rm Im} \lambda}{1 + |\lambda|^2}~~,~~~\lambda \equiv \eta_{CP} \frac{\bar B - \bar A}{B - A} e^{- 2 i \beta}~~~, \eeq In the Standard Model, the isoscalar amplitude $B$ contains a dominant penguin contribution, $B_P$, with a CKM factor $V^*_{cb}V_{cs}$. The residual isoscalar amplitude, \beq \Delta B\equiv B-B_P~~, \eeq and the amplitude $A$, consist each of contributions smaller than $B_P$ by about an order of magnitude. These contributions include terms with a much smaller CKM factor $V^*_{ub}V_{us}$, and a higher order electroweak penguin amplitude with CKM factor $V^*_{tb}V_{ts}$. Thus, one expects \beq |\Delta B| \ll |B_P|~~,~~~~|A|\ll |B_P|~~. \eeq Consequently, the asymmetries $A_I$, $A^{+,0}_{CP}$ and $\Delta S$ are expected to be small, of order $2|A|/|B|$ and $2|\Delta B|/|B_P|$. In contrast, potentially large contributions to $\Delta B$ and $A$ from NP, comparable to $B_P$, would most likely lead to large asymmetries of order one. An unlikely exception is the case when both $\Delta B/B_P$ and $A/B_P$ are purely imaginary, or almost purely imaginary. This would require very special circumstances such as fine-tuning in specific models. Excluding cancellations between NP and SM contributions in both CP-conserving and CP violating asymmetries, tests for the hierarchy () become tests for the smallness of corresponding potential NP contributions to $B$ and $A$. There exists ample experimental information showing that asymmetries $A^+_{CP}$ are small in processes related by isospin reflection to the decay modes in Table III. Upper limits on the magnitudes of most asymmetries are at a level of ten or fifteen percent [e.g., $A^+_{CP}(K^+\phi)=0.034\pm 0.044$, $A^+_{CP}(K^+\eta')=0.031\pm 0.026$], while others may be as large as twenty or thirty percent [$A^+_{CP}(K^+\rho^0)=0.31^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$]. Similar values have been measured for isospin asymmetries $A_I$ [e.g., $A_I(K^+\phi)=-0.037\pm 0.077$, $A_I(K^+\eta')=-0.001\pm 0.033$, $A_I(K^+\rho^0)=-0.16\pm 0.10$]. Since these two types of asymmetries are of order $2|\Delta B|/|B_P|$ and $2|A|/|B_P|$, this confirms the hierarchy (), which can be assumed to hold also in the presence of NP. We will take by convention the dominant penguin amplitude $B_P$ to have a zero weak phase and a zero strong phase, referring all other strong phases to it. Writing \beq B = B_P + \Delta B~~,~~~\bar B = B_P + \Delta \bar B~~, \eeq and expanding the four asymmetries to leading order in $\Delta B/B_P$ or $A/B_P$, one has \bea \Delta S & = & \cos 2 \beta\left [\frac{{\rm Im}(\bar A - A)} {B_P} - \frac{{\rm Im}(\Delta \bar B - \Delta B)}{B_P}\right ]~~,\\ A_I &=& \frac{{\rm Re}(\bar A + A)}{B_P}~~,\\ A^+_{CP} &=& \frac{{\rm Re}(\bar A- A)}{B_P} + \frac{{\rm Re}(\Delta \bar B - \Delta B)}{B_P}~~,\\ A^0_{CP} &=& -\frac{{\rm Re}(\bar A- A)}{B_P} + \frac{{\rm Re}(\Delta \bar B - \Delta B)}{B_P}~~. \eea The four asymmetries provide the following information: \begin{itemize} \item The $\Delta I = 0$ and $\Delta I = 1$ contributions in CP asymmetries are separated by taking sums and differences, \bea A^{\Delta I=0}_{CP} & \equiv & \frac{1}{2}(A^+_{CP} + A^0_{CP}) = \frac{{\rm Re}(\Delta \bar B - \Delta B)}{B_P}~~,\\ A^{\Delta I=1}_{CP} & \equiv & \frac{1}{2}(A^+_{CP} - A^0_{CP}) = \frac{{\rm Re}(\bar A - A)}{B_P}~~. \eea \item ${\rm Re}A/B_P$ and ${\rm Re} \bar A/B_P$ may be separated by using information from $A^{\Delta I=1}_{CP}$ and $A_I$. \item $\Delta S$ is governed by an {\it imaginary} part of a combination of $\Delta I = 0$ and $\Delta I = 1$ terms which cannot be separated in $B$ decays. Such a separation is possible in $B_s$ decays to pairs of isospin-reflected decays, e.g. $B_s\to K^+K^-, K_SK_S$ or $B_s\to K^{*+}K^{*-}, K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}$, where $2\beta$ in the definition of $\Delta S$ () is now replaced by the small phase of $B_s$-$\bar B_s$ mixing. \end{itemize} One may take one step further under the assumption that strong phases associated with NP amplitudes are small relative to those of the SM and can be neglected. This assumption, which must be confronted by data, is reasonable because rescattering from a leading $b\to sc\bar c$ amplitude is likely the main source of strong phases, while rescattering from a smaller $b\to sq\bar q$ NP amplitude is then a second-order effect. In the convention (), where the strong phase of $B_P$ is set equal to zero, $\Delta B$ and $A$ have the same CP-conserving strong phase $\delta$, and involve CP-violating phases $\phi_B$ and $\phi_A$, respectively, \beq \Delta B = |\Delta B|e^{i\delta}e^{i\phi_B}~~,~~~~~ A = |A|e^{i\delta}e^{i\phi_A}~~. \eeq Since the four asymmetries ()-() are first order in small ratios of amplitudes, one may take $B_P$ in their expression to be given by the square root of $\Gamma_+$ or $\Gamma_0$, thereby neglecting second order terms. These four observables can then be shown to determine $|A|, \phi_A$ and $|\Delta B|\sin\phi_B$. The combination $|\Delta B| \cos \phi_B$ adds coherently to $B_P$ and cannot be fixed independently. The amplitudes $\Delta B$ and $A$ consist of process-dependent SM and potential NP contributions. Assuming that the former are calculable, either using methods based on QCD-factorization or by fitting within flavor SU(3) these and other $B$ decay rates and asymmetries, the four asymmetries determine the magnitude and CP violating phase of a $\Delta I=1$ NP amplitude and the imaginary part of a $\Delta I=0$ NP amplitude. In certain cases, e.g., $B\to \phi K$ or $B\to\eta'K_S$, stringent upper bounds on SM contributions to $\Delta B$ and $A$ may suffice if some of the four measured asymmetries are larger than permitted by these bounds. In the pair $B^+\to K^+\pi^0, B^0\to K^0\pi^0$, the four measured asymmetries [using the predicted value ()] are $A_I=0.087 \pm 0.038, A^{\Delta I=0}_{CP}=-0.047\pm 0.025, A^{\Delta I=1}_{CP}=0.094\pm 0.025, \Delta S=-0.35\pm 0.21$. Some reduction of errors is required for a useful implementation of this method. \medskip\noindent {\bf Conclusion}: There exists ample experimental evidence in pairs of isospin-reflected $b\to s$ penguin-dominated decays that potential NP amplitudes must be small. Assuming that these amplitudes involve negligible strong phases, and assuming that small SM non-penguin contributions are calculable or can be strictly bounded, one may determine the magnitude and CP violating phase of a NP $\Delta I=1$ amplitude, and the imaginary part of a NP $\Delta I=0$ amplitude in each pair of isospin-reflected decays. \subsection{Null or nearly-null tests} We have not discussed null tests of the CKM framework. Evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model may show-up as (small) nonzero asymmetries in processes where they are predicted to be extremely small in the CKM framework. A well-known example is $B^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$, where the CP asymmetry is expected to be a small fraction of a percent including EWP amplitudes. We have only discussed {\em exclusive hadronic} $B$ decays, where QCD calculations involve hadronic uncertainties. A more robust calculation exists for the direct CP asymmetry in {\em inclusive radiative} decays $B\to X_s\gamma$, found to be smaller than one percent. The current upper limit on this asymmetry is at least an order of magnitude larger. Time-dependent asymmetries in radiative decays $B^0\to K_S\pi^0\gamma$, for a $K_S\pi^0$ invariant-mass in the $K^*$ region and for a larger invariant-mass range including this region, are interesting because they test the photon helicity, predicted to be dominantly right-handed in $B^0$ decays and left-handed in $\bar B^0$ decays. The asymmetry, suppressed by $m_s/m_b$, is expected to be several percent in the SM, and can be very large in extensions where spin-flip is allowed in $b\to s\gamma$. While dimensional arguments seem to indicate a possible larger asymmetry in the SM, of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b\sim 10\ using perturbative QCD\, and QCD factorization\, find asymmetries of a few percent. The current averaged values, for the $K^*$ region and for a larger invariant-mass range including this region, are $S((K_S\pi^0)_{K^*}\gamma)=-0.28\pm 0.26$ and $S(K_S\pi^0\gamma)= -0.09\pm 0.24$. These measurements must be improved in order to become sensitive to the level predicted in the SM, or to provide evidence for physics beyond the SM. \section{Summary} The Standard Model passed with great success numerous tests in the flavor sector, including a variety of measurements of CP asymmetries related to the CKM phases $\beta$ and $\gamma$. Small potential New Physics corrections may occur in $\Delta S=0$ and $|\Delta S|=1$ penguin amplitudes, affecting the extraction of $\gamma$ and modifying CP-violating and isospin-dependent asymmetries in $|\Delta S|=1$ $B^0$ decays and isospin-related $B^+$ decays. Higher precision than achieved so far is required for claiming evidence for such effects and for sorting out their isospin structure. Similar studies can be performed with $B_s$ mesons produced at hadron colliders and at $e^+e^-$ colliders running at the $\Upsilon(5S)$ resonance. Time-dependence in $B_s\to D^-_sK^+$ and $B_s\to J/\psi\phi$ or $B_s\to J/\psi\eta$ measures $\gamma$ and the small phase of the $B_s$-$\bar B_s$ mixing amplitude. Comparing time-dependence and angular analysis in $B_s\to J/\psi\phi$ with $b\to s$ penguin-dominated processes including $B_s\to \phi\phi, B_s\to K^{*+}K^{*-}, B_s\to K^{*0}\bar K^{*0}$ provides a methodic search for potential NP effects. Work on $B_s$ decays has just begun at the Tevatron. One is looking forward to first results from the LHC. \section*{Acknowledgments} I am grateful to numerous collaborators, in particular to Jonathan Rosner whose collaboration continued without interruption for many years. This work was supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation under Grant No.\ 1052/04 and by the German-Israeli Foundation under Grant No.\ I-781-55.14/2003. \begin{thebibliography}{0} \bibitem{Christenson:1964fg} J.~H.~Christenson, J.~W.~Cronin, V.~L.~Fitch and R.~Turlay, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 13}, 138 (1964). \bibitem{Aubert:2001nu} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 091801 (2001); K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 091802 (2001). \bibitem{Carter:1980hr} A.~B.~Carter and A.~I.~Sanda, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 45}, 952 (1980); Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 1567 (1981); I.~I.~Y.~Bigi and A.~I.~Sanda, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 193}, 85 (1981). \bibitem{Kobayashi:1973fv} M.~Kobayashi and T.~Maskawa, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 49}, 652 (1973). \bibitem{Dunietz:1986vi} I.~Dunietz and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 34}, 1404 (1986); I.~I.~Y.~Bigi and A.~I.~Sanda, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 281}, 41 (1987). \bibitem{Albrecht:1987dr} H.~Albrecht {\it et al.} [ARGUS Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 192}, 245 (1987); S.~L.~Wu, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 3}, 39 (1988). \bibitem{Wolfenstein:1983yz} L.~Wolfenstein, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 51}, 1945 (1983). We use a standard phase convention in which $V_{ub}$ and $V_{td}$ are complex, while all other CKM matrix elements are real to a good approximation. \bibitem{Charles:2006yw} J.~Charles {\it et al.} [CKMfitter Collaboration], eConf {\bf C060409}, 043 (2006), presenting updated results periodically on the web site {\tt http://www.slac. stanford.edu/xorg/ckmfitter/}. \bibitem{Bona:2006ah} M.~Bona {\it et al.} [UTfit Collaboration], JHEP {\bf 0610}, 081 (2006), presenting updated results periodically on the web site {\tt http://www.utfit.org/}. \bibitem{Abazov:2006dm} V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 021802 (2006); A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 242003 (2006). \bibitem{Dolgov:2005wf} For a recent review see A.~D.~Dolgov, arXiv:hep-ph/0511213. \bibitem{Gabrielli:1995bd} See e.g. E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 374}, 80 (1996). \bibitem{References} This review, which is only 27 page long (the number of Hebrew alphabet letters) includes 120 references, as a Jewish blessing says ``May you live to be 120!" It is too short to include other hundreds or thousands of relevant papers. I apologize to their many authors. \bibitem{Gronau:1989ia} M.~Gronau, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 63}, 1451 (1989). \bibitem{Boos:2004xp} H.~Boos, T.~Mannel and J.~Reuter, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 036006 (2004). \bibitem{Ciuchini:2005mg} M.~Ciuchini, M.~Pierini and L.~Silvestrini, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 221804 (2005). \bibitem{Li:2006vq} H.~n.~Li and S.~Mishima, arXiv:hep-ph/0610120. \bibitem{Aubert:2006aq} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0607107. \bibitem{Chen:2006nk} K.~F.~Chen {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0608039. \bibitem{HFAG} E. Barbiero {\it et al.} [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group], hep-ex/0603003; updates are available at {\tt http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/}. \bibitem{Aubert:2004cp} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 032005 (2005); R.~Itoh {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 091601 (2005). \bibitem{Krokovny:2006sv} P.~Krokovny {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 081801 (2006). B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0607105. \bibitem{Fleischer:2001cw} R.~Fleischer and T.~Mannel, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506}, 311 (2001). \bibitem{Gronau:1990ra} M.~Gronau and D.~London., Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 253}, 483 (1991). \bibitem{Gronau:1991dp} M.~Gronau and D.~Wyler, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 265}, 172 (1991). \bibitem{London:1989ph} D.~London and R.~D.~Peccei, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 223}, 257 (1989). \bibitem{Grinstein:1989df} B.~Grinstein, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 229}, 280 (1989). \bibitem{Gronau:1996rv} M.~Gronau and D.~London, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 2845 (1997). \bibitem{Beneke:1999br} M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 1914 (1999); Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606}, 245 (2001); Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 098501 (2005). \bibitem{Keum:2000ph} Y.~Y.~Keum, H.~n.~Li and A.~I.~Sanda, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 504}, 6 (2001); Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 054008 (2001). \bibitem{Bauer:2004tj} C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol, I.~Z.~Rothstein and I.~W.~Stewart, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 054015 (2004); C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol, I.~Z.~Rothstein and I.~W.~Stewart, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 098502 (2005). \bibitem{Ciuchini:1997hb} M.~Ciuchini, E.~Franco, G.~Martinelli and L.~Silvestrini, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 501}, 271 (1997); M.~Ciuchini, R.~Contino, E.~Franco, G.~Martinelli and L.~Silvestrini, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 512}, 3 (1998) [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 531}, 656 (1998)]; M.~Ciuchini, E.~Franco, G.~Martinelli, M.~Pierini and L.~Silvestrini, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 515}, 33 (2001). \bibitem{Gronau:1990ka} M.~Gronau and D.~London, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65}, 3381 (1990). \bibitem{Buras:1998rb} A.~J.~Buras and R.~Fleischer, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 11}, 93 (1999). \bibitem{Gronau:1998fn} M.~Gronau, D.~Pirjol and T.~M.~Yan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 034021 (1999) [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 69}, 119901 (2004)]. \bibitem{Gardner:1998gz} S.~Gardner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 077502 (1999); S.~Gardner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 034015 (2005). \bibitem{Gronau:2005pq} M.~Gronau and J.~Zupan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 074017 (2005). \bibitem{Falk:2003uq} A.~F.~Falk, Z.~Ligeti, Y.~Nir and H.~Quinn, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 011502 (2004). \bibitem{Nir:1991cu} Y.~Nir and H.~R.~Quinn, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 67}, 541 (1991); H.~J.~Lipkin, Y.~Nir, H.~R.~Quinn and A.~Snyder, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44}, 1454 (1991); M.~Gronau, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 265}, 389 (1991); \bibitem{Deshpande:1994pw} See, however, N.~G.~Deshpande and X.~G.~He, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}, 26 (1995) [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 74}, 4099 (1995)]. \bibitem{Neubert:1998pt} M.~Neubert and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 441}, 403 (1998); Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 5076 (1998). \bibitem{Neubert:1998re} M.~Neubert, JHEP {\bf 9902}, 014 (1999); M.~Beneke and S.~Jager, hep-ph/0610322. \bibitem{Grossman:1996ke} Y.~Grossman and M.~P.~Worah, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 395}, 241 (1997). \bibitem{Ciuchini:1997zp} M.~Ciuchini, E.~Franco, G.~Martinelli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79}, 978 (1997); R.~Barbieri and A.~Strumia, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 508}, 3 (1997); S.~A.~Abel, W.~N.~Cottingham and I.~B.~Whittingham, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 073006 (1998); Y.~Grossman, M.~Neubert and A.~L.~Kagan, JHEP {\bf 9910}, 029 (1999); X.~G.~He, C.~L.~Hsueh and J.~Q.~Shi, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 18 (2000); G.~Hiller, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 071502 (2002); N.~G.~Deshpande and D.~K.~Ghosh, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 593}, 135 (2004); V.~Barger, C.~W.~Chiang, P.~Langacker and H.~S.~Lee, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 580}, 186 (2004); {\it ibid.} {\bf 598}, 218 (2004). \bibitem{Gronau:1998ep} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 113002 (1999); H.~J.~Lipkin, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 445}, 403 (1999). \bibitem{Atwood:1997iw} D.~Atwood and A.~Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 036005 (1998); M.~Gronau, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 627}, 82 (2005). \bibitem{Gronau:2005gz} A sum rule involving three asymmetries, based on the expectation that the asymmetry in $B^+\to K^0\pi^+$ should be very small, is discussed in M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 074019 (2005). \bibitem{London:1997zk} D.~London and A.~Soni, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 407}, 61 (1997). \bibitem{Gronau:2007ut} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, arXiv:hep-ph/0702193, to be published in Phys. Rev. D. \bibitem{Grossman:2005rp} Y.~Grossman, A.~Soffer and J.~Zupan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 031501 (2005). Evidence for $D^0$-$\bar D^0$ mixing has been reported recently, B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0703020; K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0703036. \bibitem{Gronau:1998vg} M.~Gronau, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 037301 (1998). \bibitem{Grossman:2002aq} Y.~Grossman, Z.~Ligeti and A.~Soffer, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 071301 (2003) \bibitem{Atwood:1996ci} D.~Atwood, I.~Dunietz and A.~Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 78}, 3257 (1997); D.~Atwood, I.~Dunietz and A.~Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 036005 (2001). \bibitem{Giri:2003ty} A.~Giri, Y.~Grossman, A.~Soffer and J.~Zupan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 054018 (2003); A. Bondar, Proceedings of BINP Special Analysis Meeting on Data Analysis, 24--26 September 2002, unpublished. \bibitem{Dunietz:1991yd} I.~Dunietz, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 270}, 75 (1991). \bibitem{Bondar:2004bi} A.~Bondar and T.~Gershon, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 091503 (2004). \bibitem{Yao:2006px} W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group], J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006). \bibitem{Aleksan:2002mh} R.~Aleksan, T.~C.~Petersen and A.~Soffer, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 096002 (2003). \bibitem{Gronau:2002mu} M.~Gronau, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 557}, 198 (2003). \bibitem{Gronau:2004gt} M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman, N.~Shuhmaher, A.~Soffer and J.~Zupan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 113003 (2004). \bibitem{Gronau:1998un} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439}, 171 (1998); Z.~z.~Xing, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 093005 (1998); J.~H.~Jang and P.~Ko, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 111302 (1998). \bibitem{Blok:1997yj} B.~Blok, M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 78}, 3999 (1997). \bibitem{Aubert:2006qn} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 031101 (2006). \bibitem{Aubert:2005cc} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 071103 (2005). \bibitem{Aubert:2005rw} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 051105 (2006). \bibitem{Abe:2006hc} K.~Abe {\it et al.} [BELLE Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 051106 (2006). \bibitem{Silva:1999bd} J.~P.~Silva and A.~Soffer, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 112001 (2000); M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 508}, 37 (2001). \bibitem{Aubert:2005pj} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 032004 (2005). \bibitem{Abe:2005gi} K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0508048. \bibitem{Aubert:2006ga} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0607065. \bibitem{Aubert:2005cr} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 071104 (2005). \bibitem{Krokovny:2002ua} See also P.~Krokovny {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 141802 (2003); K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0408108. \bibitem{Poluektov:2006ia} A.~Poluektov {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 112009 (2006). \bibitem{Aubert:2006am} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0607104. See also B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 121802 (2005). \bibitem{Aubert:2005yj} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0507101. \bibitem{Gronau:2007bh} M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman, Z.~Surujon and J.~Zupan, arXiv:hep-ph/0702011, to be published in Phys.\ Lett.\ B. \bibitem{Gronau:2004ej} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, \bibitem{Gronau:2001ff} M.~Gronau, D.~London, N.~Sinha and R.~Sinha, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514}, 315 (2001). \bibitem{Grossman:1997jr} For two somewhat weaker bounds, which are included in this bound, see Y.~Grossman and H.~R.~Quinn, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 017504 (1998); J.~Charles, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 054007 (1999). \bibitem{Ishino:2006if} H.~Ishino {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], BELLE-PREPRINT-2006-33. \bibitem{Gronau:1992rm} M.~Gronau, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 300}, 163 (1993). \bibitem{GR} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, work in progress. \bibitem{Beneke:2006rb} M.~Beneke, M.~Gronau, J.~Rohrer and M.~Spranger, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 638}, 68 (2006). \bibitem{Snyder:1993mx} A.~E.~Snyder and H.~R.~Quinn, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 2139 (1993); A.~Kusaka {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0701015; B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0703008. \bibitem{Gronau:1994rj} M.~Gronau, O.~F.~Hernandez, D.~London and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 4529 (1994); {\it ibid} {\bf 52}, 6374 (1995). \bibitem{Gronau:1994bn} M.~Gronau, J.~L.~Rosner and D.~London, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73}, 21 (1994). \bibitem{Fleischer:1997um} R.~Fleischer and T.~Mannel, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 2752 (1998). \bibitem{Gronau:1997an} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 6843 (1998). \bibitem{Chiang:2004nm} C.~W.~Chiang, M.~Gronau, J.~L.~Rosner and D.~A.~Suprun, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 034020 (2004). \bibitem{Baek:2004rp} S.~Baek, P.~Hamel, D.~London, A.~Datta and D.~A.~Suprun, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 057502 (2005). \bibitem{Buras:2003dj} A.~J.~Buras, R.~Fleischer, S.~Recksiegel and F.~Schwab, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 101804 (2004). \bibitem{Li:2005kt} H.~n.~Li, S.~Mishima and A.~I.~Sanda, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 114005 (2005). \bibitem{Beneke:2005vv} M.~Beneke and S.~Jager, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 751}, 160 (2006). \bibitem{Gronau:2006ha} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 644}, 237 (2007). \bibitem{Gronau:2001cj} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 013004 (2002); [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 65}, 079901 (2002). \bibitem{Gronau:2003kj} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 572}, 43 (2003). \bibitem{Beneke:2003zv} M.~Beneke and M.~Neubert, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675}, 333 (2003). \bibitem{Bauer:2005kd} C.~W.~Bauer, I.~Z.~Rothstein and I.~W.~Stewart, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 034010 (2006). \bibitem{Gronau:2006eb} M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman, G.~Raz and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 635}, 207 (2006). \bibitem{Gronau:2006xu} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 057503 (2006). \bibitem{Zeppenfeld:1980ex} D.~Zeppenfeld, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 8}, 77 (1981); M.~J.~Savage and M.~B.~Wise, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 39}, 3346 (1989) [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 40}, 3127 (1989)]; L.~L.~Chau, H.~Y.~Cheng, W.~K.~Sze, H.~Yao and B.~Tseng, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43}, 2176 (1991). [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 58}, 019902 (1998)]. \bibitem{Deshpande:1994ii} N.~G.~Deshpande and X.~G.~He, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 75}, 1703 (1995); X.~G.~He, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9}, 443 (1999). \bibitem{Gronau:1995qd} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 76}, 1200 (1996); A.~S.~Dighe, M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3309 (1996). \bibitem{Atwood:1997zr} D.~Atwood, M.~Gronau and A.~Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79}, 185 (1997). \bibitem{Beneke:2005pu} M.~Beneke, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 620}, 143 (2005). \bibitem{Cheng:2005bg} H.~Y.~Cheng, C.~K.~Chua and A.~Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 014006 (2005); H.~Y.~Cheng, C.~K.~Chua and A.~Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 094003 (2005). \bibitem{Grossman:2003qp} Y.~Grossman, Z.~Ligeti, Y.~Nir and H.~Quinn, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 015004 (2003); G.~Engelhard, Y.~Nir and G.~Raz, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 075013 (2005); G.~Engelhard and G.~Raz, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 114017 (2005). \bibitem{Gronau:2003ep} M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 564}, 90 (2003); C.~W.~Chiang, M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 074012 (2003); C.~W.~Chiang, M.~Gronau, Z.~Luo, J.~L.~Rosner and D.~A.~Suprun, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 034001 (2004); M.~Gronau, J.~L.~Rosner and J.~Zupan, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 596}, 107 (2004); M.~Gronau, J.~L.~Rosner and J.~Zupan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 093003 (2006). \bibitem{Datta:2004re} A.~Datta and D.~London, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595}, 453 (2004); S.~Baek, P.~Hamel, D.~London, A.~Datta and D.~A.~Suprun, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 057502 (2005); A.~Datta, M.~Imbeault, D.~London, V.~Page, N.~Sinha and R.~Sinha, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 096002 (2005). \bibitem{Gershon:2006mt} T.~Gershon and A.~Soni, J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 479 (2007). \bibitem{Soares:1991te} J.~M.~Soares, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 367}, 575 (1991); A.~L.~Kagan and M.~Neubert, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094012 (1998). \bibitem{Aubert:2004hq} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 021804 (2004); Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 171803 (2006); S.~Nishida {\it et al.} [BELLE Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 031803 (2004). \bibitem{Atwood:2004jj} D.~Atwood, T.~Gershon, M.~Hazumi and A.~Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 076003 (2005). \bibitem{Grinstein:2004uu} B.~Grinstein, Y.~Grossman, Z.~Ligeti and D.~Pirjol, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 011504 (2005); B.~Grinstein and D.~Pirjol, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 014013 (2006). \bibitem{Matsumori:2005ax} M.~Matsumori and A.~I.~Sanda, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 114022 (2006). \bibitem{Ball:2006cv} P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 642}, 478 (2006). \bibitem{Aubert:2005bu} B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 051103 (2005); Y.~Ushiroda {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 111104 (2006). \bibitem{Aleksan:1991nh} R.~Aleksan, I.~Dunietz and B.~Kayser, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 54}, 653 (1992). \bibitem{Paulini:2007mf} M.~Paulini, arXiv:hep-ex/0702047; G.~Punzi [CDF - Run II Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0703029. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0084
|
Title: Formation of density singularities in ideal hydrodynamics of freely
cooling inelastic gases: a family of exact solutions
Abstract: We employ granular hydrodynamics to investigate a paradigmatic problem of
clustering of particles in a freely cooling dilute granular gas. We consider
large-scale hydrodynamic motions where the viscosity and heat conduction can be
neglected, and one arrives at the equations of ideal gas dynamics with an
additional term describing bulk energy losses due to inelastic collisions. We
employ Lagrangian coordinates and derive a broad family of exact non-stationary
analytical solutions that depend only on one spatial coordinate. These
solutions exhibit a new type of singularity, where the gas density blows up in
a finite time when starting from smooth initial conditions. The density blowups
signal formation of close-packed clusters of particles. As the density blow-up
time $t_c$ is approached, the maximum density exhibits a power law $\sim
(t_c-t)^{-2}$. The velocity gradient blows up as $\sim - (t_c-t)^{-1}$ while
the velocity itself remains continuous and develops a cusp (rather than a shock
discontinuity) at the singularity. The gas temperature vanishes at the
singularity, and the singularity follows the isobaric scenario: the gas
pressure remains finite and approximately uniform in space and constant in time
close to the singularity. An additional exact solution shows that the density
blowup, of the same type, may coexist with an "ordinary" shock, at which the
hydrodynamic fields are discontinuous but finite. We confirm stability of the
exact solutions with respect to small one-dimensional perturbations by solving
the ideal hydrodynamic equations numerically. Furthermore, numerical solutions
show that the local features of the density blowup hold universally,
independently of details of the initial and boundary conditions.
Body: \title{Formation of density singularities in ideal hydrodynamics of freely cooling inelastic gases: a family of exact solutions} \author{Itzhak Fouxon} \author{Baruch Meerson} \author{Michael Assaf} \author{Eli Livne} \affiliation{Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel} \date{\today } \begin{abstract} We employ granular hydrodynamics to investigate a paradigmatic problem of clustering of particles in a freely cooling dilute granular gas. We consider large-scale hydrodynamic motions where the viscosity and heat conduction can be neglected, and one arrives at the equations of ideal gas dynamics with an additional term describing bulk energy losses due to inelastic collisions. We employ Lagrangian coordinates and derive a broad family of exact non-stationary analytical solutions that depend only on one spatial coordinate. These solutions exhibit a new type of singularity, where the gas density blows up in a finite time when starting from smooth initial conditions. The density blowups signal formation of close-packed clusters of particles. As the density blow-up time $t_c$ is approached, the maximum density exhibits a power law $\sim (t_c-t)^{-2}$. The velocity gradient blows up as $\sim - \,(t_c-t)^{-1}$ while the velocity itself remains continuous and develops a cusp (rather than a shock discontinuity) at the singularity. The gas temperature vanishes at the singularity, and the singularity follows the isobaric scenario: the gas pressure remains finite and approximately uniform in space and constant in time close to the singularity. An additional exact solution shows that the density blowup, of the same type, may coexist with an ``ordinary" shock, at which the hydrodynamic fields are discontinuous but finite. We confirm stability of the exact solutions with respect to small one-dimensional perturbations by solving the ideal hydrodynamic equations numerically. Furthermore, numerical solutions show that the local features of the density blowup hold universally, independently of details of the initial and boundary conditions. \end{abstract} \pacs{45.70.Qj, 47.40.-x} \maketitle \section{Introduction} Structure formation in many-body systems is one of central problems of non-equilibrium physics. A most spectacular phenomena of structure formation is clustering of matter. Here an initially structureless, almost homogeneous distribution of particles of matter self-assembles into clusters. Such an evolution cannot proceed indefinitely in a gas where interactions between the particles are (i) short-range and (ii) Hamiltonian. There are two important classes of gases where one of these two properties is violated, and clustering can occur. In the first one \textit{long-range} forces, such as gravity, are present. Clustering provides here a natural mechanism of star formation and of the large-scale structure of the Universe . The second class of systems are dissipative systems where interactions between the particles, at the level of an effective description, are \textit{non-Hamiltonian}. One well-known example is optically thin gases and plasmas that cool by their own radiation, and dense condensations develop . In this paper we consider a more basic non-Hamiltonian many-body system: a gas of inelastically colliding macroscopic particles, or granular gas. Here particles lose energy to their internal degrees of freedom. The granular gas is the low-density limit of granular flows . In its simplest version, the granular gas model deals with a dilute assembly of identical hard spheres (with diameter $\sigma$ and unit mass) who lose energy at instantaneous binary collisions in such a way that the normal component of the relative velocity of particles is reduced by a constant factor $0\leq r<1$ (the coefficient of normal restitution) upon each collision. Granular gases exhibit a plethora of structure forming instabilities, including the clustering instability of a freely cooling homogeneous inelastic gas \cite{Hopkins,Goldhirsch,McNamara1,McNamara2,Ernst,Brey,Luding,van Noije,Ben-Naim2,ELM,MP,Garzo}. This instability brings about the generation of a macroscopic flow and formation of dense clusters of particles. The natural language for a theoretical description of macroscopic flows of a granular gas is the Navier-Stokes granular hydrodynamics . Although the criteria of its validity are quite restrictive, see below, granular hydrodynamics is instrumental for theoretical investigations, and often prediction, of a host of collective effects in granular flows. Recently, applications of granular hydrodynamics have been extended to non-stationary flows of granular gases . The non-stationary settings provide sharp tests to continuum models of granular flows and help evaluate their domains of validity. This is especially true when the time-dependent solutions of the continuum equations develop finite-time singularities , such as the recently predicted density blowup in freely cooling granular gases: at zero gravity , and at finite gravity . We will assume throughout this paper nearly elastic particle collisions, a very small gas density (that we denote by $\rho$), and a very small Knudsen number: \begin{equation} 1-r\ll 1\,,\;\;\;\;\;\rho \sigma^d\ll 1\,,\;\;\;\; \mbox{and}\;\;\;\;\;l_{free}/L\ll1\,. \end{equation} Here $d>1$ is the dimension of space, $l_{free}$ is the mean free path of the particles, and $L$ is the characteristic length scale of the hydrodynamic fields. Under these assumptions the Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics provides a quantitatively accurate leading-order theory for granular gases . Previous works employed hydrodynamic equations to show that, for sufficiently large systems, the homogeneously cooling state of the granular gas is linearly unstable. The unstable perturbations grow via two (linearly) independent modes: the shear mode corresponding to the development of a macroscopic solenoidal flow, and the clustering mode corresponding to the development of a potential flow that causes formation of clusters of particles. How does the clustering mode develop beyond the linear regime, and do the hydrodynamic nonlinearities arrest the density growth? For the clustering instability in large systems (as well as for the gravitational instability ) the growing perturbations bring the system into a fully developed non-linear regime . Therefore, one has to deal with fully non-linear hydrodynamic equations. Not restricting ourselves to a close proximity to the homogeneously cooling state, we can formulate the problem in a more general way and explore different nonlinear flows of a freely evolving granular gas. Solving the hydrodynamic equations analytically, and even numerically, is a difficult task, and additional simplifications are needed. We will make \textit{two} additional simplifying assumptions in this work. First, assuming a large-scale flow, we will neglect the viscous and heat conduction terms in the hydrodynamic equations. Second, we will assume that the macroscopic flow is one-dimensional. A natural environment for the second assumption is provided by the geometry of a narrow channel with perfectly elastic side walls that we adopt here, following Refs. . Although the microscopic motion of particles in the channel remains two- or three-dimensional (2d or 3d), the macroscopic flow depends only on one spatial coordinate: the coordinate along the channel. This is because, in a narrow channel, both the shear mode and the clustering mode in the transverse directions are suppressed (see Refs. \onlinecite{ELM,MP} for detail). As a result, one can focus on the development of the (one-dimensional) clustering mode as it enters a strongly nonlinear regime. Working in the channel geometry, Efrati \textit{et al.} considered the long-wavelength limit of the clustering instability, when the linear growth rate of the instability is the highest. In this case the inelastic energy loss of the gas is the fastest process, and the gas pressure drops, almost instantaneously, to a very small value. The further dynamics are then (almost) purely inertial which would bring about a finite-time blow-up of the velocity gradient and, therefore, of the density. This is the well known blow-up of the free flow . Its signatures were observed in the numerical solution of the hydrodynamic equations until the maximum gas density became so high that the numerical scheme lost accuracy. The numerical results of Ref. were tested in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations in 2d of a freely cooling gas of inelastically colliding disks in a long and narrow channel . The MD simulations supported the free-flow blow-up scenario until the time when the gas density approached the hexagonal close-packing value, and the further density growth was arrested. As we have recently found , the free flow asymptotics does not hold all the way to the density blowup. Very close, in time and in space, to the (attempted) free-flow singularity, the compressional heating starts to act and temporarily stabilizes the gas temperature at a small but finite value. As a result, the gas pressure again becomes important: it breaks the purely inertial dynamics and, though unable to stop the density blowup, dramatically changes the local blowup properties. It turns out that, after a brief crossover, the further dynamics obey a new blowup scenario, not limited to the long-wavelength limit . The new scenario has the following features. As the blow-up time $t_c$ is approached, the maximum density exhibits a power law $\sim (t_c-t)^{-2}$. The velocity gradient blows up as $\sim - (t_c-t)^{-1}$, whereas the velocity itself remains continuous and develops a cusp, rather than a shock discontinuity, at the singularity. The gas temperature vanishes at the singularity, but the pressure there remains finite. This blowup, which obeys the above asymptotic laws near the singularity, emerges universally, that is for generic initial and boundary conditions. (Note that, in the long-wavelength limit, the crossover from the free flow regime to the finite-pressure regime does not happen when the initial gas density is not very small. In this case excluded particle volume effects interfere in the dynamics, and arrest the density growth, \textit{before} the crossover has a chance to occur, as indeed was observed in Ref.~.) These findings are based on extensive numerical simulations (numerical solutions of the hydrodynamic equations for a host of initial and boundary conditions) and a family of exact analytical solutions of the hydrodynamic equations, without and with shocks, briefly announced in Ref. . In the present work we give a detailed account of the exact solutions and investigate their structure close to the singularity. We verify the exact solutions numerically. We show that the singularity follows the isobaric scenario: the gas pressure is approximately uniform in space and constant in time in a close vicinity of the developing singularity. Finally, we evaluate the validity of the exact solutions close to the singularity by estimating the role of additional physical processes: the viscosity, heat conduction and excluded particle volume effects. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II we introduce the equations of \textit{ideal} granular hydrodynamics (IGHD) and discuss their general properties. In Section we employ Lagrangian coordinates and derive a family of exact solutions of the IGHD equations, consider some particular cases of the solutions and investigate global and local properties of the solutions. In Section we adapt the exact solutions to describe a different setting, where a piston moves into a granular gas at rest, and a density blowup, developing at the piston, coexists with an ``ordinary" shock wave propagating into the gas. Besides demonstrating the presence of the two different types of singularities in the same system, this solution allows an arbitrary initial density profile at large distances, showing that the density blowup is a local process. Section presents the results of numerical solutions of the IGHD equations that confirm stability of the exact solutions with respect to small one-dimensional perturbations and establish universality of the density blowup for different initial conditions. In Section we discuss the role of non-ideal effects, neglected in our solutions, close to the singularity. In Section we summarize our results and discuss their bearing on cluster formation. \section{Ideal hydrodynamics of a freely cooling granular gas} Under the three strong inequalities~(), the Navier-Stokes granular hydrodynamics provides a quantitatively accurate leading-order theory for granular gases. It deals with three coarse-grained fields: the mass density $\rho(\mathbf{x}, t)$, the mean flow velocity ${\mathbf v}({\mathbf x}, t)$ and the granular temperature $T({\mathbf x}, t)$. An additional coarse-grained field, the pressure $p({\mathbf x}, t)$, is related to the density and temperature by the perfect gas equation of state $p=\rho T$. Assuming a one-dimensional macroscopic flow, we can write these equations as \begin{eqnarray}&& \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial(\rho v)}{\partial x}=0, \\&& \rho\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}+ v\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}\right)=-\frac{\partial (\rho T)}{\partial x}+\nu_0\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(\sqrt{T}\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}\right), \\&& \frac{\partial T}{\partial t}+ v\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}=-(\gamma-1) T\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\Lambda\rho T^{3/2}\nonumber\\&&+\frac{\kappa_0}{\rho}\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left(\sqrt{T}\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}\right) +\frac{\nu_0(\gamma-1)\sqrt{T}}{\rho}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}\right)^2\,. \end{eqnarray} Here $\gamma$ is the adiabatic index of the gas ($\gamma=2$ and $5/3$ for $d=2$ and $d=3$, respectively), $\Lambda=2 \pi^{(d-1)/2} (1-r^2) \sigma^{d-1}/[d\, \Gamma(d/2)]$ (see \textit{e.g.} ), and $\Gamma(\dots)$ is the gamma function. In addition, $\nu_0=(2\sigma\sqrt{\pi})^{-1}$ and $\kappa_0=4\nu_0$ in 2d, and $\nu_0=5(3\sigma^2 \sqrt{\pi})^{-1}$ and $\kappa_0=15\nu_0/8$ in 3d, see Ref. \onlinecite{BP}. The only difference between Eqs.~()-() and the standard gas dynamic equations for a dilute gas of \textit{elastically} colliding spheres is the presence in Eq.~() of the inelastic energy loss term $-\Lambda \rho T^{3/2}$. There are three types of dissipative terms in Eqs.~()-(): the viscous terms in Eqs.~() and (), the heat conduction term in Eq.~() and the energy loss term in Eq.~(). The viscous and heat conduction terms include spatial gradients of the hydrodynamic fields, whereas the energy loss term is independent of the gradients. When the characteristic hydrodynamic length scale of the flow is sufficiently large, the viscous and heat conduction terms can be neglected, while the energy loss term should be kept, and we arrive at the equations of \textit{ideal} granular hydrodynamics (IGHD): \begin{eqnarray}&& \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial(\rho v)}{\partial x}=0,\ \ \rho\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}+v\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}\right)= - \,\frac{\partial (\rho T)}{\partial x}, \\&& \frac{\partial T}{\partial t} +v \frac{\partial T}{\partial x}=-(\gamma-1)T\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\Lambda\rho T^{3/2}. \end{eqnarray} For consistency, all the assumptions must be checked \textit{a posteriori}, after a hydrodynamic problem in question is solved, and the hydrodynamic length and time scales are found. The basic state of the freely cooling gas is the homogeneously cooling state described by the Haff law : \begin{equation} \rho= \rho_0,\;\;\;\; v= 0,\;\;\;\; T=\frac{T_0}{\left(1+\Lambda \rho_0 T_0^{1/2}t/2\right)^2}\,. \end{equation} This state corresponds to the initial conditions $\rho(x,t=0)=\rho_0=const$, $T(x,t=0)=T_0=const$ and $v(x,t)=0$. Obviously, the IGHD equations reproduce the Haff's law exactly, as the homogeneously cooling state does not include gradients of the hydrodynamic fields. A more meaningful example of a situation where the IGHD applies is provided by the linear stability analysis of the homogeneously cooling state. This analysis, in the framework of the complete, non-ideal Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics ()-() and its extensions was performed by many workers, starting from Goldhirsch and collaborators and McNamara . The main results of the linear stability analysis can be described, at the level of order-of-magnitude estimates, as follows. The evolution of a small sinusoidal perturbation with the wave number $k$ is determined by two competing processes. The inelastic energy loss tends to enhance the fluctuations on the cooling time scale $[(1-r^2)\sigma^{d-1}\rho \sqrt{T}]^{-1}$ which is $k$-independent. In its turn, the viscosity and thermal conduction tend to erase the perturbation on a time scale $[k^2 l_{free}^2 \rho\sigma^{d-1}\sqrt{T}]^{-1}$, where $l_{free}\sim 1/(n \sigma^{d-1})$ is the mean free path and $l_{free}^2\rho\sigma^{d-1}\sqrt{T}$ is the characteristic value of the viscosity/heat conductivity. Balancing these two time scales, one obtains the critical wave number $k_c\sim l_{free}^{-1}\sqrt{1-r}$ so that the perturbations with $k<k_c$ grow, while the short-wavelength perturbations, $k>k_c$, decay . In a narrow channel, such that perturbations in the transverse direction with wave numbers smaller than $k_c$ are not allowed, only perturbations along the channel will grow. As a result, by the end of the linear stage, the hydrodynamic fields are effectively one-dimensional and have characteristic length scales of the order of $l_{free}/\sqrt{1-r}$ or longer. The validity of the Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics ()-() for the description of the whole range of unstable perturbations demands a strong inequality $\sqrt{1-r} \ll 1$. On the other hand, the IGHD model~() and () is valid if we demand a strong inequality $k\ll k_c$. Indeed, one can check that, in this case, the growth rate of the clustering instability, as obtained from the IGHD, coincides in the leading order in $k/k_c$ with that obtained from the full hydrodynamic equations. In Section we will perform a consistency check, and establish the validity domain, of our exact \textit{nonlinear} solutions of the IGHD equations () and~(). Now let us discuss the basic properties of these equations. Although much simpler than the non-ideal equations ()-(), the nonlinear IGHD equations still present a hard mathematical problem. Going back to elastic particle collisions, $\Lambda=0$, one recovers the ordinary ideal gas dynamics in one dimension. Among most interesting solutions are those describing the development of wave-breaking singularities when starting from smooth initial data . Note that, even for $\Lambda=0$, the general initial value problem is not soluble analytically, except for the particular case of an isentropic flow, where the entropy per unit volume $s(\rho,T)=\rho \ln \left(T/\rho^{\gamma-1}\right)$ is uniform in space and constant in time . Needless to say, at $\Lambda> 0$, Eqs. ~() and () do not allow isentropic solutions. The total entropy of the fluid $S=\int s(\rho,T)\,dx$, governed by Eq. () and (), is monotone decreasing: \begin{equation} \frac{dS}{dt}=-\Lambda \int \rho^2 T^{1/2} dx\,, \end{equation} where we have assumed that there is no net entropy flux from the boundaries. As expected from the microscopic picture, the local entropy loss rate in Eq.~() is proportional to the particle collision rate. The entropy loss implies that the system may exhibit self-organization phenomena as is indeed observed in the process of clustering instability. Before deriving a family of exact solutions exhibiting a finite-time density blowup, we note two rescaling symmetries of Eqs.~() and (). The first symmetry relates solutions at different $\Lambda>0$. If $\rho(x, t)$, $v(x, t)$ and $T(x, t)$ solve Eqs.~() and () at some $\Lambda$, then the rescaled fields $\rho[(\Lambda'/\Lambda)x, (\Lambda'/\Lambda)t]$, $v[(\Lambda'/\Lambda)x, (\Lambda'/\Lambda)t]$ and $T[(\Lambda'/\Lambda)x, (\Lambda'/\Lambda)t]$ solve the same system with the cooling coefficient $\Lambda'$. Therefore, the general mathematical properties of Eqs.~() and (), such as the existence of singularities, are the same for any $\Lambda>0$. The second symmetry relates solutions of Eqs.~() and () at the same $\Lambda$. If $\rho$, $v$ and $T$ solve Eqs. () and (), then ${\tilde \rho}$, ${\tilde v}$ and ${\tilde T}$ defined by \begin{eqnarray}&& {\tilde \rho}(x, t)=\alpha \rho(\alpha x, \alpha\sqrt{\beta} t),\ \ {\tilde v}(x, t)=\sqrt{\beta} v(\alpha x, \alpha\sqrt{\beta} t),\ \nonumber\\&& {\tilde T}(x, t)= \beta T( \alpha x, \alpha\sqrt{\beta}t)\,, \end{eqnarray} with any $\alpha>0$ and $\beta>0$, also solve Eqs.~() and (). These symmetries are exploited in the following. \section{Development of density singularities} \subsection{Lagrangian coordinates and exact solutions} Let us rewrite the governing equations () and () in terms of the pressure $p=\rho T$, rather than temperature: \begin{eqnarray}&& \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial(\rho v)}{\partial x}=0,\ \ \rho\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}+v\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}\right)=-\frac{\partial p}{\partial x}, \\&& \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} +v \frac{\partial p}{\partial x}=-\gamma p\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\Lambda\rho^{1/2} p^{3/2}, \end{eqnarray} The family of exact solutions, presented in this Section, are smooth initially but become singular in a finite time $t_c$. At the singularity, the density blows up, in contrast to the ordinary ``wave-breaking" singularity of the ideal gas dynamics ($\Lambda=0$), where only the \textit{gradients} of the hydrodynamic fields blow up . An exact solution of a different type, presented in Section , includes a shock already at $t=0$. That solution also exhibits a density blowup, and the local properties of the blowup are the same as in the initially smooth solutions. Let us introduce Lagrangian coordinates. The coordinates $x(m, t)$ of the fluid particles obey the equation \begin{equation} \frac{\partial x(m, t)}{\partial t}=v(x(m, t), t), \end{equation} where $m$ is a continuous label (a Lagrangian coordinate) of particles. The defining property of the exact solutions that we are going to present is independence of the particle accelerations $\partial_t^2 x(m, t)$ of time: the fluid particle coordinates $x(m, t)$ satisfy the equation \begin{equation} x(m, t)=x(m, 0)+v(m, 0) t+\frac{a(m, 0)t^2}{2}, \end{equation} where $v(m, 0)$ and $a(m, 0)$ are the initial velocities and accelerations of the fluid particles, respectively. As we will see later, the total mass of gas is finite for our solutions. As a result, the pressure must vanish at the boundaries, implying existence of a point with a zero pressure gradient (and, therefore, a zero particle acceleration) in between. A fluid particle that has a zero acceleration (that is conserved in our solutions) moves with a constant velocity, and we choose to work in such a frame of reference where this particle is at rest, so that the conditions $v(x=0, t)=0$ and $\partial_x p(x=0, t)=0$ are obeyed. It is convenient to choose the Lagrangian coordinate $m$ to be the \textit{mass} coordinate : \begin{equation} m(x, t)=\int_0^x \rho(x', t)dx'\, \end{equation} that is the mass content between the Eulerian points $0$ and $x$. The inverse transformation $x(m, t)$ is \begin{equation} x(m, t)=\int_0^m \frac{dm'}{\rho(m', t)}\,. \end{equation} In the Lagrangian coordinates Eqs.~() and () look simpler: \begin{eqnarray}&& \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left(\frac{1}{\rho}\right)= \frac{\partial v}{\partial m},\,\,\, \frac{\partial v}{\partial t} =-\frac{\partial p}{\partial m},\\&& \frac{\partial p}{\partial t}=-\gamma p \rho\frac{\partial v}{\partial m}-\Lambda p^{3/2}\rho^{1/2}\,. \end{eqnarray} Let us calculate the Lagrangian acceleration: \begin{equation} \frac{\partial^2 x(m, t)}{\partial t^2}=-\frac{\partial p(m, t)}{\partial m}, \end{equation} where we have used Eqs. () and (). For the solutions obeying Eq.~(), the Lagrangian pressure gradient $\partial_m p(m, t)$ should be independent of time. Since the pressure $p(m, t)$ is time-independent (and zero) at the gas boundaries, it can depend only on $m$. Then Eqs.~() and () yield \begin{equation} \frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial m^2}=-\mu^2p,\ \ \ \mbox{where} \ \ \ \mu= \frac{\Lambda}{\gamma\sqrt{2}}. \end{equation} In view of the zero acceleration at the origin, $\partial_m p(0, t)=0$, Eq.~() yields $p=2A\cos (\mu m)$, where $A$ is constant. The resulting family of solutions is \begin{eqnarray} p(m, t)&=&2A\cos (\mu m), \\ \rho(m, t)&=&\frac{\rho(m, 0)}{[1-\mu t \sqrt{A\rho(m, 0)\cos (\mu m)}]^2}, \\ v(m, t)&=&-2\mu\int_0^m\sqrt{\frac{A\cos (\mu m')}{\rho(m', 0)}}dm'\nonumber \\&+&2A\mu t\sin(\mu m)\,, \end{eqnarray} where we have used the condition $v(m=0, t)=0$. This family of solutions describes a compression flow (the velocity gradient is negative everywhere), as the compressional heating is balanced, in Eq.~(), by the inelastic cooling. The solutions include an arbitrary non-negative function $\rho(m,0)$: the initial gas density. The arbitrary constant $A>0$ that, together with $\rho(m,0)$, determines the (time-dependent) Mach number of the flow, appears due to the rescaling symmetry of the equations and corresponds to the constant $\beta$ in Eq.~(). One can check that the constant $\alpha$ in Eq.~() corresponds to the freedom of multiplying $\rho(m,0)$ and $A$ by $\alpha$. As the pressure $p$ must be non-negative, and vanish at the (finite or infinite) boundaries of the freely moving gas, the solutions () can hold only on a finite interval $(-\pi/2\mu, \pi/2\mu)$ (we assume that the gas region is single-connected, and the interval includes $m=0$). Therefore, the total mass of the gas in these solutions is finite and fixed by parameters $\Lambda$ and $\gamma$: $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \rho (x, 0)dx=\pi/\mu=\sqrt{2} \pi\gamma/\Lambda$. Once the solutions ()-() in the Lagrangian coordinates are known, we can return to the Eulerian coordinates by using, at any time $t$, Eq. (). Depending on the particular choice of the initial density, there are two possible types of solutions ()-(). First, the fixed mass of the gas $\pi/\mu$ can be distributed, at $t=0$, over either an infinite, or a finite $x$-interval. This is determined by the behavior of $\rho(m, 0)$ near $m=\pm \,\pi/2\mu$. For example, let $\rho(m, 0)\sim(\pi/2\mu-m)^{1+a}$ near $m=\pi/2\mu$. Then it follows from Eq. () that the gas occupies an infinite (correspondingly, a finite) interval of positive $x$ if $a\geq 0$ (correspondingly, $a<0$). The velocity can be either finite, or infinite at the gas boundaries. For example, for the same behavior of the initial density $\rho(m,t=0)\sim(\pi/2\mu-m)^{1+a}$ near $m=\pi/2\mu$ one obtains a finite (correspondingly, infinite) gas velocity at $m=\pi/2\mu$ for $a<2$ (correspondingly, $a\geq 2$). Now let us consider what types of initial conditions evolve according to Eqs.~()-() and discuss the density blowup that is brought by this evolution. \subsection{Initial conditions and density blowup for the exact solutions} A particular member of our family of exact solutions ()-() is determined by a specific choice of the constant $A>0$ and of the initial density $\rho(m, 0)\geq 0$, defined on the interval $[-\pi/(2\mu), \pi/(2\mu)]$. In the Eulerian coordinates one can specify an arbitrary initial density profile $\rho(x, 0)$ that has a fixed total mass $\pi/\mu$: \begin{equation} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\rho(x, 0)dx=\pi/\mu. \end{equation} Once $\rho(x, 0)$ and $A$ are specified, one needs to choose the origin so that the gas masses to the left and to the right of the origin are the same [and equal to $\pi/(2\mu)$]. Then the initial gas pressure in the Eulerian coordinates is \begin{equation} p(x, 0)=2A\cos\left(\mu\int_0^x\rho(x', 0)dx'\right). \end{equation} Now, using Eq.~(), we calculate the velocity gradient in the Eulerian coordinate at $t=0$: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial v(x, 0)}{\partial x}&=&\rho(m, 0)\frac{\partial v(m, 0)}{\partial m}\nonumber \\ &=&-2\mu \sqrt{A\rho(m, 0)\cos (\mu m)}. \end{eqnarray} which, in view of the condition $v(x=0,t)=0$, yields \begin{equation} v(x, 0)=-\mu\int_0^x \sqrt{2\rho(x', 0)p(x', 0)}dx' \end{equation} with $p(x, 0)$ from Eq.~(). Equations () and () show that, once $\rho(x, 0)$ is a smooth function of $x$, then the initial pressure and velocity are smooth functions as well. Let us now proceed to the properties of the solutions. As we already noted, these solutions describe a motion of fluid particles with a time-independent acceleration, see Eq.~(). This time-independent acceleration is \begin{equation} a(m, 0)=-\frac{\partial p(m, 0)}{\partial m}=2\mu A\sin (\mu m).\nonumber \end{equation} The evolution described by Eqs. ()-() brings about a singularity of this initially smooth flow: $\rho(m, t)$ blows up in a finite time, while the rest of the flow variables - the pressure and velocity - remain finite. The density blow up occurs at the Lagrangian point $m_0$ where $\rho(m, 0)\cos (\mu m)$ reaches its maximum: \begin{equation} \rho(m_0, 0)\cos (\mu m_0) = \max\left[\rho(m, 0)\cos (\mu m)\right]. \end{equation} Interestingly, the point $m_0$ corresponds, in view of Eq.~(), to the point of the absolute (negative) minimum of the velocity gradient in the Eulerian coordinates, just as in the case of the free flow (that is, zero pressure) singularity . The singularity occurs when the Jacobian of the Lagrangian transformation of the fluid particles vanishes for the first time: $\partial_m x(m=m_0, t_c)=0$. For the time $t_c$ and the Eulerian coordinate of the singularity $x_0$ we find \begin{eqnarray} t_c&=&\frac{1}{\mu \sqrt{A\rho(m_0, 0)\cos (\mu m_0)}}, \nonumber \\ x_c&=&x(m_0, t_c)=\int_0^{m_0} \frac{dm'}{\rho(m', t_c)}\,. \end{eqnarray} At the (fixed) Lagrangian point of singularity $m_0$ the density blows up as \begin{equation} \rho(m_0, t)=\frac{\rho(m_0, 0)}{(1-t/t_c)^2}. \end{equation} In the Eulerian coordinates the blowup develops, in general, in a moving point: \begin{equation} \rho[x(m_0, t), t]=\frac{\rho[x(m_0, 0), 0]}{(1-t/t_c)^2}. \end{equation} The velocity gradient at the singularity point $x(m_0,t)$ diverges. The divergence law can be easily found in the Langrangian coordinates, by using the continuity equation and Eqs.~() and (): \begin{eqnarray}&& \left. \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x} \right|_{x=x(m_0,t)} = \left.\rho(m,t) \, \frac{\partial v(m,t)}{\partial m}\right|_{m=m_0} \nonumber \\ &=& \left. -\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[\ln \rho (m,t)\right]\right|_{m=m_0}= -\frac{2}{t_c-t}\,. \end{eqnarray} Finally, the (finite) pressure is conserved on the Lagrangian trajectory: \begin{equation} p(x=x(m_0, t), t)=2A\cos (\mu m_0). \end{equation} Note that the pressure does not have a minimum at the singularity point, so this flow does not conform to the popular ``pressure instability" scenario . It is instructive to consider several particular examples of solutions starting with the mass distributed over an infinite interval of $x$. \subsection{Solutions with mass distributed over an infinite interval of $x$} In our first example the initial density profile in the Lagrangian coordinates is $\rho(m, 0)=\rho_0\cos (\mu m)$. To return to the Eulerian coordinates, we use Eq.~() and obtain \begin{equation} \sinh \left[\frac{x(m, 0)}{l}\right]=\tan (\mu m)\,, \end{equation} where we have introduced the characteristic inelastic cooling length scale $l=1/(\mu\rho_0)$ whose meaning will become clear shortly. We use Eq.~() to express $\rho(m, 0)=\rho_0\cos (\mu m)$ through $x$. The rest of initial conditions follow from Eq.~() and Eq.~() at $t=0$. Note that the initial gas temperature $T(m, 0)=p(m, 0)/\rho(m, 0)=2A/\rho_0\equiv T_0$ is uniform in space. The initial conditions are \begin{eqnarray}&& \rho(x, 0)=\frac{\rho_0}{\cosh (x/l)},\ \ T(x, 0)=T_0, \\&& v(x, 0)=-\sqrt{2T_0}\arcsin \left[\tanh \left(\frac{x}{l}\right)\right]. \end{eqnarray} The initial velocity profile describes an inflow of gas from plus and minus infinity with a finite velocity there: $\lim_{x\to \pm \infty}v(x, 0)=\mp\, \pi\sqrt{T_0/2}$. Now let us introduce the characteristic inelastic cooling time \begin{equation} \tau= \frac{l\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{T_0}} =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\mu\rho_0\sqrt{T_0}}=\frac{2 \gamma}{\rho_0 \Lambda \sqrt{T_0}}\,, \end{equation} see Eq.~(). In its turn, $l$ is the characteristic length scale the particles pass during the time $\tau$ while moving with thermal velocity. According to Eqs.~()-(), the hydrodynamic fields in the Lagrangian coordinates evolve in time in this example as \begin{eqnarray} p(m, t)&=&\rho_0T_0\cos (\mu m),\\ \rho(m, t)&=&\frac{\rho_0\cos (\mu m)}{[1-(t/\tau)\cos (\mu m)]^2}, \\ v(m, t)&=&-\sqrt{2T_0}\left[\mu m-(t/\tau)\sin (\mu m)\right], \end{eqnarray} as depicted in Fig.~. Using Eqs.~() and () we find the law of motion () of Lagrangian particles, \begin{eqnarray} \frac{x(m, t)}{l}&=&\frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{1+\sin (\mu m)}{1-\sin (\mu m)}\right)\nonumber \\ &-&2\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)\mu m+\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^2\sin(\mu m) \nonumber \end{eqnarray} which, combined with Eqs.~()-(), yields a parametric representation of the solution in the Eulerian coordinates, see Fig.~. The density singularity occurs at $x=0$ at time $t=\tau$: \begin{eqnarray}&& \rho(0, t)=\frac{\rho_0}{(1-t/\tau)^2},\ \ T(0, t)=T_0(1-t/\tau)^2,\nonumber \\&& p(0, t)=\rho_0T_0=\mbox{const},\ \ \frac{\partial v}{\partial x}(0,t)=-\frac{2}{\tau-t}, \end{eqnarray} while $v(x=0,t)=0$. Notice that the pressure has a local \textit{maximum} at the density blowup point $x=m=0$. The above solution can be immediately generalized. Indeed, it is a particular case of a one-parameter family of solutions generated by the initial density profile \begin{equation} \rho(x, 0)=\frac{\rho_0}{2}\left[\cosh^{-1}\left(\frac{x}{l}+a\right)+\cosh^{-1}\left(\frac{x}{l}-a\right)\right], \end{equation} where $a>0$ is an arbitrary parameter. For $a<a_{cr}= \mbox{arcsinh}(1)=0.88137\dots$ there is a single density peak at $x=0$, while at $a>a_{cr}$ there are two symmetric density peaks at $x=\pm\, l\, \mbox{arccosh}(\sinh a)$. The density profile () obeys Eq.~(): the total mass of the gas remains equal to $\pi/\mu$. Equations~() and () yield \begin{equation} \sinh \left[\frac{x(m, 0)}{l}\right]=\cosh a \tan (\mu m). \end{equation} By setting $p(x, 0)=\rho_0T_0\cos [\mu m(x, 0)]$ we obtain the initial temperature \begin{equation} T(x, 0)=T_0\sqrt{1+\frac{\sinh ^2 a}{\cosh^2(x/l)}}, \end{equation} while $v(x, 0)$ can be found from Eq.~(). Now we calculate the initial conditions in the Lagrangian coordinates. Using Eqs.~() and () we obtain \begin{equation} \rho(m, 0)=\rho_0\cos(\mu m)\sqrt{1-\tanh^2 a\cos^2 (\mu m)}. \end{equation} Then Eq. () yields \begin{equation} v(m, 0)=-\sqrt{2T_0}\int_0^{\mu m} \!\frac{dm'}{(1-\tanh^2 a\cos^2 m')^{1/4}}. \end{equation} Though this integral can be expressed via the Appell hypergeometric function of two variables, the integral form is more visual. The time history of the hydrodynamic fields in the Lagrangian coordinates is shown in Fig.~. To go over to the Eulerian coordinates, we calculate the law of motion () of the Lagrangian particles: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{x(m, t)}{l}&=&\ln\left[\cosh a\tan(\mu m)+\sqrt{1+\cosh^2a\tan^2(\mu m)}\right] \nonumber\\ &-&2\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)\int_0^{\mu m} \frac{dm'}{(1-\tanh^2 a\cos^2 m')^{1/4}} \nonumber \\ &+&\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^2\sin (\mu m),\nonumber \end{eqnarray} and use it together with the Lagrangian solutions, see Fig.~. The development of singularity in this case depends on the parameter $a$. For $a<a_{cr}$ the density and the pressure peaks remain at $x=0$ at all times until the singularity, while the singularity is of the same type as that observed for $a=0$: \begin{eqnarray}&& \rho(0, t)=\frac{\rho_0}{(\sqrt{\cosh a}-t/\tau)^2},\nonumber \\ &&T(0, t)=T_0(\sqrt{\cosh a}-t/\tau)^2 ,\nonumber \\&& p(0, t)=\rho_0T_0,\ \ \frac{\partial v}{\partial x}=-\frac{2}{\tau\sqrt{\cosh a}-t}. \end{eqnarray} The density blowup time is $t_c=\tau\sqrt{\cosh a}$. Now let us consider the case of $a>a_{cr}$ with two symmetric off-center density peaks at $t=0$. Interestingly, at $a_{cr}<a<{\tilde a}_{cr}$, where ${\tilde a}_{cr}=\mbox{arcsinh}(\sqrt{2})=1.14621\dots$, the singularity still develops at $x=0$. Indeed, it is the maximum of the function $\rho(m, 0)\cos (\mu m)$, rather than of $\rho(m,0)$ that determines, in view of Eq.~(), the singularity point. For $a_{cr}<a<{\tilde a}_{cr}$ this maximum is still at $m=m_0=0$. As time progresses, the two symmetric density peaks move toward the origin, reaching it precisely at the time of singularity. The pressure still has a maximum at $x=0$, while in view of Eqs.~() the time of singularity is still $t_c=\tau \sqrt{\cosh a}$. Instead of looking for the maxima of $\rho(m)$, it is convenient to look for the minima of the inverse density which, by virtue of Eq.~(), can be written as \begin{eqnarray}&& \frac{\rho_0}{\rho(m, t)}=\frac{1}{\cos (\mu m)\sqrt{1-\tanh^2 a\cos^2(\mu m)}}-2\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)\nonumber\\&&\times\frac{1}{\left[1-\tanh^2 a\cos^2 (\mu m)\right]^{1/4}}+\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^2\cos (\mu m). \end{eqnarray} Differentiating this function with respect to $m$ one can verify that at $t=\tau\sqrt{\cosh a}$ the minimum is indeed at $m=0$. Finally, at $a>{\tilde{a}_{cr}}$ the density blows up symmetrically at two Eulerian points $x=\pm\, x(m_0, t_c)\neq 0$, where $$ m_0=(1/\mu)\,\arccos\left(\sqrt{2/3}\,\, \coth a\right) \neq 0. $$ Using the first of Eq.~() we find $t_c/\tau = 3^{3/4}\, 2^{-1/2}\tanh a$. In this case the pressure gradient is non-zero in the singularity point, so the pressure is neither maximum, nor minimum. \subsection{Solutions with mass distributed over a finite interval of $x$} If $\rho(m, 0)$ does not vanish at $|m|=\pi/(2\mu)$, or vanishes slower than linearly there, then the integral in Eq.~() converges, and the total gas mass $\pi/\mu$ is distributed over a finite interval of $x$. It follows from Eq.~() that the velocity (which vanishes at $x=m=0$ and has a negative gradient everywhere) takes finite values at the ends of the interval over which the mass is distributed. As a result, the $x$-interval, occupied by the gas, shrinks in the course of evolution. Assuming for simplicity that $\rho(m, 0)$ is an even function of $m$, we find from Eqs.~() and () that the interval $\left[-L(t), L(t)\right]$, occupied by the gas, shrinks with time as \begin{equation} L(t)=L(0)-2\mu t\int_0^{\pi/2\mu}\sqrt{\frac{A\cos (\mu m')}{\rho(m', 0)}}\,dm'+\mu A t^2 \nonumber \end{equation} and reaches its minimum at $t=t_c$. This minimum is always positive except in the degenerate case of $\rho(m,0)=\rho_0/\cos(\mu m)$, when the whole gas collapses into the point $x=0$ at the time of singularity. It turns out that, in this degenerate case, the solution is self-similar in the Eulerian coordinates $x$ and $t$ and separable in the Lagrangian coordinates $m$ and $t$. It can be shown that all self-similar solutions with a finite energy have an infinite density at some locations already at $t=0$. Such initial conditions do not correspond to a dilute gas, so they will not be considered here. A generic example of the solution on a finite Eulerian interval is provided by the uniform initial density $\rho(m, 0)=\rho_0$. In the Eulerian coordinates this choice corresponds to the constant initial density, $\rho(x, 0)=\rho_0$, at the interval $[-\pi l/2, \pi l/2]$. The solutions ()-() become \begin{eqnarray} p(m, t)&=&\rho_0T_0\cos (\mu m),\\ \rho(m, t)&=&\frac{\rho_0}{[1-(t/\tau)\sqrt{\cos (\mu m)}]^2}, \\ v(m, t)&=&-\sqrt{2T_0}\left[2 \mathrm{E}\left.\left(\frac{\mu m}{2}\,\right| \,2\right) -\frac{t}{\tau}\sin (\mu m)\right], \end{eqnarray} where $\mathrm{E}\left(\dots |\dots\right)$ is the elliptic integral of the second kind. The relation for $x(m,t)$ is the following: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{x(m, t)}{l}&=&\mu m - 4\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right) \mathrm{E}\left.\left(\frac{\mu m}{2}\,\right| \,2\right)+\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^2 \sin (\mu m).\nonumber \end{eqnarray} Here the singularity occurs at $x=0$ at time $t_c=\tau$ whereas $L(t_c)>0$. The local structure of singularity is the same as in the case of an infinite interval, see subsection~. \subsection{Energy decay for the exact solutions} A useful \textit{global} characteristics of the clustering process is provided by the evolution of the total kinetic energy of all particles versus time, $E(t)>0$. This quantity is convenient to follow in experiment and in MD simulations. In the language of hydrodynamics it is \begin{equation} E(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left(\frac{\rho T}{\gamma-1}+\frac{\rho v^2}{2} \right)dx\,, \end{equation} where the first term under the integral is the thermal energy density, and the second term is the macroscopic kinetic energy density. Let us compute $E(t)$ for the exact solutions Eqs.~()-(). First, consider the conditions under which the initial total energy $E(0)$ is finite. For the initial thermal energy we have \begin{eqnarray} E_{th}(0) &=& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\rho(x, 0) T(x, 0)dx}{\gamma-1} \\ \nonumber &=& 2A \int_{-\pi/2\mu}^{\pi/2\mu} \frac{\cos(\mu m)dm}{(\gamma-1)\rho(m, 0)}\,. \end{eqnarray} Whether this quantity is finite or not depends on the behavior of $\rho(m, 0)$ near $m=\pm \pi/2\mu$. For example, assuming as before that $\rho(m, 0)\sim(\pi/2\mu-m)^{1+a}$ near $m=\pi/2\mu$, we find that $E_{th}(0)$ is finite at $a<1$ and infinite otherwise. A simple example of the initial condition with an infinite energy is $\rho(m, 0)=\rho_0\cos^2(\mu m)$ corresponding to the Lorentzian initial density profile $\rho(x, 0)=\rho_0/[1+(x/l)^2]$ in the Eulerian coordinates. Here $$\rho(x, 0)T(x, 0)=\rho_0T_0/\sqrt{1+(x/l)^2}\,,\;\;\;-\infty<x<\infty\,,$$ which is not integrable. Now, since at $a<2$ the gas velocity is finite at $m=\pi/2\mu$ (see subsection ), then at $a<1$ the initial macroscopic kinetic energy \begin{equation} E_{kin}(0) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\rho v^2}{2} dx = \int_{-\pi/2\mu}^{\pi/2\mu} \frac{v^2(m, 0)}{2} dm \end{equation} is also finite. Therefore, we assume $a<1$ so that $E(0)<\infty$. Using the divergence form of the energy equation, \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\frac{\rho T}{\gamma-1}+\frac{\rho v^2}{2}\right)&+&\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left(\frac{\gamma\rho v T}{\gamma-1}+\frac{\rho v^3}{2}\right) \nonumber \\ &=&-\frac{\Lambda \rho^2 T^{3/2}}{\gamma-1}\,, \end{eqnarray} we can express the decay rate of the total energy as \begin{eqnarray} \frac{dE}{dt}&=&-\frac{\Lambda}{\gamma-1}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \rho^2T^{3/2}dx \nonumber \\ &=&-\frac{\Lambda}{\gamma-1}\int_{-\pi/2\mu}^{\pi/2\mu}\frac{p^{3/2} dm}{\rho^{1/2}}\,. \end{eqnarray} Using Eqs. () and (), we obtain \begin{equation} \frac{dE}{dt}=-\frac{\Lambda(2A)^{3/2}}{\gamma-1} \left[\int_{-\pi/2\mu}^{\pi/2\mu} \frac{dm \cos^{3/2}(\mu m)}{\sqrt{\rho(m, 0)}}-\frac{\pi \sqrt{A} t}{2} \right]. \nonumber \end{equation} It is easy to see that the integral in this equation converges for the assumed behavior of the initial density. Therefore, the energy decays quadratically in time: \begin{eqnarray} E(t)&=&E(0)-\frac{\Lambda(2A)^{3/2}t}{\gamma-1} \int_{-\pi/2\mu}^{\pi/2\mu} \frac{dm \cos^{3/2}(\mu m)}{\sqrt{\rho(m, 0)}}\nonumber \\ &+&\frac{\pi \Lambda A^2t^2}{\sqrt{2}(\gamma-1)}. \end{eqnarray} One can check that the decay of the thermal and macroscopic kinetic energies, separately, is also quadratic in time. One also observes that, at the time of the density blowup, $t=t_c$, the energy constitutes a finite and non-zero fraction of the initial energy, so the time $t_c$ is not special for the function $E(t)$. As a simple example, consider the initial density $\rho(m, 0)=\rho_0\cos(\mu m)$ corresponding to Eqs.~() and (). Here the integration in Eq.~() is elementary, and we obtain \begin{equation} \frac{E(t)}{\rho_0T_0l}=\frac{\pi}{\gamma-1}+\frac{\pi^3}{12}-\frac{4\gamma}{\gamma-1}\left( \frac{t}{\tau}\right)+\frac{\pi\gamma}{2(\gamma-1)}\left( \frac{t}{\tau}\right)^2\,, \end{equation} where $\rho_0T_0 l$ is the characteristic energy scale. This $E(t)$ dependence is shown in Fig.~. We now proceed to the analysis of the \textit{local} structure of the flow near a singularity. \subsection{Local structure of the exact solutions near the singularity} To analyze the local structure of the developing singularity we consider the Taylor expansion of the inverse density $u(m, t)\equiv 1/\rho(m, t)$ in a close vicinity of $m=m_0$ at times close to $t_c$. To calculate the $m$-derivatives it is convenient to write $u(m, t)=u(m, 0)[1-t\phi(m)]^2$, where $\phi(m)= \mu \sqrt{A\rho(m, 0)\cos (\mu m)}$ satisfies the conditions $\phi(m_0)=1/t_c$ and $\phi'(m_0)=0$, see Eqs.~() and (). After some algebra we find \begin{eqnarray} \frac{u'(m_0, t)}{u'(m_0, 0)}&=&\Delta^2,\nonumber \\ \frac{u''(m_0, t)}{u(m_0, 0)}&=&-2t_c\phi''\Delta+{\cal O}(\Delta^2), \nonumber \\ u'''(m_0, t)&=&-2 t_c\Delta\left[3u'(m_0, 0)\phi''+u(m_0, 0)\phi'''\right]\nonumber\\&&+{\cal O}(\Delta^2), \nonumber \\ \frac{u^{(4)}(m_0, t)}{u(m_0, 0)}&=&6 t_c^2\phi''^2+{\cal O}(\Delta), \end{eqnarray} where all the derivatives of $\phi$ are evaluated at $m=m_0$, and $\Delta\equiv 1-t/t_c$. The first non-vanishing $m$-derivative at $t=t_c$ is, therefore, of the fourth order, and we obtain \begin{equation} \frac{u(m, t_c)}{u(m_0, 0)}\simeq b^2\mu^4(m-m_0)^4,\ \ \mu|m-m_0|\ll 1, \end{equation} where we have introduced a positive dimensionless constant $b= -t_c\phi''(m_0)/2\mu^2$ [recall that $\phi(m)$ has a maximum at $m=m_0$, so that $\phi''(m_0)<0$]. Using the expression for $t_c$ from Eq. () and the definition of $\phi$ one finds that $b$ is independent of $A$ and can be written as $$b=-\frac{1}{4\mu^2}\left.\frac{d^2}{dm^2} {\ln\left[\rho(m, 0)\cos(\mu m)\right]}\right|_{m=m_0},$$ where we have used $\left[\rho(m, 0)\cos (\mu m)\right]'(m=m_0)=0$. The latter relation implies $(\rho'/\rho)(m=m_0)=\mu\tan(\mu m_0)$, so we obtain \begin{equation} b=\frac{1}{4}\left[1+2\tan^2 m_0-\frac{\rho''(m_0, 0)}{\mu^2\rho(m_0, 0)}\right] ={\cal O}(1)\,, \end{equation} where the latter estimate assumes that the initial density $\rho(m, 0)$ varies over a scale of order $1/\mu$. Equation~() shows that, at the singularity, $u=1/\rho$ vanishes faster than quadratically in $m$, as expected in general when a singularity is analytic. Going back to the Eulerian coordinates, $x(m, t)-x(m_0, t)=\int_{m_0}^m u(m', t)dm'$, we rewrite Eq.~() as \begin{equation} \frac{u(x, t_c)}{u(x_0, 0)}\simeq \left[\frac{5 \sqrt{b}(x-x_c)}{l}\right]^{4/5},\ \left|\frac{x-x_c}{l}\right|^{1/5}\ll 1, \end{equation} where $x_0\equiv x(m_0, 0)$, the spatial coordinate of the singularity $x_c$ is determined by Eq. (), and $l=1/[\mu\rho(x_0, 0)]$ is the inelastic cooling length scale. The validity condition in $x$ in Eq.~() corresponds to the validity condition in $m$ in Eq.~(). Thus, at $t=t_c$ the density profile is singular in a vicinity of $x=x_c$, and exhibits a power law with exponent $4/5$: \begin{equation} \frac{\rho(x, t_c)}{\rho(x_0, 0)}\simeq \left(\frac{l}{5\sqrt{b}\,|x-x_c|}\right)^{4/5}. \end{equation} This power-law singularity is integrable (that is, has a finite mass) and symmetric with respect to $x_c$. For comparison, the density singularity of a free flow, see \textit{e.g.} , exhibits the exponent $2/3$ instead of $4/5$ . As the velocity itself is finite at singularity, the velocity gradient is of interest. We obtain \begin{equation} \left.\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}\right|_{x=x(m, t)}=\rho(m, t)\frac{\partial v}{\partial m}=-\frac{2\phi(m)}{1-t\phi(m)}\,, \end{equation} where the last equality follows from the continuity equation and definition of $\phi(m)$. As a result, \begin{equation} -\frac{2}{\partial_xv}=\frac{1}{\phi(m)}-t\simeq t_c-t+bt_c\mu^2(m-m_0)^2\,, \end{equation} up to higher order terms in $t_c-t$ and $m-m_0$. Using Eqs.~() and (), we find that $$ -\frac{2}{t_c\partial_x v(x,t_c)} =\sqrt{\frac{u(m, t_c)}{u(m_0, 0)}}\,. $$ This relation, combined with Eq.~(), yields \begin{equation} \frac{\partial v(x,t_c)}{\partial x} = - \frac{2}{t_c}\left[\frac{l} {5\sqrt{b}\,(x-x_c)}\right]^{2/5}, \end{equation} Note that while the exponent $2/5$ of this power law is different from the exponent $4/5$ of the power law for the density, the two power laws have the same region of validity in $x$, see Eq.~(). Though the velocity gradient diverges at the singularity, the velocity itself is continuous there and has a cusp $\sim |x_c-x|^{3/5}$. This is in contrast with the ``wave breaking" singularity of ordinary gas dynamics, where the velocity becomes discontinuous at the point where the velocity gradient blows up. It is clear from the above that the local profiles of the density and velocity at $t=t_c$ do not depend on the details of the initial density $\rho(m, 0)$. This is not so for the pressure for which two types of spatial behavior are possible. For the special case where $\rho(m, 0)\cos (\mu m)$ is maximum at $m=0$, and so $m_0=0$, the density blows up at the origin $x=0$. As a result, the pressure versus $x$ has a local maximum at $x=0$, and the value of the maximum stays constant in time: $p(x=0, t)=2A$. The pressure profile in a vicinity of $x=0$ can be obtained from a Taylor expansion of Eq.~(): $p(m, t)/A\simeq 2-\mu^2m^2+{\cal O}(\mu^4m^4)$. At $t=t_c$ this leads to \begin{equation} \frac{p(x, t_c)}{p(0, t_c)}\simeq 1-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{5 x}{l b^2}\right)^{2/5}\,,\;\;\;\;\;\;\left(\frac{x}{l }\right)^{2/5}\ll 1\,. \end{equation} In the generic case, where the maximum of $\rho(m, 0)\cos (\mu m)$ is not at zero, so that $m_0\neq 0$, the singularity develops at a point which is not special for the pressure. Here the Taylor expansion of Eq.~() yields \begin{eqnarray} p(m)/A &=& 2\cos(\mu m_0)-2\mu(m-m_0)\sin(\mu m_0) \nonumber \\ &+& {\cal O}[\mu^2(m-m_0)^2]\,. \end{eqnarray} In this case we find \begin{equation} \frac{p(x_c, t_c)}{p(x_c, t_c)}\simeq 1-\tan(\mu m_0)\left[\frac{5(x-x_c)}{lb^2}\right]^{1/5} , \end{equation} that holds at $(|x-x_c|/l)^{1/5}\ll 1$. Note that the local $x$-dependence of the pressure at $t=t_c$ is very different from that of the density, or velocity gradient. First, the pressure remains finite at $t=t_c$. Second, even though the pressure gradient diverges at $x=x_c$, the divergence stems from a small correction term to a constant pressure, see Eq.~() and~(). As we discuss later, this difference in behavior is crucial for understanding the physical nature of the singularity. Now let us investigate the local structure of the flow immediately before the singularity: at $t_c-t\ll t_c$. The leading terms of the double Taylor expansion of the inverse density $u(m, t)=u(m, 0)[1-t\phi(m)]^2$ in a vicinity of $m=m_0$ and $t=t_c$ (that is, at $\mu|m-m_0|\ll 1$ and $\Delta\ll 1$) are the following: \begin{equation} \frac{u(m, t)}{u(m_0, 0)}\simeq \Delta^2+2b\Delta \mu^2 (m-m_0)^2+b^2\mu^4(m-m_0)^4\,; \end{equation} we recall that $\Delta=1-t/t_c$. Equation~() can be written in a self-similar form: \begin{equation} \frac{u(m, t)}{u(m_0, 0)}=\left(1-\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^2 U\left[\frac{\mu(m-m_0)}{\sqrt{1-t/t_c}} \right]\,, \end{equation} where $U(y)=(1+b y^2)^2$. Now, $x(m, t)-x_c(t)=\int_{m_0}^m u(m', t)dm'$ can be written as $$ \frac{x(m, t)-x_c(t)}{l}=\left(1-\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^{5/2} \Xi \left[\frac{\mu(m-m_0)}{\sqrt{1-t/t_c}} \right]\,, $$ where $\Xi(y)=\int_0^y U(y')dy'$. Evaluating this integral, we arrive at the self-similar form in the Eulerian coordinates: \begin{equation} \frac{u(x, t)}{u(x_0, 0)}=\left(1-\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^{2}\left\{ 1+bF^2\left[\frac{x-x_c(t)} {l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}} \right]\right\}^2, \end{equation} where the function $F(z)$ is defined implicitly by the fifth order polynomial equation \begin{equation} \frac{b^2F^5(z)}{5}+\frac{2bF^3(z)}{3}+F(z)=z \end{equation} that has a unique real solution. Equation~() holds at $x$ that satisfy the strong inequality \begin{equation} \left(1-\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^{1/2} \left|F\left[\frac{x-x_c(t)}{l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}}\right] \right| \ll 1\,, \end{equation} corresponding to the condition $\mu|m-m_0|\ll 1$ in Eq. (). The asymptotes of $F(z)$ are \begin{equation} F (z)\simeq\left\{\begin{array}{ll} z\,,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; z^2\ll 1\,, \nonumber\\ \\ (5z/b^2)^{1/5}\,,\;\;\;\;z^{2/5}\gg 1\,.\end{array}\right. \end{equation} The applicability condition () is determined by the $|z|\gg1$ asymptote of $F(z)$ and simplifies to $$ \left|\frac{x-x_c(t)}{l}\right|^{1/5}\ll 1\,. $$ The same condition guarantees the validity of the power-law density profile () at $t=t_c$. Therefore, near the singularity the density has the following self-similar form: \begin{equation} \frac{\rho(x, t)}{\rho(x_0, 0)}=\frac{1}{(1-t/t_c)^2}R\left[\frac{x-x_c(t)} {l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}} \right],\nonumber \end{equation} where $R(z)=1/[1+bF^2(z)]^2$. In the region corresponding to $z\ll 1$ one has $R(z)\simeq 1$. That is, $\rho(x, t)$ develops a plateau in a narrow region near $x_c(t)$ that we will call the \textit{inner} region. The inner region shrinks as $(t_c-t)^{5/2}$ as $t$ approaches $t_c$: \begin{equation} \rho(x, t)\simeq \frac{\rho(x_0, 0)}{(1-t/t_c)^2}\;\;\;\mbox{at} \;\;\;\; \left[\frac{\left|x-x_c(t)\right|}{l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}}\right]^2\ll 1.\nonumber \end{equation} At intermediate distances, or in the \textit{outer} region, $$ \left[\frac{\left|x-x_c(t)\right|}{l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}}\right]^{2/5}\gg 1,\ \ \left|\frac{x-x_c(t)}{l}\right|^{1/5}\ll 1 \,, $$ the time-independent power law () builds up. At $t=t_c$ the power law rules in the whole region $(|x-x_c(t)|/l)^{1/5}\ll 1$. The development of the singular profile of the velocity gradient can be inferred by going back to Eq.~(): \begin{equation} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x}=-\frac{2}{(t_c-t)[1+bF^2(z)]},\;\;\;\; z=\frac{[x-x_c(t)]} {l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}}.\nonumber \end{equation} Thus $\partial_x v$ develops a plateau $\partial_x v=-2/(t_c-t)$ [cf. Eq. ()] in the inner region, while the power law described by Eq. () sets in the outer region in the same way as the density power law. The development of the pressure profile as $t$ approaches $t_c$ is different in the case of $m_0=0$ and $m_0\neq 0$. In the former case we have \begin{equation} \frac{p(x, t)}{p(0, t)}\simeq 1-\frac{1-t/t_c}{2} F^2\left[\frac{x} {l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}} \right],\nonumber \end{equation} that holds at $(|x|/l)^{2/5}\ll 1$. In the inner region, $\left[|x|/l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}\right]^2\ll 1$, \begin{eqnarray}&& \frac{p(x, t)}{p(0, t)}\simeq 1-\frac{1}{(1-t/t_c)^4}\frac{x^2}{2l^2}, \end{eqnarray} while in the outer region the time-independent profile () sets it. In the generic case of $m_0\neq 0$ we obtain, for $\left[|x-x_c(t)|/l\right]^{1/5}\ll 1$, \begin{eqnarray} \frac{p(x, t)}{p[x_c(t), t]}&\simeq& 1 \nonumber \\ &-&\tan (\mu m_0)\sqrt{1-t/t_c}\, F\left[\frac{x-x_c(t)} {l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}} \right]\,. \nonumber \end{eqnarray} In the inner region this yields \begin{equation} \frac{p(x, t)}{p[x_c(t), t]}\simeq1-\tan(\mu m_0) \frac{x-x_c(t)} {l(1-t/t_c)^{2}}\,, \nonumber \end{equation} whereas the time-independent profile~() sets in the outer region. We observe that in the inner region, $\left[|x-x_c(t)|/l\right]^{1/5}\ll 1$, the pressure is approximately constant. This suggests that the sound waves are the fastest physical process near the singularity. Before we consider the hierarchy of time scales in more detail, let us reiterate that the finite-time singularity described here is quite different from the free-flow singularity where the density blows up as $(t_c-t)^{-1}$, the plateau of the inner region shrinks with time as $(t_c-t)^{3/2}$, the power law tail in the outer region is $\sim x^{2/3}$, and where the Lagrangian velocity, rather than the Lagrangian acceleration, is constant in time. \subsection{Time scale separation and isobaric scenario} In general, there are three time scales that characterize the dynamics described by the nonlinear IGHD equations () and (): the sound travel time $t_{sound}\sim L/\sqrt{T}$, the cooling time $t_{cooling}\sim 1/(\Lambda\rho\sqrt{T})$, and the inertial time $t_{inertial}\sim L/v$. Here $\rho$, $T$, and $v$ are typical values of the fields, while $L=L(t)$ is the characteristic spatial scale of the flow. The evolution of the hydrodynamic fields can produce time scale separation: a strong inequality between the time scales. Moreover, the hierarchy of the time scales can be different in different regions of space. Let us evaluate the time scales for our exact solutions ()-(). Here there are only two independent time scales: the sound travel and the cooling time scales. This stems from the fact that the compressional heating and the inelastic cooling balance each other in the equation for the pressure, so that $t_{inertial} \sim t_{cooling}$. Consider the inner region $|x-x_c|\lesssim l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}$. From the results of the previous subsection, $\sqrt{T}\sim \sqrt{T_0}(1-t/t_c)$, while $L(t)\sim l(1-t/t_c)^{5/2}$. As $l/\sqrt{T_0}\sim \tau\sim t_c$, we obtain \begin{equation} t_{sound}\sim t_c\left(1-\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^{3/2}. \end{equation} Now, using $\rho\sim \rho_0(1-t/t_c)^{-2}$, we find \begin{equation} t_{cooling}\sim t_c\left(1-\frac{t}{t_c}\right). \end{equation} We observe that, except close to $t_c$, $t_{sound} \sim t_{cooling} \sim t_c$. However, as the singularity is approached, the sound travel time in the inner region becomes much shorter than the cooling time. In this situation, the pressure in the inner region is expected to become constant as our solutions indeed show. To further elucidate this point, let us estimate the size of the spatial region at $t=t_c$ such that, within this region, the time scales obey the strong inequality $t_{sound}\ll t_{cooling}$. Equations~() and () show that, at $\sqrt{1-t/t_c}\ll 1$, $t_{sound}\ll t_{cooling}$ in the inner region. At these times the size $L(t)$ of the shrinking inner region obeys the inequality $(L/l)^{1/5}\ll 1$. As we saw in the previous subsection, the shrinking inner region leaves behind stationary profiles of the fields. Therefore, at $t=t_c$, the local time scales at some $|x|=x_0\ll l$ can be estimated by their values at those times when $L(t)$ shrinks to the size $x_0$. That is, at $t=t_c$ the time scale separation $t_{sound}\ll t_{cooling}\sim t_{inertial}$ holds in the region $(|x-x_c|/l)^{1/5}\ll 1$ which is precisely the region where the pressure is approximately constant. Therefore, the density blowup, as featured by our exact solutions, locally follows the isobaric scenario, previously suggested in the context of condensation processes developing in gases and plasmas that cool by their own radiation . This fact has important consequences for the theory of clustering that will be explored elsewhere. We now proceed to the derivation of an additional solution that would allow us to demonstrate two important features of the developing density singularity: its locality and its possible coexistence with shock singularities of ordinary gas dynamics. \section{A piston moving into a granular gas at rest: a blowup with a shock} The family of exact solutions, describing the finite time density blowup and reported in Section , have a special value of the total gas mass, $\pi/\mu=(\sqrt{2} \pi \gamma)/{\Lambda}$. Here we relax this requirement by constructing an exact solution that can have an arbitrarily large mass. In this solution both the finite-time density blowup and an ``ordinary" shock discontinuity are present. First, we note that formation of a density singularity in hydrodynamics is a local process. The set of Eqs.~()-() is hyperbolic and has a finite speed of propagation of information. Therefore, a finite-time density blowup, developing at a point with a finite $x$, cannot be affected by a change in the initial conditions sufficiently far away (provided the velocity is finite there). In particular, this is true for initial density variations that change the total mass of the gas, possibly making it infinite. The solution that we are going to present here illustrates this point, as it has an arbitrary density distribution sufficiently far from the developing singularity. The solution also illustrates another point that is absent in the solutions reported in Section : appearance of shocks. At $\Lambda=0$, Eqs.~()-() become the equations of classical ideal gas dynamics which produce shocks: initially smooth hydrodynamic fields develop shock discontinuities in a finite time . Shocks can also appear at $\Lambda>0$, the case of our interest. The following argument can be helpful in elucidating the comparative role of the two types of singularities: the density blowup and the shock. Let the initial conditions be fixed. Then, as $\Lambda$ goes down, the development of a density blow up will be delayed in time (the delay time becoming infinite as $\Lambda\to 0$). On the other hand, the time of shock formation must obviously approach a finite limit as $\Lambda\to 0$. Therefore, for sufficiently small $\Lambda$ the shock formation will typically precede the density blowup. In the exact solution that we are going to present, the shock is present in the solution from the very beginning. We choose for this solution (an extended version of) a basic setting of ideal one-dimensional gas dynamics: at $t=0$ a piston starts moving at a constant speed $v_0$ into an undriven granular gas at rest. Because such a gas has a zero temperature everywhere, the initial state of the gas is uniquely characterized by the initial density profile, say $\rho_0(x)$. It is convenient to go over to the frame moving with the piston, where the piston rests at $x=0$. There one needs to solve Eqs. () and () with the initial conditions $\rho(x, 0)=\rho_0(x)$, $v(x, 0)=-v_0$, $T(x, 0)=0$ and the boundary conditions $v(x=0, t)= 0$ and $v(x=+\infty, t)= -v_0$. At $t=0$ the gas hits the piston wall at $x=0$, and a shock forms instantaneously and starts propagating into the gas. Each of the hydrodynamic fields experiences a discontinuity at the shock front $x_0(t)$ that obeys $x_0(0)=0$. The solution at $x>x_0(t)$ is of course $\rho(x, t)=\rho_0(x+v_0 t)$, $v(x,t)=-v_0$ and $T(x,t)=0$, while at $0\leq x\leq x_0(t)$ non-trivial distributions of the hydrodynamic fields develop. We show below that a special choice of $\rho_0(x)$ yields a solution that, at $x<x_0(t)$, is of the same type as that described in Section . The jump conditions at the shock front are provided by the same Rankine-Hugoniot conditions as in the ordinary gas . Indeed, these conditions can be obtained by considering the equations of mass, momentum and energy balance in an infinitesimal volume $(x_0(t)-\epsilon, x_0(t)+\epsilon)$, in the limit of $\epsilon\to 0$. While the mass and momentum balances are exactly the same as in the ordinary gas, the inelastic loss correction to the energy balance is proportional to $\int_{x_0(t)-\epsilon}^{x_0(t)+\epsilon} \rho^2 T^{3/2}dx$ (see subsection ), and it vanishes at $\epsilon \to 0$ despite the discontinuity of the integrand. The Rankine-Hugoniot conditions state that, in the frame moving with the piston, the mass, momentum and energy fluxes should be continuous through the shock : \begin{eqnarray} \rho_2(v_2-\dot {x}_0)&=&-\rho_1(v_0+\dot {x}_0), \\ \rho_2(v_2-\dot {x}_0)^2&+&\rho_2T_2=\rho_1(v_0+\dot {x}_0)^2, \\ \rho_2(v_2-\dot {x}_0)^3&+&\frac{2\gamma \rho_2(v_2-\dot {x}_0)T_2}{\gamma-1}\nonumber \\&=&-\rho_1(v_0+\dot {x}_0)^3, \end{eqnarray} where the subscripts $1$ and $2$ stand for the upstream and downstream values of the fields, respectively. These conditions yield \begin{eqnarray}&& \frac{dx_0}{dt}=\frac{(\gamma-1)v_0}{2}+\frac{(\gamma+1)v_2}{2},\\&& \rho_2=\frac{(\gamma+1)\rho_1}{\gamma-1},\ \ T_2=\frac{(\gamma-1)\left(v_0+v_2\right)^2}{2}. \end{eqnarray} Now let us go over to the Lagrangian coordinates, see Eq.~(). We denote the Lagrangian coordinate of the shock front by $m_f(t)$: \begin{equation} m_f(t)=\lim_{\delta\to 0}\int_0^{x_0(t)-\delta}\rho(x', t)dx', \end{equation} where $\delta>0$. Differentiating Eq.~() over $t$ we find \begin{equation} \frac{dm_f}{dt}=\rho_2\left(\frac{dx_0}{dt}-v_2\right)=\rho_1\left(\frac{dx_0}{dt}+v_0\right)\,, \end{equation} where the second equality holds by virtue of Eq.~(). Using this result together with Eqs.~() and (), we obtain \begin{eqnarray}&& \frac{dm_f}{dt}=\sqrt{\frac{(\gamma+1) p_2}{2u_1}},\ \ u_2=\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma+1}\ u_1,\nonumber \\&& v_2=-v_0+\sqrt{\frac{2p_2u_1}{\gamma+1}}\,m \end{eqnarray} where the inverse density $u_{1,2}=1/\rho_{1,2}$ is introduced and $T$ is expressed via $p$ and $u$. Now we show that it is possible to choose the initial density profile $\rho_0(m)$ [or, equivalently, $\rho_0(x)$] so that the solution of Eqs.~() and () at $0\leq m\leq m_f(t)$ is a constant acceleration solution presented in Section . In the upstream region, $m>m_f(t)$, the gas is undisturbed by the shock, and the solution is $u(m, t)=u_0(m)$, $v(m, t)=-v_0$ and $p(m, t)=0$. In the downstream region $0<m<m_f(t)$ the hydrodynamic fields at $t>0$ are \begin{eqnarray} p(m)&=&2A\cos (\mu m), \\ u(m, t)&=&\left[f(m)-\mu t\sqrt{A\cos (\mu m)}\right]^2, \\ v(m, t)&=&-2\mu \int_0^m f(m')\sqrt{A\cos (\mu m')}dm' \nonumber \\ &+&2A\mu t\sin (\mu m), \end{eqnarray} where $f(m)$ is a yet unknown function. By construction, the upstream and downstream solutions obey the governing equations, and what is left is to impose the boundary conditions () at the shock front. The first condition becomes \begin{equation} \frac{dm_f}{dt}=\sqrt{\frac{A (\gamma+1) \cos[\mu m_f(t)]}{u_0[m_f(t)]}}. \end{equation} Once $u_0(m)$ is known, this equation, together with the initial condition $m_f(0)=0$, determines the shock coordinate versus time, $m_f=m_f(t)$, via its inverse function: $t=t_0(m_f)$, where \begin{equation} t_0(m)=\int_0^m \sqrt{\frac{u_0(m')}{ A(\gamma+1)\cos(\mu m')}}dm'. \end{equation} Using the inverse function $t_0(m)$, we demand the second and third conditions in Eq.~(), \begin{eqnarray}&& f(m)-\mu t_0(m)\sqrt{A\cos (\mu m)}=\sqrt{\frac{(\gamma-1)u_0(m)}{\gamma+1}},\ \\&& -2\mu \int_0^m f(m')\sqrt{A\cos (\mu m')}dm' +2A\mu t_0(m)\sin (\mu m) \nonumber \\&& = -v_0+\sqrt{\frac{4Au_0(m)\cos (\mu m)}{\gamma+1}}. \end{eqnarray} on the interval $0<m<\pi/(2\mu)$. Using Eqs.~() and (), we can express $f(m)$ via $u_0(m)$: \begin{eqnarray} f(m)&=&\mu \int_0^m\sqrt{\frac{u_0(m')\cos (\mu m)}{(\gamma+1) \cos(\mu m')}}dm' \nonumber \\ &+&\sqrt{\frac{(\gamma-1)u_0(m)}{\gamma+1}}. \end{eqnarray} Note that this relation does not include the parameter $A$. We now substitute Eq.~() into Eq.~() and arrive at a closed equation for $u_0(m)$: \begin{eqnarray}&& -2\mu^2\int_0^m dm' \cos (\mu m')\int_0^{m'} dm'' \sqrt{\frac{u_0(m'')}{(\gamma+1) \cos (\mu m'')}}\nonumber\\&&-2\mu\int_0^m dm'\sqrt{\frac{(\gamma-1)u_0(m')\cos(\mu m') }{\gamma+1}} \nonumber \\ &&+2\mu \sin(\mu m) \int_0^m \sqrt{\frac{u_0(m')}{(\gamma+1)\cos (\mu m')}}dm'\nonumber \\ &&= -\frac{v_0}{\sqrt{A}}+\sqrt{\frac{4u_0(m) \cos (\mu m)}{\gamma+1}}. \end{eqnarray} This cumbersome equation is a linear integral equation for the function $\sqrt{u_0(m)}$, and it is soluble analytically. Changing the order of integration in the first term of the equation, we rewrite the first term as \begin{eqnarray}&& -2\mu^2\int_0^m dm''\sqrt{\frac{u_0(m'')}{(\gamma+1) \cos(\mu m'')}}\int_{m''}^m\cos (\mu m')dm' \nonumber\\&& =-2 \mu \sin(\mu m)\int_0^m dm''\sqrt{\frac{u_0(m'')}{(\gamma+1) \cos (\mu m'')}} \nonumber\\&& +2\mu\int_0^m dm'' \sin(\mu m'')\sqrt{\frac{u_0(m'')}{(\gamma+1) \cos (\mu m'')}}. \nonumber\end{eqnarray} This brings a partial cancelation of terms in Eq.~(), and we obtain a simpler equation \begin{eqnarray} &&2\mu\int_0^m dm' \sin(\mu m')\sqrt{\frac{u_0(m')}{(\gamma+1) \cos(\mu m')}} \nonumber \\ &&-2\mu\sqrt{\frac{(\gamma-1)}{\gamma+1}} \int_0^m dm'\sqrt{u_0(m')\cos (\mu m')}\nonumber \\ &&= -\frac{v_0}{\sqrt{A}}+2\sqrt{\frac{u_0(m) \cos (\mu m)}{\gamma+1}}. \nonumber\end{eqnarray} Now let us introduce an auxiliary function $$g(m)=2\sqrt{\frac{u_0(m) \cos(\mu m)}{\gamma+1}}$$ that obeys, on the interval $0<m<\pi/(2\mu)$, a linear integral equation: \begin{equation} \mu \int_0^{m}g(m')\left[\tan (\mu m')-\sqrt{\gamma-1}\right]dm' = -\frac{v_0}{\sqrt{ A}}+g(m) \end{equation} The solution for $g(m)$ is elementary: \begin{equation} g(m)=\frac{v_0\exp\left(-\sqrt{\gamma-1}\,\mu m\right)}{\sqrt{A} \cos (\mu m)}\,, \end{equation} so the result for $u_0(m)$ is \begin{equation} u_0(m)=\frac{v_0^2(\gamma+1)\exp\left(-2\sqrt{\gamma-1}\,\mu m\right)} {4A\cos^3(\mu m)}\,. \end{equation} To complete the formal construction of the solution, we present the initial gas density in the Eulerian coordinates, $\rho_0(x)$, in a parametric form: \begin{eqnarray}&& \rho_0(m)=\rho_0 \cos^3 (\mu m) \exp\left(2\sqrt{\gamma-1}\,\mu m\right),\nonumber \\&& x=\int_0^m \frac{dm'}{\rho_0(m')}\,, \end{eqnarray} where $\rho_0=4 A/[(\gamma+1) v_0^2]$. The graph of $\rho_0(x)$ is shown in Fig.~. Now we use Eq.~() to calculate the inverse function $t=t_0(m_f)$ from Eq.~() that determines the shock motion law in the Lagrangian coordinates, $m_f=m_f(t)$: \begin{equation} t_0(m)=t_*\Phi(\mu m),\ \ \Phi(z)= \int_0^z \frac{\exp\left(-\sqrt{\gamma-1}\,z'\right)dz'} {\cos^2 z'}\,, \nonumber\end{equation} where we have introduced the characteristic inelastic cooling time scale $t_*=2l/[(\gamma+1)v_0]$, and $l=1/(\mu\rho_0)$ is the inelastic cooling length scale. As $\Phi(z)$ diverges at $z=\pi/2$, $m_f(t)$ satisfies, at any finite time, the double inequality $0< m_f(t)< \pi/(2\mu)$. We reiterate that, in the upstream region $m>m_f(t)$, the gas is unperturbed by the shock. The final form of the solution in the downstream region, $0\leq m<m_f(t)$, is \begin{eqnarray} p(m, t)&=&\frac{(\gamma+1)\rho_0v_0^2\cos(\mu m)}{2},\nonumber \\ \rho(m, t)&=&\frac{\rho_0(\gamma+1)}{\cos(\mu m)\left[\Phi(\mu m)+\sqrt{\gamma-1}\Phi'(\mu m)-t/t_*\right]^2},\nonumber \\ v(m, t)&=&-v_0\int_0^{\mu m} dz \cos z \left[\Phi(z)+\sqrt{\gamma-1}\Phi'(z)\right] \nonumber \\ &+&v_0 (t/t_*) \sin(\mu m)\,. \end{eqnarray} This solution is shown in Fig.~. Note that, at fixed $\rho_0$ and $v_0$, the characteristic spatial and temporal scales of the solution behave as $1/\Lambda$. For this solution, the gas density blows up in a finite time at the point $m$ where the function $\Phi(\mu m)+\sqrt{\gamma-1}\Phi'(\mu m)$ has its minimum. One can easily see that, for $\gamma\leq 2$, this function is monotone increasing with $m$. As a consequence, the density blows up at the piston (that is, at $m=0$), and this happens at $t=t_c=\sqrt{\gamma-1}\,t_*$. At this time, the shock front location $m_*\equiv m_f(t_*)$ is described by the relation $\Phi(\mu m_*)=\sqrt{\gamma-1}$ which yields $\mu m_* =1.08031\dots$ for $\gamma=2$ (in 2d) and $0.87915 \dots$ for $\gamma=5/3$ (in 3d). That is, by the time $t=t_c$ when the density blows up at the piston, the shock has traveled only a finite distance (both in the $m$-, and in the $x$-space) from the piston. It is obvious, therefore, that our solution allows an \textit{arbitrary} modification of the density profile $\rho_0(x)$ at sufficiently large $x$ that are unreachable for the shock. This clearly shows that initial states with an arbitrary large mass of gas can develop a finite-time density blowup. \section{Numerical solutions} We confirmed the exact solutions, presented in Figs.~1-4 and 6, by solving numerically the IGHD equations () and () in the Lagrangian coordinates. In each case we used the initial and boundary conditions, provided by the exact solutions themselves. We employed the classical artificial viscosity, staggered grid scheme of von Neumann and Richtmyer . The number of cells (grid points) used varied between 1000 and 2000 and showed numerical convergence until close to the singularity. As the solution developed a density blowup, the simulation had to be terminated at a very high but finite maximum density: usually at about $10^7 \rho_0$, where $\rho_0$ is the initial density. We also enforced the simulations to stop when the density jump between two adjacent cells exceeded a prescribed value, usually 50 percent. (When such jumps develop near the singularity, the accuracy of the simulation degrades and can be restored only by a rezoning algorithm that was not employed.) One example of the numerical solution is shown in Fig.~ alongside with the analytical solution, and very good agreement is observed. Very good agreement was also obtained for the solutions shown in Figs.~3, 4 and 6 (not shown). The numerical solutions inevitably add some effective noise to the system because of the spatial and temporal discretization and round-off errors. The fact that the analytical solutions are accurately reproduced numerically confirms their stability with respect to small one-dimensional perturbations. We also performed extensive numerical simulations with Eqs.~() and () for a variety of initial and boundary conditions that did not correspond to any of the exact solutions. As already briefly reported in Ref.~, these simulations show that, for generic initial conditions, a finite-time density blowup always occurs. Remarkably, the numerical solutions exhibit, close to the singularity, the same local scaling behaviors in space and in time as those exhibited by our exact solutions and presented in subsection . One series of simulations dealt with a symmetric inflow of an initially uniform gas, $\rho(x,0)=\rho_0$ and $T(x,0)=T_0$, from ``infinity": $v(x,0)=-v_0 \tanh(x/\lambda)$. Here it is convenient to rescale the $x$-coordinate by $\lambda$, time by $\lambda/\sqrt{T_0}$, the density by $\rho_0$, the velocity by $\sqrt{T_0}$, the temperature by $T_0$, the pressure by $\rho_0 T_0$ and the Lagrangian mass coordinate $m$ by $\rho_0 \lambda$. After this rescaling the governing equations Eqs.~() and~() keep their form, except that $\Lambda$ becomes rescaled: $\tilde{\Lambda}= \rho_0 \Lambda \lambda$. The rescaled initial conditions become $\rho(x,0)=p(x,0)=1$ and $v(x,0)=-(v_0/\sqrt{T_0})\tanh (x)$. The numerical solutions were obtained on the (rescaled) interval $|x|<10$ that corresponds, at $t=0$, to the (rescaled) Lagrangian interval $|m|<10$. The boundary conditions are $v(x=\pm 10, t)=v(x=\pm 10, 0)=\mp (v_0/\sqrt{T_0}) \tanh 10$. Because of the symmetry of the problem with respect to $x=0$ we actually solved it on the half-interval $0<x<10$, replacing the boundary condition at $x=-10$ by the condition $v(0,t)=0$. Here we present one typical example of such a simulation, briefly mentioned in Ref.~. The parameters are $\tilde{\Lambda}=0.5,\,v_0=\sqrt{T_0}$ and $\gamma=2$. The (one half of the) simulated flow is shown in Fig.~. Panel (a) provides a general view of (one half of) the system. The gas inflow creates a compression in the central region. A compression wave propagates outwards and steepens. This steepening would lead to a wave breaking singularity, but the numerical scheme resolves this singularity, by means of the artificial viscosity, as a shock wave that continues propagating outward. At the same time the gas density at the origin continues growing and ultimately blows up. The density growth in a vicinity of the origin is presented in panel (b). Panel (c) focuses on the density and pressure history at the origin. While the density blows up at $t=t_c$, the pressure hardly varies there so the isobaric scenario holds. The inset of panel (c) verifies that, close to $t_c$, the density blowup proceeds as $(t_c-t)^{-2}$. Panels (d) and (e) add more tests of the spatial and temporal scaling behavior near the singularity. Panel (d) shows a plot of the rescaled density $\rho(x,t)(t_c-t)^2$ versus the rescaled coordinate $x(t_c-t)^{-5/2}$. The collapse of the curves at different times proves the local self-similarity (note that the gas density at the origin varies, for these times, by four orders of magnitude). Finally, panel (e) verifies the presence of the inner and outer regions, described by our theory, see subsection~. The density plateau, whose size shrinks as $\sim (t_c-t)^{5/2}$, represents the inner region, while in the outer region a time-independent density profile forms with a power-law behavior $\rho \sim x^{-4/5}$ as predicted by our exact solutions. The same universal features of the singularity were also observed when starting from small-amplitude sinusoidal density or velocity perturbations around a homogeneous state. \section{Non-ideal effects near the singularity} Having found the exact nonlinear solutions of the IGHD equations () and (), we are in the position to test the assumptions behind these equations and establish the domain of validity of the solutions (as accurate leading-order descriptions) in the presence of ``non-ideal" effects. First, the validity of the Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics, Eqs.~()-(), demands that the Knudsen number $l_{free}/L$ remain much smaller than unity. The smallest hydrodynamic length scale of the solution can be estimated as $L(t)\sim l (1-t/t_c)^{5/2}$, see subsections and . The mean free path $l_{free}\sim 1/(\rho\sigma^{d-1})\sim (1-t/t_c)^2/(\rho_0\sigma^{d-1})$. As $l\sim 1/(\Lambda\rho_0)$ and $\Lambda\sim (1-r)\sigma^{d-1}$, we obtain \begin{equation} \frac{l_{free}}{L}\sim \frac{1-r}{\sqrt{1-t/t_c}}\,. \end{equation} At $t \lesssim t_c$ the Knudsen number is small by the assumption $1-r\ll 1$. However, as $t$ approaches $t_c$, the Knudsen number grows indefinitely which invalidates the hydrodynamics. We shall see, however, that one of the assumptions of the IGHD breaks down even earlier. Now consider the ratio of the viscous stress term to the pressure gradient term in the momentum equation (). This ratio can be estimated as $(\nu_0\sqrt{T}\partial_x v)/(\rho T)=\nu_0\partial_mv/\sqrt{T}$. We first estimate all the ratios in the inner region, see subsection . As both $\partial_m v$ and $\sqrt{T}$ vanish linearly as $t \to t_c$, their ratio depends on time only weakly, and can be estimated by its value at $t=0$. As $|\partial_m v(m, 0)|\sim \Lambda\sqrt{T}$ (see subsection ), we find \begin{equation} \left|\frac{\nu_0\partial_x(\sqrt{T}\partial_x v)}{\partial_x(\rho T)}\right|\sim 1-r\,, \end{equation} that is the viscous stress is always negligible in our solutions as long as $1-r \ll 1$. The same estimate (up to the sign) holds for the ratio of the viscous heating term to the compressional heating term in Eq.~(): \begin{equation} \left|\frac{\nu_0(\gamma-1)\sqrt{T}(\partial_x v)^2/\rho}{(\gamma-1)T\partial_x v}\right|\sim 1-r\ll 1\,. \end{equation} In contrast to the viscous terms, the heat conduction term in Eq.~(), which is initially small in our solutions, does become important near the singularity. We estimate the ratio of the heat conduction term to the inelastic cooling term as follows: \begin{equation} \left|\frac{\kappa_0\partial_x(\sqrt{T}\partial_x T)/\rho}{\Lambda \rho T^{3/2}}\right|\sim \frac{\kappa_0}{\Lambda \rho^2 L^2} \sim \frac{1-r}{1-t/t_c}\,. \end{equation} The same estimate is obtained for the ratio of the heat conduction term to the compressional heating term. This ratio becomes of order unity at $1-t/t_c\sim 1-r \ll 1$. At this time $l_{free}/L\sim \sqrt{1-r}\ll 1$, see Eq.~(), so the IGHD equations break down while the full Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics, Eqs.~()-(), is still valid. In its turn, the dilute gas assumption, $\rho \sigma^d \ll 1$, breaks down, and excluded particle volume effects become important, at $1-t/t_c\sim \sqrt{\rho_0\sigma^d} \ll 1$. The relative role of the heat conduction and excluded particle volume effects in the breakdown of our analytic solutions near the attempted singularity is determined by the competition between the small parameters $\sqrt{\rho_0\sigma^d}$ and $1-r$. When $\sqrt{\rho_0\sigma^d}\gtrsim 1-r$, our solutions remain valid until the density becomes comparable with the (fraction of) close packing density. This happens at $1-t/t_c\sim \sqrt{\rho\sigma^d}$, so $L_{valid}\sim l(\rho_0\sigma^d)^{5/4}$. At moderate densities one can use, in numerical solutions, a half-empiric equation of state due to Carnahan and Starling , and half-empiric transport coefficients obtained for granular gases in the spirit of Enskog kinetic theory . When $\sqrt{\rho_0\sigma^d}\ll 1-r$ the heat conduction becomes important when the gas is still dilute. This happens at time $1-t/t_c\sim 1-r$ so that $L_{valid}\sim l(1-r)^{5/2}$. As long as $\sqrt{1-r}\ll 1$, the Knudsen number is still small at that time, and the complete Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics is still applicable. Therefore, as the blowup time $t_c$ is approached, either the heat conduction, or the excluded particle volume effects become important and invalidate our theory in the inner region. In this sense, our solutions describe an intermediate asymptotic regime of formation of a dense cluster of particles. Importantly, in the outer region our solutions remain valid until much later times. Indeed, as the inner region shrinks, it leaves behind stationary profiles of the fields, see subsection . The ratios of the different terms governing the IGHD validity are given, at some $x$ from the outer region, by the corresponding ratios in the inner region estimated at the time when $L(t) \sim |x-x_c|$. As a result, at some time close to $t_c$ (see above), our solutions break down in the inner region which size at that time is $L_{valid}$, while in the outer region, $|x-x_c|\gg L_{valid}$, our solutions continue to hold. The fact that the IGHD description breaks down only locally, in a small region of space, can be exploited for derivation of an \textit{effective} description of the clustering dynamics beyond the singularity time. In this description close-packed clusters appear as finite-mass point-like singularities of the density . This effective description is similar in spirit to the description of shocks (that actually have finite widths) as discontinuities in ordinary ideal gas dynamics. \section{Summary} Let us briefly summarize the main results of this work. We introduced ``ideal granular hydrodynamics" (IGHD) equations that provide a simple but informative description of non-stationary large-scale flows of dilute granular gases with nearly elastic collisions between the particles. We employed the IGHD equations to investigate analytically and numerically the paradigmatic phenomenon of particle clustering in freely cooling granular gases. We believe that the IGHD will provide a useful framework for a host of other problems involving large-scale flows of \textit{driven} granular gases. We focused on a one-dimensional granular hydrodynamic flow, characteristic of an idealized channel geometry, and derived a family of exact nonlinear and non-stationary analytic solutions of the IGHD that describe a finite-time blowup of the gas density. The derivation was made possible by a transformation of the hydrodynamic equations to Lagrangian coordinates. The exact solutions are characterized by a constant in time accelerations in the Lagrangian frame, and they are not self-similar. We investigated the local structure of the flow near the singularity and determined local spatial and temporal scaling laws for the hydrodynamic quantities in question. We also found an instructive soluble case of the problem of a piston entering, at a constant speed, a granular gas at rest. Here a density singularity, developing at the piston, coexists with a shock wave that is located elsewhere. Besides demonstrating the presence of the two different types of singularities in the same system, this solution allows an arbitrary density profile at large distances, showing that the density blowup is a local process. In all of these solutions the developing singularity obeys locally the isobaric scenario : the gas pressure remains approximately uniform in space and constant in time in a close vicinity of the blowup point. This finding has important consequences for the theory of clustering. Indeed, by imposing, in the zeroth order of theory, the isobaricity condition on the hydrodynamic equations, one arrives at a powerful reduced description of the nonlinear clustering process. This description is valid for a much broader class of initial conditions than those giving rise to the exact solutions reported in the present work. The corresponding results will be presented elsewhere. Our numerical solutions of the IGHD equations accurately reproduce the analytic solutions, thus confirming their stability with respect to small one-dimensional perturbations. Furthermore, numerical simulations with a variety of initial and boundary conditions showed that that the local scaling laws near the singularity are universal, that is independent of details of the initial and boundary conditions. We also analyzed additional physical effects, neglected in IGHD, which become important in a narrow spatial region near the attempted singularity. Depending on the parameters, either excluded particle volume effects, or heat conduction invalidate our solutions there. In the former case, the density growth should directly cross over to the formation of close-packed clusters of particles. In the latter case, the final outcome of the nonlinear density growth is yet unknown. The future work should find out whether the heat conduction arrests the density blowup or only modifies the singularity law. In any case, our exact solutions can be viewed as instructive intermediate asymptotics, describing a broad class of strongly nonlinear clustering flows of granular gases. No less important, as breakdown of these solutions occurs only in the narrow regions around the density peaks, it is possible to continue the ideal solutions \textit{beyond} the singularity by introducing into the theory finite-mass point-like singularities of the density. This procedure yields a simple effective description of granular gases with embedded close-packed clusters, in much the same way as the ideal gas dynamics describes a gas flow with shock discontinuities . Very recently, one of our exact solutions has been successfully tested against MD simulations of the dynamics of a very dilute gas of nearly elastically colliding identical hard disks in a very long and narrow 2d channel. The results will be presented elsewhere. Finally, we note that the power law of the density blowup near the singularity, $\sim (t_c-t)^{-2}$, is the same as the one recently found in a different setting: that of an initially thermalized granular gas, freely cooling and collapsing under gravity . In each of the two problems the momentum equation is ``fast", while the energy equation is ``slow" in a small vicinity of the collapse. This suggests common physics behind the two collapse phenomena and demands further investigation. \begin{acknowledgments} We are grateful to Lev S. Tsimring and Eli Waxman for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 107/05) and by the German-Israel Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (Grant I-795-166.10/2003). \end{acknowledgments} \begin{thebibliography} {99} \bibitem{star} F. Palla and G. Meynet, \textit{Physics of Star Formation in Galaxies} (Springer, Berlin, 2002). \bibitem{universe} P. J. E. Peebles, \textit{Large-Scale Structure of the Universe} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980); S. F. Shandarin and Ya. B. Zeldovich, ``The large-scale structure of the universe: Turbulence, intermittency, structures in a self-gravitating medium," Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{61}, 185 (1989). \bibitem{Parker} E. N. Parker, ``Instability of Thermal Fields," Astrophys. J. \textbf{117}, 431 (1953). \bibitem{Field} G. B. Field, ``Thermal instability," Astrophys. J. \textbf{142}, 531 (1965). \bibitem{meersonRMP} B. Meerson, ``Nonlinear dynamics of radiative condensations in optically thin plasmas," Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{68}, 215 (1996). \bibitem{BP} N.V. Brilliantov and T. P\"{o}schel, \textit{Kinetic Theory of Granular Gases.} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004). \bibitem{Goldhirsch2} I. Goldhirsch, ``Rapid granular flows," Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. \textbf{35}, 267 (2003). \bibitem{Hopkins} M. A. Hopkins and M. Y. Louge, ``Inelastic microstructure in rapid granular flows of smooth disks." Phys. Fluids A \textbf{3}, 47 (1991). \bibitem{Goldhirsch} I. Goldhirsch and G. Zanetti, ``Clustering instability in dissipative gases," Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{70}, 1619 (1993); I. Goldhirsch, M.-L. Tan, and G. Zanetti, ``A molecular dynamical study of granular fluids I: The unforced granular gas in two dimensions." J. Sci. Comp. \textbf{8}, 1 (1993). \bibitem{McNamara1} S. McNamara, ``Hydrodynamics modes of a uniform granular medium," Phys. Fluids A \textbf{5}, 3056 (1993). \bibitem{McNamara2} S. McNamara and W. R. Young, ``Dynamics of a freely evolving, two-dimensional granular medium," Phys. Rev. E \textbf{53}, 5089 (1996). \bibitem{Ernst} R. Brito and M. H. Ernst, ``Extension of Haff's cooling law in granular flows," Europhys. Lett. \textbf{43}, 497 (1998). \bibitem{Brey} J. J. Brey, M. J. Ruiz-Montero, and D. Cubero, ``Origin of density clustering in a freely evolving granular gas," Phys. Rev. E \textbf{60}, 3150 (1999). \bibitem{Luding} S. Luding and H. J. Herrmann, ``Cluster-growth in freely cooling granular media," Chaos \textbf{9}, 673 (1999). \bibitem{van Noije} T.P.C. van Noije and M.H. Ernst, ``Cahn-Hilliard theory for unstable granular fluids," Phys. Rev. E \textbf{61}, 1765 (2000). \bibitem{Ben-Naim2} X. B. Nie, E. Ben-Naim, and S. Y. Chen, ``Dynamics of freely cooling granular gases," Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 204301 (2002). \bibitem{ELM} E. Efrati, E. Livne, and B. Meerson, ``Hydrodynamic singularities and clustering in a freely cooling inelastic gas," Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{94}, 088001 (2005). \bibitem{MP} B. Meerson and A. Puglisi, ``Towards a continuum theory of clustering in a freely cooling inelastic gas," Europhys. Lett. \textbf{70}, 478 (2005). \bibitem{Garzo} V. Garz\'{o}, ``Instabilities in a free granular fluid described by the Enskog equation," Phys. Rev. E \textbf{72}, 021106 (2005). \bibitem{Bromberg} Y. Bromberg, E. Livne, and B. Meerson, in \textit{Granular Gas Dynamics}, edited by T. P\"{o}schel and N.V. Brilliantov (Springer, Berlin, 2003), p. 251; cond-mat/0305557. \bibitem{Volfson} D. Volfson, B. Meerson, and L. S. Tsimring, ``Thermal collapse of a granular gas under gravity," Phys. Rev. E \textbf{73}, 061305 (2006). \bibitem{Fouxon1} I. Fouxon, B. Meerson, M. Assaf, and E. Livne, ``Formation and evolution of density singularities in hydrodynamics of inelastic gases," Phys. Rev. E (Rapid Communication) \textbf{75}, 050301(R) (2007). \bibitem{Kadanoff} L. P. Kadanoff, ``Singularities and blowups," Physics Today \textbf{50}(9), 11 (1997). \bibitem{Whitham} G. B. Whitham, \textit{Linear and Nonlinear Waves} (Wiley, New York, 1974), Chapter 2. \bibitem{Haff} P. K. Haff, ``Grain flow as a fluid-mechanical phenomenon," J. Fluid Mech. \textbf{134}, 401 (1983). \bibitem{Landau} L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, \textit{Fluid Mechanics} (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987). \bibitem{Chorin} A. J. Chorin and J. E. Marsden, \textit{A Mathematical Introduction to Fluid Mechanics} (Springer, Berlin, 2000). \bibitem{Haken} H. Haken, \textit{Synergetics: An Introduction} (Springer, Berlin, 1983). \bibitem{zeldovich} Ya. B. Zel'dovich and Yu. P. Raizer, \textit{Physics of Shock Waves and High Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena, Vol. 1} (Academic Press, New York, 1966). \bibitem{meerson89} B. Meerson, ``The nonlinear theory of thermal instability: The intermediate- and short-wavelength limits," Astrophys. J. \textbf{347}, 1012 (1989). \bibitem{code} R. D. Richtmyer and K. W. Morton, \textit{Difference Methods for Initial Value Problems.} (Interscience, New York, 1967). \bibitem{Carnahan} N. F. Carnahan and K. E. Starling, ``Equation of State for Nonattracting Rigid Spheres," J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{51}, 635 (1969). \bibitem{Jenkins} J.T. Jenkins and M.W. Richman, ``Kinetic theory for plane flows of a dense gas of identical, rough, inelastic, circular disks," Phys. Fluids {\bf 28}, 3485 (1985). \bibitem{Resibois} P. R\'{e}sibois and M. De Leener, {\em Classical Kinetic Theory of Fluids} (Wiley, New York, 1977). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0089
|
Title: A general approach to statistical modeling of physical laws:
nonparametric regression
Abstract: Statistical modeling of experimental physical laws is based on the
probability density function of measured variables. It is expressed by
experimental data via a kernel estimator. The kernel is determined objectively
by the scattering of data during calibration of experimental setup. A physical
law, which relates measured variables, is optimally extracted from experimental
data by the conditional average estimator. It is derived directly from the
kernel estimator and corresponds to a general nonparametric regression. The
proposed method is demonstrated by the modeling of a return map of noisy
chaotic data. In this example, the nonparametric regression is used to predict
a future value of chaotic time series from the present one. The mean predictor
error is used in the definition of predictor quality, while the redundancy is
expressed by the mean square distance between data points. Both statistics are
used in a new definition of predictor cost function. From the minimum of the
predictor cost function, a proper number of data in the model is estimated.
Body: \title{A general approach to statistical modeling of physical laws:\\nonparametric regression} \author{Igor Grabec} \altaffiliation[Also at ]{Amanova, Kantetova 75, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia.} \affiliation{Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana,\\ A\v{s}ker\v{c}eva 6, PP 394, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia} \email{igor.grabec@fs.uni-lj.si} \homepage{http://www.fs.uni-lj.si/lasin/} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} Statistical modeling of experimental physical laws is based on the probability density function of measured variables. It is expressed by experimental data via a kernel estimator. The kernel is determined objectively by the scattering of data during calibration of experimental setup. A physical law, which relates measured variables, is optimally extracted from experimental data by the conditional average estimator. It is derived directly from the kernel estimator and corresponds to a general nonparametric regression. The proposed method is demonstrated by the modeling of a return map of noisy chaotic data. In this example, the nonparametric regression is used to predict a future value of chaotic time series from the present one. The mean predictor error is used in the definition of predictor quality, while the redundancy is expressed by the mean square distance between data points. Both statistics are used in a new definition of predictor cost function. From the minimum of the predictor cost function, a proper number of data in the model is estimated. \end{abstract} \pacs{{02.50.-r},{07.05.-t},{05.45.-a},{89.90.+n},{84.35.+i},{06.20.DK}} \keywords{statistical modeling of physical laws, nonparametric regression, prediction quality, redundancy and cost function of data} \maketitle \section{Introduction} A basic task of physical description of natural phenomena is to express relations between experimental data about measured variables in terms of physical laws . Since the corresponding analytical modeling essentially depends on the intuition of the explorer performing it, an ambiguity surrounds this basic task and there thus arises a question how this could be avoided. This problem becomes of fundamental practical importance when developing intelligent electronic systems for automatic modeling of physical laws . The ambiguity could be avoided if a unique objective method of modeling was found that would take into account common properties of experimental observations and of transitions from experimental data to models. The aim of this article is to show how such a method could be developed from basic principles of probability and statistics, as well as to demonstrate an example of its applicability. A common property of all experimental explorations is that each experiment corresponds to a process proceeding from preparation to execution. If we want a selected experiment to yield any information about the phenomenon under observation, then the result of the experiment may not be determined in advance i.e. several outcomes of the experiment must be possible. The next common property is repeatability of experiments. Consequently, a correct presentation of experimental observations requires the use of a distribution of experimental results and this must be related to the concept of probability. The probability distribution is, therefore, a common basis for the description of natural properties in terms of experimental data , while the transition from experimental data to an analytical expression of the corresponding probability distribution function is the crucial problem of modeling. An objective solution of this problem represents statistical modeling of the probability distribution function by a nonparametric kernel estimator if the kernel is determined by a calibration of the experimental setup . For this purpose, the central theorem of probability theory and the maximum entropy principle provide a quite general route to the specification of the kernel function of the estimator. In this case, an experimental physical law, which represents a relation between observed variables, can also be generally expressed by applying the theory of optimal statistical estimators. The resulting nonparametric regression is the conditional average (CA), which can be automatically extracted from the probability density function (PDF) of experimental data in a measurement system. The complete approach to modeling thus appears objective, independent of the intuition of the observer and, consequently, generally applicable for automatic execution. Due to these convenient properties, CA is widely applicable in various fields of natural and technical sciences . A nonparametric expression of the PDF by the kernel estimator has already been proposed by Parzen , but weaknesses of his proposal are that the kernel function is arbitrarily introduced, and that there is an assumption that its width should decrease to zero when the number of data is increased to infinity. In order to avoid this weakness, we specify the kernel function objectively by the scattering of the measurement system output during calibration . The only ambiguity in the expression of the PDF is then related to the number of experimental data, which according to Parzen's assumption should not be limited. Since an infinite number of experiments cannot be performed, there arises a fundamental question: "How many experiments is it reasonable to perform in order to explore the phenomenon properly by a given experimental setup?" Intuitively, we can conclude that it is reasonable to repeat experiments for as long as they bring new information. However, with an increasing number of experiments, the acquired data points become ever more concentrated in the sample space and consequently the repetition of the experiments becomes redundant. This is observed when distances between data points become comparable to the width of the kernel function. This reasoning led recently to a specification of an information cost function $C$ . For this purpose the indeterminacy of measurements was first expressed in terms of information entropy, which further led to definition of the experimental information $I$ and the redundancy $R$ of experiments. Using these statistics, the information cost function was expressed by the difference $C=R-I$. From the position of its minimum, a proper number of experiments can then be objectively determined . Estimation of the information cost function is related to the calculation of integrals, which is inconvenient in a multivariate case. Therefore, another statistic, with similar properties but more simple calculation, is sought. Since it has been shown previously that the predictor quality exhibits similar properties to the experimental information, we utilize it here in the definition of the predictor cost function. From its minimum, a proper number of experiments can also be estimated. If this is used as a proper number for the adaptation of the nonparametric regression to data provided by experiments, the modeling of the corresponding physical law can be performed automatically on a data acquisition system of the experimental setup. To demonstrate this possibility, we first briefly describe the nonparametric regression and then turn to the definition of the predictor quality, redundancy and cost function. Properties of all statistics are subsequently demonstrated in the modeling of a return map corresponding to a noisy chaotic process. \section{ Fundamentals of nonparametric modeling} \subsection{Description of kernel function} Let us consider a phenomenon that can be described by just two joint variables, since the generalization to a multivariate case is straightforward. A single result of joint measurement is represented by the couple ${\bf z}=(x,y)$. We next assume that the phenomenon can be characterized statistically by repetition of measurements yielding sample points ${\bf z}_n =(x_n ,y_n )$ in the joint span of a two channel instrument $S_{\bf z}=S_x \otimes S_y$. Since the instruments are generally subject to stochastic disturbances, the results of measurements are scattered even during repetition of calibration . The scattering can be described by the data provided by a series of repeated simultaneous calibrations of both instrument channels. For this purpose, we have to perform a joint measurement on an object representing two physical units $u_x$ and $u_y$ which we denote together by the joint unit ${\bf u}=(u_x,u_y)$. The scattering of instrument outputs during calibration is characterized by the joint PDF $\psi({\bf z}|{\bf u})$, which we call the scattering function (SF) . When the interaction between both channels is negligible, the SF is given by the product $\psi({\bf z}|{\bf u})=\psi(x|u_x)\psi(y|u_y)$. Without loss of generality, we further consider a case with equal channels which are subject to mutually independent random disturbances that do not depend on ${\bf u}$. In such cases, the central limit theorem of probability theory, as well as the maximum entropy principle, suggest that we express the SF of a particular channel by the Gaussian function: \begin{equation} {\rm g}(x-u_x,\sigma)\,= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma}\exp \biggl[-\frac{(x-u_x)^2}{2\sigma}\biggr] \end{equation} The parameters $u_x$, $\sigma$ represent the mean value and standard deviation of signal $x$ at the calibration and can be statistically estimated from given data. The joint SF is then determined by the product $\psi({\bf z}-{\bf u})={\rm g}(x-u_x,\sigma)\,{\rm g}(y-u_y,\sigma)$. When reporting experimental results, experimentalists most often only specify mean values and standard deviations of variables during calibration. The maximum entropy principle tells us that, in such cases, the Gaussian function is the best choice for SF . \subsection{ Nonparametric estimation of PDF pertaining to experimental data} When we perform a single measurement, we get a sample ${\bf z}_1=(x_1,y_1)$ that represents the mean value of ${\bf z}$ during measurement and, therefore, we express the PDF as $\psi({\bf z}-{\bf z}_1)=\psi(x-x_1)\psi(y-y_1)$. When we repeat the measurements $N$ times, we get a set of samples $\{{\bf z}_i ,\,1\le i \le N\}$, by which we model the joint PDF by the statistical average: \begin{equation} f({\bf z})\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \psi ({\bf z}-{\bf z}_i) \end{equation} that represents the kernel estimator. Properties of the particular components $x,y$ are described by the marginal PDFs $f(x), f(y)$. They are obtained from the joint PDF by integration with respect to one component, for example: \begin{equation} f(x)\,=\,\int_{S_y} f({\bf z}) dy\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (x-x_i). \end{equation} For modeling natural laws, the most important is the conditional PDF of the variable $y$ at a given value of $x$, defined as: \begin{equation} f(y|x)\,=\, \frac{f({\bf z})}{f(x)}\,=\,\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \psi ({\bf z}-{\bf z}_i) }{\sum_{j=1}^N \psi (x-x_j) } \end{equation} \subsection{Estimation of a physical law} Distributions of joint experimental data, for example that shown in Fig.\,, often resemble a ridge along some hypothetical line $y_{\rm o}(x)$, which we want to extract from the given data in an optimal way. For this purpose, we select from a set of joint data only those that pertain to some selected $x$. These joint data generally exhibit various values of $y$ which we try to represent by a single value called the predictor of the variable $y$ from a given value $x$. We consider as an optimal predictor of the hypothetical $y_{\rm o}$ the value $y_p$ at which the mean square prediction error is minimal: \begin{equation} {\rm E} [(y_p - y)^2|x]\, = \,{\rm min}(y_p). \end{equation} Here ${\rm E} [\ldots|x]$ denotes the operation of statistical averaging at given condition $x$. The minimum satisfies the equation: $d {\rm E} [(y_p - y)^2|x]/dy_p=0$ that yields as the optimal predictor $y_p$ the conditional average: \begin{equation} y_p(x)\,=\,{\rm E} [y|x]\,=\,\int_{S_y} y \,f(y|x) \,dy \end{equation} By using Eq.\,(), we obtain for the conditional average the expansion: \begin{equation} y_p(x)\,=\,\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N y_i \psi (x-x_i,\sigma)}{\sum_{j=1}^N \psi (x-x_j,\sigma)}=\sum_{i=1}^N y_i B_i (x). \end{equation} The coefficients of this expansion are sample values $y_i$, while the basis functions are \begin{equation} B_i (x)\,=\,\frac{\psi (x-x_i,\sigma)}{\sum_{j=1}^N \psi (x-x_j,\sigma)}, \end{equation} and satisfy the following conditions: \begin{equation} \sum_{i=1}^N B_i (x)=1\quad ,\quad 0 \leq B_i (x) \leq 1. \end{equation} The basis functions $B_i (x)$ can be interpreted as a normalized measure of similarity between the given value of $x$ and its sample value $x_i$. At a given $x$, the sample value $y_m$ contributes most to the estimated value $y_p(x)$ whose complementary sample value $x_m$ is most similar to $x$. The calculation of $y_p(x)$ corresponds to an associative recall of memorized items, which is a property of an intelligence. Therefore, the estimator $y_p(x)$ could be treated as a basis for the development of a machine intelligence based on modeling of natural laws. The conditional average given in Eq.\, in fact corresponds to a normalized radial basis function neural network which is equivalent to a multilayer perceptron -- the basic paradigm used in the theory of artificial neural networks . \section{ Characteristics of the model} \subsection{ Predictor quality} A predictor maps the stochastic variable $x$ to a new stochastic variable $ y_p$ that generally differs from the variable $y$. When the variables $x,y$ are related by some hypothetical physical law $y_{\rm o}(x)$ and the measurement noise is small, the first and second statistical moments ${\rm E}[ y- y_p]$, ${\rm E}[ (y- y_p)^2]$ of the prediction error are also small. The second moment is: ${\rm E}[ (y- y_p)^2]={\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ( y_p)-2{\rm Cov} (y, y_p)+[{\rm m}(y)-{\rm m}( y_p)]^2$, where ${\rm E}, {\rm m}, {\rm Var},{\rm Cov}$ denote statistical average, mean value, variance and covariance respectively. In the case of statistically independent variables $y$ and $ y_p$ with equal mean values, the last two terms are zero and we get: ${\rm E}[ (y- y_p)^2]={\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ( y_p)$. With respect to this relation, we define the predictor quality relatively by the formula \begin{eqnarray} Q&=&1-\frac{{\rm E}[ (y- y_p)^2]}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ( y_p)} \nonumber \\ &=&\frac{2{\rm Cov} (y, y_p)}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ( y_p)}-\frac{[{\rm m}(y)-{\rm m}( y_p)]^2}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ( y_p)} \end{eqnarray} The quality is $1$ if the prediction is exact: $y_p= y$, while it is $0$ if $y$ and $ y_p$ are statistically independent and have equal mean values. The quality $Q$ may be negative if ${\rm m}(y)\ne {\rm m}( y_p)$. For the predictor defined by the conditional average $y_p(x)\,=\,\int y \,f(y|x) \,dy$, we analytically obtain the equalities: ${\rm m}(y)={\rm m}(y_p)$ and ${\rm Cov} (y, y_p)= {\rm Var} ( y_p)$, which yield \begin{equation} Q=\frac{2{\rm Var} ( y_p)}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ( y_p)}. \end{equation} From the definition of the conditional average, it follows $0\le {\rm Var} ( y_p)\le {\rm Var}(y)$ and therefore $0\le Q\le 1$. This inequality need not be fulfilled exactly if CA is statistically estimated from a finite number of samples. With an increasing $N$, we generally expect that the CA statistically estimated by Eq.\,() increasingly better represents the governing physical law and, consequently, that the corresponding predictor quality $Q$ on average increases to a certain limit value. As mentioned previously, an unlimited increase in the number of experiments is experimentally impossible and, consequently, there arises the question how to determine a proper number $N_{\rm o}$ of data that will yield a judicious estimation of the governing law. \subsection{ Redundancy and predictor cost function} To answer the last question, we have analyzed various experimental cases which have shown us that, with an increasing number of experimental samples, the value of predictor quality generally stabilizes when the distance between data points becomes similar to the width $\sigma$ of the scattering function. Therefore, it is not reasonable to surpass significantly the corresponding number of data. This can be achieved if a ratio of $\sigma$ and a proper measure of distance $\delta$ between neighbor data points is considered. For this purpose, we introduce $\delta$ over the mean value of minimum square distance between data points: $\delta^2={\rm E}[{\rm min}\{(x_i-x_j)^2+(y_i-y_j)^2)\};i=1\ldots N,j=1\ldots N,]$, and define a measure of redundancy of data by the relative variable: \begin{equation} R=2N\frac{\sigma^2}{\delta^2} \end{equation} Since $\delta^2$ is comprised of two terms denoting contributions from $x$ and $y$ components, a factor $2$ is utilized in the nominator. The fraction $2\sigma^2/\delta^2$ represents an average increase of redundancy that is assigned to the acquisition of a new data point. In order to take into account acquisition of $N$ data points, factor $N$ is further used. With respect to this, we introduce the predictor cost function by the sum: \begin{eqnarray} C&=&R - Q + 1 \nonumber\\ &=&2N \frac{{\sigma}^2}{\delta^2}+\frac{{\rm E}[ (y- y_p)^2]}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ( y_p)}. \end{eqnarray} The constant $1$ is inserted in the first row in order to obtain a more simple expression in the second row of Eq.\,. In the same way as the definition of the information cost function given in , the cost function is here expressed in a relative form comprised of two terms: the first corresponds to the redundancy of experiments due to inaccurate measurements while the second represents the influence of acquisition of information about the phenomenon by experiments. With an increasing number of samples $N$, the redundancy on average increases while the second term decreases with the decreasing error. Therefore, the cost function $C$ exhibits a minimum at some $N_{\rm o}$ that represents a proper number of data needed for the modeling of the physical law governing the phenomenon explored. However, the influence of the first term becomes prevailing when the distance between data points $\delta$ becomes essentially smaller than the width $\sigma$ of the scattering function. \section{ Example} To demonstrate the properties of the CA estimator, we utilize the data generated by a noise-corrupted chaotic return map with the span $S_x=(0,1)$. This example is used because similar cases often appear in the analysis of chaotic time series . The basic problem in such an analysis is to extract the return map from a given record of time series that is influenced by additive noise of instrumental origin. In our case, we apply analytically determined data to provide for a comparison between the original and extracted physical law and to make feasible an objective reproduction of the complete method. The basic governing law is here given by the logistic map: \begin{equation} \chi_{n+1}=3.8\, \chi_n (1-\chi_n), \end{equation} while the initial value $\chi_1$ is arbitrary selected from the interval $(0,1)$ using a random generator. To the values of generated chaotic series, the Gaussian noise $\nu$ of zero mean value and standard deviation $\sigma=0.1$ is added to simulate an additive noise of measurement. The iterative solution of Eq.\, then yields a series of noise corrupted chaotic values: $x_n=\chi_n + \nu_n$. Figure shows two records of such a series that were used in modeling and testing of the proposed method. From the series $\{x_n\, ; n=1\ldots\}$, the joint samples of the basic variables $x,y$ are obtained by treating the successive value of $x_n$ as the dependent variable: $y_n=x_{n+1}$. The generator of data is thus analytically described by the rule: \begin{eqnarray} x_n&=&\chi_n + \nu_n \nonumber \\ y_n&=&x_{n+1}, \end{eqnarray} while the governing law is given by $y_{\rm o}=3.8\, x(1-x)$. The sample points $\{x_n,y_n\,;\, n=1\ldots N\}$ are distributed along the corresponding parabola in the sample space. According to our previous treatment, the standard deviation $\sigma$ corresponds to the width of the instrument scattering function $\psi$. The joint PDF shown in Fig.\, is determined by the kernel estimator Eq.\,(\ref {pdfxy}) using $200$ data, while a reduced set of $30$ data is further utilized to demonstrate the properties of the conditional average estimator. The data obtained from the pure chaos generator are shown by $y_{\rm o} \cdot\cdot\cdot$ in the top parabola of Fig.\,, while the basic noise-corrupted data $y \ast\ast\ast$ are shown by points scattered around pure data points. The conditional average estimator is obtained by inserting data from the basic data set into Eq.\,(). To demonstrate its performance, we additionally generated with different seeds of random generators a set of $N_t=60$ test data $\{ x_{t,i},y_{t,i} \}$. Based on data $x_{t,i}$ from this set, the corresponding values of $y_{p,i}$ are predicted by the CA estimator. The test and predicted data are shown in Fig.\, by the middle two sets of points ($+++$ and $\circ\circ\circ$). The prediction error $Er=y_p-y_{t}$, calculated from both data sets, is presented by $\diamondsuit\diamondsuit\diamondsuit$ at the bottom of Fig.\,. Relatively small differences between predicted and test points indicate that the properties of the governing law $y_{\rm o}(x)$ are properly modeled by the CA estimator. To confirm this qualitative conclusion, we next analyze the properties of statistics ${\rm E}[(y_e-y_t)^2], Q, \delta^2, R, C$ depending on the the number of data $N$ used in modeling. The number of test data is kept constant $N_t=60$ during calculation of these statistics. Properties of the statistical model of the governing law depend on sets of samples utilized in modeling and testing. To demonstrate this dependence, we repeated the modeling and testing three times using various statistical sample sets. The mean square predictor error ${\rm E}[(y- y_p)^2]$ is presented in Fig.\, versus number of samples $N$. Its value varies statistically but, on average, it decreases with the increasing number $N$. Statistical fluctuations are largest at small $N$ and significantly depend on samples used in modeling. However, with the increasing $N$, the statistical fluctuations are ever less pronounced. If the number of test samples $N_t$ is much larger than the number of samples $N$, changing the testing sample set does not significantly influence the properties of estimated statistics, which is the case in our demonstration. This is the reason why we use the value $N_t=60$. The predictor quality $Q$, as determined from the prediction error, is presented in Fig.\, versus number of samples $N$. For each data set the statistical fluctuations decrease with increasing $N$ so that qualities calculated from different data sets converge to the same limit value. With increasing $N$, the curves determined from different data sets merge approximately at $N\sim 11$. The quality is there $\sim 0.97$ and rises to $\sim 0.98$ at $N=30$. At $N\sim 11$, the difference between the curves obtained from different data sets is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the corresponding quality. With respect to these properties, we could conjecture that in the present case about $11$ data values already provide for a judicious modeling of the governing law $y_{\rm o}(x)$ by the CA predictor. To confirm our last conjecture, we turn to the determination of the predictor cost function. For this purpose, let us first analyze the properties of the mean square distance between data points $\delta^2$. The corresponding graph, shown in Fig.\,, indicates that $\delta^2$ is rather monotonously decreasing with the number of samples with the approximate dependence being $\sim 1/N$. Consequently, the corresponding redundancy $R$ is increasing with $N$ similarly as $\sim N^2$. This conclusion is confirmed by the graph in Fig.\,. Following the definition given by Eq.\,, we obtain from the estimated error and the redundancy the predictor cost function $C$ shown in Fig.\,. Its minimum is not very pronounced. From various statistical data sets, we obtain the estimates of the minimal value $C_{\rm o}=0.033\pm0.006$. The corresponding number $N_{\rm o}=10\pm 2$ confirms our previous conjecture stemming from the analysis of predictor quality. With an increasing number of samples $N$, the quality $Q(N)$ of the CA predictor exhibits a convergence to some limit value $Q_\infty$ that characterizes hypothetical maximum quality of proposed nonparametric statistical modeling. This limit value generally increases with the decreasing scattering width $\sigma$. Related to this, the minimal value of cost function is diminished and takes place at a larger $N_{\rm o}$\,; for instance at $\sigma=0.005$ we get $C_{\rm o}=0.018\pm0.003$ and $N_{\rm o}=14\pm 3$. However, the limit value of the quality $Q_\infty$ is less than $1$ if $1/\sigma$ and $N$ are finite. This means that it is not possible to exactly determine the governing physical law $y=y_{\rm o}(x)$ from joint data obtained by an instrument influenced by stochastic disturbances.\\ \section{ Discussion} Our method of estimation of natural laws from given data can be simply generalized to multivariate cases by substituting corresponding vectors for the variables $x,y$. Such modeling has already been applied in a variety of examples stemming from physical , technical , economic and medical environments . Particularly in economic and medical environments, phenomena are often characterized by many variables that could be either informative or disturbing. Due to the complexity of such cases, there usually exists little or no information about a possible function that could describe the governing law. In relation to this, researchers are faced with the problem of how to define complexity and to reduce it by extracting informative variables from a given set . Alongside mutual information, the predictor quality could also be applied for this purpose. For instance, it has been recently shown in the field of medicine how an analysis of predictor quality can provide for an ordering of variables and the extraction of a set that yields an optimal predictor of the disease healing process . Such an analysis makes feasible further progress towards the origins of the treated disease. The value of the proper number $N_{\rm o}$, as defined by the minimum of predictor cost function, could be interpreted as a measure of the complexity of an adequate predictor model. It is important that this measure depends only on the accuracy of observation and properties of the phenomenon represented by given experimental data. In relation to the example demonstrated here, there emerges an important conclusion about the description of natural phenomena by physical laws in the form $y=y_{\rm o}(x)$. As long as such a law is considered as the only basis for the description of the phenomenon, it is not sufficient for a complete description, since no information is provided about the properties of the sample space of joint data. Consider a well known example -- the law $m=\rho V$ that relates the mass $m$, the volume $V$ and the density $\rho$ of an object. This law does not include the restriction $m\ge0$, and is in this aspect not complete. Similar, but much more complex, examples are met when treating chaotic phenomena and their strange attractors . For example, the law applied here is a special case of the law $\chi_{n+1}=a\, \chi_n (1-\chi_n)$, with $a$ being a constant. Depending on the value of $a$ and the starting value $\chi_1$, the series $\{\chi_n\, ; n=1\ldots \}$ exhibits at large values of parameter $n\rightarrow\infty$ either a discrete or a continuous sample space. Moreover, in the continuous case, the sample space can be comprised of disconnected intervals which could hardly be predicted analytically. Similar, but still more cumbersome, is the situation if we consider chaotic processes with continuous parameters. Consequently, a governing law $y=y_{\rm o}(x)$ appears incomplete for description of the phenomenon. The most outstanding deficiency is that it does not include information about the structure of the sample space corresponding to the observed phenomenon. This deficiency does not appear if we consider as a basis for modeling the probability density function and estimate it nonparametrically, directly from measured joint data. The extraction of a law that describes a relation between variables can then be generally performed by using the conditional average estimator. However, applications of simple parametrical laws, like $m=\rho V$, are of tremendous importance for analytical sciences and we do not expect that the proposed nonparametric models could substitute for them, although they are convenient for direct applications. Consequently, the question arises of how to find a univocal link between both paradigms of modeling. \section{ Conclusions} Our approach indicates that the objectively introduced kernel estimator provides for a nonparametric statistical modeling of a quantitatively explored phenomenon. Since no a priori information about the form of the governing physical law is required, the modeling can be automatically performed by a computer in a measurement system. The proposed predictor cost function $C$ provides for estimating the proper number $N_{\rm o}$ of data needed for the modeling. Properties of the predictor cost function resemble those of information cost function , but its estimation is much more simple. The properties of the extracted model of the governing law can be quantitatively described by the predictor quality $Q$ and redundancy $R$ of data from which the governing law is extracted. This law represents the distribution of the variable $y$ at a given value $x$ by a single predicted value $y_p(x)$. Such a compressed representation generally corresponds to creation of information about the explored phenomenon . This is in contrast to the loss of information caused by stochastic disturbances in signal transmission channels . If the extraction of information from observations is considered as a basis of natural intelligence , then a system capable of estimating a physical law from measured data autonomously must be treated as an intelligent unit. Such an interpretation provides a common basis for a unified treatment of experimental sciences and natural or artificial intelligence . \begin{acknowledgments} This work was supported by The Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia and EU -- COST. \end{acknowledgments} \begin{thebibliography}{} \bibitem{fe} R. Feynman, {\em The Character of Physical Law} (The MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, 1994). \bibitem{gs} I. Grabec and W. Sachse, {\em Synergetics of Measurement, Prediction and Control} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997). \bibitem{re} R. E. Collins, Found. Physics {\bf 35}, 734 (2005). \bibitem{ig} I. Grabec, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 22}, 129 (2001). \bibitem{ig2} I. Grabec, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 48}, 279 (2005), (DOI: 10.1140/epjb/e2005-00391-0). \bibitem{ig3} I. Grabec, arXiv:cs.IT/0612027 {\bf v1 5}, (2006). \bibitem{par} E. Parzen, Ann. Math. Stat. {\bf 35}, 1065 (1962). \bibitem{dh} R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart, {\em Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis} (J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973), Ch. 4. \bibitem{les} J. C. G. Lesurf, {\em Information and Measurement} (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 2002). \bibitem{ris} J. Risanen, {\em Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information} (Addison-Wesley, 1990), ed. W. H. Zurek, 117-125. \bibitem{ris2} J. Rissanen, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory {\bf 42}, 40 (1996). \bibitem{ct} T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, {\em Elements of Information Theory} (John Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1991). \bibitem{kol} A. N. Kolmogorov, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory {\bf IT-2}, 102 (1956). \bibitem{mo} F. C. Moon, {\em Chaotic and Fractal Dynamics} (John Wiley \& Sons, INC. New York, 1992). \bibitem{mgg} S. Mandelj, I. Grabec and E. Govekar, Int. J. Bifurcation and Chaos {\bf 11}, 2731 (2001). \bibitem{tgp} M. Thaler, I. Grabec and A. Poredo\v{s}, Physica A {\bf 35}, 46 (2005). \bibitem{grag} I. Grabec and D. Gro{\v s}elj, Comput. Methods in Biomech. Biomed. Engin. {\bf 6}, 319 (2003) \bibitem{gfg} I. Grabec, I. Ferkolj and D. Gro{\v s}elj, {\em Proc. of 2nd International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Medicine and Healthcare, Lisbon}, (CIMED-2005 Proceedings, ISBN: 0-86341-520-2,IEE, 2005), ed. J. M. Fonseca, 311-316 \bibitem{be} C. H. Bennett, {\em Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information} (Addison-Wesley, 1990), ed. W. H. Zurek, 137-148. \bibitem{sha} C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, {\em The Mathematical Theory of Communication} (Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1949). \bibitem{ha} S. Haykin, {\em Neural Networks, A Comprehensive Foundation} (Mcmillan College Publishing Company, New York, 1994) \bibitem{ka} D. J. C. MacKay {\it Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003) \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0091
|
Title: Groups with finitely many conjugacy classes and their automorphisms
Abstract: We combine classical methods of combinatorial group theory with the theory of
small cancellations over relatively hyperbolic groups to construct finitely
generated torsion-free groups that have only finitely many classes of conjugate
elements. Moreover, we present several results concerning embeddings into such
groups.
As another application of these techniques, we prove that every countable
group $C$ can be realized as a group of outer automorphisms of a group $N$,
where $N$ is a finitely generated group having Kazhdan's property (T) and
containing exactly two conjugacy classes.
Body: \title[Groups with finitely many conjugacy classes]{Groups with finitely many conjugacy classes and their automorphisms} \author{Ashot Minasyan} \address{ School of Mathematics, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.} \email{aminasyan@gmail.com} \begin{abstract} We combine classical methods of combinatorial group theory with the theory of small cancellation over relatively hyperbolic groups to construct finitely generated torsion-free groups that have only finitely many classes of conjugate elements. Moreover, we present several results concerning embeddings into such groups. As another application of these techniques, we prove that every countable group $C$ can be realized as a group of outer automorphisms of a group $N$, where $N$ is a finitely generated group having Kazhdan's property (T) and containing exactly two conjugacy classes. \end{abstract} \thanks{This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation Grant $\sharp$~PP002-68627.} \keywords{Conjugacy Classes, Relatively Hyperbolic Groups, Outer Automorphism Groups} \subjclass[2000]{20F65, 20E45, 20F28} \maketitle \section{Introduction} We shall start with \begin{df} Suppose that $n \ge 2$ is an integer. We will say that a group $M$ has the property {\ncc} if there are exactly $n$ conjugacy classes of elements in $M$. \end{df} Note that a group $M$ has {\cc} if and only if any two non-trivial elements are conjugate in $M$. For two elements $x,y $ of some group $G$, we shall write $x \stackrel{G}{\sim} y$ if $x$ and $y$ are conjugate in $G$, and $x \stackrel{G}{\nsim} y$ if they are not. For a group $G$, denote by $\pi(G)$ the set of all finite orders of elements of $G$. A classical theorem of G. Higman, B. Neumann and H. Neumann () states that every countable group $G$ can be embedded into a countable (but infinitely generated) group $M$, where any two elements of the same order are conjugate and $\pi(M)=\pi(G)$. For any integer $n\ge 2$, take $G=\Z/2^{n-2}\Z$ and embed $G$ into a countable group $M$ according to the theorem above. Then $card(\pi(M))=card(\pi(G))=n-1$. Since, in addition, $M$ will always contain an element of infinite order, the theorem of Higman-Neumann-Neumann implies that $G$ has {\ncc}. Another way to construct infinite groups with finitely many conjugacy classes was suggested by S. Ivanov \cite[Thm. 41.2]{Olsh0}, who showed for every sufficiently large prime $p$ there is an infinite $2$-generated group $M_p$ of exponent $p$ possessing exactly $p$ conjugacy classes. The group $M_p$ is constructed as a direct limit of word hyperbolic groups, and, as noted in , it is impossible to obtain an infinite group with {\cc} in the same manner. In the recent paper D. Osin developed a theory of small cancellation over relatively hyperbolic groups and used it to obtain the following remarkable result: \begin{thm}[, Thm. 1.1] Any countable group $G$ can be embedded into a $2$-generated group $M$ such that any two elements of the same order are conjugate in $M$ and $\pi(M)=\pi(G)$. \end{thm} Applying this theorem to the group $G=\Z/2^{n-2}\Z$ one can show that for each integer $n\ge 2$ there exists a $2$-generated group with ${\ncc}$. And when $n=2$ we get a $2$-generated torsion-free group that has exactly two conjugacy classes. The presence of elements of finite orders in the above constructions was important, because if two elements have different orders, they can never be conjugate. So, naturally, one can ask the following \begin{quest} Do there exist torsion-free (finitely generated) groups with {\ncc}, for any integer $n \ge 3$? \end{quest} Note that if $G$ is the finitely generated group with {\cc} constructed by Osin, then the $m$-th direct power $G^m$ of $G$ is also a finitely generated torsion-free group which satisfies ($2^m$CC). But what if we want to achieve a torsion-free group with ($3$CC)? With this purpose one could come up with \begin{quest} Suppose that $G$ is a countable torsion-free group and $x,y \in G$ are non-conjugate. Is it possible to embed $G$ into a group $M$, which has ($3$CC), so that $x$ and $y$ stay non-conjugate in $M$? \end{quest} Unfortunately, the answer to Question is negative as the following example shows. \begin{example} Consider the group \begin{equation} G_1=\langle a,t~\|~tat^{-1}=a^{-1}\rangle \end{equation} which is isomorphic to the non-trivial semidirect product $\Z \rtimes \Z$. Note that $G_1$ is torsion-free, and $t$ is not conjugated to $t^{-1}$ in $G_1$ because $t \nsim t^{-1}$ in the infinite cyclic group $\langle t \rangle$ which is canonically isomorphic to the quotient of $G_1$ by the normal closure of $a$. However, if $G_1$ is embedded into a (3CC)-group $M$, it is easy to see that every element of $M$ will be conjugated to its inverse (indeed, if $y \in M \setminus \{1\}$ and $y \stackrel{M}{\nsim} y^{-1}$ then $y^\epsilon \stackrel{M}{\sim} a \stackrel{M}{\sim} a^{-1}$, for some $\epsilon \in \{1,-1\}$, hence $y^\epsilon \stackrel{M}{\sim} y^{-\epsilon}$ -- a contradiction). In particular, $t \stackrel{M}{\sim} t^{-1}$. \end{example} An analog of the above example can be given for each $n \ge 3$ -- see Section . This example shows that, in order to get a positive result, one would have to strengthen the assumptions of Question . Let $G$ be a group. Two elements $x,y \in G$ are said to be {\it commensurable} if there exist $k,l \in \Z\setminus \{0\}$ such that $x^k$ is conjugate to $y^l$. We will use the notation $x \stackrel{G}{\approx} y$ if $x$ and $y$ are commensurable in $G$. In the case when $x$ is not commensurable with $y$ we will write $x \stackrel{G}{\not\approx} y$. Observe that commensurability, as well as conjugacy, defines an equivalence relation on the set of elements of $G$. It is somewhat surprising that if one replaces the words "non-conjugate" with the words "non-commensurable" in Question , the answer becomes positive: \begin{cor} Assume that $G$ is a countable torsion-free group, $n \in \N$, $n \ge 2$, and $x_1,\dots,x_{n-1} \in G\setminus \{1\}$ are pairwise non-commensurable. Then there exists a group $M$ and an injective homomorphism $\varphi:G \to M$ such that \begin{itemize} \item[1.] $M$ is torsion-free and generated by two elements; \item[2.] $M$ has {\ncc}; \item[3.] $M$ is $2$-boundedly simple; \item[4.] the elements $\varphi(x_1),\dots,\varphi(x_{n-1})$ are pairwise non-commensurable in $M$. \end{itemize} \end{cor} Recall that a group $G$ is said to be $k$-{\it boundedly simple} if for any $x,y \in G\setminus \{1\}$ there exist $l \le k$ and $g_1,\dots,g_l \in G$ such that $x = g_1yg_1^{-1}\cdots g_lyg_l^{-1}$ in $G$. A group is called {\it boundedly simple} if it is $k$-boundedly simple for some $k \in \N$. Evidently every boundedly simple group is simple; the converse is not true in general. For example, the infinite alternating group $A_\infty$ is simple but not boundedly simple because conjugation preserves the type of the decomposition of a permutation into a product of cycles. First examples of torsion-free finitely generated boundedly simple groups were constructed by A. Muranov (see \cite[Thm. 2]{Mur1}, \cite[Thm. 1]{Mur3}). Corollary is an immediate consequence of a more general Theorem that will be proved in Section . Applying Corollary to the group $G=F(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})$, which is free on the set $\{x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}\}$, and its non-commensurable elements $x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}$, we obtain a positive answer to Question : \begin{cor} For every integer $n \ge 3$ there exists a torsion-free $2$-boundedly simple group satisfying {\ncc} and generated by two elements. \end{cor} (In the case when $n=2$ the above statement was obtained by Osin in \cite[Cor. 1.3]{Osin-SCT}.) In fact, for any (finitely generated) torsion-free group $H$ we can set $G=H*F(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})$, and then use Corollary to embed $G$ into a group $M$ enjoying the properties $1-4$ from its claim. Since there is a continuum of pairwise non-isomorphic $2$-generated torsion-free groups (), and a finitely generated group can contain at most countably many of different $2$-generated subgroups, this shows that there must be continually many pairwise non-isomorphic groups satisfying properties $1-3$ from Corollary . Recall that the rank $rank(G)$ of a group $G$ is the minimal number of elements required to generate $G$. In Section we show how classical theory of HNN-extensions allows to construct different embeddings into (infinitely generated) groups that have finitely many classes of conjugate elements, and in Section we use Osin's results (from ) regarding quotients of relatively hyperbolic groups to prove \begin{thm} Let $H$ be a torsion-free countable group and let $M \lhd H$ be a non-trivial normal subgroup. Then $H$ can be isomorphically embedded into a torsion-free group $Q$, possessing a normal subgroup $N \lhd Q$, such that \begin{itemize} \item $Q=H\cdot N$ and $H \cap N=M$ (hence $Q/N \cong H/M$); \item $N$ has {\cc}; \item $\forall~x,y \in Q\setminus \{1\}$, $x \stackrel{Q}{\sim} y$ if and only if $\varphi(x) \stackrel{Q/N}{\sim} \varphi(y)$, where $\varphi: Q \to Q/N$ is the natural homomorphism; \item $rank(N)=2$ and $rank(Q) \le rank(H/M)+2$. \end{itemize} \end{thm} This theorem implies that if $Q/N \cong H/M$ has exactly $(n-1)$ conjugacy classes (e.g., if it is finite), then the group $Q$ will have {\ncc} and will not be simple (if $n \ge 3$). Thus it may be used to build {\ncc}-groups in a recursive manner. It also allows to obtain embeddings of countable torsion-free groups into {\ncc}-groups, which we could not get by using Corollary . For instance, as we saw in Example , the fundamental group of the Klein bottle $G_1$, given by \eqref{eq:Kl-bot}, can not be embedded into a ($3$CC)-group $M$ so that $t \stackrel{M}{\nsim} t^{-1}$. However, with $4$ conjugacy classes this is already possible: see Corollary in Section . The idea is as follows: the group $G_1$ can be mapped onto $\Z/3\Z$ in such a way that the images of the elements $t$ and $t^{-1}$ are distinct. Let $M$ be the kernel of this homomorphism. One can apply Theorem to the pair $(G_1,M)$ to obtain the required embedding of $G_1$ into a group $Q$. And since $\Z/3\Z$ has exactly $3$ conjugacy classes, the group $Q$ will have ($4$CC). An application of Theorem to the case when $H=\Z$ and $M=2\Z \lhd H$ also provides an affirmative answer to a question of A. Izosov from \cite[Q. 11.42]{Kourovka}, asking whether there exists a torsion-free ($3$CC)-group $Q$ that contains a normal subgroup $N$ of index $2$. The goal of the second part of this article is to show that every countable group can be realized as a group of outer automorphisms of some finitely generated {\cc}-group. This problem has some historical background: in T. Matumoto proved that every group is a group of outer automorphisms of some group (in contrast, there are groups, e.g., $\Z$, that are not full automorphism groups of any group); M. Droste, M. Giraudet, R. G\"{o}bel () showed that for every group $C$ there exists a simple group $S$ such that $Out(S) \cong C$; I. Bumagina and D. Wise in proved that each countable group $C$ is isomorphic to $Out(N)$ where $N$ is a $2$-generated subgroup of a countable $C'(1/6)$-group, and if, in addition, $C$ is finitely presented then one can choose $N$ to be residually finite. In Section we establish a few useful statements regarding paths in the Cayley graph of a relatively hyperbolic group $G$, and apply them in Section to obtain small cancellation quotients of $G$ satisfying certain conditions. Finally, in Section we prove the following \begin{thm} Let $C$ be an arbitrary countable group. Then for every non-elemen\-tary torsion-free word hyperbolic group $F_1$ there exists a torsion-free group $N$ satisfying the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item $N$ is a $2$-generated quotient of $F_1$; \item $N$ has {\cc}; \item $Out(N) \cong C$. \end{itemize} \end{thm} The principal difference between this theorem and the result of is that our group $N$ is torsion-free and simple. Moreover, if one applies Theorem to the case when $F_1$ is a torsion-free hyperbolic group with Kazhdan's property (T) (and recalls that every quotient of a group with property (T) also has (T)), one will get \begin{cor} For any countable group $C$ there is a $2$-generated group $N$ such that $N$ has {\cc} and Kazhdan's property (T), and $Out(N) \cong C$. \end{cor} The reason why Kazhdan's property (T) is interesting in this context is the question from \cite[p. 134]{Harpe-Valette} which asked whether there exist groups that satisfy property (T) and have infinite outer automorphism groups (it can be motivated by a theorem of F. Paulin which claims that the outer automorphism group is finite for any word hyperbolic group with property (T)). Positive answers to this question were obtained (using different methods) by Y. Ollivier and D. Wise , Y. de Cornulier , and I. Belegradek and D. Osin . Corollary not only shows that the group of outer automorphisms of a group $N$ with property (T) can be infinite, but also demonstrates that there are no restrictions whatsoever on $Out(N)$. {\bf Acknowledgements.} The author would like to thank D. Osin for fruitful discussions and encouragement. \section{Relatively hyperbolic groups} Assume that $G$ is a group, $\Hl$ is a fixed collection of subgroups of $G$ (called {\it peripheral subgroups}), and $\cX$ is a subset of $G$. The subset $\cX$ is called a {\it relative generating set of $G$} with respect to $\Hl $ if $G$ is generated by $\cX \cup \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda} H_\lambda $. In this case $G$ a quotient of the free product $$F=\left( \ast _{\lambda\in \Lambda } H_\lambda \right) \ast F(\cX),$$ where $F(\cX)$ is the free group with basis $\cX$. Let $\mathcal R $ be a subset of $F$ such that the kernel of the natural epimorphism $F\to G$ is the normal closure of $\mathcal R $ in the group $F$; then we will say that $G$ has {\it relative presentation} \begin{equation} \langle \cX,\; \{H_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}~ \|~ R=1,\, R\in\mathcal R\rangle . \end{equation} If the sets $\cX$ and $\mathcal R$ are finite, the relative presentation () is said to be {\it finite}. Set $\mathcal H=\bigsqcup_{\lambda\in \Lambda} (H_\lambda\setminus \{ 1\} )$. A finite relative presentation \eqref{eq:pres_of_G} is said to satisfy a {\it linear relative isoperimetric inequality} if there exists $C>0$ such that, for every word $w$ in the alphabet $\cX\cup \mathcal{H}$ (for convenience, we will further assume that $\cX^{-1}=\cX$) representing the identity in the group $G$, one has $$w\stackrel{F}{=}\prod\limits_{i=1}^k f_i^{-1}R_i^{\pm 1}f_i,$$ with equality in the group $F$, where $R_i\in \mathcal{R}$, $f_i\in F $, for $i=1, \ldots , k$, and $k\le C\| w\| $, where $\| w\|$ is the length of the word $w$. The next definition is due to Osin (see ): \begin{df} the group $G$ is called {\it hyperbolic relative to} (the collection of peripheral subgroups) $\Hl $, if $G$ admits a finite relative presentation () satisfying a linear relative isoperimetric inequality. \end{df} This definition is independent of the choice of the finite generating set $\cX$ and the finite set $\mathcal R$ in () (see ). We would also like to note that, in general, it does not require the group $G$ to be finitely generated, which will be important in this paper. The definition immediately implies the following basic facts: \begin{remark}[] (a) Let $\{H_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ be an arbitrary family of groups. Then the free product $G=\ast_{\lambda\in \Lambda} H_\lambda$ will be hyperbolic relative to $\Hl$. (b) Any word hyperbolic group (in the sense of Gromov) is hyperbolic relative to the family $\{\{1\}\}$, where $\{1\}$ denotes the trivial subgroup. \end{remark} Recall that a group $H$ is called {\it elementary} if it has a cyclic subgroup of finite index. Further in this section we will assume that $G$ is a non-elementary group hyperbolic relative to a family of proper subgroups $\{H_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$. An element $g \in G$ is said to be {\it parabolic} if it is conjugated to an element of $H_\lambda$ for some $\lambda \in \Lambda$. Otherwise $g$ is said to be {\it hyperbolic}. Given a subgroup $S\le G$, we denote by $S^0$ the set of all hyperbolic elements of $S$ of infinite order. \begin{lemma}[, Thm. 4.3, Cor. 1.7] For every $g \in G^0$ the following conditions hold. \begin{itemize} \item[1)] The element $g$ is contained in a unique maximal elementary subgroup $E_G(g)$ of $G$, where \begin{equation} E_G(g)=\{ f\in G\; :\; fg^nf^{-1}=g^{\pm n}\; {\rm for \; some\; } n\in \mathbb N\}. \end{equation} \item[2)] The group $G$ is hyperbolic relative to the collection $\Hl\cup \{ E_G(g)\} $. \end{itemize} \end{lemma} Recall that a non-trivial subgroup $H \le G$ is called {\it malnormal} if for every $g \in G\setminus H$, $H \cap gHg^{-1}=\{1\}$. The next lemma is a special case of Theorem 1.4 from : \begin{lemma} For any $\lambda \in \Lambda $ and any $g\notin H_\lambda $, the intersection $H_\lambda \cap g H_\lambda g^{-1}$ is finite. If $h \in G$, $\mu \in \Lambda$ and $\mu \neq \lambda$, then the intersection $H_\lambda \cap hH_\mu h^{-1}$ is finite. In particular, if $G$ is torsion-free then $H_\lambda$ is malnormal (provided that $H_\lambda \neq \{1\}$). \end{lemma} \begin{lemma}[, Thm. 2.40] Suppose that a group $G$ is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups $\Hl \cup \{ S_1, \ldots , S_m\} $, where $S_1, \ldots, S_m $ are word hyperbolic (in the ordinary non-relative sense). Then $G$ is hyperbolic relative to $\Hl $. \end{lemma} \begin{lemma}[, Cor. 1.4] Let $G$ be a group which is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups $\Hl \cup \{K \}$. Suppose that $K$ is finitely generated and there is a monomorphism $\alpha \colon K\to H_\nu$ for some $\nu \in \Lambda$. Then the HNN-extension $\langle G, t~\|~ txt^{-1}=\alpha (x), \, x\in K\rangle$ is hyperbolic with respect to $\Hl$. \end{lemma} In Osin introduced the following notion: a subgroup $S \le G$ is {\it suitable} if there exist two elements $g_1,g_2 \in S^0$ such that $g_1 \stackrel{G}{\not\approx} g_2$ and $E_G(g_1) \cap E_G(g_2)=\{1\}$. For any $S \le G$ with $S^0 \neq \emptyset$, one sets \begin{equation} E_G(S)=\bigcap_{g \in S^0} E_G(g) \end{equation} which is obviously a subgroup of $G$ normalized by $S$. Note that $E_G(S)=\{1\}$ if the subgroup $S$ is suitable in $G$. As shown in \cite[Lemma 3.3]{SQ}, if $S$ is non-elementary and $S^0 \neq \emptyset$ then $E_G(S)$ is the unique maximal finite subgroup of $G$ normalized by $S$. \begin{lemma} Let $\{H\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ be a family of groups and let $F$ be a torsion-free non-elementary word hyperbolic group. Then the free product $G=(*_{\lambda \in \Lambda} H_\lambda ) *F$ is hyperbolic relative to $\Hl$ and $F$ is a suitable subgroup of $G$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Indeed, $G$ is hyperbolic relative to $\Hl$ by Remark and Lemma . Since $F$ is non-elementary, there are elements of infinite order $x,y \in F$ such that $x \stackrel{F}{\not\approx} y$ (see, for example, \cite[Lemma 3.2]{Olsh2}). Evidently, $x$ and $y$ are hyperbolic elements of $G$ that are not commensurable with each other, and the subgroups $E_G(x)=E_F(x) \le F$, $E_G(y)=E_F(y) \le F$ are cyclic (as elementary subgroups of a torsion-free group). Hence $E_G(x) \cap E_G(y)=\{1\}$, and thus $F$ is suitable in $G$. \end{proof} \begin{lemma}[, Lemma 2.3] Suppose that $G$ is a group hyperbolic relative to a family of subgroups $\{H_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ and $S\le G$ is a suitable subgroup. Then one can find infinitely many pairwise non-commensurable (in $G$) elements $g_1,g_2, \dots \in S^0$ such that $E_G(g_i) \cap E_G(g_j)=\{1\}$ for all $i\neq j$. \end{lemma} The following theorem was proved by Osin in using the theory of small cancellation over relatively hyperbolic groups, and represents our main tool for obtaining new quotients of such groups having a number of prescribed properties: \begin{thm}[, Thm. 2.4] Let $G$ be a torsion-free group hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups $\Hl $, let $S$ be a suitable subgroup of $G$, and let $T, U$ be arbitrary finite subsets of $G$. Then there exist a group $G_1$ and an epimorphism $\eta \colon G\to G_1$ such that: \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] The restriction of $\eta$ to $\bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda} H_\lambda \cup U$ is injective, and the group $G_1$ is hyperbolic relative to the collection $\{\eta (H_\lambda )\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda }$; \item[(ii)] for every $t\in T$, we have $\eta (t)\in \eta (S)$; \item[(iii)] $\eta(S)$ is a suitable subgroup of $G_1$; \item[(iv)] $G_1$ is torsion-free; \item[(v)] the kernel $\ker(\eta)$ of $\eta$ is generated (as a normal subgroup of $G$) by a finite collection of elements belonging to $T\cdot S$. \end{itemize} \end{thm} We have slightly changed the original formulation of the above theorem from , demanding the injectivity on $V=\bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda} H_\lambda \cup U$ (instead of just $\bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda} H_\lambda$) and adding the last point concerning the generators of the kernel. The latter follows from the explicit form of the relations, imposed on $G$ (see the proof of Thm. 2.4 in ), and the former -- from part 2 of Lemma 5.1 in and the fact that any element from $V$ has length (in the alphabet $\cX \cup \cH$) at most $N$, where $N= \max\{|h|_{\cX \cup \cH}~:~h \in U\}+1$. \section{Groups with finitely many conjugacy classes} \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be a group and let $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4 \in G$ be elements of infinite order such that $x_1 \stackrel{G}{\not\approx} x_i$, $i=2,3,4$. Let $H=\langle G,t~\|~tx_3t^{-1}=x_4 \rangle$ be the HNN-extension of $G$ with associated cyclic subgroups generated by $x_3$ and $x_4$. Then $x_1 \stackrel{H}{\not\approx} x_2$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Arguing by contradiction, assume that $h x_1^l h^{-1} x_2^{m}=1$ for some $h \in H$, $l,m \in \Z\setminus \{0\}$. The element $h$ has a reduced presentation of the form $$h=g_0t^{\epsilon_1}g_1t^{\epsilon_2}\dots t^{\epsilon_k}g_k$$ where $g_0,\dots,g_k \in G$, $\epsilon_1,\dots, \epsilon_k \in \Z \setminus\{0\}$, and $$\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} g_j \notin \langle x_3 \rangle & \mbox{ if } & 1\le j \le k-1 \mbox{ and } \epsilon_j>0, \epsilon_{j+1}<0 \\ g_j \notin \langle x_4 \rangle & \mbox{ if } & 1\le j \le k-1 \mbox{ and } \epsilon_j<0, \epsilon_{j+1}>0 \end{array}\right. .$$ By the assumptions, $x_1 \stackrel{G}{\not \approx} x_2$ hence $k\ge 1$, and in the group $H$ we have \begin{equation} h x_1^l h^{-1} x_2^{m}=g_0t^{\epsilon_1}g_1t^{\epsilon_2}\dots t^{\epsilon_k}g_k x_1^l g_k^{-1}t^{-\epsilon_k}\dots t^{-\epsilon_2} g_1^{-1} t^{-\epsilon_1}\tilde g_0=1,\end{equation} where $\tilde g_0=g_0^{-1}x_2^m \in G$. By Britton's Lemma (see \cite[IV.2]{L-S}), the left hand side in \eqref{eq:eq_to_1} can not be reduced, and this can happen only if $g_k x_1^l g_k^{-1}$ belongs to either $\langle x_3 \rangle$ or $\langle x_4 \rangle$ in $G$, which would contradict the assumptions. Thus the lemma is proved. \end{proof} \begin{df} Suppose that $G$ is a group and $X_i \subset G$, $i \in I$, is a family of subsets. We shall say that $X_i$, $i \in I$, are {\it independent} if no element of $X_i$ is commensurable with an element of $X_j$ whenever $i \neq j$, $i,j \in I$. \end{df} \begin{lemma} Assume that $G$ is a countable torsion-free group, $n\in \N$, $n \ge 2$, and non-empty subsets $X_i \subset G \setminus \{1\}$, $i=1,\dots, n-1$, are independent in $G$. Then $G$ can be (isomorphically) embedded into a countable torsion-free group $M$ in such a way that $M$ has {\ncc} and the subsets $X_i$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, remain independent in $M$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} For each $i=1,\dots,n-1$, fix an element $x_i \in X_i$. First we embed $G$ into a countable torsion-free group $G_1$ such that for each non-trivial element $g \in G$ there exist $j\in \{1,\dots,n-1\}$ and $t \in G_1$ satisfying $t g t^{-1}=x_j$ in $G_1$, and the subsets $X_i$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, stay independent in $G_1$. Let $g_1,g_2,\dots$ be an enumeration of all non-trivial elements of $G$. Set $G(0)=G$ and suppose that we have already constructed the group $G(k)$, containing $G$, so that for each $l \in \{1,\dots,k\}$ there is $j \in \{1,\dots,n-1\}$ such that the element $g_l$ is conjugated in $G(k)$ to $x_j$, and $X_i,i=1,\dots,n-1$, are independent in $G(k)$. Suppose, at first, that $g_{k+1}$ is commensurable in $G(k)$ with an element of $X_j$ for some $j$. Then $g_{k+1} \stackrel{G(k)}{\not\approx} h$ for every $\displaystyle h \in \bigcup_{i=1, i \neq j}^{n-1} X_i$. Define $G(k+1)$ to be the HNN-extension $\langle G(k),t_{k+1}~\|~ t_{k+1}g_{k+1}t_{k+1}^{-1}=x_j \rangle$. By Lemma the subsets $X_i$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, will remain independent in $G(k+1)$. Thus we can assume that $g_{k+1}$ is not commensurable with any element from $\bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} X_i$ in $G(k)$. According to the induction hypotheses one can apply Lemma to the HNN-extension $$G(k+1)=\langle G(k),t_{k+1}~\|~ t_{k+1}g_{k+1}t_{k+1}^{-1}=x_1 \rangle$$ to see that the subsets $X_i \subset G \le G(k+1)$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, are independent in $G(k+1)$. Now, set $G_1= \bigcup_{k=0}^\infty G(k)$. Evidently $G_1$ has the required properties. In the same manner, one can embed $G_1$ into a countable torsion-free group $G_2$ so that each non-trivial element of $G_1$ will be conjugated to $x_i$ in $G_2$, for some $i \in \{1,\dots,n-1\}$, and the subsets $X_i, i=1,\dots,n-1$, continue to be independent in $G_2$. Proceeding like that we obtain the desired group $M=\bigcup_{s=1}^\infty G_s$. By the construction, $M$ is a torsion-free countable group which has exactly $n$ conjugacy classes: $[1], [x_1],\dots, [x_{n-1}]$. The subsets $X_i, i=1,\dots,n-1$, are independent in $M$ because they are independent in $G_s$ for each $s \in \N$. \end{proof} \begin{cor} In Lemma one can add that the group $M$ is $2$-boundedly simple. \end{cor} \begin{proof} Let a torsion-free countable group $G$ and its non-empty independent subsets $X_i$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, be as in Lemma . Let $F=F(a_1,\dots,a_{n-1},b_1,\dots,b_{n-1})$ be the free group with the free generating set $\{a_1,\dots,a_{n-1},b_1,\dots,b_{n-1}\}$, and consider the group $\bar G=G * F$. For each $i=1,\dots,n-1$, define $$\bar X_i = X_i \cup \{a_i,a_i^{-1}\} \cup \{[a_j,b_i]~|~j=1,\dots,n-1, j\neq i\} \subset \bar G,$$ where $[a_j,b_i]=a_jb_ia_j^{-1}b_i^{-1}$. Using the universal properties of free groups and free products one can easily see that the subsets $\bar X_i$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, are independent in $\bar G$. Now we apply Lemma to find a countable torsion-free {\ncc}-group $M$, containing $\bar G$, such that $\bar X_i$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, are independent in $M$. Observe that this implies that for any given $i=1,\dots, n-1$, any two elements of $\bar X_i$ are conjugate in $M$. For arbitrary $x,y \in M\setminus \{1\}$ there exist $i,j \in \{1,\dots,n-1\}$ such that $x \stackrel{M}{\sim} a_i$ and $y \stackrel{M}{\sim} a_j$. If $i=j$ then $x \stackrel{M}{\sim} y$. Otherwise, $y \stackrel{M}{\sim} a_j \stackrel{M}{\sim} a_j^{-1}$ and $x\stackrel{M}{\sim} [a_j,b_i]$ which is a product of two conjugates of $a_j$, and, hence, of $y$. Therefore the group $M$ is $2$-boundedly simple, and since $G \le \bar G \le M$, the corollary is proved. \end{proof} Below is a particular (torsion-free) case of a theorem proved by Osin in \cite[Thm. 2.6]{Osin-SCT}: \begin{lemma} Any countable torsion-free group $S$ can be embedded into a $2$-generated group $M$ so that $S$ is malnormal in $M$ and every element of $M$ is conjugated to an element of $S$ in $M$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Following Osin's proof of Theorem 2.6 from , we see that the required group $M$ can be constructed as an inductive limit of relatively hyperbolic groups $G(i)$, $i \in \N$. More precisely, one sets $G(0)=S*F_2$, where $F_2$ is a free group of rank $2$, $\xi_0=id_{G(0)}:G(0) \to G(0)$, and for each $i \in \N$ one constructs a group $G(i)$ and an epimorphism $\xi_i:G(0) \to G(i)$ so that $\xi_i$ is injective on $S$, $G(i)$ is torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to $\{\xi_i(S)\}$, and $\xi_i$ factors through $\xi_{i-1}$. The group $M$ is defined to be the direct limit of $(G(i),\xi_i)$ as $i \to \infty$, i.e., $Q=G(0)/N$ where $N =\bigcup_{i \in \N} \ker(\xi_i)$. By Lemma , $\xi_i(S)$ is malnormal in $G(i)$, hence the image of $S$ will also be malnormal in $M$. \end{proof} \begin{thm} Let $G$ be a torsion-free countable group, $n\in \N$, $n \ge 2$, and non-empty subsets $X_i \subset G\setminus \{1\}$, $i =1,\dots,n-1$, be independent in $G$. Then $G$ can be embedded into a 2-generated torsion-free group $M$ which has {\ncc}, so that the subsets $X_i, i=1,\dots, n-1$, stay independent in $M$. Moreover, one can choose $M$ to be $2$-boundedly simple. \end{thm} \begin{proof} First, according to Corollary , we can embed the group $G$ into a countable torsion-free group $S$ such that $S$ has {\ncc} and is $2$-boundedly simple, and $X_i$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, are independent in $S$. Second, we apply Lemma to find the $2$-generated group $M$ from its claim. Choose any $i,j \in \{1,\dots,n-1\}$, $i \neq j$, and $x \in X_i$, $y \in X_j$. If $x$ and $y$ were commensurable in $M$, the malnormality of $S$ would imply that $x$ and $y$ must be commensurable in $S$, contradicting the construction. Hence $X_i$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, are independent in $M$. Since each element of $M$ is conjugated to an element of $S$, it is evident that $M$ has {\ncc}, is torsion-free and $2$-boundedly simple. \end{proof} \begin{remark} A more direct proof of Theorem , not using Lemma , can be extracted from the proof of Theorem (see Section ), applied to the case when $H=M$. \end{remark} It is easy to see that Theorem immediately implies Corollary that was formulated in the Introduction. As promised, we now give a counterexample to Question (formulated in the Introduction) for any $n\ge 3$. \begin{example} Let $G_2=\langle a,t~\|~tat^{-1}=a^2 \rangle$ be the Baumslag-Solitar $BS(1,2)$-group. Then $G_2$ is torsion-free, and the elements $t^2,t^4,\dots, t^{2^{n-1}}$ are pairwise non-conjugate in $G_2$ (since this holds in the quotient of $G_2$ by the normal closure of $a$). Suppose that $G_2$ is embedded into a group $M$ having {\ncc} so that $t^2,t^4,\dots,t^{2^{n-1}}$ are pairwise non-conjugate in $M$. Then $t^2,\dots, t^{2^{n-1}}$ is the list of representatives of all non-trivial conjugacy classes of $M$. Therefore there exist $k,l \in \{1,\dots,n-1\}$ such that $t \stackrel{M}{\sim} t^{2^k}$ and $a \stackrel{M}{\sim} t^{2^l}$. Consequently $$t^2 \stackrel{M}{\sim} t^{2^{k+1}} ~\mbox{ and }~ t^{2^l} \stackrel{M}{\sim} a \stackrel{M}{\sim} a^2 \stackrel{M}{\sim} t^{2^{l+1}},$$ hence $k=l=n-1$ according to the assumptions. But this yields $$t \stackrel{M}{\sim} t^{2^{n-1}} \stackrel{M}{\sim} a \stackrel{M}{\sim} a^2 \stackrel{M}{\sim} t^2,$$ implying that $t^2 \stackrel{M}{\sim} t^4$, which contradicts our assumptions. Thus $G_2$ can not be embedded into a {\ncc}-group $M$ in such a way that $t^2,\dots, t^{2^{n-1}}$ remain pairwise non-conjugate in $M$. \end{example} \section{Normal subgroups with {\ncc}} If $M$ is a normal subgroup of a group $H$, then $H$ naturally acts on $M$ by conjugation. We shall say that this action preserves the conjugacy classes of $M$ if for any $h \in H$ and $a \in M$ there exists $b \in M$ such that $hah^{-1}=bab^{-1}$. \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be a torsion-free group, $N \lhd G$ and $x_1,\dots,x_l \in N \setminus \{1\}$ be pairwise non-commensurable (in $G$) elements. Then there exists a partition $N\setminus \{1\}=\bigsqcup_{k=1}^l X_k$ of $N\setminus \{1\}$ into a (disjoint) union of $G$-independent subsets $X_1,\dots,X_l$ such that $x_k \in X_k$ for every $k\in \{1,\dots,l\}$. Moreover, each subset $X_k$ will be invariant under conjugation by elements of $G$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Since $\stackrel{G}{\approx}$ is an equivalence relation on $G\setminus \{1\}$, one can find the corresponding decomposition: $G\setminus \{1\}=\bigsqcup_{j \in J} Y_j$, where $Y_j$ is an equivalence class for each $j \in J$. For each $k=1,\dots,l$, there exists $j(k) \in J$ such that $x_k \in Y_{j(k)}$. Note that $j(k) \neq j(m)$ if $k \neq m$ since $x_k \stackrel{G}{\not\approx} x_m$. Denote $J'=J\setminus \{j(1),\dots,j(l-1)\}$, $$X_1=Y_{j(1)} \cap N, \dots, X_{l-1}=Y_{j(l-1)} \cap N,~\mbox{ and }~X_l=\bigcup_{j \in J'} Y_j \cap N.$$ Evidently $N\setminus \{1\}=\bigsqcup_{k=1}^l X_k$, $X_1,\dots, X_l$ are independent subsets of $G$ and $x_k \in X_k$ for each $k=1,\dots,l$. The final property follows from the construction since for any $a\in G$ and $j \in J$ we have $aY_ja^{-1}=Y_j$ and $aNa^{-1}=N$. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} For every countable group $C$ and each $n \in \N$, $n \ge 2$, there exists a countable torsion-free group $H$ having a normal subgroup $M \lhd H$ such that \begin{itemize} \item[(i)] $M$ satisfies {\ncc}; \item[(ii)] $M$ is $2$-boundedly simple; \item[(iii)] the natural action of $H$ on $M$ preserves the conjugacy classes of $M$; \item[(iv)] $H/M \cong C$. \end{itemize} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $H_0'$ be the free group of infinite countable rank. Choose $N_0' \lhd H_0'$ so that $H_0'/N_0' \cong C$. Let $F=F(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})$ denote the free group freely generated by $x_1,\dots, x_{n-1}$. Define $H_0=H_0' * F$ and let $N_0$ be the normal closure of $N_0' \cup F$ in $H_0$. Evidently, $H_0/N_0 \cong H_0'/N_0' \cong C$ and the elements $x_{1},\dots,x_{n-1} \in N_0 \setminus \{1\}$ are pairwise non-commensurable in $H_0$. By Lemma , one can choose a partition of $N_0\setminus \{1\}$ into the union of $H_0$-independent subsets: $$N_0 \setminus \{1\}=\bigsqcup_{k=1}^{n-1} X_{0k},$$ so that $x_{k} \in X_{0k}$ for each $k=1,\dots,n-1$. By Corollary there exists a countable torsion-free $2$-boundedly simple group $M_1$ with the property {\ncc} containing a copy of $N_0$, such that the subsets $X_{0k}$, $k=1,2,\dots,n-1$, are independent in $M_1$. Denote by $H_1 = H_0*_{N_0} M_1$ the amalgamated product of $H_0$ and $M_1$ along $N_0$, and let $N_1$ be the normal closure of $M_1$ in $H_1$. Note that $H_1$ is torsion-free as an amalgamated product of two torsion-free groups (\cite[IV.2.7]{L-S}). We need to verify that the elements $x_{1},\dots,x_{n-1}$ are pairwise non-commen\-surable in $H_1$. Indeed, if $a \in X_{0k}$ and $b \in X_{0l}$, $k \neq l$, are conjugate in $H_1$ then there must exist $y_1,\dots,y_t \in M_1 \setminus N_0$ and $z_1,\dots,z_{t-1} \in H_0 \setminus N_0$, $z_0,z_t \in H_0$ such that $$z_0y_1\cdots z_{t-1}y_t z_t a z_t^{-1} y_t^{-1} z_{t-1}^{-1} \cdots y_1^{-1}z_0^{-1}\stackrel{H_1}{=}b.$$ Suppose that $t$ is minimal possible with this property. As conjugation by elements of $H_0$ preserves $X_{0k}$ and $X_{0l}$, we can assume that $z_0,z_t =1$. Hence $$y_1z_1\cdots z_{t-1}y_t a y_t^{-1} z_{t-1}^{-1} \cdots z_1^{-1}y_1^{-1}b^{-1}\stackrel{H_1}{=}1.$$ By the properties of amalgamated products (see \cite[Ch. IV]{L-S}), the left-hand side in this equality can not be reduced, consequently $y_t a y_t^{-1} \in N_0 \setminus \{1\}=\bigsqcup_{k=1}^{n-1} X_{0k}$. But then $y_t a y_t^{-1} \in X_{0k}$ by the properties of $M_1$, contradicting the minimality of $t$. Thus, we have shown that $x_{k} \stackrel{H_1}{\not\approx} x_{l}$ whenever $k \neq l$. Assume that the group $H_i=H_{i-1}*_{N_{i-1}} M_i$, $i \ge 1$, has already been constructed, so that \begin{itemize} \item[0)] $H_i$ is countable and torsion-free; \item[1)] $N_{i-1} \lhd H_{i-1}$; \item[2)] $H_{i-1}=H_0 \cdot N_{i-1}$ and $H_0 \cap N_{i-1}=N_0$; \item[3)] $M_i$ satisfies {\ncc}; \item[4)] $x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}$ are pairwise non-commensurable in $H_i$. \end{itemize} Let $N_i$ be the normal closure of $M_i$ in $H_i$. Because of the condition 4) and Lemma , one can find a partition of $N_i \setminus \{1\}$ into a union of $H_i$-independent subsets: $$N_i \setminus \{1\}=\bigsqcup_{k=1}^{n-1} X_{ik},$$ so that $x_{k} \in X_{ik}$ for each $k=1,\dots,n-1$. By Lemma there is a countable group a $M_{i+1}$, with {\ncc}, containing a copy of $N_i$, in which the subsets $X_{ik}$, $i=1,\dots,n-1$, remain independent. Set $H_{i+1}=H_i *_{N_i} M_{i+1}$. Now, it is easy to verify that the analogs of the conditions 0)-3) hold for $H_{i+1}$ and \begin{equation} N_{i-1}\le M_i \le N_i \le M_{i+1}. \end{equation} The analog of the condition 4) is true in $H_{i+1}$ by the same considerations as before (in the case of $H_1$). Define the group $H=\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty H_i$ and its subgroup $M=\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty N_i$. Observe that the condition $0)$ implies that $H$ is torsion-free, condition 1) implies that $M$ is normal in $H$, and 2) implies that $H=H_0 \cdot M$ and $H_0 \cap M=N_0$. Hence $H/M\cong H_0/(H_0 \cap M) \cong C$. Applying \eqref{eq:N_i} we get $M=\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty M_i$, and thus, by the conditions 3), 4) it enjoys the property {\ncc}: each element of $M$ will be a conjugate of $x_k$ for some $k \in \{1,\dots,n-1\}$. Since $x_1,\dots,x_{n-1} \in M_1\le M$ and $M_1$ is 2-boundedly simple, then so will be $M$. Finally, 4) implies that $x_k \stackrel{H}{\nsim} x_l$ whenever $k \neq l$, and, consequently, the natural action of $H$ on $M$ preserves its conjugacy classes. Q.e.d. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} Suppose that $G$ is a group, $N \lhd G$, $A,B \le G$ and $\varphi:A \to B$ is an isomorphism such that $\varphi(a) \in aN$ (i.e., the canonical images of $a$ and $\varphi(a)$ in $G/N$ coincide) for each $a \in A$. Let $L=\langle G, t ~\|~ tat^{-1}=\varphi(a),~\forall~a \in A \rangle $ be the HNN-extension of $G$ with associated subgroups $A$ and $B$, and let $K$ be the normal closure of $\langle N,t \rangle$ in $L$ . Then $G \cap K=N$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} This statement easily follows from the universal property of HNN-extensions and is left as an exercise for the reader. \end{proof} The next lemma will allow us to construct {\ncc}-groups that are not simple: \begin{lemma} Assume that $H$ is a torsion-free countable group and $M \lhd H$ is a non-trivial normal subgroup. Then $H$ can be isomorphically embedded into a countable torsion-free group $G$ possessing a normal subgroup $K \lhd G$ such that \begin{itemize} \item[1)] $G=HK$ and $H \cap K=M$; \item[2)] $\forall~x,y \in G\setminus\{1\}$, $\varphi(x)=\varphi(y)$ if and only if $\exists~h \in K$ such that $x=hyh^{-1}$, where $\varphi:G \to G/K$ is the natural homomorphism; in particular, $K$ will have {\cc}; \item[3)] $\forall~x,y \in G\setminus\{1\}$, $x \stackrel{G}{\sim} y$ if and only if $\varphi(x) \stackrel{G/K}{\sim}\varphi(y)$; \end{itemize} \begin{proof} Choose a set of representatives $Z \subset H$ of cosets of $H$ modulo $M$, in such a way that each coset is represented by a unique element from $Z$ and $1 \notin Z$. Define $G(0)$=$H$ and $K(0)=M$. Enumerate the elements of $G(0)\setminus \{1\}$: $g_1,g_2,\dots$. First we embed the group $G(0)$ into a countable torsion-free group $G_1$, having a normal subgroup $K_1 \lhd G_1$, such that $G_1=HK_1$, $H \cap K_1=M$ and for every $i \ge 0$ there are $t_i \in K_1$ and $z_i \in Z$ satisfying $t_{i}g_it_i^{-1} = z_i$. Suppose that the (countable torsion-free) group $G(j)$, $j \ge 0$, and $K(j) \lhd G(j)$, have already been constructed so that $H \le G(j)$, $G(j)=HK(j)$, $H \cap K(j)=M$ and, if $j \ge 1$, then $t_{j}g_jt_j^{-1} = z_j$ for some $t_j \in K(j)$ and $z_j \in Z$. The group $G(j+1)$, containing $G(j)$, is defined as the following HNN-extension: $$G(j+1)=\langle G(j),t_{j+1}~\|~t_{j+1}g_{j+1}t_{j+1}^{-1}=z_{j+1}\rangle,$$ where $z_{j+1} \in Z \subset H$ is the unique representative satisfying $g_{j+1} \in z_{j+1}K(j)$ in $G(j)$. Denote by $K(j+1)\lhd G(j+1)$ the normal closure of $\langle K(j),t_{j+1} \rangle$ in $G(j+1)$. Evidently the group $G(j+1)$ is countable and torsion-free, $H \le G(j) \le G(j+1)$, $G(j+1)=HK(j+1)$ and $H \cap K(j+1)=H\cap K(j)=M$ by Lemma . Now, it is easy to verify that the group $G_1=\bigcup_{j=0}^\infty G(j)$ and its normal subgroup $K_1=\bigcup_{j=0}^\infty K(j)$ enjoy the required properties. In the same way we can embed $G_1$ into a countable torsion-free group $G_2$, that has a normal subgroup $K_2 \lhd G_2$, so that $G_2=HK_2$, $H \cap K_2=M$ and each element of $G_1\setminus \{1\}$ is conjugated in $G_2$ to a corresponding element of $Z$. Performing such a procedure infinitely many times we achieve the group $G=\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty G_i$ and a normal subgroup $K=\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty K_i \lhd G$ that satisfy the claims 1) and 2) of the lemma. It is easy to see that the claim 2) implies 3), thus the proof is finished. \end{proof} \end{lemma} \section{Adding finite generation} \begin{thm} Assume that $H$ is a countable torsion-free group and $M$ is a non-trivial normal subgroup of $H$. Let $F$ be an arbitrary non-elementary torsion-free word hyperbolic group. Then there exist a countable torsion-free group $Q$, containing $H$, and a normal subgroup $N \lhd Q$ with the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item[1.] $H$ is malnormal in $Q$; \item[2.] $Q=H \cdot N$ and $N \cap H =M$; \item[3.] $N$ is a quotient of $F$; \item[4.] the centralizer $C_Q(N)$ of $N$ in $Q$ is trivial; \item[5.] for every $q \in Q$ there is $z \in H$ such that $q \stackrel{Q}{\sim} z$. \end{itemize} \end{thm} \begin{proof} The group $Q$ will be constructed as a direct limit of relatively hyperbolic groups. Step \fbox{0}. Set $G(0)=H * F$ and $F(0)=F$; then $G(0)$ is hyperbolic relative to its subgroup $H$ and $F(0)$ is a suitable subgroup of $G(0)$ by Lemma . Let $N(0) \lhd G(0)$ be the normal closure of the subgroup $\langle M, F \rangle$ in $G(0)$. Evidently $G(0)=H\cdot N(0)$ and $H \cap N(0)=M$. Enumerate all the elements of $N(0)$: $\{g_0,g_1,g_2,\dots\}$, and of $G(0)$: $\{q_0,q_1,q_2,\dots\}$, in such a way that $g_0=q_0=1$. Steps \fbox{0-i}. Assume the groups $G(j)$, $j=0,\dots,i$, $i \ge 0$, have been already constructed, so that \begin{itemize} \item[$1^\circ$.] for each $1\le j \le i$ there is an epimorphism $\psi_{j-1}: G(j-1) \to G(j)$ which is injective on (the image of) $H$ in $G(j-1)$. Denote $F(j)=\psi_{j-1}(F(j-1))$, $N(j)=\psi_{j-1}(N(j-1))$; \item[$2^\circ$.] $G(j)$ is torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to (the image of) $H$, and $F(j) \le G(j)$ is a suitable subgroup, $j=0,\dots, i$; \item[$3^\circ$.] $G(j)=H\cdot N(j)$, $N(j)\lhd G(j)$ and $H \cap N(j)=M$, $j=0,\dots, i$; \item[$4^\circ$.] the natural image $\bar g_j$ of $g_j$ in $G(j)$ belongs to $F(j)$, $j=0,\dots, i$; \item[$5^\circ$.] there exists $z_j \in H$ such that $\bar q_j \stackrel{G(j)}{\sim} z_j$, $j=0,\dots, i$, where $\bar q_j$ is the image of $q_j$ in $G(j)$. \end{itemize} Step \fbox{i+1}. Let $\hat q_{i+1} \in G(i)$, $\hat g_{i+1} \in N(i)$ be the images of $q_{i+1}$ and $g_{i+1}$ in $G(i)$. First we construct the group $G(i+1/2)$, its normal subgroup $K_{i+1}$ and its element $t_{i+1}$ as follows. If for some $f \in G(i)$, $f\hat q_{i+1} f^{-1}=z \in H$, then set $G(i+1/2)=G(i)$, $K_{i+1}=N(i)\lhd G(i+1/2)$ and $t_{i+1}=1$. Otherwise, $\hat q_{i+1}$ is a hyperbolic element of infinite order in $G(i)$. Since $G(i)$ is torsion-free, the elementary subgroup $E_{G(i)}(\hat q_{i+1})$ is cyclic, thus $E_{G(i)}(\hat q_{i+1}) = \langle h x \rangle$ for some $h \in H$ and $x \in N(i)$ (by $3^\circ$), and $\hat q_{i+1}=(hx)^m$ for some $m \in \Z$. Now, by Lemma , $G(i)$ is hyperbolic relative to $\{H,\langle hx \rangle\}$. Choose $y \in M$ so that $hy \neq 1$ and let $G(i+1/2)$ be the following HNN-extension of $G(i)$: $$G(i+1/2) = \langle G(i),t_{i+1}~\|~t_{i+1} (hx) t_{i+1}^{-1} = hy\rangle. $$ The group $G(i+1/2)$ is torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to $H$ by Lemma . Let us now verify that the subgroup $F(i)$ is suitable in $G(i+1/2)$. Indeed, according to Lemma , there are two hyperbolic elements $f_1,f_2 \in F(i)$ of infinite order in $G(i)$ such that $f_l \stackrel{G(i)}{\not\approx} hx$, $f_l \stackrel{G(i)}{\not\approx} hy$, $l=1,2$, and $f_1 \stackrel{G(i)}{\not\approx} f_2$. Then $f_1 \stackrel{G(i+1/2)}{\not\approx} f_2$ by Lemma . It remains to check that $f_l$ is a hyperbolic element of $G(i+1/2)$ for each $l=1,2$. Choose an arbitrary element $w \in H$ and observe that $f_l \stackrel{G(i)}{\not\approx} w$ (since $H$ is malnormal in $G(i)$ by Lemma , a non-trivial power of $f_l$ is conjugated to an element of $H$ if and only if $f_l$ is conjugated to an element of $H$ in $G(i)$, but the latter is impossible because $f_l$ is hyperbolic in $G(i)$). Applying Lemma again, we get that $f_l \stackrel{G(i+1/2)}{\not\approx} w$ for any $w \in H$. Hence $f_1,f_2 \in F(i)$ are hyperbolic elements of infinite order in $G(i+1/2)$. The intersection $E_{G(i+1/2)}(f_1) \cap E_{G(i+1/2)}(f_2)$ must be finite, since these groups are virtually cyclic (by Lemma ), and $f_1$ is not commensurable with $f_2$ in $G(i+1/2)$. But $G(i+1/2)$ is torsion-free, therefore $E_{G(i+1/2)}(f_1) \cap E_{G(i+1/2)}(f_2)=\{1\}$. Thus $F(i)$ is a suitable subgroup of $G(i+1/2)$. Lemma assures that $H \cap K_{i+1}=M$ where $K_{i+1} \lhd G(i+1/2)$ is the normal closure of $\langle N(i),t_{i+1} \rangle$ in $G(i+1/2)$. Finally, note that $$t_{i+1} \hat q_{i+1} t_{i+1}^{-1}=t_{i+1} (hx)^m t_{i+1}^{-1}=(hy)^m =z \in H~\mbox{ in } G(i+1/2).$$ Now, that the group $G(i+1/2)$ has been constructed, set $T_{i+1}=\{\hat g_{i+1}, t_{i+1}\}\subset K_{i+1}$ and define $G(i+1)$ as follows. Since $T_{i+1} \cdot F(i) \subset K_{i+1} \lhd G(i+1/2)$, we can apply Theorem to find a group $G(i+1)$ and an epimorphism $\varphi_i:G(i+1/2) \to G(i+1)$ such that $\varphi_i$ is injective on $H$, $G(i+1)$ is torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to (the image of) $H$, $\{\varphi_i(\hat g_{i+1}), \varphi_i(t_{i+1})\} \subset \varphi_i(F(i))$, $\varphi_i(F(i))$ is a suitable subgroup of $G(i+1)$, and $\ker(\varphi_i) \le K_{i+1}$. Denote by $\psi_i$ the restriction of $\varphi_i$ on $G(i)$. Then $\psi_i(G(i))=\varphi_i(G(i))=G(i+1)$ because $G(i+1/2)$ was generated by $G(i)$ and $t_{i+1}$, and according to the construction, $t_{i+1} \in \varphi_i(F(i))\le \varphi_i(G(i))$. Now, after defining $F(i+1)=\psi_{i}(F(i))$, $N(i+1)=\psi_{i}(N(i))$, $\bar g_{i+1}=\varphi_i(\hat g_{i+1}) \in F(i+1)$ and $z_{i+1}=\varphi_i(z) \in H$, we see that the conditions $1^\circ$,$2^\circ$,$4^\circ$ and $5^\circ$ hold in the case when $j=i+1$. The properties $G(i+1)=H\cdot N(i+1)$ and $N(i+1)\lhd G(i+1)$ are immediate consequences of their analogs for $G(i)$ and $N(i)$. Finally, observe that \begin{multline*}\varphi_i^{-1}(H \cap N(i+1))=H\cdot \ker(\varphi_i) \cap N(i) \cdot \ker(\varphi_i) = \bigl(H \cap N(i) \cdot \ker(\varphi_i)\bigr) \cdot \ker(\varphi_i) \\ \subseteq \bigl(H \cap K_{i+1} \bigr) \cdot \ker(\varphi_i)= M \cdot \ker(\varphi_i). \end{multline*} Therefore $H \cap N(i+1)=M$ and the condition $3^\circ$ holds for $G(i+1)$. Let $Q=G(\infty)$ be the direct limit of the sequence $(G(i),\psi_i)$ as $i \to \infty$, and let $F(\infty)$ and $N=N(\infty)$ be the limits of the corresponding subgroups. Then $Q$ is torsion-free by $2^\circ$, $N\lhd Q$, $Q=H \cdot N$ and $H \cap N=M$ by $3^\circ$. $N \le F(\infty)$ by $4^\circ$, and $5^\circ$ implies the condition $5$ from the claim. Since $F(0) \le N(0)$ we get $F(\infty) \le N$. Thus $N=F(\infty)$ is a homomorphic image of $F(0)=F$. For any $i,j \in \N \cup \{\infty\}$, $i<j$, we have a natural epimorphism $\zeta_{ij}: G(i) \to G(j)$ such that if $i<j<k$ then $\zeta_{jk} \circ \zeta_{ij}=\zeta_{ik}$. Take any $g \in G(0)$. Since $F=F(0)$ is finitely generated, using the properties of direct limits one can show that if $w=\zeta_{0 \infty}(g) \in C_Q(F(\infty))$ in $Q$, then $\zeta_{0j}(g) \in C_{G(j)}(F(j))$ for some $j\in\N$. But $C_{G(j)}(F(j)) \le E_{G(j)}(F(j))=\{1\}$ (by formulas \eqref{eq:elem} and \eqref{eq:E_G}) because $F(j)$ is a suitable subgroup of $G(j)$, hence $w= \zeta_{j\infty}\bigl(\zeta_{0j}(g)\bigr)=1$, that is, $C_Q(F(\infty))=C_Q(N)=\{1\}$. This concludes the proof. \end{proof} The next statement is well-known: \begin{lemma} Assume $G$ is a group and $N \lhd G$ is a normal subgroup such that $C_G(N)\subseteq N$, where $C_G(N)$ is the centralizer of $N$ in $G$. Then the quotient-group $G/N$ embeds into the outer automorphism group $Out(N)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The action of $G$ on $N$ by conjugation induces a natural homomorphism $\varphi$ from $G$ to the automorphism group $Aut(N)$ of $N$. Since $\varphi(N)$ is exactly the group of inner automorphisms $Inn(N)$ of $N$, one can define a new homomorphism $\bar \varphi: G/N \to Out(N)=Aut(N)/Inn(N)$ in the natural way: $\bar \varphi(gN)= \varphi(g)Inn(N)$ for every $gN \in G/N$. It remains to check that $\bar \varphi$ is injective, i.e., if $g \in G \setminus N$ then $\bar\varphi(gN) \neq 1$ in $Out(N)$; or, equivalently, $\varphi(g) \notin Inn(N)$. Indeed, otherwise there would exist $a \in N$ such that $ghg^{-1}=aha^{-1}$ for every $h \in N$, thus $N \not\ni a^{-1}g \in C_G(N)$, contradicting the assumptions. Q.e.d. \end{proof} Note that for an arbitrary group $N$, any subgroup $C \le Out(N)$ naturally acts on the set of conjugacy classes $\mathfrak{C}(N)$ of the group $N$. \begin{thm} For any $n \in \N$, $n \ge 2$, and an arbitrary countable group $C$, $C$ can be isomorphically embedded into the outer automorphism group $Out(N)$ of a group $N$ satisfying the following conditions: \begin{itemize} \item $N$ is torsion-free; \item $N$ is generated by two elements; \item $N$ has {\ncc} and the natural action of $C$ on $\mathfrak{C}(N)$ is trivial; \item $N$ is $2$-boundedly simple. \end{itemize} \end{thm} \begin{proof} By Lemma we can find a countable torsion-free group $H$ and its normal subgroup $M$ enjoying the properties (i)-(iv) from its claim. Now, if $F$ denotes the free group of rank $2$, we can obtain a countable torsion-free group $Q$ together with its normal subgroup $N$ that satisfy the conditions $1$-$5$ from the statement of Theorem . Then $N$ is torsion-free and generated by two elements (as a quotient of $F$). Condition $2$ implies that $Q/N \cong H/M \cong C$ and, by $4$ and Lemma , $C$ embeds into the group $Out(N)$. Using property $5$, for each $g \in N$ we can find $u \in Q$ and $z \in H$ such that $ugu^{-1}=z \in N \cap H=M$. Since $Q=HN$, there are $h \in H$ and $x \in N$ such that $u=hx$. Since $z,h^{-1}zh \in M$ and the action of $H$ on $M$ preserves the conjugacy classes of $M$, there is $r \in M$ such that $rh^{-1}zhr^{-1}=z$, hence $z=rh^{-1}ugu^{-1}(rh^{-1})^{-1}=rxgx^{-1}r^{-1}$, where $v=rx \in N$. Thus for every $g \in N$ there is $v \in N$ such that $vgv^{-1} \in M$. Evidently, this implies that $N$ is also $2$-boundedly simple. Since $M$ has {\ncc}, the number of conjugacy classes in $N$ will be at most $n$. Suppose $x_1,x_2 \in M$ and $x_1 \stackrel{M}{\nsim} x_2$. Then $x_1 \stackrel{H}{\nsim} x_2$ (by the property (iii) from the claim of Lemma ), and since $H$ is malnormal in $Q$ we get $x_1 \stackrel{Q}{\nsim} x_2$. Hence $x_1 \stackrel{N}{\nsim} x_2$, i.e., $N$ also enjoys {\ncc}. The fact that the natural action of $C$ on $\mathfrak{C}(N)$ is trivial follows from the same property for the action of $H$ on $\mathfrak{C}(M)$ and the malnormality of $H$ in $Q$. Q.e.d. \end{proof} Now, let us proceed with the \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem .] First we apply Lemma to construct a group $G$ and a normal subgroup $K \lhd G$ according to its claim. Now, by Theorem , there is a group $Q$, having a normal subgroup $N \lhd Q$ such that $G$ is malnormal in $Q$, $Q=GN$, $G\cap N=K$, $rank(N) \le 2$ (if one takes the free group of rank $2$ as $F$) and every element $q \in Q$ is conjugated (in $Q$) to an element of $G$. By claim 2) of Lemma , $K$ has {\cc}, and an argument, similar to the one used in the proof of Theorem , shows that $N$ will also have {\cc}. Consequently, $rank(N) > 1$ because $N$ is torsion-free, hence $rank(N)=2$. Since $G=HK$ and $H \cap K=M$ we have $Q=HKN=HN$ and $H \cap N=H \cap K=M$. Since $Q/N \cong H/M$ and $N$ can be generated by two elements, we can conclude that $rank(Q) \le rank(H/M)+2$. Consider arbitrary $x,y \in Q\setminus \{1\}$ and suppose that $\varphi(x) \stackrel{Q/N}{\sim} \varphi(y)$. By Theorem , there are $w,z \in G\setminus \{1\}$ such that $x \stackrel{Q}{\sim} w$ and $y \stackrel{Q}{\sim} z$. Therefore $\varphi(w) \stackrel{Q/N}{\sim} \varphi(z)$, hence the images of $w$ and $z$ in $G/K$ are also conjugate. By claim 3) of Lemma , $w \stackrel{G}{\sim} z$, implying $x \stackrel{Q}{\sim} y$. \end{proof} Theorem provides an alternative way of obtaining torsion-free groups that have finitely many conjugacy classes: for any countable group $C$ we can choose a free group $H$ of countable rank and a normal subgroup $\{1\}\neq M \lhd H$ so that $H/M \cong C$, and then apply Theorem to the pair $(H,M)$ to get \begin{cor} Assume that $n \in \N$, $n \ge 2$, and $C$ is a countable group that contains exactly $(n-1)$ distinct conjugacy classes. Then there exists a torsion-free group $Q$ and $N \lhd Q$ such that \begin{itemize} \item $Q/N \cong C$; \item $N$ has {\cc} and $Q$ has {\ncc}; \item $rank(N)=2$ and $rank(Q) \le rank(C)+2$. \end{itemize} \end{cor} \begin{cor} The group $G_1$, given by presentation \eqref{eq:Kl-bot}, can be isomorphically embedded into a $2$-generated torsion-free group $Q$ satisfying {\rm ($4$CC)} in such a way that $t \stackrel{Q}{\nsim} t^{-1}$. \end{cor} \begin{proof} Denote by $K$ the kernel of the homomorphism $\varphi: G_1 \to \Z_3$, for which $\varphi(a)=0$ and $\varphi(t)=1$, where $\Z_3$ is the group of integers modulo $3$. Now, apply Theorem to the pair $(G_1,K)$ to find the group $Q$, containing $G_1$, and the normal subgroup $N \lhd Q$ from its claim. Since $Q/N \cong G_1/K \cong\Z_3$ has ($3$CC), the group $Q$ will have ($4$CC). We also have $t \stackrel{Q}{\nsim} t^{-1}$ because the images of $t$ and $t^{-1}$ are not conjugate in $Q/N$. Choose an element $q_1\in Q\setminus N$. Then $q_2=q_1^3 \in N \setminus \{1\}$ and since $N$ is $2$-generated and has {\cc}, there is $q_3 \in N$ such that $N=\langle q_2,q_3 \rangle$ in $Q$. As $Q/N$ is generated by the image of $q_1$, the group $Q$ will be generated by $\{q_1,q_2,q_3\}$, and, consequently, by $\{q_1,q_3\}$. Q.e.d. \end{proof} \section{Combinatorics of paths in relatively hyperbolic groups} Let $G$ be a group hyperbolic relative to a family of proper subgroups $\{H_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$, and let $\mathcal{X}$ be a finite symmetrized relative generating set of $G$. Denote $\mathcal{H}=\bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \left( H_\lambda \setminus \{1\} \right)$. For a combinatorial path $p$ in the Cayley graph {\ga} (of $G$ with respect to $\cX\cup \cH$) $p_-$, $p_+$, $\L(p)$, and $lab (p)$ will denote the initial point, the ending point, the length (that is, the number of edges) and the label of $p$ respectively. $p^{-1}$ will be the path obtained from $p$ by following it in the reverse direction. Further, if $\Omega$ is a subset of $G$ and $g \in \langle \Omega \rangle \le G$, then $|g|_\Omega$ will be used to denote the length of a shortest word in $\Omega^{\pm 1}$ representing $g$. We will be using the following terminology from . Suppose $q$ is a path in {\ga}. A subpath $p$ of $q$ is called an {\it $H_\lambda $-component} for some $\lambda \in \Lambda $ (or simply a {\it component}) of $q$, if the label of $p$ is a word in the alphabet $H_\lambda\setminus \{ 1\} $ and $p$ is not contained in a bigger subpath of $q$ with this property. Two components $p_1, p_2$ of a path $q$ in {\ga} are called {\it connected} if they are $H_\lambda $-components for the same $\lambda \in \Lambda $ and there exists a path $c$ in {\ga} connecting a vertex of $p_1$ to a vertex of $p_2$ such that ${lab (c)}$ entirely consists of letters from $ H_\lambda $. In algebraic terms this means that all vertices of $p_1$ and $p_2$ belong to the same coset $gH_\lambda $ for a certain $g\in G$. We can always assume $c$ to have length at most $1$, as every nontrivial element of $H_\lambda $ is included in the set of generators. An $H_\lambda $-component $p$ of a path $q$ is called {\it isolated } if no other $H_\lambda $-component of $q$ is connected to $p$. The next statement is a particular case of Lemma 2.27 from ; we shall formulate it in a slightly more general form, as it appears in \cite[Lemma 2.7]{Osin-periph}: \begin{lemma} Suppose that a group $G$ is hyperbolic relative to a family of subgroups $\Hl $. Then there exists a finite subset $\Omega \subseteq G$ and a constant $K \in \N$ such that the following holds. Let $q$ be a cycle in {\ga}, $p_1, \ldots , p_k$ be a collection of isolated components of $q$ and $g_1, \ldots , g_k$ be the elements of $G$ represented by $\lab(p_1), \ldots, \lab(p_k)$ respectively. Then $g_1, \ldots , g_k$ belong to the subgroup $\langle \Omega\rangle \le G$ and the word lengths of $g_i$'s with respect to $\Omega$ satisfy $$ \sum\limits_{i=1}^k |g_i|_{\Omega} \le K\L(q).$$ \end{lemma} \begin{df} Suppose that $m \in \N$ and $\Omega$ is a finite subset of $G$. Define $\cW (\Omega,m)$ to be the set of all words $W$ over the alphabet $\cX \cup \cH$ that have the following form: $$W \equiv x_0h_0x_1h_1 \dots x_l h_l x_{l+1},$$ where $ l \in \Z$, $l \ge -2$ (if $l=-2$ then $W$ is the empty word; if $l=-1$ then $W \equiv x_0$), $h_i$ and $x_i$ are considered as single letters and \begin{itemize} \item[1)] $x_i \in \cX \cup \{1\}$, $i=0,\dots,l+1$, and for each $i=0,\dots,l$, there exists $\lambda(i) \in \Lambda$ such that $h_i \in H_{\lambda(i)}$; \item[2)] if $\lambda(i)=\lambda(i+1)$ then $x_{i+1} \notin H_{\lambda(i)}$ for each $i=0,\dots,l-1$; \item[3)] $h_i \notin \{h \in \langle \Omega \rangle ~:~|h|_\Omega \le m \}$, $i=0,\dots,l$. \end{itemize} \end{df} Choose the finite subset $\Omega \subset G$ and the constant $K>0$ according to the claim of Lemma . Recall that a path $q$ in {\ga} is said to be {\it without backtracking} if all of its components are isolated. \begin{lemma} Let $q$ be a path in the Cayley graph {\ga} with $\lab(q) \in \cW (\Omega,m)$ and $m \ge 5K$. Then $q$ is without backtracking. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Assume the contrary to the claim. Then one can choose a path $q$ providing a counterexample of the smallest possible length. Thus if $p_1,\dots, p_l$ is the (consecutive) list of all components of $q$ then $l \ge 2$, $p_1$ and $p_l$ must be connected $H_{\lambda'}$-components, for some $\lambda' \in \Lambda$, the components $p_2,\dots,p_{l-1}$ must be isolated, and $q$ starts with $p_1$ and ends with $p_l$. Since $\lab(q) \in \cW(\Omega,m)$ we have $\L(q)\le 2l-1$. If $l=2$ then the $(\cX \cup \{1\})$-letter between $p_1$ and $p_2$ would belong to $H_{\lambda'}$ contradicting the property 2) from the definition of $\cW (\Omega,m)$. Therefore $l\ge 3$. Since $p_1$ and $p_l$ are connected, there exists a path $v$ in {\ga} between $(p_l)_-$ and $(p_1)_+$ with $\lab(v) \in H_{\lambda'}$ (thus we can assume that $\L(v)\le 1$). Denote by $\hat q$ the subpath of $q$ starting with $(p_1)_+$ and ending with $(p_l)_-$. Note that $\L(\hat q) = \L(q)-2\le 2l-3$, and $p_2, \dots, p_{l-1}$ is the list of components of $\hat q$, all of which are isolated. If one of them were connected to $v$ it would imply that it is connected to $p_1$ contradicting with the minimality of $q$. Hence the cycle $o=\hat q v$ possesses $k= l-2\ge 1$ isolated components, which represent elements $h_1,\dots,h_k \in \cH$. Consequently, applying Lemma one obtains that $h_i \in \langle \Omega \rangle$, $i=1,\dots,k$, and $$\sum_{i=1}^k |h_i|_\Omega \le K\L(o) \le K(\L(\hat q)+1) \le K(2l-2).$$ By the condition 3) from the definition of $\cW (\Omega,m)$ one has $|h_i|_\Omega>m \ge 5K$ for each $i=1,\dots,k$. Hence $$k \cdot 5 K \le \sum_{i=1}^k |h_i|_\Omega \le K(2l-2), \mbox{ or } 5 \le \frac{2l-2}{k},$$ which contradicts the inequality $k \ge l-2$. Q.e.d. \end{proof} \begin{df} Consider an arbitrary cycle $o=rqr'q'$ in {\ga}, where $\lab(q)$ and $\lab(q')$ belong to $\cW (\Omega,m)$. Let $p$ be a component of $q$ (or $q'$). We will say that $p$ is {\it regular} if it is not an isolated component of $o$. If $m\ge 5K$, and hence $q$ and $q'$ are without backtracking by Lemma , this means that $p$ is either connected to some component of $q'$ (respectively $q$), or to a component of $r$ or $r'$. \end{df} \begin{lemma} In the above notations, suppose that $m\ge 7K$ and denote $C=\max\{ \L(r),\L(r')\}$. Then \begin{itemize} \item[\rm (a)] if $C\le 1$ then every component of $q$ or $q'$ is regular; \item[\rm (b)] if $C\ge 2$ then each of $q$ and $q'$ can have at most $4C$ components which are not regular. \item[\rm (c)] if $l$ is the number of components of $q$, then at least $(l-6C)$ of components of $q$ are connected to components of $q'$; and two distinct components of $q$ can not be connected to the same component of $q'$. Similarly for $q'$. \end{itemize} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Assume the contrary to (a). Then one can choose a cycle $o=rqr'q'$ with $\L(r),\L(r') \le 1$, having at least one isolated component on $q$ or $q'$, and such that $\L(q)+\L(q')$ is minimal. Clearly the latter condition implies that each component of $q$ or $q'$ is an isolated component of $o$. Therefore $q$ and $q'$ together contain $k$ distinct isolated components of $o$, representing elements $h_1,\dots,h_k \in \cH$, where $k \ge 1$ and $k\ge (\L(q)-1)/2+ (\L(q')-1)/2$. Applying Lemma we obtain $h_i\in \langle \Omega \rangle$, $i=1,\dots,k$, and $$\sum_{i=1}^k |h_i|_\Omega \le K\L(o) \le K(\L(q)+\L(q')+2).$$ Recall that $|h_i|_\Omega >m\ge 7 K$ by the property 3) from the definition of $\cW (\Omega,m)$. Therefore $\sum_{i=1}^k |h_i|_\Omega \ge k \cdot 7 K$, implying $$7\le \frac{2}{k} \left( \frac{\L(q)}{2}+\frac{\L(q')}{2}+1\right)\le \frac{2}{k} \left( \frac{\L(q)-1}{2}+\frac{\L(q')-1}{2}+2\right)\le 6,$$ which yields a contradiction. Let us prove (b). Suppose that $C \ge 2$ and $q$ contains more than $4C$ isolated components of $o$. We shall consider two cases: {\bf Case 1}. No component of $q$ is connected to a component of $q'$. Then a component of $q$ or $q'$ can be regular only if it is connected to a component of $r$ or $r'$. Since, by Lemma , $q$ and $q'$ are without backtracking, two distinct components of $q$ or $q'$ can not be connected to the same component of $r$ (or $r'$). Hence $q$ and $q'$ together can contain at most $2C$ regular components. Thus the cycle $o$ has $k$ isolated components, representing elements $h_1,\dots,h_k \in \cH$, where $k\ge 4C > 4$ and $k \ge (\L(q)-1)/2 + (\L(q')-1)/2-2C$. By Lemma , $h_i \in \langle \Omega \rangle$ for each $i=1,\dots,k$, and $\sum_{i=1}^k|h_i|_\Omega \le K(\L(q)+\L(q')+2C)$. Once again we can use the property 3) from the definition of $\cW (\Omega,m)$ to achieve \begin{multline*} 7 \le \frac{2}{k}\left( \frac{\L(q)}{2}+\frac{\L(q')}{2}+\frac{2C}{2}\right)\le \frac{2}{k} \left(\frac{\L(q)-1}{2}+\frac{\L(q')-1}{2}-2C+1+3C\right)\le \\ \frac{2}{k} \left( \frac{\L(q)-1}{2}+\frac{\L(q')-1}{2}-2C \right) +\frac2k + \frac{6C}{k} \le 2+ \frac12 + \frac32=4, \end{multline*} yielding a contradiction. {\bf Case 2.} The path $q$ has at least one component which is connected to a component of $q'$. Let $p_1,\dots,p_{l}$ denote the sequence of all components of $q$. By part (a), if $p_{s}$ and $p_{t}$, $1 \le s \le t \le l$, are connected to components of $q'$, then for any $j$, $s \le j \le t$, $p_j$ is connected to some component of $q'$ (because $q$ is without backtracking by Lemma ). We can take $s$ (respectively $t$) to be minimal (respectively maximal) possible. Consequently $p_1,\dots,p_{s-1}, p_{t+1},\dots,p_{l}$ will contain the set of all isolated components of $o$ that belong to $q$, and none of these components will be connected to a component of $q'$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $s-1 \ge 4C/2=2C$. Since $p_s$ is connected to some component $p'$ of $q'$, there exists a path $v$ in {\ga} satisfying $v_-=(p_{s})_-$, $v_+=p'_+$, $\lab(v) \in \mathcal{H}\cup \{1\}$, $\L(v)\le 1$. Let $\bar q$ (respectively $\bar q'$) denote the subpath of $q$ (respectively $q'$) from $q_-$ to $(p_s)_-$ (respectively from $p'_+$ to $q'_+$). Consider a new cycle $\bar o = r \bar q v \bar q'$. Reasoning as before, one can show that $\bar o$ has $k$ isolated components, where $k \ge 2C \ge 4$ and $k \ge (\L(\bar q)-1)/2 + (\L(\bar q')-1)/2 -C-1$. Now, an application of Lemma to the cycle $\bar o$ together with the property 3) from the definition of $\cW (\Omega,m)$ will lead to a contradiction as before. By the symmetry, the statement (b) of the lemma also holds for $q'$. The claim (c) follows from (b) and the estimate $\L(r)+\L(r') \le 2C$ because if two different components $p$ and $\bar p$ of $q$ were connected to the same component of some path in {\ga}, then $p$ and $\bar p$ would also be connected with each other, which would contradict Lemma . \end{proof} \begin{lemma} In the previous notations, let $m \ge 7K$, $C=\max\{ \L(r),\L(r')\}$, and let $p_1,\dots,p_l$, $p_1',\dots,p_{l'}'$ be the consecutive lists of the components of $q$ and $q'^{-1}$ respectively If $l \ge 12\max\{C,1\}+2$, then there are indices $s,t,s' \in \N$ such that $1\le s \le 6C+1$, $ l-6\max\{C,1\} \le t \le l$ and for every $i \in \{0,1,\dots,t-s\}$, the component $p_{s+i}$ of $q$ is connected to the component $p'_{s'+i}$ of $q'$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By part (c) of Lemma , there exists $s \le 6C+1$ such that the component $p_s$ is connected to a component $p'_{s'}$ for some $s' \in \{1,\dots,l'\}$. Thus there is a path $r_1$ between $(p'_{s'})_+$ and $(p_s)_+$ with $\L(r_1) \le 1$. Consider a new cycle $o_1=r_1q_1r'q_1'$ where $q_1$ is the segment of $q$ from $(p_s)_+$ to $q_+=r'_-$ and $q_1'$ is the segment of $q'$ from $q'_-=r'_+$ to $(p'_{s'})_+$. Observe that $p_{s+1},\dots, p_l$ is the list of all components of $q_1$ and $l-s\ge l-6C-1\ge 6\max\{1,C\}+1$, hence, according to part (c) of Lemma applied to $o_1$, there is $t \ge l-6\max\{1,C\}>s$ such that $p_t$ is connected to $p'_{t'}$ by means of a path $r'_1$, where $s'+1 \le t' \le l'$, $(r'_1)_-=(p_t)_+$, $(r'_1)_+=(p'_{t'})_+$ and $\L(r_1') \le 1$. Consider the cycle $o_2=r_1q_2r_1'q_2'$ in which $q_2$ and $q_2'$ are the segments of $q_1$ and $q_1'$ from $(p_s)_+=(r_1)_+$ to $(p_t)_+$ and from $(p'_{t'})_+$ to $(p'_{s'})_+=(r_1)_-$ respectively (Fig. ). Note that $p_{s+1},\dots, p_t$ is the list of all components of $q_2$ and $p'_{s'+1},\dots,p'_{t'}$ is the list of all components of ${q_2'}^{-1}$. The cycle $o_2$ satisfies the assumptions of part (a) of Lemma , therefore for every $i \in \{1,\dots,t-s\}$ there exists $i' \in \{1,\dots,t'-s'\}$ such that $p_{s+i}$ is connected to $p'_{s'+i'}$ ($p_{s+i}$ can not be connected to $r_1$ [$r_1'$] because in this case it would be connected to $p_s$ [$p_t$], but $q$ is without backtracking by Lemma ). It remains to show that $i'=i$ for every such $i$. Indeed, if $i'<i$ for some $i \in \{1,\dots,t-s\}$ then one can consider the cycle $o_3=r_1q_3r_3'q_3'$, where $q_3$ and $q_3'$ are segments of $q_2$ and $q_2'$ from $(q_2)_-=(r_1)_+$ to $(p_{s+i})_+$ and from $(p'_{s'+i'})_+$ to $(q_2')_+=(r_1)_-$ respectively, and $(r_3')_-=(q_3)_+$, $(r_3')_+=(q_3')_-$, $\L(r_3') \le 1$. According to part (a) of Lemma , each of the components $p_{s+1},\dots, p_{s+i}$ of $q_3$ must be connected to one of $p'_{s'+1},\dots,p'_{s'+i'}$. Hence, since $i'<i$, two distinct components of $q_3$ will be connected to the same component of ${q'_3}^{-1}$, which is impossible by part (c) of Lemma . The inequality $i' >i$ would lead to a contradiction after an application of a symmetric argument to $q_3'$. Therefore $i'=i$ and the lemma is proved. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} In the above notations, let $m \ge 7K$ and $C=\max\{ \L(r),\L(r')\}$. For any positive integer $d$ there exists a constant $L=L(C,d) \in \N$ such that if $\L(q)\ge L$ then there are $d$ consecutive components $p_s,\dots,p_{s+d-1}$ of $q$ and $p'_{s'},\dots,p'_{s'+d-1}$ of $q'^{-1}$, so that $p_{s+i}$ is connected to $p'_{s'+i}$ for each $i=0,\dots,d-1$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Choose the constant $L$ so that $(L-1)/2 \ge 12\max\{C,1\}+2+d$. Let $p_1,\dots,p_l$ be the consecutive list all components of $q$. Since $\lab(q)\in \cW(\Omega,m)$, we have $l \ge (L-1)/2$ (due to the form of any word from $\cW(\Omega,m)$). Thus we can apply Lemma to find indices $s,t$ from its claim. By the choice of $s$ and $t$, and the estimate on $l$, we have $t-s \ge d+1$, yielding the statement of the lemma. \end{proof} \begin{cor} Let $G$ be a group hyperbolic relative to a family of proper subgroups $\Hl$. Suppose that $a \in H_{\lambda_0}$, for some ${\lambda_0} \in \Lambda$, is an element of infinite order, and $x_1,x_2 \in G \setminus H_{\lambda_0}$. Then there exists $k \in \N$ such that $g=a^{k_1}x_1a^{k_2}x_2$ is a hyperbolic element of infinite order in $G$ whenever $|k_1|,|k_2| \ge k$. \end{cor} \begin{proof} Without loss of generality we can assume that $x_1,x_2 \in \cX$, since relative hyperbolicity does not depend on the choice of the finite relative generating set (\cite[Thm. 2.34]{Osin-RHG}). Choose the finite subset $\Omega \subset G$ and the constant $K\in \N$ according to the claim of Lemma , and set $m=7 K$. As the order of $a$ is infinite, there is $ k \in \N$ such that $a^{k'} \notin \{h \in \langle\Omega\rangle~:~|h|_\Omega \le m \}$ whenever $|k'| \ge k$. Assume that $|k_1|,|k_2| \ge k$. Suppose, first, that $g^l=1$ for some $l \in \N$. Consider the cycle $o=rqr'q'$ in {\ga} where $q_-=q_+=1$, $\lab(q) \equiv (a^{k_1}x_1a^{k_2}x_2)^l \in \cW(\Omega,m)$ ($a^{k_j} $ are considered as single letters from the alphabet $\cX \cup \cH$) and $r,r',q'$ are trivial paths (consisting of a single point). Then, by part (a) of Lemma , every component of $q$ must be regular in $o$, which is impossible since $q$ is without backtracking according to Lemma . Hence $g$ has infinite order in $G$. Suppose, now, that there exists $\lambda' \in \Lambda$, $u \in H_{\lambda'}$ and $y \in G$ such that $ygy^{-1}=u$. Denote $C= |y|_{\cX \cup \cH}$. Since element $u \in G$ has infinite order, there exists $l \in \N$ such that $2l \ge 6C+2$ and $u^l \notin \{h \in \langle\Omega\rangle~:~|h|_\Omega \le m \}$. The equality $yg^ly^{-1}u^{-l}=1$ gives rise to the cycle $o=rqr'q'$ in {\ga}, where $r$ and $r'$ are paths of length $C$ whose labels represent $y$ in $G$, $r_-=1$, $q_-=r_+=y$, $\lab(q) \equiv (a^{k_1}x_1a^{k_2}x_2)^l \in \cW(\Omega,m)$, $r'_-=q_+$, $q'_-=r'_+=y(a^{k_1}x_1a^{k_2}x_2)^ly^{-1}$ and $\lab(q') \equiv u^{-l} \in \cW(\Omega,m)$, $\L(q')=1$. By part (c) of Lemma , at least $2l-6C\ge 2$ distinct components of $q$ must be connected to distinct components of $q'$, which is impossible as $q'$ has only one component. The contradiction shows that $g$ must be a hyperbolic element of $G$. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be a torsion-free group hyperbolic relative to a family of proper subgroups $\Hl$, $a \in H_{\lambda_0} \setminus \{1\}$, for some $\lambda_0 \in \Lambda$, and $t,u \in G \setminus H_{\lambda_0}$. Suppose that there exists $\hat k \in \N$ such that for every $k \ge \hat k$ the element $g_1=a^kta^kt^{-1}$ is commensurable with $g_2=a^kua^ku^{-1}$ in $G$. Then there are $\beta,\gamma \in H_{\lambda_0}$ and $\epsilon,\xi \in \{-1,1\}$ such that $u=\gamma t^\xi \beta$, $\beta a \beta^{-1}=a^\epsilon$, $\gamma^{-1} a \gamma=a^\epsilon$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Changing the finite relative generating set $\cX$ of $G$, if necessary, we can assume that $t,u,t^{-1},u^{-1} \in \cX$. Let the finite subset $\Omega \subset G$ and the constant $K\in \N$ be chosen according to Lemma . Define $m=7K$ and suppose that $k$ is large enough to satisfy $a^k \notin \{h \in \langle\Omega\rangle~:~|h|_\Omega \le m\}$. Since $g_1$ and $g_2$ are commensurable, there exist $l,l' \in \Z \setminus \{0\}$ and $y\in G$ such that $yg_2^{l}y^{-1}=g_1^{l'}$. Let $C=|y|_{\cX\cup \cH}$, $d=8$ and $L=L(C,d)$ be the constant from Lemma . Without loss of generality, assume that $4l\ge L$. Consider the cycle $o=rqr'q'$ in {\ga} such that $r$ and $r'$ are paths of length $C$ whose labels represent $y$ in $G$, $r_-=1$, $q_-=r_+=y$, $\lab(q) \equiv (a^kua^ku^{-1})^{l} \in \cW(\Omega,m)$, $\L(q)=4l$, $r'_-=q_+$, $q'_-=r'_+=yg_2^l y^{-1}$, $\lab(q') \equiv (a^kta^kt^{-1})^{l'} \in \cW(\Omega,m)$, $\L(q')=4l'$. Now, by Lemma , there are subpaths $\tilde q=p_1s_1p_2s_2p_3s_3p_4$ of $q$ and $\tilde q'=p'_1s'_1p'_2s'_2p'_3s'_3p_4'$ of $q'^{-1}$ such that $\lab(p_i) \equiv a^k$, $\lab(p_i') \equiv a^{\epsilon k}$, $i=1,2,3,4$, for some $\epsilon \in \{-1,1\}$ (which depends on the sign of $l'$), $\lab(s_1)\equiv\lab(s_3) \equiv u$, $\lab(s_2) \equiv u^{-1}$, $\lab(s_1')\equiv\lab(s_3') \equiv t^\xi$, $\lab(s_2') \equiv t^{-\xi}$, for some $\xi \in \{-1,1\}$, and $p_i$ is connected in {\ga} to $p_i'$ for each $i=1,2,3,4$. Therefore there exist paths $\tilde p_1, \tilde p_2, \tilde p_3, \tilde p_4$ whose labels represent the elements $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta \in H_{\lambda_0}$ respectively, such that $(\tilde p_1)_-=(p_1)_+$, $(\tilde p_1)_+=(p'_1)_+$, $(\tilde p_2)_-=(p_2')_+$, $(\tilde p_2)_+=(p_2)_+$, $(\tilde p_3)_-=(p_3)_-$, $(\tilde p_3)_+=(p_3')_-$, $(\tilde p_4)_-=(p_4')_-$, $(\tilde p_4)_+=(p_4)_-$ (see Fig. ). The cycles $s_1^{-1}\tilde p_1 s_1' p_2' \tilde p_2 p_2^{-1}$, $s_2 \tilde p_3 {s_2'}^{-1} \tilde p_2$ and $s_3^{-1} p_3^{-1} \tilde p_3 p'_3 s'_3 \tilde p_4$ give rise to the following equalities in the group $G$: $$u=\alpha t^\xi a^{\epsilon k} \beta a^{-k},~u=\gamma t^\xi \beta ~\mbox{ and }~u=a^{-k}\gamma a^{\epsilon k} t^\xi \delta.$$ Consequently, recalling that $H_{\lambda_0}$ is malnormal (Lemma ) and that $t^\xi \notin H_{\lambda_0}$, we get $$\beta a^k \beta^{-1} a^{-\epsilon k}=t^{-\xi}\gamma^{-1} \alpha t^{\xi} \in H_{\lambda_0} \cap t^{-\xi} H_{\lambda_0} t^\xi=\{1\}, ~\mbox{ and} $$ $$a^{-\epsilon k} \gamma^{-1} a^k \gamma=t^\xi \delta \beta^{-1} t^{-\xi} \in H_{\lambda_0} \cap t^\xi H_{\lambda_0} t^{-\xi}=\{1\}.$$ Thus \begin{equation} \beta a^k \beta^{-1}=a^{\epsilon k}~\mbox{ and }~ \gamma^{-1} a^k \gamma=a^{\epsilon k} \end{equation} for some $\beta=\beta(k), \gamma=\gamma(k) \in H_{\lambda_0}$ and $\epsilon=\epsilon(k),\xi=\xi(k) \in \{-1,1\}$. Note that the proof works for any sufficiently large $k$, therefore we can find two mutually prime positive integers $k,k'$ with the above properties such that $\epsilon(k)=\epsilon(k')=\epsilon$ and $\xi(k)=\xi(k')=\xi$. Denote $\beta'=\beta(k')$ and $\gamma'=\gamma(k')$, then $\gamma t^\xi \beta=u=\gamma' t^\xi \beta'$, implying $$\gamma^{-1}\gamma'=t^{\xi}\beta {\beta'}^{-1} t^{-\xi} \in H_{\lambda_0} \cap t^\xi H_{\lambda_0} t^{-\xi}=\{1\}.$$ Hence $\beta'=\beta$, $\gamma'=\gamma$, \begin{equation} \beta a^{k'} \beta^{-1}=a^{\epsilon k'} \mbox{ and }~ \gamma^{-1} a^{k'} \gamma=a^{\epsilon k'}. \end{equation} It remains to observe that since $k$ and $k'$ are mutually prime, the formulas \eqref{eq:b-g-k} and \eqref{eq:b-g-k'} together yield $$\beta a \beta^{-1}=a^{\epsilon}~\mbox{ and }~ \gamma^{-1} a \gamma=a^{\epsilon},$$ q.e.d. \end{proof} \section{Small cancellation over relatively hyperbolic groups} Let $G$ be a group generated by a subset $\mathcal{A} \subseteq G$ and let $\mathcal O$ be the set of all words in the alphabet $\mathcal{A}^{\pm 1}$, that are trivial in $G$. Then $G$ has a presentation of the following form: \begin{equation} G=\langle \mathcal{A}~\|~\mathcal{O}\rangle. \end{equation} Given a symmetrized set of words $\mathcal{R}$ over the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$, consider the group $G_1$ defined by \begin{equation} G_1=\langle \mathcal{A}~\|~\mathcal{O} \cup \mathcal{R}\rangle= \langle G~\|~ \mathcal{R}\rangle. \end{equation} During the proof of the main result of this section we use presentations \eqref{eq:G_1} (or, equivalently, the sets of additional relators $\mathcal R$) that satisfy the {\it generalized small cancellation condition} $C_1(\varepsilon,\mu,\lambda,c,\rho)$. In the case of word hyperbolic groups this condition was suggested by Ol'shanskii in , and was afterwards generalized to relatively hyperbolic groups by Osin in . For the definition and detailed theory we refer the reader to the paper , as we will only use the properties, that were already established there. The following observation is an immediate consequence of the definition: \begin{remark} Let the constants $\varepsilon_j,\mu_j,\lambda,c,\rho_j$, $j=1,2$, satisfy $0 < \lambda \le 1$, $0 \le \varepsilon_1 \le \varepsilon_2$, $c \ge 0$, $0 < \mu_2 \le \mu_1$, $\rho_2 \ge \rho_1>0$. If the presentation \eqref{eq:G_1} enjoys the condition $C_1(\varepsilon_2,\mu_2,\lambda,c,\rho_2)$ then it also enjoys the condition $C_1(\varepsilon_1,\mu_1,\lambda,c,\rho_1)$. \end{remark} We will also assume that the reader is familiar with the notion of a {\it van Kampen diagram} over the group presentation \eqref{eq:G_1} (see \cite[Ch. V]{L-S} or \cite[Ch. 4]{Olsh0}). Let $\Delta$ be such a diagram. A cell $\Pi$ of $\Delta$ is called an $\mathcal R$-{\it cell} if the label of its boundary contour $\partial \Pi$ (i.e., the word written on it starting with some vertex in the counter-clockwise direction) belongs to $\mathcal R$. Consider a simple closed path $o=rqr'q'$ in a diagram $\Delta$ over the presentation \eqref{eq:G_1}, such that $q$ is a subpath of the boundary cycle of an $\mathcal R$-cell $\Pi$ and $q'$ is a subpath of $\partial \Delta$. Let $\Gamma$ denote the subdiagram of $\Delta$ bounded by $o$. Assuming that $\Gamma$ has no holes, no $\mathcal R$-cells and $\L(r),\L(r') \le \varepsilon$, it will be called an $\varepsilon$-{\it contiguity subdiagram} of $\Pi$ to $\partial \Delta$. The ratio $\L(q)/\L(\partial \Pi)$ will be called the {\it contiguity degree} of $\Pi$ to $\partial \Delta$ and denoted $(\Pi,\Gamma,\partial \Delta)$. A diagram is said to be {\it reduced} if it has a minimal number of $\mathcal R$-cells among all the diagrams with the same boundary label. If $G$ is a group hyperbolic relative to a family of proper subgroups $\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$, with a finite relative generating set $\cX$, then $G$ is generated by the set $\mathcal{A}=\cX \cup \bigcup_{i \in I} (H_i \setminus \{1\})$, and the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G,\mathcal{A})$ is a hyperbolic metric space \cite[Cor. 2.54]{Osin-RHG}. As for every condition of small cancellation, the main statement of the theory is the following analogue of Greendlinger's Lemma, claiming the existence of a cell, large part of whose contour lies on the boundary of the van Kampen diagram. \begin{lemma}[, Cor. 4.4] Suppose that the group $G$ is generated by a subset $\mathcal{A}$ such that the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G,\mathcal{A})$ is hyperbolic. Then for any $0< \lambda \le 1$ there is $\mu_0 >0$ such that for any $\mu \in (0,\mu_0]$ and $c \ge 0$ there are $\varepsilon_0 \ge 0$ and $\rho_0 >0$ with the following property. Let the symmetrized presentation \eqref{eq:G_1} satisfy the $C_1(\varepsilon_0,\mu,\lambda,c,\rho_0)$-condition. Further, let $\Delta$ be a reduced van Kampen diagram over $G_1$ whose boundary contour is $(\lambda,c)$-quasigeodesic in $G$. Then, provided $\Delta$ has an $\mathcal R$-cell, there exists an $\mathcal R$-cell $\Pi$ in $\Delta$ and an $\varepsilon_0$-contiguity subdiagram $\Gamma$ of $\Pi$ to $\partial \Delta$, such that $$(\Pi,\Gamma,\partial \Delta) > 1-23\mu.$$ \end{lemma} The main application of this particular small cancellation condition is \begin{lemma}[, Lemmas 5.1 and 6.3] For any $0 < \lambda \le 1$, $c \ge 0$ and $N>0$ there exist $\mu_1 >0$, $\varepsilon_1 \ge 0$ and $\rho_1 >0$ such that for any symmetrized set of words $\mathcal{R}$ satisfying $C_1(\varepsilon_1,\mu_1,\lambda,c,\rho_1)$-condition the following hold. \begin{itemize} \item[1.] The group $G_1$ defined by \eqref{eq:G_1} is hyperbolic relative to the collection of images $\{\eta(H_i)\}_{i\in I}$ under the natural homomorphism $\eta:G \to G_1$. \item[2.] The restriction of $\eta$ to the subset of elements having length at most $N$ with respect to $\mathcal A$ is injective. \item[3.] Any element that has a finite order in $G_1$ is an image of an element of finite order in $G$. \end{itemize} \end{lemma} Below is the principal lemma of this section that will later be used to prove Theorem . \begin{lemma} Assume that $G$ is a torsion-free group hyperbolic relative to a family of proper subgroups $\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$, $\cX$ is a finite relative generating set of $G$, $S$ is a suitable subgroup of $G$ and $U \subset G$ is a finite subset. Suppose that $i_0 \in I$, $a \in H_{i_0} \setminus \{1\}$ and $v_1,v_2 \in G$ are hyperbolic elements which are not commensurable to each other. Then there exists a word $W(x,y)$ over the alphabet $\{x,y\}$ such that the following is true. Denote $w_1=W(a,v_1) \in G$, $w_2=W(a,v_2) \in G$, and let $\langle \langle w_2 \rangle \rangle$ be the normal closure of $w_2$ in $G$, $G_1=G/\langle \langle w_2 \rangle \rangle$ and $\eta:G \to G_1$ be the natural epimorphism. Then \begin{itemize} \item $\eta$ is injective on $\Hl \cup U$ and $G_1$ is hyperbolic relative to the family $\{\eta(H_\lambda)\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$; \item $\eta(S)$ is a suitable subgroup of $G_1$; \item $G_1$ is torsion-free; \item $\eta(w_1) \neq 1$. \end{itemize} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By Lemma there are hyperbolic elements $v_3,v_4 \in S$ such that $v_i \stackrel{G}{\not\approx} v_j$ if $1 \le i<j \le 4$. Then by Lemma , the group $G$ is hyperbolic relative to the finite collection of subgroups $\{H_i\}_{i\in I} \cup \bigcup_{j=1}^4 \{E_G(v_j)\}$, and generated by the set $$\mathcal{A}=\cX \cup \left(\bigcup_{i \in I} H_i \cup \bigcup_{j=1}^4 E_G(v_j)\right)\setminus\{1\}.$$ Let $\Omega \subset G$ and $K\in \N$ denote the finite subset and the constant achieved after an application of Lemma to this new collection of peripheral subgroups. Define $m=7K$, $\lambda=1/3$, $c=2$ and $N=\max\{|u|_{\mathcal{A}}~:~u\in U\}+1$. Choose $\mu_j>0$, $\varepsilon_j\ge 0$ and $\rho_j>0$, $j=0,1$, according to the claims of Lemmas and . Let $\varepsilon=\max\{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1\}$, and let $L=L(C,d)>0$ be the constant given by Lemma where $C=\varepsilon_0$ and $d=2$. Evidently there exists $n \in \N$ such that, for $\mu=(3\varepsilon+11)/n$, one has $$0<\mu \le \min\{\mu_0,\mu_1\},~ 2n(1-23 \mu)>L,~\mbox{ and }~ 2n>\max\{\rho_0,\rho_1\}.$$ Set $$\mathcal{F}(\varepsilon)=\bigl\{ h \in \langle \Omega \rangle~:~|h| \le \max\{K(32\varepsilon+70),m\} \bigr\}.$$ Since the subset $\mathcal{F}(\varepsilon)$ is finite, we can find $k \in \N$ such that $a^{k'},v_1^{k'}, v_2^{k'} \notin \mathcal{F}(\varepsilon)$ whenever $k' \ge k$. Consider the word $$W(x,y)\equiv x^ky^kx^{k+1}y^{k+1} \dots x^{k+n-1} y^{k+n-1}.$$ Let $w_j\in G$ be the element represented by the word $W(a,v_j)$ in $G$, $j=1,2$, and let $\mathcal{R}$ be the set of all cyclic shifts of $W(a,v_2)$ and their inverses. By Lemma , $H_{i_0} \cap E_G(v_2)=\{1\}$ because $G$ is torsion-free, hence by \cite[Thm. 7.5]{Osin-SCT} the presentation \eqref{eq:G_1} satisfies the condition $C_1(\varepsilon,\mu,1/3,2,2n)$, and therefore, by Remark , it satisfies the conditions $C_1(\varepsilon_0,\mu,1/3,2,\rho_0)$ and $C_1(\varepsilon_1,\mu_1,1/3,2,\rho_1)$. Observe that $w_1 \neq 1$ in $G$ because, otherwise, there would have existed a closed path $q$ in $\Gamma(G,\mathcal{A})$ labelled by the word $W(a,v_1)$, and, by part (a) of Lemma , all components of $q$ would have been regular in the cycle $o=rqr'q'$ (where $r,r',q'$ are trivial paths), which is obviously impossible. Denote $G_1=G/\langle \langle w_2 \rangle\rangle$ and let $\eta: G \to G_1$ be the natural epimorphism. Then, according to Lemma , the group $G_1$ is is torsion-free, hyperbolic relative to $\{\eta(H_i)\}_{i\in I} \cup \bigcup_{j=1}^4 \{\eta(E_G(v_j))\}$ and $\eta$ is injective on the set $\bigcup_{i\in I} H_i \cup \bigcup_{j=1}^4 E_G(v_j) \cup U$ (because the length in $\mathcal A$ of any element from this set is at most $N$). Since any elementary group is word hyperbolic, $G_1$ is also hyperbolic relative to $\{\eta(H_i)\}_{i\in I}$ (by Lemma ) and $\eta(v_3),\eta(v_4) \in \eta(S)$ become hyperbolic elements of infinite order in $G_1$, that are not commensurable with each other (by Lemma ). Therefore $E_{G_1}(\eta(v_3)) \cap E_{G_2}(\eta(v_4))=\{1\}$ (recall that these subgroups are cyclic by Lemma and because $G_1$ is torsion-free), and, consequently, $\eta(S)$ is a suitable subgroup of $G_1$. Suppose that $\eta(w_1)=1$. By van Kampen's Lemma there exists a reduced planar diagram $\Delta$ over the presentation \eqref{eq:G_1} with the word $W(a,v_1)$ written on its boundary. Since $W(a,v_1) \stackrel{G}{\neq} 1$, $\Delta$ possesses at least one $\mathcal{R}$-cell. It was proved in \cite[Lemma 7.1]{Osin-SCT} that any path in $\Gamma(G,\mathcal{A})$ labelled by $W(a,v_1)$ is $(1/3,2)$-quasigeodesic, hence we can apply Lemma to find an $\mathcal{R}$-cell $\Pi$ of $\Delta$ and an $\varepsilon_0$-contiguity subdiagram $\Gamma$ (containing no $\mathcal R$-cells) between $\Pi$ and $\partial \Delta$ such that $(\Pi,\Gamma,\partial \Delta)>1-23\mu$. Thus there exists a cycle $o=rqr'q'$ in $\Gamma(G,\mathcal{A})$ such that $q$ is labelled by a subword of (a cyclic shift of) $W(a,v_2)$, $q'$ is labelled by a subword of (a cyclic shift of) $W(a,v_1)^{\pm 1}$, $\L(r),\L(r') \le \varepsilon_0=C$ and $$\L(q) > (1-23 \mu) \cdot \L(\partial \Pi) = (1-23 \mu)\cdot 2n> L.$$ In particular, $\lab(q),\lab(q') \in \cW(\Omega,m)$. Therefore we can apply Lemma to find two consecutive components of $q$ that are connected to some components of $q'$. Due to the form of the word $W(a,v_2)$, one of the formers will have to be an $E_G(v_2)$-component, but $q'$ can have only $E_G(v_1)$- or $H_{i_0}$-components. This yields a contradiction because $E_G(v_2)\neq E_G(v_1)$ and $E_G(v_2) \neq H_{i_0}$. Hence $\eta(w_1) \neq 1$ in $G_1$, and the proof is complete. \end{proof} \section{Every group is a group of outer automorphisms of a (2CC)-group} \begin{lemma} There exists a word $R(x,y)$ over the two-letter alphabet $\{x,y\}$ such that every non-elementary torsion-free word hyperbolic group $F_1$ has a non-elemen\-tary torsion-free word hyperbolic quotient $F$ that is generated by two elements $a,b \in F$ satisfying \begin{equation} R(a,b) \stackrel{F}{\neq} 1,~ R(a^{-1},b^{-1})\stackrel{F}{=} 1, ~R(b,a)\stackrel{F}{=} 1, ~R(b^{-1},a^{-1}) \stackrel{F}{=} 1.\end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Consider the word $$R(x,y) \equiv xy^{101} x^2 y^{102} \dots x^{100} y^{200}.$$ Denote by $F(a,b)$ the free group with the free generators $a,b$. Let $$\mathcal{R}_1=\{R(a,b),R(a^{-1},b^{-1}), R(b,a),R(b^{-1},a^{-1})\},$$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ be the set of all cyclic permutations of words from $\mathcal{R}_1^{\pm 1}$. It is easy to see that the set $\mathcal{R}_2$ satisfies the classical small cancellation condition $C'(1/8)$ (see \cite[Ch. V]{L-S}). Denote by $\tilde N$ the normal closure of the set $$\mathcal{R}_3=\{R(a^{-1},b^{-1}), R(b,a),R(b^{-1},a^{-1})\}$$ in $F(a,b)$. Since the symmetrization of $\mathcal{R}_3$ also satisfies $C'(1/8)$, the group $\tilde F=F(a,b)/{\tilde N}$ is a torsion-free (\cite[Thm. V.10.1]{L-S}) word hyperbolic group (because it has a finite presentation for which the Dehn function is linear by \cite[Thm. V.4.4]{L-S}) such that $$R(a,b) \stackrel{\tilde F}{\neq} 1~\mbox{ but }~ R(a^{-1},b^{-1})\stackrel{\tilde F}{=}R(b,a)\stackrel{\tilde F}{=}R(b^{-1},a^{-1}) \stackrel{\tilde F}{=} 1.$$ Indeed, if the word $R(a,b)$ were trivial in $\tilde F$ then, by Greendlinger's Lemma \cite[Thm. V.4.4]{L-S}, it would contain more than a half of a relator from (the symmetrization of) $\mathcal{R}_3$ as a subword, which would contradict the fact that $\mathcal{R}_2$ enjoys $C'(1/8)$. The group $\tilde F$ is non-elementary because every torsion-free elementary group is cyclic, hence, abelian, but in any abelian group the relation $R(a^{-1},b^{-1})=1$ implies $R(a,b) = 1$. Now, the free product $\tilde G=\tilde F * F_1$ is a torsion-free hyperbolic group. Its subgroups $\tilde F$ and $F_1$ are non-elementary, hence, according to a theorem of Ol'shanskii \cite[Thm. 2]{Olsh2}, there exists a non-elementary torsion-free word hyperbolic group $F$ and a homomorphism $\phi: \tilde G \to F$ such that $\phi(\tilde F)=\phi(F_1)=F$ and $\phi(R(a,b)) \neq 1$ in $F$. Therefore $F$ is a quotient of $F_1$, the ($\phi$-images of the) elements $a,b$ generate $F$ and enjoy the required relations. \end{proof} We are now ready to prove Theorem . \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem .] The argument will be similar to the one used to prove Theorem . First, set $n=2$ and apply Lemma to find a countable torsion-free group $H$ and a normal subgroup $M \lhd H$, where $H/M \cong C$ and $M$ has {\cc} (alternatively, one could start with a free group $H'$ and $M' \lhd H'$ such that $H'/M' \cong C$, and then apply Lemma to the pair $(H',M')$ to obtain $H$ and $M$ with these properties). Consider the word $R(x,y)$ and the torsion-free hyperbolic group $F$, generated by the elements $a,b \in F$ which satisfy \eqref{eq:Rab}, given by Lemma . Denote $G(-2)=H*F$ and let $N(-2)$ be the normal closure of $\langle M, F \rangle$ in $G(-2)$, $F(-2)=F$, ${\mathfrak R}(-2)=\{R(a,b)\}$ -- a finite subset of $F(-2)$. By Lemma , $G(-2)$ will be hyperbolic relative to the subgroup $H$, $G(-2)=H\cdot N(-2)$, $H \cap N(-2)=M$ and $F(-2)$ will be a suitable subgroup of $G(-2)$. The element $a \in F(-2)$ will be hyperbolic in $G(-2)$ and since the group $G(-2)$ is torsion-free, the maximal elementary subgroup $E_{G(-2)}(a)$ will be cyclic generated by some element $h_{-2}x_{-2}$, where $h_{-2} \in H$, $x_{-2} \in N(-2)$. Choose $y_{-2} \in M$ so that $h_{-2}y_{-2} \neq 1$. By Lemmas and , the HNN-extension $$G(-3/2)=\langle G(-2),t_{-1}~\|~t_{-1}h_{-2}x_{-2}t_{-1}^{-1}=h_{-2}y_{-2}\rangle$$ is hyperbolic relative to $H$. As in proof of Theorem , one can verify that $F(-3)$ is a suitable subgroup of $G(-3/2)$, and apply Theorem to find an epimorphism $\eta_{-2}:G(-3/2) \to G(-1)$ such that $G(-1)$ is a torsion-free group hyperbolic relative to $\eta_{-2}(H)$, $\eta_{-2}$ is injective on $H \cup {\mathfrak R}(-2)$ and $\eta_{-2}(t_{-1}) \in F(-1)$ where $F(-1)=\eta_{-2}(F(-2))$ is a suitable subgroup of $G(-1)$. Hence $\eta_{-2}(G(-2))=G(-1)$ as $G(-3/2)$ was generated by $G(-2)$ and $t_{-1}$. Denote $N(-1)=\eta_{-2}(N(-2))$, ${\mathfrak R}(-1)=\eta_{-2}({\mathfrak R}(-2))$ and $\psi_{-2}=\left.{\eta_{-2}}\right|_{G(-2)}:G(-2) \twoheadrightarrow G(-1)$. One can show that $G(-1)=H\cdot N(-1)$ and $H \cap N(-1)=M$ using the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem . According to the construction, we have $$\eta_{-2}(t_{-1})\eta_{-2}(a) \eta_{-2}(t_{-1}^{-1}) =\eta(t_{-1}at_{-1}^{-1}) \in N(-1) \cap H = M$$ in $G(-1)$, therefore, since the conjugation by $\eta_{-2}(t_{-1})$ is an inner automorphism of $F(-1)$, we can assume that $F(-1)$ is generated by $a_{-1}$ and $b_{-1}$, where $a_{-1} \in M$ and $R(a_{-1},b_{-1}) \neq 1$ in $F(-1)$ (because $\eta_{-2}(R(a,b)) \neq 1$ in $F(-1)$). Now, if $b_{-1}$ is not a hyperbolic element of $G(-1)$, i.e., if $b_{-1} \stackrel{G(-1)}{\sim} c$ for some $c \in H$, then $c \in N(-1) \cap H=M$, and since $M$ has {\cc} we can find $s_{-1} \in G(-1)$ such that $b_{-1}=s_{-1}a_{-1} s_{-1}^{-1}$. In this case we define $G(0)=G(-1)$, $N(0)=N(-1)$, $F(0)=F(-1)$, ${\mathfrak R}(0)={\mathfrak R}(-1)$, $a_0=a_{-1}$, $s_0=s_{-1}$ and $\psi_{-1}=id_{G(-1)}$. Otherwise, if $b_{-1}$ is hyperbolic in $G(-1)$, then we construct the group $G(0)$, and an epimorphism $\psi_{-1}:G(-1) \to G(0)$ in an analogous way, to make sure that $\eta_{-1}$ is injective on $H \cup {\mathfrak R}(-1)$, $G(0)$ torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to (the image of) $H$, $F(0)=\psi_{-1}(F(-1))$ is a suitable subgroup of $G(0)$, $G(0)=H \cdot N(0)$ and $H \cap N(0)=M$ where $N(0)=\psi_{-1}(N(-1))$, and $b_{0}=s_{0}a_{0} s_{0}^{-1}$ in $G(0)$ where $b_0=\psi_{-1}(b_{-1})$, $a_0=\psi_{-1}(a_{-1})$ for some $s_0 \in G(0)$ Enumerate all elements of $N(0)$: $\{g_0,g_1,g_2,\dots\}$, and of $G(0)$: $\{q_0,q_1,q_2,\dots\}$, so that $g_0=q_0=1$. The groups $G(j)$ together with $N(j) \lhd G(j)$, $F(j) \le G(j)$, finite subsets ${\mathfrak R}(j) \subset G(j)$, and elements $a_j,s_j \in G(j)$, $j=1,2,\dots$, that we will construct shall satisfy the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item[$1^\circ$.] for each $j\in \N$ there is an epimorphism $\psi_{j-1}: G(j-1) \to G(j)$ which is injective on $H\cup {\mathfrak R}(j-1)$. $F(j)=\psi_{j-1}(F(j-1))$, $N(j)=\psi_{j-1}(N(j-1))$, $a_j=\psi_{j-1}(a_{j-1}) \in M$, $s_j=\psi_{j-1}(s_{j-1}) \in G(j)$; \item[$2^\circ$.] $G(j)$ is torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to (the image of) $H$, and $F(j) \le G(j)$ is a suitable subgroup generated by $a_j$ and $s_ja_js_j^{-1}$; \item[$3^\circ$.] $G(j)=H\cdot N(j)$, $N(j)\lhd G(j)$ and $H \cap N(j)=M$; \item[$4^\circ$.] the natural image $\bar g_j$ of $g_j$ in $G(j)$ belongs to $F(j)$; \item[$5^\circ$.] there exists $z_j \in H$ such that $\bar q_j \stackrel{G(j)}{\sim} z_j$, where $\bar q_j$ is the image of $q_j$ in $G(j)$; \item[$6^\circ$.] if $j \ge 1$, $\bar q_{j-1} \in G(j-1)\setminus H$ and for each $\hat k \in \N$ there is $k \ge \hat k$ such that $a_{j-1}^ks_{j-1}a_{j-1}^ks_{j-1}^{-1} \stackrel{G(j-1)}{\not \approx} a_{j-1}^k \bar q_{j-1}a_{j-1}^k \bar q_{j-1}^{-1}$, then there is a word $R_{j-1}(x,y)$ over the two-letter alphabet $\{x,y\}$ which satisfies $${\mathfrak R}(j) \ni \psi_{j-1}\left(R_{j-1}(a_{j-1},s_{j-1}a_{j-1}s_{j-1}^{-1}) \right) \neq 1~\mbox{ and }~$$ $$\psi_{j-1}\left(R_{j-1}(a_{j-1},\bar q_{j-1}a_{j-1}\bar q_{j-1}^{-1})\right) {=} 1~\mbox{ in } G(j).$$ \end{itemize} Suppose that the groups $G(0),\dots, G(i)$ have already been defined. The group $G(i+1)$ will be constructed in three steps. First, assume that $\bar q_i \in G(i) \setminus H$ and for each $\hat k \in \N$ there is $k \ge \hat k$ such that $a_{i}^ks_{i}a_{i}^ks_{i}^{-1} \stackrel{G(i)}{\not \approx} a_{i}^k \bar q_{i}a_{i}^k \bar q_{i}^{-1}$. Observe that $s_i \notin H$ because, otherwise, one would have $F(i) \subset H$, which is impossible as $F(i)$ is suitable in $G(i)$. Therefore, by Corollary , we can suppose that $k$ is so large that the elements $v_1=a_{i}^ks_{i}a_{i}^ks_{i}^{-1}$ and $v_2=a_{i}^k \bar q_{i}a_{i}^k \bar q_{i}^{-1}$ are hyperbolic in $G(i)$. Applying Lemma we can find a word $W(x,y)$ over $\{x,y\}$ such that the group $G(i+1/3)=G(i)/\langle \langle W(a_i,v_2) \rangle\rangle$ and the natural epimorphism $\eta: G(i) \to G(i+1/3)$ satisfy the following: $\eta$ is injective on $H \cup \mathfrak{R}(i)$, $G(i+1/3)$ is torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to (the image of) $H$, $\eta(F(i)) \le G(i+1/3)$ is a suitable subgroup, and $\eta(W(a_i,v_1)) \neq 1$. Define the word $R_{i}(x,y)\equiv W(x,x^ky^k)$. Then $R_{i}(a_i,s_ia_is_i^{-1})=W(a_i,v_1)$, $R_i(a_i,\bar q_ia_i \bar q_i^{-1})=W(a_i,v_2)$ in $G(i)$, hence $$\eta\left(R_{i}(a_i,s_ia_is_i^{-1})\right) \neq 1~\mbox{ and }~ \eta\left(R_i(a_i,\bar q_ia_i \bar q_i^{-1})\right)=1 ~\mbox{ in } G(i+1/3).$$ If, on the other hand, $\bar q_i \in H$ or there is $\hat k \in \N$ such that for every $k \ge \hat k$ one has $a_{i}^ks_{i}a_{i}^ks_{i}^{-1} \stackrel{G(i)}{\approx} a_{i}^k \bar q_{i}a_{i}^k \bar q_{i}^{-1}$, then we define $G(i+1/3)=G(i)$, $\eta: G(i) \to G(i+1/3)$ to be the identical homomorphism and $R_i(x,y)$ to be the empty word. Let $\hat g_{i+1}$ and $\hat q_{i+1}$ denote the images of $g_{i+1}$ and $q_{i+1}$ in $G(i+1/3)$, $\hat N(i)=\eta(N(i))$, $\hat F(i)=\eta(F(i))$ and $\hat {\mathfrak{R}}(i)=\eta\left(\mathfrak{R}(i) \cup \{R_{i}(a_i,s_ia_is_i^{-1})\}\right)$. Then, using $3^\circ$, we get $G(i+1/3)=H\cdot \hat N(i)$ and $H \cap \hat N(i)=M$ because $\ker(\eta)\le N(i)$ (as $a_i, \bar q_ia_i \bar q_i^{-1} \in N(i)$). Now we construct the group $G(i+2/3)$ in exactly the same way as the group $G(i+1/2)$ was constructed in during the proof of Theorem . If for some $f \in G(i+1/3)$, $f\hat q_{i+1} f^{-1}=z \in H$, then set $G(i+2/3)=G(i)$, $K_{i+1}=\hat N(i)\lhd G(i+2/3)$ and $t_{i+1}=1$. Otherwise, $\hat q_{i+1}$ is a hyperbolic element of infinite order in $G(i+1/3)$. Since $G(i+1/3)$ is torsion-free, one has $E_{G(i+1/3)}(\hat q_{i+1}) = \langle h x \rangle$ for some $h \in H$ and $x \in \hat N(i)$, and there is $m \in \Z$ such that $\hat q_{i+1}=(hx)^m$. Now, by Lemma , $G(i+1/3)$ is hyperbolic relative to $\{H,\langle hx \rangle\}$. Choose $y \in M$ so that $hy \neq 1$ and let $G(i+2/3)$ be the following HNN-extension of $G(i+1/3)$: $$G(i+2/3) = \langle G(i+1/3),t_{i+1}~\|~t_{i+1} (hx) t_{i+1}^{-1} = hy\rangle. $$ The group $G(i+2/3)$ is torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to $H$ by Lemma . One can show that $\hat F(i)$ is a suitable subgroup of $G(i+2/3)$ in the same way as during the proof of Theorem . Lemma assures that $H \cap K_{i+1}=M$ where $K_{i+1} \lhd G(i+2/3)$ is the normal closure of $\langle \hat N(i),t_{i+1} \rangle$ in $G(i+2/3)$. Finally, note that $$t_{i+1} \hat q_{i+1} t_{i+1}^{-1}=t_{i+1} (hx)^m t_{i+1}^{-1}=(hy)^m = z \in H~\mbox{ in } G(i+2/3).$$ Define $T_{i+1}=\{\hat g_{i+1}, t_{i+1}\}\subset K_{i+1}$. The group $G(i+1)$ is constructed from $G(i+2/3)$ as follows. Since $T_{i+1} \cdot \hat F(i) \subset K_{i+1} \lhd G(i+2/3)$, we can apply Theorem to find a group $G(i+1)$ and an epimorphism $\varphi_i:G(i+2/3) \to G(i+1)$ such that $\varphi_i$ is injective on $H \cup \hat{\mathfrak{R}}(i)$, $G(i+1)$ is torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to (the image of) $H$, $\{\varphi_i(\hat g_{i+1}), \varphi_i(t_{i+1})\} \subset \varphi_i(\hat F(i))$, $\varphi_i(\hat F(i))$ is a suitable subgroup of $G(i+1)$, and $\ker(\varphi_i) \le K_{i+1}$. Denote by $\psi_i:G(i) \to G(i+1)$ the composition $\varphi_i \circ \eta$. Then $\psi_i(G(i))=\varphi_i(G(i))=G(i+1)$ because $G(i+2/3)$ was generated by $G(i)$ and $t_{i+1}$, and according to the construction, $t_{i+1} \in \varphi_i(\hat F(i))\le \varphi_i(G(i))$. Now, after defining $F(i+1)=\psi_{i}(F(i))$, $N(i+1)=\psi_{i}(N(i))$, $\mathfrak{R}(i+1)=\varphi_i(\hat{\mathfrak{R}}(i))$, $\bar g_{i+1}=\varphi_i(\hat g_{i+1}) \in F(i+1)$ and $z_{i+1}=\varphi_i(z) \in H$, we see that the conditions $1^\circ$ - $5^\circ$ hold in the case when $j=i+1$, as in the proof of Theorem . The last property $6^\circ$ follows from the way we constructed the group $G(i+1/3)$. Let $Q=G(\infty)$ be the direct limit of the sequence $(G(i),\psi_i)$ as $i \to \infty$, and let $F(\infty)$ and $N=N(\infty)$ be the limits of the corresponding subgroups. Let $a_\infty$, $b_\infty$ and $s_\infty$ be the images of $a_0$, $b_0$ and $s_0$ in $Q$ respectively. Then $b_\infty=s_\infty a_\infty s_\infty^{-1}$, $Q$ is torsion-free by $2^\circ$, $N\lhd Q$, $Q=H \cdot N$ and $H \cap N=M$ by $3^\circ$, $N \le F(\infty)$ by $4^\circ$. Hence $Q/N \cong H/M \cong C$. Since $F(0) \le N(0)$ we get $F(\infty) \le N$. Thus $N=F(\infty)$ is a homomorphic image of $F(0)=F$, and, consequently, it is a quotient of $F_1$. By $5^\circ$, for any $q \in N$ there are $z \in H$ and $p \in Q$ such that $pqp^{-1}=z$. Consequently $z \in H\cap N=M$. Choose $x \in N$ and $h \in H$ so that $p=hx$. Since $M$ has {\cc} and $h^{-1}zh \in M$, there is $y \in M$ such that $yh^{-1}zhy^{-1}=z$, therefore $(yx) q (yx)^{-1}=z \in M$ and $yx \in MN =N$. Hence each element $q$ of $N$ will be conjugated (in $N$) to an element of $M$, and since $M$ has {\cc}, therefore the group $N$ will also have {\cc}. The property that $C_Q(N)=\{1\}$ can be established in the same way as in Theorem . Therefore the natural homomorphism $Q \to Aut(N)$ is injective. It remains to show that it is surjective, that is for every $\phi \in Aut(N)$ there is $g \in Q$ such that $\phi(x)=gxg^{-1}$ for every $x\in N$. Since all non-trivial elements of $N$ are conjugated, after composing $\phi$ with an inner automorphism of $N$, we can assume that $\phi(a_\infty)=a_\infty$. On the other hand, there exist $q_\infty \in N$ and $i \in \N$ such that $\phi(b_\infty)=q_\infty a_\infty q_\infty^{-1}$ and $q_\infty$ is the image of $q_i$ in $Q$. Note that $s_\infty \notin H$ because $s_i \in G(i)\setminus H$ for every $i \in \N$. This implies that $H$ is a proper subgroup of $N$, thus $q_\infty \notin H$ since $N=F(\infty)= \langle a_\infty, q_\infty a_\infty q_\infty^{-1}\rangle \le Q$, and $a_\infty \in H$. Hence $\bar q_i \in G(i)\setminus H$. Now we have to consider two possibilities. Case 1: for each $\hat k \in \N$ there is $k \ge \hat k$ such that $$a_{i}^ks_{i}a_{i}^ks_{i}^{-1} \stackrel{G(i)}{\not \approx} a_{i}^k \bar q_{i}a_{i}^k \bar q_{i}^{-1}.$$ Then there is a word $R_i(x,y)$ such that the property $6^\circ$ holds for $j=i+1$. And, since each $\psi_j$ is injective on $\{1\} \cup \mathfrak{R}_j$ (by $2^\circ$), we conclude that $$R_i(a_\infty,s_\infty a_\infty s_\infty^{-1})\neq 1~\mbox{ and }~ R_i(a_\infty,q_\infty a_\infty q_\infty^{-1})=1~\mbox{ in } Q,$$ which contradicts the injectivity of $\phi$. Hence Case 1 is impossible. Case 2: the assumptions of Case 1 fail. Then we can use Lemma to find $\beta,\gamma \in H$ and $\epsilon,\xi \in \{-1,1\}$ such that $\bar q_i=\gamma s_i^\xi \beta$, $\beta a_i \beta^{-1} =a_i^\epsilon$ and $\gamma^{-1} a_i \gamma =a_i^\epsilon$ in $G(i)$. Denote by $\gamma_\infty$ the image $\gamma$ in $Q$, and for any $y \in Q$ let $C_{y}$ be the automorphism of $N$ defined by $C_{y}(x)=y x y^{-1}$ for all $x \in N$. If $\xi=-1$ then $\gamma_\infty^{-1} a_\infty \gamma_\infty = a_\infty^\epsilon$ and $\phi(b_\infty)=q_\infty a_\infty q_\infty^{-1}=\gamma_\infty s_\infty^{-1} a_\infty^\epsilon s_\infty \gamma_\infty^{-1}$, hence $$Aut(N) \ni C_{s_\infty \gamma_\infty^{-1}} \circ \phi: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} a_\infty & \mapsto & s_\infty a_\infty^\epsilon s_\infty^{-1}=b_\infty^\epsilon \\ b_\infty=s_\infty a_\infty s_\infty^{-1} & \mapsto & a_\infty^\epsilon \end{array} \right. .$$ But $N$ has no such automorphisms because $R(a_\infty,b_\infty) \neq 1$ and $R(b_\infty^\epsilon,a_\infty^\epsilon) = 1$ in $N$ (since $N$ is a quotient of $F$ and $1\neq R(a_0,b_0) \in \mathfrak{R}(0)$ in $G(0)$). Therefore $\xi =1$. Similarly, $\epsilon=1$, as otherwise we would obtain a contradiction with the fact that $R(a_\infty^{-1},b_\infty^{-1})=1$ in $N$. Thus $$Aut(N) \ni C_{\gamma_\infty^{-1}} \circ \phi: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} a_\infty & \mapsto & a_\infty \\ b_\infty=s_\infty a_\infty s_\infty^{-1} & \mapsto & s_\infty a_\infty s_\infty^{-1}=b_\infty \end{array} \right. .$$ And since $a_\infty$ and $b_\infty$ generate $N$ we conclude that for all $x \in N$, $\phi(x)= g x g^{-1}$, where $g=\gamma_\infty \in Q$. Thus the natural homomorphism from $Q$ to $Aut(N)$ is bijective, implying that $Out(N)=Aut(N)/Inn(N) \cong Q/N \cong C$. Q.e.d. \end{proof} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{SQ} G. Arzhantseva, A. Minasyan, D. Osin, {\it The SQ-universality and residual properties of relatively hyperbolic groups}, J. Algebra 315 (2007), no. 1, 165-177. \bibitem{Bel-Osin} I. Belegradek, D. Osin, {\it Rips construction and Kazhdan property (T)}, preprint (2006). {\sf arXiv: math.GR/0605553} \bibitem{Bum-Wise} I. Bumagin, D.T. Wise, {\it Every group is an outer automorphism group of a finitely generated group}, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 200 (2005), no. 1-2, 137-147. \bibitem{Camm} R. Camm, {\it Simple Free Products}, J. London Math. Soc. 28 (1953), 66-76. \bibitem{de_Cornul} Y. de Cornulier, {\it Finitely presentable, non-Hopfian groups with Kazhdan's Property and infinite outer automorphism group}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 135 (2007), no. 4, 951-959. \bibitem{Harpe-Valette} P. de la Harpe, A. Valette, {\it La propri\'et\'e (T) de Kazhdan pour les groupes localement compacts}, (avec un appendice de Marc Burger). Ast\'erisque 175, 1989. \bibitem{DGG} M. Droste, M. Giraudet, R. G\"{o}bel, {\it All groups are outer automorphism groups of simple groups}, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 64 (2001), no 3, 565-575. \bibitem{HNN} G. Higman, B.H. Neumann, H. Neumann, {\it Embedding theorems for groups}, J. London Math. Soc. 24 (1949), 247-254. \bibitem{Kourovka} The Kourovka notebook. {\it Unsolved problems in group theory}, 16th augmented edition, V. D. Mazurov and E. I. Khukhro eds., Rossi\u\i skaya Akademiya Nauk, Sibirskoe Otdelenie, Institut Matematiki (Siberian branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Mathematical Institute), Novosibirsk, 2006. \bibitem{L-S} R. Lyndon and P. Schupp, {\it Combinatorial Group Theory}, Springer-Verlag, 1977. \bibitem{Matumoto} T. Matumoto, {\it Any group is represented by an outer automorphism group}, Hiroshima Math. J. 19 (1989), no. 1, 209-219. \bibitem{Mur1} A. Muranov, {\it Diagrams with selection and method for constructing boundedly generated and boundedly simple groups}, Comm. Algebra 33 (2005), no. 4, 1217-1258. \bibitem{Mur3} A. Muranov, {\it Finitely generated infinite simple groups of infinite commutator width}, Int. J. Algebra Comput. 17 (2007), no. 3, 607-659. \bibitem{Ol-Wise} Y. Ollivier, D.T. Wise, {\it Kazhdan groups with infinite outer automorphism group}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), no. 5, 1959-1976. \bibitem{Olsh0} A.Yu. Ol'shanskii, {\it Geometry of defining relations in groups}, Moscow, Nauka, 1989 (in Russian); English translation in Mathematics and its Applications (Soviet Series), 70. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, 1991. \bibitem{Olsh2} A.Yu. Ol'shanskii, {\it On residualing homomorphisms and $G$-subgroups of hyperbolic groups}, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 3, no. 4 (1993), 365-409. \bibitem{Osin-ESBG} D.V. Osin, {\it Elementary subgroups of relatively hyperbolic groups and bounded generation}, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 16 (2006), no. 1, 99-118. \bibitem{Osin-periph} D.V. Osin, {\it Peripheral fillings of relatively hyperbolic groups}, Invent. Math. 167 (2007), no.~2, 295-326. \bibitem{Osin-RDF} D.V. Osin, {\it Relative Dehn functions of HNN-extensions and amalgamated products}, Topological and asymptotic aspects of group theory, Contemp. Math. 394, 209-220, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006. \bibitem{Osin-RHG} D.V. Osin, {\it Relatively hyperbolic groups: intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems}, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 179 (2006), no. 843, vi+100 pp. \bibitem{Osin-SCT} D.V. Osin, {\it Small cancellations over relatively hyperbolic groups and embedding theorems}, Annals of Math., to appear. {\sf arXiv: math.GR/0411039} \bibitem{Paulin} F. Paulin, {\it Outer automorphisms of hyperbolic groups and small actions on $\R$-trees}, Arboreal Group Theory (MSRI, Berkeley, 1988), R.C. Alperin ed., Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. 19, Springer, New York, 1991. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0092
|
Title: Energy density for chiral lattice fermions with chemical potential
Abstract: We study a recently proposed formulation of overlap fermions at finite
density. In particular we compute the energy density as a function of the
chemical potential and the temperature. It is shown that overlap fermions with
chemical potential reproduce the correct continuum behavior.
Body: \title{Energy density for chiral lattice fermions with chemical potential} \author{Christof Gattringer$^a$} \author{Ludovit Liptak$^b$} \affiliation{\vspace{4mm}$^a$Institut f\"ur Physik, FB Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Graz, \vskip0mm Universit\"atsplatz 5, 8010 Graz, Austria \vskip1mm $^b$Institute of Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, \vskip0mm D\'ubravsk\'a cesta 9, 845 11 Bratislava 45, Slovak Republic} \begin{abstract} We study a recently proposed formulation of overlap fermions at finite density. In particular we compute the energy density as a function of the chemical potential and the temperature. It is shown that overlap fermions with chemical potential approach the correct continuum behavior. \end{abstract} \pacs{11.15.Ha, 12.38.Gc} \keywords{Chemical potential, chiral symmetry, energy density} \maketitle \section{Introduction} Over the last two decades lattice gauge theory was turned into a powerful qualitative tool for analyzing QCD. This progress is in part due to the advances in algorithms and computer technology, but also on the conceptual side important breakthroughs were made. Most prominent among these is the correct implementation of chiral symmetry on the lattice based on the Ginsparg-Wilson equation for the Dirac operator . An application of lattice techniques which has seen a lot of attention in recent years, is the study of QCD at finite temperature. The lattice implementation of the chemical potential $\mu$, necessary for such an analysis, is not straightforward, however. It is well known , that a naive introduction leads to $\mu^2/a^2$ contributions which diverge in the continuum limit when the lattice spacing $a$ is sent to zero. For more traditional formulations, such as the Wilson or staggered Dirac operators, the problem has been solved by introducing the chemical potential in the same way as the 4-component of the gauge field. A satisfactory implementation of the chemical potential should be compatible with chiral symmetry on the lattice based on the Ginsparg-Wilson equation. When attempting to introduce the chemical potential into the only solution of the Ginsparg-Wilson equation know in closed form, the overlap operator , a potential problem quickly surfaces: defining the sign function of a non-hermitian matrix. In Bloch and Wettig proposed a solution based on an analytic continuation of the sign function into the complex plane. It was shown, that the eigenvalue spectra of this construction match the expectations from random matrix theory. In this letter we analyze the proposal further and study the energy density of free, massless overlap fermions with chemical potential. The dependence of the energy density on $\mu$ and the temperature $T$ allows for a detailed analysis of the lattice formulation at finite density. Of particular interest will be the question whether the analytic continuation of the sign function produces divergent $\mu^2/a^2$ terms. Our study indicates the absence of such contributions and we find that the $\mu$ and $T$ dependence of the energy density is approached correctly. \section{Setup of the calculation} The overlap Dirac operator $D(\mu)$ for fermions with a chemical potential $\mu$ is given as \begin{eqnarray} D(\mu) & = & \frac{1}{a} [ 1 - \gamma_5 \, \mbox{sign}\, H(\mu) ] \; , \nonumber \\ H(\mu) & = & \gamma_5 \, [ 1 - a D_W(\mu)] \; . \end{eqnarray} The sign function may be defined through the spectral theorem for matrices. $D_W(\mu)$ denotes the usual Wilson Dirac operator, \begin{eqnarray} & & \!\!\!\!\!\! D_W\!(\mu)_{x,y} \, = \, \mathds{1} \Big[\frac{3}{a} + \frac{1}{a_4} \Big] \, \delta_{x,y} \; - \\ & & \!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{j = 1}^{3} \Big[ \frac{\mathds{1}\! - \!\gamma_j}{2a} U_j(x) \delta_{x+\hat{j},y} \, + \, \frac{\mathds{1} \!+ \!\gamma_j}{2a} U_j(x\!-\!\hat{j})^\dagger \delta_{x-\hat{j},y} \Big] \, - \nonumber \\ & & \!\!\!\!\!\! \frac{\mathds{1} \! - \!\gamma_4}{2a_4} U_4(x) e^{\mu a_4} \delta_{x+\hat{4},y} \, - \, \frac{\mathds{1} \!+\! \gamma_4}{2a_4} U_4(x\!-\!\hat{4})^\dagger e^{-\mu a_4} \delta_{x-\hat{4},y} \; . \nonumber \end{eqnarray} For later use we distinguish between the lattice spacing $a$ in spatial direction and the temporal lattice constant $a_4$. Periodic boundary conditions are used in the spatial directions, while in time direction we apply anti-periodic boundary conditions. The chemical potential $\mu$ is coupled in the usual exponential form . For vanishing $\mu$ the Wilson Dirac operator is $\gamma_5$-hermitian, i.e.,\ $\gamma_5 D_W(0) \gamma_5 = D_W(0)^\dagger$. This implies that $H(0)$ is a hermitian matrix. As soon as the chemical potential $\mu$ is turned on, $\gamma_5$-hermiticity no longer holds, and $H(\mu)$ is a non-hermitian, general matrix. This fact has two important consequences: Firstly, the eigenvalues of $H(\mu)$ are no longer real and the sign function for a complex number has to be defined in the spectral representation of sign$\,H(\mu)$. Secondly, the spectral representation has to be formulated using left and right eigenvectors. This latter problem will be dealt with later when we discuss the evaluation of sign$\,H(\mu)$. For the sign function of a complex number we use the analytic continuation proposed in and define the sign function through the sign of the real part \begin{equation} \mbox{sign}\, (x + i y) \; = \; \mbox{sign} \, (x) \; . \end{equation} The observable we study here is the energy density defined as \begin{eqnarray} && \epsilon(\mu) \; = \; \frac{1}{V} \langle {\cal H} \rangle \; = \; \frac{1}{V} \frac{ \mbox{Tr} \Big[ {\cal H} \, e^{-\beta\, ( {\cal H} - \mu {\cal N})}\Big] }{Z} \; = \\ && - \frac{1}{V} \frac{\partial}{\partial \beta} \ln \mbox{Tr} \Big[ e^{-\beta ( {\cal H} - \mu {\cal N})}\Big]_{\beta\mu = c} \; = \; - \frac{1}{V} \frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial \beta} \bigg|_{\beta\mu = c} \; . \nonumber \end{eqnarray} Here ${\cal H}$ is the Hamiltonian of the system, ${\cal N}$ denotes the number operator and $\beta = 1/T$ is the inverse temperature (in our units the Boltzmann constant $k$ is set to $k=1$). The derivatives in the second line are taken such that $\beta\mu = c =$ const. The continuum result for the subtracted energy density of free massless fermions reads (see, e.g., ) \begin{equation} \epsilon(\mu) - \epsilon(0) \; = \; \frac{\mu^4}{4\pi^2} \; + \; \frac{1}{2} \mu^2 T^2 \; . \end{equation} When working on the lattice, the inverse temperature $\beta$ is given by the lattice extent in 4-direction, i.e., $\beta = N_4 a_4$. Thus the derivative $\partial/\partial \beta$ in () turns into $N_4^{-1} \partial/\partial a_4$. The partition function $Z$ is given by the fermion determinant $\det D$ which we write as the product over all eigenvalues $\lambda_n$. We thus find \begin{eqnarray} \epsilon(\mu) &\! = \! & - \frac{1}{V N_4} \frac{\partial \ln \det D}{\partial a_4}\bigg|_{a_4\mu = c}\!\!\!\! \!\!= \; - \frac{1}{V N_4} \frac{\partial \ln \prod_n \lambda_n}{\partial a_4}\bigg|_{a_4\mu = c} \nonumber \\ &\! = \! & - \frac{1}{V N_4} \sum_n \frac{1}{\lambda_n} \frac{\partial \lambda_n}{\partial a_4}\bigg|_{a_4\mu = c}\; . \end{eqnarray} \section{Evaluation of the eigenvalues} According to (), for the evaluation of $\epsilon(\mu)$ the eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ of the Dirac operator $D$ have to be computed. This is done in three steps: First we bring the Dirac operator for free fermions to $4\times4$ block-diagonal form, using Fourier transformation. Subsequently the spectral representation is applied to the $4\times4$ blocks of $H$ to evaluate sign $H$. Finally the eigenvalues of the blocks of $D$ are computed and by summing over the discrete momenta all eigenvalues are obtained. Following this strategy, one finds for the Fourier transform $\widehat{H}$ of $H$, \begin{equation} \widehat{H} \; = \; \gamma_5 h_5 \; + \; i \gamma_5 \sum_\nu \gamma_\nu h_\nu \; , \end{equation} with \begin{eqnarray} h_5 & = & 1 - \sum_{j=1}^3 [ 1 - \cos(a p_j)] - \frac{a}{a_4} [ 1 - \cos(a_4 (p_4 - i\mu))] \; , \nonumber \\ h_j & = & - \sin(a p_j) \quad \mbox{for} \quad j = 1,2,3 \; , \nonumber \\ h_4 & = & - \frac{a}{a_4} \sin(a_4 (p_4 - i\mu)) \; . \end{eqnarray} The spatial momenta are given by $p_j = 2\pi k_j/aN$, where $N$ is the number of lattice points in the spatial directions and $k_j = 0,1\, ...\, N-1$. The momenta in time-direction are $p_4 = \pi( 2k_4 + 1)/a_4 N_4$, $k_4 = 0,1\, ...\, N_4-1$. The remaining diagonalization of $\widehat{H}$ is similar to the construction of the left- and right-eigenfunctions for the free Dirac operator. One finds that $\widehat{H}$ has two different, doubly degenerate eigenvalues \begin{equation} \alpha_1 = \alpha_2 \, = \, + \, s \; , \; \alpha_3 = \alpha_4 \, = \, - \, s \; , \; s \, = \, \sqrt{h^2 + h_5^2} \; , \end{equation} where $h^2 = \sum_\nu h_\nu^2$. The corresponding left- and right-eigenvectors, $l_j$ and $r_j$ are given by \begin{eqnarray} l_1 & = & l_1^{(0)} [ \widehat{H} + s \mathds{1} ] \; , \; l_2 = l_2^{(0)} [ \widehat{H} + s \mathds{1} ] \; , \nonumber \\ l_3 & = & l_3^{(0)} [ \widehat{H} - s \mathds{1} ] \; , \; l_4 = l_4^{(0)} [ \widehat{H} - s \mathds{1} ] \; , \nonumber \\ r_1 & = & [ \widehat{H} + s \mathds{1} ] r_1^{(0)}\; , \; r_2 = [ \widehat{H} + s \mathds{1} ] r_2^{(0)}\; , \; \nonumber \\ r_3 & = & [ \widehat{H} - s \mathds{1} ] r_3^{(0)}\; , \; r_4 = [ \widehat{H} - s \mathds{1} ] r_4^{(0)}\; . \end{eqnarray} The constant spinors $l_j^{(0)}, r_j^{(0)}$ are ($T$ is transposition) \begin{eqnarray} l_1^{(0)} &\! = & r_1^{(0)\, T} \, = \, c \, (1,0,0,0) \; , \; l_2^{(0)} \, = \, r_2^{(0)\, T} \, = \, c \, (0,1,0,0) \, , \nonumber \\ l_3^{(0)} &\! = & r_3^{(0)\, T} \, = \, c \,(0,0,1,0) \; , \; l_4^{(0)} \, = \, r_4^{(0)\, T} \, = \, c \, (0,0,0,1) \, . \nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} The constant $c = (2 s(s+h_5))^{-1/2}$ ensures the correct normalization, such that the eigenvectors obey $l_i r_j = \delta_{ij}$. Using these eigenvectors and the spectral theorem we find for sign $\widehat{H}$ the simple result \begin{equation} \mbox{sign} \, \widehat{H} \; = \; \sum_{j=1}^4 \mbox{sign}\,(\lambda_j) \, r_j \, l_j \; = \; \frac{\mbox{sign}(s)}{s} \, \widehat{H} \; . \end{equation} Plugging this back into the overlap formula () and diagonalizing the remaining $4\times 4$ problem one finds two different eigenvalues for the overlap operator at a given momentum, \begin{equation} \lambda_\pm \; = \; \frac{1}{a}\left[ 1 - \frac{ \mbox{sign}\,(\sqrt{h^2 + h_5^2}\,)\, h_5 \pm i \sqrt{h^2}}{\sqrt{h^2 + h_5^2}} \right] \; , \end{equation} where each of the two eigenvalues is twofold degenerate. The momentum dependence enters through the components $h_\nu, h_5$ defined in (). In the spectral sum () the label $n$ runs over all momenta and the eigenvalues at fixed momentum as given in (). The necessary derivative with respect to $a_4$ is straightforward to compute in closed form, and the spectral sum () can then be summed numerically. The argument of the sign function cannot become purely imaginary on a finite lattice, and no $\delta$-like terms occur. We remark, that after taking the derivative with respect to $a_4$, we set $a = a_4 = 1$, i.e., all the results we present are in lattice units. \section{Results} We begin the discussion of our results with Fig.\ 1, where we show the subtracted energy density $\epsilon(\mu) - \epsilon(0)$ as a function of $\mu^4$ for three different lattice volumes. For those lattices all 4 sides have equal length, i.e., in the thermodynamic limit they correspond to zero temperature. Thus, according to (), we expect the data (symbols in Fig.\ 1) to approach the continuum form $\mu^4/4\pi^2$ (dashed line) as the 4-d volume is sent to infinity. The figure clearly shows that the lattice data are predominantly linear when plotted versus $\mu^4$ and that for small $\mu$ they approach the continuum curve when the volume is increased. It is, however, obvious that also on our largest lattice still a discrepancy remains for larger $\mu$. In particular one finds a slight curvature upwards, a discretization effect which here, since the lattice spacing is just the inverse lattice extension, is also a finite size effect. Furthermore, for small $\mu$ one expects to see finite temperature corrections according to (). In order to study these finite temperature corrections systematically, we analyzed lattices with short temporal extent, i.e., lattices with non-vanishing temperature. Fig.~2 shows the corresponding results, where we again plot the subtracted energy density as a function of $\mu^4$. The lattice with the shortest temporal extent, $128^3 \times 8$, which corresponds to the largest temperature, shows a clear curvature. This curvature is due to the $T^2 \mu^2 /2$ term in (), which appears as a square root when plotted as function of $\mu^4$. The effect is visible also for the other lattices, but becomes less pronounced as the temporal extent is increased, i.e., the temperature $T$ is lowered. In order to study this effect quantitatively, we fit the finite temperature results to the continuum form () plus two terms even in $\mu$ which parameterize the cutoff effects observed in Fig.\ 1. The fit function is given by \begin{equation} c_2 \, \mu^2 \, + \, c_4 \, \mu^4 \, + \, c_6 \, \mu^6 \, + \, c_8 \, \mu^8 \; . \end{equation} Due to () the coefficient of the quadratic term should scale with the temperature such that one expects \begin{equation} c_2 \; \sim \; T^2/2 \; = \; N_4^{-2}/2 \; . \end{equation} The coefficient for the quartic term should be constant, \begin{equation} c_4 \; \sim \; 1/4\pi^2 \; = \; 0.02533 \; . \end{equation} The results of the fit for the data used in Fig.\ 2, and for the largest lattice of Fig.\ 1 are given in Table 1. \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \begin{table}[b] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \;\;$N_4$\;\; &\;\; $N_4^{-2}/2$ \;\; & \;\;\;\;\; $c_2$\;\;\;\;\;\; & \;\;\;\;\; $c_4$\;\;\;\;\; & \;\;\;\;\; $c_6$\;\;\;\;\; & \;\;\;\;\; $c_8$\;\;\;\;\; \\ \hline 8 & 0.007812 & 0.010125 & 0.03519 & 0.010 & -0.021 \\ 12 & 0.003472 & 0.004125 & 0.03178 & 0.023 & -0.013 \\ 16 & 0.001953 & 0.002192 & 0.02803 & 0.029 & -0.015 \\ 24 & 0.000868 & 0.000947 & 0.02587 & 0.025 & -0.030 \\ 128 & 0.000030 & 0.000032 & 0.02543 & 0.015 & \;0.016 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{ Results of the fits to the form (). The spatial volume is always $128^3$. The temporal extension $N_4$ is given in the first column. In the second column we list the corresponding value of $N_4^{-2}/2$ which is what one expects for the fitting coefficient $c_2$ in the third column. The coefficient $c_4$ in the fourth column is expected to approach the constant value $1/4\pi^2 \; = \; 0.02533$.} \end{table} The table shows that with increasing $N_4$ the two physically significant parameters $c_2$ and $c_4$ approach the values expected from the continuum formula (): $c_2$ gets closer to $N_4^{-2}/2$ as listed in the second column, and $c_4$ approaches $1/4\pi^2 \; = \; 0.02533$. For the largest finite temperature lattice $128^3 \times 24$ the discrepancy is down to 9 \ for $c_4$. The larger discrepancy for small $N_4$ can be understood as a discretization effect, since the temporal lattice spacing $a_4$ is related to the temporal extension through $a_4 = 1/N_4$ and thus larger $N_4$ implies a smaller $a_4$. For comparison we also display the fit results for the $128^4$ lattice, which corresponds to zero temperature. There we find excellent agreement (less than 1\ for the parameter $c_4$, governing the leading term at $T = 0$. The overall picture obtained from the fit results is that overlap fermions with chemical potential reproduce very well both, the $\mu^4$ term, as well as the finite temperature contribution $T^2 \mu^2 /2$. We conclude that the analytic continuation of the sign function does not introduce lattice artifacts, such as the $\mu^2/a^2$ term known to be present in a naive implementation of the chemical potential. In the final step of our analysis we study the discretization effect for larger values of $\mu$ and compare the results to the data from the standard Wilson operator. In Fig.\ 3 we plot the ratio $(\epsilon(\mu) - \epsilon(0))/\mu^4$ as a function of $\mu$. In the continuum at $T = 0$ this ratio has the value $1/4\pi^2 \; = \; 0.02533$ indicated by the horizontal line. For small $\mu$, up to about $\mu \sim 0.7$, the Wilson and overlap data fall on top of each other. For very small $\mu$ both operators show a prominent increase which is a left-over finite temperature effect, which for the ratio $(\epsilon(\mu) - \epsilon(0))/\mu^4$ shows up as a $1/\mu^2$ term. In the range between $\mu = 0.1$ and 0.5 the data are close to the continuum value. Beyond 0.5 the discretization effects kick in and the overlap and Wilson results start to differ. A comparison with the equivalent plot in , where the results from various other lattice Dirac operators were presented, shows that the discretization effects of the overlap operator at large $\mu$ are comparable to other formulations. \vfill \section{Summary} In this article we have analyzed the energy density of the overlap operator at finite chemical potential. Following , the sign function in the overlap was implemented through the spectral theorem using the analytic continuation of the sign into the complex plane. The subtracted energy density $\epsilon(\mu) - \epsilon(0)$ was analyzed for finite and zero temperature lattices. Fits of the data show that the expected continuum behavior is approached. No trace of unphysical $\mu^2/a^2$ terms was found. We conclude that overlap fermions with chemical potential provide both, chiral symmetry and the correct description of fermions at finite density. \vskip7mm \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments:} We thank Leonard Fister, Gabriele Jaritz, Christian Lang, Stefan Olejnik, Tilo Wettig, and Florian Wodlei for discussions and checking some of our calculations. This work is supported by the Slovak Science and Technology Assistance Agency under Contract No.\ APVT--51--005704, and the Austrian Exchange Service \"OAD. \begin{thebibliography}{1234567} \bibitem{giwi} P.~H.~Ginsparg and K.~G.~Wilson, Phys.\ Rev.\ D 25, 2649 (1982). \bibitem{haka} P.~Hasenfratz and F.~Karsch, Phys.\ Lett.\ B 125, 308 (1983). \bibitem{overlap} R.~Narayanan and H.~Neuberger, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 443, 305 (1995); H.~Neuberger, Phys.\ Lett.\ B 417, 141 (1998). \bibitem{blwe} J.~Bloch and T.~Wettig, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 97, 012003 (2006); J.~Bloch and T.~Wettig, contribution to Lattice 2006 (hep-lat/0609020). \bibitem{kapusta} J.\ Kapusta, Finite temperature field theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989). \bibitem{biwi} W.~Bietenholz and U.~J.~Wiese, Phys.\ Lett.\ B 426, 114 (1998). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0095
|
Title: Geometry of Locally Compact Groups of Polynomial Growth and Shape of
Large Balls
Abstract: We get asymptotics for the volume of large balls in an arbitrary locally
compact group G with polynomial growth. This is done via a study of the
geometry of G and a generalization of P. Pansu's thesis. In particular, we show
that any such G is weakly commensurable to some simply connected solvable Lie
group S, the Lie shadow of G. We also show that large balls in G have an
asymptotic shape, i.e. after a suitable renormalization, they converge to a
limiting compact set which can be interpreted geometrically. We then discuss
the speed of convergence, treat some examples and give an application to
ergodic theory. We also answer a question of Burago about left invariant
metrics and recover some results of Stoll on the irrationality of growth series
of nilpotent groups.
Body: \title[Asymptotic shape of balls in groups with polynomial growth]{Geometry of locally compact groups of polynomial growth and shape of large balls.} \author{Emmanuel Breuillard} \email{emmanuel.breuillard@math.u-psud.fr} \address{Universit\'e Paris-Sud 11, Laboratoire de Math\'ematiques, 91405 Orsay, France} \date{April 2012} \begin{abstract} We show that any locally compact group $G$ with polynomial growth is weakly commensurable to some simply connected solvable Lie group $S$, the Lie shadow of $G$. We then study the shape of large balls and show, generalizing work of P. Pansu, that after a suitable renormalization, they converge to a limiting compact set, which is isometric to the unit ball for a left-invariant subFinsler metric on the so-called graded nilshadow of $S$. As by-products, we obtain asymptotics for the volume of large balls, we prove that balls are Folner and hence that the ergodic theorem holds for all ball averages. Along the way we also answer negatively a question of Burago and Margulis on asymptotic word metrics and recover some results of Stoll of the rationality of growth series of Heisenberg groups. \end{abstract} \maketitle \setcounter{tocdepth}{1} \tableofcontents \section{Introduction} \subsection{Groups with polynomial growth} Let $G$ be a locally compact group with left Haar measure $vol_{G}.$ We will assume that $G$ is generated by a compact symmetric subset $\Omega .$ Classically, $G$ is said to have \textit{polynomial growth }if there exist $ C>0$ and $k>0$ such that for any integer $n\geq 1$ \begin{equation*} vol_{G}(\Omega ^{n})\leq C\cdot n^{k}, \end{equation*} where $\Omega^n=\Omega_\cdot\ldots \cdot \Omega$ is the $n$-fold product set. Another choice for $\Omega $ would only change the constant $C$, but not the polynomial nature of the bound. One of the consequences of the analysis carried out in this paper is the following theorem: \begin{theorem}[Volume asymptotics] Let $G$ be a locally compact group with polynomial growth and $ \Omega $ a compact symmetric generating subset of $G.$ Then there exists $ c(\Omega )>0$ and an integer $d(G)\geq 0$ depending on $G$ only such that the following holds: \begin{equation*} \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{vol_{G}(\Omega ^{n})}{n^{d(G)}}=c(\Omega ) \end{equation*} \end{theorem} This extends the main result of Pansu . The integer $d(G)$ coincides with the exponent of growth of a naturally associated graded nilpotent Lie group, the asymptotic cone of $G$, and is given by the Bass-Guivarc'h formula $()$ below. The constant $c(\Omega )$ will be interpreted as the volume of the unit ball of a sub-Riemannian Finsler metric on this nilpotent Lie group. Theorem \ref {firsthm} is a by-product of our study of the asymptotic behavior of \textit{periodic pseudodistances} on $G$, that is pseudodistances that are invariant under a co-compact subgroup of $G$ and satisfy a weak kind of the existence of geodesics axiom (see Definition ). Our first task is to get a better understanding of the structure of locally compact groups of polynomial growth. Guivarc'h proved that locally compact groups of polynomial growth are amenable and unimodular and that every compactly generated closed subgroup also has polynomial growth. Guivarc'h and Jenkins also characterized connected Lie groups with polynomial growth: a connected Lie group has polynomial growth if and only if it is of type $(R),$ that is if for all $x\in Lie(S)$, $ad(x)$ has only purely imaginary eigenvalues. Such groups are solvable-by-compact and any connected nilpotent Lie group is of type $(R)$. It is much more difficult to characterize discrete groups with polynomial growth, and this was done in a celebrated paper of Gromov , proving that they are virtually nilpotent. Losert generalized Gromov's method of proof and showed that it applied with little modification to arbitrary locally compact groups with polynomial growth. In particular he showed that they contain a normal compact subgroup modulo which the quotient is a (not necessarily connected) Lie group. We will prove the following refinement. \begin{theorem}[Lie shadow] Let $G$ be a locally compact group of polynomial growth. Then there exists a connected and simply connected solvable Lie group $S$ of type $(R),$ which is weakly commensurable to $G.$ We call such a Lie group a \textit{Lie shadow} of $G.$ \end{theorem} Two locally compact groups are said to be weakly commensurable if, up to moding out by a compact kernel, they have a common closed co-compact subgroup. More precisely, we will show that, for some normal compact subgroup $K$, $G/K$ has a co-compact subgroup $H/K$ which can be embedded as a closed and co-compact subgroup of a connected and simply connected solvable Lie group $S$ of type $(R).$ We must be aware that being weakly commensurable is not an equivalence relation among locally compact groups (unlike among finitely generated groups). Additionally, the Lie shadow $S$ is not unique up to isomorphism (e.g. $\Bbb{Z}^{3}$ is a co-compact lattice in both $\Bbb{R}^{3}$ and the universal cover of the group of motions of the plane). We cannot replace the word solvable by the word nilpotent in the above theorem. We refer the reader to Example for an example of a connected solvable Lie group of type $(R)$ without compact normal subgroups, which admits no co-compact nilpotent subgroup. In fact this is typical for Lie groups of type $(R)$. So in the general locally compact case (or just the Lie case) groups of polynomial growth can be genuinely not nilpotent, unlike what happens in the discrete case. There are important differences between the discrete case and the general case. For example, we will show that no rate of convergence can be expected in Theorem when $G$ is solvable not nilpotent, while some polynomial rate always holds in the nilpotent discrete case . Theorem will enable us to reduce most geometric questions about locally compact groups of polynomial growth, and in particular the proof of Theorem , to the connected Lie group case. Observe also that Theorem subsumes Gromov's theorem on polynomial growth, because it is not hard to see that a co-compact lattice in a solvable Lie group of polynomial growth must be virtually nilpotent (see Remark ). Of course in the proof we make use of Gromov's theorem, in its generalized form for locally compact groups due to Losert. The rest of the proof combines ideas of Y. Guivarc'h, D. Mostow and a crucial embedding theorem of H.C. Wang. It is given in Paragraph and is largely independent of the rest of the paper. \subsection{Asymptotic shapes} The main part of the paper is devoted to the asymptotic behavior of \emph{periodic pseudodistances} on $G$. We refer the reader to Definition for the precise definition of this term, suffices it to say now that it is a class of pseudodistances which contains both left-invariant word metrics on $G$ and geodesic metrics on $G$ that are left-invariant under co-compact subgroup of $G$. Theorem enables us to assume that $G$ is a co-compact subgroup of a simply connected solvable Lie group $S,$ and rather than looking at pseudodistances on $G$, we will look at pseudodistances on $S$ that are left-invariant under a co-compact subgroup $H$. More precisely a direct consequence of Theorem is the following: \begin{proposition} Let $G$ be a locally compact group with polynomial growth and $\rho$ a periodic metric on $G$. Then $(G,\rho)$ is $(1,C)$-quasi-isometric to $(S,\rho_S)$ for some finite $C>0$, where $S$ is a connected and simply connected solvable Lie group of type $(R)$ and $\rho_S$ some periodic metric on $S$. \end{proposition} Recall that two metric spaces $(X,d_X)$ and $(Y,d_Y)$ are called $(1,C)$-quasi-isometric if there exists a map $\phi:X \to Y$ such that any $y\in Y$ is at distance at most $C$ from some element in the image of $\phi$ and if $|d_Y(\phi(x),\phi(x')) - d_X(x,x')| \leq C$ for all $x,x' \in X$. In the case when $S$ is $\Bbb{R}^{d}$ and $H$ is $\Bbb{Z}^{d}$, it is a simple exercise to show that any periodic pseudodistance is asymptotic to a norm on $\Bbb{R}^{d},$ i.e. $\rho (e,x)/\left\| x\right\| \rightarrow 1$ as $ x\rightarrow \infty $, where $\left\| x\right\| =\lim \frac{1}{n}\rho (e,nx)$ is a well defined norm on $\Bbb{R}^{d}$. Burago in showed a much finer result, namely that if $\rho $ is coarsely geodesic, then $\rho (e,x)-\left\| x\right\| $ is bounded when $x$ ranges over $\Bbb{R}^{d}.$ When $S$ is a nilpotent Lie group and $H$ a lattice in $S,$ then Pansu proved in his thesis , that a similar result holds, namely that $ \rho (e,x)/\left| x \right| \rightarrow 1$ for some (unique only after a choice of a one-parameter group of dilations) homogeneous quasi-norm $\left| x\right| $ on the nilpotent Lie group. However, we show in Section \ref {speed}, that it is not true in general that $\rho (e,x)-\left| x\right| $ stays bounded, even for finitely generated nilpotent groups, thus answering a question of Burago (see also Gromov ). Our main purpose here will be to extend Pansu's result to solvable Lie groups of polynomial growth.\\ As was first noticed by Guivarc'h in his thesis , when dealing with geometric properties of solvable Lie groups, it is useful to consider the so-called nilshadow of the group, a construction first introduced by Auslander and Green in . According to this construction, it is possible to modify the Lie product on $S$ in a natural way, by so to speak removing the semisimple part of the action on the nilradical, in order to turn $S$ into a nilpotent Lie group, its nilshadow $S_{N}$. The two Lie groups have the same underlying manifold, which is diffeomorphic to $\Bbb{R} ^{n},$ only a different Lie product. They also share the same Haar measure. This ``semisimple part'' is a commutative relatively compact subgroup $T(S)$ of automorphisms of $S$, image of $S$ under a homomorphism $T:S\rightarrow Aut(S)$. The new product $g*h$ is defined as follows by twisting the old one $g \cdot h$ by means of $ T(S)$, \begin{equation} g*h:=g\cdot T(g^{-1})h \end{equation} The two groups $S$ and $S_{N}$ are easily seen to be quasi-isometric, and this is why any locally compact group of polynomial growth $G$ is quasi-isometric to some nilpotent Lie group. In particular, their asymptotic cones are bi-Lipschitz. The asymptotic cone of a nilpotent Lie group is a certain associated graded nilpotent Lie group endowed with a left invariant geodesic distance (or Carnot group). The graded group associated to $S_N$ will be called the \emph{graded nilshadow} of $S$. Section will be devoted to the construction and basic properties of the nilshadow and its graded group. In this paper, we are dealing with a finer relation than quasi-isometry. We will be interested in when do two left invariant (or periodic) distances are asymptotic (in the sense that $\frac{d_1(e,g)}{d_2(e,g)} \to 1$ when $g \to \infty$). In particular, for every locally compact group $G$ with polynomial growth, we will identify its asymptotic cone up to isometry and not only up to quasi-isometry or bi-Lipschitz equivalence (see Corollary below). One of our main results is the following: \begin{theorem}[Main theorem] Let $S$ be a simply connected solvable Lie group with polynomial growth. Let $\rho(x,y)$ be periodic pseudodistance on $S$ which is invariant under a co-compact subgroup $H$ of $S$ (see Def. ). On the manifold $S$, one can put a new Lie group structure, which turns $S$ into a stratified nilpotent Lie group, the graded nilshadow of $S$, and a subFinsler metric $d_\infty(x,y)$ on $S$ which is left-invariant for this new group structure such that $$\frac{\rho(e,g)}{d_\infty(e,g)} \to 1$$ as $g \to \infty$ in $S$. Moreover every automorphism in $T(H)$ is an isometry of $d_\infty$. \end{theorem} The reader who wishes to see a simple illustration of this theorem can go directly to subsection , where we have treated in detail a specific example of periodic metric on the universal cover of the groups of motions of the plane. The new stratified nilpotent Lie group structure on $S$ given by the graded nilshadow comes with a one-parameter family of so-called \emph{homogeneous dilations} $\{\delta_t\}_{t>0}$. It also comes with an extra group of automorphisms, namely the image of $H$ under the homomorphism $T$. This yields automorphisms of $S$ for both the original group structure on $S$ and the new graded nilshadow group structure. Moreover the dilations $\{\delta_t\}_{t>0}$ are automorphisms of the graded nilshadow and they commute with $T(H)$. A subFinsler metric is a geodesic distance which is defined exactly as subRiemannian (or Carnot-Caratheodory) metrics on Carnot groups are defined (see e.g. ), except that the norm used to compute the length of horizontal paths is not necessarily a Euclidean norm. We refer the reader to Section for a precise definition. In Theorem the subFinsler metric $d_\infty$ is left invariant for the new Lie structure on $S$ and it is also invariant under all automorphisms in $T(H)$ (these form a relatively compact commutative group of automorphisms). Moreover it satisfies the following pleasing scaling law: $$d_\infty(\delta_t(x),\delta_t(y))=td_\infty(x,y) \textnormal{ } \forall t>0.$$\\ The proof of Theorem splits in two important steps. The first is a reduction to the nilpotent case and is performed in Section . Using a double averaging of the pseudodistance $\rho$ over both $K:=\overline{T(H)}$ and $S/H$, we construct an associated pseudodistance, which is periodic for the nilshadow structure on $S$ (i.e. left-invariant by a co-compact subgroup for this structure), and we prove that it is asymptotic to the original $\rho$. This reduces the problem to nilpotent Lie groups. The key to this reduction is the following crucial observation: that unipotent automorphisms of $S$ induce only a sublinear distortion, forcing the metric $\rho$ to be asymptotically invariant under $T(H)$. The second step of the proof assumes that $S$ is nilpotent. This part is dealt with in Section and is essentially a reformulation of the arguments used by Pansu in . \\ Incidently, we stress the fact that the generality in which Section is treated (i.e. for general coarsely geodesic, and even asymptotically geodesic periodic metrics) is necessary to prove even the most basic case (i.e. word metrics) of Theorem for non-nilpotent solvable groups. So even if we were only interested in the asymptotics of left invariant word metrics on a solvable Lie group of polynomial growth $S$, we would still need to understand the asymptotics of arbitrary coarsely geodesic left invariant distances (and not only word metrics!) on nilpotent Lie groups. This is because the new pseudodistance obtained by averaging, see $()$, is no longer a word metric.\\ The subFinsler metric $d_{\infty }(e,x)$ in the above theorem is induced by a certain $T(H)$-invariant norm on the first stratum $m_1$ of the graded nilshadow (which is $T(H)$-invariant complementary subspace of the commutator subalgebra of the nilshadow). This norm can be described rather explicitly as follows. Recall that we have.} a canonical map $\pi_1: S \to m_1$, which is a group homomorphism for both the nilshadow and graded nilshadow structures. Then: \begin{equation*} \{v\in m_{1},\left\| v\right\| _{\infty}\leq 1\}=\bigcap_{ F \subset S}\overline{CvxHull}\left\{ \frac{ \pi _{1}(h)}{\rho(e,h)},h\in H\backslash F \right\}, \end{equation*} where the right hand side is the intersection over all compact subsets $F$ of $S$ of the closed convex hull of the points $\pi_1(h)/\rho(e,h)$ for $h \in H \backslash F$.\\ Figure 1 gives an illustration of the limit shape corresponding to the word metric on the $3$-dimensional discrete Heisenberg group with standard generators. We explain in the Appendix how one can compute explicitly the geodesics of the limit metric and the limit shape in this example. When $S$ itself is nilpotent to begin with and $\rho $ is (in restriction to $H$) the word metric associated to a symmetric compact generating set $\Omega $ of $H$ (namely $\rho_\Omega(e,h):=\inf\{n \in \N; h \in \Omega^n\}$), the above norm takes the following simple form: \begin{equation} \{v\in m_{1},\left\| v\right\| _{\infty}\leq 1\}=CvxHull\left\{ \pi _{1}(\omega ),\omega \in \Omega \right\} \end{equation} For instance, in the special case when $H$ is a torsion-free finitely generated nilpotent group with generating set $\Omega $ and $S$ is its Malcev closure, the unit ball $\{v\in m_{1},\left\| v\right\| _{\infty}\leq 1\}$ is a polyhedron in $m_{1}.$ This was Pansu's description in . However when $S$ is not nilpotent, and is equipped with a word metric $\rho_\Omega$ on a co-compact subgroup, then the determination of the limit shape, i.e. the determination of the limit norm $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ on the abelianized nilshadow, is much more difficult. Clearly $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ is $K$-invariant and it is a simple observation that the unit ball for $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ is always contained in the convex hull of the $K$-orbit of $\pi_1(\Omega)$. Nevertheless the unit ball is typically smaller than that (unless $\Omega$ was $K$-invariant to begin with). In general it would be interesting to determine whether there exists a simple description of the limit shape of an arbitrary word metric on a solvable Lie group with polynomial growth. We refer the reader to Section and Paragraph for an example of a class of word metrics on the universal cover of the group of motions of the plane, for which we were able to compute the limit shape. Another by-product of Theorem is the following result. \begin{corollary}[Asymptotic shape] Let $S$ be a simply connected solvable Lie group with polynomial growth and $H$ a co-compact subgroup. Let $\rho$ be an $H$-periodic pseudodistance on $S$. Then in the Hausdorff metric, \begin{equation*} \lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty }\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(B_{\rho }(t))=\mathcal{C}, \end{equation*} where $\mathcal{C}$ is a $T(H)$-invariant compact neighborhood of the identity in $S$, $B_{\rho }(t)$ is the $\rho $-ball of radius $t$ in $S$ and $\{\delta _{t}\}_{t>0}$ is a one-parameter group of dilations on $S$ (equipped with the graded nilshadow structure). Moreover, $\mathcal{C}=\left\{ g\in S,d_{\infty }(e,g)\leq 1\right\} $ is the unit ball of the limit subFinsler metric from Theorem . \end{corollary} \proof By Theorem , for every $\varepsilon >0$ we have $B_{d_{\infty }}(t-\varepsilon t)\subset B_{\rho }(t)\subset B_{d_{\infty }}(t+\varepsilon t)$ if $t$ is large enough. Since $\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(B_{d_{\infty }}(t))= \mathcal{C}$, for all $t>0,$ we are done. \endproof Combining this with Theorem , we also get the following corollary, of which Theorem is only a special case with $\rho $ the word metric associated to the generating set $\Omega $. \begin{corollary}[Volume asymptotics] Suppose that $G$ is a locally compact group with polynomial growth and $\rho $ is a periodic pseudodistance on $G$ . Let $B_{\rho }(t)$ be the $\rho $-ball of radius $t$ in $G,$ i.e. $B_{\rho }(t)=\{x\in G,\rho (e,x)\leq t\},$ then there exists a constant $c(\rho )>0$ such that the following limit exists: \begin{equation} \lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{vol_{G}(B_{\rho }(t))}{t^{d(G)}}=c(\rho ) \end{equation} \end{corollary} Here $d(G)$ is the integer $d(S_{N})$, the so-called homogeneous dimension of the nilshadow $S_{N}$ of a Lie shadow $S$ of $G$ (obtained by Theorem \ref {weaklycom}), and is given by the Bass-Guivarc'h formula: \begin{equation} d(S_{N})=\sum_{k\geq 0}\dim (C^{k}(S_{N})) \end{equation} where $\{C^{k}(S_{N})\}_{k}$ is the descending central series of $S_{N}.$ The limit $c(\rho )$ is equal to the volume $vol_{S}(\mathcal{C})$ of the limit shape $\mathcal{C}$ from Corollary once we make the right choice of Haar measure on a Lie shadow $S$ of $G.$ Let us explain this choice. Recall that according to Theorem , $G/K$ admits a co-compact subgroup $H/K$ which embeds co-compactly in $S.$ Starting with a Haar measure $vol_{G}$ on $G$, we get a Haar measure on $G/K$ after fixing the Haar measure of $K$ to be of total mass $1,$ and we may then choose a Haar measure on $H/K$ so that the compact quotient $G/H$ has volume $1.$ Finally we choose the Haar measure on $S$ so that the other compact quotient $S/(H/K)$ has volume $1$. This gives the desired Haar measure $vol_{S}$ such that $c(\rho )=vol_{S}(\mathcal{C}).$ Note that Haar measure on $S$ is also invariant under the group of automorphisms $T(S)$ and is thus left invariant for the nilshadow structure on $S$. It is also left invariant for the graded nilshadow structure. In both exponential coordinates of the first kind (on $S_N$) and of the second kind (as in Lemma ), Haar measure is just Lebesgue measure.\\ In the case of the discrete Heisenberg group of dimension $3$ equipped with the word metric given by the standard generators, it is possible to compute the constant $c(\rho)$ and the volume of the limit shape as shown in Figure 1. In this case the volume is $\frac{31}{72}$ (see the Appendix). The $5$-dimensional Heisenberg group can also be worked out and the volume of its limit shape (associated to the word metric given by standard generators) is equal to $\frac{2009}{21870}+\frac{\log 2}{32805}$. The fact that this number is transcendental implies that the growth series of this group, i.e. the formal power series $\sum_{n \geq 0} |B_\rho(n)|z^n$ is not algebraic in the sense that it is not a solution of a polynomial equation with rational functions in $\C(z)$ as coefficients (see \cite[Prop. 3.3.]{Sto2}). This was observed by Stoll in by more direct combinatorial means. Stoll also shows there the interesting fact that the growth series can be rational for some other choices of generating sets in the $5$-dimensional Heisenberg group. So rationality of the growth series depends on the generating set. \\ Another interesting feature is asymptotic invariance: \begin{corollary}[Asymptotic invariance] Let $S$ be a simply connected solvable Lie group with polynomial growth and $\rho $ a periodic pseudodistance on $S. $ Let $*$ be the new Lie product on $S$ given by the nilshadow group structure (or the graded nilshadow group structure). Then $\rho (e,g*x)/\rho (e,x)\rightarrow 1$ as $x\rightarrow \infty $ for every $g\in S.$ \end{corollary} This follows immediately from Theorem , when $*$ is the graded nilshadow product, and from Theorem below in the case $*$ is the nilshadow group structure. It is worth observing that we may not in general replace $*$ by the ordinary product on $S$. Indeed, let for instance $S=\Bbb{R}\ltimes \Bbb{R}^{2}$ be the universal cover of the group of motions of the Euclidean plane, then $S,$ like its nilshadow $\Bbb{R}^{3}$, admits a lattice $\Gamma \simeq \Bbb{Z}^{3}$. The quotient $S/\Gamma $ is diffeomorphic to the $3$-torus $\Bbb{R}^{3}/\Bbb{Z} ^{3}$ and it is easy to find Riemannian metrics on this torus so that their lift to $\Bbb{R}^{3}$ is not invariant under rotation around the $z$-axis. Hence this metric, viewed on the Lie group $S$ will not be asymptotically invariant under left translation by elements of $S$. Nevertheless, if the metric is left-invariant and not just periodic, then we have the following corollary of the proof of Theorem . \begin{corollary}[Left-invariant pseudodistances are asymptotic to subFinsler metrics] Let $S$ be a simply connected solvable Lie group of polynomial growth and $\rho$ be a periodic pseudodistance on $S$ which is invariant under all left-translations by elements of $S$ (e.g. a left-invariant coarsely geodesic metric on $S$). Then there is a left-invariant subFinsler metric $d$ on $S$ which is asymptotic to $\rho$ in the sense that $\frac{\rho(e,g)}{d(e,g)} \to 1$ as $g \to \infty$. \end{corollary} We already mentioned above that determining the exact limit shape of a word metric on $S$ is a difficult task. Consequently so is the task of telling when two distinct word metrics are asymptotic. The above statement says that in any case every word metric on $S$ is asymptotic to some left-invariant subFinsler metric. So the set of possible limit shapes is no richer for word metrics than for left-invariant subFinsler metrics. We note that in the case of nilpotent Lie groups (where $K$ is trivial), Theorem shows that every periodic metric is asymptotic to a left-invariant metric. It is still an open problem to determine whether every coarsely geodesic periodic metric is at a bounded distance from a left-invariant metric (this is Burago's theorem in $\R^n$, more about it below).\\ Theorems and allow us to describe the asymptotic cone of $(G,\rho)$ for any periodic pseudodistance $\rho$ on any locally compact group with polynomial growth. \begin{corollary}[Asymptotic cone] Let $G$ be a locally compact group with polynomial growth and $\rho$ a periodic pseudodistance on $G$. Then the sequence of pointed metric spaces $\{(G,\frac{1}{n}\rho,e)\}_{n\geq 1}$ converges in the Gromov-Hausdorff topology. The limit is the metric space $(N,d_\infty,e)$, where $N$ is a graded simply connected nilpotent Lie group and $d_\infty$ a left invariant subFinsler metric on $N$. Moreover the Lie group $N$ is (up to isomorphism) independent of $\rho$. The space $(N,d_{\infty })$ is isometric to ``the asymptotic cone'' associated to $(G,\rho ).$ This asymptotic cone is independent of the choice of ultrafilter used to define it. \end{corollary} This corollary is a generalization of Pansu's theorem ((10) in ). We refer the reader to the book for the definitions of the asymptotic cone and the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence. We discuss in Section the speed of convergence (in the Gromov-Hausdorff metric) in this theorem and its corollaries about volume growth. In particular there is a major difference between the discrete nilpotent case and the solvable non nilpotent case. In the former, one can find a polynomial rate of convergence , while in the latter no such rate exist in general (see Theorem ). \subsection{Folner sets and ergodic theory} A consequence of Corollary is that sequences of balls with radius going to infinity are Folner sequences, namely: \begin{corollary} Let $G$ be a locally compact group with polynomial growth and $ \rho $ a periodic pseudodistance on $G$. Let $B_{\rho }(t)$ be the $\rho $ -ball of radius $t$ in $G.$ Then $\{B_{\rho }(t)\}_{t>0}$ form a Folner family of subsets of $G$ namely, for any compact set $F$ in $G,$ we have ($\Delta$ denotes the symmetric difference) \begin{equation} \lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{vol_{G}(FB_{\rho }(t)\Delta B_{\rho }(t))}{ vol_{G}(B_{\rho }(t))}=0 \end{equation} \end{corollary} \proof Indeed $FB_{\rho }(t)\Delta B_{\rho }(t)\subset B_{\rho }(t+c)\backslash B_{\rho }(t)$ for some $c>$ depending on $F$. Hence $()$ follows from $()$. \endproof This settles the so-called ``localization problem'' of Greenleaf for locally compact groups of polynomial growth (see ), i.e. determining whether the powers of a compact generating set $\{\Omega ^{n}\}_{n}$ form a Folner sequence. At the same time it implies that the ergodic theorem for $G$ -actions holds along any sequence of balls with radius going to infinity. \begin{theorem} (Ergodic Theorem) Let be given a locally compact group $G$ with polynomial growth together with a measurable $G$-space $X$ endowed with a $G$-invariant ergodic probability measure $m$. Let $\rho $ be a periodic pseudodistance on $G$ and $B_{\rho }(t)$ the $\rho $-ball of radius $t$ in $ G.$ Then for any $p$, $1\leq p<\infty ,$ and any function $f\in \Bbb{L} ^{p}(X,m)$ we have \begin{equation*} \lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{1}{vol_{G}(B_{\rho }(t))}\int_{B_{\rho }(t)}f(gx)dg=\int_{X}fdm \end{equation*} for $m$-almost every $x\in X$ and also in $\Bbb{L}^{p}(X,m).$ \end{theorem} In fact, Corollary above, was the ``missing block'' in the proof of the ergodic theorem on groups of polynomial growth. So far and to my knowledge, Corollary and Theorem were known only along some subsequence of balls $\{B_{\rho }(t_{n})\}_{n}$ chosen so that ( ) holds (see for instance or ). This issue was drawn to my attention by A. Nevo and was my initial motivation for the present work. We refer the reader to the A. Nevo's survey paper Section 5. It later turned out that the mere fact that balls are Folner in a given polynomial growth locally compact group can also be derived from the fact these groups are doubling metric spaces (which is an easier result than the precise asymptotics $vol(\Omega^n) \sim c_\Omega n^{d(G)}$ proved in this paper and only requires lower and upper bounds of the form $c_1 n^{d(G)} \leq vol(\Omega^n) \leq c_2 n^{d(G)}$). This was observed by R. Tessera who rediscovered a cute argument of Colding and Minicozzi \cite[Lemma 3.3.]{colding-minicozzi} showing that the volume of spheres $\Omega^{n+1}\setminus \Omega^n$ is at most some $O(n^{-\delta})$ times the volume of the ball $\Omega^n$, where $\delta>0$ is a positive constant depending only on the doubling constant the word metric induced by $\Omega$ in $G$. In , we give a better upper bound (which depends only on the nilpotency class and not on the doubling constant) for the volume of spheres in the case of finitely generated nilpotent groups. This is done by showing the following error term in the asymptotics of the volume of balls: we have $vol(\Omega^n)=c_\Omega n^{d(G)} + O(n^{d(G)-\alpha_r})$, where $\alpha_r>0$ depends only on the nilpotency class $r$ of $G$. We refer the reader to Section and to the preprint for more information on this. We only note here that although the above Colding-Minicozzi-Tessera upper bound on the volume of spheres holds generally for all locally compact groups $G$ with polynomial growth, unless $G$ is nilpotent, there is no error term in general in the asymptotics of the volume of balls. An example with arbitrarily small speed is given in \S . \subsection{A conjecture of Burago and Margulis} In D. Burago and G. Margulis conjectured that any two word metrics on a finitely generated group which are asymptotic (in the sense that $\frac{\rho_1(e,\gamma)}{\rho_2(e,\gamma)}$ tends to $1$ at infinity) must be at a bounded distance from one another (in the sense that $|\rho_1(e,\gamma)-\rho_2(e,\gamma)|=O(1)$). This holds for abelian groups. An analogous result was proved by Abels and Margulis for word metrics on reductive groups . S. Krat established this property for word metrics on the Heisenberg group $H_3(\Z)$. However using Theorem (which in this particular case of finitely generated nilpotent groups is just Pansu's theorem ) we will show in Section , that there are counter-examples and exhibit two word metrics on $H_3(\Z) \times \Z$ which are asymptotic and yet are not at a bounded distance. For more on this counter-example, and how to adequately modify the conjecture of Burago and Margulis, we refer the interested reader to . \subsection{Organization of the paper} Sections 2-4 are devoted to preliminaries. In Section we present the basic nilpotent theory as can be found in Guivarc'h's thesis . In particular, a full proof of the Bass-Guivarc'h formula is given. In Section , we recall the construction of the nilshadow of a solvable Lie group. In Section we set up the axioms and basic properties of the (pseudo)distance functions that are studied in this paper. Sections 5-7 contain the core of the proof of the main theorems. In Section 5, we assume that $G$ is a simply connected solvable Lie group and reduce the problem to the nilpotent case. In Section 6, we assume that $G$ is a simply connected nilpotent Lie group and prove Theorem in this case following the strategy used by Pansu in . In Section 7, we prove Theorem for general locally compact groups and reduce the proof of the results of the introduction to the Lie case. In the last section we make further comments about the speed of convergence. In particular we give examples answering negatively the aforementioned question of Burago and Margulis. The Appendix is devoted to the discrete Heisenberg groups of dimension 3 and 5. We compute their limit balls, explain Figure 1, and recover the main result of Stoll . The reader who is mainly interested in the nilpotent group case can read directly Section 6 while keeping an eye on Sections 2 and 4 for background notations and elementary facts. Finally, let us mention that the results and methods of this paper were largely inspired by the works of Y. Guivarc'h and P. Pansu \cite {Pan}. \subsection{Nota Bene} A version of this article circulated since 2007. The present version contains essentially the same material, only the exposition has been improved and several somewhat sketchy arguments have been replaced by full fledged proofs (in particular in Sections and ). This delay is due to the fact that I was planning for a long time to improve Section and show an error term in the volume asymptotics of balls in nilpotent groups. E. Le Donne and I recently managed to achieve this and it has now become an independent joint paper . \section{Quasi-norms and the geometry of nilpotent Lie groups} In this section, we review the necessary background material on nilpotent Lie groups. In paragraph , we give some crucial properties of homogeneous quasi norms and reproduce some lemmas originally due to Y. Guivarc'h which will be used in the sequel. Meanwhile, we prove the Bass-Guivarc'h formula for the degree of polynomial growth of nilpotent Lie groups, following Guivarc'h's original argument. \subsection{Carnot-Caratheodory metrics} Let $G$ be a connected Lie group with Lie algebra $\frak{g}$ and let $m_{1}$ be a vector subspace of $\frak{g}.$ We denote by $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ a norm on $m_{1}$. We now recall the definition of a left-invariant \textit{Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric } also called \emph{subFinsler metric} on $G.$ Let $x,y\in G.$ We consider all possible piecewise smooth paths $\xi :[0,1]\rightarrow G$ going from $\xi (0)=x$ to $\xi (1)=y.$ Let $\xi ^{\prime }(u)$ be the tangent vector which is pulled back to the identity by a left translation, i.e. \begin{equation} \frac{d\xi }{du}=\xi (u)\cdot \xi ^{\prime }(u) \end{equation} where $\xi ^{\prime }(u)\in \frak{g}$ and the notation $\xi (u)\cdot \xi ^{\prime }(u)$ means the image of $\xi ^{\prime }(u)$ under the differential at the identity of the left translation by the group element $\xi (u).$ We say that the path $\xi $ is \textit{horizontal} if the vector $\xi ^{\prime }(u)$ belongs to $m_{1}$ for all $u\in [0,1].$ We denote by $\mathcal{H}$ the set of piecewise smooth horizontal paths. The Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric associated to the norm $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ is defined by: \begin{equation*} d(x,y)=\inf \{\int_{0}^{1}\left\| \xi ^{\prime }(u)\right\| du,\xi \in \mathcal{H},\text{ }\xi (0)=x,\xi (1)=y\} \end{equation*} where the infimum is taken over all piecewise smooth paths $\xi :[0,1]\rightarrow N$ with $\xi (0)=x,\xi (1)=y$ that are horizontal in the sense that $\xi ^{\prime }(u)\in m_{1}$ for all $u$. If $\|\cdot \|$ is a Euclidean norm, the metric $d(x,y)$ is also called \emph{subRiemannian}. In this paper however the norm $\|\cdot\|$ will typically not be Euclidean (it can be polyhedral like in the case of word metrics on finitely generated nilpotent groups) and $d(x,y)$ will only be \emph{subFinsler}. If $m_{1}=\frak{g},$ and $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ is a Euclidean (resp. arbitrary) norm on $ \frak{g}$, then $d$ is simply the usual left-invariant Riemannian (resp. Finsler) metric associated to $\left\| \cdot \right\| .$ Chow's theorem (e.g. see or ) tells us that $d(x,y)$ is finite for all $x$ and $y$ in $G$ if and only if the vector subspace $m_{1}$, together with all brackets of elements of $m_{1},$ generates the full Lie algebra $ \frak{g}$. If this condition is satisfied, then $d$ is a distance on $G$ which induces the original topology of $G$. In this paper, we will only be concerned with Carnot-Caratheodory metrics on a simply connected nilpotent Lie group $N$. In the sequel, whenever we speak of a Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric on $N,$ we mean one that is associated to a norm $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ on a subspace $m_{1}$ such that $\frak{n} =m_{1}\oplus [\frak{n},\frak{n}]$ where $\frak{n}=Lie(N).$ It is easy to check that any such $m_{1}$ generates the Lie algebra $\frak{n}$. \begin{remark} Let us observe here that for such a metric $d$ on $N,$ we have the following description of the unit ball for $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ \begin{equation*} \left\{ v\in m_{1},\left\| v\right\| \leq 1\right\} =\left\{ \frac{\pi _{1}(x)}{d(e,x)},x\in N\backslash \{e\}\right\} \end{equation*} where $\pi _{1}$ is the linear projection from $\frak{n}$ (identified with $N $ via $\exp$) to $m_{1}$ with kernel $[\frak{n},\frak{n}].$ Indeed, $\pi _{1}$ gives rise to a homomorphism from $N$ to the vector space $m_{1}.$ And if $\xi (u)$ is a horizontal path from $e$ to $x,$ then applying $\pi _{1}$ to $(\ref {CCequation})$ we get $\frac{d}{du}\pi _{1}(\xi (u))=\xi ^{\prime }(u),$ hence $\pi _{1}(x)=\int_{0}^{1}\xi ^{\prime }(u)du.$ Hence $ \left\| \pi _{1}(x)\right\| \leq d(e,x)$ with equality if $x\in m_{1}.$ \end{remark} \subsection{Dilations on a nilpotent Lie group and the associated graded group} We now focus on the case of simply connected nilpotent Lie groups. Let $N$ be such a group with Lie algebra $\frak{n}$ and nilpotency class $r$. For background about analysis on such groups, we refer the reader to the book . The exponential map is a diffeomorphism between $\frak{n}$ and $N$ . Most of the time, if $x\in \frak{n}$, we will abuse notation and denote the group element $\exp (x)$ simply by $x$. We denote by $\{C^{p}(\frak{n} )\}_{p}$ the central descending series for $\frak{n},$ i.e. $C^{p+1}(\frak{n} )=[\frak{n},C^{p}(\frak{n})]$ with $C^{0}(\frak{n})=\frak{n}$ and $C^{r}( \frak{n})=\{0\}.$ Let $(m_{p})_{p\geq 1}$ be a collection of vector subspaces of $\frak{n}$ such that for each $p\geq 1$, \begin{equation} C^{p-1}(\frak{n})=C^{p}(\frak{n})\oplus m_{p}. \end{equation} Then $\frak{n}=\oplus _{p\geq 1}m_{p}$ and in this decomposition, any element $x$ in $\frak{n}$ (or $N$ by abuse of notation) will be written in the form \begin{equation*} x=\sum_{p\geq 1}\pi _{p}(x) \end{equation*} where $\pi _{p}(x)$ is the linear projection onto $m_{p}$. To such a decomposition is associated a one-parameter group of dilations $(\delta _{t})_{t>0}$. These are the linear endomorphisms of $\frak{n}$ defined by \begin{equation*} \delta _{t}(x)=t^{p}x \end{equation*} for any $x\in m_{p}$ and for every $p$. Conversely, the one-parameter group $(\delta _{t})_{t\geq 0}$ determines the $(m_{p})_{p\geq 1}$'s since they appear as eigenspaces of each $\delta _{t}$, $t\neq 1$. The dilations $\delta _{t}$ do not preserve \textit{a priori} the Lie bracket on $\frak{n}$. This is the case if and only if \begin{equation} \lbrack m_{p},m_{q}]\subseteq m_{p+q} \end{equation} for every $p$ and $q$ (where $[m_{p},m_{q}]$ is the subspace spanned by all commutators of elements of $m_{p}$ with elements of $m_{q}$). If (\ref {gradation}) holds, we say that the $(m_{p})_{p\geq 1}$ form a \textit{ stratification} of the Lie algebra $\frak{n}$, and that $\frak{n}$ is a \textit{ stratified} (or homogeneous) Lie algebra. It is an exercise to check that $(\ref {gradation})$ is equivalent to require $[m_{1},m_{p}]=m_{p+1}$ for all $p.$ If () does not hold, we can however consider a new Lie algebra structure on the real vector space $\frak{n}$ by defining the new Lie bracket as $[x,y]_{\infty }=\pi _{p+q}([x,y])$ if $x\in m_{p}$ and $y\in m_{q}$. This new Lie algebra $\frak{n}_{\infty }$ is stratified and has the same underlying vector space as $\frak{n.}$ We denote by $N_{\infty }$ the associated simply connected Lie group. Moreover the $(\delta _{t})_{t>0}$ form a one-parameter group of automorphisms of $\frak{n}_{\infty }$. In fact the original Lie bracket $ [x,y]$ on $\frak{n}$ can be deformed continuously to $[x,y]_{\infty }$ through a continuous family of Lie algebra structures by setting \begin{equation} \lbrack x,y]_{t}=\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}([\delta _{t}x,\delta _{t}y]) \end{equation} and letting $t\rightarrow +\infty $. Note that conversely, if the $\delta _{t}$'s are automorphisms of $\frak{n}$, then $[x,y]=\pi _{p+q}([x,y])$ for all $x\in m_{p}$ and $y\in m_{q}$, and $\frak{n}=\frak{n}_{\infty }.$ The graded Lie algebra associated to $\frak{n}$ is by definition \begin{equation*} gr(\frak{n})=\bigoplus_{p\geq 0}C^{p}(\frak{n})/C^{p+1}(\frak{n}) \end{equation*} endowed with the Lie bracket induced from that of $\frak{n}$. The quotient map $m_{p}\rightarrow C^{p}(\frak{n})/C^{p+1}(\frak{n})$ gives rise to a linear isomorphism between $\frak{n}$ and $gr(\frak{n})$, which is a Lie algebra isomorphism between the new Lie algebra structure $\frak{n}_{\infty } $ and $gr(\frak{n}).$ Hence stratified Lie algebra structures induced by a choice of supplementary subspaces $(m_{p})_{p\geq 1}$ as in () are all isomorphic to $gr(\frak{n}).$ On $N_\infty$ the left-invariant subFinsler metrics $d_{\infty }$ associated to a choice of norm on $m_{1}$ are of special interest. The one-parameter group of dilations $\{\delta _{t}\}_t$ is an automorphism of $N_{\infty }$ and that \begin{equation} d_{\infty }(\delta _{t}x,\delta _{t}y)=td_{\infty }(x,y) \end{equation} for any $x,y\in N_{\infty }$. The metric space $(N_\infty,d_\infty)$ is called a \emph{Carnot group}. If on the other hand the simply connected nilpotent Lie group $N$ is not stratified, then the group of dilations $(\delta _{t})_{t}$ associated to a choice of supplementary vector subspaces $m_{i}$'s as in () will not consist of automorphisms of $N$ and the relation () will not hold. Note also that if we are given two different choices of supplementary subspaces $m_{i}$'s and $m_{i}^{\prime }$'s as in (), then the left-invariant Carnot-Caratheodory metrics on the corresponding stratified Lie groups are isometric if and only if $(m_{1},\left\| \cdot \right\| )$ and $ (m_{1}^{\prime },\left\| \cdot \right\| ^{\prime })$ are isometric (a linear isomorphism from $m_{1}$ to $m_{1}^{\prime }$ that sends $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ to $\left\| \cdot \right\| ^{\prime }$ extends to an isometry of the two Carnot groups). \subsection{The Campbell-Hausdorff formula} The exponential map $\exp :\frak{n}\rightarrow N$ is a diffeomorphism. In the sequel, we will often abuse notation and identify $N$ and $\frak{n}$ without further notice. In particular, for two elements $x$ and $y$ of $ \frak{n}$ (or $N$ equivalently) $xy$ will denote their product in $N$, while $x+y$ denotes the sum in $\frak{n}$. Let $(\delta _{t})_{t}$ be a one-parameter group of dilations associated to a choice of supplementary subspaces $m_{i}$'s as in (). We denote the corresponding stratified Lie algebra by $\frak{n} _{\infty }$ as above and the Lie group by $N_{\infty }.$ The product on $ N_{\infty }$ is denoted by $x*y$. On $N_{\infty }$ the dilations $(\delta _{t})_{t}$ are automorphisms. The Campbell-Hausdorff formula (see ) allows to give a more precise form of the product in $N.$ Let $(e_{i})_{1\leq i\leq d}$ be a basis of $ \frak{n}$ adapted to the decomposition into $m_{i}$'s, that is $ m_{i}=span\{e_{j},e_{j}\in m_{i}\}.$ Let $x=x_{1}e_{1}+...+x_{d}e_{d}$ the corresponding decomposition of an element $x\in \frak{n}$. Then define the degree $d_{i}=\deg (e_{i})$ to be the largest $j$ such that $e_{i}\in C^{j-1}(\frak{n}).$ If $\alpha =(\alpha _{1},...,\alpha _{d})\in \Bbb{N}^{d}$ is a multi-index, then let $d_{\alpha }=\deg (e_{1})\alpha _{1}+...+\deg (e_{d})\alpha _{d}.$ The Campbell-Hausdorff formula yields \begin{equation} (xy)_{i}=x_{i}+y_{i}+\sum C_{\alpha ,\beta }x^{\alpha }y^{\beta } \end{equation} where $C_{\alpha ,\beta }$ are real constants and the sum is over all multi-indices $\alpha $ and $\beta $ such that $d_{\alpha }+d_{\beta }\leq \deg (e_{i})$, $d_{\alpha }\geq 1$ and $d_{\beta }\geq 1$. From (), it is easy to give the form of the associated stratified Lie group law: \begin{equation} (x*y)_{i}=x_{i}+y_{i}+\sum C_{\alpha ,\beta }x^{\alpha }y^{\beta } \end{equation} where the sum is restricted to those $\alpha $'s and $\beta $'s such that $ d_{\alpha }+d_{\beta }=\deg (e_{i})$, $d_{\alpha }\geq 1$ and $d_{\beta }\geq 1$. \subsection{Homogeneous quasi-norms and Guivarc'h's theorem on polynomial growth} Let $\frak{n}$ be a finite dimensional real nilpotent Lie algebra and consider a decomposition \begin{equation*} \frak{n}=m_{1}\oplus ...\oplus m_{r} \end{equation*} by supplementary vector subspaces as in (). Let $(\delta _{t})_{t>0}$ be the one parameter group of dilations associated to this decomposition, that is $\delta _{t}(x)=t^{i}x$ if $x\in m_{i}$. We now introduce the following definition. \begin{definition}[Homogeneous quasi-norm] A continuous function $|\cdot |:\frak{n}\rightarrow \Bbb{R} _{+}$ is called a homogeneous quasi-norm associated to the dilations $ (\delta _{t})_{t}$, if it satisfies the following properties: $(i)$ $|x|=0\Leftrightarrow x=0.$ $(ii)$ $|\delta _{t}(x)|=t|x|$ for all $t>0.$ \end{definition} \begin{example} (1) Quasi-norms of supremum type, i.e. $|x|=\max_{p}\left\| \pi _{p}(x)\right\| _{p}^{1/p}$ where $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{p}$ are ordinary norms on the vector space $m_{p}$ and $\pi _{p}$ is the projection on $m_{p}$ as above. (2) $|x|=d_{\infty }(e,x)$, where $d_{\infty }$ is a Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric on a stratified nilpotent Lie group (as the relation () shows). \end{example} Clearly, a quasi-norm is determined by its sphere of radius $1$ and two quasi-norms (which are homogeneous with respect to the same group of dilations) are always equivalent in the sense that \begin{equation} \frac{1}{c}\left| \cdot \right| _{1}\leq \left| \cdot \right| _{2}\leq c\left| \cdot \right| _{1} \end{equation} for some constant $c>0$ (indeed, by continuity, $|\cdot |_{2}$ admits a maximum on the ``sphere'' $\{|x|_{1}=1\}$). If the two quasi-norms are homogeneous with respect to two distinct semi-groups of dilations, then the inequalities () continue to hold outside a neighborhood of $ 0 $, but may fail near $0$. Homogeneous quasi-norms satisfy the following properties: \begin{proposition} Let $|\cdot |$ be a homogeneous quasi-norm on $\frak{n}$, then there are constants $C,C_{1},C_{2}>0$ such that $(a)$ $|x_{i}|\leq C\cdot |x|^{\deg (e_{i})}$ if $x=x_{1}e_{1}+...+x_{n}e_{n} $ in an adapted basis $(e_{i})_{i}.$ $(b)$ $|x^{-1}|\leq C\cdot |x|.$ $(c)$ $|x+y|\leq C\cdot (|x|+|y|)$ $(d)$ $|xy|\leq C_{1}(|x|+|y|)+C_{2}.$ \end{proposition} Properties $(a)$, $(b)$ and $(c)$ are straightforward from the fact that $ |x|=\max_{p}\left\| \pi _{p}(x)\right\| _{p}^{1/p}$ is a homogeneous quasi-norm and from (). Property $(d)$ justifies the term ``quasi-norm'' and follows from Lemma below. It can be a problem that the constant $C_{1}$ in $(d)$ may not be equal to $1$. In fact, this is why we use the word quasi-norm instead of just norm, because we do not require the triangle inequality axiom to hold. However the following lemma of Guivarc'h is often a good enough remedy to this situation. Let $ \left\| \cdot \right\| _{p}$ be an arbitrary norm on the vector space $m_{p}$ . \begin{lemma} (Guivarc'h, lemme II.1) Let $\varepsilon >0$. Up to rescaling each $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{p} $ into a proportional norm $\lambda _{p}\left\| \cdot \right\| _{p}$ ($ \lambda _{p}>0$) if necessary, the quasi-norm $|x|=\max_{p}\left\| \pi _{p}(x)\right\| _{p}^{1/p}$ satisfies \begin{equation} |xy|\leq |x|+|y|+\varepsilon \end{equation} for all $x,y\in N$. If $N$ is stratified with respect to $(\delta _{t})_{t}$ we can take $\varepsilon =0$. \end{lemma} This lemma is crucial also for computing the coarse asymptotics of volume growth. For the reader's convenience, we reproduce here Guivarc'h's argument, which is based on the Campbell-Hausdorff formula (). \proof We fix $\lambda _{1}=1$ and we are going to give a condition on the $\lambda _{i}$'s so that () holds. The $\lambda _{i}$'s will be taken to be smaller and smaller as $i$ increases. We set $ |x|=\max_{p}\left\| \pi _{p}(x)\right\| _{p}^{1/p}$ and let $|x|_{\lambda }=\max_{p}\left\| \lambda _{p}\pi _{p}(x)\right\| _{p}^{1/p}$ for any $r$ -tuple of $\lambda _{i}$'s. We want that for any index $p\leq r,$ \begin{equation} \lambda _{p}\left\| \pi _{p}(xy)\right\| _{p}\leq \left( |x|_{\lambda }+|y|_{\lambda }+\varepsilon \right) ^{p} \end{equation} By () we have $\pi _{p}(xy)=\pi _{p}(x)+\pi _{p}(y)+P_{p}(x,y)$ where $P_{p}$ is a polynomial map into $m_{p}$ depending only on the $\pi _{i}(x)$ and $\pi _{i}(y)$ with $i\leq p-1$ such that \begin{equation*} \left\| P_{p}(x,y)\right\| _{p}\leq C_{p}\cdot \sum_{l,m\geq 1,l+m\leq p}M_{p-1}(x)^{l}M_{p-1}(y)^{m} \end{equation*} where $M_{k}(x):=\max_{i\leq k}\left\| \pi _{i}(x)\right\| _{i}^{1/i}$ and $ C_{p}>0$ is a constant depending on $P_{p}$ and on the norms $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{i}$'s. Since $\varepsilon >0,$ when expanding the right hand side of () all terms of the form $|x|_{\lambda }^{l}|y|_{\lambda }^{m}$ with $l+m\leq p$ appear with some positive coefficient, say $\varepsilon _{l,m}$. The terms $|x|_{\lambda }^{p}$ and $|y|_{\lambda }^{p}$ appear with coefficient $1$ and cause no trouble since we always have $\lambda _{p}\left\| \pi _{p}(x)\right\| _{p}\leq |x|_{\lambda }^{p}$ and $\lambda _{p}\left\| \pi _{p}(y)\right\| _{p}\leq |y|_{\lambda }^{p}$. Therefore, for () to hold, it is sufficient that \begin{equation*} \lambda _{p}C_{p}M_{p-1}(x)^{l}M_{p-1}(y)^{m}\leq \varepsilon _{l,m}|x|_{\lambda }^{l}|y|_{\lambda }^{m} \end{equation*} for all remaining $l$ and $m.$ However, clearly $M_{k}(x)\leq \Lambda _{k}\cdot |x|_{\lambda }$ where $\Lambda _{k}:=\max_{i\leq k}\{1/\lambda _{i}^{1/i}\}\geq 1.$ Hence a sufficient condition for () to hold is \begin{equation*} \lambda _{p}\leq \frac{\overline{\varepsilon }}{C_{p}\Lambda _{p-1}^{p}} \end{equation*} where $\overline{\varepsilon }=\min \varepsilon _{l,m}$. Since $\Lambda _{p-1}$ depends only on the first $p-1$ values of the $\lambda _{i}$'s, it is obvious that such a set of conditions can be fulfilled by a suitable $r$ -tuple $\lambda .$ \endproof \begin{remark} The constant $C_{2}$ in Property $(d)$ above can be taken to be $0$ when $N$ is stratified with respect to the $m_{i}$'s (i.e. the $\delta _{t}$'s are automorphisms), as is easily seen after changing $x$ and $y$ into their image under $\delta _{t}$. And conversely, if $C_{2}=0$ for some $\delta _{t} $-homogeneous quasi-norm on $N,$ then $N$ admits a stratification. Indeed, from ( ) and (), we see that if the $\delta _{t}$'s are not automorphisms, then one can find $ x,y\in N$ such that, when $t$ is small enough, $|\delta _{t}(xy)-\delta _{t}(x)\delta _{t}(y)|\geq ct^{(r-1)/r}$ for some $c>0.$ However, combining Properties $(c)$ and Property $(d)$ with $C_{2}=0$ above we must have $ |\delta _{t}(xy)-\delta _{t}(x)\delta _{t}(y)|=O(t)$ near $t=0.$ A contradiction. \end{remark} Guivarc'h's lemma enables us to show: \begin{theorem} (Guivarc'h ibid.) Let $\Omega $ be a compact neighborhood of the identity in a simply connected nilpotent Lie group $N$ and $\rho _{\Omega }(x,y)=\inf \{n\geq 1,x^{-1}y\in \Omega ^{n}\}$. Then for any homogeneous quasi-norm $ |\cdot |$ on $N,$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that \begin{equation} \frac{1}{C}|x|\leq \rho _{\Omega }(e,x)\leq C|x|+C \end{equation} \end{theorem} \proof Since any two homogeneous quasi-norms (w.r.t the same one-parameter group of dilations) are equivalent, it is enough to do the proof for one of them, so we consider the quasi-norm obtained in Lemma \ref {guivarch} with the extra property (). The lower bound in () is a direct consequence of () and one can take there $C$ to be $\max \{|x|,x\in \Omega \}+\varepsilon .$ For the upper bound, it suffices to show that there is $C\in \Bbb{N}$ such that for all $ n\in \Bbb{N}$, if $|x|\leq n$ then $x\in \Omega ^{Cn}.$ To achieve this, we proceed by induction of the nilpotency length of $N.$ The result is clear when $N$ is abelian. Otherwise, by induction we obtain $C_{0}\in \Bbb{N}$ such that $x=\omega _{1}\cdot ...\cdot \omega _{C_{0}n}\cdot z$ where $ \omega _{i}\in \Omega $ and $z\in C^{r-1}(N)$ whenever $|x|\leq n.$ Hence $ |z|\leq |x|+C_{0}n\cdot \max |\omega _{i}^{-1}|+\varepsilon C_{0}\cdot n\leq C_{1}n$ for some other constant $C_{1}\in \Bbb{N}.$ So we have reduced the problem to $x=z\in m_{r}=C^{r-1}(N)$ which is central in $N.$ We have $ z=z_{1}^{n^{r}}$ where $|z_{1}|=|z|/n\leq C_{1}.$ Since $\Omega $ is a neighborhood of the identity in $N,$ the set $\mathcal{U}$ of all products of at most $\dim (m_{r})$ simple commutators of length $r$ of elements in $ \Omega $ is a neighborhood of the identity in $C^{r-1}(N)$ (e.g. see \cite {Gro2}, p113). It follows that there is a constant $C_{2}\in \Bbb{N}$ such that $z_{1}$ is in $\mathcal{U}^{C_{2}}$, hence the product of at most $ C_{2}\dim (m_{r})$ simple commutators. Then we are done because $z$ itself will be equal to the same product of commutators where each letter $x_{i}\in \Omega $ is replaced by $x_{i}^{n}.$ This last fact follows from the following lemma: \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be a nilpotent group of nilpotency class $r$ and $n_{1},...,n_{r}$ be positive integers. Then for any $x_{1},...,x_{r}\in G$ \begin{equation*} \lbrack x_{1}^{n_{1}},[x_{2}^{n_{2}},[...,x_{r}^{n_{r}}]...]=[x_{1},[x_{2},[...,x_{r}]...]^{n_{1}\cdot ...\cdot n_{r}} \end{equation*} \end{lemma} To prove the lemma it suffices to use induction and the following obvious fact: if $[x,y]$ commutes to $x$ and $y$ then $[x^{n},y]=[x,y]^{n}.$ \endproof Finally, we obtain: \begin{corollary} Let $\Omega $ be a compact neighborhood of the identity in $N.$ Then there are positive constants $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ such that for all $n\in \Bbb{N},$ \begin{equation*} C_{1}n^{d}\leq vol_{N}(\Omega ^{n})\leq C_{2}n^{d} \end{equation*} where $d$ is given by the Bass-Guivarc'h formula: \begin{equation} d=\sum_{i\geq 1}i\cdot \dim m_{i} \end{equation} \proof By Theorem , it is enough to estimate the volume of the quasi-norm balls. By homogeneity of the quasi-norm, we have $ vol_{N}\{x,|x|\leq t\}=t^{d}vol_{N}\{x,|x|\leq 1\}$. \endproof \end{corollary} \begin{remark} The use of Malcev's embedding theorem allows, as Guivarc'h observed, to deduce immediately that the analogous result holds for virtually nilpotent finitely generated groups. This fact that was also proven independently by H. Bass by a direct combinatorial argument. See also Tits' appendix to Gromov's paper . In fact Guivarc'h's Theorem seems to have been rediscovered several times in the past 40 years, including by Pansu in his thesis , the latest example of that being . \end{remark} \section{The nilshadow} The goal of this section is to introduce the nilshadow of a simply connected solvable Lie group $G$. We will assume that $G$ has polynomial growth, although this last assumption is not necessary for almost everything we do in this section. The only statement which will be used afterwards in the paper (in Section ) is Lemma below. The reader familiar with the nilshadow can jump directly to the statement of this lemma and skip the forthcoming discussion.\\ \subsection{Construction of the nilshadow} The nilshadow of $G$ is a simply connected nilpotent Lie group $G_{N}$, which is associated to $G$ in a natural way. This notion was first introduced by Auslander and Green in in their study of flows on solvmanifolds. They defined it as the unipotent radical of a \textit{semi-simple splitting} of $G.$ However, we are going to follow a different approach for its construction by working first at the Lie algebra level. We refer the reader to the book where this approach is taken up. Let $\frak{g}$ be a solvable real Lie algebra and $\frak{n}$ the nilradical of $\frak{g.}$ We have $[\frak{g},\frak{g}]\subset \frak{n}.$ If $x\in \frak{ g},$ we write $ad(x)=ad_{s}(x)+ad_{n}(x)$ the Jordan decomposition of $ad(x)$ in $GL(\frak{g}).$ Since $ad(x)\in Der(\frak{g}),$ the space of derivations of $\frak{g}$, and $Der(\frak{g})$ is the Lie algebra of the \textit{ algebraic} group $Aut(\frak{g)},$ the Jordan components $ad_{s}(x)$ and $ ad_{n}(x)$ also belong to $Der(\frak{g}).$ Moreover, for each $x\in \frak{g}$ , $ad_{s}(x)$ sends $\frak{g}$ into $\frak{n}$ (because so does $ad(x)$ and $ ad_{s}(x)$ is a polynomial in $ad(x)$). Let $\frak{h}$ be a Cartan subalgebra of $\frak{g}$, namely a nilpotent self-normalizing subalgebra. Recall that the image of a Cartan subalgebra by a surjective Lie algebra homomorphism is again a Cartan subalgebra. Now since $\frak{g}/\frak{n}$ is abelian, it follows that $\frak{h}$ maps onto $\g/\n$, i.e. $\frak{h}+\frak{n}=\frak{g}$. Moreover $ad_{s}(x)_{|\frak{h}}=0$ if $ x\in \frak{h}$, because $\frak{h}$ is nilpotent. \\ Now pick any real vector subspace $\frak{v}$ of $\frak{h}$ in direct sum with $\n$. Then the following two conditions hold: $(i)$ $\frak{v}\oplus \frak{n}=\frak{g}$ . $(ii)$ $ad_{s}(x)(y)=0$ for all $x,y\in \frak{v}.$\\ From $(i)$ and $(ii)$, it follows easily that $ad_{s}(x)$ commutes with $ ad(y)$, $ad_{s}(y)$ and $ad_{n}(y)$, for all $x,y$ in $\frak{v}$. We have: \begin{lemma} The map $\frak{v}\rightarrow Der(\frak{g})$ defined by $ x\mapsto ad_{s}(x)$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism. \end{lemma} \proof First let us check that this map is linear. Let $x,y\in \frak{v}$. By the above $ad_{s}(y)$ and $ad_{s}(x)$ commute with each other (hence their sum is semi-simple) and commute with $ ad_{n}(x)+ad_{n}(y).$ From the uniqueness of the Jordan decomposition it remains to check that $ad_{n}(x)+ad_{n}(y)$ is nilpotent if $x,y$ in $\frak{ v.}$ To see this, apply the following obvious remark twice to $a=ad_{n}(x)$ and $V=ad(\frak{n})$ first and then to $a=ad_{n}(y)$ and $V=span\{ad_{n}(x),$ $ad((ad(y))^{n}x),n\geq 1\}$ : \textit{Let }$V$\textit{\ be a nilpotent subspace of }$GL(\frak{g})$\textit{\ and }$a\in GL(\frak{g})$\textit{\ nilpotent, i.e. }$V^{n}=0$\textit{\ and }$a^{m}=0$\textit{\ for some }$ n,m\in \Bbb{N}$\textit{\ and assume }$[a,V]\subset V.$\textit{\ Then }$ (a+V)^{nm}=0.$ The fact that this map is a Lie algebra homomorphism follows easily from the fact that all $ad_{s}(x),$ $x\in \frak{v}$ commute with one another and with $[\frak{g}, \frak{g}]\subset \frak{n}$. \endproof We define a new Lie bracket on $\frak{g}$ by setting: \begin{equation} \lbrack x,y]_{N}=[x,y]-ad_{s}(x_{v})(y)+ad_{s}(y_{v})(x) \end{equation} where $x_{v}$ is the linear projection of $x$ on $\frak{v}$ according to the direct sum $\frak{v}\oplus \frak{n}=\frak{g}.$ The Jacobi identity is checked by a straightforward computation where the following fact is needed: $ad_{s}\left( ad_{s}(x)(y)\right) =0$ for all $x,y\in \frak{g}.$ This holds because, as we just saw, $ad_{s}(x)(\frak{g})\subset \frak{n}$ for all $x\in \frak{g}$, and $ad_{s}(a)=0$ if $a\in \frak{n}$. \begin{definition} Let $\frak{g}_{N}$ be the vector space $\frak{g}$ endowed with the new Lie algebra structure $[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{N}$ given by (). The \textbf{\ nilshadow} $G_{N}$ of $G$ is defined to be the simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra $\frak{g}_{N}.$ \end{definition} It is easy to check that $\frak{g}_{N}$\textit{\ is a nilpotent Lie algebra} . To see this, note first that $[\frak{g}_{N},\frak{g}_{N}]_{N}\subset \frak{ n}$, and if $x\in \frak{g}_{N}$ and $y\in \frak{n}$ then $ [x,y]_{N}=(ad_{n}(x_{v})+ad(x_{n}))(y).$ However, $ad_{n}(x_{v})+ad(x_{n})$ is a nilpotent endomorphism of $\frak{n}$ as follows from the same remark used in the proof of Lemma . Hence $\frak{g}_{N}$\textit{\ }is a nilpotent.\\ The nilshadow Lie product on $G_N$ will be denoted by $*$ in order to distinguish it from the original Lie product on $G$. In the sequel, we will often identify $G$ (resp. $G_N$) with its Lie algebra $\g$ (resp. $\g_N$) via their respective exponential map. Since the underlying space of $\g_N$ was $\g$ itself, this gives an identification (although not a group isomorphism) between $G$ and $G_N$. Then the nilshadow Lie product can be expressed in terms of the original product as follows: $$g*h=g \cdot (T(g^{-1})h)$$ Here $T$ is the Lie group homomorphism $G \rightarrow Aut(G)$ induced by the above choice of supplementary subspace $\vu$ as follows. \begin{equation} T(e^{a})(e^{b})=\exp (e^{ad_{s}(a_{v})}b) \textnormal{ }\forall a,b\in \frak{g}.\ \end{equation} In other words, $T$ is the unique Lie group homomorphism whose differential at the identity is the Lie algebra homomorphism $d_e T: \g \rightarrow Der(\g)$ given by $d_e T(a)(b)=ad_s(a_v)b$, that is the composition of the map $\vu \rightarrow Der(\g)$ from Lemma with the linear projection $\g \rightarrow \g/\n \simeq \vu$. It is easy to check that this definition of the new product is compatible with the definition of the new Lie bracket. It can also be checked that two choices of supplementary spaces $\vu$ as above yield isomorphic Lie structures (see \cite[Chap. III]{DR}). Hence by abuse of language, we speak of \textit{the} nilshadow of $\frak{g}$, when we mean the Lie structure on $G$ induced by a choice of $\vu$ as above. The following example shows several of the features of a typical solvable Lie group of polynomial growth. \begin{example}[Nilshadow of a semi-direct product] Let $G=\Bbb{R}\ltimes_{\phi }\Bbb{R}^{n}$ where $\phi _{t}\in GL_{n}(\Bbb{R})$ is some one parameter subgroup given by $\phi _{t}=\exp (tA)=k_{t}u_{t}$ where $A$ is some matrix in $M_{n}(\Bbb{R})$ and $ A=A_{s}+A_{u}$ is its Jordan decomposition, giving rise to $k_{t}=\exp (tA_{s})$ and $u_{t}=\exp (tA_{u}).$ The group $G$ is diffeomorphic to $\Bbb{ R}^{n+1},$ hence simply connected. If all eigenvalues of $A_{s}$ are purely imaginary, then $G$ has polynomial growth. However $G$ is not nilpotent unless $A_{s}=0.$ So let us assume that neither $A_{s}$ nor $A_{u}$ is zero. Then the nilshadow $G_{N}$ is the semi-direct product $\Bbb{R} \ltimes_{u}\Bbb{R}^{n}$ where $u_{t}$ is the unipotent part of $ \phi _{t}.$ It is easy to compute the homogeneous dimension of $G$ (or $G_{N}$) in terms of the dimension of the Jordan blocs of $A_{u}.$ If $n_{k}$ is the number of Jordan blocks of $A_{u}$ of size $k,$ then \begin{equation*} d(G)=1+\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{k(k+1)}{2}n_{k} \end{equation*} \end{example} \subsection{Basic properties of the nilshadow} We now list in the form of a few lemmas some basic properties of the nilshadow. \begin{lemma} The image of $T: G \rightarrow Aut(G)$ is abelian and relatively compact. Moreover $T(T(g)h)=T(h)$ for any $g,h\in G.$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Since $G$ has polynomial growth it is of type $(R)$ by Guivarc'h's theorem. Hence all $ad_s(x)$ have purely imaginary eigenvalues. It follows that $K$ is compact. Since $T$ factors through the nilradical, its image is abelian. The last equality follows from $()$ and the fact that $\forall x,y \in \g, \textnormal{ } ad_s(ad_s(x)(y))=0 $. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} $T(G)$ also belongs to $Aut(G_N)$ and $T$ is a group homomorphism $G_N \rightarrow Aut(G_N)$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The first assertion follows from $()$ and the fact that $d_eT$ is a derivation of $\g_N$ as one can check from $()$ and the fact that $\forall x,y \in \g, \textnormal{ } ad_s(ad_s(x)(y))=0 $. The second assertion then follows from Lemma . \end{proof} We denote by $K$ the closure of $T(G)$ in $Aut(G) = Aut(\g)$. \begin{lemma}[K-action on $\g_N$] $K$ preserves $\vu$ and acts trivially on it. It also preserves the ideals $\n$ and the central descending series $\{C^i(\g_N)\}_i$ of $\g_N$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} It suffices to check that $ad_s(\vu)$ preserves $\n$ and $C^i(\g_N)$. It preserves $\n$ because $ad(x)$ preserves $\n$ for all $x \in \g$. It preserves $C^i(\g_N)$ because it acts as a derivation of $\g_N$ as we have already checked in the proof of Lemma . \end{proof} \begin{remark}[Well-definedness of $\pi_1$] It is also easy to check from the definition of the nilshadow bracket that the commutator subalgebra $[\g_N,\g_N]$ and in fact each term of the central descending series $C^i(\g_N)$ is an ideal in $\g$ and \emph{does not depend} on the choice of supplementary subspace $\vu$ used to defined the nilshadow bracket. In particular the projection map $\pi_1: \g_N \rightarrow \g_N/[\g_N,\g_N]$ is a well defined linear map on $\g=\g_N$ (i.e. independently of the choice involved in the construction of the nilshadow Lie bracket). \end{remark} \begin{lemma}[Exponential map] The respective exponential maps $\exp: \g \rightarrow G$ and $\exp_N : \g_N \rightarrow G_N$ coincide on $\n$ and on $\vu$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Since the two Lie products coincide on $N=\exp(\n)$, so do their exponential map. For the second assertion, note that $T(e^{-tv})v=v$ for every $v \in \vu$ because $ad_s(x)(y)=0$ for all $x,y \in \nu$. It follows that $\{e^{tv}\}_t$ is a one-parameter subgroup for both Lie structures, hence it is equal to $\{\exp_N(tv)\}_t$. \end{proof} \begin{remark}[Surjectivity of the exponential map] The exponential map is not always a diffeomorphism, as the example of the universal cover $\widetilde{E}$ of the group $E$ of motions of the plane shows (indeed any $1$-parameter subgroup of $E$ is either a translation subgroup or a rotation subgroup, but the rotation subgroup is compact hence a torus, so its lift will contain the (discrete) center of $E$, hence will miss every lift of a non trivial translation). In fact, it is easy to see that if $\frak{g}$ is the Lie algebra of a solvable (non-nilpotent) Lie group of polynomial growth, then $\frak{g}$ maps surjectively on the Lie algebra of $E.$ Hence,\textit{\ for a simply connected solvable and non-nilpotent Lie group of polynomial growth, the exponential map is never onto}. Nevertheless its image is easily seen to be dense. \end{remark} However, exponential coordinates of the second kind behave nicely. Note that $[\g_N,\g_N] \subset \n$. \begin{lemma}[Exponential coordinates of the second kind] Let $\{C^i(\g_N)\}_{i\geq 0}$ be the central descending series of $\g_N$ (with $C^1(\g_N)=[\g_N,\g_N]$) and pick linear subspaces $m_i$ in $\g_N$ such that $C^i(\g_N)=m_i \oplus C^{i-1}(\g_N)$ for $i \geq 2$. Let $\ell$ be a supplementary subspace of $C^1(\g_N)$ in $\n$. Define exponential coordinates of the second kind by setting \begin{eqnarray*} m_{r}\oplus ...\oplus m_{2}\oplus \ell \oplus \frak{v} &\rightarrow &G \\ (\xi _{r},...,\xi _{1},v) &\mapsto &\exp _{N}(\xi _{r})*\ldots *\exp _{N}(\xi _{1})*\exp _{N}(v) \end{eqnarray*} This map is a diffeomorphism. Moreover $\exp _{N}(\xi _{r})* \ldots *\exp _{N}(\xi _{1})*\exp _{N}(v)=e^{\xi _{r}}\cdot ...\cdot e^{\xi _{1}}\cdot e^{v}$ for all choices of $v\in \frak{v}$ and $\xi _{i}\in m_{i}.$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By Lemma the exponential maps of $G$ and $G_N$ coincide on $\n$ and on $\vu$. Moreover $g*h=g\cdot h$ whenever $g$ belongs to the nilradical $\exp(\n)$ of $G$. Hence $\exp _{N}(\xi _{r})* \ldots *\exp _{N}(\xi _{1})*\exp _{N}(v)=\exp _{N}(\xi _{r})\cdot \ldots \cdot \exp _{N}(\xi _{1})\cdot \exp _{N}(v)=e^{\xi _{r}}\cdot ...\cdot e^{\xi _{1}}\cdot e^{v}$. The restriction of the map to $\n$ is a diffeomorphism onto $\exp(\n)$, because this map and its inverse are explicit polynomial maps (the $\xi_i$'s are coordinates of the second kind, see the book ). Now the map $\n \oplus \vu \to G$ sending $(n,v)$ to $e^n \cdot e^v$ is a diffeomorphism, because $G$ is simply connected and hence the quotient group $G/\exp(\n)$ isomorphic to a vector space and hence to $\exp(\vu)$. \end{proof} \begin{lemma}[``Bi-invariant'' Riemannian metric] There exists a Riemannian metric on $G$ which is left invariant under both Lie structures. \end{lemma} \begin{proof}Indeed it suffices to pick a scalar product on $\frak{g}$ which is invariant under the compact subgroup $K=\overline{T(G)}\subset Aut(\frak{g}).$ \end{proof} We identify $K=\overline{\{T(g),g\in G\}}$ with its image in $Aut(\frak{g})$ under the canonical isomorphism between $Aut(G)$ and $Aut(\frak{g}).$ Recall that, according to Lemma , the central descending series of $\frak{g}_{N}$ is invariant under $ad_{s}(x)$ for all $x\in \frak{v}$ and consists of ideals of $\frak{g}.$ The same holds for $\n$. It follows that these linear subspaces also invariant under $K$. However since $K$ is compact, its action on $\frak{g}$ is completely reducible. Therefore we have proved: \begin{lemma}[K-invariant stratification of the nilshadow] Let $\g$ be the Lie algebra of a simply connected Lie group $G$ with polynomial growth. Let $\g_N$ be the nilshadow Lie algebra obtained from a splitting $\g=\n \oplus \vu$ as above (i.e. $\n$ is the nilradical and $\vu$ satisfies $ad_s(x)(y)=0$ for every $x,y \in \vu$). Let $K:=\overline{\{T(g),g \in G\}} \subset Aut(G)$, where $T$ is defined by $()$. Then there is a choice of linear subspaces $m_i$'s and $\ell$ such that \begin{equation} \g_N=m_r \oplus \ldots m_2 \oplus \ell \oplus \vu, \end{equation} where each term is $K$-invariant, $m_1:=\ell\oplus \vu$ and the central descending series of $\g_N$ satisfies $C^i(\g_N)=m_i \oplus C^{i-1}(\g_N)$. Moreover the action on $K$ can be read off on the exponential coordinates of second kind in this decomposition, namely: \begin{eqnarray*} k\left( e^{\xi _{r}}\cdot ...\cdot e^{\xi _{0}}\right) &=&k(e^{\xi _{r}})\cdot ...\cdot k(e^{\xi _{0}})=e^{k(\xi _{r})}\cdot ...\cdot e^{k(\xi _{0})} \\ &=&\exp _{N}(k(\xi _{r}))*...*\exp _{N}(k(\xi _{0})) \end{eqnarray*} \end{lemma} \section{Periodic metrics} In this section, unless otherwise stated, $G$ will denote an arbitrary locally compact group. \subsection{Definitions} By a \textit{pseudodistance} (or metric) on a topological space $X$, we mean a function $\rho :X\times X\rightarrow \Bbb{R}_{+}$ satisfying $\rho (x,y)=\rho (y,x)$ and $\rho (x,z)\leq \rho (x,y)+\rho (y,z)$ for any triplet of points of $X$. However $\rho (x,y)$ may be equal to $0$ even if $x\neq y$. We will require our pseudodistances to be\textit{\ locally bounded}, meaning that the image under $\rho $ of any compact subset of $G\times G$ is a bounded subset of $\Bbb{R}_{+}$. To avoid irrelevant cases (for instance $ \rho \equiv 0$) we will also assume that $\rho $ is \textit{proper}, i.e. the map $y\mapsto \rho (e,y)$ is a proper map, namely the preimage of a bounded set is bounded (we do not ask that the map be continuous). When $\rho $ is locally bounded then it is proper if and only if $y\mapsto \rho (x,y)$ is proper for any $x\in G$. A pseudodistance $\rho $ on $G$ is said to be \textit{asymptotically geodesic } if for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exists $s>0$ such that for any $x,y\in G$ one can find a sequence of points $x_{1}=x,$ $x_{2},...,x_{n}=y$ in $G$ such that \begin{equation} \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\rho (x_{i},x_{i+1})\leq (1+\varepsilon )\rho (x,y) \end{equation} and $\rho (x_{i},x_{i+1})\leq s$ for all $i=1,...,n-1$. We will consider exclusively pseudodistances on a group $G$ that are \textit{ invariant} under left translations by all elements of a fixed closed and co-compact subgroup $H$ of $G$, meaning that for all $x,y\in G$ and all $ h\in H,$ $\rho (hx,hy)=\rho (x,y).$ Combining all previous axioms, we set the following definition. \begin{definition} Let $G$ be a locally compact group. A pseudodistance $\rho $ on $G$ will be said to be a $\mathbf{periodic}$ $ \mathbf{metric}$ (or $H$-periodic metric) if it satisfies the following properties: $(i)$ $\rho $ is invariant under left translations by a closed co-compact subgroup $H$. $(ii)$ $\rho $ is locally bounded and proper. $(iii)$ $\rho $ is asymptotically geodesic. \end{definition} \begin{remark} The assumption that $\rho $ is symmetric, i.e. $\rho (x,y)=\rho (y,x)$ is here only for the sake of simplicity, and most of what is proven in this paper can be done without this hypothesis. \end{remark} \subsection{Basic properties} Let $\rho $ be a periodic metric on $G$ and $H$ some co-compact subgroup of $ G$. The following properties are straighforward. $(1)$ $\rho $ is at a bounded distance from its restriction to $H.$ This means that if $F$ is a bounded fundamental domain for $H$ in $G$ and for an arbitrary $x\in G$, if $h_{x}$ denotes the element of $H$ such that $x\in h_{x}F,$ then $\left| \rho (x,y)-\rho (h_{x},h_{y})\right| \leq C$ for some constant $C>0$. $(2)$ $\forall t>0$ there exists a compact subset $K_{t}$ of $G$ such that, $\forall x,y\in G,$ $\rho (x,y)\leq t\Rightarrow x^{-1}y\in K_{t}$. And conversely, if $K$ is a compact subset of $G$, $ \exists t(K)>0$ s.t. $x^{-1}y\in K\Rightarrow \rho (x,y)\leq t(K).$ $(3)$ If $\rho (x,y)\geq s$, the $x_{i}$'s in () can be chosen in such a way that $s\leq \rho (x_{i},x_{i+1})\leq 2s$ (one can take a suitable subset of the original $x_{i}$'s). $(4)$ The restriction of $\rho $ to $H\times H$ is a periodic pseudodistance on $H$. This means that the $x_{i}$'s in () can be chosen in $H$ . $(5)$ Conversely, given a periodic pseudodistance $\rho _{H}$ on $H,$ it is possible to extend it to a periodic pseudodistance on $G$ by setting $\rho (x,y)=\rho _{H}(h_{x},h_{y})$ where $x=h_{x}F$ for some bounded fundamental domain $F$ for $H$ in $G$. \subsection{Examples} Let us give a few \smallskip examples of periodic pseudodistances. $(1)$ Let $\Gamma $ be a finitely generated torsion free nilpotent group which is embedded as a co-compact discrete subgroup of a simply connected nilpotent Lie group $N$. Given a finite symmetric generating set $S$ of $ \Gamma ,$ we can consider the corresponding word metric $d_{S}$ on $\Gamma $ which gives rise to a periodic metric on $N$ given by $\rho (x,y)=d_{S}(\gamma _{x},\gamma _{y})$ where $x\in \gamma _{x}F$ and $y\in \gamma _{y}F$ if $F$ is some fixed fundamental domain for $\Gamma $ in $N.$ $(2)$ Another example, given in , is as follows. Let $N/\Gamma $ be a nilmanifold with universal cover $N$ and fundamental group $\Gamma $. Let $g$ be a Riemannian metric on $N/\Gamma .$ It can be lifted to the universal cover and thus gives rise to a Riemannian metric $\widetilde{g}$ on $N$. This metric is $\Gamma $-invariant, proper and locally bounded. Since $\Gamma $ is co-compact in $N,$ it is easy to check that it is also asymptotically geodesic hence periodic$.$ $(3)$ Any word metric on $G$. That is, if $\Omega $ is a compact symmetric generating subset of $G$, let $\Delta _{\Omega }(x)=\inf \{n\geq 1,x\in \Omega ^{n}\}$. Then define $\rho (x,y)=\Delta _{\Omega }(x^{-1}y).$ Clearly $\rho $ is a pseudodistance (although not a distance) and it is $G$ -invariant on the left, it is also proper, locally bounded and asymptotically geodesic, hence periodic$.$ $(4)$ If $G$ is a connected Lie group, any left invariant Riemannian metric on $G.$ Here again $H=G$ and we obtain a periodic distance. Similarly, any left invariant Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric on $G$ will do. \begin{remark}[Berestovski's theorem] According to a result of Berestovski every left-invariant geodesic distance on a connected Lie group is a subFinsler metric as defined in Paragraph . \end{remark} \subsection{Coarse equivalence between invariant pseudodistances} The following proposition is basic: \begin{prop} Let $\rho _{1}$ and $\rho _{2}$ be two periodic pseudodistances on $G.$ Then there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $x,y\in G$ \begin{equation} \frac{1}{C}\rho _{2}(x,y)-C\leq \rho _{1}(x,y)\leq C\rho _{2}(x,y)+C \end{equation} \end{prop} \proof Clearly it suffices to prove the upper bound. Let $s>0$ be the number corresponding to the choice $\varepsilon =1$ in () for $\rho _{2}.$ From $(2)$, there exists a compact subset $K_{s}$ in $G$ such that $\rho _{2}(x,y)\leq 2s\Rightarrow x^{-1}y\in K_{2s},$ and there is a constant $t=t(K_{2s})>0$ such that $x^{-1}y\in K_{2s}\Rightarrow \rho _{1}(x,y)\leq t$. Let $C=\max \{2t/s,t\},$ and let $x,y\in G.$ If $\rho _{2}(x,y)\leq s$ then $\rho _{1}(x,y)\leq t$ so the right hand side of (\ref {uppercomparison}) holds. If $\rho _{2}(x,y)\geq s$ then, from ( ) and $(3)$, we get a sequence of $x_{i}$'s in $G$ from $x$ to $y$ such that $s\leq \rho _{2}(x_{i},x_{i+1})\leq 2s$ and $ \sum_{1}^{N}\rho _{2}(x_{i},x_{i+1})\leq 2\rho _{2}(x,y)$. It follows that $ \rho _{1}(x_{i},x_{i+1})\leq t$ for all $i.$ Hence $\rho _{1}(x,y)\leq \sum \rho _{1}(x_{i},x_{i+1})\leq Nt\leq \frac{2}{s}t\rho _{2}(x,y)$ and the right hand side of () holds. \edpf In the particular case when $G=N$ is a simply connected nilpotent Lie group, the distance to the origin $x\mapsto \rho (e,x)$ is also coarsely equivalent to any homogeneous quasi-norm on $N.$ We have, \begin{prop} Suppose $N$ is a simply connected nilpotent Lie group. Let $\rho _{1}$ be a periodic pseudodistance on $N$ and $|\cdot |$ be a homogeneous quasi-norm, then there exists $C>0$ such that for all $x\in N$ \begin{equation} \frac{1}{C}|x^{-1}y|-C\leq \rho _{1}(x,y)\leq C|x^{-1}y|+C \end{equation} Moreover, if $\rho _{2}$ is a periodic pseudodistance on the stratified nilpotent group $N_{\infty }$ associated to $N,$ then again, there is a constant $C>0$ such that \begin{equation} \frac{1}{C}\rho _{2}(e,x)-C\leq \rho _{1}(e,x)\leq C\rho _{2}(e,x)+C \end{equation} \end{prop} The proposition follows at once from Guivarc'h's theorem (see Corollary \ref {coarsecomp} above), the equivalence of homogeneous quasi-norms, and the fact that left-invariant Carnot-Caratheodory metrics on $N_{\infty }$ are homogeneous quasi norms. However, since the group structures on $N$ and $N_{\infty }$ differ, () cannot in general be replaced by the stronger relation ( ) as simple examples show. The next proposition is of fundamental importance for the study of metrics on Lie groups of polynomial growth: \begin{proposition} Let $G$ be a simply connected solvable Lie group of polynomial growth and $G_{N}$ its nilshadow. Let $\rho $ and $\rho _{N}$ be arbitrary periodic pseudodistances on $G$ and $G_{N}$ respectively. Then there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $x,y\in G$ \begin{equation} \frac{1}{C}\rho _{N}(x,y)-C\leq \rho (x,y)\leq C\rho _{N}(x,y)+C \end{equation} \end{proposition} \proof According to Proposition , it is enough to show (\ref {uppercomparison3}) for \textit{some} choice of periodic metrics on $G$ and $ G_{N}.$ But in Lemma we constructed a Riemannian metric on $G$ which is left invariant for both $G$ and $G_{N}.$ We are done. \endproof \subsection{Right invariance under a compact subgroup} Here we verify that, given a compact subgroup of $G,$ any periodic metric is at bounded distance from another periodic metric which is invariant on the right by this compact subgroup. Let $K$ be a compact subgroup of $G$ and $ \rho $ a periodic pseudodistance on $G.$ We average $\rho $ with the help of the normalized Haar measure on $K$ to get: \begin{equation} \rho^{K}(x,y)=\int_{K\times K}\rho (xk_1,yk_2)dk_1dk_2 \end{equation} Then the following holds: \begin{lemma} There is a constant $C_{0}>0$ depending only on $\rho $ and $K$ such that for all $k_1,k_2\in K$ and all $x,y\in G$ \begin{equation} |\rho (xk_1,yk_2)-\rho (x,y)|\leq C_{0} \end{equation} \end{lemma} \proof From $(2)$, $\exists t=t(K)>0$ s.t. $\forall x\in G$, $\rho (x,xk)\leq t$. Applying the triangle inequality, we are done. \endproof Hence we obtain: \begin{proposition} The pseudodistance $\rho^{K}$ is periodic and lies at a bounded distance from $\rho .$ In particular, as $x$ tends to infinity in $G$ the following limit holds \begin{equation} \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\rho^{K}(e,x)}{\rho (e,x)}=1 \end{equation} \end{proposition} \proof From Lemma and $(3),$ it is easy to check that $\rho^{K}$ must be asymptotically geodesic, and periodic. Integrating ( ) we get that $\rho^{K}$ is at a bounded distance from $\rho $ and () is obvious. \endproof If $K$ is normal in $G,$ we thus obtain a periodic metric $\rho^{K}$ on $ G/K $ such that $\rho^{K}(p(x),p(y))$ is at a bounded distance from $\rho (x,y)$, where $p$ is the quotient map $G\rightarrow G/K.$ \section{Reduction to the nilpotent case} In this section, $G$ denotes a \textit{simply connected} solvable Lie group of polynomial growth. We are going to reduce the proof of the theorems of the Introduction to the case of a nilpotent $G.$ This is performed by showing that any $periodic$ pseudodistance $\rho $ on $G$ is asymptotic to some associated $periodic$ pseudodistance $\rho _{N}$ on the nilshadow $ G_{N}.$ We state this in Proposition below. The key step in the proof is Proposition below, which shows the asymptotic invariance of $\rho $ under the ``semisimple part'' of $G.$ The crucial fact there is that the displacement of a distant point under a fixed unipotent automorphism is negligible compared to the distance from the identity (see Lemmas , ), so that the action of the semisimple part of large elements can be simply approximated by their action by left translation. \subsection{Asymptotic invariance under a compact group of automorphisms of $ G$} The main result of this section is the following. Let $G$ be a connected and simply connected solvable Lie group with polynomial growth and $G_N$ its nilshadow (see Section ). \begin{proposition} Let $H$ be a closed co-compact subgroup of $G$ and $\rho $ an $H$ -periodic pseudodistance (see Definition ) on $G.$ There exist a closed subset $H_{K}$ containing $H$ which is a co-compact subgroup for both $G$ and $G_{N},$ and an $H_{K}$-periodic (for both Lie structures) pseudodistance $\rho _{K}$ such that \begin{equation} \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\rho _{K}(e,x)}{\rho (e,x)}=1 \end{equation} \end{proposition} The closed subgroup $H_K$ will be taken to be the closure of the group generated by all elements of the form $k(h)$, where $h$ belongs to $H$ and $k$ belongs to the closure $K$ in the group $Aut(G)$ of the image of $H$ under the homomorphism $T: G\rightarrow Aut(G)$ introduced in Section . It is easy to check from the definition of the nilshadow product $()$ that this is indeed a subgroup in both $G$ and its nilshadow $G_N$. The new pseudodistance $\rho_K$ is defined as follows, using a double averaging procedure: \begin{equation} \rho _{K}(x,y):=\int_{H\backslash H_{K}}\int_{K}\rho (gk(x),gk(y))dkd\mu (g) \end{equation} Here the measure $\mu$ is the normalized Haar measure on the coset space $H\backslash H_K$ and $dk$ is the normalized Haar measure on the compact group $K$. Recall that all closed subgroups of $S$ are unimodular (since they have polynomial growth by [Lemme I.3.]). Hence the existence of invariant measures on the coset spaces.\\ An essential part of the proof of Proposition is enclosed in the following statement: \begin{proposition} Let $\rho $ be a periodic pseudodistance on $G$ which is invariant under a co-compact subgroup $H.$ Then $\rho $ is asymptotically invariant under the action of $K=\overline{\{T(h),h\in H\}} \subseteq Aut(G).$ Namely, (uniformly) for all $k\in K$, \begin{equation} \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\rho (e,k(x))}{\rho (e,x)}=1 \end{equation} \end{proposition} The proof of Proposition splits into two steps. First we show that it is enough to prove () for a dense subset of $k$'s$.$ This is a consequence of the following continuity statement: \begin{lemma} Let $\varepsilon >0,$ then there is a neighborhood $U$ of the identity in $K$ such that, for all $k\in U,$ \begin{equation*} \overline{\lim }_{x\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\rho (x,k(x))}{ \rho (e,x)}<\varepsilon \end{equation*} \end{lemma} Then we show that the action of $T(g)$ can be approximated by the conjugation by $g$, essentially because the unipotent part of this conjugation does not move $x$ very much when $x$ is far. This is the content of the following lemma: \begin{lemma} Let $\rho $ be a periodic pseudodistance on $G$ which is invariant under a co-compact subgroup $H$. Then for any $\varepsilon >0,$ and any compact subset $F$ in $H$ there is $s_{0}>0$ such that \begin{equation*} |\rho (e,T(h)x)-\rho (e,hx)|\leq \varepsilon \rho (e,x) \end{equation*} for any $h\in F$ and as soon as $\rho (e,x)>s_{0}.$ \end{lemma} \noindent \textit{Proof of Proposition modulo Lemmas () and (\ref {lem2}):} As $\rho $ is assumed to be $H$-invariant, for every $h\in H,$ we have $\rho (e,h^{-1}x)/\rho (e,x)\rightarrow 1.$ The proof of the proposition then follows immediately from the combination of the last two lemmas. \endproof \subsection{Proof of Lemmas () and ()} We choose $K$-invariant subspaces $m_i$'s and $\ell$ of the nilshadow $\g_N$ of $\g$ as in Lemma from Section . In particular $$\g_N=m_r \oplus \ldots \oplus m_2 \oplus \ell \oplus \vu,$$ where each term is $K$-invariant, $\frak{n}=[\frak{g}_{N},\frak{g}_{N}]\oplus \frak{l}$ and $C^i(\g_N)=m_i \oplus C^{i-1}(\g_N)$. Moreover $\delta_t(x)=t^ix$ if $x \in m_i$ (here $m_1=\ell \oplus \vu$). We also set $v(x)=\max_{i}\left\| \xi _{i}\right\| _{i}^{1/d_{i}}$ if $x=\exp _{N}(\xi _{r})*\ldots *\exp _{N}(\xi _{0})$ and $d_{i}=i$ if $i>0$ and $d_{0}=1.$ And we let $|x|:=\max_i\|x_i\|^{1/d_i}$ if $x=x_r+\ldots+x_1+x_0$ in the above direct sum decomposition. Note that $|\cdot|$ is a $\delta_t$-homogeneous quasi-norm. Moreover, it is straightforward to verify (using the Campbell-Hausdorff formula $()$ and Proposition ) that $v(x) \leq C|x|+C$ for some constant $C>0$. In particular $\xi_i/|x|^{d_i}$ remains bounded as $|x|$ becomes large. \vspace{.5cm} \noindent \textit{Proof of Lemma . } Combining Propositions and \ref {coarsecomp2}, there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $x,y\in G,$ $\rho (x,y)\leq C|x^{*-1}*y|+C.$ Therefore we have reduced to prove the statement for $|\cdot|$ instead of $\rho$, namely it is enough to show that $|x^{*-1}*k(x)|$ becomes negligible compared to $|x|$ as $|x|$ goes to infinity and $k$ tends to $1$. It follows from the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff formula $()$ and $()$ that, if $x,y\in G_{N}$ and $|x|,|y|$ are $O(t),$ then $|\delta_{\frac{1}{t}}(x*y)-\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x)*\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(y)|=O(t^{-1/r}),$ and similarly $|\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x_1*\ldots*x_m)-\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x_1)*\ldots *\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x_m)|=O_m(t^{-1/r}),$ for $m$ elements $x_i$ with $|x_i|=O(t)$. Hence when writing $x=\exp _{N}(\xi _{r})*... *\exp _{N}(\xi _{0}),$ and setting $t=|x|,$ we thus obtain that the following quantity \begin{equation*} \left| \delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x^{*-1}*k(x))-\overset{*}{ \prod_{0\leq i\leq r}}\exp _{N}(-t^{-d_{i}}\xi _{i})*\overset{*}{ \prod_{0\leq i\leq r}}\exp _{N}(t^{-d_{r-i}}k(\xi _{r-i}))\right| \end{equation*} is a $O(t^{-1/r}).$ Indeed recall from Lemma that $k(x)=\exp _{N}(k(\xi _{r}))*... *\exp _{N}(k(\xi _{0}))$. As $x$ gets larger, each $t^{-d_{i}}\xi _{i}$ remains in a compact subset of $m_{i}.$ Therefore, as $k$ tends to the identity in $K$, each $t^{-d_{i}}k(\xi _{i})$ becomes uniformly close to $ t^{-d_{i}}\xi _{i}$ independently of the choice of $x\in G_{N}$ as long as $t=|x|$ is large. The result follows. \edpf \vspace{.5cm} \noindent \textit{Proof of Lemma .} Recall that $hx=h*T(h)x$ for all $x,h\in G$ (see $()$. By the triangle inequality it is enough to bound $\rho (y,h*y)$, where $y=T(h)x$. From Propositions and , $\rho$ is comparable (up to multiplicative and additive constants to the homogeneous quasi-norm $|\cdot|$. Hence the Lemma follows from the following: \begin{lemma} Let $N$ be a simply connected nilpotent Lie group and let $ |\cdot |$ be a homogeneous quasi norm on $N$ associated to some $1$ -parameter group of dilations $(\delta _{t})_{t}$. For any $\varepsilon >0$ and any compact subset $F$ of $N,$ there is a constant $s_{2}>0$ such that \begin{equation*} |x^{-1}gx|\leq \varepsilon |x| \end{equation*} for all $g\in F$ and as soon as $|x|>s_{2}.$ \end{lemma} \proof Recall, as in the proof of the last lemma, that for any $c_{1}>0$ there is a $c_{2}>0$ such that if $t>1$ and $x,y\in N$ are such that $|x|,|y|\leq c_{1}t,$ then $|\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(xy)-\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x)*\delta _{ \frac{1}{t}}(y)|\leq c_{2}t^{-1/r}$. In particular, if we set $t=|x|,$ then \begin{equation*} \left| \delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x^{-1}gx)-\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x)^{-1}*\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(g)*\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x)\right| \leq c_{2}t^{-1/r} \end{equation*} On the other hand, as $g$ remains in the compact set $F,$ $\delta _{\frac{1}{ t}}(g)$ tends uniformly to the identity when $t=|x|$ goes to infinity, and $ \delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x)$ remains in a compact set. By continuity, we see that $\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x)^{-1}*\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(g)*\delta _{\frac{1 }{t}}(x)$ becomes arbitrarily small as $t$ increases. We are done. \endproof \edpf \subsection{Proof of Proposition } First we prove the following continuity statement: \begin{lemma} Let $\rho $ be a periodic pseudodistance on $G$ and $\varepsilon >0$. Then there exists a neighborhood of the identity $U$ in $G$ and $s_{3}>0 $ such that \begin{equation*} 1-\varepsilon \leq \frac{\rho (e,gx)}{\rho (e,x)}\leq 1+\varepsilon \end{equation*} as soon $g\in U$ and $\rho (e,x)>s_{3}.$ \end{lemma} \proof Let $\rho_N$ be a left invariant Riemannian metric on the nilshadow $G_N$. \begin{equation*} |\rho (e,x)-\rho (e,gx)|\leq \rho (x,gx)\leq \rho(x,g*x)+ \rho(g*x,gx) \end{equation*} However $\rho(a,b) \leq C\rho_N(a,b) +C $ for some $C>0$ by Proposition . Moreover by $()$ we have $gx=g * T(g)x$. Hence \begin{equation*} |\rho (e,x)-\rho (e,gx)|\leq C \rho_N(x,g*x) + C \rho_N(x,T(g)x) +2C \end{equation*} To complete the proof, we apply Lemmas and to the right hand side above. \edpf We proceed with the proof of Proposition . Let $L$ be the set of all $g\in G$ such that $\rho (e,gx)/\rho (e,x)$ tends to $1$ as $x$ tends to infinity in $G$. Clearly $L$ is a subgroup of $G$. Lemma shows that $L$ is closed. The $H$-invariance of $\rho $ insures that $L$ contains $ H$. Moreover, Proposition \textit{\ }implies that $L$ is invariant under $K$. Consequently $L$ contains $H_{K},$ the closed subgroup generated by all $k(h),$ $k\in K,$ $h\in H.$ This, together with Proposition , grants pointwise convergence of the integrand in (). Convergence of the integral follows by applying Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem. The fact that $\rho _{K}$ is invariant under left multiplication by $H$ and invariant under precomposition by automorphisms from $K$ insures that $\rho _{K}$ is invariant under $*$-left multiplication by any element $ h\in H$, where $*$ is the multiplication in the nilshadow $G_{N}.$ Moreover we check that $T(g)\in K$ if $g\in H_{K},$ hence $H_{K}$ is a \textit{subgroup} of $G_{N}.$ It is clearly co-compact in $G_{N}$ too (if $F$ is compact and $HF=G$ then $H*F_{K}=G$ where $F_{K}$ is the union of all $k(F)$, $k\in K$). Clearly $\rho _{K}$ is proper and locally bounded, so in order to finish the proof, we need only to check that $\rho _{K}$ is asymptotically geodesic. By $H$-invariance of $\rho _{K}$ and since $H$ is co-compact in $G$, it is enough to exhibit a pseudogeodesic between $e$ and a point $x\in H.$ Let $ x=z_{1}\cdot ...\cdot z_{n}$ with $z_{i}\in H$ and $\sum \rho (e,z_{i})\leq (1+\varepsilon )\cdot \rho (e,x).$ Fix a compact fundamental domain $F$ for $ H$ in $H_{K}$ so that integration in () over $H\backslash H_{K}$ is replaced by integration over $F.$ Then for some constant $C_{F}>0$ we have $ |\rho (g,gz)-\rho (e,gz)|\leq C_{F}$ for $g\in F$ and $z\in H.$ Moreover, it follows from Proposition , Lemma and the fact that $ H_{K}\subset L,$ that \begin{equation} \rho (e,gk(z))\leq (1+\varepsilon )\cdot \rho (e,z) \end{equation} for all $g\in F,$ $k\in K$ and as soon as $z\in G$ is large enough. Fix $s$ large enough so that $C_{F}\leq \varepsilon s$ and so that () holds when $\rho (e,z)\geq s$. As already observed in the discussion following Definition (property (3)) we may take the $z_{i}$'s so that $\frac{s}{2}\leq \rho (e,z_{i})\leq s.$ Then $ nC_{F}\leq ns\varepsilon \leq 3\varepsilon \rho (e,x).$ Finally we get for $ \varepsilon <1$ and $x$ large enough \begin{eqnarray*} \sum \rho _{K}(e,z_{i}) &\leq &C_{F}n+(1+\varepsilon )^{2}\rho (e,x) \\ &\leq &C_{F}n+(1+\varepsilon )^{3}\rho _{K}(e,x) \\ &\leq &(1+10\varepsilon )\cdot \rho _{K}(e,x) \end{eqnarray*} where we have used the convergence $\rho _{K}/\rho \rightarrow 1$ that we just proved. \edpf \section{The nilpotent case} In this section, we prove Theorem and its corollaries stated in the Introduction for a simply connected nilpotent Lie group. We essentially follow Pansu's argument from , although our approach differs somewhat in its presentation. Throughout the section, the nilpotent Lie group will be denoted by $N,$ and its Lie algebra by $\frak{n}$. Let $m_{1}$ be any vector subspace of $\frak{n}$ such that $\frak{n} =m_{1}\oplus [\frak{n},\frak{n}]$. Let $\pi _{1}$ the associated linear projection of $\frak{n}$ onto $m_{1}$. Let $H$ be a closed co-compact subgroup of $N$. To every $H$-periodic pseudodistance $\rho $ on $N$ we associate a norm $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$ on $m_{1}$ which is the norm whose unit ball is defined to be the closed convex hull of all elements $\pi _{1}(h)/\rho (e,h)$ for all $h\in H\backslash \{e\}.$ In other words, \begin{equation} E:=\{x\in m_{1},\left\| x\right\| _{0}\leq 1\}=\overline{CvxHull}\left\{ \frac{\pi _{1}(h)}{\rho (e,h)},h\in H\backslash \{e\}\right\} \end{equation} The set $E$ is clearly a convex subset of $m_{1}$ which is symmetric around $ 0$ (since $\rho $ is symmetric). To check that $E$ is indeed the unit ball of a norm on $m_{1}$ it remains to see that $E$ is bounded and that $0$ lies in its interior. The first fact follows immediately from $(\ref {uppercomparison2})$ and Example . If $0$ does not lie in the interior of $E,$ then $E$ must be contained in a proper subspace of $m_{1},$ contradicting the fact that $H$ is co-compact in $N$. Taking large powers $h^n$, we see that we can replace the set $H\setminus\{e\}$ in the above definition by any neighborhood of infinity in $H$. Similarly, it is easy to see that the following holds: \begin{prop} For $s>0$ let $E_{s}$ be the closed convex hull of all $\pi _{1}(x)/\rho (e,x)$ with $x\in N$ and $\rho (e,x)>s$. Then $ E=\bigcap_{s>0}E_{s}$. \end{prop} \proof Since $\rho $ is $H$-periodic, we have $\rho (e,h^{n})\leq n\rho (e,h)$ for all $n\in \Bbb{N}$ and $h\in H$. This shows $E\subset \bigcap_{s>0}E_{s}.$ The opposite inclusion follows easily from the fact that $\rho $ is at a bounded distance from its restriction to $H,$ i.e. from $ (1) $. \endproof We now choose a set of supplementary subspaces $(m_{i})$ starting with $ m_{1} $ as in Paragraph . This defines a new Lie product $*$ on $N$ so that $N_{\infty }=(N,*)$ is stratified. We can then consider the $*$ -left invariant Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric associated to the norm $ \left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$ as defined in Paragraph on the stratified nilpotent Lie group $N_{\infty }.$ In this section, we will prove Theorem for nilpotent groups in the following form: \begin{theorem} Let $\rho $ be a periodic pseudodistance on $N$ and $d_{\infty }$ the Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric defined above, then as $x$ tends to infinity in $N$ \begin{equation} \lim \frac{\rho (e,x)}{d_{\infty }(e,x)}=1 \end{equation} \end{theorem} Note that $d_{\infty }$ is left-invariant for the $N_{\infty }$ Lie product, but not the original Lie product on $N$. Before going further, let us draw some simple consequences. $(1)$ In Theorem we may replace $d_{\infty }(e,x)$ by $ d(e,x)$, where $d$ is the left invariant Carnot-Caratheodory metric on $N$ (rather than $N_{\infty }$) defined by the norm $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$ (as opposed to $d_{\infty }$ which is $*$-left invariant). Hence $\rho ,d$ and $d_{\infty }$ are asymptotic. This follows from the combination of Theorem and Remark . $(2)$ Observe that the choice of $m_{1}$ was arbitrary. Hence two Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metrics corresponding to two different choices of a supplementary subspace $m_{1}$ with the same induced norm on $\frak{n}/[ \frak{n},\frak{n}]$, are asymptotically equivalent (i.e. their ratio tends to $1$), and in fact isometric (see Remark ). Conversely, if two Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metrics are associated to the same supplementary subspace $m_{1}$ and are asymptotically equivalent, they must be equal. This shows that the set of all possible norms on the quotient vector space $\frak{ n}/[\frak{n},\frak{n}]$ is in bijection with the set of all classes of asymptotic equivalence of Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metrics on $N_{\infty }$. $(3)$ As another consequence we see that if a locally bounded proper and asymptotically geodesic left-invariant pseudodistance on $N$ is also homogeneous with respect to the $1$-parameter group $(\delta _{t})_{t}$ (i.e. $\rho (e,\delta _{t}x)=t\rho (e,x)$) then it has to be of the form $ \rho (x,y)=d_{\infty }(e,x^{-1}y)$ where $d_{\infty }$ is a Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric on $N_{\infty }$. \subsection{Volume asymptotics} Theorem also yields a formula for the asymptotic volume of $\rho $-balls of large radius. Let us fix a Haar measure on $N$ (for example Lebesgue measure on $\frak{n}$ gives rise to a Haar measure on $N$ under $ \exp $). Since $d_{\infty }$ is homogeneous, it is straightforward to compute the volume of a $d_{\infty }$-ball: \begin{equation*} vol(\{x\in N,d_{\infty }(e,x)\leq t\})=t^{d(N)}vol(\{x\in N,d_{\infty }(e,x)\leq 1\}) \end{equation*} where $d(N)=\sum_{i\geq 1}\dim (C^{i}(\frak{n}))$ is the \textit{homogeneous dimension} of $N.$ For a pseudodistance $\rho $ as in the statement of Theorem , we can define the \textit{asymptotic volume of }$\rho $ to be the volume of the unit ball for the associated Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric $d_{\infty }$. \begin{equation*} AsVol(\rho )=vol(\{x\in N,d_{\infty }(e,x)\leq 1\}) \end{equation*} Then we obtain as an immediate corollary of Theorem : \begin{corollary} Let $\rho $ be periodic pseudodistance on $N.$ Then \begin{equation*} \lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{1}{t^{d(N)}}vol(\{x\in N,\rho (e,x)\leq t\})=AsVol(\rho )>0 \end{equation*} \end{corollary} Finally, if $\Gamma $ is an arbitrary finitely generated nilpotent group, we need to take care of the torsion elements$.$ They form a normal finite subgroup $T$ and applying Theorem to $\Gamma /T$, we obtain: \begin{corollary} Let $S$ be a finite symmetric generating set of $\Gamma $ and $S^{n}$ the ball of radius $n$ is the word metric $\rho _{S}$ associated to $S,$ then \begin{equation*} \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{1}{n^{d(N)}}\#S^{n}=\#T\cdot \frac{ AsVol(\rho _{\overline{S}})}{vol(N/\overline{\Gamma })}>0 \end{equation*} where $N$ is the Malcev closure of $\overline{\Gamma }=\Gamma /T$, the torsion free quotient of $\Gamma ,$ and $d_{\overline{S}}$ is the word pseudodistance associated to $\overline{S}$, the projection of $S$ in $ \overline{\Gamma }.$ \end{corollary} Moreover, it is possible to be a bit more precise about $AsVol(\rho _{ \overline{S}}).$ In fact, the norm $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$ on $m_{1}$ used to define the limit Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory distance $d_{\infty }$ associated to $\rho _{\overline{S}}$ is a simple polyhedral norm defined by \begin{equation*} \left\{ \left\| x\right\| _{0}\leq 1\right\} =CvxHull\left( \pi _{1}( \overline{s}),s\in S\right) \end{equation*} More generally the following holds. Let $H$ be any closed, co-compact subgroup of $N.$ Choose a Haar measure on $H$ so that $vol_{N}(N/H)=1$. Theorem yields: \begin{corollary} Let $\Omega $ be a compact symmetric (i.e. $\Omega =\Omega ^{-1}$) neighborhood of the identity, which generates $H$. Let $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$ be the norm on $m_{1}$ whose unit ball is $\overline{CvxHull} \{\pi _{1}(\Omega )\}$ and let $d_{\infty }$ be the corresponding Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory metric on $N_{\infty }.$ Then we have the following limit in the Hausdorff topology \begin{equation*} \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty }\delta _{\frac{1}{n}}(\Omega ^{n})=\left\{ g\in N,d_{\infty }(e,g)\leq 1\right\} \end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{vol_{H}(\Omega ^{n})}{n^{d(N)}} =vol_{N}\left( \left\{ g\in N,d_{\infty }(e,g)\leq 1\right\} \right) \end{equation*} \end{corollary} \subsection{Outline of the proof} We first devise some standard lemmas about piecewise approximations of horizontal paths (Lemmas , , ). Then it is shown (Lemma ) that the original product on $N$ and the product in the associated graded Lie group are asymptotic to each other, namely, if $(\delta _{t})_{t}$ is a $1$-parameter group of dilations of $N,$ then after renormalization by $\delta _{\frac{1}{t}},$ the product of $O(t)$ elements lying in some bounded subset of $N,$ is very close to the renormalized product of the same elements in the graded Lie group $N_{\infty }$. This is why all complications due to the fact that $N$ may not be \textit{a priori} graded and the $\delta _{t}$'s may not be automorphisms disappear when looking at the large scale geometry of the group. Finally, we observe (Lemma ), as follows from the very definition of the unit ball $E$ for the limit norm $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0},$ that any vector in the boundary of $E$, can be approximated, after renormalizing by $ \delta _{\frac{1}{s}}$ by some element $x\in N$ lying in a fixed annulus $ s(1-\varepsilon )\leq \rho (e,x)\leq s(1+\varepsilon ).$ This enables us to assert that any $\rho $-quasi geodesic gives rise, after renormalization, to a $d_{\infty }$-geodesic (this gives the lower bound in Theorem ). And vice-versa, that any $d_{\infty } $-geodesic can be approximated uniformly by some renormalized $\rho $ -quasi geodesic (this gives the upper bound in Theorem ). \subsection{Preliminary lemmas} \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be a Lie group and let $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{e}$ be a Euclidean norm on the Lie algebra of $G$ and $d_{e}(\cdot ,\cdot )$ the associated left invariant Riemannian metric on $G$. Let $K$ be a compact subset of $G$. Then there is a constant $C_{0}=C_{0}(d_{e},K)>0$ such that whenever $d_{e}(e,u)\leq 1$ and $x,y\in K$ \begin{equation*} \left| d_{e}(xu,yu)-d_{e}(x,y)\right| \leq C_{0}d_{e}(x,y)d_{e}(e,u) \end{equation*} \end{lemma} \proof The proof reduces to the case when $u$ and $x^{-1}y$ are in a small neighborhood of $e.$ Then the inequality boils down to the following $ \left\| [X,Y]\right\| _{e}\leq c\left\| X\right\| _{e}\left\| Y\right\| _{e}$ for some $c>0$ and every $X,Y$ in $Lie(G).$ \endproof \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be a Lie group, let $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ be some norm on the Lie algebra of $G$ and let $d_{e}(\cdot ,\cdot )$ be a left invariant Riemannian metric on $G$. Then for every $L>0$ there is a constant $C=C(d_{e},\left\| \cdot \right\| ,L)>0$ with the following property. Assume $\xi _{1},\xi _{2}:[0,1]\rightarrow G$ are two piecewise smooth paths in the Lie group $G$ with $\xi _{1}(0)=\xi _{2}(0)=e.$ Let $\xi _{i}^{\prime }\in Lie(G)$ be the tangent vector pulled back at the identity by a left translation of $G$. Assume that $\sup_{t\in [0,1]}\left\| \xi _{1}^{\prime }(t)\right\| \leq L$, and that $\int_{0}^{1}\left\| \xi _{1}^{\prime }(t)-\xi _{2}^{\prime }(t)\right\| dt\leq \varepsilon $. Then \begin{equation*} d_{e}(\xi _{1}(1),\xi _{2}(1))\leq C\varepsilon \end{equation*} \end{lemma} \proof The function $f(t)=d_{e}(\xi _{1}(t),\xi _{2}(t))$ is piecewise smooth. For small $dt$ we may write, using Lemma \begin{eqnarray*} f(t+dt)-f(t) &\leq &d_e(\xi _{1}(t)\xi _{1}^{\prime }(t)dt,\xi _{1}(t)\xi _{2}^{\prime }(t)dt)+d_e(\xi _{1}(t)\xi _{2}^{\prime }(t)dt,\xi _{2}(t)\xi _{2}^{\prime }(t)dt)-f(t)+o(dt) \\ &\leq &\left\| \xi _{1}^{\prime }(t)-\xi _{2}^{\prime }(t)\right\| _{e}dt+C_{0}f(t)\left\| \xi _{2}^{\prime }(t)dt\right\| _{e}+o(dt) \\ &\leq &\varepsilon (t)dt+C_0Lf(t)dt+o(dt) \end{eqnarray*} where $\varepsilon (t)=\left\| \xi _{1}^{\prime }(t)-\xi _{2}^{\prime }(t)\right\| _{e}.$ In other words, \begin{equation*} f^{\prime }(t)\leq \varepsilon (t)+C_{0}Lf(t) \end{equation*} Since $f(0)=0,$ Gronwall's lemma implies that $f(1)\leq e^{C_{0}L}\int_{0}^{1}\varepsilon (s)e^{-C_{0}Ls}ds\leq $ $C\varepsilon .$ \edpf From now on, we will take $G$ to be the stratified nilpotent Lie group $ N_{\infty }$, and $d_{e}(\cdot ,\cdot )$ will denote a left invariant Riemannian metric on $N_{\infty }$ while $d_{\infty }(\cdot ,\cdot )$ is a left invariant Carnot-Caratheodory Finsler metric on $N_{\infty }$ associated to some norm $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ on $m_{1}.$ \begin{remark} There is $c_{0}>0$ such that $c_{0}^{-1}d_{e}(e,x)\leq d_{\infty }(e,x)\leq c_{0}d_{e}(e,x)^{\frac{1}{r}}$ in a neighborhood of $e$. Hence in the situation of the lemma we get $d_{\infty }(\xi _{1}(1),\xi _{2}(1))\leq C_{1}\varepsilon ^{\frac{1}{r}}$ for some other constant $ C_{1}=C_{1}(L,d_{\infty },d_{e}).$ \end{remark} \begin{lemma} Let $N\in \Bbb{N}$ and $d_{N}(x,y)$ be the function in $ N_{\infty }$ defined in the following way: \begin{equation*} d_{N}(x,y)=\inf \{\int_{0}^{1}\left\| \xi ^{\prime }(u)\right\| du,\xi \in \mathcal{H}_{PL(N)},\text{ }\xi (0)=x,\xi (1)=y\} \end{equation*} where $\mathcal{H}_{PL(N)}$ is the set of horizontal paths $\xi $ which are piecewise linear with at most $N$ possible values for $\xi ^{\prime }.$ Then we have $d_{N}\rightarrow d_{\infty }$ uniformly on compact subsets of $ N_{\infty }.$ \end{lemma} \proof Note that it follows from Chow's theorem (e.g. see or ) that there exists $K_{0}\in \Bbb{N}$ such that $A:=\sup_{d_{\infty }(e,x)=1}d_{K_{0}}(e,x)<\infty .$ Moreover, since piecewise linear paths are dense in $L^{1},$ it follows for example from Lemma \ref {compageod} that for each fixed $x$, $d_{n}(e,x)\rightarrow d_{\infty }(e,x)$ . We need to show that $d_{N}(e,x)\rightarrow d_{\infty }(e,x)$ uniformly in $x$ satisfying $d_{\infty }(e,x)=1.$ By contradiction, suppose there is a sequence $(x_{n})_{n}$ such that $d_{\infty }(e,x_{n})=1$ and $ d_{n}(e,x_{n})\geq 1+\varepsilon _{0}$ for some $\varepsilon _{0}>0.$ We may assume that $(x_{n})_{n}$ converges to say $x.$ Let $y_{n}=x^{-1}*x_{n}$ and $t_{n}=d_{\infty }(e,y_{n}).$ Then $d_{K_{0}}(e,y_{n})=t_{n}d_{K_{0}}(e, \delta _{\frac{1}{t_{n}}}(y_{n}))\leq At_{n}$. Thus $d_{n}(e,x_{n})\leq d_{n}(e,x)+d_{n}(e,y_{n})\leq d_{n}(e,x)+At_{n}$ as soon as $n\geq K_{0}.$ As $n$ tends to $\infty $, we get a contradiction. \endproof This lemma prompts the following notation. For $\varepsilon >0$, we let $ N_{\varepsilon }\in \Bbb{N}$ be the first integer such that $1\leq d_{N_{\varepsilon }}(e,x)\leq 1+\varepsilon $ for all $x$ with $d_{\infty }(e,x)=1.$ Then we have: \begin{lemma} For every $x\in N_{\infty }$ with $d_{\infty }(e,x)=1,$ and all $\varepsilon >0$ there exists a path $\xi :[0,1]\rightarrow N_{\infty }$ in $\mathcal{H}_{PL(N_{\varepsilon })}$ with unit speed (i.e. $\left\| \xi ^{\prime }\right\| =1$) such that $\xi (0)=e$ and $d_{\infty }(x,\xi (1))\leq C_{2}\varepsilon $ and $\xi ^{\prime }$ has at most one discontinuity on any subinterval of $[0,1]$ of length $\varepsilon ^{r}/N_{\varepsilon }$. \end{lemma} \proof We know that there is a path in $\mathcal{H}_{PL(N_{\varepsilon })}$ connecting $e$ to $x$ with length $\ell \leq 1+\varepsilon .$ Reparametrizing the path so that it has unit speed, we get a path $\xi _{0}:[0,\ell ]\rightarrow N_{\infty }$ in $\mathcal{H}_{PL(N_{\varepsilon })} $ with $d_{\infty }(x,\xi _{0}(1))=d_{\infty }(\xi _{0}(\ell ),\xi _{0}(1))\leq \varepsilon .$ The derivative $\xi _{0}^{\prime }$ is constant on at most $N_{\varepsilon }$ different intervals say $[u_{i},u_{i+1}).$ Let us remove all such intervals of length $\leq \varepsilon ^{r}/N_{\varepsilon }$ by merging them to an adjacent interval and let us change the value of $ \xi _{0}^{\prime }$ on these intervals to the value on the adjacent interval (it doesn't matter if we choose the interval on the left or on the right). We obtain a new path $\xi :[0,1]\rightarrow N_{\infty }$ in $\mathcal{H} _{PL(N_{\varepsilon })}$ with unit speed and such that $\xi ^{\prime }$ has at most one discontinuity on any subinterval of $[0,1]$ of length $ \varepsilon ^{r}/N_{\varepsilon }.$ Moreover $\int_{0}^{1}\left\| \xi ^{\prime }(t)-\xi _{0}^{\prime }(t)\right\| dt\leq \varepsilon ^{r}.$ By Lemma and Remark , we have $d_{\infty }(\xi (1),\xi _{0}(1))\leq C_{1}\varepsilon ,$ hence \begin{equation*} d_{\infty }(\xi (1),x)\leq d_{\infty }(x,\xi _{0}(1))+d_{\infty }(\xi _{0}(1),\xi (1))\leq (C_{1}+1)\varepsilon \end{equation*} \endproof \begin{lemma}[Piecewise horizontal approximation of paths] Let $x*y$ denote the product inside the stratified Lie group $N_{\infty }$ and $x\cdot y$ the ordinary product in $N$. Let $n\in \Bbb{N}$ and $t\geq n.$ Then for any compact subset $K$ of $N$, and any $ x_{1},...,x_{n}$ elements of $K$, we have \begin{equation*} d_{e}(\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x_{1}\cdot ...\cdot x_{n}),\delta _{\frac{1}{t} }(x_{1}*...*x_{n}))\leq c_{1}\frac{1}{t} \end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} d_{e}(\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x_{1}*...*x_{n}),\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(\pi _{1}(x_{1})*...*\pi _{1}(x_{n})))\leq c_{2}\frac{1}{t} \end{equation*} where $c_{1},c_{2}$ depend on $K$ and $d_{e}$ only. \end{lemma} \proof Let $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ be a norm on the Lie algebra of $N.$ For $ k=1,...,n$ let $z_{k}=$ $x_{1}\cdot ...\cdot x_{k-1}$ and $ y_{k}=x_{k+1}*...*x_{n}.$ Since all $x_{i}$'s belong to $K,$ it follows from $()$ that as soon as $t\geq n$, all $\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(z_{k})$ and $\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(y_{k})$ for $k=1,...,n$ remain in a bounded set depending only on $K.$ Comparing $()$ and $()$, we see that whenever $y=O(1)$ and $\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x)=O(1)$, we have \begin{equation} \left\| \delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(xy)-\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x*y)\right\| =O( \frac{1}{t^{2}}) \end{equation} On the other hand, from $()$ it is easy to verify that right $*$ -multiplication by a bounded element is Lipschitz for $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ and the Lipschitz constant is locally bounded. It follows that there is a constant $C_{1}>0$ (depending only on $K$ and $\left\| \cdot \right\| $) such that for all $k\leq n$ \begin{equation*} \left\| \delta _{\frac{1}{t}}((z_{k}\cdot x_{k})*y_{k})-\delta _{\frac{1}{t} }(z_{k}*x_{k}*y_{k})\right\| \leq C_{1}\left\| \delta _{\frac{1}{t} }(z_{k}\cdot x_{k})-\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(z_{k}*x_{k})\right\| \end{equation*} Applying $n$ times the relation $()$ with $x=x_{1}\cdot ...\cdot x_{k-1}$ and $y=x_{k},$ we finally obtain \begin{equation*} \left\| \delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x_{1}\cdot ...\cdot x_{n})-\delta _{\frac{1}{t} }(x_{1}*...*x_{n})\right\| =O(\frac{n}{t^{2}})=O(\frac{1}{t}) \end{equation*} where $O()$ depends only on $K$. On the other hand, using $(),$ it is another simple verification to check that if $x,y$ lie in a bounded set, then $\frac{1}{c_{2}}d_{e}(x,y)\leq \left\| x-y\right\| $ $\leq c_{2}d_{e}(x,y)$ for some constant $c_{2}>0.$ The first inequality follows. For the second inequality, we apply Lemma to the paths $\xi _{1}$ and $\xi _{2}$ starting at $e$ and with derivative equal on $[\frac{k}{ n},\frac{k+1}{n})$ to $n\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x_{k})$ for $\xi _{1}$ and to $ n\frac{\pi _{1}(x_{k})}{t}$ for $\xi _{2}.$ We get \begin{equation*} d_{e}(\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x_{1}*...*x_{n}),\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(\pi _{1}(x_{1})*...*\pi _{1}(x_{n}))=O(\frac{1}{t}). \end{equation*} \edpf \begin{remark} From Remark we see that if we replace $d_{e}$ by $d_{\infty }$ in the above lemma, we get the same result with $\frac{1}{t}$ replaced by $t^{-\frac{1}{r}}.$ \end{remark} \begin{lemma}[Approximation in the abelianized group] Recall that $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$ is the norm on $m_{1}$ defined in ($)$. For any $\varepsilon >0,$ there exists $s_{0}>0$ such that for every $s>s_{0}$ and every $v\in m_{1}$ such that $\left\| v\right\| _{0}=1,$ there exists $h\in H$ such that \begin{equation*} (1-\varepsilon )s\leq \rho (e,h)\leq (1+\varepsilon )s \end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} \left\| \frac{\pi _{1}(h)}{\rho (e,h)}-v\right\| _{0}\leq \varepsilon \end{equation*} \end{lemma} \proof Let $\varepsilon >0$ be fixed. Considering a finite $\varepsilon $-net in $E$ , we see that there exists a finite symmetric subset $\{g_{1},...,g_{p}\}$ of $H\backslash \{e\}$ such that, if we consider the closed convex hull of $ \frak{F}=\{f_{i}=\pi _{1}(g_{i})/\rho (e,g_{i})|i=1,...,p\}$ and $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{\varepsilon }$ the associated norm on $m_{1},$ then $ \left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}\leq \left\| \cdot \right\| _{\varepsilon }\leq (1+2\varepsilon )\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$. Up to shrinking $\frak{F}$ if necessary, we may assume that $\left\| f_{i}\right\| _{\varepsilon }=1$ for all $i$'s. We may also assume that the $f_{i}$'s generate $m_{1}$ as a vector space. The sphere $\{x,\left\| x\right\| _{\varepsilon }=1\}$ is a symmetric polyhedron in $m_{1}$ and to each of its facets corresponds $ d=\dim (m_{1})$ vertices lying in $\frak{F}$ and forming a vector basis of $ m_{1}$. Let $f_{1},...,f_{d}$, say, be such vertices for a given facet. If $ x\in m_{1}$ is of the form $x=\sum_{i=1}^{d}\lambda _{i}f_{i}$ with $\lambda _{i}\geq 0$ for $1\leq i\leq d$ then we see that $\left\| x\right\| _{\varepsilon }=\sum_{i=1}^{d}\lambda _{i}$, because the convex hull of $ f_{1},...,f_{d}$ is precisely that facet, hence lies on the sphere $ \{x,\left\| x\right\| _{\varepsilon }=1\}$. Now let $v\in m_{1},$ $\left\| v\right\| _{0}=1,$ and let $s>0.$ The half line $tv,$ $t>0$, hits the sphere $\{x,\left\| x\right\| _{\varepsilon }=1\}$ in one point. This point belongs to some facet and there are $d$ linearly independent elements of $\frak{F}$, say $f_{1},...,f_{d}$, the vertices of that facet, such that this point belongs to the convex hull of $ f_{1},...,f_{d}$. The point $sv$ then lies in the convex cone generated by $ \pi _{1}(g_{1}),...,\pi _{1}(g_{d})$. Moreover, there is a constant $ C_{\varepsilon }>0$ ($C_{\varepsilon }\leq \frac{d}{2}\max_{1\leq i\leq p}\rho (e,g_{i})$) such that \begin{equation*} \left\| sv-\sum_{i=1}^{d}n_{i}\pi _{1}(g_{i})\right\| _{\varepsilon }\leq C_{\varepsilon } \end{equation*} for some non-negative integers $n_{1},...,n_{d}$ depending on $s>0.$ Hence \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{1}{s}\sum_{i=1}^{d}n_{i}\rho (e,g_{i}) &=&\frac{1}{s}\left\| \sum_{i=1}^{d}n_{i}\pi _{1}(g_{i})\right\| _{\varepsilon }\leq \frac{1}{s} (\left\| sv\right\| _{\varepsilon }+C_{\varepsilon }) \\ &\leq &1+2\varepsilon +\frac{C_{\varepsilon }}{s}\leq 1+3\varepsilon \end{eqnarray*} where the last inequality holds as soon as $s>C_{\varepsilon }/\varepsilon .$ Now let $h=g_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdot ...\cdot g_{d}^{n_{d}}\in H$. We have $\pi _{1}(h)=\sum_{i=1}^{d}n_{i}\pi _{1}(g_{i})$ \begin{equation*} \rho (e,h)\geq \left\| \pi _{1}(h)\right\| _{0}\geq s-C_{\varepsilon }\geq s(1-\varepsilon ) \end{equation*} Moreover \begin{equation*} \rho (e,h)\leq \sum_{i=1}^{d}n_{i}\rho (e,g_{i})\leq s(1+3\varepsilon ) \end{equation*} Changing $\varepsilon $ into say $\frac{\varepsilon }{5}$ and for say $ \varepsilon <\frac{1}{2},$ we get the desired result with $s_{0}(\varepsilon )=\frac{d}{\varepsilon }\max_{1\leq i\leq p}\rho (e,g_{i})$. \edpf \subsection{Proof of Theorem } We need to show that as $x\rightarrow \infty $ in $N$ \begin{equation*} 1\leq \underline{\lim }\frac{\rho (e,x)}{d_{\infty }(e,x)}\leq \overline{ \lim }\frac{\rho (e,x)}{d_{\infty }(e,x)}\leq 1 \end{equation*} First note that it is enough to prove the bounds for $x\in H.$ This follows from () $(1)$. Let us begin with the lower bound. We fix $\varepsilon >0$ and $ s=s(\varepsilon )$ as in the definition of an asymptotically geodesic metric (see $()$). We know by $(3)$ and $(4)$ that as soon as $\rho (e,x)\geq s$ we may find $x_{1},...,x_{n}$ in $H$ with $s\leq \rho (e,x_{i})\leq 2s$ such that $x=\prod x_{i}$ and $\sum \rho (e,x_{i})\leq (1+\varepsilon )\rho (e,x).$ Let $t=d_{\infty }(e,x),$ then $ n\leq \frac{1+\varepsilon }{s}\rho (e,x)$, hence $n\leq \frac{C}{ s(\varepsilon )}t$ where $C$ is a constant depending only on $\rho $ (see $( )$). We may then apply Lemma (and the remark following it) to get, as $t\geq n$ as soon as $s(\varepsilon )\geq C,$ \begin{equation*} d_{\infty }(\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x),\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(\pi _{1}(x_{1})*...*\pi _{1}(x_{n})))\leq c_{1}^{\prime }t^{-\frac{1}{r}} \end{equation*} But for each $i$ we have $\left\| \pi _{1}(x_{i})\right\| _{0}\leq \rho (e,x_{i})$ by definition of the norm, hence \begin{equation*} t=d_{\infty }(e,x)\leq \sum \left\| \pi _{1}(x_{i})\right\| _{0}+d_{\infty }(x,\pi _{1}(x_{1})*...*\pi _{1}(x_{n}))\leq (1+\varepsilon )\rho (e,x)+c_{1}^{\prime }t^{1-\frac{1}{r}} \end{equation*} Since $\varepsilon $ was arbitrary, letting $t\rightarrow \infty $ we obtain \begin{equation*} \underline{\lim }\frac{\rho (e,x)}{d_{\infty }(e,x)}\geq 1 \end{equation*} We now turn to the upper bound. Let $t=d_{\infty }(e,x)$ and $\varepsilon >0. $ According to Lemma , there is a horizontal piecewise linear path $\{\xi (u)\}_{u\in [0,1]}$ with unit speed such that $d_{\infty }(\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x),\xi (1))\leq C_{2}\varepsilon $ and no interval of length $\geq \frac{\varepsilon ^{r}}{N_{\varepsilon }}$contains more than one change of direction. Let $s_{0}(\varepsilon )$ be given by Lemma \ref {sphereapprox} and assume $t>s_{0}(\varepsilon ^{r})N_{\varepsilon }/\varepsilon ^{r}.$ We split $[0,1]$ into $n$ subintervals of length $ u_{1},...,u_{n}$ such that $\xi ^{\prime }$ is constant equal to $y_{i}$ on the $i$-th subinterval and $s_{0}(\varepsilon ^{r})\leq tu_{i}\leq 2s_{0}(\varepsilon ^{r})$. We have $\xi (1)=u_{1}y_{1}*...*u_{n}y_{n}.$ Lemma yields points $x_{i}\in H$ such that \begin{equation*} \left\| y_{i}-\frac{\pi _{1}(x_{i})}{tu_{i}}\right\| \leq \varepsilon ^{r} \end{equation*} and $\rho (e,x_{i})\in [(1-\varepsilon ^{r})tu_{i},(1+\varepsilon ^{r})tu_{i}]$ (note that $tu_{i}>s_{0}(\varepsilon ^{r})$). Let $\overline{ \xi }$ be the piecewise linear path $[0,1]\rightarrow N_{\infty }$ with the same discontinuities as $\xi $ and where the value $y_{i}$ is replaced by $ \frac{\pi _{1}(x_{i})}{tu_{i}}.$ Then according to Lemma , $ d_{\infty }(\xi (1),\overline{\xi }(1))\leq C\varepsilon .$ Since $\rho (e,x_{i})\leq 4s_{0}(\varepsilon ^{r})$ for each $i$, we may apply Lemma \ref {largeproducts} (and the remark following it) and see that if $y=x_{1}\cdot ...\cdot x_{n},$ \begin{equation*} d_{\infty }(\overline{\xi }(1),\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(y))\leq c_{1}^{\prime }(\varepsilon )t^{-\frac{1}{r}} \end{equation*} Hence $d_{\infty }(\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x),\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(y))\leq (C_{2}+C)\varepsilon +c_{1}^{\prime }(\varepsilon )t^{-\frac{1}{r}}$ and $ \rho (e,y)\leq \sum \rho (e,x_{i})\leq (1+\varepsilon ^{r})t$ while $\rho (x,y)\leq C^{\prime }td_{\infty }(e,\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x^{-1}y))+C^{ \prime }\leq t(Cd_{\infty }(\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x),\delta _{\frac{1}{t} }(y))+o_{\varepsilon }(1)).$ Hence \begin{equation*} \rho (e,x)\leq t+o_{\varepsilon }(t) \end{equation*} \endproof \begin{remark} In the last argument we used the fact that $\left\| \delta _{\frac{1}{t} }(xu)-\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x*u)\right\| =O(\frac{1}{t^{\frac{1}{r}}})$ if $ \delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x)$ and $\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(u)$ are bounded, in order to get for $y=xu,$ \begin{eqnarray*} d_{\infty }(e,\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(u)) &\leq &d_{\infty }(\delta _{\frac{1}{ t}}(x),\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(xu))+d_{\infty }(\delta _{\frac{1}{t} }(xu),\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x*u)) \\ &\leq &d_{\infty }(\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(x),\delta _{\frac{1}{t}}(y))+o(1). \end{eqnarray*} \end{remark} \section{Locally compact $G$ and proofs of the main results} In this section, we prove Theorem and complete the proof of Theorem and its corollaries. We begin with the latter. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem ] It is the combination of Proposition , which reduces the problem to nilpotent Lie groups, and Theorem , which treats the nilpotent case. It only remains to justify the last assertion that $d_\infty$ is invariant under $T(H)$. Since $K=\overline{T(H)}$ stabilizes $m_1$ (see Lemma for the definition of $m_1$) and acts by automorphisms of the nilpotent (nilshadow) structure (Lemma ), given any $k \in K$, the metric $d_\infty(k(x),k(y))$ is nothing else but the left invariant subFinsler metric on the nilshadow associated to the norm $\|k(v)\|$ for $v \in m_1$ (if $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the norm associated to $d_\infty$). However, $d_\infty$ is asymptotically invariant under $K$, because of Proposition $$. Namely $d_\infty(e,k(x))/d_\infty(e,x)$ tends to $1$ as $x$ tends to infinity. Finally $d_\infty(e,v)=\|v\|$ and $d_\infty(e,k(v))=\|k(v)\|$ for all $v \in m_1$. Two asymptotic norms on a vector space are always equal. It follows that the norms $\|\cdot\|$ and $\|k(\cdot)\|$ on $m_1$ coincide. Hence $d_\infty(e,k(x))=d_\infty(e,k(x))$ for all $x \in S$ as claimed. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary ] First some initial remark (see also Remark ). If $d$ is a left-invariant subFinlser metric on a simply connected nilpotent Lie group $N$ induced by a norm $\|\cdot\|$ on a supplementary subspace $m_1$ of the commutator subalgebra, then it follows from the very definition of subFinsler metrics (see Paragraph ) that $\pi_1$ is $1$-Lipschitz between the Lie group and the abelianization of it endowed with the norm $\|\cdot\|$, namely $\|\pi_1(x)\|\leq d(e,x)$, with equality if $x \in m_1$. From this and considering the definition of the limit norm in $()$, we conclude that $\|\cdot\|$ coincides with the limit norm of $d$. In particular Theorem implies that $d$ is asymptotic to the $*$-left invariant subFinsler metric $d_\infty$ induced by the same norm $\|\cdot\|$ on the graded Lie group $(N_\infty,*)$. We can now prove Corollary . By the above remark, the limit metric $d_\infty$ on the graded nilshadow of $S$ is asymptotic to the subFinsler metric $d$ induced by the same norm $\|\cdot \|$ on the same ($K$-invariant) supplementary subspace $m_1$ of the commutator subalgebra of the nilshadow, and which is left invariant for the nilshadow structure on $S$. However, it follows from Theorem that $d_\infty$ and the norm $\|\cdot\|$ are $K$-invariant. This implies that $d$ is also left-invariant with respect to the original Lie group structure of $S$. Indeed, by $()$, we can write $d(gx,gy)=d(g*(T(g)x),g*(T(g)y))=d(T(g)x,T(g)y)=d(x,y)$, where $*$ denotes this time the nilshadow product structure. We are done. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary ] This follows immediately from Theorem , when $*$ denotes the graded nilshadow product. If $*$ denotes the nilshadow group structure, then it follows from Theorem and the remark we just made in the proof of Corollary (see also Remark ). \end{proof} \subsection{Proof of Theorem .} Let $G$ be a locally compact group of polynomial growth. We will show that $G$ has a compact normal subgroup $K$ such that $G/K$ contains a closed co-compact subgroup, which can be realized as a closed co-compact subgroup of a connected and simply connected solvable Lie group of type $(R)$ (i.e. of polynomial growth). The proof will follow in several steps.\\ (a) First we show that \emph{up to moding out by a normal compact subgroup, we may assume that $G$ is a Lie group whose connected component of the identity has no compact normal subgroup.} Indeed, it follows from Losert's refinement of Gromov's theorem ( Theorem 2) that there exists a normal compact subgroup $K$ of $G$ such that $G/K$ is a Lie group. So we may now assume that $G$ is a Lie group (not necessarily connected) of polynomial growth. The connected component $G_{0}$ of $G$ is a connected Lie group of polynomial growth. Recall the following classical fact: \begin{lemma} Every connected Lie group has a unique maximal compact normal subgroup. By uniqueness it must be a characteristic Lie subgroup. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Clearly if $K_1$ and $K_2$ are compact normal subgroups, then $K_1K_2$ is again a compact normal subgroup. Considering $G/K$, where $K$ is a compact normal subgroup of maximal dimension, we may assume that $G$ has no compact normal subgroup of positive dimension. But every finite normal subgroup of a connected group is central. Hence the closed group generated by all finite normal subgroups is contained in the center of $G$. The center is an abelian Lie subgroup, i.e. isomorphic to a product of a vector space $\R^n$, a torus $\R^m/\Z^m$, a free abelian group $\Z^k$ and a finite abelian group. In such a group, there clearly is a unique maximal compact subgroup (namely the product of the finite group and the torus). It is also normal, and maximal in $G$. \end{proof} The maximal compact normal subgroup of $G_0$ is a characteristic Lie subgroup of of $G_0$. It is therefore normal in $G$ and we may mod out by it. We therefore have shown that every locally compact (compactly generated) group with polynomial growth admits a quotient by a compact normal subgroup, which is a Lie group $G$ whose connected component of the identity $G_0$ has polynomial growth and contains no compact normal subgroup. We will now show that a certain co-compact subgroup of $G$ has the embedding property of Theorem . \\ (b) Second we show that, \emph{up to passing to a co-compact subgroup, we may assume that the connected component $G_0$ is solvable.} For this purpose, let $Q$ be the solvable radical of $G_0$, namely the maximal connected normal Lie subgroup of $G_0$. Note that it is a characteristic subgroup of $G_0$ and therefore normal in $G$. Moreover $G_0/Q$ is a semisimple Lie group. Since $G_0$ has polynomial growth, it follows that $G_0/Q$ must be compact. Consider the action of $G$ by conjugation on $G_0/Q$, namely the map $\phi: G \to Aut(G_0/Q)$. Since $G_0/Q$ is compact semisimple, its group of automorphisms is also a compact Lie group. In particular, the kernel $\ker \phi$ is a co-compact subgroup of $G$. The connected component of the identity of $Aut(G_0/Q)$ is itself semisimple and hence has finite center. However the image of the connected component $(\ker \phi)_0$ of $\ker \phi$ in $G_0/Q$ modulo $Q$ is central. Therefore it must be trivial. We have shown that $(\ker \phi)_0$ is contained in $Q$ and hence is solvable. Moreover $(\ker \phi)_0$ has no compact normal subgroup, because otherwise its maximal normal compact subgroup, being characteristic in $(\ker \phi)_0$, would be normal in $G$ (note that $(\ker \phi)_0$ is normal in $G$). Changing $G$ into the co-compact subgroup $\ker \phi$, we can therefore assume that $G_0$ is solvable, of polynomial growth, and has no non trivial compact normal subgroup. The group $G/G_0$ is discrete, finitely generated, and has polynomial growth. By Gromov's theorem, it must be virtually nilpotent, in particular virtually polycyclic.\\ (c) We finally prove the following proposition. \begin{proposition} Let $G$ be a Lie group such that its connected component of the identity $G_0$ is solvable, admits no compact normal subgroup, and with $G/G_0$ virtually polycyclic. Then $G$ has a closed co-compact subgroup, which can be embedded as a closed co-compact subgroup of a connected and simply connected solvable Lie group. \end{proposition} The proof of this proposition is mainly an application of a theorem of H.C. Wang, which is a vast generalization of Malcev's embedding theorem for torsion free finitely generated nilpotent groups. Wang's theorem states that any $\mathcal{S}$-group can be embedded as a closed co-compact subgroup of a simply connected real linear solvable Lie group with only finitely many connected components. Wang defines a $\mathcal{S}$-group to be any real Lie group $G$, which admits a normal subgroup $A$ such that $G/A$ is finitely generated abelian and $A$ is a torsion-free nilpotent Lie group whose connected components group is finitely generated. In particular any $\mathcal{S}$-group has a finite index (hence co-compact) subgroup which embeds as a co-compact subgroup in a connected and simply connected solvable Lie group. In order to prove Proposition , it therefore suffices to establish that $G$ has a co-compact $\mathcal{S}$-group. We first recall the following simple fact: \begin{lemma} Every closed subgroup $F$ of a connected solvable Lie group $S$ is topologically finitely generated. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We argue by induction on the dimension of $S$. Clearly there is an epimorphism $\pi: S \to \R$. By induction hypothesis $F \cap \ker \pi$ is topologically finitely generated. The image of $F$ is a subgroup of $\R$. However every subgroup of $\R$ contains either one or two elements, whose subgroup they generate has the same closure as the original subgroup. We are done. \end{proof} Next we show the existence of a nilradical. \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be as in Proposition . Then $G$ has a unique maximal normal nilpotent subgroup $G_N$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The subgroup generated by any two normal nilpotent subgroups of any given group is itself nilpotent (Fitting's lemma, see e.g. [5.2.8]). Let $G_N$ be the closure of the subgroup generated by all nilpotent subgroups of $G$. We need to show that $G_N$ is nilpotent. For this it is clearly enough to prove that it is topologically finitely generated (because any finitely generated subgroup of $G_N$ is nilpotent by the remark we just made). Since $G/G_0$ is virtually polycyclic, every subgroup of it is finitely generated ([4.2]). Hence it is enough to prove that $G_N \cap G_0$ is topologically finitely generated. This follows from Lemma . \end{proof} Incidently, we observe that the connected component of the identity $(G_N)_0$ coincides with the nilradical $N$ of $G_0$ (it is the maximal normal nilpotent connected subgroup of $G_0$). We now claim the following: \begin{lemma} The quotient group $G/G_N$ is virtually abelian. \end{lemma} The proof of this lemma is inspired by the proof of the fact, due to Malcev, that polycyclic groups have a finite index subgroup with nilpotent commutator subgroup (e.g. see [ 15.1.6]). \begin{proof} We will show that $G$ has a finite index normal subgroup whose commutator subgroup is nilpotent. This clearly implies the lemma, for this nilpotent subgroup will be normal, hence contained in $G_N$. First we observe that the group $G$ admits a finite normal series $G_m \leq G_{m-1} \leq \ldots \leq G_1=G$, where each $G_i$ is a closed normal subgroup of $G$ such that $G_i/G_{i+1}$ is either finite, or isomorphic to either $\Z^n$, $\R^n$ or $\R^n/\Z^n$. This see it pick one of the $G_i$'s to be the connected component $G_0$ and then treat $G/G_0$ and $G_0$ separately. The first follows from the definition of a polycyclic group ($G/G_0$ has a normal polycyclic subgroup of finite index). While for $G_0$, observe that its nilradical $N$ is a connected and simply connected nilpotent Lie group and it admits such a series of characteristic subgroups (pick the central descending series), and $G_0/N$ is an abelian connected Lie group, hence isomorphic to the direct product of a torus $\R^n/\Z^n$ and a vector group $\R^n$. The torus part is characteristic in $G_0/N$, hence its preimage in $G_0$ is normal in $G$. The group $G$ acts by conjugation on each partial quotient $Q_i:=G_i/G_{i+1}$. This yields a map $G \to Aut(Q_i)$. Now note that in order to prove our lemma, it is enough to show that for each $i$, there is a finite index subgroup of $G$ whose commutator subgroup maps to a nilpotent subgroup of $Aut(Q_i)$. Indeed, taking the intersection of those finite index subgroup, we get a finite index normal subgroups whose commutator subgroup acts nilpotently on each $Q_i$, hence is itself nilpotent (high enough commutators will all vanish). Now $Aut(Q_i)$ is either finite (if $Q_i$ is finite), or isomorphic to $GL_n(\Z)$ (in case $Q_i$ is either $\Z^n$ or $\R^n/\Z^n$) or to $GL_n(\R)$ (when $Q_i \simeq \R^n$). The image of $G$ in $Aut(Q_i)$ is a solvable subgroup. However, every solvable subgroup of $GL_n(\R)$ contains a finite index subgroup, whose commutator subgroup is unipotent (hence nilpotent). This follows from Kolchin's theorem for example, that a connected solvable algebraic subgroup of $GL_n(\C)$ is triangularizable. We are done. \end{proof} In the sequel we assume that $G/G_0$ is torsion-free polycyclic. It is legitimate to do so in the proof of Proposition , because every virtually polycyclic group has a torsion-free polycyclic subgroup of finite index (see e.g. [Lemma 4.6]). We now claim the following: \begin{lemma} $G_N$ is torsion-free. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Since $G/G_0$ is torsion-free, it is enough to prove that $G_N \cap G_0$ is torsion-free. However the set of torsion elements in $G_N$ forms a subgroup of $G_N$ (if $x,y$ are torsion, then $xy$ is too because $\langle x,y \rangle$ is nilpotent). Clearly it is a characteristic subgroup of $G_N$. Hence its intersection with $G_0$ is normal in $G_0$. Taking the closure, we obtain a nilpotent closed normal subgroup $T$ of $G_0$ which contains a dense set of torsion elements. Recall that $G_0$ has no normal compact subgroup. From this it quickly follows that $T$ is trivial, because first it must be discrete (the connected component $T_0$ is compact and normal in $G_0$), hence finitely generated (by Lemma ), hence made of torsion elements. But a finitely generated torsion nilpotent group is finite. Again since $G_0$ has no compact normal subgroup, $T$ must be trivial, and $G_N$ is torsion-free. \end{proof} Now observe that the group of connected components of $G_N$, namely $G_N/(G_N)_0$ is finitely generated. Indeed, since $G/G_0$ is finitely generated (as any polycyclic group), it is enough to prove that $(G_0 \cap G_N)/(G_N)_0$ is finitely generated, but this follows from the fact that $G_0 \cap G_N$ is topologically finitely generated (Lemma ). Now we are almost done. Note that $G$ is topologically finitely generated (Lemma ), therefore so is $G/G_N$. By Lemma $G/G_N$ is virtually abelian, hence has a finite index normal subgroup isomorphic to $\Z^n \times \R^m$. It follows that $G/G_N$ has a co-compact subgroup isomorphic to a free abelian group $\Z^{n+m}$. Hence after changing $G$ by a co-compact subgroup, we get that $G$ is an extension of $G_N$ (a torsion-free nilpotent Lie group with finitely generated group of connected components) by a finitely generated free abelian group. Hence it is an $\mathcal{S}$-group in the terminology of Wang . We apply Wang's theorem and this ends the proof of Proposition .\\ (d) We can now conclude the proof of Theorem . By (a) and (b) $G$ has a quotient by a compact group which admits a co-compact subgroup satisfying the assumptions of Proposition . Hence to conclude the proof it only remains to verify that the simply connected solvable Lie group in which a co-compact subgroup of $G/K$ embeds has polynomial growth (i.e. is of type $(R)$). But this follows from the following lemma (see [Thm. I.2]). \begin{lemma} Let $G$ be a locally compact group. Then $G$ has polynomial growth if and only if some (resp. any) co-compact subgroup of it has polynomial growth. \end{lemma} \begin{proof}First one checks that $G$ is compactly generated if and only if some (resp. any) co-compact subgroup is. This is by the same argument which shows that finite index subgroups of a finitely generated group are finitely generated. In particular, if $\Omega$ is a compact symmetric generating set of $G$ and $H$ is a co-compact subgroup, then there is $n_0 \in \N$ such that $\Omega^{n_0}H=G$. Then $H \cap \Omega^{3n_0}$ generates $H$. If $G$ has polynomial growth and $H$ is any compactly generated closed subgroup, then $H$ has polynomial growth. Indeed (see [Thm I.2]), if $\Omega_H$ denotes a compact generating set for $H$, and $K$ a compact neighborhood of the identity in $G$, then $$vol_G(K) vol_H(\Omega_H^n) \leq vol_H(KK^{-1} \cap H) vol_G(\Omega_H^nK).$$ This inequality follows by integrating over a left Haar measure of $G$ the function $\phi(x):=\int_{\Omega_H^n} 1_{K}(h^{-1}x)dh$, where $dh$ is a left Haar measure on $H$. This integral equals the left handside of the above displayed equation, while it is pointwise bounded by $vol_H(xK^{-1} \cap H)$ inside $HK$ and by zero outside $HK$. In the other direction, if $H$ has polynomial growth, then $G$ also has, because one can write $\Omega^n \subset \Omega_H^nK$ for some compact generating set $\Omega_H$ of $H$ and some compact neighborhood $K$ of the identity in $G$ (see Proposition ). Then the result follows from the following inequality $$vol_H(\Omega_H) vol_G(\Omega_H^n K) \leq vol_H(\Omega_H^{n+1})vol_G(\Omega_H^{-1}K),$$ which itself is a direct consequence of the fact that the function $$\psi(x):=\int_{\Omega_H^{n+1}} 1_{\Omega_H^{-1}K}(h^{-1}x)dh,$$ where $dh$ is a left Haar measure on $H$, satisfies $\int_G \psi(x) dx = vol_H(\Omega_H^{n+1})vol_G(\Omega_H^{-1}K)$ on the one hand and is bounded below by $vol_H(\Omega_H)$ for every $x \in \Omega_H^nK$ on the other hand. \end{proof} Note that the above proof would be slightly easier if we already knew that both $G$ and $H$ were unimodular, in which case $G/H$ has an invariant measure. But we know this only a posteriori, because the polynomial growth condition implies unimodularity (). Similar considerations show that $G$ has polynomial growth if and only if $G/K$ has polynomial growth, given any normal compact subgroup $K$ (e.g. see ). \endproof We end this paragraph with a remark and an example, which we mentioned in the Introduction. \begin{remark}[Discrete subgroups are virtually nilpotent] Suppose $\Gamma$ is a discrete subgroup of a connected solvable Lie group of type $(R)$ (i.e. of polynomial growth). Then $\Gamma$ is virtually nilpotent. Indeed, a similar argument as in Lemma shows that every subgroup of $\Gamma$ is finitely generated. It follows that $\Gamma$ is polycyclic. However Wolf proved that polycyclic groups with polynomial growth are virtually nilpotent. \end{remark} \begin{example}[A group with no nilpotent co-compact subgroup] Let $G$ be the connected solvable Lie group $G=\R \ltimes (\R^2 \times \R^2)$, where $\R$ acts as a dense one-parameter subgroup of $SO(2,\R) \times SO(2,\R)$. Then $G$ is of type $(R)$. It has no compact subgroup. And it has no nilpotent co-compact subgroup. Indeed suppose $H$ is a closed co-compact nilpotent subgroup. Then it has a non-trivial center. Hence there is a non identity element whose centralizer is co-compact in $G$. However a simple examination of the possible centralizers of elements of $G$ shows that none of them is co-compact. \end{example} \subsection{Proof of Corollary and Theorem .} Let $G$ be an arbitrary locally compact group of polynomial growth and $\rho $ a periodic pseudodistance on $G.$\\ \textbf{Claim 1:} \textit{Corollary holds for a co-compact subgroup }$H$\textit{\ of }$G$\textit{, if and only if it holds for }$G$. By Lemma , the groups $G$ and $H$ are unimodular, and hence $G/H$ bears a $G$-invariant Radon measure $vol_{G/H}$, which is finite since $H$ is co-compact. Now let $F$ be a bounded Borel fundamental domain for $H$ inside $G.$ And let $\overline{\rho }$ be the periodic pseudodistance on $G$ induced by the restriction of $\rho $ to $H,$ that is $\overline{\rho }(x,y):=\rho (h_{x},h_{y})$ where $h_{x}$ is the unique element of $H$ such that $x\in h_{x}F.$ By $(1)$ and $(4)$, $\rho $ and $\overline{\rho }$ are at a bounded distance from each other. In particular, $B_{\overline{\rho }}(r-C)\subset B_{\rho }(r)\subset B_{\overline{\rho }}(r+C)$. Hence if the limit () holds for $\overline{\rho },$ it also holds for $\rho $ with the same limit. However, $B_{\overline{\rho }}(r)=\{x\in G,\rho (e,h_{x})\leq r\}=B_{\rho _{H}}(r)F$ where $\rho _{H}$ is the restriction of $\rho $ to $H.$ Hence $vol_{G}(B_{\overline{\rho }}(r))=vol_{H}(B_{\rho _{H}}(r))\cdot vol_{G/H}(F).$ By $(4)$, $\rho _{H}$ is a periodic pseudodistance on $H.$ So the result holds for $(H,\rho _{H})$ if and only if it holds for $(G,\rho )$. Conversely, if $\rho _{0}$ is a periodic pseudodistance on $H,$ then $\overline{\rho _{0}}(x,y):=\rho _{0}(h_{x},h_{y})$ is a periodic pseudodistance on $G,$ hence again $vol_{G}(B_{\overline{\rho } _{0}}(r))=vol_{H}(B_{\rho _{0}}(r))\cdot vol_{G}(F)$ and the result will hold for $(H,\rho _{0})$ if and only if it holds for $(G,\overline{\rho _{0}} ).$\\ \textbf{Claim 2:} \textit{If Corollary holds for }$G/K$\textit{ , where }$K$\textit{\ is some compact normal subgroup,} \textit{then it holds for }$G$\textit{\ as well}. Indeed, if $\rho $ is a periodic pseudodistance on $G,$ then the $K$-average $\rho^{K}$, as defined in (\ref {average}), is at a bounded distance from $G$ according to Lemma \ref {bdedistance}. Now $\rho^{K}$ induces a periodic pseudodistance $\overline{ \rho^{K}}$ on $G/K$ and $B_{\rho^{K}}(r)=B_{\overline{\rho^{K}}}(r)K.$ Hence, $vol_{G}(B_{\rho^{K}}(r))=vol_{G/K}(B_{\overline{{\rho}^{K}}}(r))\cdot vol_{K}(K).$ And if the limit () holds for $ \overline{{\rho}^{K}},$ it also holds for $\rho^{K}$, hence for $\rho $ too.\\ Thus the discussion above combined with Theorem reduces Corollary to the case when $G$ is simply connected and solvable, which was treated in Section 5 and 6. \endproof \subsection{Proof of Proposition and Corollary } \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition ] We say that two metric spaces $(X,d_X)$ and $(Y,d_Y)$ are at a bounded distance if they are $(1,C)$-quasi-isometric for some finite $C$. This is an equivalence relation. Now if $\rho$ is $H$-periodic with $H$ co-compact, then $(G,\rho)$ is at a bounded distance from $(H,\rho{|H})$. Hence we may assume that $H=G$, i.e. that $\rho$ is left invariant on $G$. Now Theorem gives the existence of a normal compact subgroup $K$, a co-compact subgroup $H$ containing $K$ and a simply connected solvable Lie group $S$ such that $H/K$ is isomorphic to a co-compact subgroup of $S$. Lemma shows that $(G,\rho)$ is at a bounded distance from $(G,\rho^K)$, where $\rho^K$ is defined as in $()$. Now $\rho^K$ induces a left invariant periodic metric on $G/K$, and $(G/K,\rho^K)$ is clearly at a bounded distance from $(G,\rho^K)$. Now by , its restriction to $H/K$ is at a bounded distance and is left invariant. Now we set $\rho_S(s_1,s_2)=\rho^K(h_1,h_2)$, where (given a bounded fundamental domain $F$ for the left action of $H/K$ on $S$) $h_i$ is the unique element of $H/K$ such that $s_i \in h_iF$. Clearly then $(S,\rho_S)$ is at a bounded distance from $(H/K,\rho^K)$. We are done. \end{proof} We note that our construction of $S$ here depends on the stabilizer of $\rho$ in $G$. Certainly not every choice of Lie shadow can be used for all periodic metrics (think that $\R^3$ is a Lie shadow of the universal cover of the group of motions of the plane). Perhaps a single one can be chosen for all, but we have not checked that. \begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary ] Proposition reduces the proof to a periodic metric $\rho$ on a simply connected solvable Lie group $S$. Let $d_\infty$ the subFinsler metric on $S$ (left invariant for the graded nilshadow group structure $S_N$) as given by Theorem . Let $\{\delta_t\}_t$ is the group of dilations in the graded nilshadow $S_N$ of $S$ as defined in Section . By definition of the pointed Gromov-Hausdorff topology (see ), it is enough to prove the \noindent { \bf Claim.} The following quantity $$|\frac{1}{n}\rho(s_1,s_2) - d_\infty(\delta_{\frac{1}{n}}(s_1),\delta_{\frac{1}{n}}(s_2))|$$ converges to zero as $n$ tends to $+\infty$ uniformly for all $s_1,s_2$ in a ball of radius $O(n)$ for the metric $\rho$. Now this follows in three steps. First $\rho$ is at a bounded distance from its restriction to the (co-compact) stabilizer $H$ of $\rho$ (cf. (1), (4)). Then for $h_1,h_2 \in H$, we can write $\rho(h_1,h_2)=\rho(e,h_1^{-1}h_2)$. However Proposition implies the existence of another periodic distance $\rho_K$ on $S$, which is invariant under left translations by elements of $H$ for both the original Lie structure and the nilshadow Lie structure on $S$, such that $\frac{\rho(e,x)}{\rho_K(e,x)}$ tends to $1$ as $x$ tends to $\infty$. Hence $\rho_K(e,h_1^{-1}h_2)=\rho_K(h_1,h_2)=\rho_K(e,h_1^{*-1}h_2)$, where $*$ is the nilshadow product on $S$. Hence $|\frac{1}{n}\rho(h_1,h_2) - \frac{1}{n}\rho_K(e,h_1^{*-1}h_2)|$ tends to zero uniformly as $h_1$ and $h_2$ vary in a ball of radius $O(n)$ for $\rho$. Finally Theorem implies that $|\frac{1}{n}\rho_K(e,h_1^{*-1}h_2)- \frac{1}{n}d_\infty(e,h_1^{*-1}h_2)|$ tends to zero and the claim follows, as one verifies from the Campbell Hausdorff formula by comparing $()$ and $()$ as we did in $()$, that $$|d_\infty( \delta_{\frac{1}{n}}(h_1),\delta_{\frac{1}{n}}(h_2)) - d_\infty(e,\delta_{\frac{1}{n}}(h_1^{*-1}h_2)|$$ converges to zero. The fact that the graded nilpotent Lie group does not depend (up to isomorphism) on the periodic metric $\rho$ but only on the locally compact group $G$ follows from Pansu's theorem that if two Carnot groups (i.e. a graded simply connected nilpotent Lie group endowed with left-invariant subRiemannian metric induced by a norm on a supplementary subspace to the commutator subalgebra) are bi-Lipschitz, the underlying Lie groups must be isomorphic. This deep fact relies on Pansu's generalized Rademacher theorem, see . Indeed, two different periodic metrics $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ on $G$ are quasi-isometric (see Proposition ), and hence their asymptotic cones are bi-Lipschitz (and bi-Lipschitz to any Carnot group metric on the same graded group, by $()$). \end{proof} \section{Coarsely geodesic distances and speed of convergence} Under no further assumption on the periodic pseudodistance $\rho ,$ the speed of convergence in the volume asymptotics can be made arbitrarily small. This is easily seen if we consider examples of the following type: define $\rho (x,y)=|x-y|+|x-y|^{\alpha }$ on $\Bbb{R}$ where $\alpha \in (0,1)$. It is periodic and $vol(B_{\rho }(t))=t-t^{\alpha }+o(t^{\alpha }).$ However, many natural examples of periodic metrics, such as word metrics or Riemannian metrics, are in fact coarsely geodesic. A pseudodistance on $G$ is said to be \textit{coarsely geodesic}, if there is a constant $C>0$ such that any two points can be connected by a $C$-coarse geodesic, that is, for any $x,y\in G$ there is a map $g:[0,t]\rightarrow G$ with $t=\rho (x,y),$ $ g(0)=x$ and $g(t)=y$, such that \begin{equation*} \left| \rho (g(u),g(v))-|u-v|\right| \leq C \end{equation*} for all $u,v\in [0,t]$. This is a stronger requirement than to say that $\rho $ is asymptotically geodesic (see ). This notion is invariant under coarse isometry. In the case when $G$ is abelian, D. Burago \cite {Bur} proved the beautiful fact that any coarsely geodesic periodic metric on $G$ is at a bounded distance from its asymptotic norm. In particular $vol_{G}(B_{\rho }(t))=c\cdot t^{d}+O(t^{d-1})$ in this case. In the remarkable paper , M. Stoll proved that such an error term in $O(t^{d-1})$ holds for any finitely generated $2$-step nilpotent group. Whether $O(t^{d-1})$ is the right error term for any finitely generated nilpotent group remains an open question. The example below shows on the contrary that in an arbitrary Lie group of polynomial growth no universal error term can be expected. \begin{theorem} Let $\varepsilon _{n}>0$ be an arbitrary sequence of positive numbers tending to $0.$ Then there exists a group $G$ of polynomial growth of degree $3$ and a compact generating set $\Omega $ in $G$ and $c>0$ such that \begin{equation} \frac{vol_{G}(\Omega ^{n})}{c\cdot n^{3}}\leq 1-\varepsilon _{n} \end{equation} holds for infinitely many $n$, although $\frac{1}{c\cdot n^{3}} vol_{G}(\Omega ^{n})\rightarrow 1$ as $n\rightarrow +\infty .$ \end{theorem} The example we give below is a semi-direct product of $\Bbb{Z}$ by $\Bbb{R} ^{2}$ and the metric is a word metric. However, many similar examples can be constructed as soon as the map $T:G\rightarrow K$ defined in Paragraph \ref {asyminv} in not onto. For example, one can consider left invariant Riemannian metrics on $G=\Bbb{R}\cdot (\Bbb{R}^{2}\times \Bbb{R}^{2})$ where $\Bbb{R}$ acts by via a dense one-parameter subgroup of the $2$-torus $ S^{1}\times S^{1}.$ Incidently, this group $G$ is known as the \textit{Mautner group} and is an example of a \textit{wild} group in representation theory. \subsection{An example with arbitrarily small speed} In this paragraph we describe the example of Theorem . Let $ G_{\alpha }=\Bbb{Z}\cdot \Bbb{R}^{2}$ where the action of $\Bbb{Z}$ is given by the rotation $R_{\alpha }$ of angle $\pi \alpha ,$ $\alpha \in [0,1).$ The group $G_{\alpha }$ is quasi-isometric to $\Bbb{R}^{3}$ and hence of polynomial growth of order $3$ and it is co-compact in the analogously defined Lie group $\widetilde{G_{\alpha }}=\Bbb{R} \ltimes \Bbb{R}^{2}.$ Its nilshadow is isomorphic to $\Bbb{R}^{3}.$ The point is that if $\alpha $ is a suitably chosen Liouville number, then the balls in $G_{\alpha }$ will not be well approximated by the limit norm balls. Elements of $G_{\alpha }$ are written $(k,x)$ where $k\in \Bbb{Z}$ and $x\in \Bbb{R}^{2}.$ Let $\left\| x\right\| ^{2}=\frac{1}{4}x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}$ be a Euclidean norm on $\Bbb{R}^{2}$, and let $\Omega $ be the symmetric compact generating set given by $\{(\pm 1,0)\}\cup \{(0,x),\left\| x\right\| \leq 1\}.$ It induces a word metric $\rho _{\Omega }$ on $G$. It follows from Theorem and the definition of the asymptotic norm that $ \rho _{\Omega }(e,(k,x))$ is asymptotic to the norm on $\Bbb{R}^{3}$ given by $\rho _{0}(e,(k,x)):=|k|+\left\| x\right\| _{0}$ where $\left\| x\right\| _{0}$ is the rotation invariant norm on $\Bbb{R}^{2}$ defined by $\left\| x\right\| _{0}^{2}=\frac{1}{4}(x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}).$ The unit ball of $ \left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$ is the convex hull of the union of all images of the unit ball of $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ under all rotations $ R_{k\alpha },$ $k\in \Bbb{Z}.$ We are going to choose $\alpha $ as a suitable Liouville number so that (\ref {badspeed}) holds. Let $\delta _{n}=(4\varepsilon _{n})^{1/3}$ and choose $ \alpha $ so that the following holds for infinitely many $n$'s: \begin{equation} d(k\alpha ,\Bbb{Z}+\frac{1}{2})\geq 2\delta _{n} \end{equation} for all $k\in \Bbb{Z},$ $|k|\leq n.$ This is easily seen to be possible if we choose $\alpha $ of the form $\sum 1/3^{n_{i}}$ for some suitable lacunary increasing sequence of $(n_{i})_{i}.$ Note that, since $\left\| x\right\| _{0}\geq \left\| x\right\| ,$ we have $ \rho _{\Omega }\geq \rho _{0}.$ Let $S_{n}$ be the piece of $\Bbb{R}^{2}$ defined by $S_{n}=\{|\theta |\leq \delta _{n}\}$ where $\theta $ is the angle between the point $x$ and the vertical axis $\Bbb{R}e_{2}.$ We \textit{ claim} that if $x\in S_{n}$, $\rho _{0}(e,(k,x))\leq n$ and $n$ satisfies ( ), then \begin{equation*} \rho _{\Omega }(e,(k,x))\geq |k|+(1+\frac{\delta _{n}^{2}}{4})\left\| x\right\| _{0} \end{equation*} It follows easily from the claim that $vol_{G}(\Omega ^{n})\leq (1-\varepsilon _{n})\cdot vol_{G}(B_{\rho _{0}}(n)).$ Moreover $ vol_{G}(B_{\rho _{0}}(n))=c\cdot n^{3}+O(n^{2}),$ where $c=\frac{4\pi }{3}$ if $vol_{G}$ is given by the Lebesgue measure. \textit{Proof of claim.} Here is the idea to prove the claim. To find a short path between the identity and a point on the vertical axis, we have to rotate by a $R_{k\alpha }$ such that $k\alpha $ is close to $\frac{1}{2},$ hence go up from $(0,0)$ to $(k,0)$ first, thus making the vertical direction shorter. However if () holds, the vertical direction cannot be made as short as it could after rotation by any of the $ R_{k\alpha }$ with $|k|\leq n.$ Note that if $\rho _{0}(e,(k,x))\leq n$ then $|k|\leq n$ and $\rho _{\Omega }(e,(k,x))\geq |k|+\inf \sum \left\| R_{k_{i}\alpha }x_{i}\right\| $ where the infimum is taken over all paths $x_{1},...,x_{N}$ such that $x=\sum x_{i} $ and all rotations $R_{k_{i}\alpha }$ with $|k_{i}|\leq n.$ Note that if $ \delta _{n}$ is small enough and () holds then for every $ x\in S_{n}$ we have $\left\| R_{k\alpha }x\right\| \geq (1+\delta _{n}^{2})\left\| x\right\| _{0}.$ On the other hand $\left\| x\right\| _{0}=\sum \left\| x_{i}\right\| _{0}\cos (\theta _{i})$ where $\theta _{i}$ is the angle between $x_{i}$ and the $x$. Hence \begin{eqnarray*} \sum \left\| R_{k_{i}\alpha }x_{i}\right\| &\geq &\sum_{|\theta _{i}|\leq \delta _{n}}\left\| R_{k_{i}\alpha }x_{i}\right\| +\sum_{|\theta _{i}|>\delta _{n}}\left\| R_{k_{i}\alpha }x_{i}\right\| \\ &\geq &(1+\delta _{n}^{2})\sum_{|\theta _{i}|\leq \delta _{n}}\left\| x_{i}\right\| _{0}\cos (\theta _{i})+\frac{1}{\cos (\delta _{n})} \sum_{|\theta _{i}|>\delta _{n}}\left\| x_{i}\right\| _{0}\cos (\theta _{i}) \\ &\geq &(1+\frac{\delta _{n}^{2}}{4})\cdot \left\| x\right\| _{0} \end{eqnarray*} \edpf \subsection{Limit shape for more general word metrics on solvable Lie groups of polynomial growth} The determination of the limit shape of the word metric in Paragraph was possible due to the rather simple nature of the generating set. In general, using the identity (see $()$) \begin{equation}\omega_1\cdot \ldots \cdot \omega_m=\omega_1*(T(\omega_1)\omega_2)*\ldots*(T(\omega_{m-1}\cdot \ldots \cdot \omega_1)\omega_m) \end{equation} it is easy to check that the unit ball of the limit norm $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ inducing the limit subFinsler metric $d_\infty$ on the nilshadow associated to a given word metric with generating set $\Omega$ is contained in the $K$-orbit of the convex hull of the projection of $\Omega$ to the abelianized nilshadow, namely the convex hull of $K\cdot \pi_1(\Omega)$. In the example of Paragraph , we even had equality between the two. However this is not the case in general. For example, the limit shape is always $K$-invariant, but clearly the limit shape associated to a generating set $\Omega$ coincides with the one associated with a conjugate $g\Omega g^{-1}$ of it, while the convex hull of the respective $K$-orbits may not be the same. Of course if the generating set $\Omega$ is $K$-invariant to begin with, then $\Omega^n=\Omega^{*n}$ and we are back in the nilpotent case, where we know that the unit ball of the limit norm is just the convex hull of the projection of the generating set to the abelianization. In general however it is a challenging problem to determine the precise asymptotic shape of a word metric on a general solvable Lie group with polynomial growth, and there seems to be no simple description analogous to what we have in the nilpotent case. Even in the above example $G_\alpha=\Z \ltimes_\alpha \R^2$, or in the universal cover of the group of motions of the plane (in which $G_\alpha$ embeds co-compactly), it is not that simple. In general the shape is determined by solving an optimization problem in which one has to find the path which maximizes the coordinates of the endpoint. In order to illustrate this, we treat without proof the following simple example. Suppose $\Omega$ is a symmetric compact neighborhood of the identity in $G_\alpha=\Z \ltimes_\alpha \R^2$ of the form $\Omega=(0,\Omega_0) \cup (1,\Omega_1) \cup (1,\Omega_1)^{-1}$, where $\Omega_0,\Omega_1 \subset \R^2$. Then the limit shape of the word metric $\rho_\Omega$ associated to $\Omega$ is the solid body (rotationally symmetric around the vertical axis as in Figure 2) made of two copies (upper and lower) of a truncated cone with base a disc on $(0,\R^2)$ of radius $\max\{r_0,r_1\}$ and top (resp. bottom) a disc on the plane $(1,\R^2)$ (resp. $(-1,\R^2)$) of radius $r_2$, where the radii are given by $$r_0=\max\{\|x\|,x \in \Omega_0\}, r_1=\frac{1}{2}diam(\Omega_1),$$ where $diam(\Omega_1)$ is the diameter of $\Omega_1$ and $r_2$ is given by the integral \begin{equation} r_2=\int_0^{2\pi} \max \{\pi_\theta(\Omega_1)\} \frac{d\theta}{2\pi}, \end{equation} where $\pi_\theta(\Omega_1)$ is the orthogonal projection on the $x$-axis of image of $\Omega_1 \subset \R^2$ by a rotation of angle $\theta$ around the origin. It is indeed convex (note that $r_2\leq r_1$). For example if $\Omega_1$ is made of only one point, then the limit shape is the same as in the previous paragraph and as in Figure 2, namely two copies of a cone. However if $\Omega_1$ is made of two points $\{a,b\}$, then the upper part of the limit shape will be a truncated cone with an upper disc of radius $r_2=\frac{\|a-b\|}{\pi}$ (which is the result of the computation of the above integral). Let us briefly explain the formula $()$. A path of length $n$ reaching the highest $z$-coordinate in $G_\alpha$ is a word of the form $(1,\omega_1)\cdot \ldots \cdot (1,\omega_n)$, with $\omega_i \in \Omega_1$. By $()$ this word equals $$(n,\sum_1^n R_\alpha^{i-1}\omega_i).$$ Here $\omega_i$ can take any value in $\Omega_1$. In order to maximize the norm of the second coordinate, or equivalently (by rotation invariance) its $x$-coordinate, one has to choose $\omega_i \in \Omega_1$ at each stage in such a way that the $x$-coordinate of $R_\alpha^{i-1}\omega_i$ is maximized. Formula $()$ now follows from the fact that $\{R_\alpha^{i-1}\}_{1\leq i \leq n}$ becomes equidistributed in $SO(2,\R)$ as $n$ tends to infinity. In order to show that $\max\{r_0,r_1\}$ is the radius of the base disc and more generally that the limit shape is no bigger than this double truncated cone, one needs to argue further by considering all possible paths of the form $(\eps_1,\omega_1)\cdot \ldots \cdot (\eps_n,\omega_n)$ where $\eps_i \in \{0, \pm 1\}$ and $\sum \eps_i$ is prescribed. \subsection{Bounded distance versus asymptotic metrics} In this paragraph we answer a question of D. Burago and G. Margulis (see ). Based on the abelian case and the reductive case (Abels-Margulis ), Burago and Margulis had conjectured that every two asymptotic word metrics should be at a bounded distance. We give below a counterexample to this. We first give an example ($A$) of a nilpotent Lie group endowed with two left invariant subFinsler metrics $d_\infty$ and $d'_\infty$ that are asymptotic to each other, i.e. $d_\infty(e,x)/d'_\infty(e,x)\rightarrow 1$ as $x\rightarrow \infty $ but such that $|d_\infty(e,x)-d'_\infty(e,x)|$ is not uniformly bounded. Then we exhibit ($B$) a word metric that is not at a bounded distance from any homogeneous quasi-norm. Finally these examples also yield ($C$) two word metrics $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ on the same finitely generated nilpotent group which are asymptotic but not at a bounded distance. Note that the group $G_{\alpha }$ with $\rho _{0}$ and $\rho _{\Omega }$ from the last paragraph also provides an example of asymptotic metrics which are not at a bounded distance (but this group was not discrete). $(A)$ Let $N=\Bbb{R}\times H_{3}(\Bbb{R})$ where $H_{3}$ is classical Heisenberg group and $\Gamma =\Bbb{Z}\times H_{3}(\Bbb{Z})$ a lattice in $N$ . In the Lie algebra $\frak{n}=\Bbb{R}V\oplus \frak{h}_{3}$ we pick two different supplementary subspaces of $[\frak{n},\frak{n}]=\Bbb{R}Z,$ i.e. $ m_{1}=span\{V,X,Y\}$ and $m_{1}^{\prime }=span\{V+Z,X,Y\}$, where $\frak{h} _{3}$ is the Lie algebra of $H_{3}(\Bbb{R})$ spanned by $X,Y$ and $Z=[X,Y].$ We consider the $L^{1}$-norm on $m_{1}$ (resp. $m_{1}^{\prime }$) corresponding to the basis $(V,X,Y)$ (resp. $(V+Z,X,Y)$). Both norms induce the same norm on $\frak{n}/[\frak{n},\frak{n}].$ They give rise to left invariant Carnot-Caratheodory Finsler metrics on $N$, say $d_{\infty }$ (resp. $d_{\infty }^{\prime }$). We use the coordinates $(v,x,y,z)=\exp (vV+xX+yY+zZ)$. According to Remark $(2)$ after Theorem , $d_{\infty }$ and $ d_{\infty }^{\prime }$ are asymptotic. Let us show that they are not at a bounded distance. First observe that, since $V$ is central, $d_{\infty }(e,(v;(x,y,z)))=|v|+d_{H_{3}}(e,(x,y,z))$ where $d_{H_{3}}$ is the Carnot-Caratheodory Finsler metric on $H_{3}(\Bbb{R})$ defined by the standard $L^{1}$-norm on the $span\{X,Y\}.$ Similarly $d_{\infty }^{\prime }(e,(v;(x,y,z)))=|v|+d_{H_{3}}(e,(x,y,z-v))).$ If $d_{\infty }$ and $d_{\infty }^{\prime }$ were at a bounded distance, we would have a $C>0$ such that for all $t>0$ \begin{equation*} |d_{\infty }(e,(t;(0,0,t)))-t|\leq C \end{equation*} Hence $|d_{H_{3}}(e,(0,0,t))|\leq C,$ which is a contradiction.\\ $(B)$ Now let $\Omega =\{(1;(0,0,1))^{\pm 1},(1;(0,0,-1))^{\pm 1},(0;(1,0,0))^{\pm 1},(0;(0,1,0))^{\pm 1}\}$ be a generating set for $\Gamma $ and $\rho _{\Omega }$ the word metric associated to it. Let $|\cdot |$ be a homogeneous quasi-norm on $N$ which is at a bounded distance from $\rho _{\Omega },$ i.e. $|\rho _{\Omega }(e,g)-|g||$ is bounded. Then $|\cdot |$ is asymptotic to $\rho _{\Omega },$ hence is equal to the Carnot-Caratheodory Finsler metric $d$ asymptotic to $\rho _{\Omega }$ and homogeneous with respect to the same one parameter group of dilations $\{\delta _{t}\}_{t>0}.$ Let $ m_{1}=\{v\in \frak{n}$, $\delta _{t}(v)=tv\}.$ Then $d$ is induced by some norm $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$ on $m_{1},$ whose unit ball is given, according to Theorem by the convex hull of the projections to $ m_{1}$ of the generators in $\Omega $. There is a unique vector in $m_{1}$ of the form $V+z_{0}Z.$ Its $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$-norm is $1$ and $ d(e,(1;(0,0,z_{0})))=1.$ However $ d(e,(v;(x,y,z)))=|v|+d_{H_{3}}(e,(x,y,z-vz_{0}))$. Since $\rho _{\Omega }(e,(n;(0,0,n)))=n,$ we get \begin{equation*} d(e,(n;(0,0,n)))-\rho _{\Omega }(e,(n;(0,0,n)))=d_{H_{3}}(e,(0,0,n(1-z_{0}))) \end{equation*} If this is bounded, this forces $z_{0}=1.$ But we can repeat the same argument with $(n;(0,0,-n))$ which would force $z_{0}=-1.$ A contradiction.\\ $(C)$ Let now $\Omega_2:=\{(1;(0,0,0))^{\pm 1},(0;(1,0,0))^{\pm 1},(0;(0,1,0))^{\pm 1}\}$ and $\rho_{\Omega_2}$ the associated word metric on $\Gamma$. Then again $\rho_\Omega$ and $\rho_{\Omega_2}$ are asymptotic by Theorem because the convex hull of their projection modulo the $z$-coordinate coincide. However $\rho_{\Omega_2}$ is a product metric, namely we have $\rho_{\Omega_2}(e,(v;(x,y,z)))=|v|+\rho(e,(x,y,z))$, where $\rho$ is the word metric on the discrete Heisenberg group $H_3(\Z)$ with standard generators $\{(1,0,0)^{\pm 1},(0,1,0)^{\pm 1}\}$. In particular \begin{equation*} \rho_{\Omega}(e,(n;(0,0,n)))-\rho _{\Omega_2}(e,(n;(0,0,n)))=\rho(e,(0,0,n)) \end{equation*} which is unbounded.\\ \begin{remark}[An abnormal geodesic] We refer the reader to for more on these examples. In particular we show there that $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ above are not $(1,C)$-quasi-isometric for any $C>0$. The key phenomenon behind this example is the presence of an \emph{abnormal geodesic} (see ), namely the one-parameter group $\{(t;(0,0,0))\}_t$. \end{remark} \begin{remark}[Speed of convergence in the nilpotent case] The slow speed phenomenon in Theorem relied crucially on the presence of a non-trivial semisimple part in $G_{\alpha }$ ; this doesn't occur in nilpotent groups. In , we show that for word metrics on finitely generated nilpotent groups, the convergence in Theorem has a polynomial speed with an error term at least as good as $O(d_\infty(e,x)^{-\frac{2}{3r}})$, where $r$ is the nilpotency class. We conjecture there that the optimal exponent is $\frac{1}{2}$. This involves refining quantitatively the estimates of the above proof of Theorem . \end{remark} \section{Appendix: the Heisenberg groups} Here we show how to compute the asymptotic shape of balls in the Heisenberg groups $H_{3}(\Bbb{Z})$ and $H_{5}(\Bbb{Z})$ and their volume, thus giving another approach to the main result of Stoll . The leading term for the growth of $H_{3}(\Bbb{Z})$ is rational for all generating sets (Prop. below), whereas in $H_{5}(\Bbb{Z})$ with its standard generating set, it is transcendental. This explains how our Figure 1 was made (compare with the odd Fig. 1). \subsection{3-dim Heisenberg group} Let us first consider the Heisenberg group \begin{equation*} H_{3}(\Bbb{Z})=\left\langle a,b|[a,[a,b]]=[b,[a,b]]=1\right\rangle . \end{equation*} We see it as the lattice generated by $a=\exp (X)$ and $b=\exp (Y)$ in the real Heisenberg group $H_{3}(\Bbb{R})$ with Lie algebra $\frak{h}_{3}$ generated by $X,Y$ and spanned by $X,Y,Z=[X,Y].$ Let $\rho _{\Omega }$ be the standard word metric on $H_{3}(\Bbb{Z})$ associated to the generating set $\Omega =\{a^{\pm 1},b^{\pm 1}\}.$ According to Theorem , the limit shape of the $n$-ball $\Omega ^{n}$ in $H_{3}(\Bbb{Z})$ coincides with the unit ball $\mathcal{C}_{3}=\{g\in H_{3}(\Bbb{R}),d_{\infty }(e,g)\leq 1\}$ for the Carnot-Caratheodory metric $d_{\infty }$ induced on $ H_{3}(\Bbb{R})$ by the $\ell ^{1}$-norm $\left\| xX+yY\right\| _{0}=|x|+|y|$ on $m_{1}=span\{X,Y\}\subset \frak{h}_{3}.$ Computing this unit ball is a rather simple task. Exchanging the roles of $X$ and $Y$, we see that $\mathcal{C}_{3}$ is invariant under the reflection $ z\mapsto -z.$ Then clearly $\mathcal{C}_{3}$ is of the form $\{xX+yY+zZ,$ with $|x|+|y|\leq 1$ and $|z|\leq z(x,y)\}.$ Changing $X$ to $-X$ and $Y$ to $-Y,$ we get the symmetries $z(x,y)=z(-x,y)=z(x,-y)=z(y,x).$ Hence when determining $z(x,y)$, we may assume $0\leq y\leq x\leq 1,$ $x+y\leq 1.$ The following well known observation is crucial for computing $z(x,y)$. If $ \xi (t)$ is a horizontal path in $H_{3}(\Bbb{R})$ starting from $id,$ then $ \xi (t)=\exp (x(t)X+y(t)Y+z(t)Z)$, where $\xi ^{\prime }(t)=x(t)X+y(t)Y$ and $z(t)$ is the ``balayage'' area of the between the path $\{x(s)X+y(s)Y\}_{0 \leq s\leq t}$ and the chord joining $0$ to $x(t)X+y(t)Y.$ Therefore, $z(x,y)$ is given by the solution to the ``Dido isoperimetric problem'' (see ): find a path in the $X,Y$-plane between $0$ and $xX+yY$ of $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$-length $1$ that maximizes the ``balayage area''. Since $\left\| \cdot \right\| _{0}$ is the $\ell ^{1}$ -norm in the $X,Y$-plane, as is well-known (see ), such extremal curves are given by arcs of square with sides parallel to the $X,Y$-axes. There is therefore a dichotomy: the arc of square has either $3$ or $4$ sides (it may have $1$ or $2$ sides, but these are included are limiting cases of the previous ones). If there are $3$ sides, they have length $\ell ,$ $x$ and $y+\ell $ with $ y+\ell \leq x.$ Hence $1=\ell +x+y+\ell $ and $z(x,y)=\ell x+\frac{1}{2}xy.$ Therefore this occurs when $y\leq 3x-1$ and we then have $z(x,y)=\frac{x(1-x) }{2}.$ If there are $4$ sides, they have length $\ell ,x+u,y+\ell $ and $u$, with $\ell +y=x+u.$ Hence $1=2\ell +2u+x+y$ and $z(x,y)=(\ell +y)(x+u)-\frac{xy}{2}.$ This occurs when $y\geq 3x-1$ and we then have $z(x,y)=\frac{(1+x+y)^{2}}{16}-\frac{xy}{2}.$ Hence if $0\leq y\leq x\leq 1$ and $x+y\leq 1$ \begin{equation} z(x,y)=1_{y\leq 3x-1}\frac{x(1-x)}{2}+1_{y>3x-1}\frac{(1+x+y)^{2}}{16}-\frac{ xy}{2} \end{equation} The unit ball $\mathcal{C}_{3}$ drawn in Figure 1 is the solid body $\mathcal{C}_{3}=\{xX+yY+zZ,$ with $|x|+|y|\leq 1$ and $|z|\leq z(x,y)\}.$ A simple calculation shows that $vol(\mathcal{C}_{3})=\frac{31}{72}$ in the Lebesgue measure $dxdydz.$ Since $H_{3}(\Bbb{Z})$ is easily seen to have co-volume $1$ for this Haar measure on $H_{3}(\Bbb{R})$ (actually $ \{xX+yY+zZ,x\in [0,1),y\in [0,1),z\in [0,1)\}$ is a fundamental domain), it follows that \begin{equation*} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\#(\Omega ^{n})}{n^{4}}=vol(\mathcal{C} _{3})=\frac{31}{72} \end{equation*} We thus recover a well-known result (see , where even the full growth series is computed and shown to be rational). One can also determine exactly which points of the sphere $\partial \mathcal{ C}_{3}$ are joined to $id$ by a unique geodesic horizontal path. The reader will easily check that uniqueness fails exactly at the points $(x,y,\pm z(x,y))$ with $|x|<\frac{1}{3}$ and $y=0,$ or $|y|<\frac{1}{3}$ and $x=0,$ or else at the points $(x,y,z)$ with $|x|+|y|=1$ and $|z|<z(x,y).$ The above method also yields the following result. \begin{prop} Let $\Omega $ be any symmetric generating set for $H_{3}(\Bbb{Z}).$ Then the leading coefficient in $\#(\Omega ^{n})$ is rational, i.e. \begin{equation*} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\#(\Omega ^{n})}{n^{4}}=r \end{equation*} is a rational number. \end{prop} \proof We only sketch the proof here. We can apply the method above and compute $r$ as the volume of the unit $CC$-ball $\mathcal{C}(\Omega )$ of the limit $CC$-metric $d_{\infty }$ defined in Theorem . Since we know what is the norm $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ in the $(x,y)$-plane $ m_{1}=span\left\langle X,Y\right\rangle $ that generates $d_{\infty }$ (it is the polygonal norm given by the convex hull of the points of $\Omega $), we can compute $\mathcal{C}(\Omega )$ explicitly. We need to know the solution to Dido's isoperimetric problem for $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ in $m_{1}$, and as is well known (see ) it is given by polygonal lines from the dual polygon rotated by $90^{\circ }$. Since the polygon defining $\left\| \cdot \right\| $ is made of rational lines (points in $\Omega $ have integer coordinates), any vector with rational coordinates has rational $\left\|\cdot \right\| $-length, and the dual polygon is also rational. The equations defining $z(x,y)$ will therefore have only rational coefficients, and $z(x,y)$ will be piecewisely given by a rational quadratic form in $x$ and $y,$ where the pieces are rational triangles in the $(x,y)$-plane. The total volume of $\mathcal{C}(\Omega )$ will therefore be rational. \edpf \subsection{5-dim Heisenberg group} The Heisenberg group $H_{5}(\Bbb{Z})$ is the group generated by $ a_{1},b_{1},a_{2},b_{2}$,$c$ with relations $c=[a_{1},b_{1}]=[a_{2},b_{2}]$, $a_{1}$ and $b_{1}$ commute with $a_{2}$ and $b_{2}$ and $c$ is central. Let $\Omega =\{a_{i}^{\pm 1},b_{i}^{\pm 1},i=1,2\}.$ Let us describe the limit shape of $\Omega ^{n}$. Again, we see $H_{5}(\Bbb{Z})$ as a lattice of co-volume $1$ in the group $H_{5}(\Bbb{R})$ with Lie algebra $\frak{h}_{5}$ spanned by $X_{1},Y_{1}X_{2},Y_{2}$ and $Z=[X_{i},Y_{i}].$ By Theorem \ref {MetComp}, the limit shape is the unit ball $\mathcal{C}_{5}$ for the Carnot-Caratheodory metric on $H_{5}(\Bbb{R})$ induced by the $\ell ^{1}$ -norm $\left\| x_{1}X_{1}+y_{1}Y_{1}+x_{2}X_{2}+y_{2}Y_{2}\right\| _{0}=|x_{1}|+|y_{1}|+|x_{2}|+|y_{2}|.$ Since $X_{1},Y_{1}$ commute with $X_{2},Y_{2},$ in any piecewise linear horizontal path in $H_{5}(\Bbb{R}),$ we can swap the pieces tangent to $ X_{1} $ or $Y_{1}$ with those tangent to $X_{2}$ or $Y_{2}$ without changing the end point of the path. Therefore if $\xi (t)=\exp (x_{1}(t)X_{1}+y_{1}(t)Y_{1}+x_{2}(t)X_{2}+y_{2}(t)Y_{2}+z(t)Z)$ is a horizontal path, then $z(t)=z_{1}(t)+z_{2}(t)$, where $z_{i}(t)$, $i=1,2,$ is the ``balayage area'' of the plane curve $\{x_{i}(s)X_{i}+y_{i}(s)Y_{i} \}_{0\leq s\leq t}.$ Since, just like for $H_{3}(\Bbb{Z}),$ we know the curve maximizing this area, we can compute the unit ball $\mathcal{C}_{5}$ explicitly. In exponential coordinates it will take the form $\mathcal{C}_{5}=\{\exp (x_{1}X_{1}+y_{1}Y_{1}+x_{2}X_{2}+y_{2}Y_{2}+zZ),$ $ |x_{1}|+|y_{1}|+|x_{2}|+|y_{2}|\leq 1$ and $|z|\leq z(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2})\}.$ Then $z(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2})=\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\{z_{t}(x_{1},y_{1})+z_{1-t}(x_{2},y_{2})\},$ where $z_{t}(x,y)$ is the maximum ``balayage area'' of a path of length $t$ between $0$ and $xX+yY. $ It is easy to see that $z_{t}(x,y)=t^{2}z(x/t,y/t)$ where $z$ is given by $ ()$. Hence $z_{t}$ is a piecewise quadratic function of $t.$ Again $z(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2})$ is invariant under changing the signs of the $ x_{i}$,$y_{i}$'s, and swapping $x$ and $y,$ or else swapping $1$ and $2.$ We may thus assume that the $x_{i}$,$y_{i}$'s lie in $D=\{0\leq y_{i}\leq x_{i}\leq 1$ and $x_{1}+y_{1}+x_{2}+y_{2}\leq 1$, and $x_{2}-y_{2}\geq x_{1}-y_{1}\}.$ We may therefore determine explicitly the supremum $ z(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2})$, which after some straightforward calculations takes on $D$ the following form: \begin{equation*} z(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2})=1_{A}\max \{d_{1},d_{2}\}+1_{B}\max \{d_{1},c_{1}\}+1_{C}\max \{c_{1},c_{2}\} \end{equation*} where $d_{1}=\frac{x_{1}y_{1}}{2}+\frac{x_{2}}{2}(1-x_{1}-y_{1}-x_{2})$, $ c_{1}=\frac{1}{16}(1+x_{1}+y_{1}-x_{2}-y_{2})^{2}+\frac{x_{2}y_{2}-x_{1}y_{1} }{2},$ and $d_{2}$ and $c_{2}$ are obtained from $d_{1}$ and $c_{1}$ by swapping the indices $1$ and $2.$ The sets $A,B$ and $C$ form the following partition of $D:$ $A=D\cap \{m\leq x_{1}-y_{1}\},$ $B=D\cap \{x_{1}-y_{1}<m<x_{2}-y_{2}\}$ and $C=D\cap \{x_{2}-y_{2}\leq m\},$ where $ m=(1-x_{1}-x_{2}-y_{1}-y_{2})/2.$ Since $\mathcal{C}_{5}$ has such an explicit form, it is possible to compute its volume. The fact that $z(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2})$ is piecewisely given by the maximum of two quadratic forms makes the computation of the integral somewhat cumbersome but tractable. Our equations coincide (fortunately!) with those of Stoll (appendix of ), where he computed the main term of the asymptotics of $\#(\Omega ^{n})$ by a different method. Stoll did calculate that integral and obtained \begin{equation*} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\#(\Omega ^{n})}{n^{6}}=vol(\mathcal{C} _{5})=\frac{2009}{21870}+\frac{\log (2)}{32805} \end{equation*} which is transcendental. It is also easy to see by this method that if we change the generating set to $\Omega_0=\{a_{1}^{\pm 1}b_{1}^{\pm 1}a_2^{\pm 1}b_{2}^{\pm 1}\}$, then we get a rational volume. Hence the rationality of the growth series of $H_5(\Bbb Z)$ depends on the choice of generating set, which is Stoll's theorem. One advantage of our method is that it can also apply to fancier generating sets. The case of Heisenberg groups of higher dimension with the standard generating set is analogous: the function $z(\{x_{i}\},\{y_{i}\})$ is again piecewisely defined as the maximum of finitely many explicit quadratic forms on a linear partition of the $\ell ^{1}$-unit ball $\sum |x_{i}|+|y_{i}|\leq 1.$\\ \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments.} I\ would like to thank Amos Nevo for his hospitality at the Technion of Haifa in December 2005, where part of this work was conducted, and for triggering my interest in this problem by showing me the possible implications of Theorem \ref {firsthm} to Ergodic Theory. My thanks are also due to V. Losert for pointing out an inaccuracy in my first proof of Theorem and for his other remarks on the manuscript. Finally I thank Y. de Cornulier, M. Duchin, E. Le Donne, Y. Guivarc'h, A. Mohammadi, P. Pansu and R. Tessera for several useful conversations. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{abels-margulis} H.~Abels and G.~Margulis. \newblock Coarsely geodesic metrics on reductive groups. \newblock In {\em Modern dynamical systems and applications}, pages 163--183. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2004. \bibitem{AG} L. Auslander and L. W. Green, $G$\textit{-induced flows}, Amer. J. Math. \textbf{88} (1966), 43--60. \bibitem{Bass} H. Bass, \textit{The degree of polynomial growth of finitely generated nilpotent groups}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) \textbf{25} (1972), 603--614. \bibitem{Ben} M. Benson, \textit{On the rational growth of virtually nilpotent groups}, In: S.M. Gersten, Stallings (eds), Combinatorial Group Theory and Topology, Ann. Math. Studies, vol \textbf{111}, PUP (1987). \bibitem{berestovski} V.~N. Berestovski{\u\i}. \newblock{\em Homogeneous manifolds with an intrinsic metric I}, \newblock Sibirsk. Mat. Zh., 29(6):17--29, 1988. \bibitem{Bur} D. Yu. Burago, \textit{Periodic metrics}, in Representation Theory and Dynamical Systems, 205--210, Adv. Soviet Math. \textbf{9} Amer. Math. Soc. (1992). \bibitem{Bur2} D. Yu. Burago, G.A. Margulis, Problem Session, in Oberwolfach Report, Geometric Group Theory, Hyperbolic Dynamics and Symplectic Geometry, 2006. \bibitem{Bus} H. Busemann, \textit{The isoperimetric problem in the Minkowski plane}, AJM 69 (1947), 863--871. \bibitem{breuillard-ledonne} E. Breuillard and E. Le Donne, \textit{On the rate of convergence to the asymptotic cone for nilpotent groups and subFinsler geometry}, preprint 2012. \bibitem{Cal} A. Calderon, \textit{A general ergodic theorem}, Annals of Math. \textbf{57} (1953), pp. 182-191. \bibitem{colding-minicozzi} T.~H. Colding and W.~P. Minicozzi, II. \newblock Liouville theorems for harmonic sections and applications. \newblock {\em Comm. Pure Appl. Math.}, 51(2):113--138, 1998. \bibitem{CG} L. Corwin and F. P. Greenleaf, \textit{Representations of nilpotent Lie groups and their applications, Part I, Basic theory and examples}, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1990) 269pp. \bibitem{DR} N. Dungey, A. F. M ter Elst, and D. W. Robinson, \textit{ Analysis on Lie groups with polynomial growth}, Progress in Math. \textbf{214 }, Birkhauser, (2003) 312pp. \bibitem{Eme} W. R. Emerson, \textit{The pointwise ergodic theorem for amenable groups}, Amer. J. Math 96 (1974), 472--487. \bibitem{Jen} J. W. Jenkins, \textit{A characterization of growth in locally compact groups}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 79 (1973), 103--106. \bibitem{Gre} F. P. Greenleaf, \textit{Invariant means on topological groups and their applications}, Van Nostrand Mathematical Studies, no \textbf{16} (1969) 113pp. \bibitem{Gro} M. Gromov, \textit{Groups of polynomial growth and expanding maps}, Publications Math\'{e}matiques de l'IHES, no \textbf{53} (1981), 53-73. \bibitem{gromov-pansu-lafontaine} M.~Gromov. \newblock {\em Metric structures for {R}iemannian and non-{R}iemannian spaces}, volume 152 of {\em Progress in Mathematics}. \newblock Birkh\"auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1999. \newblock Based on the 1981 French original, With appendices by M.\ Katz, P.\ Pansu and S.\ Semmes. \bibitem{Gro2} M. Gromov, \textit{Carnot-Carath\'{e}odory spaces seen from within}, in Sub-Riemannian Geometry, edited by A. Bellaiche and J-J. Risler, 79-323, Birkauser (1996). \bibitem{Gro3} M. Gromov, \textit{Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups}, in Geometric group theory, Vol. 2 (Sussex, 1991), 1--295, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., \textbf{182}, CUP (1993). \bibitem{Gui} Y. Guivarc'h, \textit{Croissance polyn\^{o}miale et p\'{e} riodes des fonctions harmoniques}, Bull. Sc. Math. France \textbf{101}, (1973), p. 353-379. \bibitem{Kar} R. Karidi, \textit{Geometry of balls in nilpotent Lie groups}, Duke Math. J. 74 (1994), no. 2, 301--317. \bibitem{krat} S.~A. Krat. \newblock Asymptotic properties of the {H}eisenberg group. \newblock {\em Zap. Nauchn. Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (POMI)}, 261(Geom. i Topol. 4):125--154, 268, 1999. \bibitem{Los} V. Losert, \textit{On the structure of groups with polynomial growth}, Math. Z. \textbf{195} (1987), no 1, 109--117. \bibitem{Monty} R. Montgomery, \textit{A tour of sub-riemannian geometry}, AMS book 2002. \bibitem{Nevo} A. Nevo, \textit{Pointwise ergodic theorems for actions of connected Lie groups}, Handbook of Dynamical Systems, Eds. B. Hasselblatt and A. Katok, to appear. \bibitem{Pan} P. Pansu, \textit{Croissance des boules et des g\'{e}od\'{e} siques ferm\'{e}es dans les nilvari\'{e}t\'{e}s}, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems \textbf{3} (1983), no. 3, 415--445. \bibitem{Pan2} P. Pansu, \textit{M�triques de Carnot-Carath�odory et quasiisom�tries des espaces sym�triques de rang un}, Ann. of Math. (2) 129 (1989), no. 1, 1�60. \bibitem{Rag} M. S. Raghunathan, \textit{Discrete subgroups of Lie groups}, Springer Verlag (1972). \bibitem{robinson} D. Robinson, \textit{A course in the theory of groups}, Springer-Verlag. \bibitem{Sha} M. Shapiro, \textit{A geometric approach to almost convexity and growth of some nilpotent groups}, Math. Ann, \textbf{285}, 601-624 (1989). \bibitem{Sto} M. Stoll, \textit{On the asymptotic of the growth of }$2$ \textit{-step nilpotent groups}, J. London Math. Soc (2) \textbf{58} (1998), no 1, 38--48. \bibitem{Sto2} M. Stoll, \textit{Rational and transcendental growth series for higher Heisenberg groups}, Invent. math. \textbf{126}, 85-109 (1996). \bibitem{Tem} A. Tempelman, \textit{Ergodic theorems for group actions}, Mathematics and its applications, 78, Kluwer Academic publishers (1992). \bibitem{Tes} R. Tessera, \textit{Volumes of spheres in doubling measures metric spaces and groups of polynomial growth}, \newblock { Bull. Soc. Math. France}, 135(1):47--64, 2007. \bibitem{Wan} H.C. Wang, \textit{Discrete subgroups of solvable Lie groups} , Annals of Math, (1956), \textbf{64}, 1-19. \bibitem{wolf} J. Wolf,\textit{\ Growth of finitely generated solvable groups and curvature of Riemanniann manifolds}, J. Differential Geometry, \textbf{2} (1968) p. 421--446. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0098
|
Title: Sparsely-spread CDMA - a statistical mechanics based analysis
Abstract: Sparse Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), a variation on the standard CDMA
method in which the spreading (signature) matrix contains only a relatively
small number of non-zero elements, is presented and analysed using methods of
statistical physics. The analysis provides results on the performance of
maximum likelihood decoding for sparse spreading codes in the large system
limit. We present results for both cases of regular and irregular spreading
matrices for the binary additive white Gaussian noise channel (BIAWGN) with a
comparison to the canonical (dense) random spreading code.
Body: \title{Sparsely-spread CDMA - a statistical mechanics based analysis} \author{Jack Raymond and David Saad} \address{ Neural Computation Research Group, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7EJ } \ead{jack.raymond@physics.org} \begin{abstract} Sparse Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), a variation on the standard CDMA method in which the spreading (signature) matrix contains only a relatively small number of non-zero elements, is presented and analysed using methods of statistical physics. The analysis provides results on the performance of maximum likelihood decoding for sparse spreading codes in the large system limit. We present results for both cases of regular and irregular spreading matrices for the binary additive white Gaussian noise channel (BIAWGN) with a comparison to the canonical (dense) random spreading code. \end{abstract} \pacs{64.60.Cn, 75.10.Nr, 84.40.Ua, 89.70.+c} \ams{68P30,82B44,94A12,94A14} \date{\today} \maketitle \section{Background} The area of multiuser communications is one of great interest from both theoretical and engineering perspectives~. Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) is a particular method for allowing multiple users to access channel resources in an efficient and robust manner, and plays an important role in the current preferred standards for allocating channel resources in wireless communications. CDMA utilises channel resources highly efficiently by allowing many users to transmit on much of the bandwidth simultaneously, each transmission being encoded with a user specific signature code. Disentangling the information in the channel is possible by using the properties of these codes and much of the focus in CDMA research is on developing efficient codes and decoding methods. In this paper we study a variant of the original method, sparse CDMA, where the spreading matrix contains only a relatively small number of non-zero elements as was originally studied and motivated in~. While the straightforward application of sparse CDMA techniques to uplink multiple access communication is rather limited, as it is difficult to synchronise the sparse transmissions from the various users, the method can be highly useful for frequency and time hopping. In frequency-hopping code division multiple access (FH-CDMA), one repeatedly switches frequencies during radio transmission, often to minimize the effectiveness of interception or jamming of telecommunications. At any given time step, each user occupies a small (finite) number of the (infinite) $M$-ary frequency-shift-keying (MFSK) chip/carrier pairs (with gain $G$, the total number of chip-frequency pairs is $MG$.) Hops between available frequencies can be either random or preplanned and take place after the transmission of data on a narrow frequency band. In time-hopping (TH-)CDMA, a pseudo-noise sequence defines the transmission moment for the various users, which can be viewed as sparse CDMA when used in an ultra-wideband impulse communication system. In this case the sparse time-hopping sequences reduces collisions between transmissions. This study follows the seminal paper of Tanaka~, and other recent extensions~, in utilising the replica analysis for randomly spread CDMA with discrete inputs, which established many of the properties of random densely-spread CDMA with respect to several different detectors including Maximum A Posteriori (MAP), Marginal Posterior Maximiser (MPM) and minimum mean square-error (MMSE). Sparsely-spread CDMA differs from the conventional CDMA, based on dense spreading sequences, in that any user only transmits to a small number of chips (by comparison to transmission on all chips in the case of dense CDMA). The sparse nature of this model facilitates the use of methods from statistical physics of dilute disordered systems~ for studying the properties of typical cases. The feasibility of sparse CDMA for transmitting information was recently demonstrated~ for the case of real (Gaussian distributed) input symbols by employing a Gaussian effective medium approximation; several results have been reported for the case of random transmission patterns. In a separate recent study, based on the belief propagation inference algorithm and a binary input prior distribution, sparse CDMA has also been considered as a route to proving results in the densely spread CDMA~. In addition, this study demonstrated the existence of a {\it waterfall} phenomenon comparable to the dense code for a subset of ensembles. The waterfall phenomenon is observed in decoding techniques, where there is a dynamical transition between two statistically distinct solutions as the noise parameter is varied. Finally we note a number of pertinent studies concerning the effectiveness of belief propagation as an MPM decoding method~, and in combining sparse encoding (LDPC) methods with CDMA~. Many of these papers however consider the {\it extreme dilution} regime -- in which the number of chip contributions is large but not $O(N)$. The theoretical work regarding sparsely spread CDMA remained lacking in certain respects. As pointed out in~, spreading codes with Poisson distributed number of non-zero elements, per chip and across users, are systematically failing in that each user has some probability of not contributing to any chips (transmitting no information). Even in the ``partly regular'' code~ ensemble (where each user transmits on the same number of chips) some chips have no contributors owing to the Poisson distribution in chip connectivity, consequently the bandwidth is not effectively utilised. We circumvent this problem by introducing constraints to prevent this, namely taking regular signature codes constrained such that both the number of users per chip and chips per user take fixed integer values. Furthermore we present analytic and numerical analysis without resort to Gaussian approximations of any quantities. Using new tools from statistical mechanics we are able to cast greater light on the nature of the binary prior transmission process. Notably the nature of the decoding state space and relative performance of sparse ensembles versus dense ones across a range of noise levels; and importantly, the question of how the coexistence of solutions found by Tanaka~ extends to sparse ensembles, especially close to the transition points determined for the dense ensemble. In this paper we demonstrate the superiority of regular sparsely spread CDMA code over densely spread codes in certain respects, for example, the anticipated bit error rate arising in decoding is improved in the high noise regime and the solution coexistence behaviour is less pervasive. Furthermore, to utilise belief propagation for such an ensemble is certain to be significantly faster and less computationally demanding~, this also has power-consumption implications which may be important in some applications. Other practical issues of implementation, the most basic being non-synchronisation and power control, require detailed study and may make fully harnessing these advantages more complex and application dependent. The paper is organised as follows: In section~ we will introduce the general framework and notation used, while the methodology used for the various codes will be presented in section~. The main results for the various codes will be presented in section~ followed by concluding remarks in section~. \section{The model} We consider a standard model of CDMA consisting of $K$ users transmitting in a bit interval of $N$ chips. We assume a model with perfect power control and synchronisation, and consider only the single bit interval. In our case the received signal $\vy$ is described by \begin{equation} \vy = \sum_{k=1}^K \left[\vs_k b_k\right] + \vomega\;, \end{equation} where the vector components describe the values for distinct chips: $\vs_k$ is the spreading code for user $k$, $b_k=\pm 1$ is the bit sent by user $k$ (binary input symbols) and $\vomega$ the noise vector. Appropriate normalisation of the power is through the definition of the signature matrix (${\bf s}$). It is possible to include a user or chip specific amplitude variation, which may be due to fading or imperfect power control. We consider a model without these effects. The spreading codes are sparse so that in expectation only $C$ of the elements in vector $\vs_k$ are non-zero. If, with knowledge of the signature matrix in use, we assume the signal has been subject to additive white Gaussian channel noise of variance $\sigma_0^2/\beta$, where $\sigma_0^2$ is the variance of the true channel noise $\langle\omega^2\rangle$, we can write the posterior for the transmitted bits $\vtau$ (unknowns given the particular instance) using Bayes Theorem \begin{equation} \fl P(\vtau | \vy) = \prod_{\mu=1}^N \left[ \frac{\sqrt{\beta}}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{\beta}{2 \sigma_0^2} \left(\sum_{k=1}^K \left[s_{\mu k} (b_k-\tau_k)\right] + \omega_\mu\right)^2 \right)\right]P(\vtau)\;, \end{equation} and from this define bit error rate, mutual information, and other quantities. The statistical mechanics approach from here is to define a Hamiltonian and partition function from which the various statistics relating to this probability distribution may be determined - and hence all the usual information theory measures. A suitable choice for the Hamiltonian is \begin{equation} {\cal H}({\vtau}) = \sum_{\mu=1}^N \frac{1}{2 \sigma_0^2}\left( \sum_{k=1}^K \left[s_{\mu k} (b_k - \tau_k)\right] + \omega_\mu\right)^2 + \sum_{k=1}^K h_k \tau_k \;. \end{equation} We can here identify ${\vtau}$ as the dynamical variables in the inference problem (dependence shown explicitly). The other quenched variables (parameters), describing the instance of the disorder, are the signature matrix (${\bf s}$), noise ($\vomega$) and the inputs ($\vb$). The variables $h_k$ describe our prior beliefs about the inputs (the specific user bias), and we can assume some simple distribution for this such as all users having the same bias $h_k=H$. Maximal rate transmission corresponds to unbiased bits $H=0$, and this is considered throughout the paper. The properties of such a system may be reflected in a factor (Tanner) graph, a bipartite graph in which users and chips are represented by nodes (see figure~). The calculation we undertake is specific to the case of the thermodynamic limit in which the number of chips $N \rightarrow \infty$ whilst the load $\alpha=K/N$ is fixed. Note that $\alpha$ is termed $\beta$ in many CDMA papers, here we reserve $\beta$ to mean the ``inverse temperature'' in a statistical mechanics sense (which defines our prior belief for the noise level and give rise to the corresponding MAP detector.) In all ensembles we may identify the parameter $L$ as the mean number of contributions to each chip, and $C$ as the mean number of contributions per user. As such the following also holds \begin{equation} \alpha= \frac{K}{N} = \frac{L}{C}\;. \end{equation} The case in which $\alpha$ is greater than 1 will be called oversaturated, since more than one bit is being transmitted per chip. The calculations presented henceforth are specific to the case of memoryless noise, drawn from a single distribution of mean zero and mean square $\sigma_0^2$ \begin{equation} \Omega(\omega) = P(\omega_\mu=\omega)\;. \end{equation} Defining normalised spreading codes such that $\sum_k \vs_k.\vs_k = N$ , we can identify the ``power spectral density'' ($PSD$) over a chip interval as a measure of the system noise $1/(2 \sigma_0^2)$ -- the factor two being connected with physical considerations in implementing the model. \subsection{Code Ensembles} We consider several code ensembles we call irregular, partly regular and regular, which differ in the constraints placed on the factor and variable degree constraints of the signature matrix ${\bf s}$. The probability distribution \begin{eqnarray} P({\bf s}) &=& {\cal N} \left(\prod_\mu \left\langle \frac{\tL!}{L^\tL} \delta(\sum_k \delta(s_{\mu k}\neq 0) - \tL)\right\rangle_{P(\tilde L)} \right) \nonumber\\ &\times& \left(\prod_k\left\langle \frac{\tC!}{C^\tC}\delta(\sum_\mu \delta(s_{\mu k}\neq 0) - \tC) \right\rangle_{P(\tilde C)} \right)\prod_\mu \prod_k P(s_{\mu k}) \;, \end{eqnarray} where ${\cal N}$ is a normalising constant, $P(\tL)$ is the factor degree probability distribution of mean $L$, $P(\tC)$ is the variable degree probability distribution of mean $C$, and $P(s_{\mu k})$ is the marginal probability distribution which is common to all ensembles \begin{equation} P(s_{\mu k})= \left(1-\frac{C}{N}\right)\delta(s_{\mu k}) + \frac{C}{N}\delta(s_{\mu k}-\xi)\;. \end{equation} The form of () is then sufficient for the sparse distributions we consider in the large system limit, and makes explicit the chip and user connectivity properties of the ensembles. The gain factor $\xi$, is drawn randomly from a single distribution with zero measure at $\xi=0$, and finite moments, in any instance of a code \begin{equation} \phi(\xi) = P(s_{\mu k}=\xi |s_{\mu k} \neq 0)\;. \end{equation} Unlike the dense case the details of this distribution will effect results, but only in a small way for reasonable choices~. We here investigate the case of Binary Phase Shift Keying (BPSK) which corresponds to a uniform distribution on $\{-\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\}$, though the analytic results presented are applicable to any distribution of mean square $=1/L$. Note that disorder in the gain factors is not a necessity, the case $\xi=1/\sqrt{L}$ also allows decoding in sparse ensembles. The case where $P(\tL)$ and $P(\tC)$ are Poissonian distributed identifies the irregular ensemble - where the connections between chips and users are independently distributed. The second distribution called partly regular has $P(\tC)=\delta_{C,\tC}$, in which the chip connectivity is again Poisson distributed with mean $L$, but each user contributes to exactly $C$ chips. This prevents the systematic failure inherent in the irregular ensemble since therein an extensive number of users fail to transmit on any chips. If in addition to the aforementioned constraint all chips receive exactly $L$ contributions, $P(\tL)=\delta_{L,\tL}$, the ensemble is called regular. Regular chip connectivity amongst other things prevents the systematic inefficiency due to leaving some chips unaccessed by any of the users. The case of Poissonian distributions is that in which there is no global control. In many engineering applications constraining users individually (non-Poissonian $P(\tC)$) is practical, whereas coordination between users (non-Poissonian $P(\tL)$) is difficult. The practicalities of implementing the different ensembles we consider are application specific: the advantages inherent in distributing channel resources more evenly amongst users may be lost to practical implentation problems. \section{Methodology} \subsection{Spectral Efficiency Lower Bound} The inferiority of codes with Poissonian user connectivity has been pointed out previously (e.g., in~), based on the understanding that codes which leave a portion of the users disconnected cannot be optimal. Analogously we argue that codes with irregular chip connectivity must also be inferior in that they leave a fraction of the chips (bandwidth) unutilised, thus providing a motivation for considering fully regular codes. In this section we show a particular case in which the regular codes are expected to outperform any other ensemble by analysing the amount of information that can be extracted on the sent bits by consideration of only one chip in isolation of the other chips. This corresponds to a detector reconstructing bits based only on the value of a single chip, and is independent of the user connectivity. The spectral efficiency is defined as the mutual information between the received signal and reconstructed bits per chip. In considering only a single chip ($\mu$) we have \begin{equation} I(\vtau;y_\mu)= \left\langle\log_2 \frac{P(\vtau | y_\mu)}{P(\vtau)}\right\rangle_{P_0(\vtau,y_\mu)}\;, \end{equation} where the subscript zero indicates that the true (generative), rather than model (), probability distribution. For brevity we consider the simplest case that the generative and model probability distributions are the same with unbiased bits and a Gaussian noise distribution in which case after some rearrangement \begin{equation} I(\vtau;y_\mu)= \tL - \left\langle \log_2 \frac{\exp(-H_\mu(\vtau^\mu))}{\sum_{\vtau^\mu} \exp(-H_\mu(\vtau^\mu))} \right\rangle_{P_0(\vtau^\mu,y_\mu)} \;, \end{equation} where $\vtau^\mu$ are the bits connected to chip $\mu$, and the chip Hamiltonian is \begin{equation} H_\mu(\vtau^\mu) = \frac{1}{2\sigma_0^2} \left(-\sum_{i=1}^\tL \xi_i\tau_i + y_\mu \right)^2 \;, \end{equation} labelling each interacting (non-zero) component on the chip by $i$, $\tL$ being the chip connectivity. Working from this description we wish to compare the performance of ensembles with different chip connectivities. To do this we consider the ensemble average mutual information by averaging the mutual information over the connectivities ($\tL$), load factors, and transmitted bits. This average is complicated, however it is possible to calculate the dominant terms in the low and high $PSD$ limits. In the case of low noise ($PSD\rightarrow\infty$) we find the asymptotically dominant terms come first from the numerator \begin{equation} \left\langle\log_2 \exp - H(\vtau^\mu)\right\rangle \doteq \left\langle\frac{\omega^2}{2\sigma_0^2}\right\rangle/\log(2) = \frac{1}{2\log(2)}\;, \end{equation} which is an average over the ground state energy, and also the logarithm of the denominator which is \begin{equation} \fl \left\langle\log_2 \sum_{\vtau^\mu} \exp - H(\vtau^\mu) \right\rangle \doteq \left\langle\log_2 \left[ \sum_{\vtau^\mu}\exp\left(\frac{-\omega^2}{2\sigma_0^2}\right)\delta\left(\sum_i \xi_i(b_i -\tau_i)\right)\right]\right\rangle \;, \end{equation} where $y_\mu$ has been decomposed into its bit ($\{b_i\}$) and noise ($\omega$) parts, and the averages are now over the ensembles as well as $y_\mu$. The first part of () gives an energy contribution cancelling (). We call the remaining part the average over the {\it chip entropy}, by comparison with () this determines the amount of information lost in decoding. The chip entropy term contains an indicator function counting the ground states - the average chip entropy is zero when $\vtau^\mu=\vb^\mu$ is the only solution. For the case of $BPSK$ however there may be some degeneracy in ground states with two terms in the sum being non-zero but cancelling one another. This degeneracy has a dependence on the distribution $P(\tL)$ for given $L$. Averaging over load factors and transmitted bits we find that in the zero noise limit \begin{eqnarray} I(\vtau, y_\mu) &\doteq& L - \left\langle \frac{1}{2^{2\tL}} \sum_{\vxi^\mu} \sum_{\vb^\mu} \log_2 \sum_{\vtau^\mu}\delta\left(\sum_i \xi_i(b_i -\tau_i)\right)\right\rangle_{P(\tL)}\;,\\ &=& L - \left\langle \sum_{p=0}^\tL \frac{1}{2^\tL} {\tL \choose p} \ln \left(\sum_i^{\min(p,\tL-p)} {\tL - p \choose i} {p \choose i} \right)\right\rangle_{P(\tL)} \;. \end{eqnarray} By numerical evaluation of this function (see results section ) we find that the optimal ensemble is in fact the regular ensemble. This is because chip entropy, when averaged over load factors and bits is a concave function in $\tL$, so that the information loss is minimised when $P(\tL)=\delta_{L,\tL}$. This dependency on $\tL$ may be a peculiarity of the detector considered, but many other aspects of the calculation may be generalised to give a similar result. It is possible to consider the opposite limit $\sigma_0^2 \rightarrow \infty$ perturbatively. We found that the leading four orders in $1/{\sigma_0}$ were identical for all code ensembles of the same mean chip connectivity. We would anticipate the behaviour at non-extreme $PSD$ to fall somewhere between these two regimes and thus for the chip regular ensemble to be atleast as good as the chip irregular ensembles. We note here that another reason for considering the regular code optimal amongst sparse random codes is to consider the field term when the Hamiltonian () is written in canonical form with a set of couplings ($\{J_{\langle i j\rangle}\}$) and user specific external fields ($\{h_i\}$). In this representation the set of external fields are in expectation aligned with the sent bit sequence, but subject to fluctuations for each code instance. The variance of these fluctuations may be shown to be proportional to the excess chip connectivity over the true chip connectivity~, which amongst all ensembles is minimised by the regular chip ensemble. The multi-user interference is larger in irregular codes and hence information recovery is weaker as predicted in this section.\footnote[1]{This argument is added since published version.} \subsection{Replica Method Outline} We determine the static properties of our model defined in section , including correlations due to the full interaction structure, we use the replica method. From the expression of the Hamiltonian () we may identify a free energy and partition function as: \begin{equation*} f = -\frac{1}{N\beta} \ln Z \qquad\qquad Z = \Tr_{{\vtau}} \exp \left(-\beta {\cal H}({\vtau})\right)\;. \end{equation*} To progress we make use of the anticipated {\it self-averaging} properties of the system. The assumption being that in the large system limit any two randomly selected instances will, with high probability, have indistinguishable statistical properties. This assumption has firm foundation in several related problems~, and is furthermore intuitive after some reflection. If this assumption is true then the statists of any particular instance can be described completely by the free energy averaged over all instances of the disorder. We are thus interested in the quantity \begin{equation} {\cal F} = \langle f \rangle = -\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N\beta} \langle \ln Z \rangle_I\;, \end{equation} where the angled brackets represent the weighted averages over $I$ (the instances). The entropy density may be calculated from the free energy density by use of the relation \begin{equation} s=\beta(e-f) \ , \end{equation} where $e$ is the energy density. To determine the free energy we must average over disorder in (), which is a difficult problem except in special cases. This is why we make use of the replica identity \begin{equation} \langle \ln Z \rangle_I = \lim_{n \rightarrow 0} \frac{\partial}{\partial n} \langle Z^n \rangle_I\;. \end{equation} We can model the system now as one of interacting replicas, where $Z^n$ is decomposed as a product of an integer number of partition functions with conditionally independent (given the instance of the disorder) dynamical variables. The discreteness of replicas is essential in the first part of the calculation, but a continuation to the real numbers is required in taking $n\rightarrow0^{+}$ -- this is a notorious assumption, which rigorous mathematics can not yet justify for the general case, in spite of the progress made in recent years~. However, we shall assume validity and since the methodology for the sparse structures is well established~ we omit our particular details. The final functional form for the free energy is determlained from \numparts \begin{eqnarray} \fl \langle Z^n \rangle &=& \int \prod_{\vsigma,b} \left[dP(b,\vsigma)d{\hat P}(b,\vsigma)\right] \exp\{\ln{\cal N} + N(G_1(n) + G_2(n) +G_3(n)) \} \;;\\ \fl G_1(n) &=& \ln \left\{ \int \right[\prod_\alpha \frac{\rmd\lambda_\alpha}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left] \exp \left\{-\sum_\alpha \lambda_\alpha^2/2\right\}\left\langle \exp\left\{ \frac{\rmi\sqrt{\beta}\omega}{\sigma_0}\sum_\alpha \lambda_\alpha\right\}\right\rangle_{\Omega(\omega)} \right. \nonumber\\ \fl &\times& \left. \left\langle e^{-L} \left(\sum_{b,\vsigma} P(b,\vsigma) \left\langle \exp\left\{\frac{\rmi\sqrt{\beta}\xi}{\sigma_0} \sum_\alpha \lambda_\alpha (b - \tau_\alpha)\right\} \right\rangle_{\phi(\xi)} \right)^\tL \right\rangle_{P(\tilde L)} \right\} \;;\\ \fl G_2(n) &=& \sum_{\vsigma,b} P(b,\vsigma){\hat P}(b,\vsigma) \;;\\ \fl G_3(n) &=& \alpha \ln \left\langle \sum_{\vtau} \exp\left\{\beta H \sum_\alpha \tau_\alpha\right\} \left\langle \frac{1}{(-L)^{\tC}}\left({\hat P}(b,\vtau) \right)^{\tC}\right\rangle_{P(\tC)}\right\rangle_{P_0(b)} \;; \end{eqnarray} \endnumparts where ${\cal N}$ is a constant due to normalising the ensembles (). This expression may be evaluated at the saddle point to give an expression for the free energy. In the term () we account for the cases in which the marginalised probability distribution $P_0(b)$ and assumed marginal probability distribution (described by $H$) are asymmetric. In the case of maximal rate which we will consider, the $b$ average is trivial and $H=0$. Provided that in addition the gain factor distribution is symmetric then it is possible to remove the $b$ dependence in the order parameters, since the symmetry $P(b,\vsigma)=P(-b,-\vsigma)$ and ${\hat P}(b,\vsigma)={\hat P}(-b,-\vsigma)$ leaves the free energy invariant. \subsection{Replica Symmetric Equations} The concise form for our equations is attained using the assumption of replica symmetry (RS). This amounts to the assumption that the correlations amongst replicas are all identical, and determined by a unique shared distribution. The validity of this assumption may be self consistently tested (section ). This assumption differs from that used by Yoshida and Tanaka~ where the correlations are described by only a handful of parameters rather than a distribution once RS is assumed -- this approach may therefore miss some of the detailed structure although it is easier to handle numerically. The order parameter in our case is given by \numparts \begin{eqnarray} P(b,\vtau) = \frac{1}{2}\int d\pi(x) \prod_\alpha \left(\frac{1}{2}(1+b\tau_\alpha x) \right)\;;\\ {\hat P}(b,\vtau) = {\hat q} \int d{\hat \pi}({\hat x}) \prod_\alpha \left(1 + b\tau_\alpha x \right) \;; \end{eqnarray} \endnumparts where ${\hat q}$ is a variational normalisation constant and $\pi,{\hat \pi}$ are normalised distributions on the interval $[-1,1]$. From here onwards we may consider the case in which the bit variables $\tau_\alpha$ and gain factors $\xi$ are gauged to $b$ ($\tau b \rightarrow \tau$, $\xi b \rightarrow \xi$). Using Laplace's method, this gives the following expression for the (RS) free energy at the saddle point \begin{equation} {\cal F}_{RS} = -\frac{1}{\beta} \mbox{Extr}_{\pi,\widehat{\pi}} \frac{\partial}{\partial n}\left( {\cal G}_{1,RS}(\tL)(n) + {\cal G}_{2,RS}(n) + {\cal G}_{3,RS}(\tC)(n) \right) \end{equation} where \numparts \begin{eqnarray} \fl \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial n} \right|_{n=0} {\cal G}_{1,RS}(n) &\!\doteq\!& -L\ln 2 \nonumber \\ &\!+\!& \left\langle\int \!\prod_{l=1}^\tL \left[\rmd\pi(x_l)\right] \left\langle\ln \mbox{Tr}_{\{\tau_l=\pm 1\}} \chi_\tL(\vtau;\{\xi\},\omega,\{x\}) \right\rangle_{\Omega(\omega),\phi(\xi)} \right\rangle_{P(\tL)} \;;\\ \fl \chi_\tL(\vtau;\{\xi\},\omega,\{x\}) &=& \exp\left(-\frac{\beta}{2 \sigma^2}\left(\omega+\sum_{l=1}^\tL (1-\tau_l)\xi_l\right)^2\right) \prod_{l=1}^\tL (1+\tau_l x_l) \;; \\ \fl \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial n}\right|_{n=0} {\cal G}_{2,RS}(n) &\!=\!& - L \int \rmd\pi(x_c) \rmd{\hat \pi}({\hat x}_c) \ln (1 + x {\hat x}_c) \;;\\ \fl \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial n}\right|_{n=0} {\cal G}_{3,RS}(n) &\!=\!& \alpha \left\langle\int \prod_{c=1}^\tC \left[\rmd{\hat \pi}({\hat x}_c)\right] \ln \left(\prod_{c=1}^\tC (1+{\hat x}_c) + \prod_{c=1}^\tC (1-{\hat x}_c) \right)\right\rangle_{P(\tC)}\;. \end{eqnarray} \endnumparts and the saddle point value for ${\hat w}$ ($=L$) has been introduced. The averages over $\tL$ and $\tC$ encapsulate the differences amongst the ensembles. Equation () describes the interaction at a single chip in the factor graph (figure ) of connectivity $\tL$. The parameter $\xi_l$ and variable $\tau$ are the gain factors, and reconstructed bits respectively, both gauged to the transmitted bit, while $\omega$ is the instance of the chip noise. The order variational distributions $\{\pi,\hat{\pi}\}$ are chosen so as to extremise~(). The self consistent equations attained by the saddle point method are: \numparts \begin{eqnarray} \fl{\hat \pi}({\hat x}) &=& \left\langle\int \prod_{l=1}^{\tL} \left[\rmd \pi(x_l)\right] \left<\delta\left({\hat x} \!-\! \frac{\mbox{Tr}_{\{\tau_l=\pm 1\}} ~\tau_{\tL+1} ~{\bar \chi}_{\tL}(\vtau;\{\xi\},\{{\hat x}\}) } {\mbox{Tr}_{\{\tau_l=\pm 1\}} ~{\bar \chi}_{\tL}(\vtau;\{\xi\},\omega,\{x\})}\right) \right>_{\{\xi\},\omega}\right\rangle_{P(\tL)}\; \\ \fl{\bar \chi}_\tL(\vtau;\{\xi\},\omega,\{x\}) &=& \exp\left(-\frac{\beta}{2 \sigma^2}\left(\omega+\sum_{l=1}^{\tL+1} (1-\tau_l)\xi_l\right)^2\right) \prod_{l=1}^{\tL}(1+\tau_l x_l) \\ \fl\pi (x) &=& \left\langle \int \prod_{c=1}^{\tC} \left[\rmd{\hat \pi}({\hat x}_c)\right] \delta\left(x - \frac{\prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1+{\hat x}_c) - \prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1-{\hat x}_c)}{\prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1+{\hat x}_c) + \prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1-{\hat x}_c)} \right)\right\rangle_{P(\tC)} \;. \; \end{eqnarray} \endnumparts The variables $P(\tL)$ and $P(\tC)$ are here the excess degree distributions of the particular ensemble (). For regularly constrained ensembles the chip and user excesses are $L-1$ and $C-1$ respectively. For Poissonian distributions the excess degree distribution is the full degree distribution. Aside from entropy, the other quantities of interest may be determined from the probability distribution for the overlap of reconstructed and sent variables $m_k=\langle \tau_k \rangle$, \begin{eqnarray} P (m) &=& \lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{K} \left\langle\sum_{k=1}^K \delta_{m _k,m}\right\rangle_I \;,\\ &=& \left\langle \int \prod_{c=1}^{\tC} \left[\rmd {\hat \pi}({\hat x}_c)\right] \delta\left(m \!-\! \frac{\prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1+{\hat x}_c) \!-\! \prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1-{\hat x}_c)}{\prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1+{\hat x}_c) \!+\! \prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1-{\hat x}_c)} \right)\right\rangle_{P(\tC)}\;.\\ \end{eqnarray} We note finally that equivalent expressions to these found with the RS assumption may be obtained by using the cavity method~ with the assumption of a single pure state. This approach is a probabilistic one and hence more intuitive on some levels. \subsection{Population Dynamics} Analysis of these equations is primarily constrained by the nature of equations (-). No exact solutions are apparent, and perturbative regimes about the ferromagnetic solution (which is only a solution for zero noise) are difficult to handle. Consequently we use population dynamics~ -- representing the distributions $\{\pi(x) , {\hat \pi}({\hat x})\}$ by finite populations (histograms) and iterating this distribution until convergence. It is hoped, and observed, that each histogram captures sufficient detail to describe the continuous function and the dynamics (described below) allow convergence towards a true solution distribution with only small corrections due to finite size effects. To solve the equations (,) with population dynamics finite histograms constucted from $M$ undirected {\it cavity} magnetisations are used. Histograms approximating each function are formed \numparts \begin{eqnarray} \pi(x) \rightarrow W = \{x_1,\ldots,x_i,\ldots,x_M\}\;, \\ \pi({\hat x}) \rightarrow {\hat W} = \{{\hat x}_1,\ldots,{\hat x}_a,\ldots,{\hat x}_M\}\;, \end{eqnarray} \endnumparts with $M$ sufficiently large to provide good resolution in the desired performance measures. The discrete minimisation dynamics of the histograms is derived from (-). Histogram updates are undertaken alternately, with all magnetisation in the histogram being updated sequentially. In the update of field $x_a$ the quenched parameters $\{\tL, \omega, \vxi\}$ are sampled, $\tL$ being the chip excess degree, and $\tL$ magnetisations are randomly chosen from $W$, defining through () the update \begin{equation} {\hat x}_a = \frac{\mbox{Tr}_{\{\tau_l=\pm 1\}} ~\tau_{\tL+1} ~{\bar \chi}_{\tL}(\vtau;\{\xi\},\omega,\{x\}) } {\mbox{Tr}_{\{\tau_l=\pm 1\}} ~{\bar \chi}_{\tL}(\vtau;\{\xi\},\omega,,\{x\})} \;. \end{equation} The update of the other histogram follows dynamics in which $\tC$ is sampled, $\tC$ being the user excess degree, along with $\tC$ randomly chosen magnetisations from ${\hat W}$, defining through () the update \begin{equation} x_i = \frac{\prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1+{\hat x}_c) - \prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1-{\hat x}_c)}{\prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1+{\hat x}_c) + \prod_{c=1}^{\tC} (1-{\hat x}_c)}\;. \end{equation} There is a strong analogy between the population dynamics algorithm and that of message passing on a particular instance of the graph. The iteration of the histograms implicit in (-) is analogous to the propagation of a population of {\it cavity} magnetisations between factor ($a$) and user ($i$) nodes, which may be written as the self consistent equations: \numparts \begin{eqnarray} {\hat x}_{a\rightarrow i} &=& \frac{1}{{\cal N}_{\hat{x}}} \mbox{Tr}_{\{\tau_l=\pm 1\}} \tau_i \exp\left(-\frac{\beta}{2 \sigma^2}\left(\omega_a + \sum_{l \in \partial a \setminus i} (1-\tau_l)\xi_{al}\right)^2\right) \nonumber \\ &\times& \prod_{l\in \partial a \setminus i} (1+\tau_l x_{l\rightarrow a}) \;; \\ x_{i \rightarrow a} &=& \frac{1}{{\cal N}_x} \left(\prod_{c\in \partial i \setminus a} (1+{\hat x}_{c\rightarrow i}) - \prod_{c\in \partial i \setminus a} (1-{\hat x}_{c\rightarrow i})\right)\;; \end{eqnarray} \endnumparts where ${\cal N}_{x,\hat{x}}$ are the relevant normalisations, and the abbreviation ${\partial y}$ indicates the set of nodes connected to $y$. In population dynamics, the notion of a particular graph with labelled edges is absent however, and the only the distribution of the two types of magnetisations are relevant. \subsection{Stability Analysis} To test the stability of the obtained solutions we consider both the appearance of non-negative entropy, and a stability parameter defined through a consideration of the fluctuation dissipation theorem. The first criteria that the entropy be non-negative is based on the fact that physically viable solutions in discrete systems must have non-negative entropy so that any solution found not meeting this criteria must be based on bad premises; replica symmetry is a likely source. The stability parameter $\lambda$ is defined in connection with the cavity method for spin glasses~ and tests local stability of the solutions. It is equivalent to testing the local stability of belief propagation equations as proposed in~. A necessary condition for the stability of the $RS$ solution is that the corresponding susceptibility does not diverge. This condition ensures that fields are not strongly correlated. The spin glass susceptibility when averaged over instances may be defined \begin{equation} \zeta = \sum_{d=0}^\infty X^d \left\langle \left\langle \tau_0 \tau_d \right\rangle_c^2 \right\rangle\;, \end{equation} where $d$ is the distance between two nodes in the factor graph, the inner average denotes the connected correlation function between these nodes, $X^d$ describes the typical number of variables at distance $d$, and the outer average is over instances of the disorder (self-averaging part). This quantity is not divergent provided that \begin{equation} \lambda = \ln \left[\lim_{d\rightarrow\infty} X \left\langle \left\langle \tau_0 \tau_d \right\rangle_c^2 \right\rangle^{\frac{1}{d}}\right] \end{equation} is negative, since this indicates an asympoptically exponential decrease in the terms of () and hence convergence of the sum. In the thermodynamic limit the connected correlation function is dominated by a single direct path which may be decomposed as a chain of local linear susceptibilities \begin{eqnarray} \left\langle\tau_0 \tau_d\right\rangle_c \propto \prod_{(i,j)} \frac{\partial x_{i\rightarrow a}}{\partial {\hat x}_{b\rightarrow i}} \frac{\partial {\hat x}_{b\rightarrow i}}{\partial x_{j\rightarrow b}}\;, \end{eqnarray} where (i,j) indicate the set of variables on the shortest path between nodes $0$ and $d$ in a particular instance of the graph (). This representation allows us to construct an estimation for $\lambda$ numerically based on principles similar to population dynamics~ -- the directedness and fixed structure implicit in a particular problem is removed with the self-averaging assumption leaving a functional description similar to (-), which may be iterated. In order to approximate the stability parameter $\lambda$ one introduces additional positive numbers in the population dynamics histograms (,), $x_i\rightarrow\{x_i,v_i\}$ and ${\hat x}_a\rightarrow\{{\hat x}_a,{\hat v}_a\}$ respectively. These new values represent the relative sizes of perturbations in each magnetisation, and are updated in parallel to (,) as \begin{equation} {\hat v}_a = \sum_j^\tL v_j \left(\frac{\partial {\hat x}_a}{\partial x_j}\right)^2\;, \end{equation} and with similar assignments for the field update of $W$ \begin{equation} v_i = \sum_j^\tC {\hat v}_a \left(\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial {\hat x}_a}\right)^2\;. \end{equation} The partial derivatives are calculated from (-) and evaluated at the corresponding values in the sampled population. If the final fixed point is stable against small perturbations in the initial field then these values $\{v, {\hat v}\}$ must decay exponentially on average. Renormalisation of $\{v_i\}$ and $\{{\hat v}_a\}$ such that the mean is $1$ after each update is necessary. The numerical renormalisation constant for each population yields (dependent) estimations of $\lambda$, which can be sampled at a suitable convergence time (end of the $\{W,{\hat W}\}$ minimisation process). Like population dynamics we expect behaviour to be sensitive to initialisation conditions and finite size effects in some circumstances. In addition the estimation requires good resolution in the histograms $W$ and ${\hat W}$. \section{Results} Results are presented here for the canonical case of Binary Phase Shift Keying (BPSK) where $\xi_l \in \{1,-1\}$ with equal probability. Furthermore, we assume an AWGN model for the true noise $\omega$ (of variance $\sigma_0^2$). For evaluation purposes we assume the channel noise level is known precisely, so that $\beta=1$, employing the Nishimori temperature~. This guarantees that the RS solution is thermodynamically dominant. Furthermore the energy takes a constant value at the Nishimori temperature and hence the entropy is affine to the free energy. Where of interest we plot the comparable statistics for the Single User Gaussian channel (SUG), and the densely spread ensemble, each with MPM detectors -- equivalent to maximum likelihood for individual bits. For population dynamics two parallel populations (,) are initialised either uniformly at random, or in the ferromagnetic state. These two populations are known to converge towards the unique solution, where one exists, from opposite directions, and so we can use their convergence as a criteria for halting the algorithm and testing for the appearance of multiple solutions. In the case where they converge to different solutions we can usually identify the solution converged to from the ferromagnetic initial state as a {\it good} solution - in the sense that it reconstructs well, and that arrived at from random initial state as a {\it bad} solution. In the equivalent belief propagation algorithm one cannot choose initial conditions equivalent to ferromagnetic -- knowing the exact solution would of course makes the decoding redundant. We therefore expect the properties of the {\it bad} solution to be those realisable by belief propagation (though clever algorithms may be able to escape to the good solution under some circumstances). The stability variables $\{v,{\hat v}\}$ were initialised independently each as the square of a value drawn from a gaussian distribution -- and tests indicated other reasonable distributions produced similar results. Computer resources restrict the cases studied in detail to an intermediate $PSD$ regime, and small $L$. In particular, the problem at low $PSD$, is the Gaussian noise average, which is poorly estimated, while at high $PSD$ a majority of the histogram is concentrated at magnetisations $x,{\hat x}\approx 1$ not allowing sufficient resolution in the rest of the histogram. Several different measures are calculated from the converged order parameter, indicating the performance of sparsely-spread CDMA. Using the converged histograms for the fields we are able to determine the following quantities: free energy, energy and a histogram for the probability distribution, from discretisations of the previously presented equations (-). Using the probability distribution we are also able to approximate the decoding bit error rate \begin{equation} P_b = \int \rmd P(m) \frac{1-\sign(m)}{2}\;; \\ \end{equation} multi-user efficiency \begin{equation} MuE = \frac{1}{SNR} \left[ \erfc^{-1}(P_b) \right]^2\;; \end{equation} and mutual information between sent and reconstructed bits per chip, $I(\vb;\vtau)/N$ (taking a factorised form given the RS assumption) \begin{equation} MI = \alpha \left( 1 - \int \rmd P(m) \sum_{\tau} \frac{1+\tau m}{2} \log_2\frac{1+\tau m}{2} \right) \;.\\ \end{equation} The spectral efficiency is the capacity $I(\vtau;\vy)$ per chip, which is affine to the entropy (and the free energy at the Nishimori temperature) \begin{equation} \nu = \alpha - s/\ln 2\;.\\ \end{equation} Negative entropy can be identified when the measured spectral efficiency exceeds the load, and thermodynamic transition points correspond to points of coincident spectral efficiency. Figure~\footnote[2]{This figure has been modified from the published version, the difference being that the Poissonian chip connectivity codes have everywhere weaker performance than the dense and sparse regular code ensemble.} demonstrates some general properties of the regular ensemble in which the variable and factor degree connectivities are $C:L = 3:3$, respectively. Equations~(-) were iterated using population dynamics and the relevant properties were calculated using the obtained solutions; the data presented is averaged over 100 runs and error-bars, which are typically small, are omitted for brevity. Figure~(a) shows the bit error rate in regular and Poissonian codes, the inset focuses on the range where the sparse-regular and dense cases crossover. The sparse codes demonstrate similar trends to the dense case except the irregular code, which show weaker performance in general, and in particular at high $PSD$. Detailed trends can be seen in figure~(b) that shows the multiuser efficiency. Codes with regular {\it user} connectivity show superior performance with respect to the dense case at low $PSD$. Figure~(c) shows similar trends in the spectral efficiency and mutual information (shown in the inset); the effect of the disconnected (user) component is clear in the fact that the irregular code fails to reach capacity at high noise levels. In general it appears the chip connectivity distribution is not critical in changing the trends present, unlike the user connectivity distribution. It was found in these cases (and all cases with unique solutions for given $PSD$), that the algorithm converged to non-negative entropy values and to a stability measure fluctuating about a value less than $0$, as shown in figure~(d). These points would indicate the suitability of the RS assumption. The outperformance of dense codes by sparse ensembles with regular user connectivity in the low $PSD$ regime is new to our knowledge, although Poissonian chip connectivity is everywhere inferior to both the dense and regular sparse codes. The difference between codes disappears rapidly with increasing (connection) density at fixed $\alpha$ (figure ~). This is inline with our prediction of the regular code being a high performance ensemble in preceeding sections. Figure~ indicates the effect of increasing density at fixed $\alpha$ in the case of the regular code. As density is increased the statistics of the sparse codes approach that of the dense channel in all ensembles tested. For the irregular ensemble performance increases monotonically with density at all $PSD$. The rapid convergence to the dense case performance was elsewhere observed for partly regular ensembles, and ensembles based on a Gaussian prior input~. At all densities for which single solutions were found the RS assumption appeared validated in the stability parameter and entropy. Figure~ indicates the effect of channel load $\alpha$ on performance. We first explain results for codes in which only a single solution was found (no solution coexistence). For small values of the load a monotonic increase in the bit error rate, and capacity are observed as $\alpha$ is increased with $C$ constant, as shown in figures~(a) and ~(b), respectively. This matches the trend in the dense case, the dense code becoming superior in performance to the sparse codes as $PSD$ increases. We found that for all sparse ensembles there existed regimes with $\alpha>1.49$ for which only a single stable solution existed, although the equivalent dense systems are known to have two stable solutions in some range of $PSD$~. In all single valued regimes we observed positive entropy, and a negative stability parameter. However, in cases of large $\alpha$ many features became more pronounced close to the dense case solution coexistence regime: notably the cusp in the stability parameter, gap between $MI$ and $\nu$ and the gradient in $P_b$. \subsection{Solution Coexistence Regimes} As in the case of dense CDMA~, also here we observe a regime where two solutions, of quite different performance, coexist. In order to investigate the regime where two solutions coexist we investigated the states arrived at from random and ferromagnetic initial conditions (giving bad and good solutions respectively). Separate heuristic convergence criteria were found for the histograms, and these seemed to work well for the good solution. For the bad solution we simply present results after a fixed number of histogram updates ($500$) as all convergence criteria tested appeared either too stringent, to require experimentally inaccessible timescales, or did not capture the asymptotic values for important quantities like entropy. We believe $500$ updates to be sufficiently conservative to capture the properties of these solutions however. Figure~(a) shows the dependence of the bit error rate on the load, which is also equivalent to $L/C$. There is a monotonic increase in bit error rate with the load and the emergence and coexistence of two separate solutions above a certain point; in the case of the $6:3$ code the point above which the two solutions coexist is $PSD = 10.23dB$ as indicated by the vertical dotted line. We use the regular code $6:3$ to demonstrate the solution coexistence found above some $PSD$ in various codes. The onset of the bimodal distribution can be identified by the divergence in the convergence time in the single solution regime (the time for the ferromagnetic and random histograms to converge to a common distribution). The time for this to occur, in a heuristically chosen statistic and accuracy, is plotted in figure~(b). By a naive linear regression across 3 decades we found a power law exponent of $0.59$ and a transition point of $PSD = 10.23dB$, but cannot provide a goodness of fit measure to this data. This would represent the point at which at least two stable solutions co-exist. Beyond $PSD\approx12dB$ only one stable solution is found from both random and ferromagnetic initial conditions, corresponding statistically to a continuation of the good solution. A solution which statistically resembles a continuation of the bad solution is occasionally arrived at from both initial conditions, this solution had a positive stability parameter and negative entropy -- so is not a viable solution. Thus we predict a second dynamical transition in the region of $12dB$, as might be guessed by comparison with the dense case and observation of the trend in the stability parameter (see figure~(c)). The stability results are presented in figure~(c). Only two stable solutions were found in the region beyond this critical point and upto $12dB$, which we infer to be viable RS solutions (where entropy is positive). The bad solution upto 12dB has a well resolved negative value. The good solution has a negative value in its mean, but like other near ferromagnetic solutions investigated results are very noisy due to numerical issues relating to histogram resolution. Both capacity and spectral efficiency monotonically increase with the load as shown in figure~(d). For the $6:3$ code we see a separation of the two solutions at $PSD = 10.23dB$ (vertical dotted line.) The dashed lines correspond to a similar behaviour observed in the dense case (the range of interest is magnified in the inset.) A cross over in the entropy of the two distinct solutions, near $PSD\approx11dB$, is indicative of a second order phase transition. As in the dense case, only the solution of smallest spectral efficiency is thermodynamically relevant at a given $PSD$, although the other is likely to be important in decoding dynamics. The trends in the sparse case follow the dense case qualitatively, with the good solution having performance only slightly worse than the corresponding solution in the dense case (and vice versa for the bad solution). The entropy of the bad solution becomes negative in a small interval (spectral efficiency exceeds 2) although no local instability is observed. The static and dynamic properties of the histograms appear to be well resolved in this region. However, the negative entropy indicates an instability towards either a type of solution not captured within the RS assumption, or towards some metastable configuration. We will not speculate further, the bad solution is in any case thermodynamically subdominant in its low and negative entropy form. Our hypothesis is therefore that the trends in the sparse ensembles match those in the dense ensembles within the coexistence region and $RS$ continues to be valid for each of two distinct positive entropy solutions. The coexistence region for the sparse codes is however smaller than in the corresponding dense ensembles. Since our histogram updates mirror the properties of a belief propagation algorithm on a random graph we can suspect that the bad solution may have implications for the performance of belief propagation decoding in the coexistence region, and that convergence problems will appear near this region. In the user regular codes investigated the bad solution of the sparse ensemble outperforms the bad solution of the dense ensemble, and vice-versa for the good solution. Thus regardless of whether sparse decoding performance is good or bad, the dynamical transition point for the dense ensemble would corresponds to a $PSD$ beyond which dense CDMA outperforms sparse CDMA at a particular load. \subsection{Spectral Efficiency Lower Bound Numerical Results} Finally we present figure~, which shows the the mutual information between a single chip and transmitted bits for sparse ensembles of differing chip connectivity in the infinite $PSD$ (zero noise) limit (). This shows that in expectation a chip drawn from the regular ensemble contains more information on the transmitted bits than a chip drawn from any other ensemble (including the Poissonian ensemble). The difference between the regular and Poissonian ensembles becomes relatively smaller as $L$ increases. This appears consistent with the replica method results found at high $PSD$, although regular chip connectivity under performed by comparison with Poisson distributed chip connectivity in the low $PSD$ regime, which was not anticipated by the single chip approximation. \section{Concluding Remarks} Our results demonstrate the feasibility of sparse regular codes for use in CDMA. At moderate $PSD$ it seems the performance of sparse regular codes may be very good. With the replica symmetric assumption apparently valid at practical $PSD$ it is likely that fast algorithms based on belief propagation may be very successful in achieving the theoretical results. Furthermore for lower density sparse codes the problem of the coexistence regime, which limits the performance of practical decoding methods, seems to be less pervasive than for dense ensembles in the over saturated regime. A direct evaluation of the properties of belief propagation may prove similar results to those shown here. In the absence of replica symmetry breaking states it is normally true that belief propagation performs very well. However, to make best use of the channel resources it may be preferable to implement high load regimes in cases of high $PSD$, and so overcoming the algorithmic problems arising from the solution coexistence is a challenge of practical importance in this case. Other practical issues in implementation are certainly significant. Similar to the case of dense CDMA there are considerable problems relating to multipath, fading and power control, in fact it is known that these effects are more disruptive for the sparse codes, especially regular codes. However, certain situations such as broadcasting (one to many) channels and downlink CDMA, where synchronisation can be assumed, may be practical points for future implementation. There are practical advantages of the sparse case over dense and orthogonal codes in some regimes. The sparse CDMA method is likely to be particularly useful in frequency-hopping and time-hopping code division multiple access (FH and TH -CDMA) applications where the effect of these practical limitations is less emphasised. Extensions based on our method to cases without power control or synchronisation have been attempted and are quite difficult. A consideration of priors on the inputs, in particular the effects when sparse CDMA is combined with some encoding method may also be interesting. \ack Support from EVERGROW, IP No.~1935 in FP6 of the EU is gratefully acknowledged. DS would like to thank Ido Kanter for helpful discussions. \section*{Bibliography} \bibliographystyle{unsrt} \bibliography{Bibliography}
|
0704.0101
|
Title: The birth of string theory
Abstract: In this contribution we go through the developments that in the years 1968 to
1974 led from the Veneziano model to the bosonic string.
Body: \title*{The birth of string theory} \author{Paolo Di Vecchia\inst{1} } \institute{Nordita, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen {\O}, Denmark \texttt{divecchi@alf.nbi.dk} } \maketitle \begin{abstract} In this contribution we go through the developments that in the years from 1968 to about 1974 led from the Veneziano model to the bosonic string theory. They include the construction of the $N$-point amplitude for scalar particles, its factorization through the introduction of an infinite number of oscillators and the proof that the physical subspace was a positive definite Hilbert space. We also discuss the zero slope limit and the calculation of loop diagrams. Lastly, we describe how it finally was recognized that a quantum relativistic string theory was the theory underlying the Veneziano model. \end{abstract} \section{Introduction} The sixties was a period in which strong interacting processes were studied in detail using the newly constructed accelerators at Cern and other places. Many new hadronic states were found that appeared as resonant peaks in various cross sections and hadronic cross sections were measured with increasing accuracy. In general, the experimental data for strongly interacting processes were rather well understood in terms of resonance exchanges in the direct channel at low energy and by the exchange of Regge poles in the transverse channel at higher energy. Field theory that had been very successful in describing QED seemed useless for strong interactions given the big number of hadrons to accomodate in a Lagrangian and the strength of the pion-nucleon coupling constant that did not allow perturbative calculations. The only domain in which field theoretical techniques were successfully used was current algebra. Here, assuming that strong interactions were described by an almost chiral invariant Lagrangian, that chiral symmetry was spontaneously broken and that the pion was the corresponding Goldstone boson, field theoretical methods gave rather good predictions for scattering amplitudes involving pions at very low energy. Going to higher energy was, however, not possible with these methods. Because of this, many people started to think that field theory was useless to describe strong interactions and tried to describe strong interacting processes with alternative and more phenomenological methods. The basic ingredients for describing the experimental data were at low energy the exchange of resonances in the direct channel and at higher energy the exchange of Regge poles in the transverse channel. Sum rules for strongly interacting processes were saturated in this way and one found good agreement with the experimental data that came from the newly constructed accelerators. Because of these successes and of the problems that field theory encountered to describe the data, it was proposed to construct directly the S matrix without passing through a Lagrangian. The S matrix was supposed to be constructed from the properties that it should satisfy, but there was no clear procedure on how to implement this construction\footnote{For a discussion of S matrix theory see Ref.s }. The word ``bootstrap'' was often used as the way to construct the S matrix, but it did not help very much to get an S matrix for the strongly interacting processes. One of the basic ideas that led to the construction of an S matrix was that it should include resonances at low energy and at the same time give Regge behaviour at high energy. But the two contributions of the resonances and of the Regge poles should not be added because this would imply double counting. This was called Dolen, Horn and Schmidt duality~. Another idea that helped in the construction of an S matrix was planar duality~ that was visualized by associating to a certain process a duality diagram, shown in Fig. (), where each meson was described by two lines representing the quark and the antiquark. Finally, also the requirement of crossing symmetry played a very important role. Starting from these ideas Veneziano~ was able to construct an S matrix for the scattering of four mesons that, at the same time, had an infinite number of zero width resonances lying on linearly rising Regge trajectories and Regge behaviour at high energy. Veneziano originally constructed the model for the process $\pi \pi \rightarrow \pi \omega$, but it was immediately extended to the scattering of four scalar particles. In the case of four identical scalar particles, the crossing symmetric scattering amplitude found by Veneziano consists of a sum of three terms: \begin{eqnarray} A (s, t, u) = A(s,t) + A(s, u) + A(t,u) \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} A(s,t) = \frac{\Gamma (- \alpha (s) )\Gamma (- \alpha (t) )}{ \Gamma (- \alpha (s) - \alpha (t) )} = \int_{0}^{1} dx x^{- \alpha(s) -1} (1-x)^{-\alpha (t) -1} \end{eqnarray} with linearly rising Regge trajectories \begin{eqnarray} \alpha{(s)} = \alpha_{0} + \alpha ' s \end{eqnarray} This was a very important property to implement in a model because it was in agreement with the experimental data in a wide range of energies. $s,t$ and $u$ are the Mandelstam variables: \begin{eqnarray} s= -(p_{1}+ p_{2})^{2} \hspace{.5cm},\hspace{.5cm} t= -(p_{3}+ p_{2})^{2} \hspace{.5cm},\hspace{.5cm} u= -(p_{1}+ p_{3})^{2} \end{eqnarray} The three terms in Eq. () correspond to the three orderings of the four particles that are not related by a cyclic or anticyclic~\footnote{An anticyclic permutation corresponding, for instance, to the ordering $(1234)$ is obtained by taking the reverse of the original ordering $(4321)$ and then performing a cyclic permutation.} permutation of the external legs. They correspond, respectively, to the three permutations: $(1234), (1243)$ and $(1324)$ of the four external legs. They have only simple pole singularities. The first one has only poles in the s and t channels, the second only in the s and u channels and the third only in the t and u channels. This property follows directly from the duality diagram that is associated to each inequivalent permutation of the external legs. In fact, at that time one used to associate to each of the three inequivalent permutations a duality diagram where each particle was drawn as consisting of two lines that rappresented the quark and antiquark making up a meson. Furthermore, the diagram was supposed to have only poles singularities in the planar channels which are those involving adjacent external lines. This means that, for instance, the duality diagram corresponding to the permutation $(1234)$ has only poles in the s and t channels as one can see by deforming the diagram in the plane in the two possible ways shown in figure (). This was a very important property of the duality diagram that makes it qualitatively different from a Feynman diagram in field theory where each diagram has only a pole in one of the three s, t and u channels and not simultaneously in two of them. If we accept the idea that each term of the sum in Eq. () is described by a duality diagram, then it is clear that we do not need to add terms corresponding to equivalent diagrams because the corresponding duality diagram is the same and has the same singularities. It is now clear that it was in some way implicit in this picture the fact that the Veneziano model corresponds to the scattering of relativistic strings. But at that time the connection was not obvious at all. The only S matrix property that the Veneziano model failed to satisfy was the unitarity of the S matrix. because it contained only zero width resonances and did not have the various cuts required by unitarity. We will see how this property will be implemented. Immediately after the formulation of the Veneziano model, Virasoro~ proposed another crossing symmetric four-point amplitude for scalar particles that consisted of a unique piece given by: \begin{eqnarray} A (s, t , u) \sim \frac{\Gamma ( - \frac{\alpha (u)}{2}) \Gamma ( - \frac{\alpha (s)}{2}) \Gamma (- \frac{\alpha (t)}{2}) }{ \Gamma ( 1 + \frac{\alpha (u)}{2}) \Gamma ( 1 + \frac{\alpha (s)}{2}) \Gamma ( 1 + \frac{\alpha (t)}{2}) } \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \alpha (s) = \alpha_0 + \alpha' s \end{eqnarray} The model had poles in all three $s, t$ and $u$ channels and could not be written as sum of three terms having poles only in planar diagrams. In conclusion, the Veneziano model satisfies the principle of planar duality being a crossing symmetric combination of three contributions each having poles only in the planar channels. On the other hand, the Virasoro model consists of a unique crossing symmetric term having poles in both planar and non-planar channels. The attempts to construct consistent models that were in good agreement with the strong interaction phenomenology of the sixties boosted enormously the activity in this research field. The generalization of the Veneziano model to the scattering of $N$ scalar particles was built, an operator formalism consisting of an infinite number of harmonic oscillators was constructed and the complete spectrum of mesons was determined. It turned out that the degeneracy of states grew up exponentially with the mass. It was also found that the $N$ point amplitude had states with negative norm (ghosts) unless the intercept of the Regge trajectory was $\alpha_0 =1$~. In this case it turned out that the model was free of ghosts but the lowest state was a tachyon. The model was called in the literature the ``dual resonance model''. The model was not unitary because all the states were zero width resonances and the various cuts required by unitarity were absent. The unitarity was implemented in a perturbative way by adding loop diagrams obtained by sewing some of the external legs together after the insertion of a propagator. The multiloop amplitudes showed a structure of Riemann surfaces. This became obvious only later when the dual resonance model was recognized to correspond to scattering of strings. But the main problem was that the model had a tachyon if $\alpha_0 =1$ or had ghosts for other values of $\alpha_0$ and was not in agreement with the experimental data: $\alpha_0$ was not equal to about $\frac{1}{2}$ as required by experiments for the $\rho$ Regge trajectory and the external scalar particles did not behave as pions satisfying the current algebra requirements. Many attempts were made to construct more realistic dual resonance models, but the main result of these attempts was the construction of the Neveu-Schwarz~ and the Ramond~ models, respectively, for mesons and fermions. They were constructed as two independent models and only later were recognized to be two sectors of the same model. The Neveu-Schwarz model still contained a tachyon that only in 1976 through the GSO projection was eliminated from the physical spectrum. Furthermore, it was not properly describing the properties of the physical pions. Actually a model describing $\pi \pi$ scattering in a rather satisfactory way was proposed by Lovelace and Shapiro~~\footnote{See also Ref.~.}. According to this model the three isospin amplitudes for pion-pion scattering are given by: \[ A^0 = \frac{3}{2} \left[ A(s,t) + A (s,u) \right] - \frac{1}{2} A(t,u) \] \begin{eqnarray} A^1 = A(s,t) - A (s,u) \hspace{2cm} A^2 = A (t,u) \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} A(s,t) = \beta \frac{\Gamma (1 - \alpha (s) ) \Gamma (1 - \alpha (t))}{\Gamma (1 - \alpha (t) - \alpha (s) )} \hspace{1cm};\hspace{1cm} \alpha (s) = \alpha_0 + \alpha' s \end{eqnarray} The amplitudes in eq.() provide a model for $\pi \pi$ scattering with linearly rising Regge trajectories containing three parameters: the intercept of the $\rho$ Regge trajectory $\alpha_0$, the Regge slope $\alpha'$ and $\beta$. The first two can be determined by imposing the Adler's self-consistency condition, that requires the vanishing of the amplitude when $s=t=u = m_{\pi}^{2}$ and one of the pions is massless, and the fact that the Regge trajectory must give the spin of the $\rho$ meson that is equal to $1$ when $\sqrt{s}$ is equal to the mass of the $\rho$ meson $m_{\rho}$. These two conditions determine the Regge trajectory to be: \begin{eqnarray} \alpha (s) = \frac{1}{2} \left[1 + \frac{s - m_{\pi}^{2}}{m_{\rho}^{2} - m_{\pi^{2}}} \right] = 0.48 + 0.885 s \end{eqnarray} Having fixed the parameters of the Regge trajectory the model predicts the masses and the couplings of the resonances that decay in $\pi \pi$ in terms of a unique parameter $\beta$. The values obtained are in reasonable agreement with the experiments. Moreover, one can compute the $\pi \pi$ scattering lenghts: \begin{eqnarray} a_0 = 0.395 \beta \hspace{2cm} a_2 = - 0.103 \beta \end{eqnarray} and one finds that their ratio is within $10 \ = - 7/2$. The amplitude in eq.() has exactly the same form as that for four tachyons of the Neveu-Schwarz model with the only apparently minor difference that $\alpha_0 =1/2$ (for $m_{\pi} =0$) instead of $1$ as in the Neveu-Schwarz model. This difference, however, implies that the critical space-time dimension of this model is $d=4$~\footnote{This can be checked by computing the coupling of the spinless particle at the level $\alpha (s) =2$ and seeing that it vanishes for $d=4$.} and not $d=10$ as in the Neveu-Schwarz model. In conclusion this model seems to be a perfectly reasonable model for describing low-energy $\pi \pi$ scattering. The problem is, however, that nobody has been able to generalize it to the multipion scattering and therefore to get the complete meson spectrum. As we have seen the S matrix of the dual resonance model was constructed using ideas and tools of hadron phenomenology of the end of the sixties. Although it did not seem possible to write a realistic dual resonance model describing the pions , it was nevertheless such a source of fascination for those who actively worked in this field at that time for its beautiful internal structure and consistency that a lot of energy was used to investigate its properties and for understanding its basic structure. It turned out with great surprise that the underlying structure was that of a quantum relativistic string. The aim of this contribution is to explain the logic of the work that was done in the years from 1968 to 1974~\footnote{Reviews from this period can be found in Ref.~} in order to uncover the deep properties of this model that appeared from the beginning to be so beautiful and consistent to deserve an intensive study. This seems to me a very good way of celebrating the 65th anniversary of Gabriele who is the person who started and also contributed to develop the whole thing with his deep physical intuition. \section{Construction of the $N$-point amplitude} We have seen that the construction of the four-point amplitude is not sufficient to get information on the full hadronic spectrum because it contains only those hadrons that couple to two ground state mesons and does not see those intermediate states which only couple to three or to an higher number of ground state mesons~. Therefore, it was very important to construct the $N$-point amplitude involving identical scalar particles. The construction of the $N$-point amplitude was done in Ref.~ (extending the work of Ref.~) by requiring the same principles that have led to the construction of the Veneziano model, namely the fact that the axioms of S-matrix theory be satisfied by an infinite number of zero width resonances lying on linearly rising Regge trajectories and planar duality. The fully crossing symmetric scattering amplitude of $N$ identical scalar particles is given by a sum of terms corresponding to the inequivalent permutations of the external legs: \begin{eqnarray} A = \sum_{n=1}^{N_p} A_{n} \end{eqnarray} Also in this case two permutations of the external legs are inequivalent if they are not related by a cyclic or anticyclic permutation. $N_p$ is the number of inequivalent permutations of the external legs and is equal to $N_p = \frac{(N-1)!}{2}$ and each term has only simple pole singularities in the planar channels. Each planar channel is described by two indices $(i,j)$, to mean that it includes the legs $i, i+1, i+2 \dots j-1, j$, by the Mandelstam variable \begin{eqnarray} s_{ij} = - (p_i + p_{i+1} + \dots + p_j )^2 \end{eqnarray} and by an additional variable $u_{ij}$ whose role will become clear soon. It is clear that the channels $(ij)$ and $(j+1 , i-1)$~\footnote{This channel includes the particles $(j+1, \dots , N, 1, \dots i-1)$.} are identical and they should be counted only once. In the case of N identical scalar particles the number of planar channels is equal to $\frac{N(N-3)}{2}$. This can be obtained as follows. The independent planar diagrams involving the particle 1 are of the type $(1,i)$ where $i=2 \dots N-2$. Their number is $N-3$. This is also the number of planar diagrams involving the particle 2 and not the 1. The number of planar diagrams involving the particle 3 and not the particles 1 and 2 is equal to $N-4$. In general the number of planar diagrams involving the particle i and not the previous ones from 1 to i-1 is equal to $N-1-i$. This means that the total number of planar diagram is equal to: \[ 2 (N-3) + \sum_{i=3}^{N-2} (N-1-i) = 2 (N-3) + \sum_{i=1}^{N-4} i = \] \begin{eqnarray} = 2 (N-3) + \frac{(N-4)(N-3)}{2} = \frac{N(N-3)}{2} \end{eqnarray} If one writes down the duality diagram corresponding to a certain planar ordering of the external particles, it is easy to see that the diagram can have simultaneous pole singularities only in $N-3$ channels. The channels that allow simultaneous pole singularities are called compatible channels, the other are called incompatible. Two channels (i,j) and (h,k) are incompatible if the following inequalities are satisfied: \begin{eqnarray} i \leq h \leq j~~~;~~~j+1 \leq k \leq i-1 \end{eqnarray} The aim is to construct the scattering amplitude for each inequivalent permutation of the external legs that has only pole singularities in the $\frac{N(N-3)}{2}$ planar channels. We have also to impose that the amplitude has simultaneous poles only in $N-3$ compatible channels. In order to gain intuition on how to proceed we rewrite the four-point amplitude in Eq. () as follows: \begin{eqnarray} A (s, t) = \int_{0}^{1} d u_{12} \int_{0}^{1} d u_{23} \,\, u_{12}^{- \alpha (s_{12}) -1} u_{23}^{- \alpha (s_{23}) -1} \delta ( u_{12} + u_{23} -1 ) \end{eqnarray} where $u_{12}$ and $u_{23}$ are the variables corresponding to the two planar channels $(12)$ and $(23)$ and the cancellation of simultaneous poles in incompatible channels is provided by the $\delta$-function which forbids $u_{12}$ and $u_{23}$ to vanish simultaneously. We will now extend this procedure to the $N$-point amplitude. But for the sake of clarity let us start with the case of $N=5$~. In this case we have 5 planar channels described by $u_{12} , u_{13}, u_{23} , u_{24}$ and $ u_{34}$. Since we have only two compatible channels only two of the previous five variables are independent. We can choose them to be $u_{12}$ and $u_{13}$. In order to determine the dependence of the other three variables on the two independent ones, we exclude simultaneous poles in incompatible channels. This can be done by imposing relations that prevent variables corresponding to incompatible channels to vanish simultaneously. A sufficient condition for excluding simultaneous poles in incompatible channels is to impose the conditions: \begin{eqnarray} u_{P} = 1 - \prod_{\bar{P}} u_{ {\bar{P}}} \end{eqnarray} where the product is over the variables ${\bar{P}}$ corresponding to channels that are incompatible with $P$. In the case of the five-point amplitude we get the following relations: \[ u_{23} = 1 - u_{34} u_{12}~~;~~u_{24} = 1 - u_{13} u_{12} \] \begin{eqnarray} u_{13} = 1 - u_{34} u_{24} ~~;~~u_{34} = 1 - u_{23} u_{13}~~;~~ u_{12} = 1 - u_{24} u_{23} \end{eqnarray} Solving them in terms of the two independent ones we get: \begin{eqnarray} u_{23} = \frac{1 - u_{12}}{1 - u_{12} u_{13}}~~;~~ u_{34} = \frac{1 - u_{13}}{1 - u_{12} u_{13}}~~;~~ u_{24} = 1 - u_{12}u_{13} \end{eqnarray} In analogy with what we have done for the four-point amplitude in Eq. () we write the five-point amplitude as follows: \[ \int_{0}^{1} d u_{12} \int_{0}^{1} d u_{13} \int_{0}^{1} d u_{23} \int_{0}^{1} d u_{24} \int_{0}^{1} d u_{34} u_{12}^{- \alpha (s_{12}) -1} u_{13}^{- \alpha (s_{13}) -1} \times \] \[ \times u_{24}^{- \alpha (s_{24}) -1} u_{23}^{ - \alpha (s_{23}) -1} u_{34}^{- \alpha (s_{34}) -1} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \delta ( u_{23} + u_{12} u_{34}-1 ) \delta ( u_{24} + u_{12} u_{13} -1 ) \delta ( u_{34} + u_{13} u_{23} -1 ) \end{eqnarray} Performing the integral over the variables $u_{23}, u_{24}$ and $ u_{34}$ we get: \[ \int_{0}^{1} d u_{12} \int_{0}^{1} d u_{13} u_{12}^{- \alpha (s_{12}) -1} u_{13}^{- \alpha (s_{13}) -1} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times (1 - u_{12})^{ - \alpha (s_{23}) -1} (1 - u_{13})^{ - \alpha (s_{13}) -1} (1 - u_{12} u_{13} )^{- \alpha ( s_{24}) + \alpha ( s_{23}) + \alpha ( s_{34})} \end{eqnarray} We have implicitly assumed that the Regge trajectory is the same in all channels and that the external scalar particles have the same common mass $m$ and are the lowest lying states on the Regge trajectory. This means that their mass is given by: \begin{eqnarray} \alpha_0 - \alpha' p_{i}^2 =0~~;~~p_{i}^{2} \equiv - m^2 \end{eqnarray} Using then the relation: \begin{eqnarray} \alpha (s_{23} ) + \alpha (s_{34} ) - \alpha (s_{24} ) = 2 \alpha' p_2 \cdot p_4 \end{eqnarray} we can rewrite Eq. () as follows: \[ B_5 = \int_{0}^{1} d u_2 \int_{0}^{1} d u_3 u_{2}^{- \alpha (s_2 ) -1} u_{3}^{- \alpha (s_3 ) -1} (1- u_2 )^{-\alpha ( s_{23} ) -1} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times (1-u_3)^{- \alpha ( s_{34} ) -1} \prod_{i=2}^{2} \prod_{j=4}^{4} ( 1 - x_{ij} )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} s_i \equiv s_{1i}~~,~~u_i \equiv u_{1i}~;~i=2,3 ~~;~~x_{ij} = u_i u_{i+1} \dots u_{j -1}. \end{eqnarray} We are now ready to construct the $N$-point function~. In analogy with what has been done for the four and five-point amplitudes we can write the $N$-point amplitude as follows: \begin{eqnarray} B_N = \int_{0}^{1} \dots \int_{0}^{1} \prod_P [ u_{P}^{- \alpha (s_P ) -1} ] \prod_{Q} \delta ( u_Q -1 + \prod_{\bar{Q}} u_{{\bar{Q}}} ) \end{eqnarray} where the first product is over the $\frac{N(N-3)}{2}$ variables corresponding to all planar channels, while the second one is over the $\frac{(N-3)(N-2)}{2}$ independent $\delta$-functions. The product in the $\delta$-function is defined in Eq. (). The solution of all the non-independent linear relations imposed by the $\delta$-functions is given by \begin{eqnarray} u_{ij} = \frac{ (1- x_{ij} ) (1 - x_{i-1,j+1}) }{ (1- x_{i-1,j})(1- x_{i,j+1})} \end{eqnarray} where the variables $x_{ij}$ are given in Eq. (). Eliminating the $\delta$-function from Eq. () one gets: \begin{eqnarray} B_N = \prod_{i=2}^{N-2} \left[ \int_{0}^{1} d u_i u_{i}^{- \alpha ( s_i ) -1} (1 - u_i )^{- \alpha ( s_{i, i+1} ) -1 } \right] \prod_{i=2}^{N-3} \prod_{j=i+2}^{N-1} ( 1 - x_{ij} )^{- \gamma_{ij}} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \gamma_{ij} = \alpha ( s_{ij} ) +\alpha ( s_{i+1;j-1} ) - \alpha ( s_{i;j-1}) -\alpha ( s_{i+1;j} ) ~~~;~~ j \geq i+2 \end{eqnarray} It is easy to see that \begin{eqnarray} \alpha ( s_{i, i+1} )= - \alpha_0 - 2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_{i+1}~~;~~ \gamma_{ij} = - 2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j ~~;~~ j \geq i+2 \end{eqnarray} Inserting them in Eq. () we get: \begin{eqnarray} B_N = \prod_{i=2}^{N-2} \left[ \int_{0}^{1} d u_i u_{i}^{- \alpha ( s_i ) -1} (1 - u_i )^{\alpha_0 -1} \right] \prod_{i=2}^{N-2} \prod_{j = i+1}^{N-1} (1 - x_{ij} )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j } \end{eqnarray} This is the form of the $N$-point amplitude that was originally constructed. Then Koba and Nielsen~ put it in the form that is more known nowadays. They constructed it using the following rules. They associated a real variable $z_i$ to each leg $i$. Then they associated to each channel $(i,j)$ an anharmonic ratio constructed from the variables $z_i , z_{i-1} , z_j , z_{j+1}$ in the following way \begin{eqnarray} ( z_i , z_{i+1} , z_j , z_{j+1} )^{- \alpha ( s_{ij} )-1} = \left[ \frac{( z_i - z_j) ( z_{i-1} - z_{j+1} ) }{( z_{i-1} - z_{j}) ( z_{i} - z_{j+1} ) } \right]^{- \alpha ( s_{ij} )-1 } \end{eqnarray} and finally they gave the following expression for the $N$-point amplitude: \begin{eqnarray} B_N = \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} d V (z) \prod_{(i ,j)} ( z_i , z_{i+1} , z_j , z_{j+1} )^{- \alpha ( s_{ij} )-1} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} d V (z) = \frac{ \prod_{1}^{N} \left[\theta (z_i - z_{i+1}) d z_i \right]}{\prod_{i=1}^{N} ( z_{i} - z_{i+2} ) d V_{abc}}~;~ d V_{abc} = \frac{dz_a dz_b dz_c}{(z_b -z_a )(z_c - z_b) (z_a - z_c)} \end{eqnarray} and the variables $z_i$ are integrated along the real axis in a cyclically ordered way: $z_1 \geq z_2 \dots \geq z_N$ with $a, b, c$ arbitrarily chosen. The integrand of the $N$-point amplitude is invariant under projective transformations acting on the leg variables $z_i$: \begin{eqnarray} z_i \rightarrow \frac{\alpha z_i + \beta}{\gamma z_i +\delta }~~;~~ i=1 \dots N~~;~~\alpha \delta - \beta \gamma =1 \end{eqnarray} This is because both the anharmonic ratio in Eq. () and the measure $dV_{abc}$ are invariant under a projective transformation. Since a projective transformation depends on three real parameters, then the integrand of the $N$-point amplitude depends only on $N-3$ variables $z_i$. In order to avoid infinities, one has then to divide the integration volume with the factor $dV_{abc}$ that is also invariant under the projective transformations. The fact that the integrand depends only on $N-3$ variables is in agreement with the fact that $N-3$ is also the maximal number of simultaneous poles allowed in the amplitude. It is convenient to write the $N$-point amplitude in a form that involves the scalar product of the external momenta rather than the Regge trajectories. We distinguish three kinds of channels. The first one is when the particles $i$ and $j$ of the channel $(i,j)$ are separated by at least two particles. In this case the channels that contribute to the exponent of the factor $(z_i -z_j)$ are the channels $(i,j)$ with exponent equal to $- \alpha (s_{ij} ) -1$, $(i+1, j-1 )$ with exponent $- \alpha ( s_{i+1 , j-1 }) -1$, $(i+1 , j)$ with exponent $ \alpha ( s_{i+1 , j}) +1$ and $(i, j-1)$ with exponent $ \alpha ( s_{i, j-1}) + 1$. Adding these four contributions one gets for the channels where $i$ and $j$ are separated by at least two particles \begin{eqnarray} - \alpha (s_{ij} ) - \alpha ( s_{i+1 , j-1 }) + \alpha ( s_{i+1 , j})+ \alpha ( s_{i, j-1}) = 2 \alpha ' p_i \cdot p_j \end{eqnarray} The second one comes from the channels that are separated by only one particle. In this case only three of the previous four channels contribute. For instance if $j=i+2$ the channel $(i+1 , j-1)$ consists of only one particle and therefore should not be included. This means that we would get: \begin{eqnarray} -\alpha (s_{i;i+2}) -1 +\alpha ( s_{1+1; i+2}) +1 +\alpha ( s_{i; i+1} +1 ) = 1 + 2 \alpha ' p_{i} \cdot p_{i+2} \end{eqnarray} Finally the third one that comes from the channels whose particles are adjacent, gets only contribution from: \begin{eqnarray} - \alpha ( s_{i;i+1} ) -1 = \alpha_0 -1 + 2 \alpha ' p_{i} \cdot p_{i+1} \end{eqnarray} Putting all these three terms together in Eq. () and remembering the factor in the denominator in the first equation of () we get: \begin{eqnarray} B_N = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\prod_{1}^{N} d z_i \theta (z_i - z_{i+1}) }{dV_{abc}} \prod_{i=1}^{N} \left[ ( z_{i} - z_{i+1} )^{\alpha_0 -1} \right] \prod_{j>i} ( z_i - z_j )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \end{eqnarray} A convenient choice for the three variables to keep fixed is: \begin{eqnarray} z_a = z_1 = \infty~~;~~ z_b = z_2 = 1~~;~~ z_c = z_N =0 \end{eqnarray} With this choice the previous equation becomes: \[ B_N = \prod_{i=3}^{N-1}\left[ \int_{0}^{1} d z_i \theta (z_i - z_{i+1} ) \right] \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} ( z_i - z_{i+1} )^{\alpha_0 -1} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} \prod_{j=i+1}^{N} (z_i - z_j )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \end{eqnarray} We now want to show that this amplitude is identical to the one given in Eq. (). This can be done by performing the following change of variables: \begin{eqnarray} u_i = \frac{z_{i+1}}{z_i}~~;~~i= 2, 3 \dots N-2 \end{eqnarray} that implies \begin{eqnarray} z_{i} = u_{2} u_{3} \dots u_{i-1}~~;~~i= 3, 4 \dots N-1 \end{eqnarray} Taking into account that the Jacobian is equal to: \begin{eqnarray} \det \frac{\partial z}{\partial u} = \prod_{i=3}^{N-2} z_i = \prod_{i=2}^{N-3} u_{i}^{N-2 -i} \end{eqnarray} using the following two relations: \begin{eqnarray} \det \frac{\partial z}{\partial u} \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} ( z_i - z_{i+1} )^{\alpha_0 -1} = \prod_{i=2}^{N-2} \left[ u_{i}^{(N -1 -i)\alpha_0 -1} \right] \prod_{i=2}^{N-2} (1 - u_{i} )^{\alpha_0 -1} \end{eqnarray} and \[ \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} \prod_{j=i+1}^{N} (z_j - z_i )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} = \] \begin{eqnarray} = \prod_{i=2}^{N-2} \prod_{j=i+1}^{N-1} ( 1 - x_{ij})^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \prod_{i=2}^{N-2} u_{i}^{ - \alpha ( s_{i} ) - (N-i -1) \alpha_0} \end{eqnarray} and the conservation of momentum \begin{eqnarray} \sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i =0 \end{eqnarray} together with Eq. (), one can easily see that Eq.s () and () are equal. The $N$-point amplitude that we have constructed in this section corresponds to the scattering of $N$ spinless particles with no internal degrees of freedom. On the other hand it was known that the mesons were classified according to multiplets of an $SU(3)$ flavour symmetry. This was implemented by Chan and Paton~ by multiplying the $N$-point amplitude with a factor, called Chan-Paton factor, given by \begin{eqnarray} Tr ( \lambda^{a_1} \lambda^{a_2} \dots \lambda^{a_N} ) \end{eqnarray} where the $\lambda$'s are matrices of a unitary group in the fundamental representation. Including the Chan-Paton factors the total scattering amplitude is given by: \begin{eqnarray} \sum_{P} Tr ( \lambda^{a_1} \lambda^{a_2} \dots \lambda^{a_N} ) B_{N} (p_1 , p_2 , \dots p_N ) \end{eqnarray} where the sum is extended to the $(N-1)!$ permutations of the external legs, that are not related by a cyclic permutations. Originally when the dual resonance model was supposed to describe strongly interacting mesons, this factor was introduced to represent their flavour degrees of freedom. Nowadays the interpretation is different and the Chan-Paton factor represents the colour degrees of freedom of the gauge bosons and the other massive particles of the spectrum. The $N$-point amplitude $B_N$ that we have constructed in this section contains only simple pole singularities in all possible planar channels. They correspond to zero width resonances located at non-negative integer values $n$ of the Regge trajectory $\alpha ( M^2 ) = n$. The lowest state located at $\alpha ( m^2) =0$ corresponds to the particles on the external legs of $B_N$. The spectrum of excited particles can be obtained by factorizing the $N$-point amplitude in the most general channel with any number of particles. This was done in Ref.s ~ and finding a spectrum of states rising exponentially with the mass $M$. Being the model relativistic invariant it was found that many states obtained by factorizing the $N$-point amplitude were "ghosts", namely states with negative norm as one finds in QED when one quantizes the electromagnetic field in a covariant gauge. The consistency of the model requires the existence of relations satisfied by the scattering amplitudes that are similar to those obtained through gauge invariance in QED. If the model is consistent they must decouple the negative norm states leaving us with a physical spectrum of positive norm states. In order to study in a simple way these issues, we discuss in the next section the operator formalism introduced already in 1969~. Before concluding this section let us go back to the non-planar four-point amplitude in Eq. () and discuss its generalization to an $N$-point amplitude. Using the technique of the electrostatic analogue on the sphere instead of on the disk Shapiro~ was able to obtain a $N$-point amplitude that reduces to the four-point amplitude in Eq. () with intercept $\alpha_0 =2$. The $N$-point amplitude found in Ref.~ is: \begin{eqnarray} \int \frac{\prod_{i=1}^{N} d^2 z_i}{dV_{abc}} \prod_{i < j} | z_i - z_j |^{\alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} d V_{abc} = \frac{d^2 z_a d^2 z_b d^2 z_c}{|z_a - z_b|^2 |z_a - z_c |^2 | z_b - z_c |^2} \end{eqnarray} The integral in Eq. () is performed in the entire complex plane. \section{Operator formalism and factorization} The factorization properties of the dual resonance model were first studied by factorizing by brute force the N-point amplitude at the various poles~. The number of terms that factorize the residue of the pole at $\alpha (s) =n$, increases rapidly with the value of $n$. In order to find their degeneracy it turned out to be convenient to first rewrite the N-point amplitude in an operator formalism. In this section we introduce the operator formalism and we rewrite the $N$-point amplitude derived in the previous section in this formalism. The key idea~ is to introduce an infinite set of harmonic oscillators and a position and momentum operators~\footnote{Actually the position and momentum operators were introduced in Ref.~. } which satisfy the following commutation relations: \begin{eqnarray} [a_{n \mu} , a^{\dagger}_{m\nu} ] = \eta_{\mu \nu} \delta_{nm}~~~;~~~ [ {\hat{q}}_\mu , {\hat{p}}_\nu ] = i \eta_{\mu \nu} \end{eqnarray} where $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ is the flat Minkowski metric that we take to be $ \eta_{\mu \nu} = (-1, 1, \dots 1)$. A state with momentum $p$ is constructed in terms of a state with zero momentum as follows: \begin{eqnarray} {\hat{p}} | p \rangle \equiv {\hat{p}} {e}^{i p \cdot {\hat{q}}} | 0 \rangle = p | p \rangle ~~;~~ {\hat{p}} \, |0\rangle =0 \end{eqnarray} normalized as~\footnote{Although we now use an arbitrary $d$ we want to remind you that all original calculations were done for $d=4$. } \begin{eqnarray} \langle p | p' \rangle = (2 \pi )^d \delta^{(d)} ( p+ p' ) \end{eqnarray} In order to avoid minus signs we use the convention that \begin{eqnarray} \langle p | = \langle 0 | e^{i p \cdot {\hat{q}}} \end{eqnarray} A complete and orthonormal basis of vectors in the harmonic oscillator space is given by \begin{eqnarray} | \lambda_1 , \lambda_2, \dots \lambda_i ; p\rangle = \prod_n \frac{ ( a^{\dagger}_{\mu_n ;n})^{\lambda_{n; \mu_n}} }{\sqrt{\lambda_{n, \mu_n }!}} {e}^{i p {\hat{q}}} | 0, 0\rangle \end{eqnarray} where the first $| 0 \rangle$ corresponds to the one annihilated by all annihilation operators and the second one to the state of zero momentum: \begin{eqnarray} a_{\mu_ n ;n } | 0 , 0 \rangle = {\hat{p}} | 0 , 0 \rangle =0 \end{eqnarray} Notice that Lorentz invariance forces to introduce also oscillators that create states with negative norm due to the minus sign in the flat Minkowski metric. This implies that the space spanned by the states in Eq. () is not positive definite. This is, however, not allowed in a quantum theory and therefore if the dual resonance model is a consistent quantum-relavistic theory we expect the presence of relations of the kind of those provided by gauge invariance in QED. Let us introduce the Fubini-Veneziano~ operator: \begin{eqnarray} Q_{\mu} (z) = Q^{(+)}_{\mu} (z) + Q^{(0)}_{\mu} (z) + Q^{(-)}_{\mu} (z) \end{eqnarray} where \[ Q^{(+)} = i \sqrt{2 \alpha'} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{a_n}{\sqrt{n}} z^{-n}~~;~~ Q^{(-)} = -i \sqrt{2 \alpha'} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{a^{\dagger}_{n}}{\sqrt{n}} z^{ n} \] \begin{eqnarray} Q^{(0)} = {\hat{q}} - 2 i \alpha' {\hat{p}} \log z \end{eqnarray} In terms of $Q$ we introduce the vertex operator corresponding to the external leg with momentum $p$: \begin{eqnarray} {{V}} ( z ; p ) = : {e}^{i p \cdot Q (z)} : \equiv {e}^{i p \cdot Q^{(-)} (z) } {e}^{i p {\hat{q}}}{e}^{ + 2 \alpha' {\hat{p}} \cdot p \log z} {e}^{i p \cdot Q^{(+)} (z) } \end{eqnarray} and compute the following vacuum expectation value: \begin{eqnarray} \langle 0, 0 | \prod_{i=1}^{N} {{V}} ( z_i , p_i) |0, 0\rangle \end{eqnarray} It can be easily computed using the Baker-Haussdorf relation \begin{eqnarray} e^A e^B = e^B e^A e^{[A,B]} \end{eqnarray} that is valid if the commutator, as in our case, $[A,B]$ is a c-number. In our case the commutation relations to be used are: \begin{eqnarray} [ Q^{(+)} (z) , Q^{(-)} (w) ] = -2 \alpha' \log \left( 1- \frac{w}{z} \right) \end{eqnarray} and the second one in Eq. (). Using them one gets: \begin{eqnarray} {{V}} ( z; p ) {{V}} (w; k) = : {{V}} ( z; p ) {{V}} (w; k) : (z-w)^{2 \alpha' p \cdot k} \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} \langle 0, 0 | \prod_{i=1}^{N} {{V}} ( z_i , p_i) |0, 0\rangle = \prod_{i >j} ( z_i - z_j )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} (2 \pi)^d \delta^{(d)} ( \sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i ) \end{eqnarray} where the normal ordering requires that all creation operators be put on the left of the annihilation one and the momentum operator ${\hat{p}}$ be put on the right of the position operator ${\hat{q}}$. This means that \[ ( 2 \pi)^d \delta^{(d)} ( \sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i ) B_N = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\prod_{1}^{N} d z_i \theta (z_i - z_{i+1}) }{dV_{abc}} \prod_{i=1}^{N} \left[ ( z_{i} - z_{i+1} )^{\alpha_0 -1} \right] \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \langle 0, 0 | \prod_{i=1}^{N} {{V}} ( z_i , p_i) |0, 0\rangle \end{eqnarray} By choosing the three variables $z_a, z_b$ and $z_c$ as in Eq. () we can rewrite the previous equation as follows: \[ ( 2 \pi)^d \delta^{(d)} ( \sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i ) B_N = \int_{0}^{1} \prod_{i=3}^{N-1} d z_i \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} \theta (z_{i} - z_{i+1} ) \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} \left[ ( z_{i} - z_{i+1} )^{\alpha_0 -1} \right] \langle 0, p_1 | \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} V ( z_i ; p_i ) | 0, p_N \rangle \end{eqnarray} where we have taken $z_2 =1$ and we have defined $( \alpha_0 \equiv \alpha' p_{i}^{2} ; i =1 \dots N)$ : \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{z_N \rightarrow 0} V (z_N ;p_N ) | 0,0\rangle \equiv | 0 ; p_N \rangle ~~;~~ \langle 0; 0 | \lim_{z_1 \rightarrow \infty} z_{1}^{2 \alpha_0} V (z_1 ; p_1 ) = \langle 0, p_1 | \end{eqnarray} Before proceeding to factorize the $N$-point amplitude let us study the properties under the projective group of the operators that we have introduced. We have already seen that the projective group leaves the integrand of the Koba-Nielsen representation of the $N$-point amplitude invariant. The projective group has three generators $L_0 , L_1$ and $L_{-1} $ corresponding respectively to dilatations, inversions and translations. Assuming that the Fubini-Veneziano fields $Q(z)$ transforms as a field with weight 0 (as a scalar) we can immediately write the commutation relations that $Q (z)$ must satisfy. This means in fact that, under a projective transformation, $Q(z)$ transforms as follows: \begin{eqnarray} Q (z) \rightarrow Q^T (z) = Q \left( \frac{\alpha z + \beta}{\gamma z + \delta} \right)~~~;~~~\alpha \delta - \beta \gamma =1 \end{eqnarray} Expanding for small values of the parameters we get: \begin{eqnarray} Q ^{T} (z) = Q(z) + ( \epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2 z + \epsilon_3 z^2 ) \frac{d Q (z)}{dz} + o (\epsilon^2 ) \end{eqnarray} This means that the three generators of the projective group must satisfy the following commutation relations with $Q (z) $: \begin{eqnarray} [ L_0 , Q(z) ] = z \frac{dQ}{dz}~~;~~[L_{-1} , Q(z) ] = \frac{dQ}{dz}~~;~~ [L_{1} , Q(z) ] = z^2 \frac{dQ}{dz} \end{eqnarray} They are given by the following expressions in terms of the harmonic oscillators: \begin{eqnarray} L_0 = \alpha' {\hat{p}}^2 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n a_{n}^{\dagger} \cdot a_n~;~ L_1 = \sqrt{2 \alpha'} {\hat{p}} \cdot a_1 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sqrt{n(n+1)} a_{n+1} \cdot a_{n}^{\dagger} \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} L_{-1} = L_{1}^{\dagger} = \sqrt{2 \alpha'} {\hat{p}} \cdot a_{1}^{\dagger} + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sqrt{n(n+1)} a_{n+1}^{\dagger} \cdot a_{n} \end{eqnarray} They annihilate the vacuum \begin{eqnarray} L_0 | 0,0\rangle = L_1 |0,0 \rangle = L_{-1} | 0,0 \rangle =0 \end{eqnarray} that is therefore called the projective invariant vacuum, and satisfy the algebra that is called Gliozzi algebra~.}: \begin{eqnarray} [L_0 , L_1] = - L_1~~;~~[L_0 , L_{-1} ] = L_{-1}~~;~~[L_1 , L_{-1} ] = 2 L_0 \end{eqnarray} The vertex operator with momentum $p$ is a projective field with weight equal to $\alpha_0 = \alpha' p^2$. It transforms in fact as follows under the projective group: \begin{eqnarray} [L_n , V (z, p) ] = z^{n+1} \frac{d V (z, p)}{dz} + \alpha_0 (n +1) z^n V (z, p )~~;~~n=0, \pm 1 \end{eqnarray} or in finite form as follows: \begin{eqnarray} U V ( z , p ) U^{-1} = \frac{1}{(\gamma z + \delta)^{2\alpha_0 }} V \left( \frac{\alpha z + \beta}{\gamma z + \delta } , p \right) \end{eqnarray} where $U$ is the generator of an arbitrary finite projective transformation. Since $U$ leaves the vacuum invariant, by using Eq. () it is easy to show that: \begin{eqnarray} \langle 0,0 | \prod_{i=1}^{N} V (z_{i} ' , p ) | 0,0 \rangle = \prod_{i=1}^{N} {(\gamma z_{i} + \delta)^{2\alpha_0 }} \langle 0, 0| \prod_{i=1}^{N} V (z_{i} , p ) |0,0 \rangle \end{eqnarray} that together with the following equation: \begin{eqnarray} \prod_{i=1}^{N} d z_i ' \prod_{i=1}^{N} ( z_{i}' - z_{i+1} ')^{\alpha_0 -1} = \prod_{i=1}^{N} d z_i \prod_{i=1}^{N-1} ( z_{i} - z_{i+1} )^{\alpha_0 -1} \prod_{i=1}^{N} ( \gamma z_{i} + \delta )^{-2 \alpha_0} \end{eqnarray} implies that the integrand of the $N$-point amplitude in Eq. () is invariant under projective transformations. We are now ready to factorize the $N$-point amplitude and find the spectrum of mesons. {From} Eq.s () and () it is easy to derive the transformation of the vertex operator under a finite dilatation: \begin{eqnarray} z^{L_0} V (1 , p) z^{-L_0} = V ( z, p) z^{\alpha_0} \end{eqnarray} Changing the integration variables as follows: \begin{eqnarray} x_i = \frac{z_{i+1}}{z_i}~~;~~i=2, 3 \dots N-2~~~;~~~ \det \frac{\partial z_i}{\partial x_j} = z_3 z_4 \dots z_{N-2} \end{eqnarray} where the last term is the jacobian of the trasformation from $z_i$ to $x_i$, we get from Eq.() the following expression: \begin{eqnarray} A_{N} \equiv \langle 0, p_1 | V (1, p_2) D V ( 1, p_3 ) \dots D V (1, p_{N-1} ) | 0, p_N \rangle \end{eqnarray} where the propagator $D$ is equal to: \begin{eqnarray} D = \int_{0}^{1} d x x^{L_0 -1 - \alpha_0 } (1 -x )^{\alpha_0 -1} = \frac{ \Gamma ( L_0 - \alpha_{0} ) \Gamma ( \alpha_{0} )}{ \Gamma ( L_0 ) } \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} A_{N} = (2 \pi )^d \delta^{(d)} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i \right)B_N \end{eqnarray} The factorization properties of the amplitude can be studied by inserting in the channel $(1, M)$ or equivalently in the channel $(M+1 , N)$ described by the Mandelstam variable \begin{eqnarray} s = - (p_1 + p_2 + \dots p_M)^2 = - (p_{M+1} + p_{M+2} \dots + p_{N})^2 \equiv - P^2 \end{eqnarray} the complete set of states given in Eq. (): \begin{eqnarray} A_N = \sum_{\lambda, \mu} \langle p_{(1, M)} | \lambda, P \rangle \langle \lambda, P | D | \mu, P \rangle \langle \mu, P | p_{(M+1, N)} \rangle \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \langle p_{(1, M)} | = \langle 0, p_1 | V (1, p_2) D V ( 1, p_3 ) \dots V (1, p_M ) \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} | p_{(M+1, N) } \rangle = V (1, p_{M+1} ) D \dots V ( 1, p_{N-1} ) | p_{N} ,0\rangle \end{eqnarray} Introducing the quantity: \begin{eqnarray} R = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n a_{n}^{\dagger} \cdot a_n \end{eqnarray} it is possible to rewrite \begin{eqnarray} \langle \lambda, P | D | \mu, P \rangle = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \langle \lambda, P | \frac{(-1)^m \left(\begin{array}{c} \alpha_0 -1 \\ m \end{array} \right)}{R + m - \alpha (s)}| \mu, P \rangle \end{eqnarray} where $s$ is the variable defined in Eq. (). Using this equation we can rewrite Eq. () as follows \begin{eqnarray} A_N = \sum_{\lambda, \mu } \langle p_{(1, M)} | \lambda, P \rangle \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \langle \lambda, P | \frac{(-1)^m \left(\begin{array}{c} \alpha_0 -1 \\ m \end{array} \right)}{R + m - \alpha (s)}| \mu, P \rangle \langle \mu, P | p_{(M+1, N)} \rangle \end{eqnarray} This expression shows that amplitude $A_N$ has a pole in the channel $(1, M)$ when $\alpha (s)$ is equal to an integer $n \geq 0$ and the states $| \lambda \rangle$ that contribute to its residue are those satisfying the relation: \begin{eqnarray} R | \lambda \rangle = (n-m) | \lambda \rangle ~~~;~~~m=0, 1 \dots n \end{eqnarray} The number of independent states $| \lambda \rangle$ contributing to the residue gives the degeneracy of states for each level $n$. Because of manifest relativistic invariance the space spanned by the complete system of states in Eq. () contains states with negative norm corresponding to those states having an odd number of oscillators with timelike directions (see Eq. ()). This is not consistent in a quantum theory where the states of a system must span a positive definite Hilbert space. This means that there must exist a number of relations satisfied by the external states that decouple a number of states leaving with a positive definite Hilbert space. In order to find these relations we rewrite the state in Eq. () going back to the Koba-Nielsen variables: \[ | p_{(1, M)} \rangle = \prod_{i=2}^{M-1} [\int d z_i \theta ( z_i - z_{i+1} )] \prod_{i=1}^{M-1} ( z_i - z_{i+1} )^{\alpha_0 -1} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times V (1, p_1) V ( z_2 , p_2 ) \dots V ( z_{M-1} , p_{M-1} ) | 0, p_{M} \rangle \end{eqnarray} Let us consider the operator $ U (\alpha )$ that generate the projective transformation that leaves the points $z=0, 1$ invariant: \begin{eqnarray} z' = \frac{z}{1 - \alpha (z-1)} = z + \alpha ( z^2 - z ) + o( \alpha^2 ) \end{eqnarray} From the transformation properties of the vertex operators in Eq. () it is easy to see that the previous transformation leaves the state in Eq. () invariant: \begin{eqnarray} U (\alpha ) | p_{(1, M)} \rangle = | p_{(1, M)} \rangle \end{eqnarray} This means that the generator of the previous transformation annihilates the state in Eq. (): \begin{eqnarray} W_1 | p_{(1, M)} \rangle =0~~~;~~W_1 = L_1 - L_0 \end{eqnarray} The explicit form of $W_1$ follows from the infinitesimal form of the transformation in Eq. (). This condition that is of the same kind of the relations that on shell amplitudes with the emission of photons satisfy as a consequence of gauge invariance, implies that the residue at the pole in Eq. () can be factorized with a smaller number of states. It turns out, however, that a detailed analysis of the spectrum shows that negative norm states are still present. This can be qualitatively understood as follows. Due to the Lorentz metric we have a negative norm component for each oscillator. In order to be able to decouple all negative norm states we need to have a gauge condition of the type as in Eq. () for each oscillator. But the number of oscillators is infinite and, therefore, we need an infinite number of conditions of the type as in Eq. (). It was found in Ref.~ that, if we take $\alpha_0 =1$, then one can easily construct an infinite number of operators that leave the state in Eq. () invariant. In the next section we will concentrate on this case. \section{The case $\alpha_0 =1$} If we take $\alpha_0 =1$ many of the formulae given in the previous section simplify. The $N$-point amplitude in Eq. () becomes: \begin{eqnarray} B_N = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\prod_{1}^{N} d z_i \theta (z_i - z_{i+1}) }{dV_{abc}} \prod_{j>i} ( z_i - z_j )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \end{eqnarray} that can be rewritten in the operator formalism as follows: \begin{eqnarray} ( 2 \pi)^4 \delta ( \sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i ) B_N = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\prod_{1}^{N} d z_i \theta (z_i - z_{i+1}) }{dV_{abc}} \langle 0, 0 | \prod_{i=1}^{N} {{V}} ( z_i , p_i) |0, 0\rangle \end{eqnarray} By choosing $z_1 = \infty, z_2 =1$ and $z_N =0$ it becomes \[ ( 2 \pi)^4 \delta ( \sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i ) B_N = \] \begin{eqnarray} =\int_{0}^{1} \prod_{i=3}^{N-1} d z_i \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} \theta (z_{i} - z_{i+1} ) \langle 0, p_1 | \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} V ( z_i ; p_i ) | 0, p_N \rangle \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{z_N \rightarrow 0} V (z_N ;p_N ) | 0,0\rangle \equiv | 0 ; p_N \rangle ~~;~~ \langle 0; 0 | \lim_{z_1 \rightarrow \infty} z_{1}^{2 } V (z_1 ; p_1 ) = \langle 0, p_1 | \end{eqnarray} Eq. () is as before, but now the propagator becomes: \begin{eqnarray} D = \int dx x^{L_0 -2} = \frac{1}{L_0 -1} \end{eqnarray} This means that Eq. () becomes: \begin{eqnarray} \langle \lambda, P | D | \mu, P\rangle = \langle \lambda, P | \frac{1}{L_0 -1} | \mu, P \rangle \end{eqnarray} and Eq. () has the simpler form: \begin{eqnarray} B_N = \sum_{\lambda } \langle p_{(1, M)} | \lambda, P \rangle \langle \lambda, P | \frac{1}{R - \alpha (s)}| \lambda, P \rangle \langle \lambda, P | p_{(M+1, N)} \rangle \end{eqnarray} $B_N$ has a pole in the channel $(1, M)$ when $\alpha (s)$ is equal to an integer $n \geq 0$ and the states $| \lambda \rangle$ that contribute to its residue are those satisfying the relation: \begin{eqnarray} R | \lambda \rangle = n | \lambda \rangle \end{eqnarray} Their number gives the degeneracy of the states contributing to the pole at $\alpha (s) =n$. The $N$-point amplitude can be written as: \begin{eqnarray} B_N = \langle p_{(1, M )} | D | p_{(M+1, N)} \rangle \end{eqnarray} where \[ | p_{(1,M)} \rangle = \int \prod_{i=2}^{M-1} \left[ dz_i \theta (z_i - z_{i+1} )\right] \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times V( 1, p_1 ) V (z_2 , p_2 ) \dots V ( z_{M-1} , p_{M-1} | 0 , p_{M} \rangle \end{eqnarray} Using Eq. () and changing variables from $z_i , i=2 \dots M-1$ to $x_i = \frac{z_{i+1} }{z_i }, i=1 \dots M-2 $ with $z_1=1$ we can rewrite the previous equation as follows: \begin{eqnarray} | p_{(1,M)} \rangle = V( 1, p_1 ) D V( 1, p_2 ) \dots D V( 1, p_{M-1} ) | 0 , p_{M} \rangle \end{eqnarray} where the propagator $D$ is defined in Eq. (). We want now to show that the state in Eq.s () and () is not only annihilated by the operator in Eq. (), but, if $\alpha_0 =1$~, by an infinite set of operators whose lowest one is the one in Eq. (). We will derive this by using the formalism developed in Ref.~ and we will follow closely their derivation. Starting from Eq.s () Fubini and Veneziano realized that the generators of the projective group acting on a function of z are given by: \begin{eqnarray} L_0 = - z \frac{d}{dz}~~;~~L_{-1} = -\frac{d}{dz}~~;~~L_1 = -z^2 \frac{d}{dz} \end{eqnarray} They generalized the previous generators to an arbitrary conformal transformation by introducing the following operators, called Virasoro operators: \begin{eqnarray} L_n = -z^{n+1} \frac{d}{dz} \end{eqnarray} that satisfy the algebra: \begin{eqnarray} [ L_n , L_m ] = (n-m) L_{n+m} \end{eqnarray} that does not contain the term with the central charge! They also showed that the Virasoro operators satisfy the following commutation relations with the vertex operator: \begin{eqnarray} [ L_n , V (z , p) ] = \frac{d}{dz} \left( z^{n+1} V (z , p) \right) \end{eqnarray} More in general actually they define an operator $L_f$ corresponding to an arbitrary function $f ( \xi )$ and $L_f = L_n$ if we choose $f(\xi ) = \xi^{n} $. In this case the commutation relation in Eq. () becomes: \begin{eqnarray} [ L_f , V (z , p) ] = \frac{d}{dz} \left( z f(z) V (z , p) \right) \end{eqnarray} By introducing the variable: \begin{eqnarray} y = \int_{A}^{z} \frac{d \xi}{\xi f( \xi )} \end{eqnarray} where $A$ is an arbitrary constant, one can rewrite Eq. () in the following form: \begin{eqnarray} [ L_f , z f (z) V (z , p) ] = \frac{d}{dy} \left( z f(z) V (z , p) \right) \end{eqnarray} This implies that, under an arbitrary conformal transformation $z \rightarrow f(z)$, generated by $U = {e}^{\alpha L_f}$, the vertex operator transforms as: \begin{eqnarray} {e}^{\alpha L_f } V ( z, p )\, z f(z)\, {e}^{- \alpha L_f} = V ( z' ,p ) z' f( z' ) \end{eqnarray} where the parameter $\alpha$ is given by: \begin{eqnarray} \alpha = \int_{z}^{z'} \frac{d \xi}{\xi f (\xi)} \end{eqnarray} On the other hand, this equation implies: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{dz}{z f (z) } = \frac{dz' }{z' f (z') } \end{eqnarray} that, inserted in Eq. (), implies that the quantity $V (z, p) \, dz$ is left invariant by the transformation $z \rightarrow f(z)$: \begin{eqnarray} {e}^{\alpha L_f } V ( z, p ) dz {e}^{- \alpha L_f} = V ( z' ,p ) d z' \end{eqnarray} Let us now act with the previous conformal transformation on the state in Eq. (). We get: \[ {e}^{\alpha L_f } | p_{(1, M)} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \prod_{i=2}^{M-1} \left[ d z_i \theta (z_i - z_{i+1} ) \right] {e}^{\alpha L_f } V (1 , p_1 ) {e}^{-\alpha L_f } \times \] \[ \times {e}^{\alpha L_f } V (z_2 , p_2 ) {e}^{- \alpha L_f } \dots \dots {e}^{\alpha L_f } V (z_{M-1} , p_{M-1} ) {e}^{- \alpha L_f } {e}^{\alpha L_f } | 0, p_{M} \rangle = \] \[ = \int_{0}^{1} \prod_{i=2}^{M-1} \theta (z_i - z_{i+1}) \times {e}^{\alpha L_f } V (1 , p_1 ) {e}^{-\alpha L_f } \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times V ( z_{2}' , p_2 ) dz_{2}' \dots V ( z_{M-1}' , p_{M-1} ) dz_{M-1}' {e}^{\alpha L_f } | 0, p_{M} \rangle \end{eqnarray} where we have used Eq. (). The previous transformation leaves the state invariant if both $z=0$ and $z=1$ are fixed points of the conformal transformation. This happens if the denominator in Eq. () vanishes when $\xi =0, 1$. This requires the following conditions: \begin{eqnarray} f (1) =0~~~~;~~~\lim_{\xi \rightarrow 0} \xi f ( \xi ) =0 \end{eqnarray} Expanding $\xi$ near the poinr $\xi =1$ we can determine the relation between $z$ and $z'$ near $z=z' =1$. We get: \begin{eqnarray} z' = \frac{z {e}^{- \alpha f' (1)}}{1 - z + z {e}^{-\alpha f' (1)}} \end{eqnarray} and from it we can determine the conformal factor: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{dz'}{dz} = \frac{{e}^{- \alpha f' (1)}}{( 1 -z + z {e}^{- \alpha f' (1)} )^2} \rightarrow {e}^{ \alpha f' (1)} \end{eqnarray} in the limit $z \rightarrow 1$. Proceeding in the same near the point $z=z' =0$ we get: \begin{eqnarray} z' = \frac{ z f(0) {e}^{\alpha f(0) }}{ f(0) + z f' (0) ( 1- {e}^{\alpha f(0) }} \rightarrow z {e}^{\alpha f(0) } \end{eqnarray} in the limit $ z \rightarrow 0$. This means that Eq. () becomes \begin{eqnarray} {e}^{\alpha \left( L_f - f' (1) - f(0) \right) } | p_{(1, M)} \rangle = | p_{(1 , M)} \rangle \end{eqnarray} A choice of $f$ that satisfies Eq.s () is the following: \begin{eqnarray} f ( \xi ) = \xi^n -1 \end{eqnarray} that gives the following gauge operator: \begin{eqnarray} W_n = L_n - L_0 - (n-1) \end{eqnarray} that annihilates the state in Eq. (): \begin{eqnarray} W_n |p_{1 \dots M} \rangle = 0~~;~~n=1 \dots \infty \end{eqnarray} These are the Virasoro conditions found in Ref.~. There is one condition for each negative norm oscillator and, therefore, in this case there is the possibility that the physical subspace is positive definite. An alternative more direct derivation of Eq. () can be obtained by acting with $W_n$ on the state in Eq. () and using the following identities: \begin{eqnarray} W_n V (1, p) = V(1,p) ( W_n +n )~~;~~( W_n +n )D = [L_0 +n -1]^{-1} W_n \end{eqnarray} The second equation is a consequence of the following equation: \begin{eqnarray} L_n x^{L_0} = x^{L_0 +n} L_n \end{eqnarray} Eq.s () imply \begin{eqnarray} W_n V (1, p) D = V(1,p) [L_0 +n -1]^{-1} W_n \end{eqnarray} This shows that the operator $W_n$ goes unchanged through all the product of terms $VD$ until it arrives in front of the term $ V (1, p_{M-1}) | 0, p_M \rangle$. Going through the vertex operator it becomes $L_n -L_0 +1$ that then annihilate the state \begin{eqnarray} (L_n - L_0 +1 ) | p_M , 0 \rangle =0 \end{eqnarray} This proves Eq. (). Using the representation of the Virasoro operators given in Eq. () Fubini and Veneziano showed that they satisfy the algebra given in eq. () without the central charge. The presence of the central charge was recognized by Joe Weis.} in 1970 and never published. Unlike Fubini and Veneziano~ he used the expression of the $L_n$ operators in terms of the harmonic oscillators: \[ L_n = \sqrt{2 \alpha' n} {\hat{p}} \cdot a_{n} + \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \sqrt{m (n+m)} a_{n+m} \cdot a_{m} + \] \begin{eqnarray} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \sqrt{m ( n-m)} a_{m-n} \cdot a_m~~~; n \geq 0~~~L_n = L_{n}^{\dagger} \end{eqnarray} He got the following algebra: \begin{eqnarray} [L_n , L_m ] = (n-m) L_{n+m} + \frac{d}{24} n (n^{2} -1 ) \delta_{n+m;0} \end{eqnarray} where $d$ is the dimension of the Minkowski space-time. We write here $d$ for the dimension of the Minkowski space, but we want to remind you that almost everybody working in a model for mesons at that time took for granted that the dimension of the space-time was $d=4$. As far as I remember the first paper where a dimension $d\neq 4$ was introduced was Ref.~ where it was shown that the unitarity violating cuts in the non-planar loop become poles that were consistent with unitarity if $d=26$. In the last part of this section we will generalize the factorization procedure to the Shapiro-Virasoro model whose $N$-point amplitude is given in Eq. (). In this case we must introduce two sets of harmonic oscillators commuting with each other and only one set of zero modes satisfying the algebra~ : \begin{eqnarray} [a_{n \mu} , a^{\dagger}_{m\nu} ] = [{\tilde{a}}_{n \mu} , {\tilde{a}}^{\dagger}_{m\nu} ] = \eta_{\mu \nu} \delta_{nm}~~;~~ [ {\hat{q}}_\mu , {\hat{p}}_\nu ] = i \eta_{\mu \nu} \end{eqnarray} In terms of them we can introduce the Fubini-Veneziano operator \[ Q (z, {\bar{z}} )= {\hat{q}} - 2 \alpha' {\hat{p}} \log (z {\bar{z}}) + i \frac{ \sqrt{2 \alpha'}}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \left[ a_{n} z^{-n} - a_{n}^{\dagger} z^n \right] + \] \begin{eqnarray} + i \frac{ \sqrt{2 \alpha'}}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \left[ {\tilde{a}}_{n} {\bar{z}}^{-n} - {\tilde{a}}_{n}^{\dagger} {\bar{z}}^n \right] \end{eqnarray} We can then introduce the vertex operator: \begin{eqnarray} {{V}} ( z, {\bar{z}} ; p ) = : {e}^{i p \cdot Q (z, {\bar{z}})} : \end{eqnarray} and write the $N$-point amplitude in Eq. () in the following factorized form: \[ \int \frac{\prod_{i=1}^{N} d^2 z_i}{dV_{abc}} \langle 0 | R \left[ \prod_{i=1}^{N} V (z_i , {\bar{z}}_i , p_i ) ) \right] |0 \rangle = \] \begin{eqnarray} = (2 \pi)^4 \delta^{(4)} ( \sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i ) \int \frac{\prod_{i=1}^{N} d^2 z_i}{dV_{abc}} \prod_{i < j} | z_i - z_j |^{\alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \end{eqnarray} where the radial ordered product is given by \begin{eqnarray} R \left[ \prod_{i=1}^{N} V (z_i , {\bar{z}}_i , p_i ) ) \right] = \prod_{i=1}^{N} V (z_i , {\bar{z}}_i , p_i ) ) \prod_{i=1}^{N-1} \theta (|z_i | - |z_{i+1} | ) + \dots \end{eqnarray} and the dots indicate a sum over all permutations of the vertex operators. By fixing $z_1 = \infty, z_2 =1 , z_N =0$ we can rewrite the previous expression as follows: \begin{eqnarray} \int \prod_{i=3}^{N-1} d^2 z_i \langle 0, p_1 | R \left[ \prod_{i=2}^{N-1} V (z_i , {\bar{z}}_i , p_i ) ) \right] |0, p_N \rangle \end{eqnarray} For the sake of simplicity let us consider the term corresponding to the permutation $1,2, \dots N$. In this case the Koba-Nielsen variables are ordered in such a way that $|z_i| \geq |z_{i+1}|$ for $i=1,\dots N-1$. We can then use the formula: \begin{eqnarray} V (z_i , {\bar{z}}_i , p_i ) ) = z_{i}^{L_0 -1} {\bar{z}_i}^{{\tilde{L}}_0 -1} V(1,1, p_i ) z_{i}^{-L_0} {\bar{z}_i}^{-{\tilde{L}}_0} \end{eqnarray} and change variables: \begin{eqnarray} w_i = \frac{ z_{i+1}}{z_i}~~;~~|w_i | \leq 1 \end{eqnarray} to rewrite Eq. () as follows: \begin{eqnarray} \langle 0, p_1 | V(1,1, p_i1) D V(1,1, p_2 ) D \dots V(1,1, p_{N-1} ) |0, p_N \rangle \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} D = \int \frac{ d^2 w}{|w|^2} \,\, w^{L_0 -1} {\bar{w}}^{{\tilde{L}}_0 -1} = \frac{2}{L_0 + {\tilde{L}}_0 -2 } \cdot \frac{\sin \pi (L_0 - {\tilde{L}}_0 )}{L_0 - {\tilde{L}}_0} \end{eqnarray} We can now follow the same procedure for all permutations arriving at the following expression: \begin{eqnarray} \langle 0, p_1 | P [ V(1,1, p_2 ) D V(1,1, p_3 ) D \dots V(1,1, p_{N-1} ) ] |0, p_N \rangle \end{eqnarray} where P means a sum of all permutations of the particles. If we want to consider the factorization of the amplitude on the pole at $s =- (p_1 + \dots p_M )^2$ we get only the following contribution: \begin{eqnarray} \langle p_{(1 \dots M)} |D | p_{(M+1 \dots N)} \rangle \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} | p_{(M+1 \dots N)} \rangle = P [ V (1,1, p_{M+1} ) D \dots V (1,1, p_{N-1} ] |0, p_N \rangle \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} \langle p_{(1 \dots M)} | = \langle 0, p_1 | P \left[ V (1,1, p_2 ) D \dots V (1,1, p_M) \right] \end{eqnarray} The amplitude is factorized by introducing a complete set of states and rewriting Eq. () as follows: \begin{eqnarray} \sum_{\lambda, {\tilde{\lambda}}} \langle p_{1 \dots M} | \lambda , {\tilde{\lambda}} \rangle \frac{ 2 \pi \langle \lambda , {\tilde{\lambda} } | \delta_{L_0 , {\tilde{L}}_0} |\lambda , {\tilde{\lambda}} \rangle } { L_0 + {\tilde{L}}_0 - 2} \langle \lambda , {\tilde{\lambda}} | p_{(M+1, \dots N)} \rangle \end{eqnarray} By writing \begin{eqnarray} L_0 = \frac{\alpha'}{4} {\hat{p}}^2 + R ~~;~~ {\tilde{L}}_0 = \frac{\alpha'}{4} {\hat{p}}^2 + {\tilde{R}} \end{eqnarray} with \begin{eqnarray} R = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n a_{n}^{\dagger} \cdot a_n~~;~~ {\tilde{R}} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n {\tilde{a}}_{n}^{\dagger} \cdot {\tilde{a}}_n \end{eqnarray} we can rewrite Eq. () as follows \begin{eqnarray} \sum_{\lambda, {\tilde{\lambda}}} \langle p_{1 \dots M} | \lambda , {\tilde{\lambda}} \rangle \frac{ 2 \pi \langle \lambda , {\tilde{\lambda} } | \delta_{R , {\tilde{R}}} |\lambda , {\tilde{\lambda}} \rangle } { R + {\tilde{R}} - \alpha (s)} \langle \lambda , {\tilde{\lambda}} | p_{(M+1, \dots N)} \rangle \end{eqnarray} We see that the amplitude for the Shapiro-Virasoro model has simple poles only for even integer values of $ \alpha_{SV} (s) = 2 + \frac{\alpha'}{2} s = 2n \geq 0 $ and the residue at the poles factorizes in a sum with a finite number of terms. Notice that the Regge trajectory of the Shapiro-Virasoro model has double intercept and half slope of that of the generalized Veneziano model. \section{Physical states and their vertex operators} In the previous section, we have seen that the residue at the poles of the $N$-point amplitudes factorizes in a sum of a finite number of terms. We have also seen that some of these terms, due to the Lorentz metric, correspond to states with negative norm. We have also derived a number of "Ward identities" given in Eq. () that imply that some of the terms of the residue decouple. The question to be answered now is: Is the space spanned by the physical states a positive norm Hilbert space? In order to answer this question we need first to find the conditions that characterize the on shell physical states $|\lambda, P \rangle$ and then to determine which are the states that contribute to the residue of the pole at $\alpha (s = - P^2) =n$. In other words, we have to find a way of characterizing the physical states and of eliminating the spurious states that decouple in Eq. () as a consequence of Eq.s (). A state $|\lambda. P\rangle $ contributes at the residue of the pole in Eq.() for $\alpha (s = - P^2) =n$ if it is on shell, namely if it satisfies the following equations: \begin{eqnarray} R | \lambda , P \rangle = n | \lambda , P \rangle~~;~~ \alpha ( -P^2 ) = 1 - \alpha' P^2= n \end{eqnarray} that can be written in a unique equation: \begin{eqnarray} (L_0 -1 ) | \lambda , P \rangle =0 \end{eqnarray} Because of Eq. () we also know that a state of the type: \begin{eqnarray} | s, P \rangle = W_{m}^{\dagger} | \mu , P \rangle \end{eqnarray} is not going to contribute to the residue of the pole. We call it a spurious or unphysical state. We start constructing the subspace of spurious states that are on shell at the level $n$. Let us consider the set of orthogonal states $ | \mu , P \rangle$ such that \begin{eqnarray} R | \mu , P \rangle = n_{\mu} | \mu , P \rangle~~;~~ L_0 | \mu , P \rangle = (1-m) | \mu , P \rangle~~;~~1 - \alpha' P^2 =n \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} m = n+ n_{\mu} \end{eqnarray} In terms of these states we can construct the most general spurious state that is on shell at the level $n$. It is given by \begin{eqnarray} | s, P \rangle = W_{m}^{\dagger} | \mu , P \rangle~~;~~ (L_0 - 1) | s , P \rangle = 0 \end{eqnarray} per any positive integer $m$. Using Eq. (), eq. () becomes: \begin{eqnarray} | s , P \rangle = L_{m}^{\dagger} | \mu , P \rangle \end{eqnarray} where $ | \mu , P \rangle$ is an arbitrary state satisfying Eq.s (). A physical state $|\lambda , P \rangle$ is defined as the one that is orthogonal to all spurious states appearing at a certain level $n$. This means that it must satisfy the following equation: \begin{eqnarray} \langle \lambda . P | L_{\ell}^{\dagger} | \mu , P \rangle =0 \end{eqnarray} for any state $| \mu , P \rangle$ satisfying Eq.s (). In conclusion, the on shell physical states at the level $n$ are characterized by the fact that they satisfy the following conditions: \begin{eqnarray} L_{m} | \lambda, P \rangle = (L_0 -1) | \lambda, P \rangle =0~~;~~1- \alpha' P^2 =n \end{eqnarray} These conditions characterizing the physical subspace were first found by Del Giudice and Di Vecchia~ where the analysis described here was done. In order to find the physical subspace one starts writing the most general on shell state contributing to the residue of the pole at level $n$ in Eq. (). Then one imposes Eq.s () and determines the states that span the physical subspace. Actually, among these states one finds also a set of zero norm states that are physical and spurious at the same time. Those states are of the form given in Eq. (), but also satisfy Eq.s (). It is easy to see that they are not really physical because they are not contributing to the residue of the pole at the level $n$. This follows from the form of the unit operator given in the space of the physical states by: \begin{eqnarray} 1 = \sum_{norm\, {\neq 0} } | \lambda , P \rangle \langle \lambda , P | +\sum_{zero} \left[ | \lambda_0 , P \rangle \langle \mu_0 , P | + | \mu_0 , P \rangle \langle \lambda_0 , P | \right] \end{eqnarray} where $| \lambda_0 ,P \rangle$ is a zero norm physical and spurious state and $| \mu_0 ,P \rangle$ its conjugate state. A conjugate state of a zero norm state is obtained by changing the sign of the oscillators with timelike direction. Since $|\lambda_0 , P \rangle $ is a spurious state when we insert the unit operator, given in Eq. (), in Eq. () we see that the zero norm states never contribute to the residue because their contribution is annihilated either from the state $\langle p_{(1, M)} |$ or from the state $|p_{(M+1, N)} \rangle$. In conclusion, the physical subspace contains only the states in the first term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (). Let us analyze the first two excited levels. The first excited level corresponds to a massless gauge field. It is spanned by the states $\epsilon^{\mu} a_{1 \mu}^{\dagger} |0, P \rangle$. In this case the only condition that we must impose is: \begin{eqnarray} L_1 \epsilon^{\mu} a_{1\mu}^{\dagger} |0, P \rangle=0 \Longrightarrow P \cdot \epsilon =0 \end{eqnarray} Choosing a frame of reference where the momentum of the photon is given by $P^{\mu} \equiv (P,0....0,P)$ , Eq. () implies that the only physical states are: \begin{equation} \epsilon^{i} a_{1i}^{+\dagger} |0, P \rangle + \epsilon ( a_{1; 0}^{\dagger} - a_{1;d-1}^{\dagger} ) |0, P \rangle~~;~~ i =1 \dots d-2 \end{equation} where $\epsilon^{i}$ and $\epsilon$ are arbitrary parameters. The state in Eq. () is the most general state of the level $N=1$ satisfying the conditions in Eq. (). The first state in eq. () has positive norm, while the second one has zero norm that is orthogonal to all other physical states since it can be written as follows: \begin{equation} ( a_{1;0}^{\dagger} - a_{1;D-1}^{\dagger}) |0, P \rangle = L_{1}^{\dagger}|0, P \rangle \end{equation} in the frame of reference where $P^{\mu} \equiv ( P,...0, P)$. Because of the previous property it is decoupled from the physical states together with its conjugate: \begin{equation} ( a_{1,0}^{\dagger} + a_{1,d-1}^{\dagger}) |0, P \rangle \end{equation} In conclusion, we are left only with the transverse $d-2$ states corresponding to the physical degrees of freedom of a massless spin $1$ state. At the next level $n=2$ the most general state is given by: \begin{equation} [ \alpha^{\mu \nu} a_{1,\mu}^{\dagger} a_{1,\nu}^{\dagger} + \beta^{\mu} a_{2,\mu}^{\dagger} ] |0, P \rangle \end{equation} If we work in the center of mass frame where $P^{\mu} = ( M, \vec{0} )$ we get the following most general physical state: \[ |Phys> = \alpha^{ij} [ a_{1,i}^{\dagger} a_{1,j}^{\dagger} - \frac{1}{(d-1)}\delta_{ij}\sum_{k=1}^{d-1} a_{1,k}^{\dagger}a_{1,k}^{\dagger}] |0, P \rangle + \] \[ + \beta^{i} [ a_{2,i}^{\dagger} + a_{1,0}^{\dagger} a_{1,i}^{\dagger}]|0, P >\rangle + \] \begin{equation} + \sum_{i=1}^{d-1} \alpha^{ii} \left[ \sum_{i=1}^{d-1} a_{1,i}^{\dagger} a_{1,i}^{\dagger} + \frac{d-1}{5} ( a_{1,0}^{\dagger 2} - 2 a_{2,0}^{\dagger}) \right] |0, P \rangle \end{equation} where the indices $i,j$ run over the $ d-1$ space components. The first term in () corresponds to a spin $2$ in $(d-1)$ dimensional space and has a positive norm being made with space indices. The second term has zero norm and is orthogonal to the other physical states since it can be written as $L_{1}^{+} a_{1,i}^{+} |0, P \rangle$. Therefore it must be eliminated from the physical spectrum together with its conjugate, as explained above. Finally, the last state in () is spinless and has a norm given by: \begin{equation} 2(d-1) ( 26-d) \end{equation} If $d< 26$ it corresponds to a physical spin zero particle with positive norm. If $d>26$ it is a ghost. Finally, if $d=26$ it has a zero norm and is also orthogonal to the other physical states since it can be written in the form: \begin{equation} ( 2 L_{2}^{\dagger} + 3 L_{1}^{\dagger2} ) |0> \end{equation} It does not belong, therefore, to the physical spectrum. The analysis of this level was done in Ref.~ with $d=4$. This did not allow the authors of Ref.~ to see that there was a critical dimension. The analysis of the physical states can be easily extended~ to the Shapiro-Virasoro model. In this case the physical conditions given in Eq. () for the open string, become~: \begin{eqnarray} L_m | \lambda, {\tilde{\lambda}} \rangle = {\tilde{L}}_m | \lambda, {\tilde{\lambda}} \rangle= (L_0 -1) | \lambda, {\tilde{\lambda}} \rangle = ( {\tilde{L}}_0 -1) | \lambda, {\tilde{\lambda}} \rangle=0 \end{eqnarray} for any positive integer $m$. It can be easily seen from the previous equations that the lowest state of the Shapiro-Virasoro model is the vacuum $| 0_a , 0_{\tilde{a}} , p \rangle $ corresponding to a tachyon with mass $\alpha ' p^2 = 4$, while the next level described by the state $ a^{\dagger}_{1\mu } {\tilde{a}}_{1\nu }^{\dagger} | 0_a , 0_{\tilde{a}}, p \rangle$ contains massless states corresponding to the graviton, a dilaton and a two-index antisymmetric tensor $B_{\mu \nu}$. Having characterized the physical subspace one can go on and construct a $N$-point scattering amplitude involving arbitrary physical states. This was done by Campagna, Fubini, Napolitano and Sciuto~ where the vertex operator for an arbitrary physical state was constructed in analogy with what has been done for the ground tachyonic state. They associated to each physical state $ |\alpha, P \rangle$ a vertex operator $ V_{\alpha } (z, P )$ that is a conformal field with conformal dimension equal to $1$: \begin{eqnarray} [ L_n , V_{\alpha} (z , p) ] = \frac{d}{dz} \left( z^{n+1} V_{\alpha} (z , p) \right) \end{eqnarray} and reproduces the corresponding state acting on the vacuum as follows: \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{z \rightarrow 0} V_{\alpha} (z;p) | 0 ,0\rangle \equiv | \alpha ; p \rangle ~~;~~ \langle 0; 0 | \lim_{z \rightarrow \infty} z^{2 } V_{\alpha} (z; p) = \langle \alpha, p | \end{eqnarray} It satisfies, in addition, the hermiticity relation: \begin{eqnarray} V_{\alpha}^{\dagger} (z, P ) = V_{\alpha} ( \frac{1}{z} , - P ) (-1)^{\alpha ( - P^2 ) } \end{eqnarray} An excited vertex that will play an important role in the next section is the one associated to the massless gauge field. It is given by: \begin{eqnarray} V_{\epsilon} ( z , k ) \equiv \epsilon \cdot \frac{d Q (z)}{d z} {e}^{i k \cdot Q (z)}~~;~~ k \cdot \epsilon = k^2 = 0 \end{eqnarray} Because of the last two conditions in Eq. () the normal order is not necessary. It is convenient to give the expression of $\frac{d Q (z)}{d z}$ in terms of the harmonic oscillators: \begin{eqnarray} P(z) \equiv \frac{d Q (z)}{d z} = - i \sqrt{2 \alpha'} \sum_{n= -\infty}^{\infty} \alpha_n z^{-n -1} \end{eqnarray} It is a conformal field with conformal dimension equal to $1$. The rescaled oscillators $\alpha_n$ are given by: \begin{eqnarray} \alpha_n = \sqrt{n} a_{n}~~;~~\alpha_{-n} = \sqrt{n} a_{n}^{\dagger} ~~;~~n > 0~~;~~\alpha_0 = \sqrt{2 \alpha'} {\hat{p}} \end{eqnarray} In terms of the vertex operators previously introduced the most general amplitude involving arbitrary physical states is given by~: \begin{eqnarray} ( 2 \pi)^4 \delta ( \sum_{i=1}^{N} p_i ) B_{N}^{ex} = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\prod_{1}^{N} d z_i \theta (z_i - z_{i+1}) }{dV_{abc}} \langle 0, 0 | \prod_{i=1}^{N} {{V_{\alpha_i}}} ( z_i , p_i) |0, 0\rangle \end{eqnarray} In the case of the Shapiro-Virasoro model the tachyon vertex operator is given in Eq. (). By rewriting Eq. () as follows: \begin{eqnarray} Q (z, {\bar{z}} )= Q (z) + {\tilde{Q}} ({\bar{z}}) \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} Q (z) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ {\hat{q}} - 2 \alpha' {\hat{p}} \log (z ) + i \sqrt{2 \alpha'} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \left[ a_{n} z^{-n} - a_{n}^{\dagger} z^n \right] \right] \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} {\tilde{Q}} ({\bar{z}}) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ {\hat{q}} - 2 \alpha' {\hat{p}} \log ( {\bar{z}}) + i { \sqrt{2 \alpha'}} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \left[ {\tilde{a}}_{n} {\bar{z}}^{-n} - {\tilde{a}}_{n}^{\dagger} {\bar{z}}^n \right] \right] \end{eqnarray} we can write the tachyon vertex operator in the following way: \begin{eqnarray} V (z, {\bar{z}}, p ) = : e^{i p \cdot Q (z)} e^{i p \cdot {\tilde{Q}} ({\bar{z}})} : \end{eqnarray} This shows that the vertex operator corresponding to the tachyon of the Shapiro-Virasoro model can be written as the product of two vertex operators corresponding each to the tachyon of the generalized Veneziano model. Analogously the vertex operator corresponding to an arbitrary physical state of the Shapiro-Virasoro model can always be written as a product of two vertex operators of the generalized Veneziano model: \begin{eqnarray} V_{\alpha , \beta} ( z, {\bar{z}}, p ) = V_{\alpha} ( z, \frac{p}{2} ) V_{\beta} ( {\bar{z}}, \frac{p}{2} ) \end{eqnarray} The first one contains only the oscillators $\alpha_n$, while the second one only the oscillators $ {\tilde{\alpha}}_n$. They both contain only half of the total momentum $p$ and the same zero modes ${\hat{p}}$ and ${\hat{q}}$. The two vertex operators of the generalized Veneziano model are both conformal fields with conformal dimension equal to 1. If they correspond to physical states at the level $2n$, they satisfy the following relation $(n = {\tilde{n}})$: \begin{eqnarray} \alpha ' \frac{p^2}{4} + n =1 \end{eqnarray} They lie on the following Regge trajectory: \begin{eqnarray} 2 - \frac{\alpha'}{2} p^2 \equiv \alpha_{SV} ( - p^2 ) = 2 n \end{eqnarray} as we have already seen by factorizing the amplitude in Eq. (). \section{The DDF states and absence of ghosts} In the previous section we have derived the equations that characterize the physical states and their corresponding vertex operators. In this section we will explicitly construct an infinite number of orthonormal physical states with positive norm. The starting point is the DDF operator introduced by Del Giudice, Di Vecchia and Fubini~ and defined in terms of the vertex operator corresponding to the massless gauge field introduced in eq. (): \begin{eqnarray} A_{i, n} = \frac{i}{\sqrt{2 \alpha'}} \oint_{0} {dz} \epsilon_{i}^{\mu} P_{\mu} ( z) {e}^{i k \cdot Q (z)} \end{eqnarray} where the index {$ i$} runs over the $ d-2$ transverse directions, that are orthogonal to the momentum $k$. We have also taken $\oint_0 \frac{dz}{z} =1$. Because of the ${\log z}$ term appearing in the zero mode part of the exponential, the integral in Eq. (), that is performed around the origin {$ z=0$}, is well defined only if we constrain the momentum of the state, on which $A_{i,n}$ acts, to satisfy the relation: \begin{eqnarray} 2 \alpha' p \cdot k = n \end{eqnarray} where {$ n$} is a non-vanishing integer. The operator in Eq. () will generate physical states because it commutes with the gauge operators $L_m$: \begin{equation} [ L_m , A_{n;i}] =0 \end{equation} since the vertex operator transforms as a primary field with conformal dimension equal to $1$ as it follows from Eq. (). On the other hand it also satisfies the algebra of the harmonic oscillator as we are now going to show. From Eq. () we get: \begin{equation} [ A_{n,i} , A_{m, j} ] = -\frac{1}{2 \alpha'} \oint_{0} d \zeta \oint_{\zeta} dz \epsilon_{i} \cdot P( z) {e}^{i k \cdot Q (\zeta )} \epsilon_{j} \cdot P (\zeta ) {e}^{i k' \cdot Q ( \zeta )} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} 2 \alpha' p \cdot k = n~~;~~ 2 \alpha' p \cdot k' = m \end{equation} and $ k $ and $ k' $ are supposed to be in the same direction, namely \begin{equation} k_{\mu} = n {\hat{k}}_{\mu} ~~~;~~~ k_{\mu}' = m {\hat{k}}_{\mu} \end{equation} with \begin{equation} 2 \alpha' p \cdot {\hat{k}} =1 \end{equation} Finally the polarizations are normalized as: \begin{eqnarray} \epsilon_i \cdot \epsilon_j = \delta_{ij} \end{eqnarray} Since $ {\hat{k}} \cdot \epsilon_{i} = {\hat{k}} \cdot \epsilon_{j} = {\hat{k}}^2 =0$ a singularity for $ z= \zeta $ can appear only from the contraction of the two terms $ P (\zeta ) $ and $ P ( (z)$ that is given by: \begin{equation} \langle 0,0 | \epsilon_{i} \cdot P (z) \epsilon_{j} \cdot P (\zeta ) |0, 0 \rangle = -\frac{2 \alpha' \delta_{ij}}{(z - \zeta)^2} \end{equation} Inserting it in Eq. () we get: \[ [ A_{n,i} , A_{m, j} ] = \delta_{ij} in \oint_{0} d \zeta {\hat{k}} \cdot P (\zeta ) {e}^{- i (n+m) ) {\hat{k}} \cdot Q (\zeta) }= \] \begin{eqnarray} = in \delta_{ij} \delta_{n+m;0} \oint_0 d \zeta {\hat{k}} \cdot P (\zeta) \end{eqnarray} where we have used the fact that the integrand is a total derivative and therefore one gets a vanishing contribution unless $n+m =0$. If $n+m =0 $ from Eq.s () and () we get: \begin{eqnarray} [ A_{n,i} , A_{m, j} ] = n \delta_{ij} \delta_{n+m;0}~~;~~i,j = 1 \dots d-2 \end{eqnarray} Eq. () shows that the DDF operators satisfy the harmonic oscillator algebra. In terms of this infinite set of transverse oscillators we can construct an orthonormal set of states: \begin{eqnarray} | i_1 , N_{1}; i_2 , N_2 ; \dots i_m , N_m \rangle = \prod_{h} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_h ! }} \prod_{k=1}^{m} \frac{A_{i_k , - N_k}}{\sqrt{N_k}} | 0, p \rangle \end{eqnarray} where $ \lambda_h $ is the multiplicity of the operator $ A_{i_h ,-N_h}$ in the product in Eq. () and the momentum of the state in Eq. () is given by \begin{eqnarray} P = p + \sum_{i=1}^{m} {\hat{k}} N_i \end{eqnarray} They were constructed in four dimensions where they were not a complete system of states~\footnote{Because of this Fubini did not want to publish our result, but then he went to a meeting in Israel in spring 1971 giving a talk on our work where he found that the audience was very interested in our result and when he came back to MIT we decided to publish our result.} and it took some time to realize that in fact they were a complete system of states if $d=26$~~\footnote{I still remember Charles Thorn coming into my office at Cern and telling me: Paolo, do you know that your DDF states are complete if $d=26 ?$ I quickly redid the analysis done in Ref.~ with an arbitrary value of the space-time dimension obtaining Eq.s () and () that show that the spinless state at the level $\alpha (s) =2$ is decoupled if $d=26$. I strongly regretted not to have used an arbitrary space-time dimension d in the analysis of Ref.~ . }. Brower~ and Goddard and Thorn~ showed also that the dual resonance model was ghost free for any dimension $d \leq 26$. In $d=26$ this follows from the fact that the DDF operators obviously span a positive definite Hilbert space (See Eq. ()). For $ d < 26$ there are extra states called Brower states~. The first of these states is the last state in Eq. () that becomes a zero norm state for $d=26$. But also for $d <26$ there is no negative norm state among the physical states. The proof of the no-ghost theorem in the case $\alpha_0 =1$ is a very important step because it shows that the dual resonance model constructed generalizing the four-point Veneziano formula, is a fully consistent quantum-relativistic theory! This is not quite true because, when the intercept $\alpha_0 =1$, the lowest state of the spectrum corresponding to the pole in the $N$-point amplitude for $\alpha (s) =0$, is a tachyon with mass $ m^2 = - \frac{1}{\alpha'}$. A lot of effort was then made to construct a model without tachyon and with a meson spectrum consistent with the experimental data. The only reasonably consistent models that came out from these attempts, were the Neveu-Schwarz~ for mesons and the Ramond model~ for fermions that only later were recognized to be part of a unique model that nowadays is called the Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond model. But this model was not really more consistent than the original dual resonance model because it still had a tachyon with mass $m^2 = -\frac{1}{2 \alpha'}$. The tachyon was eliminated from the spectrum only in 1976 through the GSO projection proposed by Gliozzi, Scherk and Olive~. Having realized that, at least for the critical value of the space-time dimension $d=26$, the physical states are described by the DDF states having only $d-2= 24$ independent components, open the way to Brink and Nielsen~ to compute the value $\alpha_0 =1$ of the Regge trajectory with a very physical argument. They related the intercept of the Regge trajectory to the zero point energy of a system with an infinite number of oscillators having only $d-2$ independent components: \begin{eqnarray} \alpha_0 = - \frac{d-2}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n \end{eqnarray} This quantity is obviously infinite and, in order to make sense of it, they introduced a cutoff on the frequencies of the harmonic oscillators obtaining an infinite term that they eliminated by renormalizing the speed of light and a finite universal constant term that gave the intercept of the Regge trajectory. Instead of following their original approach we discuss here an alternative approach due to Gliozzi~ that uses the $\zeta$-function regularization. He rewrites Eq. () as follows: \begin{eqnarray} \alpha_0 = - \frac{d-2}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n = - \frac{d-2}{2} \lim_{s\rightarrow -1} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^{-s} = - \frac{d-2}{2} \zeta_{R} (-1 ) = 1 \end{eqnarray} where in the last equation we have used the identity $\zeta_{R} (-1 ) = - \frac{1}{12}$ and we have put $d=26$. Since the Shapiro-Virasoro model has two sets of transverse harmonic oscillators it is obvious that its intercept is twice that of the generalized Veneziano model. Using the rules discussed in the previous section we can construct the vertex operator corresponding to the state in Eq. (). It is given by: \begin{eqnarray} V_{(i; N_{i})} ( z, P ) = \prod_{i=1}^{m} \oint_{z} d z_i \epsilon_{i} \cdot P (z_i ) {e}^{i N_{i} {\hat{k}} \cdot Q( z_i ) } :{e}^{i p \cdot Q (z) } : \end{eqnarray} where the integral on the variable $z_i$ is evaluated along a curve of the complex plane $z_i$ containing the point $z$. The singularity of the integrand for $z_i =z$ is a pole provided that the following condition is satisfied. \begin{eqnarray} 2 \alpha' p \cdot {\hat{k}} =1 \end{eqnarray} The last vertex in Eq. () is the vertex operator corresponding to the ground tachyonic state given in Eq. () with $\alpha ' p^2 =1$. Using the general form of the vertex one can compute the three-point amplitude involving three arbitrary DDF vertex operators. This calculation has been performed in Ref.~ and since the vertex operators are conformal fields with dimension equal to $1$ one gets: \[ \langle 0,0 | V_{(i^{(1)}_{k_1} ; N_{k_1}^{(1)} ) } ( z_1 , P_1 ) V_{(i^{(2)}_{k_2}; N_{k^{(2)}}^{(2)} )} ( z_2 , P_2 ) V_{(i^{(3)}_{k_3} ; N_{k^{(3)}}^{(3)} )} ( z_3 , P_3 ) | 0, 0 \rangle = \] \begin{eqnarray} = \frac{C_{123}}{(z_1 - z_2 ) (z_1 - z_3 )( z_2 - z_3)} \end{eqnarray} where the explicit form of the coefficient $C_{123}$ is given by: \[ C_{123} = {}_{1} \langle 0, 0| {}_{2} \langle 0, 0| {}_{3} \langle 0, 0| {e}^{\frac{1}{2} \sum_{r.s=1}^{3} \sum_{n,m =1}^{\infty} A^{(r)}_{-n ; i} N^{rs}_{nm} A^{(s)}_{-m ; i} + \sum_{i=1}^{3} P_i \cdot \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} A^{(r)}_{-n ;i} } \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times {e}^{\tau_0 \sum_{r=1}^{3} (\alpha ' \Pi_{r}^{2} - 1)} | N_{k_1}^{(1)} , i^{(1)}_{k_1} \rangle_{1} | N_{k_2}^{(2)} , i^{(2)}_{k_2} \rangle_{2} | N_{k_3}^{(3)} , i^{(3)}_{k_3} \rangle_{3} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} N_{nm}^{rs} = - N_{n}^{r} N^{s}_{m} \frac{nm \alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3 }{n \alpha_s + m \alpha_r}~~~;~~~ N_{n}^{r} = \frac{\Gamma ( - n \frac{\alpha_{r+1} }{\alpha_r})}{\alpha_r n! \Gamma ( 1 - n \frac{\alpha_{r+1}}{\alpha_r} -n)} \end{eqnarray} with \begin{eqnarray} \Pi= P_{r+1} \alpha_r - P_r \alpha_{r+1}~~~;~~~r=1,2,3 \end{eqnarray} $\Pi$ is independent on the value of $r$ chosen as a consequence of the equations: \begin{eqnarray} \sum_{r=1}^{3} \alpha_r = \sum_{r=1}^{3} P_r =0 \end{eqnarray} \section{The zero slope limit} In the introduction we have seen that the dual resonance model has been constructed using rules that are different from those used in field theory. For instance, we have seen that planar duality implies that the amplitude corresponding to a certain duality diagram, contains poles in both s and t channels, while the amplitude corresponding to a Feynman diagram in field theory contains only a pole in one of the two channels. Furthermore, the scattering amplitude in the dual resonance model contains an infinite number of resonant states that, at high energy, average out to give Regge behaviour. Also this property is not observed in field theory. The question that was natural to ask, was then: is there any relation between the dual resonance model and field theory? It turned out, to the surprise of many, that the dual resonance model was not in contradiction with field theory, but was instead an extension of a certain number of field theories. We will see that the limit in which a field theory is obtained from the dual resonance model corresponds to taking the slope of the Regge trajectory $\alpha'$ to zero. Let us consider the scattering amplitude of four ground state particles in Eq. () that we rewrite here with the correct normalization factor: \begin{eqnarray} A (s, t, u) = C_0 N_{0}^{4} \left( A(s,t) + A (s,u) + A (t,u) \right) \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} N_0 = \sqrt{2} g (2 \alpha' )^{\frac{d-2}{4}} \end{eqnarray} is the correct normalization factor for each external leg, g is the dimensionless open string coupling constant that we have constantly ignored in the previous sections and $C_0$ is determined by the following relation: \begin{eqnarray} C_0 N_{0}^{2} \alpha' = 1 \end{eqnarray} that is obtained by requiring the factorization of the amplitude at the pole corresponding to the ground state particle whose mass is given in Eq. (). Using Eq. () in order to rewrite the intercept of the Regge trajectory in terms of the mass of the ground state particle $m^2$ and the following relation satisfied by the $\Gamma$- function: \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma (1 +z ) = z \Gamma (z) \end{eqnarray} we can easily perform the limit for $\alpha' \rightarrow 0$ of $A (s, t)$ obtaining: \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{\alpha ' \rightarrow 0} A (s, t) = \frac{1}{\alpha' } \left[ \frac{1}{m^2 -s} + \frac{1}{m^2 -s} \right] \end{eqnarray} Performing the same limit on the other two planar amplitudes we get the following expression for the total amplitude in Eq. (): \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{\alpha ' \rightarrow 0} A (s, t, u) = \left[ \sqrt{2} g (2 \alpha' )^{\frac{d-2}{4}} \right]^2 \frac{2}{(\alpha' )^2} \left[ \frac{1}{m^2 -s} + \frac{1}{m^2 -s} + \frac{1}{m^2 -u} \right] \end{eqnarray} By introducing the coupling constant: \begin{eqnarray} g_3 = 4 g (2 \alpha' )^{\frac{d-6}{4}} \end{eqnarray} Eq. () becomes \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{\alpha ' \rightarrow 0} A (s, t, u) = g_{3}^{2} \left[ \frac{1}{m^2 -s} + \frac{1}{m^2 -s} + \frac{1}{m^2 -u} \right] \end{eqnarray} that is equal to the sum of the tree diagrams for the scattering of four particles with mass $m$ of $\Phi^3$ theory with coupling constant equal to $g_3$. We have shown that, by keeping $g_3 $ fixed in the limit $\alpha' \rightarrow 0$, the scattering amplitude of four ground state particles of the dual resonance model is equal to the tree diagrams of $\Phi^3$ theory. This proof can be extended to the scattering of $N$ ground state particles recovering also in this case the tree diagrams of $\Phi^3$ theory. It is also valid for loop diagrams that we will discuss in the next section. In conclusion, the dual resonance model reduces in the zero slope limit to $\Phi^3$ theory. The proof that we have presented here is due to J. Scherk~~.} A more interesting case to study is the one with intercept $\alpha_0 =1$. We will see that, in this case, one will obtain the tree diagrams of Yang-Mills theory, as shown by Neveu and Scherk~~.}. Let us consider the three-point amplitude involving three massless gauge particles described by the vertex operator in Eq. (). It is given by the sum of two planar diagrams. The first one corresponding to the ordering $(123)$ is given by: \begin{eqnarray} C_0 N_{0}^{3} i^3 Tr \left(\lambda^{a_1} \lambda^{a_2} \lambda^{a_3} \right) \frac{\langle 0 , 0| V_{\epsilon_1} (z_1 , p_1 ) V_{\epsilon_2} (z_2 , p_2 ) V_{\epsilon_3} (z_3 , p_3 ) |0, 0 \rangle}{\left[(z_1 - z_2 )(z_2 - z_3) (z_1 - z_3 ) \right]^{-1}} \end{eqnarray} Using momentum conservation $p_1 + p_2 + p_3 =0$ and the mass shell conditions $p_{i}^{2} = p_i \cdot \epsilon_i =0$ one can rewrite the previous equation as follows: \[ C_0 N_{0}^{3} Tr( \lambda^{a_1} \lambda^{a_2} \lambda^{a_3}) \sqrt{2 \alpha'} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \left[ (\epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_2) ( p_1 \cdot \epsilon_3 ) + ( \epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_3 ) (p_3 \cdot \epsilon_2 ) + (\epsilon_2 \cdot \epsilon_3 ) ( p_2 \cdot \epsilon_1) \right] \end{eqnarray} The second contribution comes from the ordering $132$ that can be obtained from the previous one by the substitution \begin{eqnarray} Tr( \lambda^{a_1} \lambda^{a_2} \lambda^{a_3}) \rightarrow - Tr( \lambda^{a_1} \lambda^{a_3} \lambda^{a_2}) \end{eqnarray} Summing the two contributions one gets \[ C_0 N_{o}^{3} Tr( \lambda^{a_1} [\lambda^{a_2}, \lambda^{a_3}]) \sqrt{2 \alpha'} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \left[ (\epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_2) ( p_1 \cdot \epsilon_3 ) + ( \epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_3 ) (p_3 \cdot \epsilon_2 ) + (\epsilon_2 \cdot \epsilon_3 ) ( p_2 \cdot \epsilon_1) \right] \end{eqnarray} The factor \begin{eqnarray} N_0 = 2 g (2 \alpha')^{(d-2)/4} \end{eqnarray} is the correct normalization factor for each vertex operator if we normalize the generators of the Chan-Paton group as follows: \begin{eqnarray} Tr \left( \lambda^i \lambda^j \right) = \frac{1}{2} \delta^{ij} \end{eqnarray} It is related to $C_0$ through the relation~\footnote{The determination of the previous normalization factors can be found in the Appendix of Ref.~.}: \begin{eqnarray} C_0 N_{o}^{2} \alpha ' =2 \end{eqnarray} $g$ is the dimensionless open string coupling constant. Notice that Eq.s () and () differ from Eq.s () and () because of the presence of the Chan-Paton factors that we did not include in the case of $\Phi^3$ theory. By using the commutation relations: \begin{equation} [ \lambda^a , \lambda^b ] = i f^{abc} \lambda^c \end{equation} and the previous normalization factors we get for the three-gluon amplitude: \[ i g_{YM} f^{a_1 a_2 a_3 } \left[ (\epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_2) ( (p_1 - p_2) \cdot \epsilon_3 \right. + \] \begin{eqnarray} \left. + ( \epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_3 ) ( (p_3 - p_1) \cdot \epsilon_2 ) + (\epsilon_2 \cdot \epsilon_3 ) ( (p_2 - p_3) \cdot \epsilon_1) \right] \end{eqnarray} that is equal to the $3$-gluon vertex that one obtains from the Yang-Mills action \begin{eqnarray} L_{YM} = - \frac{1}{4 } F_{\alpha \beta}^{a} F^{\alpha \beta}_{a}~~~,~~~ F_{\alpha \beta}^{a} = \partial_{\alpha} A_{\beta}^{a} - \partial_{\beta} A_{\alpha}^{a} + g_{YM} f^{abc} A_{\alpha}^{b} A_{\beta}^{c} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} g_{YM} = 2 g ( 2 \alpha ' )^{\frac{d-4}{4}} \end{eqnarray} The previous procedure can be extended to the scattering of N gluons finding the same result that one gets from the tree diagrams of Yang-Mills theory. In the next section, we will discuss the loop diagrams. Also, in this case one finds that the h-loop diagrams involving N external gluons reproduces in the zero slope limit the sum of the h-loop diagrams with N external gluons of Yang-Mills theory. We conclude this section mentioning that one can also take the zero slope limit of a scattering amplitude involving three and four gravitons obtaining agreement with what one gets from the Einstein Lagrangian of general relativity. This has been shown by Yoneya~. \section{Loop diagrams} The $N$-point amplitude previously constructed satisfies all the axioms of S-matrix theory except unitarity because its only singularities are simple poles corresponding to zero width resonances lying on the real axis of the Mandelstam variables and does not contain the various cuts required by unitarity~. In order to eliminate this problem it was proposed already in the early days of dual theories to assume, in analogy with what happens for instance in perturbative field theory, that the $N$-point amplitude was only the lowest order (the tree diagram) of a perturbative expansion and, in order to implement unitarity, it was necessary to include loop diagrams. Then, the one-loop diagrams were constructed from the propagator and vertices that we have introduced in the previous sections~. The planar one-loop amplitude with $M$ external particles was computed by starting from a $(M+2)$-point tree amplitude and then by sewing two external legs together after the insertion of a propagator $D$ given in Eq. (). In this way one gets: \begin{eqnarray} \int \frac{d^{d} P}{(2 \alpha')^{d/2} (2 \pi)^d} \sum_{\lambda} \langle P, \lambda | V (1, p_1 ) D V (1, p_2) \dots V (1, p_N ) D | P, \lambda \rangle \end{eqnarray} where the sum over $\lambda$ corresponds to the trace in the space of the harmonic oscillators and the integral in $d^d P$ corresponds to integrate over the momentum circulating in the loop. The previous expression for the one-loop amplitude cannot be quite correct because all states of the space generated by the oscillators in Eq. () are circulating in the loop, while we know that we should include only the physical ones. This was achieved first by cancelling by hand the time and one of the space components of the harmonic oscillators reducing the degrees of freedom of each oscillator from $d$ to $d-2$ as suggested by the DDF operators at least for $d=26$. This procedure was then shown to be correct by Brink and Olive~. They constructed the operator that projects over the physical states and, by inserting it in the loop, showed that the reduction of the degrees of freedom of the oscillators from $d$ to $d-2$ was indeed correct. This was, at that time, the only procedure available to let only the physical states circulate in the loop because the BRST procedure was discovered a bit later also in the framework of the gauge field theories! To be more explicit let us compute the trace in Eq. () adding also the Chan-Paton factor. We get: \[ (2\pi)^{d} \delta^{(d)} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{M} p_i \right) \frac{N Tr ( \lambda^{a_1} \dots \lambda^{a_M} ) }{ ( 8 \pi^2 \alpha' )^{d/2} } N_{0}^{M} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{d \tau}{ \tau^{d/2 +1} } [f_{1} (k ) ]^{2-d} k^{\frac{d-26}{12}} (2 \pi )^{M} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \int_{0}^{1} d \nu_{M} \int_{0}^{\nu_{M}} d \nu_{M-1} \dots \int_{0}^{\nu_{3}} d \nu_{2} \,\,\tau^M \prod_{i < j} \left[e^{G (\nu_{ji}) } \right]^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} ; k \equiv e^{- \pi \tau} \end{eqnarray} where $\nu_{ji} \equiv \nu_j - \nu_i$, \begin{eqnarray} G (\nu ) = \log \left( i e^{-\pi \nu^{2} \tau} \frac{\Theta_1 ( i \nu \tau | i \tau)}{f_{1}^{3} (k)} \right)~~;~~ f_{1} (k) = k^{1/12} \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} ( 1 - k^{2n} ) \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} \Theta_1 ( \nu | i \tau ) = -2 k^{1/4} \sin \pi \nu \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} {\left(1 - e^{2i \pi \nu} k^{2n} \right) \left(1 - e^{-2i \pi \nu} k^{2n} \right) }{ (1- k^{2n} )} \end{eqnarray} Finally the normalization factor $N_0$ is given in Eq. (). We have performed the calculation for an arbitrary value of the space-time dimension d. However, in this way one gets also the extra factor of $k^{\frac{d-26}{12}}$ appearing in the first line of Eq. () that implies that our calculation is actually only consistent if $d=26$. In fact, the presence of this factor does not allow one to rewrite the amplitude, originally obtained in the Reggeon sector, in the Pomeron sector as explained below. In the following we neglect this extra factor, implicitly assuming that $d=26$, but, on the other hand, still keeping an arbitrary $d$. Using the relations: \begin{eqnarray} f_1 (k) = \sqrt{t} f_{1} (q)~~;~~\Theta_1 (i \nu \tau | i \tau ) = i \Theta_1 ( \nu | i t ) t^{1/2} e^{\pi \nu^2 /t} \end{eqnarray} where $ t = \frac{1}{\tau}$ and $ q \equiv e^{-\pi t}$, we can rewrite the one-loop planar diagram in the Pomeron channel. We get: \[ (2\pi)^{d} \delta^{(d)} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{M} p_i \right) \frac{N Tr ( \lambda^{a_1} \dots \lambda^{a_M} )}{( 8 \pi^2 \alpha')^{d/2}} N_{0}^{M} \int_{0}^{\infty} dt [f_{1} (q ) ]^{2-d} (2 \pi)^M \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \int_{0}^{1} d \nu_{M} \int_{0}^{\nu_{M}} d \nu_{M-1} \dots \int_{0}^{\nu_{3}} d \nu_{2} \prod_{i < j} \left[ - \frac{\Theta_1 ( \nu_{ji} | it)}{f_{1}^{3} (q)} \right]^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \end{eqnarray} Notice that, by factorizing the planar loop in the Pomeron channel, one constructed for the first time what we now call the boundary state~~\footnote{See also the first paper in Ref.~.}. This can be easily seen in the way that we are now going to describe. First of all, notice that the last quantity in Eq. () can be written as follows: \[ \prod_{i < j} \left[ - \frac{\Theta_1 ( \nu_{ji} | it)}{f_{1}^{3} (q)} \right]^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} = \] \begin{eqnarray} = \prod_{i < j} \left[ - 2 \sin (\pi \nu_{ji}) \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{ \left( 1 - q^{2n} e^{2 \pi i \nu_{ji}} \right) \left( 1 - q^{2n} e^{- 2 \pi i \nu_{ji}} \right) }{(1 - q^{2n} )^2} \right]^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \end{eqnarray} This equation can be rewritten as follows: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{Tr \left( \langle p=0 | q^{2R} \prod_{i=1}^{M} : e^{ i p_i \cdot Q ( e^{2 i \pi \nu_i}) } : | p=0 \rangle \right) i^M }{Tr \left( \langle p=0 | q^{2N} | p=0 \rangle \right) }~;~ R = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n a^{\dagger}_{n} \cdot a_{n} \end{eqnarray} where the trace is taken only over the non-zero modes and momentum conservation has been used. It must also be stressed that the normal ordering of the vertex operators in the previous equation is such that the zero modes are taken to be both in the same exponential instead of being ordered as in Eq. (). By bringing all annihilation operators on the left of the creation ones, from the expression in Eq. () one gets $(z_i \equiv e^{2 \pi i \nu_i})$: \[ (2 \pi )^d \delta^{(d)} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} p_i \right) \prod_{i < j} ( -2 \sin \pi \nu_{ji} )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \frac{\prod_{i.j} \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} Tr \left(q^{2n a_{n}^{\dagger} \cdot a_n } e^{\sqrt{2 \alpha'} p_j \cdot \frac{a_{n}^{\dagger} }{\sqrt{n}} z_{j}^{n} } e^{- \sqrt{2 \alpha'} p_i \cdot \frac{a_{n} }{\sqrt{n}} z_{i}^{-n} } \right)}{ Tr \left( \langle p=0 | q^{2N} | p=0 \rangle \right)} \end{eqnarray} The trace can be computed by using the completeness relation involving coherent states $ | f \rangle = e^{f a^{\dagger}} | 0 \rangle$: \begin{eqnarray} \int \frac{d^2 f}{\pi} e^{- | f|^2} | f \rangle \langle f | = 1 \end{eqnarray} Inserting the previous identity operator in Eq. () one gets after some calculation: \[ (2 \pi )^d \delta^{(d)} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} p_i \right) \prod_{i < j} ( -2 \sin \pi \nu_{ji} )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \prod_{i.j=1}^{M} \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} e^{ - 2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j e^{ 2 \pi i n \nu_{ji}} \frac{q^{2n}}{{n} (1 - q^{2n})} } \end{eqnarray} Expanding the denominator in the last exponent and performing the sum over $n$ one gets: \[ (2 \pi )^d \delta^{(d)} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} p_i \right) \prod_{i < j} ( -2 \sin \pi \nu_{ji} )^{2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \prod_{i.j} e^{ 2 \alpha' p_i \cdot p_j \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \log \left(1 - e^{2 \pi i \nu_{ji}} q^{2 (m+1)} \right) } \end{eqnarray} that is equal to the last line of Eq. () apart from the $\delta$-function for momentum conservation. In conclusion, we have shown that Eq.s () and () are equal. Using Eq. () we can rewrite Eq. () as follows: \[ \frac{N N_{0}^{M} Tr ( \lambda^{a_1} \dots \lambda^{a_M} )}{( 8 \pi^2 \alpha')^{d/2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dt [f_{1} (q ) ]^{2-d} (2 \pi i )^M \int_{0}^{1} d \nu_{M} \int_{0}^{\nu_{M}} d \nu_{M-1} \dots \] \begin{eqnarray} \dots \int_{0}^{\nu_{3}} d \nu_{2} \frac{ \sum_{\lambda} \langle p=0 , \lambda | q^{2R} \prod_{i=1}^{M} : e^{ i p_i \cdot Q ( e^{2 i \pi \nu_i}) } : | p=0, \lambda \rangle }{\sum_{\lambda} \langle p=0, \lambda | q^{2N} | p=0, \lambda \rangle } \end{eqnarray} where the sum over any state $ |\lambda \rangle$ corresponds to taking the trace over the non-zero modes. If $d=26$ we can rewrite Eq. () in a simpler form: \[ \frac{N N_{0}^{M} Tr ( \lambda^{a_1} \dots \lambda^{a_M} )}{( 8 \pi^2 \alpha')^{d/2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dt\, (2 \pi i )^M \int_{0}^{1} d \nu_{M} \int_{0}^{\nu_{M}} d \nu_{M-1} \dots \int_{0}^{\nu_{3}} d \nu_{2} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \sum_{\lambda} \langle p=0 , \lambda | q^{2R-2} \prod_{i=1}^{M} : e^{ i p_i \cdot Q ( e^{2 i \pi \nu_i}) } : | p=0, \lambda \rangle \end{eqnarray} The previous equation contains the factor $\int dt q^{2R -2}$ that is like the propagator of the Shapiro-Virasoro model, but with only one set of oscillators as in the generalized Veneziano model. In the following we will rewrite it completely with the formalism of the Shapiro-Virasoro model. This can be done by introducing the Pomeron propagator: \begin{eqnarray} \int_{0}^{\infty} dt~ q^{2N-2} = \frac{2}{\pi \alpha'} {\hat{D}}~~;~~ {\hat{D}} \equiv \frac{\alpha'}{4 \pi} \int \frac{d^2 z}{|z|^2} z^{L_0 -1} {\bar{z}}^{{\tilde{L}}_0 -1} ; |z| \equiv q = e^{-\pi t} \end{eqnarray} and rewriting the planar loop in the following compact form: \begin{eqnarray} \langle B_0 | {\hat{D}} | B_{M} \rangle~~;~~ | B_0 \rangle \equiv \frac{T_{d-1}}{2} N \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} e^{ a_{n}^{\dagger} \cdot {\tilde{a}}^{\dagger}_{n} } | p=0, 0_a , 0_{\tilde{a}} \rangle \end{eqnarray} where $| B_0 \rangle$ is the boundary state without any Reggeon on it, \begin{eqnarray} T_{d-1} = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2^{(d-10)/4} } ( 2 \pi \sqrt{\alpha'})^{- d/2 -1} \end{eqnarray} and $ | B_{M} \rangle$ is instead the one with $M$ Reggeons given by: \[ | B_{M} \rangle = N_{0}^{M} Tr ( \lambda^{a_1} \dots \lambda^{a_M} ) (2 \pi i )^M \int_{0}^{1} d \nu_{M} \int_{0}^{\nu_{M}} d \nu_{M-1} \dots \int_{0}^{\nu_{3}} d \nu_{2} \times \] \begin{eqnarray} \times \prod_{i=1}^{M} : e^{ i p_i \cdot Q ( e^{2 i \pi \nu_i}) } : | B_0 \rangle \end{eqnarray} We want to stress once more that the normal ordering in the previous equation is defined by taking the zero modes in the same exponential. Both the boundary states and the propagator are now states of the Shapiro-Virasoro model. This means that we have rewritten the one-loop planar diagram, where the states of the generalized Veneziano model circulate in the loop, as a tree diagram of the Shapiro-Virasoro model involving two boundary states and a propagator. This is what nowadays is called open/closed string duality. Besides the one-loop planar diagram in Eq. (), that is nowadays called the annulus diagram, also the non-planar and the non-orientable diagrams were constructed and studied. In particular the non-planar one, that is obtained as the planar one in Eq. () but with two propagators multiplied with the twist operator \begin{eqnarray} \Omega = e^{L_{-1}} (-1)^{R}~, \end{eqnarray} had unitarity violating cuts that disappeared~ if the dimension of the space-time $d=26$, leaving behind additional pole singularities. The explicit form of the non-planar loop can be obtained following the same steps done for the planar loop. One gets for the non-planar loop the following amplitude: \begin{eqnarray} \langle B_{R} | {\hat{D}} | B_{M} \rangle \end{eqnarray} where now both boundary states contain, respectively, $R$ and $M$ Reggeon states. The additional poles found in the non-planar loop were called Pomerons because they occur in the Pomeron sector, that today is called the closed string channel, to distinguish them from the Reggeons that instead occur in the Reggeon sector, that today is called the open string sector of the planar and non-planar loop diagrams. At that time in fact, the states of the generalized Veneziano models were called Reggeons, while the additional ones appearing in the non-planar loop were called Pomerons. The Reggeons correspond nowadays to open string states, while the Pomerons to closed string states. These things are obvious now, but at that time it took a while to show that the additional states appearing in the Pomeron sector have to be identified with those of the Shapiro-Virasoro model. The proof that the spectrum was the same came rather early. This was obtained by factorizing the non-planar diagram in the Pomeron channel~ as we have done in Eq. (). It was found that the states of the Pomeron channel lie on a linear Regge trajectory that has double intercept and half slope of the one of the Reggeons. This follows immediately from the propagator ${\hat{D}}$ in Eq. () that has poles for values of the momentum of the Pomeron exchanged given by: \begin{eqnarray} 2 - \frac{\alpha'}{2} p^2 = 2n \end{eqnarray} that are exactly the values of the masses of the states of the Shapiro-Virasoro model~, while the Reggeon propagator in Eq. () has poles for values of momentum equal to: \begin{eqnarray} 1 - \alpha' p^2 = n \end{eqnarray} However, it was still not clear that the Pomeron states interact among themselves as the states of the Shapiro-Virasoro model. To show this it was first necessary to construct tree amplitudes containing both states of the generalized Veneziano model and of the Shapiro-Virasoro model~. They reduced to the amplitudes of the generalized Veneziano (Shapiro-Virasoro) model if we have only external states of the generalized Veneziano (Shapiro-Virasoro) model. Those amplitudes are called today disk amplitudes containing both open and closed string states. They were constructed~ by using for the Reggeon states the vertex operators that we have discussed in Sect. () involving one set of harmonic oscillators and for the Pomeron states the vertex operators given in Eq. () that we rewrite here: \begin{eqnarray} V_{\alpha , \beta} ( z, {\bar{z}}, p ) = V_{\alpha} ( z, \frac{p}{2} ) V_{\beta} ( {\bar{z}}, \frac{p}{2} ) \end{eqnarray} because now both component vertices contain the same set of harmonic oscillators as in the generalized Veneziano model. Furthermore, each of the two vertices is separately normal ordered, but their product is nor normal ordered. The amplitude involving both kinds of states is then constructed by taking the product of all vertices between the projective invariant vacuum and integrating the Reggeons on the real axis in an ordered way and the Pomerons in the upper half plane, as one does for a disk amplitude. We have mentioned above that the two vertices are separately normal ordered, but their product is not normal ordered. When we normal order them we get, for instance for the tachyon of the Pomeron sector, a factor $(z - {\bar{z}} )^{\alpha ' p^2 /2}$ that describes the Reggeon-Pomeron transition. This implies a direct coupling~ between the $U(1)$ part of gauge field and the two-index antisymmetric field $B_{\mu \nu}$, called Kalb-Ramond field~, of the Pomeron sector, that makes the gauge field massive~. It was then shown that, by factorizing the non-planal loop in the Pomeron channel, one reproduced the scattering amplitude containing one state of the Shapiro-Virasoro and a number of states of the generalized Veneziano model~. If we have also external states belonging to the generalized Shapiro-Virasoro model, then by factorizing the non-planar one loop amplitude in the pure Pomeron channel, one would obtain the tree amplitudes of the Shapiro-Virasoro model~. All this implies that the generalized Veneziano model and the Shapiro-Virasoro model are not two independent models, but they are part of the same and unique model. In fact, if one started with the generalized Veneziano model and added loop diagrams to implement unitarity, one found the appearence in the non-planar loop of additional states that had the same mass and interaction of those of the Shapiro-Virasoro model. The planar diagram, written in Eq. () in the closed string channel, is divergent for large values of $t$. This divergence was recognized to be due to exchange, in the Pomeron channel, of the tachyon of the Shapiro-Virasoro model and of the dilaton~. They correspond, respectively, to the first two terms of the expansion: \begin{eqnarray} [ f_{1} (q)]^{-24} = e^{2 \pi t} + 24 + O \left( e^{-2\pi t} \right) \end{eqnarray} The first one could be cancelled by an analytic continuation, while the second one could be eliminated through a renormalization of the slope of the Regge trajectory $\alpha'$~. We conclude the discussion of the one-loop diagrams by mentioning that the one-loop diagram for the Shapiro-Virasoro model was computed by Shapiro~ who also found that the integrand was modular invariant. The computation of multiloop diagrams requires a more advanced technology that was also developed in the early days of the dual resonance model few years before the discovery of its connection to string theory. In order to compute multiloop diagrams one needs first to construct an object that was called the $N$-Reggeon vertex and that has the properties of containing $N$ sets of harmonic oscillators, one for each external leg, and is such that, when we saturate it with $N$ physical states, we get the corresponding $N$-point amplitude. In the following we will discuss how to determine the $N$-Reggeon vertex. The first step toward the $N$-Reggeon vertex is the Sciuto-Della Selva- Saito~ vertex that includes two sets of harmonic oscillators that we denote with the indices 1 and 2. It is equal to: \begin{eqnarray} V_{SDS} = {}_2 \langle x=0, 0 | : \exp \left(- \frac{1}{2 \alpha'} \oint_{0} dz X_{2}' (z) \cdot X_{1} (1 -z) \right) : \end{eqnarray} where $X$ is the quantity that we have called $Q$ in Eq. () and the prime denotes a derivative with respect to z. It satisfies the important property of giving the vertex operator $V_{\alpha} (z=1)$ of an arbitrary state $| \alpha \rangle$ when we saturate it with the corresponding state: \begin{eqnarray} V_{SDS} | \alpha \rangle_2 = V_{\alpha} (z=1) \end{eqnarray} A shortcoming of this vertex is that it is not invariant under a cyclic permutation of the three legs. A cyclic symmetric vertex has been constructed by Caneschi, Schwimmer and Veneziano~ by inserting the twist operator in Eq. (). But the $3$-Reggeon vertex is not enough if we want to compute an arbitrary multiloop amplitude. We must generalize it to an arbitrary number of external legs. Such a vertex, that can be obtained from the one in Eq. () with a very direct procedure, or that can also be obtained by sewing together three-Reggeon vertices, has been written in its final form by Lovelace~~. Earlier papers on the $N$-Reggeon can be found in Ref.s~.}. Here we do not derive it, but we give directly its expression written in Ref.~: \begin{eqnarray} V_{N,0}&=&\int \frac{\prod_{i=1}^{N}d z_{i}}{dV_{abc}\prod_{i=1}^{N}[ V_{i}'(0)]} \,\prod_{i=1}^{N}\,[{}_{i}\!\!<\! x=0, O_{a}|] \,\delta(\sum_{i=1}^{N} p_{i})\nonumber\\ &&\;\;\prod_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle i,j=1}{i \neq j}}^{N} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n,m=0}^{\infty} \!a_{n}^{(i)} D_{nm}( \Gamma V_{i}^{-1} V_{j}) \,a_{m}^{(j)}\right] \end{eqnarray} where $a_{0}^{(i)} \equiv\alpha_{0}^{i} = \sqrt{2 \alpha'} {\hat{p}}_{i}$ is the momentum of particle $i$ and the infinite matrix: \[ D_{nm}(\gamma)=\frac{1}{m!}\sqrt{\frac{m}{n}}\partial_{z}^{m}[ \gamma(z)]^{n}|_{z=0}~;~n,m=1..~:~ D_{00}(\gamma)= - \log|\frac{D}{\sqrt{AD - BC}}| \] \begin{eqnarray} D_{n0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(\frac{B}{D})^{n}~~;~~ D_{0n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(-\frac{C}{D})^{n}~~;~~ \gamma(z)=\frac{Az+B}{Cz+D} \end{eqnarray} is a "representation" of the projective group corresponding to the conformal weight $\Delta=0$, that satisfies the eqs.: \begin{eqnarray} D_{nm}(\gamma_{1}\gamma_{2})=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}D_{nl}(\gamma_{1}) D_{lm}(\gamma_{2}) + D_{n0}(\gamma_{1})\delta_{0m}+D_{0m}(\gamma_{2})\delta_{n0} \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} D_{nm}(\gamma) = D_{mn}( \Gamma \gamma^{-1} \Gamma) \hspace{2cm} \Gamma(z)=\frac{1}{z} \end{eqnarray} Finally $V_i$ is a projective transformation that maps $0, 1$ and $\infty$ into $z_{i-1}, z_i$ and $z_{i+1}$. The previous vertex can be written in a more elegant form as follows: \[ V_{N,0}=\int \frac{\prod_{i=1}^{N}d z_{i}}{dV_{abc}\prod_{i=1}^{N}[ V_{i}'(0)]} \,\prod_{i=1}^{N}\,[{}_{i}\!\!<\! x=0, O_{a}|] \,\delta(\sum_{i=1}^{N} p_{i}) \] \[ \exp \left\{\frac{i}{4\alpha'} \oint dz \partial X^{(i)}(z) {\hat{p}}_{i} \log V_i'(z) \right\} \] \begin{eqnarray} \exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2} {\sum_{\stackrel{i,j=1}{i\neq j}}^{N}}\oint dz \oint dy \partial X^{(i)}(z) \log[V_i(z) - V_j(y)] \partial X^{(j)}(y)\right\} \end{eqnarray} where the quantities $X^{(i)}$ are what we called $Q$, namely the Fubini-Veneziano field, in the previous sections. The $N$-Reggeon vertex that satisfies the important property of giving the scattering amplitude of $N$ physical particle when we saturate it with their corresponding states, is the fundamental object for computing the multiloop amplitudes. In fact, if we want to compute a $M$-loop amplitude with $N$ external states, we need to start from the $(N+ 2M)$-Reggeon vertex and then we have to sew the M pairs together after having inserted a propagator D. In this way we obtain an amplitude that is not only integrated over the punctures $z_i \,\,(i=1 \dots N)$ of the $N$ external states, but also over the additional $3h -3$ moduli corresponding to the punctures variables of the states that we sew together and the integration variable of the $M$ propagators. $h$ is the number of loops. The multiloop amplitudes have been obtained in this way already in 1970~ and, through the sewing procedure, one obtained functions, as the period matrix, the abelian differentials, the prime form, etc., that are well defined on Riemann surface! The only thing that was missing, was the correct measure of integrations over the $3h -3$ variables because it was technically not possible to let only the physical states to circulate in the loops. This problem was solved only much later~ when a BRST invariant formulation of string theory and the light-cone functional integral could be used for computing multiloops. They are two very different approaches that, however, gave the same result. For the sake of completeness we write here the planar $h$-loop amplitude involving $M$ tachyons: \begin{eqnarray} A^{(h)}_M (p_1,\ldots,p_M) & = & N^h\,{\rm Tr}(\lambda^{a_1} \cdots \lambda^{a_M})~ C_h\,\left[2 g_s \left( 2 \alpha ' \right)^{(d-2)/4} \right]^M \nonumber \\ & \times & \int [dm]^M_h\, \prod_{i<j} \left[{{\exp\left({\cal G}^{(h)}(z_i,z_j)\right)} \over{\sqrt{V'_i(0)\,V'_j(0)}}}\right]^{2\alpha ' p_i\cdot p_j}~~, \end{eqnarray} where $N^h\,{\rm Tr}(\lambda^{a_1} \cdots \lambda^{a_M})$ is the appropriate $U(N)$ Chan-Paton factor, $g$ is the dimensionless open string coupling constant, ${\cal C}_h$ is a normalization factor given by \begin{eqnarray} C_h = {1\over{(2\pi)^{dh}}}~g_s^{2h-2}{1\over{(2\alpha ')^{d/2}}}~~, \end{eqnarray} and ${\cal G}^{(h)}$ is the $h$-loop bosonic Green function \begin{eqnarray} {\cal G}^{(h)}(z_i,z_j) = \log E^{(h)}(z_i,z_j) - {1\over 2} \int_{z_i}^{z_j} \omega^\mu \, \left(2\pi {\rm Im}\tau_{\mu\nu}\right)^{-1} \int_{z_i}^{z_j} \omega^\nu~~~, \end{eqnarray} with $E^{(h)}(z_i,z_j)$ being the prime form, $\omega^\mu$ ($\mu=1,\ldots, h$) the abelian differentials and $\tau_{\mu\nu}$ the period matrix. All these objects, as well as the measure on moduli space $[dm]^M_h$, can be explicitly written in the Schottky parametrization of the Riemann surface, and their expressions for arbitrary $h$ can be found for example in Ref.~. It is given by \begin{eqnarray} [dm]^M_h & = & \frac{1}{dV_{abc}} \prod_{i=1}^M \frac{dz_i}{ V_{i} ' (0) } \prod_{\mu=1}^{h} \left[ \frac{dk_\mu \,d \xi_\mu \,d \eta_\mu}{k_\mu^2 \,(\xi_\mu - \eta_\mu)^2} ( 1- k_\mu )^2 \right] \\ & \times & \left[\det \left( - i \tau_{\mu \nu} \right) \right]^{-d/2} {}~\prod_{\alpha}\,' \left[ \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} ( 1 - k_{\alpha}^{n})^{-d} \prod_{n=2}^{\infty} ( 1 - k_{\alpha}^{n})^{2} \right]~~~. \nonumber \end{eqnarray} where $k_{\mu}$ are the multipliers, $\xi_{\mu}$ and $\eta_{\mu}$ are the fixed points of the generators of the Schottky group, \section{From dual models to string theory} The approach presented in the previous sections is a real bottom-up approach. The experimental data were the driving force in the construction of the Veneziano model and of its generalization to $N$ external legs. The rest of the work that we have described above consisted in deriving its properties. The result is, except for a tachyon, a fully consistent quantum-relativistic model that was a source of fascination for those who worked in the field. Although the model grew out of S-matrix theory where the scattering amplitude is the only observable object, while the action or the Lagrangian have not a central role, some people nevertheless started to investigate what was the underlying microscopic structure that gave rise to such a consistent and beautiful model. It turned out, as we know today, that this underlying structure is that of a quantum-relativistic string. However, the process of connecting the dual resonance model (actually two of them the generalized Veneziano and the Shapiro-Virasoro model) to string theory took several years from the original idea to a complete and convincing proof of the conjecture. The original conjecture was independently formulated by Nambu~, Nielsen~ and Susskind~~\footnote{See also Ref.~.}. If we look at it in retrospective, it was at that time a fantastic idea that shows the enormous physical intuition of those who formulated it. On the other hand, it took several years to digest it before one was able to derive from it all the deep features of the dual resonance model. Because of this, the idea that the underlying structure was that of a relativistic string, did not really influence most of the research in the field up to 1973. Let me try to explain why. A common feature of the work of Ref.s~ is the suggestion that the infinite number of oscillators, that one got through the factorization of the dual resonance model, naturally comes out from a two-dimensional free Lagrangian for the coordinate $X^{\mu} ( \tau , \sigma)$ of a one-dimensional string, that is an obvious generalization of the Lagrangian that one writes for the coordinate $X^{\mu} (\tau )$ of a pointlike object in the proper-time gauge: \begin{eqnarray} L \sim \frac{1}{2} \frac{d X}{d\tau} \cdot \frac{d X}{d\tau} \Longrightarrow L \sim \frac{1}{2} \left[\frac{d X}{d\tau} \cdot \frac{d X}{d\tau} - \frac{d X}{d\sigma} \cdot \frac{d X}{d\sigma} \right] \end{eqnarray} Being this theory conformal invariant the Virasoro operators were also constructed together with their algebra. In this very first formulation, however, the Virasoro generators $L_n$ were just the generators associated to the conformal symmetry of the string world-sheet Lagrangian given in Eq. () as in any conformal field theory. It was not clear at all why they should imply the gauge conditions found by Virasoro or, in modern terms, why they should be zero classically. The basic ingredient to solve this problem was provided by Nambu~ and Goto~ who wrote the non-linear Lagrangian proportional to the area spanned by the string in the external target space. They proceeded in analogy with the point particle and wrote the following action: \begin{eqnarray} S \sim \int \sqrt{ - d \sigma_{\mu \nu} d \sigma^{\mu \nu}} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{equation} d \sigma_{\mu \nu} = \frac{\partial X_{\mu}}{\partial \zeta^{\alpha}} \frac{\partial X_{\nu}}{\partial \zeta^{\beta}} d \zeta^{\alpha} \wedge d \zeta^{\beta} = \frac{\partial X_{\mu}}{\partial \zeta^{\alpha}} \frac{\partial X_{\nu}}{\partial \zeta^{\beta}} \epsilon^{\alpha \beta} d \sigma d \tau \end{equation} $X_{\mu}( \sigma, \tau)$ is the string coordinate and $\zeta^{0}= \tau$ and $\zeta^{1} = \sigma$ are the coordinates of the string worldsheet. $\epsilon^{\alpha \beta}$ is an antisymmetric tensor with $\epsilon^{01} =1$. Inserting eq. () in () and fixing the proportionality constant one gets the Nambu-Goto action~: \begin{eqnarray} S = - c T \int_{\tau_{i}}^{\tau_{f}} d \tau \int_{0}^{\pi} d \sigma \sqrt{ ( \dot{X} \cdot X' )^{2} - \dot{X}^{2} {X'}^{2}} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \dot{X}^{\mu} \equiv \frac{\partial X^{\mu}}{\partial \tau} \hspace{2cm} {X'}^{\mu} \equiv \frac{\partial X^{\mu}}{\partial \sigma} \end{eqnarray} and $ T \equiv \frac{1}{2 \pi \alpha'}$ is the string tension, that replaces the mass appearing in the case of a point particle. In this formulation, the string Lagrangian is invariant under any reparametrization of the world-sheet coordinates $\sigma$ and $\tau$ and not only under the conformal transformations. This, in fact, implies that the two-dimensional world-sheet energy-momentum tensor of the string is actually zero as we will show later on. But it took still a few years to connect the Nambu-Goto action to the properties of the dual resonance model. In the meantime an analogue model was formulated~ that reproduced the tree and loop amplitudes of the generalized Veneziano model. This approach anticipated by several years the path integral derivation of dual amplitudes. It was very closely related to the functional integral formulation of Ref.s~. However, one needed to wait until 1973 with the paper of Goddard, Goldstone, Rebbi and Thorn~, where the Nambu-Goto action was correctly treated, all its consequences were derived and it became completely clear that the structure underlying the dual resonance model was that of a quantum-relativistic string. The equation of motion for the string were derived from the action in Eq. () by imposing $\delta S =0$ for variations such that $\delta X^{\mu} (\tau_{i}) = \delta X^{\mu}( \tau_{f}) =0$. One gets: \begin{equation} \delta S = \int_{\tau_{i}}^{\tau_{f}} \left[ \int_{0}^{\pi} d \sigma \left( - \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{X}^{\mu}} - \frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma} \frac{\partial L}{\partial {X'}^{\mu}} \right) \delta X^{\mu} + \frac{\partial L}{ \partial {X'}^{\mu}} \delta X^{\mu} |_{\sigma=0}^{\sigma= \pi} \right] =0 \end{equation} where $L$ is the Lagrangian in Eq. (). Since $\delta X^{\mu}$ is arbitrary, from eq. () one gets the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{X}^{\mu}} + \frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma} \frac{\partial L}{\partial {X'}^{\mu}} \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta^{\alpha}} \left( \frac{\partial L}{ \partial( \frac{\partial X^{\mu}}{\partial \zeta^{\alpha}})}\right) =0 \end{eqnarray} and the boundary conditions \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial L}{ \partial {X'}^{\mu}}=0 \hspace{1cm} or \hspace{1cm} \delta X_{\mu} =0 \hspace{1cm} at \hspace{1cm} \sigma=0, \pi \end{eqnarray} for an open string and \begin{eqnarray} X^{\mu}( \tau,0) = X^{\mu} (\tau, \pi) \end{eqnarray} for a closed string. In the case of an open string, the first kind of boundary condition in Eq.() corresponds to Neumann boundary conditions, while the second one to Dirichlet boundary conditions. Only the Neumann boundary conditions preserve the translation invariance of the theory and, therefore, they were mostly used in the early days of string theory. It must be stressed, however, that Dirichlet boundary conditions were already discussed and used in the early days of string theory for constructing models with off-shell states~. {From} Eq. () one can compute the momentum density along the string: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{ \partial L}{\partial \dot{X}^{\mu}} \equiv P_{\mu} = cT \frac{ \dot{X}_{\mu} {X'}^{2} - {X'}_{\mu} ( \dot{X} \cdot X')}{ \sqrt{ ( \dot{X} \cdot X' )^{2} - \dot{X}^{2} {X'}^{2}} } \end{eqnarray} and obtain the following constraints between the dynamical variables $X^{\mu}$ and $ P^{\mu}$: \begin{eqnarray} c^{2} T^{2} {x'}^{2} + P^{2} = x' \cdot P =0 \end{eqnarray} They are a consequence of the reparametrization invariance of the string Lagrangian. Because of this one can choose the orthonormal gauge specified by the conditions: \begin{eqnarray} {\dot{X}}^2 + {X'}^2 = {\dot{X}} \cdot X' =0 \end{eqnarray} that nowadays is called conformal gauge. In this gauge eq. () becomes: \begin{eqnarray} P_{\mu} = c T {\dot{X}}_{\mu} \hspace{2cm} \frac{\partial L}{\partial {X'}^{\mu}} = - cT X_{\mu}' \end{eqnarray} and therefore the eq. of motion in eq.() becomes: \begin{eqnarray} {\ddot{X}}_{\mu} - X_{\mu}'' =0 \end{eqnarray} while the boundary condition in eq.() becomes: \begin{eqnarray} X_{\mu} ' (\sigma =0, \pi ) =0 \end{eqnarray} The most general solution of the eq. of motion and of the boundary conditions can be written as follows: \begin{eqnarray} X^{\mu} ( \tau, \sigma) = q^{\mu} + 2 \alpha' p^{\mu} \tau + i \sqrt{2 \alpha'}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} [ a_{n}^{\mu} e^{-in \tau} - a_{n}^{+ \mu} e^{in\tau}] \frac{ cosn \sigma}{\sqrt{n}} \end{eqnarray} for an open string and \[ X^{\mu} ( \tau, \sigma) = q^{\mu} + 2 \alpha' p^{\mu} \tau + \frac{i}{2} \sqrt{2 \alpha '} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} [ {\tilde{a}}_{n}^{\mu} e^{- 2in (\tau + \sigma)} - {\tilde{a}}_{n}^{ + \mu } e^{2 in(\tau + \sigma)}] \frac{ 1}{\sqrt{n}} + \] \begin{eqnarray} + \frac{i}{2} \sqrt{2 \alpha'}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} [ {{a}}_{n}^{\mu} e^{- 2in (\tau - \sigma)} - {{a}}_{n}^{ + \mu } e^{2in(\tau - \sigma)}] \frac{ 1}{\sqrt{n}} \end{eqnarray} for a closed string. This procedure really shows that, starting from the Nambu-Goto action, one can choose a gauge (the orthonormal or conformal gauge) where the equation of motion of the string becomes the two-dimensional D'Alembert equation in Eq. (). Furthermore, the invariance under reparametrization of the Nambu-Goto action implies that the two-dimensional energy-momentum tensor is identically zero at the classical level (See Eq. ()). As the Lorentz gauge in QED the orthonormal gauge does not fix completely the gauge. We can still perform reparametrizations that leave in the conformal gauge: they are conformal transformatiuons. Introducing the variable $ z = e^{i \tau}$ the generators of the conformal transformations for the open string can be written as follows: \begin{eqnarray} L_{n} = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \oint dz z^{n+1} \left[ - \frac{1}{4 \alpha'} \left( \frac{\partial X^{\mu}}{\partial z} \right)^2 \right] = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} \alpha_{n-m} \cdot \alpha_{m} =0 \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \alpha_{n}^{\mu} = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \sqrt{n} a_{n}^{\mu} & if \,\,\, n>0 \\ \sqrt{2 \alpha'} p^{\mu} & if \,\,\, n=0 \\ \sqrt{n} a_{n}^{\dagger \mu} & if \,\,\, n<0 \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray} They are zero as a consequence of Eq.s () that in the conformal gauge become Eq.s (). In the case of a closed string we get instead: \begin{eqnarray} {\tilde L}_{n} = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \oint dz z^{n+1} \left[ - \frac{1}{\alpha'} \left( \frac{\partial X^{\mu}}{\partial z} \right)^{2} \right] =0 \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} {{L}}_{n} = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \oint d {\bar{z}} {\bar{z}}^{n+1} \left[ - \frac{1}{\alpha'} \left( \frac{\partial X^{\mu}}{\partial {\bar{z}}} \right)^{2} \right] =0 \end{eqnarray} In terms of the harmonic oscillators introduced in eq. () we get \begin{eqnarray} L_{n} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m= - \infty}^{\infty} \alpha_{m} \cdot \alpha_{n-m} =0 \hspace{.5cm}; \hspace{.5cm} {\tilde{L}}_{n} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m= - \infty}^{\infty} {\tilde{\alpha}}_{m} \cdot {\tilde{\alpha}}_{n-m} =0 \end{eqnarray} where for the non-zero modes we have used the convention in (), while the zero mode is given by: \begin{eqnarray} \alpha _{0}^{\mu} = {\tilde{\alpha}}_{0}^{\mu} = \sqrt{2 \alpha'}\frac{p^{\mu}}{2} \end{eqnarray} In conclusion, the fact that we have reparametrization invariance implies that the Virasoro generators are classically identically zero. When we quantize the theory one cannot and also does not need to impose that they are vanishing at the operator level. They are imposed as conditions characterizing the physical states. \begin{eqnarray} \langle Phys '| L_{n} | Phys \rangle = \langle Phys ' | (L_{0} -1 ) |Phys \rangle =0~~;~~ n \neq 0 \end{eqnarray} These equations are satisfied if we require: \begin{eqnarray} L_{n} | Phys> = ( L_{0} -1) | Phys> =0 \end{eqnarray} The extra factor $-1$ in the previous equations comes from the normal ordering as explained in Eq. (). The authors of Ref.~ further specified the gauge by fixing it completely. They introduced the light-cone gauge specified by imposing the condition: \begin{eqnarray} X^{+} = 2 \alpha ' p^{+} \tau \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} X^{\pm} = \frac{ X^{0} \pm X^{d-1} }{\sqrt{2}} \hspace{2cm} X_{\pm} = \frac{X_0 \pm X_{d-1}}{\sqrt{2}} \end{eqnarray} In this gauge the only physical degrees of freedom are the transverse ones. In fact the components along the directions $0$ and $d-1$ can be expressed in terms of the transverse ones by inserting Eq. () in the constraints in Eq. () and getting: \begin{eqnarray} \dot{X}^{-} = \frac{1}{4 \alpha' p^{+}} ( \dot{X}_{i}^{2} + {X'}_{i}^{2}) \hspace{1cm} {X'}^{-} = \frac{1}{2 \alpha' p^{+}} \dot{X}_{i} \cdot {X'}_{i} \end{eqnarray} that up to a constant of integration determine completely $X^{-}$ as a function of $X^{i}$. In terms of oscillators we get \begin{eqnarray} \alpha_{n}^{+} = 0~~~;~~~ \sqrt{2 \alpha'} \alpha_{n}^{-} = \frac{1}{2 p^{+}} \sum_{m = - \infty}^{\infty} \alpha_{n-m}^{i} \alpha_{m}^{i} \hspace{1cm} n \neq 0 \end{eqnarray} for an open string and \begin{eqnarray} \alpha_{n}^{+} = {\tilde{\alpha}}_{n}^{+} = 0 \hspace{2cm} n \neq 0 \end{eqnarray} together with \[ \sqrt{2 \alpha'} \alpha_{n}^{-} = \frac{1}{2 p^{+}} \sum_{m = - \infty}^{\infty} \alpha_{n-m}^{i} \alpha_{m}^{i} \] \begin{equation} \sqrt{2 \alpha'} {\tilde{\alpha}}_{n}^{-} = \frac{1}{2 p^{+}} \sum_{m = - \infty}^{\infty} {\tilde{\alpha}}_{n-m}^{i} {\tilde{\alpha}}_{m}^{i} \end{equation} in the case of a closed string. This shows that the physical states are described only by the transverse oscillators having only $d-2$ components. Those transverse oscillators correspond to the transverse DDF operators that we have discussed in Section~. The authors of Ref.~ also constructed the Lorentz generators only in terms of the transverse oscillators and they showed that they satisfy the correct Lorentz algebra only if the space-time dimension is $d=26$. In this way the spectrum of the dual resonance model was completely reproduced starting from the Nambu-Goto action if $d=26$! On the other hand, the choice of $d=26$ is a necessity if we want to keep Lorentz invariance! Immediately after this, the interaction was also included either by adding a term describing the interaction of the string with an external gauge field~ or by using a functional formalism~. In the following we will give some detail only of the first approach for the case of an open string. A way to describe the string interaction is by adding to the free string action an additional term that describes the interaction of the string with an external field. \begin{eqnarray} S_{INT} = \int d^{D} y \Phi_{L} (y) J_{L} (y) \end{eqnarray} where $\Phi_{L} (y)$ is the external field and $J_{L}$ is the current generated by the string. The index $L$ stands for possible Lorentz indices that are saturated in order to have a Lorentz invariant action. In the case of a point particle, such an interaction term will not give any information on the self-interaction of a particle. In the case of a string, instead, we will see that $S_{INT}$ will describe the interaction among strings because the external fields that can consistently interact with a string are only those that correspond to the various states of the string, as it will become clear in the discussion below. This is a consequence of the fact that, for the sake of consistency, we must put the following restrictions on $S_{INT}$: \begin{itemize} \item{It must be a well defined operator in the space spanned by the string oscillators.} \item{It must preserve the invariances of the free string theory. In particular, in the "conformal gauge" it must be conformal invariant.} \item{ In the case of an open string, the interaction occurs at the end point of a string (say at $\sigma=0$). This follows from the fact that two open strings interact attaching to each other at the end points.} \end {itemize} The simplest scalar current generated by the motion of a string can be written as follows \begin{eqnarray} J(y) = \int d \tau \int d \sigma \delta (\sigma) \delta^{(d)} [ y^{\mu} - x^{\mu}(\tau, \sigma)] \end{eqnarray} where $\delta (\sigma)$ has been introduced because the interaction occurs at the end of the string. For the sake of simplicity we omit to write a coupling constant $g$ in (). Inserting () in () and using for the scalar external field $\Phi (y) = e^{i k \cdot y}$ a plane wave, we get the following interaction: \begin{eqnarray} S_{INT} = \int d \tau : e^{i k \cdot X ( \tau, 0)} : \end{eqnarray} where the normal ordering has been introduced in order to have a well defined operator. The invariance of () under a conformal transformation $\tau \rightarrow w ( \tau)$ requires the following identity: \begin{eqnarray} S_{INT} = \int d \tau : e^{i k \cdot X(\tau,0)} : \,\, = \int d w : e^{ik \cdot X(w,0)}: \end{eqnarray} or, in other words, that \begin{eqnarray} : e^{i k \cdot X(\tau,0)} : \Longrightarrow w' ( \tau) : e^{i k \cdot X(w,0)} : \end{eqnarray} This means that the integrand in Eq. () must be a conformal field with conformal dimension equal to one and this happens only if $\alpha' k^2 =1$. The external field corresponds then to the tachyonic lowest state of the open string. Another simple current generated by the string is given by: \begin{eqnarray} J_{\mu} (y) = \int d \tau \int d \sigma \delta ( \sigma) \dot{X}_{\mu} ( \tau, \sigma) \delta^{(d)} ( y - X ( \tau, \sigma) ) \end{eqnarray} Inserting () in () we get \begin{equation} S_{INT} = \int d \tau \dot{X}_{\mu}( \tau, 0) \epsilon^{\mu} e^{ i k \cdot X(\tau,0)} \end{equation} if we use a plane wave for $\Phi_{\mu}(y) = \epsilon_{\mu} e^{i k \cdot y}$. The vertex operator in eq. () is conformal invariant only if \begin{equation} k^{2} = \epsilon \cdot k =0 \end{equation} and, therefore, the external vector must be the massless photon state of the string. We can generalize this procedure to an arbitrary external field and the result is that we can only use external fields that correspond to on shell physical states of the string. This procedure has been extended in Ref.~ to the case of external gravitons by introducing in the Nambu-Goto action a target space metric and obtaining the vertex operator for the graviton that is a massless state in the closed string theory. Remember that, at that time, this could have been done only with the Nambu-Goto action because the $\sigma$-model action was introduced only in 1976 first for the point particle~ and then for the string~. As in the case of the photon it turned out that the external field corresponding to the graviton was required to be on shell. This condition is the precursor of the equations of motion that one obtains from the $\sigma$-model action requiring the vanishing of the $\beta$-function~. One can then compute the probability amplitude for the emission of a number of string states corresponding to the various external fields, from an initial string state to a final one. This amplitude gives precisely the $N$-point amplitude that we discussed in the previous sections~. In particular, one learns that, in the case of the open string, the Fubini-Veneziano field is just the string coordinate computed at $\sigma =0$: \begin{eqnarray} Q^{\mu} (z) \equiv X^{\mu} ( z, \sigma =0)~~;~~ z = e^{i \tau} \end{eqnarray} In the case of a closed string we get instead: \begin{eqnarray} Q^{\mu} (z, {\bar{z}}) \equiv X^{\mu} ( z, {\bar{z}})~~;~~ z = e^{2 i (\tau - \sigma)}~,~ {\bar{z}} = e^{2i(\tau + \sigma)} \end{eqnarray} Finally, let me mention that with the functional approach Mandelstam~ and Cremmer and Gervais~ computed the interaction between three arbitrary physical string states and reproduced in this way the coupling of three DDF states given in Eq. () and obtained in Ref.~ by using the operator formalism. At this point it was completely clear that the structure underlying the generalized Veneziano model was that of an open relativistic string, while that underlying the Shapiro-Virasoro model was that of a closed relativistic string. Furthermore, these two theories are not independent because, if one starts from an open string theory, one gets automatically closed strings by loop corrections. \section{Conclusions} In this contribution, we have gone through the developments that led from the construction of the dual resonance model to the bosonic string theory trying as much as possible to include all the necessary technical details. This is because we believe that they are not only important from an historical point of view, but are also still part of the formalism that one uses today in many string calculations. We have tried to be as complete and objective as possible, but it could very well be that some of those who participated in the research of these years, will not agree with some or even many of the statements we made. We apologize to those we have forgotten to mention or we have not mentioned as they would have liked. Finally, after having gone through the developments of these years, my thoughts go to Sergio Fubini who shared with me and Gabriele many of the ideas described here and who is deeply missed, and to my friends from Florence, Naples and Turin for a pleasant collaboration in many papers discussed here. \section*{Acknowledgments} I thank R. Marotta and I. Pesando for a critical reading of the manuscript. \input{referenc} \printindex \begin{thebibliography}{99.} \bibitem{ESSE} G.F. Chew, \textit{The analytic S matrix}, W.A.Benjamin, Inc. (1966).\\ R.J. Eden, P.V. Landshoff, D.I. Olive and J.C. Polkinghorne, \textit{The analytic S matrix}, Cambridge University Press (1966). \bibitem{DHS} R. Dolen, D. Horn and C. Schmid, Phys. Rev. {\textbf{166}}, 1768 (1968).\\ C. Schmid, Phys. Rev. Letters {\textbf{20}}, 689 (1968). \bibitem{HR} H. Harari, Phys. Rev. Letters {\textbf{22}}, 562 (1969).\\ J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Letters {\textbf{22}}, 689 (1969). \bibitem{VENE} G. Veneziano, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{57}}, 190 (1968). \bibitem{VIRA} M. A. Virasoro, Phys. Rev. {\textbf{177}}, 2309 (1969). \bibitem{VIRA2} M.A. Virasoro, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{1}}, 2933 (1970). \bibitem{NS} A. Neveu and J.H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{31}}, 86 (1971) and \\ Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{4}}, 1109 (1971). \bibitem{RAMOND} P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{3}}, 2415 (1971). \bibitem{LOVE} C. Lovelace, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{28}}, 265 (1968).\\ J. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. {\textbf{179}}, 1345 (1969). \bibitem{FRAMPTON} P.H. Frampton, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{41}}, 364 (1972). \bibitem{REV} V. Alessandrini, D. Amati, M. Le Bellac and D. Olive, Phys. Rep. C {\textbf{1}}, 269 (1971).\\ G. Veneziano, Phys. Rep. C {\textbf{9}}, 199 (1974).\\ S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rep. C {\textbf{13}}, 259 (1974).\\ C. Rebbi, Phys. Rep. C {\textbf{12}}, 1 (1974).\\ J. Scherk, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\textbf{47}}, 123 (1975). \bibitem{GLIO} F. Gliozzi, Lett. Nuovo Cimento {\textbf{2}}, 1160 (1970). \bibitem{NPARTI} K. Bardak{\c{c}}i and H. Ruegg, Phys. Rev. {\textbf{181}}, 1884 (1969).\\ C.G. Goebel and B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. Letters {\textbf{22}}, 257 (1969).\\ Chan Hong-Mo and T.S. Tsun, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{28}}, 485 (1969).\\ Z. Koba and H.B.Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{10}}, 633 (1969). \bibitem{5POINT} K. Bardak{\c{c}}i and H. Ruegg, Phys. Lett.B {\textbf{28}}, 671 (1969). \\ M.A. Virasoro, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\textbf{22}}, 37 (1969). \bibitem{KN} Z. Koba and H.B.Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{12}}, 517 (1969). \bibitem{CP} H. M. Chan and J.E. Paton, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{10}}, 516 (1969). \bibitem{FUVE1} S. Fubini and G. Veneziano, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{64}}, 811 (1969). \bibitem{BAMA} Bardak{\c{c}}i and S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. {\textbf{184}}, 1640 (1969). \bibitem{FGV} S. Fubini, D. Gordon and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{29}}, 679 (1969) \bibitem{NAMBU1} Y. Nambu, Proc. Int. Conf. on Symmetries and Quark Models, Wayne State University 1969 (Gordon and Breach, 1970) p. 269. \bibitem{LENNY} L. Susskind, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf 69}, 457 (1970) and Phys. Rev. Letter {\textbf{23}}, 545 (1969). \bibitem{SHAPI} J. Shapiro, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{33}}, 361 (1970). \bibitem{FUVE2} S. Fubini and G. Veneziano, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{67}}, 29 (1970). \bibitem{GLIOZZI} F. Gliozzi, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento {\textbf{2}}, 846 (1969). \bibitem{CMR} C.B. Chiu, S. Matsuda and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\textbf{23}}, 1526 (1969).\\ C.B. Thorn, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{1}}, 1963 (1970). \bibitem{FUVE3} S. Fubini and G. Veneziano, Annals of Physics {\textbf{63}}, 12 (1971). \bibitem{LOVE1} C. Lovelace, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{34}}, 500 (1971). \bibitem{DELGIU2} E. Del Giudice and P. Di Vecchia, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{5}}, 90 (1971).\\ M. Yoshimura, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{34}}, 79 (1971). \bibitem{DELGIU} E. Del Giudice and P. Di Vecchia, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{70}}, 579 (1970). \bibitem{CAMPAGNA} P. Campagna, S. Fubini, E Napolitano and S. Sciuto, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{2}}, 911 (1971). \bibitem{DDF} E. Del Giudice, P. Di Vecchia and S. Fubini, Annals of Physics, {\textbf{70}}, 378 (1972). \bibitem{BROWER} R.C. Brower, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{6}}, 1655 (1972). \bibitem{GT} P. Goddard and C.B. Thorn, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{40}}, 235 (1972). \bibitem{GSO} F. Gliozzi, J. Scherk and D. Olive, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{65}}, 282 (1976) ; Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{ 122}}, 253 (1977). \bibitem{BNIELSEN} L. Brink and H.B. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{45}}, 332 (1973). \bibitem{GLIOZZI2} F. Gliozzi, unpublished.\\ See also P. Di Vecchia in Many Degrees of Freedom in Particle Physics, Edited by H. Satz, Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1978, p. 493. \bibitem{ADDF} M. Ademollo, E. Del Giudice, P. Di Vecchia and S. Fubini, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{19}}, 181 (1974). \bibitem{scherk} J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{31}}, 222 (1971). \bibitem{naka} N. Nakanishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\textbf{48}}, 355 (1972).\\ P.H. Frampton and K.C. Wali, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{8}}, 1879 (1973). \bibitem{NEVEUS} A. Neveu and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys.B {\textbf{36}}, 155 (1973). \bibitem{NEVEUG} A. Neveu and J.L. Gervais, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{46}}, 381 (1972). \bibitem{DLMMR} P. Di Vecchia, A. Lerda, L. Magnea, R. Marotta and R. Russo, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{469}}, 235 (1996) \bibitem{YONEYA} T. Yoneya, Prog. of Theor. Phys. {\textbf{51}}, 1907 (1974). \bibitem{KSV} K. Kikkawa, B. Sakita and M. Virasoro, Phys. Rev. {\textbf{184}}, 1701 (1969).\\ K. Bardak{\c{c}}i, M.B. Halpern and J. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. {\textbf{185}}, 1910 (1969).\\ D. Amati, C. Bouchiat and J.L. Gervais, Lett. al Nuovo Cimento {\textbf{2}}, 399 (1969).\\ A. Neveu and J. Scherk, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{1}}, 2355 (1970).\\ G. Frye and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{31}}, 537 (1970).\\ D.J. Gross, A. Neveu, J. Scherk and J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{2}}, 697 (1970). \bibitem{BO} L. Brink and D. Olive, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{56}}, 253 (1973) and Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{58}}, 237 (1973). \bibitem{POME} E. Cremmer and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{50}}, 222 (1972). \\ L. Clavelli and J. Shapiro, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{57}}, 490 (1973).\\ L. Brink, D.I. Olive and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{61}}, 173 (1973). \bibitem{ADE2} M. Ademollo, A. D'Adda, R. D'Auria, F. Gliozzi, E. Napolitano, S. Sciuto and P. Di Vecchia, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{94}}, 221 (1975).\\ J. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{11}}, 2937 (1975). \bibitem{OLISCHE} D.I.Olive and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{44}}, 296 (1973). \bibitem{MIX} M. Ademollo, A. D'Adda, R. D'Auria, E. Napolitano, P. Di Vecchia, F. Gliozzi and S. Sciuto, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{77}}, 189 (1974). \bibitem{KR} M. Kalb and P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{9}}, 2273 (1974). \bibitem{CRESCHE} E, Cremmer and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{72}}, 117 (1974). \bibitem{REGPOM} A. D'Adda, R. D'Auria, E. Napolitano, P. Di Vecchia, F. Gliozzi and S. Sciuto, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{68}}, 81 (1977). \bibitem{JS2} J. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{5}}, 1945 (1975). \bibitem{SDS} S. Sciuto, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento {\textbf{2}}, 411 (1969). \\ A. Della Selva and S. Saito, Lett. al Nuovo Cimento {\textbf{4}}, 689 (1970). \bibitem{CSV} L. Caneschi, A. Schwimmer and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett.B {\textbf{30}}, 356 (1969).\\ L. Caneschi and A. Schwimmer, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento {\textbf{3}}, 213 (1970). \bibitem{LOVE1b} C. Lovelace, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{32}}, 490 (1970). \bibitem{OLIVE2} D.I. Olive, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{3}}, 399 (1971). \bibitem{nregge} I. Drummond, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{67}}, 71 (1970).\\ G. Carbone and S. Sciuto, Lett. Nuovo Cimento {\textbf{3}}, 246 (1970).\\ L. Kosterlitz and D. Wray, Lett. al Nuovo Cimento {\textbf{3}}, 491 (1970).\\ D. Collop, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{1}}, 217 (1971).\\ L.P. Yu, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{2}}, 1010 (!970); Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{2}}, 2256 (!970).\\ E. Corrigan and C. Montonen, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{36}}, 58 (1972).\\ J.L. Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{4}}, 2291 (1971). \bibitem{LOVE3} C. Lovelace, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{32}}, 703 (1970). \bibitem{ALE} V. Alessandrini, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{2}}, 321 (1971). \bibitem{AA} D. Amati and V. Alessandrini, Nuovo Cimento A {\textbf{4}}, 793 (1971). \bibitem{DFLS} P. Di Vecchia, M. Frau, A. Lerda and S. Sciuto, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{199}}, 49 (1987).\\ J.L. Petersen and J. Sidenius, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{301}}, 247 (1988). \bibitem{MANDE} S. Mandelstam, In ``Unified String Theories'', edited by M. Green and D. Gross, World Scientific, p. 46. \bibitem{scho} P. Di Vecchia, F. Pezzella, M. Frau, K. Hornfeck, A. Lerda and S. Sciuto, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{322}}, 317 (1989). \bibitem{NAMBU2} Y. Nambu, Lectures at the Copenhagen Symposium, 1970, unpublished. \bibitem{NIELSEN} H. B. Nielsen, Paper submitted to the 15th Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics, Kiev, 1970 and Nordita preprint (1969). \bibitem{other} T. Takabayasi, Progr. Theor. Phys. {\bf 44} (1970) 1117.\\ O. Hara, Progr. Theor. Phys. {\textbf{46}}, 1549 (1971).\\ L.N. Chang and J. Mansouri, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{5}}, 2535 (1972).\\ J. Mansouri and Y. Nambu, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{39}}, 357 (1972).\\ M. Minami, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\textbf{48}}, 1308 (1972). \bibitem{GOTO} T. Goto, Progr. Theor. Phys. {\bf 46} (1971) 1560. \bibitem{FN} D. Fairlie and H.B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf 20}, 637 (1970) and {\textbf{22}}, 525 (1970). \bibitem{HSV} C.S. Hsue, B. Sakita and M.A. Virasoro, Phys. Rev. {\textbf{2}}, 2857 (1970).\\ J.L. Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. D {\textbf{4}}, 2291 (1971). \bibitem{GGRT} P. Goddard, J. Goldstone, C. Rebbi and C. Thorn, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{56}}, 109 (1973). \bibitem{CF} E.F. Corrigan and D.B. Fairlie, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{91}}, 527 (1975). \bibitem{SUPGRU} M. Ademollo, A. D'Adda, R. D'Auria, P. Di Vecchia, F. Gliozzi, R. Musto, E. Napolitano, F. Nicodemi and S. Sciuto, Nuovo Cimento A {\bf 21}, 77 (1974). \bibitem{SM1} S. Mandelstam, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{64}}, 205 (1973). \bibitem{GS2} J.L. Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\textbf{30}}, 716 (1973). \bibitem{POINT} L. Brink, P. Di Vecchia, P. Howe, S. Deser and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{64}}, 435 (1976). \bibitem{STRING} L. Brink, P. Di Vecchia and P. Howe, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{65}}, 471 (1976).\\ S. Deser and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{65}}, 369 (1976). \bibitem{FRIEDAN} C. Lovelace, Phys. Lett. B {\textbf{136}}, 75 (1984).\\ C.G. Callan, E.J.Martinec, M.J. Perry and D. Friedan, Nucl. Phys. B {\textbf{262}}, 593 (1985). \bibitem{CG} E. Cremmer and J.L. Gervais, Nucl. Phys. {\textbf{76}}, 209 (1974). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0105
|
Title: Rigid subsets of symplectic manifolds
Abstract: We show that there is an hierarchy of intersection rigidity properties of
sets in a closed symplectic manifold: some sets cannot be displaced by
symplectomorphisms from more sets than the others. We also find new examples of
rigidity of intersections involving, in particular, specific fibers of moment
maps of Hamiltonian torus actions, monotone Lagrangian submanifolds (following
the works of P.Albers and P.Biran-O.Cornea), as well as certain, possibly
singular, sets defined in terms of Poisson-commutative subalgebras of smooth
functions. In addition, we get some geometric obstructions to semi-simplicity
of the quantum homology of symplectic manifolds. The proofs are based on the
Floer-theoretical machinery of partial symplectic quasi-states.
Body: \title{Rigid subsets of symplectic manifolds\\ } \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}} \author{\textsc Michael Entov$^{a}$\ and Leonid Polterovich$^{b}$ } \footnotetext[1]{Partially supported by E. and J. Bishop Research Fund and by the Israel Science Foundation grant $\#$ 881/06.} \footnotetext[2]{Partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant $\#$ 11/03.} \date{\today} \maketitle \bigskip \begin{abstract} \noindent We show that there is an hierarchy of intersection rigidity properties of sets in a closed symplectic manifold: some sets cannot be displaced by symplectomorphisms from more sets than the others. We also find new examples of rigidity of intersections involving, in particular, specific fibers of moment maps of Hamiltonian torus actions, monotone Lagrangian submanifolds (following the works of P.Albers and P.Biran-O.Cornea), as well as certain, possibly singular, sets defined in terms of Poisson-commutative subalgebras of smooth functions. In addition, we get some geometric obstructions to semi-simpli\-ci\-ty of the quantum homology of symplectic manifolds. The proofs are based on the Floer-theoretical machinery of partial symplectic quasi-states. \end{abstract} \vfil \eject \tableofcontents \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}} \vfil \eject \section{Introduction and main results} \subsection{Many facets of displaceability} A well-studied and easy to visualize rigidity property of subsets of a symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ is the rigidity of intersections: a subset $X\subset M$ cannot be displaced from the closure of a subset $Y\subset M$ by a compactly supported Hamiltonian isotopy: \[ \phi (X)\cap \overline{Y}\neq \emptyset \ \ \forall \phi\in \Ham (M)\;. \] We say in such a case that $X$ {\it cannot be displaced} from $Y$. If $X$ cannot be displaced from itself we call it {\it non-displaceable}. These properties become especially interesting and purely symplectic when $X$ can be displaced from itself or from $Y$ by a (compactly supported) smooth isotopy. One of the main themes of the present paper is that {\it ``some non-dis\-pla\-ce\-able sets are more rigid than others."} To explain this, we need the following ramifications of the notion of a non-displaceable set: \medskip \noindent {\sc Strong non-displaceability:} A subset $X\subset M$ is called {\it strongly non-displaceable} if one cannot displace it by any (not necessarily Hamiltonian) symplectomorphism of $(M,\omega)$. \medskip \noindent {\sc Stable non-displaceability:} Consider $T^* \SP^1 = \R\times \SP^1$ with the coordinates $(r, \theta)$ and the symplectic form $dr \wedge d\theta$. We say that $X\subset M$ is {\it stably non-displaceable} if $X \times \{ r = 0\}$ is non-displaceable in $M \times T^* \SP^1$ equipped with the split symplectic form $\bar{\omega}=\omega \oplus (dr \wedge d\theta)$. Let us mention that detecting stably non-displaceable subsets is useful for studying geometry and dynamics of Hamiltonian flows (see for instance for their role in Hofer's geometry and for their appearance in the context of kick stability in Hamiltonian dynamics). \medskip \noindent Formally speaking, the properties of strong and stable non-displaceability are mutually independent and both are strictly stronger than displaceability. \medskip \noindent In the present paper we refine the machinery of partial symplectic quasi-states introduced in and get new examples of stably non-displaceable sets, including certain fibers of moment maps of Hamiltonian torus actions as well as monotone Lagrangian submanifolds discussed by Albers and Biran-Cornea . Further, we address the following question: given the class of stably non-displaceable sets, can one distinguish those of them which are also strongly non-displaceable by means of the Floer theory? Or, other way around, what are the Floer-homological features of stably non-displaceable but strongly displaceable sets? Toy examples are given by the equator of the symplectic two-sphere and by the meridian on a symplectic two-torus. Both are stably non-displaceable since their Lagrangian Floer homologies are non-trivial. On the other hand, the equator is strongly non-displaceable, while the meridian is strongly displaceable by a non-Hamiltonian shift. Later on we shall explain the difference between these two examples from the viewpoint of Hamiltonian Floer homology and present various generalizations. \medskip \noindent The question on Floer-homological characterization of (strongly) non-dis\-pla\-ce\-able but stably displaceable sets is totally open, see Section~ below for an example involving Gromov's packing theorem and discussion. \medskip \noindent Leaving Floer-theoretical considerations for the next section, let us outline (in parts, informally) the general scheme of our results: Given a symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$, we shall define (in the language of the Floer theory) two collections of closed subsets of $M$, {\it heavy subsets} and {\it superheavy subsets}. Every superheavy subset is heavy, but, in general, not vice versa. Formally speaking, the hierarchy heavy-superheavy depends in a delicate way on the choice of an idempotent in the quantum homology ring of $M$. This and other nuances will be ignored in this outline. The key properties of these collections are as follows (see Theorems~ and below): \medskip \noindent {\bf \underline{Invariance}:} Both collections are invariant under the group of all symplectomorphisms of $M$. \medskip \noindent{\bf \underline{Stable non-displaceability}:} Every heavy subset is stably non-displace\-able. \medskip \noindent {\bf \underline{Intersections}:} Every superheavy subset intersects every heavy subset. In particular, superheavy subsets are strongly non-displaceable. In contrast to this, heavy subsets can be mutually disjoint and strongly displaceable. \medskip \noindent {\bf \underline{Products}:} Product of any two (super)heavy subsets is (super)heavy. \medskip \noindent{\bf \underline{What is inside the collections?}} The collections of heavy and superheavy sets include the following examples: \medskip \noindent {\sc Stable stems}: Let ${\mathbb A} \subset C^{\infty}(M)$ be a finite-dimensional Poisson-com\-mu\-ta\-tive subspace (i.e. any two functions from ${\mathbb A}$ commute with respect to the Poisson brackets). Let $\Phi: M \to {\mathbb A}^*$ be the moment map: $\langle\Phi(x),F\rangle = F(x)$. A non-empty fiber $\Phi^{-1}(p)$, $p \in {\mathbb A}^*$, is called a {\it stem} of ${\mathbb A}$ (see ) if all non-empty fibers $\Phi^{-1}(q)$ with $q \neq p$ are displaceable and a {\it stable stem} if they are stably displaceable. If a subset of $M$ is a (stable) stem of a finite-dimensional Poisson-commutative subspace of $C^\infty (M)$, it will be called just {\it a (stable) stem}. Clearly, any stem is a stable stem. {\bf The collection of superheavy subsets includes all stable stems} (see Theorem~ below). One readily shows that a direct product of stable stems is a stable stem and that the image of a stable stem under {\it any} symplectomorphism is again a stable stem. The following example of a stable stem is borrowed (with a minor modification) from : Let $X \subset M$ be a closed subset whose complement is a finite disjoint union of stably displaceable sets. Then $X$ is a stable stem. For instance, the codimension-1 skeleton of a sufficiently fine triangulation of any closed symplectic manifold is a stable stem. Another example is given by the equator of $\SP^2$: it divides the sphere into two displaceable open discs and hence is a stable stem. By taking products, one can get more sophisticated examples of stable stems. Already the product of equators of the two-spheres gives rise to a Lagrangian Clifford torus in $\SP^2 \times \ldots \times \SP^2$. To prove its rigidity properties (such as stable non-displaceability) one has to use non-trivial symplectic tools such as Lagrangian Floer homology, see e.g. . Products of the 1-skeletons of fine triangulations of the two-spheres can be considered as {\it singular Lagrangian submanifolds}, an object which is currently out of reach of the Lagrangian Floer theory. Another example of stable stems comes from Hamiltonian torus actions. Consider an effective Hamiltonian action $\varphi: \T^k\to \Ham (M)$ with the moment map $\Phi = (\Phi_1,\ldots, \Phi_k): M\to\R^k$. Assume that $\Phi_i$ is a normalized Hamiltonian, that is $\int_M \Phi_i=0 $ for all $i=1,\ldots, k$. A torus action is called {\it compressible} if the image of the homomorphism $\varphi_{\sharp}: \pi_1 (\T^k)\to \pi_1 (\Ham(M))$, induced by the action $\varphi$, is a finite group. One can show that for compressible actions the fiber $\Phi^{-1}(0)$ is a stable stem (see Theorem~ below). \medskip \noindent {\sc Special fibers of Hamiltonian torus actions}: Consider an effective Hamiltonian torus action $\varphi$ on a spherically monotone symplectic manifold. Let $I:\pi_1(\Ham(M))\to \R$ be the mixed action-Maslov homomorphism introduced in . Since the target space $\R^k$ of the moment map $\Phi$ is naturally identified with $\text{Hom}(\pi_1(\T^k),\R)$, the pull back $p_{spec}:=-\varphi_{\sharp}^*I$ of the mixed action-Maslov homomorphism with the reversed sign can be considered as a point of $\R^k$. The preimage $\Phi^{-1}({p}_{spec})$ is called {\it the special fiber} of the action. We shall see below that the special fiber is always non-empty. For monotone symplectic toric manifolds (that is when $2k =\dim M$) the special fiber is a monotone Lagrangian torus. Note that when the action is compressible we have $p_{spec}=0$ and therefore the special fiber is a stable stem according to the previous example. It is unknown whether the latter property persists for general non-compressible actions. Thus in what follows we treat stable stems and special fibers as separate examples. {\bf The collection of superheavy subsets includes all special fibers} (see Theorem~ below). For instance, consider $\C P^2$ and the Lagrangian Clifford torus in it (i.e. the torus $\{ [z_0 : z_1 : z_2]\in \C P^2\ |\ |z_0| = |z_1| = |z_2| \}$). Take the standard Hamiltonian $\T^2$-action on $\C P^2$ preserving the Clifford torus. It has three global fixed points away from the Clifford torus. Make an equivariant symplectic blow-up, $M$, of $\C P^2$ at $k$ of these fixed points, $0\leq k\leq 3$, so that the obtained symplectic manifold is spherically monotone. The torus action lifts to a Hamiltonian action on $M$. One can show that its special fiber is the proper transform of the Clifford torus. \medskip \noindent {\sc Monotone Lagrangian submanifolds:} Let $(M^{2n},\omega)$ be a spherically monotone symplectic manifold, and let $L \subset M$ be a closed monotone Lagrangian submanifold with the minimal Maslov number $N_L \geq 2$. We say that $L$ {\it satisfies the Albers condition} if the image of the natural morphism $H_* (L; \Z_2) \to H_* (M; \Z_2)$ contains a non-zero element $S$ with $$\deg S > \dim L +1 -N_L\;.$$ \noindent {\bf The collection of heavy sets includes all closed monotone Lagran\-gi\-an submanifolds satisfying the Albers condition} (see Theorem~ below). Specific examples include the meridian on $\T^2$, $\R P^n \subset \C P^n$ and all Lagrangian spheres in complex projective hypersurfaces of degree $d$ in $\C P^{n+1}$ with $n> 2d-3$. In the case when the fundamental class $[L]$ of $L$ divides a non-trivial idempotent in the quantum homology algebra of $M$, $L$ is, in fact, superheavy (see Theorem~ below). For instance, this is the case for $\R P^n \subset \C P^n$. Furthermore, a version of superheaviness holds for any Lagrangian sphere in the complex quadric of even (complex) dimension. However, there exist examples of heavy, but not superheavy, Lagrangian submanifolds: For instance, the meridian of the 2-torus is strongly displaceable by a (non-Hamiltonian!) shift and hence is not superheavy. Another example of heavy but not superheavy Lagrangian submanifold is the sphere arising as the real part of the Fermat hypersurface $$M = \{-z_0^d+z_1^d+\ldots+z_{n+1}^d = 0\} \subset \C P^{n+1}\;$$ with even $d \geq 4$ and $n > 2d-3$. We refer to Section~ for more details on (super)heavy monotone Lagrangian submanifolds. \medskip \noindent {\bf \underline{Motivation}:} Our motivation for the selection of examples appearing in the list above is as follows. Stable stems provide a playground for studying symplectic rigidity of singular subsets. In particular, no visible analogue of the conventional Lagrangian Floer homology technique is applicable to them. Detecting (stable) non-displaceability of Lagrangian submanifolds via Lagrangian Floer homology is one of the central themes of symplectic topology. In contrast to this, detecting {\it strong} non-displaceabilty has at the moment the status of art rather than science. That's why we were intrigued by Albers' observation that monotone Lagrangian submanifolds satisfying his condition are in some situations strongly non-displaceable. In the present work we tried to digest Albers' results and look at them from the viewpoint of theory of partial symplectic quasi-states developed in . In addition, our result on superheaviness of the Lagrangian anti-diagonal in $\SP^2 \times \SP^2$ allows us to detect an ``exotic" monotone Lagrangian torus in this symplectic manifold: this torus does not intersect the anti-diagonal, and hence is not heavy in contrast to the standard Clifford torus, see Example~ below. In we proved a theorem which roughly speaking states that every (singular) coisotropic foliation has at least one non-displaceable fiber. However, our proof is non-constructive and does not tell us which specific fibers are non-displaceable. The notion of the special fiber arose as an attempt to solve this problem for Hamiltonian circle actions. \medskip \noindent Let us mention also that the {\bf product property} enables us to produce even more examples of (super)heavy subsets by taking products of the subsets appearing in the list. \medskip \noindent A few comments on the methods involved into our study of heavy and superheavy subsets are in order. These collections are defined in terms of partial symplectic quasi-states which were introduced in . These are certain real-valued functionals on $C^\infty (M)$ with rich algebraic properties which are constructed by means of the Hamiltonian Floer theory and which conveniently encode a part of the information contained in this theory. In general, the definition of a partial symplectic quasi-state involves the choice of an {\it idempotent element} in the commutative part $QH_{\bullet} (M)$ of the quantum homology algebra of $M$. Though the default choice is just the unity of the algebra, there exist some other meaningful choices, in particular in the case when $QH_\bullet (M)$ is semi-simple. This gives rise to another theme discussed in this paper: ``visible" topological obstructions to semi-simplicity (see Corollary~ and Theorem below). For instance, we shall show that if a monotone symplectic manifold $M$ contains ``too many" disjoint monotone Lagrangian spheres whose minimal Maslov numbers exceed $n+1$, the quantum homology $QH_\bullet (M)$ cannot be semi-simple. Let us pass to the precise set-up. For the reader's convenience, the material presented in this brief outline will be repeated in parts in the next sections in a less compressed form. \subsection{Preliminaries on quantum homology} \medskip \noindent {\sc The Novikov Ring:} Let $\cF$ denote a base field which in our case will be either $\C$ or $\Z_2$, and let $\Gamma \subset \R$ be a countable subgroup (with respect to the addition). Let $s,q$ be formal variables. Define a field $\cK_{\Gamma}$ whose elements are generalized Laurent series in $s$ of the following form: $$\cK_{\Gamma} := \bigg\{\ \sum_{\theta \in \Gamma} z_\theta s^\theta, \ z_\theta \in \cF,\ \sharp\big\{ \theta > c\ |\ z_\theta\neq 0\big\} <\infty,\ \forall c\in\R\ \bigg\}\;.$$ Define a ring $\Lambda_{\Gamma} : = \cK_{\Gamma} [q, q^{-1}]$ as the ring of polynomials in $q, q^{-1}$ with coefficients in $\cK_{\Gamma}$. We turn $\Lambda_{\Gamma}$ into a graded ring by setting the degree of $s$ to be $0$ and the degree of $q$ to be $2$. \medskip The ring $\Lambda_{\Gamma}$ serves as an abstract model of the Novikov ring associated to a symplectic manifold. Let $(M,\omega)$ be a closed connected symplectic manifold. Denote by $H_2^S (M)$ the subgroup of spherical homology classes in the integral homology group $H_2 (M; \Z)$. Abusing the notation we will write $\omega (A)$, $c_1 (A)$ for the results of evaluation of the cohomology classes $[\omega]$ and $c_1 (M)$ on $A\in H_2 (M; \Z)$. Set $$\bar{\pi}_2 (M) := H_2^S (M) / \sim,$$ where by definition $$A \sim B\ {\rm iff}\ \omega (A) = \omega (B) \ {\rm and}\ c_1 (A) = c_1 (B).$$ Denote by $\Gamma(M,\omega) := [\omega] (H_2^S (M))\subset \R$ the subgroup of periods of the symplectic form on $M$ on spherical homology classes. By definition, the Novikov ring of a symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ is $\Lambda_{\Gamma(M,\omega)}$. In what follows, when $(M,\omega)$ is fixed, we abbreviate and write $\Gamma$, $\cK$ and $\Lambda$ instead of $\Gamma(M,\omega)$, $\cK_{\Gamma(M,\omega)}$ and $\Lambda_{\Gamma(M,\omega)}$ respectively. \medskip \noindent {\sc Quantum homology:} Set $2n = {\rm dim}\, M$. The quantum homology $QH_* (M)$ is defined as follows. First, it is a graded module over $\Lambda$ given by $$QH_* (M) := H_* (M; \cF)\otimes_{\cF} \Lambda,$$ with the grading defined by the gradings on $H_* (M; \cF)$ and $\Lambda$: $$ {\rm deg}\, (a\otimes zs^\theta q^k) := {\rm deg}\, (a) + 2k\;.$$ Second, and most important, $QH_* (M)$ is equipped with a {\it quantum product}: if $a\in H_k (M; \cF)$, $b\in H_l (M; \cF)$, their quantum product is a class $a * b\in QH_{k+l - 2n} (M)$, defined by $$ a*b = \sum_{A\in \bar{\pi}_2 (M)} (a*b)_A \otimes s^{-\omega (A)} q^{-c_1 (A)},$$ where $(a*b)_A \in H_{k+l - 2n + 2c_1 (A)} (M)$ is defined by the requirement $$ (a*b)_A \circ c = GW_A^{\cF} (a,b,c) \ \forall c\in H_* (M; \cF).$$ Here $\circ$ stands for the intersection index and $GW_A^{\cF} (a,b,c)\in \cF$ denotes the Gromov-Witten invariant which, roughly speaking, counts the number of pseudo-holomorphic spheres in $M$ in the class $A$ that meet cycles representing $a,b,c\in H_* (M;\cF)$ (see , , for the precise definition). Extending this definition by $\Lambda$-linearity to the whole $QH_* (M)$ one gets a correctly defined graded-commutative associative product operation $*$ on $QH_\ast (M)$ which is a deformation of the classical $\cap$-product in singular homology , , , , . The {\it quantum homology algebra} $QH_* (M)$ is a ring whose unity is the fundamental class $[M]$ and which is a module of finite rank over $\Lambda$. If $a, b\in QH_\ast (M)$ have graded degrees $deg\, (a)$, $deg\, (b)$ then \begin{equation} deg\, (a\ast b) = deg\, (a) + deg\, (b) - 2n. \end{equation} We will be mostly interested in the commutative part of the quantum homology ring (which in the case $\cF=\Z_2$ is, of course, the whole quantum homology ring). For this purpose we introduce the following notation: \medskip \noindent {\bf We denote by $QH_\bullet (M)$ the whole quantum homology $QH_* (M)$ if $\cF=\Z_2$ and the even-degree part of $QH_* (M)$ if $\cF=\C$. \smallskip \noindent In general, given a topological space $X$, we denote by $H_\bullet (X; \cF)$ the whole singular homology group $H_* (X; \cF)$ if $\cF=\Z_2$ and the even-degree part of $H_* (X; \cF)$ if $\cF=\C$.} \medskip \noindent Thus, in our notation the ring $QH_\bullet (M) = H_\bullet (M; \cF)\otimes_{\cF} \Lambda$ is always a commutative subring with unity of $QH_* (M)$ and a module of finite rank over $\Lambda$. We will identify $\Lambda$ with a subring of $QH_\bullet (M)$ by $\lambda \mapsto [M]\otimes \lambda$. \subsection{An hierarchy of rigid subsets within Floer theory} Fix a non-zero idempotent $a\in QH_{2n} (M)$ (by obvious grading considerations the degree of every idempotent equals $2n$). We shall deal with spectral invariants $c(a, H)$, where $H = H_t: M\to \R$, $t\in \R$, is a smooth time-dependent and 1-periodic in time Hamiltonian function on $M$, or $c (a, \phi_H)$, where $\phi_H$ is an element of the universal cover $\tHam (M)$ of $\Ham (M)$ represented by an identity-based path given by the time-1 Hamiltonian flow generated by $H$. If $H$ is {\it normalized}, meaning that $\int_M H_t \omega^{{\rm dim}\, M/2} = 0$ for all $t$, then $c (a, H) = c (a, \phi_H)$. These invariants, which nowadays are standard objects of the Floer theory, were introduced in (cf. in the aspherical case; also see , for an earlier version of the construction and for a summary of definitions and results in the monotone case). \medskip \noindent {\sc Disclaimer:} Throughout the paper we tacitly assume that $(M,\omega)$ (as well as $(M \times \T^2, \bar{\omega})$, when we speak of stable displaceability) belongs to the class $\cS$ of closed symplectic manifolds for which the spectral invariants are well defined and enjoy the standard list of properties (see e.g. \cite[Theorem 12.4.4]{MS2}). For instance, $\cS$ contains all symplectically aspherical and spherically monotone manifolds. Furthermore, $\cS$ contains all symplectic manifolds $M^{2n}$ for which, on one hand, either $c_1=0$ or the minimal Chern number (on $H_2^S (M)$) is at least $n-1$ and, on the other hand, $[\omega] (H_2^S (M))$ is a discrete subgroup of $\R$ (cf. ). The general belief is that the class $\cS$ includes {\bf all} symplectic manifolds. \medskip \noindent Define a functional $\zeta: C^{\infty}(M) \to \R$ by \begin{equation} \zeta (H): = \lim_{l \to +\infty}\; \frac{c (a,lH)}{l} \end{equation} It is shown in that the functional $\zeta$ has some very special algebraic properties (see Theorem~) which form the axioms of {\it a partial symplectic quasi-state} introduced in . The next definition is motivated in part by the work of Albers . \begin{defin}{\rm A closed subset $X \subset M$ is called {\it heavy} (with respect to $\zeta$ or with respect to $a$ used to define $\zeta$) if \begin{equation} \zeta(H) \geq \inf_X H \;\; \forall H \in C^{\infty}(M)\;, \end{equation} and is called {\it superheavy} (with respect to $\zeta$ or $a$) if \begin{equation} \zeta(H) \leq \sup_X H \;\; \forall H \in C^{\infty}(M)\;. \end{equation}} \end{defin} \medskip \noindent The default choice of an idempotent $a$ is the unity $[M] \in QH_* (M)$. In this case, as we shall see below, the collections of heavy and superheavy sets satisfy the properties listed in Section~ and include the examples therein. In view of potential applications (including geometric obstructions to semi-simplicity of the quantum homology), we shall work, whenever possible, with general idempotents. The asymmetry between $\sup_X H$ and $\inf_X H$ is related to the fact that the spectral numbers satisfy a triangle inequality $c (a*b, \phi_F \phi_G) \leq c(a,\phi_F) + c(b,\phi_G)$, while there may not be a suitable inequality ``in the opposite direction". In the case when such an ``opposite" inequality exists (e.g. when $a=b$ is an idempotent and $\zeta$ defined by it is a genuine {\it symplectic quasi-state} -- see Section~ below) the symmetry between $\sup_X H$ and $\inf_X H$ gets restored and the classes of heavy and superheavy sets coincide. Let us emphasize that the notion of (super)heaviness depends on the choice of a coefficient ring for the Floer theory. In this paper the coefficients for the Floer theory will be either $\Z_2$ or $\C$ depending on the situation. Unless otherwise stated, our results on (super)heavy subsets are valid for any choice the coefficients. The group $\Symp\, (M)$ of all symplectomorphisms of $M$ acts naturally on $H_* (M;\cF)$ and hence on $QH_* (M) = H_* (M; {\mathcal F})\otimes_{{\mathcal F}} \Lambda$. Clearly, the identity component $\Symp_0 (M)$ of $\Symp\, (M)$ acts trivially on $QH_* (M)$ and hence for any idempotent $a\in QH_* (M)$ the corresponding $\zeta$ is $\Symp_0 (M)$-invariant. Thus the image of a (super)heavy set under an element of $\Symp_0 (M)$ is again a (super)heavy set with respect to the same idempotent $a$. If $a$ is invariant under the action of the whole $\Symp\, (M)$ (for instance, if $a = [M]$) the classes of heavy and superheavy sets with respect to $a$ are invariant under the action of the whole $\Symp\, (M)$ in agreement with the {\bf invariance} property presented in Section~ above. Let us mention also that the collections of (super)heavy sets enjoy a stability property under inclusions: If $X,Y$, $X \subset Y$, are closed subsets of $M$ and $X$ is heavy (respectively, superheavy) with respect to an idempotent $a$ then $Y$ is also heavy (respectively, superheavy) with respect to the same $a$. \medskip \noindent We are ready now to formulate the main results of the present section. \begin{thm} Assume $a$ and $\zeta$ are fixed. Then \begin{itemize} \item[{(i)}] Every superheavy set is heavy, but, in general, not vice versa. \item[{(ii)}] Every heavy subset is stably non-displaceable. \item[{(iii)}] Every superheavy set intersects every heavy set. In particular, a superheavy set cannot be displaced by a {\bf symplectic} (not necessarily Hamiltonian) isotopy and if the idempotent $a$ is invariant under the symplectomorphism group of $(M,\omega)$ (e.g. if $a = [M]$), every superheavy set is strongly non-displaceable. \end{itemize} \end{thm} The following theorem discusses the relation between heaviness/super\-heavi\-ness properties with respect to different idempotents. In particular, it shows that $[M]$ plays a special role among all the other non-zero idempotents in $QH_* (M)$. \begin{thm} Assume $a$ is a non-zero idempotent in the quantum homology. Then \begin{itemize} \item[{(i)}] Every set that is superheavy with respect to $[M]$ is also superheavy with respect to $a$. \item[{(ii)}] Every set that is heavy with respect to $a$ is also heavy with respect to $[M]$. \item[{(iii)}] Assume that the idempotent $a$ is a sum of non-zero idempotents \break $e_1,\ldots,e_l$ and assume that a closed subset $X\subset M$ is heavy with respect to $a$. Then $X$ is heavy with respect to $e_i$ for at least one $i$. \end{itemize} \end{thm} The next proposition shows that, in general, the heaviness of a set {\it does depend} on the choice of an idempotent in the quantum homology. \begin{prop} Consider the torus $\T^{2n}$ equipped with the standard symplectic structure $\omega = dp\wedge dq$. Let $M^{2n}=\T^{2n}\sharp \overline{\C P^{n}}$ be a symplectic blow-up of $\T^{2n}$ at one point (the blow up is performed in a small ball around the point). Assume that the Lagrangian torus $L\subset \T^{2n}$ given by $q=0$ does not intersect the ball in $\T^{2n}$, where the blow up was performed. Then the proper transform of $L$ (identified with $L$) is a Lagrangian submanifold of $M$, which is not heavy with respect to some non-zero idempotent $a\in QH_* (M)$ but heavy with respect to $[M]$. (Here we work with $\cF=\Z_2$). \end{prop} \medskip \noindent Next, consider direct products of (super)heavy sets. We start with the following convention on tensor products. Let $\Gamma_i$, $i=1,2$, be two countable subgroups of $\R$. Let $E_i$ be a module over $\cK_{\Gamma_i}$. We put \begin{equation} E_1 \widehat{\otimes}_{\cK} E_2 = \bigg{(}E_1 \otimes_{\cK_{\Gamma_1}} \cK_{\Gamma_1 +\Gamma_2}\bigg{)} \otimes_{ \cK_{\Gamma_1 +\Gamma_2}} \bigg{(}E_2 \otimes_{\cK_{\Gamma_2}} \cK_{\Gamma_1 +\Gamma_2}\bigg{)}\;. \end{equation} If $E_1$, $E_2$ are also rings we automatically assume that the middle tensor product is the tensor product of rings. In simple words, we extend both modules to $\cK_{\Gamma_1 +\Gamma_2}$-modules and consider the usual tensor product over $\cK_{\Gamma_1 +\Gamma_2}$. Given two symplectic manifolds, $(M_1,\omega_1)$ and $(M_2,\omega_2)$, note that the subgroups of periods of the symplectic forms satisfy $$\Gamma(M_1\times M_2,\omega_1\oplus\omega_2) = \Gamma(M_1,\omega_1) + \Gamma(M_2,\omega_2)\;.$$ Furthermore, due to the K\"unneth formula for quantum homology (see e.g. \cite[Exercise 11.1.15]{MS2} for the statement in the monotone case; the general case in our algebraic setup can be treated similarly) there exists a natural ring monomorphism linear over $\cK_{\Gamma_1 +\Gamma_2}$ $$ QH_{2n_1} (M_1)\widehat{\otimes}_\cK QH_{2n_2} (M_2)\hookrightarrow QH_{2n_1 + 2n_2}(M_1 \times M_2)\;,$$ We shall fix a pair of idempotents $a_i \in QH_* (M_i)$, $i=1,2$. The notions of (super)heaviness in $M_1,M_2$ and $M_1 \times M_2$ are understood in the sense of idempotents $a_1,a_2$ and $a_1 \otimes a_2$ respectively. \begin{thm} Assume that $X_i$ is a heavy (resp. superheavy) subset of $M_i$ with respect to some idempotent $a_i$, $i=1,2$. Then the product $X_1 \times X_2$ is a heavy (resp. superheavy) subset of $M$ with respect to the idempotent $a_1\otimes a_2\in QH_\bullet (M_1\times M_2)$. \end{thm} \medskip \noindent An important class of superheavy sets is given by stable stems introduced and illustrated in Section~. \begin{thm} Every stable stem is a superheavy subset with respect to any non-zero idempotent $a\in QH_* (M)$. In particular, it is strongly and stably non-displaceable. \end{thm} \medskip \noindent In the next section we present an example of stable stems coming from Hamiltonian torus actions. \subsection{Hamiltonian torus actions} Fibers of the moment maps of Hamiltonian torus actions form an interesting playground for testing the various notions of displaceability and heaviness introduced above. Throughout the paper we deal with {\it effective} actions only, that is we assume that the map $\varphi: \T^k\to \Ham (M)$ defining the action is a monomorphism. Furthermore, we assume that the moment map $\Phi = (\Phi_1,\ldots, \Phi_k): M\to\R^k$ of the action is normalized: $\Phi_i$ is a normalized Hamiltonian for all $i=1,\ldots, k$. By the Atiyah-Guillemin-Sternberg theorem , , the image $\Delta = \Phi (M)$ of $\Phi$ is a $k$-dimensional convex polytope, called the {\it moment polytope}. The subsets $\Phi^{-1}(p),\; p \in \Delta$, are called {\it fibers} of the moment map. A torus action is called {\it compressible} if the image of the homomorphism $\varphi_{\sharp}: \pi_1(\T^k)\to \pi_1(\Ham(M))$, induced by the action $\varphi$, is a finite group. \begin{thm} Assume that $(M,\omega)$ is equipped with a compressible Hamiltonian $\T^k$-action with moment map $\Phi$ and moment polytope $\Delta$. Let $Y \subset \Delta$ be any closed convex subset which does not contain $0$. Then the subset $\Phi^{-1}(Y)$ is stably displaceable. In particular, the fiber $\Phi^{-1}(0)$ is a stable stem. \end{thm} \medskip \noindent Note that for symplectic toric manifolds, that is when $2k =\dim M$, the point $0$ is the barycenter of the moment polytope with respect to the Lebesgue measure. This follows from our assumption on the normalization of the moment map. \medskip \noindent Theorems~ and imply that the fiber $\Phi^{-1}(0)$ of a compressible torus action is stably non-displaceable, and thus we get the complete description of stably displaceable fibers for such actions. In the case when the action is not compressible, the question of the complete description of stably non-displaceable fibers remains open. We make a partial progress in this direction by presenting at least one such fiber, called {\it the special fiber}, explicitly in the case when $(M,\omega)$ is spherically monotone: $$\left. [\omega]\right|_{H_2^S (M)} = \kappa \left. c_1 (TM)\right|_{H_2^S (M)}, \;\;\kappa >0\;.$$ The special fiber can be described via the mixed action-Maslov homomorphism introduced in : Let $(M^{2n},\omega)$ be a spherically monotone symplectic manifold, and let $\{f_t\}, t \in [0,1]$, be any loop of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms, with $f_0 =f_1 =\id$, generated by a 1-periodic normalized Hamiltonian function $F(x,t)$. The orbits of any Hamiltonian loop are contractible due to the standard Floer theory\footnote{The Floer theory guarantees the existence of at least one contractible periodic orbit -- this is not obvious {\it a priori} if $\{f_t\}$ is not an autonomous flow. Since all the orbits of $\{f_t\}$ are homotopic, all of them are contractible.}. Pick any point $x \in M$ and any disc $u:\D^2\to M$ spanning the orbit $\gamma = \{f_tx\}$. Define the action\footnote{Note that our action functional and the one in are of opposite signs.} of the orbit by $$\cA_F (\gamma,u) := \int_0^1 F(\gamma(t),t) dt - \int_{\D^2} u^\ast \omega\;.$$ Trivialize the symplectic vector bundle $u^*(TM)$ over $\D^2$ and denote by $m_F(\gamma,u)$ the Maslov index of the loop of symplectic matrices corresponding to $\{f_{t*}\}$ with respect to the chosen trivialization. One readily checks that, in view of the spherical monotonicity, the quantity $$I (F) := -\cA_F (\gamma,u)-\frac{\kappa}{2}m_F(\gamma,u)\;$$ does not depend on the choice of the point $x$ and the disc $u$, and is invariant under homotopies of the Hamiltonian loop $\{f_t\}$. In fact, $I$ is a well defined homomorphism from $\pi_1(\Ham(M))$ to $\R$ (see , ). Assume again that $\varphi: \T^k \to \Ham(M,\omega)$ is a Hamiltonian torus action. Write $\varphi_{\sharp}$ for the induced homomorphism of the fundamental groups. Since the target space $\R^k$ of the moment map $\Phi$ is naturally identified with $\text{Hom}(\pi_1(\T^k),\R)$, the pull back $-\varphi_{\sharp}^*I$ of the mixed action-Maslov homomorphism with the reversed sign can be considered as a point of $\R^k$. We call it {\it a special point} and denote by ${p}_{spec}$. The preimage $\Phi^{-1}({p}_{spec})$ is called {\it the special fiber} of the moment map. In the case $k=1$, when $\Phi$ is a real-valued function on $M$, we will call $p_{spec}$ {\it the special value} of $\Phi$. If $k=n$ and $M$ is a symplectic toric manifold, then ${p}_{spec}$ can be defined in purely combinatorial terms involving only the polytope $\Delta$. Namely, pick a vertex ${\bf x}$ of $\Delta$. Since $\Delta$ in this case is a {\it Delzant polytope} , there is a unique (up to a permutation) choice of vectors ${\bf v}_1, \ldots, {\bf v}_n$ which \begin{itemize} \item{originate at ${\bf x}$;} \item{span the $n$ rays containing the edges of $\Delta$ adjacent to ${\bf x}$; } \item{form a basis of $\Z^n$ over $\Z$. } \end{itemize} \begin{prop} \begin{equation} {p}_{spec} = {\bf x} + {\kappa}\sum_{i=1}^n {\bf v}_i. \end{equation} \end{prop} \begin{proof} The vertices of the moment polytope are in one-to-one correspondence with the fixed points of the action. Let $x \in M$ be the fixed point corresponding to the vertex ${\bf x} = ({\bf x}_1,\ldots, {\bf x}_n)$. Then the vectors ${\bf v}_j = (v_j^1,\ldots, v_j^n)$, $j=1,\ldots, n$, are simply the weights of the isotropy $\T^n$-action on $T_x M$. Since the definition of the mixed action-Maslov invariant of a Hamiltonian circle action does not depend on the choice of a 1-periodic orbit and a disc spanning it, let us compute all $I_i$, $l=1, \ldots, n$, using the constant periodic orbit concentrated at the fixed point $x$ and the constant disc $u$ spanning it. Clearly, $$\cA_{\Phi_i} (x,u) = \Phi_i (x)={\bf x}_i \;\; \text{and} \;\; m_{\Phi_i} (x,u) = 2\sum_{j=1}^n v_j^i \;\; \forall i=1,\ldots,n,$$ which readily yields formula \eqref{eqn-prop-p-spec}. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent E.Shelukhin pointed out to us that by summing up equations \eqref{eqn-prop-p-spec} over all the vertices ${\bf x}^{(1)},\ldots,{\bf x}^{(m)}\in\R^n$ of the moment polytope, one readily gets that ${p}_{spec}= \frac{1}{m}\sum_i {\bf x}^{(i)}$. \begin{thm} Assume $M^{2n}$ is a spherically monotone symplectic manifold equipped with a Hamiltonian $\T^k$-action. Then the special fiber of the moment map is superheavy with respect to any (non-zero) idempotent $a\in QH_{2n} (M)$. In particular, it is stably and strongly non-displaceable. \end{thm} \medskip \noindent Let us mention that, in particular, the special fiber is non-empty and so ${p}_{spec} \in \Delta$. Moreover ${p}_{spec}$ is an interior point of $\Delta$ -- otherwise $\Phi^{-1} ({p}_{spec})$ is isotropic of dimension $< n$ and hence displaceable (see e.g. ). \begin{rem} {\rm If $\dim M = 2\dim \T^k$ (that is we deal with a symplectic toric manifold), the special fiber, say $L$, is a Lagrangian torus. In fact, this torus is monotone: for every $D \in \pi_2(M,L)$ we have $$\int_D \omega = \kappa\cdot m^L(D)\;,$$ where $m^L$ stands for the Maslov class of $L$. This is an immediate consequence of the definitions. } \end{rem} \begin{rem} {\rm Note that when $M$ is spherically monotone and the action is compressible Theorems~ and match each other: in this case $p_{spec}=0$ and therefore the special fiber is a stable stem by Theorem~. It is unknown whether this property persists for the special fibers of non-compressible actions. } \end{rem} \begin{exam} {\rm Let $M$ be the monotone symplectic blow up of $\C P^2$ at $k$ points ($0\leq k \leq 3$) which is equivariant with respect to the standard $\T^2$-action and which is performed away from the Clifford torus in $\C P^2$. Since the blow-up is equivariant, $M$ comes equipped with a Hamiltonian $\T^2$-action extending the $\T^2$-action on $\C P^2$. The Clifford torus is a fiber of the moment map of the $\T^2$-action on $\C P^2$. Let $L\subset M$ be the Lagrangian torus which is the proper transform of the Clifford torus under the blow-up -- it is a fiber of the moment map of the $\T^2$-action on $M$. Using Proposition~ it is easy to see that $L$ is the special fiber of $M$. According to Theorem~, it is stably and strongly non-displaceable. In fact, it is a stem: the displaceability of all the other fibers was checked for $k=0$ in , for $k=1$ in and for $k=2,3$ in .}\end{exam} \medskip \noindent We refer to Section~ for further discussion of related problems and very recent advances. \bigskip \noindent {\sc Digression: Calabi vs. action-Maslov.} The method used to prove Theorem~ also allows to prove the following result involving the mixed action-Maslov homomorphism. Denote by ${\hbox{\rm vol}\, (M)}$ the symplectic volume of $M$. Consider the function $\mu: \tHam (M)\to\R$ defined by $$ \mu (\phi_H) := - {\hbox{\rm vol}\, (M)} \lim_{l\to +\infty} c (a, \phi_H^l )/l. $$ In the case when $a$ is the unity in a field that is a direct summand in the decomposition of the $\cK$-algebra $QH_{2n}(M,\omega)$, as an algebra, into a direct sum of subalgebras, $\mu$ is a homogeneous quasi-morphism on $\tHam(M)$ called {\it Calabi quasi-morphism} ,,; in the general case it has weaker properties . With this language the functional $\zeta$ (on normalized functions) is induced (up to a constant factor) by the pull-back of $\mu$ to the Lie algebra of $\tHam(M)$. Following P.Seidel we described in the restriction of $\mu$ (in fact, for {\it any} spherically monotone $M$) on $\pi_1 (\Ham (M))\subset \tHam (M)$ in terms of the Seidel homomorphism $\pi_1 (\Ham (M))\to QH^{inv}_* (M)$, where $QH^{inv}_* (M)$ denotes the group of invertible elements in the ring $QH_* (M)$. Here we give an alternative description of $\left. \mu\right|_{\pi_1 (Ham (M))}$ in terms of the mixed action-Maslov homomorphism $I$ which, in turn, also provides certain information about the Seidel homomorphism. \begin{thm} Assume $M$ is spherically monotone and let $\mu$ be defined as above for some non-zero idempotent $a\in QH_* (M)$. Then $$\left. \mu\right|_{\pi_1 (\Ham (M))} = {\hbox{\rm vol}\, (M)}\cdot I.$$ \end{thm} Note that, in particular, $\left. \mu\right|_{\pi_1 (\Ham (M))}$ does not depend on $a$ used to define $\mu$. The theorem also implies that $\mu$ descends to a quasi-morphism on $\Ham (M)$ if and only if $I: \pi_1 (\Ham (M))\to\R$ vanishes identically (since $\mu$ descends to a quasi-morphism on $\Ham (M)$ if and only if $\left. \mu\right|_{\pi_1 (\Ham (M))} \equiv 0$ -- see e.g. , Prop. 3.4). The proof of the theorem is given in Section~. Let us mention also that, interestingly enough, the homomorphism $I$ coincides with the restriction to $\pi_1 (\Ham (M))$ of yet another quasi-morphism on $\tHam (M)$ constructed by P.Py (see ). \bigskip \noindent {\sc Digression: Action-Maslov homomorphism and Futaki invariant.} This remark grew from an observation pointed out to us by Chris Woodward -- we are grateful to him for that. Assume that our symplectic manifold $M$ is complex K\"ahler (i.e. the symplectic structure on $M$ is induced by the K\"ahler one) and Fano (by this we mean here that $[\omega]=c_1$). Assume also that a Hamiltonian $\SP^1$-action $\{ f_t\}$ preserves the K\"ahler metric and the complex structure. For instance, if $M^{2n}$ is a symplectic toric manifold it can be equipped canonically with a complex structure and a K\"ahler metric invariant under the $\T^n$-action on $M$, hence under the action of any $\SP^1$-subgroup $\{ f_t\}$ of $\T^n$. Let $V$ be the Hamiltonian vector field generating the Hamiltonian flow $\{ f_t\}$. Since $\{ f_t\}$ preserves the complex structure, one can associate to $V$ its {\it Futaki invariant} ${\mathbb F} (V)\in\C$ . It has been checked by E.Shelukhin that, up to a universal constant factor, this Futaki invariant is equal to the value of the mixed action-Maslov homomorphism on the loop $\{ f_t\}$: $${\mathbb F} (V) = {\it const}\, \cdot I (\{f_t\}).$$ Note that if such an $M$ admits a K\"ahler-Einstein metric then the Futaki invariant has to vanish -- thus if $I (\{f_t\})\neq 0$ the manifold does not admit a K\"ahler-Einstein metric. Moreover, if $M^{2n}$ is toric the opposite is also true: if the Futaki invariant vanishes for any $V$ generating a subgroup of the torus $\T^n$ acting on $M$ then $M$ admits a K\"ahler-Einstein metric -- this follows from a theorem by Wang and Zhu , combined with a previous result of Mabuchi . In terms of the moment polytope, the vanishing of the Futaki invariant, and accordingly the existence of a K\"ahler-Einstein metric, on a K\"ahler Fano toric manifold means precisely that the special point of the polytope coincides with the barycenter. \subsection{Super(heavy) monotone Lagrangian submanifolds} Let $(M^{2n},\omega)$ be a closed spherically monotone symplectic manifold with $[\omega] = \kappa \cdot c_1(TM)$ on $\pi_2(M)$, $\kappa > 0$. Let $L \subset M$ be a closed monotone Lagrangian submanifold with the minimal Maslov number $N_L \geq 2$. As usually, we put $N_L =+\infty$ if $\pi_2(M,L)=0$. As before, we work with the basic field $\cF$ which is either $\Z_2$ or $\C$. In the case $\cF =\C$, we assume that $L$ is relatively spin, that is $L$ is orientable and the 2nd Stiefel-Whitney class of $L$ is the restriction of some integral cohomology class of $M$. \medskip \noindent {\bf Disclaimer:} In the case $\cF = \C$ the results of this section are conditional: We take for granted that Proposition~ below, which was proved by Biran and Cornea for homologies with $\Z_2$-coefficients, extends to homologies with $\C$-coefficients. In each of the specific examples below we will explicitly state which $\cF$ we are using and whenever we use $\cF=\C$ we assume that $L$ is relatively spin. \medskip \noindent Denote by $j$ the natural morphism $j: H_\bullet (L;\cF) \to H_\bullet (M;\cF)$. We say that $L$ {\it satisfies the Albers condition} if there exists an element $S \in H_\bullet (L;\cF)$ so that $j(S) \neq 0$ and $$\deg S > \dim L +1 -N_L\;.$$ We shall refer to such $S$ as to {\it an Albers element} of $L$. \begin{exam} {\rm Assume $[L]\in H_\bullet (L;\cF)$ and $j ([L])\in H_\bullet (M; \cF)$ is non-zero. This means precisely that $[L]$ is an Albers element of $L$. A closed monotone Lagrangian submanifold $L$ which satisfies this condition (and whose minimal Maslov number is greater than $1$) will be called {\it homologically non-trivial} in $M$. } \end{exam} \medskip \noindent \begin{thm} Let $L$ be a closed monotone Lagrangian submanifold satisfying the Albers condition. Then $L$ is heavy with respect to $[M]$. In particular, any homologically non-trivial Lagrangian submanifold is heavy with respect to $[M]$. \end{thm} \medskip \noindent \begin{exam} {\rm \noindent Assume that $\pi_2 (M,L)=0$. Then the homology class of a point is an Albers element of $L$, and hence $L$ is heavy. Note that in this case heaviness cannot be improved to superheaviness: the meridian on the two-torus is heavy but not superheavy. Here we took $\cF=\Z_2$.} \end{exam} \medskip \noindent \begin{exam}[Lagrangian spheres in Fermat hypersurfaces] {\rm More examples of heavy (but not necessarily superheavy) monotone Lagrangian submanifolds can be constructed as follows\footnote{We thank P.Biran for his indispensable help with these examples.}. Let $M\subset \C P^{n+1}$ be a smooth complex hypersurface of degree $d$. The pull-back of the standard symplectic structure from $\C P^{n+1}$ turns $M$ into a symplectic manifold (of real dimension $2n$). If $d\geq 2$, then, as it is explained, for instance, in , $M$ contains a Lagrangian sphere: $M$ can be included into a family of algebraic hypersurfaces of $\C P^{n+1}$ with quadratic degenerations at isolated points and the vanishing cycle of such a degeneration can be realized by a Lagrangian sphere following , , , , . Let $M\subset \C P^{n+1}$ be a projective hypersurface of degree $d$, $2\leq d< n+2$. The minimal Chern number of $M$ equals $N:=n+2-d>0$. Let $L^n\subset M^{2n}$ be a simply connected Lagrangian submanifold (for instance, a Lagrangian sphere). First, consider the case when $n$ is even, $L$ is relatively spin and the Euler characteristics of $L$ does not vanish (this is the case for a sphere). Then the homology class $j([L])\in H_n (M; \Z)$ is non-zero: its self-intersection number in $M$ up to the sign equals the Euler characteristic. Thus $[L]$ is an Albers element. (Here we use $\cF = \C$). In view of Theorem~, $L$ is heavy with respect to $[M]$. Second, suppose that $n$ is of arbitrary parity but $n > 2d-3$, and no restriction on the Euler characteristics of $L$ is assumed anymore. This yields $N_L=2N > n+1$ and thus $L$ satisfies the Albers condition with the class of a point $P$ as an Albers element. Thus $L$ is heavy with respect to $[M]$ -- here we use $\cF=\Z_2$. Finally, fix $n \geq 3$ and an even number $d$ such that $4 \leq d < n+2$. Consider a Fermat hypersurface of degree $d$ $$M = \{-z_0^d+z_1^d+\ldots+z_{n+1}^d = 0\} \subset \C P^{n+1}\;.$$ Its real part $L:= M \cap \R P^{n+1}$ lies in the affine chart $z_0 \neq 0$ and is given by the equation $$x_1^d+\ldots+x_{n+1}^d=1,$$ where $x_j := \text{Re}(z_j/z_0)\;.$ Since $d$ is even, $L$ is an $n$-dimensional sphere. As it was explained above, $L$ is heavy with respect to $[M]$ if either $n$ is even (and $\cF=\C$) or $n > 2d-3$ (and $\cF=\Z_2$). However, in either case $L$ {\it is not superheavy} with respect to $[M]$. Indeed, let $\Sigma_d \approx \Z_d$ be the group of complex roots of unity. Given a vector $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_n)\in (\Sigma_d)^{n+1}$, denote by $f_\alpha$ the symplectomorphism of $M$ given by \begin{equation} f_\alpha (z_0:z_1:\ldots :z_{n+1}) = (z_0: {\alpha_1} z_1:\ldots:{\alpha_{n+1}} z_{n+1})\;. \end{equation} If all $\alpha_j\in \C\setminus \R$, then $\alpha_j x \notin \R$ whenever $x \in \R \setminus\{0\}$, and thus $f_\alpha(L) \cap L = \emptyset$. Therefore $L$ is strongly displaceable and the claim follows from the part (iii) of Theorem~.} \end{exam} \medskip The next result gives a user-friendly sufficient condition of superheaviness. \begin{thm} Assume $L$ is homologically non-trivial in $M$ and assume $a \in QH_{2n} (M)$ is a non-zero idempotent divisible by $ j([L])$ in $QH_\bullet (M)$, that is $a \in j([L]) * QH_\bullet (M)$. Then $L$ is superheavy with respect to $a$. \end{thm} \medskip \noindent The homological non-triviality of $L$ in the hypothesis of the theorem means just that $[L]$ is an Albers element of $L$ (see Example~). In fact, the theorem can be generalized to the cases when $L$ has other Albers elements -- see Remark~ (ii). \medskip \noindent \begin{exam}[Lagrangian spheres in quadrics] {\rm Here we work with $\cF=\C$. Let $M$ be the real part of the Fermat quadric $M=\{-z_0^2+ \sum_{j=1}^{n+1} z_j^2 =0\}$. Assume that $n$ is even and $L$ is a simply connected Lagrangian submanifold with non-vanishing Euler characteristic (e.g. a Lagrangian sphere). Under this assumption, $[L]\in H_\bullet (L)$ and $j([L])\neq 0$, since $L$ has non-vanishing self-intersection. Denote by $p \in H_* (M; \cF)$ the class of a point. The quantum homology ring of $M$ was described by Beauville in . In particular, $p*p = w^{-2}[M]$, where $w = s^{\kappa n}q^{n}$. Thus $$a_{\pm}:= \frac{[M]\pm pw}{2}$$ are idempotents. One can show that $j([L])$ divides $a_-$ and hence $L$ is $a_-$-superheavy. Since $a_{-}$ is invariant under the action of $\Symp (M)$, the manifold $L$ is strongly non-displaceable. For simplicity, we present the calculation in the case $n=2$ -- the general case is absolutely analogous. The 2-dimensional quadric is symplectomorphic to $(\SP^2 \times \SP^2,\omega \oplus \omega)$. Denote by $A$ and $B$ the classes of $[\SP^2]\times [\text{point}]$ and $[\text{point}] \times [\SP^2]$ respectively. Since the symplectic form vanishes on $j([L])$ we get that $j([L]) = l(B-A)$ with $l\neq 0$. It is known that $A*B=p$ and $B*B = w^{-1}[M]$. Thus $j([L]) * \frac{1}{2l} wB = a_-$, that is $j([L])$ divides $a_-$. \medskip \noindent In particular, the Lagrangian anti-diagonal $$\Delta:= \{(x,y)\in \SP^2 \times \SP^2 \;:\; x=-y\}\;,$$ which is diffeomorphic to the $2$-sphere, is superheavy with respect to $a_-$. It is unknown whether $\Delta$ is super-heavy with respect to $a_+$. Further information on superheavy Lagrangian submanifolds in the quadrics can be extracted from .} \end{exam} \medskip \noindent \begin{exam}[A non-heavy monotone Lagrangian torus in $\SP^2\times \SP^2$] {\rm Consider the quadric $M = \SP^2 \times \SP^2$ from the previous example. We will think of $\SP^2$ as of the unit sphere in $\R^3$ whose symplectic form is the area form divided by $4\pi$. We will work again with $\cF=\C$. Interestingly enough, such an $M$ contains a monotone Lagrangian torus that is not heavy with respect to $a_{-}$. Namely, consider a submanifold $K$ given by equations\footnote{We thank Frol Zapolsky for his help with calculations in this example.} $$K = \{(x,y) \in \SP^2 \times \SP^2\;:\; x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3=-\frac{1}{2}, x_3+y_3=0\}\;.$$ One readily checks that $K$ is a monotone Lagrangian torus with $N_K=2$ which represents a zero element in $H_2(M;\cF)$ (both with $\cF=\C$ and $\cF=\Z_2$). Thus $H_\bullet (K; \cF)$ does not contain any Albers element. Furthermore, $K$ is disjoint from the Lagrangian anti-diagonal $\Delta$ and hence is not heavy with respect to $a_{-}$ since, as it was shown above, $\Delta$ is superheavy with respect to $a_{-}$. In particular, $K$ is {\it an exotic monotone torus}: it is not symplectomorphic to the Clifford torus which is a stem and hence $a_{-}$-superheavy. A further study of exotic tori in products of spheres is currently being carried out by Y.Chekanov and F.Schlenk. It is an interesting problem to understand whether $K$ is superheavy with respect to $a_+$, or at least non-displaceable. Identify $M \setminus\ \{\rm{ the\ diagonal}\}$ with the unit co-ball bundle of the 2-sphere. After such an identification $\Delta$ corresponds to the zero section, while $K$ corresponds to a monotone Lagrangian torus, say $K'$. Interestingly enough, the Lagrangian Floer homology of $K'$ in $T^* \SP^2$ (with $\cF = \Z_2$) does not vanish as was shown by Albers and Frauenfelder in , and thus $K$ is not displaceable in $M \setminus\ \{{\rm the\ diagonal}\}$. Thus the question on (non)-displaceability of $K$ is related to understanding of the effect of the compactification of the unit co-ball bundle to $\SP^2 \times \SP^2$. } \end{exam} \medskip The proofs of theorems above are based on spectral estimates due to Albers and Biran-Cornea . Furthermore, the results above admit various generalizations in the framework of Biran-Cornea theory of quantum invariants for monotone Lagrangian submanifolds, see and the discussion in Section~ below. \subsection{An effect of semi-simplicity} Recall that a commutative (finite-dimensional) algebra $Q$ over a field $\cB$ is called {\it semi-simple} if it splits into a direct sum of fields as follows: $Q = Q_1 \oplus\ldots\oplus Q_d\;$, where \begin{itemize} \item{}each $Q_i \subset Q$ is a finite-dimensional linear subspace over $\cB$; \item{} each $Q_i$ is a field with respect to the induced ring structure; \item{} the multiplication in $Q$ respects the splitting: $$(a_1,\ldots,a_d)\cdot(b_1,\ldots,b_d) = (a_1 b_1,\ldots,a_d b_d).$$ \end{itemize} A classical theorem of Wed\-der\-burn (see e.g. , \S 96) implies that the semi-simplici\-ty is equivalent to the absence of nilpotents in the algebra. \begin{rem} {\rm Assume that the $\cK$-algebra $QH_{2n}(M,\omega)$ splits, as an algebra, into a direct sum of two algebras, at least one of which is a field, and let $e$ be the unity in that field. In particular, this is the case when $QH_{2n}(M,\omega)=Q_1 \oplus\ldots\oplus Q_d$ is semi-simple and $e$ is the unity in one of the fields $Q_i$. A slight generalization of the argument in (see , the remark on pp. 56-57) shows that the partial quasi-state $\zeta(e,\cdot)$ associated to $e$ is $\R$-homogeneous (and not just $\R_+$-homogeneous as in the general case). This immediately yields that {\it every set which is heavy with respect to $e$ is automatically superheavy with respect to $e$}. In fact, in this situation $\zeta$ is a genuine {\it symplectic quasi-state} in the sense of and, in particular, a {\it topological quasi-state} in the sense of Aarnes (see for details). In Aarnes proved an analogue of the Riesz representation theorem for topological quasi-states which generalizes the correspondence between genuine states (that is positive linear functionals on $C(M)$) and measures. The object $\tau_\zeta$ corresponding to a quasi-state $\zeta$ is called a {\it quasi-measure} (or a {\it topological measure}). With this language in place, the sets that are (super)heavy with respect to $\zeta$ are nothing else but the closed sets of the full quasi-measure $\tau_\zeta$. Any two such sets have to intersect for the following basic reason: any quasi-measure is finitely additive on disjoint closed subsets and therefore if two closed subsets of $M$ of the full quasi-measure do not intersect, the quasi-measure of their union must be greater than the total quasi-measure of $M$, which is impossible.} \end{rem} \medskip \noindent\begin{exam} {\rm In this example we again assume that $\cF=\Z_2$. Let $M=\C P^n$ be equipped with the Fubini-Study symplectic structure $\omega$, normalized so that $[\omega]=c_1$, and let $A\in H_{2n-2} (M)$ be the homology class of the hyperplane. One readily verifies the following $\cK$-algebra isomorphism $$QH_{2n}(M)\cong \cK [X]/ \langle X^{n+1} - u^{-1}\rangle,$$ where $$\cK = \Z_2 [[u] = \{ z_k u^k + z_{k-1} u^{k-1}+\ldots , z_i\in \Z_2\ \forall i \}$$ is the field of Laurent-type series in $u:= s^{n+1}$ with coefficients in $\Z_2$ and $X= q A$. Since no root of degree $2$ or more of $u^{-1}$ is contained in $\cK$, the polynomial $P$ is irreducible over $\cK$ for any $n$ (see e.g. , Theorem 9.1) and therefore $QH_{2n} (M)$ is a field. Hence the collections of heavy and superheavy sets with respect to the fundamental class coincide. We claim that $L:= \R P^n \subset \C P^n$ is superheavy. The case $n=1$ corresponds to the equator of the sphere, which is known to be a stable stem. For $n \geq 2$, note that $N_L =n+1$ and $S=[\R P^2]$ is an Albers element of $L$. Therefore, $L$ is $[M]$-heavy by Theorem~, and hence superheavy. } \end{exam} \medskip \noindent The next result follows directly from Theorem~ (iii) and Remark~: \begin{thm} Assume that $QH_{2n}(M)$ is semi-simple and splits into a direct sum of $d$ fields whose unities will be denoted by $e_1,\ldots, e_d$. Assume that a closed subset $X\subset M$ is heavy with respect to a non-zero idempotent $a$ -- as one can easily see, such an idempotent has to be of the form $a=e_{j_1} +\ldots + e_{j_l}$ for some $1\leq j_1<\ldots < j_l\leq d$. Then $X$ is superheavy with respect to some $e_{j_i}$, $1\leq i\leq l$. \end{thm} \medskip \noindent The theorem yields the following geometric characterization of non-semi\-sim\-pli\-city of $QH_{2n}(M)$. Namely, define the {\it symplectic Torelli group} as the group of all symplectomorphisms of $M$ which induce the identity map on $H_\bullet (M; \cF)$. For instance, this group contains $\Symp_0(M)$. Note that any element of the symplectic Torelli group acts trivially on the quantum homology of $M$ and hence maps sets (super)heavy with respect to an idempotent $a$ to sets (super)heavy with respect to $a$. Now Theorem~ readily implies the following \begin{cor} Assume that $(M,\omega)$ contains a closed subset $X$ which is heavy with respect to a non-zero idempotent and displaceable by a symplectomorphism from the symplectic Torelli group. Then $QH_{2n}(M)$ is not semi-simple. \end{cor} The simplest examples are provided by sets of the form $X \times \{ \text{a\ meridian} \}$ in $M \times \T^2$ with a heavy $X$. Another result in the same vein is as follows\footnote{In the case $\cF=\C$, Theorem~ is conditional, see the disclaimer in the previous section.}. Given a set $Y$ of positive integers, put $\beta_Y(M) = \sum_{i \in Y} \beta_i(M)$, where $\beta_i (M)$ stands for the $i$-th Betti number of $M$ over $\cF$. \begin{thm} Assume that either of the following (not mutually excluding) conditions holds: \medskip \noindent (a) $M$ contains $ m > \beta_Y(M)+1$ pair-wise disjoint closed monotone Lagrangian submanifolds whose minimal Maslov numbers are greater than $n+1$ and belong to a set $Y$ of positive integers. \medskip \noindent (b) $M$ contains pair-wise disjoint homologically non-trivial Lagrangian submanifolds\footnote{See Example~ for the definition. As in that example we again assume that all our Lagrangian submanifolds are closed, monotone and have minimal Maslov number greater than $1$.} whose fundamental classes, viewed as (non-zero) elements of \break $H_\bullet (M;\cF)$, are linearly dependent over $\cF$. \medskip \noindent (In the case $\cF=\C$ assume that all the Lagrangian submanifolds above are also relatively spin.) \medskip \noindent Then $QH_{2n}(M)$ is not semi-simple. \end{thm} \medskip \noindent The proof is given in Section~. \medskip \noindent \begin{exam} {\rm For instance, if all the Lagrangian submanifolds from part (a) of the theorem are simply connected, their minimal Maslov numbers are equal to $2N$, so that the set $Y$ consists of one element: $Y =\{2N\}$. Thus if $2N > n+1$ and $QH_{2n}(M)$ is semi-simple, $M$ cannot contain more than $\beta_{2N}(M)+1$ pair-wise disjoint simply-connected Lagrangians (provided all of them are relatively spin if we work with $\cF=\C$).} \end{exam} \begin{exam} {\rm Set $\cF=\C$. Fix $n \geq 11$ and an even number $d$ such that $6 \leq d < (n+3)/2$. Consider a Fermat hypersurface of degree $d$ $$M = \{-z_0^d+z_1^d+\ldots+z_{n+1}^d = 0\} \subset \C P^{n+1}.$$ As we already saw in Example~, the manifold $L:= M \cap \R P^{n+1}$ is an $n$-dimensional Lagrangian sphere. Consider the images $f_{\alpha}(L)$, where symplectomorphisms $f_{\alpha}$ are defined by \eqref{eq-fermat-alpha}. Note that, as long as $\alpha_j/\beta_j \neq \pm 1$ for all $j$, the Lagrangian spheres $f_\alpha (L)$ and $f_{\beta} (L)$ are disjoint. Using this observation, it is easy to find $d/2$ disjoint Lagrangian spheres in $M$. The minimal Chern number $N$ of $M$ equals $n+2-d$, and so $2N$ lies in the interval $[n+2,2n-4]$. In this case $\beta_{2N}(M) = 1$ (see e.g. ). Since $d/2 >2$, we conclude from the previous example that $QH_{2n} (M)$ is not semi-simple. This conclusion agrees with the computation of $QH_* (M)$ by Beauville .} \end{exam} \medskip \noindent It would be interesting to find examples of symplectic manifolds where the quantum homology is not known {\it a priori} and where the above theorems are applicable. Let us mention that different obstructions to the semi-simplicity of $QH_\bullet (M)$ coming from Lagrangian submanifolds were recently found by Biran and Cornea . \subsection{Discussion and open questions} \subsubsection{Strong displaceability beyond Floer theory? } Clearly, displaceability implies stable displaceability. The converse is not true, as the next example shows: \medskip \noindent \begin{exam}{\rm Consider the complex projective space $\C P^n$ equipped with the Fubini-Study symplectic form (in our normalization the area of a line equals $1$). Identify $\C P^n$ with the symplectic cut of the Euclidean ball $B(1) \subset \C^n$ (that is the boundary of $B(1)$ is collapsed to $\C P^{n-1}$ along the fibers of the Hopf fibration, see ), where $B(r):=\{\pi |z|^2 \leq r\}$. Then $B(r) \subset \C P^n$ is: \begin{itemize} \item[{(i)}] displaceable for $r < 1/2$; \item[{(ii)}] strongly non-displaceable but stably displaceable for $r \in [1/2, n/n+1)$; \item[{(iii)}] strongly and stably non-displaceable for $r \geq n/n+1$. \end{itemize} }\end{exam} \medskip \noindent It is instructive to analyze the techniques involved in the proofs: The strong non-displaceability result in (ii) is an immediate consequence of Gromov's packing-by-two-balls theorem, which is proved via the $J$-holomorphic variant of the theorem which states that there exists a $J$-holomorphic line in $\C P^n$ passing through any two points. In the case (iii) the ball $B(r)$ contains the Clifford torus, which is stably non-displaceable. This follows either from the fact that the Clifford torus is a stem (see ), or from non-vanishing of its Lagrangian Floer homology . The displaceability of $B(r)$ in (i) follows from the explicit construction of the two balls packing (see ). The stable displaceability in (ii) is a direct consequence of Theorem~ above: Indeed, consider the standard $\T^n$-action on $\C P^n$. The normalized moment polytope $\Delta \subset \R^n$ has the form $\Delta = \Delta_{stand} + w$ where $\Delta_{stand}$ is the standard simplex $\{\rho_i \geq 0, \sum \rho_i \leq 1\}$ in $\R^n$, where $(\rho_1,\ldots,\rho_n)$ denote coordinates in $\R^n$, and $w = -\frac{1}{n+1}(1,\ldots,1)$. Note that the ball $B(r)$ equals to $\Phi^{-1}(\Delta_r)$ where $\Delta_r := r \cdot \Delta_{stand} +w$. Note that $\Delta_r$ does not contain the origin exactly when $r \leq \frac{n}{n+1}$ which yields the stable displaceability in (ii) above. A mysterious feature of Example~ is as follows. On the one hand, we believe in the following general empiric principle: whenever one can establish the non-displaceability of a subset by means of the Floer homology theory, one gets for free the stable non-displaceability. On the other hand, we believe, following a philosophical explanation provided by Biran, that Gromov's packing-by-two-balls theorem may be extracted from some ``operations" in Floer homology. Example~ shows that at least one of these beliefs is wrong. It would be interesting to clarify this issue. \subsubsection{Heavy fibers of Poisson-commutative subspaces} It was shown in that for any finite-dimensional Poisson-commutative subspace ${\mathbb A}\subset C^\infty (M)$ at least one of the fibers of its moment map $\Phi$ has to be non-displaceable. \medskip \noindent {\bf Question.} Is it true that at least one fiber of $\Phi$ has to be heavy (with respect to some non-zero idempotent $a\in QH_* (M)$)? \medskip It is easy to construct an example of ${\mathbb A}$ whose moment map $\Phi$ has no superheavy fibers: take $\T^2$ with the coordinates $p,q \;{\rm mod}\ 1$ on it and take ${\mathbb A}$ to be the set of all smooth functions depending only on $p$ -- the corresponding $\Phi$ defines the fibration of $\T^2$ by meridians none of which is superheavy. Here is another question which concerns fibers of symplectic toric manifolds, i.e. fibers of a moment map $\Phi$ of an effective Hamiltonian $\T^n$-action on $(M^{2n}, \omega)$. Assume $M$ is (spherically) monotone. Theorem~ shows that in such a case the special fiber of $M$ is superheavy, hence stably and strongly non-displaceable. In all the examples where it has been checked this turns out to be the only non-displaceable fiber of $M$. \medskip \noindent {\bf Question.} Is the special fiber for a monotone symplectic toric $M$ always a stem? In particular, is it the only non-displaceable fiber of the moment map? \medskip In the monotone case the special fiber is clearly the only heavy fiber of the moment map, because it is superheavy and any other heavy fiber would have had to intersect it. On the other hand, if we consider a Hamiltonian $\T^k$-action on $M^{2n}$ with $k<n$ there can be more than one non-displaceable fiber of the moment map -- for instance, because of purely topological obstructions: the simplest Hamiltonian $\T^1$-action on $\C P^2$ provides such an example. In the case of monotone symplectic toric manifolds of dimension bigger than $4$ the question above is absolutely open. After the first draft of this paper appeared, a remarkable progress in this direction has been achieved in the works by Cho and Fukaya, Oh, Ohta and Ono : In particular, it turns out that a non-monotone symplectic toric manifold can have more than one non-displaceable fiber -- this happens already for certain equivariant blowups of $\C P^2$. \medskip \noindent {\sc Organization of the paper:} In Section~ we prove Theorem~ which in particular states that the special fiber of a compressible torus action is a stable stem. In Section~ we sum up various preliminaries from Floer theory including basic properties of spectral invariants and partial symplectic quasi-states. In addition we spell out a useful property of the Conley-Zehnder index: it is a quasi-morphism on the universal cover of the symplectic group (see Proposition~). For completeness we extract a proof of this property from ; alternatively, one can use the results of . In Section~ we prove parts (i) and (iii) of Theorem~ and Theorem~ on basic properties of (super)heavy sets. In Section~ we prove Theorem~ on products of (super)heavy sets. Our approach is based on a quite general product formula for spectral invariants (Theorem~), which is proved by a fairly lengthy algebraic argument. In Section~ we prove Theorem~ (ii) on stable non-dis\-pla\-ce\-abi\-lity of heavy subsets. The argument involves a ``baby version" of the above-men\-tio\-ned product formula. In Section~ we prove superheaviness of stable stems. In Section~ we bring together the proofs of various results related to (super)heaviness of monotone Lagrangian submanifolds satisfying the Albers condition, including Theorems~, , and Proposition~. In Section~ we prove Theorem~ on superheaviness of special fibers of Hamiltonian torus actions on monotone symplectic manifolds. The proof is quite involved. In fact, two tricks enabled us to shorten our original argument: First, we use the Fourier transform on the space of rapidly decaying functions on the Lie coalgebra of the torus in order to reduce the problem to the case of Hamiltonian circle actions. Second, we systematically use the quasi-morphism property of the Conley-Zehnder index for asymptotic calculations with Hamiltonian spectral invariants. Finally, in Section~ we prove Theorem~. Figure 1 sums up the hierarchy of the non-displaceability properties discussed above. { \vfil\eject \noindent (1),(2),(6),(19) - Trivial. \noindent (3) True if $a$ is invariant under the action of the whole group $\Symp\, (M)$ -- Theorem~, part (iii). \noindent (4), (9) Theorem~, part (iii). \noindent (5) True if the algebra $QH_{2n} (M)$ is semi-simple -- see Corollary~. \noindent (7a) True if the algebra $QH_{2n} (M)$ splits, as an algebra, into a direct sum of two algebras, at least one of which is a field, and $a$ is the unity element in that field -- see Remark~. \noindent (7b), (16b) Theorem~, part (i). \noindent (8) Theorem~, part (ii). \noindent (10) Theorem~ (see the assumptions on $L$ there). \noindent (11) True if the algebra $QH_{2n} (M)$ is semi-simple -- see Corollary~. \noindent (12) Theorem~, part (i). \noindent (13) Theorem~, part (ii). \noindent (14) Theorem~ (see the assumptions on $L$ there) with $a=[M]$ -- i.e. $j(L)$ is invertible in $QH_\bullet (M)$. \noindent (15) $L$ satisfies the Albers condition -- see Theorem~. \noindent (16a) True if $QH_{2n} (M)$ is a field -- see Remark~. \noindent (17) Theorem~. \noindent (18) Theorem~. \noindent (20) Theorem~. \noindent (21) Is the special fiber for a monotone {\it symplectic toric} $M$ always a stem? See Section~. \noindent (22) True if $M$ is spherically monotone and the torus action is compressible -- see Remark~. \noindent (23) See . } \section{Detecting stable displaceability} For detecting stable displaceability of a subset of a symplectic manifold we shall use the following result (cf. \cite[Chapter 6]{Pol-book}). \begin{thm} Let $X$ be a closed subset of a closed symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$. Assume that there exists a contractible loop of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of $(M,\omega)$ generated by a normalized time-periodic Hamiltonian $H_t(x)$ so that $H_t(x) \neq 0$ for all $t \in [0,1]$ and $x \in X$. Then $X$ is stably displaceable. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Denote by $h_t$ the Hamiltonian loop generated by $H$. Let $h^{(s)}_t$ be its homotopy to the constant loop: $h^{(1)}_t= h_t$ and $h^{(0)}_t=\id$. Write $H^{(s)}(x,t)$ for the corresponding normalized Hamiltonians. Consider the family of diffeomorphisms $\Psi_s$ of $M\times T^*\SP^1$ given by $$\Psi_s(x,r,\theta) = (h^{(s)}_{\theta}x, r-H^{(s)}(h^{(s)}_{\theta}x,\theta),\theta)\;.$$ One readily checks that $\Psi_s, s \in [0,1]$, is a Hamiltonian isotopy (not compactly supported). We claim that $\Psi_1$ displaces $Y:=X \times \{r=0\}$. Indeed, if $\Psi_1(x,0,\theta) \in Y$ we have $h_\theta x \in X$ and $H_{\theta}(h_\theta x)=0$ which contradicts the assumption of the theorem. This completes the proof. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~:} Choose a linear functional $F: \R^k \to \R$ with rational coefficients which is strictly positive on $Y$. Then for some sufficiently large positive integer $N$ the Hamiltonian $H:= N\Phi^*F$ generates a contractible Hamiltonian circle action on $M$ and $H$ is strictly positive on $X:=\Phi^{-1}(Y)$. Thus $X$ is stably displaceable in view of the previous theorem. \qed \section{Preliminaries on Hamiltonian Floer theory} \subsection{Valuation on $QH_* (M)$} Define a function $\nu: \cK \to \Gamma$ by $$\nu(\sum z_\theta s^\theta)= \max\{\ \theta \;{|}\; z_\theta \neq 0\}\;.$$ The convention is that $\nu(0)=-\infty$. In algebraic terms, $\exp \nu$ is a non-Archimedean absolute value on $\cK$. The function $\nu$ admits a natural extension to $\Lambda$ and then to $QH_* (M)$ -- abusing the notation we will denote all of them by $\nu$. Namely, any element of $\lambda\in\Lambda$ can be uniquely represented as $\lambda = \sum_\theta u_\theta s^\theta$, where each $u_\theta$ belongs to $\cF[q,q^{-1}]$, and any non-zero $a\in QH_* (M)$ can be uniquely represented as $a = \sum_i \lambda_i b_i$, $0\neq \lambda_i\in \Lambda$, $0\neq b_i\in H_* (M;\cF)$. Define $$\nu (\lambda) := \max \big\{ \theta \ |\ u_\theta\neq 0\big\},$$ $$\nu (a) := \max_i \nu(\lambda_i).$$ \subsection{Hamiltonian Floer theory} We briefly recall the notation and conventions for the setup of the Hamiltonian Floer theory that will be used in the proofs. Let $\cL$ be the space of all smooth contractible loops $\gamma: \SP^1 = \R/\Z \to M$. We will view such a $\gamma$ as a 1-periodic map $\gamma: \R\to M$. Let $\D^2$ be the standard unit disk in $\R^2$. Consider a covering $\tcL$ of $\cL$ whose elements are equivalence classes of pairs $(\gamma,u)$, where $\gamma \in \cL$, $u: \D^2\to M$, $\left. u\right|_{\partial \D^2} = \gamma$ (i.e. $u (e^{2\pi \sqrt{-1} t}) = \gamma (t)$), is a (piecewise smooth) disk spanning $\gamma$ in $M$ and the equivalence relation is defined as follows: $(\gamma_1,u_1) \sim (\gamma_2,u_2)$ if and only if $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2$ and the 2-sphere $u_1 \# (-u_2)$ vanishes in $H_2^S (M)$. The equivalence class of a pair $(\gamma, u)$ will be denoted by $[\gamma,u]$. The group of deck transformations of the covering $\tcL\to\cL$ can be naturally identified with $H_2^S (M)$. An element $A \in H_2^S (M)$ acts by the transformation \begin{equation} A ([\gamma,u]) = [\gamma,u \# (-A)]. \end{equation} Let $F: M\times [0,1]\to\R$ be a Hamiltonian function (which is time-periodic as we always assume). Set $F_t := F (\cdot, t)$. We will denote by $f_t$ the Hamiltonian flow generated by $F$, meaning the flow of the time-dependent Hamiltonian vector field $X_t$ defined by the formula \[ \omega (\cdot, X_t) = dF_t (\cdot)\ \ \forall t. \] (Note our sign convention!) Let $\cP_F \subset \cL$ be the set of all contractible 1-periodic orbits of the Hamiltonian flow generated by $F$, i.e. the set of all $\gamma\in \cL$ such that $\gamma (t) = f_t (\gamma (0))$. Denote by $\tP_F$ the full lift of $\cP_F$ to $\tcL$. Denote by $\Fix (F)$ the set of those fixed points of $f$ that are endpoints of contractible periodic orbits of the flow: \[ \Fix (F) := \{ x\in M \ | \ \exists \gamma\in \cP_F,\ \ x=\gamma (0)\}. \] We say that $F$ is {\it regular} if for any $x\in \Fix (F)$ the map $d_x f : T_x M\to T_x M$ does not have eigenvalue $1$. Recall that the {\it action functional} is defined on $\tcL$ by the formula: $$\cA_F ([\gamma, u]) = \int_0^1 F(\gamma (t), t) dt - \int_{\D^2} u^*\omega.$$ Note that \begin{equation} \cA_F(Ay) =\cA_F(y) + \omega (A) \end{equation} for all $y \in \tcL$ and $A \in H_2^S (M)$. For a regular Hamiltonian $F$ define a vector space $C (F)$ over $\cF$ as the set of all formal sums $$\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i y_i,\, \lambda_i \in \Lambda, y_i\in \tP_F,$$ modulo the relations $$Ay = s^{-\omega (A)} q^{-c_1 (A)} y, $$ for all $y\in\tP_F, A\in H_2^S (M)$. The grading on $\Lambda$ together with the Conley-Zehnder index on elements of $\tP_F$ (see Section~) defines a $\Z$-grading on $C (F)$. We will denote the $i$-th graded component by $C_i (F)$. Given a loop $\{J_t\},\; t\in \SP^1$, of $\omega$-compatible almost complex structures, define a Riemannian metric on $\cL$ by $$(\xi_1,\xi_2) = \int_0^1 \omega (\xi_1 (t), J_t\xi_2(t))dt, $$ where $\xi_1,\xi_2 \in T_\gamma \cL$. Lift this metric to $\tcL$ and consider the negative gradient flow of the action functional $\cA_F$. For a generic choice of the Hamiltonian $F$ and the loop $\{J_t\}$ (such a pair $(F,J)$ is called {\it regular}) the count of isolated gradient trajectories connecting critical points of $\cA_F$ gives rise in the standard way , , to a Morse-type differential \begin{equation} d: C (F) \to C (F),\; d^2 =0. \end{equation} The differential $d$ is $\Lambda$-linear and has the graded degree $-1$. It strictly decreases the action. The homology, defined by $d$, is called the {\it Floer homology} and will be denoted by $HF_* (F,J)$. It is a $\Lambda$-module. Different choices of a regular pair $(F,J)$ lead to natural isomorphisms between the Floer homology groups. The following proposition summarizes a few basic algebraic properties of Floer complexes and Floer homology that will be important for us further. The proof is straightforward and we omit it. \begin{prop} \ \medskip 1) Each $C_i (F)$ and each $HF_i (F,J)$, $i\in\Z$, is a finite-dimensional vector space over $\cK$. \medskip 2) Multiplication by $q$ defines isomorphisms $C_i (F)\to C_{i+2} (F)$ and \break $HF_i (F,J)\to HF_{i+2} (F,J)$ of $\cK$-vector spaces. \medskip 3) For each $i\in\Z$ there exists a basis of $C_i (F)$ over $\cK$ consisting of the elements of the form $q^l [\gamma, u]$, with $[\gamma, u]\in \tP_F$. \medskip 4) A finite collection of elements of the form $q^l [\gamma, u]$, $[\gamma, u]\in \tP_F$, lying in $C_0 (F) \cup C_1 (F)$ is a basis of the vector space $C_0 (F)\oplus C_1 (F)$ over the field $\cK$ if and only if it is a basis of the module $C(F)$ over the ring $\Lambda$. \end{prop} \subsection{Conley-Zehnder and Maslov indices} In this section we briefly outline the definition and recall the relevant properties of the Conley-Zehnder index referring to for details. In particular, we show that {\it the Conley-Zehnder index is a quasi-morphism on the universal cover $\widetilde{Sp\, (2k)}$ of the symplectic group $Sp(2k)$} (see Proposition~ below), a fact which will be useful for asymptotic calculations with Floer homology in the next sections. There are several routes leading to this fact, which is quite natural since all homogeneous quasi-morphisms on $\widetilde{Sp\, (2k)}$ are proportional, and hence the same quasi-morphism admits quite dissimilar definitions . We extract the quasi-morphism property from the paper of Robbin and Salamon by bringing together several statements contained therein\footnote{We thank V.L. Ginzburg for stimulating discussions on the material of this section.}. The Conley-Zehnder index assigns to each $[\gamma, u]\in \tP_F$ a number. Originally the Conley-Zehnder index was defined only for regular Hamiltonians -- in this case it is integer-valued and gives rise to a grading of the homology groups in Floer theory. Later the definition was extended in different ways by different authors to arbitrary Hamiltonians. We will use such an extension introduced in (also see \cite{Sal-Ze, Sal}). In this case the Conley-Zehnder index may take also half-integer values. Let $k$ be a natural number. Consider the symplectic vector space $\R^{2k}$ with a symplectic form $\omega_{2k}$ on it. Denote by $p=(p_1,\ldots,p_k),q=(q_1,\ldots, q_k)$ the corresponding Darboux coordinates on the vector space $\R^{2k}$. \medskip \noindent {\sc Robbin-Salamon index of Lagrangian paths:} Let $V\subset \R^{2k}$ be a Lagrangian subspace. Consider the Grassmannian ${\it Lagr}\, (k)$ of all Lagrangian subspaces in $\R^{2k}$ and consider the hypersurface $\Sigma_V\subset {\it Lagr}\, (k)$ formed by all the Lagrangian subspaces that are {\it not} transversal to $V$. To such a $V$ and to any smooth path $\{ L_t \}$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, in ${\it Lagr}\, (k)$ Robbin and Salamon associate an index, which may take integer or half-integer values and which we will denote by $RS (\{ L_t\}, V)$. The definition of the index can be outlined as follows. A number $t\in [0,1]$ is called a {\it crossing} if $L_t \in\Sigma_V$. To each crossing $t$ one associates a certain quadratic form $Q_t$ on the space $L(t)\cap V$ -- see for the precise definition. The crossing $t$ is called {\it regular} if the quadratic form $Q_t$ is non-degenerate. The {\it index} of such a regular crossing $t$ is defined as the signature of $Q_t$ if $0<t<1$ and as half of the signature of $Q_t$ if $t=0,1$. One can show that regular crossings are isolated. For a path $\{ L_t \}$ with only regular crossings the index $RS (\{ L_t \}, V)$ is defined as the sum of the indices of its crossings. An arbitrary path can be perturbed, keeping the endpoints fixed, into a path with only regular crossings and the index of the perturbed path does not depend on the perturbation -- in fact, it depends only on the fixed endpoints homotopy class of the path. Moreover, it is additive with respect to the concatenation of paths and satisfies the naturality property: $RS (\{AL_t\}, AV) = RS (\{ L_t\}, V)$ for any symplectic matrix $A$. \medskip\noindent {\sc Indices of paths in $Sp\, (2k)$:} Consider the group $Sp\, (2k)$ of symplectic $2k\times 2k$-matrices. Denote by $\widetilde{Sp\, (2k)}$ its universal cover. One can use the index $RS$ in order to define two indices on the space of smooth paths in $Sp\, (2k)$. The first index, denoted by $Ind_{2k}$, is defined as follows. Fix a Lagrangian subspace $V\subset \R^{2k}$. For each smooth path $\{ A_t \}$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, in $Sp\, (2k)$ define $Ind_{2k}\, (\{ A_t \}, V)$ as $$Ind_{2k}\, (\{ A_t \}, V) := RS (\{ A_t V\}, V).$$ The naturality of the $RS$ index implies that $$RS (\{ B A_t B^{-1} (BV)\}, BV) = RS (\{ B A_t V)\}, BV) = $$ $$= RS (\{ A_t V)\}, V) \ {\rm for\ any}\ B\in Sp\, (2k)$$ and thus we get the following naturality condition for $Ind_{2k}$: \begin{equation} Ind_{2k}\, (\{BA_t B^{-1}\}, BV) = Ind_{2k}\, (\{ A_t \}, V)\ {\rm for\ any}\ B\in Sp\, (2k). \end{equation} The second index, which we will call the {\it Conley-Zehnder index of a matrix path} and which will be denoted by $CZ_{matr}$, is defined as follows. For each $A\in Sp\, (2k)$ denote by $Gr\, A$ the graph of $A$ which is a Lagrangian subspace of the symplectic vector space $\R^{4k} = \R^{2k}\times \R^{2k}$ equipped with the symplectic structure $\omega_{4k} = -\omega_{2k}\oplus \omega_{2k}$. Denote by $\Delta$ the diagonal in $\R^{4k} = \R^{2k}\times \R^{2k}$ -- it is a Lagrangian subspace with respect to $\omega_{4k}$. Now for any smooth path $\{ A_t \}$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, in $Sp\, (2k)$ define $CZ_{matr}$ as $$CZ_{matr} (\{ A_t\}) := RS (\{ Gr\, A_t\}, \Delta).$$ Equivalently, one can define $CZ_{matr} (\{ A_t\})$ similarly to the index $RS$ by looking at the intersections of $\{ A(t)\}$ with the hypersurface $\Sigma\subset Sp\, (2k)$ formed by all the symplectic $2k\times 2k$-matrices with eigenvalue $1$ and translating the notions of a regular crossing and the corresponding quadratic form to this setup. Both indices $Ind_{2k}\, (\{ A_t \}, V)$ and $CZ_{matr} (\{ A_t\})$ depend only on the fixed endpoints homotopy class of the path $\{ A_t \}$ and are additive with respect to the concatenation of paths in $Sp\, (2k)$. The relation between the two indices is as follows. Denote by $I_{2k}$ the $2k\times 2k$ identity matrix. Given a smooth path $\{ A_t \}$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, in $Sp\, (2k)$, set $\widehat{A}_t := I_{2k} \oplus A_t \in Sp\, (4k)$. Then \begin{equation} CZ_{matr} (\{ A_t\}) = Ind_{4k} (\{ \widehat{A}_t \}, \Delta). \end{equation} \bigskip \begin{rem} {\rm Note that near each $W\in\Sigma_V$ there exists a local coordinate chart (on ${\it Lagr}\, (k)$) in which $\Sigma_V$ can be defined by an algebraic equation of degree bounded from above by a constant $C$ depending only on $k$ and $W$. Moreover, since for any two $V,V'\in {\it Lagr}\, (k)$ there exists a diffeomorphism of ${\it Lagr}\, (k)$ mapping $\Sigma_V$ into $\Sigma_{V'}$ we can assume that $C=C(k)$ is independent of $W$ and depends only on $k$. Therefore for any $V$, for any point $W\in\Sigma_V$ and for any sufficiently small open neighborhood $U_W$ of $W$ in ${\it Lagr}\, (k)$ the number of connected components of $U_W\setminus (U_W\cap \Sigma_V)$ is bounded by a constant depending only on $k$. Using these observations and the fact that regular crossings are isolated it is easy to show that there exists a constant $C(k)$, depending only on $k$, such that for any Lagrangian subspace $V\subset \R^{2k}$ and any path $\{ A_t\} \subset Sp\, (2k)$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, there exists a $\delta>0$ such that for any smooth path $\{ A'_t\}\subset Sp\, (2k)$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, which is $\delta$-close to $\{ A_t\}$ in the $C^0$-metric, one has $$|Ind_{2k} (\{ A_t\}, V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ A'_t\}, V| < C(k),$$ $$|CZ_{matr} (\{ A_t\}) - CZ_{matr} (\{ A'_t\}| < C(k).$$ } \end{rem} \medskip\noindent {\sc Leray theorem on the index $Ind_{2k}$:} The following result follows from Theorem 5.1 in which Robbin and Salamon credit to Leray , p.52. Denote by $L$ the Lagrangian $(q_1,\ldots,q_k)$-coordinate plane in $\R^{2k}$. Any symplectic matrix $S\in Sp\, (2k)$ can be decomposed into $k\times k$ blocks as $$S=\left( \begin{array}{cc} E & F \\ G & H \\ \end{array} \right),$$ where the blocks satisfy, in particular, the condition that \begin{equation} EF^T - FE^T=0. \end{equation} If $SL\cap L = 0$ then the $k\times k$-matrix $F$ is invertible and multiplying () by $F^{-1}$ on the left and $(F^T)^{-1} = (F^{-1})^T$ on the right, we get that $F^{-1}E - E^T (F^{-1})^T = 0$. Therefore the matrix $Q_S := F^{-1} E$ is symmetric. \begin{thm}[, Theorem 5.1; , p.52] Assume $\{ A_t\}$, $\{ B_t\}$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, are two smooth paths in $Sp\, (2k)$, such that $A_0=B_0=I_{2k}$ and $A_1 L\cap L = 0$, $B_1 L\cap L = 0$, $A_1 B_1 L\cap L = 0$. Then $$Ind_{2k} (\{ A_t B_t\}, L) = Ind_{2k} (\{ A_t\}, L) + Ind_{2k} (\{ B_t\}, L) +\frac{1}{2} {\rm sign}\, (Q_{A_1} + Q_{B_1}),$$ where ${\rm sign}\, (Q_{A_1} + Q_{B_1})$ is the signature of the quadratic form defined by the symmetric $k\times k$-matrix $Q_{A_1} + Q_{B_1}$. \end{thm} \begin{cor} Let $V$ be any Lagrangian subspace of $\R^{2k}$. Then there exists a positive constant $C$, depending only on $k$, such that for any smooth paths $\{ X_t\}$, $\{ Y_t\}$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, in $Sp\, (2k)$, such that $X_0=Y_0=I_{2k}$ (there are no assumptions on $X_1$, $Y_1$!), $$| Ind_{2k} (\{ X_t Y_t\}, V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ X_t\}, V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ Y_t\}, V)| < C.$$ \end{cor} \begin{proof} We will write $C_1, C_2,\ldots$ for (possibly different) positive constants depending only on $k$. Pick a map $\Psi\in Sp\, (2k)$ such that $\Psi V = L$. Denote $A_t = \Psi X_t \Psi^{-1}$, $B_t = \Psi Y_t \Psi^{-1}$. Note that the paths $\{ A_t\}$, $\{ B_t\}$ are based at the identity. Using the naturality property () of $Ind_{2k}$ we get $$| Ind_{2k} (\{ X_t Y_t \}, V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ X_t\}, V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ Y_t\}, V)| = $$ $$ = | Ind_{2k} (\{ \Psi X_t Y_t \Psi^{-1} \}, \Psi V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ \Psi X_t \Psi^{-1}\}, \Psi V) - $$ $$ - Ind_{2k} (\{ \Psi Y_t \Psi^{-1} \}, \Psi V)| = $$ $$ = | Ind_{2k} (\{ (\Psi X_t \Psi^{-1}) (\Psi Y_t\Psi^{-1}) \}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ \Psi X_t \Psi^{-1} \}, L) - $$ $$ - Ind_{2k} (\{ \Psi Y_t \Psi^{-1}\}, L)| = $$ $$ = | Ind_{2k} (\{ A_t B_t \}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ A_t\}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ B_t\}, L)|.$$ Thus \begin{eqnarray} | Ind_{2k} (\{ X_t Y_t \}, V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ X_t\}, V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ Y_t\}, V)| = \cr \ \cr = | Ind_{2k} (\{ A_t B_t \}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ A_t\}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ B_t\}, L)|. \end{eqnarray} Further on, Remark~ implies that we can find sufficiently $C^0$-close identity-based perturbations $\{ A'_t\}$, $\{ B'_t\}$ of $\{ A_t\}$, $\{ B_t\}$ such that \begin{equation} A'_1 L \cap L = 0,\ B'_1 L\cap L = 0,\ A'_1 B'_1 L \cap L = 0. \end{equation} and \begin{eqnarray} | Ind_{2k} (\{ A_t B_t \}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ A_t\}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ B_t\}, L)| - \cr \ \cr - | Ind_{2k} (\{ A'_t B'_t \}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ A'_t\}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ B'_t\}, L)| < C_1, \end{eqnarray} for some $C_1$. On the other hand, since the three identity-based paths $\{ A'_t\}$, $\{ B'_t\}$, $\{ A'_t B'_t\}$, satisfy the conditions (), we can apply to them Theorem~. Hence there exists $C_2$ such that $$| Ind_{2k} (\{ A'_t B'_t \}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ A'_t\}, L) - Ind_{2k} (\{ B'_t\}, L)| < C_2.$$ Combining it with () and () we get that there exists $C_3$ such that $$| Ind_{2k} (\{ X_t Y_t \}, V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ X_t\}, V) - Ind_{2k} (\{ Y_t\}, V)| < C_3,$$ which finishes the proof. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent {\sc Conley-Zehnder index as a quasi-morphism:} Recall that $2n= {\rm dim}\, M$. Restricting $CZ_{matr}$ to the identity-based paths in $Sp\, (2n)$ one gets a function on $\widetilde{Sp\, (2n)}$ that will be still denoted by $CZ_{matr}$. \begin{prop}[cf. ] The function $CZ_{matr}: \widetilde{Sp\, (2n)}\to \R$ is a {\it quasi-morphism}. It means that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$ | CZ_{matr} (ab) - CZ_{matr} (a) - CZ_{matr} (b)|\leq C \ \ \forall a,b\in \widetilde{Sp\, (2n)}. $$ \end{prop} \begin{proof} Represent $a$ and $b$ by identity-based paths $\{ A_t\}$, $\{ B_t\}$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, in $Sp\, (2n)$. Then use () and apply Corollary~ for $k=2n$, $V=\Delta$ to $\{ \widehat{A}_t\}$, $\{ \widehat{B}_t\}$ in $Sp\, (4n)$. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent {\sc Maslov index of symplectic loops:} The Conley-Zehnder index for identity-based loops in $Sp\, (2n)$ is called the {\it Maslov index} of a loop. Its original definition, going back to , is the following: it is the intersection number of an identity-based loop with the stratified hypersurface $\Sigma$ whose principal stratum is equipped with a certain co-orientation. Note that we do not divide the intersection number by $2$ and thus in our case the Maslov index takes only even values; for instance, the Maslov index of a counterclockwise $2\pi$-twist of the standard symplectic $\R^2$ is $2$. We denote the Maslov index of a loop $\{ B (t)\}$ by $\Maslov (\{ B (t)\})$. \medskip\noindent {\sc Conley-Zehnder and Maslov indices of periodic orbits:} The Con\-ley-Zehnder index for periodic orbits is defined by means of the Conley-Zehnder index for matrix paths as follows. Given $[\gamma, u]\in \tP_F$, build an identity-based path $\{ A(t)\}$ in $Sp\, (2n)$ as follows: take a symplectic trivialization of the bundle $u^* (TM)$ over $\D^2$ and use the trivialization to identify the linearized flow $d_{\gamma (0)} f_t$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, along $\gamma$ with a symplectic matrix $\{ A (t)\}$. Then the Conley-Zehnder index $CZ_F ([\gamma, u])$ is defined as \begin{equation} CZ_F ([\gamma, u]) := n - CZ_{matr}\, (\{ A(t)\}). \end{equation} With such a normalization of $CZ_F$ for any sufficiently $C^2{\hbox{\rm -small}}$ autonomous Morse Hamiltonian $F$, the Conley-Zehnder index of an element of $\tP_F$, represented by a pair $[x, u]$ consisting of a critical point $x$ of $F$ (viewed as a constant path in $M$) and the trivial disk $u$, is equal to the Morse index of $x$. Note that with such a normalization $CZ_F (Sy) = CZ_F (y) + 2\int_S c_1(M)$ for every $y \in \tP_F$ and $S \in H_2^S(M)$. Similarly, if the time-1 flow generated by $F$ defines a loop in $\Ham (M)$ then to each $[\gamma, u]\in \tP_F$ one can associate its Maslov index. Namely, trivialize the bundle $u^* (TM)$ over $\D^2$ and identify the linearized flow $\{ d_x f_t \}$ along $\gamma$ with an identity-based loop of symplectic $2n\times 2n$-matrices. Define the Maslov index $m_F ([\gamma, u])$ as the Maslov index for the loop of symplectic matrices. Under the action of $H_2^S (M)$ on $\tP_F$ the Maslov index changes as follows: \[ m_F (S\cdot [\gamma, u]) = m_F ([\gamma, u]) - 2\int_S c_1(M), \ \ S \in H_2^S (M). \] Let us make the following remark. Assume $\gamma\in \cP_F$ and assume that a symplectic trivialization of the bundle $\gamma^* (TM)$ over $\SP^1$ identifies $\{ d_{\gamma (0)} f_t\}$ with an identity-based path $\{ A(t)\}$ of symplectic matrices. Assume there is another symplectic trivialization of the same bundle, coinciding with the first one at $\gamma (0)$, and denote by $\{ B(t)\}$ the identity-based loop of transition matrices from the first symplectic trivialization to the second one. Use the second trivialization to identify $\{ d_{\gamma (0)} f_t\}$ with an identity-based path $\{ A^\prime (t)\}$. Then \begin{equation} CZ_{matr}\, (\{ A^\prime (t)\}) = CZ_{matr}\, (\{ A (t)\}) + \Maslov (\{ B(t)\}), \end{equation} and if $\{ A(t)\}$ is a loop then so is $\{ A^\prime (t)\}$ and \begin{equation} \Maslov (\{ A^\prime (t)\}) = \Maslov (\{ A (t)\}) + \Maslov (\{ B(t)\}). \end{equation} \subsection{Spectral numbers} Given the algebraic setup as above, the construction of the Piu\-ni\-khin-Sa\-la\-mon-Schwarz (PSS) isomorphism yields a $\Lambda$-linear isomorphism ({\it PSS-isomorphism}) $\phi_M: QH_* (M) \to HF_* (F,J)$ which preserves the grading and which is actually a ring isomorphism (the pair-of-pants product defines a ring structure on $HF_* (F,J)$). Using the PSS-isomorphism one defines the {\it spectral numbers} $c (a, F)$, where $0\neq a\in QH_* (M)$, in the usual way . Namely, the action functional $\cA_F$ defines a filtration on $C (F)$ which induces a filtration $HF^\alpha_* (F,J)$, $\alpha\in\R$, on $HF_* (F,J)$, with $HF^\alpha_* (F,J)\subset HF^\beta_* (F,J)$ as long as $\alpha <\beta$. Then $$ c(a,F):= \inf\, \{ \alpha\, |\, \phi_M (a) \in HF^\alpha_* (F,J)\}.$$ Such spectral number is finite and well-defined (does not depend on $J$). Here is a brief account of the relevant properties of spectral numbers -- for details see (see also for earlier versions of this theory). \begin{description} \item[{\bf (Spectrality)}]\ $c (a, H)\in {\it {spec}}\, (H)$, where {\it the spectrum ${\it {spec}}\, (H)$ of $H$} is defined as the set of critical values of the action functional $\cA_H$, i.e. ${\it {spec}}\, (H) := \cA_H (\tP_H) \subset \R$. \item[{\bf (Quantum homology shift property)}]\ $c (\lambda a, H) = c (a, H) + \nu (\lambda)$ for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$, where $\nu$ is the valuation defined in Section~. \item[{\bf (Hamiltonian shift property)}]\ $c (a, H+\lambda (t) ) = c (a, H) + \int_0^1 \lambda (t) \ dt$ for any Hamiltonian $H$ and function $\lambda: \SP^1 \to \R$. \item[{\bf (Monotonicity)}]\ If $H_1\leq H_2$, then $c (a, H_1)\leq c (a, H_2)$. \item[{\bf (Lipschitz property)}]\ The map $H\mapsto c (a, H)$ is Lipschitz on the space of (time-dependent) Hamiltonians $H: M\times \SP^1\to\R$ with respect to the $C^0$-norm. \item[{\bf (Symplectic invariance)}]\ $c (a,\phi^*H) = c (a,H)$ for every $\phi \in \Symp_0 (M)$, $H \in C^{\infty} (M)$; more generally, $\Symp\, (M)$ acts on $H_* (M; \cF)$, and hence on $QH_* (M)$, and $c (a,\phi^*H) = c (\phi_* a,H)$ for any $\phi\in\Symp\, (M)$. \item[{\bf (Normalization)}]\ $c (a,0) = \nu (a)$ for every $a \in QH_* (M)$. \item[{\bf (Homotopy invariance)}]\ $c (a, H_1) = c (a, H_2)$ for any {\it normalized} $H_1, H_2$ generating the same $\phi\in\tHam (M)$. Thus one can define $c (a,\phi)$ for any $\phi\in\tHam (M)$ as $c (a,H)$ for any normalized $H$ generating $\phi$. \item[{\bf (Triangle inequality)}]\ $c (a\ast b, \phi\psi)\leq c (a, \phi) + c (b, \psi)$. \end{description} \medskip \noindent The commutative ring $QH_\bullet (M)$ admits a $\cK$-bilinear and $\cK$-valued form $\Omega$ on $QH_\bullet (M)$ which associates to a pair of quantum homology classes $a, b\in QH_\bullet (M)$ the coefficient (belonging to $\cK$) at the class $[point] = [point]\cdot q^0$ of a point in their quantum product $a\ast b \in QH_\bullet (M)$ ({\it the Frobenius structure}). Let $\tau: \cK \to \cF$ be the map sending each series $\sum_{\theta\in\Gamma} z_\theta s^\theta$, $z_\theta\in \cF$, to its free term $z_0$. Define a non-degenerate $\cF$-valued $\cF$-linear pairing on $QH_\bullet (M)$ by \begin{equation} \Pi (a,b) := \tau\Omega(a,b) = \tau\Omega(a*b,[M])\;. \end{equation} Note that $\Pi$ is symmetric and \begin{equation} \Pi (a*b, c) = \Pi (a, b*c) \ \forall a,b,c\in QH_\bullet (M). \end{equation} With this notion at hand, we can present another important property of spectral numbers: \begin{description} \item[{\bf (Poincar\'e duality)}]\ $c(b,\phi) = -\inf_{a \in \Upsilon(b)} c(a,\phi^{-1})$ for all $b \in QH_\bullet (M) \setminus\{0\}$ and $\phi$. Here $\Upsilon(b)$ denotes the set of all $a \in QH_\bullet (M)$ with $\Pi(a,b) \neq 0$. \end{description} \medskip \noindent The Poincar\'e duality can be extracted from (cf. ) -- for a proof see . \medskip \noindent The next property is an immediate consequence of the definitions (see for a discussion in the monotone case): \begin{description} \item[{\bf (Characteristic exponent property)}]\ Given $0\neq \lambda \in \cF$, $a,b \in QH_* (M)$, $a,b,a+b\neq 0$, and a (time-dependent) Hamiltonian $H$, one has \break $c(\lambda \cdot a, H) = c(a,H)$ and $c(a+b,H) \leq \max(c(a,H),c(b,H)) $. \end{description} \subsection{Partial symplectic quasi-states} Given a non-zero idempotent $a\in QH_{2n} (M)$ and a time-independent Hamiltonian $H: M\to \R$, define \begin{equation} \zeta (a,H): = \lim_{l \to +\infty}\; \frac{c (a,lH)}{l}\;. \end{equation} \medskip \noindent When $a$ is fixed, we shall often abbreviate $\zeta(H)$ instead of $\zeta(a,H)$. The limit in the formula () always exists and thus the functional $\zeta: C^\infty (M)\to \R$ is well-defined. The functional $\zeta$ on $C^\infty (M)$ is Lipschitz with respect to the $C^0$-norm $\|H\| = \max_M |H|$ and therefore extends to a functional $\zeta: C (M)\to \R$, where $C(M)$ is the space of all continuous functions on $M$. These facts were proved in in the case $a=[M]$ but the proofs actually go through for any non-zero idempotent $a\in QH_{2n} (M)$. Here we will list the properties of $\zeta$ for such an $M$. Again, these properties were proved in in the case $a=[M]$ but the proof goes through for any non-zero idempotent $a\in QH_{2n} (M)$. The additivity with respect to constants property was not explicitly listed in but follows immediately from the definition of $\zeta$ and the Hamiltonian shift property of spectral numbers. The triangle inequality follows readily from the definition of $\zeta$ and from the triangle inequality for the spectral numbers. \begin{thm} \ The functional $\zeta: C (M)\to \R$ satisfies the following properties: \medskip \noindent \underline{\it Semi-homogeneity:} $\zeta (\alpha F) = \alpha \zeta (F)$ for any $F$ and any $\alpha \in \R_{\geq 0}$. \medskip \noindent \underline{\it Triangle inequality:} If $F_1, F_2\in C^\infty (M)$, $\{ F_1, F_2\} =0$ then $\zeta (F_1+F_2)\leq \zeta (F_1) + \zeta (F_2)$. \medskip \noindent \underline{\it Partial additivity and vanishing:} If $F_1, F_2\in C^\infty (M)$, $\{ F_1, F_2\} =0$ and the support of $F_2$ is displaceable, then $\zeta (F_1 + F_2) = \zeta (F_1)$; in particular, if the support of $F\in C(M)$ is displaceable, $\zeta (F) = 0$. \medskip \noindent \underline{\it Additivity with respect to constants and normalization:} $\zeta (F +\alpha) = \zeta (F) + \alpha$ for any $F$ and any $\alpha\in\R$. In particular, $\zeta (1) = 1$. \medskip \noindent \underline{\it Monotonicity:} $\zeta (F) \leq \zeta (G)$ for $F \leq G$. \medskip \noindent \underline{\it Symplectic invariance:} $\zeta (F) = \zeta (F\circ f)$ for every symplectic diffeomorphism $f \in \Symp_0\, (M)$. \medskip \noindent \underline{\it Characteristic exponent property:} $\zeta(a_1+a_2,F) \leq \max(\zeta(a_1,F), \zeta(a_2,F))$ for each pair of non-zero idempotents $a_1,a_2$ with $a_1*a_2=0$, $a_1+a_2\neq 0$ (in this case $a_1 + a_2$ is also a non-zero idempotent), and for all $ F \in C(M)\;.$ \end{thm} We will call the functional $\zeta: C(M)\to \R$ satisfying all the properties listed in Theorem~ {\it a partial symplectic quasi-state}. \section{Basic properties of (super)heavy sets} In this section we prove parts (i) and (iii) of Theorem~, as well as Theorem~. We shall use that a partial symplectic quasi-state $\zeta$ extends by continuity in the uniform norm to a monotone functional on the space of {\bf continuous} functions $C(M)$, see Section~ above. In particular, one can use continuous functions instead of the smooth ones in the definition of (super)heaviness in formulae \eqref{eq-heavy-0} and \eqref{eq-superheavy-0}. Assume a partial quasi-state $\zeta$ defined by a non-zero idempotent is fixed and we consider heaviness and superheaviness with respect to $\zeta$. We start with the following elementary \begin{prop} A closed subset $X \subset M$ is heavy if and only if for every $H \in C^{\infty}(M)$ with $H|_X=0$, $H \leq 0$ one has $\zeta(H)=0$. A closed subset $X \subset M$ is superheavy if and only if for every $H \in C^{\infty}(M)$ with $H|_X=0$, $H \geq 0$ one has $\zeta(H)=0$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} The ``only if" parts follow readily from the monotonicity property of $\zeta$. Let us prove the ``if" part in the ``heavy case" -- the ``superheavy" case is similar. Take a function $H$ on $M$ and put $$F = \min (H - \inf_X H, 0)\;.$$ Note that $F|_X = 0$ and $F \leq 0$. Thus $\zeta(F) =0$ by the assumption of the proposition. Thus $$0 = \zeta(F) \leq \zeta(H - \inf_X H)=\zeta(H) - \inf_X H\;,$$ which yields heaviness of $X$. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent The following proposition proves part (i) of Theorem~. \begin{prop} Every superheavy set is heavy. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Let $X \subset M$ be a superheavy subset. Assume that $H|_X=0$, $H \leq 0$. By the triangle inequality for $\zeta$ we have $\zeta(H)+\zeta(-H) \geq 0$. Note that $-H|_X =0$, $-H \geq 0$. Superheaviness yields $\zeta(-H)=0$, so $\zeta(H) \geq 0$. But by monotonicity $\zeta(H) \leq 0$. Thus $\zeta(H)=0$ and the claim follows from Proposition~.\end{proof} \medskip \noindent Superheavy sets have the following user-friendly property. \begin{prop} Let $X \subset M$ be a superheavy set. Then for every $\alpha \in \R$ and $H \in C^{\infty}(M)$ with $H|_X \equiv \alpha$ one has $\zeta(H)=\alpha$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Since $\zeta(H+\alpha) = \zeta(H)+\alpha$ it suffices to prove the proposition for $\alpha = 0$. Take any function $H$ with $H|_X=0$. Since $X$ is superheavy and, by Proposition~, also heavy, we have $$0=\zeta(-|H|)\leq \zeta(H)\leq \zeta(|H|)=0\;,$$ which yields $\zeta(H)=0$. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent As an immediate consequence we get part (iii) of Theorem~. \begin{prop} Every superheavy set intersects with every heavy set. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Let $X$ be a superheavy set and $Y$ be a heavy set. Assume on the contrary that $X \cap Y = \emptyset$. Take a function $H \leq 0$ with $H|_Y \equiv 0$ and $H|_X \equiv -1$. Then $\zeta(H)=-1$ by Proposition~. On the other hand, $\zeta(H)=0$ since $Y$ is heavy, and we get a contradiction. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent Note that two heavy sets do not necessarily intersect each other: a meridian of $\T^2$ is heavy (see Corollary~ below), while two meridians can be disjoint. \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~ (i) and (ii):} The triangle inequality yields $$c(a,H)=c(a*[M],0+H)\leq c(a,0) + c([M],H)= \nu (a) + c([M],H).$$ Passing to the partial quasi-states $\zeta (a,H)$ and $\zeta ([M],H)$ we get: $$\zeta (a,H)= \lim_{k\to +\infty} c(a,kH)/k\leq $$ $$ \leq \lim_{k\to +\infty} (\nu (a) + c([M],kH))/k = \lim_{k\to +\infty} c([M],kH)/k = \zeta ([M],H).$$ The result now follows from the definition of heavy and superheavy sets (see Definition~).\Qed \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~ (iii):} By the characteristic exponent property of spectral invariants, \begin{equation} \zeta(a,F) \leq \max_{i=1,\ldots,l} \zeta(e_i,F) \;\; \forall F \in C^{\infty}(M)\;. \end{equation} Choose a sequence of functions $G_j \in C^{\infty}(M)$, $j \to +\infty$, with the following properties: $G_k \leq G_j$ for $k > j$, $G_j=0$ on $X$, $G_j \leq 0$ and for every function $F\leq 0 $ which vanishes {\it on an open neighborhood} of $X$ there exists $j$ so that $G_j \leq F$ (existence of such a sequence can be checked easily). In view of inequality \eqref{eq-quant-semis}, we have that for every $j$ there exists $i$ so that $\zeta(a,G_j) \leq \zeta(e_i, G_j)$. Passing, if necessary, to a subsequence $G_{j_k}, j_k \to +\infty$, we can assume without loss of generality that $i$ is {\it the same} for all $j$. In view of heaviness of $X$ with respect to $a$, we have that $\zeta(a,G_j)=0$. Therefore $\zeta(e_i,G_j) \geq 0$. Choose any function $F \leq 0$ on $M$ which vanishes {\it on an open neighborhood} of $X$. Then there exists $j$ large enough so that $F \geq G_j$. By monotonicity combined with the previous estimate we have $$0 \geq \zeta(e_i,F) \geq \zeta(e_i,G_j) \geq 0\;,$$ which yields $\zeta(e_i,F)=0$. Now let $F$ be any continuous function on $M$ that vanishes {\it on} $X$. Take a sequence of continuous functions $F_j$, converging to $F$ in the $C^0$-norm, so that each $F_j$ vanishes on an open neighborhood of $X$. Then $\zeta (e_i, F_j) = \lim_{j\to +\infty} \zeta (e_i, F_j) = 0$, because $\zeta (e_i, \cdot)$ is Lipschitz with respect to the $C^0$-norm. The heaviness of $X$ with respect to $e_i$ now follows from Proposition~. This finishes the proof of the theorem. \Qed \section{Products of (super)heavy sets } In this section we prove Theorem~ on products of (super)heavy subsets. \subsection{Product formula for spectral invariants} The proof of Theorem~ is based on the following general result. \begin{thm} For every pair of time-dependent Hamiltonians $G_1,G_2$ on $M_1$ and $M_2$, and all non-zero $a_1 \in QH_{i_1} (M_1)$, $a_2 \in QH_{i_2} (M_2)$ we have $$c(a_1 \otimes a_2, G_1(z_1,t)+G_2(z_2,t)) = c(a_1,G_1)+c(a_1,G_2)\;.$$ Here $G_1(z_1,t)+G_2(z_2,t)$ is a time-dependent Hamiltonian on $M_1\times M_2$. \end{thm} \medskip \noindent Let us deduce Theorem~ from Theorem~. \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~:} We show that the product of superheavy sets is superheavy (the proof for heavy sets goes without any changes). We denote by $\zeta_1,\zeta_2$ and $\zeta$ the partial quasi-states on $M_1,M_2$ and $M:=M_1\times M_2$ associated to the idempotents $a_1,a_2$ and $a_1 \otimes a_2$ respectively. Let $X_i \subset M_i$, $i=1,2$, be a superheavy set. By Proposition~ it suffices to show that if a non-negative function $G \in C^{\infty}(M)$ vanishes on some neighborhood, say $U$, of $X:=X_1 \times X_2$ then $\zeta(G)=0$. (Since $\zeta$ is Lipschitz with respect to the $C^0$-norm this would imply that $\zeta(G)=0$ for any non-negative $G\in C(M)$ that vanishes {\it on} $X$). Put $K:=\max_M G$. Choose neighborhoods $U_i$ of $X_i$ so that $U_1 \times U_2 \subset U$. Choose non-negative functions $G_i$ on $M_i$ which vanish on $X_i$ and such that $G_i(z) > K$ for all $z \in M_i \setminus U_i$. Observe that $G \leq G_1 +G_2$. But, in view of Theorem~ and superheaviness of $X_i$, we have $$\zeta(G_1 +G_2) = \zeta_1(G_1)+\zeta_2(G_2) = 0\;.$$ By monotonicity $$0 \leq \zeta(G) \leq \zeta(G_1 +G_2)=0\;,$$ and thus $\zeta(G)=0$.\qed \medskip \noindent It remains to prove Theorem~. Note that the left-hand side of the equality stated in the theorem does not exceed the right-hand side: this is an immediate consequence of the triangle inequality for spectral invariants. However, we were unable to use this observation for proving the theorem. Our approach is based on a rather lengthy algebraic analysis which enables us to calculate separately the left and the right-hand sides ``on the chain level". A simple inspection of the results of this calculation yields the desired equality. \subsection{Decorated $\Z_2$-graded complexes} A {\it $\Z_2$-complex} is a $\Z_2$-graded finite-dimensional vector space $V$ over a field $\cK$ equipped with a $\cK$-linear differential $\partial: V\to V$ satisfying $\partial^2=0$ and shifting the grading. {\it A decorated complex} over $\cK=\cK_\Gamma$ includes the following data: \begin{itemize} \item a countable subgroup $\Gamma \subset \R$; \item a $\Z_2$-graded complex $(V, d)$ over $\cK_{\Gamma}$; \item a preferred basis $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ of $V$; \item a function $F:\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\} \to \R$ (called {\it the filter}) which extends to $V$ by $$F(\sum \lambda_j x_j)= \max \{\nu(\lambda_j) +F(x_j) \;\Big{|}\; \lambda_j \neq 0\},$$ and satisfies $F(dv) < F(v)$ for all $v \in V \setminus \{0\}$. The convention is that $F(0)=-\infty$. Here $\nu$ is the valuation defined in Section above. \end{itemize} \medskip \noindent We shall use the notation $${\bf V}:= (V,\{x_i\}_{i=1,\ldots,n},F,d,\Gamma)$$ for a decorated complex. \medskip \noindent The {\it $\widehat{\otimes}_{\cK}$-tensor product} ${\bf V}= {\bf V_1}\widehat{\otimes}_{\cK} {\bf V_2}$ of decorated complexes $${\bf V_i}= (V_i, \{x^{(i)}_j\}_{j=1,\ldots,n_i},F_i,d_i,\Gamma_i)\;,\;i=1,2$$ is defined as follows. Consider the space $V = V_1 \widehat{\otimes}_{\cK} V_2$ (see formula \eqref{eq-tensor-hat} above) with the natural $\Z_2$-grading. Define the differential $d$ on $V$ by $$d(x\otimes y) = d_1x \otimes y + (-1)^{\deg x} x\otimes d_2y\;.$$ The preferred basis in $V$ is given by $\{x_{pq}:= x^{(1)}_p \otimes x^{(2)}_q\}$ and the filter $F$ is defined by $$F(x_{pq})=F_1(x^{(1)}_p)+F_2(x^{(2)}_q).$$ Finally, we put ${\bf V}:= (V,\{x_{pq}\},F,d,\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2)\;.$ \medskip \noindent The ($\Z_2$-graded) homology of decorated complexes are denoted by $H_* ({\bf V})$ -- they are $\cK$-vector spaces. By the K\"{u}nneth formula, $H({\bf V_1} \widehat{\otimes}_\cK {\bf V_2})= H({\bf V_1}) \widehat{\otimes}_\cK H({\bf V_2})$. \medskip \noindent Next we define {\it spectral invariants} associated to a decorated complex ${\bf V}:= (V,\{x_{pq}\},F,d)\;.$ Namely, for $a \in H ({\bf V})$ put $$c(a):=\inf\{F(v)\;|\; a=[v], v \in \text{Ker}\, d\}\;.$$ We shall see below that $c(a) > -\infty$ for each $a \neq 0$. \medskip \noindent The purpose of this algebraic digression is to state the following result: \medskip \noindent\begin{thm} For any two decorated complexes ${\bf V_1},{\bf V_2}$ $$c(a_1 \otimes a_2) = c(a_1)+c(a_2) \;\; \forall a_1 \in H({\bf V_1}),a_2 \in H({\bf V_2})\;$$ \end{thm} \subsection{Reduced Floer and Quantum homology} The $2$-periodicity of the Floer complex and Floer homology defined by the multiplication by $q$ (see Proposition above) allows to encode their algebraic structure in a decorated $\Z_2$-complex. Consider a regular pair $(G,J)$ consisting of a Hamiltonian function and a compatible almost-complex structure on $M$ (both, in general, are time-dependent). Let $(C_*(G),d_{G,J})$ be the corresponding Floer complex. Let us associate to it a $\Z_2$-complex: a $\Z_2$-graded vector space $V_{G}$ over $\cK_{\Gamma}$, defined as $$V_{G}:= C_0(G)\oplus C_1 (G),$$ with the obvious $\Z_2$-grading, and a differential $\partial_{G,J}: V_G\to V_G$, defined as the direct sum of $d_{G,J}: C_1 (G)\to C_0 (G)$ and $qd_{G,J}: C_0 (G)\to C_1 (G)$. One readily checks that this is indeed a $\Z_2$-complex because $d_{G,J}: C(G)\to C(G)$ is $\Lambda_{\Gamma}$-linear. We will call $(V_G, \partial_{G,J})$ the {\it $\Z_2$-complex associated to $(G,J)$}. Note that the cycles and the boundaries of $(V_G, \partial_G)$ having $\Z_2$-degree $i \in \{0,1\}$ in $V_G$ coincide, respectively, with the cycles and the boundaries having $\Z$-degree $i$ of $(C(G),d_{G,J})$. Therefore the Floer homology $HF_i (G,J)$ is isomorphic, as a vector space over $\cK_{\Gamma}$, to the $i$-th degree component of the homology of the complex $(V_G, \partial_{G,J})$. The $\Z_2$-complex $(V_G, \partial_{G,J})$ carries a structure of the decorated complex ${\bf V}_{G,J}$ as follows. Let $\gamma_i(t), i = 1,\ldots,m$, be the collection of all contractible $1$-periodic orbits of the Hamiltonian flow generated by $G$. Choose disc $u_i$ in $M$ spanning $\gamma_i$. For each $i$ there exists unique integer, say $r_i$, so that the Conley-Zehnder index of the element $x_i:= q^{r_i}\cdot [\gamma_i, u_i]$ lies in the set $\{0,1\}$. Clearly, the collection $\{x_i\}$ forms a basis of $V_G$ over $\cK_{\Gamma}$. We shall consider it as a preferred basis. Note that the preferred basis is unique up to multiplication of $x_i$'s by elements of the form $s^{\alpha_i}, \alpha_i \in \Gamma$. Finally, the action functional associated to $G$ defines a filtration on $V_G$. The homology of $(V_G, \partial_{G,J})$ can be canonically identified via the PSS-isomorphism with the object which we call {\it reduced} quantum homology: $$QH_{red}(M):= QH_0(M)\oplus QH_1(M)\;.$$ We call this isomorphism {\it the reduced} PSS-isomorphism and denote it by $\psi_{G,J}$. Note that we have a natural projection $p: QH_*(M) \to QH_{red}(M)$ which sends any degree homogeneous element $a$ to $aq^r$ with $\text{deg}\;a + 2r \in \{0,1\}$. With this notation, the usual Floer-homological spectral invariant $c(a,G)$ coincides with the spectral invariant $c(p(a))$ of the decorated complex ${\bf V}_{G,J}$. \subsection{Proof of Theorem~} By the Lipschitz property of spectral numbers it is enough to consider the case when $G_1$ and $G_2$ belong to regular pairs $(G_i, J_i)$, $i=1,2$. Set $$G (z_1,z_2,t) := G_1 (z_1,t) + G (z_2,t)$$ and $J := J_1\times J_2$. Then $(G,J)$ is also a regular pair. Put $\Gamma_i = \Gamma(M_i,\omega_i)$. It is straightforward to see that the decorated complex ${\bf V}_{G,J}$ is the $\widehat{\otimes}_{\cK}$-tensor product of the decorated complexes ${\bf V}_{G_i,J_i}$ for $i=1,2$. Put $(M,\omega) = (M_1 \times M_2, \omega_1 \oplus \omega_2)$. An obvious modification of the K\"unneth formula for quantum homology (see e.g. \cite[Exercise 11.1.15]{MS2} for the statement in the monotone case) yields a natural monomorphism $$\imath: QH_{i_1}(M_1,\omega_1) \widehat{\otimes}_{\cK} QH_{i_2}(M_1,\omega_1)\to QH_{i_1+i_2}(M,\omega)\;.$$ Since in our setting quantum homologies are $2$-periodic, the collection of these isomorphisms for all pairs $(i_1,i_2)$ from the set $\{0,1\}$ induces an isomorphism $$j: QH_{red}(M_1)\widehat{\otimes}_\cK QH_{red}(M_2)\to QH_{red}(M)\;.$$ It has the following properties: First, given two elements $a_1 \in QH_{i_1}(M_1,\omega_1)$ and $a_2 \in QH_{i_2}(M_2,\omega_2)$ we have that $$p(a_1) \otimes p(a_2) = p(a_1 \otimes a_2)\;.$$ Second, the following diagram commutes: \[ \xymatrix{ H(V_{G_1},\partial_{G_1,J_1}) \widehat{\otimes}_\cK H(V_{G_2},\partial_{G_2,J_2}) \ar[r]^-{k} \ar[d]^{\psi_{G_1,J_1} \otimes \psi_{G_2,J_2}} & H(V_{G},\partial_{G,J}) \ar[d]^{\psi_{G,J}} \\ QH_{red}(M_1)\widehat{\otimes}_\cK QH_{red}(M_2) \ar[r]^-{j} & QH_{red}(M) } \] Here $k$ is the isomorphism coming from the K\"unneth formula for $\Z_2$-com\-ple\-xes, and $\psi_{G_i,J_i},\psi_{G,J}$ stand for the reduced PSS-isomorphisms. It follows that the definition of $c (a_i, G_i)$, $c (a_1\otimes a_2, G)$ matches the definition of $c (p(a_i))$ and $c (p(a_1)\otimes p(a_2))$. By Theorem~ we get that $$c(a_1 \otimes a_2, G) = c (p(a_1)\otimes p(a_2))= c (p(a_1))+c(p(a_2))= c(a_1,G_1) + c(a_2,G_2)\;.$$ This proves Theorem~ modulo Theorem~. \qed \subsection{Proof of algebraic Theorem~ } A decorated complex is called {\it generic} if $F(x_i)-F(x_j) \notin \Gamma$ for all $i \neq j$ (recall that under our assumptions $\Gamma$, the group of periods of the symplectic form $\omega$ over $\pi_2(M)$, is a countable subgroup of $\R$). We start from some auxiliary facts from linear algebra. Let ${\bf V}:= (V,\{x_i\}_{i=1,\ldots,n},F,d,\Gamma)$ be a generic decorated complex. We recall once again that for brevity we write $\cK$ instead of $\cK_\Gamma$ wherever it is clear what $\Gamma$ is taken. \medskip \noindent An element $x \in V$ is called {\it normalized} if $$x = x_p + \sum_{i \neq p}\lambda_ix_i\;, \lambda_i \in \cK,\; F(x_p) > \max_{i\neq p} F(\lambda_ix_i)\;.$$ We shall use the notation $x = x_p +o(x_p)$. In generic complexes, every element $x\neq 0$ can be uniquely written as $x = \lambda (x_p +o(x_p))$ for some $p=1,\ldots,n$ and $\lambda \in \cK$. A system of vectors $e_1,\ldots,e_m$ in $V$ is called {\it normal} if every $e_i$ has the form $e_i = x_{j_i} + o(x_{j_i})$ for $j_i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ and the numbers $j_i$ are pair-wise distinct. \medskip \noindent \begin{lemma} Let $e_1,\ldots,e_m$ be a normal system. Then $$F(\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i e_i)= \max_i F(\lambda_i e_i)\;.$$ \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We prove the result using induction in $m$. For $m=1$ the statement is obvious. Let's check the induction step $m-1 \to m$. Observe that it suffices to check that \begin{equation} F(e_1 + \sum_{i=2}^n \lambda_i e_i )\geq F(e_1)\;. \end{equation} Then obviously $$F(\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i e_i)\geq \max_i F(\lambda_i e_i)\;,$$ while the reversed inequality is an immediate consequence of the definitions. By the induction step, $$F(\sum_{i=2}^n \lambda_i e_i)= \max_{i=2,\ldots,n} F(\lambda_i e_i)\;.$$ In view of the genericity, the maximum at the right hand side can be uniquely written as $F(\lambda_{i_0} x_{i_0})$. Without loss of generality we shall assume that $e_i = x_{i} + o(x_{i})$ and $i_0 = 2$. Put $$v = \sum_{i \geq 2} \lambda_2^{-1}\lambda_i e_i = x_2 + o(x_2)\;.$$ Write $$e_1 = x_1 + \alpha x_2 + X,\; v = x_2 + \beta x_1 + Y,\;\;$$ where $\alpha,\beta \in \cK$ and $X,Y \in \text{Span}_\cK (x_3,\ldots,x_n)$. Note that $F(x_1) > F(\alpha x_2)$, $F(x_2) > F(\beta x_1)$, which yields \begin{equation} \nu(\alpha) < F(x_1)-F(x_2) < -\nu(\beta)=\nu(\beta^{-1})\;. \end{equation} In particular, $\nu(\alpha) < \nu(\beta^{-1})$. Note that $$e_1+\lambda_2v = (1+\lambda_2\beta)x_1+ (\alpha+\lambda_2)x_2 +Z,\; Z \in \text{Span}_\cK (x_3,\ldots,x_n)\;.$$ Thus $$F(e_1+\lambda_2v) \geq \max(\nu(1+\lambda_2\beta)+F(x_1), \nu(\alpha+\lambda_2)+F(x_2))\;.$$ If $\nu(1+\lambda_2\beta)\geq 0$ we have $F(e_1+\lambda_2v)\geq F(x_1)=F(e_1)$ and inequality \eqref{eq-alg-1} follows. Assume that $\nu(1+\lambda_2\beta)<0 = \nu(1)$. Then $\nu(\lambda_2\beta)=0 = \nu(\lambda_2)+\nu(\beta)$, and hence $\nu(\lambda_2)=\nu(\beta^{-1}) \neq \nu(\alpha)$. Thus $$\nu(\alpha + \lambda_2) \geq \nu(\lambda_2) =-\nu(\beta)\;.$$ Combining this inequality with \eqref{eq-alg-2} we get that $$F(e_1+\lambda_2v) \geq \nu(\alpha+\lambda_2) + F(x_1) + (F(x_2)-F(x_1)) $$ $$\geq F(x_1) + (\nu(\alpha+\lambda_2) + \nu(\beta)) \geq F(x_1)=F(e_1)\;.$$ This completes the proof of inequality \eqref{eq-alg-1}, and hence of the lemma. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent It readily follows from the lemma that every normal system is linearly independent. \begin{lemma} Every subspace $L \subset V$ has a normal basis. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} We use induction over $m = \dim_\cK L$. The case $m=1$ is obvious, so let us handle the induction step $m-1 \to m$. It suffices to show the following: Let $e_1,\ldots,e_{m-1}$ be a normal basis in a subspace $L'$, and let $v \notin L'$ be any vector. Put $L = \text{Span}_\cK (L' \cup \{v\})$. Then there exists $e_m \in L$ so that $e_1,\ldots,e_m$ is a normal basis. Indeed, assume without loss of generality that for all $i =1,\ldots,m-1$ one has $e_i = x_i + o(x_i)$. Put $W = \text{Span}_\cK (x_m,\ldots,x_n)$. We claim that $L' \cap W = \{0\}$. Indeed, otherwise $$\lambda_1 e_1 +\ldots +\lambda_{m-1} e_{m-1} = \lambda_m x_m +\ldots+\lambda_n x_n$$ where the linear combinations in the right and the left-hand sides are non-trivial. Apply $F$ to both sides of this equality. By Lemma~ $$F(\lambda_1 e_1 +\ldots +\lambda_{m-1} e_{m-1})= F(x_p)\; \mod \; \Gamma ,\;\; \text{where}\;\; 1\leq p \leq m-1\;,$$ while $$F(\lambda_m x_m +\ldots+\lambda_n x_n) = F(x_q) \;\mod\; \Gamma ,\;\; \text{where}\;\; q \geq m\;.$$ This contradicts the genericity of our decorated complex, and the claim follows. Since $\dim L' + \dim W = \dim V$, we have that $V = L' \oplus W$. Decompose $v$ as $u+w$ with $u \in L',w \in W$, and note that $w \in L$. Note that $e_1,\ldots,e_{m-1},w$ are linearly independent. Furthermore, $w = \lambda(x_p + o(x_p))$ for some $p \geq m$. Put $e_m = \lambda^{-1}w$. The vectors $e_1,\ldots,e_m$ form a normal basis in $L$. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent The same proof shows that if $L_1 \subset L_2$ are subspaces of $V$, every normal basis in $L_1$ extends to a normal basis in $L_2$. \medskip \noindent Now we turn to the analysis of the differential $d$. Choose a normal basis $g_1,\ldots,g_q$ in $\text{Im}\, d$, and extend it to a normal basis $g_1,\ldots,g_q,h_1,\ldots,h_p$ in $\text{Ker}\, d$. Note that each of these $p+q$ vectors has the form $x_j + o(x_j)$ with distinct $j$. Let us assume without loss of generality that the remaining $n-p-q$ elements of the preferred basis in $V$ are $x_1,\ldots,x_q$, and $$g_i = x_{i+q} + o(x_{i+q}), h_j = x_{j+2q} + o(x_{j+2q})\;.$$ Here we use that, by the dimension theorem, $n=p+2q$. Note that $$x_1,\ldots,x_q,g_1,\ldots,g_q,h_1,\ldots,h_p$$ is a normal system, and hence a basis in $V$. We call such a basis a {\it spectral basis} of the decorated complex ${\bf V}$. Note that $[h_1],\ldots,[h_p]$ is a basis in the homology $H({\bf V})$. Consider any homology class $a = \sum \lambda_i [h_i]$. Every element $v \in V$ with $a = [v]$ can be written as $v = \sum \lambda_i h_i + \sum \alpha_j g_j$. Thus, by Lemma~, $F(v) \geq \max_i F(\lambda_i h_i)$ and hence \begin{equation} c(a) = \max_i F(\lambda_i h_i)\;. \end{equation} This proves in particular that the spectral invariants are {\it finite} provided $a \neq 0$. \medskip \noindent For finite sets $A = \{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$ and $B = \{w_1,\ldots,w_s\}$ we write $A \otimes B$ for the finite set $\{v_i \otimes w_j\}$. \medskip \noindent Assume now that ${\bf V_1},{\bf V_2} $ are generic decorated complexes. We say that they are {\it in general position} if their tensor product $ {\bf V} = {\bf V_1} \widehat{\otimes}_{\cK} {\bf V_2}$ is generic. Let $$B_i = \{x^{(i)}_1,\ldots,x^{(i)}_{q_i},g^{(i)}_1,\ldots,g^{(i)}_{q_i},h^{(i)}_1,\ldots,h^{(i)}_{p_i}\},\; i=1,2$$ be a spectral basis in ${\bf V_i}$. Obviously, $B_1 \otimes B_2$ is a normal basis in $V_1 \widehat{\otimes}_{\cK} V_2$. We shall denote by $d_1,d_2,d$ the differentials and by $F_1,F_2,F$ the filters in ${\bf V_1},{\bf V_2}$ and ${\bf V}$ respectively. Put $G_i =\{g^{(i)}_1,\ldots,g^{(i)}_{q_i}\}$, $H_i = \{h^{(i)}_1,\ldots,h^{(i)}_{p_i} \}$ and $K = G_1 \otimes B_2 \cup B_1 \otimes G_2$. Observe that $$\text{Im}\, d \subset W:=\text{Span} (K)\;.$$ Take any two classes $$a_i = \sum \lambda^{(i)}_j [h^{(i)}_j] \in H({\bf V}_i)\;, i=1,2.$$ Suppose that $a_1 \otimes a_2= [v]$. Then $v$ is of the form $$v = \sum_{m,l}\lambda^{(1)}_m \lambda^{(2)}_lh^{(1)}_m\otimes h^{(2)}_l +w$$ where $w$ must lie in $W$. Observe that $(H_1 \otimes H_2) \cap K =\emptyset$. By Lemma~, $$F(v) \geq \max_{m,l} F(\lambda^{(1)}_m \lambda^{(2)}_lh^{(1)}_m\otimes h^{(2)}_l)\;,$$ and hence $$c(a_1 \otimes a_2) = \max_{m,l} F(\lambda^{(1)}_m \lambda^{(2)}_lh^{(1)}_m\otimes h^{(2)}_l)$$ $$= \max_{m,l} \; F_1(\lambda^{(1)}_mh^{(1)}_m) + F_2(\lambda^{(2)}_lh^{(2)}_l)$$ $$= \max_m F_1(\lambda^{(1)}_mh^{(1)}_m) + \max_l F_2(\lambda^{(2)}_lh^{(2)}_l) = c(a_1)+c(a_2)\;.$$ In the last equality we used \eqref{eq-alg-10}. This completes the proof of Theorem~ for decorated complexes in general position. It remains to remove the general position assumption. This will be done with the help of the following lemma. We shall work with a family of decorated complexes $${\bf V}:= (V,\{x_i\}_{i=1,\ldots,n},F,d,\Gamma)$$ which have exactly the same data (preferred basis, grading, differential and $\Gamma$) with the exception of the filter $F$ which will be allowed to vary in the class of filters. The corresponding spectral invariants will be denoted by $c(a,F)$. \vfill\eject \begin{lemma}$\;$ \begin{itemize} \item[{(i)}] If filters $F,F'$ satisfy $F(x_i) \leq F'(x_i)$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$, then $c(a,F) \leq c(a,F')$ for all non-zero classes $a \in H({\bf V})$. \item[{(ii)}] If $F$ is a filter and $\theta \in \R$, then $F+\theta$ is again a filter and $c(a,F+\theta)=c(a,F)+\theta$ for all non-zero classes $a \in H({\bf V})$. \end{itemize} \end{lemma} \medskip \noindent The proof is obvious and we omit it. It follows that for any two filters $F,F'$ $$|c(a,F)-c(a,F')| \leq ||F-F'||_{C^0}\;\;\forall a \in H({\bf V})\setminus \{0\}\;.$$ \medskip \noindent Assume now that ${\bf V_1},{\bf V_2} $ are decorated complexes. Denote by $F_1,F_2$ their filters. Fix $\epsilon > 0$. By a small perturbation of the filters we get new filters, $F'_1$ and $F'_2$, on our complexes so that the complexes become generic and in general position, and furthermore $$||F_1-F'_1||_{C^0} \leq \epsilon\;, ||F_2-F'_2||_{C^0} \leq \epsilon\;.$$ Given homology classes $a_i \in H({\bf V}_i)$ we have $$|c(a_1,F_1) + c(a_2,F_2) -c(a_1 \otimes a_2,F_1+F_2)| \leq$$ $$ |c(a_1,F'_1) + c(a_2,F'_2) -c(a_1 \otimes a_2,F'_1+F'_2)|+4\epsilon = 4\epsilon\;.$$ Here we used that Theorem~ is already proved for generic complexes in general position. Since $\epsilon >0$ is arbitrary, we get that $$c(a_1,F_1) + c(a_2,F_2) -c(a_1 \otimes a_2,F_1+F_2)=0\;,$$ which completes the proof of Theorem~ in full generality. \qed \section{Stable non-displaceability of heavy sets} In this section we prove part (ii) of Theorem~. \begin{prop} Every heavy subset is stably non-displaceable. \end{prop} \medskip \noindent For the proof we shall need the following auxiliary statement. Given $R > 0$, consider the torus $\T^2_R$ obtained as the quotient of the cylinder $T^* \SP^1 = \R (r) \times \SP^1\, (\theta\ {\rm mod}\ 1)$ by the shift $(r,\theta)\mapsto (r+R,\theta)$. For $\alpha >0$ define the function $F_{\alpha} (r,\theta):= \alpha f (r)$ on $\T^2_R$, where $f (r)$ is any $R$-periodic function having only two non-degenerate critical points on $[0,R]$: a maximum point at $r=0$ with $f(0)=1$, and a minimum point at $r=R/2$, $f (R/2) =: - \beta < 0$. We denote by $[T]$ the fundamental class of $\T^2_R$. We work with the symplectic form $dr \wedge d\theta$ on $\T^2_R$. \begin{lemma} $c([T],F_{\alpha})=\alpha$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Note that the contractible closed orbits of period $1$ of the Hamiltonian flow generated by $F_{\alpha}$ are fixed points forming circles $S_+ = \{ r = 0\}$ and $S_- = \{ r = R/2 \}$. The actions of the fixed points on $S_{\pm}$ equal respectively to $\alpha$ and $- \alpha \beta$, and thus the spectral invariants of $F_{\alpha}$ lie in the set $\{\alpha,-\alpha\beta\}$. Recall from that $c([T],F_{\alpha}) > c([\text{point}],F_{\alpha})$. Thus $c([T],F_{\alpha})=\alpha$. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent \begin{lemma} Let $H \in C^{\infty}(M)$ so that $H^{-1}(\max H)$ is displaceable. Then $\zeta(H) < \max H$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Choose $\epsilon > 0$ so that the set $$H^{-1}((\max H -\epsilon, \max H])$$ is displaceable. Choose a real-valued cut-off function $\rho: \R \to [0,1]$ which equals $1$ near $\max H$ and which is supported in $(\max H -\epsilon, \max H+\epsilon)$. Thus $\rho (H)$ is supported in $H^{-1}((\max H -\epsilon; \max H])$ and $\zeta (\rho (H)) = 0$. Since $H$ and $\rho (H)$ Poisson-commute, the vanishing and the monotonicity axioms yield $$\zeta(H) = \zeta (\rho(H)) + \zeta (H -\rho(H)) \leq \max (H - \rho(H)) < \max H\;.$$\end{proof} \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Proposition~:} It suffices to show that for every $R > 0$ the set $$Y:=X \times \{r=0\} \subset M':= M \times \T^2_R$$ is non-displaceable. Assume on the contrary that $Y$ is displaceable. Choose a function $H$ on $M$ with $H \leq 0$, $H^{-1}(0)= X$. Put $$H'=H+ F_1 = H + f(r): M' \to \R.$$ Assume that the partial quasi-state $\zeta$ on $M$ is associated to some non-zero idempotent $a \in QH_* (M)$ by means of (). Denote by $\zeta'$ the quasi-state on $M'$ associated to $a \otimes T$. Note that $$Y=(H')^{-1}(\max H')\;,\;\;\; \text{where}\;\;\;\max H' =1\;,$$ while Theorem~ and Lemma~ imply that $$\zeta'(H') = \zeta(H)+1\;.$$ By Lemma~ $\zeta'(H') < 1$ and so $\zeta(H) <0$. In view of Proposition~, we get a contradiction with the heaviness of $X$. \qed \medskip \noindent Lemma~ also yields a simple proof of the following result which also follows from Corollary~: \begin{cor} Any meridian of $\T^2$ is heavy (with respect to the fundamental class $[T]$). \end{cor} \begin{proof} In the notation as above identify $\T^2$ with $\T^2_1$ for $R=1$. Since any two meridians of $\T^2$ can be mapped into each other by a symplectic isotopy and since such an isotopy preserves heaviness, it suffices to prove that the meridian $S:=S_+ = \{ r = 0\}$ (see the proof of Lemma~) is heavy. Let $H: \T^2\to \R$ be a Hamiltonian and let us show that $\zeta (H) \geq \inf_S H$, where $\zeta$ is defined using $[T]$. Shifting $H$, if necessary, by a constant, we may assume without loss of generality that $\inf_S H =1$. Pick $f = f(r): \T^2\to \R$ as in the definition of $F_\alpha$ so that $F_1 = f\leq H$ on $\T^2$ (note that $f$ equals $1$ on $S$). Then Lemma~ yields $$ \zeta (H) \geq \zeta (F_1) = 1 = \inf_S H. $$ \end{proof} \section{Analyzing stable stems} \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~:} Assume that ${\mathbb A}$ is a Poisson-commutative subspace of $C^{\infty}(M)$, $\Phi: M \to {\mathbb A}^*$ its moment map with the image $\Delta$, and let $X=\Phi^{-1}(p)$ be a stable stem of ${\mathbb A}$. Take any function $H\in C^{\infty}({\mathbb A}^*)$ with $H \geq 0$ and $H(p)=0$. We claim that $\zeta(\Phi^*H)=0$. By an arbitrarily small $C^0$-perturbation of $H$ we can assume that $H=0$ in a small neighborhood, say $U$, of $p$. Choose an open covering $U_0,U_1,\ldots,U_N$ of $\Delta$ so that $U_0=U$, and all $\Phi^{-1}(U_i)$ are stably displaceable for $i \geq 1$ (it exists by the definition of a stem). Let $\rho_i: \Delta\to\R$, $i=0,\ldots,N$, be a partition of unity subordinated to the covering $\{ U_i\}$. Take the two-torus $\T^2_R$ as in Section~. Choose $R>0$ large enough so that $\Phi^{-1} (U_i) \times \{r=\text{const}\}$ is displaceable in $M \times \T^2_R$ for all $i \geq 1$. Choose now a sufficiently fine covering $V_j, j=1,\ldots,K$, of the torus $\T^2_R$ by sufficiently thin annuli $\{ |r -r_j| < \delta\}$ so that the sets $\Phi^{-1} (U_i) \times V_j $ are displaceable in $M \times \T^2_R$ for all $i \geq 1$ and all $j$. Let $\varrho_j = \varrho_j(r)$, $j=1,\ldots,K$, be a partition of unity subordinated to the covering $\{V_j\}$. Denote by $\zeta'$ the partial quasi-state corresponding to $a \otimes T$. Put $F(r,\theta)= \cos ({2\pi r}/{R})$. Write $$\Phi^*H + F= \sum_{i=0}^N\sum_{j=1}^K (\Phi^*H + F)\cdot \Phi^*\rho_i\cdot \varrho_j = $$ $$\Phi^*(H\rho_0) + F\cdot\Phi^*\rho_0 + \sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^K (\Phi^*H + F)\cdot \Phi^*\rho_i\cdot \varrho_j\;.$$ Note that $H\rho_0 =0$ and $F\cdot\Phi^*\rho_0 \leq 1$. Applying partial quasi-additivity and monotonicity we get that $$\zeta'(\Phi^*H + F) = \zeta'(F\cdot \Phi^*\rho_0) \leq 1.$$ By Lemma~ and the product formula (Theorem~ above) we have $$\zeta'(\Phi^*H + F)=\zeta(\Phi^*H) +1 \leq 1$$ and hence $\zeta(\Phi^*H) \leq 0$. On the other hand, $\zeta(\Phi^*H) \geq 0$ since $H \geq 0$. Thus $\zeta(\Phi^*H) =0$ and the claim follows. Further, given any function $G$ on $M$ with $G \geq 0$ and $G|_X =0$, one can find a function $H$ on ${\mathbb A}^*$ with $H(p)=0 $ so that $G \leq \Phi^*H$. By monotonicity and the claim above $$0\leq \zeta(G) \leq \zeta(\Phi^*H) =0\;,$$ and hence $\zeta(G)=0$. Thus $X$ is superheavy. \qed \section{Monotone Lagrangian submanifolds } The main tool of proving (super)heaviness of monotone Lagrangian submanifolds satisfying the Albers condition is the spectral estimate in Proposition~(iii) below, which originated in the work by Albers . Later on Biran and Cornea pointed out a mistake in , and suggested a correction together with a far reaching generalization in . Let us mention that the original Albers estimate was used in the first version of the present paper. We thank Biran and Cornea for informing us about the mistake, explaining to us their approach and helping us to correct a number of our results affected by this mistake. The main ingredient of Biran-Cornea techniques which is needed for our purposes is the following result. Let $(M,\omega)$ be a closed monotone symplectic manifolds with $[\omega] = \kappa \cdot c_1(M)$, $\kappa >0$. Write $N$ for the minimal Chern number of $(M,\omega)$. Let $L^n \subset M^{2n}$ be a closed monotone Lagrangian submanifold with the minimal Maslov number $N_L \geq 2$. We shall treat slightly differently the cases when $N_L$ is even and odd. Let us mention that for orientable $L$, $N_L$ is automatically even. Thus, due to our convention, when $N_L$ is odd we work with the basic field $\cF = \Z_2$. Let $\Gamma = \kappa N \cdot \Z$ be the group of periods of $M$. Recall that the quantum ring has the form $QH_*(M) = H_*(M;\cF) \otimes_{\cF} \Lambda$, where the Novikov ring $\Lambda$ is defined as $\Lambda = \cK_{\Gamma}[q,q^{-1}]\;.$ Put $\Gamma' = (\kappa N/2) \cdot \Z$. Consider an extended Novikov ring $\Lambda':= \cK_{\Gamma'}[q^{\frac12},q^{-\frac12}]$. Define now $QH'_*(M)$ as $QH_*(M)$ if $N_L$ is even, and as $H_*(M,\Z_2) \otimes_{\Z_2} \Lambda'$ if $N_L$ is odd. In the latter case $QH'_*(M)$ is an extension of $QH_*(M)$, and we shall consider without special mentioning $QH_*(M)$, $\Lambda$, $\cK_\Gamma$ as subrings of $QH'_* (M)$, $\Lambda'$, $\cK_{\Gamma'}$. The grading of $QH_*'(M)$ is determined by the condition $\text{deg}\; q^{\frac12}=1$. As before, we shall use notation $QH'_{\bullet}(M)$, where $\bullet = \text{``even"}$ when $\cF = \C$ and $\bullet = *$ when $\cF=\Z_2$. Note that the spectral invariants (and hence partial symplectic quasi-states) are well-defined over the extended ring, and furthermore, their values and properties, by tautological reasons, do not alter under such an extension (cf. a discussion in , Section 5.4). Put $w:= s^{\kappa N_L/2}q^{N_L/2}$. Recall that $j$ stands for the natural morphism $H_\bullet (L;\cF)\to H_\bullet (M;\cF)$. \medskip \noindent \begin{prop} Assume that $k > n+1-N_L$. If $\cF=\C$ assume in addition that $k$ is even. Then there exists a canonical homomorphism $j^q: H_k (L;\cF) \to QH'_k (M)$ with the following properties\footnote{The letter ``$q$" in $j^q$ stands for {\it quantum}.}: \begin{itemize} \item[{(i)}] $j^q(x) = j(x)+w^{-1}y$, where $y$ is a polynomial in $w^{-1}$ with coefficients in $H_\bullet (M;\cF)$; \item[{(ii)}] $j^q([L]) = j([L])$; \item[{(iii)}] If $j^q (x)\neq 0$ then $c(j^q (x),H) \leq \sup_L H$ for every $H \in C^{\infty}( M)$. \end{itemize} \end{prop} \medskip \noindent In particular, if $S$ is an Albers element of $L$, we have $j^q(S)= j(S)+ O(w^{-1}) \neq 0$. This proposition was proved by Biran and Cornea in in the case $\cF=\Z_2$: The map $j^q$ is essentially the map $i_L$ appearing in Theorem A(iii) in . Proposition~(i) above is a combination of Theorem A(iii) and Proposition 4.5.1(i) in . Our variable $w$ corresponds to the variable $t^{-1}$ in , while our $s^{N\kappa}q^N$ corresponds to the variable $s^{-1}$ in Section 2.1.2 of . After such an adjustment of the notation, the formula $w:= s^{\kappa N_L/2}q^{N_L/2}$ above can be extracted from Section 2.1.2 of . For Proposition~(ii) above see Remark 5.3.2.a in . Proposition~(iii) above follows from Lemma 5.3.1(ii) in . Finally, let us repeat the disclaimer made in Section~: we take for granted that Proposition~ remains valid for the case $\cF=\C$. Let us pass to the proofs of our results on (super)-heaviness of monotone Lagrangian submanifolds. We start with the following remark. Let $S$ be an Albers element of $L$. The Poincar\'e duality property of spectral invariants (see Section~ above) extends verbatim to the case of the ring $QH'(M)$ with the following modification: When $N_L$ is odd, the pairing $\Pi$ introduced in Section~ extends in the obvious way to a non-degenerate $\cF$-valued pairing on $QH'_\bullet (M)$ which we still denote by $\Pi$. Applying Poincar\'e duality and substituting $H:=-F$ into Proposition~ (iii) above we get that for every function $ F \in C^{\infty}(M)$ $$c(T,F) \geq \inf_L F\; \;\; \forall T \in QH'_\bullet (M)\;\; \text{with}\;\; \Pi (T,j^q(S))\neq 0.$$ In particular, given a non-zero idempotent $a\in QH'_\bullet (M)$ and a class $b\in QH'_\bullet (M)$, so that $\Pi (a*b,j^q(S))\neq 0$, we get, using the normalization property of spectral invariants, that \begin{equation} c(a,F) +\nu (b) \geq c(a*b, F) \geq \inf_L F\; \;\; \forall F \in C^{\infty}(M)\;. \end{equation} Therefore, applying \eqref{eq-3-1} to $kF$ for $k\in\N$, dividing by $k$ and passing to the limit as $k\to +\infty$, we get that for the partial quasi-state $\zeta$, defined by $a$, \[ \zeta(F)\geq \inf_L F\; \;\; \forall F \in C^{\infty}(M), \] meaning that $L$ is heavy with respect to $a$. \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~:} Let $S$ be an Albers element of $L$. Let $T \in H_\bullet (M;\cF)$ be any singular homology class such that $T \circ j(S) \neq 0$. Thus, applying Proposition~ (i) we see that $\Pi([M]*T,j^q(S)) = \Pi(T,j^q(S)) \neq 0$, and hence inequality \eqref{eq-3-1}, applied to $a=[M], b=T$, yields that $L$ is heavy with respect to $[M]$. \qed \medskip Let us pass to the proof of Theorem~ on the effect of semi-simplicity of the quantum homology. It readily follows from the next more general statement. Let $L_1,\ldots,L_m$ be Lagrangian submanifolds satisfying the Albers condition. Let $S_i$ be any Albers element of $L_i$. Denote by $Z_i = j^q(S_i) \in QH'_\bullet (M)$ its image under the inclusion morphism from Proposition~ above. \medskip \noindent \begin{thm} Given such $L_1,\ldots,L_m$ and $Z_1,\ldots,Z_m$, assume, in addition, that $QH_{2n}(M)$ is semi-simple and the Lagrangian submanifolds $L_1,\ldots,L_m$ are pair-wise disjoint. Then the classes $Z_1,\ldots,Z_m$ are linearly independent over $\cK_{\Gamma'}$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Arguing by contradiction, assume that \begin{equation} Z_1 = \alpha_2 Z_2 + \ldots + \alpha_m Z_m \end{equation} for some $\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_m\in\cK_{\Gamma'}$. Since $QH_{2n} (M)$ is semi-simple, it decomposes into a direct sum of fields with unities $e_1,\ldots,e_d$. Since the pairing $\Pi$ (on $QH'_\bullet (M; \cF)$) is non-degenerate, there exists $T\in QH'_\bullet (M; \cF)$ such that \begin{equation} \Pi (T, Z_1)\neq 0. \end{equation} Let us write $T$ as \begin{equation} T = [M] * T = \sum_{i=1}^d e_i*T. \end{equation} Equations \eqref{eqn-exists-T}, \eqref{eqn-T-as-a-lin-comb} imply that there exists $l \in [1,d]$ such that \begin{equation} \Pi (e_l*T, Z_1)\neq 0\;. \end{equation} Then \eqref{eqn-j-L-1-lin-combin} implies that there exists $r \in [2,m]$ such that $$\Pi (e_l * T,\alpha_r Z_r)\neq 0.$$ Using \eqref{eqn-Pi-Frobenius} (for $\Pi$ on $QH'_\bullet (M; \cF)$) we can rewrite the last equation as \begin{equation} \Pi (e_l* \alpha_r T, Z_r)\neq 0. \end{equation} Applying now formula \eqref{eq-3-1} for $S= Z_1\in H_\bullet (L_1;\cF)$, $a=e_l$, $b =T$, and also for $S= Z_r\in H_\bullet (L_r;\cF)$, $a=e_l$, $b =\alpha_r T$, we conclude that both $L_1$ and $L_r$ are heavy with respect to $e_l$. Thus they are superheavy with respect to $e_l$, because $e_l$ is the unity in a field factor of $QH_{2n} (M)$ (see Section~). Hence they must intersect -- in contradiction to the assumption of the theorem. This finishes the proof of the first part of the theorem. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~(a):} Assume that $L_1,\ldots,L_m$ are pair-wise disjoint Lagrangian submanifolds satisfying the condition (a) from the formulation of the theorem. Denote by $N_i$ the minimal Maslov number of $L_i$. Since $N_i > n+1$, the class of a point from $H_0(L_i;\cF)$ is an Albers element for $L_i$. Let $Z_i \in QH'_0(M)$ be its image under the Biran-Cornea inclusion morphism associated to $L_i$. Note that by Proposition~(i) $Z_i = p + a_i w_i^{-1}$, where $w_i= s^{\kappa N_i/2}q^{N_i/2}$, $a_i \in H_{N_i}(M;\cF)$ and $p\in H_0 (M; \cF)$ is the homology class of a point. Observe that $\deg w_i = N_i > n+1$, and hence the expression for $Z_i$ cannot contain terms in $w_i^{-1}$ of order two and higher, since $H_{kN_i}(M;\cF)=0$ for $k \geq 2$. Recall now that all $N_i$'s lie in some set $Y$ of positive integers. Let $W \subset QH'_0(M)$ be the span over $\cK_{\Gamma'}$ of $$H_0(M;\cF) \oplus \bigoplus_{E \in Y} s^{-\kappa E/2}q^{-E/2} \cdot H_E(M;\cF) \;.$$ Note that $$\dim_{\cK_{\Gamma'}} W = \beta_Y(M)+1 < m\;.$$ Thus the elements $Z_i$, $i=1,\ldots,m$, are linearly dependent over $\cK_{\Gamma'}$. By Theorem~, $QH_{2n}(M)$ is not semi-simple. \qed \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~(b):} Assume that $L_1,\ldots,L_m$ are pair-wise disjoint homologically non-trivial Lagrangian submanifolds. By Proposition (ii) $j^q([L_i]) = j([L_i])$ for every $i=1,\ldots,m$. Since the classes $j([L_i])$ are linearly dependent, Theorem~ implies that $QH_{2n}(M)$ is not semi-simple. \qed \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~:} Combining Proposition~ (ii) and (iii) we get that for any $H \in C^{\infty}(M)$ $$c(j([L]),H) \leq \sup_L H \;\;\forall H \in C^{\infty}(M)\;.$$ By the hypothesis of the theorem, we can write $j([L])*b =a$ for some $b$. Then $$c(a,H) = c(j([L])*b,H) \leq c(j([L]),H) + c(b,0)\;.$$ Thus $$c(a,H) \leq \sup_L H + c(b,0)\;.$$ Applying this inequality to $E\cdot H$ with $E >0$, dividing by $E$ and passing to the limit as $E \to +\infty$ we get that $\zeta(H) \leq \sup_L H$ for all $H$. Thus $L$ is superheavy. \qed \medskip \noindent \begin{rem} {\rm The results above admit the following generalizations in the framework of the Biran-Cornea theory. The main object of this theory is the quantum homology ring $QH_* (L)$ of a monotone Lagrangian submanifold, which is isomorphic to the Lagrangian Floer homology $HF_* (L,L)$ of $L$ up to a shift of the grading. \begin{itemize} \item[{(i)}] If $QH_* (L)$ does not vanish then $L$ is heavy (see Remark 1.2.9b in ). In fact, it follows from that if $L$ satisfies the Albers condition, $QH_* (L)$ does not vanish. \item[{(ii)}] The map $j^q$ of the Proposition~ above is a footprint of the quantum inclusion map $i_L: QH_* (L) \to QH'_* (M)$ constructed in . The analogue of the action estimate in item (iii) of the proposition is obtained in for the classes $i_L(x)$ for elements $x\in QH_* (L)$ of a certain special form, yielding the following generalization of Theorem~: for these special classes $x \in QH_* (L)$ the condition that the class $i_L(x)$ does not vanish and divides a non-trivial idempotent $a$ implies that $L$ is superheavy with respect to $a$. This enables, for instance, to generalize Example~ on Lagrangian spheres in quadrics above to the case when $\dim L$ is odd. \item[{(iii)}] In one can find another action estimate which comes from the $QH_* (M)$-module structure on $QH_* (L)$, which yields more results on (super)heaviness of monotone Lagrangian submanifolds. \end{itemize}} \end{rem} \medskip \noindent {\bf Proof of Proposition~:} The quantum homology $QH_{2n} (M)$ splits as an algebra over $\cK$ into a direct sum of two algebras one of which is a field. This was proved by McDuff for the field $\cF = \C$ (see and \cite[Section 7]{EP-toric-proc}), but the proof goes through for the case $\cF=\Z_2$ as well. Denote the unity of the field by $a$. It is a non-zero idempotent in $QH_{2n} (M)$. As we already pointed out in Remark~, such an idempotent $a$ defines a genuine symplectic quasi-state and therefore the classes of heavy and superheavy sets with respect to $a$ coincide. By Theorem~, the Lagrangian torus $L\subset M$ cannot be superheavy with respect to $a$, since it can be displaced from itself by a symplectic (non-Hamiltonian) isotopy. Indeed, take an obvious symplectic isotopy $\phi_t$ of $\T^{2n}$ that displaces $L$ (a parallel shift) and compose it with a Hamiltonian isotopy $\psi_t$ so that for every $t$ we have that $\psi_t$ is constant on $\phi_t (L)$ and $\psi_t \phi_t$ is identity on the ball where the blow up of $\T^{2n}$ was performed. Clearly, the resulting symplectic isotopy $\psi_t \phi_t$ extends to a symplectic isotopy of $M$ that displaces $L$. On the other hand, $N_L\geq 2$ because in this case $N_L = 2N$, where $N\geq 1$ is the minimal Chern number of $M$. Finally, note that $L$ represents a non-trivial homology class in $H_{n} (M; \Z_2)$. Therefore we can apply Theorem~ and get that $L$ is heavy with respect to $[M]$.\Qed \section{Rigidity of special fibers of Hamiltonian actions} In this section we prove Theorem~. Denote the special fiber of $\Phi$ by $L:=\Phi^{-1} ({p}_{spec})$. \medskip \noindent {\sc Reduction to the case of $\T^1$-actions:} First, we claim that it is enough to prove the theorem for Hamiltonian $\T^1$-actions and the general case will follow from it. Indeed, assume this is proved. The superheaviness of the special fiber immediately yields that for any function $\bar{H}: \R \to \R$ \begin{equation} \zeta(\Phi^* \bar{H}) = \bar{H} ({p}_{spec}), \end{equation} where $\Phi: M\to\R$ is the moment map of the $\T^1$-action. Let us turn to the multi-dimensional situation and let $\Phi: M \to \R^k$ be the normalized moment map of a Hamiltonian $\T^k$-action on $M$. For a ${\bf v} \in \R^k$ denote by $\Phi_{\bf v} ({\bf x}) = \langle {\bf v},\Phi({\bf x})\rangle$, where $\langle\cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is the standard Euclidean inner product on $\R^k$. Note that if ${\bf v} \in \Z^k$ the function $\Phi_{\bf v}$ is the normalized moment map of a Hamiltonian circle action and its special value is $\langle {\bf v}, {p}_{spec}\rangle$. Thus by \eqref{eq-spec-fiber-T1-action} \begin{equation} \zeta(\Phi_{\bf v}^* {K}) = {K} (\langle {\bf v}, {p}_{spec}\rangle) \;\forall {K} \in C^{\infty}(\R)\;. \end{equation} By homogeneity of $\zeta$, equality \eqref{eq-spec-fiber-T1-action-2} holds for all ${\bf v} \in \Q^k$, and by continuity for all ${\bf v} \in \R^k$. Observe that for each pair of smooth functions ${P}, {Q}\in C^\infty (\R)$ and for each pair of vectors ${\bf v},{\bf w} \in \R^k$ the functions $\Phi_{\bf v}^*P$ and $\Phi_{\bf w}^*Q$ Poisson-commute on $M$. Thus the triangle inequality for the spectral numbers (see Section~) yields \begin{equation} \zeta(\Phi_{\bf v}^*{P} +\Phi_{\bf w}^* {Q})\leq \zeta(\Phi_{\bf v} ^* {P}) +\zeta(\Phi_{\bf w}^* {Q})\;. \end{equation} Since $M$ is compact, it suffices to assume that the function $\bar{H} \in C^{\infty}(\R^k)$ on $\R^k$ is compactly supported. By the inverse Fourier transform we can write $$\bar{H} ({p}) = \int_{\R^k} \big\{ \sin \langle {\bf v}, {p} \rangle \cdot {F}({\bf v}) + \cos \langle {\bf v}, {p} \rangle \cdot {G} ( {\bf v} ) \big\} d{\bf v}$$ for some rapidly (say, faster than $(|p|+1)^{-N}$ for any $N \in \N$) decaying functions ${F}$ and ${G}$ on $\R^k$. For every ${\bf v} \in \R^k$ define a function $K_{\bf v}\in C^{\infty}(\R)$ by $$K_{\bf v}(s):= \sin s \cdot F({\bf v}) + \cos s \cdot G({\bf v})\;.$$ Observe that $$\Phi^* \bar{H} = \int_{\R^k} \Phi_{\bf v}^*K_{\bf v} \; d{\bf v}\;.$$ Denote by $B(R)$ the Euclidean ball of radius $R$ in $\R^k$ with the center at the origin. Put $$\bar{H}_{R}(p) = \int_{B(R)} K_{\bf v}(\langle {\bf v},p\rangle) \; d{\bf v},\; p \in \R^k\;.$$ Since the functions $F$ and $G$ are rapidly decaying, we get that \begin{equation} ||\bar{H}_R - \bar{H}||_{C^0(\R^k)} \to 0 \;\;\text{as}\;\; R \to \infty\;. \end{equation} We claim that for every $R$ \begin{equation} \zeta(\Phi^*\bar{H}_R) \leq \bar{H}_R (p_{spec})\;. \end{equation} Indeed, for $\epsilon > 0$ introduce the integral sum $$\bar{H}_{R,\varepsilon} (p) = \sum_{{\bf v} \in \; \varepsilon \cdot \Z^k\cap B(R)} \varepsilon^k \cdot K_{\bf v}(\langle {\bf v},p\rangle )\;.$$ Then $$\Phi^*\bar{H}_{R,\varepsilon} = \sum_{{\bf v} \in \; \varepsilon \cdot \Z^k\cap B(R)} \varepsilon^k \cdot \Phi_{\bf v}^*K_{\bf v}\;.$$ Applying repeatedly \eqref{eq-spec-fiber-T1-action-3} and \eqref{eq-spec-fiber-T1-action-2} we get that $$\zeta(\Phi^*\bar{H}_{R,\varepsilon}) \leq \bar{H}_{R,\varepsilon}(p_{spec})\;.$$ Note now that for fixed $R$ the family $\bar{H}_{R,\epsilon}$ converges to $\bar{H}_R$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$ in the uniform norm on $C^0(\R^k)$. Using that $\zeta$ is Lipschitz with respect to the uniform norm on $C^0(M)$ we readily get the inequality \eqref{eq-Fourier-1}. Combining the fact that $\zeta$ is Lipschitz with \eqref{eq-Forier-vsp2} and \eqref{eq-Fourier-1} we get that $$\zeta(\Phi^*\bar{H}) = \lim_{R \to \infty} \zeta(\Phi^*\bar{H}_R) \leq \lim_{R \to \infty} \bar{H}_R (p_{spec})= \bar{H} (p_{spec})\;. $$ Now, assume that $\bar{H} \geq 0$ and $\bar{H} ({p}_{spec})=0$. We just have proved that $\zeta(\Phi^* \bar{H}) \leq 0$, and hence $\zeta(H)=0$, which immediately yields the desired superheaviness of the special fiber. This completes the reduction of the general case to the 1-dimensional case. {\bf From now on we will consider only the case of an effective Hamiltonian $\T^1$-action on $M$ with a moment map $\Phi: M\to \R$. Its moment polytope $\Delta$ is a closed interval in $\R$ and ${p}_{spec} = - I (\Phi) \in \R$.} \medskip \noindent {\sc Reduction to the case of a strictly convex function:} We claim that it is enough to show the following proposition: \begin{prop} Assume $\bar{H}: \R \to \R$ is a strictly convex smooth function reaching its minimum at ${p}_{spec}$. Set $H:= \Phi^* \bar{H}$. Then $\zeta (H) = \bar{H} ({p}_{spec})$. \end{prop} \medskip \noindent Postponing the proof of the proposition for a moment let us show that it implies the theorem. Indeed, let $F: M\to \R$ be a Hamiltonian on $M$. In order to show the superheaviness of $L=\Phi^{-1} ({p}_{spec})$ we need to show that $\zeta (F)\leq \sup_L F$. Pick a very steep strictly convex function $\bar{H}: \R\to\R$ with the minimum value $\sup_L F$ reached at ${p}_{spec}$ and such that $\Phi^* \bar{H} =: H\geq F$ everywhere on $M$. Then using Proposition~ and the monotonicity of $\zeta$ we get $$\zeta (F)\leq \zeta (H) = \bar{H} ({p}_{spec}) = \sup_L F,$$ yielding the claim. \medskip \noindent {\sc Preparations for the proof of Proposition~:} Given a (time-dependent, not necessarily regular) Hamiltonian $G$, we associate to every pair $[\gamma, u]\in \tP_G$ a number \[ D_G ([\gamma, u]) := \cA_G ([\gamma, u]) - \frac{\kappa}{2}\cdot CZ_G ([\gamma, u]). \] (Recall that we defined the Conley-Zehnder index for {\it all} Hamiltonians and not only the regular ones -- see Section~). The number $D_G ([\gamma, u])$ is invariant under a change of the spanning disc $u$ -- an addition of a sphere $jS\in H_2^S (M)$ to the disc $u$ changes both $\cA_G ([\gamma, u])$ and $\kappa/2\cdot CZ_G ([\gamma, u])$ by the same number. Thus we can write $D_G ([\gamma, u]) = D_G (\gamma)$. Given $[\gamma, u]\in \tP_G$ and $l\in \N$ define $\gamma^{(l)}$ and $u^{(l)}$ as the compositions of $\gamma$ and $u$ with the map $z\to z^l$ on the unit disc $\D^2\subset \C$ (here $z$ is a complex coordinate on $\C$). Denote by $t\mapsto g_t$ the time-$t$ flow of $G$ and by $ G^{(l)}: M\times \R\to \R$ the Hamiltonian whose time-$t$ flow is $t\mapsto (g_t )^l$ and which is defined by $$ G^{(l)} := G \sharp\ldots \sharp G\ \ (l\ {\rm times}),$$ where $G\sharp K (x, t) := G (x, t) + K (g_t^{-1} x, t)$ for any $K: M\times \R\to \R$. \begin{prop} There exists a constant $C>0$, depending only on $n$, with the following property. Given a 1-periodic orbit $\gamma\in \cP_G$ of the flow $t\mapsto g_t$ generated by $G$, assume that $\gamma^{(l)}$ is a 1-periodic orbit of the flow $t\mapsto g_t^l$ generated by $G^{(l)}$, and therefore for any $u$ such that $[\gamma, u]\in \tP_G$ we have $[\gamma^{(l)}, u^{(l)}]\in \tP_{G^{(l)}}$. Then \[ | D_{G^{(l)}} ([\gamma^{(l)}, u^{(l)}]) - l D_{G} ([\gamma, u])|\leq l\cdot C. \] \end{prop} \bigskip \noindent \begin{proof} The action term in $D_G$ gets multiplied by $l$ as we pass from $G$ to $G^{(l)}$. As for the Conley-Zehnder term, the quasi-morphism property of the Conley-Zehnder index (see Proposition~) implies that there exists a constant $C >0$ (depending only on $n$) such that $$| l CZ_G [\gamma, u] - CZ_{G^{(l)}} ([\gamma^{(l)}, u^{(l)}])|\leq C.$$ This immediately proves the proposition.\end{proof} \begin{prop} Let $G: M\times [0,1]\to\R$ be a Hamiltonian as above. Then one can choose $\epsilon >0$, depending on $G$, and a constant $C_n > 0$, depending only on $n= {\rm dim}\, M/2$, so that any function $F: M\times [0,1]\to \R$ which is $\epsilon$-close to $G$ in a $C^\infty$-metric on $ C^\infty(M\times [0,1])$ satisfies the following condition: for every $\gamma_0\in \cP_F$ there exists $\gamma\in \cP_{G}$ such that the difference between $D_F (\gamma_0)$ and $D_{G} (\gamma)$ is bounded by $C_n$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} Denote the flow of $G$ by $g_t$ (as before) and the flow of $F$ by $f_t$. We will view time-1 periodic trajectories of these flows both as maps of $[0,1]$ to $M$ having the same value at $0$ and $1$ and as maps from $\SP^1$ to $M$. First, consider the fibration $\D^2 \times M \to M$ and, slightly abusing notation, denote the natural pullback of $\omega$ again by $\omega$. Second, look at the fibration $pr: \D^2\times M\to \D^2$. Denote by $Vert$ the vertical bundle over $\D^2\times M$ formed by the tangent spaces to the fibers of $pr$. For each loop $\sigma: \SP^1\to M$ define by $\widehat{\sigma}: \SP^1\to \D^2\times M$ the map $\widehat{\sigma} (t) := (t, \gamma (t))$. The bundles $\sigma^* TM$ and $\widehat{\sigma}^* Vert$ over $\SP^1$ coincide. Similarly for each $w: \D^2\to M$ denote by $\widehat{w}: \D^2\to \D^2\times M$ the map $\widehat{w} (z):= (z, w (z))$. There exists $\delta >0$, depending on $G$, such that for each $\gamma\in \cP_{G}$ a tubular $\delta$-neighborhood of the image of $\widehat{\gamma}$ in $\SP^1\times M\subset \D^2\times M$, denoted by $U_{\widehat{\gamma}}$, has the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item{} there exists a 1-form $\lambda$ on $U_{\widehat{\gamma}}$ satisfying $d\lambda = \omega$; \item{} $Vert$ admits a trivialization over $U_{\widehat{\gamma}}$. \end{itemize} Given an $\epsilon > 0$, we can choose $F$ sufficiently $C^\infty$-close to $G$ so that the paths $t\mapsto f_t$ and $t\mapsto g_t$ in $\Ham (M)$ are arbitrarily $C^\infty$-close and therefore \begin{itemize} \item{} for every $x\in \Fix (F)$ there exists $y\in \Fix (G)$ which is $\epsilon$-close to $x$ (think of the fixed points as points of intersection of the graph of a diffeomorphism with the diagonal); \item{} the $C^\infty$-distance between the maps $\gamma_0: t\mapsto f_t (x)$ and $\gamma: t\mapsto g_t (y)$ from $[0,1]$ to $M$ is bounded by $\epsilon$ and the image of $\widehat{\gamma}_0$ lies in $U_{\widehat{\gamma}}$. \end{itemize} Pick a map $u_0: \D^2\to M$, $\left. u\right|_{\partial \D^2} = \gamma_0$. Since $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma$ are $C^\infty$-close one can enlarge $\D^2$ to a bigger disc $\D^2_1\supset \D^2$ and find a smooth map $u: \D^2_1\to M$ so that \begin{itemize} \item{} $\left. u\right|_{\partial \D^2_1} = \gamma$; \item{} $\left. u\right|_{\D^2} = u_0$; \item{} $u (\D^2_1\setminus \D^2) \subset U_{\widehat{\gamma}}$. \end{itemize} Rescaling $\D^2_1$ we may assume without loss of generality that $[\gamma, u]\in \cP_{G}$. Trivialize the vector bundles $\gamma_0^* TM$ and ${\gamma}^* TM$ so that the trivializations extend to a trivialization of $u^* TM$ over $\D_1^2$ (and hence of $u_0^* TM$ over $\D^2$). Using the trivializations we can identify the paths $t\mapsto d_{\gamma_0 (0)} f_t$ and $t\mapsto d_{\gamma (0)} g_t$ with some identity-based paths of symplectic matrices $A(t)$, $B(t)$. Fixing a small $\epsilon$ as above, we can also assume that $F$ is chosen so $C^\infty$-close to $G$ that, in addition to all of the above, the $C^\infty$-distance between the paths $t\mapsto A(t)$ and $t\mapsto B(t)$ in $Sp\, (2n)$ is bounded by $\epsilon$ (for instance, make sure first that the matrix paths obtained by writing the paths $t\mapsto d_{\gamma_0 (0)} f_t$ and $t\mapsto d_{\gamma (0)} g_t$ using some trivialization of $Vert$ over $U_{\widehat{\gamma}}$ are close enough -- then the matrix paths $t\mapsto A(t)$ and $t\mapsto B(t)$ will also be close enough). We claim that by choosing $\epsilon$ sufficiently small in the construction above we can bound the difference between $D_F ([\gamma_0, u_0])$ and $D_{G} ([\gamma, u])$ by a quantity depending only on ${\rm dim}\, M$. Indeed, the difference $|\int_0^1 F (\gamma_0 (t), t) dt - \int_0^1 G (\gamma (t)) dt |$ is bounded by a quantity depending only on some universal constants and $\epsilon$, because $\gamma_0$ is $\epsilon$-close to $\gamma$ and $F$ is $\epsilon$-close to $G$ with respect to the $C^\infty$-metrics. It can be made arbitrarily small by choosing a sufficiently small $\epsilon$. The difference $$|\int_{\D^2} u_0^* \omega - \int_{\D^2} {u}^* \omega| = |\int_{\D^2} \widehat{u}_0^* \omega - \int_{\D^2} \widehat{u}^* \omega|$$ is bounded by the difference $| \int_0^1 \widehat{\gamma}_0^* \lambda - \int_0^1 \widehat{\gamma}^* \lambda |$. Since, $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma$ are $\epsilon$-close in the $C^\infty$-metric the later difference can be made less than $1$ if we choose a sufficiently small $\epsilon$. Thus we have shown that by choosing a sufficiently small $\epsilon$ we can bound $|\cA_F ([\gamma_0, u_0]) - \cA_{G} ([\gamma, u])|$ by $1$. Now, as far as the Conley-Zehnder indices are concerned, our choice of the trivializations means that the difference between $CZ_F ([\gamma_0, u_0])$ and $CZ_{G} ([\gamma, u])$ is just the difference between the Conley-Zehnder indices for the matrix paths $t\mapsto A(t)$ and $t\mapsto B(t)$. But the latter paths in $Sp\, (2n)$ are $\epsilon$-close in the $C^\infty$-sense, hence represent close elements of $\widetilde{Sp\, (2n)}$ and if $\epsilon$ was chosen sufficiently small, then, as we mentioned in Section~, their Conley-Zehnder indices differ at most by a constant depending only on $n$. This finishes the proof of the claim and the proposition. \end{proof} \medskip \noindent{\sc Plan of the proof of Proposition~:} We assume now that $\bar{H}$ is a fixed strictly convex function on $\R$. Our calculations will feature $E$ as a large parameter. For quantities $\alpha, \beta$ depending on $E$ we will write $\alpha\preceq \beta$ if $\alpha\leq \beta +{\textit const}$ holds for large enough $E$, where ${\textit const}$ depends only on $(M,\omega)$, $\Phi$ and $\bar{H}$, and in particular does not depend on $E$. We will write $\alpha\approx \beta$ if $\alpha\preceq \beta$ and $\beta\preceq \alpha$. Using this language the proposition can be restated as \begin{equation} c(a,EH) \approx E \bar{H} ({p}_{spec}). \end{equation} In general, 1-periodic orbits of the flow of $EH$ are not isolated and therefore the Hamiltonian is not regular. Let $F$ be a regular (time-periodic) perturbation of $EH$. By the spectrality axiom, the spectral number $c(a, F)$ for $a\in QH_{2n} (M)$ equals $\cA_F ([\gamma_0, u_0])$ for some pair $[\gamma_0, u_0]\in \tP_F$ with $CZ_F ([\gamma_0, u_0]) = 2n$. Thus $c(a, F) \approx D_F (\gamma_0)$. Combining this with Proposition~ we get that for {\it some} $\gamma\in\cP_{EH}$ \begin{equation} E \bar{H} ({p}_{spec}) \preceq c (a, EH) \approx c(a,F) \approx D_F (\gamma_0) \approx D_{EH} (\gamma)\;. \end{equation} Thus it would be enough to show that \begin{equation} D_{EH} (\gamma) \preceq E \bar{H} ({p}_{spec}) \ \ {\rm for}\ {\it all}\ \gamma\in\cP_{EH}\;, \end{equation} which together with () would imply (). Inequality () will be proved in the following way. Note that each $\gamma\in\cP_{EH}$ lies in $\Phi^{-1} ({p})$ for some ${p}\in\Delta$. We will show that \begin{equation} D_{EH} (\gamma) \approx E\bar{H} ({p}) + E\bar{H}' (p) ({p}_{spec} - {p}). \end{equation} Note that () implies (). Indeed, since $\bar{H}$ is strictly convex and reaches its minimum at ${p}_{spec}$, it follows from () that \[ D_{EH} (\gamma) \approx E\bar{H} ({p}) + E \bar{H}' (p) ({p}_{spec} - {p}) \leq E\bar{H} ({p}_{spec}), \] which is true for any $\gamma\in \cP_{EH}$ thus yielding (). \medskip \noindent {\sc Proof of ():} Let the $\T^1$-action on $M$ be given by a loop of symplectomorphisms $\{ \phi_t \}$, $t\in \R$, $\phi_t = \phi_{t+1}$. The flow of $EH$ has the form $h_tx = \phi_{E\bar{H}' (\Phi(x))t}x$. We view $\gamma$ as a map $\gamma : [0,1]\to M$ satisfying $\gamma (0) = \gamma (1)$. Denote $x := \gamma (0)$. The curve $\gamma$ lies in $\Phi^{-1} ({p})$. Denote $N := \gamma ([0,1])$. This is the $\T^1$-orbit of $x$ and it is either a point or a circle. In the first case $\gamma$ is a constant trajectory concentrated at a fixed point $N\in M$ of the action. Using this constant curve $\gamma$ together with the constant disc $u$ spanning for the definitions of $I(\Phi)$ and $D_{EH} (\gamma)$ one gets $${p}_{spec} - p = m_\Phi (\gamma, u) \cdot \kappa/2,$$ and $$D_{EH} (\gamma) = E\bar{H} ({p}) - \kappa/2 \cdot CZ_{EH} ([\gamma, u]).$$ Thus proving () reduces in this case to proving $$- CZ_{EH} ([\gamma, u])\approx E\bar{H}' (p)\cdot m_\Phi (\gamma, u).$$ Let us fix a symplectic basis of $T_N M$ and view each differential $d_N \phi_t$ as a symplectic matrix $A(t)$, so that $\{ A(t)\}$ is an identity-based loop in $Sp\, (2n)$. Then $$- CZ_{EH} ([\gamma, u])\approx CZ_{matr} (\{ A (E\bar{H}'(p)t) \}),$$ while $$E\bar{H}' (p)\cdot m_\Phi (\gamma, u) \approx E\bar{H}' (p) Maslov (\{ A(t)\}).$$ Thus we need to prove $$CZ_{matr} (\{ A (E\bar{H}'(p)t) \}) \approx E\bar{H}' (p) Maslov (\{ A(t)\}),$$ which follows easily from the definitions of the Conley-Zehnder index and the Maslov class. Thus from now on we will assume that $N$ is a circle. Take any point $x \in N$. The stabilizer of $x$ under the $\T^1$-action is a finite cyclic group of order $k \in \N$. Thus the orbit of the $\T^1$-action turns $k$ times along $N$. Since $\gamma$ is a non-constant closed orbit of the Hamiltonian flow generated by $E\Phi^*\bar{H}$, it turns $r$ times along $N$ with $ r \in \Z \setminus \{0\}$. This implies that $E\bar{H}' (p)= r/k$. We claim that without loss of generality we may assume that $l:= r/k $ is an integer. Indeed, we can always pass to $\gamma^{(k)}\in \cP_{kEH}$, so that $(kE\bar{H})' (p) \in \Z$, and if we can prove the proposition for $\gamma^{(k)}$, then \[ D_{k EH} (\gamma^{(k)}) \approx k E\bar{H} ({p}) + k E\bar{H}' (p) (p_{spec} - {p}). \] Applying Proposition~ we get \[ k D_{EH} (\gamma) \approx k E\bar{H} ({p}) + k E \bar{H}' (p) (p_{spec} -p) + k\cdot {\it const}, \] and hence \[ D_{EH} (\gamma) \approx E\bar{H} ({p}) + E \bar{H}' (p) (p_{spec} - p), \] proving the claim for the original $\gamma$. From now on we assume that $l:=E\bar{H}' (p) \in\Z \setminus \{0\}$ and that $[\gamma, u]\in \tP_{l\Phi}$. Consider the Hamiltonian vector field $X:=\text{sgrad}\, \Phi$ at a point $x \in N$. Since $N$ is a non-constant orbit we get $X\neq 0$. Then $V = T_x (\Phi^{-1} (p))$ is the skew-orthogonal complement to $X$. Choose a $\T^1$-invariant $\omega$-compatible almost complex structure $J$ in a neighborhood of $N$. Together $\omega$ and $J$ define a $\T^1$-invariant Riemannian metric $g$. Decompose the tangent bundle $TM$ along $N$ as follows. Put $Z = \text{Span}(JX,X)$ and set $W$ to be the $g$-orthogonal complement to $X$ in $V$. Thus we have a $\T^1$-invariant decomposition \begin{equation} T_xM = W\oplus Z\;, x \in N\;. \end{equation} Furthermore, $W$ and $Z$ carry canonical symplectic forms. Thus $W$ and $Z$ define symplectic (and hence trivial) subbundles of $TM$ over $N$. They induce trivial subbundles of the bundle $\gamma^* TM$ over $\SP^1$. We calculate \begin{equation} dh_t (x) \xi = d\phi_{EH'(\Phi(x))t} (x) \xi + EH''(\Phi(x))\cdot d\Phi(\xi)\cdot X\;. \end{equation} We consider two trivializations of the bundle $\gamma^* TM$ over $\SP^1$. The first trivialization is defined by means of sections invariant under the $\T^1$-action. The second one is chosen in such a way that it extends to a trivialization of $u^* TM$ over $\D^2$. Using these trivializations we can identify $dh_t (x)$, respectively, with two identity-based paths $\{ C_t\}$, $\{ C^\prime_t\}$ of symplectic matrices. The decomposition \eqref{eq-6} induces a split $$ C_t = \id \oplus B_t\;.$$ We claim that $|CZ_{matr} (\{ B_t\})|$ is bounded by a constant independent of $E$. Indeed, observe that in the basis $(X,JX)$ of $Z$ \[ B_t= \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & b_{12}(t) \\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right)\;.\] Denote by $L$ the line spanned by $X=(1,0)$. Perturb $\{B_t\}$ to a path $\{B'_t = R_{\delta t}B_t\}$, where $R_t$ is the rotation by angle $t$, and $\delta>0$ is small enough. Observe that $B'(t)L \cap L =\{0\}$ for $t>0$. It follows readily from the definitions that $|CZ_{matr}(B'_t)|$ and $|CZ_{matr}(R_{\delta t})|$ do not exceed $2$. Thus by the quasi-morphism property of the Conley-Zehnder index (see Proposition~) we have that $|CZ_{matr} (\{ B_t\})|$ is bounded by a constant independent of $E$, which yields the claim. Therefore $$ CZ_{matr}\, (\{ C_t\})\approx 0\;.$$ On the other hand, by formula \eqref{eqn-CZ-trivializations} $$ CZ_{matr}\, (\{ C'_t\})=CZ_{matr}\, (\{ C_t\})+ m_{l\Phi} ([\gamma, u])\;.$$ Thus \begin{equation} CZ_{EH} ([\gamma, u]):= n - CZ_{matr}\, (\{ C'_t\}) \approx - m_{l\Phi} ([\gamma, u]). \end{equation} Since the periodic trajectory $\gamma$ lies inside $\Phi^{-1} ({p})$, we get \begin{equation} \cA_{EH} ([\gamma, u]) = \int_0^1 EH (\gamma (t)) dt - \int_{\D^2} u^\ast \omega = E\bar{H} ({p}) - \int_{\D^2} u^\ast \omega. \end{equation} Using () and () the precise equality \[ D_{EH} ([\gamma, u]) = \cA_{EH} ([\gamma, u]) - \frac{\kappa}{2}\cdot CZ_{EH} ([\gamma, u]) \] can be turned into an asymptotic inequality \begin{equation} D_{EH} ([\gamma, u]) \approx E\bar{H} ({p}) - \int_{\D^2} u^\ast \omega + \frac{\kappa}{2} m_{l\Phi} ([\gamma, u]). \end{equation} Since the periodic trajectory $\gamma$ lies inside $\Phi^{-1} ({p})$, we have \begin{equation} \cA_{l\Phi} ([\gamma, u]) = \int_0^1 l\Phi (\gamma (t)) dt - \int_{\D^2} u^* \omega = l p - \int_{\D^2} u^* \omega. \end{equation} Adding and subtracting $lp$ from the right-hand side of () and using () we get \[ D_{EH} (\gamma) = D_{EH} ([\gamma, u]) \approx \bigg( E\bar{H} (p) - lp) \bigg) + \bigg( lp - \int_{\D^2} u^\ast \omega + \frac{\kappa}{2} m_{l\Phi} ([\gamma, u]) \bigg) = \] \[ = \bigg( E\bar{H} ({p}) - lp \bigg) + \bigg( \cA_{l\Phi} ([\gamma, u]) + \frac{\kappa}{2} m_{l\Phi} ([\gamma, u]) \bigg) = \bigg( E\bar{H} ({p}) - lp \bigg) - I (l\Phi) = \] \[ = E\bar{H} ({p}) + l (- I(\Phi) - {p}) = E\bar{H} ({p}) + l (p_{spec} - p)\;.\] Recalling that $l = EH' (p)$, we finally obtain that \[D_{EH} (\gamma) = E\bar{H} ({p}) + EH' (p) (p_{spec} - p), \] which is precisely the equation () that we wanted to get. This finishes the proof of Proposition~ and Theorem~. \Qed \subsection{Calabi and mixed action-Maslov} \noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem~.} Assume $H: M\times [0,1]\to \R$ is a normalized Hamiltonian which generates a loop in $\Ham (M)$ representing a class $\alpha\in\pi_1 (\Ham (M))\subset \tHam (M)$. Then $H^{(l)}$ is also normalized and generates a loop representing $\alpha^l$. Let us compute $\mu (\alpha) = - {\hbox{\rm vol}\, (M)}\cdot \lim_{l\to +\infty} c (a, H^{(l)} )/l$. Arguing as in the proof of () we get that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for each $l\in\N$ there exists $\gamma\in \cP_{H^{(l)}}$ for which $| c (a, H^{(l)}) - D_{H^{(l)}} (\gamma) |\leq C$. But, as it follows from the definitions and from the fact that $I$ is a homomorphism, $D_{H^{(l)}} (\gamma)$ does not depend on $\gamma$ and equals $-I (\alpha^l) = -l I(\alpha)$. This immediately implies that $\mu (\alpha) = {\hbox{\rm vol}\, (M)}\cdot I (\alpha) $. \Qed \bigskip \noindent {\bf Acknowledgements.} The origins of this paper lie in our joint work with P.Biran on the paper -- we thank him for fruitful collaboration at an early stage of this project, as well as for his crucial help with Example~ on Lagrangian spheres in projective hypersurfaces. We also thank him and O.Cornea for pointing out to us a mistake in the original version of this paper and helping us with the correction (see Section~). We thank F.~Zapolsky for his help with the ``exotic" monotone Lagrangian torus in $\SP^2 \times \SP^2$ discussed in Example~. We thank C.~Woodward for pointing out to us the link between the special point in the moment polytope of a symplectic toric manifold and the Futaki invariant, and E.~Shelukhin for useful discussions on this issue. We are also grateful to V.L.~Ginzburg, Y.~Karshon, Y.~Long, D.~McDuff, M.~Pinsonnault, D.~Salamon and M.~Sodin for useful discussions and communications. We thank K.~Fukaya, H.~Ohta and K.~Ono, the organizers of the Conference on Symplectic Topology in Kyoto (February 2006), M.~Harada, Y.~Karshon, M.~Masuda and T.~Panov, the organizers of the Conference on Toric Topology in Osaka (May 2006), O.~Cornea, V.L.~Ginzburg, E.~Kerman and F.~Lalonde, the organizers of the Workshop on Floer theory (Banff, 2007), and A.~Fathi, Y.-G.~Oh and C.~Viterbo, the organizers of the AMS Summer Conference on Symplectic Topology and Measure-Preserving Dynamical Systems (Snowbird, July 2007), for giving us an opportunity to present a preliminary version of this work and for the superb job they did in organizing these conferences. Finally, we thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments and corrections. \bigskip \bibliographystyle{alpha} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Aar} Aarnes, J.F., {\it Quasi-states and quasi-measures}, Adv. Math. {\bf 86}:1 (1991), 41-67. \bibitem{Albers} Albers, P., {\it On the extrinsic topology of Lagrangian submanifolds}, Int. Math. Res. Not. {\bf 38}, (2005), 2341-2371. \bibitem{AF} Albers, P., Frauenfelder, U., {\it A non-displaceable Lagrangian torus in $T^* \SP^2$}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. {\bf 61}:8 (2008), 1046-1051. \bibitem{Arnold} Arnold, V.I., {\it On a characteristic class entering into conditions of quantization}, (Russian) Funkcional. Anal. i Prilo\v zen. {\bf 1} 1967, 1-14. \bibitem{Arn-Floer-mem-volume} Arnold, V. I., {\it Some remarks on symplectic monodromy of Milnor fibrations}, in {\it The Floer memorial volume, 99-103}, Progr. Math., {\bf 133}, Birkh\"auser, 1995. \bibitem{Atiyah} Atiyah, M.F., {\it Convexity and commuting Hamiltonians}, Bull. London Math. Soc. {\bf 14}:1 (1981), 1-15. \bibitem{Barge-Ghys} Barge, J., Ghys, E., {\it Cocycles d'Euler et de Maslov}, Math. Ann. {\bf 294}:2 (1992), 235-265. \bibitem{Beauville} Beauville, A., {\it Quantum cohomology of complete intersections}, Mat. Fiz. Anal. Geom. {\bf 2}:3-4 (1995), 384-398. \bibitem{Biran-Ciel} Biran, P., Cieliebak, K., {\it Symplectic topology on subcritical manifolds}, Comm. Math. Helv. {\bf 76}:4 (2001), 712-753. \bibitem{BEP} Biran, P., Entov, M., Polterovich, L., {\it Calabi quasimorphisms for the symplectic ball}, Commun. Contemp. Math. {\bf 6}:5 (2004), 793-802. \bibitem{Biran-ICM} Biran, P., {\it Geometry of Symplectic Intersections}, in {\it Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Beijing 2002)}, Vol. II, 241-255. \bibitem{Biran-ECM} Biran, P., {\it Symplectic topology and algebraic families}, in {\it 4-th European Congress of Mathematics (Stockholm 2004)},pp. 827-836, Eur. Math. Soc., Z\"urich, 2005. \bibitem{bi-nonint} Biran, P., {\it Lagrangian Non-Intersections}, Geom. and Funct. Anal. (GAFA), {\bf 16} (2006), 279-326. \bibitem{Biran-Cornea} Biran, P., Cornea, O., {\it Quantum structures for Lagrangian submanifolds}, preprint, arXiv:0708.4221, 2007. \bibitem{BC} Biran, P., Cornea, O., {\it Rigidity and uniruling for Lagrangian submanifolds}, arXiv:0808.2440, 2008. \bibitem{Cho} Cho, C.-H., {\it Holomorphic disc, spin structures and Floer cohomology of the Clifford torus}, Int. Math. Res. Not. {\bf 35} (2004), 1803-1843. \bibitem{Cho1} Cho, C.-H., {\it Non-displaceable Lagrangian submanifolds and Floer cohomology with non-unitary line bundle}, prperint, arXiv:0710.5454, 2007. \bibitem{Co-Ze} Conley, C., Zehnder, E., {\it Morse-type index theory for flows and periodic solutions for Hamiltonian equations}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. {\bf 37}:2 (1984), 207-253. \bibitem{DeGossons} de Gosson, M., de Gosson, S., Piccione, P., {\it On a product formula for the Conley--Zehnder index of symplectic paths and its applications}, preprint, {math.SG/0607024}, 2006. \bibitem{Delz} Delzant, T., {\it Hamiltoniens p{\'e}riodiques et images convexes de l'appli\-cation moment}, Bull. Soc. Math. France {\bf 116}:3 (1988), 315-339. \bibitem{Donaldson} Donaldson, S. K., {\it Polynomials, vanishing cycles and Floer homology}, in {\it Mathematics: frontiers and perspectives, 55-64}, AMS, 2000. \bibitem{EP-qmm} Entov, M., Polterovich, L., {\it Calabi quasimorphism and quantum homology}, Intern. Math. Res. Notices {\bf 30} (2003), 1635-1676. \bibitem{EP-qst} Entov, M., Polterovich, L., {\it Quasi-states and symplectic intersections}, Comm. Math. Helv. {\bf 81}:1 (2006), 75-99. \bibitem{EP-toric-proc} Entov, M., Polterovich, L., {\it Symplectic quasi-states and semi-simplicity of quantum homology}, in {\it Toric Topology, pp. 47-70}, Contemporary Mathematics {\bf 460}, AMS, 2008. \bibitem{EPZ} Entov, M., Polterovich, L., Zapolsky, F., {\it Quasi-morphisms and the Poisson bracket}, Pure Appl. Math. Quarterly {\bf 3}:4, part 1 (2007), 1037-1055. \bibitem{Floer} Floer, A., {\it Symplectic fixed points and holomorphic spheres}, Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 120}:4 (1989), 575-611. \bibitem{FOOO} Fukaya, K., Oh., Y.-G., Ohta, H., Ono, K., {\it Lagrangian intersection Floer theory -- anomaly and obstruction}, preprint. \bibitem{FOOO-toric} Fukaya, K., Oh., Y.-G., Ohta, H., Ono, K., {\it Lagrangian Floer theory on compact toric manifolds I}, preprint, arXiv:0802.1703, 2008. \bibitem{Futaki} Futaki, A., {\it An obstruction to the existence of Einstein K\"ahler metrics}, Invent. Math. {\bf 73}:3 (1983), 437-443. \bibitem{Guill-Stern} Guillemin, V., Sternberg, S., {\it Convexity properties of the moment mapping}, Invent. Math. {\bf 67}:3 (1982), 491-513. \bibitem{Hirzebruch} Hirzebruch, F., {\it Topological methods in algebraic geometry,} Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1966. \bibitem{Ho-Sa} Hofer, H., Salamon, D., {\it Floer homology and Novikov rings}, in: {\it The Floer Memorial Volume, 483-524}, Progr. Math., 133, Birkh{\"a}user, 1995. \bibitem{Karshon} Karshon, Y., {\it Appendix to the paper ``Symplectic packings and algebraic geometry" by D.McDuff and L.Polterovich}, Invent. Math. {\bf 115}:3 (1994), 431-434. \bibitem{Lang} Lang, S., {\it Algebra}, 3rd edition, Springer-Verlag, 2002. \bibitem{Leray} Leray, J., {\it Lagrangian Analysis and Quantum Mechanics}, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981. \bibitem{Lerman} Lerman, E., {\it Symplectic cuts}, Math. Res. Lett. {\bf 2}:3 (1995), 247-258. \bibitem{Liu} Liu, G., {\it Associativity of quantum multiplication}, Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 191}:2 (1998), 265-282. \bibitem{Mabuchi} Mabuchi, T., {\it Einstein-K\'ahler forms, Futaki invariants and convex geometry on toric Fano varieties}, Osaka J. Math. {\bf 24}:4 (1987), 705-737. \bibitem{McDuff-uniruled} McDuff, D., {\it Hamiltonian $\SP^1$ manifolds are uniruled}, preprint, arXiv:0706.0675, 2007. \bibitem{McDuff-letter} McDuff, D., {\it Private communication}, 2007. \bibitem{MS2} McDuff, D., Salamon, D., {\it $J$-holomorphic curves and symplectic topology}, AMS, 2004. \bibitem{Oh1} Oh, Y.-G., {\it Symplectic topology as the geometry of action functional I}, J. Differ. Geom. {\bf 46} (1997), 499-577. \bibitem{Oh2} Oh, Y.-G., {\it Symplectic topology as the geometry of action functional II}, Commun. Anal. Geom. {\bf 7} (1999), 1-55. \bibitem{Oh-involution} Oh, Y.-G., {\it Addendum to: ``Floer cohomology of Lagrangian intersections and pseudo-holomorphic disks. I"}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. {\bf 48} (1995), no. 11, 1299-1302. \bibitem{Oh-spectral} Oh, Y.-G., {\it Construction of spectral invariants of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms on general symplectic manifolds}, in {\it The breadth of symplectic and Poisson geometry, 525-570}, Birkh\"auser, 2005. \bibitem{Ostr-qmm} Ostrover, Y., {\it Calabi quasi-morphisms for some non-monotone symplectic manifolds}, Algebr. Geom. Topol. {\bf 6} (2006), 405-434. \bibitem{PSS} Piunikhin, S., Salamon, D., Schwarz, M., {\it Symplectic Floer-Donaldson theory and quantum cohomology}, in: {\it Contact and Symplectic Geometry, 171-200}, Publ. Newton Inst., 8, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996. \bibitem{Pol-book} Polterovich, L., {\it The geometry of the group of symplectic diffeo\-mor\-phisms}, Birkh{\"a}user, 2001. \bibitem{Pol-mixed} Polterovich, L., {\it Hamiltonian loops and Arnold's principle}, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) {\bf 180} (1997), 181-187. \bibitem{P-IMRN} Polterovich, L., {\it Hofer's diameter and Lagrangian intersections}, Internat. Math. Res. Notices {\bf 4} 1998, 217-223. \bibitem{P-Rudnick} Polterovich, L., Rudnick, Z., {\it Kick stability in groups and dynamical systems}, Nonlinearity {\bf 14}:5 (2001), 1331-1363. \bibitem{Py-1} Py, P., {\it Quasi-morphismes et invariant de Calabi}, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. {\bf 39} (2006), 177--195. \bibitem{Py-2} Py, P., {\it Quasi-morphismes et diffeomorphismes Hamiltoniens}, PhD-thesis, ENS-Lyon, 2008. \bibitem{Rob-Sal} Robbin, J., Salamon, D., {\it The Maslov index for paths}, Topology {\bf 32}:4 (1993), 827-844. \bibitem{Ru-Ti} Ruan, Y., Tian, G., {\it A mathematical theory of quantum cohomology}, Math. Res. Lett. {\bf 1}:2 (1994), 269-278. \bibitem{Ru-Ti-1} Ruan, Y., Tian, G., {\it A mathematical theory of quantum cohomology}, J. Diff. Geom. {\bf 42}:2 (1995), 259-367. \bibitem{Sal-Ze} Salamon, D., Zehnder, E., {\it Morse theory for periodic solutions of Hamiltonian systems and the Maslov index}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. {\bf 45}:10 (1992), 1303-1360. \bibitem{Sal} Salamon, D., {\it Lectures on Floer homology}, in: {\it Symplectic geometry and topology (Park City, UT, 1997), 143-229}, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., 7, AMS, 1999. \bibitem{Schwarz} Schwarz, M., {\it On the action spectrum for closed symplectically aspherical manifolds}, Pacific J. Math. {\bf 193}:2 (2000), 419-461. \bibitem{Seidel-PhD} Seidel, P., {\it Floer homology and the symplectic isotopy problem}, PhD thesis, Oxford University, 1997. \bibitem{Seidel-graded} Seidel, P., {\it Graded Lagrangian submanifolds}, Bull. Soc. Math. France {\bf 128}:1 (2000), 103-149. \bibitem{Seidel-ECM} Seidel, P., {\it Vanishing cycles and mutation}, in {\it European Congress of Mathematics, Vol. II (Barcelona, 2000), 65-85}, Progr. Math., {\bf 202}, Birkh\"auser, 2001. \bibitem{Shelukhin} Shelukhin, E., {\it PhD thesis (in preparation)}, Tel-Aviv University. \bibitem{Usher} Usher, M., {\it Spectral numbers in Floer theories}, preprint, arXiv:0709.1127, 2007. \bibitem{Viterbo} Viterbo, C., {\it Symplectic topology as the geometry of generating functions}, Math. Ann. {\bf 292}:4 (1992), 685-710. \bibitem{VanDerWaerden} van der Waerden, B., {\it Algebra.} Vol. 2, Springer-Verlag, 1991. \bibitem{Wang-Zhu} Wang, X.-J., Zhu, X., {\it K\"ahler-Ricci solitons on toric manifolds with positive first Chern class}, Adv. Math. {\bf 188}:1 (2004), 87-103. \bibitem{Weinst} Weinstein, A., {\it Cohomology of symplectomorphism groups and critical values of Hamiltonians}, Math. Z. {\bf 201}:1 (1989), 75-82. \bibitem{Wi} Witten, E., {\it Two-dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space}, Surveys in Diff. Geom. {\bf 1} (1991), 243-310. \end{thebibliography} \bigskip \noindent \begin{tabular}{@{} l @{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \,} l } Michael Entov & Leonid Polterovich \\ Department of Mathematics & School of Mathematical Sciences \\ Technion & Tel Aviv University \\ Haifa 32000, Israel & Tel Aviv 69978, Israel \\ entov@math.technion.ac.il & polterov@post.tau.ac.il\\ \end{tabular}
|
0704.0106
|
Title: Multiple Parton Scattering in Nuclei: Quark-quark Scattering
Abstract: Modifications to quark and antiquark fragmentation functions due to
quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering in nuclear medium are studied
systematically up to order \cal{O}(\alpha_{s}^2)$ in deeply inelastic
scattering (DIS) off nuclear targets. At the order $\cal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$,
twist-four contributions from quark-quark (antiquark) rescattering also exhibit
the Landau-Pomeranchuck-Midgal (LPM) interference feature similar to gluon
bremsstrahlung induced by multiple parton scattering. Compared to quark-gluon
scattering, the modification, which is dominated by $t$-channel quark-quark
(antiquark) scattering, is only smaller by a factor of $C_F/C_A=4/9$ times the
ratio of quark and gluon distributions in the medium. Such a modification is
not negligible for realistic kinematics and finite medium size. The
modifications to quark (antiquark) fragmentation functions from quark-antiquark
annihilation processes are shown to be determined by the antiquark (quark)
distribution density in the medium. The asymmetry in quark and antiquark
distributions in nuclei will lead to different modifications of quark and
antiquark fragmentation functions inside a nucleus, which qualitatively
explains the experimentally observed flavor dependence of the leading hadron
suppression in semi-inclusive DIS off nuclear targets. The quark-antiquark
annihilation processes also mix quark and gluon fragmentation functions in the
large fractional momentum region, leading to a flavor dependence of jet
quenching in heavy-ion collisions.
Body: \begin{frontmatter} \title{Multiple Parton Scattering in Nuclei: Quark-quark Scattering} \author[label1]{Andreas Sch\"afer,} \author[label2]{Xin-Nian Wang} \author[label3,label4,label1]{and Ben-Wei Zhang} \address[label1]{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Regensburg\\ D-93040 Regensburg, Germany} \address[label2]{Nuclear Science Division, MS 70R0319 \\ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720} \address[label3]{Cyclotron Institute and Physics Department, Texas A$\&$M University \\ College Station, Texas 77843-3366} \address[label4]{Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University \\ Wuhan 430079, China} \begin{abstract} Modifications to quark and antiquark fragmentation functions due to quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering in nuclear medium are studied systematically up to order $\cal{O}$$(\alpha_s^2)$ in deeply inelastic scattering (DIS) off nuclear targets. At the order $\cal{O}$$(\alpha_s^2)$, twist-four contributions from quark-quark (antiquark) rescattering also exhibit the Landau-Pomeranchuck-Midgal (LPM) interference feature similar to gluon bremsstrahlung induced by multiple parton scattering. Compared to quark-gluon scattering, the modification, which is dominated by $t$-channel quark-quark (antiquark) scattering, is only smaller by a factor of $C_F/C_A=4/9$ times the ratio of quark and gluon distributions in the medium. Such a modification is not negligible for realistic kinematics and finite medium size. The modifications to quark (antiquark) fragmentation functions from quark-antiquark annihilation processes are shown to be determined by the antiquark (quark) distribution density in the medium. The asymmetry in quark and antiquark distributions in nuclei will lead to different modifications of quark and antiquark fragmentation functions inside a nucleus, which qualitatively explains the experimentally observed flavor dependence of the leading hadron suppression in semi-inclusive DIS off nuclear targets. The quark-antiquark annihilation processes also mix quark and gluon fragmentation functions in the large fractional momentum region, leading to a flavor dependence of jet quenching in heavy-ion collisions. \end{abstract} \begin{keyword} Jet quenching, modified fragmentation, parton energy loss. \PACS{24.85.+p, 12.38.Bx, 13.87.Ce, 13.60.-r} \end{keyword} \end{frontmatter} \section{Introduction} Multiple parton scattering in a dense medium can be used as a useful tool to study properties of both hot and cold nuclear matter. The success of such an approach has been demonstrated by the discovery of strong jet quenching phenomena in central $Au+Au$ collisions at the Relativistic Heavy-ion Collider (RHIC) and their implications on the formation of a strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma at RHIC . However, for a convincing phenomenological study of the existing and future experimental data, a unified description of all medium effects in hard processes involving nuclei, such as electron-nucleus ($e+A$), hadron-nucleus ($h+A$) and nucleus-nucleus collisions ($A+A$) has to be developed . This must include the physics of transverse momentum broadening , strong nuclear enhancement in DIS and Drell-Yan production , nuclear shadowing , and parton energy loss due to gluon radiation induced by multiple scattering . There exist many different frameworks in the literature to describe multiple scattering in a nuclear medium . Among them the twist expansion approach is based on the generalized factorization in perturbative QCD as initially developed by Luo, Qiu and Sterman (LQS) . In the LQS formalism, multiple scattering processes generally involve high-twist multiple-parton correlations in analogy to the parton distribution operators in leading twist processes. Though the corresponding higher twist corrections are suppressed by powers of $1/Q^2$, they are enhanced at least by a factor of $A^{1/3}$ due to multiple scattering in a large nucleus. This framework has been applied recently to study medium modification of the fragmentation functions as the leading parton propagates through the medium . Because of the non-Abelian Landau-Pomeranchuck-Midgal interference in the gluon bremsstrahlung induced by multiple parton scattering in nuclei, the higher-twist nuclear modifications to the fragmentation functions are in fact enhanced by $A^{2/3}$, quadratic in the nuclear size . Phenomenological study of parton energy loss and nuclear modification of the fragmentation functions in cold nuclear matter gives a good description of the nuclear modification of the leading hadron spectra in semi-inclusive deeply inelastic lepton-nucleus scattering observed by the HERMES experiment . The same framework also gives a compelling explanation for the suppression of large transverse momentum hadrons discovered at RHIC . The emphasis of recent studies of medium modification of fragmentation functions has been on radiative parton energy loss induced by multiple scattering with gluons. Such processes indeed are dominant relative to multiple scattering with quarks because of the abundance of soft gluons in either cold nuclei or hot dense matter produced in heavy-ion collisions. Since gluon bremsstrahlung induced by scattering with medium gluons is the same for quarks and anti-quarks, one also expects the energy loss and fragmentation modification to be identical for quarks and anti-quarks. However, in a medium with finite baryon density such as cold nuclei and the forward region of heavy-ion collisions, the difference between quark and anti-quark distributions in the medium should lead to different energy loss and modified fragmentation functions for quarks and antiquarks through quark-antiquark annihilation processes. To study such an asymmetry, one must consider systematically all possible quark-quark and quark-antiquark scattering processes, which will be the focus of this paper. In this study we will calculate the modifications of quark and antiquark fragmentation functions (FF) due to quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering in a nuclear medium, working within the LQS framework for generalized factorization in perturbative QCD. For a complete description of nuclear modification of the single inclusive hadron spectra, one still have to consider medium modification of gluon fragmentation functions in addition to modified quark fragmentation function due to quark-gluon scattering [18]. The theoretical results presented in this paper will be a second step toward a complete description of medium modified fragmentation functions. However, one can already find that quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering will give different corrections to quark and antiquark FF, depending on antiquark and quark density of the medium, respectively. This difference between modified quark and antiquark FF may shed light on the interesting observation by the HERMES experiment of a large difference between nuclear suppression of the leading proton and antiproton spectra in semi-inclusive DIS off large nuclei. Such a picture of quark-quark (antiquark) scattering can provide a competing mechanism for the experimentally observed phenomenon in addition to possible absorption of final state hadrons inside nuclear matter . The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we will present the general formalism of our calculation including the generalized factorization of twist-4 processes. In Section III we will illustrate the procedure of calculating the hard partonic parts of quark-quark double scattering in nuclei. In Section IV we will discuss the modifications to quark and antiquark fragmentation functions due to quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering in nuclei. In Section V, we will focus on the flavor dependent part of the medium modification to the quark FF's due to quark-antiquark annihilation and we will discuss the implications for the flavor dependence of the leading hadron spectra in both DIS off a nucleus and heavy-ion collisions. We will summarize our work in Section VI. In the Appendix~, we collect the complete results for the hard partonic parts for different cut diagrams of quark-quark (antiquark) double rescattering in nuclei. We also provide an alternative calculation of the hard parts of the central-cut diagrams in Appendix~ through elastic quark-quark scattering or quark-antiquark annihilation as a cross check. \section{General formalism} In order to study quark and antiquark FF's in semi-inclusive deeply inelastic lepton-nucleus scattering, we consider the following processes, $$ e(L_1) + A(p) \longrightarrow e(L_2) + h (\ell_h) +X \ , $$ where $L_1$ and $L_2$ are the four momenta of the incoming and outgoing leptons, and $\ell_h$ is the observed hadron momentum. The differential cross section for the semi-inclusive process can be expressed as \begin{equation} E_{L_2}E_{\ell_h}\frac{d\sigma_{\rm DIS}^h}{d^3L_2d^3\ell_h} =\frac{\alpha^2_{\rm EM}}{2\pi s}\frac{1}{Q^4} L_{\mu\nu} E_{\ell_h}\frac{dW^{\mu\nu}}{d^3\ell_h} \; , \end{equation} where $p = [p^+,0,{\bf 0}_\perp] $ is the momentum per nucleon in the nucleus, $q =L_2-L_1 = [-Q^2/2q^-, q^-, {\bf 0}_\perp]$ the momentum transfer carried by the virtual photon, $s=(p+L_1)^2$ the lepton-nucleon center-of-mass energy and $\alpha_{\rm EM}$ is the electromagnetic (EM) coupling constant. The leptonic tensor is given by $L_{\mu\nu}=1/2\, {\rm Tr}(\gamma \cdot L_1 \gamma_{\mu} \gamma \cdot L_2 \gamma_{\nu})$ while the semi-inclusive hadronic tensor is defined as, \begin{eqnarray} E_{\ell_h}\frac{dW_{\mu\nu}}{d^3\ell_h}&=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_X \langle A|J_\mu(0)|X,h\rangle \langle X,h| J_\nu(0)|A\rangle 2\pi \delta^4(q+p-p_X-\ell_h) \end{eqnarray} where $\sum_X$ runs over all possible final states and $J_\mu=\sum_q e_q \bar{\psi}_q \gamma_\mu\psi_q$ is the hadronic EM current. Assuming collinear factorization in the parton model, the leading-twist contribution to the semi-inclusive cross section can be factorized into a product of parton distributions, parton fragmentation functions and the partonic cross section. Including all leading log radiative corrections, the lowest order contribution [${\cal O}(\alpha_s^0)$] from a single hard $\gamma^*+ q$ scattering, as illustrated in Fig.~, can be written as \begin{eqnarray} & &\frac{dW^S_{\mu\nu}}{dz_h} = \sum_q \int dx f_q^A(x,\mu_I^2) H^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x,p,q) D_{q\to h}(z_h,\mu^2)\, ; \\ & &H^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x,p,q) = \frac{e_q^2}{2}\, {\rm Tr}(\gamma \cdot p \gamma_{\mu} \gamma \cdot(q+xp) \gamma_{\nu}) \, \frac{2\pi}{2p\cdot q} \delta(x-x_B) \, , \end{eqnarray} where the momentum fraction carried by the hadron is defined as $z_h=\ell_h^-/q^-$, $x_B=Q^2/2p^+q^-$ is the Bjorken scaling variable, $\mu_I^2$ and $\mu^2$ are the factorization scales for the initial quark distributions $f_q^A(x,\mu_I^2)$ in a nucleus and the fragmentation functions in vacuum $D_{q\to h}(z_h,\mu^2)$, respectively. The renormalized quark fragmentation function $D_{q\to h}(z_h,\mu^2)$ satisfies the DGLAP QCD evolution equations : \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial D_{q\to h}(z_h,\mu^2)}{\partial \ln \mu^2} & = & \frac{\alpha_s(\mu^2)}{2\pi} \int^1_{z_h} \frac{dz}{z} \left[ \gamma_{q\to qg}(z) D_{q\to h}(z_h/z,\mu^2) \right. \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{1.5in}+ \left. \gamma_{q\to gq}(z) D_{g\to h}(z_h/z,\mu^2)\right]; \\ \frac{\partial D_{g\to h}(z_h,\mu^2)}{\partial \ln \mu^2} & = & \frac{\alpha_s(\mu^2)}{2\pi} \int^1_{z_h} \frac{dz}{z} \left[ \sum_{q=1}^{2n_f} \gamma_{g\to q\bar{q}}(z) D_{q\to h}(z_h/z,\mu^2) \right. \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{1.5in} + \left. \gamma_{g\to gg}(z) D_{g\to h}(z_h/z,\mu^2)\right] , \end{eqnarray} where $\gamma_{a\to bc}(z)$ denotes the splitting functions of the corresponding radiative processes . In DIS off a nuclear target, the propagating quark will experience additional scatterings with other partons from the nucleus. The rescatterings may induce additional parton (quark or gluon) radiation and cause the leading quark to lose energy. Such induced radiation will effectively give rise to additional terms in the DGLAP evolution equation leading to a modification of the fragmentation functions in a medium. These are power-suppressed higher-twist corrections and they involve higher-twist parton matrix elements. We will only consider those contributions that involve two-parton correlations from two different nucleons inside the nucleus. They are proportional to the thickness of the nucleus and thus are enhanced by a nuclear factor $A^{1/3}$ as compared to two-parton correlations in a nucleon. As in previous studies , we will limit our study to such double scattering processes in a nuclear medium. These are twist-four processes and give leading contributions to the nuclear effects. The contributions of higher twist processes or contributions not enhanced by the nuclear medium will be neglected for the time being. When considering double scattering with nuclear enhancement, a very important process is quark-gluon double scattering as illustrated in Fig.~. Such processes give the dominant contribution to the leading quark energy loss and have been studied in detailed in Refs. . The modification to the vacuum quark fragmentation function from quark-gluon scattering is, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D^{qg\rightarrow qg}_{q\rightarrow h}(z_h) &=&\frac{\alpha_s^2 C_A}{N_c} \int \frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^4} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \left\{ D_{q\rightarrow h}(z_h/z) \left[ \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)_+}\frac{T^A_{qg}(x,x_L)}{f_q^A(x)} \right. \right. \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{-0.9in}+ \left. \left. \delta(z-1) \frac{\Delta T^A_{qg}(x,\ell_T^2)}{f_q^A(x)} \right] +D_{g\rightarrow h}(z_h/z)\left[ \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z}\frac{T^A_{qg}(x,x_L)}{f_q^A(x)}\right] \right \}, \end{eqnarray} where the $+$function is defined as \begin{equation} \int_0^1 dz \frac{F(z)}{(1-z)_+} \equiv \int_0^1 dz \frac{F(z)-F(1)}{1-z} \end{equation} for any $F(z)$ that is sufficiently smooth at $z=1$ and the twist-four quark-gluon correlation function, \begin{eqnarray} T^A_{qg}(x,x_L)&=&\int \frac{dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^--y_1^-)}) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.4in}\times \langle A | \bar{\psi}_q(0)\, \frac{\gamma^+}{2}F_{\sigma}^{\ +}(y_{2}^{-}) F^{+\sigma}(y_1^{-}) \psi_q(y^{-})| A\rangle \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- -y_1^-), \end{eqnarray} has explicit interference included. The matrix element in the virtual correction [the term with $\delta (z-1)$] is defined as \begin{eqnarray} \Delta T^A_{qg}(x,\ell_T^2) \equiv \int_0^1 dz\frac{1}{1-z}\left[ 2 T^A_{qg}(x,x_L)|_{z=1} -(1+z^2) T^A_{qg}(x,x_L)\right] \, . \end{eqnarray} Since $T^A_{qg}(x,x_L)/f_q^A(x)$ is proportional to gluon distribution and independent of the flavor of the leading quark, the suppression of the hadron spectrum caused by quark-gluon or antiquark-gluon scattering should be proportional to the gluon density of the medium and is identical for quark and antiquark fragmentation. It was shown in Ref.~ that such modification of parton fragmentation functions by quark-gluon double scattering and gluon bremsstrahlung in a nuclear medium describes very well the recent HERMES data on semi-inclusive DIS off nuclear targets. In this paper, we will consider quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering such as the process shown in Fig.~ and its radiative corrections at order $\cal{O}$$(\alpha_s^2)$ in Fig.~. The contributions of quark-quark double scattering is proportional to the quark density in a nucleon, while the contribution of quark-gluon double scattering is proportional to the gluon density in a nucleon; and the gluon density is generally larger than the quark density in a nucleon at small momentum fraction. However, as pointed out in earlier works , quark-quark double scattering mixes quark and gluon fragmentation functions and therefore gives rise to new nuclear effects. The annihilation processes as shown in Figs.~ and will lead to different modifications of quark and antiquark fragmentation functions in a medium with finite baryon density (or valence quarks). Such differences will in turn lead to flavor dependence of the nuclear modification of leading hadron spectra as observed in HERMES experiment . Quark-quark double scattering as well as quark-gluon double scattering are twist-4 processes. We will apply the same generalized factorization procedure for twist-4 processes as developed by LQS for semi-inclusive processes in DIS. In general, the twist-four contributions can be expressed as the convolution of partonic hard parts and two-parton correlation matrix elements. In this framework, contributions from double quark-quark scattering in any order of $\alpha_s$, {\it e.g.}, the quark-antiquark annihilation process as illustrated in Fig.~, can be written in the following form, \begin{eqnarray} \frac{dW_{\mu\nu}^D}{dz_h} &=& \sum_q \int \frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}\, dy_1^-\, dy_2^-\, \overline{H}^D_{\mu\nu}(y^-,y_1^-,y^-_2,p,q,z_h) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.in}\times \langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q}(y^-) \bar{\psi}_q(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q}(y_2^-)|A\rangle. \end{eqnarray} Here we have neglected transverse momenta of all quarks in the hard partonic part. Transverse momentum dependent contributions are higher twist and are suppressed by $\langle k_{\perp}^2\rangle /Q^2$, Therefore, all quarks' momenta are assumed collinear, $k_2=x_2p$ and $k_3=x_3p$. $\overline{H}^D_{\mu\nu}(y^-,y_1^-,y^-_2,p,q,z_h)$ is the Fourier transform of the partonic hard part $\widetilde{H}_{\mu\nu}(x,x_1,x_2,p,q,z_h)$ in momentum space, \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{\mu\nu}(y^-,y_1^-,y^-_2,p,q,z_h) &=& \int dx\,\frac{dx_1}{2\pi}\, \frac{dx_2}{2\pi}\, e^{ix_1p^+y^- + ix_2p^+y_1^- + i(x-x_1-x_2)p^+y_2^-} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.0in}\times\widetilde{H}^D_{\mu\nu}(x,x_1,x_2,p,q,z_h)\ \nonumber \\ &=&\int dx H_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}(x,p,q) \overline{H}^D(y^-,y_1^-,y^-_2,x,p,q,z_h) \, , \end{eqnarray} where, in collinear approximation, the hard partonic part $H_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}(x,p,q)$ [Eq.~()] in the leading twist without multiple parton scattering can be factorized out of the high-twist hard part $\widetilde{H}^D_{\mu\nu}(x,x_1,x_2,p,q,z_h)$. The momentum fractions $x, x_1,$ and $x_2$ are fixed by $\delta$-functions of the on-shell conditions of the final state partons and poles of parton propagators in the partonic hard part. The phase factors in $\overline{H}^D_{\mu\nu}(y^-,y_1^-,y^-_2,p,q,z_h)$ can then be factored out, which in turn will be combined with the partonic fields in Eq.~() to give twist-four partonic matrix elements or two-parton correlations. The quark-quark double scattering corrections in Eq.~() can then be factorized as the convolution of fragmentation functions, twist-four partonic matrix elements and the partonic hard scattering cross sections. For scatterings (versus the annihilation) with quarks (antiquarks), a summation over the flavor of the secondary quarks (antiquarks) should be included in two-quark correlation matrix elements and both $t$, $u$ channels and their interferences should be considered for scattering of identical quarks in the hard partonic parts. After factorization, we then define the twist-four correction to the leading twist quark fragmentation function in the same form [Eq.~()], \begin{equation} \frac{dW_{\mu\nu}^D}{dz_h} \equiv \sum_q \int dx f_q^A(x) H^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x,p,q) \Delta D_{q\rightarrow h}(z_h) \, . \end{equation} \section{Quark-quark double scattering processes} In this section we will discuss the calculation of the hard part of quark-quark double scattering in detail. The lowest order process of quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering in nuclei is quark-antiquark annihilation (or quark-gluon conversion) as shown in Fig.~. The hard partonic parts from the three cut diagrams in this figure are : \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{0,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,p,q,z_h)&=& D_{g\to h}(z_h) \frac{2\pi\alpha_s}{N_c}2C_F\frac{x_B}{Q^2} \, e^{ixp^+y^-} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.0in}\times \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) \, , \\ \overline{H}^D_{0,L}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,p,q,z_h)&=& D_{q\to h}(z_h) \frac{2\pi\alpha_s}{N_c}2C_F\frac{x_B}{Q^2} \, e^{ixp^+y^-} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.0in}\times \theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) \, , \\ \overline{H}^D_{0,R}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,p,q,z_h)&=& D_{q\to h}(z_h) \frac{2\pi\alpha_s}{N_c}2C_F\frac{x_B}{Q^2} \, e^{ixp^+y^-} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.0in}\times \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-) \, \, . \end{eqnarray} The main focus of this paper is about contributions from the next-leading order corrections to the above lowest order process. There is a total of 12 diagrams for real corrections at one-loop level as illustrated in Fig.~ to Fig.~ in the Appendix~, each having up to three different cuts. In this section, we demonstrate the calculation of the hard parts from the quark-antiquark annihilation in Fig.~ in detail as an example. We will list the complete results of all diagrams in Appendix A. One can write down the hard partonic part of the central-cut diagram of Fig.~ (Fig.~ in Appendix~) according to the conventional Feynman rule, \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{C\,\mu\nu}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,p,q,z_h)&=& \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} D_{g\to h}(\frac{z_h}{z}) \int dx\frac{dx_1}{2\pi}\frac{dx_2}{2\pi} e^{ix_1p^+y^- + ix_2p^+y_1^-} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-1.9in}\times e^{i(x-x_1-x_2)p^+y_2^-} \int \frac{d^4\ell}{(2\pi)^4} {\rm Tr}\left[\frac{\!\!\not\!p}{2} \gamma_\mu \widehat{H} \gamma_\nu \right] 2\pi\delta_+(\ell^2) 2\pi\delta_+(\ell_g^2)\, \delta(1-z-\frac{\ell^-}{q^-}) \; , \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-1.5in}\widehat{H} = \frac{C_F^2}{N_c}g^4\frac{\gamma\cdot(q+x_1 p)}{(q+x_1p)^2-i\epsilon} \,\gamma_\alpha\,\frac{\gamma\cdot(q + x_1 p -\ell)}{(q+x_1p-\ell)^2-i\epsilon} \,\gamma_\beta \, \frac{\dslash{p}}{2}\, \gamma_{\sigma}\nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-1.0in}\times \frac{\gamma\cdot(q + x p -\ell)}{(q+x p-\ell)^2+i\epsilon} \gamma_{\rho}\, \frac{\gamma\cdot(q+x p)}{(q+x p)^2+i\epsilon} \, \varepsilon^{\alpha\rho}(\ell)\, \varepsilon^{\beta\sigma}(\ell_g) \, \, , \end{eqnarray} where $\delta_+$ is a Dirac $delta$-function with only the positive solution in its functional variable, $ \varepsilon^{\alpha\rho}(\ell)=-g^{\alpha\rho} + (n^\alpha\ell^\rho+n^\rho\ell^\alpha)/n\cdot\ell$ is the polarization tensor of a gluon propagator in an axial gauge ($n\cdot A=0$) with $n=[1,0^-,\vec{0}_\perp]$, $\ell$ and $\ell_g=q+(x_1+x_2)p-\ell$ are the 4-momenta carried by the two final gluons respectively. The fragmenting gluon carries a fraction, $z=\ell_g^-/q^-$, of the initial quark's longitudinal momentum (the large minus component). To simplify the calculation in the case of small transverse momentum $\ell_T\ll q^-, p^+$, we can apply the collinear approximation to complete the trace of the product of $\gamma$-matrices, \begin{equation} \widehat{H} \approx \gamma\cdot{\ell_q} \frac{1}{4\ell_g^-} {\rm Tr} \left[\gamma\cdot{\ell_q} \widehat{H} \right] \, . \end{equation} According to the convention in Eqs.~() and (), contributions from quark-quark double scattering in the nuclear medium to the semi-inclusive hadronic tensor in DIS off a nucleus can be expressed in the general factorized form: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{dW^{D}_{q\bar q,\mu\nu}}{dz_h}&=&\sum_q \int dx H^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x,p,q) \int\frac{p^+ dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- \overline{H}^D(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,p,q,z_h) \nonumber \\ &\times& \langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{\bar q}(y^-) \bar{\psi}_q(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{\bar q}(y_2^-)|A\rangle\, . \end{eqnarray} After carrying out the momentum integration in $x$, $x_1$, $x_2$ and $\ell^{\pm}$ in Eq.~() with the help of contour integration and $\delta$-functions, one obtains the hard partonic part, $\overline{H}^D$, of the rescattering for the central-cut diagram in Fig.~ (Fig.~) as \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,p,q,z_h)&=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2}\, \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{C_F^2}{N_c} \nonumber \\ &\times& \frac{2(1+z^2)}{z(1-z)} \overline{I}_{,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p) \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p) &=&e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) \nonumber \\ &\times &(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-})(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, , \end{eqnarray} where the momentum fractions $x_L$ is defined as \begin{equation} x_L=\frac{\ell_T^2}{2p^+q^-z(1-z)} \,\, . \end{equation} Note that the function $\overline{I}_{,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p)$ contains only phase factors. One can combine these phase factors with the matrix elements of the quark fields to define a special two-quark correlation function \begin{eqnarray} T_{q\bar q}^{A(,C)}(x,x_L)&=&\int\frac{p^+ dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- \langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{\bar q}(y^-) \bar{\psi}_q(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{\bar q}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \nonumber \\ &\times& \overline{I}_{,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p)\, . \end{eqnarray} The contribution from quark-antiquark annihilation in the central-cut diagram in Fig.~ to the hadronic tensor can then be expressed as \begin{eqnarray} \frac{dW^{D}_{q\bar q,\mu\nu}}{dz_h}&=&\sum_q \int dx H^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x,p,q) \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2}\, \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} D_{g\to h}(\frac{z_h}{z}) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.5in} \times\frac{C_F^2}{N_c} \frac{2(1+z^2)}{z(1-z)} T_{q\bar q}^{A(,C)}(x,x_L). \end{eqnarray} Contributions from all quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering processes can be cast in the above factorized form. The structure of the phase factors in $\overline{I}_{,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p)$ is exactly the same as for gluon bremsstrahlung induced by quark-gluon scattering as studied in Ref.~. It resembles the cross section of dipole scattering and represents contributions from two different processes and their interferences. It contains essentially four terms, \begin{eqnarray} \overline{I}_{,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p)&=& \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-)e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}\nonumber \\ & & \hspace{-1.0in}\times[1+e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- + y_2^- - y_1^-)} -e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}] \, . \end{eqnarray} The first term corresponds to the so-called hard-soft processes where the gluon emission is induced by the hard scattering between the virtual photon $\gamma^*$ and the initial quark with momentum $(x+x_L)p$. The quark then becomes on-shell before it annihilates with a soft antiquark from the nucleus that carries zero momentum and converts into a real gluon in the final state. The second term corresponds to a process in which the initial quark with momentum $xp$ is on-shell after the first hard $\gamma^*$-quark scattering. It then annihilates with another antiquark and produces two final gluons in the final state. In this process, the antiquark carries finite (hard) momentum $x_Lp$. Therefore one often refers to this process as double-hard scattering as compared to the first process in which the antiquark carries zero momentum. Set aside the change of flavors in the initial and final states, the double-hard scattering corresponds essentially to two-parton elastic scattering with finite momentum and energy transfer. This is in contrast to the hard-soft scattering which is essentially the final state radiation of the $\gamma^*$-quark scattering and the total energy and momentum of the two final state gluons all come from the initial quark. The corresponding matrix elements of the two-quark correlation functions from these first two terms are called `diagonal' elements. The third and fourth terms with negative signs in $\overline{I}_{,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p)$ are interferences between hard-soft and double hard processes. The corresponding matrix elements are called `off-diagonal'. The cancellation between the two diagonal and off-diagonal terms essentially gives rise to the destructive interference which is very similar to the Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal (LPM) interference in gluon bremsstrahlung induced by quark-gluon double scattering . One can similarly define the formation time of the parton (quark or gluon) emission as \begin{equation} \tau_f \equiv \frac{1}{x_Lp^+} \,\,\, . \end{equation} In the limit of collinear emission ($x_L\to 0$) or when the formation time of the parton emission, $\tau_f$, is much larger than the nuclear size, the effective matrix element vanishes because \begin{equation} \overline{I}_{,C}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p)|_{x_L=0}\to 0 \,\, , \end{equation} when the hard-soft and double hard processes have complete destructive interference. We should note that in the central-cut diagram of Fig.~, the final state partons are two gluons. Therefore, in Eq.~() the gluon fragmentation function in vacuum $D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)$ enters. If the other gluon (close to the $\gamma^*$-quark interaction) fragments, the contribution to the semi-inclusive hadronic tensor is similar except that the corresponding effective ``splitting function'' should be replaced by \begin{equation} \frac{1+z^2}{z(1-z)} \rightarrow \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)}\, . \end{equation} As we will show in Appendix~, the two gluons in the quark-antiquark annihilation processes (central-cut diagrams) are symmetric when contributions from all possible annihilation processes and their interferences are summed. Therefore, one can simply multiply the final results by a factor of 2 to take into account the hadronization of the second final-state gluon. In addition to the central-cut diagram, one should also take into account the asymmetrical-cut diagrams in Fig.~, which represent interference between gluon emission from single and triple scattering. The hard partonic parts are mainly the same as for the central-cut diagram. The only differences are in the phase factors and the fragmentation functions since the fragmenting parton can be the final-state quark or gluon. These hard parts can be calculated following a similar procedure and one gets, \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,L(R)}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,p,q,z_h)&=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} D_{q\to h}(\frac{z_h}{z}) \frac{C_F^2}{N_c} \frac{2(1+z^2)}{z(1-z)} \nonumber \\ &\times& \overline{I}_{,L(R)}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L, p) \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,L}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p)\, &=&-e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^- }(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0.5in}\times \theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,R}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,x_L,p) &=&-e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0.5in} \times \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-)\, . \end{eqnarray} In the asymmetrical cut diagrams, the above contributions come from the fragmentation of the final-state quark. Therefore, quark fragmentation function $D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)$ enters this contribution. For gluon fragmentation into the observed hadron in this asymmetrical-cut diagrams, the contribution can be obtained by simply replacing the quark fragmentation function by the gluon fragmentation function $D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)$ and replacing $z$ by $1-z$. Summing the contributions from three different cut diagrams of Fig.~, we can observe further examples of mixing (or conversion) of quark and gluon fragmentation functions. This medium-induced mixing was first observed by Wang and Guo and is a unique feature of quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering among all multiple parton scattering processes. With the same procedure we can calculate contributions from all other cut diagrams of quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering at order $\cal{O}$$(\alpha_s^2)$, which are listed in Appendix~. There are three types of processes: two annihilation processes, $q\bar q\rightarrow gg$ (central-cut diagrams in Figs.~, , , and ), $q\bar q\rightarrow q_i\bar q_i$ (central-cut diagram in Fig.~) and quark-quark (antiquark) scattering, $q q_i(\bar q_i)\rightarrow q q_i(\bar q_i)$ (central-cut diagram in Fig.~). One also has to consider the interference of $s$ and $t$-channel amplitude for annihilation into an identical quark pair, $q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q$ (central-cut diagrams in Figs.~ and ) and the interference between $t$ and $u$ channels of identical quark scattering $q q\rightarrow q q$ (central-cut diagram in Fig.~). Contributions from left and right-cut diagrams correspond to interference between the amplitude of gluon radiation from single $\gamma*$-quark scattering and triple quark scattering. The amplitudes of gluon radiation via triple quark scattering essentially come from radiative corrections to the left and right-cut diagrams of the lowest-order quark-antiquark annihilation in Fig.~ (as shown in left and right-cut diagrams in Figs.~, , , , , , and ). Two other triple quark scatterings with gluon radiation, shown as the left and right-cut diagrams in Figs.~ and , correspond to the case where one of the final state quarks, after quark-quark scattering, annihilates with another antiquark and converts into a final state gluon. \section{Modified Fragmentation Functions} In order to simplify the contributions from quark-quark (antiquark) scattering (annihilation), one can first organize the results of the hard parts in terms of contributions from central, left or right-cut diagrams, which are associated by contour integrals with specific products of $\theta$-functions, \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D=H^D_{C} \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) &-&H^D_{L}\theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{0.5in}- H^D_{R}\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-) \, . \end{eqnarray} These $\theta$-functions provide a space-time ordering of the parton correlation and will restrict the integration range along the light-cone. For contributions from central, left and right-cut diagrams that have identical hard partonic parts, $H^{D(c)}_{C}=H^{D(c)}_{L}=H^{D(c)}_{R}$, they will have a common combination of $\theta$-functions that produces a path-ordered integral, \begin{eqnarray} \int_0^{y^-}dy_1^-\int_0^{y_1^-}dy_2^- &=& -\int dy_1^-dy_2^-\left[\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) -\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^--y_1^-) \right. \nonumber \\ && \hspace{1.5in} \left. -\theta(y^--y_1^-)\theta(y_1^--y_2^-) \right] \end{eqnarray} that is limited only by the spatial-spread $y^-$ of the first parton along the light-cone coordinate. For a high-energy parton that carries momentum fraction $xp^+$, $y^-\sim 1/xp^+$ should be very small. Those contributions that are proportional to the above path-ordered integral are referred to as contact contributions (or contact interactions). Similarly, $y_1^- - y_2^-$ is the spatial spread of the second parton and can only be limited by the spatial size of its host nucleon even for small value of momentum fraction. The spatial position of its host nucleon, $y_1^- + y_2^-$, however, can be anywhere within the nucleus. Therefore, any contributions from double parton scattering that have unrestricted integration over $y_1^-$ and $y_2^-$ should be proportional to the nuclear size of the target $A^{1/3}$ and therefore are nuclear enhanced. In this paper, we will only keep the nuclear enhanced contributions and neglect the contact contributions. This will greatly simplify the final results for double parton scattering. \subsection{ $q\bar q \rightarrow g$ annihilation} For the lowest order of quark-antiquark annihilation in Eqs.~()-(), the hard parts from the three cut diagrams are almost the same except for the parton fragmentation functions. The central-cut diagram is proportional to the gluon fragmentation function while the left and right-cut diagrams are proportional to quark fragmentation functions. Rearranging the contributions from the three cut diagrams and neglecting the contact term that is proportional to the path-ordered integral as in Eq.~(), the total contribution can be written as \begin{eqnarray} \frac{dW^{D(0)}_{\mu\nu}}{dz_h}&=&\sum_q \int dx T^{A(H)}_{q \bar q}(x,0) \frac{2\pi\alpha_s}{N_c} 2C_F\frac{x_B}{Q^2} H^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}(x,p,q) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{2.0in}\times \left[D_{g\to h}(z_h)-D_{q\to h}(z_h) \right] \, . \end{eqnarray} According to our definition in Eq.~() of the twist-four correction to the quark fragmentation functions, the modification to the quark fragmentation function from the lowest order quark-antiquark annihilation is then, \begin{equation} \Delta D_{q\rightarrow h}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow g)}(z_h)= \frac{2\pi\alpha_s}{N_c} 2C_F\frac{x_B}{Q^2} \left[D_{g\to h}(z_h)-D_{q\to h}(z_h) \right] \frac{T^{A(H)}_{q \bar q}(x,0)}{f^A_q(x)} \, . \end{equation} Here the effective quark-antiquark correlation function $T^{A(H)}_{q{\bar q}}(x,0)$ is defined as, \begin{eqnarray} T^{A(H)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)&\equiv&\int\frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{ixp^+y^- - ix_Lp^+(y_2^- - y_1^-)} \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) \nonumber \\ &\times&\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \, , \end{eqnarray} with the antiquark $\bar q_i$ carrying momentum fraction $x_L$. This two-parton correlation function is always associated with double-hard rescattering processes. Similarly, we define three other quark-antiquark correlation matrix elements \begin{eqnarray} T^{A(S)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)&\equiv&\int\frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} \theta(y^--y_1^-) \nonumber \\ &\times&\theta(-y_2^-)\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \, , \\ T^{A(I-L)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)&\equiv&\int\frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^- - ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)} \theta(y^--y_1^-) \nonumber \\ &\times&\theta(-y_2^-) \langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \, , \\ T^{A(I-R)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)&\equiv&\int\frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^- - ix_Lp^+y_2^-}\theta(y^--y_1^-) \nonumber \\ &\times&\theta(-y_2^-)\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \, , \end{eqnarray} that are associated with hard-soft rescattering and interference between double hard and hard-soft rescattering. In the first parton correlation $T^{A(H)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)$, the antiquark $\bar q_i$ carries momentum fraction $x_L$ while the initial quark has the momentum fraction $x$. The two-parton correlation $T^{A(S)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)$ corresponds to the case when the leading quark has $x+x_L$ but the antiquark carries zero momentum. The two interference matrix elements are approximately the same for small value of $x_L$ and will be denoted as $T^{A(I)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)$. \subsection{$q\bar q \rightarrow q_i\bar q_i$ annihilation} Contributions from the next-to-leading order quark-antiquark annihilation or quark-quark (antiquark) scattering are more complicated since they involve many real and virtual corrections. The simplest real correction comes from $q\bar q\rightarrow q_i\bar q_i$ annihilation ($q_i\neq q$) [Fig.~ and Eqs.~() and ()] which has only a central-cut diagram, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D_{q\rightarrow h}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow q_i\bar q_i)}(z_h) &=&\frac{C_F}{N_C} \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} [z^2+(1-z)^2] \nonumber \\ &\times& \sum_{q_i\neq q}\left[D_{q_i\to h}(z_h/z) +D_{\bar q_i\to h}(z_h/z)\right] \frac{T^{A(H)}_{q \bar q}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \, . \end{eqnarray} This kind of $q\bar q$ annihilation is truly a hard processes and thus requires the second antiquark to carry finite initial momentum fraction $x_L$. Furthermore, there are no other interfering processes. \subsection{$qq_i(\bar q_i) \rightarrow qq_i(\bar q_i)$ scattering} Contributions from non-identical quark-quark scattering $q\bar q_i\rightarrow q\bar q_i$ ($q_i\neq q$) are a little complicated because they involve all three cut diagrams (central, left and right) [Eqs.~()-()]. One can factor out the $\theta$-functions in the hard parts according to Eq.~() and re-organize the phase factors in each cut diagram, \begin{eqnarray} I_{,C}&=&e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-})(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \nonumber \\ &=&e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}[1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)} +e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^-+ y_2^- - y_1^-)}] \, ; \nonumber \\ I_{,L}&=&e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \nonumber \\ &=&e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}[1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)} +e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}] \, ;\nonumber \\ I_{,R}&=&e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \nonumber \\ &=&e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}[1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)} +e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}] \, , \end{eqnarray} such that the first three terms in each amplitude are the same. These three common phase factors will give rise to a contact contribution for all similar hard parts from the three cut diagrams, which we will neglect since they are not nuclear enhanced. The remaining part will have the following phase factors, \begin{eqnarray} \overline{I}_{}&=&e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}[ \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-)e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- +y_2^- - y_1^-)} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.6in}-\theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-)e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-} -\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-)e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}] \, . \end{eqnarray} Note that the phase factors of the last two terms in the above equation give identical contributions to the matrix elements when intergated over $y_1^-$ and $y_2^-$ as they differ only by the substitution $y_2^-\leftrightarrow y_1^--y^-$. One therefore can combine them with $\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-)e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}$ to form another contact contribution (path-ordered) which can be neglected. The final effective phase factor is then \begin{equation} \overline{I}_{}=e^{ixp^+y^- -ix_Lp^+(y_2^- - y_1^-)} (1-e^{ix_Lp^+y_2^-})\, . \end{equation} Using the above effective phase factor, one can obtain the effective modification to the quark fragmentation function due to quark-antiquark scattering, $q\bar q_i\rightarrow q\bar q_i$, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D_{q\rightarrow h}^{(q\bar q_i\rightarrow q\bar q_i)}(z_h) &=&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \sum_{\bar q_i\neq \bar q} \left\{ \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} \right. \right.\nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0.0in}+ \left. D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}\right] \frac{T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \nonumber \\ && \hspace{-0.8in} +\left. \left[D_{\bar q_i\to h}(z_h/z))-D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\right] \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} \frac{T^{A(HS)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \right\} \nonumber \\ &=&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \sum_{\bar q_i\neq \bar q} \left\{ \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} \right. \right.\nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0.0in}+\left. D_{\bar q_i\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} \right] \frac{T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \nonumber \\ && \hspace{-0.8in} + \left. [D_{\bar q_i\to h}(z_h/z) - D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)]\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} \frac{T^{A(SI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \right\} \, , \end{eqnarray} where three types of two-parton correlations are defined: \begin{eqnarray} T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)&\equiv& T^{A(H)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L) -T^{A(I)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L) \nonumber \\ &=&\int\frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{ixp^+y^- - ix_Lp^+(y_2^- - y_1^-)} (1-e^{ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.7in}\times\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) \,\, , \\ T^{A(SI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)&\equiv& T^{A(S)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L) -T^{A(I)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L) \nonumber \\ &=&\int\frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.7in}\times\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) \,\, , \\ T^{A(HS)}_{q \bar q_i}(x,x_L)&\equiv& T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L) +T^{A(SI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)\nonumber \\ &=&\int\frac{p^+ dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \nonumber \\ &\times&(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^--y_1^-)}) \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-)\nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.7in}\times\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-) |A\rangle \, . \end{eqnarray} One can similarly obtain the modification of quark fragmentation from non-identical quark-quark scattering by replacing $\bar q_i \rightarrow q_i$ in Eq.~(), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D_{q\rightarrow h}^{(qq_i\rightarrow q q_i)}(z_h) &=&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \sum_{ q_i\neq q} \left\{ \left[ D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} \right.\right. \nonumber \\ &+& \left. D_{q_i\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} \right] \frac{T^{A(HI)}_{q q_i}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.7in}+\left. [D_{q_i\to h}(z_h/z) - D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)]\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} \frac{T^{A(SI)}_{q q_i}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \right\} \, . \end{eqnarray} The two-quark correlations, $T^{A(HI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)$ and $T^{A(SI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)$ can be obtained from $T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)$ and $T^{A(SI)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)$, respectively, by making the replacements $\psi_{q_i}(y_2)\rightarrow \bar \psi_{q_i}(y_2)$ and $\bar \psi_{q_i}(y_1) \rightarrow \psi_{q_i}(y_1)$ in Eqs.~() and (), \begin{eqnarray} T^{A(HI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)&\equiv&\int\frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{ixp^+y^- - ix_Lp^+(y_2^- - y_1^-)} (1-e^{ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.7in}\times\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_2^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_1^-)|A\rangle \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) \,\, , \\ T^{A(SI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)&=&\int\frac{p^+ dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.7in}\times\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_2^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_1^-) |A\rangle \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) \, , \end{eqnarray} and $T^{A(HS)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)=T^{A(HI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)+T^{A(SI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)$. Note that the contribution from fragmentation of quark $q_i$ or antiquark $\bar q_i$ only comes from the central-cut diagram. This contribution is positive and is proportional to $T^{A(HI)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)+T^{A(SI)}_{q{\bar q_i}}(x,x_L)$, containing all four terms: hard-soft, double-hard and both interference terms . The gluon fragmentation comes only from the single-triple interferences (left and right-cut diagrams). Its contribution is therefore negative and partially cancels the production of $q_i(\bar q_i)$ from the hard-soft rescattering. The cancellation is not complete since the gluon and quark fragmentation functions are different. The structure of this hard-soft rescattering (quark plus gluon) is very similar to the lowest order result of $q\bar q\rightarrow g$ in Eq.~(). It contributes to the modification of the effective fragmentation function but does not contribute to the energy loss. The energy loss of the leading quark comes only from double-hard rescattering, since the leading quark fragmentation comes both from the central-cut and single-triple interferences, and the single-triple interference terms cancel the effect of hard-soft scattering for the leading fragmentation. Its net contribution is therefore proportional to $T^{A(HI)}_{q{\bar q_i(\bar q_i)}}$. Since the double-hard rescattering amounts to elastic $qq_i(\bar q_i)$ scattering, the effective energy loss is essentially elastic energy loss as shown in Ref.~. There is, however, LPM suppression due to partial cancellation by single-triple interference contributions. For long formation time, $1/x_Lp^+ \gg R_A$, the cancellation is complete. Therefore, LPM interference effectively imposes the lower limit $x_L\ge 1/p^+R_A$ on the fractional momentum carried by the second quark (antiquark). \subsection{$qq\rightarrow qq$ scattering} For identical quark-quark scattering, $qq\rightarrow qq$, one has to include both $t$ and $u$-channels, their interferences, and the related single-triple interference contributions. Using the same technique to identify and neglect the contact contributions, one can find the corresponding modification to the quark fragmentation function from Eqs.~() and ()-(), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D_{q\rightarrow h}^{(qq\rightarrow q q)}(z_h) &=&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \left\{\frac{T^{A(HS)}_{qq}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.8in}\times \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z))-D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\right] \left(\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}-\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{1}{z(1-z)} \right) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.8in}+\left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \left(\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} -\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{1}{z(1-z)} \right) \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.8in}\left. \left. + D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) \left(\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} -\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{1}{z(1-z)} \right)\right] \frac{T^{A(HI)}_{qq}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \right\} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.8in}=\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \left\{\frac{T^{A(SI)}_{qq}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} P_{qq\rightarrow qq}^{(s)}(z) [D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.5in}- D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)] \left. + D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) P_{qq\rightarrow qq}(z) \frac{T^{A(HI)}_{qq}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \right\} \, , \end{eqnarray} where the effective splitting functions are defined as \begin{eqnarray} P_{qq\rightarrow qq}^{(s)}(z)&=& \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}-\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{1}{z(1-z)} \, , \\ P_{qq\rightarrow qq}(z)&=& \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}+\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2}-\frac{2}{N_c}\frac{1}{z(1-z)} \, . \end{eqnarray} \subsection{$q\bar q \rightarrow q\bar q$, $gg$ annihilation} The most complicated twist-four processes involving four quark field operators are quark-antiquark annihilation into two gluons or an identical quark-antiquark pair. We have to consider them together since they have similar single-triple interference processes and they involve the same kind of quark-antiquark correlation matrix elements, $T^{(i)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)$, $(i=HI,SI, HS)$. For notation purpose, we first factor out the common factor $(C_F/N_c)\alpha_s^2 x_B/Q^2/f^A_q(x)$ and the integration over $\ell_T$ and $z$ and define \begin{equation} \Delta D_{q\rightarrow h}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )}(z_h) \equiv \frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2f^A_q(x)} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \Delta \widetilde{D}_{q\rightarrow h}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )} (z_h,z,x,x_L). \end{equation} After rearranging the phase factors and identifying (by combining central, left and right cut diagrams) and neglecting contact contributions we can list in the following the twist-four corrections to the quark fragmentation from the hard partonic parts of each cut diagram (see Appendix A): Fig.~ ($t$-channel $q\bar q\rightarrow gg$), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \widetilde{D}_{q\rightarrow h ()}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )} &=&D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)2C_F\left[\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)} +\frac{1+z^2}{z(1-z)}\right]T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.5in}+\left[D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)-D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\right] 2C_F\frac{1+z^2}{z(1-z)}T^{A(SI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)\, ; \end{eqnarray} Fig.~ (interference between $u$ and $t$-channel of $q\bar q\rightarrow gg$), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \widetilde{D}_{q\rightarrow h ()}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )} &=& D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{-4(C_F-C_A/2)}{z(1-z)}T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.5in}+\left[D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)-D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\right] \frac{-2(C_F-C_A/2)}{z(1-z)}T^{A(SI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)\, ; \end{eqnarray} Fig.~ ($s$-channel of $q\bar q \rightarrow gg$), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \widetilde{D}_{q\rightarrow h ()}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )}= D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)4C_A \frac{(1-z+z^2)^2}{z(1-z)}T^{A(H)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \, ; \end{eqnarray} Figs.~ and (interference of $s$ and $t$-channel $q \bar q\rightarrow g g$), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \widetilde{D}_{q\rightarrow h (+)}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )}&=& D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)(-2C_A)\left[\frac{1+z^3}{z(1-z)} + \frac{1+(1-z)^3}{z(1-z)} \right] \nonumber \\ &&\times T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) + C_A\left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{1+z^3}{z(1-z)} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.7in} \left. + D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{1+(1-z)^3}{z(1-z)}\right] \times [T^{A(I2)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)-T^{A(I)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)] \, ; \end{eqnarray} Fig.~ ($s$-channel of $q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q$), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \widetilde{D}_{q\rightarrow h ()}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )}&=& \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)+D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h/z)\right] [z^2+(1-z)^2] \nonumber \\ && \hspace{2.0in}\times T^{A(H)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)\, , \end{eqnarray} Fig.~ ($t$-channel of $q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q$), similar to Eq.~(), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \widetilde{D}_{q\rightarrow h ()}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )}&=& D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \nonumber \\ && +D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} T^{A(HS)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \nonumber \\ &&- D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} T^{A(SI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \, ; \end{eqnarray} Figs.~ and (interference between $s$ and $t$-channel $q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q$), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \widetilde{D}_{q\rightarrow h (+)}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )}&=& -4(C_F-C_A/2)\left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{z^2}{1-z} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.0in}+ \left. D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{(1-z)^2}{z} \right] T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.6in}+2(C_F-C_A/2)\left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{z^2}{1-z} +D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{(1-z)^2}{z} \right] \nonumber \\ &\times&[T^{A(I2)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)-T^{A(I)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)] \, ; \end{eqnarray} Figs.~ and (two additional single-triple interference diagrams), \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \widetilde{D}_{q\rightarrow h (+)}^{(q\bar q\rightarrow gg,q\bar q )}&=& -2C_F\left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{1+z^2}{1-z} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0.5in}+ \left. D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z}\right] T^{A(I2)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \, . \end{eqnarray} Most processes involve both $T^{A(HI)}(x,x_L)$ for double-hard rescattering with interference and $T^{A(SI)}(x,x_L)$ for hard-soft rescattering with interference. All the $s$-channel (Figs.~ and ) processes involve double-hard scattering only. Therefore, they depend only on the $T^{A(H)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)=T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) +T^{A(I)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)$. For interference between single and triple scattering (left and right-cut diagrams in Figs.~, , , and ), where a hard rescattering with the second quark (antiquark) follows a soft rescattering with the third antiquark (quark), only interference matrix elements, $T^{A(I)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)$ and $T^{A(I2)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)$, are involved. Here, \begin{eqnarray} T^{A(I2)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)&\equiv& \int\frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{ixp^+y^- + ix_Lp^+y_2^-} \nonumber \\ &\times&\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) \nonumber \\ &=&\int\frac{p^+dy^-}{2\pi}dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{ixp^+y^- + ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.5in} \times\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) \,\, , \end{eqnarray} is a new type of interference matrix elements that is only associated with this type of single-triple interference processes. One can categorize the above contributions according to the associated two-quark correlation matrix elements and rewrite the above contributions as, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta\widetilde{D}_{q\to h(HI)}^{q\bar q\to q\bar q, gg} &=&T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) [D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)P_{q\bar q\to gg}(z) +D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)P_{q\bar q\to q\bar q}(z) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.1in} +D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h/z)P_{q\bar q\to q\bar q}(1-z)] \\ \Delta\widetilde{D}_{q\to h(SI)}^{q\bar q\to q\bar q, gg} &=&T^{A(SI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)\left\{ \left[\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)}+2C_F\frac{z}{1-z} -\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}\right]\right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0in}\times D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) -D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\left[\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)}+2C_F\frac{z}{1-z}\right] \nonumber \\ && \hspace{1.0in}+\left. D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}\right\} \nonumber \\ &=&T^{A(SI)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)\left\{\left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) -D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\right] \left[P^{(s)}_{qq\to qq}(z) \right. \right. \nonumber \\ && \hspace{-0.5in} -\left. 2C_F\frac{1+z^2}{z(1-z)}\right] +\left. [D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h/z)-D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)]\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} \right\} \\ \Delta\widetilde{D}_{q\to h(I)}^{q\bar q\to q\bar q, gg} &=&T^{A(I)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \left\{\left[C_A\frac{4(1-z+z^2)^2-1}{z(1-z)} -2C_F\frac{(1-z)^2}{z}\right] \right. \nonumber \\ &\times&D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)+[z^2+(1-z)^2] D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h/z)] \nonumber \\ &+&\left.D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\left[z^2+(1-z)^2-\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)}-2C_F\frac{z^2}{1-z} \right]+ \right\} \nonumber \\ &+&T^{A(I2)}_{q\bar q}(x,x_L) \left\{D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\left[\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)}-\frac{2C_F}{1-z}\right] \right. \nonumber \\ && \hspace{1.0in} +\left. D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\left[\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)}-\frac{2C_F}{z}\right] \right\} \, , \end{eqnarray} where $P^{(s)}_{qq\to qq}(z)$ is given in Eq.~() and the effective splitting functions for $q\bar q\rightarrow gg$ and $q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q$ are defined as \begin{eqnarray} P_{q\bar q\rightarrow gg}(z)&=& 2C_F\frac{z^2+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)} -2C_A[z^2+(1-z)^2] \, ;\\ P_{q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q}(z)&=& z^2+(1-z)^2+\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} +\frac{2}{N_c}\frac{z^2}{1-z}\, , \end{eqnarray} which come from the complete matrix elements of $q\bar q\rightarrow gg$ and $q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q$ scattering (see Appendix~). Again, double-hard rescattering corresponds to the elastic scattering of the leading quark with another antiquark in the medium and the interference contributions. The structure of the hard-soft rescattering contribution we identify above shows the same kind of gluon-quark (or quark-antiquark) mixing in the fragmentation functions and does not contribute to the energy loss of the leading quark. The unique contributions in the $q\bar q\rightarrow q \bar q, gg$ processes are the interference-only contributions. They mainly come from single-triple interference processes in the multiple parton scattering. \section{Modification due to quark-gluon mixing} We have so far cast the modification of the quark fragmentation function due to quark-quark (antiquark) scattering (or annihilation) in a form similar to the DGLAP evolution equation in vacuum. In fact, one can also view the evolution of fragmentation functions in vacuum as modification due to final-state gluon radiation. In both cases, the modification at large $z_h$ is mainly determined by the singular behavior of the splitting functions for $z\rightarrow 1$, whereas the modifications at mall $z_h$ is dominated by the singular behavior of the splitting function for $z\rightarrow 0$. Let us first focus on the modification at large $z_h$. A careful examination of the contributions from all possible processes shows that the dominant modification to the effective quark fragmentation function comes from the $t$-channel of double hard quark-quark scattering processes, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D_{q\to h}(z_h)&\sim&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \sum_{q_i}\int \frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} D_{q\to h}(\frac{z_h}{z})\left[\frac{T^{A(HI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.5in} \times \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2_+}\left. +\delta(1-z)\Delta_{q_i}(\ell_T^2)\right] \nonumber \\ &=&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\alpha_s^2 \sum_{q_i}\int \frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^4} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} D_{q\to h}(\frac{z_h}{z}) \left[\frac{x_LT^{A(HI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)} \right.\nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.5in} \times \frac{z(1+z^2)}{(1-z)_+}+\left.\delta(1-z)\Delta_{q_i}(\ell_T^2)\right], \end{eqnarray} where the summation is over all possible quark and antiquark flavors including $q_i=q, \bar q$ and $\Delta_{q_i}(\ell_T^2)$ represents the contribution from virtual corrections. We have expressed the modification in a form that it is proportional to the matrix elements $x_LT^{A(HI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)/f^A_q(x)\sim A^{1/3}x_Lf^N_{q_i}(x_L)$ as compared to the modification from quark-gluon scattering where the corresponding matrix element [Eq.~()] is $T^{A(HI)}_{qg}(x,x_L)/f^A_q(x)\sim A^{1/3}x_LG^N(x_L)$. Here, $f_{q_i}^N(x)$ and $G^N(x)$ are quark and gluon distributions, respectively, in a nucleon. This leading contribution to the modification from quark-quark scattering is very similar in form to that from quark-gluon scattering [see Eq.~()]. However, it is smaller due to the different color factors $C_F/C_A=4/9$ and the different quark and gluon distributions, $f_{q_i}^N(x_L)$ and $G^N(x_L)$ in a nucleon. Because of LPM intereference, small angle scattering with long formation time $\tau_f=1/x_Lp^+$ is suppressed, leading to a minimum value of $x_L \ge x_A=1/m_NR_A=0.043$ for a $Kr$ target. For this value of $x_L$, the ratio \begin{equation} \frac{\sum_{q_i}f_{q_i}^N(x_L,Q^2)}{G^N(x_L,Q^2)} \ge 1.40/1.85 \sim 0.75, \end{equation} at $Q^2=2$ GeV$^2$ according the CTEG4HJ parameterization . Therefore, one has to include the effect of quark-quark scattering for a complete calculation of the total quark energy loss and medium modification of quark fragmentation functions. In a weakly coupled and fully equilibrated quark-gluon plasma, quark to gluon number density ratio is $\rho_q/\rho_g=n_f(3/2)N_c/(N_c^2-1)=9n_f/16$. An asymptotically energetic jet in an infinitely large medium actually probes the small $x=\langle q_T^2\rangle/2ET$ regime, where quark-antiquark pairs and gluons are predominantly generated by thermal gluons through pQCD evolution. In this ideal scenario one expects $N_q/N_g\sim 1/4C_A=1/12$ and therefore can neglect quark-quark scattering. The modification of quark fragmentation function will be dominated by quark-gluon rescattering. However, for moderate jet energy $E\approx 20$ GeV and a finite medium $L\sim 5$ fm, parton distributions in a quark-gluon plamsa are close to the thermal distribution. In particular, if quark and gluon production is dominated by non-perturbative pair production from strong color fields in the initial stage of heavy-ion collisions , the quark to gluon ratio is comparable to the equilibrium value. In this case, we should take into account the medium modification of the quark fragmentation functions by quark-quark scattering. An important double hard process in quark-quark (antiquark) scattering is $q\bar q\rightarrow gg$ [Eq.~()]. In this process, the annihilation converts the initial quark into two final gluons that subsequently fragment into hadrons. This will lead to suppression of the leading hadrons not only because of energy loss (energy carried away by the other gluon) but also due to the softer behavior of gluon fragmentation functions at large $z_h$. Even though the leading behavior of the effective splitting function [Eq.~()] \begin{equation} P_{q\bar q\to gg}(z)\approx 2C_F\frac{z^2+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)} \end{equation} is not as dominating as that of $t$-channel quark-quark scattering, it is enhanced by a color factor $2C_F=8/3$. One expects this to make a significant contribution to the medium modification at intermediate $z_h$. In high-energy heavy-ion collisions, the ratios of initial production rates for valence quarks, gluons and antiquarks vary with the transverse momentum $p_T$. Gluon production rate dominates at low $p_T$ while the fraction of valence quark jets increases at large $p_T$. Quarks are more likely to fragment into protons than antiprotons, while gluons fragment into protons and antiprotons with equal probabilities. Therefore, the ratio of large $p_T$ antiproton and proton yields in $p+p$ collisions is smaller than 1 and decreases with $p_T$ as the fraction of valence quark jets increases. Since gluons are expected to lose more energy than quark jets, one would naively expect to see the antiproton to proton ratio $\bar p/p$ becomes smaller due to jet quenching. However, if the quark-gluon conversion due to $q\bar q\rightarrow gg$ becomes important, one would expect that the fractions of quark and gluon jets are modified toward their equilibrium values. The final $\bar p/p$ ratio could be larger than or comparable to that in $p+p$ collisions. Such a scenario of quark-gluon conversion was recently considered in Ref.~ via a master rate equation. The mixing between quark and gluon jets also happens at the lowest order of quark-antiquark annihilation as shown in Fig.~. At NLO, all hard-soft quark-quark (antiquark) scattering processes have this kind of mixing between quark and gluon fragmentation functions. Their contributions generally have the form, \begin{eqnarray} &&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \sum_{q_i}\int \frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \left[ D_{q_i\to h}(\frac{z_h}{z})-D_{g\to h}(\frac{z_h}{z})\right] \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{2.5in} \times P_{qq_i\to qq_i}(z)\frac{T^{A(SI)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)}, \end{eqnarray} where again the summation over the quark flavor includes $q_i=q,\bar q$. This mixing does not occur on the probability but rather on on the amplitude level since it involves interferences between single and triple scattering. Therefore, this contribution depends on the difference between gluon and quark fragmentation functions [Eq.~()] and can be positive or negative in different region of $z_h$. Nevertheless, they contribute to the modification of the effective quark fragmentation function and the flavor dependence of the final hadron spectra. \section{Flavor dependence of the medium modified fragmentation} Summing all contributions to quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering as listed in Section~, we can express the total twist-four correction up to $\cal{O}$$(\alpha_s^2)$ to the quark fragmentation function as \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D_{q\to h}(z_h)&=& \frac{C_F}{N_c}2\pi\frac{\alpha_s x_B}{Q^2} \left\{2\left[D_{g\to h}(z_h)-D_{q\to h}(z_h) \right] \frac{T^{A(H)}_{q \bar q}(x,0)}{f^A_q(x)} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.3in}\left. +\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z}\sum_{a,b,i} D_{b\to h}(z_h/z)P^{(i)}_{qa\to b}(z) \frac{T^{A(i)}_{qa}(x,x_L)}{f^A_q(x)}\right\}\, , \end{eqnarray} where the summation is over all possible $q+a\rightarrow b+X$ processes and all different matrix elements $T^{A(i)}_{qa}(x,x_L)$ ($i=HI,SI,I,I2$), which will be four basic matrix elements we will use. The effective splitting functions $P^{(i)}_{qa\to b}(z)$ are listed in Appendix~. One should also include virtual corrections which can be constructed from the real corrections through unitarity constraints . Similarly, we can also write down the twist-four corrections to antiquark fragmentation in a nuclear medium, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h)&=& \frac{C_F}{N_c}2\pi\frac{\alpha_s x_B}{Q^2} \left\{2\left[D_{g\to h}(z_h)-D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h) \right] \frac{T^{A(H)}_{\bar q q}(x,0)}{f^A_{\bar q}(x)} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{-0.3in}\left. +\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z}\sum_{a,b,i} D_{b\to h}(z_h/z)P^{(i)}_{\bar qa\to b}(z) \frac{T^{A(i)}_{\bar qa}(x,x_L)}{f^A_{\bar q}(x)}\right\}\, , \end{eqnarray} where the matrix elements $T^{A(i)}_{\bar qa}(x,x_L)$ and the effective splitting functions $P^{(i)}_{\bar qa\to b}(z)$ can be obtained from the corresponding ones for quarks. Given a model for the two-quark correlation functions, one will be able to use the above expressions to numerically evaluate twist-four corrections to the quark (antiquark) fragmentation functions. In this paper, we will instead give a qualitative estimate of the flavor dependence of the correction in DIS off a large nucleus. For the purpose of a qualitative estimate, one can assume that all the twist-four two-quark correlation functions can be factorized, as has been done in Refs. , \begin{eqnarray} &&\int \frac{p^+dy^{-}}{2\pi}\, dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{ix_1p^+y^-+ix_2p^+(y_1^--y_2^-)} \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{1.5in}\times \langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{1.5in} \approx \frac{C}{x_A} f_q^A(x_1)\, f_{\bar q_i}^N(x_2)\, , \\ && \int \frac{p^+dy^{-}}{2\pi}\, dy_1^-dy_2^- e^{ix_1p^+y^-+ix_2p^+(y_1^--y_2^-) \pm ix_Lp^+y_2^-} \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^--y_1^-) \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{1.5in}\times \langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{\bar q}(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-)|A\rangle \nonumber \\ && \hspace{1.5in} \approx \frac{C}{x_A} f_q^A(x_1)\, f_{\bar q_i}^N(x_2)e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}\, , \end{eqnarray} where $x_A=1/m_N R_A$, $m_N$ is the nucleon mass, $R_A$ the nucleus size, $f_{\bar q_i}^N(x_2)$ is the antiquark distribution in a nucleon and $C$ is assumed to be a constant, parameterizing the strength of two-parton correlations inside a nucleus. The integration over the position of the antiquark $(y_1^-+y_2^-)/2$ in the twist-four two-quark correlation matrix elements gives rise to the nuclear enhancement factor $1/x_A=m_NR_A=0.21A^{1/3}$. We should note that we set $k_T = 0$ for the collinear expansion. As a consequence, the secondary quark field in the twist-four parton matrix elements will carry zero momentum in the soft-hard process. Finite intrinsic transverse momentum leads to higher-twist corrections. If a subset of the higher-twist terms in the collinear expansion can be resummed to restore the phase factors such as $ e^{ix_Tp^+y^-}$, where $x_T\equiv \langle k_T^2\rangle/2p^+q^-z(1-z)$, the soft quark fields in the parton matrix elements will carry a finite fractional momentum $x_T$. Under such an assumption of factorization, one can obtain all the two-quark correlation matrix elements: \begin{eqnarray} T^{A(HI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)&\approx&\frac{C}{x_A} f_q^A(x)\, f_{\bar q_i}^N(x_L+x_T) [1-e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}], \\ T^{A(SI)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)&\approx& \frac{C}{x_A} f_q^A(x+x_L)\, f_{\bar q_i}^N(x_T) [1-e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}], \\ T^{A(I)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)&\approx&T^{A(I2)}_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L) \approx \frac{C}{x_A} f_q^A(x+x_L)\, f_{\bar q_i}^N(x_T)e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2} \nonumber \\ &\approx &\frac{C}{x_A} f_q^A(x)\, f_{\bar q_i}^N(x_L+x_T)e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}. \end{eqnarray} In the last approximation, we have assumed $x_L\sim x_T \ll x$. Similarly, one can obtain $T^{A(i)}_{qq_i}(x,x_L)$, $T^{A(i)}_{\bar qq_i}(x,x_L)$ and $T^{A(i)}_{\bar q\bar q_i}(x,x_L)$. With these forms of two-quark correlation matrix elements, we can estimate the flavor dependence of the nuclear modification to the quark (antiquark) fragmentation functions. The lowest order corrections [$\cal{O}$$(\alpha_s)$] are very simple \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D_{q\to h}^{(LO)}(z_h)\propto C A^{1/3}[D_{g\to h}(z_h)-D_{q\to h}(z_h)] f_{\bar q}^N(x_T)\, , \\ \Delta D_{\bar q\to \bar h}^{(LO)}(z_h)\propto C A^{1/3} [D_{g\to \bar h}(z_h) -D_{\bar q\to \bar h}(z_h)] f_{q}^N(x_T)\, . \end{eqnarray} We consider the dominant contribution from the fragmentation of a quark (antiquark) which is one of the valence quarks (antiquarks) of the final particle $h$ (antiparticle $\bar h$). The gluon fragmentation functions into $h$ and $\bar h$ are the same. For large $z_h$, the gluon fragmentation function is always softer than the valence quark (antiquark) fragmentation . Therefore, the lowest order twist-four corrections are always negative for large $z_h$, leading to a suppression of the valence quark (antiquark) fragmentation function, $D_{q_v\to h}(z_h)$ [$D_{\bar q_v\to \bar h}(z_h)$]. Consider those quarks that are also valence quarks of a nucleon: \begin{eqnarray} n \,\,& = &\,\, udd \nonumber \\ p \,\,& = &\,\, uud \,\, ,\bar p \,\, = \,\, \bar u \bar u \bar d\,\,\, , \\ K^+ \,\,& = &\,\, u\bar s \,\, ,K^- \,\, = \,\, \bar u s \,\,\, . \\ \pi^+, \pi^0, \pi^- \,\, & = & \,\, u\bar d \,\,\, , (u\bar u \, - d\bar d\, )/\sqrt 2 \,\, \, , d\bar u \,\,\, . \end{eqnarray} One can find the following flavor dependence of the lowest order twist-four corrections to the quark (antiquark) fragmentation functions, \begin{equation} \frac{\Delta D_{\bar q_v\to \bar h}^{(LO)}(z_h)} {\Delta D_{q_v\to h}^{(LO)}(z_h)}=\frac{-|\Delta D_{\bar q_v\to \bar h}^{(LO)}(z_h)|} {-|\Delta D_{q_v\to h}^{(LO)}(z_h)|}=\frac{f_{q_v}^N(x_T)}{f_{\bar q_v}(x_T)}>1\, , \end{equation} or \begin{equation} \frac{R^{(LO)}_{\bar q_v\to \bar h}(z_h)} {R^{(LO)}_{q_v\to h}(z_h)}= \frac{1+\Delta D_{\bar q_v\to \bar h}^{(LO)}(z_h)/D_{\bar q_\to \bar h}(z_h)} {1+\Delta D_{q_v\to h}^{(LO)}(z_h)/D_{ q_\to h}(z_h)}<1\, , \end{equation} where $R^{(LO)}_{q_v\to h}$ is the corresponding leading order suppression of the fragmentation function at large $z_h$ for proton (anti-proton) and $K^+$ ($K^-$). Since pions contain both valence quark and antiquark, the suppression factors should be similar for all pions. For $x_T\ge 0.043$, $u(x)/\bar u(x)\ge 3$ and $d(x)/\bar d(x)\ge 2$ . Therefore, the modification of antiquark fragmentation functions due to quark-antiquark annihilation is significantly larger than that of a quark. The flavor dependence of the NLO results are more complicated since they involve scattering with both quarks and antiquarks in the medium. One can observe first that effective splitting functions (or quark-quark scattering cross section) are the same for the $t$-channel $qq^\prime\rightarrow qq^\prime$ and $q\bar q^\prime\rightarrow q \bar q^\prime$ ($q^\prime\neq q$) scatterings, \begin{equation} P^{(i)}_{qq^\prime\to b}(z)=P^{(i)}_{\bar qq^\prime\to b}(z) =P^{(i)}_{q\bar q^\prime\to b}(z)=P^{(i)}_{\bar q \bar q^\prime\to b}(z)\, . \end{equation} For identical quark-quark scattering or quark-antiquark annihilation, one can separate the $q\bar q$ annihilation splitting functions (or cross sections) into singlet and non-singlet contributions by singling out the $t$-channel contributions, \begin{eqnarray} P^{(i)}_{q\bar q\to b}(z)&\equiv& P^{(i)}_{q q\to b}(z) +\Delta P^{N(i)}_{q\bar q\to b}(z), \\ P^{(i)}_{\bar q q\to b}(z)&\equiv& P^{(i)}_{\bar q \bar q\to b}(z) +\Delta P^{N(i)}_{\bar q q\to b}(z). \end{eqnarray} These singlet contributions to the modified fragmentation functions are, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D^{S(NLO)}_{q\to h}(z_h)&\propto& \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}A^{1/3}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \sum_{b,q^\prime,i} D_{b\to h}\otimes P^{(i)}_{qq^\prime\to b}(z_h) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.5in}\times [f^N_{q^\prime}(x_T)+f^N_{\bar q^\prime}(x_T)]C^{(i)}\, ,\\ \Delta D^{S(NLO)}_{\bar q\to \bar h}(z_h)&\propto& \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}A^{1/3}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \sum_{b,q^\prime,i} D_{\bar b\to \bar h}\otimes P^{(i)}_{\bar q \bar q^\prime\to \bar b}(z_h) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.5in}\times [f^N_{q^\prime}(x_T)+f^N_{\bar q^\prime}(x_T)]C^{(i)}\, , \end{eqnarray} where the summation over $q^\prime$ now includes $q^\prime$=$q$ and $C^{(i)}(x_L)$ are flavor-independent functions determined from Eqs.~()-(), \begin{eqnarray} C^{(HI)}&=&C^{(SI)}=C(x_L)(1-e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}),\nonumber \\ C^{(I)}&=&C^{(I2)}=C(x_L)e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}\, , \end{eqnarray} and $C(x_L)$ is a common coefficient that is a function of $x_L$. Using $P^{(i)}_{\bar q \bar q\to \bar b}(z)=P^{(i)}_{q q\to b}(z)$ , one can conclude that the singlet contributions to the modified quark and antiquark fragmentation functions are the same, $\Delta D^{S(NLO)}_{q\to h}(z_h)=\Delta D^{S(NLO)}_{\bar q\to \bar h}(z_h)$. The non-singlet contributions, mainly from $s$-channel and $s$-$t$ interferences, are, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D^{N(NLO)}_{q\to h}(z_h)&\propto& \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}A^{1/3}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \sum_{b,i} D_{b\to h}\otimes \Delta P^{N(i)}_{q\bar q\to b}(z_h) f^N_{\bar q}(x_T)C^{(i)}\, ,\\ \Delta D^{N(NLO)}_{\bar q\to \bar h}(z_h)&\propto& \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}A^{1/3}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \sum_{\bar b,i} D_{\bar b\to \bar h}\otimes \Delta P^{N(i)}_{\bar q q\to \bar b}(z_h)f^N_{q}(x_T)C^{(i)}\, , \end{eqnarray} where again $\Delta P^{N(i)}_{q\bar q\to b}(z)=\Delta P^{N(i)}_{\bar q q\to \bar b}(z)$ due to crossing symmetry. We have listed all non-vanishing nonsinglet splitting functions $\Delta P^{N(i)}_{q\bar q\to b}(z)$ in Appendix~. We again consider the limit $z_h\rightarrow 1$. In this region the convolution in the modified fragmentation function is dominated by the large $z\rightarrow 1$ behavior of the effective splitting functions. From the listed $\Delta P^{N(i)}_{q\bar q\to b}(z)$ in Appendix~, we can obtain the leading contributions, \begin{eqnarray} \sum_i C^{(i)}\Delta P^{N(i)}_{q\bar q\to q}(z)&\approx& -4C_F\frac{C(x_L)}{1-z} ,\nonumber \\ \sum_i C^{(i)}\Delta P^{N(i)}_{q\bar q\to g}(z)&\approx& 2\left[2C_F+C_F(1-e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2})+C_Ae^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}\right] \frac{C(x_L)}{1-z}, \end{eqnarray} where we have also neglected terms proportional to $1/N_c$. All $\Delta P^{N(i)}_{q\bar q\to \bar q}(z)$ are non-leading in the limit $z\rightarrow 1$ and therefore can be neglected. With these leading contributions, the non-singlet modification to the quark and antiquark fragmentation functions can be estimated as \begin{eqnarray} \Delta D^{N(NLO)}_{q\to h}(z_h)&\propto& \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}A^{1/3}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z}\left\{ D_{g\to h}\left(\frac{z_h}{z}\right) \left[\frac{C(x_L)}{(1-z)_+} \right. \right. \nonumber \\ &\times& \left. \left(C_F(1-e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}) + C_Ae^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}\right) +\delta (1-z)\Delta_1(\ell_T)\right] \nonumber \\ &+& \left[D_{g\to h}\left(\frac{z_h}{z}\right) -D_{q\to h}\left(\frac{z_h}{z}\right)\right] \nonumber \\ & \times & \left.\left[2C_F\frac{C(x_L)}{(1-z)_+} + \delta (1-z)\Delta_2(\ell_T)\right] \right\} f^N_{\bar q}(x_T) \, , \\ \Delta D^{N(NLO)}_{\bar q\to \bar h}(z_h)&\propto& \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}A^{1/3}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z}\left\{ D_{g\to \bar h}\left(\frac{z_h}{z}\right) \left[\frac{C(x_L)}{(1-z)_+} \right. \right. \nonumber \\ &\times& \left. \left(C_F(1-e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}) + C_Ae^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}\right) +\delta (1-z)\Delta_1(\ell_T)\right] \nonumber \\ &+& \left[D_{g\to \bar h}\left(\frac{z_h}{z}\right) -D_{\bar q\to \bar h}\left(\frac{z_h}{z}\right)\right] \nonumber \\ && \times \left.\left[2C_F\frac{C(x_L)}{(1-z)_+} + \delta (1-z)\Delta_2(\ell_T)\right] \right\} f^N_{q}(x_T) \, , \end{eqnarray} where $\Delta_1(\ell_T)$ and $\Delta_2(\ell_T)$ are from virtual corrections, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta_1(\ell_T)&=&\int_0^1 \frac{dz}{1-z}\left\{C_FC(x_L)|_{z=1} -[C_F(1-e^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}) \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{2.0in}+\left. C_Ae^{-x_L^2/x_A^2}]C(x_L)\right\}\, , \\ \Delta_2(\ell_T)&=&\int_0^1 \frac{dz}{1-z}2C_F\left[C(x_L)|_{z=1}-C(x_L)\right]. \end{eqnarray} Because of momentum conservation, $C(x_L)=0$ when $x_L\rightarrow \infty$ for $z=1$. Therefore, the above virtual corrections are always negative. At large $z_h$, these virtual corrections dominate over the real ones. There are two kinds of non-singlet contributions in the expressions given above. One that is proportional to gluon fragmentation functions is due to quark-antiquark annihilation into gluons which then fragment. The fragmenting gluon not only carries less energy than the initial quark but also has a softer fragmentation function, leading to suppression of the final leading hadrons. The second type of contributions is proportional to $D_{g\to h}(z_h)-D_{q\to h}(z_h)$ and therefore mixes quark and gluon fragmentation functions, similarly as the lowest order quark-antiquark annihilation processes [see Eqs.~() and ()]. Since a gluon fragmentation function is softer than a quark one, the real corrections from this type of processes are positive for small $z_h$ and negative for large $z_h$. The virtual corrections have just the opposite behavior. Therefore, the second type of contributions will reduce the total net modification. For intermediate values of $z_h$ where $2D_{g\rightarrow h}(z_h)>D_{q\rightarrow h}(z_h)$, the net effect is still the suppression of the effective fragmentation functions for leading hadrons. Since $f^N_{q}(x_T)>f^N_{\bar q}(x_T)$, we can conclude that the LO and NLO combined non-singlet suppression for antiquark fragmentation into valence hadrons is larger than that for quark fragmentation into valence hadrons. This qualitatively explains the flavor dependence of nuclear suppression of leading hadrons in DIS off heavy nuclear targets as measured by the HERMES experiment . The ratio of differential semi-inclusive cross sections for nucleus and deuteron targets were used to study the nuclear suppression of the fragmentation functions. It was observed that suppression of leading anti-proton is stronger than for leading proton and $K^-$ suppression is stronger than $K^+$. In the valence quark fragmentation picture, the leading proton ($K^+$) is produced mainly from $u$, $d$ ($u$) quark fragmentation while anti-protons come primarily from $\bar u$, $\bar d$ ($\bar u$) fragmentation. Therefore, HERMES data are consistent with stronger suppression of antiquark fragmentation. Since gluon bremsstrahlung and the singlet $qq_i(\bar q_i)$ scattering also suppress quark and antiquark fragmentation, but independently of quark flavor, one has to include all the processes in order to have a complete and quantitative numerical evaluation of the flavor dependence of the nuclear modification of the quark fragmentation functions. Furthermore, the NLO contributions are proportional to $\alpha_s\ln(Q^2)/2\pi$. They are as important as the lowest order correction for large values of $Q^2$. In principle, one should resum these higher order corrections via solving a set of coupled DGLAP evolution equations, including medium modification for gluon fragmentation functions. The contributions from quark-quark (antiquark) scattering derived in this paper will be an important part of the complete dscription. Detailed numerical study of the effect of quark-quark (antiquark) scattering will be possible only after the completion of this complete description in the future. \section{Summary} Utilizing the generalized factorization framework for twist-four processes we have studied the nuclear modification of quark and antiquark fragmentation functions (FF) due to quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering in dense nuclear matter up to order $\cal O$$(\alpha_s^2)$. We calculated and analyzed the complete set of all possible cut diagrams. The results can be categorized into contributions from double-hard, hard-soft processes and their interferences. The double-hard rescatterings correspond to elastic scattering of the leading quark with another medium quark. It requires the second quark to carry a finite fractional momentum $x_L$. Therefore, the energy loss of the leading quark through such processes can be identified as elastic energy loss at order $\cal O$$(\alpha_s^2)$. The quark energy loss and modification of quark fragmentation functions are dominated by the $t$-channel of quark-quark (antiquark) scattering and are shown to be similar to that caused by quark-gluon scattering. The contribution from quark-quark scattering is smaller than that from quark-gluon scattering by a factor of $C_F/C_A$ times the ratio of quark and gluon distribution functions in the medium. We have shown that such contributions are not negligible for realistic kinematics and finite medium size. The soft-hard rescatterings mix gluon and quark scattering, in the same way as the lowest order $q\bar q\rightarrow g$ processes. Such processes modifies the final hadron spectra or effective fragmentation functions but do not contribute to energy loss of the leading quark. For $q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q, gg$ processes, there also exist pure interference contributions mainly coming from single-triple-scattering interference. With a simple model of a factorized two-quark correlation functions, we further investigated the flavor dependence of the medium modified quark fragmentation functions in a large nucleus. We identified the flavor dependent part of the modification and find that the nuclear modification for an antiquark fragmentation into a valence hadron is larger than that of a quark. This offers an qualitative explanation for the flavor dependence of the leading hadron suppression in semi-inclusive DIS off nuclear targets as observed by the HERMES experiment . \section*{Acknowledgements} The authors thank Jian-Wei Qiu and Enke Wang for helpful discussion. This work was supported by NSFC under project No. 10405011, by MOE of China under project IRT0624, by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, by BMBF, by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Divisions of Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, and by the US NSF under Grant No. PHY-0457265, the Welch Foundation under Grant No. A-1358. \renewcommand{\theequation}{A-\arabic{equation}} \setcounter{equation}{0} \renewcommand{\thesection}{A-\arabic{section}} \setcounter{section}{0} \section{Hard partonic parts for quark-quark double scattering} In Section we have discussed the calculation of the hard part of one example cut-diagram (Fig.~) in detail. In this appendix we list the results for all possible real corrections to quark-quark (antiquark) double scattering in the next-to-leading order $\cal{O}$$(\alpha_s^2)$. There are a total of 12 diagrams as illustrated in Figs.~-. For the purpose of abbreviation, we will suppress the variables in the notations of partonic hard parts \begin{equation} \overline{H}^D\equiv \overline{H}^D(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,p,q,z_h)\, , \end{equation} and phase factor functions \begin{equation} \overline{I}\equiv \overline{I}(y^-,y_1^-,y_2^-,x,,x_L,p)\, . \end{equation} We first consider all $q\bar q\rightarrow gg$ annihilation diagrams with different possible cuts. The contributions of Fig.~ are: \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C}&=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C} D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.2in}\times \left[2\frac{1+z^2}{z(1-z)}+2\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)} \right] \frac{C_F^2}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C}\,\,\, &=&\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}\nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.2in}\times(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-})(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, , \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,L(R)}&=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,L(R)} \,\,\, \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) 2\frac{1+z^2}{z(1-z)}\right. \nonumber \\ && \hspace{1.5in}\left. + D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) 2\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)}\right] \frac{C_F^2}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,L}\, &=&-\theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^- } (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,R} &=&-\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \, . \end{eqnarray} Here we have included the fragmentation of both final-state partons. The contributions from Fig.~ are: \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C}\,\,\, 2 D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.5in}\times \frac{-2}{(1-z)z} \frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{H}^D_{,L(R)} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,L(R)} \left[D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) +D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\right]\nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.5in}\times \frac{-2}{(1-z)z} \frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C} &=&\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} \nonumber \\ &\times &(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-})(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,L} \, &=&-\theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, .\\ \overline{I}_{,R} &=&-\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \, , \end{eqnarray} Note that the central-cut diagram in Fig.~ corresponds to the interference between $t$ and $u$-channel of the $q\bar q\rightarrow gg$ annihilation processes in Fig.~. Since the splitting function is symmetric in $z$ and $1-z$, a factor of 2 comes from the fragmentation of both gluons in the central-cut diagram. The $s$-channel of $q\bar q \rightarrow gg$ is shown in Fig.~ which has only one central-cut. Its contribution to the partonic hard part is, \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C} \,\, 2D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{2(z^2-z+1)^2}{z(1-z)} \frac{C_FC_A}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C} &=&\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-} \, . \end{eqnarray} Note that the splitting function $2(z^2-z+1)^2/z(1-z)=2[1-z(1-z)]^2/z(1-z)$ is symmetric in $z$ and $1-z$. Therefore, fragmentation of the two final gluons gives rise to the factor of 2 in front of the gluon fragmentation function. The interferences between $t$ and $s$-channel of $q\bar q \rightarrow gg$ processes are shown in Figs.~ and . There are only two possible cuts in these diagrams. The contributions from Fig.~ are: \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C} \,\, D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.2in}\times \left[2\frac{1+z^3}{z(1-z)} + 2\frac{1+(1-z)^3}{z(1-z)} \right] \frac{C_FC_A}{2N_c} \, , \\ \overline{H}^D_{,L} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,L} \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)2\frac{1+z^3}{z(1-z)} \right. \nonumber \\ && \hspace{1.2in}+ \left. D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)2\frac{1+(1-z)^3}{z(1-z)} \right] \frac{C_FC_A}{2N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C} &=&\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-)e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}\nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.5in} \times (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-})e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,L} \, &=&\theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^- }\nonumber \\ && \hspace{1.5in} \times (e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_2^-)}-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, . \end{eqnarray} Contributions from Fig.~, which are just the complex conjugate of Fig.~, are: \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C} \,\, D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\nonumber \\ && \hspace{1.2in}\times \left[2\frac{1+z^3}{z(1-z)}+2\frac{1+(1-z)^3}{z(1-z)}\right] \frac{C_FC_A}{2N_c} \, , \\ \overline{H}^D_{,R} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,R} \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)2\frac{1+z^3}{z(1-z)} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{1.2in} + \left. D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)2\frac{1+(1-z)^3}{z(1-z)}\right] \frac{C_FC_A}{2N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C} &=&\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} \nonumber \\ & &\hspace{1.5in}\times(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)})e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,R} \, &=&\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^- } \nonumber \\ && \hspace{1.5in} \times(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y_2^- - y_1^-)})e^{-ix_Lp^+y_1^-} \, . \end{eqnarray} One can collect all contributions of the double hard $q\bar q \rightarrow g g$ processes from the central-cut diagrams, which should have the common phase factor \begin{equation} \bar{I}_C=\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{ixp^+y^-}e^{-ix_Lp^+(y_2^- - y_1^-)} \, , \end{equation} and obtain the total effective splitting function in the hard partonic part, \begin{eqnarray} \frac{C_F}{N_c}P_{q\bar q\rightarrow gg}(z)&=&\frac{2}{z(1-z)}\frac{1}{N_c} \{ C_F^2 [1+z^2 + 1 +(1-z)^2]-2C_F(C_F-C_A/2) \nonumber \\ &+&2C_FC_A(1-z+z^2)^2-C_FC_A[1+z^3+1+(1-z)^3]\} \nonumber \\ &=&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\left[2C_F\frac{z^2+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)} -2C_A[z^2+(1-z)^2]\right] \, . \end{eqnarray} We will find later in Appendix~ that the above result can also be obtained from the total matrix elements squared for $q\bar q \rightarrow g g$ annihilation. We now consider the annihilation processes $q\bar q\rightarrow q_i \bar q_i$ with $q_i\neq q$. There is only the $s$-channel process with one central-cut diagram as shown in Fig.~. Its contribution to the hard part is \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C}\sum_{q_i\neq q}\left[D_{q_i\to h}(z_h/z) +D_{\bar q_i\to h}(z_h/z)\right] \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{2.0in}\times [z^2+(1-z)^2] \frac{C_F}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C} &=& \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-} \, . \end{eqnarray} Here we define the effective splitting function for $q\bar q\rightarrow q_i \bar q_i$ annihilation as, \begin{equation} \frac{C_F}{N_c}P_{q\bar q\to q_i \bar q_i}(z) =\frac{C_F}{N_c}[z^2+(1-z)^2] \, . \end{equation} Similarly, for $q \bar q_i \rightarrow q \bar q_i$ scattering with $q_i\neq q$, there is only the $t$-channel as shown in Fig.~. There are, however, three cut diagrams. Their contributions to the partonic hard part are: \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C} \nonumber \\ &\times& \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} + D_{\bar q_i\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}\right] \frac{C_F}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{H}^D_{,L(R)} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,L(R)} \nonumber \\ &\times& \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} + D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}\right] \frac{C_F}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C} &=&\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-}\nonumber \\ &\times &(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-})(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,L} \, &=&-\theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,R} &=&-\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-)e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \, . \end{eqnarray} The twist-four two-parton correlation matrix element associated with the above quark-antiquark scattering is the quark-antiquark correlator, \begin{eqnarray} T^A_{q\bar q_i}(x,x_L) &\propto& e^{ixp^+y^- - ix_Lp^+(y_2^- - y_1^-)} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0.5in}\times\langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_1^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_2^-)|A\rangle\, , \end{eqnarray} and one should sum over all possible $q_i\neq q$ flavors. Note that in the above matrix element, the momentum flow for the antiquark ($\bar q_i$) is opposite to that of the quark ($q$) fields. For quark-quark scattering, $qq_i\rightarrow qq_i$, the hard part is essentially the same. The only difference is the associated matrix element for the quark-quark correlator which is obtained from that of the quark-antiquark correlator via the exchange $\psi_{q_i}(y_2)\rightarrow \bar \psi_{q_i}(y_2)$ and $\bar \psi_{q_i}(y_1) \rightarrow \psi_{q_i}(y_1)$, \begin{eqnarray} T^A_{q q_i}(x,x_L) &\propto& e^{ixp^+y^- + ix_Lp^+(y_1^- - y_2^-)} \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0.5in}\times \langle A|\bar{\psi}_q(0)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_q(y^-) \bar{\psi}_{q_i}(y_2^-)\frac{\gamma^+}{2}\psi_{q_i}(y_1^-)|A\rangle \, . \end{eqnarray} Note that the momentum flows of the two quarks ($q$ and $q_i$) point in the same direction. The effective splitting function of this scattering process is defined through the fragmentation of the quark in the central-cut diagram, \begin{equation} \frac{C_F}{N_c}P_{qq_i(\bar q_i) \to qq_i(\bar q_i)}(z)= \frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} \, . \end{equation} For annihilation $q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q$ into identical quark and antiquark pairs, in addition to the $s$-channel (Fig.~ for $q_i=q$) and $t$-channel (Fig.~ for $q_i=\bar q$), one has also to consider the interference between $s$ and $t$-channel amplitudes as shown in Figs.~ and , each having two cuts. Their contributions to the hard partonic parts are, respectively: \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C} \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{2z^2}{(1-z)} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0.8in}\left. + D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{2(1-z)^2}{z}\right] \frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{H}^D_{,L} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2} \int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,L} \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{2z^2}{(1-z)} \right. \nonumber \\ && \hspace{0.8in} \left. + D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\frac{2(1-z)^2}{z}\right] \frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C} &=& \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} \nonumber \\ && \hspace{0.8in}\times(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-})e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,L} &=&\theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^- } \nonumber \\ && \hspace{0.8in} \times(e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_2^-)}-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)} ) \, ; \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C} \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{2z^2}{(1-z)} \right. \nonumber \\ && \hspace{0.8in} \left. + D_{\bar q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{2(1-z)^2}{z}\right] \frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{H}^D_{,R} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,R} \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{2z^2}{(1-z)} \right. \nonumber \\ &&\hspace{0.8in} \left. + D_{g\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{2(1-z)^2}{z}\right] \frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C} &=&\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} \nonumber \\ && \hspace{0.8in} \times (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)})e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,R} \, &=& \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-)e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^- } \nonumber \\ && \hspace{0.8in} \times (e^{-ix_Lp^+y_1^-}-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \, . \end{eqnarray} One can again collect contributions from the central-cut diagrams of the double scattering processes in Figs.~, and and obtain the total effective splitting function for $q\bar q \rightarrow q\bar q$, \begin{eqnarray} \frac{C_F}{N_c}P_{q\bar q\rightarrow q\bar q}(z)&=& \frac{C_F}{N_c}[z^2+(1-z)^2]+\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} -\frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c}\frac{4z^2}{1-z} \nonumber \\ &=&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\left[ z^2+(1-z)^2+\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} +\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{2z^2}{1-z}\right] . \end{eqnarray} Here we have used $C_F-C_A/2=-1/2N_c$. For antiquark fragmentation, $P_{q\bar q\rightarrow \bar q q}(z)=P_{q\bar q\rightarrow q \bar q}(1-z)$. One can also obtain the above result from $q\bar q \rightarrow q\bar q$ scattering matrix squared as shown in Appendix~. Similarly, for scattering of identical quarks $qq \rightarrow qq$, one should set $q_i=q$ in Fig.~[in Eq.~()]. In addition, one should also also include interference between $t$ and $u$-channel of the scattering as shown in Fig.~. The contributions from such interference diagram are, \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,C} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,C} \nonumber \\ &\times& 2 D_{q\to h}(z_h/z) \frac{2}{z(1-z)} \frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{H}^D_{,L(R)} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,L(R)} \nonumber \\ &\times& \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)+D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)\right] \frac{2}{z(1-z)} \frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,C} &=&\theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} \nonumber \\ &\times& (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-})(1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,L} \, &=&- \theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_1^-)}) \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,R} &=&- \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} (1-e^{-ix_Lp^+y_2^-}) \, . \end{eqnarray} Note again that the fragmentation of both quarks contributes to the factor 2 in Eq.~() since the splitting function is symmetric in $z$ and $1-z$. The twist-four two-quark correlation matrix element associated with $qq\rightarrow qq$ scattering is $T^A_{qq}(x,x_L)$ as compared to $T^A_{q\bar q}(x,x_L)$ for quark-antiquark annihilation processes. We can sum contributions from the double hard scattering in all the central-cut diagrams in Figs.~ and and obtain the total effective splitting function for $qq\rightarrow qq$ processes, \begin{eqnarray} \frac{C_F}{N_c} P_{qq\rightarrow qq}(z)&=&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\left[\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} +\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}\right] +\frac{C_F(C_F-C_A/2)}{N_c}\frac{4}{z(1-z)} \nonumber \\ &=&\frac{C_F}{N_c}\left[\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} +\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}-\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{2}{z(1-z)}\right] \, . \end{eqnarray} There are two remaining cut diagrams that contribute to the quark-antiquark annihilation at the order of $\cal{O}$$(\alpha_s^2)$ as shown in Figs.~ and . Their contributions are: \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,L} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,L} \nonumber \\ &\times&\left[ D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)2\frac{1+z^2}{1-z} + D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)2\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z}\right] \frac{C_F^2}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,L} &=&- \theta(y_1^- - y_2^-)\theta(y^- - y_1^-)e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} e^{-ix_Lp^+(y^- - y_2^-)} \, , \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \overline{H}^D_{,R} &=& \frac{\alpha_s^2 x_B}{Q^2}\int\frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \int_{z_h}^1\frac{dz}{z} \overline{I}_{,R} \nonumber \\ &\times& \left[D_{q\to h}(z_h/z)2\frac{1+z^2}{1-z} + D_{g\to h}(z_h/z)2\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z}\right] \frac{C_F^2}{N_c} \, , \\ \overline{I}_{,R} \, &=&- \theta(-y_2^-)\theta(y_2^- - y_1^-) e^{i(x+x_L)p^+y^-} e^{-ix_Lp^+y_1^-} \, . \end{eqnarray} \section{Effective splitting functions} In this Appendix, we list the effective splitting functions associated with each process $qa\rightarrow b$ and the double-hard ($HI$), hard-soft ($SI$) or their interferences ($I,I2$) according to Eq.~(). \begin{eqnarray} P_{qq_i(\bar q_i)\to q_i(\bar q_i)}^{(HI)}(z)&=&\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} ,\,\, P_{qq_i(\bar q_i)\to q}^{(HI)}(z)=\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} ,\nonumber\\ P_{qq_i(\bar q_i)\to q_i(\bar q_i)}^{(SI)}(z)&=&\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} ,\,\, P_{qq_i(\bar q_i)\to g}^{(SI)}(z)=-\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} \\ & & \nonumber\\ P_{q\bar q\to q_i}^{(HI)}(z)&=&P_{q\bar q\to \bar q_i}^{(HI)}(z) =z^2+(1-z)^2 ,\,\, \nonumber \\ P_{q\bar q\to q_i}^{(I)}(z)&=&P_{q\bar q\to \bar q_i}^{(I)}(z) =z^2+(1-z)^2 , \\ & & \nonumber\\ P_{q q\to q}^{(HI)}(z)&=&\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} +\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2}-\frac{2}{N_c}\frac{1}{z(1-z)}\, , \,\,\, \nonumber\\ P_{q q\to g}^{(SI)}(z)&=&-P_{q q\to q}^{(SI)}(z)\, , \\ P_{q q\to q}^{(SI)}(z)&=&\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} -\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{1}{z(1-z)} \, , \nonumber\\ & & \nonumber\\ P_{q \bar q\to q}^{(HI)}(z)&=&z^2+(1-z)^2+\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} +\frac{2}{N_c}\frac{z^2}{1-z}\, , \,\,\, \nonumber\\ P_{q \bar q\to \bar q}^{(HI)}(z)&=&P_{q \bar q\to q}^{(HI)}(1-z) \, , \nonumber\\ P_{q \bar q\to g}^{(HI)}(z)&=&2C_F\frac{z^2+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)} -2C_A[z^2+(1-z)^2], \\ & & \nonumber\\ P_{q \bar q\to q}^{(SI)}(z)&=&-\left[\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)} +2C_F\frac{z}{1-z}\right],\,\,\nonumber\\ P_{q \bar q\to \bar q}^{(SI)}(z)&=&\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2},\nonumber\\ P_{q \bar q\to g}^{(SI)}(z)&=&\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)}+2C_F\frac{z}{1-z} -\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} \\ & & \nonumber\\ P_{q \bar q\to q}^{(I)}(z)&=&z^2+(1-z)^2 -\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)} -2C_F\frac{z^2}{1-z} ,\,\, \nonumber \\ P_{q \bar q\to \bar q}^{(I)}(z)&=&z^2+(1-z)^2 \, , \nonumber\\ P_{q \bar q\to g}^{(I)}(z)&=&C_A\frac{4(1-z+z^2)^2-1}{z(1-z)} -2C_F\frac{(1-z)^2}{z} , \\ & & \nonumber\\ P_{q \bar q\to q}^{(I2)}(z)&=&\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)}-\frac{2C_F}{1-z}, \,\, P_{q \bar q\to g}^{(I2)}(z)=\frac{C_A}{z(1-z)}-\frac{2C_F}{z}\, . \end{eqnarray} The non-singlet splitting functions for $q\bar q\rightarrow b$, defined as \begin{equation} \Delta P_{q\bar q\to b}^{N(i)}(z)\equiv P_{q\bar q\to b}^{(i)}(z) - P_{qq\to b}^{(i)}(z), \end{equation} are listed as below: \begin{eqnarray} \Delta P_{q\bar q\to q_i(\bar q_i)}^{N(HI)}(z)&=& P_{q\bar q\to q_i(\bar q_i)}^{(HI)}(z),\,\,\, \Delta P_{q\bar q\to q_i(\bar q_i)}^{N(I)}(z)= P_{q\bar q\to q_i(\bar q_i)}^{(I)}(z), \\ & & \nonumber\\ \Delta P_{q\bar q\to q}^{N(HI)}(z)&=&-\frac{(1-z^2)(1+z^2+(1-z)^2)}{z^2} +\frac{2}{N_c}\frac{1+z^3}{z(1-z)}, \nonumber \\ \Delta P_{q\bar q\to \bar q}^{N(HI)}(z)&=&P_{q \bar q\to \bar q}^{(HI)}(z) ,\,\,\, \Delta P_{q\bar q\to g}^{N(HI)}(z)=P_{q \bar q\to g}^{(HI)}(z), \\ & & \nonumber\\ \Delta P_{q\bar q\to q}^{N(SI)}(z)&=&-\left[2C_F\frac{1+z^2}{1-z} +\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2}\right], \,\,\, \nonumber\\ \Delta P_{q\bar q\to \bar q}^{N(SI)}(z)&=&P_{q \bar q\to \bar q}^{(SI)}(z) \,\nonumber \\ \Delta P_{q\bar q\to g}^{N(SI)}(z)&=&2C_F\frac{1+z^2}{1-z} +\frac{2}{N_c}\frac{1}{z(1-z)}-2\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} \\ & & \nonumber\\ \Delta P_{q\bar q\to b}^{N(I)}(z)&=&P_{q\bar q\to b}^{(I)}(z),\,\, \Delta P_{q\bar q\to b}^{N(I2)}(z)=P_{q\bar q\to b}^{(I2)}(z)\, (b=q,\bar q, g) \end{eqnarray} \section{Alternative calculations of central-cut diagrams} As a cross-check of the hard partonic parts calculated from different cut diagrams in Appendix~, we provide an alternative calculation of all the central-cut diagrams, which correspond to quark-quark (antiquark) scattering. Considering a parton ($a$) with momentum $q$ scattering with another parton ($b)$ that carries a fractional momentum $xp$, $a (q)+b(xp)\rightarrow c(\ell)+d(p^\prime)$, the cross section can be written as \begin{eqnarray} d\sigma_{ab} &=&\frac{g^4}{2\hat s} |M|^2_{ab\to cd}(\hat t/\hat s,\hat u/\hat s) \frac{d^3\ell}{(2\pi)^3 2\ell_0} 2\pi \delta[(p+q-\ell)^2] \nonumber \\ &=&\frac{g^4}{(4\pi)^2} |M|^2_{ab\to cd}(\hat t/\hat s,\hat u/\hat s) \frac{\pi}{\hat{s}^2} \frac{dz}{z(1-z)}d\ell_T^2 \,\, \delta\left(1-\frac{x_L}{x}\right), \end{eqnarray} where $q=[0,q^-,0]$ and $p=[xp^+,0,0]$ are momenta of the initial partons and \begin{equation} \ell=\left[\frac{\ell_T^2}{2zq^-},zq^-, \vec{\ell}_T\right] \end{equation} is the momentum of one of the final partons. With the given kinematics, the on-shell condition in the cross section can be recast as \begin{eqnarray} (xp+q-\ell)^2=2(1-z)xp^+q^-\left(1-\frac{x_L}{x}\right),\,\,\,\,\, x_L=\frac{\ell_T^2}{2z(1-z)p^+q^-} . \end{eqnarray} The Mandelstam variables of the collision are, \begin{eqnarray} \hat s&=&(q+xp)^2=2xp^+q^-=\frac{\ell_T^2}{z(1-z)}, \,\,\,\, \hat u=(\ell-xp)^2=-z\hat s, \nonumber \\ \hat t&=&(\ell-q)^2=-(1-z)\frac{x_L}{x}\,\hat s=-(1-z)\hat s, \end{eqnarray} where we have used the on-shell condition $x=x_L$. With Eq.~() and parton distribution functions $f^N_b(x)$, one can obtain the parton-nucleon cross section, \begin{eqnarray} d\sigma_{aN}&=&\sum _b d\sigma_{ab}f^N_b(x) dx \nonumber \\ &=&\sum _b f^N_b(x_L)x_L |M|^2_{ab\to cd}(\hat t/\hat s,\hat u/\hat s) \frac{\pi\alpha_s^2}{\hat{s}^2} \frac{dz}{z(1-z)}d\ell_T^2 \nonumber \\ &=& \sum _b f^N_b(x_L) \frac{\pi\alpha_s^2}{s}C_0P_{ab\to cd}(z)dz \frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^2} \,\, , \end{eqnarray} where $s=2p^+q^-$ is the center-of-mass energy for $aN$ collision, $C_0$ is some common color factor in the scattering matrix elements and \begin{equation} P_{ab\to cd}(z)=(1/C_0)|M|^2_{ab\to cd}(\hat t/\hat s,\hat u/\hat s) \end{equation} is what we have defined as the effective splitting function for the corresponding processes. One can therefore easily obtain these effective splitting functions from the corresponding matrix elements for elementary parton-parton scattering . We will list them in the following. A common color factor for all quark-quark(antiquark) scattering is $C_0=C_F/N_c$. $q\bar q \rightarrow q_i\bar q_i$ annihilation: \begin{eqnarray} |M|^2_{q\bar q\to q_i\bar q_i}&=&\frac{C_F}{N_c} \frac{\hat{t}^2+\hat{u}^2}{\hat{s}^2}\,\, , \nonumber \\ P_{q\bar q\to q_i\bar q_i}(z)&=&z^2+(1-z)^2 \,\, . \end{eqnarray} $q\bar q \rightarrow q\bar q$ annihilation: \begin{eqnarray} |M|^2_{q\bar q \to q\bar q}&=& \frac{C_F}{N_c}\left[\frac{\hat{u}^2+\hat{s}^2}{\hat{t}^2} +\frac{\hat{u}^2+\hat{t}^2}{\hat{s}^2} -\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{2\hat{u}^2}{\hat{s}\hat{t}} \right] , \nonumber \\ P_{q\bar q\to q \bar q}(z)&=&\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2}+z^2+(1-z)^2 +\frac{2}{N_c}\frac{z^2}{1-z}\,\, . \end{eqnarray} $q\bar q \rightarrow gg$ annihilation: \begin{eqnarray} |M|^2_{q\bar q\to gg}&=& \frac{C_F}{N_c}\left[2C_F\left(\frac{\hat{u}}{\hat{t}}+ \frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{u}}\right) -2C_A\frac{\hat{u}^2+\hat{t}^2}{\hat{s}^2}\right], \nonumber \\ P_{q\bar q\to gg}(z)&=&2C_F\frac{z^2+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)} -2C_A(z^2+(1-z)^2)\, . \end{eqnarray} $qq_i(\bar q_i) \rightarrow q q_i(\bar q_i)$ scattering: \begin{eqnarray} |M|^2_{qq_i(\bar q_i)\to q q_i(\bar q_i)}&=& \frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\hat{u}^2+\hat{s}^2}{\hat{t}^2} \nonumber \\ P_{qq_i(\bar q_i)\to q q_i(\bar q_i)}(z)&=& \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2}\,\,. \end{eqnarray} $qq \rightarrow q q$ scattering: \begin{eqnarray} |M|^2_{qq\to q q}&=& \frac{C_F}{N_c}\left[\frac{\hat{u}^2+\hat{s}^2}{\hat{t}^2} +\frac{\hat{s}^2+\hat{t}^2}{\hat{u}^2} -\frac{1}{N_c}\frac{2\hat{s}^2}{\hat{t}\hat{u}} \right]\, , \nonumber \\ P_{qq \to q q}(z) &=&\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2}+\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} -\frac{2}{N_c}\frac{1}{z(1-z)}\, . \end{eqnarray} For quark-gluon Compton scattering, the relevant gluon distribution function is $x_LG_N(x_L)$. One can therefore rewrite contribution from $qg\rightarrow qg$ to Eq.~() as, \begin{eqnarray} d\sigma_{qN}&=&x_LG_N(x_L) \pi\alpha_s^2 z(1-z)|M|^2_{qg\to q g}(\hat t/\hat s,\hat u/\hat s)dz \frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^4} \nonumber \\ &\equiv&x_LG_N(x_L) \pi\alpha_s^2 \frac{C_F}{N_c}P_{qg\to qg}(z)dz \frac{d\ell_T^2}{\ell_T^4} \,\, . \end{eqnarray} We have then for $qg\rightarrow qg$ scattering, \begin{eqnarray} |M|^2_{qg\to qg}&=& \frac{C_A}{N_c}\frac{\hat{s}^2+\hat{u}^2}{\hat{t}^2} -\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\hat{u}^2+\hat{s}^2}{\hat{u}\hat{s}} \nonumber \\ P_{qg \to qg}(z) &=&z(1-z)\left[\frac{C_A}{C_F}\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2} +\frac{1+z^2}{z}\right]\, . \end{eqnarray} Comparing this result with that in Ref.~ for the quark-gluon rescattering, we can see that they agree in the limit $1-z \rightarrow 0$. This is a consequence of the collinear approximation employed in Ref.~ in the calculation of the hard partonic part in quark-gluon rescattering. We can also extend this calculation to the case of gluon-nucleon scattering. One can use Eq.~() to define the splitting function for $gq\rightarrow gq$ scattering, \begin{eqnarray} |M|^2_{gq\to gq}&=& \frac{C_A}{N_c}\frac{\hat{s}^2+\hat{t}^2}{\hat{u}^2} -\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\hat{t}^2+\hat{s}^2}{\hat{t}\hat{s}} \nonumber \\ P_{gq \to gq}(z) &=&z(1-z)\left[\frac{C_A}{N_c}\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z^2} +\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{1+(1-z)^2}{(1-z)}\right]\, . \end{eqnarray} Here for gluon-parton scattering, there is no common color factor. $gg\rightarrow q\bar q$ annihilation, \begin{eqnarray} |M|^2_{gg\to q\bar q}&=& \frac{1}{2N_c}\frac{\hat{t}^2+\hat{u}^2}{\hat{t}\hat{u}} -\frac{1}{2C_F}\frac{\hat{t}^2+\hat{u}^2}{\hat{s}^2} \nonumber \\ P_{gg \to q\bar q}(z) &=&z(1-z)\left\{\frac{1}{2N_c}\frac{z^2+(1-z)^2}{z(1-z)} -\frac{1}{2C_F}[z^2+(1-z)^2]\right\}\, . \end{eqnarray} $gg\rightarrow gg$ scattering \begin{eqnarray} |M|^2_{gg\to gg}&=& 2\frac{C_A}{C_F}\left[3-\frac{\hat{t}\hat{u}}{\hat{s}^2} -\frac{\hat{u}\hat{s}}{\hat{t}^2} -\frac{\hat{t}\hat{s}}{\hat{u}^2}\right] \nonumber \\ P_{gg \to gg}(z) &=&2\frac{C_A}{C_F}\frac{(1-z+z^2)^3}{z(1-z)} \,\, . \end{eqnarray} One can use this technique to extend the study of modified fragmentation functions to propagating gluons. Since the modification is dominated by quark-gluon and gluon-gluon scattering, comparing the effective splitting functions, \begin{eqnarray} \frac{C_F}{N_c}P_{qg\to qg}(z)&\approx& \frac{C_A}{N_c}\frac{2}{1-z}, \\ P_{gg\to gg}(z)&\approx& \frac{2C_A}{C_F}\frac{1}{1-z}, \end{eqnarray} in the limit $z\rightarrow 1$, one can conclude that a gluon's radiative energy loss is larger than a quark by a factor of $N_c/C_F=C_A/C_F=9/4$. We will leave the complete derivation of medium modification of gluon fragmentations to a future publication. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Adcox:2001jp} K.~Adcox {\it et al.}, [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 022301 (2002). \bibitem{Adler:2002xw} C.~Adler {\it et al.}, [STAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} 202301 (2002). \bibitem{starjet} C.~Adler {\it et al.}, [STAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 082302 (2003). \bibitem{Gyulassy:2004zy} M.~Gyulassy and L.~McLerran, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 750}, 30 (2005). \bibitem{Jacobs:2004qv} P.~Jacobs and X.~N.~Wang, Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 54}, 443 (2005). \bibitem{Qiu:2005} J.~W.~Qiu, [arXiv:hep-ph/0507268]. \bibitem{Qiu:2001} J.~W.~Qiu and G.~Sterman, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ E {\bf 12} (2003) 149. \bibitem{Guo:1998} X.~F.~Guo, Phys.\ Rev.\ D58 (1998) 114033. \bibitem{Guo:2001tz} X.~F.~Guo, J.~W.~Qiu and W.~Zhu, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 523} (2001) 88. \bibitem{Fries:2000da} R.~J.~Fries, A.~Sch\"afer, E.~Stein and B.~Muller, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 582}, 537 (2000). \bibitem{Qiu:2001zj} J.~W.~Qiu and X.~Zhang, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 525} (2002) 265. \bibitem{Qiu:2004} J.~W.~Qiu and I.~Vitev, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 262301 (2004), J.~W.~Qiu and I.~Vitev, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 587}, 52 (2004). \bibitem{GW1}M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 420}, 583 (1994); X.-N. Wang, M. Gyulassy and M. Pl\"umer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}, 3436 (1995). \bibitem{BDMPS} R. Baier {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 483}, 291 (1997). Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 484}, 265 (1997); Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58}, 1706 (1998). \bibitem{Zak}B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. {\bf 63}, 952 (1996). \bibitem{GLV} M. Gyulassy, P. L\'evai and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B594}, 371 (2001); Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 5535 (2000). \bibitem{SW} U. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B588}, 303 (2000); C.~A.~Salgado and U.~A.~Wiedemann, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 092303 (2002). \bibitem{GW} X.~F.~Guo and X.-N.~Wang, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 3591 (2000); \\ X.-N.~Wang and X.~F.~Guo, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 696}, 788 (2001). \bibitem{ZW} B.~W.~Zhang and X.-N.~Wang, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 720}, 429 (2003); B.~W.~Zhang, E.~Wang and X.-N.~Wang, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 072301 (2004); B.~W.~Zhang, E.~K.~Wang and X.-N.~Wang, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 757}, 493 (2005). \bibitem{kopeli} B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, A.~Sch\"afer and A.~V.~Tarasov , Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 59} (1999) 1609 [arXiv:hep-ph/9808378]. \bibitem{gvwz} M.~Gyulassy, I.~Vitev, X.~N.~Wang and B.~W.~Zhang, {\it Quark-Gluon Plasma 3}, R.~C. Hwa and X.-N Wang, Eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003), p123-191 [arXiv:nucl-th/0302077]. \bibitem{Kovner:2003zj} A.~Kovner and U.~A.~Wiedemann, arXiv:hep-ph/0304151. \bibitem{LQS} M.~Luo, J.~W.~Qiu and G.~Sterman, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 279} (1992) 377; Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 1951; \\ Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 4493 (1994). \bibitem{EW1} E.~Wang and X.-N.~Wang, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 162301 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0202105]. \bibitem{hermes:2000} A.~Airapetian {\it et al.} [HERMES Collaboration], Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20}, 479 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ex/0012049]. \bibitem{hermes:2003} A.~Airapetian {\it et al.} [HERMES Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 577}, 37 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0307023]. \bibitem{wang03} X.~N.~Wang, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595}, 165 (2004) [arXiv:nucl-th/0305010]. \bibitem{Falter:2004uc} T.~Falter, W.~Cassing, K.~Gallmeister and U.~Mosel, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 70}, 054609 (2004) [arXiv:nucl-th/0406023]. \bibitem{Kopeliovich:2004} B.~Z.~Kopeliovich, J.~Nemchik, E.~Predazzi and A.~Hayashigaki, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 740}, 211 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311220]. \bibitem{AP}V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 15}, 438 (1972); Yu. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 46}, 641 (1977); G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B126}, 298 (1977); \bibitem{field}R. D. Field, {\it Applications of Perturbative QCD}, Frontiers in Physics Lecture, Vol. 77, Ch. 5.6 (Addison Wesley, 1989). \bibitem{Peskin} M.~E.~Peskin and D.~V.~Schroeder, {\it An Introduction to Quantuam Field Theory}, (Addison-Wesley Advanced Book Program, 1995). \bibitem{OW} J.~Osborne and X.-N.~Wang, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 710}, 281 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0204046]. \bibitem{Wang:2006qr} X.~N.~Wang, arXiv:nucl-th/0604040. \bibitem{cteq} H.~L.~Lai {\it et al.} [CTEQ Collaboration], Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 12}, 375 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9903282]; One can use the online parton distribution calculator at http://durpdg.dur.ac.uk/HEPDATA/PDF. \bibitem{lappi} F.~Gelis, K.~Kajantie and T.~Lappi, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 032304 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0508229]. \bibitem{ko} W.~Liu, C.~M.~Ko and B.~W.~Zhang, arXiv:nucl-th/0607047. \bibitem{gluon} J.~Binnewies, B.~A.~Kniehl and G.~Kramer, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 4947 (1995) [arXiv:hep-ph/9503464]. \bibitem{cross} R.~Cutler and D.~W.~Sivers, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 17}, 196 (1978). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0107
|
Title: Experimental modeling of physical laws
Abstract: A physical law is represented by the probability distribution of a measured
variable. The probability density is described by measured data using an
estimator whose kernel is the instrument scattering function. The experimental
information and data redundancy are defined in terms of information entropy.
The model cost function, comprised of data redundancy and estimation error, is
minimized by the creation-annihilation process.
Body: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps} gsave 72 31 moveto 72 342 lineto 601 342 lineto 601 31 lineto 72 31 lineto showpage grestore \end{filecontents} \title{EXPERIMENTAL MODELING OF PHYSICAL LAWS} \author{Igor Grabec} \institute{Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana,\\ A\v{s}ker\v{c}eva 6, PP 394, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia,\\ Tel: +386 61 1771 605, Fax: +386 61 1253 135, \\ E-mail: igor.grabec@fs.uni-lj.si \\} \date{Received: date / Revised version: date} \abstract{A physical law is represented by the probability distribution of a measured variable. The probability density is described by measured data using an estimator whose kernel is the instrument scattering function. The experimental information and data redundancy are defined in terms of information entropy. The model cost function, comprised of data redundancy and estimation error, is minimized by the creation-annihilation process. \PACS{{06.20.DK}{Measurement and error theory} \and {02.50.+s}{Probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics} \and {89.70.+c}{Information science}} } \maketitle \section{Introduction} Quantitative physical explorations of natural phenomena involve three basic tasks: performing experiments, processing data, and modeling physical laws. The leading trend in the development of modern experimental systems is to automatize the first two tasks, while the solution of the critical problem of modeling is still left to intuition. In the recent literature there already appear attempts to program as well the modeling for execution on a computer, especially for data acquisition systems in industrial environments. Since measurements are always subject to random influences, a statistical approach to modeling is needed. Here we consider the probability distribution as a general basis for modeling of a physical law. The first step of the modeling is an estimation of probability density function (PDF) from experimental data. The most widely applicable is non-parametric estimation as it requires no a priori assumptions about PDF. From the estimated PDF the experimental physical law can be extracted using the conditional average. This average represents a non-parametric regression which can be carried out simultaneously with the data acquisition by computer. The structure of the corresponding information processing system resembles a structure of the radial basis function neural network. In addition to non-parametric regression, several other paradigms from the fields of artificial neural networks, such as multilayer perceptrons, can be interpreted as automatic modelers of physical laws. Various algorithms for adapting a selected model to experimental data have already been described, but the development of fundamental principles for a specification of the model structure is still a subject of current research. The problems stem from a significant contrast between the complexity of experimental data and the structure of physical laws. The information about the phenomenon explored is generally increased with the number of experimental data; hence instrumental science and technology tend to develop electronic devices with ever greater storage capacity. Contrary to this, the most prominent property of a physical law is its simplicity. At present it is still not clear how an electronic modeler could automatically and optimally compress the overwhelming experimental data into a simple law, although the theory of algorithmic information has already prepared some fundamentals for the treatment of this problem. A simple model of physical law can be obtained by minimizing a cost function which is composed of model error and complexity. The theory of statistics offers well elaborated methods for the estimation of the error, while the description of the model complexity is physically less well established. For this purpose the measure of algorithmic complexity is applicable, but this measure is derived from the program code that determines the average model performance. In the physical literature the complexity is usually considered as an intrinsic property of the phenomenon and should therefore be expressed directly in terms of measured values. With this aim we define in the next section the experimental information provided by measurements with an instrument of limited accuracy. It turns out that experimental information is useful for the description of the excessive complexity of data which can be utilized for the introduction of the model cost function. In order to avoid problems with joining the error and complexity of the model in the cost function, it is convenient to express both terms by a single quantity. For this purpose we employ the entropy of information, since it is non-dimensional and provides a common basis for formulation of error and complexity. \section{Experimental information and redundancy of data} At the definition of the experimental information we consider a scalar-valued variable $X$ since the generalization to a multivariate case is straightforward. For this variable we select a bounded continuous sample space $S_X=(-L,L)$, where $2L$ is the span of the instrument applied. We assume that an arbitrary number, say $N$, of statistically independent measurements has yielded the samples $x_1,\ldots ,x_N$. The non-parametric estimator of PDF is then expressed by the sample average \begin{equation} f(x)\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{n=1}^N\delta(x-x_n). \end{equation} This estimator, though unbiased, is not consistent. As Parzen has shown, it can be made consistent by using as a kernel a smooth approximation of the delta function, such as the Gaussian \begin{equation} {\rm g}(x-x_n,\sigma)\,=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma}\exp \biggl[- \frac{(x-x_n)^2}{2\sigma}\biggr]. \end{equation} with some standard deviation $\sigma$ dependent on $N$. Parzen's estimator \begin{equation} f(x)\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{n=1}^N {\rm g}(x-x_n , \sigma(N)) . \end{equation} is therefore biased, but the bias asymptotically vanishes if $\sigma(N)$ properly decreases towards $0$ with increasing $N$. The samples $x_1,\ldots ,x_N$ themselves are convenient parameters of the PDF model, but unfortunately their number must increase without limit and the smoothing parameter $\sigma(N)$ is introduced arbitrarily. Since measurements are subject to instrumental scattering, the requirement that $\sigma(N)$ vanishes is in conflict with a correct physical presentation of measured quantities. Consequently, we want to replace Parzen's method by a finite procedure, which would be more in tune with properties of experiments and would from the very beginning incorporate the measurement inaccuracy in the PDF estimator. For this purpose we turn first to the description of the instrumental scattering and interpretation of measured data. A strict mathematical nalysis of the performance of various PDF estimators has attracted much attention and in more advanced publications on this subject the information entropy is utilized as a common analytical tool. However, an exhaustive mathematical analysis of estimator performance apparas too cumbersome for experimentalists which often want to estimate the performance of their estimator already during execution of experiments. Consequently we still utilize the kernel estimator but contrary to Parzen take into account at the description of the kernel the scattering of data caused by measurement procedure and describe the estimator performance by the entrop of information. An acqusition of a measured datum can generally be considered as a measurement process in which the measured object generates the instrument output $x$. Common to all meassurements is that there exists an agreement by which the units for the observed variable are selected. Hence we assume that a set of objects which represents the units $\{U_k; k=1,\ldots \}$ is available. Using these objects we can perform a calibration of our instrument. The next common property of measurements is that the outputs of instruments are fluctuating even when callibration is performed. We assume that this property can be characterized by determining the density of the probability distribution of the instrument output at each selected unit. We denote the density of this distribution by $\psi(x|U_k)$. Its mean value $u_k={\rm E}[x|U_k]$ and standard deviation $\sigma$ are usually used to denote the $k$-th element of the scale and scattering of instrument output at the calibration. For the sake of simplicity we further consider the cases where the output scattering does not depend on the position on the scale and can be expressed as a function of $x-u_k$ and $\sigma$ alone: $\psi(x|U_k)=\psi(x-u_k,\sigma)$. Most commonly a Gaussian scattering function $\psi(x-u_k,\sigma)={\rm g}(x-u_k,\sigma)$ is observed. We can generally repeat the calibration procedure with a selected unit $u_k$ finite number of times and obtain a statistical set of calibration samples $\{\psi(x-u_k,\sigma)_n; n=1,\ldots,N_c\}$. If the instrument is well calibated, the scattering functions obtained in repeated callibrations do not differ essentially. The mean of the scattering function over the set of samples is then approximately equal to the result obtained by just one callibration: \begin{equation} \psi(x-u_k,\sigma)\,=\,\frac{1}{N_c}\,\sum_{n=1}^{N_c} \psi(x-u_k ,\sigma)_n \,\approx\,\psi(x-u_k ,\sigma)_1, \end{equation} In this case we consider the output scattering as a result of inherent fluctuations of measurement procedure and the standard deviation $\sigma$ as the parameter that depends on the quality of the instrument. Next consider a set of $N$ measurements of variable $X$ with the well calibrated instrument which yield the set of distributions $\{\psi(x-x_i,\sigma);i=1,\ldots,N\}$ with a standard deviation that is practically independent on $i$. In this case we interprete the scattering of mean values $x_1,\ldots ,x_N$ as the consequence of the external variation of the input in repeated mesurements. We therefore consider instrument input $X$ as a random variable and describe its PDF by the mean over the set of experimentally obtained distributions $\{\psi(x-x_i,\sigma); i=1,\ldots,N\}$. The corresponding mixture model \begin{equation} f_N(x)\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (x-x_i,\sigma) , \end{equation} resembles Parzen's estimator Eq.\,, but here $\sigma$ is a constant given by instrument calibration that is independent of $N$. Therefore we also omit in the following text $\sigma$ from $\psi$. If the true probability distribution of variable $X$ is given, then the general properties of this estimator can be analysed following the methods developed by the other authors.. However, we rather proceed to the definition of experimental information and demonstation of its applicability for the estimation of an optimal number of experiments needed for the specification of the PDF. With this aim we first describe the indeterminacy of variable $X$ in terms of the entropy of information. For a discrete random variable that assumes $N$ states with probabilities $p_i$ Shannon introduced the entropy of information by \begin{equation} H=-\sum_{i=1}^N p_i \log p_i . \end{equation} It is always between $0$ and log$\,N$ and attains its maximal value when all probabilities are equal: $p_i=1/N$. For a continuous random variable with PDF $f(x)$ the entropy of information must be defined relative to some given reference probability density function $\rho(x)$ as \begin{equation} H=-\int_{S_X} f(x) \log \frac{f(x)}{\rho(x)} \,dx . \end{equation} We will use as the reference the uniform density $\rho(x) = 1/2L$ over the instrument range for which we get \begin{equation} H=-\int_{-L}^Lf(x) \log f(x) \,dx - \log 2L . \end{equation} With this formula we first express the uncertainty of the instrument calibration as \begin{equation} H_u=-\int_{-L}^L\psi(x,u)\log \psi(x,u)\,dx - \log 2L . \end{equation} For $\sigma\ll L$ we obtain from the Gaussian scattering function $\psi(x,x_i)={\rm g}(x-x_i,\sigma)$ the approximation \begin{equation} H_u\approx \log \frac{\sigma}{L}+\frac{1}{2}\Bigl[1+\log \frac{\pi}{2}\Bigr] , \end{equation} which shows that the uncertainty of calibration depends only upon the ratio of scattering width $2\sigma$ and the instrument span $2L$. The number $\log (\sigma / L)$ determines the lowest possible uncertainty of measurement on the given instrument, as achieved at its calibration. The indeterminacy of the random variable $X$, which characterizes the scattering of experimental data, is defined by \begin{equation} H_e=-\int_{-L}^Lf_N(x)\log f_N(x)\,dx - \log 2L \end{equation} and is generally greater than the uncertainty of calibration. We define the experimental information about $X$ by the difference \begin{eqnarray} I=H_e-H_u&=&-\int_{-L}^Lf_N(x) \log f_N(x) \,dx \nonumber \\ &\phantom{=}&+\int_{-L}^L\psi(x,u) \log \psi(x,u) \,dx . \end{eqnarray} For a measurement that yields a single sample $x_1$ the probability density is given by $f_1(x) = \psi(x,x_1)$, both integrals in Eq.\, are equal, and the experimental information $I$ is zero. For a measurement which yields multiple samples $x_1, \ldots , x_N$ that are mutually separated by several $\sigma$, the distributions $\psi(x,x_i)={\rm g}(x-x_i,\sigma)$ are non-overlapping and the first integral on right of Eq.\, can be approximated as \begin{eqnarray} -&\frac{1}{N}&\sum_{i=1}^N\int_{-L}^L\psi(x,x_i) \log \Bigl[ \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi(x , x_i)\Bigr] \,dx \nonumber \\ &\qquad&\approx \log N-\int_{-L}^L\psi(x,x_1) \log \psi(x,x_1) \,dx \end{eqnarray} and this yields $I\approx\log N$. When distributions $\psi(x$,$x_i)$ are overlapping, but not concentrated at a single point, the inequality $0\leq I\leq \log N$ holds. As the same relation is characteristic of the entropy of information for a discrete random variable, the experimental information has a similar meaning to that of the entropy of information for a discrete case. It describes how much information is provided by a series of $N$ experiments performed by an instrument with the density of scattering distribution $\psi(x,x_i)$. We thus interprete $I$ as a measure of the complexity of experimental data. According to the above analysis $N$ repeated experiments can at most provide $I_{max}= \log N$ of information and this happens when the distributions $\psi(x , x_i)$ are non-overlapping. Since some overlapping normally takes place, the actual experimental information $I$ is smaller than $I_{max}$. In such a case the measurements do not give the maximal possible information, which means that characterization of the probability distribution by $N$ experiments is to some extent redundant. Accordingly, we define the redundancy of experimental observation by the difference \begin{equation} R=I_{max}-I . \end{equation} This definition is based only on available experimental data, therefore $R$ can be determined experimentally at each step of data acquisition. It should be pointed out that ou definition differs from the common definition of the redundancy in terms of mutual information which requires specification of joint probability distribution of variables that describe the data samples. If the standard deviation $\sigma$ of scattering is decreased by improving the experiment, the redundancy is reduced and tends to $0$ along with $\sigma$. With an increasing number of samples the overlapping of distributions $\psi(x , x_i)$ on the average increases and due to this overlapping $I$ increases more slowly than $I_{max} = \log N$ and tends to a certain value $I_\infty$ with increasing $N$. Consequently, the redundancy increases on the average with the number of samples. Accordingly, the experimental information $I$ can be interpreted as a characteristic which determines the number $K$ of non-overlapping distributions that could represent the experimental observation. This number is defined by \begin{equation} K={\rm e}^I \end{equation} and can be determined from experimental data and the scattering function $\psi$. Asymptotically $K$ tends to a value $K_\infty$, a characteristic, which can be estimated quite accurately from a finite number of experiments. We illustrate the above--mentioned properties by using a normal random variable $X$ with standard deviation $s=2.5$. In order to render possible a simple setting of its properties in illustrated examples, the samples $x_i$ were generated by a computer. Fig.\, shows the dependence of the experimental information on the number of samples for two cases of Gaussian instrument scattering with $\sigma=0.05$ and $0.25$. The results obtained with three different sample sets demonstrate the statistical variation of empirical information. In both cases the convergence of experimental information to a fixed value is observed and the limits $K_\infty\approx 50$ and $K_\infty\approx 10$ are approximately estimated. As could be expected, for both cases they are equal to the ratio $s/\sigma$. Similar results were also observed for the uniform PDF and for mixtures of normal PDFs. The displacement between the maximal possible experimental information $I_{max}=\log N$ and other curves in Fig.\, is the redundancy of observation. \section{Cost function and an optimal number of samples} With an increasing number of experimental samples the empirically estimated PDF converges to a function \begin{equation} f_\infty(x) = \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{i=1}^N {\rm g}(x-q_i,\sigma) , \end{equation} which we consider as the hypothetical PDF of variable $X$. Since it can not be determined by repetition of experiments, we must decide when to stop the experimentation. From the analysis of the properties of Parzen's estimator \lbrack 1 - Eq.\,4.19 \rbrack\ we obtain the estimate for the variance ${\rm Var}[f_N(x)]\leq[\sup {\rm g}(x)]^2/N$, which is applicable if the accuracy of estimation is prescribed. When the accuracy is not prescribed, the inequality only indicates that $N$ should be increased in order to decrease the variance; but with increasing $N$ the redundancy increases and we should consider both properties when deciding about a proper number of samples $N$. With this aim we utilize two estimators comprising $N$ and $T$ samples. The estimator with $T$ samples is introduced as a reference by which we estimate the prediction error of the estimator with $N$ samples. Consequently, $f_T$ should estimate $f_\infty$ with much greater accuracy than $f_N$ and therefore we take $T\gg N$. We then describe the estimation error by the Kullback-Leibner information divergence \begin{equation} D=\int_{-L}^L\Bigl[f_N(x)-f_T(x)\Bigr] \log \frac{f_N(x)}{f_T(x)} \,dx \end{equation} and define the information cost of $f_N$ relative to $f_T$ by \begin{equation} C=D+R_N-R_T . \end{equation} The dependence of $C$ on $N$ with $T=10^4$ is shown in Fig.\, for the same data as in the case of Fig.\,. The number $N_o$ at which the cost $C$ is minimal is to be considered as the proper number of samples for modeling of PDF. It depends on the samples used in estimator $f_N$ and we statistically determined $N_o=\,35\,\pm 20$ for $\sigma=0.25$, and $N_o=\,218\pm 64$ \ for $\sigma=0.05$. The relatively large statistical scattering of $N_o$ is a consequence of the very slow, approximately logarithmic divergence of the redundancy. The number $N_o$ also depends on the sample set used in estimator $f_T$, but if $T$ is much greater than $N_o$, its influence is negligible in comparison with statistical scattering. Fig.\, shows an example of the estimated probability density $f_{N_o}$ for $\sigma=0.25$, $N_o=46$ and $C(N_o)=-4.8\,$nat. For the purpose of comparison, $f_T$ is also shown in Fig.\,. Our examples show that the proper number $N_o$ is several times greater than $K_\infty$. Since $K_\infty$ can be simply calculated, $N_o$ can be roughly estimated also without calculation of the cost function. Figure\, shows that $f_{N_o}$ is a rather coarse estimator of probability density. The reason for this property can be explained if the variation of the estimation error and redundancy term in the cost function with increasing $N$ is considered. When $N$ increases the minimum of $C$ is achieved at a low number of samples because of increasing redundancy; hence the estimation error need not be negligible but just properly counter balanced by the redundancy. This further means that a low number of functions ${\rm g}(x-q_i,\sigma)$ with a small $\sigma$ cannot very accurately represent a broad and smooth function $f_T(x)$. \section{Generalized PDF model} If we want to improve the representation of the PDF by a small number of functions we evidently may not keep $\sigma$ fixed. For this purpose we change the estimator of $f_{N_0}$ into a general mixture model \begin{equation} f_M(x)\,=\sum_{i=1}^M \, p_i\,\psi_i(x) \end{equation} by using $M$ basis functions $\psi_i(x)=g(x-q_i,\sigma_i)$ and adjustable parameters $q_i$, $\sigma_i$ and $p_i$. We define here the entropy of basis functions and the information content of the model as means over probabilities $p_i$ \begin{eqnarray} H_s &=& -\int_{-L}^L\sum_{i=1}^M p_i \, \psi_i(x)\, \log \psi_i(x) \,\,dx - \log 2L ,\\ I_M&=&H_M-H_s \\ &=& -\int_{-L}^L\sum_{i=1}^M p_i \, \psi_i(x) \, \log \Bigl[\frac{\sum_{j=1}^Mp_j\,\psi_j(x)}{\psi_i(x)}\Bigr] \,dx .\nonumber \end{eqnarray} The model redundancy end estimation error are then \begin{eqnarray} R_M&=&\log M - I_M ,\\ D_M&=&\int_{-L}^L\Bigl[f_M(x)-f_T(x)\Bigr] \log \frac{f_M(x)}{f_T(x)} \,dx . \end{eqnarray} With these characteristics we define the information cost of the model relative to experimentally estimated $f_T(x)$ as \begin{equation} C_M=D_M+R_M-R_T . \end{equation} If we want to adapt the model Eq.\, to experimental data we must specify the number $M$ and parameters $q_i$, $\sigma_i$, $p_i$ of basis functions. We cannot achieve this by the variation method since $M$ is an integer number.. Various methods of growing and pruning have been developed for this purpose in the field of neural networks. The growing methods are mainly utilized when the model is adapted to an increasing number of experimental samples, while pruning is used when a large number of experimental samples is compressed to a smaller number of representative data. In any case a decision about the creation or annihilation of model terms must be reached, based upon some criterion. In the literature various criteria have already been proposed, ranging from purely heueristical to strictly theoretical ones, but at present there is still no generally accepted method. In our treatment we decide to change the number of basis functions in the model if the cost function $C_M$ is decreased by such action. With this criterion we tested first the annihilation process and then a combined creation-annihilation process, which are described in the following subsections. \subsection{Model optimization by annihilation of terms} Consider the case when the function $f_T$ is determined by an extensive set of redundant experimental data. We start the adaptation of the model Eq.\, to these data by selecting $M=T$ and assigning the values $q_i=x_i$, $\sigma_i=\sigma$, $p_i=1/T$ to parameters of basis functions. After that we consider a model with $M=T-1$ terms. If we try to determine the parameters of the compressed model by a strict mathematical procedure based on minimization of the cost function $C_{T-1}$, we obtain a set of non-linear equations that is difficult for further treatment. Less rigorously, but physically more sensibly, we proceed by assuming that an improved model can be obtained by compressing $i$-th and $k$-th term determined by $p_i,q_i,\sigma_i$ and $p_k,q_k,\sigma_k$ into single $j$-th term with parameters $p_j=p_i+p_k$, $q_j=(p_i q_i +p_k q_k)/p_j$, and $\sigma_j=[\sigma_j^2\,p_i/p_j + \sigma_k^2\,p_k/p_j + (q_i -q_k)^2\, p_i p_k / p_j]^{1/2}$, that represent the common probability, center of gravity and standard deviation, respectively; consequently, the total probability and the first two moments of the probability distribution are preserved. The terms are actually compressed only if the cost function is decreased. In the case of just two terms with equal probabilities and widths it was found numerically that they are compressed only if their centers are separated by less than approximately $3\sigma$. The procedure is then iterated on all terms of the model until all possible compressions are carried out. Fig.\, shows a result of this procedure for a bi-modal PDF. From the function $f_T$, determined by $10^4$ experimental data, we obtain, after compression, the model with just two basis functions and significantly reduced redundancy. The agreement between the experimentally estimated $f_T$ and the model function $f_M$ is determined by the prediction error $D_M=0.01\,{\rm nat}$, while $C_M=0.15\,{\rm nat}$ describes the information cost of such a representation. In this case the cost is mainly determined by the redundancy $R_M=0.14\,{\rm nat}$, which is a consequence of the overlapping of model basis functions. \subsection{Model adaptation by the creation-annihilation process} Although model optimization by annihilation is simple, its weak point is that all the experimental data must be acquired before the start of adaptation. But it is often convenient to form the model simultaneously with acquisition of experimental data. In this case the compression method could still be performed after each acquisition step, but for this purpose all previously acquired data must be stored. We therfore propose a more economical method whereby less numerous model parameters are stored. At $T=1$ we start modeling by setting $f_1 (x)={\rm g}(x-x_1,\sigma)$. After each acquisition step we then create a new term with the parameters $x_T$, $\sigma_T=\sigma$, $p_T=1/T$ and include it in the previous model function by using weighted average $f_T (x)={\rm g}(x-x_T,\sigma)/T + f_{T-1}(x)(T-1)/T$. On this function the compression is then performed. The created term is either annihilated, if the acquired sample $x_T$ falls close to the center of one of the basis functions that comprise the model, or is preserved as an additional term of the model. With increasing $T$ the modification of the PDF by new experimental samples is less and less pronounced. When we perform this procedure with the samples that were used in the preparation of Fig.\,, the resulting model PDF agrees with the function, which was obtained by the annihilation process. In the annihilation process the model function is compared with $f_T$ as determined from a large number of samples, while in the creation-annihilation process two successive model functions are compared. Since comparison of model functions can lead to accumulation of errors, one could generally expect smaller modeling error when using the annihilation process. On average the number of model terms in the creation-annihilation process initially increases and subsequently decreases with the number of acquired experimental samples. Therefore, it is instructive to follow the development of the model with an increasing number of samples. Fig.\, shows the result obtained during the adaptation of the model to bi-modal PDF of Fig.\,. At each acquisition time $T$ the position of the sample $x_T$ is marked by a star, while the centers of basis functions $q_i$ are marked by bullets which may merge into lines. In the initial phase of the model adaptation several basis functions are created and in the later phase some of them are annihilated until ultim�ately an optimal model structure is established. After that the parameters of the model are less and less influenced by new experimental data. Annihilation of model terms generally keeps the number $M$ of model functions below the number $T$ of samples. Consequently, for large $T$ the storage of model parameters usually requires significantly less memory space than the storage of all the experimental data, and the resulting parameters of the model can often be related to basic processes underlying the investigated phenomenon. The general mixture model quite often exhibits significantly lower redundancy than the experimental model of Eq.\,. For example, after compression of the experimental data which determine $f_T$ of Fig.\,, we obtained just one term with $q_1$ and $\sigma_1$ determined by the sample mean and standard deviation of variable $X$. These represent a non-redundant optimal model of the hypothetical PDF. A similar conclusion holds for the model of the bi-modal PDF of Fig.\,. \section{Conclusions} We have shown how the PDF of a scalar variable can be estimated non-parametrically by taking into account the inaccuracy of measurements. By the properties of the PDF estimator we have defined the experimental information and redundancy of data. Even though the same definition can be performed with a multivariate variable, the analysis is less comprehensible since the number of parameters in the scattering function increases. We have not specified the form of the scattering function based on fundamental principles, but the central limit theorem of probability indicates that for this purpose a normal distribution could be a proper choice, unless some other is suggested by experiment. The most essential terms of the model cost function are the estimation error and the redundancy. During cost minimization the estimation error provides for a proper adaptation of the model to experimental data, while the redundancy prevents excessive growth of complexity. The search for the cost function minimum yields an estimate of the proper number of the acquisition system data storage cells. The proper number of data cells can be surprisingly low since the redundancy and the divergence are evenhandedly treated in the cost function. If the width of basis functions is determined by experimental scattering only, then the model yields a rather coarse estimate of PDF. The quality of the estimate can often be significantly improved by using the generalized mixture model. The adaptation of the mixture model leads to an effective PDF estimator that is applicable in automatic measurement systems. The creation-annihilation process described also represents a new approach to modeling of artificial neural networks. In this case the modeler represents a dynamic system with adaptable parameters which are influenced by the experimental data. Evolution of the model terms by creation and annihilation resembles condensation processes in vapors or evolution of grains in alloys and is a typically non-linear, self-organized phenomenon. This analogy indicates the possibility of optimal modeler description by statistical physics and synergetics. \section{Acknowledgment} The research was supported by the Ministry for Science and Technology of Slovenia and the Volkswagen Foundation in Germany. Prof. T. Klinc from the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana contributed to the preparation of this article by valuable suggestions and critical comments. \begin{thebibliography}{} \bibitem{fe} R. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994). \bibitem{gs} I. Grabec and W. Sachse, Synergetics of Measurement, Prediction and Control (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997). \bibitem{dh} R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart, Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis (J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973), Ch. 4. \bibitem{cm} V. Cherkassky and F. Mulier, Learning from Data (John Wiley \& Sons, Inc., New York, 1998). \bibitem{gs2} I. Grabec, W. Sachse, J. Appl. Phys, {\bf 69},(9) 6233-6244 (1991). \bibitem{ha} S. Haykin, Neural Networks, A Comprehensive Foundation (Mcmillan College Publishing Company, New York 1994) \bibitem{leo} A. Leonardis, H. Bischof, Neural Networks, {\bf 11} 963-973 (1998). \bibitem{ris} J. Rissanen, Complexity of Models, in: Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, ed. W. H. Zurek (Addison-Wesley, 1990), 117-125. \bibitem{ris2} J. Rissanen, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, {\bf 42}(1) 40-47 (1996). \bibitem{li} M. Li and P. Vit{\' a}nyi, An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993) \bibitem{gras} P. Grassberger, Helvetica Physica Acta, {\bf 62} 489-511 (1989). \bibitem{ct} T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas Elements of Information Theory (John Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1991). \bibitem{sha} C. E. Shannon, Bell. Syst. Tech. J., {\bf 27} 379-423 (1948). \bibitem{par} E. Parzen, Ann. Math. Stat., {\bf 35} 1065-1076 (1962). \bibitem{cla} B. S. Clarke, A. R. Barron, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, {\bf 36} (6) 453-471 (1990) \bibitem{haop} D. Haussler, M. Opper, Annals of Statistics, {\bf 25} (6) 2451-2492 (1997) \bibitem{hau} D. Haussler, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, {\bf 43} (4) 1276-1280 (1997) \bibitem{kol} A. N. Kolmogorov, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, {\bf IT-2} 102-108 (1956). \bibitem{st} S. W. Stepniewski, A. J. Keane, Neural Comput. \& Applic. {\bf 5} 76-98 (1997) \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0112
|
Title: Placeholder Substructures III: A Bit-String-Driven ''Recipe Theory'' for
Infinite-Dimensional Zero-Divisor Spaces
Abstract: Zero-divisors (ZDs) derived by Cayley-Dickson Process (CDP) from
N-dimensional hypercomplex numbers (N a power of 2, at least 4) can represent
singularities and, as N approaches infinite, fractals -- and thereby,scale-free
networks. Any integer greater than 8 and not a power of 2 generates a
meta-fractal or "Sky" when it is interpreted as the "strut constant" (S) of an
ensemble of octahedral vertex figures called "Box-Kites" (the fundamental
building blocks of ZDs). Remarkably simple bit-manipulation rules or "recipes"
provide tools for transforming one fractal genus into others within the context
of Wolfram's Class 4 complexity.
Body: \maketitle \makeatother \begin{abstract} Zero-divisors (ZDs) derived by Cayley-Dickson Process (CDP) from N-dimensional hypercomplex numbers ($N$ a power of $2$, and at least $4$) can represent singularities and, as $N \rightarrow \infty$, fractals -- and thereby, scale-free networks. Any integer $> 8$ and not a power of $2$ generates a meta-fractal or \textit{Sky} when it is interpreted as the \textit{strut constant} (S) of an ensemble of octahedral vertex figures called \textit{Box-Kites} (the fundamental ZD building blocks). Remarkably simple bit-manipulation rules or \textit{recipes} provide tools for transforming one fractal genus into others within the context of Wolfram's Class 4 complexity. \end{abstract} \section{The Argument So Far} In Parts I[1] and II[2], the basic facts concerning zero-divisors (ZDs) as they arise in the hypercomplex context were presented and proved. ``Basic,'' in the context of this monograph, means seven things. First, they emerged as a side-effect of applying CDP a minimum of 4 times to the Real Number Line, doubling dimension to the Complex Plane, Quaternion 4-Space, Octonion 8-Space, and 16-D Sedenions. With each such doubling, new properties were found: as the price of sacrificing counting order, the Imaginaries made a general theory of equations and solution-spaces possible; the non-commutative nature of Quaternions mapped onto the realities of the manner in which forces deploy in the real world, and led to vector calculus; the non-associative nature of Octonions, meanwhile, has only come into its own with the need for necessarily unobservable quantities (because of conformal field-theoretical constraints)in String Theory. In the Sedenions, however, the most basic assumptions of all -- well-defined notions of field and algebraic norm (and, therefore, measurement) -- break down, as the phenomena correlated with their absence, zero-divisors, appear onstage (never to leave it for all higher CDP dimension-doublings). Second thing: ZDs require at least two differently-indexed imaginary units to be defined, the index being an integer larger than 0 (the CDP index of the Real Unit) and less than $2^{N}$ for a given CDP-generated collection of $2^{N}$-ions. In ``pure CDP,'' the enormous number of alternative labeling schemes possible in any given $2^{N}$-ion level are drastically reduced by assuming that units with such indices interact by XOR-ing: the index of the product of any two is the XOR of their indices. Signing is more tricky; but, when CDP is reduced to a 2-rule construction kit, it becomes easy: for index $u < {\bf G}$, ${\bf G}$ the Generator of the $2^{N}$-ions (i.e., the power of 2 immediately larger than the highest index of the predecessor $2^{N-1}$-ions), Rule 1 says $i_{u} \cdot i_{\bf G} = + i_{(u + {\bf G})}$. Rule 2 says take an associative triplet $(a, b, c)$, assumed written in CPO (short for ``cyclically positive order'': to wit, $a \cdot b = +c$, $b \cdot c = +a$, and $c \cdot a = + b$). Consider, for instance, any $(u, {\bf G}, {\bf G} + u)$ index set. Then three more such associative triplets (henceforth, \textit{trips}) can be generated by adding {\bf G} to two of the three, then switching their resultants' places in the CPO scheme. Hence, starting with the Quaternions' $(1, 2, 3)$ (which we'll call a \textit{Rule 0} trip, as it's inherited from a prior level of CDP induction), Rule 1 gives us the trips $(1, 4, 5)$, $(2, 4, 6)$, and $(3, 4, 7)$, while Rule 2 yields up the other 4 trips defining the Octonions: $(1, 7, 6)$, $(2, 5, 7)$, and $(3, 6, 5)$. Any ZD in a given level of $2^{N}$-ions will then have units with one index $< {\bf G}$, written in lowercase, and the other index $> {\bf G}$, written in uppercase. Such pairs, alternately called ``dyads'' or ``Assessors,'' saturate the diagonal lines of their planes, which diagonals never mutually zero-divide each other (or make \textit{DMZs}, for "divisors (or dyads) making zero"), but only make DMZs with other such diagonals, in other such Assessors. (This is, of course, the opposite situation from the projection operators of quantum mechanics, which are diagonals in the planes formed by Reals and dimensions spanned by Pauli spin operators contained within the 4-space created by the Cartesian product of two standard imaginaries.) Third thing: Such ZDs are not the only possible in CDP spaces; but they define the ``primitive'' variety from which ZD spaces saturating more than 1-D regions can be articulated. A not quite complete catalog of these can be found in our first monograph on the theme [3]; a critical kind which was overlooked there, involving the Reals (and hence, providing the backdrop from which to see the projection-operator kind as a degenerate type), were first discussed more recently [4]. (Ironically, these latter are the easiest sorts of composites to derive of any: place the two diagonals of a DMZ pairing with differing internal signing on axes of the same plane, and consider the diagonals \textit{they} make with each other!) All the primitive ZDs in the Sedenions can be collected on the vertices of one of 7 copies of an Octahedron in the \textit{Box-Kite} representation, each of whose 12 edges indicates a two-way ``DMZ pathway,'' evenly divided between 2 varieties. For any vertex V, and $k$ any real scalar, indicate the diagonals this way: $\verb|(V,/)| = k \cdot (i_{v} + i_{V})$, while $\verb|(V, \)| = k \cdot (i_{v} - i_{V})$. 6 edges on a Box-Kite will always have \textit{negative edge-sign} (with \textit{unmarked} ET cell entries: see the ``sixth thing''). For vertices M and N, exactly two DMZs run along the edge joining them, written thus: \begin{center} $\verb|(M,/)| \cdot \verb|(N, \)|$ $= \verb|(M, \)|$ $\cdot$ $\verb|(N,/)|$ $ = 0$ \end{center} The other 6 all have \textit{positive edge-sign}, the diagonals of their two DMZs having same slope (and \textit{marked} -- with leading dashes -- ET cell entries): \begin{center} $\verb|(Z,/)| \cdot \verb|(V, /)| = $ $\verb|(Z, \)| \cdot \verb|(V,\)| = 0$ \end{center} Fourth thing: The edges always cluster similarly, with two opposite faces among the 8 triangles on the Box-Kite being spanned by 3 negative edges (conventionally painted red in color renderings), with all other edges being positive (painted blue). One of the red triangles has its vertices' 3 low-index units forming a trip; writing their vertex labels conventionally as A, B, C, we find there are in fact always 4 such trips cycling among them: $(a, b, c)$, the \textit{L-trip}; and the three \textit{U-trips} obtained by replacing all but one of the lowercase labels in the L-trip with uppercase: $(a, B, C)$; $(A, b, C)$; $(A, B, c)$. Such a 4-trip structure is called a \textit{Sail}, and a Box-Kite has 4 of them: the \textit{Zigzag}, with all negative edges, and the 3 \textit{Trefoils}, each containing two positive edges extending from one of the Zigzag vertices to the two vertices opposite its \textit{Sailing partners}. These opposite vertices are always joined by one of the 3 negative edges comprising the Vent which is the Zigzag's opposite face. Again by convention, the vertices opposite A, B, C are written F, E, D in that order; hence, the Trefoil Sails are written $(A, D, E)$; $(F, D, B)$, and $(F, C, E)$, ordered so that their lowercase renderings are equivalent to their CPO L-trips. The graphical convention is to show the Sails as filled in, while the other 4 faces, like the Vent, are left empty: they show ``where the wind blows'' that keeps the Box-Kite aloft. A real-world Box-Kite, meanwhile, would be held together by 3 dowels (of wood or plastic, say) spanning the joins between the only vertices left unconnected in our Octahedral rendering: the \textit{Struts} linking the \textit{strut-opposite} vertices (A, F); (B, E); (C, D). Fifth thing: In the Sedenions, the 7 isomorphic Box-Kites are differentiated by which Octonion index is missing from the vertices, and this index is designated by the letter {\bf S}, for ``signature,'' ``suppressed index,'' or \textit{strut constant}. This last designation derives from the invariant relationship obtaining in a given Box-Kite between {\bf S} and the indices in the Vent and Zigzag termini (V and Z respectively) of any of the 3 Struts, which we call the ``First Vizier'' or VZ1. This is one of 3 rules, involving the three Sedenion indices always missing from a Box-Kite's vertices: ${\bf G}$, ${\bf S}$, and their simple sum ${\bf X}$ (which is also their XOR product, since ${\bf G}$ is always to the left of the left-most bit in ${\bf S}$). The Second Vizier tells us that the L-index of either terminus with the U-index of the other always form a trip with ${\bf G}$, and it true as written for all $2^{N}$-ions. The Third shows the relationship between the L- and U- indices of a given Assessor, which always form a trip with ${\bf X}$. Like the First, it is true as written only in the Sedenions, but as an unsigned statement about indices only, it is true universally. (For that reason, references to VZ1 and VZ3 hereinout will be assumed to refer to the \textit{unsigned} versions.) First derived in the last section of Part I, reprised in the intro of Part II, we write them out now for the third and final time in this monograph: \begin{center} VZ1: $v \cdot z = V \cdot Z = {\bf S}$ \smallskip VZ2: $Z \cdot v = V \cdot z = {\bf G}$ \smallskip VZ3: $V \cdot v = z \cdot Z = {\bf X}$. \end{center} Rules 1 and 2, the Three Viziers, plus the standard Octonion labeling scheme derived from the simplest finite projective group, usually written as PSL(2,7), provide the basis of our toolkit. This last becomes powerful due to its capacity for recursive re-use at all levels of CDP generation, not just the Octonions. The simplest way to see this comes from placing the unique Rule 0 trip provided by the Quaternions on the circle joining the 3 sides' midpoints, with the Octonion Generator's index, 4, being placed in the center. Then the 3 lines leading from the Rule 0 trip's (1, 2, 3) midpoints to their opposite angles -- placed conventionally in clockwise order in the midpoints of the left, right, and bottom sides of a triangle whose apex is at 12 o'clock -- are CPO trips forming the Struts, while the 3 sides themselves are the Rule 2 trips. These 3 form the L-index sets of the Trefoil Sails, while the Rule 0 trip provides the same service for the Zigzag. By a process analogized to tugging on a slipcover (Part I) and pushing things into the central zone of hot oil while wok-cooking (Part II), all 7 possible values of {\bf S} in the Sedenions, not just the 4, can be moved into the center while keeping orientations along all 7 lines of the Triangle unchanged. Part II's critical Roundabout Theorem tells us, moreover, that all $2^{N}$-ion ZDs, for all $N > 3$, are contained in Box-Kites as their minimal ensemble size. Hence, by placing the appropriate ${\bf G}$, ${\bf S}$, or ${\bf X}$ in the center of a PSL(2,7) triangle, with a suitable Rule 0 trip's indices populating the circle, any and all \textit{candidate} primitive ZDs can be discovered and situated. Sixth thing: The word ``candidate'' in the above is critical; its exploration was the focus of Part II. For, starting with $N = 5$ and hence ${\bf G = 16}$ (which is to say, in the 32-D Pathions), whole Box-Kites can be suppressed (meaning, all 12 edges, and not just the Struts, no longer serve as DMZ pathways). But for all $N$, the full set of candidate Box-Kites are viable when ${\bf S} \leq 8$ or equal to some higher power of 2. For all other ${\bf S}$ values, though, the phenomenon of \textit{carrybit overflow} intervenes -- leading, ultimately, to the ``meta-fractal'' behavior claimed in our abstract. To see this, we need another mode of representation, less tied to 3-D visualizing, than the Box-Kite can provide. The answer is a matrix-like method of tabulating the products of candidate ZDs with each other, called \textit{Emanation Tables} or \textit{ETs}. The L-indices only of all candidate ZDs are all we need indicate (the U-indices being forced once ${\bf G}$ is specified); these will saturate the list of allowed indices $< {\bf G}$, save for the value of ${\bf S}$ whose choice, along with that of ${\bf G}$, fixes an ET. Hence, the unique ET for given ${\bf G}$ and ${\bf S}$ will fill a square spreadsheet whose edge has length $2^{N-1}- 2$. Moreover, a cell entry (r,c) is only filled when row and column labels R and C form a DMZ, which can never be the case along an ET's long diagonals: for the diagonal starting in the upper left corner, R xor R = 0, and the two diagonals within the same Assessor, can never zero-divide each other; for the righthand diagonal, the convention for ordering the labels (ascending counting order from the left and top, with any such label's strut-opposite index immediately being entered in the mirror-opposite positions on the right and bottom) makes R and C strut-opposites, hence also unable to form DMZs. For the Sedenions, we get a 6 x 6 table, 12 of whose cells (those on long diagonals) are empty: the 24 filled cells, then, correspond to the two-way traffic of ``edge-currents'' one imagines flowing between vertices on a Box-Kite's 12 edges. A computational corollary to the Roundabout Theorem, dubbed the \textit{Trip-Count Two-Step}, is of seminal importance. It connects this most basic theorem of ETs to the most basic fact of associative triplets, indicated in the opening pages of Part I, namely: for any N, the number $Trip_{N}$ of associative triplets is found, by simple combinatorics, to be $(2^{N} - 1)(2^{N} - 2)/3!$ -- 35 for the Sedenions, 155 for the Pathions, and so on. But, by Trip-Count Two-Step, we also know that \textit{the maximum number of Box-Kites that can fill a $2^{N}$-ion ET = $Trip_{N-2}$.} For ${\bf S}$ a power of 2, beginning in the Pathions (for ${\bf S} = 2^{5 - 2} = 8$), the Number Hub Theorem says the upper left quadrant of the ET is an unsigned multiplication table of the $2^{N-2}$-ions in question, with the 0's of the long diagonal (indicated Real negative units) replaced by blanks -- a result effectively synonymous with the Trip-Count Two-Step. Seventh thing: We found, as Part II's argument wound down, that the 2 classes of ETs found in the Pathions -- the ``normal'' for ${\bf S} \leq 8$, filled with indices for all 7 possible Box-Kites, and the ``sparse'' so-called Sand Mandalas, showing only 3 Box-Kites when $8 < {\bf S} < 16$, were just the beginning of the story. A simple formula involving just the bit-string of ${\bf s}$ and ${\bf g}$, where the lowercase indicates the values of ${\bf S}$ and ${\bf G}$ modulo ${\bf G}/2$, gave the prototype of our first \textit{recipe}: all and only cells with labels R or C, or content P ( = R xor C ), are filled in the ET. The 4 ``missing Box-Kites'' were those whose L-index trip would have been that of a Sail in the $2^{N-1}$ realm with ${\bf S} = {\bf s}$ and ${\bf G} = {\bf g}$. The sequence of 7 ETs, viewed in ${\bf S}$-increasing succession, had an obvious visual logic leading to their being dubbed a \textit{flip-book}. These 7 were obviously indistinguishable from many vantages, hence formed a \textit{spectrographic band}. There were 3 distinct such bands, though, each typified by a Box-Kite count common to all band-members, demonstrable in the ETs for the 64-D Chingons. Each band contained ${\bf S}$ values bracketed by multiples of 8 (either less than or equal to the higher, depending upon whether the latter was or wasn't a power of 2). These were claimed to underwrite behaviors in all higher $2^{N}$-ion ETs, according to 3 rough patterns in need of algorithmic refining in this Part III. Corresponding to the first unfilled band, with ETs always missing $4^{N-4}$ of their candidate Box-Kites for $N > 4$, we spoke of \textit{recursivity}, meaning the ETs for constant ${\bf S}$ and increasing $N$ would all obey the same recipe, properly abstracted from that just cited above, empirically found among the Pathions for ${\bf S} > 8$. The second and third behaviors, dubbed, for ${\bf S}$ ascending, \textit{(s,g)-modularity} and \textit{hide/fill involution} respectively, make their first showings in the Chingons, in the bands where $16 < {\bf S} \leq 24$, and then where $24 < {\bf S} < 32$. In all such cases, we are concerned with seeing the ``period-doubling'' inherent in CDP and Chaotic attractors both become manifest in a repeated doubling of ET edge-size, leading to the fixed-${\bf S}$, $N$ increasing analog of the fixed-$N, {\bf S}$ increasing flip-books first observed in the Pathions, which we call \textit{balloon-rides}. Specifying and proving their workings, and combining all 3 of the above-designated behaviors into the ``fundamental theorem of zero-division algebra,'' will be our goals in this final Part III. Anyone who has read this far is encouraged to bring up the graphical complement to this monograph, the 78-slide Powerpoint show presented at NKS 2006 [5], in another window. (Slides will be referenced by number in what follows.) \section{$8 <{\bf S} < 16, N \rightarrow \infty$ : Recursive Balloon Rides in the Whorfian Sky} We know that any ET for the $2^{N}$-ions is a square whose edge is $2^{N-1} - 2$ cells. How, then, can any simply recursive rule govern exporting the structure of one such box to analogous boxes for progressively higher $N$? The answer: \textit{include the label lines} -- not just the column and row headers running across the top and left margins, but their strut-opposite values, placed along the bottom and right margins, which are mirror-reversed copies of the label-lines \textit{(LLs)} proper to which they are parallel. This increases the edge-size of the ET box to $2^{N-1}$. \medskip \noindent {\small Theorem 11.} For any fixed ${\bf S} > 8$ and not a power of $2$, the row and column indices comprising the Label Lines (LLs) run along the left and top borders of the $2^{N}$-ion ET "spreadsheet" for that ${\bf S}$. Treat them as included in the spreadsheet, \textit{as labels}, by adding a row and column to the given square of cells, of edge $2^{N-1} - 2$, which comprises the ET proper. Then add another row and column to include the strut-opposite values of these labels' indices in ``mirror LLs,'' running along the opposite edges of a now $2^{N-1}$-edge-length box, whose four corner cells, like the long diagonals they extend, are empty. When, for such a fixed ${\bf S}$, the ET for the $2^{N+1}$-ions is produced, the values of the 4 sets of LL indices, bounding the contained $2^{N}$-ion ET, correspond, \textit{as cell values}, to actual DMZ P-values in the bigger ET, residing in the rows and columns labeled by the contained ET's ${\bf G}$ and ${\bf X}$ (the containing ET's $g$ and $g + {\bf S}$). Moreover, all cells contained in the box they bound in the containing ET have P-values (else blanks) exactly corresponding to -- and \textit{including edge-sign markings} of -- the positionally identical cells in the $2^{N}$-ion ET: those, that is, for which the LLs act as labels. \medskip \noindent \textit{Proof.} For all strut constants of interest, ${\bf S} < g ( = {\bf G/2})$; hence, all labels up to and including that immediately adjoining its own strut constant (that is, the first half of them) will have indices monotonically increasing, up to and at least including the midline bound, from $1$ to $g - 1$. When $N$ is incremented by $1$, the row and column midlines separating adjoining strut-opposites will be cut and pulled apart, making room for the labels for the $2^{N+1}$-ion ET for same ${\bf S}$, which middle range of label indices will also monotonically increase, this time from the current $2^N$-ion generation's $g$ (and prior generation's ${\bf G}$), up to and at least including its own midline bound, which will be $g$ plus the number of cells in the LL inherited from the prior generation, or $g/2 - 1$. The LLs are therefore contained in the rows and columns headed by $g$ and its strut opposite, $g + {\bf S}$. To say that the immediately prior CDP generation's ET labels are converted to the current generation's P-values in the just-specified rows and columns is equivalent to asserting the truth of the following calculation: \smallskip \begin{center} $(g + u) + (sg) \cdot ({\bf G} + g + u_{opp})$ \underline{$\;\;\;\;\;\;g \;\;\;\;\; + \;\;\;\;\; ({\bf G} + g + {\bf S})\;\;\;\;\;\;$} \smallskip $- (vz)\cdot ({\bf G} + u_{opp}) \;\;\; + (vz) \cdot (sg) \cdot u$ \underline{$ + u \;\;\;\;\; - \;\;\;\;\; (sg) \cdot ({\bf G} + u_{opp})$} \smallskip $0$ only if $vz = (-sg)$ \end{center} \smallskip Here, we use two binary variables, the inner-sign-setting $sg$, and the Vent-or-Zigzag test, based on the First Vizier. Using the two in tandem lets us handle the normal and ``Type II'' box-kites in the same proof. Recall (and see Appendix B of Part II for a quick refresher) that while the ``Type I'' is the only type we find in the Sedenions, we find that a second variety emerges in the Pathions, indistinguishable from Type I in most contexts of interest to us here: the orientation of 2 of the 3 struts will be reversed (which is why VZ1 and VZ3 are only true generally when unsigned). For a Type I, since ${\bf S} < g$, we know by Rule 1 that we have the trip $({\bf S}, g, g + {\bf S})$; hence, $g$ -- for all $2^{N}$-ions beyond the Pathions, where the Sand Mandalas' $g = 8$ is the L-index of the Zigzag B Assessor -- must be a Vent (and its strut-opposite, $g + {\bf S}$, a Zigzag). For a Type II, however, this is necessarily so only for 1 of the 3 struts -- which means, per the equation above, that sg must be reversed to obtain the same result. Said another way, we are free to assume either signing of $vz$ means +1, so the ``only if'' qualifying the zero result is informative. It is $u$ and its relationship to $g + u$ that is of interest here, and this formulation makes it easier to see that the products hold for arbitrary LL indices $u$ \textit{or} their strut-opposites. But for this, the term-by-term computations should seem routine: the left bottom is the Rule 1 outcome of $(u, g, g+u)$: obviously, any $u$ index must be less than $g$. To its right, we use the trip $(u_{opp}, g, g + u_{opp}) \rightarrow ({\bf G} + g + u_{opp}, g, {\bf G} + u_{opp})$, whose CPO order is opposite that of the multiplication. For the top left, we use $(u, {\bf S}, u_{opp})$ as limned above, then augment by $g$, then ${\bf G}$, leaving $u_{opp}$ unaffected in the first augmenting, and $g + u$ in the second. Finally, the top right (ignoring $sg$ and $vz$ momentarily) is obtained this way: $(u,{\bf S}, u_{opp}) \rightarrow (u, g + u_{opp}, g + {\bf S}) \rightarrow (u, {\bf G} + g + s, {\bf G} + g + u_{opp})$; ergo, $+u$. Note that we cannot eke out any information about edge-sign marks from this setup: since labels, as such, have no marks, we have nothing to go on -- unlike all other cells which our recursive operations will work on. Indeed, the exact algorithmic determination of edge-sign marks for labels is not so trivial: as one iterates through higher $N$ values, some segments of LL indexing will display reversals of marks found in the ascending or descending left midline column, while other segments will show them unchanged -- with key values at the beginnings and ends of such octaves (multiples of $8$, and sums of such multiples with ${\bf S}\; mod \; 8$) sometimes being reversed or kept the same irrespective of the behavior of the terms they bound. Fortunately, such behaviors are of no real concern here -- but they are, nevertheless, worth pointing out, given the easy predictability of other edge-sign marks in our recursion operations. Now for the ET box within the labels: if all values (including edge-sign marks) remain unchanged as we move from the $2^{N}$-ion ET to that for the $2^{N+1}$-ions, then one of 3 situations must obtain: the inner-box cells have labels $u, v$ which belong to some Zigzag L-trip $(u, v, w)$; or, on the contrary, they correspond to Vent L-indices -- the first two terms in the CPO triplet $(w_{opp}, v_{opp}, u)$, for instance; else, finally, one term is a Vent, the other a Zigzag (so that inner-signs of their multiplied dyads are both positive): we will write them, in CPO order, $v_{opp}$ and $u$, with third trip member $w_{opp}$. Clearly, we want all the products in the containing ET to indicate DMZs only if the inner ET's cells do similarly. This is easily arranged: for the containing ET's cells have indices identical to those of the contained ET's, save for the appending of $g$ to both (and ditto for the U-indices). \medskip \textit{Case 1:} If $(u, v, w)$ form a Zigzag L-index set, then so do $(g + v, g + u, w)$, so markings remain unchanged; and if the $(u,v)$ cell entry is blank in the contained, so will be that for $(g + u, g + v)$ in its container. In other words, the following holds: \smallskip \begin{center} $(g + v) + (sg) \cdot ({\bf G} + g + v_{opp})$ \underline{$\;\;\;(g + u) \;\;\;\; + \;\;\;({\bf G} + g + u_{opp})\;\;\;$} \smallskip $- ({\bf G} + w_{opp}) \;\;\; - (sg) \cdot w$ \underline{$ - w \;\;\;\;\; - (sg) \cdot ({\bf G} + w_{opp})$} \smallskip $0$ only if $sg = (-1)$ \end{center} \pagebreak $(g + u) \cdot (g + v) = P:$ $(u,v,w) \rightarrow (g + v, g + u, w)$; hence, $(- w)$. $(g + u) \cdot (sg) \cdot ({\bf G} + g + v_{opp}) = P:$ $(u, w_{opp}, v_{opp})$ $\rightarrow (g + v_{opp}, w_{opp}, g + u)$ $\rightarrow ({\bf G} + w_{opp}, {\bf G} + g + v_{opp}, g + u)$; hence, $(sg) \cdot ( - ({\bf G} + w_{opp}))$. $({\bf G} + g + u_{opp}) \cdot (g + v) = P:$ $(u_{opp}, w_{opp}, v)$ $\rightarrow (g + v, w_{opp}, g + u_{opp})$ $\rightarrow (g + v, {\bf G} + g + u_{opp}, {\bf G} + w_{opp})$; hence, $(- ({\bf G} + w_{opp}))$. $({\bf G} + g + u_{opp}) \cdot ({\bf G} + g + v_{opp}) = P:$ Rule 2 twice to the same two terms yields the same result as the terms in the raw, hence $(- w)$. Clearly, cycling through $(u,v,w)$ to consider $(g + v) \cdot (g + w)$ will give the exactly analogous result, forcing two (hence three) negative inner-signs in the candidate Sail; hence, if we have DMZs at all, we have a Zigzag Sail. \medskip \textit{Case 2:} The product of two Vents must have negative edge-sign, and there's no cycling through same-inner-signed products as with the Zigzag, so we'll just write our setup as a one-off, with upper inner-sign explicitly negative, and claim its outcome true. \smallskip \begin{center} $(g + v_{opp}) - ({\bf G} + g + v)$ \underline{$\;(g + w_{opp}) \; + \;({\bf G} + g + w)\;$} \smallskip $+ ({\bf G} + u_{opp}) \;\;\;\;\; + u$ \underline{$ - u \;\;\;\;\; - ({\bf G} + u_{opp})$} \smallskip $0$ \end{center} \smallskip $(g + w_{opp}) \cdot (g + v_{opp}) = P:$ $(w_{opp}, v_{opp}, u)$ $\rightarrow (g + v_{opp}, g + w_{opp}, u)$; hence, $(- u)$. $(g + w_{opp}) \cdot ({\bf G} + g + v) = P:$ $(w_{opp}, v, u_{opp})$ $\rightarrow (g + v, g + w_{opp}, u_{opp})$ $\rightarrow ({\bf G} + u_{opp}, g + w_{opp}, {\bf G} + g + v)$; but inner sign of upper dyad is negative, so $(- ({\bf G} + u_{opp}))$. $({\bf G} + g + w) \cdot (g + v_{opp}) = P:$ $(v_{opp}, u_{opp}, w)$ $\rightarrow (g + w, u_{opp}, g + v_{opp})$ $\rightarrow ({\bf G} + u_{opp}, {\bf G} + g + w, g + v_{opp})$; hence, $(+ ({\bf G} + u_{opp}))$. $({\bf G} + g + w) \cdot ({\bf G} + g + v) = P:$ Rule 2 twice to the same two terms yields the same result as the terms in the raw; but inner sign of upper dyad is negative, so $(+ u)$. \medskip \textit{Case 3:} The product of Vent and Zigzag displays same inner sign in both dyads; hence the following arithmetic holds: \pagebreak \begin{center} $(g + u) + ({\bf G} + g + u_{opp})$ \underline{$\; (g + v_{opp}) \; + \;({\bf G} + g + v)\;$} \smallskip $- ({\bf G} + w) \;\;\;\;\; + w_{opp}$ \underline{$ - w_{opp} \;\;\;\;\; + ({\bf G} + w)$} \smallskip $0$ \end{center} \smallskip The calculations are sufficiently similar to the two prior cases as to make their writing out tedious. It is clear that, in each of our three cases, content and marking of each cell in the contained ET and the overlapping portion of the container ET are identical. $\;\; \blacksquare$ \medskip To highlight the rather magical label/content involution that occurs when $N$ is in- or de- cremented, graphical realizations of such nested patterns, as in Slides 60-61, paint LLs (and labels proper) a sky-blue color. The bottom-most ET being overlaid in the central box has $g =$ the maximum high-bit in ${\bf S}$, and is dubbed the \textit{inner skybox}. The degree of nesting is strictly measured by counting the number of bits $B$ that a given skybox's $g$ is to the left of this strut-constant high-bit. If we partition the inner skybox into quadrants defined by the midlines, and count the number $Q$ of quadrant-sized boxes along one or the other long diagonal, it is obvious that the inner skybox itself has $B = 0$ and $Q = 1$; the nested skyboxes containing it have $Q = 2^{B}$. If recursion of skybox nesting be continued indefinitely -- to the fractal limit, which terminology we will clarify shortly -- the indices contained in filled cells of any skybox can be interpreted in $B$ distinct ways, $B \rightarrow \infty$, as representations of distinct ZDs with differing ${\bf G}$ and, therefore, differing U-indices. By obvious analogy to the theory of Riemann surfaces in complex analysis, each such skybox is a separate ``sheet''; as with even such simple functions as the logarithmic, the number of such sheets is infinite. We could then think of the infinite sequence of skyboxes as so many cross-sections, at constant distances, of a flashlight beam whose intensity (one over the ET's cell count) follows Kepler's inverse square law. Alternatively, we could ignore the sheeting and see things another way. Where we called fixed-$N$, ${\bf S}$ varying sequences of ETs flip-books, we refer to fixed-${\bf S}$, $N$ varying sequences as balloon rides: the image is suggested by David Niven's role as Phineas Fogg in the movie made of Jules Vernes' \textit{Around the World in 80 Days}: to ascend higher, David would drop a sandbag over the side of his hot-air balloon's basket; if coming down, he would pull a cord that released some of the balloon's steam. Each such navigational tactic is easy to envision as a bit-shift, pushing ${\bf G}$ further to the left to cross LLs into a higher skybox, else moving it rightward to descend. Using ${\bf S = 15}$ as the basis of a 3-stage balloon-ride, we see how increasing $N$ from $5$ to $6$ to $7$ approaches the white-space complement of one of the simplest (and least efficient) plane-filling fractals, the Ces\`aro double sweep [6, p. 65]. The graphics were programmatically generated prior to the proving of the theorems we're elaborating: their empirical evidence was what informed (indeed, demanded) the theoretical apparatus. And we are not quite finished with the current task the apparatus requires of us. We need two more theorems to finish the discussion of skybox recursion. For both, suppose some skybox with $B = k$, $k$ any non-negative integer, is nested in one with $B = k + 1$. Divide the former along midlines to frame its four quadrants, then block out the latter skybox into a $4 \times 4$ grid of same-sized window panes, partitioned by the one-cell-thick borders of its own midlines into quadrants, each of which is further subdivided by the outside edges of the 4 one-cell-thick label lines and their extensions to the window's frame. These extended LLs are themselves NSLs, and have $R, C$ values of $g$ and $g + {\bf S}$; for ${\bf S} = 15$, they also adjoin NSLs along their outer edges whose $R, C$ values are multiples of $8$ plus ${\bf S} \; mod \; 8$. These pane-framing pairs of NSLs we will henceforth refer to (as a windowmaker would) as \textit{muntins}. It is easy to calculate that while the inner skybox has but one muntin each among its rows and columns, each further nesting has $2^{B+1} - 1$. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, as we still have two proofs to finish. Let's begin with Four Corners, or \medskip \noindent {\small Theorem 12.} The 4 panes in the corners of the 16-paned $B = k + 1$ window are identical in contents and marks to the analogously placed quadrants of the $B = k$ skybox. \pagebreak \noindent \textit{Proof.} Invoke the Zero-Padding Lemma with regard to the U-indices, as the labels of the boxes in the corners of the $B = k + 1$ ET are identical to those of the same-sized quadrants in the $B = k$ ET, all labels $\geq$ the latter's $g$ only occurring in the newly inserted region. $\;\; \blacksquare$ \medskip \noindent \textit{Remarks.} For $N = 6$, all filled Four Corners cells indicate edges belonging to $3$ Box-Kites, whose edges they in fact exhaust. These $3$, not surprisingly, are the zero-padded versions of the identically L-indexed trio which span the entirety of the $N = 5$ ET. By calculations we'll see shortly, however, the inner skybox, when considered as part of the $N = 6$ ET, has filled cells belonging to all the other 16 Box-Kites, even though the contents of these cells are identical to those in the $N = 5$ ET. As $B$ increases, then, the ``sheets'' covering this same central region must draw upon progressively more extensive networks of interconnected Box-Kites. As we approach the fractal limit -- and ``the Sky is the limit'' -- these networks hence become scale-free. (Corollarily, for $N = 7$, the Four Corners' cells exhaust all the edges of the $N = 6$ ET's 19 Box-Kites, and so on.) Unlike a standard fractal, however, such a Sky merits the prefix ``meta'': for each empty ET cell corresponds to a point in the usual fractal variety; and each pair of filled ET cells, having (r,c) of one = (c,r) of the other), correspond to diagonal-pairs in Assessor planes, orthogonal to all other such diagonal-pairs belonging to the other cells. Each empty ET cell, in other words, not only corresponds to a point in the usual plane-confined fractal, but belongs to the complement of the filled cells' infinite number of \textit{dimensions} framing the Sky's \textit{meta-}fractal. \medskip We've one last thing to prove here. The French Windows Theorem shows us the way the cell contents of the pairs of panes contained between the $B = k + 1$ skybox's corners are generated from those of the analogous pairings of quadrants in the $B = k$ skybox, by adding $g$ to L-indices. \medskip \noindent {\small Theorem 13}. For each half-square array of cells created by one or the other midline (the French windows), each cell in the half-square parallel to that adjoining the midline (one of the two shutters), but itself adjacent to the label-line delimiting the former's bounds, has content equal to $g$ plus that of the cell on the same line orthogonal to the midline, and at the same distance from it, as \textit{it} is from the label-line. All the empty long-diagonal cells then map to $g$ (and are marked), or $g + {\bf S}$ (and are unmarked). Filled cells in extensions of the label-lines bounding each shutter are calculated similarly, but with reversed markings; all other cells in a shutter have the same marks as their French-window counterparts. \medskip \noindent \textit{Preamble.} Note that there can be (as we shall see when we speak of \textit{hide/fill involution}) cells left empty for rule-based reasons other than $P \; = \; R \veebar C \; = \; 0 \;| \; {\bf S}$. The shutter-based counterparts of such French-window cells, unlike those of long-diagonal cells, remain empty. \medskip \noindent \textit{Proof.} The top and left (bottom and right) shutters are equivalent: one merely switches row for column labels. Top/left and bottom/right shutter-sets are likewise equivalent by the symmetry of strut-opposites. We hence make the case for the left shutter only. But for the novelties posed by the initially blank cells and the label lines (with the only real subtleties involving markings), the proof proceeds in a manner very similar to Theorem 11: split into 3 cases, based on whether (1) the L-index trip implied by the $R, C, P$ values is a Zigzag; (2) $u, v$ are both Vents; or, (3) the edge signified by the cell content is the emanation of same-inner-signed dyads (that is, one is a Vent, the other a Zigzag). \textit{Case 1:} Assume $(u, v, w)$ a Zigzag L-trip in the French window's contained skybox; the general product in its shutter is \begin{center} $v \;\; - \;\; ({\bf G} + v_{opp})$ \underline{$\;\;\;(g + u) \;\; + \;\;({\bf G} + g + u_{opp})\;\;\;$} \smallskip $- ({\bf G} + g + w_{opp}) \;\;\; + (g + w)$ \underline{$ - (g + w) \;\;\; + ({\bf G} + g + w_{opp})$} \smallskip $0$ \end{center} \smallskip $(g + u) \cdot v = P:$ $(u,v,w) \rightarrow (g + w, v, g + u)$; hence, $(- (g + w))$. $(g + u) \cdot ({\bf G} + v_{opp}) = P:$ $(u, w_{opp}, v_{opp})$ $\rightarrow (g + w_{opp}, g + u, v_{opp})$ $\rightarrow ({\bf G} + v_{opp}, g + u, {\bf G} + g + w_{opp})$; dyads' opposite inner signs make $({\bf G} + g + w_{opp})$ positive. $({\bf G} + g + u_{opp}) \cdot v = P:$ $(u_{opp}, w_{opp}, v)$ $\rightarrow (g + w_{opp}, g + u_{opp}, v)$ $\rightarrow ({\bf G} + g + u_{opp}, {\bf G} + g + w_{opp}, v)$; hence, $(- ({\bf G} + g + w_{opp}))$. $({\bf G} + g + u_{opp}) \cdot ({\bf G} + v_{opp}) = P:$ $(v_{opp}, u_{opp}, w)$ $\rightarrow$ $(v_{opp}, g + w, g + u_{opp})$ $\rightarrow$ $({\bf G} + g + u_{opp}, g + w, {\bf G} + v_{opp})$; dyads' opposite inner signs make $(g + w)$ positive. \medskip \textit{Case 2:} The product of two Vents must have negative edge-sign, hence negative inner sign in top dyad to lower dyad's positive. The shutter product thus looks like this: \pagebreak \begin{center} $(u_{opp}) - ({\bf G} + u)$ \underline{$\;(g + v_{opp}) \; + \;({\bf G} + g + v)\;$} \smallskip $+ ({\bf G} + g + w_{opp}) \;\;\;\;\; + (g + w)$ \underline{$ - (g + w) \;\;\;\;\; - ({\bf G} + g + w_{opp})$} \smallskip $0$ \end{center} \smallskip $(g + v_{opp}) \cdot u_{opp} = P:$ $(v_{opp}, u_{opp}, w)$ $\rightarrow (g + w, u_{opp}, g + v_{opp})$; hence, $(- (g + w))$. $(g + v_{opp}) \cdot ({\bf G} + u) = P:$ $(v_{opp}, u, w_{opp})$ $\rightarrow (g + w_{opp}, u, g + v_{opp})$ $\rightarrow ({\bf G} + u, {\bf G} + g + w_{opp}, g + v_{opp})$; but dyads' inner signs are opposite, so $(- ({\bf G} + g + w_{opp}))$. $({\bf G} + g + v) \cdot u_{opp} = P:$ $(u_{opp}, w_{opp}, v)$ $\rightarrow (u_{opp}, g + v, g + w_{opp})$ $\rightarrow (u_{opp}, {\bf G} + g + w_{opp}, {\bf G} + g + v)$; hence, $(+ ({\bf G} + g + w_{opp}))$. $({\bf G} + g + v) \cdot ({\bf G} + u) = P:$ $(u, v, w)$ $\rightarrow$ $(u, g + w, g + v)$ $\rightarrow$ $({\bf G} + g + v, g + w, {\bf G} + u)$; but dyads' inner signs are opposite, so $(+ (g + w))$. \medskip \textit{Case 3:} The product of Vent and Zigzag displays same inner sign in both dyads; hence the following arithmetic holds: \smallskip \begin{center} $(u_{opp}) + ({\bf G} + u)$ \underline{$\; (g + v) \; + \;({\bf G} + g + v_{opp})\;$} \smallskip $+({\bf G} + g + w) \;\;\;\;\; +( g + w_{opp})$ \underline{$ - (g + w_{opp}) \;\;\;\;\; - ({\bf G} + g + w)$} \smallskip $0$ \end{center} As with the last case in Theorem 11, we omit the term-by-term calculations for this last case, as they should seem ``much of a muchness'' by this point. What is clear in all three cases is that index values of shutter cells have same markings as their French-window counterparts, at least for all cells which \textit{have} markings in the contained skybox; but, in all cases, indices are augmented by $g$. The assignment of marks to the shutter-cells linked to blank cells in French windows is straightforward for Type I box-kites: since any containing skybox must have $g > {\bf S}$, and since $g + s$ has $g$ as its strut opposite, then the First Vizier tells us that any $g$ must be a Vent. But then the $R, C$ indices of the cell containing $g$ must belong to a Trefoil in such a box-kite; hence, one is a Vent, the other a Zigzag, and $g$ must be marked. Only if the $R, C, P$ entry in the ET is necessarily confined to a Type II box-kites will this not necessarily be so. But Part II's Appendix B made clear that Type II's are generated by \textit{excluding} $g$ from their L-indices: recall that, in the Pathions, for all ${\bf S}$ < 8, all and only Type II box-kites are created by placing one of the Sedenion Zigzag L-trips on the ``Rule 0'' circle of the PSL(2,7) triangle with $8$ in the middle (and hence excluded). This is a box-kite in its own right (one of the 7 ``Atlas'' box-kites with ${\bf S} = 8$); its 3 sides are ``Rule 2'' triplets, and generate Type II box-kites when made into zigzag L-index sets. Conversely, all Pathion box-kites containing an '8' in an L-index (dubbed ''strongboxes'' in Appendix B) are Type I. Whether something peculiar might occur for large $N$ (where there might be multiple powers of 2 playing roles in the same box-kite) is a matter of marginal interest to present concerns, and will be left as an open question for the present. We merely note that, by a similar argument, and with the same restrictions assumed, $g + {\bf S}$ must be a Zigzag L-index, and $R, C$ either both be likewise (hence, $g + {\bf S}$ is unmarked); or, both are Vents in a Trefoil (so $g + {\bf S}$ must be unmarked here too). The last detail -- reversal of label-line markings in their $g$-augmented shutter-cell extensions -- is demonstrated as follows, with the same caveat concerning Type II box-kites assumed to apply. Such cells house DMZs (just swap $u$ for $g + u$ in Theorem 11's first setup -- they form a Rule 1 trip -- and compute). The LL extension on top has row-label $g$; that along the bottom, the strut-opposite $g + {\bf S}$. Given trip $(u,v,w)$, the shutter-cell index for $R, C = (g, u)$ corresponds to French-window index for $R, C = (g, g + u)$. But $(u, g, g+u)$ is a Trefoil, since $g$ is a Vent. So if $u$ is one too, $g + u$ isn't; hence marks are reversed as claimed. $\;\;\blacksquare$ \section{Maximal High-Bit Singletons: (s,g)-Modularity for ${\bf 16 < S \leq 24}$} The Whorfian Sky, having but one high bit in its strut constant, is the simplest possible meta-fractal -- the first of an infinite number of such infinite-dimensional zero-divisor-spanned spaces. We can consider the general case of such singleton high-bit recursiveness in two different, complementary ways. First, we can supplement the just-concluded series of theorems and proofs with a calculational interlude, where we consider the iterative embeddings of the Pathion Sand Mandalas in the infinite cascade of boxes-within-boxes that a Sky oversees. Then, we can generalize what we saw in the Pathions to consider the phenomenology of strut constants with singleton high-bits, which we take to be any bits representing a power of $2 \geq 3$ if ${\bf S}$ contains low bits (is not a multiple of $8$), else a power of $2$ strictly greater than $3$ otherwise. Per our earlier notation, $g = {\bf G/2}$ is the highest such singleton bit possible. We can think of its exponential increments -- equivalent to left-shifts in bit-string terms -- as the side-effects of conjoint zero-padding of $N$ and ${\bf S}$. This will be our second topic in this section. Maintaining our use of ${\bf S = 15}$ as exemplary, we have already seen that NSLs come in quartets: a row and column are each headed by ${\bf S} \; mod \; g$ (henceforth, $s$) and $g$, hence $7$ and $8$ in the Sand Mandalas. But each recursive embedding of the current skybox in the next creates further quartets. Division down the midlines to insert the indices new to the next CDP generation induces the Sand Mandala's adjoining strut-opposite sets of $s$ and $g$ lines (the pane-framing muntins) to be displaced to the borders of the four corners and shutters, with the new skybox's $g$ and $g + s$ now adjoining the old $s$ and $g$ to form new muntins, on the right and left respectively, while $g + g/2$ (the old ${\bf G} + g)$ and its strut opposite form a third muntin along the new midlines. Continuing this recursive nesting of skyboxes generates 1, 3, 7, $\cdots$, $2^{B+1}-1$ row-and-column muntin pairs involving multiples of $8$ and their supplementings by $s$, where (recalling earlier notation) $B = 0$ for the inner skybox, and increments by $1$ with each further nesting. Put another way, we then have a muntin number $\mu = (2^{N-4} - 1)$, or $4\mu$ NSL's in all. The ET for given $N$ has $(2^{N-1}-2)$ cells in each row and column. But NSLs divvy them up into boxes, so that each line is crossed by $2 \mu$ others, with the 0, 2 or 4 cells in their overlap also belonging to diagonals. The number of cells in the overlap-free segments of the lines, or $\omega$, is then just $4 \mu \cdot (2^{N-1} - 2 - 2 \mu ) = 24 \mu ( \mu + 1 )$: an integer number of Box-Kites. For our ${\bf S = 15}$ case, the minimized line shuffling makes this obvious: all boxes are 6 x 6, with 2-cell-thick boundaries (the muntins separating the panes), with $\mu$ boundaries, and $( \mu + 1)$ overlap-free cells per each row or column, per each quartet of lines. The contribution from diagonals, or $\delta$, is a little more difficult, but straightforward in our case of interest: 4 sets of $1, 2, 3, \cdots, \mu$ boxes are spanned by moving along \textit{one} empty long diagonal before encountering the \textit{other}, with each box contributing 6, and each overlap zone between adjacent boxes adding 2. Hence, $\delta = 24 \cdot (2^{N-3} - 1) (2^{N-3} - 2)/6$ -- a formula familiar from associative-triplet counting: it also contributes an integer number of Box-Kites. The one-liner we want, then, is this: \smallskip \begin{center} {\small $BK_{N,\; 8 < {\bf S} < 16} = \omega + \delta = (2^{N-4})(2^{N-4} - 1) \; + \; (2^{N-3} - 1)(2^{N-3} - 2)/6$} \end{center} \smallskip For $N = 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10$, this formula gives $0, 3, 19, 91, 395$, $1643, 6699$. Add $4^{N-4}$ to each -- the immediate side-effect of the offing of all four Rule 0 candidate trips of the Sedenion Box-Kite exploded into the Sand Mandala that begins the recursion -- and one gets ``d\'ej\`a vu all over again'': $1$, $7$, $35$, $155$, $651$, $2667$, $10795$ -- the full set of Box-Kites for ${\bf S \leq 8}$. It would be nice if such numbers showed up in unsuspected places, having nothing to do with ZDs. Such a candidate context does, in fact, present itself, in Ed Pegg's regular MAA column on ``Math Games'' focusing on ``Tournament Dice.'' [7] He asks us, ``What dice make a non-transitive four player game, so that if three dice are chosen, a fourth die in the set beats all three? How many dice are needed for a five player non-transitive game, or more?'' The low solution of 3 explicitly involves PSL(2,7); the next solution of 19 entails calculations that look a lot like those involved in computing row and column headers in ETs. No solutions to the dice-selecting game beyond 19 are known. The above formulae, though, suggest the next should be 91. Here, ZDs have no apparent role save as dummies, like the infinity of complex dimensions in a Fourier-series convergence problem, tossed out the window once the solution is in hand. Can a number-theory fractal, with intrinsically structured cell content (something other, non-meta, fractals lack) be of service in this case -- and, if not in this particular problem, in others like it? Now let's consider the more general situation, where the singleton high-bit can be progressively left-shifted. Reverting to the use of the simplest case as exemplary, use ${\bf S = g + 1 = 9}$ in the Pathions, then do tandem left-shifts to produce this sequence: $N = 6, \; {\bf S = g + 1}$ ${\bf = 17}$; $N = 7$, ${\bf S = }$ ${\bf g + 1 = 33};\; \cdots;\; N = K$, ${\bf S = g + 1} = 2^{K-2} + 1$. A simple rule governs these ratchetings: in all cases, the number of filled cells = $6 \cdot (2^{N-1} - 4)$, since there are two sets of parallel sides which are filled but for long-diagonal intersections, and two sets of $g$ and $1$ entries distributed one per row along orthogonals to the empty long diagonals. Hence, for the series just given, we have cell counts of $72,\; 168,\; \cdots,\; 6 \cdot (2^{N - 1} - 4)$ for $BK_{N,\;S} = 3,\;7,\; \cdots,\;2^{N - 3} - 1$, for $g < {\bf S} < g + 8 = {\bf G}$ in the Pathions, and all $g < {\bf S} \leq g + 8$ in the Chingons, $2^{7}$-ions, and general $2^{N}$-ions, in that order. Algorithmically, the situation is just as easy to see: the splitting of dyads, sending U- and L- indices to strut-opposite Assessors, while incorporating the ${\bf S}$ and ${\bf G}$ of the current CDP generation as strut-opposites in the next, continues. For ${\bf S = 17}$ in the Chingons, there are now $2^{N-3}-1 = 7$, not $3$, Box-Kites sharing the new $g = 16$ (at B) and ${\bf S} \;mod \;g = 1$ (at E) in our running example. The U- indices of the Sand Mandala Assessors for ${\bf S = g + 1 = 9}$ are now L-indices, and so on: every integer $< G$ and $\neq {\bf S}$ gets to be an L-index of one of the $30 (= 2^{N-1} - 2)$ Assessors, as $16$ and ${\bf S} \;mod \; g = 1$ appear in each of the $7$ Box-Kites, with each other eligible integer appearing once only in one of the $7 \cdot 4 = 28$ available L-index slots. As an aside, in all 7 cases, writing the smallest Zigzag L-index at $a$ mandates all the Trefoil trips be ``precessed'' -- a phenomenon also observed in the ${\bf S = 8}$ Pathion case, as tabulated on p. 14 of [8]. For Zigzag L-index set $(2, 16, 18)$, for instance, $(a,d,e)$ $=$ $(2,3,1)$ instead of $(1,2,3)$; $(f,c,e)$ $=$ $(19,18,1)$ not $(1,19,18)$; and $(f,d,b)$ $=$ $(19,3,16)$. But otherwise, there are no surprises: for $N=7$, there are $(2^{7 - 3} - 1) = 15$ Box-Kites, with all $62 ( = 2^{N-1} - 2)$ available cells in the rows and columns linked to labels $g$ and ${\bf S}\; mod \; g$ being filled, and so on. Note that this formulation obtains for any and all ${\bf S > 8}$ where the maximum high-bit (that is, $g$) is included in its bitstring: for, with $g$ at B and ${\bf S} \;mod \; g$ at E, whichever ${\bf R, C}$ label is not one of these suffices to completely determine the remaining Assessor L-indices, so that no other bits in ${\bf S}$ play a role in determining any of them. Meanwhile, cell \textit{contents} ${\bf P}$ containing either $g$ or ${\bf S} \; mod \; g$, but created by XORing of row and column labels equal to neither, are arrayed in off-diagonal pairs, forming disjoint sets parallel or perpendicular to the two empty ones. If we write ${\bf S} \;mod \; g$ with a lower-case $s$, then we could call the rule in play here \textit{(s,g)-modularity}. Using the vertical pipe for logical or, and recalling the special handling required by the 8-bit when ${\bf S}$ is a multiple of 8 (which we signify with the asterisk suffixed to ``mod''), we can shorthand its workings this way: \medskip \noindent {\small Theorem 14}. For a $2^{N}$-ion inner skybox whose strut constant ${\bf S}$ has a singleton high-bit which is maximal (that is, equal to $g = {\bf G/2} = 2^{N-2}$), the recipe for its filled cells can be condensed thus: \smallskip \begin{center} ${\bf R\; |\; C |\; P} = g\; |\; {\bf S} \; mod^{*} \; g$ \end{center} Under recursion, the recipe needs to be modified so as to include not just the inner-skybox $g$ and ${\bf S} \; mod^{*} \; g$ (henceforth, simply lowercase $s$), but all integer multiples $k$ of $g$ less than the ${\bf G}$ of the outermost skybox, plus their strut opposites $k \cdot g + s$. \medskip \noindent \textit{Proof}. The theorem merely boils down the computational arguments of prior paragraphs in this section, then applies the last section's recursive procedures to them. The first claim of the proof is identical to what we've already seen for Sand Mandalas, with zero-padding injected into the argument. The second claim merely assumes the area quadrupling based on midline splitting, with the side-effects already discussed. No formal proof, then, is called for beyond these points. $\;\;\blacksquare$ \medskip \noindent \textit{Remarks}. Using the computations from two paragraphs prior to the theorem's statement, we can readily calculate the box-kite count for any skybox, no matter how deeply nested: recall the formula $6 \cdot (2^{N - 1} - 4)$ for $BK_{N,\;S} = 2^{N - 3} - 1$. It then becomes a straightforward matter to calculate, as well, the limiting ratio of this count to the maximal full count possible for the ET as $N \rightarrow \infty$, with each cell approaching a point in a standard 2-D fractal. Hence, for any ${\bf S}$ with a singleton high-bit in evidence, there exists a Sky containing all recursive redoublings of its inner skybox, and computations like those just considered can further be used to specify fractal dimensions and the like. (Such computations, however, will not concern us.) Finally, recall that, by spectrographic equivalence, all such computations will lead to the same results for each ${\bf S}$ value in the same spectral band or octave. \section{Hide/Fill Involution: Further-Right High-Bits with ${\bf 24 < S < 32}$.} Recall that, in the Sand Mandala flip-book, each increment of ${\bf S}$ moved the two sets of orthogonal parallel lines one cell closer toward their opposite numbers: while ${\bf S = 9}$ had two filled-in rows and columns forming a square missing its corners, the progression culminating in ${\bf S = 15}$ showed a cross-hairs configuration: the parallel lines of cells now abutted each other in 2-ply horizontal and vertical arrays. The same basic progression is on display in the Chingons, starting with ${\bf S = 17}$. But now the number of strut-opposite cell pairs in each row and column is 15, not 7, so the cross-hairs pattern can't arise until ${\bf S = 31}$. Yet it never arises in quite the manner expected, as something quite singular transpires just after flipping past the ET in the middle, for ${\bf S = 24}$. Here, rows and columns labeled $8$ and $16$ constrain a square of empty cells in the center $\cdots$ quickly followed by an ET which seems to continue the expected trajectory -- except that almost all the non-long-diagonal cells left empty in its predecessor ETs are now inexplicably filled. More, there is a method to the ``almost all'' as well: for we now see not 2, but 4 rows and columns, all being blanked out while those labeled with $g$ and ${\bf S} \; mod \; g$ are being filled in. This is an inevitable side effect of a second high-bit in ${\bf S}$: we call this phenomenon, first appearing in the Chingons, \textit{hide/fill involution}. There are 4, not 2, line-pairs, because ${\bf S}$ and ${\bf G}$, modulo a lower power of 2 (because devolving upon a prior CDP generation's $g$), offer twice the possibilities: for ${\bf S = 25}$, ${\bf S} \; mod \; 16$ is now $9$, but ${\bf S} \; mod\; 8$ can result in either $1$ or $17$ as well -- with correlated \textit{multiples} of $8$ ($8$ proper, and $24$) defining the other two pairings. All cells with ${\bf R \; | C \; | \; P}$ equal to one of these 4 values, but for the handful already set to ``on'' by the first high-bit, will now be set to ``off,'' while all other non-long-diagonal cells set to ``off'' in the Pathion Sand Mandalas are suddenly ``on.'' What results for each Chingon ET with $24 < {\bf S} < 32$ is an ensemble comprised of $23$ Box-Kites. (For the flip-book, see Slides 40 -- 54.) Why does this happen? The logic is as straightforward as the effect can seem mysterious, and is akin, for good reason, to the involutory effect on trip orientation induced by Rule 2 addings of ${\bf G}$ to 2 of the trip's 3 indices. In order to grasp it, we need only to consider another pair of abstract calculation setups, of the sort we've seen already many times. The first is the core of the Two-Bit Theorem, which we state and prove as follows: \medskip \noindent {\small Theorem 15}. $2^{N}$-ion dyads making DMZs before augmenting ${\bf S}$ with a new high-bit no longer do so after the fact. \medskip \noindent \textit{Proof}. Suppose the high-bit in the bitstring representation of ${\bf S}$ is $2^{K},\;K < (N-1)$. Suppose further that, for some L-index trip $(u,v,w)$, the Assessors $U$ and $V$ are DMZ's, with their dyads having same inner signs. (This last assumption is strictly to ease calculations, and not substantive: we could, as earlier, use one or more binary variables of the $sg$ type to cover all cases explicitly, including Type I vs. Type II box-kites. To keep things simple, we assume Type I in what follows.) We then have $(u + u \cdot X)(v + v \cdot X) = (u + U)(v + V) = 0$. But now suppose, without changing $N$, we add a bit somewhere further to the left to ${\bf S}$, so that ${\bf S} < (2^{K} = L) < {\bf G}$. The augmented strut constant now equals ${\bf S_{L}} = {\bf S + L}$. One of our L-indices, say $v$, belongs to a Vent Assessor thanks to the assumed inner signing; hence, by Rule 2 and the Third Vizier, $(V,v,X) \rightarrow (X + L, v, V + L)$. Its DMZ partner $u$, meanwhile, must thereby be a Zigzag L-index, which means $(u,U,X) \rightarrow (u, X + L, U + L)$. We claim the truth of the following arithmetic: \smallskip \begin{center} $v \; + \; (V + L)$ \\ \underline{$ \;\;\; u \; + \; (U + L)\;\;\;$} \\ $+(W \;+ \; L) \; + w$ \\ \underline{$+ \; w \;\; - (W + L)$} \\ NOT ZERO (+w's don't cancel) \\ \end{center} \smallskip The left bottom product is given. The product to its right is derived as follows: since $u$ is a Zigzag L-index, the Trefoil U-trip $(u,V,W)$ has the same orientation as $(u,v,w)$, so that Rule 2 $\rightarrow (u, W+L, V+L)$, implying the negative result shown. The left product on the top line, though, has terms derived from a Trefoil U-trip lacking a Zigzag L-index, so that only after Rule 2 reversal are the letters arrayed in Zigzag L-trip order: $(U + L, v, W + L)$. Ergo, $+ (W+L)$. Similarly for the top right: Rule 2 reversal ``straightens out'' the Trefoil U-trip, to give $(U + L, V + L, w)$; therefore, $(+ w)$ results. If we explicitly covered further cases by using an $sg$ variable, we would be faced with a Theorem 2 situation: one or the other product pair cancels, but not both. $\;\;\blacksquare$ \medskip \noindent \textit{Remark.} The prototype for the phenomenon this theorem covers is the ``explosion'' of a Sedenion box-kite into a trio of interconnected ones in a Pathion sand mandala, with the ${\bf S}$ of the latter = the ${\bf X}$ of the former. As part of this process, 4 of the expected 7 are ``hidden'' box-kites (HBKs), with no DMZs along their edges. These have zigzag L-trips which are precisely the L-trips of the 4 Sedenion Sails. Here, an empirical observation which will spur more formal investigations in a sequel study: for the 3 HBKs based on trefoil L-trips, exactly 1 strut has reversed orientation (a different one in each of them), with the orientation of the triangular side whose midpoint it ends in also being reversed. For the HBK based on the zigzag L-trip, all 3 struts are reversed, so that the flow along the sides is exactly the reverse of that shown in the ``Rule 0'' circle. (Hence, all possible flow patterns along struts are covered, with only those entailing 0 or 2 reversals corresponding to functional box-kites: our Type I and Type II designations.) It is not hard to show that this zigzag-based HBK has another surprising property: the 8 units defined by its own zigzag's Assessors plus ${\bf X}$ and the real unit form a ZD-free copy of the Octonions. This is also true when the analogous Type II situation is explored, albeit for a slightly different reason: in the former case, all 3 Catamaran ``twistings'' take the zigzag edges to other HBKs; in the latter, though, the pair of Assessors in some other Type II box-kite reached by ``twisting'' -- $(a,B)$ and $(A,b)$, say, if the edge be that joining Assessors A and B, with strut-constant $c_{opp} = d$ -- are \textit{strut opposites}, and hence also bereft of ZDs. The general picture seems to mirror this concrete case, and will be studied in ``Voyage by Catamaran'' with this expectation: the bit-twiddling logic that generates meta-fractal ``Skies'' also underwrites a means for jumping between ZD-free Octonion clones in an infinite number of HBKs housed in a Sky. Given recent interest in pure ``E8'' models giving a privileged place to the basis of zero-divisor theory, namely ``G2'' projections (viz., A. Garrett Lisi's ``An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything''); a parallel vogue for many-worlds approaches; and, the well-known correspondence between 8-D closest-packing patterns, the loop of the 240 unit Octonions which Coxeter discovered, and E8 algebras -- given all this, tracking the logic of the links across such Octonionic ``brambles'' might prove of great interest to many researchers. \medskip Now, we still haven't explained the flipside of this off-switch effect, to which prior CDP generation Box-Kites -- appropriately zero-padded to become Box-Kites in the current generation until the new high-bit is added to the strut-constant -- are subjected. How is it that previously empty cells \textit{not} associated with the second high-bit's blanked-out R, C, P values are now \textit{full}? The answer is simple, and is framed in the Hat-Trick Theorem this way. \medskip \noindent {\small Theorem 16}. Cells in an ET which represent DMZ edges of some $2^{N}$-ion Box-Kites for some fixed ${\bf S}$, and which are offed in turn upon augmenting of ${\bf S}$ by a new leftmost bit, are turned on once more if ${\bf S}$ is augmented by yet another new leftmost bit. \medskip \noindent \textit{Proof}. We begin an induction based upon the simplest case (which the Chingons are the first $2^{N}$-ions to provide): consider Box-Kites with ${\bf S \leq 8}$. If a high-bit be appended to ${\bf S}$, then the associated Box-Kites are offed. However, if \textit{another} high-bit be affixed, these dormant Box-Kites are re-awakened -- the second half of \textit{hide/fill involution}. We simply assume an L-index set $(u,v,w)$ underwriting a Sail in the ET for the pre-augmented ${\bf S}$, with Assessors $(u, U)$ and $(v, V)$. Then, we introduce a more leftified bit $2^{Q} = M$, where pre-augmented ${\bf S} < L < M < {\bf G}$, then compute the term-by term products of $(u + (U + L + M))$ and $(v + sg \cdot (V + L + M))$, using the usual methods. And as these methods tell us that two applications of Rule 2 have the same effect as none in such a setup, we have no more to prove. $\;\;\blacksquare$ \medskip \noindent \textit{Corollary}. The induction just invoked makes it clear that strut constants equal to multiples of $8$ not powers of $2$ are included in the same spectral band as all other integers larger than the prior multiple. The promissory note issued in the second paragraph of Part II's concluding section, on 64-D Spectrography, can now be deemed redeemed. \medskip In the Chingons, high-bits $L$ and $M$ are necessarily adjacent in the bitstring for ${\bf S < G = 32}$; but in the general $2^{N}$-ion case, $N$ large, zero-padding guarantees that things will work in just the same manner, with only one difference: the recursive creation of ``harmonics'' of relatively small-$g$ $(s,g)$-modular ${\bf R, C, P}$ values will propagate to further levels, thereby effecting overall Box-Kite counts. In general terms, we have echoes of the formula given for $(s,g)$-modular calculations, but with this signal difference: there will be \textit{one} such rule for \textit{each} high-bit $2^{H}$ in ${\bf S}$, where residues of ${\bf S}$ modulo $2^{H}$ will generate their own near-solid lines of rows and columns, be they hidden or filled. Likewise for multiples of $2^{H} < {\bf G}$ which are not covered by prior rules, and multiples of $2^H$ supplemented by the bit-specific residue (regardless of whether $2^{H}$ itself is available for treatment by this bit-specific rule). In the simplest, no-zero-padding instances, all even multiples are excluded, as they will have occurred already in prior rules for higher bits, and fills or hides, once fixed by a higher bit's rule, cannot be overridden. Cases with some zero-padding are not so simple. Consider this two-bit instance, ${\bf S = 73}, N = 8$: the fill-bit is 64, the hide-bit is just 8, so that only 9 and 64 generate NSLs of filled values; all other multiples of 8, and their supplementing by 1 (including 65) are NSLs of hidden values. Now look at a variation on this example, with the single high-bit of zero-padding removed -- i.~e., ${\bf S = 41}, N = 8$. Here, the fill-bit is 32, and its multiples 64 and 96, as well as their supplements by ${\bf S} \; modulo \; 32 \; = \; 9$, or 9 and 73 and 105, label NSLs of filled values; but all other multiples of 8, plus all multiples of 8 supplemented by 1 not equal to 9 or 73 or 105, label NSLs of hidden values. Cases with multiple fill and hide bits, with or without additional zero-padding, are obviously even more complicated to handle explicitly on a case-by-case basis, but the logic framing the rules remain simple; hence, even such messy cases are programmatically easy to handle. Hide/fill involution means, then, that the first, third, and any further odd-numbered high-bits (counting from the left) will generate ``fill'' rules, whereas all the even-numbered high-bits generate ``hide'' rules -- with all cells not touched by a rule being either hidden (if the total number of high-bits $B$ is odd) or filled ($B$ is even). Two further examples should make the workings of this protocol more clear. First, the Chingon test case of ${\bf S = 25}$: for $({\bf R \; | \; C \; | \; P} \; = \; 9 \;| \; 16)$, all the ET cells are filled; however, for $({\bf R \; | \; C \; | \; P} \; = 1 \;|\; 8 \;|\; 17 \;|\; 24)$, ET cells not already filled by the first rule (and, as visual inspection of Slide 48 indicates, there are only 8 cells in the entire 840-cell ET already filled by the prior rule which the current rule would like to operate on) are hidden from view. Because the 16- and 8- bits are the only high-bits, the count of same is even, meaning all remaining ET cells not covered by these 2 rules are filled. We get 23 for Box-Kite count as follows. First, the 16-bit rule gives us 7 Box-Kites, per earlier arguments; the 8-bit rule, which gives 3 filled Box-Kites in the Pathions, recursively propagates to cover 19 hidden Box-Kites in the Chingons, according to the formula produced last section. But hide/fill involution says that, of the 35 maximum possible Box-Kites in a Chingon ET, $35 - 19 = 16$ are now made visible. As none of these have the Pathion ${\bf G = 16}$ as an L-index, and all the 7 Box-Kites from the 16-bit rule \textit{do}, we therefore have a grand total of $7 + 16 = 23$ Box-Kites in the ${\bf S =25}$ ET, as claimed (and as cell-counting on the cited Slide will corroborate). The concluding Slides 76--78 present a trio of color-coded ``histological slices'' of the hiding and filling sequence (beginning with the blanking of the long diagonals) for the simplest 3-high-bit case, $N = 7, {\bf S = 57}$. Here, the first fill rule works on 25 and 32; the first hide rule, on 9, 16, 41, and 48; the second fill rule, on 1, 8, 17, 24, 33, 40, 49, and 56; and the rest of the cells, since the count of high-bits is odd, are left blank. We do not give an explicit algorithmic method here, however, for computing the number of Box-Kites contained in this 3,720-cell ET. Such recursiveness is best handled programmatically, rather than by cranking out an explicit (hence, long and tedious) formula, meant for working out by a time-consuming hand calculation. What we can do, instead, is conclude with a brief finale, embodying all our results in the simple ``recipe theory'' promised originally, and offer some reflections on future directions. \section{Fundamental Theorem of Zero-Divisor Algebra} All of the prior arguments constitute steps sufficient to demonstrate the Fundamental Theorem of Zero-Divisor Algebra. Like the role played by its Gaussian predecessor in the legitimizing of another ``new kind of [complex] number theory,'' its simultaneous simplicity and generality open out on extensive new vistas at once alien and inviting. The Theorem proper can be subdivided into a Proposition concerning all integers, and a ``Recipe Theory'' pragmatics for preparing and ``cooking'' the meta-fractal entities whose existence the proposition asserts, but cannot tell us how to construct. \medskip \noindent \textit{Proposition:} Any integer $K > 8$ not a power of $2$ can uniquely be associated with a Strut Constant ${\bf S}$ of ZD ensembles, whose inner skybox resides in the $2^{N}$-ions with $2^{N-2} < K < 2^{N-1}$. The bitstring representation of ${\bf S}$ completely determines an infinite-dimensional analog of a standard plane-confined fractal, with each of the latter's points associated with an empty cell in the infinite Emanation Table, with all non-empty cells comprised wholly of mutually orthogonal primitive zero-divisors, one line of same per cell. \medskip \noindent \textit{Preparation:} Prepare each suitable ${\bf S}$ by producing its bitstring representation, then determining the number of high-bits it contains: if ${\bf S}$ is a multiple of 8, right-shift 4 times; otherwise, right-shift 3 times. Then count the number $B$ of 1's in the shortened bitstring that results. For this set \verb|{B}| of $B$ elements, construct two same-sized arrays, whose indices range from $1$ to $B$: the array \verb|{i}| which indexes the left-to-right counting order of the elements of \verb|{B}|; and, the array \verb|{P}| which indexes the powers of $2$ of the same element in the same left-to-right order. (Example: if $K = 613$, the inner skybox is contained in the $2^{11}$-ions; as the number is not a multiple of $8$, the bistring representation $1001100101$ is right-shifted thrice to yield the substring of high-bits $1001100$; $B = 3$, and for $1 \; \leq \; i \; \leq \; 3$, $P_{1} = 9, \; P_{2} = 6; P_{3} = 5$.) \medskip \noindent \textit{Cookbook Instructions:} \begin{description} \item \verb|[0]| ~ For a given strut-constant ${\bf S}$, compute the high-bit count $B$ and bitstring arrays \verb|{i}| and \verb|{P}|, per preparation instructions. \item \verb|[1]|~ Create a square spreadsheet-cell array, of edge-length $2^{I}$, where $I \geq {\bf G/2} = g$ of the inner skybox for ${\bf S}$, with the Sky as the limit when $I \rightarrow \infty$. \item \verb|[2]| ~ Fill in the labels along all four edges, with those running along the right (bottom) borders identical to those running along the left (top), except in reversed left-right (top-bottom) order. Refer to those along the top as column numbers $C$, and those along the left edge, as row numbers $R$, setting candidate contents of any cell (r,c) to $R \veebar C = P$. \item \verb|[3]| ~ Paint all cells along the long diagonals of the spreadsheet just constructed a color indicating BLANK, so that all cells with $R = C$ (running down from upper left corner) else $R \veebar C = {\bf S}$ (running down from upper right) have their $P$-values hidden. \item \verb|[4]| ~ For $1 \; \leq \; i \; \leq \; B$, consider for painting only those cells in the spreadsheet created in \verb|[1]| with $R \; | \; C \; | \; P \; = \; m \cdot 2^{\gamma} \; | \; m \cdot 2^{\gamma} \; + \; \sigma$, where $\gamma = P_{i}, \sigma = {\bf S} \; mod* \; 2^{\gamma}$, and $m$ is any integer $\geq 0$ (with $m = 0$ only producing a legitimate candidate for the right-hand's second option, as an XOR of $0$ indicates a long-diagonal cell). \item \verb|[5]| ~ If a candidate cell has already been painted by a prior application of these instructions to a prior value of $i$, leave it as is. Otherwise, paint it with $R \veebar C$ if $i = $ odd, else paint it BLANK. \item \verb|[6]| ~ Loop to \verb|[4]| after incrementing $i$. If $i < B$, proceed until this step, then reloop, reincrement, and retest for $i = B$. When this last condition is met, proceed to the next step. \item \verb|[7]| ~ If $B$ is odd, paint all cells not already painted, BLANK; for $B$ even, paint them with $R \veebar C$. \end{description} \medskip In these pseudocode instructions, no attention is given to edge-mark generation, performance optimization, or other embellishments. Recursive expansion beyond the chosen limits of the $2^{N}$-ion starting point is also not addressed. (Just keep all painted cells as is, then redouble until the expanded size desired is attained; compute appropriate insertions to the label lines, then paint all new cells according to the same recipe.) What should be clear, though, is any optimization cannot fail to be qualitatively more efficient than the code in the appendix to [9], which computes on a cell-by-cell basis. For ${\bf S} > 8, \; N > 4$, we've reached the onramp to the Metafractal Superhighway: new kinds of efficiency, synergy, connectedness, and so on, would seem to more than compensate for the increase in dimension. It is well-known that Chaotic attractors are built up from fractals; hence, our results make it quite thinkable to consider Chaos Theory from the vantage of pure Number $\cdots$ and hence the switch from one mode of Chaos to another as a bitstring-driven -- or, put differently, a cellular automaton-type -- process, of Wolfram's Class 4 complexity. Such switching is of the utmost importance in coming to terms with the most complex finite systems known: human brains. The late Francisco Varela, both a leading visionary in neurological research and its computer modeling, and a long-time follower of Madhyamika Buddhism who'd collaborated with the Dalai Lama in his ``Tibetan Buddhists talk with brain scientists'' dialogues [10], pointed to just the sorts of problems being addressed here as the next frontier. In a review essay he co-authored in 2001 just before his death [11, p. 237], we read these concluding thoughts on the theme of what lies ``Beyond Synchrony'' in the brain's workings: \begin{quote} The transient nature of coherence is central to the entire idea of large-scale synchrony, as it underscores the fact that the system does not behave dynamically as having stable attractors [e.g., Chaos], but rather metastable patterns -- a succession of self-limiting recurrent patterns. In the brain, there is no ``settling down'' but an ongoing change marked only by transient coordination among populations, as the attractor itself changes owing to activity-dependent changes and modulations of synaptic connections. \end{quote} Varela and Jean Petitot (whose work was the focus of the intermezzo concluding Part I, in which semiotically inspired context the Three Viziers were introduced) were long-time collaborators, as evidenced in the last volume on \textit{Naturalizing Phenomenology} [12] which they co-edited. It is only natural then to re-inscribe the theme of mathematizing semiotics into the current context: Petitot offers separate studies, at the ``atomic'' level where Greimas' ``Semiotic Square'' resides; and at the large-scale and architectural, where one must place L\'evi-Strauss's ``Canonical Law of Myths.'' But the pressing problem is finding a smooth approach that lets one slide the same modeling methodology from the one scale to the other: a fractal-based ``scale-free network'' approach, in other words. What makes this distinct from the problem we just saw Varela consider is the focus on the structure, rather than dynamics, of transient coherence -- a focus, then, in the last analysis, on a characterization of \textit{database architecture} that can at once accommodate meta-chaotic transiency and structural linguists' cascades of ``double articulations.'' Starting at least with C. S. Peirce over a century ago, and receiving more recent elaboration in the hands of J. M. Dunn and the research into the ``Semantic Web'' devolving from his work, data structures which include metadata at the same level as the data proper have led to a focus on ``triadic logic,'' as perhaps best exemplified in the recent work of Edward L. Robertson. [13] His exploration of a natural triadic-to-triadic query language deriving from Datalog, which he calls Trilog, is not (unlike our Skies) intrinsically recursive. But his analysis depends upon recursive arguments built atop it, and his key constructs are strongly resonant with our own (explicitly recursive) ones. We focus on just a few to make the point, with the aim of provoking interest in fusing approaches, rather than in proving any particular results. The still-standard technology of relational databases based on SQL statements (most broadly marketed under the Oracle label) was itself derived from Peirce's triadic thinking: the creator of the relational formalism, Edgar F. ``Ted'' Codd, was a PhD student of Peirce editor and scholar Arthur W. Burks. Codd's triadic ``relations,'' as Robertson notes (and as Peirce first recognized, he tells us, in 1885), are ``the minimal, and thus most uniform'' representations ``where metadata, that is data about data, is treated uniformly with regular data.'' In Codd's hands (and in those of his market-oriented imitators in the SQL arena), metadata was ``relegated to an essentially syntactic role'' [13, p. 1] -- a role quite appropriate to the applications and technological limitations of the 1970's, but inadequate for the huge and/or highly dynamic schemata that are increasingly proving critical in bioinformatics, satellite data interpretation, Google server-farm harvesting, and so on. As Robertson sums up the situation motivating his own work, \begin{quote} Heterogeneous situations, where diverse schemata represent semantically similar data, illustrate the problems which arise when one person's semantics is another's syntax -- the physical ``data dependence'' that relational technology was designed to avoid has been replaced by a structural data dependence. Hence we see the need to [use] a simple, uniform relational representation where the data/metadata distinction is not frozen in syntax. [13, pp. 1-2] \end{quote} As in relational database theory and practice, the forming and exploiting of inner and outer \textit{joins} between variously keyed tables of data is seminal to Robertson's approach as well as Codd's. And while the RDF formalism of the Semantic Web (the representational mechanism for describing structures as well as contents of web artifacts on the World Wide Web) is likewise explicitly triadic, there has, to date, been no formal mechanism put in place for manipulating information in RDF format. Hence, ``there is no natural way to restrict output of these mechanisms to triples, except by fiat'' [13, p. 4], much less any sophisticated rule-based apparatus like Codd's ``normal forms'' for querying and tabulating such data. It is no surprise, then, that Robertson's ``fundamental operation on triadic relations is a particular three-way join which takes explicit advantage of the triadic structure of its operands.'' This \textit{triadic join}, meanwhile, ``results in another triadic relation, thus providing the closure required of an algebra.'' [13, p. 6] Parsing Robertson's compact symbolic expressions into something close to standard English, the trijoin of three triadic relations R, S, T is defined as some $(a, b, c)$ selected from the universe of possibilities $(x, y, z)$, such that $(a, x, z) \in R$, $(x, b, y) \in S$, and $(z, y, c) \in T$. This relation, he argues, is the most fundamental of all the operators he defines. When supplemented with a few constant relations (analogs of Tarski's ``infinite constants'' embodied in the four binary relations of universality of all pairs, identity of all equal pairs, diversity of all unequal pairs, and the empty set), it can express all the standard monotonic operators (thereby excluding, among his primitives, only the relative complement). How does this compare with our ZD setup, and the workings of Skies? For one thing, Infinite constants, of a type akin to Tarski's, are embodied in the fact that any full meta-fractal requires the use of an infinite ${\bf G}$, which sits atop an endless cascade of singleton leftmost bits, determining for any given ${\bf S}$ an indefinite tower of ZDs. One of the core operators massaging Robertson's triads is the \textit{flip}, which fixes one component of a relation while interchanging the other two $\cdots$ but our Rule 2 is just the recursive analog of this, allowing one to move up and down towers of values with great flexibilty (allowing, as well, on and off switching effecting whole ensembles). The integer triads upon which our entire apparatus depends are a gift of nature, not dictated ``by fiat,'' and give us a natural basis for generating and tracking unique IDs with which to ``tag'' and ``unpack'' data (with ``storage'' provided free of charge by the empty spaces of our meta-fractals: the ``atoms'' of Semiotic Squares have four long-diagonal slots each, one per each of the ``controls'' Petitot's Catastrophe Theory reading calls for, and so on.) Finally, consider two dual constructions that are the core of our own triadic number theory: if the $(a, b, c)$ of last paragraph, for instance, be taken as a Zigzag's L-index set, then the other trio of triples correlates quite exactly with the Zigzag U-trips. And this 3-to-1 relation, recall, exactly parallels that between the 3 Trefoil, and 1 Zigzag, Sails defining a Box-Kite, with this very parallel forming the support for the recursion that ultimately lifts us up into a Sky. We can indeed make this comparison to Robinson's formalism exceedingly explicit: if his X, Y, Z be considered the angular nodes of PSL(2,7) situated at the 12 o'clock apex and the right and left corners respectively, then his $(a, b, c)$ correspond exactly to our own Rule 0 trip's same-lettered indices! Here, we would point out that these two threads of reflection -- on underwriting Chaos with cellular-automaton-tied Number Theory, and designing new kinds of database architectures -- are hardly unrelated. It should be recalled that two years prior to his revolutionary 1970 paper on relational databases [14], Codd published a pioneering book on cellular automata [15]. It is also worth noting that one of the earliest technologies to be spawned by fractals arose in the arena of data compression of images, as epitomized in the work of Michael Barnsley and his Iterative Systems company. The immediate focus of the author's own commercial efforts is on fusing meta-fractal mathematics with the context-sensitive adaptive-parsing ``Meta-S'' technology of business associate Quinn Tyler Jackson. [16] And as that focus, tautologically, is not mathematical \textit{per se}, we pass it by and leave it, like so many other themes just touched on here, for later work. \pagebreak \section*{References} \begin{description} \item \verb|[1]| Robert P. C. de Marrais, ``Placeholder Substructures I: The Road From NKS to Scale-Free Networks is Paved with Zero Divisors,'' \textit{Complex Systems}, 17 (2007), 125-142; arXiv:math.RA/0703745 \item \verb|[2]| Robert P. C. de Marrais, ``Placeholder Substructures II: Meta-Fractals, Made of Box-Kites, Fill Infinite-Dimensional Skies,'' arXiv:0704.0026 [math.RA] \item \verb|[3]| Robert P. C. de Marrais, ``The 42 Assessors and the Box-Kites They Fly,'' arXiv:math.GM/0011260 \item \verb|[4]| ~ Robert P. C. de Marrais, ``The Marriage of Nothing and All: Zero-Divisor Box-Kites in a `TOE' Sky,'' in Proceedings of the $26^{\textrm{th}}$ International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, June 26-30, 2006, forthcoming from Springer--Verlag. \item \verb|[5]| Robert P. C. de Marrais, ``Placeholder Substructures: The Road from NKS to Small-World, Scale-Free Networks Is Paved with Zero-Divisors,'' http:// \newline wolframscience.com/conference/2006/ presentations/materials/demarrais.ppt (Note: the author's surname is listed under ``M,'' not ``D.'') \item \verb|[6]|~ Benoit Mandelbrot, \textit{The Fractal Geometry of Nature} (W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1983) \item \verb|[7]| Ed Pegg, Jr., ``Tournament Dice,'' \textit{Math Games} column for July 11, 2005, on the MAA website at http://www.maa.org/editorial/ mathgames/mathgames \verb|_07_11_05|.html \item \verb|[8]| Robert P. C. de Marrais, ``The `Something From Nothing' Insertion Point,'' http://www.wolframscience.com/conference/2004/ presentations/ \newline materials/rdemarrais.pdf \item \verb|[9]| Robert P. C. de Marrais, ``Presto! Digitization,'' arXiv:math.RA/0603281 \item \verb|[10]| Francisco Varela, editor, \textit{Sleeping, Dreaming, and Dying: An Exploration of Consciousness with the Dalai Lama} (Wisdom Publications: Boston, 1997). \item \verb|[11]| F. J. Varela, J.-P. Lachauz, E. Rodrigues and J. Martinerie, ``The brainweb: phase synchronization and large-scale integration,'' \textit{Nature Reviews Neuroscience}, 2 (2001), pp. 229-239. \item \verb|[12]| Jean Petitot, Francisco J. Varela, Bernard Pachoud and Jean-Michel Roy, \textit{Naturalizing Phenomenology: Issues in Contemporary Phenomenology and Cognitive Science} (Stanford University Press: Stanford, 1999) \item \verb|[13]| Edward L. Robertson, ``An Algebra for Triadic Relations,'' Technical Report No. 606, Computer Science Department, Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47404-4101, January 2005; online at http://www.cs.indiana.edu/ \newline pub/techreports/TR606.pdf \item \verb|[14]| E. F. Codd, \textit{The Relational Model for Database Management: Version 2} (Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1990) is the great visionary's most recent and comprehensive statement. \item \verb|[15]| E. F. Codd, \textit{Cellular Automata} (Academic Press: New York, 1968) \item \verb|[16]| Quinn Tyler Jackson, \textit{Adapting to Babel -- Adaptivity and Context-Sensiti- vity in Parsing: From $a^{n}b^{n}c^{n}$ to RNA} (Ibis Publishing: P.O. Box3083, Plymouth MA 02361, 2006; for purchasing information, contact Thothic Technology Partners, LLC, at their website, www.thothic.com). \end{description}
|
0704.0117
|
Title: Lower ground state due to counter-rotating wave interaction in trapped
ion system
Abstract: We consider a single ion confined in a trap under radiation of two traveling
waves of lasers. In the strong-excitation regime and without the restriction of
Lamb-Dicke limit, the Hamiltonian of the system is similar to a driving
Jaynes-Cummings model without rotating wave approximation (RWA). The approach
we developed enables us to present a complete eigensolutions, which makes it
available to compare with the solutions under the RWA. We find that, the ground
state in our non-RWA solution is energically lower than the counterpart under
the RWA. If we have the ion in the ground state, it is equivalent to a spin
dependent force on the trapped ion. Discussion is made for the difference
between the solutions with and without the RWA, and for the relevant
experimental test, as well as for the possible application in quantum
information processing.
Body: \bibliographystyle{prsty} \title{\bf Lower ground state due to counter-rotating wave interaction in trapped ion system} \author{T. Liu$^{1}$, K.L. Wang$^{1,2}$, and M. Feng$^{3}$ \footnote[1]{Electronic address: mangfeng@wipm.ac.cn}} \affiliation{$^{1}$ The School of Science, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China \\ $^{2}$ The Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China \\ $^{3}$ State Key Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance and Atomic and Molecular Physics, Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, 430071, China} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} We consider a single ion confined in a trap under radiation of two traveling waves of lasers. In the strong-excitation regime and without the restriction of Lamb-Dicke limit, the Hamiltonian of the system is similar to a driving Jaynes-Cummings model without rotating wave approximation (RWA). The approach we developed enables us to present a complete eigensolutions, which makes it available to compare with the solutions under the RWA. We find that, the ground state in our non-RWA solution is energically lower than the counterpart under the RWA. If we have the ion in the ground state, it is equivalent to a spin dependent force on the trapped ion. Discussion is made for the difference between the solutions with and without the RWA, and for the relevant experimental test, as well as for the possible application in quantum information processing. \end{abstract} \vskip 0.1cm \pacs{32.80.Lg, 42.50.-p, 03.67.-a} \maketitle \section {introduction} Ultracold ions trapped as a line are considered as a promising system for quantum information processing \cite {cz}. Since the first quantum gate performed in the ion trap \cite {monroe1}, there have been a series of experiments with trapped ions to achieve nonclassical states \cite {wineland1}, simple quantum algorithm \cite {wineland2}, and quantum communication \cite {wineland3}. There have been also a number of proposals to employ trapped ions for quantum computing, most of which work only in the weak excitation regime (WER), i.e., the Rabi frequency smaller than the trap frequency. While as bigger Rabi frequency would lead to faster quantum gating, some proposals \cite {cirac1,zheng,feng2} have aimed to achieve operations in the case of the Rabi frequency larger than the trap frequency, i.e., the so called strong excitation regime (SER). The difference of the WER from the SER is mathematically reflected in the employment of the rotating wave approximation (RWA), which averages out the fast oscillating terms in the interaction Hamiltonian. As the RWA is less valid with the larger Rabi frequency, the treatment for the SER was complicated, imcomplete \cite {feng1998}, and sometimes resorted to numerics \cite {zeng}. In addition, the Lamb-Dicke limit strongly restricts the application of the trapped ions due to technical challenge and the slow quantum gating. We have noticed some ideas \cite {gr,duan} to remove the Lamb-Dicke limit in designing quantum gates, which are achieved by using some complicated laser pulse sequences. In the present work, we investigate, from another research angle, the system mentioned above in SER and in the absence of the Lamb-Dicke limit. The main idea, based on an analytical approach we have developed, is to check the eigenvectors and the eigenenergies of such a system, with which we hope to obtain new insight into the system for more application. The main result in our work is a newly found ground state, energically lower than the ground state calculated by standard Jaynes-Cummings model. We will also present the analytical forms of the eigenvectors and the variance of the eigenenergies with respect to the parameters of the system, which might be used in understanding the time evolution of the system. The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we will solve the system in the absence of the RWA. Then some numerical results will be presented in comparison with the RWA solutions in Section III. We will discuss about the new results for their possible application. More extensive discussion and the conclusion are made in Section IV. Some analytical deduction details could be found in Appendix. \section {The analytical solution of the system} As shown in Fig. 1, we consider a Raman $\Lambda$-type configuration, which corresponds to the actual process in NIST experiments. Like in \cite {feng1}, we will employ some unitary transformations to get rid of the assumption of Lamb-Dicke limit and the WER. So our solution is more general than most of the previous work \cite {previous}. For a single trapped ion experiencing two off-resonant counter-propagating traveling wave lasers with frequencies $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$, respectively, and in the case of a large detuning $\delta$, we have an effective two-level system with the lasers driving the electric-dipole forbidden transition $|g\rangle$ $\leftrightarrow$ $|e\rangle$ by the effective laser frequency $\omega_{L}=\omega_{1}-\omega_{2}$. So we have the dimensionless Hamiltonian \begin {equation} H= \frac {\Delta}{2} \sigma_{z} + a^{\dagger}a + \frac {\Omega}{2} (\sigma_{+}e^{i\eta \hat{x}} + \sigma_{-}e^{-i\eta \hat{x}}), \end {equation} in the frame rotating with $\omega_{L}$, where $\Delta=(\omega_{0}-\omega_{L})/\nu$, $\omega_{0}$ and $\nu$ are the resonant frequency of the two levels of the ion and the trap frequency, respectively. $\Omega$ is the dimensionless Rabi frequency in units of $\nu$ and $\eta$ the Lamb-Dicke parameter. $\sigma_{\pm,z}$ are usual Pauli operators, and we have $\hat{x}=a^{\dagger}+a$ for the dimensionless position operator of the ion with $a^{\dagger}$ and $a$ being operators of creation and annihilation of the phonon field, respectively. We suppose that both $\Omega$ and $\nu$ are much larger than the atomic decay rate and the phonon dissipative rate so that no dissipation is considered below. Like in \cite {feng1}, we first carry out some unitary transformations on Eq. (1) to avoid the expansion of the exponentials. So we have \begin {equation} H^{I} = UHU^{\dagger} = \frac {\Omega}{2} \sigma_{z} + a^{\dagger}a + g (a^{\dagger} + a) \sigma_{x} + \epsilon \sigma_{x} + g^{2}, \end {equation} where $$U=\frac {1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\pi a^{\dagger}a/2} \pmatrix {F^{\dagger}(\eta) & F(\eta) \cr -F^{\dagger}(\eta) & F(\eta)},$$ with $F(\eta)=\exp {[i\eta (a^{\dagger} + a)/2]}$, $g=\eta/2$, and $\epsilon=-\Delta/2$. Eq. (2) is a typical driving Jaynes-Cummings model including the counter-rotating wave terms. In contrast to the usual treatments to consider the Lamb-Dicke limit by using the RWA in a frame rotation, we remain the counter-rotating wave interaction in the third term of the right-hand side of Eq. (2) in our case. To go on our treatment, we make a further rotation with $V=\exp{(i\pi\sigma_{y}/4)}$, yielding \begin {equation} H^{'} = VH^{I}V^{\dagger} = -\frac {\Omega}{2} \sigma_{x} + a^{\dagger}a + g (a^{\dagger} + a) \sigma_{z} + \epsilon \sigma_{z} + g^{2}, \end {equation} where we have used $\exp {(i\theta\sigma_{y})}\sigma_{x}\exp {(-i\theta\sigma_{y})}=\cos(2\theta)\sigma_{x} + \sin (2\theta)\sigma_{z}$, and $\exp {(i\theta\sigma_{y})}\sigma_{z}\exp {(-i\theta\sigma_{y})}=\cos(2\theta)\sigma_{z} - \sin (2\theta)\sigma_{x}$. For convenience of our following treatment, we rewrite Eq. (3) to be \begin {equation} H^{'} = \epsilon (|e\rangle\langle e| - |g\rangle\langle g|) - \frac {\Omega}{2} (|e\rangle\langle g| + |g\rangle\langle e|) + a^{\dagger}a + g (a^{\dagger} + a) (|e\rangle\langle e| - |g\rangle\langle g|) + g^{2}. \end {equation} Using Schr\"odinger equation, and the orthogonality between $|e\rangle$ and $|g\rangle$, we suppose \begin {equation} |\rangle= |\varphi_{1}\rangle|e\rangle + |\varphi_{2}\rangle|g\rangle, \end {equation} which yields \begin {equation} \epsilon |\varphi_{1}\rangle + a^{\dagger}a |\varphi_{1}\rangle + g(a^{\dagger} + a) |\varphi_{1}\rangle - \frac {\Omega}{2}|\varphi_{2}\rangle + g^{2}|\varphi_{1}\rangle = E |\varphi_{1}\rangle, \end {equation} \begin {equation} -\epsilon |\varphi_{2}\rangle + a^{\dagger}a |\varphi_{2}\rangle - g(a^{\dagger} + a) |\varphi_{2}\rangle - \frac {\Omega}{2}|\varphi_{1}\rangle + g^{2}|\varphi_{2}\rangle = E |\varphi_{2}\rangle. \end {equation} To make the above equations concise, we apply the displacement operator $\hat{D}(g)=\exp{[g(a^{\dagger}-a)]}$ on $a^{\dagger}$ and $a$, which gives $A=\hat {D}(g)^{\dagger} a \hat {D}(g)= a+g$, $A^{\dagger}= \hat {D}(g)^{\dagger} a^{\dagger} \hat {D}(g) = a^{\dagger} + g$, $B= \hat {D}(-g)^{\dagger} a \hat {D}(-g) = a-g$, and $B^{\dagger}= \hat {D}(-g)^{\dagger} a^{\dagger} \hat {D}(-g) = a^{\dagger} - g$. So we have \begin {equation} (A^{\dagger}A + \epsilon) |\varphi_{1}\rangle - \frac {\Omega}{2} |\varphi_{2}\rangle = E |\varphi_{1}\rangle, \end {equation} \begin {equation} (B^{\dagger}B - \epsilon) |\varphi_{2}\rangle - \frac {\Omega}{2} |\varphi_{1}\rangle = E |\varphi_{2}\rangle. \end {equation} Obvious, the new operators work in different subspaces, which leads to different evolutions regarding different internal levels $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$. We will later refer to this feature to be relevant to spin-dependent force. The solution of the two equations above can be simply set as \begin{equation} |\varphi_{1}\rangle = \sum_{n=0}^{N} c_{n} |n\rangle_{A}, \end{equation} \begin{equation} |\varphi_{2}\rangle = \sum_{n=0}^{N} d_{n} |n\rangle_{B}, \end{equation} with N a large integer to be determined later, $|n\rangle_{A}=\frac {1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{\dagger}+g)^{n} |0\rangle_{A} = \frac {1}{\sqrt{n!}} (a^{\dagger}+g)^{n} \hat {D}(g)^{\dagger}|0\rangle =\frac {1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{\dagger}+g)^{n}\exp\{-ga^{\dagger}-g^{2}/2\}|0\rangle,$ and $|n\rangle_{B}=\frac {1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{\dagger}-g)^{n} |0\rangle_{B} = \frac {1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{\dagger}-g)^{n} \hat {D}(-g)^{\dagger} |0\rangle=\frac {1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{\dagger}-g)^{n}\exp\{ga^{\dagger}-g^{2}/2\}|0\rangle$. Taking Eqs. (10) and (11) into Eqs. (8) and (9), respectively, and multiplying by $_{A}\langle m|$ and $_{B}\langle m|$, respectively, we have, \begin {equation} (m+\epsilon) c_{m} - \frac {\Omega}{2} \sum_{n=0}^{N} (-1)^{n} D_{mn} d_{n} = Ec_{m}, \end {equation} \begin {equation} (m-\epsilon) d_{m} - \frac {\Omega}{2} \sum_{n=0}^{N} (-1)^{m} D_{mn} c_{n} = Ed_{m}, \end {equation} where we have set $(-1)^{n}D_{mn}= _{A}\langle m|n\rangle_{B}$ and $(-1)^{m}D_{mn} = _{B}\langle m|n\rangle_{A}$, whose deduction can be found in Appendix. Diagonizing the relevant determinants, we may have the eigenenergies $E_{i}$ and the eigenvectors regarding $c_{n}^{i}$ and $d_{n}^{i}$ ($n=0, \cdots, N, i= 0, \cdots, N$). Therefore, as long as we could find a closed subspace with $c_{N+1}^{i}$ and $d_{N+1}^{i}$ approaching zero for a certain big integer N, we may have a complete eigensolution of the system. \section {discussion based on numerics} Before doing numerics, we first consider a treatment by involving the RWA. As the RWA solution could present complete eigenenergy spectra, it is interesting to make a comparison between the RWA solution and our non-RWA one. We consider a rotation in Eq. (2) with respect to $\exp \{-i[(\Omega/2)\sigma_{z} + a^{\dagger}a]t\}$, which results in \begin {equation} H_{A}=\frac {\Omega}{2}\sigma_{z} + a^{\dagger}a + g (a\sigma_{+} + a^{\dagger}\sigma_{-}) + g^{2}, \end {equation} where the RWA has been made by setting $\Omega=1$, and we have corresponding eigenenergies \begin {equation} E^{\pm}_{n}=(n+g^{2}+1/2)\pm g\sqrt{n+1}. \end {equation} So the system is degenerate in the case of $\eta=0$ and there are two eigenenergy spectra corresponding to $E^{\pm}_{n}$ as long as $\eta\neq 0$. Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) demonstrate two spectra, respectively, and in each figure we compare the differences between the RWA and non-RWA solutions \cite {explain2}. In contrast to the two spectra in the RWA solution, the non-RWA solution includes only one spectrum. Comparing the two eigensolutions, we find that the even-number and odd-number excited levels in the non-RWA case correspond to $E^{+}_{n}$ and $E^{-}_{n}$ of the RWA case, respectively, and the difference becomes bigger and bigger with the increase of $\eta$. It is physically understandable for these differences because the RWA solution, valid only for small $\eta$, does not work beyond the Lamb-Dicke regime. Above comparison also demonstrates the change of the ion trap system from an integrable case (i.e., with RWA validity) to the non-integrable case (i.e., without RWA validity). But besides these differences, we find an unusual result in this comparison, i.e., a new level without the counterpart in RWA solution appearing in our solution, which is lower than the ground state in RWA solution by $\nu + x\eta$ with $x$ a $\eta$-dependent coefficient. In the viewpoint of physics, due to additional counter-rotating wave interaction involved, it is reasonable to have something more in our solution than the RWA case, although this does not surely lead to a new level lower than the previous ground state. Anyway, this is a good news for quantum information processing with trapped ions. As the situation in SER and beyond the Lamb-Dicke limit involves more instability, a stable confinement of the ion requires a stronger trapping condition. In this sense, our solution, with the possibility to have the ion stay in an energically lower state, gives a hope in this respect. We will come to this point again later. Since no report of the new ground state had been found either theoretically or experimentally in previous publications, we suggest to check it experimentally by resonant absorption spectrum. As shown above, in the case of non-zero Lamb-Dicke parameter, the degeneracy of the neighboring level spacing is released, and the bigger the $\eta$, the larger the spacing difference between the neighboring levels. Therefore, an experimental test of the newly found ground state should be available by resonant transition between the ground and the first excited states in Fig. 2, once the SER is reached. We have noticed that the SER could be achieved by first cooling the ions within the Lamb-Dicke limit and under the WER, and then by decreasing the trap frequency by opening the trap adiabatically \cite {cirac1}. Since it is lower in energy than the previously recognized ground states, the new ground state we found is more stable, and thereby more suitable to store quantum information. Once the trapped ion is cooled down to the ground state in the SER, it is, as shown in Eq. (5) with $n=0$, actually equivalent to the effect of a spin-dependent force on the trapped ion \cite {hal}. If we make Hadamard gate on the ion by $|g\rangle\rightarrow (|g\rangle + |e\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|e\rangle\rightarrow (|g\rangle - |e\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, we reach a Schr\"odinger cat state, i.e., $(1/2)\{[ D^{\dagger}(g)|0\rangle + D^{\dagger}(-g)|0\rangle]|g\rangle - [D^{\dagger}(g)|0\rangle - D^{\dagger}(-g)|0\rangle]|e\rangle\}$. Two ions confined in a trap in above situation will yield two-qubit gates without really exciting the vibrational mode \cite {gr}. It is also the way with this spin-dependent force towards scalable quantum information processing \cite {duan}. As in SER, we may have larger Rabi frequency than in WER, the quantum gate could be in principle carried out faster in the SER. In addition, as it is convergent throughout the parameter subspace, our complete eigensolution enables us to accurately write down the state of the system at an arbitrary evolution time, provided that we have known the initial state. This would be useful for future experiments in preparing non-classical states and in designing any desired quantum gates with trapped ions in the SER and beyond the Lamb-Dicke limit. Moreover, as shown in Figs 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c), our present solution is helpful for us to understand the particular solutions in previous publication \cite {feng1}. The comparison in the figures shows that the results in \cite {feng1} are actually mixtures of different eigensolutions. For example, the lowest level in Fig. 2 in \cite {feng1}, corresponding to $\Omega = 2$ and $\eta = 0.2$, is actually constituted at least by the third, the fourth, and the fifth excited states of the eigensolution. \section {further discussion and conclusion} The observation of the counter-rotating effects is an interesting topic discussed previously. In \cite {crisp}, a standard method is used to study the observable effects regarding the rotating and the counter-rotating terms in the Jaynes-Cummings model, including to observe Bloch-Siegert shift \cite {bloch} and quantum chaos in a cavity QED by using differently polarized lights. A recent work \cite {jan} for a two-photon Jaynes-Cummings model has also investigated the observability of the counter-rotating terms. By using perturbation theory, the authors claimed that the counter-rotating effects, although very small, can be in principle observed by measuring the energy of the atom going through the cavity. Actually, for the cavity QED system without any external source involved, it is generally thought that the counter-rotating terms only make contribution in some virtual fluctuations of the energy in the weak coupling regime. While the interference between the rotating and counter-rotating contributions could result in some phase dependent effects \cite {phoenix}. Anyway, if there is an external source, for example, the laser radiating a trapped ultracold ion, the counter-rotating terms will show their effects, e.g., related to heating in the case of WER \cite {single}. In this sense, our result is somewhat amazing because the counter-rotating interaction in the SER, making entanglement between internal and vibrational states of the trapped ion, plays positive role in the ion trapping. We argue that our approach is applicable to different physical processes involving counter-rotating interaction. Since the counter-rotating terms result in energy nonconservation in single quanta processes, usual techniques cannot solve the Hamiltonian with eigenstates spanning in an open form. In this case, path-integral approach \cite {zz} and perturbation approach \cite {phoenix}, assisted by numerical techniques were employed in the weak coupling regime of the Jaynes-Cummings model. In contrast, our method, based on the diagonalization of the coherent-state subspace, could in principle study the Jaynes-Cummings model without the RWA in any cases. We have also noticed a recent publication \cite {irish} to treat a strongly coupled two-level system to a quntum oscillator under an adiabatic approximation, in which something is similar to our work in the solution of the Hamiltonian in the absence of the RWA. But due to the different features in their system from our atomic case, the two-level splitting term, much smaller compared to other terms, can be taken as a perturbation. So the advantage of that treatment is the possibility to analytically obtain good approximate solutions. In contrast, not any approximation is used in our solution, which should be more efficient to do the relevant job. In summary, we have investigated the eigensolution of the system with a single trapped ion, experiencing two traveling waves of lasers, in the SER and in the absence of the Lamb-Dicke limit. We have found the ground state in the non-RWA case to be energically lower than the counterpart of the solution with RWA, which would be useful for quantum information storage and for quantum computing. The analytical forms of the eigenfunction and the complete set of the eigensolutions would be helpful for us to understand a trapped ion in the SER and with a large Lamb-Dicke parameter. We argue that our work would be applied to different systems in dealing with strong coupling problems. \section {acknowledgments} This work is supported in part by NNSFC No. 10474118, by Hubei Provincial Funding for Distinguished Young Scholars, and by Sichuan Provincial Funding. \section {appendix} We give the deduction of $_{A}\langle m|n\rangle_{B}$ and $_{B}\langle m|n\rangle_{A}$ below, $$_{A}\langle m | n \rangle_{B} = \frac {1}{\sqrt{m!n!}} \langle 0|e^{-ga-g^{2}/2}(a+g)^{m}(a^{\dagger}-g)^{n} e^{ga^{\dagger}-g^{2}/2}|0\rangle $$ $$ = \frac {1}{\sqrt{m!n!}} e^{-2g^{2}}\langle 0|(a+g)^{m}e^{ga^{\dagger}}e^{-ga}(a^{\dagger}-g)^{n} |0 \rangle$$ $$ = \frac {1}{\sqrt{m!n!}} e^{-2g^{2}}\langle 0|(a+2g)^{m}(a^{\dagger}-2g)^{n}|0 \rangle = (-1)^{n} D_{mn},$$ with $$D_{mn}=e^{-2g^{2}}\sum_{i=0}^{min[m,n]} (-1)^{-i}\frac {\sqrt{m!n!}(2g)^{m+n-2i}}{(m-i)!(n-i)!i!}.$$ It is easily proven following a similar step to above that $$_{B}\langle m | n \rangle_{A} = \frac {1}{\sqrt{m!n!}} \langle 0|e^{ga-g^{2}/2}(a-g)^{m}(a^{\dagger}+g)^{n} e^{-ga^{\dagger}-g^{2}/2}|0\rangle, $$ would finally get to $(-1)^{m}D_{mn}.$ \begin{thebibliography}{22} \bibitem{cz} Cirac J I, Zoller P 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74} 4091 \bibitem{monroe1} Monroe C, Meekhof D M, King B E, Itano W M, Wineland D J 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75} 4714 \bibitem{wineland1} Turchette Q A, Wood C S, King B E, Myatt C J, Leibfried D, Itano W M, Monroe C, Wineland D J 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} 3631; Sackett C A, Kielpinski D, King B E, Langer C, Meyer V, Myatt C J, Rowe M, Turchette Q A, Itano W M, Wineland D J, Monroe C 2000 Nature {\bf 404} 256 \bibitem{wineland2} Gulde S, Riebe M, Lancaster G P T, Becher C, Eschner J, Haeffner H, Schmidt-Kaler F, Chuang I L, Blatt R 2003 Nature {\bf 421} 48 \bibitem{wineland3} Riebe M, Haeffner H, Roos C F, Haensel W, Benhelm J, Lancaster G P T, Koerber T W, Becher C, Schmidt-Kaler F, James D F V, Blatt R 2004 Nature {\bf 429} 734; Barrett M D, Chiaverini J, Schaetz T, Britton J, Itano W M, Jost J D, Knill E, Langer C, Leibfried D, Ozeri R, Wineland D J 2004 Nature {\bf 429} 737 \bibitem{cirac1} Poyators J F, Cirac J I, Blatt R, Zoller P 1996 Phys. Rev. A {\bf 54} 1532; Poyatos J F, Cirac J I, Zoller P 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} 1322 \bibitem{zheng} Zheng S, Zhu X W, Feng M 2000 Phys. Rev. A {\bf 62} 033807 \bibitem{feng2} Feng M 2004 Eur. Phys. J. D {\bf 29} 189 \bibitem{feng1998} Feng M, Zhu X, Fang X, Yan M, Shi L 1999 J. Phys. B {\bf 32} 701; Feng M 2002 Eur. Phys. J. D {\bf 18} 371 \bibitem{zeng} Zeng H, Lin F, Wang Y, Segawa Y 1999 Phys. Rev. A {\bf 59} 4589 \bibitem{gr} Garcia-Ripoll J J, Zoller P and Cirac J I 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91} 157901; \bibitem{duan} Duan L -M 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93} 100502 \bibitem{feng1} Feng M 2001 J. Phys. B {\bf 34} 451 \bibitem{previous} Most of the previous work in this respect were carried out by cuting off the expansion of the exponentials regarding the quantized phonon operators, which is only reasonable in the WER and within the Lamb-Dicke limit. In contrast, our treatment can be used in both the SER and the WER cases. \bibitem {explain2} We take throughout this paper $N=40$ in which the coefficients $c_{41}^{i}$ and $d_{41}^{i}$ with $i=0, 1, .. 40 $ are negligible in the case of $\Omega=1$ and 2. Although with the increase of values of $\Omega$ the diagonalization space has to be enlarged, our analytical method generally works well in a wide range of parameters. \bibitem{hal} Haljan P C, Brickman K -A, Deslauriers L, Lee P J and Monroe C 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. {94} 153602 \bibitem{crisp} Crisp M D 1991 Phys. Rev. A {\bf 43} 2430 \bibitem{bloch} Bloch F and Siegert A 1940 Phys. Rev. {\bf 57} 522 \bibitem{jan} Janowicz M and Orlowski A 2004 Rep.Math. Phys. {\bf 54} 71 \bibitem{phoenix} Phoenix S J D 1989 J. Mod. Optics {\bf 3} 127 \bibitem{single} Leibfrid D, Blatt R, Monroe C, and Wineland D J 2003 Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75} 281 \bibitem{zz} Zaheer K and Zubairy M S 1998 Phys. Rev. A {\bf 37} 1628 \bibitem{irish} Irish E K, Gea-Banacloche J, Martin I, and Schwab K C 2005 Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72} 195410 \end{thebibliography} \begin {center}{\bf The captions of the figures}\end{center} Fig. 1 Schematic of a single trapped ion under radiation of two traveling wave lasers, where $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$ are frequencies regarding the two lasers, respectively, $\omega_{0}$ is the resonant frequency between $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$, and $\delta$ and $\Delta$ are relevant detunings. This is a typical Raman process employed in NIST experiments, with for example $Be^{+}$, for quantum computing. Fig. 2 The eigenenergy spectra with $\Omega=1$, where (a) and (b) correspond to two different sets of eigenenergies with respect to Lamb-Dicke parameter. In (a) the comparison is made between $E^{+}_{n}$ in the RWA case (dashed-dotted curves) and $E_{n}$ with $n=$ even numbers in the non-RWA case (star curves for $n=0$ and solid curves for others); In (b) the comparison is for $E^{-}_{n}$ in the RWA case (dashed-dotted curves) to $E_{n}$ with $n=$ odd numbers in the non-RWA case (solid curves). Fig. 3 The eigenenergy with respect to the detuning $\Delta$, where for convenience of comparison we have used the same parameter numbers as in \cite {feng1}. For clarity, we plot the different levels with different lines. The parameter numbers are $\Omega=2$, and (a) $\eta=0.2$; (b) $\eta=0.4$; (c) $\eta=0.6$.
|
0704.0120
|
Title: Strong Phase and $D^0-D^0bar$ mixing at BES-III
Abstract: Most recently, both BaBar and Belle experiments found evidences of neutral
$D$ mixing. In this paper, we discuss the constraints on the strong phase
difference in $D^0 \to K\pi$ decay from the measurements of the mixing
parameters, $y^\prime$, $y_{CP}$ and $x$ at the $B$ factories. The sensitivity
of the measurement of the mixing parameter $y$ is estimated in BES-III
experiment at $\psi(3770)$ peak. We also make an estimate on the measurements
of the mixing rate $R_M$. Finally, the sensitivity of the strong phase
difference at BES-III are obtained by using data near the $D\bar{D}$ threshold
with CP tag technique at BES-III experiment.
Body: \title{\large \bfseries \boldmath Strong Phase and $\Dz-\Dzb$ mixing at BES-III} \author{Xiao-Dong Cheng$^{1,2}$}\email{chengxd@ihep.ac.cn} \author{Kang-Lin He$^1$}\email{hekl@ihep.ac.cn} \author{Hai-Bo Li$^1$}\email{lihb@ihep.ac.cn} \author{Yi-Fang Wang$^1$}\email{yfwang@ihep.ac.cn} \author{Mao-Zhi Yang$^1$}\email{yangmz@ihep.ac.cn} \affiliation{$^1$Institute of High Energy Physics, P.O.Box 918, Beijing 100049, China\\ $^2$Department of Physics, Henan Normal University, XinXiang, Henan 453007, China} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} Most recently, both BaBar and Belle experiments found evidences of neutral $D$ mixing. In this paper, we discuss the constraints on the strong phase difference in $D^0 \rightarrow K\pi$ decay from the measurements of the mixing parameters, $y^\prime$, $y_{CP}$ and $x$ at the $B$ factories. With $CP$ tag technique at $\psi(3770)$ peak, the extraction of the strong phase difference at BES-III are discussed. The sensitivity of the measurement of the mixing parameter $y$ is estimated in BES-III experiment at $\psi(3770)$ peak. Finally, we also make an estimate on the measurements of the mixing rate $R_M$. \end{abstract} \pacs{13.25.Ft, 12.15.Ff, 13.20.Fc, 11.30.Er} \maketitle Due to the smallness of $\Delta C=0$ amplitude in the Standard Model (SM), $\Dz-\Dzb$ mixing offers a unique opportunity to probe flavor-changing interactions which may be generated by new physics. The recent measurements from BaBar and Belle experiments indicate that the $\Dz-\Dzb$ mixing may exist~. At the $B$ factories, the decay time information can be used to extract the neutral $D$ mixing parameters. At $t=0$ the only term in the amplitude is the direct doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) mode $D^0 \rightarrow K^+ \pi^-$, but for $t>0$ $\Dz-\Dzb$ mixing may contribute through the sequence $D^0 \rightarrow \Dzb \rightarrow K^+\pi^-$ , where the second stage is Cabibbo favored (CF). The interference of this term with the DCS contribution involves the lifetime and mass differences of the neutral $D$ mass eigenstates, as well as the final-state strong phase difference $\delta_{K\pi}$ between the CF and the DCS decay amplitudes. This interference plays a key role in the measurement of the mixing parameters at time-dependent measurements. With the assumption of $CPT$ invariance, the mass eigenstates of $\Dz - \Dzb$ system are $|D_1\rangle = p |\Dz\rangle+q|\Dzb\rangle$ and $|D_2\rangle = p |\Dz\rangle -q|\Dzb\rangle$ with eigenvalues $\mu_1 = m_1 - \displaystyle\frac{i}{2} \Gamma_1$ and $\mu_2 = m_2 - \displaystyle\frac{i}{2} \Gamma_2$, respectively, where the $m_1$ and $\Gamma_1$ ($m_2$ and $\Gamma_2$) are the mass and width of $D_1$ ($D_2$). For the method of detecting $\Dz-\Dzb$ mixing involving the $D^0 \rightarrow K\pi$ decay mentioned above, in order to separate the DCS decay from the mixing signal, one must study the time-dependent decay rate. The proper-time evolution of the particle states $|\Dz_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t)\rangle$ and $|\Dzb_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t)\rangle$ are given by \begin{eqnarray} |\Dz_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rangle & = & g_+(t) |\Dz \rangle -\frac{q}{p} g_-(t) |\Dzb \rangle, \nonumber \\ |\Dzb_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rangle & = & g_+(t) |\Dzb \rangle - \frac{p}{q} g_-(t) |\Dz \rangle, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} g_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2} (e^{-im_2 t-\frac{1}{2} \Gamma_2 t} \pm e^{-im_1 t - \frac{1}{2}\Gamma_1 t} ), \end{eqnarray} with definitions \begin{eqnarray} m &\equiv& \frac{m_1 + m_2}{2}, \, \, \Delta m \equiv m_2 - m_1, \nonumber \\ \Gamma &\equiv & \frac{\Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2}{2}, \, \Delta \Gamma \equiv \Gamma_2 - \Gamma_1, \end{eqnarray} Note the sign of $\Delta m$ and $\Delta \Gamma$ is to be determined by experiments. In practice, one define the following mixing parameters \begin{eqnarray} x \equiv \frac{\Delta m}{\Gamma}, \, y \equiv \frac{\Delta \Gamma}{2\Gamma}. \end{eqnarray} The time-dependent decay amplitudes for $\Dz_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rightarrow K^+ \pi^-$ and $\Dzb_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rightarrow K^- \pi^+$ are described as \begin{eqnarray} \langle K^+ \pi^- |{\cal H}|\Dz_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rangle & = & g_+(t) A_{K^+\pi^-} - \frac{q}{p} g_-(t) \overline{A}_{K^+\pi^-} \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{q}{p} \overline{A}_{K^+\pi^-} [\lambda g_+(t) - g_-(t)], \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \langle K^- \pi^+ |{\cal H}|\Dzb_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rangle & = & g_+(t) \overline{A}_{K^-\pi^+} - \frac{p}{q} g_-(t) A_{K^-\pi^+} \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{p}{q} A_{K^-\pi^+} [\overline{\lambda}g_+(t) - g_-(t)], \end{eqnarray} where $A_{K^+ \pi^-} = \langle K^+ \pi^- |{\cal H}|D^0 \rangle$, $\overline{A}_{K^+ \pi^-} = \langle K^+ \pi^- |{\cal H}|\Dzb \rangle$, $A_{K^- \pi^+} = \langle K^- \pi^+ |{\cal H}|D^0 \rangle$, and $\overline{A}_{K^- \pi^+} = \langle K^- \pi^+ |{\cal H}|\Dzb \rangle$. Here, $\lambda$ and $\overline{\lambda}$ are defined as: \begin{eqnarray} \lambda \equiv \frac{p}{q} \frac{A_{K^+\pi^-}}{\overline{A}_{K^+\pi^-}}, \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \overline{\lambda} \equiv \frac{q}{p} \frac{\overline{A}_{K^-\pi^+}}{A_{K^-\pi^+}}. \end{eqnarray} From Eqs.~() and (), one can derive the general expression for the time-dependent decay rate, in agreement with~: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{d\Gamma(\Dz_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rightarrow K^+ \pi^-)}{dt {\cal N}} &=& |\overline{A}_{K^+\pi^-}|^2\left|\frac{q}{p}\right|^2 e^{-\Gamma t}\times \nonumber \\ && [(|\lambda|^2+1)\mbox{cosh}(y\Gamma t) + \nonumber \\ && (|\lambda|^2 -1) \mbox{cos}(x\Gamma t) + \nonumber \\ && 2 {\cal R}e(\lambda)\mbox{sinh}(y\Gamma t) + \nonumber \\ && 2 {\cal I}m(\lambda)\mbox{sin}(x\Gamma t)] \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \frac{d\Gamma(\Dzb_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rightarrow K^- \pi^+)}{dt {\cal N}} &=& |A_{K^-\pi^+}|^2\left|\frac{p}{q}\right|^2 e^{-\Gamma t}\times \nonumber \\ && [(|\overline{\lambda}|^2+1)\mbox{cosh}(y\Gamma t) + \nonumber \\ && (|\overline{\lambda}|^2 -1) \mbox{cos}(x\Gamma t) + \nonumber \\ && 2 {\cal R}e(\overline{\lambda})\mbox{sinh}(y\Gamma t) + \nonumber \\ && 2 {\cal I}m(\overline{\lambda})\mbox{sin}(x\Gamma t)] \end{eqnarray} where ${\cal N}$ is a common normalization factor. In order to simplify the above formula, we make the following definition: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{q}{p} \equiv (1+A_M) e^{-i\beta}, \end{eqnarray} where $\beta$ is the weak phase in mixing and $A_M$ is a real-valued parameter which indicates the magnitude of $CP$ violation in the mixing. For $f = K^- \pi^+$ final state, we define \begin{eqnarray} \frac{A_{K^+\pi^-}}{\overline{A}_{K^+\pi^-}} \equiv - \sqrt{r^\prime} e^{-i \alpha^\prime}; \, \, \frac{\overline{A}_{K^-\pi^+}}{A_{K^-\pi^+}} \equiv - \sqrt{r} e^{-i \alpha}, \end{eqnarray} where $r^\prime$ and $\alpha^\prime$ ($r$ and $\alpha$) are the ratio and relative phase of the DCS decay rate and the CF decay rate. Then, $\lambda$ and $\overline{\lambda}$ can be parameterized as \begin{eqnarray} \lambda = -\sqrt{r^\prime} \frac{1}{1+A_M} e^{-i(\alpha^\prime -\beta)} \, , \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \overline{\lambda} = -\sqrt{r}(1+A_M) e^{-i(\alpha+\beta)}. \end{eqnarray} In order to demonstrate the $CP$ violation in decay, we define $\displaystyle \sqrt{r^\prime} \equiv \sqrt{R_D}(1+A_D)$ and $\displaystyle \sqrt{r} \equiv \sqrt{R_D} \frac{1}{1+A_D}$. Thus, Eqs. () and () can be expressed as \begin{eqnarray} \lambda = -\sqrt{R_D} \frac{1+A_D}{1+A_M} e^{-i(\delta -\phi)}\, , \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \overline{\lambda} = -\sqrt{R_D}\frac{1+A_M}{1+A_D} e^{-i(\delta+\phi)}\, , \end{eqnarray} where $\displaystyle\delta = \frac{\alpha^\prime +\alpha}{2}$ is the averaged phase difference between DCS and CF processes, and $\displaystyle\phi = \frac{ \alpha-\alpha^\prime}{2}+\beta$. We can characterize the $CP$ violation in the mixing amplitude, the decay amplitude, and the interference between amplitudes with and without mixing, by real-valued parameters $A_M$, $A_D$, and $\phi$ as in Ref~. In the limit of $CP$ conservation, $A_M$, $A_D$ and $\phi$ are all zero. $A_M = 0$ means no $CP$ violation in mixing, namely, $|q/p|=1$; $A_D=0$ means no $CP$ violation in decay, for this case, $r = r^\prime = R_D= |\overline{A}_{K^-\pi^+}/A_{K^-\pi^+}|^2=|A_{K^+\pi^-}/\overline{A}_{K^+\pi^-}|^2$; $\phi =0 $ means no $CP$ violation in the interference between decay and mixing. In experimental searches, one can define CF decay as right-sign (RS) and DCS decay or via mixing followed by a CF decay as wrong-sign (WS). Here, we define the ratio of WS to RS decays as for $D^0$: \begin{eqnarray} R(t) = \frac{d\Gamma(\Dz_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rightarrow K^+ \pi^-)}{dt {\cal N} \times e^{-\Gamma |t|} \times 2|\overline{A}_{K^+\pi^-}|^2} , \end{eqnarray} and for $\Dzb$: \begin{eqnarray} \overline{R}(t) =\frac{d\Gamma(\Dzb_{\small\mbox{phys}}(t) \rightarrow K^- \pi^+)}{dt {\cal N}\times e^{-\Gamma |t|} \times 2|A_{K^-\pi^+}|^2} , \end{eqnarray} Taking into account that $|\lambda|$, $|\overline{\lambda}| \ll 1$ and $x$, $y \ll 1$, keeping terms up to order $x^2$, $y^2$ and $R_D$ in the expressions, neglecting $CP$ violation in mixing, decay and the interference between decay with and without mixing ($A_M=0$, $A_D=0$, and $\phi=0$), expanding the time-dependent for $x t$, $y t \lesssim \Gamma^{-1}$, combing Eqs. () and (), we can write Eqs. () and () as \begin{eqnarray} R(t) = \overline{R}(t) = R_D + \sqrt{R_D} y^\prime \Gamma t + \frac{x^{\prime^2} + y^{\prime^2}}{4} (\Gamma t)^2, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} x^\prime &=& x \mbox{cos}\delta + y \mbox{sin} \delta, \\ y^\prime &=& -x \mbox{sin} \delta + y \mbox{cos} \delta. \end{eqnarray} In the limit of SU(3) symmetry, $A_{K^+ \pi^-}$ and $\overline{A}_{K^+ \pi^-}$ ($A_{K^- \pi^+}$ and $\overline{A}_{K^- \pi^+}$) are simply related by CKM factors, $A_{K^+ \pi^-} =(V_{cd}V^*_{us}/V_{cs}V^*_{ud})\overline{A}_{K^+ \pi^-}$~. In particular, $A_{K^+ \pi^-}$ and $\overline{A}_{K^+ \pi^-}$ have the same strong phase, leading to $\alpha^\prime = \alpha =0$ in Eq. (). But the SU(3) symmetry is broken according to the recent precise measurements from the $B$ factories, the ratio~: \begin{eqnarray} {\cal R} = \frac{{\cal BR}(D^0 \rightarrow K^+\pi^-)}{{\cal BR} (\Dzb \rightarrow K^+\pi^-)} \left| \frac{V_{ud}V^*_{cs}}{V_{us} V^*_{cd}} \right|^2, \end{eqnarray} is unity in the SU(3) symmetry limit. But, the world average for this ratio is \begin{eqnarray} {\cal R}_{exp} = 1.21\pm 0.03, \end{eqnarray} computed from the individual measurements using the standard method of Ref.~. Since the SU(3) is broken in $D \rightarrow K\pi$ decays at the level of 20\ strong phase $\delta$ should be non-zero. Recently, a time-dependent analysis in $D \rightarrow K\pi$ has been performed based on 384 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity at $\Upsilon(4S)$~. By assuming $CP$ conservation, they obtained the following neutral $D$ mixing results \begin{eqnarray} R_D &=& (3.03 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.10)\times 10^{-3} , \nonumber \\ x^{\prime^2}& =& (-0.22 \pm 0.30 \pm 0.21) \times 10^{-3}, \nonumber \\ y^\prime &=& (9.7 \pm 4.4 \pm 3.1)\times 10^{-3}. \end{eqnarray} \begin{table}[htbp] \centering \caption{ Experimental results used in the paper. Only one error is quoted, we have combined in quadrature statistical and systematic contributions. } \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \hline\hline Parameter & BaBar ($\times 10^{-3}$) & Belle($\times 10^{-3}$) & Technique \\ \hline $x^{\prime^2}$ & -$0.22\pm 0.37$~ &$0.18^{+0.21}_{-0.23}$~ & $K\pi$ \\ $y^{\prime}$ & $9.7\pm 5.4$~ & $0.6^{+4.0}_{-3.9}$~ & $K\pi$ \\ $R_D$ & $3.03\pm 0.19$~ & $3.64\pm 0.17$~ & $K\pi$ \\ $y_{CP}$ & - & $13.1\pm 4.1$~ & $K^+K^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-$ \\ $x$ & -& $8.0\pm3.4$~ & $K_S \pi^+\pi^-$ \\ $y$ & -& $3.3\pm 2.8$~ & $K_S \pi^+\pi^-$ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} The result is inconsistent with the no-mixing hypothesis with a significance of 3.9 standard deviations. The results from BaBar and Belle are in agreement within 2 standard deviation on the exact analysis of $y^\prime$ measurement by using $D \rightarrow K\pi$ as listed in Table~. As indicated in Eq.~(), the strong phase $\delta$ should be non-zero due to the SU(3) violation. One has to know the strong phase difference exactly in order to extract the direct mixing parameters, $x$ and $y$ as defined in Eqs. (). However, at the $B$ factory, it is hard to do that with a model-independent way~. In order to extract the strong phase $\delta$ we need data near the $D\overline{D}$ threshold to do a $CP$ tag as discussed in Ref.~. Here, we would like to figure out the possible physics solution of the strong phase $\delta$ by using the recent results from the $B$ factories with different decay modes, so that we can have an idea about the sensitivity to measure the strong phase at the BES-III project. In Ref~, Belle collaboration also reported the result of $y_{CP}=\frac{\tau(D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-)}{\tau(D^0 \rightarrow f_{CP})} -1$, where $f_{CP} = K^+K^-$ and $\pi^+\pi^-$ \begin{eqnarray} y_{CP} = (13.1 \pm 3.2 \pm 2.5) \times 10^{-3}. \end{eqnarray} The result is about 3.2$\sigma$ significant deviation from zero (non-mixing). In the limit of $CP$ symmetry, $y_{CP} = y$~. In the decay of $D^0 \rightarrow K_S \pi^+\pi^-$, Belle experiment has done a Dalitz plot (DP) analysis~, they obtained the direct mixing parameters $x$ and $y$ as \begin{eqnarray} x = (8.0 \pm 3.4) \times 10^{-3}, \,\, y = (3.3 \pm 2.8)\times 10^{-3}, \end{eqnarray} where the error includes both statistic and systematic uncertainties. Since the parameterizations of the resonances on the DP are model-dependent, the results suffer from large uncertainties from the DP model. In this analysis, they see a significance of 2.4 standard deviations from non-mixing. Here, we will use the value of $x$ measured in the DP analysis for further discussion. As shown in Eq. (), once $y$, $y^\prime$ and $x$ are known, it is straightforward to extract the strong phase difference between DCS and CF decay in $D^0 \rightarrow K\pi$ decay. If taking the measured central values of $x$, $y_{CP}(\approx y)$ , and $y^\prime$ as input parameters, we found two-fold solutions for $\mbox{tan}\delta$ as below: \begin{eqnarray} \mbox{tan}\delta = 0.35\pm 0.63, \,\, \mbox{or} \, \, -7.14 \pm 29.13, \end{eqnarray} which are corresponding to $(19 \pm 32)^0$ and $(-82^0 \pm 30)^0$, respectively. At $\psi(3770)$ peak, to extract the mixing parameter $y$, one can make use of rates for exclusive $D^0\Dzb$ combination, where both the $D^0$ final states are specified (known as double tags or DT), as well as inclusive rates, where either the $D^0$ or $\Dzb$ is identified and the other $D^0$ decays generically (known as single tags or ST)~. With the DT tag technique~, one can fully consider the quantum correlation in $C=-1$ and $C=+1$ $D^0\Dzb$ pairs produced in the reaction $e^+e^- \rightarrow D^0 \Dzb(n\pi^0)$ and $e^+e^- \rightarrow D^0 \Dzb \gamma (n\pi^0)$~, respectively. For the ST, in the limit of $CP$ conservation, the rate of $D^0$ decays into a $CP$ eigenstate is given as~: \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{f_\eta}\equiv\Gamma(D^0 \rightarrow f_{\eta}) = 2A_{f_{\eta}}^2 \left[1-\eta y \right], \end{eqnarray} where $f_{\eta}$ is a $CP$ eigenstate with eigenvalue $\eta = \pm 1$, and $A_{f_{\eta}}= |\langle f_\eta | {\cal H}|D^0 \rangle|$ is the real-valued decay amplitude. For the DT case, Gronau {\it et. al.}~ and Xing~ have considered time-integrated decays into correlated pairs of states, including the effects of non-zero final state phase difference. As discussed in Ref.~, the rate of ($D^0 \Dzb)^{C=-1} \rightarrow (l^\pm X)(f_\eta)$ is described as~: \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{l;f_\eta}\equiv \Gamma[(l^\pm X)(f_{\eta})] &= & A_{l^\pm X}^2A_{f_\eta}^2 (1+ y^2) \nonumber \\ &\approx& A_{l^\pm X}^2 A_{f_\eta}^2, \end{eqnarray} where $A_{l^\pm X} = | \langle l^\pm X|{\cal H}|D^0\rangle|$ is real-valued amplitude for semileptonic decays, here, we neglect $y^2$ term since $y\ll1$. For $C=-1$ initial $D^0\Dzb$ state, $y$ can be expressed in term of the ratios of DT rates and the double ratios of ST rates to DT rates~: \begin{eqnarray} y = \frac{1}{4 } \left( \frac{\Gamma_{l; f_+} \Gamma_{f_-}}{\Gamma_{l;f_-}\Gamma_{f_+}} -\frac{\Gamma_{l; f_-} \Gamma_{f_+}}{\Gamma_{l;f_+}\Gamma_{f_-}} \right ). \end{eqnarray} For a small $y$, its error, $\Delta (y)$, is approximately $1/\sqrt{N_{l^\pm X}}$, where $N_{l^\pm X}$ is the total number of $(l^\pm X)$ events tagged with $CP$-even and $CP$-odd eigenstates. The number $N_{l^\pm X}$ of $CP$ tagged events is related to the total number of $D^0 \Dzb$ pairs $N(D^0 \Dzb)$ through $N_{l^\pm X} \approx N(D^0 \Dzb)[ {\cal BR}(D^0 \rightarrow l^\pm +X)\times {\cal BR}(D^0 \rightarrow f_{\pm})\times \epsilon_{tag}] \approx 1.5\times 10^{-3} N(D^0 \Dzb)$, here we take the branching ratio-times-efficiency factor (${\cal BR}(D^0 \rightarrow f_{\pm})\times \epsilon_{tag}$) for tagging $CP$ eigenstates is about 1.1\ larger than about 5\ \begin{eqnarray} \Delta(y) = \frac{\pm 26}{\sqrt{N(D^0\Dzb)}} = \pm 0.003. \end{eqnarray} If we take the central value of $y$ from the measurement of $y_{CP}$ at Belle experiment~, thus, at BES-III experiment~, with 20$fb^{-1}$ data at $\psi(3770)$ peak, the significance of the measurement of $y$ could be around 4.3 $\sigma$ deviation from zero. We can also take advantage of the coherence of the $D^0$ mesons produced at the $\psi(3770)$ peak to extract the strong phase difference $\delta$ between DCS and CF decay amplitudes that appears in the time-dependent mixing measurement in Eq.~()~. Because the $CP$ properties of the final states produced in the decay of the $\psi(3770)$ are anti-correlated~, one $D^0$ state decaying into a final state with definite $CP$ properties immediately identifies or tags the $CP$ properties of the other side. As discussed in Ref.~, the process of one $D^0$ decaying to $K^-\pi^+$, while the other $D^0$ decaying to a $CP$ eigenstate $f_{\eta}$ can be described as \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{K\pi;f_\eta}\equiv \Gamma[(K^- \pi^+)(f_{\eta})] &\approx & A^2A^2_{f_{\eta}}|1+ \eta \sqrt{R_D} e^{-i \delta} |^2 \nonumber \\ &\approx& A^2A^2_{f_{\eta}}(1+2 \eta \sqrt{R_D} \mbox{cos}\delta),\nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} where $A = |\langle K^- \pi^+ |{\cal H}| D^0 \rangle |$ and $A_{f_{\eta}} = |\langle f_{\eta} |{\cal H}| D^0 \rangle |$ are the real-valued decay amplitudes, and we have neglected the $y^2$ terms in Eq.~(). In order to estimate the total sample of events needed to perform a useful measurement of $\delta$, one defined~ an asymmetry \begin{eqnarray} {\cal A} \equiv \frac{\Gamma_{K\pi;f_+} - \Gamma_{K\pi; f_-}}{\Gamma_{K\pi;f_+} +\Gamma_{K\pi; f_-}}, \end{eqnarray} where $\Gamma_{K\pi;f_\pm}$ is defined in Eq.~(), which is the rates for the $\psi(3770) \rightarrow D^0 \Dzb$ configuration to decay into flavor eigenstates and a $CP$-eigenstates $f_\pm$. Eq.~() implies a small asymmetry, ${\cal A} = 2 \sqrt{R_D} \mbox{cos} \delta$. For a small asymmetry, a general result is that its error $\Delta {\cal A}$ is approximately $1/\sqrt{N_{K^-\pi^+}}$, where $N_{K^-\pi^+}$ is the total number of events tagged with $CP$-even and $CP$-odd eigenstates. Thus one obtained \begin{eqnarray} \Delta (\mbox{cos} \delta) \approx \frac{1}{2\sqrt{R_D} \sqrt{N_{K^-\pi^+}}}. \end{eqnarray} The expected number $N_{K^-\pi^+}$ of $CP$-tagged events can be connected to the total number of $D^0 \Dzb$ pairs $N(D^0 \Dzb)$ through $N_{K^-\pi^+} \approx N(D^0 \Dzb){\cal BR}(D^0 \rightarrow K^- \pi^+) \times {\cal BR}(D^0 \rightarrow f_{\pm})\times \epsilon_{tag} \approx 4.2 \times 10^{-4} N(D^0 \Dzb)$~, here, as in Ref~, we take the branching ratio-times-efficiency factor ${\cal BR}(D^0 \rightarrow f_{\pm})\times \epsilon_{tag}=1.1\ measured $R_{D} = (3.03\pm 0.19)\times 10^{-3}$ and ${\cal BR}(D^0 \rightarrow K^- \pi^+)=3.8\ found~ \begin{eqnarray} \Delta (\mbox{cos}\delta) \approx \frac{\pm 444}{\sqrt{N(D^0 \Dzb)}}. \end{eqnarray} At BESIII, about $72 \times 10^6$ $D^0 \Dzb$ pairs can be collected with 4 years' running. If considering both $K^- \pi^+$ and $K^+\pi^-$ final states, we thus estimate that one may be able to reach an accuracy of about 0.04 for cos$\delta$. Figure~ shows the expected error of the strong phase $\delta$ with various central values of $\mbox{cos}\delta$. With the expected $\Delta(\mbox{cos}\delta)= \pm 0.04$, the sensitivity of the strong phase varies with the physical value of $\mbox{cos}\delta$. For $\delta = 19^0$ and $-82^0$, the expected error could be $\Delta(\delta) = \pm 8.7^0$ and $\pm 2.9^0$, respectively. By combing the measurements of $x$ in $D^0 \rightarrow K_S \pi\pi$ and $y_{CP}$ from Belle, one can obtain $R_M =(1.18\pm 0.6)\times 10^{-4}$. At the $\psi(3770)$ peak, $D^0\Dzb$ pair are produced in a state that is quantum-mechanically coherent~. This enables simple new method to measure $D^0$ mixing parameters in a way similar proposed in Ref.~. At BES-III, the measurement of $R_M$ can be performed unambiguously with the following reactions~: \begin{eqnarray} &(i)&\,\, e^+ e^- \rightarrow \psi(3770) \rightarrow D^0 \Dzb \rightarrow (K^\pm \pi^\mp)( K^\pm \pi^\mp), \nonumber \\ &(ii)&\, \, e^+ e^- \rightarrow \psi(3770) \rightarrow D^0 \Dzb \rightarrow (K^- e^+ \nu )(K^- e^+ \nu), \nonumber \\ &(iii)& \, \, e^+e^- \rightarrow D^- D^{*+} \rightarrow (K^+ \pi^- \pi^-) ( \pi^+_{soft} [K^+ e^- \nu]). \nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} Reaction $(i)$ in Eq.~() can be normalized to $D^0\Dzb \rightarrow (K^-\pi^+)(K^+\pi^-)$, the following time-integrated ratio is obtained by neglecting $CP$ violation: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{N[(K^- \pi^+ )(K^-\pi^+)]}{N[(K^-\pi^+)(K^+\pi^-)]} \approx \frac{x^2+y^2}{2} = R_M. \end{eqnarray} For the case of semileptonic decay, as $(ii)$ in Eq.~(), we have \begin{eqnarray} \frac{N(l^{\pm} l^\pm)}{N(l^\pm l^\mp)} = \frac{x^2+y^2}{2} = R_M, \end{eqnarray} The observation of reaction $(i)$ would be definite evidence for the existence of $D^0 -\Dzb$ mixing since the final state $(K^\pm \pi^\mp)( K^\pm \pi^\mp)$ can not be produced from DCS decay due to quantum statistics~. In particular, the initial $D^0\Dzb$ pair is in an odd eigenstate of $C$ which will preclude, in the absence of mixing between the $D^0$ and $\Dzb$ over time, the formation of the symmetric state required by Bose statistics if the decays are to be the same final state. This final state is also very appealing experimentally, because it involves a two-body decay of both charm mesons, with energetic charged particles in the final state that form an overconstrained system. Particle identification is crucial in this measurement because if both the kaon and pion are misidentified in one of the two $D$-meson decays in the event, it becomes impossible to discern whether mixing has occurred. At BESIII, where the data sample is expected to be 20 fb$^{-1}$ integrated luminosity at $\psi(3770)$ peak, the limit will be $10^{-4}$ at 95\ $R_M$, but only if the particle identification capabilities are adequate. Reactions $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ offer unambiguous evidence for the mixing because the mixing is searched for in the semileptonic decays for which there are no DCS decays. Of course since the time-evolution is not measured, observation of Reactions $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ actually would indicate the violation of the selection rule relating the change in charm to the change in leptonic charge which holds true in the standard model~. In Table~, the sensitivity for $R_M$ measurements in different decay modes are estimated with 4 years' run at BEPCII. \begin{table}[htbp] \centering \caption{The sensitivity for $R_M$ measurements at BES-III with different decay modes with 4 years' run at BESPCII} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{$D^0\Dzb$ Mixing} \\ \hline Reaction & Events & Sensitivity \\ & RS($\times 10^{4}$) & $R_M$($\times 10^{-4}$) \\ \hline $\psi(3770) \rightarrow (K^-\pi^+)(K^-\pi^+)$ & 10.4 & $ 1.0$\\ \hline $\psi(3770) \rightarrow (K^- e^+ \nu)(K^- e^+ \nu )$ & 8.9 & \\ $\psi(3770) \rightarrow (K^- e^+ \nu)(K^- \mu^+ \nu )$ & 8.1 & $ 3.7$\\ $\psi(3770) \rightarrow (K^- \mu^+ \nu)(K^- \mu^+ \nu )$ & 7.3 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} In the limit of $CP$ conservation, by combing the measurements of $x$ in $D^0 \rightarrow K_S \pi\pi$ and $y_{CP}$ from Belle, one can obtain $R_M =(1.18\pm 0.6)\times 10^{-4}$. With 20fb$^{-1}$ data at BES-III, about 12 events for the precess $D^0\Dzb \rightarrow (K^\pm \pi^\mp) (K^\pm \pi^\mp)$ can be produced. One can observe 3.0 events after considering the selection efficiency at BESIII, which could be about 25\ particles. The background contamination due to double particle misidentification is about 0.6 event with 20$fb^{-1}$ data at BES-III~. Table~ lists the expected mixing signal for $N_{sig}=N(K^\pm\pi^\mp)(K^\pm\pi^\mp)$, background $N_{bkg}$ , and the Poisson probability $P(n)$, where $n$ is the possible number of observed events in experiment. In Table~, we assume the $R_M =1.18\times 10^{-4}$, the expected number of mixing signal events are estimated with 10fb$^{-1}$ and 20fb$^{-1}$, respectively. \begin{table}[htbp] \centering \caption{The expected mixing signal for $N_{sig}=N(K^\pm\pi^\mp)(K^\pm\pi^\mp)$, background $N_{bkg}$ , and the Poisson probability $P(n)$ in 10 fb$^{-1}$ and 20 fb$^{-1}$ at BES-III at $\psi(3770)$ peak, respectively. Here, we take the mixing rate $R_M=1.18\times 10^{-4}$. } \begin{tabular}{c|c|c} \hline \hline & 10 fb$^{-1}$ ($\psi(3770)$) & 20 fb$^{-1}$ ($\psi(3770)$) \\ & 36 million $D^0\Dzb$ &72 million $D^0\Dzb$ \\ \hline $N_{sig}$ & 1.5 & 3.0 \\ $N_{bkg}$ & 0.3 & 0.6 \\ \hline $P(n=0)$ & 15.7\ $P(n=1)$ & 29.1\ $P(n=2)$ & 26.9\ $P(n=3)$ & 16.6\ $P(n=4)$ & 7.7\ $P(n=5)$ & 2.8\ $P(n=6)$ & 0.9\ $P(n=7)$ & 0.2\ $P(n=8)$ & 0.1\ $P(n=9)$ & 0.01\ \end{tabular} \end{table} In conclusion, we discuss the constraints on the strong phase difference in $D^0 \rightarrow K\pi$ decay according to the most recent measurements of $y^\prime$, $y_{CP}$ and $x$ from $B$ factories. We estimate the sensitivity of the measurement of mixing parameter $y$ at $\psi(3770)$ peak in BES-III experiment. With 20 fb$^{-1}$ data, the uncertainty $\Delta(y)$ could be 0.003. Thus, assuming $y$ at a percent level, we can make a measurement of $y$ at a significance of 4.3$\sigma$ deviation from zero. The sensitivity of the strong phase difference at BES-III are obtained by using data near the $D\overline{D}$ threshold with $CP$ tag technique at BES-III experiment. Finally, we estimated the sensitivity of the measurements of the mixing rate $R_M$, and find that BES-III experiment may not be able to make a significant measurement of $R_M$ with current luminosity by using coherent $D\overline{D}$ state at $\psi(3770)$ peak. One of the authors (H.~B.~Li) would like to thank David Asner and Zhi-Zhong Xing for stimulating discussion, Chang-Zheng Yuan for useful discussion on the statistics used in this paper, and also thank Stephen L. Olsen and Yang-Heng Zheng for commenting on this manuscript. We thank BES-III collaboration for providing us many numerical results based on GEANT4 simulation. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts Nos. 10205017, 10575108,10521003, and the Knowledge Innovation Project of CAS under contract Nos. U-612 and U-530 (IHEP). \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{1} B.~Aubert, {\it et. al.}, (BaBar Collaboration), hep-ex/0703020. \bibitem{2} K.~Abe {\it et. al.}, (Belle Collaboration), hep-ex/0703036. \bibitem{nir_2007} Y.~Nir, hep-ph/0703235. \bibitem{PDG2006} W. M. Yao {\it et. al.}, (Partcle Data Group), J. Phys.G 33, 1(2006). \bibitem{nir_1999} A.~F.~Falk, Y.~Nir, and A.~Petrov, JHEP12, 019 (1999). \bibitem{li_2006} H.~B.~Li and M.~Z.~Yang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D74}, 094016(2006). \bibitem{grossman_2001} M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman, J.~L.~Rosner, Phys. Lett. {\bf B508}, 37 (2001). \bibitem{belle_kp_06} L.~M.~Zhang {\it et. al.}, (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 151801 (2006). \bibitem{marko_belle_07} M.~Staric, Talk given at the 42th Renocontres De Moriond On Electroweak Interactions And Unified Theories, March 10-17, 2007, La Thuile, Italy. \bibitem{ian_2003} G.~ Burdman and I.~Shipsey, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 53}, 431 (2003). \bibitem{nir_2000} S.~Bergmann, Y.~Grossman, Z.~Ligeti, Y.~Nir and A.~A.~Petrov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B486}, 418(2000). \bibitem{petrov_2005} D.~Atwood, A.~A.~Petrov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 054032 (2005). \bibitem{asner_2005} D.~M.~Asner and W.~M.~Sun Phys. Rev. {\bf D73}, 034024 (2006);D.~M.~Asner {\it et. al.}, Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys. {\bf A21}, 5456 (2006); W.~M.~Sun, hep-ex/0603031, AIP Conf.~Proc.~842:693-695 (2006). \bibitem{markiii_1} R.~M.~Baltrusaitis, {\it et. al.}, (MARK III Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf56}, 2140(1986). \bibitem{markiii_2} J.~Adler, {\it et. al.}, (MARK III Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 89 (1988). \bibitem{bigi_tau} I.~I.~Bigi, {\it Proceed. of the Tau-Charm Workshop}, L.~V.~Beers (ed.), SLAC-Report-343, page 169, (1989). \bibitem{bigi_sanda} I.~Bigi, A.~Sanda, Phys.~Lett. {\bf B171}, 320(1986). \bibitem{xing_1997} Z.~Z.~Xing, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D55}, 196(1997);\\ Z.~Z.~Xing, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B372},317(1996). \bibitem{besiii} BES-III Collaboration, "The Preliminary Design Report of the BESIII Detector", Report No. IHEP-BEPCII-SB-13. \bibitem{kanglin_07} Y.~Z.~Sun {\it et. al.}, to appear at HEP \& NP {\bf 31}, 1 (2007). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0121
|
Title: Meta-Stable Brane Configuration of Product Gauge Groups
Abstract: Starting from the N=1 SU(N_c) x SU(N_c') gauge theory with fundamental and
bifundamental flavors, we apply the Seiberg dual to the first gauge group and
obtain the N=1 dual gauge theory with dual matters including the gauge
singlets. By analyzing the F-term equations of the superpotential, we describe
the intersecting type IIA brane configuration for the meta-stable
nonsupersymmetric vacua of this gauge theory. By introducing an orientifold
6-plane, we generalize to the case for N=1 SU(N_c) x SO(N_c') gauge theory with
fundamental and bifundamental flavors. Finally, the N=1 SU(N_c) x Sp(N_c')
gauge theory with matters is also described very briefly.
Body: \thispagestyle{empty} \addtocounter{page}{-1} \begin{flushright} \end{flushright} \vspace*{1.3cm} \centerline{ \Large \bf Meta-Stable Brane Configuration of Product Gauge Groups } \vspace*{1.5cm} \centerline{{\bf Changhyun Ahn} } \vspace*{1.0cm} \centerline{\it Department of Physics, Kyungpook National University, Taegu 702-701, Korea} \vspace*{0.8cm} \centerline{\tt ahn@knu.ac.kr} \vskip2cm \centerline{\bf Abstract} \vspace*{0.5cm} Starting from the ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N_c) \times SU(N_c')$ gauge theory with fundamental and bifundamental flavors, we apply the Seiberg dual to the first gauge group and obtain the ${\cal N}=1$ dual gauge theory with dual matters including the gauge singlets. By analyzing the F-term equations of the superpotential, we describe the intersecting type IIA brane configuration for the meta-stable nonsupersymmetric vacua of this gauge theory. By introducing an orientifold 6-plane, we generalize to the case for ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c')$ gauge theory with fundamental and bifundamental flavors. Finally, the ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N_c) \times Sp(N_c')$ gauge theory with matters is also described very briefly. \baselineskip=18pt \newpage \renewcommand{\theequation} {\arabic{section}\mbox{.}\arabic{equation}} \section{Introduction} It is well-known that the ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N_c)$ QCD with fundamental flavors has a vanishing superpotential before we deform this theory by mass term for quarks. The vanishing superpotential in the electric theory makes it easier to analyze its nonvanishing dual magnetic superpotential. Sometimes by tuning the various rotation angles between NS5-branes and D6-branes appropriately, even if the electric theory has nonvanishing superpotential, one can make the nonzero superpotential to vanish in the electric theory. Two procedures, deforming the electric gauge theory by adding the mass for the quarks and taking the Seiberg dual magnetic theory from the electric theory, are crucial to find out meta-stable supersymmetry breaking vacua in the context of dynamical supersymmetry breaking . Some models of dynamical supersymmetry breaking can be studied by gauging the subgroup of the flavor symmetry group by either field theory analysis or using the brane configuration \footnote{For the type IIA brane configuration description of ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric gauge theory, see the review paper .}. In this paper, starting from the known ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric electric gauge theories, we construct the ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric magnetic gauge theories by brane motion and linking number counting. The dual gauge group appears only on the first gauge group. Based on their particular limits of corresponding magnetic brane configurations in the sense that their electric theories do not have any superpotentials except the mass deformations for the quarks, we describe the intersecting brane configurations of type IIA string theory for the meta-stable nonsupersymmetric vacua of these gauge theories. We focus on the cases where the whole gauge group is given by a product of two gauge groups. One example can be realized by three NS5-branes with D4- and D6-branes, and the other by four NS5-branes with D4- and D6-branes. For the latter, the appropriate orientifold 6-plane should be located at the center of this brane configuration in order to have two gauge groups. Of course, it is also possible, without changing the number of gauge groups, to have the brane configuration consisting of five NS5-branes and orientifold 6-plane, at which the extra NS5-brane is located, with D4- and D6-branes, but we'll not do this particular case in this paper. In section 2, we review the type IIA brane configuration that contains three NS5-branes, corresponding to the electric theory based on the ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N_c) \times SU(N_c')$ gauge theory with matter contents and deform this theory by adding the mass term for the quarks. Then we construct the Seiberg dual magnetic theory which is ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SU(N_c')$ gauge theory with corresponding dual matters as well as various gauge singlets, by brane motion and linking number counting. We do not touch the part of second gauge group $SU(N_c')$ in this dual process. In section 3, we consider the nonsupersymmetric meta-stable minimum by looking at the magnetic brane configuration we obtained in section 2 and present the corresponding intersecting brane configuration of type IIA string theory, along the line of (see also ) and we describe M-theory lift of this supersymmetry breaking type IIA brane configuration. In section 4, we describe the type IIA brane configuration that contains four NS5-branes, corresponding to the electric theory based on the ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c')$ gauge theory with matter contents and deform this theory by adding the mass term for the quarks. Then we take the Seiberg dual magnetic theory which is ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SO(N_c')$ gauge theory with corresponding dual matters as well as various gauge singlets, by brane motion and linking number counting. The part of second gauge group $SO(N_c')$ in this dual process is not changed under this process. In section 5, the nonsupersymmetric meta-stable minimum by looking at the magnetic brane configuration we obtained in section 4 is constructed and we present the corresponding intersecting brane configuration of type IIA string theory and describe M-theory lift of this supersymmetry breaking type IIA brane configuration, as we did in section 3. In section 6, we describe the similar application to the ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N_c) \times Sp(N_c')$ gauge theory briefly and make some comments for the future directions. \section{The ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric brane configuration of $SU(N_c) \times SU(N_c')$ gauge theory} After reviewing the type IIA brane configuration corresponding to the electric theory based on the ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N_c) \times SU(N_c')$ gauge theory , we construct the Seiberg dual magnetic theory which is ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SU(N_c')$ gauge theory. \subsection{Electric theory with $SU(N_c) \times SU(N_c')$ gauge group} The gauge group is given by $SU(N_c) \times SU(N_c')$ and the matter contents are given by $\bullet$ $N_f$ chiral multiplets $Q$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SU(N_c)$, $N_f$ chiral multiplets $\widetilde{Q}$ are in the antifundamental representation under the $SU(N_c)$ and then $Q$ are in the representation $({\bf N_c,1 })$ while $\widetilde{Q}$ are in the representation $({\bf \overline{N_c}, 1})$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ $N_f'$ chiral multiplets $Q'$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SU(N_c')$, $N_f'$ chiral multiplets $\widetilde{Q'}$ are in the antifundamental representation under the $SU(N_c')$ and then $Q'$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, N_c' })$ while $\widetilde{Q'}$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, \overline{N_c'}})$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ The flavor singlet field $X$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf N_c, \overline{N_c'} })$ under the gauge group and its complex conjugate field $\widetilde{X}$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf \overline{N_c}, N_c'})$ under the gauge group In the electric theory, since there exist $N_f$ quarks $Q$, $N_f$ quarks $\widetilde{Q}$, one bifundamental field $X$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c'$ and its complex conjugate $\widetilde{X}$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c'$, the coefficient of the beta function of the first gauge group factor is \bea b_{SU(N_c)} = 3N_c -N_f-N_c' \nonu \eea and similarly since there exist $N_f'$ quarks $Q'$, $N_f'$ quarks $\widetilde{Q'}$, one bifundamental field $X$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c$ and its complex conjugate $\widetilde{X}$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c$, the coefficient of the beta function of the second gauge group factor is \bea b_{SU(N_c')} = 3N_c'-N_f'-N_c. \nonu \eea The anomaly free global symmetry is given by $[SU(N_f) \times SU(N_f')]^2 \times U(1)^3 \times U(1)_R$ and let us denote the strong coupling scales for $SU(N_c)$ as $\Lambda_1$ and for $SU(N_c')$ as $\Lambda_2$. The theory is asymptotically free when $b_{SU(N_c)} = 3N_c -N_f-N_c' > 0$ for the $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory and when $b_{SU(N_c')} = 3N_c'-N_f'-N_c > 0$ for the $SU(N_c')$ gauge theory. The type IIA brane configuration for this theory can be described by $N_c$ color D4-branes (01236) suspended between a middle NS5-brane (012345) and the right NS5'-brane (012389) (denoted by $NS5_R'$-brane) along $x^6$ direction, together with $N_f$ D6-branes (0123789) which are parallel to $NS5_R'$-brane and have nonzero (45) directions. Moreover, an extra left NS5'-brane (denoted by $NS5_L'$-brane) is located at the left hand side of a middle NS5-brane along the $x^6$ direction and there exist $N_c'$ color D4-branes suspended between them, with $N_f'$ D6-branes which have zero (45) directions. These are shown in Figure 1 explicitly. See also for the brane configuration. By realizing that the two outer $NS5_{L,R}'$-branes are perpendicular to a middle NS5-brane and the fact that $N_f$ D6-branes are parallel to $NS5_R'$-brane and $N_f'$ D6-branes are parallel to $NS5_L'$-brane, the classical superpotential vanishes. However, one can deform this theory. Then the classical superpotential by deforming this theory by adding the mass term for the quarks $Q$ and $\widetilde{Q}$, along the lines of , is given by \bea W = m Q \widetilde{Q} \eea and this type IIA brane configuration can be summarized as follows \footnote{We introduce two complex coordinates $v \equiv x^4 + i x^5$ and $w \equiv x^8 + i x^9$ for simplicity. }: $\bullet$ One middle NS5-brane with worldvolume $(012345)$. $\bullet$ Two NS5'-branes with worldvolume $(012389)$. $\bullet$ $N_f$ D6-branes with worldvolume $(0123789)$ located at the positive region in $v$ direction. $\bullet$ $N_c$ color D4-branes with worldvolume $(01236)$. These are suspended between a middle NS5-brane and $NS5_R'$-brane. $\bullet$ $N_c'$ color D4-branes with worldvolume $(01236)$. These are suspended between $NS5_L'$-brane and a middle NS5-brane. Now we draw this electric brane configuration in Figure 1 and we put the coincident $N_f$ D6-branes in the nonzero $v$ direction. If we ignore the left $NS5'_L$-brane, $N_c'$ D4-branes and $N_f'$ D6-branes, then this brane configuration corresponds to the standard ${\cal N}=1$ SQCD with the gauge group $SU(N_c)$ with $N_f$ massive flavors. The electric quarks $Q$ and $\widetilde{Q}$ correspond to strings stretching between the $N_c$ color D4-branes with $N_f$ D6-branes, the electric quarks $Q'$ and $\widetilde{Q'}$ correspond to strings between the $N_c'$ color D4-branes with $N_f'$ D6-branes and the bifundamentals $X$ and $\widetilde{X}$ correspond to strings stretching between the $N_c$ color D4-branes with $N_c'$ color D4-branes. \subsection{Magnetic theory with $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SU(N_c')$ gauge group} One can consider dualizing one of the gauge groups regarding as the other gauge group as a spectator. One takes the Seiberg dual for the first gauge group factor $SU(N_c)$ while remaining the second gauge group factor $SU(N_c')$ unchanged. Also we consider the case where $\Lambda_1 >> \Lambda_2$, in other words, the dualized group's dynamical scale is far above that of the other spectator group. Let us move a middle NS5-brane to the right all the way past the right $NS5'_R$-brane. For example, see . After this brane motion, one arrives at the Figure 2. Note that there exists a creation of $N_f$ D4-branes connecting $N_f$ D6-branes and $NS5'_R$-brane. Recall that the $N_f$ D6-branes are perpendicular to a middle NS5-brane in Figure 1. The linking number of NS5-brane from Figure 2 is $ L_5 = \frac{N_f}{2} -\widetilde{N}_c$. On the other hand, the linking number of NS5-brane from Figure 1 is $ L_5 = -\frac{N_f}{2} + N_c -N_c'$. Due to the connection of $N_c'$ D4-branes with $NS5_R'$-brane, the presence of $N_c'$ in the linking number arises. From these two relations, one obtains the number of colors of dual magnetic theory \bea \widetilde{N}_c = N_f +N_c'-N_c. \eea The linking number counting looks similar to the one in where there exists a contribution from O4-plane. Let us draw this magnetic brane configuration in Figure 2 and recall that we put the coincident $N_f$ D6-branes in the nonzero $v$ directions in the electric theory, along the lines of . The $N_f$ created D4-branes connecting between D6-branes and $NS5_R'$-brane can move freely in the $w$ direction. Moreover since $N_c'$ D4-branes are suspending between two equal $NS5'_{L,R}$-branes located at different $x^6$ coordinate, these D4-branes can slide along the $w$ direction also. If we ignore the left $NS5'_L$-brane, $N_c'$ D4-branes and $N_f'$ D6-branes(detaching these from Figure 2), then this brane configuration corresponds to the standard ${\cal N}=1$ SQCD with the magnetic gauge group $SU(\widetilde{N}_c=N_f-N_c)$ with $N_f$ massive flavors . The dual magnetic gauge group is given by $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SU(N_c')$ and the matter contents are given by $\bullet$ $N_f$ chiral multiplets $q$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$, $N_f$ chiral multiplets $\widetilde{q}$ are in the antifundamental representation under the $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$ and then $q$ are in the representation $({\bf \widetilde{N}_c,1 })$ while $\widetilde{q}$ are in the representation $({\bf \overline{\widetilde{N}_c}, 1})$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ $N_f'$ chiral multiplets $Q'$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SU(N_c')$, $N_f'$ chiral multiplets $\widetilde{Q'}$ are in the antifundamental representation under the $SU(N_c')$ and then $Q'$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, N_c' })$ while $\widetilde{Q'}$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, \overline{N_c'}})$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ The flavor singlet field $Y$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf \widetilde{N}_c, \overline{N_c'} })$ under the gauge group and its complex conjugate field $\widetilde{Y}$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf \overline{\widetilde{N}_c}, N_c'})$ under the gauge group There are $(N_f+N_c')^2$ gauge singlets in the first dual gauge group factor as follows: $\bullet$ $N_f$-fields $F'$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SU(N_c')$, its complex conjugate $N_f$-fields $\widetilde{F'}$ are in the antifundamental representation under the $SU(N_c')$ and then $F'$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, N_c' })$ under the gauge group while $\widetilde{F'}$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, \overline{N_c'} })$ under the gauge group These additional $N_f$ $SU(N_c')$ fundamentals and $N_f$ $SU(N_c')$ antifundamentals are originating from the $SU(N_c)$ chiral mesons $\widetilde{X} Q$ and $X \widetilde{Q}$ respectively. It is clear to see that from the Figure 2, since the $N_f$ D6-branes are parallel to the $NS5'_R$-brane, the newly created $N_f$ D4-branes can slide along the plane consisting of these $D6$-branes and $NS5'_R$-brane arbitrarily. Then strings stretching between the $N_f$ $D6$-branes and $N_c'$ D4-branes will give rise to these additional $N_f$ $SU(N_c')$ fundamentals and $N_f$ $SU(N_c')$ antifundamentals. $\bullet$ $N_f^2$-fields $M$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, 1})$ under the gauge group This corresponds to the $SU(N_c)$ chiral meson $Q \widetilde{Q}$ and the fluctuations of the singlet $M$ correspond to the motion of $N_f$ flavor D4-branes along (789) directions in Figure 2. $\bullet$ The $N_c'^2$-fields $\Phi$ is in the representation $({\bf 1, N_c'^2-1}) \oplus ({\bf 1,1 })$ under the gauge group This corresponds to the $SU(N_c)$ chiral meson $X \widetilde{X}$ and note that $X$ has a representation ${\bf \overline{N_c'}}$ of $SU(N_c')$ while $\widetilde{X}$ has a representation ${\bf N_c'}$ of $SU(N_c')$. The fluctuations of the singlet $\Phi$ correspond to the motion of $N_c'$ D4-branes suspended two $NS5_{L,R}'$-branes along the (789) directions in Figure 2. In the dual theory, since there exist $N_f$ quarks $q$, $N_f$ quarks $\widetilde{q}$, one bifundamental field $Y$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c'$ and its complex conjugate $\widetilde{Y}$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c'$, the coefficient of the beta function for the first gauge group factor is \bea b_{SU(\widetilde{N}_c)}^{mag} = 3\widetilde{N}_c-N_f-N_c' =2N_f +2N_c'-3N_c \nonu \eea where we inserted the number of colors given in () in the second equality and since there exist $N_f'$ quarks $Q'$, $N_f'$ quarks $\widetilde{Q'}$, one bifundamental field $Y$ which will give rise to the contribution of $\widetilde{N}_c$, its complex conjugate $\widetilde{Y}$ which will give rise to the contribution of $\widetilde{N}_c$, $N_f$ fields $F'$, its complex conjugate $N_f$ fields $\widetilde{F'}$ and the singlet $\Phi$ which will give rise to $N_c'$, the coefficient of the beta function of second gauge group factor is \bea b_{SU(N_c')}^{mag} = 3N_c'-N_f'-\widetilde{N}_c-N_f-N_c' =N_c'+N_c-2N_f-N_f'. \nonu \eea Therefore, both $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$ and $SU(N_c')$ gauge couplings are IR free by requiring the negativeness of the coefficients of beta function. One can rely on the perturbative calculations at low energy for this magnetic IR free region $b_{SU(\widetilde{N}_c)}^{mag} < 0$ and $b_{SU(N_c')}^{mag} < 0$. Note that the $SU(N_c')$ fields in the magnetic theory are different from those of the electric theory. Since $b_{SU(N_c')}-b_{SU(N_c')}^{mag} > 0$, $SU(N_c')$ is more asymptotically free than $SU(N_c')^{mag}$ . Neglecting the $SU(N_c')$ dynamics, the magnetic $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$ is IR free when $N_f+N_c'< \frac{3}{2} N_c$ . The dual magnetic superpotential, by adding the mass term () for $Q$ and $\widetilde{Q}$ in the electric theory which is equal to put a linear term in $M$ in the dual magnetic theory, is given by \bea W_{dual} = \left(M q \widetilde{q} + Y F' \widetilde{q} + \widetilde{Y} q \widetilde{F'} + \Phi Y \widetilde{Y} \right) + m M \eea where the mesons in terms of the fields defined in the electric theory are \bea M \equiv Q \widetilde{Q}, \qquad \Phi \equiv X \widetilde{X}, \qquad F' \equiv \widetilde{X} Q, \qquad \widetilde{F'} \equiv X \widetilde{Q}. \nonu \eea By orientifolding procedure(O4-plane) into this brane configuration, the $q(Q)$ and $\widetilde{q}(\widetilde{Q})$ are equivalent to each other, the $Y(X)$ and $\widetilde{Y}(\widetilde{X})$ become identical and $F'$ and $\widetilde{F'}$ become the same. Then the reduced superpotential is identical with the one in . Here $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$ are fundamental and antifundamental for the gauge group index respectively and antifundamentals for the flavor index. Then, $q \widetilde{q}$ has rank $\widetilde{N}_c$ while $m$ has a rank $N_f$. Therefore, the F-term condition, the derivative the superpotential $W_{dual}$ with respect to $M$, cannot be satisfied if the rank $N_f$ exceeds $\widetilde{N}_c$. This is so-called rank condition and the supersymmetry is broken. Other F-term equations are satisfied by taking the vacuum expectation values of $Y, \widetilde{Y}, F'$ and $\widetilde{F'}$ to vanish. The classical moduli space of vacua can be obtained from F-term equations \bea q \widetilde{q} + m & = & 0, \qquad \widetilde{q} M + \widetilde{F'} \widetilde{Y} = 0, \nonu \\ M q + Y F' & = & 0, \qquad F' \widetilde{q} + \widetilde{Y} \Phi = 0, \nonu \\ \widetilde{q} Y & = & 0, \qquad q \widetilde{F'} + \Phi Y = 0, \nonu \\ \widetilde{Y} q & = & 0, \qquad Y \widetilde{Y} = 0. \nonu \eea Then, it is easy to see that there exist three reduced equations \bea \widetilde{q} M =0= M q, \qquad q \widetilde{q} + m = 0 \nonu \eea and other F-term equations are satisfied if one takes the zero vacuum expectation values for the fields $Y, \widetilde{Y}, F'$ and $\widetilde{F'}$. Then the solutions can be written as follows: \bea <q > & = & \left( \begin{array}{c} \sqrt{m} e^{\phi} {\bf 1}_{\widetilde{N}_c} \\ 0 \end{array} \right), < \widetilde{q}> = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \sqrt{m} e^{-\phi} {\bf 1}_{\widetilde{N}_c} & 0 \end{array} \right), <M> = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \Phi_0 {\bf 1}_{N_f-\widetilde{N}_c} \end{array} \right) \nonu \\ <Y> & = & <\widetilde{Y}> = <F'> = <\widetilde{F'}>= 0. \eea Let us expand around a point on (), as done in . Then the remaining relevant terms of superpotential are given by \bea W_{dual}^{rel} & = & \Phi_0 \left( \delta \varphi \; \delta \widetilde{\varphi} + m \right) + \delta Z \; \delta \varphi \; \widetilde{q}_0 + \delta \widetilde{Z} \; q_0 \delta \widetilde{\varphi} \nonu \eea by following the same fluctuations for the various fields as in : \bea q & = & \left( \begin{array}{c} q_0 {\bf 1}_{\widetilde{N}_c} +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\delta \chi_{+} + \delta \chi_{-}) {\bf 1}_{\widetilde{N}_c} \nonu \\ \delta \varphi \end{array} \right), \quad \widetilde{q} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \widetilde{q}_0 {\bf 1}_{\widetilde{N}_c} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\delta \chi_{+} - \delta \chi_{-}) {\bf 1}_{\widetilde{N}_c} & \delta \widetilde{\varphi} \end{array} \right), \nonu \\ M & = & \left( \begin{array}{cc} \delta Y & \delta Z \\ \delta \widetilde{Z} & \Phi_0 {\bf 1}_{N_f-\widetilde{N}_c} \end{array} \right) \nonu \eea as well as the fluctuations of $Y, \widetilde{Y}, F'$ and $\widetilde{F'}$. Note that there exist also three kinds of terms, the vacuum $<q>$ multiplied by $\delta \widetilde{Y} \delta \widetilde{F'}$, the vacuum $<\widetilde{q}>$ multiplied by $\delta F' \delta Y$, and the vacuum $<\Phi>$ multiplied by $\delta Y \delta \widetilde{Y}$. However, by redefining these, they do not enter the contributions for the one loop result, up to quadratic order. As done in , one gets that $m_{\Phi_0}^2$ will contain $(\log 4 -1) > 0$ implying that these are stable. \section{Nonsupersymmetric meta-stable brane configuration of $SU(N_c) \times SU(N_c')$ gauge theory } Now we recombine $\widetilde{N}_c$ D4-branes among $N_f$ flavor D4-branes connecting between D6-branes and $NS5_R'$-brane with those connecting between $NS5'_R$-brane and NS5-brane and push them in $+v$ direction from Figure 2. After this procedure, there are no color D4-branes between $NS5'_R$-brane and NS5-brane. For the flavor D4-branes, we are left with only $(N_f-\widetilde{N}_c)$ flavor D4-branes. Then the minimal energy supersymmetry breaking brane configuration is shown in Figure 3, along the lines of . If we ignore the left $NS5'_L$-brane, $N_c'$ D4-branes and $N_f'$ D6-branes(detaching these from Figure 3), as observed already, then this brane configuration corresponds to the minimal energy supersymmetry breaking brane configuration for the ${\cal N}=1$ SQCD with the magnetic gauge group $SU(\widetilde{N}_c=N_f-N_c)$ with $N_f$ massive flavors . The type IIA/M-theory brane construction for the ${\cal N}=2$ gauge theory was described by and after lifting the type IIA description to M-theory, the corresponding magnetic M5-brane configuration \footnote{The M5-brane lives in (0123) directions and is wrapping on a Riemann surface inside (4568910) directions. The Taub-NUT space in (45610) directions is parametrized by two complex variables $v$ and $y$ and the flat two dimensions in (89) directions by a complex variable $w$. See for the relevant discussions. } with equal mass for the quarks where the gauge group is given by $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SU(N_c')$, in a background space of $x t = v^{N_f'} \prod_{k=1}^{N_f} (v -e_k)$ where this four dimensional space replaces (45610) directions, is described by \bea t^3 + ( v^{\widetilde{N}_c } + \cdots ) t^2 + ( v^{N_c'} + \cdots) t + v^{N_f'} \prod_{k=1}^{N_f} (v -e_k ) =0 \eea where $e_k$ is the position of the D6-branes in the $v$ direction(for equal massive case, we can write $e_k=m$) and we have ignored the lower power terms in $v$ in $t^2$ and $t$ denoted by $\cdots$ and the scales for the gauge groups in front of the first term and the last term, for simplicity. For fixed $x$, the coordinate $t$ corresponds to $y$. From this curve () of cubic equation for $t$ above, the asymptotic regions for three NS5-branes can be classified by looking at the first two terms providing NS5-brane asymptotic region, next two terms providing $NS5_R'$-brane asymptotic region and the final two terms giving $NS5_L'$-brane asymptotic region as follows 1. $v \rightarrow \infty$ limit implies \bea w \rightarrow 0, \quad y \sim v^{\widetilde{N}_c} + \cdots \quad \mbox{NS asymptotic region}. \nonu \eea 2. $w \rightarrow \infty$ limit implies \bea v & \rightarrow & m, \quad y \sim w^{N_f+N_f'-N_c'} +\cdots \quad \mbox{$NS_{L}'$ asymptotic region}, \nonu \\ v & \rightarrow & m, \quad y \sim w^{N_c'-\widetilde{N}_c} +\cdots \quad \mbox{$NS_{R}'$ asymptotic region}. \nonu \eea Here the two $NS5'_{L,R}$-branes are moving in the $+v$ direction holding everything else fixed instead of moving D6-branes in the $+v$ direction, in the spirit of . The harmonic function sourced by the D6-branes can be written explicitly by summing over two contributions from the $N_f$ and $N_f'$ D6-branes and similar analysis to both solve the differential equation and find out the nonholomorphic curve can be done . An instability from a new M5-brane mode arises. \section{The ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric brane configuration of $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c')$ gauge theory } After reviewing the type IIA brane configuration corresponding to the electric theory based on the ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c')$ gauge theory , we describe the Seiberg dual magnetic theory which is ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SO(N_c')$ gauge theory. \subsection{Electric theory with $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c')$ gauge group } The gauge group is given by $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c')$ and the matter contents (similar matter contents are found in ) are given by $\bullet$ $N_f$ chiral multiplets $Q$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SU(N_c)$, $N_f$ chiral multiplets $\widetilde{Q}$ are in the antifundamental representation under the $SU(N_c)$ and then $Q$ are in the representation $({\bf N_c,1 })$ while $\widetilde{Q}$ are in the representation $({\bf \overline{N_c}, 1})$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ $2N_f'$ chiral multiplets $Q'$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SO(N_c')$ and then $Q'$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, N_c' })$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ The flavor singlet field $X$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf N_c, N_c' })$ under the gauge group and the flavor singlet $\widetilde{X}$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf \overline{N_c}, N_c'})$ under the gauge group In the electric theory, since there exist $N_f$ quarks $Q$, $N_f$ quarks $\widetilde{Q}$, one bifundamental field $X$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c'$ and its complex conjugate $\widetilde{X}$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c'$, the coefficient of the beta function of the first gauge group factor is \bea b_{SU(N_c)} = 3N_c -N_f-N_c' \nonu \eea and similarly, since there exist $2N_f'$ quarks $Q'$, one bifundamental field $X$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c$ and its complex conjugate $\widetilde{X}$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c$, the coefficient of the beta function of the second gauge group factor is \bea b_{SO(N_c')} = 3(N_c'-2)-2N_f'-2N_c. \nonu \eea The anomaly free global symmetry is given by $SU(N_f)^2 \times SU(2N_f') \times U(1)^2 \times U(1)_R$ and let us denote the strong coupling scales for $SU(N_c)$ as $\Lambda_1$ and for $SO(N_c')$ as $\Lambda_2$, as in previous section. The theory is asymptotically free when $b_{SU(N_c)} > 0$ for the $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory and when $b_{SO(N_c')} > 0$ for the $SO(N_c')$ gauge theory. The type IIA brane configuration of ${\cal N}=2$ gauge theory consists of four NS5-branes (012345) which have different $x^6$ values, $N_c$ and $N_c'$ D4-branes (01236) suspended between them, $2N_f$ and $2N_f'$ D6-branes (0123789) and an orientifold 6 plane (0123789) of positive Ramond charge \footnote{There are many different brane configurations with O6-plane in the literature and some of them are present in . }. According to ${\bf Z}_2$ symmetry of orientifold 6-plane(O6-plane) sitting at $v=0$ and $x^6=0$, the coordinates $(x^4,x^5, x^6)$ transform as $-(x^4, x^5, x^6)$, as usual. See also for the discussion of O6-plane. By rotating the third and fourth NS5-branes which are located at the right hand side of O6-plane, from $v$ direction toward $-w$ and $+w$ directions respectively, one obtains ${\cal N}=1$ theory. Their mirrors, the first and second NS5-branes which are located at the left hand side of O6-plane, can be rotated in a ${\bf Z}_2$ symmetric manner due to the presence of O6-plane simultaneously. That is, if the first NS5-brane rotates by an angle $-\omega$ in $(v,w)$ plane, denoted by $NS5_{-\omega}$-brane , then the mirror image of this NS5-brane, the fourth NS5-brane, is rotated by an angle $\omega$ in the same plane, denoted by $NS5_{\omega}$-brane. If the second NS5-brane rotates by an angle $\theta$ in $(v,w)$ plane, denoted by $NS5_{\theta}$-brane , then the mirror image of this NS5-brane, the third NS5-brane, is rotated by an angle $-\theta$ in the same plane, denoted by $NS5_{-\theta}$-brane. For more details, see the Figure 4 \footnote{The angles of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ in are related to the angles $\theta$ and $\omega$ as follows: $\theta= \theta_1$ and $\omega=\theta_2$.}. We also rotate the $N_f'$ D6-branes which are located between the second NS5-brane and an O6-plane and make them be parallel to $NS5_{\theta}$-brane and denote them as $D6_{\theta}$-brane with zero $v$ coordinate(the angle between the unrotated D6-branes and $D6_{\theta}$-branes is equal to $\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta$) and its mirrors $N_f'$ D6-branes appear as $D6_{-\theta}$-branes between the O6-plane and third NS5-brane. There is no coupling between the adjoint field and the quarks since the rotated $D6_{\theta}$-branes are parallel to the rotated $NS5_{\theta}$-brane . Similarly, the $N_f$ D6-branes which are located between the third NS5-brane and the fourth NS5-brane can be rotated and we can make them be parallel to $NS5_{\omega}$-brane and denote them as $D6_{\omega}$-branes with nonzero $v$ coordinate(the angle between the unrotated D6-branes and $D6_{\omega}$-branes is equal to $\frac{\pi}{2}-\omega$) and its mirrors $N_f$ D6-branes appear as $D6_{-\omega}$-branes between the first NS5-brane and the second NS5-brane. Moreover the $N_c$ D4-branes are suspended between the first NS5-brane and the second NS5-brane(and its mirrors) and the $N_c'$ D4-branes are suspended between the second NS5-brane and the third NS5-brane. For this brane setup \footnote{For arbitrary angles $\theta$ and $\omega$, the superpotential for the $SU(N_c)$ sector is given by $W=X \phi \widetilde{X} + \tan (\omega-\theta) \tr \phi^2$ where $\phi$ ia an adjoint field for $SU(N_c)$. There is no coupling between $\phi$ and $N_f$ quarks because $D6_{\pm \omega}$-branes are parallel to $NS5_{\pm \omega}$-branes. The superpotential for the $SO(N_c')$ sector is given by $W=X \phi_A \widetilde{X} + X \phi_S \widetilde{X}+ \tan \theta \tr \phi_A^2 -\frac{1}{\tan \theta} \tr \phi_S^2$ where $\phi_A$ and $\phi_S$ are an adjoint field and a symmetric tensor for $SO(N_c')$ . After integrating out $\phi, \phi_A$ and $\phi_S$, the whole superpotential can be written as in ().}, the classical superpotential is given by \bea W= -\frac{1}{4} \left[ \frac{1}{4 \tan(\omega - \theta)} + \frac{1}{\tan 2\theta} \right] \tr (X \widetilde{X})^2 + \frac{ \tr X \widetilde{X} \widetilde{X} X }{4 \sin 2\theta } + \frac{(\tr X \widetilde{X})^2}{4 N_c \tan(\omega-\theta)}. \eea It is easy to see that when $\theta$ approaches $0$ and $\omega$ approaches $\frac{\pi}{2}$, then this superpotential vanishes. Now one summarizes the supersymmetric electric brane configuration with their worldvolumes in type IIA string theory as follows. $\bullet$ $NS5_{-\omega}$-brane with worldvolume by both (0123) and two spatial dimensions in $(v,w)$ plane and with negative $x^6$. $\bullet$ $NS5_{\theta}$-brane with worldvolume by both (0123) and two spatial dimensions in $(v,w)$ plane and with negative $x^6$. $\bullet$ $NS5_{-\theta}$-brane with worldvolume by both (0123) and two spatial dimensions in $(v,w)$ plane and with positive $x^6$. $\bullet$ $NS5_{\omega}$-brane with worldvolume by both (0123) and two spatial dimensions in $(v,w)$ plane and with positive $x^6$. $\bullet$ $N_f'$ $D6_{\theta}$-branes with worldvolume by both (01237) and two spatial dimensions in $(v,w)$ plane and with negative $x^6$ and $v=0$. $\bullet$ $N_f'$ $D6_{-\theta}$-branes with worldvolume by both (01237) and two space dimensions in $(v,w)$ plane and with positive $x^6$ and $v=0$. $\bullet$ $N_f$ $D6_{\omega}$-branes with worldvolume by both (01237) and two spatial dimensions in $(v,w)$ plane and with positive $x^6$. Before the rotation, the distance from $N_c$ color D4-branes in the $+v$ direction is nonzero. $\bullet$ $N_f$ $D6_{-\omega}$-branes with worldvolume by both (01237) and two space dimensions in $(v,w)$ plane and with negative $x^6$. Before the rotation, the distance from $N_c$ color D4-branes in the $-v$ direction is nonzero. $\bullet$ O6-plane with worldvolume (0123789) with $v=0=x^6$. $\bullet$ $N_c$ D4-branes connecting $NS5_{-\omega}$-brane and $NS5_{\theta}$-brane, with worldvolume (01236) with $v=0=w$(and its mirrors). $\bullet$ $N_c'$ D4-branes connecting $NS5_{\theta}$-brane and $NS5_{-\theta}$-brane, with worldvolume (01236) with $v=0=w$. We draw the type IIA electric brane configuration in Figure 4 which was basically given in already but the only difference is to put $N_f$ D6-branes in the nonzero $v$ direction in order to obtain nonzero masses for the quarks which are necessary to obtain the meta-stable vacua. \subsection{Magnetic theory with $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SO(N_c')$ gauge group} One takes the Seiberg dual for the first gauge group factor $SU(N_c)$ while remaining the second gauge group factor $SO(N_c')$, as in previous case. Also we consider the case where $\Lambda_1 >> \Lambda_2$, in other words, the dualized group's dynamical scale is far above that of the other spectator group. Let us move the $NS5_{-\theta}$-brane to the right all the way past the right $NS5_{\omega}$-brane(and its mirrors to the left). After this brane motion, one arrives at the Figure 5. Note that there exists a creation of $N_f$ D4-branes connecting $N_f$ $D6_{\omega}$-branes and $NS5_{\omega}$-brane(and its mirrors). Recall that the $N_f$ $D6_{\omega}$-branes are not parallel to the $NS5_{-\theta}$-brane in Figure 4(and its mirrors). The linking number of $NS5_{-\theta}$-brane from Figure 5 is $ L_5 = \frac{N_f}{2} -\widetilde{N}_c$. On the other hand, the linking number of $NS5_{-\theta}$-brane from Figure 4 is $ L_5 = -\frac{N_f}{2} + N_c -N_c'$. From these, one gets the number of colors in dual magnetic theory \bea \widetilde{N}_c = N_f +N_c'-N_c. \eea Let us draw this magnetic brane configuration in Figure 5 and remember that we put the coincident $N_f$ $D6_{\omega}$-branes in the nonzero $v$ directions(and its mirrors). The $N_f$ created D4-branes connecting between $D6_{\omega}$-branes and $NS5_{\omega}$-brane can move freely in the $w$ direction, as in previous case. Moreover, since $N_c'$ D4-branes are suspending between two unequal $NS5_{\pm \omega}$-branes located at different $x^6$ coordinate, these D4-branes cannot slide along the $w$ direction, for arbitrary rotation angles. If we are detaching all the branes except $NS5_{\omega}$-brane, $NS5_{-\theta}$-brane, $D6_{\omega}$-branes, $N_f$ D4-branes and $\widetilde{N}_c$ D4-branes from Figure 5, then this brane configuration corresponds to ${\cal N}=1$ SQCD with the magnetic gauge group $SU(\widetilde{N}_c=N_f-N_c)$ with $N_f$ massive flavors with tilted NS5-branes. The dual magnetic gauge group is given by $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SO(N_c')$ and the matter contents are given by $\bullet$ $N_f$ chiral multiplets $q$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$, $N_f$ chiral multiplets $\widetilde{q}$ are in the antifundamental representation under the $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$ and then $q$ are in the representation $({\bf \widetilde{N}_c,1 })$ while $\widetilde{q}$ are in the representation $({\bf \overline{\widetilde{N}_c}, 1})$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ $2N_f'$ chiral multiplets $Q'$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SO(N_c')$ and then $Q'$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, N_c' })$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ The flavor singlet field $Y$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf \widetilde{N}_c, N_c' })$ under the gauge group and its complex conjugate field $\widetilde{Y}$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf \overline{\widetilde{N}_c}, N_c'})$ under the gauge group There are $(N_f+N_c')^2$ gauge singlets in the first dual gauge group factor as follows: $\bullet$ $N_f$-fields $F'$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SO(N_c')$, $N_f$-fields $\widetilde{F'}$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SO(N_c')$ and then $F'$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, N_c' })$ under the gauge group while $\widetilde{F'}$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, N_c' })$ under the gauge group These additional $2N_f$ $SO(N_c')$ vectors are originating from the $SU(N_c)$ chiral mesons $\widetilde{X} Q$ and $X \widetilde{Q}$ respectively. It is easy to see that from the Figure 5, since the $D6_{-\omega}$-branes are parallel to the $NS5_{-\omega}$-brane, the newly created $N_f$ D4-branes can slide along the plane consisting of $D6_{-\omega}$-branes and $NS5_{-\omega}$-brane arbitrarily(and its mirrors). Then strings connecting the $N_f$ $D6_{-\omega}$-branes and $N_c'$ D4-branes will give rise to these additional $2N_f$ $SO(N_c')$ vectors. $\bullet$ $N_f^2$-fields $M$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, 1})$ under the gauge group This corresponds to the $SU(N_c)$ chiral meson $Q \widetilde{Q}$ and the fluctuations of the singlet $M$ correspond to the motion of $N_f$ flavor D4-branes along (789) directions in Figure 5. $\bullet$ The $N_c^{'2}$ singlet $\Phi$ is in the representation $({\bf 1, adj}) \oplus ({\bf 1,symm })$ under the gauge group This corresponds to the $SU(N_c)$ chiral meson $X \widetilde{X}$ and note that both $X$ and $\widetilde{X}$ have representation ${\bf N_c'}$ of $SO(N_c')$. In general, the fluctuations of the singlet $\Phi$ correspond to the motion of $N_c'$ D4-branes suspended two $NS5_{\pm \omega}$-branes along the (789) directions in Figure 5. In the dual theory, since there exist $N_f$ quarks $q$, $N_f$ quarks $\widetilde{q}$, one bifundamental field $Y$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c'$ and its complex conjugate $\widetilde{Y}$ which will give rise to the contribution of $N_c'$, the coefficient of the beta function of the first gauge group factor with () is \bea b_{SU(\widetilde{N}_c)}^{mag} = 3\widetilde{N}_c-N_f-N_c' =2N_f +2N_c'-3N_c \nonu \eea and since there exist $2N_f'$ quarks $Q'$, one bifundamental field $Y$ which will give rise to the contribution of $\widetilde{N}_c$, its complex conjugate $\widetilde{Y}$ which will give rise to the contribution of $\widetilde{N}_c$, $N_f$ fields $F'$, its complex conjugate $N_f$ fields $\widetilde{F'}$ and the singlet $\Phi$ which will give rise to $N_c'$, the coefficient of the beta function is \bea b_{SO(N_c')}^{mag} = 3(N_c'-2)-2N_f'-2\widetilde{N}_c-2N_f-2N_c' =-N_c'+2N_c-4N_f-2N_f'-6. \nonu \eea Therefore, both $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$ and $SO(N_c')$ gauge couplings are IR free by requiring the negativeness of the coefficients of beta function. One can rely on the perturbative calculations at low energy for this magnetic IR free region $b_{SU(\widetilde{N}_c)}^{mag} < 0$ and $b_{SO(N_c')}^{mag} < 0$. Note that the $SO(N_c')$ fields in the magnetic theory are different from those of the electric theory. Since $b_{SO(N_c')}-b_{SO(N_c')}^{mag} > 0$, $SO(N_c')$ is more asymptotically free than $SO(N_c')^{mag}$. Neglecting the $SO(N_c')$ dynamics, the magnetic $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$ is IR free when $N_f+N_c'< \frac{3}{2} N_c$, as in previous case. The dual magnetic superpotential, by adding the mass term for $Q$ and $\widetilde{Q}$ in the electric theory which is equal to put a linear term in $M$ in the dual magnetic theory, is given by \footnote{There appears a mismatch between the number of colors from field theory analysis and those from brane motion when we take the full dual process on the two gauge group factors simultaneously . By adding $4N_f'$ D4-branes to the dual brane configuration without affecting the linking number counting, this mismatch can be removed. Similar phenomena occurred in . Then this turned out that there exists a deformation $\Delta W$ generated by the meson $Q' X \widetilde{X} Q'$. This is exactly the second term, $Q' \Phi Q'$, in (). In previous example, there is no such deformation term in (). } \bea W_{dual} = \left[(\Phi^2 + \cdots) + Q' \Phi Q' + M q \widetilde{q} + Y \widetilde{F'} \widetilde{q} + \widetilde{Y} q F' + \Phi Y \widetilde{Y} \right] + m M \eea where the mesons in terms of the fields defined in the electric theory are \bea M \equiv Q \widetilde{Q}, \qquad \Phi \equiv X \widetilde{X}, \qquad F' \equiv \widetilde{X} Q, \qquad \widetilde{F'} \equiv X \widetilde{Q}. \nonu \eea We abbreviated all the relevant terms and coefficients appearing in the quartic superpotential for the bifundamentals in electric theory () and denote them here by $\Phi^2 + \cdots$. Here $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$ are fundamental and antifundamental for the gauge group index respectively and antifundamentals for the flavor index. Then, $q \widetilde{q}$ has rank $\widetilde{N}_c$ and $m$ has a rank $N_f$. Therefore, the F-term condition, the derivative the superpotential $W_{dual}$ with respect to $M$, cannot be satisfied if the rank $N_f$ exceeds $\widetilde{N}_c$ and the supersymmetry is broken. Other F-term equations are satisfied by taking the vacuum expectation values of $Y, \widetilde{Y}, F', \widetilde{F'}$ and $Q'$ to vanish. The classical moduli space of vacua can be obtained from F-term equations and one gets \bea q \widetilde{q} + m & = & 0, \qquad \widetilde{q} M + F' \widetilde{Y} = 0, \nonu \\ M q + Y \widetilde{F'} & = & 0, \qquad \widetilde{F'} \widetilde{q} + \widetilde{Y} \Phi = 0, \nonu \\ \widetilde{q} Y & = & 0, \qquad q F' + \Phi Y = 0, \nonu \\ \widetilde{Y} q & = & 0, \qquad Q' Q' + Y \widetilde{Y} = 0, \nonu \\ \Phi Q' & = & 0. \nonu \eea Then, it is easy to see that there exists a solution \bea \widetilde{q} M =0= M q, \qquad q \widetilde{q} + m = 0. \nonu \eea Other F-term equations are satisfied if one takes the zero vacuum expectation values for the fields $Y, \widetilde{Y}, F', Q'$ and $\widetilde{F'}$. Then the solutions can be written as \bea <q > & = & \left( \begin{array}{c} \sqrt{m} e^{\phi} {\bf 1}_{\widetilde{N}_c} \\ 0 \end{array} \right), < \widetilde{q}> = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \sqrt{m} e^{-\phi} {\bf 1}_{\widetilde{N}_c} & 0 \end{array} \right), <M> = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \Phi_0 {\bf 1}_{N_f-\widetilde{N}_c} \end{array} \right) \nonu \\ <Y> & = & <\widetilde{Y}> = <F'> = <\widetilde{F'}> = <Q'>= 0. \eea Let us expand around a point on (), as done in . Then the remaining relevant terms of superpotential are given by \bea W_{dual}^{rel} & = & \Phi_0 \left( \delta \varphi \; \delta \widetilde{\varphi} + m \right) + \delta Z \; \delta \varphi \; \widetilde{q}_0 + \delta \widetilde{Z} \; q_0 \delta \widetilde{\varphi} \nonu \eea by following the similar fluctuations for the various fields as in . Note that there exist also four kinds of terms, the vacuum $<q>$ multiplied by $\delta \widetilde{Y} \delta F'$, the vacuum $<\widetilde{q}>$ multiplied by $\delta \widetilde{F'} \delta Y$, the vacuum $<\Phi>$ multiplied by $\delta Y \delta \widetilde{Y}$, and the vacuum $<\Phi>$ multiplied by $\delta Q' \delta Q'$. However, by redefining these, they do not enter the contributions for the one loop result, up to quadratic order. As done in , one gets that $m_{\Phi_0}^2$ will contain $(\log 4 -1) > 0$ implying that these are stable. \section{Nonsupersymmetric meta-stable brane configuration of $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c')$ gauge theory } Since the electric superpotential () vanishes for $\theta=0$ and $\omega=\frac{\pi}{2}$, the corresponding magnetic superpotential in () does not contain the terms $\Phi^2 + \cdots$ and it becomes \bea W_{dual} = \left(Q' \Phi Q' + M q \widetilde{q} + Y \widetilde{F'} \widetilde{q} + \widetilde{Y} q F' + \Phi Y \widetilde{Y} \right) + m M. \nonu \eea Now we recombine $\widetilde{N}_c$ D4-branes among $N_f$ flavor D4-branes connecting between $D6_{\omega=\frac{\pi}{2}}=D6$-branes and $NS5_{\omega=\frac{\pi}{2}}=NS5_R'$-brane with those connecting between $NS5_R'$-brane and $NS5_{-\theta=0}=NS5_R$-brane(and its mirrors) and push them in $+v$ direction from Figure 5. Of course their mirrors will move to $-v$ direction in a ${\bf Z}_2$ symmetric manner due to the $O6^{+}$-plane. After this procedure, there are no color D4-branes between $NS5_R'$-brane and $NS5_R$-brane. For the flavor D4-branes, we are left with only $(N_f-\widetilde{N}_c)$ D4-branes(and its mirrors). Then the minimal energy supersymmetry breaking brane configuration is shown in Figure 6. If we ignore all the branes except $NS5_R'$-brane, $NS5_R$-brane, D6-branes, $(N_f-\widetilde{N}_c)$ D4-branes and $\widetilde{N}_c$ D4-branes, as observed already, then this brane configuration corresponds to the minimal energy supersymmetry breaking brane configuration for the ${\cal N}=1$ SQCD with the magnetic gauge group $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$ with $N_f$ massive flavors . Note that $N_c'$ D4-branes can slide $w$ direction for this brane configuration. The type IIA/M-theory brane construction for the ${\cal N}=2$ gauge theory was described by and after lifting the type IIA description we explained so far to M-theory, the corresponding magnetic M5-brane configuration with equal mass for the quarks where the gauge group is given by $SU(\widetilde{N}_c) \times SO(N_c')$, in a background space of $x t = (-1)^{N_f+N_f'} v^{2N_f'+4} \prod_{k=1}^{N_f} (v^2 -e_k^2)$ where this four dimensional space replaces (45610) directions, is characterized by \bea t^4 + ( v^{\widetilde{N}_c } + \cdots ) t^3 + ( v^{N_c'} + \cdots) t^2 + (v^{\widetilde{N}_c} + \cdots ) t + v^{2N_f'+4} \prod_{k=1}^{N_f} (v^2 -e_k^2 ) =0. \nonu \eea From this curve of quartic equation for $t$ above, the asymptotic regions can be classified by looking at the first two terms providing $NS5_R$-brane asymptotic region, next two terms providing $NS5_R'$-brane asymptotic region, next two terms providing $NS5_L'$-brane asymptotic region, and the final two terms giving $NS5_L$-brane asymptotic region as follows: 1. $v \rightarrow \infty$ limit implies \bea w & \rightarrow & 0, \quad y \sim v^{\widetilde{N}_c} + \cdots \quad \mbox{$NS5_{R}$ asymptotic region}, \nonu \\ w & \rightarrow & 0, \quad y \sim v^{2N_f+2N_f'-\widetilde{N}_c+4} + \cdots \quad \mbox{$NS5_{L}$ asymptotic region}. \nonu \eea 2. $w \rightarrow \infty$ limit implies \bea v & \rightarrow & -m, \quad y \sim w^{\widetilde{N}_c-N_c'} +\cdots \quad \mbox{$NS5_{L}'$ asymptotic region}, \nonu \\ v & \rightarrow & +m, \quad y \sim w^{N_c'-\widetilde{N}_c} +\cdots \quad \mbox{$NS5_{R}'$ asymptotic region}. \nonu \eea Now the two $NS5_{L,R}'$-branes are moving in the $\pm v$ direction holding everything else fixed instead of moving D6-branes in the $\pm v$ direction. Then the mirrors of D4-branes are moved appropriately. The harmonic function sourced by the D6-branes can be written explicitly by summing of three contributions from the $N_f$ and $N_f'$ D6-branes(and its mirrors) plus an O6-plane, and similar analysis to solve the differential equation and find out the nonholomorphic curve can be done . In this case also, we expect an instability from a new M5-brane mode. \section{Discussions} So far, we have dualized only the first gauge group factor in the gauge group $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c')$. What happens if we dualize the second gauge group factor $SO(N_c')$?(For the case $SU(N_c) \times SU(N_c')$, the behavior of dual for the second gauge group will be the same as when we take the dual for the first gauge group factor.) This can be done by moving the $NS5_{\theta}$-brane and $N_f'$ $D6_{\theta}$-branes that can be located at the nonzero $v$ coordinate for massive quarks $Q'$, to the right passing through O6-plane(and their mirrors to the left). According to the linking number counting, one obtains the dual gauge group $SU(N_c) \times SO(\widetilde{N}_c'=2N_c+2N_f'-N_c'+4)$. One can easily see that there is a creation of $N_f'$ D4-branes connecting $NS5_{\theta}$-brane and $D6_{\theta}$-branes(and its mirrors). Then from the brane configuration, there exist the additional $2N_f'$ $SU(N_c)$ quarks originating from the $SO(N_c')$ chiral mesons $Q'X \equiv \widetilde{F'}$ and $Q'\widetilde{X} \equiv F'$. The deformed superpotential $\Delta W=Q' X \widetilde{X} Q'$ can be interpreted as the mass term of $ F' \widetilde{F'}$. Then one can write dual magnetic superpotential in this case. However, it is not clear how the recombination of color and flavor D4-branes and splitting procedure between them in the construction of meta-stable vacua arises since there is no extra NS5-brane between two $NS5_{\pm \theta}$-branes. If there exists an extra NS5-brane at the origin of our brane configuration(then the gauge group and matter contents will change), it would be possible to construct the corresponding meta-stable brane configuration. It would be interesting to study these more in the future. As already mentioned in and section 4, the matter contents in are different from the ones in section 4 with the same gauge group. In other words, the theory of $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c')$ with $X$, which transform as fundamental in $SU(N_c)$ and vector in $SO(N_c')$, a antisymmetric tensor $A$ in $SU(N_c)$, as well as fundamentals for $SU(N_c)$ and vectors for $SO(N_c')$ can confine either $SU(N_c)$ factor or $SO(N_c')$ factor. This theory can be described by the web of branes in the presence of $O4^{-}$-plane and orbifold fixed points. With two NS5-branes and $O4^{-}$-plane, by modding out ${\bf Z}_3$ symmetry acting on $(v,w)$ as $(v,w) \rightarrow (v \exp(\frac{2\pi i}{3}), w \exp(\frac{2\pi i}{3}))$, the resulting gauge group will be $SU(N_c) \times SO(N_c+4)$ with above matter contents . Similar analysis for $SU(N_c) \times Sp(\frac{N_c}{2}-2)$ gauge group with opposite $O4^{+}$-plane can be done. Then in this case, the matter in $SU(N_c)$ will be a symmetric tensor $S$ and other matter contents are present also. It would be interesting to see whether this gauge theory and corresponding brane configuration will provide a meta-stable vacuum. Let us comment on other possibility where the gauge group is given by $SU(N_c) \times Sp(N_c')$ and the matter contents are given by $\bullet$ $N_f$ chiral multiplets $Q$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SU(N_c)$, $N_f$ chiral multiplets $\widetilde{Q}$ are in the antifundamental representation under the $SU(N_c)$ and then $Q$ are in the representation $({\bf N_c,1 })$ while $\widetilde{Q}$ are in the representation $({\bf \overline{N_c}, 1})$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ $2N_f'$ chiral multiplets $Q'$ are in the fundamental representation under the $Sp(N_c')$ and then $Q'$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, 2N_c' })$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ The flavor singlet field $X$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf N_c, 2N_c' })$ under the gauge group and the flavor singlet $\widetilde{X}$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf \overline{N_c}, 2N_c'})$ under the gauge group One can compute the coefficients of beta functions of the each gauge group factor, as we did for previous examples. The type IIA brane configuration of an electric theory is exactly the same as the Figure 4 except the RR charge O6-plane with negative sign. The classical superpotential \footnote{The superpotential for the $Sp(N_c')$ sector is given by $W=X \phi_A \widetilde{X} + X \phi_S \widetilde{X}+ \tan \theta \tr \phi_S^2 -\frac{1}{\tan \theta} \tr \phi_A^2$ where $\phi_S$ and $\phi_A$ are an adjoint field(symmetric tensor) and an antisymmetric tensor for $Sp(N_c')$ . Note that there is a sign change in the second trace term of the superpotential in (), compared to ().} is given by \bea W= -\frac{1}{4} \left[ \frac{1}{4 \tan(\omega - \theta)} + \frac{1}{\tan 2\theta} \right] \tr (X \widetilde{X})^2 - \frac{ \tr X \widetilde{X} \widetilde{X} X }{4 \sin 2\theta } + \frac{(\tr X \widetilde{X})^2}{4 N_c \tan(\omega-\theta)}. \eea In this case, when $\theta$ approaches $\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\omega$ approaches $0$, then this superpotential vanishes. The dual magnetic gauge group is given by $SU(\widetilde{N}_c=N_f+2N_c'-N_c) \times Sp(N_c')$ with the same number of colors of dual theory as those in previous cases and the matter contents are given by $\bullet$ $N_f$ chiral multiplets $q$ are in the fundamental representation under the $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$, $N_f$ chiral multiplets $\widetilde{q}$ are in the antifundamental representation under the $SU(\widetilde{N}_c)$ and then $q$ are in the representation $({\bf \widetilde{N}_c,1 })$ while $\widetilde{q}$ are in the representation $({\bf \overline{\widetilde{N}_c}, 1})$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ $2N_f'$ chiral multiplets $Q'$ are in the fundamental representation under the $Sp(N_c')$ and then $Q'$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, 2N_c' })$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ The flavor singlet field $Y$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf \widetilde{N}_c, 2N_c' })$ under the gauge group and its complex conjugate field $\widetilde{Y}$ is in the bifundamental representation $({\bf \overline{\widetilde{N}_c}, 2N_c'})$ under the gauge group There are $(N_f+2N_c')^2$ gauge singlets in the first dual gauge group factor $\bullet$ $N_f$-fields $F'$ are in the fundamental representation under the $Sp(N_c')$, $N_f$-fields $\widetilde{F'}$ are in the fundamental representation under the $Sp(N_c')$ and then $F'$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, 2N_c' })$ under the gauge group while $\widetilde{F'}$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, 2N_c' })$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ $N_f^2$-fields $M$ are in the representation $({\bf 1, 1})$ under the gauge group $\bullet$ The $4N_c^{'2}$ singlet $\Phi$ is in the representation $({\bf 1, adj}) \oplus ({\bf 1,antisymm })$ under the gauge group The dual magnetic superpotential for arbitrary angles is given by () with appropriate $Sp(N_c')$ invariant metric $J$. The stability analysis can be done similarly. After following the procedure from Figure 4 to Figure 5 with opposite RR charge for O6-plane and by taking the limit where $\theta \rightarrow \frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\omega \rightarrow 0$, the minimal energy supersymmetry breaking brane configuration is shown in Figure 7. Compared to the previous nonsupersymmetric brane configuration in Figure 6, the role of NS5-brane and NS5'-brane is interchanged to each other: undoing the Seiberg dual in the context of . This kind of feature of recombination and splitting between color D4-branes and flavor D4-branes occurs in . At the electric brane configuration, $N_f$ D6-branes are perpendicular to NS5-brane and this leads to the coupling between the quarks and adjoint in the superpotential. However, the overall coefficient function including this extra terms vanishes and eventually the whole electric superpotential will vanish according to the above limit we take. From the quartic equation with the presence of opposite RR charge for O6-plane, in a background space of $x t = (-1)^{N_f+N_f'} v^{2N_f'-4} \prod_{k=1}^{N_f} (v^2 -e_k^2)$, \bea t^4 + ( v^{\widetilde{N}_c } + \cdots ) t^3 + ( v^{N_c'} + \cdots) t^2 + (v^{\widetilde{N}_c} + \cdots ) t + v^{2N_f'-4} \prod_{k=1}^{N_f} (v^2 -e_k^2 ) =0, \nonu \eea the asymptotic regions can be classified as follows: 1. $v \rightarrow \infty$ limit implies \bea w & \rightarrow & 0, \quad y \sim v^{N_c'-\widetilde{N}_c} \cdots \quad \mbox{$NS5_{R}$ asymptotic region}, \nonu \\ w & \rightarrow & 0, \quad y \sim v^{\widetilde{N}_c-N_c'} + \cdots \quad \mbox{$NS5_{L}$ asymptotic region}. \nonu \eea 2. $w \rightarrow \infty$ limit implies \bea v & \rightarrow & -m, \quad y \sim w^{2N_f+2N_f'-\widetilde{N}_c-4} +\cdots \quad \mbox{$NS5_{L}'$ asymptotic region}, \nonu \\ v & \rightarrow & +m, \quad y \sim w^{\widetilde{N}_c} +\cdots \quad \mbox{$NS5_{R}'$ asymptotic region}. \nonu \eea In , the $SU(7) \times \widetilde{Sp}(1)$ model and $SU(9) \times \widetilde{Sp}(2)$ model can be obtained by dualizing the $SU(7) \times SU(2)$ model with a bifundamental and two antifundamentals for $SU(7)$ and a fundamental for $SU(2)$ and the $SU(9) \times SU(2)$ with a bifundamental and two antifundamentals for $SU(9)$ and a fundamental for $Sp(1)$ respectively(Note that $Sp(1) \sim SU(2)$). The matter contents in an electric theory are different from those in previous paragraph. The matter contents in the magnetic description are given by an antisymmetric tensor and a fundamental in the first gauge group as well as a bifundamental, a fundamental in the second gauge group and two antifundamentals in the first gauge group. There exists a nonzero dual magnetic superpotential. Also the dual description the $SU(7) \times \widetilde{Sp}(1)$ model and $SU(9) \times \widetilde{Sp}(2)$ model can be constructed from the antisymmetric models of Affleck-Dine-Seiberg by gauging a maximal flavor symmetry and adding the extra matter to cancel all anomalies and extra flavor. On the other hand, the models $SU(2N_c+1) \times SU(2)$ have its brane box model description in where the above examples correspond to $N_c=3$ and $N_c=4$ respectively. In particular, the case where $N_c=1$(the gauge group is $SU(3) \times SU(2)$, i.e., $(3,2)$ model ) was described by brane box model with superpotential or without superpotential. Then it would be interesting to obtain the Seiberg dual for these models using brane box model and look for the possibility of having meta-stable vacua for these models. Moreover, this gauge theory was generalized to $SU(2N_c+1) \times Sp(N_c')$ model with a bifundamental and $2N_c'$ antifundamentals for $SU(2N_c+1)$ and a fundamental for $Sp(N_c')$ and its dual description $SU(2N_c+1) \times Sp(\widetilde{N}_c'=N_c-N_c'-1)$ with a bifundamental and $2N_c'$ antifundamentals for $SU(2N_c+1)$ and a fundamental for $Sp(N_c')$ as well as two gauge singlets . For the particular range of $N_c$, the dual theory is IR free, not asymptotically free. According to , $SU(2N_c)$ with antisymmetric tensor and antifundamentals can be described by two gauge groups $Sp(2N_c-4) \times SU(2N_c)$ with bifundamental and antifundamentals for $SU(2N_c)$. Some of the brane realization with zero superpotential was given in the brane box model in . Similarly from the result of by following the method of , the dual description for $SU(2N_c+1)$ with antisymmetric tensor and fundamentals can be represented by two gauge group factors. This dual theory breaks the supersymmetry at the tree level. Similar discussions are present in . Then it would be interesting to construct the corresponding Seigerg dual and see how the electric theory and its magnetic theory can be mapped into each other in the brane box model. Ther are also different directions concerning on the meta-stable vacua in different contexts and some of the relevant works are present in - where some of them use anti D-branes and some of them describe the type IIB theory and it would be interesting to find out how similarities if any appear and what are the differences in what sense between the present work and those works. \vspace{.7cm} \centerline{\bf Acknowledgments} I would like to thank A. Hanany and K. Landsteiner for discussions. This work was supported by grant No. R01-2006-000-10965-0 from the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science \& Engineering Foundation. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{ISS} K.~Intriligator, N.~Seiberg and D.~Shih, ``Dynamical SUSY breaking in meta-stable vacua,'' JHEP {\bf 0604}, 021 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0602239]. \bibitem{IS} K.~Intriligator and N.~Seiberg, ``Lectures on supersymmetry breaking,'' [arXiv:hep-ph/0702069]. \bibitem{GK} A.~Giveon and D.~Kutasov, ``Brane dynamics and gauge theory,'' Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 71}, 983 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9802067]. \bibitem{ILS} K.~A.~Intriligator, R.~G.~Leigh and M.~J.~Strassler, ``New examples of duality in chiral and nonchiral supersymmetric gauge theories,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 456}, 567 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9506148]. \bibitem{BH} J.~H.~Brodie and A.~Hanany, ``Type IIA superstrings, chiral symmetry, and N = 1 4D gauge theory dualities,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 506}, 157 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9704043]. \bibitem{BIWW} E.~Barnes, K.~Intriligator, B.~Wecht and J.~Wright, ``N = 1 RG flows, product groups, and a-maximization,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 716}, 33 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0502049]. \bibitem{Ahn07-2} C.~Ahn, ``Meta-Stable Brane Configuration and Gauged Flavor Symmetry,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0703015]. \bibitem{Ahn07-1} C.~Ahn, ``More on meta-stable brane configuration,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0702038]. \bibitem{Ahn07} C.~Ahn, ``Meta-stable brane configuration with orientifold 6 plane,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0701145], to appear in JHEP. \bibitem{Ahn06-1} C.~Ahn, ``M-theory lift of meta-stable brane configuration in symplectic and orthogonal gauge groups,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 647}, 493 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0610025]. \bibitem{Ahn06} C.~Ahn, ``Brane configurations for nonsupersymmetric meta-stable vacua in SQCD with adjoint matter,'' Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 24}, 1359 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0608160]. \bibitem{OO} H.~Ooguri and Y.~Ookouchi, ``Meta-stable supersymmetry breaking vacua on intersecting branes,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641}, 323 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0607183]. \bibitem{FGU} S.~Franco, I.~Garcia-Etxebarria and A.~M.~Uranga, ``Non-supersymmetric meta-stable vacua from brane configurations,'' JHEP {\bf 0701}, 085 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0607218]. \bibitem{BGHSS} I.~Bena, E.~Gorbatov, S.~Hellerman, N.~Seiberg and D.~Shih, ``A note on (meta)stable brane configurations in MQCD,'' JHEP {\bf 0611}, 088 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0608157]. \bibitem{LO} E.~Lopez and B.~Ormsby, ``Duality for SU x SO and SU x Sp via branes,'' JHEP {\bf 9811}, 020 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9808125]. \bibitem{HW} A.~Hanany and E.~Witten, ``Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles, and three-dimensional gauge dynamics,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 492}, 152 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9611230]. \bibitem{Shih} D.~Shih, ``Spontaneous R-Symmetry Breaking in O'Raifeartaigh Models,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0703196]. \bibitem{Witten} E.~Witten, ``Solutions of four-dimensional field theories via M-theory,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 500}, 3 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9703166]. \bibitem{LL} K.~Landsteiner and E.~Lopez, ``New curves from branes,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 516}, 273 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9708118]. \bibitem{LLL} K.~Landsteiner, E.~Lopez and D.~A.~Lowe, ``Supersymmetric gauge theories from branes and orientifold six-planes,'' JHEP {\bf 9807}, 011 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9805158]. \bibitem{AOT} C.~Ahn, K.~Oh and R.~Tatar, ``Comments on SO/Sp gauge theories from brane configurations with an O(6) plane,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 046001 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9803197]. \bibitem{LLL1} K.~Landsteiner, E.~Lopez and D.~A.~Lowe, ``Duality of chiral N = 1 supersymmetric gauge theories via branes,'' JHEP {\bf 9802}, 007 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9801002]. \bibitem{BHKL} I.~Brunner, A.~Hanany, A.~Karch and D.~Lust, ``Brane dynamics and chiral non-chiral transitions,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 528}, 197 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9801017]. \bibitem{EGKT} S.~Elitzur, A.~Giveon, D.~Kutasov and D.~Tsabar, ``Branes, orientifolds and chiral gauge theories,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 524}, 251 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9801020]. \bibitem{CSST} C.~Csaki, M.~Schmaltz, W.~Skiba and J.~Terning, ``Gauge theories with tensors from branes and orientifolds,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 7546 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9801207]. \bibitem{Ahn97} C.~Ahn, K.~Oh and R.~Tatar, ``Branes, geometry and N = 1 duality with product gauge groups of SO and Sp,'' J.\ Geom.\ Phys.\ {\bf 31}, 301 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9707027]. \bibitem{LPT} J.~D.~Lykken, E.~Poppitz and S.~P.~Trivedi, ``M(ore) on chiral gauge theories from D-branes,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 520}, 51 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9712193]. \bibitem{IT} K.~A.~Intriligator and S.~D.~Thomas, ``Dual descriptions of supersymmetry breaking,'' [arXiv:hep-th/9608046]. \bibitem{HZ} A.~Hanany and A.~Zaffaroni, ``On the realization of chiral four-dimensional gauge theories using branes,'' JHEP {\bf 9805}, 001 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9801134]. \bibitem{ADS} I.~Affleck, M.~Dine and N.~Seiberg, ``Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking In Four-Dimensions And Its Phenomenological Implications,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 256}, 557 (1985). \bibitem{Berkooz} M.~Berkooz, ``The Dual of supersymmetric SU(2k) with an antisymmetric tensor and composite dualities,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 452}, 513 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9505067]. \bibitem{Pouliot} P.~Pouliot, ``Duality in SUSY $SU(N)$ with an Antisymmetric Tensor,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 367}, 151 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9510148]. \bibitem{PS} P.~Pouliot and M.~J.~Strassler, ``Duality and Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking in $Spin(10)$ with a Spinor,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 375}, 175 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9602031]. \bibitem{Murthy} S.~Murthy, ``On supersymmetry breaking in string theory from gauge theory in a throat,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0703237]. \bibitem{Argurio:2007qk} R.~Argurio, M.~Bertolini, S.~Franco and S.~Kachru, ``Metastable vacua and D-branes at the conifold,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0703236]. \bibitem{Giveon:2007fk} A.~Giveon and D.~Kutasov, ``Gauge symmetry and supersymmetry breaking from intersecting branes,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0703135]. \bibitem{Antebi:2007xw} Y.~E.~Antebi and T.~Volansky, ``Dynamical supersymmetry breaking from simple quivers,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0703112]. \bibitem{Wijnholt:2007vn} M.~Wijnholt, ``Geometry of particle physics,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0703047]. \bibitem{Heckman:2007wk} J.~J.~Heckman, J.~Seo and C.~Vafa, ``Phase structure of a brane/anti-brane system at large N,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0702077]. \bibitem{Tatar:2006dm} R.~Tatar and B.~Wetenhall, ``Metastable vacua, geometrical engineering and MQCD transitions,'' JHEP {\bf 0702}, 020 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0611303]. \bibitem{Verlinde:2006bc} H.~Verlinde, ``On metastable branes and a new type of magnetic monopole,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0611069]. \bibitem{Aganagic:2006ex} M.~Aganagic, C.~Beem, J.~Seo and C.~Vafa, ``Geometrically induced metastability and holography,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0610249]. \bibitem{ABFK} R.~Argurio, M.~Bertolini, S.~Franco and S.~Kachru, ``Gauge / gravity duality and meta-stable dynamical supersymmetry breaking,'' JHEP {\bf 0701}, 083 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0610212]. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0129
|
Title: On the total disconnectedness of the quotient Aubry set
Abstract: In this paper we show that the quotient Aubry set associated to certain
Lagrangians is totally disconnected (i.e., every connected component consists
of a single point). Moreover, we discuss the relation between this problem and
a Morse-Sard type property for (difference of) critical subsolutions of
Hamilton-Jacobi equations.
Body: \begin{abstract} In this paper we show that the quotient Aubry set, associated to a sufficiently smooth mechanical or symmetrical Lagrangian, is totally disconnected (\ie, every connected component consists of a single point). This result is optimal, in the sense of the regularity of the Lagrangian, as Mather's counterexamples in show. Moreover, we discuss the relation between this problem and a Morse-Sard type property for (difference of) critical subsolutions of Hamilton-Jacobi equations. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction.} In Mather's studies of the dynamics of Lagrangian systems and the existence of Arnold diffusion, it turns out that understanding certain aspects of the {\it Aubry set} and, in particular, what is called the {\it quotient Aubry set}, may help in the construction of orbits with interesting behavior.\\ While in the case of twist maps (see for instance and references therein) there is a detailed structure theory for these sets, in more degrees of freedom quite few is known. In particular, it seems to be useful to know whether the quotient Aubry set is ``small'' in some sense of dimension (\eg, vanishing topological or box dimension).\\ In Mather showed that if the state space has dimension $\leq \,2$ (in the non-autonomous case) or the Lagrangian is the kinetic energy associated to a Riemannian metric and the state space has dimension $\leq \,3$, then the quotient Aubry set is totally disconnected, \ie, every connected component consists of a single point (in a compact metric space this is equivalent to vanishing topological dimension). In the autonomous case, with ${\rm dim}\, M \leq 3$, the same argument shows that this quotient is totally disconnected as long as the Aubry set does not intersect the zero section of ${\rm T}M$ (this is the case when the cohomology class is large enough in norm).\\ What happens in higher dimension? Unfortunately, this is generally not true. In fact, Burago, Ivanov and Kleiner in provided an example that does not satisfy this property (they did not discuss it in their work, but it follows from the results therein). More strikingly, Mather provided in several examples of quotient Aubry sets that are not only non-totally-disconnected, but even isometric to closed intervals. All these examples come from mechanical Lagrangians on ${\rm T}\T^d$ (\ie, the sum of the kinetic energy and a potential) with $d\geq 3$. In particular, for every $\e>0$, he provided a potential $U\in C^{2d-3,1-\e}(\T^d)$, whose associated quotient Aubry set is isometric to an interval. As the author himself noticed, it is not possible to improve the differentiability of these examples, due to the construction carried out. The main aim of this article is to show that the counterexamples provided by Mather are optimal, in the sense that for more regular mechanical Lagrangians, the associated quotient Aubry sets - corresponding to the zero cohomology class - are totally disconnected. In particular, our result will also apply to slightly more general Lagrangians, satisfying certain conditions on the zero section; in this case, we shall be able to show that the quotient Aubry set, corresponding to a well specified cohomology class, is totally disconnected. \\ We shall also outline a possible approach to generalize this result, pointing out how it is related to a {\it Morse-Sard type} problem; from this and Sard's lemma, one can easily recover Mather's result in dimension $d=2$ (autonomous case). It is important to point out, that most of this approach has been inspired by Albert Fathi's talk , in which he used this relation with Sard's lemma to show a simpler way to construct mechanical Lagrangians on ${\rm T}\T^N$, whose quotient Aubry sets are Lipschitz equivalent to any given {\it doubling} metric space or, equivalently, to any space with finite {\it Assouad dimension} (see for a similar construction). In this case we do not get a neat relation between their regularity and $N$, as in Mather's, but we can only observe that $N$ goes to infinity as $r$ increases. It would be interesting to study in depth the relation between the dimension of the quotient Aubry set, the regularity of the Lagrangian and the dimension of the state space. Our result may be seen as a first step in this direction. \proc{Post Scriptum.} Just before submitting this paper, we learnt that analogous results had been proven indipendently by Albert Fathi, Alessio Figalli and Ludovic Rifford, using a similar approach (to be published).\\ Moreover, in ``{\it A generic property of families of Lagrangian systems}'' (to appear on {\it Annals of Mathematics}), Patrick Bernard and Gonzalo Contreras managed to show that generically, in Ma\~n\'e's sense, there are at most $1+\dim { H}^1(M;\R)$ ergodic minimizing measures, for each cohomology class $c\in {H}^1(M;\R)$. As a corollary of this striking result, one gets that generically the quotient Aubry set is finite for each cohomology class and it consists of at most $1+\dim {H}^1(M;\R)$ elements.\\ \section{The Aubry set and the quotient Aubry set.} Let $M$ be a compact and connected smooth manifold without boundary. Denote by ${\rm T}M$ its tangent bundle and ${\rm T}^*M$ the cotangent one. A point of ${\rm T}M$ will be denoted by $(x,v)$, where $x\in M$ and $v\in {\rm T}_xM$, and a point of ${\rm T}^*M$ by $(x,p)$, where $p\in {\rm T}_x^*M$ is a linear form on the vector space ${\rm T}_xM$. Let us fix a Riemannian metric $g$ on it and denote with $d$ the induced metric on $M$; let $\|\cdot\|_x$ be the norm induced by $g$ on ${\rm T}_xM$; we shall use the same notation for the norm induced on ${\rm T}_x^*M$. \begin{Def} A function $L:\,{\rm T}M\, \longrightarrow \,\R$ is called a {\it Tonelli Lagrangian} if: \begin{itemize} \item[i)] $L\in C^2({\rm T}M)$; \item[ii)] $L$ is strictly convex in the fibers, \ie, the second partial vertical derivative $\frac{\dpr^2 L}{\dpr v^2}(x,v)$ is positive definite, as a quadratic form, for any $(x,v)\in {\rm T}M$; \item[iii)] $L$ is superlinear in each fiber, \ie, $$\lim_{\|v\|_x\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{L(x,v)}{\|v\|_x} = + \infty$$ (this condition is independent of the choice of the Riemannian metric). \end{itemize} \end{Def} Given a Lagrangian, we can define the associated {\it Hamiltonian}, as a function on the cotangent bundle: \beqano H:\; {\rm T}^*M &\longrightarrow & \R \\ (x,p) &\longmapsto & \sup_{v\in {\rm T}_xM} \{\langle p,\,v \rangle_x - L(x,v)\}\, \eeqano where $\langle \,\cdot,\,\cdot\, \rangle_x$ represents the canonical pairing between the tangent and cotangent space. If $L$ is a Tonelli Lagrangian, one can easily prove that $H$ is finite everywhere, $C^2$, superlinear and strictly convex in the fibers. Moreover, under the above assumptions, one can define a diffeomorphism between ${\rm T}M$ and ${\rm T}^*M$, called the {\it Legendre transform}: \beqano \cL:\; {\rm T}M &\longrightarrow & {\rm T}^*M \\ (x,v) &\longmapsto & \left(x,\,\frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v}(x,v) \right). \eeqano In particular, $\cL$ is a conjugation between the two flows (namely the Euler-Lagrange and Hamiltonian flows) and $$ H \circ \cL(x,v) = \left\langle \frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v}(x,v),\,v \right\rangle_x - L(x,v)\,.$$ Observe that if $\eta$ is a $1$-form on $M$, then we can define a function on the tangent space \beqano \hat{\eta}: {\rm T}M &\longrightarrow& \R \\ (x,v) &\longmapsto& \langle \eta(x),\, v\rangle_x \eeqano and consider a new Tonelli Lagrangian $L_{\eta}= L - \hat{\eta}$. The associated Hamiltonian will be $H_{\eta}(x,p) = H(x,p + \eta)$. Moreover, if $\eta$ is closed, then $\int L\, dt$ and $\int L_{\eta} dt$ have the same extremals and therefore the Euler-Lagrange flows on ${\rm T} M$ associated to $L$ and $L_{\eta}$ are the same. Although the extremals are the same, this is not generally true for the minimizers. What one can say is that they stay the same when we change the Lagrangian by an exact $1$-form. Thus, for fixed $L$, the minimizers depend only on the de Rham cohomology class $c=[\eta] \in H^1(M;\R)$. From here, the interest in considering modified Lagrangians, corresponding to different cohomology classes.\\ Let us fix $\eta$, a smooth ($C^2$ is enough for what follows) $1$-form on $M$, and let $c=[\eta]\in H^1(M;\R)$ be its cohomology class. As done by Mather in , it is convenient to introduce, for $t>0$ and $x,\,y \in M$, the following quantity: $$ h_{\eta,t}(x,y) = \inf \int_0^t L_{\eta}(\g(s),\dot{\g}(s))\,ds\,,$$ where the infimum is taken over all piecewise $C^1$ paths $\g: [0,t]\longrightarrow M$, such that $\g(0)=x$ and $\g(t)=y$. We define the {\it Peierls barrier} as: $$ h_{\eta}(x,y) = \liminf _{t \rightarrow +\infty} (h_{\eta,t}(x,y) + \a(c)t)\,,$$ where $\a:\,H^1(M;\R) \longrightarrow \R$ is Mather's $\a$ function (see ). It can be shown that this function is convex and that (only for the autonomous case) the $\liminf$ can be replaced by $\lim$. Observe that $h_{\eta}$ does not depend only on the cohomology class $c$, but also on the choice of the representant; namely, if $\eta' = \eta + df$, then $h_{\eta'}(x,y) = h_{\eta}(x,y) + f(y) - f(x)$. \begin{Prop} The values of the map $h_{\eta}$ are finite. Moreover, the following properties hold: \begin{itemize} \item[{\rm i)}] $h_{\eta}$ is Lipschitz; \item[{\rm ii)}] for each $x\in M$, $h_{\eta}(x,x)\geq 0$; \item[{\rm iii)}] for each $x,\,y,\,z \in M$, $h_{\eta}(x,y) \leq h_{\eta}(x,z) + h_{\eta}(z,y)$; \item[{\rm iv)}] for each $x,\,y \in M$, $h_{\eta}(x,y) + h_{\eta}(y,x) \geq 0$. \end{itemize} \end{Prop} For a proof of the above claims and more, see . Inspired by these properties, we can define \beqano \d_c:\; M\times M &\longrightarrow & \R \\ (x,y) &\longmapsto & h_{\eta}(x,y) + h_{\eta}(y,x) \eeqano (observe that this function does actually depend only on the cohomology class). This function is positive, symmetric and satisfies the triangle inequality; therefore, it is a pseudometric on $$\cA_{L,c} =\{x\in M : \; \d_c(x,x)=0 \}\,. $$ $\cA_{L,c}$ is called the {\it Aubry set} (or {\it projected Aubry set}) associated to $L$ and $c$, and $\d_c$ is {\it Mather's pseudometric}. In , Mather has showed that this is a non-empty compact subset of $M$, that can be Lipschitzly lifted to a compact invariant subset of ${\rm T}M$. \begin{Def} The {\it quotient Aubry set} $(\cbA_{L,c},\, \bd_c)$ is the metric space obtained by identifying two points in $\cA_{L,c}$, if their $\d_c$-pseudodistance is zero. \end{Def} We shall denote an element of this quotient by $\bar{x} = \{y\in \cA_{L,c}:\; \d_c(x,y)=0 \}$. These elements (that are also called {\it $c$-static classes}, see ) provide a partition of $\cA_{L,c}$ into compact subsets, that can be lifted to invariant subsets of ${\rm T}M$. They are really interesting from a dynamical systems point of view, since they contain the $\a$ and $\omega$ limit sets of $c$-minimizing orbits (see for more details).\\ For the sake of our proof, it is convenient to adopt Fathi's {\it weak KAM theory} point of view (we remand the reader to for a self-contained presentation). \begin{Def} A locally lipschitz function $u: M \longrightarrow \R$ is a {\it subsolution} of $H_{\eta}(x,d_xu)=k$, with $k\in \R$, if $H_{\eta}(x,d_xu)\leq k$ for almost every $x\in M$. \end{Def} This definition makes sense, because, by Rademacher's theorem, we know that $d_xu$ exists almost everywhere.\\ It is possible to show that there exists $c[\eta]\in \R$, such that $H_{\eta}(x,d_xu)=k$ admits no subsolutions for $k<c[\eta]$ and has subsolutions for $k\geq c[\eta]$. The constant $c[\eta]$ is called {\it Ma\~n\'e's critical value} and coincides with $\a(c)$, where $c=[\eta]$ (see ). \begin{Def} $u: M \longrightarrow \R$ is a $\eta$-{\it critical subsolution}, if $H_{\eta}(x,d_xu)\leq \a(c)$ for almost every $x\in M$. \end{Def} Denote by $\cS_{\eta}$ the set of critical subsolutions. This set $\cS_{\eta}$ is non-empty. In fact, Fathi showed (see ) that: \begin{Prop} If $u: M \longrightarrow \R$ is a $\eta$-{\it critical subsolution}, then for every $x,\,y \in M$ $$u(y) - u(x) \leq h_{\eta}(x,y)\,. $$ Moreover, for any $x\in M$, the function $h_{\eta,x} (\cdot) := h_{\eta}(x,\,\cdot)$ is a $\eta$-critical subsolution. \end{Prop} Using this result, he provided a nice representation of $h_{\eta}$, in terms of the $\eta$-critical subsolutions. \begin{Cor} If $x\in \cA_{L,c}$ and $y\in M$, $$ h_{\eta}(x,y) = \sup_{u \in \cS_{\eta}} (u(y)-u(x))\,.$$ This supremum is actually attained. \end{Cor} \begin{Proof} It is clear, from the proposition above, that $$h_{\eta}(x,y) \geq \sup_{u\in \cS_{\eta}} (u(y)-u(x))\,.$$ Let us show the other inequality. In fact, since $h_{\eta,x}$ is a $\eta$-critical subsolution and $x\in \cA_{L,c}$ (\ie, $h_{\eta}(x,x)=0$), then $$h_{\eta}(x,y) = h_{\eta,x}(y)-h_{\eta,x}(x) \leq \sup_{u \in \cS_{\eta}} (u(y)-u(x))\,.$$ This shows that the supremum is attained. \end{Proof} This result can be still improved. Fathi and Siconolfi proved in :\\ {\bf Theorem ({Fathi, Siconolfi}).} For any $\eta$-critical subsolution $u: M \longrightarrow \R$ and for each $\e>0$, there exists a $C^1$ function $\tu: M \longrightarrow \R$ such that: \begin{itemize} \item[{\rm i)}] $\tu(x)=u(x)$ and $H_{\eta}(x,d_x\tu)=\a(c)$ on $\cA_{L,c}$; \item[{\rm ii)}] $|\tu(x)-u(x)|<\e$ and $H_{\eta}(x,d_x\tu)<\a(c)$ on $M\setminus \cA_{L,c}$. \end{itemize} \medbreak In particular, this implies that $C^1$ $\eta$-critical subsolutions are dense in $\cS_{\eta}$ with the uniform topology. This result has been recently improved by Patrick Bernard (see ), showing that every $\eta$-critical subsolution coincides, on the Aubry set, with a $C^{1,1}$ $\eta$-critical subsolution. Denote the set of $C^1$ $\eta$-critical subsolutions by $\cS^1_{\eta}$ and the set of $C^{1,1}$ $\eta$-critical subsolutions by $\cS^{1,1}_{\eta}$. \begin{Cor} For $x,\,y \in \cA_{L,c}$, the following representation holds: $$ h_{\eta}(x,y) = \sup_{u \in \cS^{1}_{\eta}} (u(y)-u(x)) = \sup_{u \in \cS^{1,1}_{\eta}} (u(y)-u(x))\,.$$ Moreover, these suprema are attained. \end{Cor} It turns out to be convenient, to characterize the elements of $\cbA_{L,c}$ (\ie, the $c$-quotient classes) in terms of $\eta$-critical subsolutions. Let us consider the following set: $$\cD_{c}=\{ u-v:\; u,\,v \in \cS_{\eta}\}\, $$ (it depends only on the cohomology class $c$ and not on $\eta$) and denote by $\cD_{c}^{1}$ and $\cD_{c}^{1,1}$, the sets corresponding, respectively, to $C^1$ and $C^{1,1}$ $\eta$-critical subsolutions. \begin{Prop} For $x,\,y \in \cA_{L,c}$, \beqano \d_c(x,y) &=& \sup_{w \in \cD_{c}} (w(y)-w(x)) = \sup_{w \in \cD_{c}^1} (w(y)-w(x)) =\\ &=& \sup_{w \in \cD_{c}^{1,1}} (w(y)-w(x))\, \eeqano and this suprema are attained. \end{Prop} \begin{Proof} From the definition of $\d_c(x,y)$, we immediately get: \beqano \d_c(x,y) &=& h_{\eta}(x,y) + h_{\eta}(y,x) = \\ &=& \sup_{u \in \cS_{\eta}} (u(y)-u(x)) + \sup_{v \in \cS_{\eta}} (v(x)-v(y)) = \\ &=& \sup_{u, v \in \cS_{\eta}} [(u(y)-v(y)) - (u(x)-v(x))] = \\ &=& \sup_{w \in \cD_{c}} (w(y)-w(x))\,. \eeqano The other equalities follow from the density results we mentioned above. \end{Proof} \begin{Prop} If $w \in \cD_{c}$, then $d_xw =0$ on $\cA_{L,c}$. Therefore $ \cA_{L,c} \subseteq \bigcap_{w\in\cD_{c}^{1,1}} {\rm Crit}(w)\,,$ where ${\rm Crit}(w)$ is the set of critical points of $w$. \end{Prop} \begin{Proof} This is an immediate consequence of a result by Fathi (see ); namely, if $u,\,v \in \cS_{\eta}$, then they are differentiable on $\cA_{L,c}$ and $d_xu = d_xv$. \end{Proof} \begin{Prop} If $w\in \cD_{c}$, then it is constant on any quotient class of $\cbA_{L,c}$; namely, if $x,\,y \in \cA_{L,c}$ and $\d_c(x,y)=0$, then $w(x)=w(y)$. \end{Prop} \begin{Proof} From the representation formula above, it follows that: \beqano 0 &=& \d_c(x,y) = \sup_{\tilde{w} \in \cD_{c}} (\tilde{w}(y)-\tilde{w}(x)) \geq w(y) -w(x) \\ 0 &=& \d_c(y,x) = \sup_{\tilde{w} \in \cD_{c}} (\tilde{w}(x)-\tilde{w}(y)) \geq w(x) -w(y)\,. \eeqano \end{Proof} For any $w\in \cD_{c}^{1}$, let us define the following {\it evaluation function}: \beqano \f_w : (\cbA_{L,c},\,\bd_c) &\longrightarrow& (\R,\,|\cdot|)\\ \bar{x} &\longmapsto& w(x)\,. \eeqano \begin{itemize} \item $\f_w$ is well defined, \ie, it does not depend on the element of the class at which $w$ is evaluated; \item $\f_w(\cbA_{L,c}) = w(\cA_{L,c}) \subseteq w({\rm Crit}(w))$; \item $\f_w$ is Lipschitz, with Lipschitz constant $1$. In fact: \beqano \f_w(\bar{x})-\f_w(\bar{y}) &=& w(x)-w(y) \leq \d_c(x,y) = \bd_c(\bar{x},\bar{y}) \\ \f_w(\bar{y})-\f_w(\bar{x}) &=& w(y)-w(x) \leq \d_c(y,x) = \bd_c(\bar{y},\bar{x})\,. \eeqano Therefore: $$|\f_w(\bar{x})-\f_w(\bar{y})| \leq \bd_c(\bar{x},\bar{y})\,.$$ \end{itemize} As we shall see, these functions play a key role in the proof of our result. \section{The main result.} Our main goal is to show that, under suitable hypotheses on $L$, there is a well specified cohomology class $c_L$, for which $(\cbA_{L,c_L},\,\bd_{c_L})$ is totally disconnected, \ie, every connected component consists of a single point. Consider $L: TM \longrightarrow \R$ a Tonelli Lagrangian and the associated Legendre transform \beqano \cL:\; {\rm T}M &\longrightarrow & {\rm T}^*M \\ (x,v) &\longmapsto & \left(x,\,\frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v}(x,v) \right). \eeqano Remember that ${\rm T}^*M$, as a cotangent bundle, may be equipped with a {\it canonical} symplectic structure. Namely, if $({\mathcal U},\,x_1,\ldots, x_d)$ is a local coordinate chart for $M$ and $({\rm T}^*{\mathcal U},\,x_1,\ldots, x_d, p_1,\ldots, p_d)$ the associated cotangent coordinates, one can define the $2$-form $$ \omega = \sum_{i=1}^d dx_i \wedge dp_i \,.$$ It is easy to show that $\omega$ is a symplectic form (\ie, it is non-degenerate and closed). In particular, one can check that $\omega$ is intrinsically defined, by considering the $1$-form on ${\rm T}^*{\mathcal U}$ $$ \lambda = \sum_{i=1}^d p_i\,dx_i\,,$$ which satisfies $\omega = -d\lambda$ and is coordinate-indipendent; in fact, in terms of the natural projection \beqano \pi: {\rm T}^*M &\longrightarrow& M \\ (x,p) &\longmapsto& x \eeqano the form $\lambda$ may be equivalently defined pointwise without coordinates by $$ \lambda_{(x,p)} = (d\pi_{(x,p)})^*p \;\in {\rm T}^*_{(x,p)}{\rm T}^*M\,.$$ The $1$-form $\lambda$ is called the {\it Liouville form} (or the {\it tautological form}).\\ Consider now the section of ${\rm T}^*M$ given by $$ \Lambda_{L} = \cL(M \times \{0\}) = \left\{ \left(x, \frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v}(x,0) \right):\quad x\in M\right\}\,,$$ corresponding to the $1$-form $$ \eta_L(x) = \frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v}(x,0) \cdot dx = \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v_i}(x,0)\,dx_i\,.$$ We would like this $1$-form to be closed, that is equivalent to ask $\Lambda_L$ to be a Lagrangian submanifold, in order to consider its cohomology class $c_L = [\eta_L ] \in H^1(M;\R)$. Observe that this cohomology class can be defined in a more intrinsic way; in fact, consider the projection $$\pi_{|\Lambda_L}: \Lambda_L \subset {\rm T}^*M \longrightarrow M\,;$$ this induces an isomorphism between the cohomology groups $H^1(M;\R)$ and $H^1(\Lambda_L;\R)$. The preimage of $[\lambda_{|\Lambda_L}]$ under this isomorphism is called the {\it Liouville class} of $\Lambda_L$ and one can easily show that it coincides with $c_L$.\\ We can define the set: $$ \L(M) = \left\{L:{\rm T}M \longrightarrow \R:\; L\; \text{is a Tonelli Lagrangian and } \Lambda_L\; \text{is Lagrangian}\right\}\,.$$ This set is non-empty and consists of Lagrangians of the form $$L(x,v) = f(x) + \langle \eta(x),\,v\rangle_x + O(\|v\|^2), $$ with $f\in C^2(M)$ and $\eta$ a $C^2$ closed $1$-form on $M$. In particular, it includes the {\rm mechanical Lagrangians}, \ie, Lagrangians of the form $$L(x,v)=\su{2} \|v\|_x^2 + U(x)\,,$$ namely the sum of the {\rm kinetic energy} and a {potential} $U: M \longrightarrow \R$. More generally, it contains the {\it symmetrical} (or {\it reversible}) {\it Lagrangians}, \ie, Lagrangians $L:\,{\rm T}M\, \longrightarrow \,\R$ such that $$ L(x,v)= L(x,-v)\,,$$ for every $(x,v)\in {\rm T}M$. In fact, in the above cases, $\frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v}(x,0) \equiv 0$; therefore $\Lambda_L = M\times \{0\}$ (the zero section of the cotangent space), that is clearly Lagrangian, and $c_L = 0$.\\ We can now state our main result: \begin{mainTeo}{\it Let $M$ be a compact connected manifold of dimension $d\geq 1$ and let $L \in \L(M)$ be a Lagrangian such that $L(x,0)\in C^r(M)$, with $r\geq 2d-2$ and $\frac{\dpr L}{\dpr v}(x,0)\in C^2(M)$. Then, the quotient Aubry set $(\cbA_{L,c_L},\,\bd_{c_L})$, corresponding to the {\it Liouville class} of $\Lambda_L$, is totally disconnected, \ie, every connected component consists of a single point.} \end{mainTeo} This result immediately implies: \begin{Cor}[Symmetrical Lagrangians] Let $M$ be a compact connected manifold of dimension $d\geq 1$ and let $L(x,v)$ be a symmetrical Tonelli Lagrangian on ${\rm T}M$, such that $L(x,0)\in C^r(M)$, with $r\geq 2d-2$. Then, the quotient Aubry set $(\cbA_{L,0},\,\bd_0)$ is totally disconnected. \end{Cor} More specifically, \begin{Cor}[Mechanical Lagrangians] Let $M$ be a compact connected manifold of dimension $d\geq 1$ and let $L(x,v)=\su{2} \|v\|_x^2 + U(x)$ be a mechanical Lagrangian on ${\rm T}M$, such that the potential $U \in C^r(M)$, with $r\geq 2d-2$. Then, the quotient Aubry set $(\cbA_{L,0},\,\bd_0)$ is totally disconnected. \end{Cor} \begin{Rem} This result is optimal, in the sense of the regularity of the potential $U$, for $\cbA_{L,0}$ to be totally disconnected. In fact, Mather provided in examples of quotient Aubry sets isometric to the unit interval, corresponding to mechanical Lagrangians $L\in C^{2d-3,1-\e}({\rm T}\T^d)$, for any $0<\e<1$. \end{Rem} Before proving the main theorem, it will be useful to show some useful results. \begin{Lem} Let us consider $L\in \L(M)$, such that $\frac{\dpr L}{\dpr v}(x,0)\in C^2(M)$, and let $H$ be the associated Hamiltonian. \begin{enumerate} \item Every constant function $u\equiv const$ is a $\eta_L$-critical subsolution. In particular, all $\eta_L$-critical subsolutions are such that $d_xu\equiv 0$ on $\cA_{L,c_L}$. \item For every $x\in M$, $$\frac{\dpr H_{\eta_L}}{\dpr p}(x,0) = \frac{\dpr H}{\dpr p}(x,\eta_L(x)) = 0\,.$$ \end{enumerate} \end{Lem} \begin{Proof}\ \begin{enumerate} \item The second part follows immediatly from the fact that, if $u,\,v \in \cS_{\eta_L}$, then they are differentiable on $\cA_{L,c_L}$ and $d_xu = d_xv$ (see ).\\ Let us show that $u\equiv const$ is a $\eta_L$-critical subsolution; namely, that $$ H_{\eta_L}(x,0) \leq \a(c_L)$$ for every $x\in M$. It is sufficient to observe: \begin{itemize} \item $H_{\eta_L}(x,0)= - L(x,0)$; in fact: \beqano H_{\eta_L}(x,0) &=& H(x,\eta_L(x)) = H\left(x,\frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v}(x,0)\right) = \\ &=& \left\langle \frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v}(x,0),\,0 \right\rangle_x - L(x,0) = \\ &=& - L(x,0)\,. \eeqano \item let $v$ be {\it dominated} by $L_{\eta_L} + \a(c_L)$ (see , for the existence of such functions), \ie, for each continuous piecewise $C^1$ curve $\g: [a,b] \longrightarrow M$ we have $$ v(\g(b)) - v(\g(a)) \leq \int_a^b L_{\eta_L}(\g(t),\dot{\g}(t))\,dt + \a(c_L)(b-a)\,.$$ Then, considering the constant path $\g(t)\equiv x$, one can easily deduce that \beqano \a(c_L) \geq \sup_{x\in M} (-L_{\eta_L}(x,0)) = - \inf_{x\in M} L_{\eta_L}(x,0)\,; \eeqano therefore, $$\a(c_L) \geq -L_{\eta_L}(x,0) = - L(x,0) = H_{\eta_L}(x,0)$$ for every $x\in M$. \end{itemize} \item The inverse of the Legendre transform can be written in coordinates \beqano \cL^{-1}:\; {\rm T}^*M &\longrightarrow & {\rm T}M \\ (x,p) &\longmapsto & \left(x,\,\frac{\dpr H }{\dpr p}(x,p) \right)\,. \eeqano Therefore, \beqano (x,0) &=& \cL^{-1}\left(\cL (x,0\right)) = \cL^{-1}\left(x,\frac{\dpr L }{\dpr v}(x,0)\right) = \\ &=& \cL^{-1}((x,\eta_L(x))) = \left(x,\,\frac{\dpr H }{\dpr p}(x,\eta_L(x)\right)\,. \eeqano \end{enumerate} \end{Proof} In particular, observing that for any $\eta_L$-critical subsolution $u$, $H_{\eta_L}(x,d_xu) = \a(c_L)$ on $\cA_{L,c_L}$, we can easily deduce from above that: $$\cA_{L,c_L} \subseteq \{L(x,0) = -\a(c_L)\} = \{H(x,\eta_L(x)) = \a(c_L)\}\,$$ and $$ \a(c_L) = \sup_{x\in M} (-L(x,0)) = - \inf_{x\in M} L(x,0)=:e_0\,,$$ as denoted in . Let us observe that in general $$e_0 \leq \min_{c\in H^1(M;\R)} \a(c) = -\b(0)\,,$$ where $\b: H_1(M;\R) \longrightarrow \R$ is Mather's $\b$-function, \ie, the convex conjugate of $\a$ (in , the right-hand-side quantity is referred to as {\it strict critical value}). Therefore, we are considering an extremal case in which $e_0 = \a(c_L) = \min \a(c)$; it follows also quite easily that $c_L \in \dpr \b(0)$, namely, it is a subgradient of $\b$ at $0$.\\ A crucial step in the proof of our result will be the following lemma, that can be read as a sort of relaxed version of Sard's Lemma (the proof will be mainly based on the one in ). \begin{mainLem}{\it Let $U\in C^{r}(M)$, with $r\geq 2d-2$, be a non-negative function, vanishing somewhere and denote $\cA=\{U(x)=0\}$. If $u: M \longrightarrow \R$ is $C^1$ and satisfies $\|d_xu\|_x^2 \leq U(x)$ in an open neighborhood of $\cA$, then $|u(\cA)|=0$ {\rm(}where $|\cdot|$ denotes the Lebesgue measure in $\R${\rm)}.} \end{mainLem} See section for its proof. In particular, it implies this essential property. \begin{Cor} Under the hypotheses of the main theorem, if $u\in \cS_{\eta_L}$, then $$|u(\cA_{L,c_L})|=0$$ {\rm(}where $|\cdot|$ denotes the Lebesgue measure in $\R${\rm)}. \end{Cor} {\bf Proof} ({Corollary}). First of all, we can assume that $u\in \cS_{\eta_L}^{1}$, because of Fathi and Siconolfi's theorem. By Taylor's formula, it follows that there exists an open neighborhood $W$ of $\cA_{L,c_L}$, such that for all $x\in W$: \beqano \a(c_L) &\geq& H_{\eta_L}(x,d_xu) = H_{\eta_L}(x,0) + \frac{\dpr H_{\eta_L}}{\dpr p}(x,0) \cdot d_xu + \\ &\qquad& + \; \int_0^1 (1-t) \frac{\dpr^2 H_{\eta_L}}{\dpr p^2}(x,t\,d_xu)(d_xu)^2\,dt\,. \eeqano Let us observe the following. \begin{itemize} \item From the previous lemma, one has that $$\frac{\dpr H_{\eta_L}}{\dpr p}(x,0)=0\,,$$ for every $x\in M$. \item From the strict convexity hypothesis, it follows that there exists ${\g}>0$ such that: $$ \frac{\dpr^2 H}{\dpr p^2}(x,t\,d_x u)(d_x u)^2 \geq \g \|d_xu\|_x^2 $$ for all $x\in M$ and $0\leq t \leq 1$. \end{itemize} Therefore, for $x\in W$: \beqano \a(c_L) &\geq& H_{\eta_L}(x,d_xu) \geq H_{\eta_L}(x,0) + \frac{\g}{2}\|d_xu\|_x^2 =\\ &=& -L(x,0) + \frac{\g}{2}\|d_xu\|_x^2 \,. \eeqano The assertion will follow from the previous lemma, choosing $$U(x)= \frac{2}{\g}(\a(c_L)+L(x,0))\,.$$ In fact, $U\in C^{r}$, with $r\geq 2d-2$, by hypothesis; moreover, it satisfies all other conditions, because $$\a(c_L)= - \inf_{x\in M} L(x,0)$$ and $$\cA_{L,c_L}\subseteq\{x\in W:\; L(x,0)=-\a(c_L)\} = \{x\in W:\; U(x)=0\}=:\cA\,.$$ For, the previous lemma allows us to conclude that $$|u(\cA_{L,c_L})| =0\,.$$ \ep \medbreak {\bf Proof} ({Main Theorem}). Suppose by contradiction that $\cbA_{L,c_L}$ is not totally disconnected; therefore it must contain a connected component $\ov{\Gamma}$ with at least two points $\bar{x}$ and $\bar{y}$. In particular $$\bd_c(\bar{x},\bar{y})=h_{\eta_L}(x,y) + h_{\eta_L}(y,x) > 0,$$ for some $x\in \bar{x}$ and $y\in \bar{y}$; therefore, we have $h_{\eta_L}(x,y)>0$ or $h_{\eta_L}(y,x)>0$. From the representation formula for $h_{\eta_L}$, it follows that there exists $u\in \cS_{\eta_L}^{1,1} \subseteq \cD_{c_L}^{1,1}$ (since $u=u-0$, and $v=0$ is a $\eta_L$-critical subsolution), such that $|u(y)-u(x)|>0$. This implies that the set $\f_u(\ov{\Gamma})$ is a connected set in $\R$ with at least two different points, hence it is a non degenerate interval and its Lebesgue measure is positive. But $$ \f_u(\ov{\Gamma}) \subseteq \f_u(\cbA_{L,c_L}) = u(\cA_{L,c_L})$$ and consequently $$ 0< \left|\f_u(\ov{\Gamma})\right| \leq |u(\cA_{L,c_L})|.$$ This contradicts the previous corollary. \ep \medbreak In particular, this proof suggests a possible approach to generalize the above result to more general Lagrangians and other cohomology classes. \begin{Def} A $C^1$ function $f:M \longrightarrow \R$ is of {\it Morse-Sard type} if $|f({\rm Crit}(f))|=0$, where ${\rm Crit}(f)$ is the set of critical points of $f$ and $|\cdot|$ denotes the Lebesgue measure in $\R$. \end{Def} \begin{Prop} Let $M$ be a compact connected manifold of dimension $d\geq 1$, $L$ a Tonelli Lagrangian and $c\in H^1(M;\R)$. If each $w\in\cD_{c}^{1,1}$ is of {\it Morse-Sard type}, then the quotient Aubry set $(\cbA_{L,c},\,\bd_{c})$ is totally disconnected. \end{Prop} This proposition and Sard's lemma (see ) easily imply Mather's result in dimension $d\leq 2$ (autonomous case); it suffices to notice that Sard's lemma (in dimension $d$) holds for $C^{d-1,1}$ functions. \begin{Cor} Let $M$ be a compact connected manifold of dimension $d\leq 2$. For any $L$ Tonelli Lagrangian and $c\in H^1(M;\R)$, the quotient Aubry set $(\cbA_{L,c},\,\bd_{c})$ is totally disconnected. \end{Cor} \begin{Rem} The main problem becomes now to understand under which conditions on $L$ and $c$, these differences of subsolutions are of {\it Morse-Sard type}. Unfortunately, one cannot use the classical Sard's lemma, due to a lack of regularity of critical subsolutions: in general they will be at most $C^{1,1}$. In fact, although it is always possible to smooth them up out of the Aubry set and obtain functions in $C^{\infty}(M\setminus \cA_{L,c})\cap C^{1,1}(M)$, the presence of the Aubry set (where the value of their differential is prescribed) represents an obstacle that it is impossible to overcome. It is quite easy to construct examples that do not admit $C^2$ critical subsolutions: just consider a case in which $\cA_{L,c}$ is all the manifold and it is not a $C^1$ graph. For instance, this is the case if $M=\T$ and $H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}\left(p+ \frac{2}{\pi}\right)^2 - \sin^2 (\pi x)$; in fact, there is only one critical subsolution (up to constants), that turns out to be a solution ($\cA_{L,{\frac{2}{\pi}}} = \T$), and it is given by a primitive of $\sin (\pi x) - \frac{2}{\pi}$; this is clearly $C^{1,1}$ but not $C^2$. \\ On the other hands, the above results suggest that, in order to prove the Morse-Sard property, one could try to control the {\it complexity} of these functions ({\it \`a la } Yomdin), using the rigid structure provided by Hamilton-Jacobi equation and the smoothness of the Hamiltonian, rather than the regularity of the subsolutions. There are several difficulties in pursuing this approach in the general case, mostly related to the nature of the Aubry set. We hope to understand these ``speculations'' more in depth in the future. \end{Rem} \section{Proof of the Main Lemma.} \begin{Def} Consider a function $f\in C^r(\R^d)$. We say that f is {\it s - flat} at $x_0\in \R^d$ (with $s\leq r$), if all its derivatives, up to the order $s$, vanish at $x_0$. \end{Def} The proof of the main lemma is based on the following version of {\it Kneser-Glaeser's Rough composition theorem} (see ). \begin{Prop} Let $V,\,W \subset \R^d$ be open sets, $A\subset V$, $A^* \subset W$ closed sets. Consider $U\in C^r (V)$, with $r\geq 2$, a non-negative function that is $s$-flat on $A\subset \{U(x)=0\}$, with $s\leq r-1$, and $g:W \longrightarrow V$ a $C^{r-s}$ function, with $g(A^*)\subset A$.\\ Then, for every open pre-compact set $W_1 \supset A^*$ properly contained in $W$, there exists $$F:\R^d \longrightarrow \R$$ satisfying the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item[{\rm i)}] $F\in C^{r-1}(\R^d)$; \item[{\rm ii)}] $F\geq 0$; \item[{\rm iii)}] $F(x)=U(g(x))=0$ on $A^*$; \item[{\rm iv)}] $F$ is $s$-flat on $A^*$; \item[{\rm v)}] $\{F(x)=0\}\cap W_1 = A^* $; \item[{\rm vi)}] there exists a constant $K>0$, such that $U(g(x))\leq K F(x)$ on $W_1$. \end{itemize} \end{Prop} See section for its proof.\\ To prove the main lemma, it will be enough to show that for every $x_0 \in M$, there exists a neighborhood $\Omega$ such that it holds. For such a local result, we can assume that $M={\mathcal U}$ is an open subset of $\R^d$, with $x_0 \in {\mathcal U}.$ In the sequel, we shall identify ${\rm T}^*{\mathcal U}$ with ${\mathcal U}\times \R^d$ and for $x\in {\mathcal U}$, we identify ${\rm T}_x^*{\mathcal U} = \{x\} \times \R^d$. We equip ${\mathcal U}\times \R^d$ with the natural coordinates $(x_1,\ldots, x_d,p_1,\ldots, p_d)$.\\ Before proceeding in the proof, let us point out that it is locally possible to replace the norm obtained by the Riemannian metric, by a constant norm on $\R^d$. \begin{Lem} For each $ 0<\a<1$ and $x_0 \in M$, there exists an open neighborhood $\Omega$ of $x_0$, with $\ov{\Omega} \subset {\mathcal U}$ and such that $$ (1-\a) \|p\|_{x_0} \leq \|p\|_x \leq (1+\a) \|p\|_{x_0}\,, $$ for every $p \in {\rm T}_x^*{\mathcal U} \cong \R^d$ and each $x\in \ov{\Omega}.$ \end{Lem} \begin{Proof} By continuity of the Riemannian metric, the norm $\|p\|_x$ tends uniformly to $1$ on $\{p:\; \|p\|_{x_0}=1\}$, as $x$ tends to $x_0$. Therefore, for $x$ near to $x_0$ and every $p \in \R^d\setminus\{0\}$, we have: $$ (1-\a) \leq \left\| \frac{p}{\|p\|_{x_0}} \right\|_x \leq (1+\a). $$ \end{Proof} We can now prove the main result of this section. {\bf Proof} ({ Main Lemma}). By choosing local charts and by lemma , we can assume that $U\in C^{r}(\Omega)$, with $\Omega$ open set in $\R^d$, $\cA=\{x \in \Omega:\; U(x)=0\}$ and $u: \Omega \longrightarrow \R$ is such that $\|d_xu\|^2 \leq \b U(x)$ in $\Omega$, where $\b$ is a positive constant. Define, for $1\leq s \leq r$: $$B_s = \{x\in \cA:\; U\;{\rm is }\; s\; \text{- flat at }x\}$$ and observe that $$\cA = B_1 := \{x\in \cA: DU(x)=0\}\,. $$ We shall prove the lemma by induction on the dimension $d$. Let us start with the following claim. \begin{Claim} If $s\geq 2d-2$, then $|u(B_s)|=0$. \end{Claim} \begin{Proof} Let $C \subset \Omega$ be a closed cube with edges parallel to the coordinate axes. We shall show that $|u(B_s\cap C)|=0$. Since $B_s$ can be covered by countably many such cubes, this will prove that $|u(B_s)|=0$. Let us start observing that, by Taylor's theorem, for any $x\in B_s\cap C$ and $y\in C$ we have $$ U(y)=R_s(x;y),$$ where $R_s(x;y)$ is Taylor's remainder. Therefore, for any $y\in C$ $$ U(y) = o(\|y-x\|^{s})\,. $$ Let $\l$ be the length of the edge of $C$. Choose an integer $N>0$ and subdivide $C$ in $N^d$ cubes $C_i$ with edges $\frac{\l}{N}$, and order them so that, for $1\leq i \leq N_0 \leq N^d$, one has $C_i\cap B_s \neq \emptyset$. Hence, $$ B_s \cap C = \bigcup_{i=1}^{N_0} B_s \cap C_i.$$ Observe that for every $\e>0$, there exists $\n_0=\n_0(\e)$ such that, if $N\geq \n_0$, $x\in B_s \cap C_i$ and $y\in C_i$, for some $0\leq i \leq N_0$, then $$ U(y) \leq \frac{\e^2}{4\b (d\l^2)^d} \|y-x\|^s\,.$$ Fix $\e>0$. Choose $x_i \in B_s \cap C_i$ and call $y_i=u(x_i)$. Define, for $N\geq \n_0$, the following intervals in $\R$: $$ E_i =\left[ y_i - \frac{\e}{2N^d},\; y_i + \frac{\e}{2N^d}\right].$$ Let us show that, if $N$ is sufficiently big, then $u(B_s \cap C) \subset \bigcup_{i=1}^{N_0} E_i$.\\ In fact, if $x\in B_s\cap C$, then there exists $1\leq i \leq N_0$, such that $x\in B_s\cap C_i$. Therefore, \beqano |u(x)-y_i| &=& |u(x)-u(x_i)| = \\ &=&\|d_xu(\tilde{x})\|\cdot\|x-x_i\| \leq \\ &\leq& \sqrt{\b U(\tilde{x})} \|x-x_i\| \leq\\ &\leq& \sqrt{\b\frac{\e^2}{4\b (d\l^2)^d}} \|\tilde{x}-x_i\|^{\frac{s}{2}} \|x-x_i\| \leq \\ &\leq& \frac{\e}{2(d\l^2)^{\frac{d}{2}}}\|x-x_i\|^{\frac{s+2}{2}} \leq\\ &\leq& \frac{\e}{2(d\l^2)^{\frac{d}{2}}} \left(\sqrt{d}\frac{\l}{N}\right)^{\frac{s+2}{2}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!, \eeqano where $\tilde{x}$ is a point in the segment joining $x$ and $x_i$. Since by hypothesis $s\geq 2d-2$, then $\frac{s+2}{2}\geq d$. Hence, assuming that $N>\max\{\l\sqrt{d},\; \n_0\}$, one gets $$|u(x)-y_i| \leq \frac{\e}{2N^d}$$ and can deduce the inclusion above. To prove the claim, it is now enough to observe: \beqano |u(B_s \cap C)| &\leq& \left|\bigcup_{i=1}^{N_0} E_i\right| \leq \sum_{i=1}^{N_0} |E_i| \leq\\ &\leq& \e N_0 \frac{1}{N^d}\leq \\ &\leq& \e N^d \frac{1}{N^{d}} =\\ &=& \e\,. \eeqano From the arbitrariness of $\e$, the assertion follows easily. \end{Proof} This claim immediately implies that $u(B_{2d-2})$ has measure zero. In particular, this proves the case $d=1$ (since in this case $2d-2=0$) and allows us to start the induction.\\ Suppose to have proven the result for $d-1$ and show it for $d$. Since $$ \cA = (B_1\setminus B_2) \cup (B_2\setminus B_3) \cup \ldots \cup (B_{2d-3}\setminus B_{2d-2}) \cup B_{2d-2}\,,$$ it remains to show that $|u(B_s\setminus B_{s+1})|=0$ for $1\leq s \leq 2d-3 \leq r-1$. \begin{Claim} Every $\tx \in B_s\setminus B_{s+1}$ has a neighborhood $\tilde{V}$, such that $$|u((B_s\setminus B_{s+1}) \cap \tilde{V})|=0\,.$$ \end{Claim} Since $B_s\setminus B_{s+1}$ can be covered by countably many such neighborhoods, this implies that $u(B_s\setminus B_{s+1})$ has measure zero. \begin{Proof} Choose $\tx \in B_s\setminus B_{s+1}$. By definition of these sets, all partial derivatives of order $s$ of $U$ vanish at this point, but there is one of order $s+1$ that does not. Assume (without any loss of generality) that there exists a function $$ w(x) = \dpr_{i_1} \dpr_{i_2} \ldots \dpr_{i_s} U (x)$$ such that $$ w(\tx)=0 \qquad {\rm but} \qquad \dpr_1 w(\tx) \neq 0\,.$$ Define \beqano h: \Omega &\longrightarrow& \R^d\\ x &\longmapsto& (w(x),\,x_2,\,\ldots,\,x_d)\,, \eeqano where $x=(x_1,\,x_2,\,\ldots,\,x_d)$. Clearly, $h\in C^{r-s}(\Omega)$ and $Dh(\tx)$ is non-singular; hence, there is an open neighborhood $V$ of $\tx$ such that $$ h: V \longrightarrow W$$ is a $C^{r-s}$ isomorphism (with $W=h(V)$).\\ Let $V_1$ be an open precompact set, containing $\tilde{x}$ and properly contained in $V$, and define $A = B_s\cap \ov{V_1}$, $A^*=h(A)$ and $g=h^{-1}$. If we consider $W_1$, any open set containing $A^*$ and properly contained in $W$, we can apply proposition and deduce the existence of $F:\R^d \longrightarrow \R$ satisfying properties i)-vi).\\ Define $$\hat{W} = \{(x_2,\,\ldots,\,x_d) \in \R^{d-1}:\; (0,\,x_2,\,\ldots,\,x_d)\in W_1 \} $$ and $$\hat{U}(x_2,\,\ldots,\,x_d) = C\,F(0,x_2,\ldots,x_d),$$ where $C$ is a positive constant to be chosen sufficiently big. Observe that $\hat{U}\in C^{r-1}(\R^{d-1})$.\\ Moreover, property v) of $F$ and the fact that $A^*=h(A) \subseteq \{0\}\times \hat{W}$ imply that: $$ A^* = \{0\} \times \hat{B_1}\,,$$ where $\hat{B_1} = \{(x_2,\ldots\, x_d)\in \hat{W}:\; F(0,x_2,\ldots,x_d)=0\}$. Denote $$ \hat{\cA} := \{(x_2,\ldots,x_d) \in \hat{W}:\; \hat{U} = 0\} = \hat{B_1}\,$$ and define the following function on $\hat{W}$: $$\hat{u} (x_2,\,\ldots,\,x_d) = u(g(0,x_2,\ldots,x_d)).$$ We want to show that these functions satisfy the hypotheses for the $(d-1)$-dimensional case. In fact: \begin{itemize} \item $\hat{U}\in C^{r-1}(\R^{d-1})$, with $r-1\geq 2d-3 > 2(d-1)-2$; \item $\hat{u} \in C^1(\hat{W})$ (since $g$ is in $C^{r-s}(W)$, where $1\leq s\leq r-1$); \item if we denote by $\m= \sup_{W_1} \|d_x g\| < +\infty$ (since $g$ is $C^1$ on $\ov{W_1}$), then we have that for every point in $\hat{W}$: \beqano \|d\hat{u} (x_2,\ldots,x_d)\|^2 &\leq& \|d_x{u} (g(0,x_2,\ldots,x_d))\|^2\| d_xg(0,x_2,\ldots,x_d)\|^2 \leq\\ &\leq& \m^2 \|d_x{u} (g(0,x_2,\ldots,x_d))\|^2 \leq \\ &\leq& \b \m^2 U(g(0,x_2,\ldots,x_d)) \leq \\ &\leq& \b \m^2 K F(0,x_2,\ldots,x_d) \leq\\ &\leq& \hat{U} (x_2,\ldots,x_d), \eeqano if we choose $C> \b \m^2K$, where $K$ is the positive constant appearing in proposition , property vi). \end{itemize} Therefore, it follows from the inductive hypothesis, that: $$ |\hat{u}(\hat{\cA})| = 0.$$ Since, \beqano u(B_s\cap V_1) &\subseteq& u(A) = u(g(A^*)) = u(g(\{0\}\times\hat{B_1})) = \\ &=& \hat{u}(\hat{B_1}) = \hat{u}(\hat{\cA})\,, \eeqano defining $\tilde{V} = V_1$, we may conclude that $$ |u(B_s\cap \tilde{V})| \leq |\hat{u}(\hat{\cA})| = 0 \,.$$ \end{Proof} This completes the proof of the Main Lemma. \ep \medbreak \section{Proof of a modified version of Kneser-Glaeser's Rough composition theorem.} Now, let us prove proposition . We shall mainly follow the presentation in , adapted to our needs. {\bf Proof} ({Proposition }). Let us start, defining a family of polynomials. Supposing that $g$ is $C^r$ and using the $s$-flatness hypothesis, we have, for $x\in A^*$ and $k=0,\,1,\ldots,\, r\,$: \beqa{polynwhitney} f_k(x) = D^k(U\circ g)(x) = \sum_{s < q \leq k}\sum \s_k D^q U(g(x))\,D^{i_1}g(x) \ldots D^{i_q}g(x)\,, \eeqa where the second sum is over all the $q$-tuples of integers $i_1,\,\ldots,\,i_q\, \geq 1$ such that $i_1+\ldots + i_q = k$, and $\s_k=\s_k(i_1,\ldots,\,i_q)$.\\ The crucial observation is that () makes sense on $A^*$, even when $g$ is $C^{r-s}$ smooth (in fact $i_j\leq k-q+1 \leq r-s$). We would like to proceed in the fashion of {\it Whitney's extension theorem}, in order to find a smooth function $F$ such that $D^k F= f_k$ on $A^*$, and satisfying the stated conditions. \begin{Rem} Note that, without any loss of generality, we can assume that $W$ is contained in an open ball of diameter $1$. The general case will then follow from this special one, by a straightforward partition of unity argument. \end{Rem} Let us start with some technical lemmata. \begin{Lem} For $x,\,x',\,x_0\in A^*$ and $k=0,\,\ldots,\,r$, we have: $$ f_k(x')= \sum_{i\leq r-k} \frac{f_{k+i}(x)}{i!}(x'-x)^i + R_k(x,x')\,,$$ with $$ \frac{|R_k(x,x')|}{\|x'-x\|^{r-k}} \longrightarrow 0 $$ as $x,\,x' \longrightarrow x_0$ in $A^*$. \end{Lem} The proof of this lemma appears without any major modification in (on pages $36$-$37$).\\ Define, for $x\in A^*$ and $y\in \R^d$ $$ P(x,y)=\sum_{i=s+1}^{r} \frac{f_i(x)}{i!}(y-x)^i\, $$ and its $k$-th derivative $$ P_k(x,y)=\sum_{i\leq r-k} \frac{f_{i+k}(x)}{i!}(y-x)^i\,. $$ \begin{Lem} For $x\in A^*$ and $y\in {W_1}$, $$ U(g(y)) = P(x,y) + R(x,y)\,,$$ where $|R(x,y)| \leq C \|y-x\|^r$. \end{Lem} \begin{Proof} The proof follows the same idea of lemma . By Taylor's formula for $U$, $$U(g(y))= \sum_{q=s+1}^r \frac{D^qU(g(x))}{q!} (g(y)-g(x))^q + I(g(x),g(y)) (g(x)-g(y))^r\,. $$ Obviously, $$\left| I(g(x),g(y)) (g(x)-g(y))^r\right| \leq C_1 \|y-x\|^r\,,$$ therefore it is sufficient to estimate the first term.\\ Observe that: $$ g(y) = g(x) + \sum_{i=1}^{r-s} D^i g(x)(y-x)^i + J(x,y)(y-x)^{r-s}\,. $$ Hence, the first term in the sum above becomes: \beqano && \sum_{q=s+1}^r \frac{D^q U(g(x))}{q!} \left[ \sum_{i=1}^{r-s} D^i g(x)(y-x)^i + J(x,y)(y-x)^{r-s} \right]^q= \\ && \qquad = \; \sum_{k=s+1}^r a_k (y-x)^k + \hat{R}(x,y) =\\ && \qquad = \; P(x,y) + \hat{R}(x,y)\,, \eeqano since $$ a_k = \sum_{s+1\leq q \leq k} \sum D^q U(g(x)) D^{i_1}g(x) \ldots D^{i_q}g(x) = \frac{f_k(x)}{k!}\,.$$ The remainder terms consist of: \begin{itemize} \item terms containing $(y-x)^k$, with $k>r$; \item terms of the binomial product, containing $J(x,y)(y-x)^{r-s}$. They are of the form: $$ \ldots\, (y-x)^{(r-s)j + \sum_{i=1}^{r-s} i\a_i}$$ where $\a_i\geq 0$ and $\sum \a_i = q-j$. Since $q\geq s+1$ and $s\leq r-1$, then: \beqano (r-s)j + \sum_{i=1}^{r-s} i\a_i &\geq& (r-s)j + \sum_{i=1}^{r-s} \a_i = \\ &=& (r-s)j + q-j = \\ &=& rj - sj + q-j \geq\\ &\geq& rj - (s+1)j + s+1 = \\ &=& r + r(j-1) - (s+1)(j-1) =\\ &=& r + (r-s-1)(j-1) \geq r\,. \eeqano \end{itemize} Therefore, for $x\in A^*$ and $y\in W_1$ $$ \left|\hat{R}(x,y)\right| \leq C_2 \|y-x\|^r\,,$$ and the lemma follows taking $C=C_1 + C_2$. \end{Proof} Next step will consist of creating a {\it Whitney's partition}. We will start by covering $W_1\setminus A^*$ with an infinite collection of cubes $K_j$, such that the size of each $K_j$ is roughly proportional to its distance from $A^*$. First, let us fix some notation. We shall write $a\prec b$ instead of ``there exists a positive real constant $M$, such that $a\leq Mb$ '' and $a \approx b$ as short for $a\prec b$ and $b\prec a$.\\ Let $\l=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{d}}$; this choice will come in handy later. For any closed cube $K$ (with edges parallel to the coordinate axes), $K^{\l}$ will denote the $(1+\l)$ - dilation of $K$ about its center.\\ Let $\|\cdot\|$ be the euclidean metric on $\R^d$ and $$d(y)=d(y,A^*)= \inf\{\|y-x\|:\; x\in A^*\}\,.$$ If $\{K_j\}_j$ is the sequence of closed cubes defined below, with edges of length $e_j$, let $d_j$ be its distance from $A^*$, \ie, $$d_j=d(A^*,K_j)= \inf \{\|y-x\|:\; x\in A^*,\, y\in K_j\}\,.$$ One can show the following classical lemma (see for instance for a proof). \begin{Lem} There exists a sequence of closed cubes $\{K_j\}_j$ with edges parallel to the coordinate axes, that satisfies the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item[{\rm i)}] the interiors of the $K_j$'s are disjoint; \item[{\rm ii)}] $W_1\setminus A^* \subset \bigcup_j K_j$; \item[{\rm iii)}] $e_j \approx d_j$; \item[{\rm iv)}] $e_j \approx d(y)$ for all $y\in K_j^{\l}$; \item[{\rm v)}] $e_j \approx d(z)$ for all $z\in W_1\setminus A^*$, such that the ball with center $z$ and radius $\frac{1}{8}d(z)$ intersects $K_j^{\l}$; \item[{\rm vi)}] each point of $W_1\setminus A^*$ has a neighborhood intersecting at most $N$ of the $K_j^{\l}$, where $N$ is an integer depending only on $d$. \end{itemize} \end{Lem} Now, let us construct a partition of unity on $W_1\setminus A^*$. Let $Q$ be the unit cube centered at the origin. Let $\eta$ be a $C^{\infty}$ bump function defined on $\R^d$ such that $$ \eta (y) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & {\rm for}\; y\in Q\\ 0 & {\rm for}\; y\not\in Q^{\l} \end{array} \right. $$ and $0\leq \eta \leq 1$. Define $$\eta_j(y)= \eta\left(\frac{y-c_j}{e_j} \right)\,, $$ where $c_j$ is the center of $K_j$ and $e_j$ is the length of its edge, and consider $$\s(y)= \sum_j \eta_j(y)\,.$$ Then, $1\leq \s(y) \leq N $ for all $y\in W_1\setminus A^*$. Clearly, for each $k=0,\,1,\,2,\,\ldots$ we have that $D^k\eta_j(y) \prec e_j^{-k}$, for all $y\in W_1\setminus A^*$. Hence, by properties iv) and vi) of lemma , we have that for each $k=0,\,1,\,\ldots,\,r$: $$D^k\eta_j(y) \prec d(y)^{-k} \qquad \text{for all}\; y\in W_1\setminus A^*$$ and $$D^k\s(y) \prec d(y)^{-k} \qquad \text{for all}\; y\in W_1\setminus A^*\,.$$ Define $$ \f_j(y) = \frac{\eta_j(y)}{\s(y)}\,.$$ These functions satisfy the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item[{\rm i)}] each $\f_j$ is $C^{\infty}$ and supported on $K_j^{\l}$; \item[{\rm ii)}] $0\leq \f_j(y) \leq 1$ and $\sum_j \f_j(y)=1$, for all $y\in W_1\setminus A^*$; \item[{\rm iii)}] every point of $W_1\setminus A^*$ has a neighborhood on which all but at most $N$ of the $\f_j$'s vanish identically; \item[{\rm iv)}] for each $k=0,\,1,\,\ldots,\,r$, $D^k\f_j(y) \prec d(y)^{-k}$ for all $y\in W_1\setminus A^*$; namely, there are constants $M_k$ such that $D^k\f_j(y) \leq M_kd(y)^{-k}$; \item[{\rm v)}] there is a constant $\a$ and points $x_j \in A^*$, such that: $$ \|x_j-y\| \leq \a d(y), \qquad {\rm whenever}\; \f_j(y)\neq 0\,.$$ This follows from properties iii) and iv) of lemma . \end{itemize} We can now construct our function $F$. Observe that, from lemma : $$ 0\leq U(g(y))= P(x_j,y) + R(x_j,y) \leq P(x_j,y) + C \|y-x_j\|^r\,;$$ therefore $P(x_j,y) \geq -C \|y-x_j\|^r$. \\ First, define $$ \hat{P}_j(y)= P(x_j,y) + 2C \|y-x_j\|^r$$ where $C$ is the same constant as in lemma ; for what said above, \beqa{defPhatj} \hat{P}_j(y) \geq C\|y-x_j\|^r >0 \qquad {\rm in}\; W_1\setminus\{x_j\}\,. \eeqa Hence, construct $F$ in the following way: $$F(y) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0 & y\in A^*\\ \sum_j \f_j(y) \hat{P}_j(y) & y \in \R^d\setminus A^*\,. \end{array} \right. $$ We claim that this satisfies all the stated properties i)-vi). In particular, properties ii), iii) and v) follow immediately from the definition of $F$ and (). Moreover, $F\in C^{\infty}(\R^d\setminus A^*)$. We need to show that $D^kF=f_k$ (for $k=0,\,1,\,\ldots,\,r-1$) on $\dpr A^*$ (namely, the boundary of $A^*$) and that $D^{r-1}F$ is continuous on it. The main difficult in the proof, is that $D^kF$ is expressed as a sum containing terms $$ D^{k-m}\f_j(y) P_m(x_j,y),$$ where $\f_j(y)\neq 0$. Even if $y$ is close to some $x_0\in A^*$, it could be closer to $A^*$ and hence the bound given by property iv) of $\f_j$ might become large. One can overcome this problem by choosing a point $x^* \in A^*$, so that $\|x^*-y\|$ is roughly the same as $d(y)$ and hence, $x_j$ is close to $x^*$. \begin{Lem} For every $\eta>0$, there exists $\d>0$ such that for all $y\in W_1\setminus A^*$, $x,\,x^*\in A^*$ and $x_0\in \dpr A^*$, we have $$ \|P_k(x,y) - P_k(x^*,y)\|\leq \eta \,d(y)^{r-k} \leq \eta \|y-x_0\|^{r-k}, $$ whenever $k\leq r$ and $$ \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \|y-x\|<\a d(y)\\ \|y-x^*\|<\a d(y)\\ \|y-x_0\|<\d\,, \end{array}\right. $$ where $\a$ is the same constant as in {\rm v)} above. \end{Lem} See (on page $126$) for its proof. \begin{Lem} For every $\eta>0$, there exist $0<\d<1$ and a constant $E$, such that for all $y\in W_1\setminus A^*$, $x^*\in A^*$ and $x_0\in \dpr A^*$, we have $$ \|D^kF(y) - P_k(x^*,y)\|\leq E\, d(y)^{r-k} \leq \eta\, d(y)^{r-k-1},$$ whenever $k\leq r-1$ and $$ \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \|y-x^*\|<\a d(y)\\ \|y-x_0\|<\d\,. \end{array}\right. $$ \end{Lem} \begin{Proof} Let $$S_{j,k}(x^*,y)= \dpr_k \hat{P}_j(y) - P_k(x^*,y)\,. $$ From lemma (with $\eta = \e$, to be defined later) and the definition of $\hat{P}_j$, we get: \beqano \|S_{j,k}(x^*,y)\| &\leq& \|\dpr_k \hat{P}_j(y) - P_k(x_j,y)\| + \|P_k(x_j,y)-P_k(x^*,y)\| \leq \\ &\leq& C_k d(y)^{r-k} + \e d(y)^{r-k} = \\ &=& (C_k + \e ) d(y)^{r-k}\,. \eeqano Then, $$ F(y) - P(x^*,y) = \sum_{j} \f_j(y) S_{j,0}(x^*,y)$$ and hence $$ D^kF(y) - P_k(x^*,y) = \sum_{j} \sum_{i\leq k} \binomiale{k}{i} D^{k-i}\f_j(y) S_{j,i}(x^*,y)\,.$$ Therefore, choosing $\e$ sufficiently small: \beqano \|D^kF(y) - P_k(x^*,y)\| &\leq& \sum_{j} \sum_{i\leq k} \binomiale{k}{i} \|D^{k-i}\f_j(y)\|\cdot \|S_{j,i}(x^*,y)\| \leq\\ &\leq& \sum_{j} \sum_{i\leq k} \binomiale{k}{i} M_{k-i} d(y)^{-k+i}(C_k + \e) d(y)^{r-i} \leq\\ &\leq& E \,d(y)^{r-k} \leq \eta\, d(y)^{r-k-1}\,. \eeqano \end{Proof} \begin{Lem} For every $\eta>0$, there exist $0<\d<1$ such that, for all $y\in W_1\setminus A^*$, $x^*\in A^*$ and $x_0\in \dpr A^*$, we have $$ \|P_k(x^*,y)-P_k(x_0,y)\|\leq \eta \|y-x_0\|^{r-k}\,, $$ whenever $k\leq r$ and $$ \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \|y-x^*\|<\a d(y)\\ \|y-x_0\|<\d\,. \end{array}\right. $$ \end{Lem} \begin{Proof} The proof goes as the one of lemma , observing that $\|x^*-x_0\|\leq (1+\a)\|y-x_0\|$ and $$ P_k(x_0,y) - P_k(x^*,y) = \sum_{q\leq r-k} \frac{R_{k+q}(x^*,x_0)}{q!}(y-x)^q\,.$$ \end{Proof} \begin{Claim} For every $x_0\in \dpr A^*$ and $k=0,\,1,\,\ldots,\, r-1$: $$D^kF(x_0)=f_k(x_0)\,.$$ Moreover, $D^{r-1}F$ is continuous at $x_0\in \dpr A^{*}$. \end{Claim} This claim follows easily from the lemmata above (see , on page $128$, for more details).\\ This proves that $F\in C^{r-1}(\R^d)$ and completes the proof of i) and iv).\\ It remains to show that property vi) holds, namely that there exists a constant $K>0$, such that $U(g(x))\leq K F(x)$ on $W_1$. Obviously, this holds at every point in $A^*$, for every choice of $K$ (since both functions vanish there). \begin{Claim} There exists a constant $K>0$, such that $\frac{U \circ g}{F} \leq K$ on $W_1\setminus A^*$. \end{Claim} \begin{Proof} Since $F>0$ on $W_1\setminus A^*$, it is sufficient to show that $\frac{U \circ g}{F}$ is uniformly bounded by a constant, as $d(y)$ goes to zero. Let us start observing that, for $y\in K_j^{\l}$, $$ \hat{P}_j(y) \geq C \|y-x_j\|^r \geq C d(y)^r\,;$$ therefore: \beqano F(y) &=& \sum_{j} \f_j(y) \hat{P}_j (y) \geq \\ &\geq& \sum_{j} \f_j(y) C d(y)^r = \\ &=& C d(y)^r\,. \eeqano Moreover, if $x^* \in A^*$ such that $d(y)= \|y-x^*\|$, lemma and imply: \beqano |U(g(y))-F(y)| &\leq& |U(g(y)) - P(x^*,y)| + |P(x^*,y)-F(y)| \leq \\ &\leq& C d(y)^r + Ed(y)^r = (C+E) d(y)^r\,. \eeqano Hence, \beqano \frac{U(g(y))}{F(y)} &=& \frac{U(g(y)) - F(y) + F(y)}{F(y)} \leq \\ &\leq& 1 + \frac{|U(g(y))-F(y)|}{F(y)} \leq \\ &\leq& 1 + \frac{(C+E) d(y)^r}{C d(y)^r} \leq \\ &\leq& 2 + \frac{E}{C} =: \tilde{K}\,. \eeqano \end{Proof} This proves property vi) and concludes the proof of the proposition. \ep \medbreak \vspace{12pt} \acks I wish to thank John Mather for having introduced me to this area and suggested this problem. I am very grateful to him and to Albert Fathi for their interest and for several helpful discussions.\\ \nocite{*} \bibliographystyle{plain} \bibliography{biblioSorrentino} {}
|
0704.0130
|
Title: New simple modular Lie superalgebras as generalized prolongs
Abstract: Over algebraically closed fields of characteristic p>2, prolongations of the
simple finite dimensional Lie algebras and Lie superalgebras with Cartan matrix
are studied for certain simplest gradings of these algebras. Several new simple
Lie superalgebras are discovered, serial and exceptional, including superBrown
and superMelikyan superalgebras. Simple Lie superalgebras with Cartan matrix of
rank 2 are classified.
Body: \title[New simple Lie superalgebras] {New simple modular Lie superalgebras as generalized prolongs} \author{Sofiane Bouarroudj${}^1$, Pavel Grozman${}^2$, Dimitry Leites${}^3$} \address{${}^1$Department of Mathematics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, PO. Box: 17551; Bouarroudj.sofiane@uaeu.ac.ae\\ ${}^2$Equa Simulation AB, Stockholm, Sweden; pavel@rixtele.com\\ ${}^3$MPIMiS, Inselstr. 22, DE-04103 Leipzig, Germany\\ on leave from Department of Mathematics, University of Stockholm, Roslagsv. 101, Kr\"aft\-riket hus 6, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden; mleites@math.su.se, leites@mis.mpg.de} \keywords {Cartan prolongation, nonholonomic manifold, Lie superalgebra} \subjclass{17B50, 70F25} \begin{abstract} Over algebraically closed fields of characteristic $p>2$, prolongations of the simple finite dimensional Lie algebras and Lie superalgebras with Cartan matrix are studied for certain simplest gradings of these algebras. Several new simple Lie superalgebras are discovered, serial and exceptional, including superBrown and superMelikyan superalgebras. Simple Lie superalgebras with Cartan matrix of rank 2 are classified. \end{abstract} \thanks{We are thankful to I.~Shchepochkina for help; DL is thankful to MPIMiS, Leipzig, for financial support and most creative environment.} \maketitle \markboth{\itshape Sofiane Bouarroudj\textup{,} Pavel Grozman\textup{,} Dimitry Leites}{{\itshape New simple modular Lie superalgebras}} \thispagestyle{empty} \section{Introduction} \ssec{Setting} We use standard notations of ; for the precise definition (algorithm) of generalized Cartan-Tanaka--Shchepochkina (CTS) complete and partial prolongations, and algorithms of their construction, see . Hereafter $\Kee$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p>2$, unless specified. Let $\fg'=[\fg, \fg]$, and $\fc(\fg)=\fg\oplus\mathfrak{center}$, where $\dim\mathfrak{center}=1$. Let ${}^{n)}\fg$ denote the incarnation of the Lie (super)algebra $\fg$ with the $n)$th Cartan matrix, cf. . On classification of simple vectorial Lie superalgebras with polynomial coefficients (in what follows referred to as {\it vectorial Lie superalgebras of polynomial vector fields} over $\Cee$, see ). The works of S.~Lie, Killing and \`E.~Cartan, now classical, completed classification over $\Cee$ of \begin{equation} \text{{\bf simple Lie algebras of finite dimension and of polynomial vector fields}.} \end{equation} Lie algebras and Lie superalgebras over fields in characteristic $p>0$, a.k.a. {\it modular} Lie (super)algebras, were first recognized and defined in topology, in the 1930s. The {\bf simple} Lie algebras drew attention (over finite fields $\Kee$) as a step towards classification of simple finite groups, cf. . Lie {\it super}algebras, even simple ones and even over $\Cee$ or $\Ree$, did not draw much attention of mathematicians until their (outstanding) usefulness was observed by physicists in the 1970s. Meanwhile mathematicians kept discovering new and new examples of simple modular Lie algebras until Kostrikin and Shafarevich () formulated a conjecture embracing all previously found examples for $p>7$. Its generalization reads: {\sl select a $\Zee$-form $\fg_\Zee$ of every $\fg$ of type\footnote{Observe that the algebra of divided powers (the analog of the polynomial algebra for $p>0$) {\it and hence all prolongs} (Lie algebras of vector fields) acquire one more --- shearing --- parameter: $\underline{N}$, see .} $()$, take $\fg_\Kee:=\fg_\Zee\otimes_\Zee\Kee$ and its simple finite dimensional subquotient $\fs\fii(\fg_\Kee)$ (there can be several such $\fs\fii(\fg_\Kee)$). Together with deformations\footnote{It is not clear, actually, if the conventional notion of deformation can always be applied if $p>0$ (for the arguments, see ; cf. ); to give the correct (better say, universal) notion is an open problem, but in some cases it is applicable, see .} of these examples we get in this way all simple finite dimensional Lie algebras over algebraically closed fields if $p>5$. If $p=5$, we should add to the above list Melikyan's examples}. Having built upon ca 30 years of work of several teams of researchers, and having added new ideas and lots of effort, Block, Wilson, Premet and Strade proved the generalized KSh conjecture for $p>3$, see . For $p\leq 5$, the above KSh-procedure does not produce all simple finite dimensional Lie algebras; there are other examples. In , we returned to \'E.~Cartan's description of $\Zee$-graded Lie algebras as CTS prolongs, i.e., as subalgebras of vectorial Lie algebras preserving certain distributions; we thus interpreted the \lq\lq mysterious" at that moment exceptional examples of simple Lie algebras for $p=3$ (the Brown, Frank, Ermolaev and Skryabin algebras), further elucidated Kuznetsov's interpretation of Melikyan's algebras (as prolongs of the nonpositive part of the Lie algebra $\fg(2)$ in one of its $\Zee$-gradings) and discovered three new series of simple Lie algebras. In , the same approach yielded $\fbj$, a simple super versions of $\fg(2)$, and $\fBj(1; N|7)$, a simple $p=3$ super Melikyan algebra. Both $\fbj$ and $\fBj(1; N|7)$ are indigenous to $p=3$, the case where $\fg(2)$ is not simple. \ssec{Classification: Conjectures and results} Recently, Elduque considered super analogs of the exceptional simple Lie algebras; his method leads to a discovery of 10 new simple (presumably, exceptional) Lie superalgebras for $p=3$. For a description of the Elduque superalgebras, see ; for their description in terms of Cartan matrices and analogs of Chevalley relations and notations we use in what follows, see \cite{BGL1, BGL2}. In , a super analog of the KSh conjecture embracing all types of simple (finite dimensional) Lie superalgebras is formulated based on an entirely different idea in which the CTS prolongs play the main role: \so{For every simple finite dimensional Lie (super)algebra of the form $\fg(A)$, take its non-positive part with respect to a certain simplest $\Zee$-grading, consider its complete and partial prolongs and take their simple subquotients.} The new examples of simple modular Lie superalgebras ($\fBRJ$, $\fBj(3;\underline{N}|3)$, $\fBj(3;\underline{N}|5)$) support this conjecture. (This is how Cartan got all simple $\Zee$-graded Lie algebras of polynomial growth and finite depth --- the Lie algebras of type $()$ --- at the time when the root technique was not discovered yet.) \subsubsection{Yamaguchi's theorem ()} This theorem, reproduced in , states that {\sl for almost all simple finite dimensional Lie algebras $\fg$ over $\Cee$ and their $\Zee$-gradings $\fg=\mathop{\oplus}\limits_{-d\leq i}\fg_i$ of finite depth $d$, the CTS prolong of $\fg_{\leq}=\mathop{\oplus}\limits_{-d\leq i\leq 0}\fg_i$ is isomorphic to $\fg$, the rare exceptions being two of the four series of simple vectorial algebras} (the other two series being partial prolongs). \subsubsection{Conjecture} In the following theorems, we present the results of \texttt{SuperLie}-assisted () computations of the CTS-prolongs of the non-positive parts of the simple finite dimensional Lie algebras and Lie superalgebras $\fg(A)$; we have only considered $\Zee$-grading corresponding to each (or, for larger ranks, even certain {\it selected}) of the {\bf simplest} gradings $r=(r_1, \dots, r_{\rk\fg})$, where all but one coordinates of $r$ are equal to 0 and only one --- {\it selected} --- is equal to 1, and where we set $\deg X_i^{\pm}=\pm r_i$ for the Chevalley generators $X_i^{\pm}$ of $\fg(A)$, see . \so{Other gradings (as well as algebras $\fg(A)$ of higher ranks) do not yield new simple Lie (super)algebras as prolongs of the non-positive parts}. \ssbegin{Theorem} The CTS prolong of the nonpositive part of $\fg$ returns $\fg$ in the following cases: $p=3$ and $\fg=\ff(4)$, $\fe(6)$, $\fe(7)$ and $\fe(8)$ considered with the $\Zee$-grading with one selected root corresponding to the endpoint of the Dynkin diagram. \end{Theorem} \subsubsection{Conjecture}[The computer got stuck here, after weeks of computations] To the cases of Theorem , one can add the case for $p=5$ and $\fg=\fel(5)$ {\em (see )} in its $\Zee$-grading with only one odd simple root and with one selected root corresponding to any endpoint of the Dynkin diagram. \ssbegin{Theorem} Let $p=3$. For the previously known (we found more, see Theorems , ) simple finite dimensional Lie superalgebras $\fg$ of rank $\leq 3$ with Cartan matrix and for their simplest gradings $r$, the CTS prolongs (of the non-positive part of $\fg$) different from $\fg$ are given in the following table elucidated below. \end{Theorem} \ssec{Melikyan superalgebras for $p=3$} There are known the two constructions of the Melikyan algebra $\fMe(5; \underline{N})=\mathop{\oplus}\limits_{i\geq -2}\fMe(5; \underline{N})_i$, defined for $p=5$: 1) as the CTS prolong of the triple $\fMe_0=\fc\fvect(1; \underline{1})$, $\fMe_{-1}=\cO(1;\underline{1})/\text{const}$ and the trivial module $\fMe_{-2}$, see ; this construction would be a counterexample to our conjecture were there no alternative: 2) as the {\it complete} CTS prolong of the non-negative part of $\fg(2)$ in its grading $r=(01)$, with $\fg(2)$ obtained now as a {\it partial} prolong, see . In , we have singled out $\fBj(1; \underline{N}|7)$ as a $p=3$ simple analog of $\fMe(5; \underline{N})$ as a partial CTS prolongs of the pair (the negative part of $\fk(1; \underline{N}|7)$, $\fBj(1; \underline{N}|7)_0=\fp\fgl(3)$), and $\fbj$ as a $p=3$ simple analog of $\fg(2)$ whose non-positive part is the same as that of $\fBj(1; \underline{N}|7)$, i.e., $\fbj$ and $\fBj(1; \underline{N}|7)$ are analogs of the construction 2). The original Melikyan's construction 1) also has its super analog for $p=3$ (only in the situation described in Theorem ) and it yields a new series of simple Lie superalgebras as the complete prolongs, with another simple analog of $\fg(2)$ as a partial prolong. Recall () that we normalize the Cartan matrix $A$ so that $A_{ii}=1$ or $0$ if the $i$th root is odd, whereas if the $i$th root is even, we set $A_{ii}=2$ or $0$ in which case we write $\ev$ instead of $0$ in order not to confuse with the case of odd roots. \ssbegin{Theorem} A $p=3$ analog of the construction $1)$ of the Melikyan algebra is given by setting $\fg_0=\fc\fk(1; \underline{1}|1)$, $\fg_{-1}=\cO(1;\underline{1}|1)/\text{const}$ and $\fg_{-2}$ being the trivial module. It yields a simple super Melikyan algebra that we denote by $\fMe(3; \underline{N}|3)$, non-isomorphic to a superMelikyan algebra $\fBj(1; \underline{N}|7)$. The partial prolong of the non-positive part of $\fMe(3; \underline{N}|3)$ is a new (exceptional) simple Lie superalgebra that we denote by $\fbrj(2;3)$. This $\fbrj(2;3)$ has the three Cartan matrices: $1)\ \begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\ -2&1\end{pmatrix}$ and $2)\ \begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\ -1&\ev\end{pmatrix}$ joined by an odd reflection, and $\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\ -1&\ev\end{pmatrix}$. It is a super analog of the Brown algebra $\fbr(2)=\fbrj(2;3)_\ev$, its even part. The CTS prolongs for the simplest gradings $r$ of ${}^{1)}\fbrj(2;3)$ returns known simple Lie superalgebras, whereas the CTS prolong for a simplest grading $r$ of ${}^{2)}\fbrj(2;3)$ returns, as a partial prolong, a new simple Lie superalgebra we denote $\fBRJ$. Unlike $\fbr(2)$, the Lie superalgebra $\fbrj(2;3)$ has analogs for $p\neq 3$, e.g., for $p=5$, we get a new simple Lie superalgebra $\fbrj(2;5)$ such that $\fbrj(2;5)_\ev=\fsp(4)$ with the two Cartan matrices $1)\ \begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\ -2&1\end{pmatrix}$ and $2)\ \begin{pmatrix}0&-4\\ -3&2\end{pmatrix}$. The CTS prolongs of $\fbrj(2;5)$ for all its Cartan matrices and the simplest $r$ return $\fbrj(2;5)$. \end{Theorem} Having got this far, it was impossible not to try to get classification of simple $\fg(A)$'s. Here is its beginning part, see . \ssbegin{Theorem} If $p>5$, every finite dimensional simple Lie {\em super}algebra with a $2\times 2$ Cartan matrix is isomorphic to $\fosp(1|4)$, $\fosp(3|2)$, or $\fsl(1|2)$. If $p=5$, we should add $\fbrj(2;5)$. If $p=3$, we should add $\fbrj(2;3)$. \end{Theorem} \begin{Remark} For details of description of the new simple Lie superalgebras of types $\fBj$ and $\fMe$ and their subalgebras, in particular, presentations of $\fbrj(2;3)$ and $\fbrj(2;5)$, and proof of Theorem and its generalization for higher ranks, see \cite{BGL4, BGL5}. \end{Remark} The new simple Lie superalgebras obtained are described in the next subsections. \footnotesize $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline $\fg$&Cartan matrix&$r$&prolong\\ \hline $\fosp(3|2)$&$\begin{matrix}\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ -2 & 2 \end{pmatrix}\\ \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ -1 &1 \end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(10)\\(01)\\(10)\\(01)\end{matrix}$& $\begin{matrix}\fk(1|3)\\ \fk(1|3;1)\\ \fosp(3|2)\\ \fk(1|3;1)\end{matrix}$\\ \hline $\fsl(1|2)$&$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ -1 & 2 \end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(10)\\(01)\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}\fvect(0|2)\\ \fvect(1|1)\end{matrix}$\\ &$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(10)\\(01)\end{matrix}$&$\fvect(1|1)$\\ \hline $\fosp(1|4)$&$\begin{pmatrix} 2 & -1 \\ -1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(10)\\(01)\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}\fk(3|1)\\ \fosp(1|4)\end{matrix}$\\ \hline $\fbrj(2;3)$&$\begin{matrix}\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ -2 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\\ \begin{pmatrix} \ev & -1 \\ -1 &0 \end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(10)\\(01)\\(10)\\(01)\end{matrix}$& $\begin{matrix}\mathfrak{Me}(3;N|3)\\ \mathfrak{Brj}(4|3)\\ \mathfrak{Brj}(4; \underline{N}|3) \\ \mathfrak{Brj}(3; \underline{N}|4)\supset\fBRJ \end{matrix}$\\ \hline $\fbrj(2;3)$&$\begin{matrix}\begin{pmatrix} \ev & -1\\ -1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(10)\\(01)\end{matrix}$& $\begin{matrix}\mathfrak{Brj}(3; \underline{N}|3)\\ \mathfrak{Brj}(3; \underline{N}|4)\supset\fBRJ\end{matrix}$\\ \hline $\fbrj(2;5)$&$\begin{matrix}\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ -2 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\\ \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -3 &2 \end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(10)\\(01)\\(10)\\(01)\end{matrix}$& $\begin{matrix}\mathfrak{brj}(2;5)\\ \mathfrak{brj}(2;5)\\ \mathfrak{brj}(2;5)\\ \mathfrak{brj}(2;5)\end{matrix}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline $\fg$&Cartan matrix&$r$&prolong\\ \hline $\fsl(1|3)$&$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 & 0\\ -1 & 2&-1\\0&-1&2 \end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(100)\\(010)\\(001)\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix} \fvect(0|3)\\\fsl(1|3)\\ \fvect(2|1)\end{matrix}$\\ &$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 &0\\ -1 & 0&-2\\0&-1&2 \end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(100)\\(010)\\(001)\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}\fvect(2|1)\\ \fsl(1|3)\\ \fvect(2|1)\end{matrix}$\\ \hline $\fpsl(2|2)$&any matrix&$\begin{matrix}(100)\\(010)\\(001)\end{matrix}$& $\begin{matrix}\fsvect(1|2)\\ \fpsl(2|2)\\ \fsvect(1|2)\end{matrix}$\\ \hline $\fosp(1|6)$&$\begin{pmatrix} 2 & -1 & 0\\ -1 & 2&-1\\0&-1&1 \end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(100)\\(010)\\(001)\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}\fk(5|1)\\ \fosp(1|6)\\ \fosp(1|6)\end{matrix}$\\ \hline $\fosp(3|4)$&$ \left.\begin{matrix} \begin{pmatrix}2 & -1 & 0\\ -1 & 0&-1\\0&-2&2 \end{pmatrix}\\ \begin{pmatrix} 0&-1&0\\ -1&0&1\\ 0&-1&1 \end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}\right \}$&$\begin{matrix}(100)\\ (010)\\ (001)\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}\fk(3|3)\\ \fosp(3|4)\\ \fosp(3|4)\end{matrix}$\\ &$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 & 0\\ -1 & 2&-1\\0&-1&1 \end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(100)\\ (010)\\ (001)\end{matrix}$&$\fosp(3|4)$\\ \hline $\fosp(5|2)$&$ \left.\begin{matrix} \begin{pmatrix} 2 & -1 & 0\\ -1 & 0&1\\0&-1&1 \end{pmatrix}\\ \begin{pmatrix} 0&-1&0\\ -1&0&1\\ 0&-2&2 \end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}\right \}$&$\begin{matrix}(100)\\ (010)\\ (001)\end{matrix}$&$\fosp(5|2)$\\ &$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 & 0\\ -1 & 2&-1\\0&-2&2 \end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{matrix}\left .\begin{matrix}(100)\\ (010)\end{matrix}\right \}\\ (001)\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}\fosp(5|2)\\ \fk(1|5)\end{matrix}$\\ \hline $ \begin{matrix}\fosp(4|2;\alpha)\\ \alpha\;\text{generic}\end{matrix}$&$ \begin{matrix}1)\;\begin{pmatrix} 2 & -1 & 0 \\ \alpha& 0 & -1-\alpha \\ 0 & -1 & 2 \end{pmatrix}\\ 2)\;\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & -1-\alpha \\ -1 & 0 & -\alpha \\ -1-\alpha & \alpha & 0 \end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(100)\\ (010)\\ (001)\end{matrix}$&$\fosp(4|2;\alpha)$\\ \hline $\begin{matrix} \fosp(4|2;\alpha)\\ \alpha=0,-1 \end{matrix}$&$ \begin{array}{l} 1) \text{ The simple part of ${}^{1)}\fosp(4|2;\alpha)$ is } \fsl(2|2);\\ \text{for the CTS of $\fpsl(2|2)$, see above }\\ 2)\; {}^{2)}\fosp(4|2;\alpha)\simeq\fsl(2|2); \\ \text{for the CTS of $\fsl(2|2)$, see above }\\ \end{array}$&&\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|} \hline $\fg$&Cartan matrix&$r$&prolong\\ \hline $\fosp(2|4)$&$ \begin{matrix}1)\;\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -1 & 2 & -2 \\ 0 & -1 &2 \end{pmatrix}\\ 2)\; \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 2 \\ 0 & -1 & 2 \end{pmatrix}\\ 3)\; \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -2 & 1 \\ -2 & 0 & 1 \\ -1 & -1 & 2 \end{pmatrix}\end{matrix}$&$\begin{matrix}\left. \begin{matrix}(100)\\ (010)\\ (001)\end{matrix}\right\}\\ \left. \begin{matrix}(100)\\ (010)\\ (001)\end{matrix}\right\}\\ \left. \begin{matrix}(100)\\ (010)\\ (001)\end{matrix}\right\}\end{matrix}$&$ \begin{matrix}\begin{cases}\fosp(2|4)&\\ \begin{cases}\fosp(2|4)&\text{if $p>3$}\\ \fBj(3; N|3)&\text{if $p=3$} \end{cases}&\\ \fosp(2|4)&\\ \end{cases}\\ \begin{cases}\fk(3|2)&\\ \begin{cases}\fosp(2|4)&\text{if $p>3$}\\ \fBj(3; N|3)&\text{if $p=3$} \end{cases}\\ \fosp(2|4)&\\ \end{cases}\\ \begin{cases}\fosp(2|4)&\\ \fosp(2|4)&\\ \fk(3|2)&\\ \end{cases} \end{matrix}$\\ \hline $\fg(2|3)$&$3)\; \begin{pmatrix} 0&0&-1 \\ 0&0&-2 \\ -1&-2&2 \end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{matrix}(100)\\ (010)\\ (001)\end{matrix}$& $\begin{matrix}\fBj(2|4)\\ \fBj(3|5)\\ \fbj\end{matrix}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ \normalsize \ssec{A description of $\fBj(3; N|3)$} For $\fg={}^{1)}\fosp(2|4)$ and $r=(0,1,0)$, we have the following realization of the non-positive part: \begin{equation} \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&the generators (even $\mid$ odd) \\ \hline \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$Y_{6}=\partial_1\;\mid\; Y_{8}=\partial_4$\\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$Y_2=\partial_2,\; Y_{5}=x_{2}\partial_{1} + x_{5}\partial_{4} + \partial_{3},\; \;\mid\; Y_4=\partial_5,\; Y_{7}=2\, x_{2}\partial_{4} + \partial_{6},$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}\simeq $& $Y_3={{x_{2}}^2}\partial_{1} + x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{4} + x_{2}\partial_{3} + 2x_{5}\partial_{6},\; Z_3={{x_{3}}^2}\partial_{1} + 2x_{3} x_{6}\partial_{4} + x_{3}\partial_{2} + 2x_{6}\partial_{5}$\\ $\fsl(1|1)\oplus \fsl(2)\oplus \Kee$&$H_2=2\, x_{1}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2}\partial_{2} + x_{4}\partial_{4} + x_{5}\partial_{5} + 2\, x_{6}\partial_{6},\; H_1=[Z_1, Y_1], H_3=[Z_3,Y_3] \;\mid\;$\\ & $ Y_1= x_{1}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2}\partial_{5} + x_{3}\partial_{6},\; Z_1= 2\, x_{4}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{5}\partial_{2} + x_{6}\partial_{3} $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} The $\fg_0$-module $\fg_{-1}$ is irreducible, having one highest weight vector $Y_2$. Let $p=3$. The CTS prolong gives $\sdim(\fg_1)=4|4$. The $\fg_0$-module $\fg_1$ has the following two lowest weight vectors: $$ \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $V_1'$ & $ x_{1} x_{2} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1}\partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{5}+ x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{6} $\\ $V_1''$ & $ x_{1}x_{2} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{5} \partial_{4}+ 2\, x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{4} + x_{1}\partial_{3}+ {{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{5} + x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{6} +x_{3} x_{5} \partial_{6}+ x_{4}\partial_{6}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ Since $\fg_1$ generates the positive part of the CTS prolong, $[\fg_{-1},\fg_1]=\fg_0,$ and $[\fg_{-1},\fg_{-1}]=\fg_{-2}$, the standard criteria of simplicity ensures that the CTS prolong is simple. Since none of the $\Zee$-graded Lie superalgebras over $\Cee$ of polynomial growth and finite depth has grading of this form (with $\fg_0\simeq\fsl(1|1)\oplus \fsl(2)\oplus \Kee$), we conclude that this Lie superalgebra is new. We denote it by $\fBj(3;N|3)$, where $N$ is the shearing parameter of the even indeterminates. Our calculations show that $N_2=N_3=1$ always. For $N_1=1$, 2, the super dimensions of the positive components of $\fBj(3;N|3)$ are given in the following tables: $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $N=(1,1,1)$ &$\fg_1$ & $\fg_2$& $\fg_3$&$\fg_4$ & $\fg_5$ & $\fg_6$&--&--&--\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$4|4$ & $5|5$& $4|4$& $4|4$& $2|2$& $0|3$&&&\\ \hline \hline $N=(2,1,1)$ &$\fg_1$ & $\fg_2$& $\fg_3$&$\fg_4$ & $\fg_5$ & $\fg_6$&$\cdots$ & $\fg_{11}$ & $\fg_{12}$\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$4|4$ & $5|5$& $4|4$& $5|5$& $4|4$ & $5|5$ &$\cdots$& $2|2$ & $0|3$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ Let $V_i'$, $V_i''$ and $V_i'''$ be the lowest height vectors of $\fg_i$ with respect to $\fg_0$. For $N=(1,1,1)$, these vectors are as follows: $$ \footnotesize \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_i$ & lowest weight vectors\\ \hline $V_2'$ & $ {{x_{1}}^2} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} \partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{3} \partial_{6} + x_{2} {{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{6}$\\ $V_2''$ &$ x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{2}x_{5} \partial_{4} + x_{1}x_{2} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} \partial_{6} + {{x_{2}}^2} x_{3} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^2} x_{5} \partial_{5} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{5} \partial_{6} $\\ $V_2'''$ & $ {{x_{1}}^2} \partial_{1} +{{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{1} + {{x_{2}}^2} x_{3} \partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^2} x_{6} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} \partial_{4}$\\ & $ + x_{2} {{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{3} + x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^2} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{6} $\\ \hline $V_3'$ & $ {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} \partial_{4} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{5} +x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{6} + {{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{6} $\\ $V_3''$& $ {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} \partial_{1} +{{x_{1}}^2}x_{5} \partial_{4} + {{x_{1}}^2} \partial_{3} + x_{1} x_{2}x_{3} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2}x_{5} \partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{5} \partial_{6}$\\ &$+ x_{2} {{x_{3}}^2} x_{5} \partial_{6} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{2}x_{3} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{6}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^2}x_{3}x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^2} x_{4} \partial_{5} + x_{2}x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{6} $\\ \hline $V_4'$ & $ {{x_{1}}^2}{{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{1} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{4} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{5}\partial_{6} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{3} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{5} \partial_{5}$\\ &$+ x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{5} \partial_{6} + {{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2} x_{5} \partial_{6} $\\ $V_4''$ & $ {{x_{1}}^2} x_{4} \partial_{4} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{5} \partial_{5} + {{x_{1}}^2}x_{6} \partial_{6} + {{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2}x_{6} \partial_{6} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2}{{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{1} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2}x_{3} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{6} \partial_{5}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1}{{x_{3}}^2} x_{5} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} {{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{4}\partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{6} + x_{2} {{x_{3}}^2} x_{4} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2}x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{4} $\\ \hline $V_5'$ & $ {{x_{1}}^2} {{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{2} + {{x_{1}}^2}x_{4} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{3} + 2\,{{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{4} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2} x_{4} \partial_{6}$\\ &$ + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{3} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{4} \partial_{5} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{3} x_{6}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{6}$\\ \hline $V_6'$ & ${{x_{1}}^2} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{4} \partial_{1} + {{x_{1}}^2}{{x_{2}}^2} x_{5}\partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{6} \partial_{3} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2}x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{6} $\\ &$+ 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} x_{3}x_{5} \partial_{3} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} x_{4}x_{5} \partial_{4} + {{x_{1}}^2}x_{2} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6} +{{x_{2}}^2}{{x_{3}}^2}x_{4} x_{5}\partial_{6}$\\ &$ + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2}x_{5} \partial_{3} + x_{1}{{x_{2}}^2}x_{3} x_{4}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{5} +x_{1}{{x_{2}}^2}x_{3} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6}+ x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{6}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$\normalsize For $N=(2,1,1)$, the lowest hight vectors are as in the table above together with the following ones $$ \footnotesize \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_i$ & lowest weight vectors\\ \hline $V_4'''$ & $ {{x_{1}}^3}\partial_{4} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2}\partial{5} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{3}\partial_{6} + x_{1} x_{2}{{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{6} $\\ \hline $\dots$&$\dotfill$\\ \hline $V_{11}'$ & ${{x_{1}}^5} {{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{2} + {{x_{1}}^5} x_{4} \partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^4} {{x_{2}}^2}{{x_{3}}^2} \partial_{3} + {{x_{1}}^4} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{4} \partial_{5} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^5} x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^5} x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{4}$\\ &$ + {{x_{1}}^5} x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^3} {{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2} x_{4} \partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^4} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^4} x_{2} x_{3}x_{4} \partial_{6}$\\ \hline $V_{12}'$ & $ {{x_{1}}^5}{{x_{2}}^2} x_{4} \partial_{1} + {{x_{1}}^5} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{5} \partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^5} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{6} \partial_{3} + {{x_{1}}^5} x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^5} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^4} {{x_{2}}^2} {{x_{3}}^2}x_{5} \partial_{3}$\\ &$ + {{x_{1}}^4} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{3} x_{4}\partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^4} {{x_{2}}^2} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{5} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^5} x_{2} x_{3} x_{5}\partial_{3} + {{x_{1}}^5} x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{4} +{{x_{1}}^5} x_{2}x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6}$\\ &$ + {{x_{1}}^3}{{x_{2}}^2}{{x_{3}}^2} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^4} {{x_{2}}^2}x_{3} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^4} x_{2} x_{3}x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{6}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$\normalsize Let us investigate if $\fBj(3;N|3)$ has partial prolongs as subalgebras: (i) Denote by $\fg_1'$ the $\fg_0$-module generated by $V_1'$. We have $\sdim(\fg_1')=2|2$. The CTS partial prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0,\fg_1')_*$ gives a graded Lie superalgebra with the property that $[\fg_{-1},\fg_1]\simeq \{Y_1,h_1\}:=\mathfrak{aff}$. From the description of irreducible modules over solvable Lie superalgebras , we see that the irreducible $\mathfrak{aff}$-modules are 1-dimensional. For irreducible $\mathfrak{aff}$-submodules $\fg_{-1}'$ in $\fg_{-1}$ we have two possibilities: to take $\fg_{-1}'=\{Y_4\}$ or $\fg_{-1}'=\{Y_7\}$; for both of them, $\fg_{-1}'$ is purely odd and we can never get a simple Cartan prolong. (ii) Denote by $\fg_1''$ the $\fg_0$-module generated by $V_1''$. We have $\sdim(\fg_1'')=2|2$. The CTS partial prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0,\fg_1'')_*$ returns $\fosp(2|4)$. \ssec{A description of $\fBj(2|4)$} We consider ${}^{3)}\fg(2|3)$ with $r=(1,0,0)$. In this case, $\sdim(\fg(2,3)_-)=2|4$. Since the $\fg(2,3)_0$-module action is not faithful, we consider the quotient algebra $\fg_0=\fg(2,3)_0/\mathfrak{ann}(\fg_{-1})$ and embed $(\fg(2,3)_{-},\fg_0)\subset \fvect (2|4)$. This realization is given by the following table:\tiny $$ \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&the generators (even $\mid$ odd) \\ \hline \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$Y_{6}=\partial_2,\; Y_{8}=\partial_1 \;\mid\; Y_{11}=\partial_3, \; Y_{10}=\partial_4,\; Y_4=\partial_5, \; Y_1=\partial_6\;$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}\simeq$& $Y_3=x_{2}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{4}\partial_{3} + x_{6}\partial_{5}, Y_9=[Y_2,[Y_3,Y_5]], Z_3=x_{1}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{3}\partial_{4} + x_{5}\partial_{6}, Z_9=$\\ &$[Z_2, [Z_3,Z_5]],\; H_2=[Z_2, Y_2], H_3=[Z_3,Y_3] \;\mid\; Y_2=x_{1}\partial_{4} + x_{5}\partial_{2},Y_5=[Y_2,Y_3],$\\ $ \fosp(3|2)$& $Y_7=[Y_3, [Y_2,Y_3]],\; Z_2= x_{2}\partial_{5} + 2 x_{4}\partial_{1}, Z_5=[Z_2,Z_3], Z_7=[Z_3, [Z_2,Z_3]] $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} $$\normalsize The $\fg_0$-module $\fg_{-1}$ is irreducible, having one lowest weight vector $Y_{11}$ and one highest weight vector $Y_1$. The CTS prolong $(\fg_-,\fg_0)_*$ gives a Lie superalgebra of superdimension $13|14$. Indeed, $\sdim(\fg_1)=4|4$ and $\sdim(\fg_2)=1|0$. The $\fg_0$-module $\fg_1$ has one lowest vector: $$ \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|} \hline $V_1=2\,x_{1} x_{2} \partial_{3} + x_{1}x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{4} + x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{2} + x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{4}x_{6} \partial_{4} + x_{5}x_{6} \partial_{5}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ The $\fg_2$ is one-dimensional spanned by the following vector $$ \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|} \hline $ 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} \partial_{1} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{4}\partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{6} \partial_{5} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^2} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{6}$\\ $ + x_{1} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} x_{5}\partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{2} + 2\,{{x_{2}}^2} x_{3} \partial_{4} + {{x_{2}}^2} x_{5} \partial_{6} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{5} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{2} + x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{2}$\\ $ + x_{3} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{4} + x_{3} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ Besides, if $i>2$, then $\fg_i=0$ for all values of the sharing parameter $N=(N_1,N_2)$. A direct computation gives $[\fg_1,\fg_1]=\fg_2$ and $[\fg_{-1},\fg_1]=\fg_0$. SuperLie tells us that this Lie superalgebra has three ideals $I_1\subset I_2\subset I_3$ with the same non-positive part but different positive parts: $\sdim(I_1)=10|14$, $\sdim(I_2)=11|14$, $\sdim(I_3)=12|14$. The ideal $I_1$ is just our $\fbj$, see . The partial CTS prolong with $I_1$ returns $I_1$ plus an outer derivation given by the vector above (of degree 2). It is clear now that $\fBj(2|4)$ is not simple. \ssec{A description of $\fBj(3|5)$} We consider ${}^{3)}\fg(2|3)$ and $r=(0,1,0)$. In this case, $\sdim(\fg(2,3)_-)=3|5$. Since the $\fg(2,3)_0$-module action is again not faithful, we consider the quotient module $\fg_0=\fg(2,3)_0/\mathfrak{ann}(\fg_{-1})$ and embed $(\fg(2,3)_{-},\fg_0)\subset \fvect (3;\underline{N}|5)$. This realization is given by the following table:\tiny $$ \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&the generators (even $\mid$ odd) \\ \hline \hline $\fg_{-2}$ & $Y_9=\partial_1\;\mid\; Y_{10}=\partial_3, Y_{11}=\partial_2$ \\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$Y_{8}=\partial_4,\; Y_{6}=\partial_5 \;\mid\; Y_5=2\, x_{4}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{5}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{7}\partial_{1} + \partial_{7}, Y_2=x_{4}\partial_{3} - 2\, x_{6}\partial_{1} + \partial_{8}$\\ &$ Y_7=x_{5}\partial_{2} + \partial_{6}$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}\simeq \fsl(1|2)$& $ H_1=[Z_1,Y_1], H_3=[Z_3,Y_3],Y_3=2\, x_{3}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{1} + x_{5}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{7}\partial_{6} + x_{8}\partial_{7},$\\ & $ Z_3=2\, x_{2}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{1} + x_{4}\partial_{5} + x_{6}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{7}\partial_{8}\;\mid\; Y_4=[Y_1,Y_3], \; Z_4=[Z_1,Z_3],$ \\ &$Y_1=2\, \left( 2\, x_{1}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{6}\partial_{4} + x_{7}\partial_{5} \right)$\\ &$ Z_1=2\, \left( x_{3}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{5}}^2} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{4}\partial_{6} + x_{5}\partial_{7} \right), $\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$\normalsize The $\fg_0$-module $\fg_{-1}$ is irreducible, having one highest weight vector $Y_2$. We have $\sdim(\fg_1)=6|4$. The $\fg_0$-module $\fg_1$ has two lowest weight vectors given by $$ \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $V_1'$ & $x_{1} x_{5}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{5} x_{6} x_{8} \partial_{2} + x_{5} x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{3}\partial_{4} + x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{4} + x_{5} x_{8} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{7}$\\ $V_1''$ & $ x_{6} x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1}\partial_{4} + x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{5} $\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ Now, the $\fg_0$-module generated by the the vectors $V_1'$ and $V_1''$ is not the whole $\fg_1$ but a $\fg_0$-module that we denote by $\fg_1''$, of $\sdim=4|4$. The CTS prolong $(\fg_{-}, \fg_0, \fg_1)_*$ is not simple, so consider the Lie subsuperalgebra $(\fg_{-}, \fg_0, \fg_1'')_*$; the superdimensions of its positive part are $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1''}^i(\fg_1'')$ &$\fg_1''$ & $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1''}(\fg_1'')$& $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1''}^2(\fg_1'')$&$\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1''}^3(\fg_1'')$ & $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1''}^4(\fg_1'')$ \\ \hline $\sdim$ &$4|4$ & $4|4$ & $4|4$& $3|2$& $2|1$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ The lowest weight vectors of the above components are precisely $\{V_2', V_2'', V_3, V_4, V_5\}$ described bellow: \tiny $$ \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1}^i(\fg_1)$ & lowest weight vectors\\ \hline $V_2'$ & $ {{x_{1}}^2}\partial_2 + 2\, x_{1} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{8} \partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{6} x_{8} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{3} $\\ $V_2''$ &$2\, {{x_{1}}^2} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{2} \partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{3} \partial_{3} + x_{1} x_{6} \partial_{6} + x_{1} x_{7} \partial_{7} + x_{1}x_{8} \partial_{8} + 2\, x_{2}x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2} x_{8} \partial_{5}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{3} x_{7} \partial_{5} + x_{2}x_{6}x_{8} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{2} x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{3} + x_{3} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{6} x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{7} $\\ \hline $V_3$ & ${{x_{1}}^2}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1}x_{7}x_{8}\partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} x_{6} x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{2}$\\ \hline $V_4$ & $ {{x_{1}}^2} x_{3} \partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{5} \partial_{4} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{7} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{8} \partial_{7} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{7}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{8} \partial_{5}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{3}x_{6} x_{8}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1}x_{3}x_{7} x_{8}\partial_{3} + x_{1} x_{5} x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}x_{8}\partial_{2}$\\ \hline $V_5$ & ${{x_{1}}^2} x_{2} \partial_{4} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{3} \partial_{5} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^2} x_{6} x_{8} \partial_{7} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{7} x_{8}\partial_{8} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^2} x_{6}x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{1}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{7} x_{8}\partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{6} x_{8} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2}x_{6} x_{7} x_{8}\partial_{2} + 2\,x_{1}x_{3} x_{6} x_{7} x_{8} \partial_{3}$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$\normalsize Since none of the known simple finite dimensional Lie superalgebra over (algebraically closed) fields of characteristic 0 or $>3$ has such a non-positive part in any $\Zee$-grading, it follows that $\fBj(3; \underline{N}|5)$ is new. Let us investigate if $\fBj(3;\underline{N}|5)$ has subalgebras --- partial prolongs. (i) Denote by $\fg_1'$ the $\fg_0$-module generated by $V_1'$. We have $\sdim(\fg_1')=2|3$. The CTS partial prolong $(\fg_{-1},\fg_0,\fg_1')_*$ gives a graded Lie superalgebra with $\sdim (\fg_2')=2|2$ and $\fg_i'=0$ for $i>3$. An easy computation shows that $[\fg_{-1}, \fg_1']=\fg_0$ and $[\fg_1',\fg_1']\subsetneq \fg_2'$. Since we are investigating simple Lie superalgebra, we take the simple part of $(\fg_{-1},\fg_0,\fg_1')_*$. This simple Lie superalgebra is isomorphic to $\fg(2, 3)/\fc=\fbj$. (ii) Denote by $\fg_1''$ the $\fg_0$-module generated by $V_1''$. We just saw that $\sdim(\fg_1'')=4|4$. The CTS partial prolong $(\fg_{-1},\fg_0,\fg_1'')_*$ gives also $\fBj(3|5)$. \underline{$r=(0,0,1)$}. In this case, $\sdim(\fg(2,3)_-)=4|5$. Since the $\fg(2,3)_0$-module action is not faithful, we consider the quotient algebra $\fg_0=\fg(2,3)_0/\mathfrak{ann}(\fg_{-1})$ and embed $(\fg(2,3)_{-},\fg_0)\subset \fvect (4;\underline{N}|5)$. The CTS prolong returns $\fbj:=\fg(2,3)/\fc$. \ssec{A description of $\mathfrak{Me}(3; N|3)$} 1) Our first idea was to try to repeat the above construction with a suitable super version of $\fg(2)$. There is only one simple super analog of $\fg(2)$, namely $\fag(2)$, but our attempts to construct a super analog of Melikyan algebra in the above way as Kuznetsov suggested (reproduced in ) resulted in something quite distinct from the Melikyan algebra: The Lie superalgebras we obtained, an exceptional one $\fbj$ (cf. \cite{CE, BGL1}) and a series $\fBj$, are indeed simple but do not resemble either $\fg(2)$ or $\mathfrak{Me}$. 2) Our other idea is based on the following observation. The anti-symmetric form \begin{equation} (f, g):=\int fdg =\int fg' dt, \end{equation} on the quotient space $F/\text{const}$ of functions (with compact support) modulo constants on the 1-dimensional manifolds, has its counterpart in $1|1$-dimensional case in presence of a contact structure \so{and only in this case} as follows from the description of invariant bilinear differential operators, see . Indeed, the Lie superalgebra $\fk(1|1)$ does not distinguish between the space of volume forms (let its generator be denoted $\vvol$) and the quotient $\Omega^1/F\alpha$, where $\alpha=dt+\theta d\theta$ is the contact form. For any prime $p$ therefore, on the space $\fg_{-1}:=\cO(1; \underline{N}| 1)/\const$ of \lq\lq functions (with compact support) in one even indeterminate $u$ and one odd, $\theta$ modulo constants", the superanti-symmetric bilinear form \begin{equation} (f, g):=\int (fdg \mod F\alpha)=\int (f_0g_0'-f_1g_1) dt, \end{equation} where $f=f_0(t)+f_1(t)\theta$ and $g=g_0(t)+g_1(t)\theta$ and where $':=\frac{d}{dt}$, is nondegenerate. Therefore, we may expect that, for $p$ small and $\underline{N}=1$, the Melikyan effect will reappear. Consider $p=5$ as the most plausible. We should be careful with parities. The parity of $\vvol$ is a matter of agreement, let it be even. Then the integral is an odd functional but the factorization modulo $F\alpha$ makes the form $()$ even. (Setting $p(\vvol)=\od$ we make the integral an even functional and the factorization modulo $F\alpha$ makes the form $()$ even again.) Since the form $()$ is even, we get the following realization of $$\fk(1;\underline{1}|1)\subset \fosp(5|4)\simeq\fk(5;\underline{1, ..., 1}|5)$$ by generating functions of contact vector fields on the $5|5$-dimensional superspace with the contact form, where the coefficients are found from the explicit values of $$ d\hat t+ \sum_ i(\hat p_i d\hat q_i-\hat q_2 d\hat p_i) + \sum_j \left (\hat \xi_j d\eta_j +\hat \eta_j d\hat \xi_j\right) - \hat \theta d\hat \theta. $$ The coordinates on this $5|5$-dimensional superspace are hatted in order not to confuse them with generating functions of $\fk(1;\underline{1}|1)$: \begin{equation} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|c|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&basis elements\\ \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$\hat 1$\\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$\hat p_1=t,\; \hat p_2=t^2,\; \hat q_1=t^3,\; \hat q_2=t^4,$\\ &$\hat \xi_1=\theta,\; \hat \xi_2=t\theta,\; \hat \theta=t^2\theta,\; \hat \eta_2=t^3\theta, \; \hat \eta_1=t^4\theta$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} We explicitly have: \begin{equation} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{array}{l} (t, t^4)=\int_{\underline{N}} t\cdot t^3dt_{\underline{N}}=\int_{\underline{N}}4t^4dt_{\underline{N}}=4=-(t^4, t);\\ (t^2, t^3)=\int_{\underline{N}} t^2\cdot t^2dt_{\underline{N}}=\int_{\underline{N}}6t^4dt_{\underline{N}}=1=-(t^3, t^2);\\ (t^4\theta, \theta)=-\int_{\underline{N}} t^4\cdot 1dt_{\underline{N}}=-1=(\theta, t^4\theta);\\ (t^3\theta, t\theta)=-\int_{\underline{N}} t^3\cdot tdt_{\underline{N}}=-4=(t\theta, t^3\theta);\\ (t^2\theta, t^2\theta)=-\int_{\underline{N}} t^2\cdot t^2dt_{\underline{N}}=-6=-1. \end{array} \end{equation} Now, let us realize $\fk(1;\underline{1}|1)$ by contact fields in hatted functions: \begin{equation} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|c|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&basis elements\\ \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$\hat 1$\\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$\hat p_1=t,\; \hat p_2=t^2,\; \hat q_2=4 t^3,\; \hat q_1=t^4,$\\ &$\xi_1=\theta,\; \xi_2=t\theta,\; \hat \theta=t^2\theta,\; \eta_2=4 t^3\theta, \; \eta_1=t^4\theta$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}$&$1=2\, \hat p_{1} {\cdot} \hat q_{2} + 2{{\hat p_{2}}^2} + 3\, \xi_1 \eta_2+ 3\, \xi_2 \hat \theta ;\quad t=2\, \hat p_{1} \hat q_{1} + 4\, \hat p_{2} \hat q_{2} + 4\, \xi_1 \eta_1+ 2\, \xi_2\eta_2; $\\ &$t^2=2\, \hat p_{2} \hat q_{1} + 4\, {{\hat q_{2}}^2} + 4\, \xi_2 \eta_1 + \hat \theta \eta_2; \quad t^3= 3\, \hat q_{1} \hat q_{2} + 4\, \hat \theta\eta_1; \quad t^4={{\hat q_{1}}^2} + \eta_2 \eta_1 ;$\\ & $ \theta= \hat p_{1} \eta_2 + \hat p_{2} \hat \theta + \hat q_{1} \xi_1 + \hat q_{2} \xi_2 ;\quad t\theta= \hat p_{1} \eta_1 + 2\, \hat p_{2} \eta_2 + \hat q_{1} \xi_2 + 2\, \hat q_{2} \hat \theta ;$\\ & $ t^2\theta= \hat p_{2} \eta_1 + \hat q_{1} \hat \theta + 2\, \hat q_{2} \eta_2; \quad t^3\theta= 4\, \hat q_{1}\eta_2 + 4\, \hat q_{2} \eta_1 ;\quad t^4 \theta= \hat q_{1} \eta_1 $\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} The CTS prolong gives that $\fg_1=0$. The case where $p=3$ is more interesting because it will give us the series $\mathfrak{Me}(3;N|3)$. The non-positive part is as follows: \begin{equation} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|c|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&basis elements\\ \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$\hat 1$\\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$\hat p_1=t,\; \hat q_2=t^2,\;\xi_1=\theta,\; \hat \theta=t\theta,\; \eta_1=t^2\theta$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}$&$1=\hat p_1^2+2\hat \xi_1 \hat \eta_1 ;\quad t=2\, \hat p_{1} \hat q_{1} + 2\, \hat \xi_{1} \hat \eta_{1};\, t^2=2\, {{\hat q_{1}}^2} + 2\, \hat \theta \hat \eta_{1} ; \; \theta= 2\, \hat p_1 \hat \theta + \hat q_1 \hat \xi_1 ;$\\ &$ t\theta= \hat p_1\hat \eta_1 + \hat q_1 \hat \theta ;\; t^2\theta= \hat q_1 \hat \eta_1 $\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} The Lie superalgebra $\fg_0$ is not simple because $[\fg_{-1},\fg_1]=\fg_0\backslash \{ t^2\theta= \hat q_1 \hat \eta_1 \}$. Denote $\fg_0':=[\fg_{-1},\fg_1]\simeq \fosp(1|2)$. The CTS partial prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0')_*$ seems to be very interesting. First, our computation shows that the parameter $\underline{M}=(M_1,M_2,M_3)$ depends only on the first parameter (relative to $t$). Namely, $\underline{M}=(M_1,1,1)$. For $M_1=1$, 2, the super dimensions of the positive components of $\fBj(3;M|3)$ are given in the following table: $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $M=(1,1,1)$ &$\fg_1'$ & $\fg_2'$& $\fg_3'$&$\fg_4'$ & $\fg_5'$ & --&--&--&--&--\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$2|4$ & $4|2$& $2|4$& $3|2$& $0|1$& &&&&\\ \hline \hline $M=(2,1,1)$ &$\fg_1'$ & $\fg_2'$& $\fg_3'$&$\fg_4'$ & $\fg_5'$ &$\cdots$ & $\fg_{14}'$ & $\fg_{15}'$& $\fg_{16}'$ & $\fg_{17}'$\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$2|4$ & $4|2$& $2|4$& $4|2$ & $2|4$ &$\cdots$& $4|2$ & $2|4$ &$3|2$ & $0|1$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ Here we have that $[\fg_{-1},\fg_1]=\fg_0'$ and the $\fg_1'$ generates the positive part. The standard criteria for simplicity ensures that $\mathfrak{Me}(3;N|3)$ is simple. For $N=(1,a,b)$, the lowest weight vectors are as follows:\footnotesize $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_i$ & lowest weight vectors\\ \hline $V_1'$ & $ 2{{p_{1}}^{(2)}} \eta_{1} + 2\, p_{1} q_{1} \theta + {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} + \xi_{1} \theta \eta_{1} $\\ $V_1''$ &$ 2\, p_{1} q_{1} \eta_{1} + {{q_{1}}^{(2)}}\theta + \eta_{1}t $\\ \hline $V_2'$ & $ 2\, p_{1} q_{1} \theta \eta_{1} + {{q_{1}}^{(2)}}\xi_{1} \eta_{1} + t {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} + t \theta \eta_{1} $\\ $V_2''$& $ 2\, {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} + {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} \theta \eta_{1} + p_{1} q_{1} \xi_{1} \eta_{1} + 2 {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} \theta + {t^{(2)}}$\\ \hline $V_3'$ & $ 2\, t {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} \eta_{1} + t p_{1} q_{1} \theta + 2\, t {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} + t \xi_{1} \theta \eta_{1}$\\ $V_3''$ & $ 2\, {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \eta_{1} + 2\, t p_{1} q_{1} \eta_{1} + 2\, {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1}\theta \eta_{1} + t {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \theta + {t^{(2)}} \eta_{1}$\\ \hline $V_4'$ & $ 2\, {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}}\theta \eta_{1} + 2\, t p_{1} q_{1} \theta \eta_{1} + t {{q_{1}}^{(2)}}\xi_{1} \eta_{1} + {t^{(2)}}{{q_{1}}^{(2)}} + {t^{(2)}} \theta \eta_{1} $\\ \hline $V_5'$ & $ {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} \theta \eta_{1} + {t^{(2)}} {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} \eta_{1} + {t^{(2)}} p_{1} q_{1} \theta + 2\, {t^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} + 2\, {t^{(2)}} \xi_{1} \theta \eta_{1} $\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$\normalsize For $N=(2,a,b)$, the lowest weight vectors are as above together with: $$ \footnotesize \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_i$ & lowest weight vectors\\ \hline $V_4''$ & $ 2\, t {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} + t {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} \theta \eta_{1} + t p_{1} q_{1} \xi_{1} \eta_{1} + 2\, t {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} \theta + {t^{(3)}} $\\ \hline $V_5''$ & $ 2\,t {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \eta_{1} + 2\, {t^{(2)}} p_{1} q_{1} \eta_{1} + 2\, t {{q_{1}}^{(2)}}\xi_{1} \theta \eta_{1} + {t^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \theta + {t^{(3)}} \eta_{1} $\\\hline $\dots$&$\dotfill$\\ \hline $V_{15}'$& $2\,{t^{(5)}} {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} \theta\eta_{1} + 2{t^{(7)}} {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} \eta_{1} + 2\,{t^{(7)}} p_{1} q_{1}\theta + {t^{(7)}}{{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} + {t^{(7)}} \xi_{1} \theta \eta_{1} $\\ & $ 2\, {t^{(6)}} {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \eta_{1} + 2\, {t^{(7)}} p_{1}q_{1} \eta_{1} + 2\, {t^{(6)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} \theta \eta_{1} + {t^{(7)}}{{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \theta + {t^{(8)}} \eta_{1} $\\ \hline $V_{16}''$& $2\, {t^{(6)}} {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \theta \eta_{1} + 2\, {t^{(7)}} p_{1} q_{1} \theta\eta_{1} + {t^{(7)}}{{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} \eta_{1} + {t^{(8)}}{{q_{1}}^{(2)}} + {t^{(8)}} \theta \eta_{1} $\\ \hline $V_{17}''$ & $ 2 {t^{(6)}} {{p_{1}}^{(2)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} \theta \eta_{1} + 2\, {t^{(8)}}{{p_{1}}^{(2)}} \eta_{1} + 2\, {t^{(8)}}p_{1} q_{1} \theta + {t^{(8)}} {{q_{1}}^{(2)}} \xi_{1} + {t^{(8)}} \xi_{1} \theta \eta_{1} $\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ Let us investigate the subalgebras of $\mathfrak{Me}(3;N|3)$ --- partial prolongs: (i) Denote by $\fg_1'$ the $\fg_0$-module generated by $V_1'$. We have $\sdim(\fg_1')=0|1$ and $\fg_i=0$ for all $i>1$. The CTS partial prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0,\fg_1')_*$ gives a graded Lie superalgebra with the property that $[\fg_{-1},\fg_1]\simeq \fosp(1|2)$. The partial CTS prolong $(\fg_{-},\fosp(1|2))_*$ is not simple (ii) Denote by $\fg_1''$ the $\fg_0$-module generated by $V_1''$. We have $\sdim(\fg_1'')=3|2$. The CTS partial prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0,\fg_1'')_*$ returns $\mathfrak{brj}(2;3)$. \ssec{A description of $\mathfrak{Brj}(4|3)$} We have the following realization of the non-positive part inside $\fvect(4|3)$: \begin{equation} \tiny \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&the generators (even $\mid$ odd) \\ \hline \hline $\fg_{-4}$&$Y_{8}=\partial_1\;\mid\; Y_{7}=\partial_5$\\ \hline $\fg_{-3}$&$Y_{6}=\partial_2\;\mid $\\ \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$Y_{4}=\partial_3\;\mid\; Y_{5}=x_{3}\partial_{5} + x_{6}\partial_{1} + \partial_{6}$\\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$Y_3=2\, x_{2}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{3}\partial_{2} + \partial_{4} \;\mid$\\ &$ Y_2=x_{2}\partial_{5} + 2\, {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{1} + x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{6}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{4}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{7}\partial_{3} + 1\partial_{7},$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}\simeq \mathfrak{hei}(0|2)\oplus \mathbb{K}$& $H_1=[Z_1,Y_1],\;H_2=2\, x_{5}\partial_{5} + x_{2}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{3}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{4}\partial_{4} + x_{7}\partial_{7},\;\mid$\\ & $ Y_1=2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{5}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{3}\partial_{6} + x_{7}\partial_{4},$\\ &$ Z_1= {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{1} + {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + x_{1}\partial_{5} + 2\, x_{4}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{6}\partial_{3} $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} The Lie superalgebra $\fg_0$ is solvable, and hence the CTS prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0)_*$ is NOT simple since $\fg_1$ does not generate the positive part. Our calculation shows that the prolong does not depend on $N$, i.e., $N=(1,1,1,1)$. The simple part of this prolong is $\mathfrak{brj}(2;3)$. The $\sdim$ of the positive parts are described as follows: $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline &$\fg_1$ & $\fg_2$& $\fg_3$&$\fg_4$ & $\fg_5$ & $\fg_6$&$\fg_7$&$\fg_8$&$\fg_9$ &$\fg_{10}$\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$1|1$ & $2|2$& $1|2$& $2|2$& $1|1$ & $2|2$ & $1|1$ & $1|1$ & $0|1$&$1|1$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ and the lowest weight vectors are as follows: $$ \tiny \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_i$ & lowest weight vectors\\ \hline $V_1'$ & $ 2\, x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{2} + x_{3} x_{7} \partial_{3} + x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{4} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{6}\partial_{1}$ \\ & $ + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{3}x_{6}x_{7}\partial_{5} + 2\, x_{2}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{3}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{5}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{6}\partial_{4}$\\ \hline $V_2'$ & $ {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}\partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} \partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{3} x_{6}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{3}x_{4}x_{7}\partial_{3}+ 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + x_{1}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{5}\partial_{3} $\\ $V_2''$ & $ 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} \partial_{1} + {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{2} + x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{4} + x_{3} x_{5}\partial_{5} + 2\, x_{3} x_{7}\partial_{7} + x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\,x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{4} + x_{2}\partial_{4} + x_{5}\partial_{6}$\\\hline $V_{3}'$& $2\, x_{1} x_{2} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} \partial_{2} + x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5}\partial_{5} + x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{2}x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{3} x_{6}\partial_{7} + x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{6}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{2} + x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{3} + {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{1} + x_{3} x_{4} x_{6}\partial_{6} + x_{3} x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{7} + x_{3} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{4}x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5}x_{7}\partial_{2}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{5} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{2} + x_{1}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{5}\partial_{7} $\\ $V_{3}''$& $ 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} \partial_{7} + {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4}\partial_{6} + 2\,{{x_{3}}^{(2)}} \partial x_{6} \partial_{2} + {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{2} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{1} + x_{2} x_{7} \partial_{4}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{3} x_{5} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{4} + {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{2} + 2\,{{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{5} + 2\,x_{2} x_{3} x_{6}\partial_{1}$\\ &$ + x_{3} x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{4} + x_{5}\partial_{4}$\\ \hline $V_{4}$& $ 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} \partial_{6} + 2\,{{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} \partial_{5} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} \partial_{6} + {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4} \partial_{7} + {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{6}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}}\partial_{5}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{3} x_{5} \partial_{3} + x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6} + x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{2} x_{3}x_{4} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{2}x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{2}$\\ &$+ x_{2} x_{3} x_{7}\partial_{3} + x_{2} x_{4}x_{7}\partial_{4} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{4} + {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + x_{2} x_{3}{{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{1}$\\ &$+ 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} $\\ $V_4''$ & $ {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} \partial_{1} + {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} \partial_{3} + x_{1} x_{4} \partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{5} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} x_{6} \partial_{6} + x_{1} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{3}$\\ &$ + 2\, {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{1} + {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{4} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6}\partial_{6} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4}x_{6} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + x_{4} x_{5}x_{7} \partial_{3} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{2} + x_{3} x_{4} x_{6}x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{5} $\\ \hline $V_{5}'$ & $ x_{1} x_{2} \partial_{6} + x_{1} x_{3}\partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{5}\partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{6} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{3} + x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3}\partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{2}x_{6}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{4}\partial_{6}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{3}x_{6}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{4} + x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7}\partial_{4} + x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{4}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{3}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} x_{6}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{1}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7}\partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{2}$\\ &$ + x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{7} + x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3}x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{5} $\\ \hline $V_6'$ & ${{x_{1}}^{(2)}} \partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3}\partial_{5} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} \partial_{3} + {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6} + {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{7} + x_{1} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{7} \partial_{4}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{3}{{x_{4}}^{(2)}} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{3} + 2\,x_{1} x_{4} x_{6}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6}\partial_{1} + x_{1}x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4}x_{7}\partial_{3} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{7}$\\ &$ + x_{4} x_{5} x_{6}x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{5}$\\ $V_6''$ & ${{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3}\partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{4} \partial_{4} + 2\,{{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{5} \partial_{5} + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} \partial_{1} + x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}}\partial_{3}$\\ &$+ x_{1} x_{2}\partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{5} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{7} + 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{6}\partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7}\partial_{7} + {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4}x_{6} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{2}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{5} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{7} \partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{5}x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{7} + x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{6}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{2} + x_{2} x_{5}x_{7}\partial_{3} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{5}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{3} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{3} + x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{7}$\\ &$ + 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{3} + x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{1} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{4}x_{6} \partial_{6} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{7} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{3}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2} x_{4}x_{5}x_{7} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{2} x_{4}x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{5}x_{7} \partial_{2}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{3}{{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{4} + x_{3} x_{4} x_{5}x_{7} \partial_{3} +x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} $\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ $$ \tiny \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $V_7'$& ${{x_{1}}^{(2)}}\partial_{4} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{2} \partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} \partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{6}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} x_{2}x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{5}x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} \partial_{6} + x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ +x_{2} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{3} + x_{1} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{3}x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{6} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\,x_{1} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} x_{5}x_{7} \partial_{2}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1}x_{5}x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{6}$\\ &$+ 2\, x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{7} + x_{2} x_{3}x_{4}x_{6}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{3} + x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{3} + x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5}$\\ $V_8'$ & ${{x_{1}}^{(2)}} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}}\partial_{5} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3} \partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{5}\partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{5} \partial_{3} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}}\partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}}x_{3} x_{6}\partial_{1}$\\ &$ + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{4} + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{7} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{6}\partial_{4} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{6}x_{7} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3}\partial_{5} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}}x_{6}\partial_{1} + x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3}\partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{2}x_{5}\partial_{2}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{5}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{7} + x_{2} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{7} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{6} \partial_{1} + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}}x_{3}{{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7}\partial_{2}$\\ &$ + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{3} +{{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{1} +x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}}x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{3}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{6} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{6}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2}x_{3} x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{4}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{7} + x_{3} x_{4} x_{5}x_{6} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}}x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4}x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{2}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{2}x_{3}x_{6}x_{7} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7} + x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2} +$\\&$ 2\, x_{3} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{3}$\\\hline $V_9'$ & $ {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{2}x_{3} \partial_{5} +{{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{2} x_{6}\partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}}x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{1} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6}\partial_{1} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3}x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1}x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{6}\partial_{1}$\\ &$+ 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{1} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{2} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{2} +{{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{5} \partial_{2}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7}\partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5}x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{2} \partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{4}\partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}}x_{3} x_{7} \partial_{3}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3}{{x_{4}}^{(2)}} \partial_{6} + x_{1} x_{2}x_{3} x_{4} x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\,x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2}x_{5} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5}x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{3}$\\ &$ + x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5}x_{6}\partial_{6} + x_{2} x_{4} x_{5}x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{3} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3}\partial_{7} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{4} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{6}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{4}x_{6}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2}x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7} + x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{7} $\\ \hline $V_{10}'$ & $ {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} \partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{2} \partial_{4} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}}x_{5} \partial_{6} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{2} x_{3} \partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3}x_{4}\partial_{4}$\\ &$+ 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{5}\partial_{5} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{7}\partial_{7} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{1} + {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{4} + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5}\partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{4}x_{5} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}}x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3}\partial_{3} + x_{1}{{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{4} \partial_{4} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{5} \partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{6} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{2}x_{5} \partial_{7} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{1} + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{5}x_{7} \partial_{2} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6}x_{7} \partial_{4} + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{6}\partial_{6}$\\ &$+ {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{7}\partial_{7} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}}x_{3}x_{4} x_{6}\partial_{7} + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{3} + x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6}\partial_{6} + x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{7} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{6}\partial_{7} +x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1}x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{6} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} \partial_{6}$\\ &$+ x_{1} x_{3} x_{4}x_{5} \partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7} +{{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{2} + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{3}$\\ &$+ 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5} + x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6}x_{7}\partial_{2} + x_{1} {{x_{3}}^{(2)}} x_{4} x_{6}x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{6}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} x_{6}x_{7} \partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{2}x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{2} +x_{1} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{4}x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7}$\\ &$+ 2\, x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}}x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{7} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} {{x_{4}}^{(2)}} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4}x_{6}x_{7} \partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{5}$\\\hline \end{tabular} $$ \normalsize \ssec{A description of $\mathfrak{Brj}(3; \underline{N}|4)$} We have the following realization of the non-positive part inside $\fvect(3; \underline{N}|4)$: \begin{equation} \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&the generators (even $\mid$ odd) \\ \hline \hline $\fg_{-3}$&$\mid Y_{6}=\partial_4 $\\ \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$Y_{5}=\partial_1,\; Y_{6}=\partial_2,\; Y_7=\partial_3\;\mid$\\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$\mid Y_2=2\, x_{3}\partial_{4} + \partial_{5},\; Y_3= x_{2}\partial_{4} + x_{6}\partial_{1} + \partial_{6}$\\ &$Y_4=2\, x_{1}\partial_{4} + 2\, x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{4} + x_{5}\partial_{1} + x_{6}\partial_{2}+ 2\, x_{7}\partial_{3}+ \partial_{7}$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}\simeq \mathfrak{hei}(2|0)\subplus \Kee H_2$& $H_1=[Z_1,Y_1],\;H_2=2\, x_{1}\partial_{1} + x_{3}\partial_{3} + x_{4}\partial_{4} + x_{6}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{7}\partial_{7}$\\ & $ Y_1=2\, x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{2}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{1} +x_{6}x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{5}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{6}\partial_{7},$\\ &$ Z_1= 2\, x_{2}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{3}\partial_{2} + x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{6}\partial_{5} + x_{7}\partial_{6}\;\mid $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} The Lie superalgebra $\fg_0$ is solvable with the property that $[\fg_0,\fg_0]=\mathfrak{hei}(2|0)$. The CTS prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0)_*$ is NOT simple since $\fg_1$ does not generate the positive part. Our calculation shows that the prolong does not depend on $N$, i.e., $N=(1,1,1,1)$. The simple part of this prolong is $\mathfrak{brj}$. The $\sdim$ of the positive parts are described as follows: $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline &$\fg_1$ & $\fg_2$& $\fg_3$\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$0|3$ & $3|0$& $0|2$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ and the lowest weight vectors are $$ \tiny \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $V_1'$& $ 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{5} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{6}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{7} \partial_{3} + x_{4}\partial_{3} + x_{1}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{6} + x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{7}$\\\hline $V_2'$ & $ 2\, x_{1} x_{4} \partial_{4} + x_{2} x_{5}x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\,x_{4} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{4} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} \partial_{1} + x_{1} x_{2}\partial_{2} + {{x_{2}}^ {(2)}} \partial_{3} + x_{2} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{3}$\\ &$ + x_{4} x_{5} \partial_{1} + x_{4}x_{6}\partial_{2} + 2\, x_{4} x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5}\partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{6} \partial_{6} + x_{2} x_{5}\partial_{6} +x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{7} + x_{4}\partial_{7} + x_{5} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{6} $\\\hline $V_3'$ & $ {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} x_{2} \partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{4} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{4} + {{x_{1}}^ {(2)}} x_{6}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{5} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} x_{6}\partial_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{7}\partial_{3}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5} x_{6}x_{7}\partial_{1} + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{1} + x_{4} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{3} + {{x_{1}}^ {(2)}} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{2} \partial_{7}$\\ &$ + x_{1} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{5} + 2\, x_{1} x_{5}x_{7} \partial_{6} + x_{2} x_{5} x_{6} \partial_{6} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{7} + 2\, x_{4} x_{5}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{7}$\\ $V_{3}''$ & $ {{x_{1}}^ {(2)}} x_{3} \partial_{4} + x_{1} {{x_{2}}^{(2)}}\partial_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{4} + {{x_{2}}^ {(2)}}x_{5} x_{7} \partial_{4} + x_{1}x_{2} x_{6} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{5} \partial_{1} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} x_{6} \partial_{2}$\\ &$ +x_{1} x_{3} x_{7}\partial_{3} + 2\, x_{1} x_{4} \partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{5} \partial_{1} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{6} \partial_{2} + {{x_{2}}^{(2)}} x_{7} \partial_{3} + 2\, x_{2} x_{4} \partial_{2} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5} x_{6} x_{7} \partial_{1}$\\ &$ + 2\, x_{3} x_{4} \partial_{3} + 2\, {{x_{1}}^{(2)}} \partial_{5} + x_{1} x_{2}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{1} x_{3} \partial_{7} + x_{1} x_{6} x_{7}\partial_{6} + 2\, {{x_{2}}^{(2)}}\partial_{7} + x_{2} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{5} + 2\, x_{2} x_{5}x_{7}\partial_{6}$\\ &$ + x_{3} x_{5} x_{6}\partial_{6} + 2\, x_{3} x_{5} x_{7}\partial_{7} + x_{4} x_{5}\partial_{5} + x_{4} x_{6} \partial_{6} + x_{4} x_{7}\partial_7 $\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ Let us study now the case where $\fg_0'=\mathfrak{der}_0(\fg_{-})$. Our calculation shows that $\fg_0'$ is generated by the vectors $Y_1, Z_1, H_1, H_2$ above together with $ V=2 x_3 \partial_1+x_7 \partial_5$. The Lie algebra $\fg_0'$ is solvable of $\sdim=5|0$. The CTS prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0')_*$ gives a Lie superalgebra that is not simple because $\fg_1'$ does not generate the positive part. Its simple part is a new Lie superalgebra that we denote by $\mathfrak{BRJ}$, described as follows (here also $N=(1,1,1)$: $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline &$\fg_1'$ & $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}(\fg_1')$& $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}^2(\fg_1')$& $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}^3(\fg_1')$ & $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}^4(\fg_1')$ & $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}^5(\fg_1')$\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$0|6$ & $6|0$& $0|5$& $3|0$& $0|3$& $1|0$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ \ssec{A description of $\mathfrak{Brj}(3;\underline{N}|3)$} We have the following realization of the non-positive part inside $\fvect(3;\underline{N}|3)$: \begin{equation} \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&the generators (even $\mid$ odd) \\ \hline \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$Y_7=\partial_1 \mid Y_5= \partial_4 ,\; Y_8=\partial_5$ \\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$Y_{1}=\partial_2,\; Y_{6}=2\, x_2\partial_1+\partial_3\;\mid Y_3=x_2\partial_4+x_3\partial_5+ 2\,x_6\partial_1+\partial_6$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}$&$H_2=[X_2,Y_2],\; H_1=x_1\partial_1+x_3\partial_3+ 2\,x_4\partial_4+ 2\,x_6\partial_6, \; X_4=[X_2,X_2],\; Y_4=[Y_2,Y_2]\mid $\\ &$Y_2=x_2^{(2)}\partial_4+x_2\, x_3\partial_5+ 2\, x_2\, x_6\partial_1+ x_1\partial_5+ x_2\partial_6+ x_4\partial_1 +x_6\partial_3$\\ &$X_2=x_3^{(2)}\partial_5+ 2\, x_1\partial_4+x_3\partial_6+ x_5\partial_1+2\, x_6\partial_2$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} The Lie superalgebra $\fg_0$ is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{osp}(1|2)\oplus \mathbb{K}$. The CTS prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0)_*$ is NOT simple since it gives back $\mathfrak{brj}(2;3)$ + an outer derivation. The $\sdim$ of the positive parts are described as follows: $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline &$\fg_1$ & $\fg_2$& $\fg_3$\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$2|1$ & $1|2$& $0|1$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ and the lowest weight vectors are $$ \tiny \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $V_1'$& $ 2\,x_1\, x_2\partial_1+x_2\, x_4\partial_4+x_3\, x_4\partial_5+2\, x_4\, x_6\partial_1+x_1\partial_3+2\,x_2\, x_3\partial_3+x_2\, x_6\partial_6+x_4\partial_6$\\\hline $V_2'$ & $ x_1^{(2)}\partial_5+x_1\, x_2^{(2)}\partial_4+x_1\, x_2\, x_3\partial_5+2\,x_1\, x_2\, x_6\partial_1+x_1\, x_4\partial_1+2\,x_2^{(2)}\, x_3^{(2)}\partial_5+2\,x_2^{(2)}\, x_5\partial_1+2\, x_4\, x_5\partial_5+x_1\, x_2\partial_6$\\ & $+x_1\,x_6\partial_3+2\,x_2^{(2)}\, x_3\partial_6+x_2^{(2)}\, x_6\partial_2+x_2\, x_3\, x_6\partial_3+x_2\, x_4\partial_2+x_2\, x_5\partial_3+2\, x_4\, x_6\partial_6$\\\hline $V_3'$ & $x_1^{(2)}\, x_2\partial_4+x_1^{(2)}\, x_3\partial_5+2\, x_1^{(2)}\, x_6\partial_1+2\, x_1\, x_2\, x_3^{(2)}\partial_5+2\, x_1\, x_2\, x_5\partial_1+x_2\, x_3^{(2)}\, x_4\partial_1+2\, x_2\, x_4\, x_5\partial_4+2\, x_3\, x_4\, x_5\partial_5$\\ &$+x_4\, x_5\, x_6\partial_1+x_1^{(2)}\partial_6+2\, x_1\, x_2\, x_3\partial_6+x_1\, x_2\, x_6\partial_2+x_1\, x_3\, x_6\partial_3+x_1\,x_4\partial_2+x_1\, x_5\partial_3+2\, x_2\, x_3^{(2)}\, x_6\partial_3+2\,x_2\, x_3\, x_4\partial_2$\\ &$+2\, x_2\, x_3\, x_5\partial_3+x_2\, x_5\, x_6\partial_6+2\,x_3\, x_4\, x_6\partial_6+2\, x_4\, x_5\partial_6$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ \normalsize \ssec{A description of $\mathfrak{Brj}(3;\underline{N}|4)$} We have the following realization of the non-positive part inside $\fvect(3;\underline{N}|4)$: \begin{equation} \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&the generators (even $\mid$ odd) \\ \hline \hline $\fg_{-3}$&$\mid Y_{8}=\partial_4 $\\ \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$Y_{4}=\partial_1,\; Y_{6}=\partial_2,\; Y_7=\partial_3\;\mid$\\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$\mid Y_2= x_{3}\partial_{4} + 2 x_5 \partial_{1}+\partial_5,\; Y_3= \partial_6+ x_5\,x_6\partial_4+ x_2 \partial_4+x_5\partial_2+ 2\,x_6\partial_3$\\ &$Y_5=x_1 \partial_4 + x_5 \partial_3+ \partial_7$\\\hline $\fg_{0}\simeq \mathfrak{hei}(2|0)\subplus \Kee H_2$& $H_1=[Z_1,Y_1],\;H_2=2\, x_1\partial_1+x_2\partial_2+x_4\partial_4 +x_5\partial_5+ 2\, x_7\partial_7$\\ & $ Y_1=x_1\partial_2+x_2\partial_3+ x_5\, x_6\partial_3+ 2\, x_5\partial_6+ 2\, x_6\partial_7$\\ &$ Z_1= 2\, x_5\, x_6\,x_7\partial_4+2\, x_2\partial_1+x_3\partial_2+x_5\, x_6\partial_1+ 2\, x_6\, x_7\partial_3+ 2\, x_6\partial_5+x_7\partial_6\;\mid $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} The Lie superalgebra $\fg_0$ is solvable with the property that $[\fg_0,\fg_0]=\mathfrak{hei}(2|0)$. The CTS prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0)_*$ is NOT simple since $\fg_1$ does not generate the positive part. Our calculation shows that the prolong does not depend on $N$, i.e., $N=(1,1,1,1)$. The simple part of this prolong is ${}^{3)}\mathfrak{brj}(2; 3)$. The $\sdim$ of the positive parts are described as follows: $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline &$\fg_1$ & $\fg_2$& $\fg_3$\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$0|3$ & $3|0$& $0|2$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ and the lowest weight vectors are $$ \tiny \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $V_1'$& $2 x_1\, x_3\partial_4+x_2^{(2)}\partial_4+x_2\, x_5\, x_6\partial_4+x_1\, x_5\partial_1+x_2\, x_5\partial_2+2\,x_2\,x_6\partial_3+2\,x_3\, x_5\partial_3+x_4\partial_3+2\, x_1\partial_5+x_2\partial_6+2\, x_3\partial_7+2\, x_5\, x_7\partial_7$\\\hline $V_2'$ & $2\, x_1\, x_4\partial_4+x_1^{(2)}\partial_1+2\, x_1\, x_2\partial_2+2\, x_2^{(2)}\partial_3+2\,x_2\, x_5\, x_6\partial_3+2\,x_4\, x_5\partial_3+2\,x_1\, x_5\partial_5+x_1\, x_7\partial_7+x_2\, x_5\partial_6+x_2\, x_6\partial_7+2\, x_4\partial_7 $\\\hline $V_3'$ & $ x_1\, x_3^{(2)}\partial_4+2\,x_2^{(2)}\, x_3\partial_4+2\,x_2\, x_3\, x_5\, x_6\partial_4+2\,x_1\, x_3\, x_5\partial_1+2\,x_1\, x_4\partial_1+x_2^{( 2)}\, x_5\partial_1+2\,x_2\, x_3\, x_5\partial_2+x_2\, x_3\, x_6\partial_3+2\,x_2\, x_4\partial_2$\\ &$+2\,x_2\, x_5\, x_6\, x_7\partial_3+x_3^{( 2)}\, x_5\partial_3+2\,x_3\, x_4\partial_3+x_1\, x_3\partial_5+x_1\, x_6\, x_7\partial_6+2\, x_2^{(2)}\partial_5+2\,x_2\, x_3\partial_6+2\,x_2\, x_5\, x_6\partial_5+x_2\, x_5\, x_7\partial_6$\\ &$+2\,x_2\, x_6\, x_7\partial_7+x_3^{(2)}\partial_7+x_3\, x_5\, x_7\partial_7+x_4\, x_5\partial_5+x_4\, x_6\partial_6+x_4\, x_7\partial_7 $\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ Let us study now the case where $\fg_0'=\mathfrak{der}_0(\fg_{-})$. The Lie algebra $\fg_0'$ is solvable of $\sdim=5|0$. The CTS prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0')_*$ gives a Lie superalgebra that is not simple because $\fg_1'$ does not generate the positive part. Its simple part is a new Lie superalgebra that we had denoted by $\mathfrak{BRJ}$, described as follows (here also $N=(1,1,1)$: $$ \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline &$\fg_1'$ & $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}(\fg_1')$& $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}^2(\fg_1')$& $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}^3(\fg_1')$ & $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}^4(\fg_1')$ & $\mathrm{ad}_{\fg_1'}^5(\fg_1')$\\ \hline $\sdim$ &$0|6$ & $6|0$& $0|5$& $3|0$& $0|3$& $1|0$\\ \hline \end{tabular} $$ \ssec{Constructing Melikyan superalgebras} Denote by $\cal{F}_{1/2}:=\cO(1;1)\sqrt{dx}$ the space of semi-densities (weighted densities of weight $\frac12$). For $p=3$, the CTS prolong of the triple $(\mathbb{K}, \Pi(\cal{F}_{1/2}), \fcvect(1;1))_*$ gives the whole $\fk(1;\underline{N}|3)$. For $p=5$, let us realize the non-positive part in $\fk(1;\underline{N}|5)$: \begin{equation} \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&the generators \\ \hline \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$1$\\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$\Pi(\cal{F}_{1/2})$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}$& $\partial_1\longleftrightarrow 4\, \xi_{1} \eta_2+ \xi_2 \theta,\; x_1\partial_1\longleftrightarrow 2\, \xi_{1} \eta_1 +\xi_2 \eta_2,\; x_1^{(2)}\partial_1\longleftrightarrow 2\, \xi_{2} \eta_1 + 3\, \theta\eta_2 ,\; x_1^{(3)}\partial_1\longleftrightarrow 2\, \theta \eta_1$\\ &$ x_1^{(4)}\partial_1\longleftrightarrow 2\, \eta_2\eta_1,\qquad t $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} The CTS prolong gives that $\fg_i$=0 for all $i>0$. Consider now the case of $(\mathbb{K}, \Pi(\cal{F}_{1/2}), \fcvect(2;1))_*$, where $p=3$. The non-positive part is realized in $\fk(1;\underline{N}|9)$ as follows: \begin{equation} \small \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline $\fg_{i}$&the generators \\ \hline \hline $\fg_{-2}$&$1$\\ \hline $\fg_{-1}$&$\Pi(\cal{F}_{1/2})$\\ \hline $\fg_{0}$& $\partial_1 \longleftrightarrow 2\, \xi_{1} \eta_3 + x_{2} \theta + 2\, \xi_3 \eta_4,\; x_1\partial_1 \longleftrightarrow \xi_{1}\eta_1 + \xi_{2} \eta_2 + 2\, \xi_4 \eta_4,\;x_1^2\partial_1 \longleftrightarrow \xi_3 \eta_1 + \xi_4 \eta_3 + \theta \eta_2,$\\ &$\;\partial_2 \longleftrightarrow 2\, \xi_{1} \eta_2 + \xi_{2} \xi_4 + \xi_3 \theta ,\;x_2 \partial_2\longleftrightarrow \xi_{1} \eta_1 + \xi_3 \eta_3 + \xi_4 \eta_4,\;x_2^2 \partial_2\longleftrightarrow \xi_{2} \eta_1 + \theta \eta_3 + 2\, \eta_4\eta_2,$\\ &$x_1 x_2 \partial_1\longleftrightarrow \xi_{2}\eta_1 + \eta_4 \eta_2 ,\;x_1 x_2 \partial_2\longleftrightarrow \xi_3 \eta_1 + 2\, \xi_4 \eta_3,\;x_1^2 x_2 \partial_1\longleftrightarrow \theta \eta_1 + 2\, \eta_3 \eta_2,$\\ &$x_1^2 x_2 \partial_2\longleftrightarrow \xi_4 \eta_1 ,\; x_1x_2^2 \partial_1\longleftrightarrow 2\, \eta_4 \eta_1 ,\;x_1x_2^2 \partial_2 \longleftrightarrow \theta \eta_1 + \eta_3 \eta_2 ,\; x_1^2x_2^2 \partial_1\longleftrightarrow \eta_3 \eta_1 ,$\\ &$ x_1^2x_2^2 \partial_2\longleftrightarrow \eta_2\eta_1 ,\qquad t $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{equation} The CTS prolong $(\fg_{-},\fg_0)_*$ gives a Lie superalgebra that is not simple with the property that $\sdim(\fg_1)=0|4$ and $\fg_i=0$ for all $i>1$. The generating functions of $\fg_1$ are $$ \xi_{2} \eta_2\eta_{1} + 2\, \xi_{3} \eta_3 \eta_{1} + \xi_4 \eta_4 \eta_{1} + \theta \eta_3 \eta_2 ,\quad 2\, \xi_4 \eta_3 \eta_{1} + \theta \eta_2 \eta_{1} ,\quad \theta \eta_3 \eta_{1} + \eta_4 \eta_2 \eta_{1} ,\quad \eta_3 \eta_2 \eta_{1}. $$ \ssec{Defining relations of the positive parts of $\mathfrak{brj}(2;3)$ and $\mathfrak{brj}(2;5)$} For the presentations of the Lie superalgebras with Cartan matrix, see . The only nontrivial part of these relations are analogs of the Serre relations (both the straightforward ones and the ones different in shape). Here they are:\\ \noindent \underline{$\mathfrak{brj}(2;3)$};\quad$\sdim\; \mathfrak{brj}(2;3)=10|8$. $ \arraycolsep=0pt \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{array}{ll} 1)\ &{{\left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right]\right]}=0},\\ & {{\left[\left[x_{2},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[x_{2},\,x_{2}\right]\right]\right]}=0}. \end{array} $ $ \arraycolsep=0pt \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{array}{ll} 2)\ & \ad_{x_{2}}^3(x_{1})=0,\\ & {{\left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right]\right]}=0},\\ & {{\left[\left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right],\, \left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right]\right] \right]}=0}. \end{array} $ $ \arraycolsep=0pt \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{array}{ll} 3)\ & \ad_{x_{1}}^3(x_{2})=0,\\ & [x_2,[x_1,[x_1,x_2]]]- [[x_1,x_2],[x_1,x_2]]=0,\\ & [[x_1,x_2],[x_2,x_2]]=0. \end{array} $ \noindent \underline{$\mathfrak{brj}(2;5)$}; \quad$\sdim\; \mathfrak{brj}(2;5)=10|12$. $ \arraycolsep=0pt \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{array}{ll} 1)\ & {{\left[\left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right],\, \left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right]\right]} ={2\, \left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[x_{2},\,x_{2}\right]\right]\right]}},\\ & {{\left[\left[x_{2},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[x_{2},\,x_{2}\right]\right]\right]}=0},\\ & {{\left[\left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right],\, \left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right]\right] \right]}= 0}. \end{array} $ $ \arraycolsep=0pt \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{array}{ll} 2\ )& \ad_{x_{2}}^4(x_{1})=0,\\ & {{\left[\left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right],\, \left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right] \right]\right]\right]}=0},\\ & {{\left[\left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right],\, \left[\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right],\, \left[x_{2},\,\left[x_{1},\,x_{2}\right]\right]\right] \right]}=0}. \end{array} $ \begin{thebibliography}{9990} \bibitem[BKK]{BKK} Benkart, G.; Kostrikin, A. I.; Kuznetsov, M. I. The simple graded Lie algebras of characteristic three with classical reductive component $L\sb 0$. Comm. Algebra 24 (1996), no. 1, 223--234. \bibitem[BL]{BL} Bernstein J., Leites D., Invariant differential operators and irreducible representations of Lie superalgebras of vector fields. Selecta Math. Sov., v. 1, 1981, no. 2, 143--160 \bibitem[BjL]{BjL} Bouarroudj S., Leites D., Simple Lie superalgebras and non-integrable distributions in characteristic $p$ Zapiski nauchnyh seminarov POMI, t. 331 (2006), 15--29; Reprinted in J. Math. Sci. (NY), 141 (2007) no.4, 1390--98; math.RT/0606682 \bibitem[BGL1]{BGL1} Bouarroudj S., Grozman P., Leites D., Cartan matrices and presentations of Elduque and Cunha simple Lie superalgebras; MPIMiS preprint 124/2006 (www.mis.mpg.de) \bibitem[BGL2]{BGL2} Bouarroudj S., Grozman P., Leites D., Cartan matrices and presentations of the exceptional simple Elduque Lie superalgebra; MPIMiS preprint 125/2006 (www.mis.mpg.de) \bibitem[BGL4]{BGL4} Bouarroudj S., Grozman P., Leites D., Infinitesimal deformations of the simple modular Lie superalgebras with Cartan matrices for $p=3$. IN PREPARATION \bibitem[BGL5]{BGL5} Bouarroudj S., Grozman P., Leites D., Simple modular Lie superalgebras with Cartan matrices. IN PREPARATION \bibitem[C]{C} Cartan \'E., \"Uber die einfachen Transformationsgrouppen, Leipziger Berichte (1893), 395--420. Reprinted in: {\em \OE uvres compl\`{e}tes}. Partie II. (French) [Complete works. Part II] Alg\`{e}bre, syst\`{e}mes diff\'erentiels et probl\`{e}mes d'\'equivalence. [Algebra, differential systems and problems of equivalence] Second edition. \'Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, 1984. \bibitem[Cla]{Cla} Clarke B., Decomposition of the tensor product of two irreducible $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$-modules in characteristic $3$, MPIMiS preprint 145/2006; for calculations, see\\ http://personal-homepages.mis.mpg.de/clarke/Tensor-Calculations.tar.gz \bibitem[CE]{CE} Cunha I., Elduque A., An extended Freudenthal magic square in characteristic $3$; math.RA/0605379 \bibitem[CE2]{CE2} Cunha I., Elduque, A., The extended Freudenthal Magic Square and Jordan algebras; math.RA/0608191 \bibitem[El1]{El1} Elduque, A. New simple Lie superalgebras in characteristic 3. J. Algebra 296 (2006), no. 1, 196--233 \bibitem[El2]{El2} Elduque, A. Some new simple modular Lie superalgebras. math.RA/0512654 \bibitem[Er]{Er} Ermolaev, Yu. B. Integral bases of classical Lie algebras. (Russian) Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Mat. 2004, , no. 3, 16--25; translation in Russian Math. (Iz. VUZ) 48 (2004), no. 3, 13--22. \bibitem[FH]{FH} Fulton, W., Harris, J., {\em Representation theory. A first course}. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 129. Readings in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991. xvi+551 pp \bibitem[GK]{GK} Gregory, T.; Kuznetsov, M. On depth-three graded Lie algebras of characteristic three with classical reductive null component. Comm. Algebra 32 (2004), no. 9, 3339--3371 \bibitem[Gr]{Gr} Grozman P., {\bf SuperLie}, \texttt{http://www.equaonline.com/math/SuperLie} \bibitem[GL1]{GL1} Grozman P., Leites D., Defining relations for classical Lie superalgebras with Cartan matrix, Czech. J. Phys., Vol. 51, 2001, no. 1, 1--22; arXiv: \texttt{hep-th/9702073} \bibitem[GL2]{GL2} Grozman P., Leites D., {\bf SuperLie} and problems (to be) solved with it. Preprint MPIM-Bonn, 2003-39 (\texttt{http://www.mpim-bonn.mpg.de}) \bibitem[GL4]{GL4} Grozman P., Leites D., Structures of $G(2)$ type and nonintegrable distributions in characteristic $p$. Lett. Math. Phys. 74 (2005), no. 3, 229--262; arXiv: \texttt{math.RT/0509400} \bibitem[GLS]{GLS} Grozman P., Leites D., Shchepochkina I., Invariant operators on supermanifolds and standard models. In: In: M.~Olshanetsky, A.~Vainstein (eds.) {\em Multiple facets of quantization and supersymmetry. Michael Marinov Memorial Volume}, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 2002, 508--555. [math.RT/0202193; ESI preprint 1111 (2001)]. \bibitem[KWK]{KWK} Kac, V. G. Corrections to: "Exponentials in Lie algebras of characteristic $p$" [Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR 35 (1971), no. 4, 762--788; MR0306282 (46 \#5408)] by B. Yu. Veisfeiler and Kac. (Russian) Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. 58 (1994), no. 4, 224; translation in Russian Acad. Sci. Izv. Math. 45 (1995), no. 1, 229 \bibitem[K2]{K2} Kac V., Lie superagebras, Adv. Math. v. 26, 1977, 8--96 \bibitem[K3]{K3} Kac, V. Classification of supersymmetries. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. I (Beijing, 2002), Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2002, 319--344 Cheng, Shun-Jen; Kac, V., Addendum: ``Generalized Spencer cohomology and filtered deformations of ${\Zee}$-graded Lie superalgebras" [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), no. 5, 1141--1182; MR1688484 (2000d:17025)]. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 8 (2004), no. 4, 697--709. Cantarini, N.; Cheng, S.-J.; Kac, V. Errata to: ``Structure of some $\Bbb Z$-graded Lie superalgebras of vector fields" [Transform. Groups 4 (1999), no. 2-3, 219--272; MR1712863 (2001b:17037)] by Cheng and Kac. Transform. Groups 9 (2004), no. 4, 399--400 \bibitem[KKCh]{KKCh} Kirillov, S. A.; Kuznetsov, M. I.; Chebochko, N. G. Deformations of a Lie algebra of type $G\sb 2$ of characteristic three. (Russian) Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Mat. 2000, , no. 3, 33--38; translation in Russian Math. (Iz. VUZ) 44 (2000), no. 3, 31--36 \bibitem[KLV]{KLV} Kochetkov Yu., Leites D., Vaintrob A. New invariant differential operators and pseudo-(co)homology of supermanifolds and Lie superalgebras. In: S.~Andima et. al. (eds.) {\em General Topology and its Appl., June 1989}, Marcel Dekker, NY, 1991, 217--238 \bibitem[KS]{KS} Kostrikin, A. I., Shafarevich, I.R., Graded Lie algebras of finite characteristic, Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR Ser. Mat. 33 (1969) 251--322 (in Russian); transl.: Math. USSR Izv. 3 (1969) 237--304 \bibitem[Ku1]{Ku1} Kuznetsov, M. I. The Melikyan algebras as Lie algebras of the type $G\sb 2$. Comm. Algebra 19 (1991), no. 4, 1281--1312. \bibitem[Ku2]{Ku2} Kuznetsov, M. I. Graded Lie algebras with the almost simple component $L\sb 0$. Pontryagin Conference, 8, Algebra (Moscow, 1998). J. Math. Sci. (New York) 106 (2001), no. 4, 3187--3211. \bibitem[LL]{LL} Lebedev A., Leites D., (with Appendix by P. Deligne) On realizations of the Steenrod algebras. J. Prime Res. Math., v. 2, 2006, \bibitem[L]{L} Leites D., Towards classification of simple finite dimensional modular Lie superalgebras in characteristic $p$. IN PREPARATION \bibitem[LSh]{LSh} Leites D., Shchepochkina I., Classification of the simple Lie superalgebras of vector fields, preprint MPIM-2003-28 (\texttt{http://www.mpim-bonn.mpg.de}) \bibitem[Ssol]{Ssol} Sergeev, A. Irreducible representations of solvable Lie superalgebras. Represent. Theory 3 (1999), 435--443; math.RT/9810109 \bibitem[Shch]{Shch} Shchepochkina I., How to realize Lie algebras by vector fields. Theor. Mat. Fiz. 147 (2006) no. 3, 821--838; arXiv: \texttt{math.RT/0509472} \bibitem[Sk]{Sk} Skryabin, S. M. New series of simple Lie algebras of characteristic $3$. (Russian. Russian summary) Mat. Sb. 183 (1992), no. 8, 3--22; translation in Russian Acad. Sci. Sb. Math. 76 (1993), no. 2, 389--406 \bibitem[S]{S} Strade, H. {\em Simple Lie algebras over fields of positive characteristic. I. Structure theory.} de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, 38. Walter de Gruyter \& Co., Berlin, 2004. viii+540 pp. \bibitem[St]{St} Steinberg, R. {\em Lectures on Chevalley groups}. Notes prepared by John Faulkner and Robert Wilson. Yale University, New Haven, Conn., 1968. iii+277 pp. \bibitem[Vi]{Vi} Viviani F., Deformations of Simple Restricted Lie Algebras I, II. math.RA/0612861, math.RA/0702499; Deformations of the restricted Melikian Lie algebra,math.RA/0702594; Restricted simple Lie algebras and their infinitesimal deformations, math.RA/0702755 \bibitem[WK]{WK} Weisfeiler, B. Ju.; Kac, V. G. Exponentials in Lie algebras of characteristic $p$. (Russian) Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 35 (1971), 762--788. \bibitem[Y]{Y} Yamaguchi K., Differential systems associated with simple graded Lie algebras. Progress in differential geometry, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 22, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 1993, 413--494 \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0131
|
Title: Vacuum Structure and Potential
Abstract: Based on overall experimental observations, especially the pair processes, I
developed a model structure of the vacuum along with a basic-particle formation
scheme begun in 2000 (with collaborator P-I Johansson). The model consists in
that the vacuum is, briefly, filled of neutral but polarizable vacuuons,
consisting each of a p-vaculeon and n- vaculeon of charges $+e$ and $-e$ of
zero rest masses but with spin motions, assumed interacting each other with a
Coulomb force. The model has been introduced in full in a book (Nova Sci, 2005)
and referred to in a number of journal/E-print papers. I outline in this easier
accessible paper the detailed derivation of the model and a corresponding
quantitative determination of the vacuuon size.
Body: \title{ {\Huge{ {\textbf{Vacuum Structure and Potential}} } }} \author{J X Zheng-Johansson \\ Institute of Fundamental Physics Research, 611 93 Nyk\"oping, Sweden. \\ March, 2007 } \date{} \maketitle \def\elsub{\mbox{\small${\sf e}$}} \def\minus{\mbox{{\rm -}}} \def\v{{\rm v}} \def\ev{\epsilonp} \def\epsilonp{\mbox{{\scriptsize$\in$}}} \def\Vv{-\hspace{-0.3cm}{V}_{\rm v}} \def\Vo{V_o} \def\rv{{\mit a}_\v} \def\F{F} \def\sang{\sigma} \def\lsub{{_{\mbox{\scriptsize $l$}}}} \def\Jc{Z_\Xssub} \def\Xcal{\chi} \def\Xc{\Xcal} \def\vsub{{}_{{\rm v}} } \def\Xsub{{\mbox{\scriptsize${X}$}}} \def\Xssub{{\mbox{\tiny${X}$}}} \begin{abstract} Based on overall experimental observations, especially the pair processes, I developed a model structure of the vacuum along with a basic-particle formation scheme begun in 2000 (with collaborator P-I Johansson). The model consists in that the vacuum is, briefly, filled of neutral but polarizable vacuuons, consisting each of a p-vaculeon and n- vaculeon of charges $+e$ and $-e$ of zero rest masses but with spin motions, assumed interacting each other with a Coulomb force. The model has been introduced in full in a book (Nova Sci, 2005) and referred to in a number of journal/E-print papers. I outline in this easier accessible paper the detailed derivation of the model and a corresponding quantitative determination of the vacuuon size. \end{abstract} \def\Unifcite{4} \def\minus{\mbox{-}} \def\mpm{\mbox{$+$\hspace{-0.1cm},-}} \def\vel{v} \def\phiv{\varphi} \def\aph{\alpha} \def\Lamd{{\mit \Lambda}_d{}} \def\Pfp{\Pm_\vel} \def\Efp{\Eng_\vel} \def\imc{\mbox{\scriptsize{vir}}} \def\Pm{P} \def\Dc{a_{\Cssub}} \def\Cssub{{\mbox{\tiny${C}$}}} \def\Mch{\mathfrak{M}} \def\pac{\mathscr{Y}} \def\R{\mathfrak{R}} \def\beat{{\rm b}} \def\lb{{\bf l}} \def\vb{{\bf v}} \def\Rb{{\bf R}} \def\pd{\partial} \def\vphi{\varphi} \def\psiR{\widetilde{\psi}} \def\psiL{\widetilde{\psi}^{{\rm vir}}} \def\PhimR{\widetilde{ {\mit \Phi}}} \def\PsimR{\widetilde{ {\mit \Psi}}} \def\PsimL{{\widetilde{ {\mit \Psi}}}^{{\rm vir}}} \def\a{\alpha} \def\uav{\bar{u}} \def\D{\Delta} \def\th{\theta} \def\r{{\mbox{\tiny${R}$}}} \def\re{{\mbox{\tiny${R}$}}} \def\Fmed{F_{{\rm a.med}}} \def\med{{\rm med}} \def\Lw{L_{\varphi}} \def\Efb{{\bf E}} \def\Bfb{{\bf B}} \def\Ac{ \varphi} \def\Xsub{{\mbox{\tiny${X}$}}} \def\Xssub{{\mbox{\tiny${X}$}}} \def\Ksub{{\mbox{\tiny${K}$}}} \def\W{{{\mit \Omega}}} \def\Wd{\W_d{}} \def\Nu{{\cal V}} \def\Nud{\Nu_d{}} \def\Eng{{\cal E}} \def\eng{{\varepsilon}} \def\Acuni{\Ac_{{\Ksub}^\dagsup}^{\dagsup}} \def\unduni{\Ac_{{\Ksub}^\dagger}^{\dagsup}} \def\Acauni{\Ac_{{\Ksub}^\ddagsup}^{\ddagsup}} \def\Acunim{{\Ac_{{\Ksub}^\dagsup}^{\dagsup *}}} \def\undunim{{\Ac_{{\Ksub}^\dagsup}^{\dagsup}}^*} \def\Acaunim{{\Ac_{{\Ksub}^\ddagsup}^{\ddagsup *}}} \def\pd{\partial} \def\Ad{ {\mit \psi}} \def\psim{ {\mit \psi}} \def\Kd{K_d{}} \def\Lam{{\mit \Lambda}} \def\lam{\lambda} \def\dagsup{{\mbox{\tiny${\dagger}$}}} \def\ddagsup{{\mbox{\tiny${\ddagger}$}}} \def\psimKdK{\psim_{\Ksub,\Kdsub}} \def\w{\omega{}} \def\wdlow{\omega_d } \def\g{\gamma{}} \def\Phim{{\mit \Phi}} \def\Psim{{\mit \Psi}} \def\arm{{\rm a}} \def\brm{{\rm b}} \def\crm{{\rm c}} \def\drm{{\rm d}} \def\erm{{\rm e}} \def\frm{{\rm f}} \def\grm{{\rm g}} \def\hrm{{\rm h}} \def\lf{\left} \def\rt{\right} \def\Kdsub{{\mbox{\tiny${K_d}$}}} \def\psimkd{\psim_{\kdsub}} \def\psimKd{\psim_{\Kdsub}} \def\hquad{ \ \ } \def\Taum{{\mit \Gamma}} \def\Tssub{{\mbox{\tiny${T}$}}} \def\Kssub{{\mbox{\tiny${K}$}}} \def\Xssub{{\mbox{\tiny${X}$}}} \def\Wssub{{\mbox{\tiny${W}$}}} \def\el{\mbox{${\sf e}$}} \section{Introduction} {\it Vacuum} is the continuum in the absence of all material particles like the molecules and atoms, and the matters or substances made up of these. That this vacuum continuum is itself substantial is uniformly pointed to by a range of phenomena, especially the pair processes which take place at the interface between (ordinary) matter and vacuum. I shall here mainly discuss the indication by the pair processes, illustrated for the electron-positron annihilation, and derive based on this a model vacuum structure. This will point to a vacuuonic vacuum structure whose inner property has not been appreciated prior to the author's recent work (with P-I J). The model structure of the vacuum, and a particle formation scheme along with it, have, in terms of first-principles classical-mechanics solutions, facilitated predictions [\Unifcite a-k] of a range of properties of basic particles and the vacuum that are directly comparable with observations. \section{The observational substantial vacuum} When an electron $\el^{\minus}$ meets a positron $\el^+$, pair annihilation can occur, with a highest probability if both being at rest, in a reaction process: $$ \displaylines{\refstepcounter{equation} \hfill \el^{\minus} +\el^+ \rightarrow \gamma+ \gamma \hfill () }$$ The observed final products are the two gamma rays, $\gamma$'s on the right-hand side, emitted in opposite directions. These carry the energies converted from and {\it only} from the {\it masses} of the electron and positron, $M_{\elsub^{\minus}} +M_{\elsub^+} \ge 2\times 0.511$ MeV. The energy equation for this is: \begin{eqnarray} M_{\elsub^{\minus}}c^2+ M_{\elsub^+}c^2=h \Nu_\gamma + h \Nu_\gamma \end{eqnarray} with $c$ the velocity of light, $h$ Planck constant, and $\Nu_\gamma$ the frequency of the emitted gamma rays. () is today (incompletely) regarded as a total energy equation for the pair process. In addition to the masses, the electron $\el^{\minus}$ and positron $\el^+$ on the left-hand side of () we stress are described by their another elementary properties, the charges $-e$ and $+e$, that maintain an interaction energy between the two according to the Coulomb's law. To explicitly reflect both the two elementary and independent parameters, the mass and the charge of each particle that are each associated with an energy of a specified form and amount, we put these as independent variables, for the entities $\el^{\minus}(M_{\elsub^{\minus}}, -e) $, $\el^+(M_{\elsub^+}, +e) $, appearing on the left-hand side of (). (Their spins are by observation unchanged in the reaction and are thus not explicated here.) On an equal footing, in order to conserve the energy we need to include on the right-hand side of () two new entities, $\v_p $ and $\v_n$, that are requisite as the carriers of the Coulomb interaction energies between $e $ and $ -e$, so that () modifies to the complete form \begin{eqnarray} \el^{\minus}(M_{\elsub^{\minus}}, -e) +\el^+(M_{\elsub^+}, e) \rightarrow \gamma (h \Nu_\g)+ \gamma(h \Nu_\g) + \v_n (-e)+\v_p(e) \end{eqnarray} We below prove that the $\v_n (-e)$ and $ \v_p(e)$ must exist on the right-hand side of () in order to conserve energy. Suppose an electron and positron annihilate at a separation distance $a_\v$ in the vacuum and, for simplicity when at rest; assume at the scale of $a_\v$ their charges continue to interact according to Coulomb's law. (Any specific form of interaction will affect its quantitative scale only but not the general energy conservation equations below.) Just before the annihilation, the two particles carry therefore a zero total kinetic energy $\Eng_\vel (a_\v)=0$, and a Coulomb interaction potential energy $$\displaylines{\refstepcounter{equation} \hfill V(a_\v)=-\frac{e^2}{4\pi \ev_0 a_\v} \hfill () \cr \mbox{Or, they together carry a total mechanical energy }\hfill \cr\refstepcounter{equation} \hfill \Eng_{\mbox{$+$\hspace{-0.1cm},-}} (a_\v) =V(a_\v) + \Eng_\vel (r_0) = -\frac{e^2}{4\pi \ev_0 a_\v}+0. \hfill () }$$ After the annihlation, $\Eng_{\mpm} (a_\v)$ which cannot be destroyed, must therefore necessarily present in a certain (new or the same) form $\Eng'_{\mpm} (a_\v)$ which is assumed to be carried by certain entities denoted earlier by $\v_p$ and $\v_n$. Suppose $\v_p$ and $\v_n$, are so chosen that they carry all of the mechanical energy and are subject to no external force (the latter will plausibly hold if the products are as a whole electrically neutral and situated in unperturbed vacuum). Then, it follows from the requirement of energy conservation that the total energy after annihilation must be $$\refstepcounter{equation} \Eng'_{\mpm} (a_\v) \equiv \Eng_{\mpm} (a_\v), \eqno () $$ with $\Eng_{\mpm} (a_\v) $ given by () and being finite, and in fact being enormously large for $a_\v$ extraordinarily small. Hence, that the annihilation products $\v_p $ and $ \v_n$ carry an energy equal to the mechanical energy $\Eng_{\mpm} (a_\v) $ of the electron-positron, is proven. As to the form of $\Eng'_{\mpm} (a_\v) $; formally $\Eng'_{\mpm} =V'+\Eng'_\vel$. Since no observational indications suggest otherwise, it would be natural to assume in the first place that after the annilation, the two charges $-e $ and $ +e$ are unchanged in charge quantities but only transformed to new dynamical states in the forms of the new entities $\v_n$ and $\v_p $, that are separated $a_\v$ apart, and that they continue to interact by $V'(a_\v)$ according to Coulomb's law. Then, $V'(a_\v)=V(a_\v)= -\frac{e^2}{4\pi \ev_0 a_\v}$. Since $a_\v$ is after annihilation unchanged here, the (center-of-mass) kinetic energy must be $\Eng'_\vel(a_\v)=\Eng_\vel(a_\v)=0$. ($\v_n$ and $\v_p $ ought to have rotations that preserve the spins kinetic energies of the electron and position; see for an explicit treatment.) \section{The vacuum structure: Proposition} Two such entities as $\v_n$ and $\v_p$ as probed with today's instruments are together merely an electrically neutral point in the vacuum. That is, such a point is no different from any other points and may apparently be assigned to everywhere in the vacuum. Such a point ought therefore necessarily to be assigned to everywhere in a vacuum which gives off pair productions on absorbing a high energy light qunta and which propagates light wave everywhere the same way. We therefore induce that, the vacuum must be filled of such entities, $\v_n$ and $\v_p$ paired together, by Coulomb energy $\Vv \equiv V(a_\v)$ at a distance $a_\v$, so as to be externally electrically neutral. We call each such entity a {\bf vacuuon}. An electrically neutral vacuuon may be formed of two concentric opposite charged spheres, or alternatively a jelly-like mixture of two intermingling opposite charged fluids. The latter, the jelly-like structure, must however be rejected, in order to account for the positron experiments. These experiments inform that single positrons do not exist as free particles , they once created will appear to instantly vanish into the vacuum. In other terms, the vacuum seems to be a negatively charged sea, as originally proposed by Paul Dirac in 1930, which traps any single positive charge in it, unless the charge has a high enough (oscillatory) kinetic energy (amounting to a proton mass) to escape. Based on the above considerations taking the simplest structure for two concentric spheres, I propose a model for the vacuum structure to be: \begin{center} \begin{minipage}[t]{12.5cm} 1. The vacuum is uniformly filled of building entities termed {\bf vacuuon}s that are electrically neutral and essentially completely at rest in the absence of external disturbances, and have each a zero rest mass (Figure a). \end{minipage} \end{center} \vspace{-0.cm} \begin{center} \begin{minipage}[t]{12.5cm} \indent 2. A vacuuon is composed of a {\bf p-vaculeon} having an electric charge $+e$ and an {\bf n-vaculeon} having an electric charge $-e$, where $e$ $= 1.602 \cdot 10^{-19}$ C being the elementary charge. The p- and n-vaculeons have each a zero rest mass. \indent 3. In the vacuuon in its ground-state, the n-vaculeon forms an envelope, a spherical shell of radius $a_\v$, about the point-like p-vaculeon at the center (Figure b). \\ \indent 4. The n- and p- vaculeons have each a rotational motion, or spin (a more suitable term in their freed states), about their own coincidental axes, and hence have a angular momentum, $L_s$. \ $L_s$ equals $\mp \frac{1}{2}\hbar$ as for the electron and proton spins, $2 \pi \hbar $ being Planck constant. \\ \indent 5. The vacuuon, and the n- and p- vaculeons are assumed to obey the basic laws of classical mechanics under the equivalent conditions (in particular in a vacuum background) under which the basic laws are established. \end{minipage} \end{center} The nature of the vacuum as induced above is similarly, though indirectly, pointed to by the antiproton production (O. Chamberlain, et. al., 1955, 1957; J. Eades, 1999; E. Segre, 1958), and antineutron production (B. Cork, et al., 1960). The neutral but polarizable vacuuon construction is also indicated by the observed Lamb shift, and the capability of the vacuum to propagate electromagnetic waves like a sound wave in a stretched string, among others. The vacuuonic vacuum structure also enables one to comprehend among other the following three prominent experimental phenomena: (i). The fact that the annihilation of an "existing" electron with a (yet "non-existing") positron takes place most probably within a material substance. We now see that, since the positron is trapped in a negative potential well as mentioned above, to lift it to the (vacuum) level at which annihilation occurs, there requires firstly the presence of some external energy supply; this supply may be provided by the potential field of a proton or of a matrix of protons as naturally provided by a material substance. (ii). The fact that there exist in nature two and only two species long-lived free basic material particles, the proton and the electron. The fact that the proton is much heavier by a specified amount than the electron. (iii). From the two only stable simple (termed also basic) material particles, the proton and the electron with a positive and an negative charge respectively, an atom is formed always with the former at the core and the latter at the outskirt. The vacuum structure proposed here resembles characteristically Dirac's vacuum, with the sea of negatively charged n-vaculeon envelopes loosely corresponding to Dirac's sea of negative charges. \section{Vacuum potential} Applying Coulomb's law to the charge $+e$ on the point-like p-vaculeon and the charge element $d q$ on the enveloping n-vaculeon, integrating over the entire surface on the n-vaculeon spherical shell, we obtain the total force the p- vaculeon acting on the n- vaculeon: $\F_{pn}=\int_0^{q } \frac{e d q }{ 4 \pi\ev_0 \rv^2 } = \frac{e }{ 4 \pi\ev_0 \rv^2 } (\frac{ -e}{4 \pi } )\int_0^{4 \pi} d \sang$. Or, \begin{eqnarray} \F_{pn} = - \frac{e^2 }{ 4 \pi\ev_0 \rv^2 } \end{eqnarray} At a variant separation distance $r$, () writes as $\F_{pn}(r) = - \frac{e^2 }{ 4 \pi\ev_0 r^2 } $. The interaction potential between the p- and n- vaculeons, or the intervaculeon potential, follows to be \index{Vacuum level, definition of} $$ V_{np} (r) = - \int_{r}^\infty \F_{pn}d r = \int_{\infty}^{r}{ \frac{e^2 }{ 4 \pi\ev_0 r^2 } } d r = - \frac{e^2 }{ 4 \pi\ev_0 r } \eqno({\rm a}) $$ The function $V_{np} (r)$ here corresponds to the $V'(r)$ in Sec. . Figure shows a plot of $V_{np} (r)$. At the equilibrium separation distance $r=a_\v$, we have a {\bf ground-state vacuuon}, and the corresponding potential: \begin{eqnarray} \Vv \equiv V_{np}(a_\v) = - \frac{e^2 }{ 4 \pi\ev_0 \rv } \end{eqnarray} \vspace{-0.cm} The reference level of $V_{np} (r)$, $V_{np}(r)=0$, is in the above taken at $r\rightarrow \infty$. The zero intervaculeon potential level $V_{np}(\infty)$ may be taken to coincide with the energy level of {\bf ground-state vacuum}---the vacuum in the absence of any external disturbance and being thus composed of unperturbed neutral vacuuons. Unperturbed neutral vacuuons do not interact with each other and thus have a zero interaction potential. See discussion in [\Unifcite a] regarding vacuum potential in the presence of an external vaculeon charge. $a_\v$ and $V_\v$ have been quantitatively determined with reasonable confidence in [\Unifcite a]. This involves some lengthy procedure, I thus give an outline of the solutions only below. Based on classical-mechanics solution for the potential energy of an external p-vaculeon in the vacuum, combined with the minimum kinetic energy requirement for a free p-vaculeon in the vacuum, which is equivalent to a proton mass ($M_p$), $a_\v$ is given by the solution: $$ \refstepcounter{equation} a_\v= \frac{-M_pc^2 +\sqrt{(M_pc^2)^2 + 4 (2 \rho_{\lsub} c^2 )\frac{ \Jc{}' e^2 }{ 4 \pi \ev_0 } }}{2(2 \rho_{\lsub} c^2) } \eqno() $$ Where $\Jc{}'$ is a parameter related to the explicit vacuuonic configuration and is estimated (for a dense-packed structure) to be $\sim$1.7; $\rho_l$ is the linear mass density of the vacuum. $\rho_l$ can be fixed separately from the solution for gravitational constant ($G$) [\Unifcite e,b], to be $$\refstepcounter{equation} \rho_\lsub = \frac{\Xcal_{0^*} e^4 }{ 4 \pi \epsilonp_0^2 \hbar^2 G} =1.05(36) \times 10^{-17} \hquad {\rm kg/m} \eqno() $$ Where $\Xcal_{0^*} $ is the electric susceptibility of the vacuum and has been more recently determined by an exact solution for between an electron and proton to be (internal work) $$\refstepcounter{equation} \Xcal_{0^*} =\frac{ \epsilonp_0G M_e M_p}{3e^2} =1.16(9) \times 10^{-41}. \eqno() $$ Using the above $\Jc{}'$ and $\rho_l$ values in (), $a_\v$ is computed to be: $$\refstepcounter{equation} a_\v\approx 2.70(5) \times 10^{-18} \hquad {\rm m} \eqno() $$ With this $a_\v$ value in (), the intervaculeon potential energy of a ground-state vacuuon is estimated to be $$ \Vv \approx -8.52(8) \times 10^{-11} \hquad {\rm J} $$ Or, it equals $-0.532 $ GeV. Using the $a_\v$ value, the the maximum frequency of elastic waves (corresponding to the electromagnetic waves) that can be propagated in the vacuum can be readily estimated to be $\sim 8 \cdot 10^{24}$ 1/s. This is close to the experimentally observed upper limit of electromagnetic wave frequency. \section*{Acknowledgements} The author thanks scientist P-I. Johansson of Uppsala Univ. for his continued support of the research. Prof. R. Lundin has given appreciative review of the unification scheme conceived and developed by the author, and has reflected this in the Forward to the two books [\Unifcite a-b] by the author and collaborator P-I. Johansson. \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{Anderson1933} C.D. Anderson, {\it Science} {\bf 76}, 238 (1932); "The Positive Electron," {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 43}, 491-499 (1933); {\it Phys. Rev.} { \bf 43}, 381A (1933). \vspace{-0.21cm} \bibitem{Blackett1933} P.M.S. Blackett and G.P.S. Occhialini, {\it Nature} {\bf 130}, 363 (1932); P.M.S. Blackett, and Occhialini, G.P.S.; "Some Photographs of the Tracks of Penetrating Radiation," {\it Proc. Roy. Soc.} {\bf A139}, 699 (1933). \vspace{-0.21cm} \bibitem{Dirac1930} P.A.M. Dirac, "A Theory of Electrons and Protons," {\it Proc. Roy. Soc.} {\bf A126}, 360 (1930). \vspace{-0.21cm} \bibitem{Unif1} J. X. Zheng-Johansson and P-I. Johansson, (a) {\it Unification of Classical, Quantum and Relativistic Mechanics and of the Four Forces}, Foreword by R. Lundin, Nova Sci. Pub. Inc., NY, 2nd print., 2006 (see a very early brief outline in: arxiv:physics/0412168); (b) {\it Inference of Basic Laws of Classical, Quantum and Relativistic Mechanics from First-Principles Classical-Mechanics Solutions}, Foreword by R. Lundin, Nova Sci. Pub., Inc., NY, (2006); (c) (J.X. Zheng-Johansson) "Dielectric Theory of the Vacuum", arxiv:physics/0612096; (d) (J. X. Zheng-Johansson) "Vacuum Dynamics", in submission for publication; (e) "Inference of Schr\"odinger Equation from Classical Mechanics Solution," {\it Quantum Theory and Symmetries} {\bf IV}, ed. V.K. Dobrev, Heron Press, {\bf 2}, 2006, pp.763-770; arxiv:phyiscs/0411134; (f) with R. Lundin, "Depolarization Radiation Force in a Dielectric Medium. Its Analogy with Gravity," {\it ibid.}, pp. 771-779; arxiv:phyiscs/0411245; (g) "Mass and Mass--Energy Equation from Classical-Mechanics solution," {\it Phys Ess}, ({\bf 19}), (2006); arxiv:phyiscs/0501037; (i) (J.X. Zheng-Johansson,) "Spectral Emission of Moving Atom Exhibits always a Redshift," {\it Prog. in Phys.}, {\bf 3}, 78-81 (2006); (j) "Developing de Broglie Wave," {\it ibid.}, {\bf 4}, 32-35 (2006); (k) J.X. Zheng-Johansson, "Unification of Classical and Quantum Mechanics, \& The Theory of Relative Motion," {\it Amer. Phys. Soc. Bulletin}, General Physics {\bf G35.01} (Mar., Austin, 2003). \vspace{-0.21cm} \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0135
|
Title: A Single Trapped Ion as a Time-Dependent Harmonic Oscillator
Abstract: We show how a single trapped ion may be used to test a variety of important
physical models realized as time-dependent harmonic oscillators. The ion itself
functions as its own motional detector through laser-induced electronic
transitions. Alsing et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 220401 (2005)] proposed that
an exponentially decaying trap frequency could be used to simulate (thermal)
Gibbons-Hawking radiation in an expanding universe, but the Hamiltonian used
was incorrect. We apply our general solution to this experimental proposal,
correcting the result for a single ion and showing that while the actual
spectrum is different from the Gibbons-Hawking case, it nevertheless shares an
important experimental signature with this result.
Body: \title{A Single Trapped Ion as a Time-Dependent Harmonic Oscillator} \author{Nicolas~C.~Menicucci} \email{nmen@princeton.edu} \affiliation{Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA} \affiliation{School of Physical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia} \author{G.~J.~Milburn} \affiliation{School of Physical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia} \date\today \begin{abstract} We show how a single trapped ion may be used to test a variety of important physical models realized as time-dependent harmonic oscillators. The ion itself functions as its own motional detector through laser-induced electronic transitions. Alsing {\it et al.\/}\ [Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 220401 (2005)] proposed that an exponentially decaying trap frequency could be used to simulate (thermal) Gibbons-Hawking radiation in an expanding universe, but the Hamiltonian used was incorrect. We apply our general solution to this experimental proposal, correcting the result for a single ion and showing that while the actual spectrum is different from the Gibbons-Hawking case, it nevertheless shares an important experimental signature with this result. \end{abstract} \pacs{03.65.-w, 32.80.Pj} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The time-dependent quantum harmonic oscillator has long served as a paradigm for nonadiabatic time-dependent Hamiltonian systems and has been applied to a wide range of physical problems by choosing the mass, the frequency, or both, to be time-dependent. The earliest application is to squeezed state generation in quantum optics~, in which the effect of a second-order optical nonlinearity on a single-mode field can be modeled by a harmonic oscillator with a frequency that is harmonically modulated at twice the bare oscillator frequency. It was subsequently shown that any modulation of the frequency could produce squeezing~, and thus the same model could be used to approximately describe the generation of photons in a cavity with a time-dependent boundary~. The model has been used in a number of quantum cosmological models. In Ref.~, a time-dependent frequency has been used to explain entropy production in a quantum mini-superspace model. The model, with both mass and frequency time-dependent, has been particularly important in developing an understanding of how quantum fluctuations in a scalar field can drive classical metric fluctuation during inflation~. In a cosmological setting the time-dependence is not harmonic and is usually exponential. In all physical applications, of course, the model is only an approximation to the true physics, and its validity can be tested only with considerable difficulty, especially in the cosmological setting. Here we propose a realistic experimental context in which the time-dependent quantum harmonic oscillator can be studied directly. Many decades of effort to refine spectroscopic measurements for time standards now enable a single ion to be confined in three dimensions, its vibrational motion restricted effectively to one dimension, and the ion cooled to the vibrational ground state with a probability greater than 99\ In this paper, we calculate the excitation probability of a trapped ion in a general time-dependent potential. When beginning in the vibrational ground state of the unchirped trap and starting the chirping process adiabatically, the excitation probability is simply related to the Fourier transform of the solution of the Heisenberg equations of motion (which is also the same as the trajectory of the equivalent classical oscillator). We compare our result with that of Ref.~ for the case of a single ion undergoing an exponential frequency chirp. The cited work attempts to use this experimental setup to model a massless scalar field during an inflating (i.e., de~Sitter) universe, which would give a thermal excitation spectrum as a function of the detector response frequency~. The analysis is incorrect, however, because the wrong Hamiltonian was used. Nevertheless, the corrected calculation presented here also gives an excitation spectrum with a thermal signature, although the particular functional form is different. \section{General Solution} The quantum Hamiltonian for a single ion in a time-dependent harmonic trap can be well-approximated in one dimension by \begin{align} H = \frac {p^2} {2M} + \frac M 2 \nu(t)^2 q^2\;, \end{align} where $\nu(t)$ is time-dependent but always assumed to be much slower than the timescale of the micromotion~. For emphasis, we have indicated the explicit time-dependence of the frequency~$\nu$; we will often omit this from now on. Working in the Heisenberg picture, we get the following equations of motion for~$q$ and~$p$: \begin{align} \dot q &= \frac p M\;, \\ \dot p &= -M \nu^2 q\;. \end{align} Dots indicate total derivatives with respect to time. Differentiating again and plugging in these results gives \begin{align} 0 &= \ddot q + \nu^2 q\;, \\ 0 &= \ddot p - 2 \frac {\dot \nu} {\nu} \dot p + \nu^2 p\;. \end{align} As we shall see, only Eq.~\eqref{eq:qdoubledot} is necessary for calculating excitation probabilities, so we will focus only on it. These equations are operator equations, but they are identical to the classical equations of motion for the analogous classical system. Interpreting them as such, we will label the two linearly independent c-number solutions as $h(t)$ and $g(t)$, where the following initial conditions are satisfied: \begin{align} h(0) = \dot g(0) = 1 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \dot h(0) = g(0) = 0\;, \end{align} Writing $q(0) = q_0$ and $p(0) = p_0$, the unique solution for $q$ to the initial value problem above is \begin{align} q(t) = q_0 h(t) + \frac {p_0} {M} g(t)\;. \end{align} By differentiating and using the relations above, we know also that \begin{align} p(t) = M q_0 \dot h(t) + p_0 \dot g(t)\;. \end{align} To check our math, we can verify that $[q(t),p(t)] = i\hbar$, which is fulfilled if and only if the Wronskian $W(h,g)$ of the two solutions is one for all times---specifically, \begin{align} h \dot g - \dot h g = 1\;, \end{align} where we have assumed that $[q_0, p_0] = i\hbar$. Moreover, if the initial state at $t=0$ is symmetric with respect to phase-space rotations, then we have additional rotational freedom in choosing the initial quadratures. (This would be the case, for instance, if we start in the instantaneous ground state.) Notice that Eq.~\eqref{eq:qeom} can be written as the inner product of two vectors: \begin{align} q(t) = \Bigl( q_0, \frac {p_0} {M \nu_0} \Bigr) \cdot \Bigl( h(t), \nu_0 g(t) \Bigr) \end{align} (and similarly for Eq.~\eqref{eq:peom}), where we have normalized the quadrature operators to have the same units. As an inner product, this expression is invariant under simultaneous rotations of both vectors. Thus, if the initial state possesses rotational symmetry in the phase plane, then the rotated quadratures are equally as valid as the original ones for representing the initial state, which means that an arbitrary rotation can be applied to the second vector above without changing any measurable property of the system. This freedom can be used, for instance, to define new functions~$h'(t)$ and~$g'(t)$ that are more convenient for calculations, where the linear transformation between them and the original ones (with prefactors as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:qinprod}) is a rotation. We will use this freedom in the next section. One reason why ion traps have become a leading implementation for quantum information processing is the ability to efficiently read out the internal electronic state using a fluorescence shelving scheme~. As the internal state can become correlated with the vibrational motion of the ion, this scheme can be configured as a way to measure the vibrational state directly~. To correlate the internal electronic state with the motion of the ion, an external laser can be used to drive an electronic transition between two levels~$\ket g$ and~$\ket e$, separated in energy by $\hbar\omega_A$. The interaction between an external classical laser field and the ion is described, in the dipole and rotating-wave approximation, by the interaction-picture Hamiltonian~ \begin{align} H_L = -i\hbar\Omega_0 \left[\sigma_+(t)e^{ik\cos\theta q(t)}-\sigma_-(t)e^{-ik\cos\theta q(t)}\right]\;, \end{align} where $\Omega_0$ is the Rabi frequency for the laser-atom interaction, $\omega_L$ is the laser frequency, $k$ is the magnitude of the wave vector $\vec k$, which makes an angle $\theta$ with the trap axis, $q(t)$ is given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:qeom}, and \begin{equation} \sigma_\pm(t) = e^{\pm i \Delta t} \sigma_\pm\;. \end{equation} The electronic-state raising and lowering operators are defined as $\sigma_+=\outprod e g$ and $\sigma_-=\outprod g e$, respectively, and \begin{equation} \Delta=\omega_A-\omega_L \end{equation} is the detuning of the laser below the atomic transition. We can construct a meaningful quantity that characterizes the ``size'' of $q(t)$ based on the width of the ground-state wave packet for an oscillator with frequency $\nu(t)$, namely $\sqrt{\hbar/2 M \nu(t)}$. As long as this quantity is much smaller than $k \cos \theta$ throughout the chirping process, then we can expand the exponentials in Eq.~\eqref{eq:HLdef} to first order and define the interaction Hamiltonian~$H_I$ between the electronic states and vibrational motion (still in the interaction picture) by \begin{align} H_I = \hbar \Omega_0 k \cos \theta q(t) \bigl( e^{-i \Delta t} \sigma_- + e^{+i \Delta t} \sigma_+ \bigr)\;. \end{align} where we have assumed that $\omega_L$ is far off-resonance, and thus $\Delta \not \simeq 0$. Using first-order time-dependent perturbation theory, the probability to find the ion in the excited state is \begin{multline} P^{(1)} = \frac 1 {\hbar^2} \intzT dt_1 \intzT dt_2 \avg { H_I(t_1) \mathcal P_e H_I(t_2) } \\ = \Omega_0^2 k^2 \cos^2 \theta \intzT dt_1 \intzT dt_2\, e^{-i\Delta (t_1 - t_2)} \avg { q(t_1) q(t_2) }\;, \end{multline} where $\mathcal P_e = 1_{\text{vib}} \otimes \outprod e e$ is the projector onto the excited electronic state (and the identity on the vibrational subspace). We always assume that the ion begins in the electronic ground state. If the ion also starts out in the instantaneous vibrational ground state for a static trap of frequency $\nu_0 = \nu(0)$ at $t=0$ (which is most useful when the chirping begins in the adiabatic regime), then we can evaluate the two-time correlation function as \begin{align} &\avg{ q(t_1) q(t_2) }_{\text{ground}} = \avg { q_0^2 } h(t_1) h(t_2) + \frac {\avg { p_0^2 }} {M^2} g(t_1) g(t_2) \nonumber \\ &\qquad\qquad + \frac {\avg { q_0 p_0 }} {M} \bigl [h(t_1) g(t_2) - h(t_2) g(t_1) \bigr] \nonumber \\ &\qquad = \frac {\hbar} {2M \nu_0} \Bigl[ h(t_1) - i \nu_0 g(t_1) \Bigr] \Bigl[ h(t_2) + i \nu_0 g(t_2) \Bigr] \nonumber \\ &\qquad = \frac {\hbar} {2M \nu_0} f(t_1) f^*(t_2)\;, \end{align} where we have used the facts that for the vibrational ground state, $\avg{ q_0^2 } = \avg{ (p_0/M\nu_0)^2} = \hbar/2M\nu_0$ and $\avg{ q_0 p_0 } = \tfrac 1 2 \avg{ \{q_0,p_0\} + [q_0, p_0] } = i\hbar /2$, and we have defined the complex function \begin{align} f(t) &= h(t) -i \nu_0 g(t)\;, \end{align} which is the solution to Eq.~\eqref{eq:qdoubledot} with initial the conditions, $f(0) = 1$ and $\dot f(0) = -i\nu_0$. Plugging this into Eq.~\eqref{eq:Pexcited} gives, quite simply, \begin{align} \boxed{ P^{(1)} \to (\Omega_0 \eta_0)^2 \abs{\c F}^2\;, } \end{align} where \begin{align} \c F &= \intzT dt\, e^{-i \Delta t} f(t)\;, \end{align} and we have defined the unitless, time-dependent Lamb-Dicke parameter~ as \begin{align} \eta(t) = \sqrt{ \frac {\hbar k^2 \cos^2 \theta} {2 M \nu(t)} }\;, \end{align} and $\eta_0 = \eta(0)$. Recalling that $f(t)$ can be considered a complex c-number solution to the equations of motion for the equivalent classical Hamiltonian, Eq.~\eqref{eq:Pexcitedvac} shows that the excitation probability is simply related to the Fourier transform of the classical trajectories when beginning in the vibrational ground state. \section{Exponential Chirping} Recent work~ has suggested that an exponentially decaying trap frequency has the same effect on the phonon modes of a string of ions as an expanding (i.e., de~Sitter) spacetime does on a one-dimensional scalar field~. An inertial detector that responds to such an expanding scalar field would register a thermal bath of particles, called Gibbons-Hawking radiation~. Ref.~ suggests that the acoustic analog~ of this radiation could be seen in an ion trap, causing each ion to be excited with a thermal spectrum with temperature $\hbar \kappa/2\pi k_B$, as a function of the detuning~$\Delta$, where $\kappa$ is the trap-frequency decay rate. The analysis used an incorrect Hamiltonian that neglected squeezing and source terms that have no analog in the expanding scalar field model but which are present when considering trapped ions in this way, and the results are incorrect. In this section, we revisit this problem and calculate the excitation probability for a single ion in an exponentially decaying harmonic potential, as a function of the detuning~$\Delta$. We write the time-dependent frequency as~ consider both signs in the exponential, but we will restrict ourselves to the case that allows us to begin chirping in the adiabatic limit.} \begin{align} \nu(t) = \nu_0 e^{-\kappa t}\;. \end{align} This results in \begin{align} \ddot q + \nu_0^2 e^{-2\kappa t} q = 0\;. \end{align} Solutions with initial conditions~\eqref{eq:ICs} are \begin{align} h(t) &= \frac {\pi \nu_0} {2 \kappa} \left[ J_1 \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa \right) Y_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) - Y_1 \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa \right) J_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) \right]\;, \\ g(t) &= \frac {\pi} {2 \kappa} \left[ -J_0 \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa \right) Y_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) + Y_0 \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa \right) J_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) \right]\;, \end{align} where the time dependence is carried in $\nu = \nu(t)$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:nuexp}, and $J_n$ and $Y_n$ are Bessel functions. We could plug these directly into the formulas from the last section, but we will simplify the calculations by considering the limits of slow and long-time frequency decay, represented by \begin{align} \nu_0 \gg \kappa \qquad \text{and} \qquad \nu_0 e^{-\kappa T} \ll \kappa\;, \end{align} respectively. This allows us to do several things. First, it allows us to use the usual ground state of the unchirped trap at frequency $\nu_0$ as a good approximation to the ground state of the expanding trap at $t=0$, since at that time the system is being chirped adiabatically. This is important because it allows the experiment to begin with a static potential, which is useful for cooling. Second, it allows us to simplify~$h(t)$ and~$g(t)$ using the phase-space rotation freedom discussed above. Using asymptotic approximations for the Bessel functions in the coefficients, \begin{align} J_0 \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa \right) \simeq -Y_1 \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa \right) &\simeq \sqrt{ \frac {2 \kappa} {\pi \nu_0} } \cos \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa - \frac \pi 4 \right)\;, \\ J_1 \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa \right) \simeq \phantom{-}Y_0 \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa \right) &\simeq \sqrt{ \frac {2 \kappa} {\pi \nu_0} } \sin \left( \frac {\nu_0} \kappa - \frac \pi 4 \right)\;, \end{align} we get \begin{align} h(t) &\simeq \sqrt { \frac {\pi \nu_0} {2 \kappa} } \Bigl[ \sin \varphi\, Y_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) + \cos \varphi\, J_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) \Bigr]\;, \\ \nu_0 g(t) &\simeq \sqrt { \frac {\pi \nu_0} {2 \kappa} } \Bigl[ -\cos \varphi\, Y_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) + \sin \varphi\, J_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) \Bigr]\;. \end{align} where $\varphi = \nu_0/\kappa - \pi/4$. Since we are taking the initial state to be the ground state, which is symmetric with respect to phase-space rotations, we can use the freedom discussed in the previous section to undo the rotation represented by Eqs.~\eqref{eq:hexpapprox} and~\eqref{eq:gexpapprox} and define the simpler functions \begin{align} h(t) \to h'(t) &= \sqrt { \frac {\pi \nu_0} {2 \kappa} } Y_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right)\;, \\ g(t) \to g'(t) &= \sqrt { \frac {\pi} {2 \kappa \nu_0} } J_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right)\;. \end{align} The primes are unnecessary due to the symmetry of the initial state, so we drop them from now on and plug directly into Eq.~\eqref{eq:fdef}: \begin{align} f(t) &= \sqrt { \frac {\pi \nu_0} {2 \kappa} } \left[ Y_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) -i J_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &= -i\sqrt { \frac {\pi \nu_0} {2 \kappa} } H^{(1)}_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right)\;, \end{align} where $H^{(1)}_n$ is a Hankel function of the first kind. The integral in Eq.~\eqref{eq:cFdef} can be evaluated in the limits~\eqref{eq:conditions} using techniques similar to those used in Ref.~. First, define \begin{align} e^\alpha = \frac \nu \kappa\;,\quad \tau = \alpha - \kappa t\;, \quad u = e^\tau\;, \quad \text{and} \quad x = \Delta/\kappa\;. \end{align} The integral in question then becomes (neglecting the prefactor) \begin{align} &\intzT dt\, e^{-i \Delta t} H^{(1)}_0 \left( \frac \nu \kappa \right) = \intzT dt\, e^{-i\Delta t} H^{(1)}_0 (e^{\alpha - \kappa t}) \nonumber \\ &\qquad\qquad= \frac 1 \kappa \int_{\alpha - \kappa T}^\alpha d\tau\, e^{-ix(\alpha - \tau)} H^{(1)}_0 (e^\tau) \nonumber \\ &\qquad\qquad\to \frac {e^{-ix\alpha}} {\kappa} \infint d\tau\, e^{ix\tau} H^{(1)}_0(e^\tau) \nonumber \\ &\qquad\qquad= \frac {e^{-ix\alpha}} {\kappa} \halfint du\, u^{ix-1} H^{(1)}_0(u)\;. \end{align} Inserting a convergence factor with $x \to x - i\epsilon$, and then taking the limit $\epsilon \to 0^+$, we can use the formula \begin{align} \halfint du\, u^{ix-1} H^{(1)}_0(u) &= -2^{ix} \frac {\Gamma (ix/2)} {(e^{\pi x} - 1) \Gamma(1-ix/2)} \end{align} to evaluate \begin{align} \abs{\c F}^2 &= \frac {\pi \nu_0} {2 \kappa} \frac {1} {\kappa^2} \abs{ \frac {\Gamma (ix/2)} {\Gamma(1-ix/2)} }^2 \frac {1} {(e^{\pi x} - 1)^2} \nonumber \\ &= \frac {2 \pi \nu_0} {\kappa^3 x^2} \frac {1} {(e^{\pi x} - 1)^2}\;. \end{align} When plugging in for the dummy variables~\eqref{eq:dummyvars}, this gives \begin{align} \boxed{ P^{(1)} = (\Omega_0 \eta_0)^2 \frac {2 \pi \nu_0} {\kappa \Delta^2} \frac {1} {(e^{\pi \Delta/\kappa} - 1)^2}\;. } \end{align} The calculated result from Ref.~ for a single ion is \begin{equation} P^{(1)}_{\text{GH}} = (\Omega_0 \eta_0)^2 \frac {2 \pi} {\kappa \Delta} \frac {1} {e^{2\pi\Delta/\kappa}-1} \;, \end{equation} which contains a Planck factor with Gibbons-Hawking~ temperature $T= \hbar \kappa/2 \pi k_B$ but is different from the actual result for a single ion, given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:Pexcitedexp}. Several things should be noted about these functions. First, they both break down as $\Delta \to 0$ because of the approximation made in obtaining Eq.~\eqref{eq:HI}. They also fail if the time-dependent Lamb-Dicke parameter~\eqref{eq:LambDicke} ever becomes too large throughout the chirping process. Furthermore, most cases of interest will be $\Delta \simeq \nu_0$ (the first red sideband) and near $\Delta \simeq -\nu_0$ (the first blue sideband), which means that $\abs \Delta \gg \kappa$, since $\nu_0 \gg \kappa$. The first red sideband represents a detector that requires the absorption of one phonon (plus one laser photon) in order to excite the atom---the usual thing we mean by ``particle detector'' when the particles are phonons. The first blue sideband, on the other hand, represents a detector that {\em emits} a phonon in order to excite the atom (along with absorbing one laser photon). There are a couple of ways to compare these functions. First, we can take the ratio of the two for both the red- and blue-sideband cases. In both cases, we obtain \begin{align} \frac {P^{(1)}} {P^{(1)}_{\text{GH}}} \simeq \frac {\nu_0} {\abs \Delta} (1 + 2e^{-\pi \abs \Delta/\kappa}) \end{align} plus terms of order $O(e^{-2\pi \abs \Delta/\kappa})$. Since $\abs \Delta \simeq \nu_0$, the prefactor is close to one, and the second term is very small (since $\nu_0 \gg \kappa$). Furthermore, it is cumbersome to directly compare the measured probability to the full function (with all the prefactors). It is often easier instead to make measurements on both the first red sideband and the first blue sideband and then take the ratio of the two. The constant prefactors disappear in this calculation, and both functions then have the same experimental signature: \begin{align} \frac {P^{(1)}(\Delta)} {P^{(1)}(-\Delta)} = \frac {P^{(1)}_{\text{GH}}(\Delta)} {P^{(1)}_{\text{GH}}(-\Delta)} = e^{-2\pi \Delta/\kappa}\;, \end{align} which is that of a thermal distribution with temperature $T = \hbar \kappa/2\pi k_B$, which is of the Gibbons-Hawking form~ with the expansion rate given by~$\kappa$. Therefore, although the Hamiltonian used in the calculations in Ref.~ was missing terms, the intuition (at least for a single ion) was correct in that the actual experimental signature in this case matches that of an ion undergoing thermal motion in a static trap, where the temperature is proportional to~$\kappa$. To see whether this experiment is feasible, we must examine the validity of our approximations. For a typical trap, we expect that $\nu_0 \simeq 1$~MHz, and thus if we take $\kappa \simeq 1$~kHZ, we easily satisfy the first of conditions~\eqref{eq:conditions}, namely $\nu_0 \gg \kappa$. The second of these conditions gives a constraint on the modulation time~$T$. For these parameters we expect that $T \simeq $ a~few~msec. This is compatible with typical cooling and readout time scales and is less than those for heating due to fluctuating patch potentials~. Thus, this is a realizable experiment with current technology. \section{Conclusion} We have shown that a single trapped ion in a modulated trapping potential can serve as an experimentally accessible implementation of a quantum harmonic oscillator with time-dependent frequency, including robust control over state preparation, manipulation, and measurement. The ion itself serves both as the oscillating particle and as the local detector of vibrational motion via coupling to internal electronic states by an external laser. For the case of a general time-dependent trap frequency, we calculated the first-order excitation probability for the ion in terms of the solution to the classical equations of motion for the equivalent classical oscillator. We applied this general result to the case of exponential chirping and corrected the calculation in Ref.~ for a single ion. We found that while the results from the two calculations differ, the experimental signature in both cases is the same and equivalent to that of a thermal ion in a static trap. We thank Dave Kielpinski for invaluable help with the experimental details. We also thank Paul Alsing, Bill Unruh, John Preskill, Jeff Kimble, Greg Ver Steeg, and Michael Nielsen for useful discussions and suggestions. NCM extends much appreciation to the faculty and staff of the Caltech Institute for Quantum Information for their hospitality during his visit, which helped bring this work to fruition. NCM was supported by the United States Department of Defense, and GJM acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council. \bibliography{main}
|
0704.0140
|
Title: Entanglement entropy of two-dimensional Anti-de Sitter black holes
Abstract: Using the AdS/CFT correspondence we derive a formula for the entanglement
entropy of the anti-de Sitter black hole in two spacetime dimensions. The
leading term in the large black hole mass expansion of our formula reproduces
exactly the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy S_{BH}, whereas the subleading term
behaves as ln S_{BH}. This subleading term has the universal form typical for
the entanglement entropy of physical systems described by effective conformal
fields theories (e.g. one-dimensional statistical models at the critical
point). The well-known form of the entanglement entropy for a two-dimensional
conformal field theory is obtained as analytic continuation of our result and
is related with the entanglement entropy of a black hole with negative mass.
Body: \title{Entanglement Entropy of two-dimensional anti-de Sitter black holes} \author{Mariano Cadoni} \email{mariano.cadoni@ca.infn.it} \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Cagliari, and INFN sezione di Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria 09042 Monserrato, ITALY} \begin{abstract} Using the AdS/CFT correspondence we derive a formula for the entanglement entropy of the anti-de Sitter black hole in two spacetime dimensions. The leading term in the large black hole mass expansion of our formula reproduces exactly the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $S_{BH}$, whereas the subleading term behaves as $\ln S_{BH}$. This subleading term has the universal form typical for the entanglement entropy of physical systems described by effective conformal fields theories (e.g. one-dimensional statistical models at the critical point). The well-known form of the entanglement entropy for a two-dimensional conformal field theory is obtained as analytic continuation of our result and is related with the entanglement entropy of a black hole with negative mass. \end{abstract} \maketitle Quantum entanglement is a fundamental feature of quantum systems. It is related to the existence of correlations between parts of the system. The degree of entanglement of a quantum system is measured by the entanglement entropy $S_{ent}$. In quantum field theory (QFT), or more in general in many body systems, we can localize observable and unobservable degrees of freedom in spatially separated regions $Q$ and $R$. $S_{ent}$ is then defined as the von Neumann entropy of the system when the degrees of freedom in the region $R$ are traced over, $S_{ent}=- Tr_{Q}{\hat \rho}_{Q}\ln\hat\rho_{Q}$, where the trace is taken over states in the observable region $Q$ and the reduced density matrix $\hat\rho_{Q}=Tr_{R}\hat\rho$ is obtained by tracing the density matrix $\hat \rho$ over states in the region $R$. Investigation of the entanglement entropy (EE) has become relevant in many research areas. Apart from quantum information theory, the field that gave birth to the notion of entanglement entropy, it plays a crucial role in condensed matter systems, where it helps to understand quantum phases of matter (e.g spin chains and quantum liquids). Entanglement (geometric) entropy is also an useful concept for investigating general features of QFT, in particular two-dimensional conformal field theory (CFT) and the Anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence \cite{Holzhey:1994we,Calabrese:2004eu,Casini:2004bw,Fursaev:2006ng, Solodukhin:2006xv,Ryu:2006bv,Ryu:2006ef} . Last but not least entanglement may held the key for unraveling the mystery of black hole entropy \cite{'tHooft:1984re,Bombelli:1986rw,Frolov:1993ym, Fiola:1994ir,Belgiorno:1995xc,Hawking:2000da,Maldacena:2001kr, Brustein:2005vx,Emparan:2006ni,Valtancoli:2006wv}. We will be mainly concerned with the entanglement entropy of two-dimensional (2D) CFT and its relationship with the entropy of 2D black holes. It is an old idea that black hole entropy may be explained in terms of the EE of the quantum state of matter fields in the black hole geometry . The main support to this conjecture comes from the fact that both the EE of matter fields and the Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy depend on the area of the boundary region. On the other hand any attempt to explain the BH entropy as originating from quantum entanglement has to solve conceptual and technical difficulties. The usual statistical paradigm explains the BH entropy in terms of a microstate gas. This is conceptually different from the EE that measures the observer's lack of information about the quantum state of the system in a inaccessible region of spacetime. Moreover, the EE depends both on the number of species $n_{s}$ of the matter fields, whose entanglement should reproduce the BH entropy, and on the value of the UV cutoff $\delta$ arising owing to the presence of a sharp boundary between the accessible and inaccessible regions of the spacetime. Conversely, the BH entropy is meant to be universal, hence independent from $n_{s}$ and $\delta$. Some conceptual difficulties can be solved using Sakharov's induced gravity approach , but the problem of the dependence on $n_{s}$ and $\delta$ still remains unsolved. In this letter we will show that in the case of two-dimensional AdS black hole these difficulties can be completely solved. We will derive an expression for the black hole EE that in the large black hole mass limit reproduces exactly the BH entropy. Moreover, we will show that the subleading term has the universal behavior typical for CFTs and in particular for critical phenomena. The reason of this success is related to the peculiarities of 2D AdS gravity, namely the existence of an AdS/CFT correspondence and the fact that 2D Newton constant can be considered as wholly induced by quantum fluctuations of the dual CFT. Most of the progress in understanding the EE in QFT has been achieved in the case of 2D CFT. Conformal invariance in two space-time dimension is a powerful tool that allows us to compute the EE in closed form. The entanglement entropy for the ground state of a 2D CFT originated from tracing over correlations between spacelike separated points has been calculated by Holzhey, Larsen and Wilckzek . Introducing an infrared cutoff $\Lambda$ the spacelike coordinate of our 2D universe will belong to ${\cal C}= [0,\Lambda[�$. The subsystem where measurements are performed is $Q=[0,\Sigma[$, whereas the outside region where the degrees of freedom are traced over is $R=[\Sigma, \Lambda[$. Because of the contribution of localized excitations arbitrarily near to the boundary the entanglement entropy diverges. Introducing an ultraviolet cutoff $\delta$, the regularized entanglement entropy turns out to be \beq\lb{f5} S_{ent}= \frac{c+\bar c}{6}\ln\left(\frac{\Lambda}{\delta \pi}\sin\frac{\pi \Sigma}{\Lambda}\right), \feq where $c$ and $\bar c$ are the central charges of the 2D CFT. The expression () emphasizes the characterizing features of the entanglement entropy, namely subadditivity and invariance under the transformation which exchanges the inside and outside regions \beq\lb{f6} \Sigma\to \Lambda-\Sigma. \feq Moreover, $S_{ent}$ is not a monotonic function of $\Sigma$, but increases and reaches its maximum for $\Sigma=\Lambda/2$ and then decreases as $\Sigma$ increases further. This behavior has an obvious explanation. When the subsystem begins to fill most of the universe there is lesser information to be lost and the entanglement entropy decreases. Let us now consider 2D AdS black holes. As classical solutions of a 2D gravity theory they are endowed with a non-constant scalar field, the dilaton $\Phi$. In the Schwarzschild gauge the 2D AdS black hole solutions are , \beq\lb{f2} ds^{2}= -\left(\frac{r^{2}}{L^{2}}-a^{2}�\right)dt^{2}+ \left(\frac{r^{2}}{L^{2}}-a^{2}�\right)^{-1}�dr^{2},\quad \Phi= \Phi_{0}\frac{r}{L}, \feq where the length $L$ is related to cosmological constant of the AdS spacetime ($\lambda=1/L^{2}$), $\Phi_{0}$ is the dimensionless 2D inverse Newton constant and $a$ is an integration constants related to the black hole mass $M$ and horizon radius $r_{h}$ by \beq\lb{f3} a=\frac{r_{h}}{L}=\sqrt{\frac{2ML}{\Phi_{0}}}. \feq The thermodynamical, Bekenstein-Hawking, entropy of the black hole is \beq\lb{f3a} S_{BH}�= 2\pi\Phi_{0}� a= 2\pi \sqrt{2\Phi_{0}ML}, \feq whereas the black hole temperature is $T=a/2\pi L$. Setting $a=0$ in Eq. () we have the AdS black hole ground state ( in the following called AdS$_{0}$) with zero mass, temperature and entropy. The AdS black hole () can be considered as the thermalization of the AdS$_{0}$ solution at temperature $a/2\pi L$ . It has been shown that the 2D black hole has a dual description in terms of a CFT with central charge \beq\lb{f4} c= 12\Phi_{0}. \feq The dual CFT can have both the form of a 2D or a 1D conformal field theory. This AdS$_{2}$/CFT$_{2}$ ( or AdS$_{2}$/CFT$_{1}$) correspondence has been used to give a microscopical meaning to the thermodynamical entropy of 2D AdS black holes. Eq. () has been reproduced by counting states in the dual CFT. In Ref. (see also Refs. \cite{Susskind:1994sm, Frolov:1996aj,Frolov:1997up}) it was observed that in two dimensions black hole entropy can be ascribed to quantum entanglement if 2D Newton constant is wholly induced by quantum fluctuations of matter fields. On the other hand the AdS$_{2}$/CFT$_{2}$ correspondence, and in particular Eq. (), tells us that the 2D Newton constant is induced by quantum fluctuations of the dual CFT. It follows that the black hole entropy () should be explained as the entanglement of the vacuum of the 2D CFT of central charge given by Eq. () in the gravitational black hole background (). At first sight one is tempted to use Eq. () to calculate the entanglement entropy of the vacuum of the dual CFT. The exterior region of the 2D black hole can be easily identified with the region $Q$, whereas the black hole interior has to be identified with the $R$ region where the degrees of freedom are traced over. There are two obstacles that prevents direct application of Eq. (). First, Eq. () holds for a 2D flat spacetime, whereas we are dealing with a curved 2D background. Second, the calculations leading to Eq. () are performed for spacelike slice $Q$, whereas in our case the coordinate singularities at $r=r_{h}$ (the horizon) and $r=\infty$ (the timelike asymptotic boundary of the AdS spacetime) do not allow for a global notion of spacelike coordinate (a coordinate system covering the whole black hole spacetime in which the metric is non-singular and static). Owing to these geometrical features, in the black hole case we cannot give a direct meaning to {\sl both} the measures $\Sigma$ and $(\Lambda-\Sigma)$ of the subsystems $Q,R$. As a consequence invariance under the transformation () is meaningless in the black hole case. The second difficulty can be circumvented using appropriate coordinate system and regularization procedure, the first using instead of Eq. () the formula derived by Fiola et al. , which gives the EE of the vacuum of matter fields in the case of a curved gravitational background. In the coordinate system used to define the vacuum of scalar fields in AdS$_{2}$, the 2D black hole metric () is \beq\lb{f9} ds^{2}= \frac{a^{2}}{\sinh^{2}(\frac{a\sigma}{L})}\left(-dt^{2}+d\sigma^{2}\right). \feq The coordinate system $(t,\sigma)$ covers only the black hole exterior. The black hole horizon corresponds to $\sigma= \infty$ where the conformal factor of the metric vanishes. The asymptotic $r=\infty$ timelike conformal boundary of the AdS$_{2}$ spacetime is located at $\sigma=0$, where the conformal factor diverges. The entanglement entropy of the CFT vacuum in the curved background () can be calculated, using the formula of Ref. as the half line entanglement entropy seen by an observer in the $0<\sigma<\infty$ region. From the CFT point of view the AdS black hole has to be considered as the AdS$_{0}$ vacuum seen by the observer using the black hole coordinates () . Moreover, this observer sees the the AdS$_{0}$ vacuum as filled with thermal radiation with {\sl negative} flux . It follows that the black hole entanglement entropy is given by the formula of Ref. with reversed sign, \beq\lb{f7} S_{ent}^{(bh)}�= -\frac{c}{6}\left( \rho(\sigma=0)- \ln\frac{\delta}{\Lambda }\right), \feq where $\rho$ defines the conformal factor of the metric in the conformal gauge ($ds^{2}= \exp(2\rho)(-dt^{2}+d\sigma^{2})$), $c$ is the central charge given by Eq. () and $\delta,\Lambda$ are respectively UV and IR cutoffs. Notice that in Eq. () we have only contributions from only one sector (e.g. right movers) of the CFT. In Ref. it has been shown that the 2D AdS black hole is dual to an open string with appropriate boundary conditions. These boundary conditions are such that only one sector of the CFT$_{2}$ is present. The same is obviously true for the AdS$_{2}$/CFT$_{1}$ realization of the correspondence . The conformal factor of the metric (), hence the entanglement entropy () blows up on the $\sigma=0$ boundary of the AdS spacetime. The simplest regularization procedure that solves this problem is to consider a regularized boundary at $\sigma=\ep$. Notice that $\ep$ plays the role of a UV cutoff for the coordinate $\sigma$, which is the natural spacelike coordinate of the dual CFT. $\ep$ is an IR cutoff for the coordinate $r$, which is the natural spacelike coordinate for the AdS$_{2}$ black hole. The regularized euclidean instanton corresponding to the black hole () is shown in figure (). The regularizing parameter $\ep$ can be set equal to the UV cutoff, $\delta=\ep$. Moreover, the regularized boundary is at finite proper distance from the horizon so that $\ep$ acts also as IR regulator, making the presence of the IR cutoff $\Lambda$ in Eq. () redundant. It follows that the regularized EE is given by $S_{ent}^{(bh)}�= -\frac{c}{6}\left( \rho(\ep)- \ln\frac{\ep}{L} \right)$, which using equations () and () becomes \beq\lb{f11a} S_{ent}^{(bh)}=\frac{c}{6} \ln \left( \frac{L^{2}�}{r_{h}\ep} \sinh \frac{\ep r_{h}}{L^{2}}\right). \feq As a check of the validity of our formula we note that in the case of AdS$_0$ ($r_{h}=0$) the entanglement entropy vanishes. The AdS/CFT correspondence enable us to identify the cutoff $\ep$ as the UV cutoff of the CFT : $\ep\propto L$. The proportionality factor can be determined by requiring that the analytical continuation of Eq. () is invariant under the transformation () (see later). This requirement fixes $\ep=\pi L$. With this position we get \beq\lb{f11b} S_{ent}^{(bh)}=\frac{c}{6} \ln \left( \frac{L�}{\pi r_{h}} \sinh \frac{\pi r_{h}}{L}\right). \feq This formula is our main result, it gives the entanglement entropy of the 2D AdS black hole. This entanglement entropy has the expected behavior as a function of the horizon radius $r_{h}$ or, equivalently, of the black hole mass $M$. $S_{ent}^{(bh)}$ becomes zero in the AdS$_{0}$ ground state, $r_{h}�=0$ ($M=0$), whereas it grows monotonically for $r_{h}>0$ ($M>0$). In order to compare the black hole EE () with the BH entropy () let us consider the limit of macroscopic black holes, that is the limit $a\to \infty$ or equivalently $r_{h}>> L$ or also $M>>1/L$. Expanding Eq. () and using Eqs. () and () we get \beq\lb{f12} S_{ent}^{(bh)}= 2\pi \sqrt{2\Phi_{0}ML}- \Phi_{0}�\ln LM +O(1)= S_{BH}- 2\Phi_{0}\ln S_{BH} +O(1). \feq We have obtained the remarkable result that the leading term in the large mass expansion of the black hole entanglement entropy reproduces exactly the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. Moreover, the subleading term behaves as the logarithm of the BH entropy and describes quantum corrections to $S_{BH}$. It is an universally accepted result that the quantum corrections to the BH entropy behave as $\ln S_{BH}$ \cite{Fursaev:1994te,Mann:1997hm,Kaul:2000kf,Carlip:2000nv,Ghosh:1994wb, Mukherji:2002de,Setare:2003vv,Domagala:2004jt,Medved:2004eh,Grumiller:2005vy}. However, there is no general consensus about the value of the prefactor of this term. For the microcanonical ensemble this term has to be negative, whereas there are positive contributions coming from thermal fluctuation. Equation () fixes the prefactor of $\ln S_{BH}$ in terms of the 2D Newton constant. This result contradicts some previous results supporting a $\Phi_{0}$-independent value of the prefactor. Our result is consistent with the approach followed in this paper, which considers 2D gravity as induced from the quantum fluctuations of a CFT with central charge $12\Phi_{0}$. The first (Bekenstein-Hawking) term in Eq. () is the induced entanglement entropy, whereas the second term, $-( c/6)\ln (r_{h}/L)$, is determined by the conformal symmetry. It gives the entanglement entropy () of a CFT in 2D flat spacetime with central charge $12\Phi_{0}$ and $\Sigma=r_{h}$ in the limit $\Sigma <<\Lambda$ . The subleading term in Eq. () represents therefore an universal behavior shared with other systems described by 2D QFTs, such as one-dimensional statistical models near to the critical point (with the black hole radius $r_{h}$ corresponding to the correlation length) or free scalars fields . Eq. () shows a close resemblance with the CFT entanglement entropy (). Eqs. () and () differs in two main points: the absence in the black hole case of something corresponding to the measure of the whole space (the parameter $\Lambda$ in Eq. ()) and the appearance of hyperbolic instead of trigonometric functions. These are expected features for the entanglement entropy of a black hole. They solve the problems concerning the application of formula (\ref {f5}) to the black hole case. For a black hole one cannot define a measure of the whole space analogue to $\Lambda$. For static solutions the coordinate system covers only the black hole exterior. The appearance of hyperbolic instead of trigonometric functions allows for monotonic increasing of $S_{ent}^{(bh)}(r_{h})�$, eliminating the unphysical decreasing behavior of $S_{ent}(\Sigma)$ in the region $\Sigma> \Lambda/2$. It is interesting to see how Eq. () can be obtained as the analytic continuation $r_{h}\to i r_{h}$ of our formula (), i.e by considering an AdS black hole with negative mass. The analytically continued black hole solution is given by Eq. () with $a^{2}<0$. In the conformal gauge the solution reads now $ds^{2}= [a^{2}/\sin^{2}(a\sigma /L)](-dt^{2}+d\sigma^{2})$. The range of the spacelike coordinate, corresponding to $0< r<\infty$, is now $0<\sigma< \pi L/2a$. Regularizing the solution at $\sigma=0$ by introducing the cutoff $\ep$ we get the euclidean instanton shown in Fig. (). In terms of the 2D CFT we have to trace over the degrees of freedom outside the spacelike slice $\ep <\sigma< \pi L/2a$. The related entanglement entropy can be calculated using the formula of Ref. in the case of a spacelike slice with two boundary points: $S_{ent}= -c/6 [\rho(\ep)+\rho(\pi L/2a)-\ln(\delta/\Lambda)]$. Applying this formula to the case of the black hole solution of negative mass, identifying $\ep$ in terms of the IR cutoff $\Lambda$, $\ep= \pi L^{2}/\Lambda$, and redefining appropriately the UV cutoff $\delta$, we get \beq\lb{f15} S_{ent}= \frac{c}{6} \ln \left(\frac{\Lambda}{\pi \delta} \sin\frac{\pi r_{h}}{\Lambda}\right). \feq Thus, the entanglement entropy of the 2D CFT in the curved background given by the AdS black hole of negative mass has exactly the form given by Eq. () with the horizon radius $r_{h}$ playing the role of $\Sigma$. Notice that the presence of the factor $\pi$ in the argument of the $\sin$-function is necessary if one wants invariance under the transformation (). The requirement that equation () is the analytic continuation of Eq. () fixes, as previously anticipated, the proportionality factor between $\ep$ and $L$ in the calculations leading to Eq. (). In this letter we have derived a formula for the entanglement entropy of 2D AdS black holes that has nice striking features. The leading term in the large black hole mass expansion reproduces exactly the BH entropy. The subleading term has the right $\ln S_{BH}$, behavior of the quantum corrections to the BH formula and represents an universal term typical of CFTs. Analytic continuation to negative black hole masses give exactly the entanglement entropy of 2D CFT with the black hole radius playing the role of the measure of the observable spacelike slice in the CFT. Our results rely heavily on peculiarities of 2D AdS gravity, namely the existence of an AdS/CFT correspondence and on the fact that 2D Newton constant arises from quantum fluctuation of the dual CFT. The generalization of our approach to higher dimensional gravity theories is therefore far from being trivial. A related problem is the form of the coefficient of the $\ln S_{BH}$ term. In the 2D context our result, stating that this coefficient is given in terms of the 2D Newton constant (or equivalently the central charge of the dual CFT) is rather natural. For higher dimensional gravity theories this is again a rather subtle point. \acknowledgements I thank G. D'Appollonio for discussions and valuable comments. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Vidal:2002rm} G.~Vidal, J.~I.~Latorre, E.~Rico and A.~Kitaev, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90} (2003) 227902 [arXiv:quant-ph/0211074]. \bibitem{its} A.~R.~Its, B.~Q.~ Jin, V.~ E.~Korepin, J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 38} (2005) 2975 [arXiv:quant-ph/0409027]. \bibitem{Kitaev:2005dm} A.~Kitaev and J.~Preskill, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96} (2006) 110404 [arXiv:hep-th/0510092]. \bibitem{Latorre:2004pk} J.~I.~Latorre, C.~A.~Lutken, E.~Rico and G.~Vidal, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 71} (2005) 034301 [arXiv:quant-ph/0404120]. \bibitem{korepin} V.~E.~ Korepin, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2003) 964021. \bibitem{Holzhey:1994we} C.~Holzhey, F.~Larsen and F.~Wilczek, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 424} (1994) 443 [arXiv:hep-th/9403108]. \bibitem{Calabrese:2004eu} P.~Calabrese and J.~L.~Cardy, J.\ Stat.\ Mech.\ {\bf 0406} (2004) P002 [arXiv:hep-th/0405152]. \bibitem{Casini:2004bw} H.~Casini and M.~Huerta, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 600} (2004) 142 [arXiv:hep-th/0405111]. \bibitem{Fursaev:2006ng} D.~V.~Fursaev, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 124025 [arXiv:hep-th/0602134]. \bibitem{Solodukhin:2006xv} S.~N.~Solodukhin, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97} (2006) 201601 [arXiv:hep-th/0606205]. \bibitem{Ryu:2006bv} S.~Ryu and T.~Takayanagi, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96} (2006) 181602 [arXiv:hep-th/0603001]. \bibitem{Ryu:2006ef} S.~Ryu and T.~Takayanagi, JHEP {\bf 0608} (2006) 045 [arXiv:hep-th/0605073]. \bibitem{'tHooft:1984re} G.~'t Hooft, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 256} (1985) 727. \bibitem{Bombelli:1986rw} L.~Bombelli, R.~K.~Koul, J.~H.~Lee and R.~D.~Sorkin, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 34} (1986) 373. \bibitem{Frolov:1993ym} V.~P.~Frolov and I.~Novikov, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 4545 [arXiv:gr-qc/9309001]. \bibitem{Fiola:1994ir} T.~M.~Fiola, J.~Preskill, A.~Strominger and S.~P.~Trivedi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 3987 [arXiv:hep-th/9403137]. \bibitem{Belgiorno:1995xc} F.~Belgiorno and S.~Liberati, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 3172 [arXiv:gr-qc/9503022]. \bibitem{Hawking:2000da} S.~Hawking, J.~M.~Maldacena and A.~Strominger, JHEP {\bf 0105} (2001) 001 [arXiv:hep-th/0002145]. \bibitem{Maldacena:2001kr} J.~M.~Maldacena, JHEP {\bf 0304} (2003) 021 [arXiv:hep-th/0106112]. \bibitem{Brustein:2005vx} R.~Brustein, M.~B.~Einhorn and A.~Yarom, JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 098 [arXiv:hep-th/0508217]. \bibitem{Emparan:2006ni} R.~Emparan, JHEP {\bf 0606} (2006) 012 [arXiv:hep-th/0603081]. \bibitem{Valtancoli:2006wv} P.~Valtancoli, arXiv:hep-th/0612049. \bibitem{Jacobson:1994iw} T.~Jacobson, arXiv:gr-qc/9404039. \bibitem{Frolov:1996aj} V.~P.~Frolov, D.~V.~Fursaev and A.~I.~Zelnikov, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 486} (1997) 339 [arXiv:hep-th/9607104]. \bibitem{Frolov:1997up} V.~P.~Frolov and D.~V.~Fursaev, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 2212 [arXiv:hep-th/9703178]. \bibitem{Cadoni:1994uf} M.~Cadoni and S.~Mignemi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 4319 [arXiv:hep-th/9410041]. \bibitem{Cadoni:1998sg} M.~Cadoni and S.~Mignemi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 081501 [arXiv:hep-th/9810251]. \bibitem{Cadoni:1999ja} M.~Cadoni and S.~Mignemi, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 557} (1999) 165 [arXiv:hep-th/9902040]. \bibitem{Cadoni:2000kr} M.~Cadoni and M.~Cavaglia, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 315 [arXiv:hep-th/0005179]. \bibitem{Cadoni:2000fq} M.~Cadoni and M.~Cavaglia, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 084024 [arXiv:hep-th/0008084]. \bibitem{Susskind:1994sm} L.~Susskind and J.~Uglum, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 2700 [arXiv:hep-th/9401070]. \bibitem{Fursaev:1994te} D.~V.~Fursaev, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 5352 [arXiv:hep-th/9412161]. \bibitem{Mann:1997hm} R.~B.~Mann and S.~N.~Solodukhin, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 523} (1998) 293 [arXiv:hep-th/9709064]. \bibitem{Kaul:2000kf} R.~K.~Kaul and P.~Majumdar, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84} (2000) 5255 [arXiv:gr-qc/0002040]. \bibitem{Carlip:2000nv} S.~Carlip, Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 17} (2000) 4175 [arXiv:gr-qc/0005017]. \bibitem{Ghosh:1994wb} A.~Ghosh and P.~Mitra, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73} (1994) 2521 [arXiv:hep-th/9406210]. \bibitem{Mukherji:2002de} S.~Mukherji and S.~S.~Pal, JHEP {\bf 0205} (2002) 026 [arXiv:hep-th/0205164]. \bibitem{Setare:2003vv} M.~R.~Setare, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 573} (2003) 173 [arXiv:hep-th/0311106]. \bibitem{Domagala:2004jt} M.~Domagala and J.~Lewandowski, Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 21} (2004) 5233 [arXiv:gr-qc/0407051]. \bibitem{Medved:2004eh} A.~J.~M.~Medved, Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 22} (2005) 133 [arXiv:gr-qc/0406044]. \bibitem{Grumiller:2005vy} D.~Grumiller, arXiv:hep-th/0506175. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0141
|
Title: Towards self-consistent definition of instanton liquid parameters
Abstract: The possibility of self-consistent determination of instanton liquid
parameters is discussed together with the definition of optimal pseudo-particle
configurations and comparing the various pseudo-particle ensembles. The
weakening of repulsive interactions between pseudo-particles is argued and
estimated.
Body: \begin{center} {\Large \bf Towards self-consistent definition of instanton liquid parameters}\\ \vspace{0.5cm} S.V. Molodtsov$^{1,2}$, G.M. Zinovjev$^{3}$ \\ \vspace{0.5cm} {\small $^1$Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980, Dubna, Moscow region, Russia} \\ \vspace{0.5cm} {\small $^2$Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, RU-117259, Moscow, Russia} \\ \vspace{0.5cm} {\small $^3$Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, UA-03680, Kiev-143, Ukraine} \end{center} \vspace{0.5cm} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{p{16cm}} {\small{The possibility of self-consistent determination of instanton liquid parameters is discussed together with the definition of optimal pseudo-particle configurations and comparing the various pseudo-particle ensembles. The weakening of repulsive interactions between pseudo-particles is argued and estimated.}} \end{tabular} \end{center} \vspace{0.5cm} The problem of finding the most effective pseudo-particle profile for instanton liquid (IL) model of the QCD vacuum has already been formulated in the first papers treating the pseudo-particle superposition as the quasi-classical configuration saturating the generating functional of the following form \begin{equation} Z=\int D[ {\cal A}]~e^{-S( {\cal A})}~, \end{equation} where $S( {\cal A})$ is the Yang-Mills action. Although the solution proposed in Ref. was quite acceptable phenomenologically the consequent more accurate analysis discovered several imperfect conclusions putting into doubt the assertion about the instanton ensemble getting stabilization and some additional mechanism should be introduced to fix such an ensemble . In this note we revisit the task formulated in Ref. within the self-consistent approach proposed in our previous paper . We are not speculating on the detailed mechanism of stabilizing and are based on one crucial assumption which is the existence of non-zero gluon condensate in the QCD vacuum. This idea is not very original but turns out far reaching in the context of our approach. The particular form and properties of this condensate will be discussed in the following paper. Thus, as the configuration saturating the generating functional () we take the following superposition \begin{equation} {\cal A}^{a}_\mu(x)=B^a_{\mu}(x)+\sum_{i=1}^N A^{a}_\mu(x;\gamma_i)~, \end{equation} here $A^a_{\mu}$ stands for the (anti-)instanton field in the singular gauge \begin{equation} A^a_{\mu}(x;\gamma)=\frat2g~\omega^{ab}\bar\eta_{b\mu\nu}~\frat{y_\nu}{y^2}~f(y),~~~y=x-z~, \end{equation} $\gamma_i=(\rho_i,z_i,\omega_i)$ denotes all the parameters describing the $i$-th (anti-)instanton, in particular, its size $\rho$, colour orientation $\omega$, center position $z$ and as usual $g$ is the coupling constant of gauge field. The function $f(y)$ introduces the pseudo-particle profile and will be fixed by resolving the suitable variational problem. For example, for the conventional singular instanton it looks like \begin{equation} f(y)=\frat{1}{1+\frat{y^2}{\rho^2}}~. \end{equation} In analogy with this form we consider the function $f$ depending on $y^2$ or, more precisely, on the variable ${\mbox{x}}=\frat{y^2}{\bar\rho^2}$ at some characteristic mean pseudo-particle size $\bar\rho$. Dealing with the anti-instanton one should make the substitution of the 't Hooft symbol $\bar\eta \to \eta$. It is seen from () we 'singled out' one pseudo-particle of ensemble and introduced the special symbol $B$ for its field which actually has the same form as Eq. (). The strength tensor of this 'external' field and the field of every separate pseudo-particle $A$ can be written as \begin{equation} G_{\mu\nu}^a=G_{\mu\nu}^a(B)+G_{\mu\nu}^a(A)+G_{\mu\nu}^a(A,B)~, \end{equation} where two first terms are given by the standard definition of field strength \begin{equation} G_{\mu\nu}^a(A)=\partial_\mu A^a_{\nu}-\partial_\nu A^a_{\mu}+g~f^{abc} A^b_{\mu} A^c_{\nu}~, \end{equation} with the entirely antisymmetric tensor $f^{abc}$. In particular, for the singular instanton of Eq. () it takes the form \begin{equation} G^a_{\mu\nu}=-\frat4g~\omega^{ak}\left[\bar\eta_{k\alpha\beta} ~\frat{f(1-f)}{y^2}+(\bar\eta_{k\mu\beta}~y_\nu-\bar\eta_{k\nu\alpha}~y_\mu)~\frat{y_\alpha}{y^2}~ \left(f'-\frat{f(1-f)}{y^2}\right)\right]~, \end{equation} where $f'$ means the derivative over $y^2$. The third term of Eq. () presents the 'mixed' component of field strength and is \begin{equation} G_{\mu\nu}^a(A,B)=g~f^{abc}(B^b_{\mu}A^{c}_\nu-B^b_{\nu}A^{c}_\mu) =g~f^{abc}\omega^{cd}~\frat2g~ (B^{b}_\mu ~\bar\eta_{d\nu\alpha}-B^{b}_\nu ~\bar\eta_{d\mu\alpha})~\frat{y_{\alpha}}{y^2}~f. \end{equation} It was shown in Ref. that in quasi-classical regime which is of particular interest for applications, the generating functional () could be essentially simplified if reformulated in terms of the field $B_{\cal A}$ averaged over ensemble ${\cal A}$. Performing the cluster decomposition of stochastic exponent in Eq. () \begin{equation} \langle \exp (-S)\rangle_{\omega z}=\exp\left(~\sum_k \frat{(-1)^k}{k!}~\langle\langle S^k\rangle\rangle_{\omega z}\right)~, \end{equation} where $\langle S_1\rangle=\langle\langle S_1\rangle\rangle$, $\langle S_1 S_2\rangle=\langle S_1\rangle\langle S_2\rangle +\langle\langle S_1 S_2\rangle\rangle, \dots$ (the first cumulant is simply defined by averaging the action) the higher terms of effective action for the 'external' field in IL could be presented as \begin{equation} \langle \langle S[B_{\cal A}] \rangle\rangle_{\cal A}=\int d^4x~ \left( \frat{G(B_{\cal A})~G(B_{\cal A})}{4}+\frat{m^2}{2}~B_{{\cal A}}^2\right)~, \end{equation} and the mass $m$ is defined by the IL parameters developing for the standard singular pseudo-particles () the following form (see, also below) \begin{equation} m^2=9\pi^2~n~\bar\rho^2~\frat{N_c}{N_c^{2}-1}~, \end{equation} with $n=N/V$ where $N$ is the total number of pseudoparticles in the volume $V$ and $N_c$ is the number of colours. The small magnitude of characteristic IL parameter (packing fraction) $n\bar\rho^4$ allows us at decomposing to keep the contributions of one pseudo-particle term ($\sim n$) only. The effective action in Eq. () implies a functional integration in which the vacuum stochastic fields are not destroyed by the external field. Then there is no reason to develop the detailed description of the field $B$ driven by the symmetries of initial gauge invariant Lagrangian for the Yang-Mills fields. In practice it could be understood as an argument to do use the averaged action dealing with the field $B$. It means the colourless binary (and similar even) configurations only of field $B$ survive in the effective action. In other words the decomposition $B\simeq B_{\cal A}+\cdots$ is used (in what follows we are not maintaining the index for the field $B$). Obviously, if there is any need of more detailed description including, for example, information on the fluctuations of field $B$ one should operate with the correlation functions of higher order and the corresponding chain of the Bogolyubov equations. The selfconsistent description of pseudo-particle ensemble may not be developed based on Eq. () only because in such a form the pseudo-particles of zero size $\rho=0$ are most advantageous. In Ref. the version of variational principle was proposed which makes it possible to determine the selfconsistent solution in long wave-length approximation for the pseudo-particle ensemble (anti-instantons in the singular gauge with standard profile ()) and external field. Here it adapts to the saturating configuration () also and its more optimal (than standard) profile is defined, as suggested in Ref. , taking into account the IL parameter change while the pseudo-particle field is present. The contribution of saturating configuration into the generating functional is evaluated as (see for the denotions) \begin{equation} Z\simeq Y=\int D[B]~ \frat{1}{N!} \int \prod_{i=1}^N~ d\gamma_i~~e^{-S(B,\gamma)}~. \end{equation} The following terms should be taken into consideration \begin{equation} S(B,\gamma)=-\sum_{i=1}^N \ln d(\rho_i)+ \beta~U_{int}+\sum_{i=1}^N U_{ext}^i(B)+S(B)~, \end{equation} (the details of deducing this expression can be found in ). Here we remind only that to obtain it one should average over the pseudo-particle parameters and to hold the highest contributions only at summing up the pseudo-particles. If the saturating configurations are the instantons in singular gauge with the standard profile () the first term describing the one instanton contributions takes the form of distribution function over (anti-)instanton sizes \begin{equation} d(\rho)= C_{N_c} \Lambda^b~\rho^{b-5} \widetilde\beta^{2 N_c}, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} b=\frac{11}{3} N_c-\frac{2}{3}N_f~, \end{equation} $\widetilde\beta=-b \ln(\Lambda \bar\rho)$, $$C_{N_c}\approx\frac{4.66~\exp(-1.68 N_c)}{\pi^2(N_c-1)!(N_c-2)!}~.$$ If one considers the profile of Eq. () the change of one pseudo-particle action which has the form \begin{equation} S_i=3~\int_0^{\infty}\frat{d y^2}{y^2}~\beta~\left[(y^2 f')^2+f^2(1-f)^2\right]~, \end{equation} should be absorbed while calculating. Here $\beta=8\pi^2/g^2$ is the characteristic action of single pseudo-particle () which is defined at the scale of average pseudo-particle size $\beta=\beta(\bar\rho)$ where $\beta(\rho)=-\ln C_{N_c}-b \ln(\Lambda \rho)$. The coefficient $b$ enters the corresponding equations (in particular the distribution function ()) always with the additional factor $s=\frat{S_i}{\beta}$. It means that in all the formula containing the one instanton contribution the following substitution \begin{equation} b\to b~s~. \end{equation} should be done. The penultimate term of Eq. () accumulates the partial pseudo-particle contributions coming from the 'mixed' component of the strength tensor () and describing the interaction of pseudo-particle ensemble with the detached one, i.e. $$U_{ext}^i(B)=\int d^4x ~\left\langle\frat{G_{\mu\nu}^a(A_i,B)~ G_{\mu\nu}^a(A_i,B)}{4}\right\rangle_{\gamma_i}~.$$ The other terms at the characteristic IL parameters are small as it was shown in Ref. . The average value of 'mixed' component is given by the following formula \begin{equation} \langle G_{\mu\nu}^a(A,B)~G_{\mu\nu}^a(A,B) \rangle_{\omega z}= \frat{18}{V}\frat{N_c}{N_c^{2}-1}~I ~~B^{b}_\mu ~B^{b}_\mu~,~~B^2=\frat{12}{g^2}~\frat{f^2}{y^2}~, \end{equation} here $I$ is defined by the integrated profile function of pseudo-particle $$I_{\alpha,\beta}=\delta_{\alpha,\beta}~I=\int dy~ \frat{y_\alpha y_\beta}{y^4}~f^2~,~~ I=\frat{\pi^2\rho^2}{4}~\int_{0}^\infty d{\mbox{x}}~f^2~,~~{\mbox{x}}=\frat{y^2}{\rho^2}~. $$ In particular, for the standard form of pseudo-particle we have $$\int_{0}^\infty d{\mbox{x}}~f^2=1~. $$ The corresponding constant (see ) $\zeta_0=\frac{9~\pi^2}{2}~\frac{N_c}{N_c^2-1}$ should be changed for the modified one $$\zeta=\lambda \zeta_0~,~~{\mbox{�}}~~\lambda=\int_{0}^\infty d{\mbox{x}}~f^2~,$$ in all terms describing the interaction of IL with detached pseudo-particle if the profile function $f$ is arbitrary. Eq. () demonstrates that we are formally dealing with non-zero value of gluon condensate which is given by the correlation function \begin{equation} \langle A^a_{\mu}(x;\gamma) A^a_{\mu}(y;\gamma) \rangle_{\omega z}= \frat{4}{g^2}~\frat{N_c}{N_c^{2}-1}\frat{\rho^2}{V}~ F\left(\frat{|x-y|}{\rho}\right)~. \end{equation} For the pseudo-particle of standard form the function $F(\Delta)$ equals to \begin{eqnarray} F(\Delta)&=&\frat{\pi^2}{4}~\frat{\Delta^2+2}{|\Delta|}\sqrt{\Delta^2+4}~ \ln\left|\frat{\sqrt{\Delta^2+4}(\Delta^2+1)+\Delta^3+3\Delta} {\sqrt{\Delta^2+4}-\Delta}\right|-\nonumber\\ [-.2cm] \\[-.25cm] &-&\pi^2~\frat{(\Delta^2+1)^2}{\Delta^2}~\ln(1+\Delta^2)+\pi^2~\Delta^2~\ln |\Delta|~,\nonumber \end{eqnarray} with the asymptotic behaviours $$\lim_{\Delta\to 0} F(\Delta)\to \pi^2-\frat{\pi^2}{3}~ \Delta^2+\pi^2 ~\Delta^2~\ln |\Delta|~,~~~~~\lim_{\Delta\to \infty} F(\Delta)\to \frat{\pi^2}{\Delta^2}~.$$ The presence of this condensate () which leads, in particular, to the mass definition as in () just signifies the assumption mentioned at the beginning this note. The second term of () describes the repulsive interaction between the pseudo-particles of ensemble $$\beta~U_{int}=\sum_{i,j}\int d^4x ~\left\langle\frat{G_{\mu\nu}^a(A_i,A_j)~ G_{\mu\nu}^a(A_i,A_j)}{4}\right\rangle_{\gamma_i, \gamma_j}~, $$ and actually presents the same contribution as $U_{ext}$ but being integrated with the field $B$ of every individual pseudo-particle as $\beta~U_{int}=\int d^4x ~\frat{m^2}{2}~B^2$. It results in the change of coupling constant $\xi_{0}^2=\frac{27~\pi^2}{4}\frac{N_c}{N_c^{2}-1}$ describing the pseudo-particle interaction (see ) for new form $$\xi^2=\lambda^2~\xi_{0}^2~,$$ (similar to the change of constant $\zeta$). And eventually the last term of Eq. () presents simply the Yang-Mills action of the $B$ field $$S(B)=\int d^4x~\frat{G_{\mu\nu}^a(B)~ G_{\mu\nu}^a(B)}{4}~.$$ It is worthwhile to notice that the topological charge of the configuration () is retained to be equal to $$N=\frat{1}{\beta}~\int d^4x~ \frat{G^a_{\mu\nu}\widetilde G^a_{\mu\nu}}{4}=-6~ \int_{0}^\infty d{\mbox{x}}~f' f(1-f)=1~,~~ \widetilde G^a_{\mu\nu}=\frat{1}{2}~\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}~G^a_{\alpha\beta}~, $$ here $\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ is an entirely antisymmetric tensor, $\varepsilon_{1234}=1$. The generating functional () might be estimated with the approximating functional (see ) as \begin{equation} Y\ge Y_1~\exp(-\langle S-S_1\rangle)~, \end{equation} where $$Y_1=\int D[B]~ \frat{1}{N!} \int \prod_{i=1}^N~ d\gamma_i~~e^{-S_1(B,\gamma)-S(B)}~, ~~~S_1(B,\gamma)=-\sum \ln \mu(\rho_i)~,$$ and $\mu(\rho)$ is an effective one particle distribution function defined by solving the variational problem. In our particular situation the average value of difference of the actions is given as follows \begin{eqnarray} &&\langle S-S_1\rangle=\frat{1}{Y_1}~\frat{1}{N!} \int~\prod_{i=1}^N~ d \gamma_i~ [\beta~U_{int}+U_{ext}(\gamma,B)-\sum\ln d(\rho_i)+\sum \ln \mu(\rho_i)] ~e^{~\sum \ln \mu (\rho_i)}=\nonumber\\ &&=\frat{N}{\mu_0}~\int d \rho~ \mu (\rho)~\ln \frat{\mu (\rho)}{d (\rho)}+\frat{\beta}{2}~\frat{N^2}{V^2}~\frat{1}{\mu_0^{2}} ~\int d\gamma_1 d\gamma_2~U_{int}(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)~ \mu (\rho_1) \mu (\rho_2)+\nonumber\\ &&+\int d^4x~ \frat{N}{V}~\int d \rho~\frat{\mu (\rho)}{\mu_0}~\rho^2 \zeta~B^2=\nonumber\\ &&=\int d^4x~ n~ \left(~\int d \rho~ \frat{\mu (\rho)}{\mu_0}~\ln \frat{\mu (\rho)}{d (\rho)}+\frat{\beta \xi^2}{2}~n \left( \overline{ \rho^2}\right)^2 +\zeta \overline{\rho^2}~B^2\right)~, \end{eqnarray} with $\mu_0=\int d \rho~ \mu (\rho)$. In this note we estimate the functionals in the long wave length (adiabatic) approximation, i.e. consider the IL elements to be equilibrated by the external fixed field $B$. Afterwards, with finding the optimal IL parameters out we receive the effective action for the external field in the selfconsistent form. Eq. () is taken just in such a form in order to underline the integration is executed over the IL elements and the parameters describing their states are the functions of external field (i.e. could finally be the functions of a coordinate ${\mbox{x}}$). The physical meaning of such a functional is quite transparent and implies that each separate IL element develops its characteristic screening of the attached field. \begin{figure*}[!tbh] \begin{center} \end{center} \vspace{-7mm} \caption{The energy $E(\alpha)$ when the profile function includes a screening effect () with the parameter $\lambda$ ($s=1$) only taken into consideration (lower curve) and with both parameters used (upper curve) (see the text).} \end{figure*} Now calculating the variation of action difference $\langle S-S_1\rangle$ over $\mu (\rho)$ we obtain $$\mu (\rho)= C~ d (\rho) ~e^{-(n\beta\xi^2\overline{\rho^2}+\zeta B^2)\rho^2}~, $$ where $C$ is an arbitrary constant and its value is fixed by requiring the coincidence of the distribution function when the external field is switched off ($B=0$) with vacuum distribution function then \begin{equation} \mu (\rho)= C_{N_c} \widetilde \beta^{2N_c}\Lambda^{b s} \rho^{b s-5} ~e^{-(n\beta\xi^2\overline{\rho^2}+\zeta B^2)\rho^2}~. \end{equation} With defining the average size as $$\overline{\rho^2}=\frat{\int d \rho~ \rho^2~\mu (\rho)}{\mu_0}~, $$ we come to the practical interrelation between the IL density and average size of pseudo-particles \begin{equation} (n~\beta~\xi^2~\overline{\rho^2}+\zeta~B^2)~\overline{\rho^2}\simeq \nu~, \end{equation} where $\nu=\frat{b s-4}{2}$. Apparently, the size distribution of pseudo-particles can be presented by the well-known form as \begin{equation} \mu (\rho)= C_{N_c} \widetilde \beta^{2N_c}\Lambda^{b s} \rho^{b s-5} ~e^{-\nu~\frac{\rho^2}{\overline{\rho^2}}}~. \end{equation} Eqs. () and () allow us to get the estimate of generating functional () in the following form \begin{equation} Y\ge \int D[B]~e^{-S(B)}~e^{-E}~, \end{equation} $$E=\int d^4x~ n~\left\{\ln\frat{n}{\Lambda^4}-1-\frat{\nu}{2}+\frat{\zeta~\overline{\rho^2}~B^2}{2}- \ln \left[\frat{\Gamma(\nu)}{2}~C_{N_c}~\widetilde \beta^{2N_c}\right]-\nu~\ln \frat{\overline{\rho^2}}{\nu} \right\}~.$$ Now taking into account Eq. () and fixing a field $B$, parameters $s$ and $\lambda$ the maximum of functional () over the IL parameters can be calculated by solving the corresponding transcendental equation ($\frac{d E}{d\bar\rho}=0$) numerically. Here it is a worthwhile place to notice the presence of new factor in the denominator of $\frat{\Gamma(\nu)}{2}$ what is caused by the Gaussian form of the corresponding integral over $\rho$ squared and, hence, the integration element requires the introduction of $2\rho~d\rho$. In Ref. this factor was missed. However, this fact has not generated a serious consequence because any application of these results is actually related to the choice of suitable quantity of the parameter $\Lambda$ entering the observables (the pion decay constant, for example). It means we should make the proper choice of basic scale. Besides, we should also keep in mind the approximate character of IL model. Further we give the results for both versions to demonstrate the dependence of final results on the renormalized constant $C_{N_c}$. \begin{figure*}[!tbh] \begin{center} \end{center} \vspace{-7mm} \caption{The IL density as the function of ${\mbox{x}}=y^2/\bar\rho^2$. Three dashed curves correspond to the different profile functions. The lowest dashed line corresponds to the standard form (). The top dashed line corresponds to the profile function with the screening factor () and one parameter $\lambda$ ($s=1$) included and the middle line presents the same function but with two parameters included. The solid line presents the selfconsistent solution of variational problem.} \end{figure*} Searching the optimal configuration $f$ we take the effective action in the form of nonlinear functional as \begin{equation} S_{eff}=\int d^4x \left( \frat{G_{\mu\nu}^a(B)~ G_{\mu\nu}^a(B)}{4}+E[B] \right)~, \end{equation} in which the IL state is described by solutions $\bar\rho[B,s,\lambda]$, $n[B,s,\lambda]$. In practice the following differential equation should be resolved \begin{equation} \frat{d^2 f}{d^2 y^2} =-\frat{1}{y^2}\frat{d f}{d y^2}+\frat{f(1-f)(1-2f)}{y^4}+\frat{1}{6\beta_0}~ \frat{d E}{d f}~, \end{equation} at fixed initial magnitude of $f({\mbox{x}}_0)$ putting up the derivative in the initial point $f'({\mbox{x}}_0)$ in such a way to have the solution going to zero when ${\mbox{x}}$ is going to infinity. Parameter $\beta_0$ is introduced to fix a priori unknown value of coupling constant in the pseudo-particle definition (). If the profile function has been fixed the configuration should be found in the form in which the starting values of parameters $s$, $\lambda$ and $\beta_0$ coincide (within the given precision) with the parameters obtained from the solution $f$. Nowadays this approach looks the most optimal one among other existing possibilities not only because of the computational arguments but in view of the poor current level of understanding the interrelation between perturbative and non-perturbative contributions while calculating the effective Lagrangian. In fact, it was mentioned in Ref. that in more general (realistic) formulation of this problem Eq. () should include the term responsible for the change of 'quantum' constant $C_{N_c}$ with the function $f$ changing. In principle, it could imply that the problem of pseudo-particle ensemble stabilization is connected at the fundamental dynamics level with the anticipated smallness of the $\frat{d C_{N_c}}{d f}$ contribution and, apparently, should be addressed not so much to the description of the interacting pseudo-particles and their interactions with the perturbative fields but rather to investigation of the time hierarchy corresponding to the breakdown of quasi-stationary behaviour of the vacuum fluctuations which will certainly lead to the changes of suitable effective Lagrangian (). In order to receive the preliminary parameter estimates we consider the simplified model with the profile function containing only one additional parameter for describing the screening effect as regards \begin{equation} f(y)=\frat{e^{-\alpha {\mbox{x}}}}{1+{\mbox{x}}}~,~~{\mbox{x}}=\frat{y^2}{\rho^2}. \end{equation} The energy $E$ as the function of the screening parameter $\alpha$ is depicted in Fig. 1. The lowest dashed curve shows the behaviour when the changes related to weakening of repulsive interaction are taken into account by switching on the parameter $\lambda$ only (at $s=1$). The top dashed curve was obtained with both parameters switched on. The optimal value of the screening parameter $\alpha$ is determined by the minimum point of function $E(\alpha)$. Besides, this figure demonstrates the stability of variational procedure of extracting the IL parameters. For the first calculation the values of characteristic parameters for corresponding solution were taken as $\alpha=0.06$, $\lambda=0.775$, $s=1.0067$ with the following set of the IL parameters $\bar\rho\Lambda=0.3305$, $n/\Lambda^4=0.919$, $\beta=17.186$. These values give for the ratio of average pseudo-particle size and average distance between pseudo-particles the quite suitable quantity $\bar\rho/R=0.324$. For another calculation we have treated the parameter set characterizing the solution as $\alpha=0.02$, $\lambda=0.888$, $s=1.0015$ and for the IL parameters the following values $\bar\rho\Lambda=0.315$, $n/\Lambda^4=0.829$, $\beta=17.67$, $\bar\rho/R=0.3$. In order to get more orientation we would like to mention that for the ensemble of standard pseudo-particles ($\alpha=0$, $\lambda=1$, $s=1$) the corresponding values are $\bar\rho\Lambda=0.301$, $n/\Lambda^4=0.769$, $\beta=18.103$, $\bar\rho/R=0.282$. \begin{figure*}[!tbh] \begin{center} \end{center} \vspace{-7mm} \caption{The average size of IL pseudo-particles as the function of ${\mbox{ x}}=y^2/\bar\rho^2$. Three dashed curves correspond to different profile functions. The lowest curve corresponds to the standard form (). The top dashed curve corresponds to the profile function with the screening factor () which includes one parameter $\lambda$ ($s=1$) and the middle line shows the same function with two parameters included. The solid curve corresponds to the selfconsistent solution of the variational problem.} \end{figure*} Now we examine the impact of correction introduced in Eq. () when we changed the term $\frat{\Gamma(\nu)}{2}$ which has been obtained in Ref. . For the first calculation with the set of solution parameters as $\alpha=0.24$, $\lambda=0.546$, $s=1.029$ we have for the IL parameters $\bar\rho\Lambda=0.331$, $n/\Lambda^4=1.844$, $\beta=17.173$ which lead to the ratio discussed equal to $\bar\rho/R=0.386$. For another calculation we have the following results $\alpha=0.05$, $\lambda=0.799$, $s=1.0053$ and $\bar\rho\Lambda=0.291$, $n/\Lambda^4=1.356$, $\beta=18.483$, $\bar\rho/R=0.314$. And for the ensemble of standard pseudo-particles ($\alpha=0$, $\lambda=1$, $s=1$) these parameters are $\bar\rho\Lambda=0.265$, $n/\Lambda^4=1.186$, $\beta=19.305$, $\bar\rho/R=0.277$. The Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show the behaviours of IL density and average pseudo-particle size as the functions of distance $x$. The dashed lines on both plots correspond to the similar ensembles. The lowest curves demonstrate the behaviours for the ensembles of standard pseudo-particles (). The top curves present the ensemble of pseudo-particles with the profile function () at $\alpha=0.06$ and $s=1$. And the middle dashed lines correspond to the profile functions with $\alpha=0.02$ and $s\sim 1.03$. Obviously, it may be concluded that including even small change of the second parameter value ($s\sim 1.03$) leads to the noticeable change of ensemble characteristics (for example, the IL density) because the highest contribution to the action when the coupling constant becomes the function of $\rho$ is essentially modified. Let us make now several comments as to the 'complete' formulation of the problem of analyzing the equation (). It was numerically resolved by the Runge-Kutta method. This approach combined with numerical calculation of the derivative $\frat{d E}{d f}$ at every point of consequent integration interval allows us to avoid the problems which appear when searching the minimum of complicated functional in multidimensional space. The initial data were fixed at the point ${\mbox{x}}_0=\frat{y_{0}^2}{\bar\rho^2}=0.1$. Since the IL density value at the coordinate origin is inessential the initial form of pseudo-particle profile function is taken without any deformations as $f({\mbox{x}}_{0})=\frat{1}{1+{\mbox{x}}_{0}}$. Then at fixed values of the parameters $\lambda$, $s$ and $\beta_0$ the coefficient $c$ is calculated. It allows to set the slope of trajectory $f'({\mbox{x}}_{0})=-c f (1-f)/{\mbox{x}}_{0}$ at initial point in such a form in order to have the solution going to zero at large distances. Afterwards we find out the values of parameters $\lambda$ and $s$ requiring the input data to coincide with the output ones within the fixed precision. The parameter values which obey the imposed constraints are the following (input values) $\lambda=0.69099$, $s=1.049$, $\beta_0=16.26$ at $c=1.361$ and $\lambda=0.691$, $s=1.049$, $\beta_0=16.263$ (at the output of variational procedure). The solid line in Fig. 4 shows the obtained profile $f$ as the function of ${\mbox{x}}=\frat{y^2}{\bar\rho^2}$. The differences of profiles are smoothed over if they are presented as the functions of $y$ because the large magnitude of the screening coefficient, for example $\alpha=0.06$, is compensated by enlargening the pseudo-particle size. The dashed lines on this plot show the profile functions for the standard form () (top dashed line), with the screening factor () including one parameter only $\alpha$ ($s=1$) (lowest dashed curve) and two parameters included (middle dashed line). \begin{figure*}[!tbh] \begin{center} \end{center} \vspace{-7mm} \caption{The various profile functions. The top dashed curve corresponds to the standard form (), the lowest dashed curve shows the function with the screening factor () including one parameter $\lambda$ ($s=1$) and the middle line presents the same function with two parameters included. The solid line corresponds to the selconsistent solution of variational problem.} \end{figure*} Another calculation (with modified $\Gamma$-function contribution) was based on the slightly different set of relevant parameters which are for the input values $\lambda=0.607$, $s=1.0515$, $\beta_0=17.04$ at $c=1.545$ and $\lambda=0.6066$, $s=1.0515$, $\beta_0=17.042$ for the output one at the finish of variational procedure. The behaviours of IL density and average pseudo-particle size for selfconsistent solution are plotted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 (solid lines, respectively){\footnote{It is interesting to notice that considering IL (ensemble of pseudo-particles in the singular gauge) in the field of regular pseudo-particle we obtain the IL density value in the center of regular pseudo-particle which is larger than its value at large distances what looks like the anti-screening effect.}}. In the Table 1 we present the IL parameters at the large distances from pseudo-particle (the first line) together with the data for the ensemble of pseudo-particles with the standard profile function (the second line). The third and fourth lines of this Table 1 are devoted to the calculations with the second set of parameters (with factor $2$ absent in Eq. ()). The fourth line, in particular, presents the calculations for pseudo-particles with standard form of profile function. \begin{center} {\underline{ Table 1}}. Parameters of IL. \\\vspace{0.3cm} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $\bar\rho\Lambda$&$n/\Lambda^4$&$\beta$ &$\bar\rho/R$&$n\bar\rho^4$ \\\hline $0.381$ &$0.743$ &$16.263$&$0.354$ &$\dmn{1.582}{-2}$ \\ $0.331$ &$0.769$ &$18.103$&$0.282$ &$\dmn{6.277}{3}$ \\\hline\hline $0.354$ &$1.245$ &$17.042$&$0.379$ &$\dmn{1.955}{-2}$ \\ $0.265$ &$1.186$ &$19.305$&$0.277$ &$\dmn{5.849}{-3}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} It is quite obvious that the utilization of optimal pseudo-particle profile function leads to the larger pseudo-particle size but the packing fraction parameter holds, nevertheless, a small quantity which is quite suitable for the perturbative expansion. Besides, the results obtained allow us to conclude that with tuning $\Lambda$ a fully satisfactory agreement our calculations of pseudo-particle size, the ensemble diluteness and gluon condensate value with their phenomenological magnitudes extracted from the other models are easily reachable. The calculations of several dimensional quantities in our approach are also very indicative. The values of the screening mass (), average pseudo-particle size and IL density obtained for two values of $\Lambda$ ($200$ MeV and $280$ MeV) are shown in Table 2. The sequence of line meanings is identical to that in Table 1 as well as the meanings of last four lines which present the results of calculations with the second set of parameters (with factor $2$ absent in Eq. ()). \begin{center} {\underline{ Table 2}}. Screening mass and IL parameters \\\vspace{0.3cm} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline $\Lambda$~MeV&$m$~MeV&$\bar\rho$~GeV$^{-1}$&$n$ fm$^{-4}$ \\\hline $200.$ &$381$ &$1.906$ &$0.7496$ \\ &$304$ &$1.503$ &$0.7688$ \\ \hline $280.$ &$533$ &$1.361$ &$2.88$ \\ &$426$ &$1.074$ &$2.95$ \\ \hline\hline $200.$ &$456$ &$1.77$ &$1.245$ \\ &$333$ &$1.325$ &$1.186$ \\ \hline $280.$ &$638$ &$1.264$ &$4.78$ \\ &$466$ &$0.946$ &$4.56$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} Another interesting feature of this calculation is the weakening of pseudo-particle interaction. This effect is driven by the coefficient $\xi^2$ ($\sim \lambda^2$). Our estimates for the first set of parameters give $\lambda=0.691$ and, hence, $\lambda^2\sim 0.48$ and for the second set we have ($\lambda=0.607$) and $\lambda^2\sim 0.37$. Let us mention here that the reasonable description of instanton ensemble can be reached in the framework of two-component models as well. Our calculations enable us to conclude that dealing with IL model (formulated in one-loop approach) one is able to reach quite reasonable description of gluon condensate even being constrained by the values of average pseudo-particle size and other routine phenomenological parameters. Moreover, the ensemble of pseudo-particles with standard profile functions turns out to be very practical because introducing the other configurations to make the similar estimates is simply unoperable. With such an approximation of the vacuum configurations the coefficient of interaction weakening develops the magnitude about $\lambda^2\sim 0.3$ --- $0.5$. Including this effect leads to the enlargening of pseudo-particle size. It allows us to conclude that nowadays the instantons in the singular gauge is the only serious instrument for effective practising. The authors are sincerely grateful to A.E. Dorokhov and S.B. Gerasimov for interesting discussions and practical remarks. The financial support of the Grants INTAS-04-84-398 and NATO PDD(CP)-NUKR980668 is also acknowledged. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{1} C.G. Callan, R. Dashen, and D.J. Gross, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 66} (1977) 375;\\ C.G. Callan, R. Dashen, and D.J. Gross, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, (1978) 2717. \bibitem{2} D.I. Diakonov and V.Yu. Petrov, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 245}, (1984) 259. \bibitem{3} I.I. Balitsky and A.V. Yung, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 168}, (1986) 113;\\ D. F\"orster, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 66}, (1977) 279;\\ E.V. Shuryak and J.J.M. Verbaarschot, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 364}, (1991) 255;\\ T. Sch\"afer and E.V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 70}, (1998) 323. \bibitem{4} S.V. Molodtsov, G.M. Zinovjev, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 70}, \nomer{6}, (2007). \bibitem{5} N.G. Van Kampen, Phys. Rep. {\bf 24} (1976) 171; Physica {\bf 74} (1974) 215, 239;\\ Yu.A. Simonov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 412} (1997) 371. \bibitem{6} A.E. Dorokhov, S.V. Esaibegyan, A.E. Maximov, and S.V. Mikhailov, \\ Eur. Phys.J C {\bf 13} (2000) 331;\\ N.O. Agasian and S.M. Fedorov, JHEP 12 (2001) 019. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0143
|
Title: Instanton Liquid at Finite Temperature and Chemical Potential of Quarks
Abstract: Instanton liquid in heated and strongly interacting matter is studied using
the variational principle. The dependence of the instanton liquid density
(gluon condensate) on the temperature and the quark chemical potential is
determined under the assumption that, at finite temperatures, the dominant
contribution is given by an ensemble of calorons. The respective one-loop
effective quark Lagrangian is used.
Body: \begin{center} {\Large \bf Instanton Liquid at Finite Temperature and Chemical Potential of Quarks}\\ \vspace{0.5cm} S.V. Molodtsov$^{1,3}$, G.M. Zinovjev$^2$\\ \vspace{0.5cm} {\small $^1$Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 141980 RUSSIA}\\ \vspace{0.5cm} {\small $^2$Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, ul. Metrolohichna 14-b, Kiev, 03680 UKRAINE} \\ \vspace{0.5cm} {\small $^3$Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, 117259 RUSSIA} \end{center} \vspace{0.5cm} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{p{16cm}} {\small{Instanton liquid in heated and strongly interacting matter is studied using the variational principle. The dependence of the instanton liquid density (gluon condensate) on the temperature and the quark chemical potential is determined under the assumption that, at finite temperatures, the dominant contribution is given by an ensemble of calorons. The respective one-loop effective quark Lagrangian is used. }} \end{tabular} \end{center} \vspace{0.5cm} In current studies of strong-interacting matter under extreme conditions, primary attention is focused on a description of its phase state at given temperature and chemical potential. For definiteness, we consider that $T$ is the temperature of quarks and $\mu$ is the quark chemical potential (it is assumed that gluons are in thermodynamical equilibrium with quarks). However, there is no approach making it possible to describe main features of the expected phase diagram of quark-gluon matter at least qualitatively. In the present study, we argue that the instanton liquid model of the QCD vacuum can shed light on some important features of a full picture. It is frequently noted that this model offers a useful tool for obtaining phenomenologically plausible estimates in spite of the fact that it is poorly justified because the typical size of an instanton is not properly fixed. As of now, this fact is considered as inessential because a connection has been revealed between limitations on the instanton size due to repulsion and generation of mass of the gluon field in the framework of the quasi-classical approximation . The latter mechanism is a more general property of stochastic gluon fields than the former one. We will discuss this question later. Here we assume that the problem of instanton size is solved in one of the following scenarios: self-stabilization of the saturating ensemble ,, freezing of the coupling constant , or influence of the confining component . In the present study, primary attention is focused on a plausible qualitative model describing a behavior of the gluon condensate. In the beginning, we recollect the variational principle proposed in and the method of determination of the size of pseudoparticles and the density of the instanton liquid and introduce notation for further considerations. In the model of instanton liquid describing the QCD vacuum, it is assumed that the leading contribution to the QCD generating functional is given by the background fields representing superposition of instantons in the singular gauge: \begin{equation} A^a_{\mu}(x;\gamma)=\frat2g~\omega^{ab}\bar\eta_{b\mu\nu}~a_\nu(y)~,~~~ a_\nu(y)= \frat{\rho^2}{y^2+\rho^2}~\frat{y_\nu}{y^2}~,~~~y=x-z~,~~\mu,\nu=1,2,3,4~. \end{equation} where $\rho$ is the size, $\omega$ is the matrix of color rotation, and $z$ is the position of the center of a pseudoparticle (in the case of anti-instanton, the 't Hooft symbol should be replaced as follows: $\bar\eta \to \eta$). This being so, the QCD generating functional takes the form \begin{equation} Y=\sum_{N=1}^\infty\frat{1}{N!}~\prod_{i=1}^N~\int d\gamma_i~d(\rho_i)~e^{-\beta~U_{int}(\gamma)} =\sum_{N=1}^\infty \frat{1}{N!}~\prod_{i=1}^N~\int d\gamma_i~e^{-E(\gamma)}~, \end{equation} $$E(\gamma)=\beta~U_{int}(\gamma)-\sum~\ln d(\rho_i)~,$$ where \begin{equation} d(\rho)=\frat{1}{\rho^5}~\widetilde\beta^{2N_c}~e^{-\beta(\rho)}~, \end{equation} is the instanton size distribution ; $d\gamma_i=dz_i~d\omega_i~d\rho_i$, and $$\beta(\rho)=\frat{8\pi^2}{g^2}=-b~\ln (C_{N_c}^{1/b} \Lambda\rho)$$ is the action of a single instanton, where ($\Lambda=\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}=0.92 \Lambda_{P.V.}$) � $C_{N_c}$, depends on the renormalization scheme and, in the case under consideration, is given by $C_{N_c}\approx\frat{4.66~\exp(-1.68 N_c)} {\pi^2 (N_c-1)!(N_c-2)!}$, and $b=\frat{11~N_c-2~N_f}{3}$. We assume that $N_f$=2 here because the leading contribution to renormalization comes from hard massless gluons and quarks. The auxiliary function $$\widetilde \beta=-b~\ln(\Lambda \bar\rho)~,$$ is evaluated at the scale $\bar\rho$ defined by an average size of pseudoparticles, $U_{int}(\gamma)$ is considered assuming pair interaction dominance. Its contribution has the form $$\int d\omega_1~d\omega_2~dz_1~dz_2~U_{int}(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)=V~\xi^2~\rho_1^{2}~\rho_2^{2}~,$$ where $\xi^2=\frat{27~\pi^2}{4}\frat{N_c}{N_c^{2}-1}$. The factor $\beta$ that appears in the exponent in formula () is also evaluated at the scale of an average size of pseudoparticles $\bar\rho$. Assuming that the instanton liquid is topologically neutral, we do not introduce notation to distinguish between instantons and anti-instantons, $N$ denotes the ovarall number of pseudoparticles in volume $V$. Since the interaction is independent of coordinates or orientation in color space, it is natural to calculate the generating functional $Y$ on the basis of the effective one-particle distribution function $\mu(\rho)$, which can be determined from the solution of the variational problem \begin{equation} Y_1=\sum_{N=1}^\infty\frat{V^N}{N!}~\prod_{i=1}^N~\int ~d\rho_i~\mu(\rho)= \sum_{N=1}^\infty\frat{V^N}{N!}~\prod_{i=1}^N~\int d\gamma_i~e^{-E_1(\gamma)}~, \end{equation} $$E_1(\gamma)=-\sum~\ln \mu(\rho_i)~,$$ where the factor $V^N$ in () is isolated in order that the result be expressed in terms of the respective density and convenience in interpretation of the function $\mu(\rho)$. With regard to convexity of the exponential function, the generating functional () for every fixed $N$ partial contribution can be estimated using the approximating inequality \begin{equation} Y'\ge Y_a=Y'_1~\exp(-\langle E-E_1\rangle)~, \end{equation} where an average over approximate ensemble is implied. In the case under consideration, the average of difference $\langle E-E_1\rangle$ is given by: \begin{eqnarray} &&\langle E-E_1\rangle=\frat{1}{Y'_1}~\frat{1}{N!} \int~\prod_{i=1}^N~ d \gamma_i~ [\beta~U_{int}-\sum\ln d(\rho_i)+\sum \ln \mu(\rho_i)] ~e^{~\sum \ln \mu (\rho_i)}=\nonumber\\ &&=\frat{N}{\mu_0}~\left(\int d \rho~ \mu (\rho)~\ln \frat{\mu (\rho)}{d (\rho)}+\frat{\beta}{2\mu_0}~\frat{N}{V}~\int d\rho_1 d\rho_2~\xi^2~\rho_1^{2}\rho_2^{2}~\mu (\rho_1) \mu (\rho_2)\right)~,\nonumber \end{eqnarray} where $\mu_0=\int d \rho~\mu (\rho)$. Variation of the functional $\langle E-E_1\rangle$ with respect to $\mu(\rho)$ results formally in the equation $\mu(\rho)=e^{-1}~d(\rho)~e^{-n\beta\xi^2\overline{\rho^2}\rho^2}$ (where $n=N/V$ is the density of the instanton liquid). Here an unwanted factor of $e^{-1}$, emerges. It can be excluded due to the fact that the approximate functional $Y_a$ is independent of the constant factor of $C$ that can be added to the expressionfor $\mu(\rho)$. For convenience, we set $C=e$, and therefore, arrive at \begin{equation} \mu(\rho)=d(\rho)~e^{-n\beta\xi^2\overline{\rho^2}\rho^2}~. \end{equation} Substituting this solution to the approximate functional, we obtain $$Y_a=\frat{V^N~\mu_0^{N}}{N!}~e^{N\frac{\beta\xi^2}{2}(\overline{\rho^2})^2}~.$$ Defining suitable parameter $\nu$ the integral for determination $\mu_0$ can be represented in the form \begin{equation} \mu_0=\Lambda^4~\int d\rho\Lambda~C_{N_c}\widetilde\beta^{2N_c}~(\rho\Lambda)^{b-5}~ e^{-\nu~\frac{\rho^2}{\overline{\rho^2}}}~. \end{equation} From the comparison of which with formula () we obtain \begin{equation} \frat{\nu}{\overline{\rho^2}}=\beta \xi^2 n \overline{\rho^2}~. \end{equation} Provided that $\nu$ is known, this formula offers a relation between the average instanton size and the density of the instanton liquid. To find this relation, we consider the equation $$\overline{\rho^2}=\frat{\int d\rho~\rho^{b-3}~e^{-\nu~\frac{\rho^2}{\overline{\rho^2}}}} {\int d\rho~\rho^{b-5}~e^{-\nu~\frac{\rho^2}{\overline{\rho^2}}}}= \frat{{\overline{\rho^2}}~\nu^{-1}~\Gamma(\frac{b-4}{2}+1)}{\Gamma(\frac{b-4}{2})}~.$$ which gives $\nu=\frac{b-4}{2}$, and therefore, $\mu_0=\Lambda^4~C_{N_c}\widetilde\beta^{2N_c}~\frat{(\rho\Lambda)^{2\nu}}{\nu^\nu}~ \frat{\Gamma(\nu)}{2}$. It should be noted that the factor of two in the denominator of this expression stems from the integration measure $2\rho d\rho$, which, in its turn, emerges in transformation to the Gaussian integral with respect to $\rho$ squired. This factor was omited in ; however, this fact has no noticeable consequences. The reason is that the parameter $\Lambda$ is determined from a fit to some observable, for example, to the pion decay constant. In so doing, everything is governed by a choice of scale. Moreover, it should be remembered that the instanton liquid model is merely a rough approximation. From the above, we derive an approximate expression for the functional as follows: \begin{equation} Y_a=\exp\left\{-N\left(\frat{\nu}{2}+1\right)~[\ln(n/\Lambda^4)-1]+ N\ln \left[C_{N_c}\widetilde\beta^{2N_c}(\beta\xi^2\nu)^{-\nu/2}\frat{\Gamma(\nu)}{2}\right]\right\}~. \end{equation} Now we find the value of $n$ at which the argument of the exponential approaches its maximum. To do this, we should solve the equation \begin{equation} -\left(\frat{\nu}{2}+1\right)~\ln(n/\Lambda^4)+ \ln \left[C_{N_c}\widetilde\beta^{2N_c}(\beta\xi^2\nu)^{-\nu/2}\frat{\Gamma(\nu)}{2}\right] +n~\frat{2N_c}{\widetilde\beta}\frat{d\widetilde\beta}{dn}- n~\frat{\nu}{2\beta}\frat{d\beta}{dn}=0~. \end{equation} From the relation () we obtain $$\frat{1}{\beta}\frat{d\beta}{d\bar\rho}+\frat{1}{n}\frat{d n}{d\bar\rho}+\frat{4}{\bar\rho}=0~.$$ On the other hand, $\frat{d\beta}{d\bar\rho}=-\frat{b}{\bar\rho}$, $\frat{d\widetilde\beta}{d\bar\rho}= \frat{d\beta}{d\bar\rho}$. We represent the derivative of $\beta$ with respect to the density in the form $\frat{d\beta}{dn}=\frat{d\beta}{d\bar\rho}/ \frat{d n}{d\bar\rho}$, and obtain \begin{equation} \frat{d\beta}{dn}=\frat{1}{n}~\frat{b~\beta}{4\beta-b}~, ~~\frat{d\widetilde\beta}{d n}=\frat{d\beta}{dn}~. \end{equation} Thus we derive the expressionfor the instanton liquid density \begin{equation} n/\Lambda^4=\left[C_{N_c}\widetilde\beta^{2N_c}(\beta\xi^2\nu)^{-\nu/2} \frat{\Gamma(\nu)}{2}\right]^{\frac{2}{\nu+2}}~ \exp\left[\left(\frac{4N_c}{\nu+2}\frac{\widetilde\beta}{\beta}-\frac{\nu}{\nu-2}\right) \frac{\nu+2}{2\beta-\nu-2}\right]~. \end{equation} The contribution of the derivatives of the functions $\beta$ and $\widetilde\beta$ with respect to the density was disregarded in . This contribution compensates for the above-mentioned factor of $2$ though, as was noted above, this is not essential. The obtained formula for the instanton liquid density by itself does not provide a solution to the problem because it remains to solve the transcendental equation () in $\bar\rho$, where the function $\beta$ involves the logarithm of $\bar\rho$. To solve this equation, it is convenient to reformulate the problem without resort to the explicit formula () for the instanton liquid density. By definition of the function $\beta$, the action of an isolated pseudoparticle must be positive. This gives a limitation to the maximum size of an (anti-)instanton as follows: $\bar\rho\Lambda C_{N_c}^{1/b}\leq 1$ (actually, $\bar\rho\Lambda \leq 1$). Now we can solve the transcendental equation (), by bisection of the segment. In so doing, a stationary value of $\bar\rho$ is determined at each step and the respective instanton liquid density is determined from equation (). In the calculation of the generating functional, the contributions of the type $(\bar\rho\Lambda)^{2\nu}$ are used rather than the expression for the instanton liquid density. Now we modify the variational principle in order to extend our description to the case of finite temperatures. For this purpose, we employ calorons --- solutions of the Yang--Mills equations periodic in the Euclidean time. The background field should be replaced by a superposition of calorons and anti-calorons as follows : \begin{eqnarray} A^{a}_\mu(x,\gamma)&=&-\frat{1}{g}~\omega^{ab}~\bar\eta_{b\mu\nu}~ \partial_\nu \ln \Pi,~\nonumber\\[-.2cm] \\[-.25cm] \Pi&=&1+\frat{\pi \rho^2 T}{r}\frat{\sinh(2\pi r T)} {\cosh(2\pi r T)-\cos(2\pi\tau T)}~, \nonumber \end{eqnarray} where $T^{-1}$ is the period of the caloron, $r=|{\vf x}-{\vf z}|$ is the distance from the center of the caloron $z$ in three dimensional space, and $\tau=x_4-z_4$ -- is the respective interval of "time". As the temperature tends to zero, such solutions go over to (anti-)instantons in the singular gauge. Yet another modification of the variational principle is the replacement of the distribution () in the instanton size by the function \begin{equation} d(\rho,T)=\frat{1}{\rho^{5}}~\widetilde \beta^{2 N_c} \exp [-\beta (\rho)-A_{N_c} T^2 \rho^2]~, \end{equation} where the coefficient $A_{N_c}=\frat{1}{3}\left (\frat{11}{6} N_c-1\right)\pi^2$ accounts for the additional contribution to the action of each individual pseudoparticle. It provides an approximation to a more exact expression \begin{equation} d(\rho,T)=d(\rho,0)~\exp \left\{-\left[ \frat{1}{2}~g^2T^2~\frat{(N_c+N_f/2)}{3}~\frat{4\pi^2\rho^2}{g^2}+ 12~A(\pi\rho T)~[1+(N_c-N_f)/6]\right]\right\}~, \end{equation} constructed from the respective determinants . For our purposes it is sufficient to say that the function $A(\pi\rho T)$ is determined by a shape of the pseudoparticle (). This function was studied in the cited work; however, we do not use it in the present article. It should be mentioned that the expansion up to the terms of the order $T^2$ can be used as an approximate expression for the function $A(\pi\rho T)$ because, within the accuracy of the variational principle, only the terms up to order $\rho^2$ should be kept in the argument of the exponential in formula (). The first term in formula () is represented as a product of two factors; each factor was interpreted in . The first factor is the square of the electric mass, that is, the temporal component of the gluon polarization tensor evaluated at the zero energy and momentum. It has the form \begin{equation} m_{el}^{2}=\Pi_{44}(\omega=0,{\vf{p}}={\vf{0}})=g^2T^2~\frat{(N_c+N_f/2)}{3}~. \end{equation} The remaining components being equal to zero at zero energy-momentum. Therefore, the magnetic mass vanishes. Note that the one-loop quark and gluon contributions to the polarization tensor are taken into account , the resulting sum being rearranged in order that the quark and gluon contributions in the medium sum up to a finite value. This, formally, gives rise to a generation of the mass of the gluon field. The second factor is the integral of the square of the fourth component $A_4$ of the field in formula () \begin{equation} \int dy~ A^a_{4}(y)A^a_{4}(y)=\frat{4\pi^2\rho^2}{g^2}~. \end{equation} It is independent of the temperature . It is seen that one can take into account only one-loop contribution $\frat{1}{2}m_{el}^2~A^a_{4}A^a_{4}$ to the Lagrangian of the gluon field and neglect other corrections. It was demonstrated that the term $U_{int}$ describing the interaction of pseudoparticles can be brought in the form $\frat{1}{2}m^2~A^a_{\mu}A^a_{\mu}$, where $m^2=9\pi^2~n~\bar\rho^2~\frat{N_c}{N_c^{2}-1}$. Thus the interaction term also describes generation of the mass of the gluon field in the instanton--anti-instanton medium in quasi-classical approximation. This being so, chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields are screened equally well provided that the instanton liquid density is not equal to zero. It was shown that screening is a consequence of stochastic character of the ensemble of gluon fields being unrelated to a specific instanton solution of the type () or details of the repulsion mechanism responsible for stabilization of the ensemble . An application of these considerations to the (anti-)instanton solution () leads precisely to the formula for $U_{int}$. It turns out that, in the caloron ensemble, screening of chromomagnetic fields and the interaction term depends only weakly on the temperature. However, the anisotropy is negligible small and the interaction term coincides with that obtained for the (anti-)instanton solution. First it was found in , where the instanton liquid was studied at non zero temperature. The one-loop contribution of Plank gluons is proportional to $N_c$ (see formula ()) and does not vary as the chemical potential becomes different from zero. On the other hand, it is known that the one-loop fermion contribution in the medium can be calculated exactly. It has no dangerous singularities , . The "temporal" component of the polarization tensor generated by a quark of definite flavor has the form \begin{eqnarray} \Pi^{f}_{44}(k_4,\omega)&=&g^2~\frat{k^2}{\pi^2\omega^2}~\int_0^{\infty} \frat{dp~p^2}{\varepsilon_p} ~n_p \left[1+\frat{4\varepsilon_p^{2}-k^2}{8pk}\ln\frat{(k^2+2p\omega)^2+4\varepsilon_p^{2}k_4^{2}} {(k^2-2p\omega)^2+4\varepsilon_p^{2}k_4^{2}}-\right.\nonumber\\ &-&\left.\frat{\varepsilon_pk_4}{p\omega}~\arctan \frat{8 p\omega~\varepsilon_p k_4} {4\varepsilon_p^{2}k_4^{2}-4p^2\omega^2+k^4}\right]~,\nonumber \end{eqnarray} where $\omega=|{\vf{k}}|$, $k^2=\omega^2+k_4^{2}$, $\varepsilon_p=(m^2+{\vf{p}}^2)^{1/2}$, where $m$ -- is the quark mass, $n_p=n_p^{-}+n_p^{+}$, $n_p^{-}=(e^\frac{\varepsilon_p-\mu}{T}+1)^{-1}$, $n_p^{+}=(e^\frac{\varepsilon_p+\mu}{T}+1)^{-1}$. After summation over all components, the polarization tensor takes the form \begin{equation} \Pi^{f}(k_4,\omega)=g^2~\frat{2}{\pi^2}~\int_0^{\infty} \frat{dp~p^2}{\varepsilon_p}~ n_p \left[1+\frat{2 m^2-k^2}{8pk}\ln\frat{(k^2+2p\omega)^2+4\varepsilon_p^{2}k_4^{2}} {(k^2-2p\omega)^2+4\varepsilon_p^{2}k_4^{2}}\right]~. \end{equation} It is seen that, at $k_4=0$, and small values of $\omega$, the first term (that is, unit) gives the dominant contribution to the gluon mass. The spatial components are negligibly small. In particular, at $\omega=0$ we obtain \begin{equation} \Pi^{f}(0,0)=\Pi^{f}_{44}(0,0)=g^2~\frat{2}{\pi^2}~\int_0^{\infty} \frat{dp~p^2}{\varepsilon_p}~n_p~, \end{equation} and at $T=0$ we arrive at $\Pi^{f}(0,0)=g^2~\left[\frat{(\mu^2-m^2)^{1/2}\mu}{\pi^2}- \frat{m^2}{\pi^2}\ln\frat{\mu+(\mu^2-m^2)^{1/2}}{m}\right]$. The ultimate expression for the electric mass has the form \begin{equation} m_{el}^{2}=\left[g^2T^2~\frat{N_c}{3}+\sum_{f=1}^{N_f}\Pi^{f}(0,0)\right]~. \end{equation} In this approximation, the effect of the instanton liquid is completely accounted for by the quark mass dynamically generated in the instanton medium. With such definition of mass, the formula () at $\mu=0$ and $T\neq 0$ should be modified. The coefficient $\frat{1}{6}$ at $N_f$ should be replaced by $\frat{2}{\pi^2}$. However, this replacement has only a little effect; self-consistency of our calculations will be discussed below. Using the integral (), which is also valid for the caloron solution, we derive the expression for the distribution of pseudoparticles: \begin{equation} d(\rho;\mu,T)=d(\rho;0,0)~e^{-\eta^{2}(\mu,T)~\rho^2}~,~~\eta^2=2~\pi^2~ \left[T^2~\frat{N_c}{3}+\sum_{f=1}^{N_f}\Pi^{f}(0,0)\right]~. \end{equation} The one-loop quark contribution to the instanton action at zero temperature, finite chemical potential, and $\omega\neq 0$ was studied in detail in (see also , ). These studies make it possible to improve our description, however, we work within the approximation () and, moreover, we consider the limit of massless quarks. A self-consistent calculation for the quark with dynamically generated mass can be the subject of a separable study. Necessary modifications in the variational principle are as follows. It was revealed that only the distribution function $d(\rho;\mu,T)$ of pseudoparticles changes, whereas the repulsion interaction $U_{int}$ between pseudoparticles remains as before. Similar to the case of instantons, we introduce the parameter $\nu$ satisfying the relation \begin{equation} \frat{\nu}{\overline{\rho^2}}=\eta^2+\beta \xi^2 n \overline{\rho^2}~, \end{equation} instead of (). Since the instanton liquid density is greater than zero, a new limitation on the average size of pseudoparticle emerges $\bar\rho\Lambda\leq\frat{\nu^{1/2}}{\eta}$. If this limit is smaller than the limit descussed above, then it must be the starting point for the determination of the equilibrium size of pseudoparticles by the bisection method. The derivative of the function $\beta$ with respect to the density of the instanton liquid can be determined from the relation (). The result is \begin{equation} \frat{n}{\beta}\frat{d\beta}{dn}=\frat{b}{4\beta-b+\frac{2\eta^2\bar\rho^2\beta}{\nu-\eta^2\bar\rho^2}}~, \end{equation} it should be substituted in Eq. () that determines the saddle-point. The integral () should be evaluated numerically because it cannot be calculated analytically at arbitrary temperatures even though the quark mass equals zero. Thus we are ready to determine the parameters of the instanton liquid everywhere over the $\mu$ -- $T$ plane. For simplicity, the calculations are performed at zero quark masses. We neglect the light-quark contribution to the respective determinants (see also ). We also disregard a possible temperature molecular behavior of instanton--anti-instanton pairs . \begin{figure*}[!tbh] \begin{center} \end{center} \vspace{-7mm} \caption{Lines of equal density of the instanton liquid in the temperature-chemical potential plane. Curve $1$ corresponds to the density $n=0.75~n_0$, where $n_0$ is the density at zero temperature and chemical potential. Also shown are the densities from (curve $2$) $n=0.5~n_0$ to (curve $6$) $n=0.1~n_0$. Curves $3$--$5$ correspond to intermediate densities at intervals of $0.1$.} \end{figure*} The results of the calculations are shown in Fig. 1 by the lines of constant density. The instanton liquid density is plotted in Fig 2. versus the temperature (at zero chemical potential) and versus the chemical potential (at zero temperature). Though the conventional natation for the instanton liquid density at nonzero temperature is $n=TN/V_3$, we use the label $n$ which is more simple. At $T\neq 0$, and $\mu=0$, our results coincide with the results obtained in and . It sould be noted that our results are consistent with recent calculations on a lattice at finite temperatures , , where a rapid decrease of the chromoelectric components in the respective correlation functions was found. In our model, such suppression is due to the term $\frat{1}{2}m_{el}^2~A^a_{4}A^a_{4}$ in the effective action; with neglect of this factor, the chromoelectric and chromomagnetic correlators coincide. From this point of view, our calculations may seem inconsistent. We use the caloron solution (), which is symmetric under an interchange of chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields. However, the caloron components manifest themthelves in the observables differently because of the anisotropy of the weight function. In fact, our method of taking the gluon mass term into account is consistent only in perturbation theory. In a complete study, one must find an analogue of the solution () for the effective Lagrangian with the gluon mass generated for the chromoelectric field and gain a self-consistent description of ensemble of pseudoparticles in the long-wave approximation . \begin{figure*}[!tbh] \begin{center} \end{center} \vspace{-7mm} \caption{Instanton liquid density versus (curve 1) temperature and (curve 2) chemical potential.} \end{figure*} It is of interest that the data on correlation functions for cooled configurations are fitted well by the instanton ensemble . In so doing, the contribution of the terms of the second order in the instanton liquid density ($\sim n^2$) is in excellent agreement with the effect of the standard instanton ensemble with the respective admixture of the perturbative component everywhere over the distance range chosen for a fit . This agreement indicates that the confining component is absent from the lattice configurations isolated by cooling. It is surprising because lattice simulations with cooling were aimed at the searches for a long-wave confining component. However, an interpretation of lattice simulations at finite temperature presents difficulties because it is not clear what scale corresponds to the configarations used for the measurements. The magnitude of deformation of the chromoelectric component of the solution for the effective Lagrangian with the mass term is also poorly known. The scale of lattice configurations can, in principle, be estimated using the scale at which the chromoelectric field decrease since only this scale has emerged in our calculations. In conclusion we note that, though we used only a rough approximation, the most important features of the behavior of the instanton liquid density (gluon condensate) in the medium have been revealed. The lines of equal density are markedly extended along the $\mu$ axis because, according to the formula (), the most substantial gluon component of screening vanishes at small temperatures. Typical values of $T$ and $\mu$ at which the effects of the medium become significant are related to each other by the formula $\frat{(N_c+N_f/2)}{3}~(T/\Lambda)^2\sim N_f~\frat{(\mu/\Lambda)^2}{\pi^2}\sim 1$, which leads to a plausible coefficient of oblongness along the $\mu$ axis $$\mu_c\sim \sqrt{2\pi}~T_c~,$$ (at $N_c=3$ and $N_f=2$). A fall in density evaluated with allowance for the dynamically generated quark mass should begin at a greater value and be more steep. The reason is that, at chemical potentials less than the quark mass, the quark contribution to screening is reduced. This gives rise to formation of a plateau and concentration of the lines of equal density. The dependence of the dynamical quark mass on the momentum $\omega$ is significant at small temperatures leading to a decrease of screening approximately by a factor of two . We are grateful to A.E. Dorokhov for helful discussions. This work was supported in part by grants STCU \#P015c, CERN-INTAS 2000-349, NATO 2000-PST.CLG 977482. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{1} C.G. Callan, R. Dashen, and D.J. Gross, Phys. Lett. {\bf B66} (1977) 375;\\ C.G. Callan, R. Dashen, and D.J. Gross, Phys. Rev. {\bf D17} (1978) 2717.\\ A. Sch\"afer and E.V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 70} (1998) 323. \bibitem{2} D. I. Diakonov, V. Yu. Petrov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B245} (1984) 259. \bibitem{3} S.V. Molodtsov, G.M. Zinovjev, hep-ph/0510015 \bibitem{rez1} I.V. Musatov, A.N. Tavkhelidze and V.F. Tokarev, Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 86}, 20 (1991);\\ A.N. Tavkhelidze and V.F. Tokarev, Fiz. Elem. Chast. Atom. Yadra {\bf 21}, 1126 (1990). \bibitem{rez2} E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52}, 5370 (1995). \bibitem{rez3} A.E. Dorokhov, S.V. Esaibegian, A.E. Maximov and S.V. Mikhailov,\\ Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 13}, 331 (2000). \bibitem{4} G.'t Hooft, Phys.Rev.{\bf D14} (1976) 3432. \bibitem{5} B.J. Harrington, H.K. Shepard, Phys. Rev. {\bf D17} (1978) 2122. \bibitem{6} D.J. Gross, R.D. Pisarski, and L.G. Yaffe, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 53} (1981) 43. \bibitem{7} E.V. Shuryak, JETP {\bf 74} (1978) 408. \bibitem{8} D. I. Diakonov, A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Lett. {\bf B203} (1988) 299. \bibitem{9} I.A. Akhiezer, S.V. Peletminsky, JETP {\bf 38} (1960) 1829. \bibitem{10} B.A. Freedman, L.D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. {\bf D16} (1977) 1130, 1147, 1169. \bibitem{11} C.A. Carvalho, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B183} (1981) 182. \bibitem{12} A.A. Abrikosov (Jr), Yad. Fiz. {\bf 37} (1983) 772;\\ V. Baluni, Phys. Lett. {\bf B106} (1981) 491. \bibitem{13} E.V. Shuryak, Preprint INP, \nomer{82-03}, 1982. \bibitem{14} M.A. Novak, J.J.M. Verbaarschot, and I. Zahed, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B325} (1989) 581. \bibitem{15} G.V. Dunne, J. Hur, Ch. Lee, H. Min, Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005) 085019;\\ G.V. Dunne, J. Hur, Ch. Lee, H. Min, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94} (2005) 072001. \bibitem{16} E.-M. Ilgenfritz, E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. {\bf B325} (1994) 263. \bibitem{17} A. Di Giacomo, E. Meggiolaro, H. Panagopoulos, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B483} (1997) 371. \bibitem{18} M. D\'Elia, A. Di Giacomo and E. Meggiolaro, Phys. Rev. {\bf D67} (2003) 114504. \bibitem{19} A.E. Dorokhov, S.V. Esaibegyan, and S.V. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997) 4062;\\ E.-M. Ilgenfritz, B.V. Martemyanov, S.V. Molodtsov, M. M\"uller-Preussker, and Yu.A. Simonov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} (1998) 114508. \bibitem{20} E.-M. Ilgenfritz, B.V. Martemyanov, M. M\"uller-Preussker, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62} (2000) 096004. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0151
|
Title: Extraction of physical laws from joint experimental data
Abstract: The extraction of a physical law y=yo(x) from joint experimental data about x
and y is treated. The joint, the marginal and the conditional probability
density functions (PDF) are expressed by given data over an estimator whose
kernel is the instrument scattering function. As an optimal estimator of yo(x)
the conditional average is proposed. The analysis of its properties is based
upon a new definition of prediction quality. The joint experimental information
and the redundancy of joint measurements are expressed by the relative entropy.
With the number of experiments the redundancy on average increases, while the
experimental information converges to a certain limit value. The difference
between this limit value and the experimental information at a finite number of
data represents the discrepancy between the experimentally determined and the
true properties of the phenomenon. The sum of the discrepancy measure and the
redundancy is utilized as a cost function. By its minimum a reasonable number
of data for the extraction of the law yo(x) is specified. The mutual
information is defined by the marginal and the conditional PDFs of the
variables. The ratio between mutual information and marginal information is
used to indicate which variable is the independent one. The properties of the
introduced statistics are demonstrated on deterministically and randomly
related variables.
Body: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps} gsave 72 31 moveto 72 342 lineto 601 342 lineto 601 31 lineto 72 31 lineto showpage grestore \end{filecontents} \title{Extraction of physical laws from joint experimental data} \author{Igor Grabec} \institute{Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana,\\ A\v{s}ker\v{c}eva 6, PP 394, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia,\\ Tel: +386 01 4771 605, Fax: +386 01 4253 135, \\ E-mail: igor.grabec@fs.uni-lj.si \\} \date{Received: date / Revised version: date} \abstract{The extraction of a physical law $y=y_o(x)$ from joint experimental data about $x$ and $y$ is treated. The joint, the marginal and the conditional probability density functions (PDF) are expressed by given data over an estimator whose kernel is the instrument scattering function. As an optimal estimator of $y_o(x)$ the conditional average is proposed. The analysis of its properties is based upon a new definition of prediction quality. The joint experimental information and the redundancy of joint measurements are expressed by the relative entropy. With the number of experiments the redundancy on average increases, while the experimental information converges to a certain limit value. The difference between this limit value and the experimental information at a finite number of data represents the discrepancy between the experimentally determined and the true properties of the phenomenon. The sum of the discrepancy measure and the redundancy is utilized as a cost function. By its minimum a reasonable number of data for the extraction of the law $y_o(x)$ is specified. The mutual information is defined by the marginal and the conditional PDFs of the variables. The ratio between mutual information and marginal information is used to indicate which variable is the independent one. The properties of the introduced statistics are demonstrated on deterministically and randomly related variables. \PACS{{06.20.DK}{Measurement and error theory} \and {02.50.+s}{Probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics} \and {89.70.+c}{Information science}} } \maketitle \section{Introduction} The progress of natural sciences depends on advancement in the fields of experimental techniques and modeling of relations between experimental data in terms of physical laws. By utilizing computers a revolution appeared in the acquisition of experimental data while modeling still awaits a corresponding progress. For this purpose the modeling process should be generally described in terms of operations that could be autonomously performed by a computer. A step in this direction was taken recently by a nonparametric statistical modeling of the probability distribution of measured data. The nonparametric modeling requires no a priori assumptions about the probability density function (PDF) of measured data and therefore provides for a fairly general and autonomous experimental modeling of physical laws by a computer. Moreover, the inaccuracy of measurement caused by stochastic influences can be properly accounted for in the nonparametric modeling that further leads to the expression of experimental information, redundancy of repeated measurements and model cost function in terms of entropy of information. These variables have already been applied when formulating an optimal nonparametric modeling of PDF, in the most simple case of a one--dimensional variable. However, more frequently than modeling of a PDF the problem is to extract a physical law from joint data about various variables and to analyze its properties. Therefore, the aim of this article is to propose a general statistical approach also to the solution of this problem. As an optimal statistical estimator of an experimental physical law we propose the conditional average (CA) that is determined by the conditional PDF. This estimator represents a nonparametric regression whose structure is case independent; hence it can be generally programmed and autonomously determined by a computer. Due to these convenient properties, we consider CA as a basis for the autonomous extraction of experimental physical laws in data acquisition systems. The fundamental steps of the proposed approach to extraction of experimental physical laws from given data are explained in the second section. We first define the estimators of the joint, the marginal and the conditional PDFs and derive from them the conditional average as an optimal estimator of a physical law that is hidden in joint data. In order to estimate the number of data appropriate for the extraction of a physical law, we further introduce the statistics that characterize the information provided by joint measurements. In the third section of the article the properties of the CA estimator and the other introduced statistics are demonstrated on cases of deterministically and randomly related data. \section{Statistics of joint measurements} \subsection{Uncertainty of experimental observation} Without loss of generality we consider a phenomenon that can be quantitatively characterized by two scalar valued variables $x$ and $y$ comprising a vector $\vec{z}=(x,y)$. We further assume that the phenomenon can be experimentally explored by repetition of joint measurements on a two--channel instrument having equal spans $S_x=(-L,L)$, $S_y=(-L,L)$. Their Cartesian product $S_{xy}=S_x \otimes S_y$ determines the joint span. We treat a measurement of a joint datum as a process in which the measured object generates the instrument output $\vec{z}=(x,y)$. The basic properties of the instrument and measurement procedure can be characterized by a calibration based on a set of objects $\{\vec{w}_{kl}=(u_k, v_l); k=1,\ldots \; l=1,\ldots \}$ that represent joint physical units. Using these units, a scale net can be determined in the joint span $S_{xy}$ of the instrument. In order to simplify the notation, we further omit the indices of units. A common property of measurements is that the output of the instrument fluctuates even when calibration is repeated. We describe this property by the joint PDF $\psi(\vec{z}|\vec{w})$, which characterizes the scattering of the instrument output at a given joint unit $\vec{w}$. For the sake of simplicity, we consider an instrument whose channels can be calibrated mutually independently. In this case the instrument scattering function is expressed by the product of scattering functions corresponding to both channels $\psi(\vec{z}|\vec{w})=\psi(x|u)\psi(y|v)$. Their mean values $u$, $v$, and standard deviations $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$ represent an element of the instrument scale and the scattering of instrument output at the joint calibration. These values can be estimated statistically by the sample mean and variance of both components measured during repeated calibration by a joint unit $\vec{w}$. The standard deviation $\sigma$ characterizes the uncertainty of the measurement procedure performed on a unit. We further consider the most frequent case in which the output scattering does not depend on the channel index and the position $\vec{w}=(u,v)$ on the joint scale. In this case it can be expressed as a function of the difference $\vec{z}-\vec{w}=(x-u,y-v) $ and a common standard deviation $\sigma=\sigma_x=\sigma_y$ as $\psi(\vec{z}|\vec{w})=\psi(\vec{z}-\vec{w},\sigma)$. We consider scattering of instrument output during calibration as a consequence of random disturbances in the measurement system. When these disturbances are caused by contributions from mutually independent sources, the central limit theorem of the probability theory leads us to the Gaussian scattering function $\psi(\vec{z}-\vec{w},\sigma)={\rm g}(x-u,\sigma){\rm g}(y-v,\sigma)$, in which the scattering of a single component is determined by: \begin{equation} \psi(x|u)\,={\rm g}(x-u,\sigma)\,= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma}\exp \biggl[-\frac{(x-u)^2}{2\sigma}\biggr]. \end{equation} \subsection{Estimation of probability density functions} Let us consider a single measurement which yields a joint datum $\vec{z}_1=(x_1,y_1)$. We assume that this joint datum appears at the outputs of instrument channels, since it is the most probable at a given state $\vec{z}$ of the observed phenomenon and the instrument during measurement. Therefore, we utilize the measured datum $\vec{z}_1$ as the center of the probability distribution $\psi(\vec{z}-\vec{z}_1,\sigma)=\psi(x-x_1,\sigma)\psi(y-y_1,\sigma)$ that represents the corresponding state. Consider next a series of $N$ repeated measurements which yield the basic data set $\{\vec{z}_i ;\,i=1,\ldots,N\}$. In accordance with the above--given interpretation of measured data we adapt to them the distributions $\{\psi(\vec{z}-\vec{z}_i,\sigma);\,i=1,\ldots,N\}$. If the data $\vec{z}_1,\ldots ,\vec{z}_N$ are spaced more than $\sigma$ apart, we assume that their scattering is caused by variation of the state $\vec{z}$ in repeated measurements and generally consider $\vec{z}$ as a random vector variable. Its joint PDF is determined by the statistical average over distributions $\{\psi(\vec{z}-\vec{z}_i,\sigma); i=1,\ldots,N\}$ as: \begin{equation} f_N(\vec{z})\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (\vec{z}-\vec{z}_i,\sigma) . \end{equation} This function represents an experimental model of PDF and resembles Parzen's kernel estimator, which is often used in statistical modeling of PDFs. However, in Parzen's modeling the kernel width $\sigma$ plays the role of a smoothing parameter whose value decreases with the number of data $N$, which is not consistent with the general properties of measurements. In opposition to this, we consider $\sigma$ as an instrumental parameter that is determined by the inaccuracy of measurement. In the majority of experimental observations $\sigma$ is a constant during measurements, and hence need not be further indicated in the scattering function $\psi$. From the joint PDF $f(\vec{z})=f(x,y)$ the marginal PDF $f(x)$ of a component $x$ is obtained by integration over the other component, for example: \begin{equation} f(x)\,=\,\int_{S_y} f(x,y) dy \end{equation} The conditional PDF of the variable $y$ at a given condition $x$ is then defined by the ratio of the joint PDF and the marginal PDF of the condition: \begin{equation} f(y|x)\,=\, \frac{f(x,y)}{f(x)} \end{equation} Using the experimental model of joint PDF () we obtain for the marginal and conditional PDFs the following kernel estimators: \begin{equation} f_N(x)\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (x-x_i,\sigma) \end{equation} \begin{equation} f_N(y|x)\,=\,\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (x-x_i,\sigma)\psi (y-y_i,\sigma) }{\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (x-x_i,\sigma) } \end{equation} \subsection{Estimation of a physical law} It is often observed that the joint PDF resembles a crest along some line $y=\hat{y}(x)$. We consider $\hat{y}(x)$ as an estimator of a hidden physical law $y=y_o(x)$ that provides for a prediction of a value $y$ from the given value $x$. If we repeat joint measurements, and consider only those that yield the value $x$, we can generally observe that corresponding values of the variable $y$ are scattered, at least due to the stochastic character of the measurements. As an optimal predictor of the variable $y$ at the given value $x$, we consider the value $\hat{y}$ that yields the minimum of the mean square prediction error $D$ at a given $x$: \begin{equation} D\,=\,{\rm E} [(\hat{y} - y)^2|x]\, = \,\rm{min}(\hat{y}) \end{equation} The minimum takes place when $\rm{d}D/\rm{d}\hat{y}=0$. The solution of this equation yields as the optimal predictor $\hat{y}$ the conditional average \begin{equation} \hat{y}(x)\,=\,{\rm E} [y|x]\,=\,\int_{S_y} y \,f(y|x) dy \end{equation} By using Eq. for the conditional probability, we obtain for CA the superposition \begin{equation} \hat{y}_N(x)\,=\,\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N y_i \psi (x-x_i,\sigma)}{\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (x-x_i,\sigma)}=\sum_{i=1}^N y_i C_i (x) \end{equation} The coefficients \begin{equation} C_i (x)\,=\,\frac{\psi (x-x_i,\sigma)}{\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (x-x_i,\sigma)} \end{equation} represent a normalized measure of similarity between the given value $x$ and sample values $x_i$ and satisfy the conditions: \begin{equation} \sum_{i=1}^N C_i (x)=1\,, \end{equation} \begin{equation} 0 \leq C_i (x) \leq 1. \end{equation} The more similar given value $x$ is to a datum $x_i$, the larger the coefficient $C_i(x)$ is and the contribution of the corresponding term $y_iC_i(x)$ to the sum in Eq.(). The prediction of the value $\hat{y}_N(x)$, which best corresponds to the given value $x$, thus resembles the associative recall of memorized items in the brains of intelligent beings, and therefore could be treated as a basis for the development of computerized autonomous modelers of physical laws and related machine intelligence. The predictor Eq. () is completely determined by the set of measured data $\{\vec{z}-\vec{z}_i;\,i=1,\ldots,N\}$ and the instrument scattering function $\psi$. The predictor is not based on any {\em a priori} assumption about the functional relation between the variables $x$ and $y$, as is done for example when a physical law is described by some regression function in which parameters are adapted to given data. The conditional average Eq. () can thus be treated as a nonparametric regression, although the scattering functions $\psi(\vec{z}-\vec{z}_i,\sigma)$ still depend on the parameters $\vec{z}_i,\sigma$. However, these parameters, as well as the form of the function $\psi$, are totally specified by measurements. They represent a property of the observed phenomenon and not an assumed auxiliary of the modeling. Since the form of the CA predictor does not depend on a specific phenomenon under consideration, it could be considered as a generally applicable basis for statistical modeling of physical laws in terms of experimental data in an autonomous computer. It is convenient that Eq. () can be simply generalized to a multi--dimensional case by substituting the condition and the estimated variable by the corresponding vectors. Moreover, it is convenient that the ordering into dependent and independent variables is done automatically by a specification of the condition. \subsubsection{Description of predictor quality} We can interpret a phenomenon which is characterized by the vector $\vec{z}=(x,y)$ as a process that maps the variable $x$ to the variable $y$. When the variables $x$ and $y$ are stochastic, we most generally describe this mapping by the joint PDF $f(x,y)$. Similarly, we can interpret the prediction of the variable ${\hat y}(x)$ from the given value $x$ as a process that runs in parallel with the observed phenomenon. This process is also generally characterized by the PDF $f(x,{\hat y})$, while the relation between the variables $y$ and ${\hat y}$ is characterized by the PDF $f(y,{\hat y})$. The better the predictor is, the more the distribution $f(y,{\hat y})$ is concentrated along the line $y= {\hat y}(x)$. For a good predictor we generally expect that the prediction error $E_r=y-{\hat y}$ is close to $0$. Since both variables are considered as stochastic ones, we expect that the first and second moments of the prediction error ${\rm E}[ y-{\hat y}]$, ${\rm E}[ (y-{\hat y})^2]$ are small, while for an exact prediction ${\rm E}[ y-{\hat y}]=0$, and ${\rm E}[ (y-{\hat y})^2]= 0$. The second moment of the error is equal to ${\rm E}[ (y-{\hat y})^2]={\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ({\hat y})-2{\rm Cov} (y,{\hat y})+(m_y-m_{{\hat y}})^2$, where $m_y={\rm E}[y]$ and $m_{{\hat y}}={\rm E}[{\hat y}]$ denote mean values. If the variables $y$ and ${\hat y}$ are statistically independent and have equal mean values, the covariance vanishes: ${\rm Cov} (y,{\hat y})=0$, and $m_y-m_{{\hat y}}=0$, so that ${\rm E}[ (y-{\hat y})^2]={\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ({\hat y})$. Based upon this property we introduce a relative statistic called the {\em predictor quality} with the formula \begin{eqnarray} Q&=&1-\frac{{\rm E}[ (y-{\hat y})^2]}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ({\hat y})} \nonumber \\ &=&\frac{2{\rm Cov} (y,{\hat y})}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ({\hat y})}-\frac{(m_y-m_{{\hat y}})^2}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ({\hat y})} \end{eqnarray} Its value equals $1$ for an exact prediction: ${\hat y}=y$, while it equals $0$, if the variables $y$, ${\hat y}$ are statistically independent and have equal mean values. If the mean values differ: $m_y-m_{{\hat y}}\ne 0$, the quality $Q$ can also be negative. When the predictor is determined by the conditional average (), we obtain for its mean value \begin{eqnarray} m_{\hat y}={\rm E}[ {\hat y}]&=&\int {\hat y} f(x) dx =\int \int y f(y|x) f(x) dx dy \nonumber \\ &=&\int \int y f(y,x) dx dy = {\rm E}[ y]=m_y. \end{eqnarray} Since in this case $m_y-m_{{\hat y}}=0$, we further get \begin{equation} Q=\frac{2{\rm Cov} (y,{\hat y})}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ({\hat y})} \end {equation} Similarly we get for the covariance \begin{eqnarray} {\rm Cov} (y,{\hat y})&=&\int \int (y-m_y) ({\hat y}(x)-m_{ {\hat y}}(x)])f(y,x) dx dy \nonumber \\ &=&\int ({\hat y}(x)-m_{ {\hat y}}(x))(y-m_y) f(y|x) dy f(x) dx \nonumber \\ &=&\int ({\hat y}(x)-m_{{\hat y}}(x))^2 f(x) dx = {\rm Var} ({\hat y}), \end{eqnarray} so that the expected quality of the CA predictor is \begin{equation} Q=\frac{2{\rm Var} ({\hat y})}{{\rm Var} (y)+{\rm Var} ({\hat y})}. \end {equation} In the case when the relation between both components of the vector $\vec{z}$ is determined by some physical law $y_o(x)$, and only the measurement procedure introduces an additive noise $\nu$ with zero mean ${\rm E}[\nu]=0$, and variance ${\rm E}[\nu^2]=\sigma^2$, we can express the variable $y$ as $y=y_o(x) +\nu$. In this case the following equations: ${\rm E}[(y-{\hat y})^2]=\sigma^2$, ${\rm Var} (y)={\rm Var} ({\hat y})+\sigma^2$ hold, and we get for the expected predictor quality the expression: \begin{equation} Q=\frac{2{\rm Var} ({\hat y})}{2{\rm Var} ({\hat y})+\sigma^2}. \end {equation} For ${\rm Var} ({\hat y})\gg\sigma^2/2$ we have $Q\approx 1$, while for ${\rm Var} ({\hat y})\ll\sigma^2/2$ we have $Q\approx 0$. In the last case ${\hat y}\approx {\rm constant}$, while $y$ fluctuates around this constant, and consequently the prediction quality is low. Since generally ${\rm Var} (y)\ge {\rm Var} ({\hat y})$ and ${\rm Var} ({\hat y})\ge 0$, we obtain from Eq. () the inequality $0\le Q\le 1$. It describes a mean property, which need not be fulfilled exactly if the conditional average is statistically estimated from a finite number of samples $N$; but we can expect that it holds ever more with an increasing $N$. However, we can generally expect that with an increasing $N$, the statistically estimated CA ever better represents the underlying physical law $y=y_o(x)$. However, with an increasing $N$, the cost of experiments increases, and consequently there generally appears the question: "How to specify a number of samples $N$ that is reasonable for the experimental estimation of a hidden law $y_o(x)$?" \subsection{Experimental information} In order to answer the last question, we proceed with the description of the indeterminacy of the vector variable $\vec{z}$ in terms of the entropy of information. Following the definitions given for a scalar random variable in the previous article, we first describe the indeterminacy of the component $x$. For this purpose we introduce a uniform reference PDF $\rho(x) = 1/(2L)$ that hypothetically corresponds to the most indeterminate noninformative observation of variable $x$; or to equivalently prepared initial states of the instrument before executing the experiments in a series of observations. By using this reference and the marginal PDF $f(x)$, we first define the indeterminacy of a continuous random variable by the negative value of the relative entropy \begin{equation} H_x=-\int_{S_x} f(x) \log \Bigl(\frac{f(x)}{\rho(x)}\Bigr) \,dx . \end{equation} Using the expressions for the reference, instrumental scattering function, and experimentally estimated PDF, we obtain the expressions for the uncertainty $H_u$ of calibration performed on a unit $u$, the uncertainty $H_x$ of the component $x$, experimental information $I_x$ provided by $N$ measurements of $x$, and the redundancy $R_x$ of these measurements as follows : \begin{eqnarray} H_u&=&-\int_{S_x} \psi(x,u)\log (\psi(x,u))\,dx - \log(2L), \nonumber\\ H_x&=&-\int_{S_x} f_N(x)\log (f_N(x))\,dx- \log(2L), \nonumber\\ I_x(N)&=&H_x-H_u,\nonumber\\ R_x(N)&=&\log (N) -I_x(N), \end{eqnarray} Similar equations are obtained for the component $y$ by substituting $x\rightarrow y$. In order to describe the uncertainty of the random vector $\vec{z}$, we utilize the reference PDF that is uniform inside the joint span $S_{xy}$: $\rho(\vec{z}) = \rho(x)\rho(y)=1/(2L)^2$, and vanishes elsewhere. By analogy with the scalar variable we define the indeterminacy of the random vector $\vec{z}$ by the negative value of the relative entropy: \begin{equation} H_{xy}=-\int\int_{S_{xy}} f(\vec{z}) \log \Bigl(\frac{f(\vec{z})}{\rho(\vec{z})}\Bigr) \,dxdy. \end{equation} In the case of a uniform reference PDF we obtain \begin{equation} H_{xy}=-\int\int_{S_{xy}} f(\vec{z}) \log (f(\vec{z})) \,dx dy - 2\log (2L) . \end{equation} With this formula we then express the uncertainty of the joint instrument calibration as \begin{equation} H_\vec{w}=-\int\int_{S_{xy}} \psi(\vec{z},\vec{w})\log (\psi(\vec{z},\vec{w}))\,dx dy- 2\log (2L) . \end{equation} For $\sigma\ll L$ we obtain from the Gaussian scattering function $\psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_i)={\rm g}(x-x_i,\sigma){\rm g}(y-y_i,\sigma)$ the approximation \begin{equation} H_\vec{w}\approx \log \Bigl(\frac{\sigma^2}{L^2}\Bigr)+\log \frac{\pi}{2}+1 , \end{equation} The uncertainty of calibration depends on the ratio between the scattering width $2\sigma$ and the instrument span $2L$ in both directions. The number $2\log (\sigma / L)$ determines the lowest possible uncertainty of measurement on the given two--channel instrument, as achieved at its joint calibration. The indeterminacy of the random vector $\vec{z}$, which characterizes the scattering of experimental data, is defined by the estimated joint PDF as \begin{equation} H_{xy}=-\int\int_{S_{xy}} f_N(\vec{z})\log (f_N(\vec{z}))\,dx dy- 2\log (2L) \end{equation} and is generally greater than the uncertainty of calibration described by $H_\vec{w}$. Since $H_\vec{w}$ denotes the lowest possible indeterminacy of observation carried out over a given instrument, we define the joint experimental information $I_{xy}$ about vector $\vec{z}=(x,z)$ by the difference \begin{eqnarray} I_{xy}(N)&=&H_{xy}-H_\vec{w}\nonumber \\ &=&-\int\int f_N(\vec{z}) \log (f_N(\vec{z}))\,dx dy \nonumber \\ &\phantom{=}&+\int\int \psi(\vec{z},\vec{w}) \log (\psi(\vec{z},\vec{w})) \,dx dy . \end{eqnarray} Most properties of the uncertainty and information appertaining to a random vector are similar to those in the case of a scalar variable. For example, the reference density $\rho(\vec{z})$ can be arbitrarily selected since it is excluded from the specification of the experimental information. Furthermore, the joint experimental information $I_{xy}(1)$ provided by a single measurement is zero. For a measurement which yields multiple samples $\vec{z}_1, \ldots , \vec{z}_N$ that are mutually separated by several $\sigma$ in both directions, the distributions $\psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_1)={\rm g}(x-x_i,\sigma){\rm g}(y-y_i,\sigma)$ are nonoverlapping and the first integral on the right of Eq.\, can be approximated as \begin{eqnarray} &-&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\int\int\psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_i) \log \Bigl[ \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_i)\Bigr] \,dxdy \nonumber \\ &\approx& \log (N)-\int\int \psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_1) \log \psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_1)\,dxdy \end{eqnarray} so that we get $I_{xy}(N)\approx\log (N)$. If the distributions $\psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_i)$ are overlapping but not concentrated at a single point, the inequality $0\leq I_{xy}(N)\leq \log (N)$ holds generally. Similarly as the entropy of information for a discrete random variable, the experimental information describes how much information is provided by $N$ experiments performed by an instrument that is not infinitely accurate. In accordance with these properties the experimental information describes the complexity of experimental data in units of information entropy, which are here {\em nats}. When the distributions $\psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_i)$ are nonoverlapping, $N$ repeated experiments yield the maximal possible information $\log (N)$. However, with an increasing number $N$, ever more overlapping of distributions $\psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_i)$ takes place, and therefore the experimental information $I_{xy}(N)$ increases more slowly than $\log ( N)$. Consequently, the repetition of joint measurements becomes on average ever more redundant with an increasing number $N$. The difference \begin{equation} R_{xy}(N)=\log (N) -I_{xy}(N)\, . \end{equation} thus represents the redundancy of repeated joint measurements in $N$ experiments. Since the overlapping of distributions $\psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_i)$ increases with an increasing number of experiments, the experimental information on average tends to a constant value $I_{xy}(\infty)$, and along with this, the redundancy increases with $N$. The number \begin{equation} K_{xy}(N)={\rm e}^{I_{xy}(N)} \end{equation} describes how many nonoverlapping distributions are needed to represent the experimental observation. With an increasing $N$, the number $K_{xy}(N)$ tends to a fixed value $K_{xy}(\infty)$ that can be well estimated already from a finite number of experiments. We could conjecture that $K_{xy}(\infty)$ approximately determines a reasonable number of experiments that provide sufficient data for an acceptable modeling of the joint PDF. However, it is still better to determine such a number from a properly introduced cost function of the experimental observation. With this aim we consider the difference $D_{xy}(N)=I_{xy}(\infty)-I_{xy}(N)$ as the measure of the discrepancy between the experimentally observed and the true properties of the phenomenon. An information cost function is then comprised of the redundancy and the discrepancy measure: \begin{equation} C_{xy}(N)=R_{xy}(N)+D_{xy}(N). \end{equation} Since the redundancy on average increases, while the discrepancy measure decreases with the number of measurements $N$, we expect that the cost function $C_{xy}(N)$ exhibits a minimum at a certain number $N_o$, which could be considered as an optimal one for the experimental modeling of a phenomenon. From the definition of redundancy and the discrepancy measure we further obtain $C_{xy}(N)=R_{xy}(N)+D_{xy}(N)=\log (N) - 2I_{xy}(N)+I_{xy}(\infty)$. Since the last term is a constant for a given phenomenon, it is not essential for the determination of $N_o$, and can be omitted from the definition of the cost function. This yields a more simple version \begin{equation} C_{xy}(N)=\log (N) - 2I_{xy}(N), \end{equation} which is more convenient for application since it does not include the limit value $I_{xy}(\infty)$. In a previous article we have proposed a cost function that is comprised from the redundancy and the information measure of the discrepancy between the hypothetical and experimentally observed PDFs. However, such a definition is less convenient than the present one, although the values of $N_o$ determined from both cost functions do not differ essentially. Numerical investigations also show that the optimal number $N_o$ approximately corresponds to $K_{xy}(\infty)={\rm e}^{I_{xy}(\infty)}$ if the distribution of the data points is approximately uniform. Although the experimental information of a vector variable and its scalar components exhibits similar properties, their values generally do not coincide since the overlapping of distributions $\psi(\vec{z},\vec{z}_i)$ generally differs from that of distributions $\psi(x,x_i)$ or $\psi(y,y_i)$. Therefore, the experimental information provided by joint measurements generally differs from that provided by measurements of single components. \subsection{Mutual information and determination of one variable by the other} In order to describe the information corresponding to the relation between variables $x,y$ we introduce conditional entropy. At a given value $x$ we express the entropy pertaining to the variable $y$ by the conditional PDF as \begin{equation} H_{y|x}=-\int_{S_y} f(y|x)\log \Bigl(\frac{f(y|x)}{\rho(y)}\Bigr)\,dy \end{equation} If we express in Eq. () the joint PDF by the conditional one $f(\vec{z})=f(y|x)f(x)$ we obtain the following equation: \begin{equation} H_{xy}=\overline{H_{y|x}} + H_x \end{equation} in which $\overline{H_{y|x}}$ denotes the average conditional entropy of information \begin{equation} \overline{H_{y|x}}=-\int_{S_x} H_{y|x} f(x) \,dx . \end{equation} When we exchange the meaning of the variables we get \begin{equation} H_{xy}=\overline{H_{x|y}} + H_y. \end{equation} Based on these equations and Eq. () we obtain the following relation between the joint and the conditional information \begin{eqnarray} I_{xy}&=&\overline{H_{x|y}} + H_y-H_u-H_v \nonumber\\ &=&\overline{I_{y|x}} + I_x =\overline{I_{x|y}} + I_y \end{eqnarray} where the conditional information is defined by \begin{eqnarray} \overline{I_{x|y}}=\overline{H_{x|y}} - H_u \quad {\rm or} \quad \overline{I_{y|x}}=\overline{H_{y|x}} - H_v. \end{eqnarray} When the components of the vector $\vec{z}$ are statistically independent, the joint PDF is equal to the product of marginal probabilities and the joint information is given by the sum $I_{xy}=I_x +I_y$, which represents the maximal possible information that could be provided by joint measurements. However, when $x$ and $y$ are not statistically independent, the joint information is less than the maximal possible one: $I_{xy}<I_x +I_y$. The difference \begin{equation} I_m=I_x +I_y - I_{xy}=I_x-\overline{I_{x|y}}= I_y-\overline{I_{y|x}}. \end{equation} can be interpreted as the experimental information that a measurement of one variable provides about another one and is consequently called the mutual information. In accordance with the previous interpretation of the redundancy, it follows from the last two terms in Eq. () that the mutual information also describes how redundant on average is a measurement of the variable $y$ at a given $x$ or vice versa. In accordance with the definition of the redundancy of a certain number $N$ of measurements $R_x(N)=\log (N) - I_x$, we further define also the mutual redundancy of $N$ joint measurements \begin{equation} R_m(N)=\log (N) - I_m (N)\,. \end{equation} If we then take into account all the definitions of the redundancies and types of information, we obtain the formula: \begin{equation} R_{xy}(N)=R_x(N) +R_y(N) - R_m(N) \end{equation} It should be pointed out that redundancies $R_{xy}(N)$, $R_x(N)$, $R_y(N)$, and $R_m(N)$ generally increase with $N$, while the corresponding experimental information tends to fixed values that correspond to the amount of data needed for presenting related variables. In order to describe quantitatively how well determined the value of the variable $y$ by the value of $x$ is on average, we propose a {\em relative measure of determination} by the ratio \begin{equation} \overline{D_{y|x}}=\frac{I_m}{I_y} = 1-\frac{\overline{I_{y|x}}}{I_y} . \end{equation} If $\overline{D_{y|x}}>\overline{D_{x|y}}$, the value of the variable $x$ better determines the value of $y$ than vice versa. In this case the variable $x$ could be considered as more fundamental for the description of the phenomenon, and consequently as an independent one. In the case of functional dependence described by a physical law $y=y_o(x)$, the relative measure of determination is $\overline{D_{y|x}}=1$, while for the statistically independent variables $x$ and $y$ it is $\overline{D_{y|x}}=0$. The entropy of information is generally decreased if the distribution of scattered experimental data at a given $x$ is compressed to the estimated physical law $\hat{y}(x)$. The corresponding information gain is in drastic contrast to the information loss that is caused by the noise in a measurement system. \section{Illustration of statistics} \subsection{Data with a hidden law} The purpose of this section is to demonstrate graphically the basic properties of the statistics introduced above. For this purpose it is most convenient to generate data numerically since in this case the relation between the variables $x$ and $y$, as well as the properties of the scattering function $\psi (\vec{z})$, can be simply set. For our demonstration we arbitrarily selected a third order polynomial law $y_o(x)=[x(x-5)(x+10)]/100$ and the Gaussian scattering function with standard deviation $\sigma=0.2$. To simulate the basic data set $\{x_i, y_i ;\,i=1,\ldots ,N\}$, we first calculated $50$ sample values $x_i$ by summing two random terms obtained from a generator with a uniform distribution in the interval $[-8,+8]$ and from a Gaussian generator having the mean value $0$ and standard deviation $\sigma=0.2$. The corresponding sample values $y_i$ were then calculated as a sum of terms obtained from the selected law $y_o(x_i)$ and the same random Gaussian generator with a different seed. The generated data $\{x_i, y_i ;\,i=1,\ldots,50\}$ were used as centers of scattering function when estimating the joint PDF based on Eq.\,(\ref {pdfxy}). An example of such PDF is shown in Fig.\,, while the corresponding joint data of the basic set are shown by points in the top curve of Fig.\, together with the underlying law $y_o(x)$. The conditional average predictor, which corresponds to the presented example, was modeled by inserting data from the basic data set into Eq.\,(). To demonstrate its performance, we additionally generated a test data set by the same procedure as in the case of the basic data set, but with different seeds of all the random generators. Using the values $x_{i,t}$ of the test set, we then predicted the corresponding values $\hat{y}_i$ by the modeled CA predictor. With this procedure we simulated a situation that is normally met when a natural law is modeled and tested based upon experimental data. The test and predicted data are shown by the middle two curves in Fig.\,. From both data sets the prediction error $E_r=\hat{y}-y_{t}$ was calculated that is presented by the bottom curve (..*..) in Fig.\,. The curve representing the predicted data (--o--) is smoother than the curve representing the original test data (..$\cdot$..). This property is a consequence of smoothing caused by estimating the conditional mean value from various data included in the modeled CA predictor. In spite of this smoothing, it is obvious that the characteristic properties of the relation between the variables $x$ and $y$ is approximately extracted from the given data by the CA predictor. This further means that the properties of the hidden law $y=y_o (x)$ can be approximately described in the region where measured data appear based on a finite number of joint samples. The quality of estimation of the hidden law $y_o(x)$ depends on the values and number $N$ of statistical samples utilized in Eq.\,() in the modeling of CA and its testing. To demonstrate this property, we repeated the complete procedure three times, using various statistical data sets with increasing $N$ and determined the dependence of predictor quality $Q$ on $N$. The result is presented in Fig.\,. The quality statistically fluctuates with the increasing $N$, but the fluctuations are ever less pronounced, so that quality determined from different data sets converges to a common limit value at a large $N$. In our example with $\sigma =0.2$ the limit value is approximately $Q=0.98$. With increasing $N$, the curves corresponding to different data sets join approximately at $N_{CA}\approx 30$. At a higher $N$ the fluctuations of $Q$ are ever less expressive. We could conjecture that about $30$ data values are needed to model the CA predictor in the presented case approximately. The smaller the scattering width $\sigma$ is, the higher generally the limit value of the predictor quality is, but on average $Q$ is still less than $1$ if $1/\sigma$ and $N$ are finite. This property is in tune with the well--known fact that it is impossible to determine exactly the law $y=y_o(x)$ from joint data that are measured by an instrument which is subject to output scattering due to inherent stochastic disturbances. The properties of the statistics that are formulated based upon the entropy of information are demonstrated for the case with $\sigma =0.2$ in Fig.\,. It shows the dependence of experimental information $I_{xy}$, mutual information $I_{m}$, redundancy $R_{xy}$, and cost function $C_{xy}$ on the number of samples $N$ for three different sample sets. In the same figure the maximal possible information, which corresponds to the ideal case with no scattering, is also presented by the curve $\log (N)$, since it represents the basis for defining the redundancy. Similarly as in the one--dimensional case , the experimental information $I_{xy}$ in the two--dimensional case also converges with increasing $N$ to a fixed value. In the presented case the limit value is $I_{xy}(\infty )\approx 3.2$, which yields the number $K_\infty\approx 25$. This number is approximately equal to the ratio of standard deviation of variable $x$ and the scattering width $\sigma$ and describes how many uniformly distributed samples are needed to represent the PDF of the data. Due to the convergence of experimental information to a fixed value, the curve $I_{xy}(N)$ starts to deviate from $\log (N)$ with the increasing $N$. Consequently the redundancy $R_{xy}=\log (N)-I_{xy}(N)$ starts to increase, which further leads to the minimum of the cost function $C_{xy}(N)=\log (N)-2I_{xy}(N)$. The minimum is not well pronounced due to statistical variations, but it takes place at approximately $N_o\approx 30$. Not surprisingly, the optimal number $N_o$ approximately corresponds to $K_\infty$ and also to $N_{CA}$. Similarly as the joint experimental information $I_{xy}$, the marginal experimental information $I_{x}$, $I_{y}$ also converges to fixed values with increasing $N$. These statistics are presented in Fig.\, for the same data generator as applied in the case of Fig.\,. The sample values of variable $x$ take place in a larger interval than those of variable $y$. Hence there is less overlapping of scattering functions comprising the marginal PDF of $x$ and consequently $I_x$ is larger than $I_y$. It is also characteristic that $I_{xy}$ is larger than $I_x$ since the data points in the joint span $S_{xy}$ are more separated than in the marginal span $S_{x}$. Since the mutual information $I_m$ is defined as $I_m=I_x + I_y - I_{xy}$, its properties depend on both the marginal and the joint information, and consequently $I_m $ converges more quickly to the limit value than the experimental information $I_{xy}$. To demonstrate the influence of scattering width on the presented statistics the calculations were repeated with $\sigma=0.1$ and $0.4$. The results are presented in Fig.\,. For the sake of clear presentation, the curves representing the mutual information $I_{m}$ are omitted. As could be expected, the limit value of $I_{xy}$ increases with decreasing $\sigma$. This property is consistent with the well--known fact that more information can be obtained by experimental observation when using an instrument of higher accuracy that corresponds to a lesser scattering width. In opposition to this, the redundancy of measurement decreases, and along with it, the optimal number $N_o$ increases with the decreasing scattering width. From the calculated mutual and marginal information, the relative measures of determination $\overline{D_{y|x}}$ and $\overline{D_{x|y}}$ were further determined using various statistical data sets. The results are presented in Fig.\, for the case of scattering width $\sigma=0.2$. When the number of data $N$ surpasses the interval around the optimal number $N_o$, statistical variations of $\overline{D_{y|x}}$ and $\overline{D_{x|y}}$ become less pronounced and their values settle close to limit ones. The limit value $\overline{D_{x|y}}$ is essentially lower than $\overline{D_{y|x}}$. This is the consequence of the fact that in our case the variable $y$ is uniquely determined by the underlying law $y_o(x)$ based upon the variable $x$, but not vice versa. In our case, there are three values of the variable $x$ corresponding to a value of $y$ in a certain interval. Consequently, $y$ is better determined by a given $x$ than vice versa, which further yields $\overline{D_{y|x}}>\overline{D_{x|y}}$. Hence the relative measure of determination indicates that variable $x$ could be considered more fundamental for the description of the relation between the variables $x$ and $y$. \subsection{Data without a hidden law} To support the last conclusion let us examine an example in which the sample values of the variables $x$ and $y$ were calculated by two statistically independent random generators. The corresponding joint PDF is shown in Fig.\,, while the properties of the other statistics are demonstrated by Figs.\,, and . The properties of the presented statistics could be understood, if the overlapping of scattering functions comprising the estimator of the joint PDF is examined. In the previous case with the underlying law $y_o(x)$, the joint data are distributed along the corresponding line where $-8\le x\le +8$, while in the last case, they take place in the square region $-8\le x\le +8, -8\le y\le +8$. Consequently, the number of samples with nonoverlapping scattering functions in the last case is approximately $L/\sigma=16$ times larger than in the previous case. In the last case we can therefore expect the optimal number of samples in the interval around $N_{ro}\approx 16N_o=480$. Since in the last case a larger region is covered by the joint PDF, the overlapping of scattering functions is less probable than previously, and therefore, the joint experimental information $I_{xy}$ deviates less quickly from the line $\log(N)$ with the increasing $N$. Therefore, the redundancy increases less quickly and the minimum of the cost function takes place at a much higher number of $N_{ro}= 480$, which corresponds well to our estimation. Since in the last case the experimental information $I_{xy}$ converges less quickly to the limit value than the marginal information $I_{x},I_{y}$, the mutual information $I_{m}$ first increases and later decreases to its limit value. Related to this is the approach of relative measures of determination $\overline{D_{y|x}},\overline{D_{x|y}}$ to much lower limit values as in the previous case. Since the marginal information $I_{x},I_{y}$ is approximately equal, the curves representing $\overline{D_{y|x}},\overline{D_{x|y}}$ join with increasing $N$, and there is no argument to consider any variable as a more fundamental one for the description of the phenomenon under examination. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that the centers of the scattering functions are determined by two statistically independent random generators. However, the limit values of the statistics $\overline{D_{y|x}},\overline{D_{x|y}}$ are not equal to zero since the region $-8\le x\le +8, -8\le y\le +8$ where the data appear is limited, while the characteristic region $-\sigma\le x\le +\sigma, -\sigma\le y\le +\sigma$ covered by the joint scattering function does not vanish. \section{Conclusions} Following the procedures proposed in the previous article , we have shown how the joint PDF of a vector variable $\vec{z}=(x,y)$ can be estimated nonparametrically based upon measured data. For this purpose the inaccuracy of joint measurements was considered by including the scattering function in the estimator. It is essential that the properties of the scattering function need not be a priori specified, but could be determined experimentally based upon calibration procedure. The joint PDF was then transformed into the conditional PDF that provides for an extraction of the law $y_o(x)$ that relates the measured variables $x,y$. For this purpose the estimation by the conditional average $y_o(x)\approx{\rm E} [y|x]$ is proposed. The quality of the prediction by the conditional average is described in terms of the estimation error and the variance of the measured data. It is outstanding that the quality exhibits a convergence to some limit value that represents the measure of applicability of the proposed approach. Examination of the quality convergence makes it feasible to estimate an appropriate number of joint data needed for the modeling of the law. It is important that the conditional average makes feasible a nonparametric autonomous extraction of underlying law from the measured data. Using the joint PDF estimator we have also defined the experimental information, the redundancy of measurement and the cost function of experimental exploration. It is characteristic that experimental information converges with an increasing number of joint samples to a certain limit value which characterizes the number of nonoverlapping scattering distributions in the estimator of the joint PDF. The most essential terms of the cost function are the experimental information and the redundancy. During cost minimization the experimental information provides for a proper adaptation of the joint PDF model to the experimental data, while the redundancy prevents an excessive growth of the number of experiments. By the position of the cost function minimum we introduced the optimal number of the data that is needed to represent the phenomenon under exploration. This number roughly corresponds to the ratio between the magnitude of the characteristic region where joint data appear and the magnitude of the characteristic region covered by the joint scattering function. It also corresponds to the appropriate number estimated from the quality of prediction by the conditional average. Based upon the experimental information corresponding to the joint and marginal PDFs, the mutual information has been introduced and further utilized in the definition of the relative measure of determination of one variable by another. This statistic provides an argument for considering one variable as a fundamental one for the description of the phenomenon. In this article we graphically present the properties of the proposed statistics by two characteristic examples that represent data related by a certain law and statistically independent random data. The exhibited properties agree well with the expectations given by experimental science. The problems related to the extraction of laws representing relations such as $y^2+x^2=1$ and the expression of physical laws by differential equations or analytical modeling were not considered. For this purpose the statistical methods are developed in the fields of pattern recognition, system identification and artificial intelligence. \noindent{\bf Acknowledgment} \newline\noindent The research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Slovenia and EU COST. \begin{thebibliography}{} \bibitem{gs} I. Grabec and W. Sachse, Synergetics of Measurement, Prediction and Control (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997). \bibitem{les} J. C. G. Lesurf, Information and Measurement (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 2002) \bibitem{ig} I. Grabec, Experimental modeling of physical laws, Eur. Phys. J., B, {\bf 22} 129-135 (2001) \bibitem{dh} R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart, Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis (J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973), Ch. 4. \bibitem{par} E. Parzen, Ann. Math. Stat., {\bf 35} 1065-1076 (1962). \bibitem{ct} T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas Elements of Information Theory (John Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1991). \bibitem{kol} A. N. Kolmogorov, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, {\bf IT-2} 102-108 (1956). \bibitem{cla} B. S. Clarke, A. R. Barron, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, {\bf 36} (6) 453-471 (1990) \bibitem{haop} D. Haussler, M. Opper, Annals of Statistics, {\bf 25} (6) 2451-2492 (1997) \bibitem{hau} D. Haussler, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, {\bf 43} (4) 1276-1280 (1997) \bibitem{sha} C. E. Shannon, Bell. Syst. Tech. J., {\bf 27} 379-423 (1948). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0154
|
Title: Hadrons in Medium -- Theory confronts experiment
Abstract: In this talk we briefly summarize our theoretical understanding of in-medium
selfenergies of hadrons. With the special case of the $\omega$ meson we
demonstrate that earlier calculations that predicted a significant lowering of
the mass in medium are based on an incorrect treatment of the model Lagrangian;
more consistent calculations lead to a significant broadening, but hardly any
mass shift. We stress that the experimental reconstruction of hadron spectral
functions from measured decay products always requires knowledge of the decay
branching ratios which may also be strongly mass-dependent. It also requires a
quantitatively reliable treatment of final state interactions which has to be
part of any reliable theory.
Body: \maketitle \section{Introduction} The study of in-medium properties of hadrons has attracted quite some interest among experimentalists and theorists alike because of a possible connection with chiral symmetry restoration in hot and/or dense matter. Experiments using ultrarelativistic heavy ions reach not only very high densities, but connected with that also very high temperatures. In their dynamical evolution they run through various -- physically quite different -- states, from an initial high-nonequilibrium stage through a very hot stage of -- possibly - a new state of matter (QGP) to an equilibrated 'classical' hadronic stage at moderate densities and temperatures. Any observed signal necessarily represents a time-integral over all these physically quite distinct states of matter. On the contrary, in experiments with microscopic probes on cold nuclei one tests interactions with nuclear matter in a well-known state, close to cold equilibrium. Even though the density probed is always smaller than the nuclear saturation density, the expected signals are as large as those from ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions. In this talk we discuss as an example the theoretical situation concerning the $\omega$ meson in medium and use it to point out various essential points both in the theoretical framework as well as in the interpretation of data (for further refs see the reviews in ). \section{In-medium Properties: Theory} The interest in in-medium properties arose suddenly in the early 90's when several authors predicted a close connection between in-medium masses and chiral symmetry restoration in hot and/or dense matter. This seemed to establish a direct link between nuclear properties on one hand and QCD symmetries on the other. Later on it was realized that the connection between the chiral condensates of QCD and hadronic spectral functions is not as direct as originally envisaged. The only strict connection is given by QCD sum rules which restrict only an integral over the hadronic spectral function by the values of the quark and gluon condensates which themselves are known only for the lowest twist configurations. Indeed a simple, but more realistic analysis of QCD sum rules showed that these do not make precise predictions for hadron masses or widths, but can only serve to constrain hadronic spectral functions . Thus hadronic models are needed for a more specific prediction of hadronic properties in medium. For example, in the past a lively discussion has been going on about a possible mass shift of the $\omega$-meson in a nuclear medium. While there seems to be a general agreement that the $\omega$ acquires a certain width of the order of 40-60 MeV in the medium, the mass shift is not so commonly agreed on. While some groups have predicted a dropping mass , there have also been suggestions for a rising mass or even a structure with several peaks . In this context a recent experiment by the CBELSA/TAPS collaboration is of particular interest, since it is the first indication of a downward shift of the mass of the $\omega$-meson in a nuclear medium . Since Klingl et al. were among the first to predict such a downward shift it is worthwhile to look into their approach again. The central quantity that contains all the information about the properties of an $\omega$ meson in medium is the spectral function \begin{equation} A_{med}(q) = -\frac{1}{\pi} \text{Im}\frac{1}{q^2 - (m_\omega^0)^2- \Pi_{vac}(q) - \Pi_{med}(q)}, \end{equation} with the bare mass $m_\omega^0$ of the $\omega$. The vacuum part of the $\omega$ selfenergy $\Pi_{vac}$ is dominated by the decay $\omega \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^0 \pi^-$ . For the calculation of the in-medium part one can employ the low-density-theorem which states that at sufficiently small density of the nuclear medium one can expand the selfenergy in orders of the density $\rho$ \begin{equation} \Pi_{med}(\nu, \vec q = 0; \rho) = - \rho T(\nu) \ , \end{equation} where $T(\nu)$ is the $\omega$-nucleon forward-scattering amplitude. We note that a priori it is not clear up to which densities this low-density-theorem is reliable . To obtain the imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude via Cutkosky's Cutting Rules Klingl et. al used an effective Lagrangian that combined chiral SU(3) dynamics with VMD. The $\omega$ selfenergy was evaluated on tree-level which needs as input the inelastic reactions $\omega N \rightarrow \pi N$ ($1\pi$ channel) and $\omega N \rightarrow 2\pi N$ ($2\pi$ channel) to determine the effective coupling constants. The amplitude $\omega N \rightarrow \pi N$ is more or less fixed by the measurable and measured back reaction . This is in contrast to the reaction $\omega N \leftrightarrow \rho N$ which -- in the calculations of ref. -- is not constrained by any data and which dominates the $2\pi$ channel. Furthermore, Klingl et. al employed a heavy baryon approximation (HBA) to drop some of the tree-level diagrams generated by their Lagrangian. All the calculations were made for isospin-symmetric nuclear matter at temperature $T=0$. The scattered $\omega$ was taken to have $\vec q = 0$ relative to the nuclear medium. We have repeated these calculations without, however, invoking the HBA.\footnote{For further details of the present calculations we refer to ref..} For the $2\pi$ channel which decides about the in-medium mass shift of the $\omega$ in the calculations of ref. we find considerable differences -- up to one order of magnitude in the imaginary part of the selfenergy -- when comparing calculations using the full model with those using the HBA . We thus have to conclude already at this point that the HBA is unjustified for the processes considered here and leads to grossly incorrect results. We show our resulting in-medium spectral function of the $\omega$ (where HBA was not employed) in figure . Note that in the medium the peak is shifted to 544 MeV which is due to the large effects of a relativistic, full treatment of the imaginary and real parts of the amplitudes obtained in the present model. This has to be compared with the results obtained by Klingl et al. . Since Klingl et al. find an in-medium peak at about 620 MeV it is obvious that in the relativistic calculation the physical picture changes drastically. It is also obvious that the correct treatment of the same Lagrangian as used in ref. on tree-level leads to an unrealistic lowering of the $\omega$ spectral function. It is, therefore, worthwhile to look into another method to calculate the $\omega$ selfenergy that takes experimental constraints as much as possible into account and -- in contrast to the tree-level calculations of ref. -- respects unitarity. A first study in this direction has been performed by Lutz et al. who solved the Bethe-Salpeter equation with local interaction kernels. These authors found a rather complex spectral function with a second peak at lower energies due to a coupling to nucleon resonances with masses of about $\approx 1500$ MeV. We have recently used a large-scale K-matrix analysis of all available $\gamma N$ and $\pi N$ data that does respect unitarity and thus constrains the essential $2\pi$ channel by the inelasticities in the $1 \pi$ channel . By consistently using the low-density-approximation we have obtained the result shown in Fig. . Fig. clearly exhibits a broadened $\omega$ spectral function with only a small (upwards) shift of the peak mass. In agreement with the calculations of Lutz et al. , although with less strength, it also exhibits a second peak at masses around 550 MeV that is due to a coupling to a N*(1535)-nucleon hole configuration. Such a resonance-hole coupling is known to play also a major role in the determination of the $\rho$ meson spectral function ; in the context of QCD sum rules it has been examined in ref.. It is obviously quite sensitive to the detailed coupling strength of this resonance to the $\omega N$ channel which energetically opens up only at much higher masses. As mentioned earlier, there is general consensus among different theories, that the on-shell width of the $\omega$ meson in medium reaches values of about 50 MeV at saturation density. To illustrate this point we show in Fig. the width as a function of omega momentum relative to the nuclear matter restframe both for the transverse and the longitudinal polarization degree of freedom. It is clearly seen that the transverse width increases strongly as a function of momentum. At values of about 500 MeV, i.e. the region, where CBELSA/TAPS measures, the transverse width has already increased to about 125 MeV and even the polarization averaged width amounts to 100 MeV. \section{Spectral Functions and Observables} Apart from invariant mass measurements, there is another possibility to experimentally constrain the in-medium broadening of the $\omega$-meson. The total width plotted in Fig. is the sum of elastic and inelastic widths. In general, the inelastic width alone is determined by the imaginary part of the selfenergy and the latter determines the amount of reabsorption of $\omega$ mesons in the medium. In a Glauber approximation the cross section for $\omega$ production on a nucleus reads \begin{equation} \frac{d\sigma_{\gamma + A \to \omega + X}}{d\Omega} = \int d^3x\, \rho(\vec{x}) \frac{d\sigma_{\gamma + N \to \omega + X}}{d\Omega} \exp\left[-\int_z^\infty dz'\,\left(- \frac{1}{p} \Im \Pi(p,\rho(\vec{x}\,'))\right)\right]~. \end{equation} The ratio of this cross section on the nucleus to that on the nucleon then determines the nuclear transmission $T$ which depends on the imaginary part of the omega selfenergy $\Im \Pi$ \begin{equation} T(A) \approx \int d^3x\, \rho(\vec{x}) \exp\left[-\int_z^\infty dz'\, \left(- \frac{1}{p} \Im \Pi(p,\rho(\vec{x}\,'))\right)\right]~. \end{equation} Using in addition the low-density-approximation \begin{equation} \Im \Pi(p,\vec{x}) = - p \rho(\vec{x}) \sigma_{\omega N}^{\rm inel} ~ \end{equation} one obtains the usual Glauber result \begin{equation} T(A) = \int d^3x\, \rho(\vec{x}) \exp\left[-\int_z^\infty dz'\, \rho(\vec{x}\,') \sigma_{\omega N}^{\rm inel} \right]~. \end{equation} We show the calculated transmission $T$ in Fig. together with the data obtained by CBELSA/TAPS. The measured cross section dependence on massnumber $A$ is reproduced very well if the inelastic $\omega N$ cross section is increased by 25\ This may indicate a problem with the usually used cross section, or - more interesting - it may indicate a breakdown of the low-density-approximation. It is, furthermore, important to realize that the spectral functions themselves are not observable. What can be observed are the decay products of the meson under study. It is thus obvious that even in vacuum the invariant mass distribution of the decaying resonance ($V \to X_1 X_2$), reconstructed from the four-momenta of the decay products ($X_1,X_2$), involves a product of spectral function and partial decay width into the channel being studied \begin{equation} \frac{dR_{V \to X_1X_2}}{dq^2} \sim A(q^2) \times \frac{\Gamma_{V \to X_1 X_2}(q^2)}{\Gamma_{\rm tot}(q^2)}~. \end{equation} Since in general the branching ratio also depends on the invariant mass of the decaying resonance this dependence may distort the observed invariant mass distribution compared with the spectral function itself. This effect is obviously the more important the broader the decaying resonance is and the stronger the widths depend on $q^2$. While these branching ratios are usually well known in vacuum there is considerable uncertainty about their value in the nuclear medium. This uncertainty is connected with the lack of knowledge about the in-medium vertex corrections, i.e. the change of coupling constants with density. Even if we assume that these quantities stay the same, then at least the total width appearing in the denominator of the branching ratio has to be changed, consistent with the change of the width in the spectral function. This point has only rarely been discussed so far, but it has far-reaching consequences. For example, for the $\rho$ meson the partial decay width into the dilepton channel goes like \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\rho \to e^+e^-} \sim \frac{1}{M^4} M = \frac{1}{M^3} ~, \end{equation} where the first factor on the rhs originates in the photon propagator and the last factor $M$ comes from phase-space. On the other hand, the total decay width of the $\rho$ meson in vacuum is given by (neglecting the pion masses for simplicity) \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\rm tot} \approx \Gamma_{\rho \to \pi \pi} \sim M ~, \end{equation} so that the branching ratio in vacuum goes like \begin{equation} \frac{\Gamma_{\rho \to e^+e^-}}{\Gamma_{\rm tot}} \sim \frac{1}{M^4}~. \end{equation} This strong $M$-dependence distorts the spectral function, in particular, for a broad resonance such as the $\rho$ meson. This effect is contained and clearly seen in theoretical simulations of the total dilepton yield from nuclear reactions (see, e.~g., Figs.~$8-10$ in ); it leads to a considerable shift of strength in the dilepton spectrum towards lower masses. For the semileptonic decay channel $\pi^0 \gamma$ that has been exploited in the CBELSA TAPS experiment again a strong mass-dependence of the branching ratio shows up because just at the resonance the decay channel $\omega \to \rho \pi$ opens up. In both of these cases the in-medium broadening changes the total widths in the denominator of the branching ratios even if the partial decay width stays the same as in vacuum. Such an in-medium broadening of the total width, which should be the same as in the spectral function, will tend to weaken the $M$-dependence of the total width and thus the branching ratio as a whole. In medium another complication arises: the spectral function no longer depends on the invariant mass alone, but -- due to a breaking of Lorentz-invariance because of the presence of the nuclear medium -- in addition also on the three-momentum of the hadron being probed. Again, this $p$-dependence of the vector meson selfenergy has only rarely been taken into account (see, however, refs.). In addition, final state interactions do affect hadronic decay channels. A quantitatively reliable treatment of these FSI thus has to be integral part of any trustable theory that aims at describing these data. \section{Conclusions} QCD sum rules establish a very useful link between the chiral condensates, both in vacuum and in medium, but their connection to hadronic spectral functions is indirect. The latter can thus only be constrained by the QCDSR, but not be fixed; for a detailed determination hadronic models are needed. We have pointed out in this talk that the low-density-approximation nearly always used in these studies does not answer the question up to which densities it is applicable. First studies~ have shown that this may be different from particle to particle. While the in-medium properties of all vector mesons $\rho$, $\omega$, and $\phi$ are the subject of intensive experimental and theoretical research, in this talk we have concentrated on the $\omega$ meson for which recent experiments indicate a lowering of the mass by about 60 MeV in photon-produced experiments on nuclei. A tree-level calculation, based on an effective Lagrangian, that predicted such a lowering, has been shown to be incorrect because of the heavy-baryon approximation used in that calculation. A correct tree-level calculation with the same Lagrangian gives strong contributions from the $\omega \to 2\pi N$ channel, which, however, is unconstrained by any data; in effect, the spectral function is softened by an unreasonable pole mass shift. This problem might partially be based on the fact that all the inelastic processes $\omega N \rightarrow \pi N$ and $\omega N \rightarrow 2\pi N$ are only treated at tree-level. Here an improved calculation is needed, which incorporates coupled-channels and rescattering, e.g. a Bethe-Salpeter or a K-matrix approach . We have indeed shown that a better calculation that again starts out from an effective Lagrangian and takes unitarity, channel-coupling and rescattering into account yields a significantly different in-medium spectral function in which the pole mass hardly changes, but a broadening of about 60 MeV at nuclear saturation density takes place, which increases with momentum, primarily in the transverse channel. Finally, we have pointed out that any measurement of the spectral function necessarily involves also a branching ratio into the channel being studied. The experimental in-medium signal thus contains changes of both the spectral function and the branching ratio. \section*{Acknowledgements} The authors acknowledge discussions with Norbert Kaiser and Wolfram Weise. They have also benefitted a lot from discussions with Vitaly Shklyar. This work has been supported by DFG through the SFB/TR16 "Subnuclear Structure of Matter". \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Mosel_Hirschegg} U.~Mosel, in: QCD Phase Transitions, Proc. Int. Workshop Hirschegg 1997, GSI Darmstadt, p.\ 201, arXiv:nucl-th/9702046. \bibitem{Mosel:2000fz} U.~Mosel, in: Hadrons in Dense Matter, Proc. Int. Workshop Hirschegg 2000, GSI Darmstadt, p.\ 11, arXiv:nucl-th/0002020. \bibitem{Mosel_Erice1} T.~Falter, J.~Lehr, U.~Mosel, P.~Muehlich and M.~Post, Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 53}, 25 (2004). \bibitem{Mosel_Erice2} L.~Alvarez-Ruso, T.~Falter, U.~Mosel and P.~Muehlich, Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 55}, 71 (2005). \bibitem{Rapp-Wambach} R.~Rapp and J.~Wambach, Adv.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 25}, 1 (2000). \bibitem{Brown-Rho} G.~E.~Brown and M.~Rho, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 66}, 2720 (1991). \bibitem{Hatsuda-Lee} T.~Hatsuda and S.~H.~Lee, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 46}, 34 (1992). \bibitem{Leupold0} S. Leupold, W. Peters and U. Mosel, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 628} (1998) 311 \bibitem{Leupold1} S.~Leupold and U.~Mosel, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 58}, 2939 (1998). \bibitem{Leupold2} S.~Leupold, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 64}, 015202 (2001). \bibitem{Leupold3} S.~Leupold and M.~Post, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 747}, 425 (2005). \bibitem{Kl99} F.~Klingl, T.~Waas and W.~Weise, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 650}, 299 (1999). \bibitem{Kl97} F.~Klingl, N.~Kaiser and W.~Weise, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 624}, 527 (1997). \bibitem{Re02} T.~Renk, R.~A.~Schneider and W.~Weise, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 66}, 014902 (2002). \bibitem{DM01} A.~K.~Dutt-Mazumder, R.~Hofmann and M.~Pospelov, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 63}, 015204 (2001). \bibitem{PM01} M.~Post and U.~Mosel, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 699}, 169 (2002). \bibitem{SL06} B.~Steinmueller and S.~Leupold, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 778}, 195 (2006). \bibitem{Zs02} S.~Zschocke, O.~P.~Pavlenko and B.~Kampfer, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 562}, 57 (2003). \bibitem{Lu02} M.~F.~M.~Lutz, G.~Wolf and B.~Friman, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 706}, 431 (2002) [Erratum-ibid.\ A {\bf 765}, 431 (2006)]. \bibitem{Mu06} P.~Muehlich, V.~Shklyar, S.~Leupold, U.~Mosel and M.~Post, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 780}, 187 (2006). \bibitem{Tr05} D.~Trnka {\it et al.} [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 192303 (2005). \bibitem{Kl96} F.~Klingl, N.~Kaiser and W.~Weise, Z.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 356}, 193 (1996). \bibitem{Post:2003hu} M.~Post, S.~Leupold and U.~Mosel, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 741}, 81 (2004). \bibitem{Peters:1997va} W.~Peters, M.~Post, H.~Lenske, S.~Leupold and U.~Mosel, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 632}, 109 (1998). \bibitem{Fr97} B.~Friman, arXiv:nucl-th/9801053. \bibitem{Ei06} F. Eichstaedt, Diploma Thesis, Institut fuer Theoretische Physik, JLU Giessen, 2006, http://theorie.physik.uni-giessen.de/documents/diplom/eichstaedt.pdf~. \bibitem{Penner:2002ma} G.~Penner and U.~Mosel, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 66}, 055211 (2002). \bibitem{Penner:2002md} G.~Penner and U.~Mosel, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 66}, 055212 (2002). \bibitem{Shklyar:2006xw} V.~Shklyar, H.~Lenske, U.~Mosel and G. Penner Phys.Rev. {\bf C72}, 015210 (2005). \bibitem{Tomega} P.~Muehlich and U.~Mosel, Nucl.Phys.{\bf A773},156 (2006). \bibitem{Kot} M. Kotulla, nucl-ex/0609012. \bibitem{Effenberger:1999ay} M.~Effenberger, E.~L.~Bratkovskaya and U.~Mosel, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 60}, 044614 (1999). \bibitem{Post:2000qi} M.~Post, S.~Leupold and U.~Mosel, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 689}, 753 (2001). \bibitem{Fe98} T.~Feuster and U.~Mosel, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 59}, 460 (1999). \bibitem{Sh04} V.~Shklyar, H.~Lenske, U.~Mosel and G.~Penner, Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 71}, 055206 (2005) [Erratum-ibid.\ C {\bf 72}, 019903 (2005)]. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0157
|
Title: Alternative Approaches to the Equilibrium Properties of Hard-Sphere
Liquids
Abstract: An overview of some analytical approaches to the computation of the
structural and thermodynamic properties of single component and multicomponent
hard-sphere fluids is provided. For the structural properties, they yield a
thermodynamically consistent formulation, thus improving and extending the
known analytical results of the Percus-Yevick theory. Approximate expressions
for the contact values of the radial distribution functions and the
corresponding analytical equations of state are also discussed. Extensions of
this methodology to related systems, such as sticky hard spheres and
square-well fluids, as well as its use in connection with the perturbation
theory of fluids are briefly addressed.
Body: \title*{Alternative Approaches to the Equilibrium Properties of Hard-Sphere Liquids} \titlerunning{Alternative Approaches to Hard-Sphere Liquids} \author{M. L\'opez de Haro\inst{1}, S. B. Yuste\inst{2} \and A. Santos\inst{3}} \institute{Centro de Investigaci\'{o}n en Energ\'{\i}a, Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico (U.N.A.M.), Temixco, Morelos 62580, M{e}xico \\ \texttt{malopez@servidor.unam.mx} \and Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, Universidad de Extremadura, E-06071 Badajoz, Spain \texttt{santos@unex.es} \and Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, Universidad de Extremadura, E-06071 Badajoz, Spain \texttt{andres@unex.es}} \maketitle An overview of some analytical approaches to the computation of the structural and thermodynamic properties of single component and multicomponent hard-sphere fluids is provided. For the structural properties, they yield a thermodynamically consistent formulation, thus improving and extending the known analytical results of the Percus--Yevick theory. Approximate expressions for the contact values of the radial distribution functions and the corresponding analytical equations of state are also discussed. Extensions of this methodology to related systems, such as sticky hard spheres and square-well fluids, as well as its use in connection with the perturbation theory of fluids are briefly addressed. \section{Introduction} In the statistical thermodynamic approach to the theory of simple liquids, there is a close connection between the thermodynamic and structural properties . These properties depend on the intermolecular potential of the system, which is generally assumed to be well represented by pair interactions. The simplest model pair potential is that of a hard-core fluid (rods, disks, spheres, hyperspheres) in which attractive forces are completely neglected. In fact, it is a model that has been most studied and has rendered some analytical results, although up to this day no general (exact) explicit expression for the equation of state is available, except for the one-dimensional case. Something similar applies to the structural properties. An interesting feature concerning the thermodynamic properties is that in hard-core systems the equation of state depends only on the contact values of the radial distribution functions. In the absence of a completely analytical approach, the most popular methods to deal with both kinds of properties of these systems are integral equation theories and computer simulations. It is well known that in real gases and liquids at high temperatures the state and thermodynamic properties are determined almost entirely by the repulsive forces among molecules. At lower temperatures, attractive forces become significant, but even in this case they affect very little the configuration of the system at moderate and high densities. These facts are taken into account in the application of the perturbation theory of fluids, where hard-core fluids are used as the reference systems in the computation of the thermodynamic and structural properties of real fluids. However, successful results using perturbation theory are rather limited due to the fact that, as mentioned above, there are in general no exact (analytical) expressions for the thermodynamic and structural properties of the reference systems which are in principle required in the calculations. On the other hand, in the realm of soft condensed matter the use of the hard-sphere model in connection, for instance, with sterically stabilized colloidal systems is quite common. This is due to the fact that nowadays it is possible to prepare (almost) monodisperse spherical colloidal particles with short-ranged harshly repulsive interparticle forces that may be well described theoretically with the hard-sphere potential. This chapter presents an overview of the efforts we have made over the last few years to compute the thermodynamic and structural properties of hard-core systems using relatively simple (approximate) analytical methods. It is structured as follows. In Section we describe our proposals to derive the contact values of the radial distribution functions of a multicomponent mixture (with an arbitrary size distribution, either discrete or continuous) of $d$-dimensional hard spheres from the use of some consistency conditions and the knowledge of the contact value of the radial distribution function of the corresponding single component system. In turn, these contact values lead to equations of state both for additive and non-additive hard spheres. Some consequences of such equations of state, in particular the demixing transition, are briefly analyzed. This is followed in Section by the description of the Rational Function Approximation method to obtain analytical expressions for the structural quantities of three-dimensional single component and multicomponent fluids. The only required inputs in this approach are the contact values of the radial distribution functions and so the connection with the work of the previous section follows naturally. Structural properties of related systems, like sticky hard spheres or square-well fluids, that may also be tackled with the same philosophy are also discussed in Section . Section provides an account of the reformulation of the perturbation theory of liquids using the results of the Rational Function Approximation method for a single component hard-sphere fluid and its illustration in the case of the Lennard--Jones fluid. In the final section, we provide some perspectives of the achievements obtained so far and of the challenges that remain ahead. \section{Contact Values and Equations of State for Mixtures} As stated in the Introduction, a nice feature of hard-core fluids is that the expressions of all their thermodynamic properties in terms of the radial distribution functions (RDF) are particularly simple. In fact, for these systems the internal energy reduces to that of the ideal gas and in the pressure equation it is only the contact values rather than the full RDF which appear explicitly. In this section we present our approach to the derivation of the contact values of hard-core fluid mixtures in $d$ dimensions. \subsection{Additive Systems in $d$ Dimensions} If $\sigma_{ij}$ denotes the distance of separation at contact between the centers of two interacting fluid particles, one of species $i$ and the other of species $j$, the mixture is said to be \emph{additive} if $\sigma_{ij}$ is just the arithmetic mean of the hard-core diameters of each species. Otherwise, the system is \emph{non-additive}. We deal in this subsection and in Subsection with additive systems, while non-additive hard-core mixtures will be treated in Subsection . \subsubsection{Definitions} Let us consider an additive mixture of hard spheres (HS) in $d$ dimensions with an arbitrary number $N$ of components. In fact, our discussion will remain valid for $N\to\infty$, {i.e.}, for polydisperse mixtures with a continuous distribution of sizes. The {additive} hard core of the interaction between a sphere of species $i$ and a sphere of species $j$ is $\sigma_{ij}=\frac{1}{2 }(\sigma _{i}+\sigma _{j})$, where the diameter of a sphere of species $i$ is $\sigma _{ii}=\sigma _{i}$. Let the number density of the mixture be $\rho $ and the mole fraction of species $i$ be $x_{i}=\rho _{i}/\rho $, where $\rho_i$ is the number density of species $i$. {}From these quantities one can define the packing fraction $\eta =v_{d}\rho \muM_d $, where $v_{d}=(\pi /4)^{d/2}/\Gamma (1+d/2)$ is the volume of a $d$-dimensional sphere of unit diameter and \beq \muM_n \equiv \langle \sigma^n\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^N x_{i}\sigma _{i}^{n} \eeq denotes the $n$th moment of the diameter distribution. In a HS mixture, the knowledge of the contact values $g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})$ of the RDF $g_{ij}(r)$, where $r$ is the distance, is important for a number of reasons. For example, the availability of $g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})$ is sufficient to get the equation of state (EOS) of the mixture via the virial expression \begin{equation} Z(\eta )=1+\frac{2^{d-1}}{\muM_d} \eta\sum_{i,j=1}^N x_{i}x_{j}{\sigma _{ij}^{d} } g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij}), \end{equation} where $Z=p/\rho k_{B}T$ is the compressibility factor of the mixture, $p$ being the pressure, $k_{B}$ the Boltzmann constant, and $T$ the absolute temperature. The exact form of $g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})$ as functions of the packing fraction $\eta$, the set of diameters $\{\sigma _{k}\}$, and the set of mole fractions $\{x_{k}\}$ is only known in the one-dimensional case, where one simply has \beq g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})=\frac{1}{1-\eta }, \quad (d=1). \eeq Consequently, {for $d\geq 2$} one has to resort to approximate theories or empirical expressions. For hard-disk mixtures, an accurate expression is provided by Jenkins and Mancini's (JM) approximation , \beq g_{ij}^{\text{JM}}(\sigma_{ij})=\frac{1}{1-\eta}+\frac{9}{16}\frac{\eta}{(1-\eta)^2}\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j \muM_1}{\sigma_{ij}\muM_2}, \quad (d=2). \eeq The associated compressibility factor is \beq Z_\text{JM}(\eta)=\frac{1}{1-\eta}+\frac{\muM_1^2}{\muM_2}\eta\frac{1+\eta/8}{(1-\eta)^2},\quad (d=2). \eeq In the case of three-dimensional systems, some important analytical expressions for the contact values and the corresponding compressibility factor also exist. For instance, the expressions which follow from the solution of the Percus--Yevick (PY) equation of additive HS mixtures by Lebowitz are \beq g_{ij}^{\text{PY}}(\sigma_{ij})=\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\eta }{(1-\eta )^{2}}\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j \muM_2}{\sigma_{ij}\muM_3},\quad (d=3), \eeq \beq Z_\text{PY}(\eta)=\frac{1}{1-\eta}+\frac{\muM_1\muM_2}{\muM_3}\frac{3\eta}{(1-\eta)^2}+\frac{\muM_2^3}{\muM_3^2} \frac{3\eta^2}{(1-\eta)^2},\quad (d=3). \eeq Also analytical are the results obtained from the Scaled Particle Theory (SPT) , \beq g_{ij}^{\text{SPT}}(\sigma_{ij})=\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\eta }{(1-\eta )^{2}}\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j \muM_2}{\sigma_{ij}\muM_3}+\frac{3}{4}\frac{\eta^{2}}{(1-\eta)^{3}}\left(\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j \muM_2}{\sigma_{ij}\muM_3}\right)^{2},\quad (d=3), \eeq \beq Z_\text{SPT}(\eta)=\frac{1}{1-\eta}+\frac{\muM_1\muM_2}{\muM_3}\frac{3\eta}{(1-\eta)^2}+\frac{\muM_2^3}{\muM_3^2} \frac{3\eta^2}{(1-\eta)^3},\quad (d=3). \eeq Neither the PY nor the SPT lead to particularly accurate values and so Boubl\'{\i}k and, independently, Grundke and Henderson and Lee and Levesque proposed an interpolation between the PY and the SPT contact values, that we will refer to as the BGHLL values: \beq g_{ij}^{\text{BGHLL}}(\sigma_{ij})=\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\eta }{(1-\eta )^{2}}\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j \muM_2}{\sigma_{ij}\muM_3}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\eta^{2}}{(1-\eta)^{3}}\left(\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j \muM_2}{\sigma_{ij}\muM_3}\right)^{2},\quad (d=3). \eeq This leads through Eq.\ \eqref{1} to the widely used and rather accurate Boubl\'{\i}k--Mansoori--Carnahan--Starling--Leland (BMCSL) EOS for HS mixtures: \begin{equation} Z_{\text{BMCSL}}(\eta )=\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\frac{\muM_1\muM_2}{\muM_3}\frac{3\eta }{(1-\eta )^{2}}+\frac{\muM_2^3}{\muM_3^2}\frac{\eta^{2}(3-\eta )}{(1-\eta )^{3}},\quad (d=3). \end{equation} Refinements of the BGHLL values have been subsequently introduced, among others, by Henderson {et al.} , Matyushov and Ladanyi , and Barrio and Solana to eliminate some drawbacks of the BMCSL EOS in the so-called colloidal limit of {binary} HS mixtures. On a different path, but also having to do with the colloidal limit, Viduna and Smith have proposed a method to obtain contact values of the RDF of HS mixtures from a given EOS. However, none of these proposals may be easily generalized so as to be valid for any dimensionality and any number of components. Therefore, if one wants to have a more general framework able to deal with arbitrary $d$ and $N$ an alternative strategy is called for. \subsubsection{Universality Ansatz} In order to follow our alternative strategy, it is useful to make use of exact limit results that can help one in the construction of approximate expressions for $g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})$. Let us consider first the limit in which one of the species, say $i$, is made of point particles, {i.e.}, $\sigma _{i}\rightarrow 0$. In that case, $g_{ii}(\sigma _{i})$ takes the ideal gas value, except that one has to take into account that the available volume fraction is $1-\eta$. Thus, \begin{equation} \lim_{\sigma_{i}\rightarrow 0}g_{ii}(\sigma_{i})=\frac{1}{1-\eta}. \end{equation} An even simpler situation occurs when all the species have the same size, $\{\sigma _{k}\}\rightarrow \sigma $, so that the system becomes equivalent to a single component system. Therefore, \begin{equation} \lim_{\{ \sigma _{k}\}\rightarrow \sigma }g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})=g_{\pure}, \end{equation} where $g_{\pure}$ is the contact value of the RDF of the single component fluid at the same packing fraction $\eta$ as that of the mixture. Table lists some of the most widely used proposals for the contact value $g_\pure$ and the associated compressibility factor \beq Z_\pure=1+2^{d-1}\eta g_\pure \eeq in the case of the single component HS fluid. \begin{table} \centering \caption{Some expressions of $g_\pure$ and $Z_\pure$ for the single component HS fluid. In the SHY proposal, $\eta_{\text{cp}}=(\sqrt{3}/6)\pi$ is the crystalline close-packing fraction for hard disks. In the LM proposal, $b_3$ and $b_4$ are the (reduced) third and fourth virial coefficients, $\zeta(\eta )=1.2973(59)-0.062(13)\eta/\eta_{\text{cp}}$ for $d=4$, and $\zeta(\eta )=1.074(16)+0.163(45)\eta/\eta_{\text{cp}}$ for $d=5$, where the values of the close-packing fractions are $\eta_{\text{cp}}=\pi^2/16\simeq 0.617$ and $\eta_{\text{cp}}=\pi^2\sqrt{2}/30\simeq 0.465$ for $d=4$ and $d=5$, respectively. } \begin{tabular}{ccccc} \hline $d$& $g_\pure$&$Z_\pure$&Label&Ref.\\ \hline \noalign{\smallskip} $2$&$\dfrac{1-7\eta/16}{(1-\eta)^2}$&$\dfrac{1+\eta^2/8}{(1-\eta)^2}$&H&\protect\\ \noalign{\smallskip} $2$&$\dfrac{1-\eta(2\eta_{\text{cp}}-1)/2\eta_{\text{cp}}^2}{1-2\eta+\eta^2(\eta_{\text{cp}}-1)/2\eta_{\text{cp}}^2}$& $\dfrac{1}{1-2\eta+\eta^2(\eta_{\text{cp}}-1)/2\eta_{\text{cp}}^2}$&SHY&\protect\\ \noalign{\smallskip} $2$&$g_{\pure}^{\text{H}}-\dfrac{\eta^3}{2^7(1-\eta)^4}$&$Z_{\pure}^{\text{H}}-\dfrac{\eta^4}{2^6(1-\eta)^4}$&L&\protect\\ \noalign{\smallskip} $3$&$\dfrac{1+\eta/2}{(1-\eta)^2}$&$\dfrac{1+2\eta+3\eta^2}{(1-\eta)^2}$&PY&\protect\\ \noalign{\smallskip} $3$&$\dfrac{1-\eta /2+\eta ^{2}/4}{(1-\eta )^{3}}$&$\dfrac{1+\eta+\eta^2}{(1-\eta)^3}$&SPT&\protect\\ \noalign{\smallskip} $3$&$\dfrac{1-\eta /2}{(1-\eta )^{3}}$&$\dfrac{1+\eta+\eta^2-\eta^3}{\left(1-\eta\right)^3}$&CS&\protect\\ \noalign{\smallskip} $4,5$&$\dfrac{1+[ 2^{1-d}b_{3}-\zeta (\eta )b_{4}/b_{3}] \eta }{1-\zeta (\eta )(b_{4}/b_{3})\eta +\left[ \zeta (\eta )-1\right] 2^{1-d}b_{4}\eta ^{2}}$&$1+2^{d-1}\eta g_\pure^{\text{LM}}$ &LM&\protect\\ \noalign{\smallskip} \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} Equations () and () represent the simplest and most basic conditions that $g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})$ must satisfy. There is a number of other {less trivial} consistency conditions , some of which will be used later on. In order to proceed, in line with a property shared by earlier proposals [see, in particular, Eqs.\ \eqref{JM}, \eqref{15PY}, \eqref{15SPT}, and \eqref{15BGHLL}], we assume that, at a given packing fraction $\eta$, the dependence of $g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})$ on the parameters $\{\sigma _{k}\}$ and $\{x_{k}\}$ takes place \textit{only} through the scaled quantity \begin{equation} z_{ij}\equiv \frac{\sigma _{i}\sigma_{j}}{\sigma _{ij}}\frac{\muM_{d-1}}{\muM_d}. \end{equation} More specifically, we assume \begin{equation} g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})=\GG(\eta,z_{ij}), \end{equation} where the function $\GG(\eta,z)$ is \textit{universal} in the sense that it is a common function for all the pairs $(i,j)$, regardless of the {composition and} number of components of the mixture. Of course, the function $\GG(\eta ,z)$ is in principle different for each dimensionality $d$. To clarify the implications of this universality ansatz, let us imagine two mixtures $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{M}'$ having the same packing fraction $\eta$ but strongly differing in the set of mole fractions, the sizes of the particles, and even the number of components. Suppose now that there exists a pair $(i,j)$ in mixture $\mathcal{M}$ and another pair $(i',j')$ in mixture $\mathcal{M}'$ such that $z_{ij} = z_{i'j'}$. Then, according to Eq.\ (), the contact value of the RDF for the pair $(i,j)$ in mixture $\mathcal{M}$ is the same as that for the pair $(i',j')$ in mixture $\mathcal{M}'$, {i.e.}, $g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})=g_{i'j'}(\sigma_{i'j'})$. In order to ascribe a physical meaning to the parameter $z_{ij}$, note that the ratio $\muM_{d-1}/\muM_d$ can be understood as a ``typical'' inverse diameter (or curvature) of the particles of the mixture. Thus, $z_{ij}^{-1}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_i^{-1}+\sigma_j^{-1})/(\muM_{d-1}/\muM_d)$ represents the arithmetic mean curvature, in units of $\muM_{d-1}/\muM_d$, of a particle of species $i$ and a particle of species $j$. Once the ansatz () is adopted, one may use the limits in () and () to get $\GG(\eta,z)$ at $z=0$ and $z=1$, respectively. Since $ z_{ii}\rightarrow 0$ in the limit $\sigma _{i}\rightarrow 0$, insertion of Eq.~() into () yields \begin{equation} \GG(\eta ,0)=\frac{1}{1-\eta }\equiv \GG_0(\eta). \end{equation} Next, if all the diameters are equal, $z_{ij}\rightarrow 1$, so that Eq.~() implies that \begin{equation} \GG(\eta ,1)=g_{\pure}. \end{equation} \subsubsection{Linear Approximation} As the simplest approximation , one may assume a linear dependence of $\GG$ on $z$ that satisfies the basic requirements () and (), namely \begin{equation} \GG(\eta,z)=\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\left( g_{\pure}-\frac{1}{1-\eta } \right) z. \end{equation} Inserting this into Eq.\ \eqref{5}, one has \beq g_{ij}^{\text{e1}}(\sigma_{ij})=\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\left( g_{\pure}-\frac{1}{1-\eta }\right)\frac{\muM_{d-1}}{\muM_d}\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j}{\sigma_{ij}}. \eeq Here, the label ``e1'' is meant to indicate that (i) the contact values used are an \emph{extension} of the single component contact value $g_{\pure}$ and that (ii) $\GG(\eta,z)$ is a \emph{linear} polynomial in $z$. This notation will become handy below. Although the proposal () is rather crude and does not produce especially accurate results for $g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})$ when $d\geq 3$, it nevertheless leads to an EOS that exhibits an excellent agreement with simulations in 2, 3, 4, and 5 dimensions, provided that an accurate $g_{\pure}$ is used as input . This EOS may be written as \begin{equation} Z_\text{e1}(\eta )=1+\frac{\eta}{1-\eta}2^{d-1}(\Sn_0-\Sn_1)+\left[Z_{\pure}(\eta )-1\right]\Sn_1, \end{equation} where the coefficients $\Sn_{m}$ depend only on the composition of the mixture and are defined by \begin{equation} \Sn_{m}=2^{-(d-m)}\frac{\muM_{d-1}^{m}}{\muM_{d}^{m+1}}\sum_{n=0}^{d-m}\binom{d-m}{n} {\muM_{n+m} }{\muM_{d-n}}. \end{equation} In particular, for $d=2$ and $d=3$, \begin{equation} Z_\text{e1}(\eta )=\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\frac{\mo ^{2}}{ \mt}\left[ Z_{\pure}(\eta)-\frac{1}{1-\eta } \right] ,\quad (d=2), \end{equation} \beqa Z_\text{e1}(\eta )&=&\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\frac{\mo \mt}{2\mth}\left\{ \left[ Z_{\pure}(\eta )-\frac{1}{1-\eta }\right]\left(1+\frac{\mt^2}{\mo\mth}\right)\right.\nn &&\left.+\frac{3\eta}{1-\eta}\left(1-\frac{\mt^2}{\mo\mth}\right)\right\} ,\quad (d=3). \eeqa As an extra asset, from Eq.\ () one may write the virial coefficients of the mixture $B_n$, defined by \beq Z=1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty B_{n+1} \rho^{n}, \eeq in terms of the (reduced) virial coefficients of the single component fluid $b_n$ defined by \beq Z_\pure=1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty b_{n+1} \eta^{n}. \eeq The result is \begin{equation} B_n=v_d^{n-1} \muM_{d}^{n-1} \left[\Sn_1 b_n+2^{d-1}(\Sn_0-\Sn_1)\right]. \end{equation} In the case of binary mixtures, these coefficients are in very good agreement with the available exact and simulation results , except when the mixture involves components of very disparate sizes, especially for high dimensionalities. One may perform a slight modification such that this deficiency is avoided and thus get a modified EOS . For $d=2$ and $d=3$ it reads \begin{eqnarray} Z(\eta ) &=&Z_{\text{s}}(\eta )+x_{1}\left[ \frac{1}{1-\eta _{2}} Z_{\text{s}}\left( \frac{\eta _{1}}{1-\eta _{2}}\right) -Z_{\text{s}}(\eta ) \right] \left( \frac{\sigma _{2}-\sigma _{1}}{\sigma _{2}}\right) ^{d-1} \nonumber \\ &&+x_{2}\left[ \frac{1}{1-\eta _{1}}Z_{\text{s}}\left( \frac{\eta _{2}}{ 1-\eta _{1}}\right) -Z_{\text{s}}(\eta )\right] \left( \frac{\sigma _{1}-\sigma _{2}}{\sigma _{1}}\right) ^{d-1},\quad (d=2,3),\nn && \end{eqnarray} where $\eta _{i}=v_{d}\rho _{i}\sigma _{i}^{d}$ is the \emph{partial} volume packing fraction due to species $i $. In contrast to most of the approaches (PY, SPT, BMCSL, e1, \ldots), the proposal () expresses $Z(\eta )$ in terms not only of $Z_{\text{s}}(\eta )$ but also involves $Z_{\text{s}}\left( \frac{\eta _{1}}{ 1-\eta _{2}}\right) $ and $Z_{\text{s}}\left( \frac{\eta _{2}}{1-\eta _{1}} \right) $. Equation \eqref{x50} should in principle be useful in particular for binary mixtures involving components of very disparate sizes. However, it is slightly less accurate than the one given in Eq.\ () for ordinary mixtures . \subsubsection{Quadratic Approximation} In order to improve the proposal contained in Eq.\ (), in addition to the consistency requirements () and (), one may consider the condition stemming from a binary mixture in which one of the species (say $i=1$) is much larger than the other one ({i.e.}, $\sigma _{1}/\sigma _{2}\rightarrow \infty $), but occupies a negligible volume ({i.e.}, $x_{1}(\sigma _{1}/\sigma _{2})^{d}\rightarrow 0$). In that case, a sphere of species 1 is felt as a wall by particles of species 2, so that \begin{equation} \lim_{\stackrel{\sigma _{1}/\sigma _{2}\rightarrow \infty}{ x_{1}(\sigma _{1}/\sigma _{2})^{d}\rightarrow 0}}\left[g_{12}(\sigma _{12})-2^{d-1}\eta g_{22}(\sigma_{2})\right] =1. \end{equation} Hence, in the limit considered in Eq.~(), we have $z_{22}\rightarrow 1$, $z_{12}\rightarrow 2$. Consequently, under the universality ansatz \eqref{5}, one may rewrite Eq.\ \eqref{4} as \begin{equation} \GG(\eta ,2)=1+2^{d-1} \eta \GG(\eta ,1). \end{equation} Thus, {Eqs.\ (), (), and () provide complete information on the function $\GG$ at $z=0$, $z=1$, and $z=2$, respectively, in terms of the contact value $g_{\pure}$ of the single component RDF.} The simplest functional form of $\GG$ that complies with the above consistency conditions is a quadratic function of $z$ : \begin{equation} \GG(\eta ,z)=\GG_{0}(\eta )+\GG_{1}(\eta )z+\GG_{2}(\eta )z^{2}, \end{equation} where the coefficients $\GG_{1}(\eta )$ and $\GG_{2}(\eta )$ are explicitly given by \begin{equation} \GG_{1}(\eta )= (2-2^{d-2}\eta )g_{\pure}-\frac{2-\eta/2}{1-\eta } , \end{equation} \begin{equation} \GG_{2}(\eta )= \frac{1-\eta/2}{1-\eta }-(1-2^{d-2}\eta )g_{\pure}. \end{equation} Therefore, the explicit expression for the contact values is \beqa g_{ij}^{\text{e2}}(\sigma_{ij})&=&\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\left[ (2-2^{d-2}\eta )g_{\pure}-\frac{2-\eta/2}{1-\eta }\right]\frac{\muM_{d-1}}{\muM_d}\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\nn &&+\left[\frac{1-\eta/2}{1-\eta }-(1-2^{d-2}\eta )g_{\pure}\right]\left(\frac{\muM_{d-1}}{\muM_d}\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\right)^2. \eeqa Following the same criterion as the one used in connection with Eq.\ \eqref{gije1}, the label ``e2'' is meant to indicate that (i) the resulting contact values represent an \emph{extension} of the single component contact value $g_{\pure}$ and that (ii) ${\GG}(\eta, z)$ is a \emph{quadratic} polynomial in $z$. Of course, the quadratic form () is not the only choice compatible with conditions (), (), and (). For instance, a rational function was also considered in Ref.\ . However, although it is rather accurate, it does not lead to a closed form for the EOS. In contrast, when Eq.~() is inserted into Eq.~(), one gets a closed expression for the compressibility factor in terms of the packing fraction $\eta $ and the first few moments $\mn$, $n\leq d$. The result is \begin{eqnarray} Z_{\text{e2}}(\eta) &=&1+2^{d-2}\frac{\eta }{1-\eta }\left[ 2(\Sn_{0}-2\Sn_{1}+\Sn_{2})+(\Sn_{1}-\Sn_{2})\eta \right] \nonumber \\ &&+\left[Z_{\pure}(\eta )-1\right] \left[ 2\Sn_{1}-\Sn_{2}+2^{d-2}(\Sn_{2}-\Sn_{1})\eta \right] , \end{eqnarray} where the quantities $\Omega_m$ are defined in Eq.\ \eqref{Omega}. Quite interestingly, in the two-dimensional case Eq.\ \eqref{14} reduces to Eq.\ \eqref{xnew2}, {i.e.}, \beq Z_{\text{e1}}(\eta)=Z_{\text{e2}}(\eta),\quad (d=2). \eeq This illustrates the fact that two different proposals for the contact values $g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})$ can yield the same EOS when inserted into Eq.~(). On the other hand, for three-dimensional mixtures Eq.~() becomes \beq Z_\text{e2}(\eta )=\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\frac{\mo \mt}{\mth}\left( 1-\eta +\frac{ \mt^{2}}{\mo \mth }\eta \right) \left[ Z_{\pure}(\eta )-\frac{1}{1-\eta }\right] ,\quad (d=3), \eeq which differs from Eq.\ \eqref{Ze1bis}. In fact, \beq Z_\text{e1}(\eta)- Z_\text{e2}(\eta)=\frac{\muM_1\muM_2}{2\muM_3}\left(1-\frac{\muM_2^2}{\muM_1\muM_3}\right)\left[\frac{1+\eta}{1-\eta}-(1-2\eta) Z_\pure(\eta)\right],\quad (d=3). \eeq \subsubsection{Specific Examples} In this subsection, rather than carrying out an exhaustive comparison with the wealth of results available in the literature, we will consider only a few representative examples. In particular, for $d=3$, we will restrict ourselves to a comparison with classical proposals (say BGHLL, PY, and SPT for the contact values). The comparison with more recent ones may be found in Refs.\ . Thus far the development has been rather general since $g_\pure$ remains free in Eqs.\ \eqref{gije1} and \eqref{gije2}. In order to get specific results, it is necessary to fix $g_\text{s}$ [cf.\ Table ]. In the one-dimensional case, one has $g_\pure=1/(1-\eta)$ and so one gets the exact result \eqref{exact1D} after substitution into Eq.\ (). Similarly Eqs.~() and () lead to $\GG_{1}=\GG_{2}=0$ and so we recover again the exact result. If in the two-dimensional case we take Henderson's value $g_\pure=g_\pure^{\text{H}}$, then the linear approximation () reduces to the JM approximation, Eq.\ \eqref{JM}. This equivalence can be symbolically represented as $g_{ij}^{\text{eH1}}=g_{ij}^{\text{JM}}$, where the label ``eH1'' refers to the extension of Henderson's \emph{single component} value in the linear approximation. While $g_{ij}^{\text{JM}}$ is very accurate, even better results are provided by the quadratic form \eqref{gije2}, especially if Luding's value $g_\pure=g_\pure^{\text{L}}$ is used . In the three-dimensional case, Eq.~() is of the form of the solution of the PY equation . In fact, insertion of $g_\pure=g_\pure^{\text{PY}}$ leads to Eq.\ \eqref{15PY}, {i.e.}, $g_{ij}^{\text{ePY1}}=g_{ij}^{\text{PY}}$. Similarly, if the SPT expression $g_\pure=g_\pure^{\text{SPT}}$ is used for the single component contact value in the quadratic approximation (), we reobtain the SPT expression for the mixture, Eq.\ \eqref{15SPT}. In other words, $g_{ij}^{\text{eSPT2}}=g_{ij}^{\text{SPT}}$. On the other hand, if the much more accurate CS expression $g_\pure=g_\pure^{\text{CS}}$ is used as input, we arrive at the following expression: \begin{equation} g_{ij}^{\text{eCS2}}=\frac{1}{1-\eta }+\frac{3}{2}\frac{ \eta (1-\eta /3)}{(1-\eta )^{2} }\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j \muM_2}{\sigma_{ij}\muM_3}+\frac{\eta ^{2}(1-\eta /2)}{(1-\eta )^{3}}\left(\frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j \muM_2}{\sigma_{ij}\muM_3}\right)^{2},\quad (d=3), \end{equation} which is different from the BGHLL one, Eq.\ \eqref{15BGHLL}, improves the latter {for $z_{ij}>1$}, and leads to similar results for $z_{ij}<1$, as comparison with computer simulations shows . The four approximations \eqref{15PY}, \eqref{15SPT}, \eqref{15BGHLL}, and \eqref{16} are consistent with conditions () and (), but only the SPT and eCS2 are also consistent with condition (). It should also be noted that if one considers a binary mixture in the infinite solute dilution limit, namely $x_1 \rightarrow 0$, so that $z_{12} \rightarrow 2/(1+\sigma_2/\sigma_1)$, Eq.~() yields the same result for $g_{12}(\sigma_{12})$ as the one proposed by Matyushov and Ladanyi for this quantity on the basis of exact geometrical relations. However, the extension that the same authors propose when there is a non-vanishing solute concentration, {{i.e.,}} for $x_1\neq 0$, is different from Eq.\ (). Equation \eqref{gije2} can also be used in the case of hyperspheres ($d\geq 4$) . In particular, a very good agreement with available computer simulations is obtained for $d=4$ and $d=5$ by using Luban and Michels value $g_\pure=g_\pure^{\text{LM}}$. Now we turn to the compressibility factors \eqref{Ze1} and \eqref{14}, which are obtained from the contact values () and (), respectively. Since they depend on the details of the composition through the $d$ first moments, they are meaningful even for continuous polydisperse mixtures. As said above, in the two-dimensional case both Eqs.\ \eqref{Ze1} and \eqref{14} reduce to Eq.\ \eqref{xnew2}, which yield very accurate results when a good $Z_\pure$ is used as input . For three-dimensional mixtures, insertion of $Z_\pure=Z_\pure^\text{CS}$ in Eqs.\ \eqref{Ze1bis} and \eqref{e23D} yields \begin{equation} Z_{\text{eCS1}}(\eta )=Z_{\text{BMCSL}}(\eta )+\frac{\eta ^{3}\mt}{(1-\eta)^{3}\mth ^{2}} \left( \mo\mth-\mt ^{2}\right) , \quad (d=3), \end{equation} \begin{equation} Z_{\text{eCS2}}(\eta )=Z_{\text{BMCSL}}(\eta)-\frac{\eta ^{3}\mt}{(1-\eta)^{2}\mth ^{2}}\left( \mo \mth-\mt ^{2}\right), \quad (d=3), \end{equation} where $Z_{\text{BMCSL}}(\eta )$ is given by Eq.\ \eqref{BMCSL}. Note that $Z_{\text{eCS1}}(\eta )>Z_{\text{BMCSL}}(\eta )>Z_{\text{eCS2}}(\eta )$. Since simulation data indicate that the BMCSL EOS tends to underestimate the compressibility factor, it turns out that, as illustrated in Fig.\ for an equimolar binary mixture with $\sigma_2/\sigma_1=0.6$, the performance of $Z_{\text{eCS1}}$ is, {paradoxically}, better than that of $Z_{\text{eCS2}}$ , despite the fact that the underlying linear approximation for the contact values is much less accurate than the quadratic approximation. This shows that a rather crude approximation such as Eq.~() may lead to an extremely good EOS , which, as clearly seen in Fig.\ , represents a substantial improvement over the classical proposals. Interestingly, the EOS corresponding to $Z_{\text{eCS1}}$ has recently been independently derived as the second order approximation of the Fundamental Measure Theory for the HS fluid by Hansen-Goos and Roth . In the case of $d=4$ and $d=5$, use of $Z_\pure(\eta)=Z_\pure^\text{LM}(\eta)$ in Eq.~() produces a simple extended EOS of a mixture of hard additive hyperspheres in these dimensionalities. The accuracy of these two EOS for hard hypersphere mixtures in the fluid region has been confirmed by simulation data for a wide range of compositions and size ratios. In Fig. , this accuracy is explicitly exhibited in the case of three equimolar mixtures, two in $4$D and one in $5$D. \subsection{A More Consistent Approximation for Three-Dimensional Additive Mixtures} Up to this point, we have considered an arbitrary dimensionality $d$ and have constructed, under the universality assumption \eqref{5}, the acurate quadratic approximation \eqref{gije2}, which fulfills the consistency conditions \eqref{2}, \eqref{3}, and \eqref{4}. However, there exist extra consistency conditions that are not necessarily satisfied by \eqref{gije2}. In particular, when the mixture is in contact with a hard wall, the state of equilibrium imposes that the pressure evaluated near the wall by considering the impacts with the wall must be the same as the pressure in the bulk evaluated from the particle-particle collisions. This consistency condition is especially important if one is interested in deriving accurate expressions for the contact values of the particle-wall correlation functions. Since a hard wall can be seen as a sphere of infinite diameter, the contact value $g_{wj}$ of the correlation function of a sphere of diameter $\sigma_j$ with the wall can be obtained from $g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})$ as \beq g_{wj}=\lim_{\stackrel{\sigma_i\to\infty}{ x_{i}\sigma_{i}^d\rightarrow 0}} g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij}). \eeq Note that $g_{wj}$ provides the ratio between the density of particles of species $j$ adjacent to the wall and the density of those particles far away from the wall. The sum rule connecting the pressure of the fluid and the above contact values is \beq Z_w(\eta)=\sum_{j=1}^N x_j g_{wj}, \eeq where the subscript $w$ in $Z_w$ has been used to emphasize that Eq.\ () represents a route alternative to the virial one, Eq.\ (), to get the EOS of the HS mixture. The condition $Z=Z_w$ is equivalent to \eqref{4} in the special case where one has a \emph{single} fluid in the presence of the wall. However, in the general case of a mixture plus a wall, the condition $Z=Z_w$ is stronger than Eq.\ \eqref{4}. In the two-dimensional case, it turns out that the quadratic approximation \eqref{gije2} already satisfies the requirement $Z=Z_w$, regardless of the density and composition of the mixture . However, this is not the case for $d\geq 3$. Our problem now consists of computing $g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})$ and the associated $g_{wj}$ for the HS mixture in the presence of a hard wall, so that the condition $Z=Z_w$ is satisfied for an arbitrary mixture . Due to the mathematical complexity of the problem, here we will restrict ourselves to three-dimensional systems ($d=3$). Similarly to what we did in the preceding subsection, we consider a class of approximations of the universal type \eqref{5}, so that conditions \eqref{2} and \eqref{3} lead again to Eqs.\ \eqref{6} and \eqref{7}, respectively. Notice that Eq.\ \eqref{5} implies in particular that \beq g_{wj}={\GG}(\eta, z_{wj}), \quad z_{wj}=2 \sigma_j\frac{\muM_2}{\muM_3}. \eeq Assuming that $z=0$ is a regular point and taking into account condition (), ${\GG}(\eta, z)$ can be expanded in a power series in $z$: \beq {\GG}(\eta, z)={\GG}_0(\eta)+\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\GG}_n(\eta) z^n. \eeq After simple algebra, using the ansatz () and Eq.\ () in Eqs.\ () (with $d=3$) and \eqref{4p} one gets \beq Z={\GG}_0+3\eta\frac{\mo\mt}{\mth}{\GG}_0+4\eta\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\GG}_n\frac{\mt^n}{\mth^{n+1}}\sum_{i,j=1}^N x_ix_j\sigma_i^n\sigma_j^n\sigma_{ij}^{3-n}, \eeq \beq Z_w={\GG}_0+\sum_{n=1}^\infty 2^{n}{\GG}_n\frac{\mt^n}{\mth^{n}}\muM_n. \eeq Notice that if the series \eqref{n4} is truncated after a given order $n\geq 3$, $Z_w$ is given by the first $n$ moments of the size distribution only. On the other hand, $Z$ still involves an infinite number of moments if the truncation is made after $n\geq 4$ due to the presence of terms like $\sum_{i,j}x_ix_j\sigma_i^4{\sigma_j}^4/\sigma_{ij}$, $\sum_{i,j}x_ix_j\sigma_i^5{\sigma_j}^5/\sigma_{ij}^2$, \ldots. Therefore, if we want the consistency condition $Z=Z_w$ to be satisfied for \emph{any} discrete or continuous polydisperse mixture, either the whole infinite series \eqref{n4} needs to be considered or it must be truncated after $n=3$. The latter is of course the simplest possibility and thus we make the approximation \beq {\GG}(\eta, z)={\GG}_0(\eta)+{\GG}_1(\eta) z+{\GG}_2(\eta) z^2+{\GG}_3(\eta) z^3. \eeq As a consequence, $Z$ and $Z_w$ depend functionally on the size distribution of the mixture only through the first three moments (which is in the spirit of Rosenfeld's Fundamental Measure Theory ). Using the approximation () in Eqs.\ () and () we are led to \beq Z={\GG}_0+\eta\left[\frac{\mo \mt}{\mth} \left(3{\GG}_0+2{\GG}_1\right)+2\frac{\mt^3}{\mth^2}\left({\GG}_1+2{\GG}_2+2{\GG}_3\right)\right], \eeq \beq Z_w={\GG}_0+2\frac{\mo \mt}{\mth}{\GG}_1 +4\frac{\mt^3}{\mth^2}\left({\GG}_2+2{\GG}_3\right). \eeq Thus far, the dependence of both $Z$ and $Z_w$ on the moments $\muM_1$, $\muM_2$, and $\muM_3$ is explicit and we only lack the packing-fraction dependence of ${\GG}_1$, ${\GG}_2$, and ${\GG}_3$. From Eqs.\ () and () it follows that the difference between $Z$ and $Z_w$ is given by \beq Z-Z_w=\frac{\mo \mt}{\mth}\left[3\eta {\GG}_0-2(1-\eta){\GG}_1\right] +2\frac{\mt^3}{\mth^2}\left[\eta {\GG}_1-2(1-\eta){\GG}_2-2(2-\eta){\GG}_3\right]. \eeq Therefore, $Z=Z_w$ for \emph{any} dispersity provided that \beq {\GG}_1(\eta)=\frac{3 \eta}{2 \left(1-\eta\right)^2}, \eeq \beq {\GG}_2(\eta)=\frac{3 \eta^2}{4 \left(1-\eta\right)^3}-\frac{2-\eta}{1-\eta}{\GG}_3(\eta), \eeq where use has been made of the definition of ${\GG}_0$, Eq.\ (). To close the problem, we use the equal size limit given in Eq.\ (), which yields $\GG_0+\GG_1+\GG_2+\GG_3=g_\pure$. After a little algebra we are led to \beq {\GG}_2(\eta)=(2-\eta)g_{\pure}-\frac{2+\eta^2/4}{\left(1-\eta\right)^2}, \eeq \beq {\GG}_3(\eta)=(1-\eta)\left(g_{\pure}^{\text{SPT}}-g_{\pure}\right). \eeq This completes the derivation of our improved approximation, which we will call ``e3'', following the same criterion as the one used to call ``e1'' and ``e2'' to the approximations \eqref{gije1} and \eqref{gije2}, respectively. In Eq.\ \eqref{n6b}, $g_{\pure}^{\text{SPT}}$ is the SPT contact value for a single fluid, whose expression appears in Table . {}From Eq.\ \eqref{n6b} it is obvious that the choice $g_\pure=g_{\pure}^{\text{SPT}}$ makes our e3 approximation to become the e2 approximation, both reducing to the SPT for mixtures, Eq.\ \eqref{15SPT}. This means that the SPT is fully internally consistent with the requirement $Z=Z_w$, although it has the shortcoming of not being too accurate in the single component case. The e3 proposal, on the other hand, satisfies the condition $Z=Z_w$ and has the flexibility of accommodating any desired $g_\pure$. For the sake of concreteness, let us write explicitly the contact values in the e3 aproximation: \beqa g_{ij}^\text{e3}(\sigma_{ij})&=&\frac{1}{1-\eta}+\frac{3 \eta}{2 \left(1-\eta\right)^2}\frac{\mt}{\mth}\frac{\sigma_i \sigma_j}{\sigma_{ij}}+\left[(2-\eta)g_{\pure}-\frac{2+\eta^2/4}{\left(1-\eta\right)^2}\right]\nn &&\times\left(\frac{\mt}{\mth}\frac{\sigma_i \sigma_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\right)^2+(1-\eta)\left(g_{\pure}^{\text{SPT}}-g_{\pure}\right)\left(\frac{\mt}{\mth}\frac{\sigma_i \sigma_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\right)^3, \eeqa \beqa g_{wj}^\text{e3}&=&\frac{1}{1-\eta}+\frac{3 \eta}{ \left(1-\eta\right)^2}\frac{\mt}{\mth}\sigma_j+4\left[(2-\eta)g_{\pure}-\frac{2+\eta^2/4}{\left(1-\eta\right)^2}\right]\left(\frac{\mt}{\mth}\sigma_j\right)^2\nn &&+8(1-\eta)\left(g_{\pure}^{\text{SPT}}-g_{\pure}\right)\left(\frac{\mt}{\mth}\sigma_j\right)^3. \eeqa With the above results the compressibility factor may be finally written in terms of $Z_{\pure}$ as \beq Z_\text{e3}(\eta)=\frac{1}{\left(1-\eta\right)}+\left(\frac{\mo\mt}{\mth}-\frac{\mt^3}{\mth^2}\right)\frac{3 \eta}{ \left(1-\eta\right)^2}+\frac{\mt^3}{\mth^2}\left[Z_\pure(\eta)-\frac{1}{1-\eta}\right]. \eeq A few comments are in order at this stage. {}First, from Eq.\ () we can observe that, for the class of approximations (), the compressibility factor $Z$ does not depend on the individual values of the coefficients $\GG_2$ and $\GG_3$, but only on their sum. As a consequence, two different approximations of the form () sharing the same density dependence of $\GG_1$ and $\GG_2+\GG_3$ also share the same virial EOS. For instance, if one makes the choice $g_\pure=g_\pure^{\text{PY}}$, then $Z_{\text{ePY3}}=Z_{\text{PY}}$, even though $g_{ij}^{\text{ePY3}}(\sigma_{ij})\neq g_{ij}^{\text{PY}}(\sigma_{ij})$. Furthermore, if one makes the more accurate choice $g_\pure=g_\pure^{\text{CS}}$, then $Z_{\text{eCS3}}=Z_{\text{BMCSL}}$, but again $g_{ij}^{\text{eCS3}}(\sigma_{ij})\neq g_{ij}^{\text{BGHLL}}(\sigma_{ij})$. The eCS3 contact values are \beqa g_{ij}^{\text{eCS3}}(\sigma_{ij})&=&\frac{1}{1-\eta}+\frac{3 \eta}{2 \left(1-\eta\right)^2}\frac{\mt}{\mth}\frac{\sigma_i \sigma_j}{\sigma_{ij}}+\frac{\eta^2(1+\eta)}{4(1-\eta)^3}\left(\frac{\mt}{\mth}\frac{\sigma_i \sigma_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\right)^2\nn &&+\frac{\eta^2}{4(1-\eta)^2}\left(\frac{\mt}{\mth}\frac{\sigma_i \sigma_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\right)^3, \eeqa \beqa g_{wj}^{\text{eCS3}}&=&\frac{1}{1-\eta}+\frac{3 \eta}{ \left(1-\eta\right)^2}\frac{\mt}{\mth}\sigma_j +\frac{\eta^2(1+\eta)}{(1-\eta)^3}\left(\frac{\mt}{\mth}\sigma_j\right)^2\nn &&+\frac{2\eta^2}{(1-\eta)^2}\left(\frac{\mt}{\mth}\sigma_j\right)^3. \eeqa In Figs.\ and we display the performance of the contact values as given by Eqs.\ \eqref{eCS3} and \eqref{eCS3w}, respectively, by comparison with results of computer simulations for both discrete and polydisperse mixtures. In both figures we have also included the results that follow from the classical proposals as well as those of the eCS1 and eCS2 approximations. It is clear that for the wall-particle contact values the eCS3 approximation yields the best performance, while for the particle-particle contact values both the eCS2 and eCS3 are of comparable accuracy. A further feature to be pointed out is that the practical collapse on a common curve of the simulation data in Figs.\ and provide \emph{a posteriori} support for the universality ansatz made in Eq.\ \eqref{5}. As mentioned earlier, there exist extra consistency conditions (see for instance Ref.\ ) that one might use as well within our approach. Assuming that the ansatz () still holds, some of these conditions are related to the derivatives of ${\GG}$ with respect to $z$, namely \beq \left.\frac{\partial {\GG}(\eta, z)}{\partial z}\right|_{z=0}=\frac{3\eta}{2(1-\eta)^2}, \eeq \beq \left.\frac{\partial^2 {\GG}(\eta, z)}{\partial z^2}\right|_{z=0}=\frac{3\eta}{1-\eta}\left(g_{\pure}^{\text{PY}}-\frac{1}{2}g_\pure\right), \eeq \beq \left.\frac{\partial^3 {\GG}(\eta, z)}{\partial z^3}\right|_{z=2}=0. \eeq Interestingly enough, as shown by Eq.\ \eqref{n7a}, condition () is already satisfied by our e3 approximation without having to be imposed. On the other hand, condition () implies $\GG_3=0$ in the e3 scheme and thus it is only satisfied if $g_{\pure}=g_{\pure}^\text{SPT}$, in which case we recover the SPT. Condition \eqref{exC2} is not fulfilled either by the SPT or by the e3 approximation (except for a particular expression of $g_\pure$ which is otherwise not very accurate). Thus, fulfilling the extra conditions \eqref{exC2} and \eqref{exC3} with a free $g_{\pure}$ requires either considering a higher order polynomial in $z$ (in which case the consistency condition $Z=Z_w$ cannot be satisfied for arbitrary mixtures, as discussed before) or not using the universality ansatz at all. In the first case, we have checked that a quartic or even a quintic polynomial does not improve matters, whereas giving up the universality assumption increases significantly the number of parameters to be determined and seems not to be adequate in view of the behavior observed in the simulation data. An additional comment has to do with the restriction to $d=3$ in this subsection. As noted before, the approximation e1 reduces to the exact result \eqref{exact1D} for $d=1$. For $d=2$, the approximation e2 already fulfills the condition $Z=Z_w$ and so there is no real need to go further in that case. Since we have needed the approximation e3 to satisfy $Z=Z_w$ for $d=3$, it is tempting to speculate that a polynomial form for $\GG(z)$ of degree $d$ could be found to be consistent with the condition $Z=Z_w$ for $d\geq 4$. However, a detailed analysis shows that this is not the case for an \emph{arbitrary} mixture, since the number of conditions exceeds the number of unknowns, unless the universality assumption is partially relaxed. As a final comment, let us stress that, although the discussion in this section has referred, for the sake of simplicity, to \emph{discrete} mixtures, all the dependence on the details of the composition occurs through a finite number of moments, so that the results remain meaningful even for continuous \emph{polydisperse} mixtures . In that case, instead of a set of mole fractions $\{x_i\}$ and a set of diameters $\{\sigma_i\}$, one has to deal with a distribution function $w(\sigma)$ such that $w(\sigma)\D\sigma$ is the fraction of particles with a diameter comprised between $\sigma$ and $\sigma+\D\sigma$. Therefore, the moments \eqref{moments} are now defined as \beq \muM_n=\int_0^\infty \D\sigma\, \sigma^n w(\sigma), \eeq and with such a change the results we have derived for discrete mixtures also hold for polydisperse systems. \subsection{Non-Additive Systems} Non-additive hard-core mixtures, where the distance of closest approach between particles of different species is no longer the arithmetic mean of the diameters of both particles, have received much less attention than additive mixtures, in spite of their in principle more versatility to deal with interesting aspects occurring in real systems (such as fluid-fluid phase separation) and of their potential use as reference systems in perturbation calculations on the thermodynamic and structural properties of, say, Lennard--Jones mixtures. Nevertheless, the study of non-additive systems goes back fifty years and is still a rapidly developing and challenging problem. As mentioned in the paper by Ballone {et al.} , where the relevant references may be found, experimental work on alloys, aqueous electrolyte solutions, and molten salts suggests that hetero-coordination and homo-coordination may be interpreted in terms of excluded volume effects due to non-additivity of the repulsive part of the intermolecular potential. In particular, positive non-additivity leads naturally to demixing in HS mixtures, so that some of the experimental findings of phase separation in the above mentioned (real) systems may be accounted for by using a model of a binary mixture of (positive) non-additive HS. On the other hand, negative non-additivity seems to account well for chemical short-range order in amorphous and liquid binary mixtures with preferred hetero-coordination . \subsubsection{Some Preliminary Definitions} Let us consider an $N$-component mixture of {non-additive} HS in $d$ dimensions. In this case, $\sigma_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_i+\sigma_j)(1+\Delta_{ij})$, where $\Delta_{ij}\geq -1$ is a symmetric matrix with zero diagonal elements ($\Delta_{ii}=0$) that characterizes the degree of non-additivity of the interactions. If $\Delta_{ij}>0$ the non-additivity character of the $ij$ interaction is said to be \emph{positive}, while it is \emph{negative} if $\Delta_{ij}<0$. In the case of a binary mixture ($N=2$), the only non-additivity parameter is $\Delta\equiv \Delta_{12}=\Delta_{21}$. The virial EOS \eqref{1} remains being valid in the non-additive case. The contact values $g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})$ can be expanded in a power series in density as \begin{equation} g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})=1+v_{d}\rho \sum_{k=1}^{N}x_{k}c_{k;ij}+(v_{d}\rho)^2 \sum_{k,\ell=1}^{N}x_{k}x_\ell c_{k\ell;ij}+\mathcal{O}(\rho^3). \end{equation} {The coefficients $c_{k;ij}$, $c_{k\ell;ij}$, \ldots are independent of the composition of the mixture, but they are in general complicated nonlinear functions of the diameters $\sigma_{ij}$, $\sigma_{ik}$, $\sigma_{jk}$, $\sigma_{k\ell}$, \ldots . Insertion of the expansion ()} into Eq.\ () yields the virial expansion of $Z$, namely \begin{eqnarray} Z(\rho)&=&1+\sum_{n=2}^\infty \overline{B}_{n} (v_d\rho)^{n-1}\nonumber\\ &=&1+v_{d}\rho \sum_{i,j=1}^{N}\overline{B}_{ij}x_{i}x_{j}+(v_{d}\rho )^{2}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{N}\overline{B}_{ijk}x_{i}x_{j}x_{k}\nonumber\\ &&+(v_{d}\rho )^{3}\sum_{i,j,k,\ell=1 }^{N}\overline{B}_{ijk\ell }x_{i}x_{j}x_{k}x_{\ell }+ \mathcal{O}(\rho^4). \end{eqnarray} Note that, for further convenience, we have introduced the coefficients $\overline{B}_n\equiv v_d^{-(n-1)} B_n$, where $B_n$ are the usual virial coefficients [cf.\ Eq.\ \eqref{virial}]. The composition-independent second, third, and fourth (barred) virial coefficients are given by \begin{equation} \overline{B}_{ij}=2^{d-1}\sigma_{ij}^d, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \overline{B}_{ijk}=\frac{2^{d-1}}{3}\left(c_{k;ij}\sigma_{ij}^d+ c_{j;ik}\sigma_{ik}^d+c_{i;jk}\sigma_{jk}^d\right), \end{equation} \beqa \overline{B}_{ijk\ell}&=&\frac{2^{d-1}}{6}\left(c_{k\ell;ij}\sigma_{ij}^d+ c_{j\ell;ik}\sigma_{ik}^d+c_{i\ell;jk}\sigma_{jk}^d+ c_{jk,i\ell}\sigma_{i\ell}^d+c_{ik,j\ell}\sigma_{j\ell}^d\right.\nn &&\left. +c_{ij;k\ell}\sigma_{k\ell}^d\right). \eeqa \subsubsection{A Simple Proposal for the Equation of State of $d$-Dimensional Non-Additive Mixtures} Our goal now is to generalize the e1 proposal given by Eq.\ () to the non-additive case . We will not try to extend the e2 and e3 proposals, Eqs.\ \eqref{gije2} and \eqref{e3}, because of two reasons. First, given the inherent complexity of non-additive systems, we want to keep the approach as simple as possible. Second, we are more interested in the EOS than in the contact values themselves and, as mentioned earlier, the e1 proposal provides excellent EOS, at least in the additive case, despite the simplicity of the corresponding contact values. As the simplest possible extension, we impose again the point particle and equal size consistency conditions, Eqs.\ \eqref{2} and \eqref{3}, and thus keep in this case also the ansatz \eqref{5} and the linear structure of Eq.\ (). However, instead of using Eq.\ \eqref{zij}, we determine the parameters $z_{ij}$ as to reproduce Eq.\ () to first order in the density. The result is {readily found to be} \beq z_{ij}=\left(\frac{b_3}{b_2}-1\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{\sum_k x_kc_{k;ij}}{\muM_d}-1\right). \eeq Here $b_2=2^{d-1}$ and $b_3$ are the second and third virial coefficients for the single component fluid, as defined by Eq.\ \eqref{virial_s}. {The proposal of Eq.\ () supplemented by Eq.\ () is, by construction, accurate for densities low enough as to justify the truncated approximation $g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})\approx 1+v_d\rho\sum_k x_k c_{k;ij}$. On the other hand, the limitations of this truncated expansion for moderate and large densities may be compensated by the use of $g_{\pure}$. When Eqs.\ \eqref{5}, (), and () are inserted into Eq.\ () one gets \beq Z(\eta)=1+\frac{\eta}{1-\eta}\frac{b_3\muM_d \overline{B}_2-b_2 \overline{B}_3}{(b_3-b_2)\muM_d^2}+ \left[Z_{\pure}(\eta)-1\right]\frac{\overline{B}_3-\muM_d \overline{B}_2}{(b_3-b_2)\muM_d^2}. \eeq Equation ({) is the sought generalization of Eq.\ () to non-additive hard-core systems. As in the additive case, the the density dependence in the EOS of the mixture is rather simple: $Z(\eta)-1$ is expressed as a linear combination of $\eta/(1-\eta)$ and $Z_{\pure}(\eta)-1$, with coefficients such that the second and third virial coefficients are reproduced. {Again, Eq.\ () is bound to be accurate for sufficiently low densities, while the limitations of the truncated expansion for moderate and large densities are compensated by the use of the EOS of the pure fluid.} The exact second virial coefficient $\overline{B}_2$ is known from Eq.\ \eqref{n1x}. In principle, one should use the exact coefficients $c_{k;ij}$ to compute $\overline{B}_3$. However, to the best of our knowledge they are only known for $d \leq 3$. Since our objective is to have a proposal which is explicit for any $d$, we can make use of a reasonable approximation for them , as described below. \subsubsection{An Approximate Proposal for $c_{k;ij}$} The values of the coefficients $c_{k;ij}$ are exactly known for $d=1$ and $d=3$ and from these results one may approximate them in $d$ dimensions as \begin{equation} c_{k;ij}=\sigma_{k;ij}^d+\left(\frac{b_3}{b_2}-1\right)\frac{\sigma_{k;ij}^{d-1}}{\sigma_{ij}} \sigma_{i;jk}\sigma_{j;ik}, \end{equation} where we have called \begin{equation} \sigma_{k;ij}\equiv\sigma_{ik}+\sigma_{jk}-\sigma_{ij} \end{equation} and it is understood that $\sigma_{k;ij}\geq 0$ for all sets $ijk$. Clearly, $\sigma_{i;ij}=\sigma_i$. For a binary mixture Eq.\ () yields \beq \begin{array}{l} c_{1;11}=({b_3}/{b_2})\sigma_1^d,\\ c_{2;11}=(2\sigma_{12}-\sigma_1)^d+ \left({b_3}/{b_2}-1\right)\sigma_1(2\sigma_{12}-\sigma_1)^{d-1},\\ c_{1;12}={\sigma}_1^d+ \left({b_3}/{b_2}-1\right){(2\sigma_{12}-\sigma_1)\sigma_1^d}/{\sigma_{12}} . \end{array} \eeq Of course, Eqs.\ \eqref{n7} and \eqref{43c} reduce to the exact results for $d=1$ ($b_2=b_3=1$) and for $d=3$ ($b_2=4$, $b_3=10$). The quantities $\sigma_{k;ij}$ may be given a simple geometrical interpretation. Assume that we have three spheres of species $i$, $j$, and $k$ aligned in the sequence $ikj$. In such a case, the distance of closest approach between the centers of spheres $i$ and $j$ is $\sigma_{ik}+\sigma_{jk}$. If the sphere of species $k$ were not there, that distance would of course be $\sigma_{ij}$. Therefore $\sigma_{k;ij}$ as given by Eq.\ () represents a kind of effective diameter of sphere $k$, as seen from the point of view of the interaction between spheres $i$ and $j$. Inserting Eq.\ () into Eq.\ \eqref{new1bis}, one gets \beq z_{ij} =\left(\frac{b_3}{b_2}-1\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{\sum_k x_k\sigma_{k;ij}^d}{\muM_d}-1\right)+ \frac{\sum_k x_k \sigma_{k;ij}^{d-1}\sigma_{i;jk}\sigma_{j;ik}}{\muM_d\sigma_{ij}} . \eeq It can be easily checked that in the additive case ($\sigma_{k;ij}\to \sigma_k$), Eq.\ () reduces to Eq.\ (). Equations\ \eqref{n7} and \eqref{43c} are restricted to the situation $\sigma_{k;ij}\geq 0$ for any choice of $i$, $j$, and $k$, {{i.e.}}, $2\sigma_{12}\geq \text{max}(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ in the binary case. This excludes the possibility of dealing with mixtures with extremely high negative non-additivity in which one sphere of species $k$ might ``fit in'' between two spheres of species $i$ and $j$ in contact. Since for $d=3$ and $N=2$ the coefficients $c_{k;ij}$ are also known for such mixtures , we may extend our proposal to deal with these cases: \beq \begin{array}{l} c_{1;11}=(b_3/{b_2})\sigma_1^d,\\ c_{2;11}=\widehat{\sigma}_{2}^d+ \left({b_3}/{b_2}-1\right)\sigma_1\widehat{\sigma}_{2}^{d-1},\\ c_{1;12}=(2\sigma_{12}-\widehat{\sigma}_2)^d+ \left({b_3}/{b_2}-1\right){\widehat{\sigma}_2\sigma_1^d}/{\sigma_{12}} , \end{array} \eeq where we have defined \begin{equation} \widehat{\sigma}_2=\text{max}\left(2\sigma_{12}-\sigma_1,0\right). \end{equation} With such an extension, we recover the exact values of $c_{k;ij}$ for a binary mixture of hard spheres ($d=3$), even if $\sigma_1> 2 \sigma_{12}$ or $\sigma_2> 2 \sigma_{12}$. The EOS \eqref{new2} becomes explicit when $\overline{B}_3$ is obtained from Eq.\ \eqref{n2} by using the approximation \eqref{n7}. The resulting virial coefficient is the exact one for $d=1$ and $d=3$. For hard disks ($d=2$), it turns out that the approximate third virial coefficient is practically indistinguishable from the exact one . When the approximate $\overline{B}_3$ is used, Eq.\ \eqref{new2} reduces to Eq.\ \eqref{Ze1} in the additive case. From the comparison with simulation results, both for the compressibility factor and higher order virial coefficients, we find that the EOS () does a good job for non-additive mixtures, thus representing a reasonable compromise between simplicity and accuracy, provided that $Z_{\pure}$ is accurate enough. This is illustrated in Fig.\ , where the proposal (\protect) with $Z_\pure=Z_\pure^\text{CS}$ and a similar proposal by Hamad are compared with simulation data for some three-dimensional symmetric mixtures. A more extensive comparison shows that Eq.\ \eqref{new2} seems to work better (especially as the density is increased) in the case of positive non-additivities, at least for $d=1$, $d=2$, and $d=3$, but its performance is also reasonably good in highly asymmetric mixtures, even for negative $\Delta$. Of course the full assessment of this proposal is still pending since it involves many facets (non-additivity parameters, size ratios, density, and composition). Without this full assessment and given its rather satisfactory performance so far, going beyond the approximation given by Eq.\ () (taking similar steps to the ones described in Subsections and for additive systems) does not seem to be necessary at this stage, although it is in principle feasible. \subsection{Demixing} Demixing is a common phase transition in fluid mixtures usually originated on the asymmetry of the interactions (e.g., their strength and/or range) between the different components in the mixture. In the case of athermal systems such as HS mixtures in $d$ dimensions, if fluid-fluid separation occurs, it would represent a neat example of an entropy-driven phase transition, {i.e.}, a phase separation based only on the size asymmetry of the components. The existence of demixing in binary additive three dimensional HS mixtures has been studied theoretically since decades, and the issue is still controversial. In this subsection we will present our results following different but related routes that attempt to clarify some aspects of this problem. \subsubsection{Binary Mixtures of Additive $d$-Dimensional Spheres ($d=3$, $d=4$ and $d=5$)} Now we look at the possible instability of a binary fluid mixture of HS of diameters $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ ($\sigma_1 >\sigma_2$) in $d$ dimensions by looking at the Helmholtz free energy per unit volume, $f$, which is given by \begin{equation} \frac{f}{\rho k_{B}T}= -1+\sum_{i=1}^{2}x_{i}\ln \left( x_{i}\rho \lambda_{i}^d\right) +\int_{0}^{\eta }\D\eta' \frac{ Z(\eta' )-1}{\eta '} , \end{equation} where $\lambda_{i}$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength of species $i$. We locate the spinodals through the condition $f_{11}f_{22}-f_{12}^{2}=0$, with $f_{ij}\equiv \partial ^{2}{ f}/\partial \rho _{i}\partial \rho _{j} $. Due to the spinodal instability, the mixture separates into two phases of different composition. The coexistence conditions are determined through the equality of the pressure $p$ and the two chemical potentials $\mu _{1}$ and $\mu _{2}$ in both phases ($\mu_{i}=\partial {f}/\partial \rho _{i}$), leading to binodal (or coexistence) curves. We begin with the case $d=3$. It is well known that the BMCSL EOS, Eq.\ \eqref{BMCSL}, does not lead to demixing. However, other EOS for HS mixtures have been shown to predict demixing , including the EOS that is obtained by truncating the virial series after a certain number of terms . In particular, it turns out that both $Z=Z_{\text{eCS1}}$, Eq.\ \eqref{eCS1}, and $Z=Z_{\text{eCS2}}$, Eq.\ \eqref{eCS2}, lead to demixing for certain values of the parameter $\gamma \equiv {\sigma_2}/{\sigma_1}$ that measures the size asymmetry. The critical values of the pressure, the composition, and the packing fraction are presented in Table for a few values of $\gamma$. \begin{table} \centering \caption{Critical constants ${p_c\sigma_1^3}/{k_B T}$, $x_{1c}$, and $\eta_c$ for different $\gamma$-values as obtained from the two extended CS equations () and ().} \begin{tabular}{c|ccc|ccc} \hline &\multicolumn{3}{c|}{eCS1}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{eCS2}\\ \hline $\gamma$&$p_c\sigma_1^3/k_BT$&$x_{1c}$ &$\eta_c$&$p_c\sigma_1^3/k_BT$&$x_{1c}$ &$\eta_c$\\ \hline 0.05 & 3599 & 0.0093 & 0.822 & 1096 & 0.0004 & 0.204\\ 0.1 & 1307 & 0.0203 & 0.757 & 832.0 & 0.0008 & 0.290 \\ 0.2 & 653.4 & 0.0537 & 0.725 & --- & --- & ---\\ 0.3 & 581.9 & 0.0998 & 0.738 & --- & ---& ---\\ 0.4 & 663.4 & 0.1532 & 0.766 & --- & ---& --- \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} As discussed earlier, the eCS1 EOS and, to a lesser extent, the eCS2 EOS are both in reasonably good agreement with the available simulation results for the compressibility factor and lead to the exact second and third virial coefficients but differ in the predictions for $B_n$ with $n\geq 4$. The scatter in the values for the critical constants shown in Table is evident and so there is no indication as to whether one should prefer one equation over the other in connection with this problem. Notice, for instance, that the eCS2 does not predict demixing for $\gamma\geq 0.2$, while both the values of the critical pressures and packing fractions for which it occurs according to the eCS1 EOS suggest that the transition might be metastable with respect to a fluid-solid transition. Now we turn to the cases $d=4$ and $d=5$. Here we use the extended Luban--Michels equation (eLM1) described in Subsection [see Eq.\ \eqref{Ze1} and Table ]. As seen in Fig.\ , the location of the critical point tends to go down and to the right in the $\eta_2$ vs $\eta_1$ plane as $\gamma$ decreases for $d=4$ . On the other hand, while it also tends to go down as $\gamma$ decreases if $d=5$, its behavior in the $\eta_2$ vs $\eta_1$ plane is rather more erratic in this case. Also, the value of the critical pressure $p_{\text{c}}$ (in units of $k_BT/\sigma _{1}^{d}$) is not a monotonic function of $\gamma $; its minimum value lies between $\gamma =1/3$ and $\gamma =1/2$ when $d=4$, and it is around $\gamma =3/5$ for $d=5$. This non-monotonic behavior is also observed for three-dimensional HS . It is conceivable that the demixing transition in binary mixtures of hard hyperspheres in four and five dimensions described above may be metastable with respect to a fluid-solid transition, as it may also be the case of 3D HS. In fact, the value of the pressure at the freezing transition for the single component fluid is $p_{\text{f}}\sigma ^{d}/k_BT\simeq 12.7$ ($d=3$), 11.5 ($d=4$), and 12.2 ($d=5$), {i.e.}, $p_{\text{f}}\sigma ^{d}/k_BT$ does not change appreciably with the dimensionality but is clearly very small in comparison with the critical pressures $p_{\text{c}}\sigma _{1}^{d}/k_BT$ we obtain for the mixture; for instance, $p_{\text{c}}\sigma_1^{d}/k_BT\simeq 600$ ($d=3$, $\gamma=3/10$), 300 ($d=4$, $\gamma=1/3$) and 123 ($d=5$, $\gamma=3/5$). However, one should also bear in mind that, if the concentration $x_{1}$ of the bigger spheres decreases, the value of the pressure at which the solid-fluid transition in the mixture occurs in 3D is also considerably increased with respect to $p_{\text{f}}$ [{cf.}\ Fig.\ 6 of Ref.\ ]. Thus, for concentrations $x_{1}\simeq 0.01$ corresponding to the critical point of the fluid-fluid transition, the maximum pressure of the fluid phase greatly exceeds $p_{\text{f}}$. If a similar trend with composition also holds in 4D and 5D, and given that the critical pressures become smaller as the dimensionality $d$ is increased, it is not clear whether the competition between the fluid-solid and the fluid-fluid transitions in these dimensionalities will always be won by the former. The point clearly deserves further investigation. An interesting feature must be mentioned. There is a remarkable similarity between the binodal curves represented in the $p\sigma_{i}^{d}$--$\eta _{1}$ and in the $\mu _{i}$--$\eta _{1}$ planes . By eliminating $\eta _{1}$ as if it were a parameter, one can represent the binodal curves in a $\mu _{i}$ vs $p\sigma_{i}^{d}$ plane. Provided the origin of the chemical potentials is such as to make $\lambda_i=\sigma_i$, the binodals in the $\mu _{i}$--$p\sigma _{i}^{d}$ plane practically collapse into a single curve (which is in fact almost a straight line) for each dimensionality ($d=3$, $d=4$, and $d=5$) . A closer analysis of this phenomenon shows, however, that it is mainly due to the influence on $\mu_i$ of terms which are quantitatively dominant but otherwise irrelevant to the coexistence conditions. \subsubsection{Binary Mixtures of Non-Additive Hard Hyperspheres in the Limit of High Dimensionality} Let us now consider a binary mixture of non-additive HS of diameters $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ in $d$ dimensions. Thus in this case $\sigma_{12}\equiv \frac{1}{2}(\sigma_1+\sigma_2)(1+\Delta)$ where as before $\Delta$ may be either positive or negative. Further assume (something that will become exact in the limit $d\to\infty$ ) that the EOS of the mixture is described by the second virial coefficient only, namely \beq p=\rho k_BT \left[1+B_2(x_1)\rho\right], \eeq where, according to Eq.\ \eqref{n1x}, \beq B_2(x_1)=v_d 2^{d-1}\left(x_1^2\sigma_{1}^d+x_2^2\sigma_{2}^d+2x_1x_2\sigma_{12}^d\right). \eeq The Helmholtz free energy per unit volume is given by ${f}/{\rho k_BT}=-1+\sum_{i=1}^2 x_i\ln\left(x_i\rho\lambda_i^d\right) +B_2\rho$, where Eq.\ \eqref{FEN} has been used. The Gibbs free energy \emph{per particle} is \beq g=(f+p)/\rho=\sum_{i=1}^2 x_i\ln\left(x_i\rho\lambda_i^d\right) +2B_2(x_1)\rho, \eeq where without loss of generality we have set $k_B T=1$. { Given a size ratio $\gamma$, a value of $\Delta$, and a dimensionality $d$, the consolute critical point $(x_{1c},p_c)$ is the solution to $\left({\partial^2 g}/{\partial x_1^2}\right)_p=\left({\partial^3 g}/{\partial x_1^3}\right)_p=0$, provided of course it exists}. Then, one can get the critical density $\rho_c$ from Eq.\ (). We now introduce the scaled quantities \beq \ph\equiv 2^{d-1}v_d d^{-2}p\sigma_1^d/k_BT,\quad \yy \equiv d^{-1}B_2\rho. \eeq Consequently, Eqs.\ () and () can be rewritten as \beq \ph=\yy \left(\yy +d^{-1}\right)/{\widetilde{B}_2}, \eeq \beq g=\sum_{i=1}^2 x_i\ln\left(x_i\Lambda_i\right)+ \ln \left({A_d \yy }/{\widetilde{B}_2}\right)+2d\yy , \eeq where $\widetilde{B}_2\equiv B_2/2^{d-1}v_d\sigma_1^d$, $\Lambda_i\equiv (\lambda_i/\sigma_1)^d$, and $A_d\equiv d/2^{d-1}v_d$. Next we take the limit $d\to\infty$ and assume that the volume ratio $\gh\equiv \gamma^d$ is kept fixed and that there is a (slight) non-additivity $\Delta= d^{-2}\Deltah$ such that the scaled non-additivity parameter $\Deltah$ is also kept fixed in this limit. Thus, the second virial coefficient can be approximated by \beq \widetilde{B}_2=\widetilde{B}_2^{(0)}+\widetilde{B}_2^{(1)}d^{-1}+\mathcal{O}(d^{-2}), \quad \widetilde{B}_2^{(0)}=\left(x_1+x_2\gh^{1/2}\right)^2,\quad \widetilde{B}_2^{(1)}=x_1x_2\gh^{1/2}\KK, \eeq with \beq \KK\equiv \frac{1}{4}\left(\ln\gh\right)^2+2 \Deltah . \eeq Let us remark that, { in order to find a consolute critical point}, it is essential to keep the term of order $d^{-1}$ if $\Deltah \leq 0$. The EOS () can then be inverted to yield \beq \yy =\yy ^{(0)}+\yy ^{(1)}d^{-1}+\mathcal{O}(d^{-2}) , \quad \yy ^{(0)}=\sqrt{\ph \widetilde{B}_2^{(0)}},\quad \yy ^{(1)}= -\frac{1}{2} \left(1-\yy ^{(0)}\frac{\widetilde{B}_2^{(1)}}{\widetilde{B}_2^{(0)}}\right). \eeq In turn, the Gibbs free energy () becomes \beq \begin{array}{ll} &g=g^{(0)}d+g^{(1)}+\mathcal{O}(d^{-1}), \\ &g^{(0)}=2 \yy ^{(0)},\quad g^{(1)}=\sum_{i=1}^2 x_i\ln\left(x_i\Lambda_i\right)+\ln\left(A_d {\yy ^{(0)}}/{\widetilde{B}_2^{(0)}}\right)+2 \yy ^{(1)}, \end{array} \eeq while the chemical potentials $\mu_1=g+x_2\left(\partial g/\partial x_1\right)_p$ and $\mu_2=g-x_1\left(\partial g/\partial x_1\right)_p$ are given by \beq \begin{array}{ll} &\mu_i=\mu_i^{(0)}d+\mu_i^{(1)}+\mathcal{O}(d^{-1}) ,\quad \mu_1^{(0)}=2\ph^{1/2},\\& \mu_1^{(1)}=\ln\left(A_d x_1 \Lambda_1\sqrt{\ph/\widetilde{B}_2^{(0)}}\right)-1/\sqrt{\widetilde{B}_2^{(0)}}+(x_2/x_1) (\gh\ph)^{1/2}\widetilde{B}_2^{(1)}/\widetilde{B}_2^{(0)}, \end{array} \eeq where $\mu_2$ is obtained from $\mu_1$ by the changes $x_1\leftrightarrow x_2$, $\Lambda_1\to \Lambda_2/\gh$, $\gh\to 1/\gh$, $\ph\to \ph\gh$, $\widetilde{B}_2\to \widetilde{B}_2/\gh$. { The coordinates of the critical point are readily found to be} \beq x_{1c}=\frac{\gh^{3/4}}{1+\gh^{3/4}},\quad \ph_c=\frac{\left(1+\gh^{1/4}\right)^4}{4\gh \KK^2}. \eeq Note that $x_{1c}$ is independent of $\Deltah$. The coexistence curve, which has to be obtained numerically, follows from the conditions $\mu_i^{(1)}(x_A,\ph)=\mu_i^{(1)}(x_B,\ph)$ ($i=1,2$) where $x_1=x_A$ and $x_1=x_B$ are the mole fractions of the coexisting phases. Once the critical consolute point has been identified in the pressure/concentration plane, we can obtain the critical density. The dominant behaviors of $\widetilde{B}_2$ and $\yy $ at the critical point are \beq \widetilde{B}_2^{(0)}(x_{1c})=\frac{\gh}{\left(1-\gh^{1/4}+\gh^{1/2}\right)^2}, \quad \yy _c^{(0)}=\frac{\left(1+\gh^{1/4}\right)^2}{2\left(1-\gh^{1/4}+\gh^{1/2}\right)\KK}. \eeq Hence, the critical density readily follows after substitution in the scaling relation given in Eq.\ (). It is also convenient to consider the scaled version $\etah\equiv d^{-1} 2^d\eta$ of the packing fraction $\eta=v_d\rho\sigma_1^d\left(x_1+x_2\gh\right)$. At the critical point, it takes the nice expression \beq \etah_c= \frac{\left(\gh^{1/8}+\gh^{-1/8}\right)^2}{\KK}. \eeq The previous results clearly indicate that a demixing transition is possible {not only for additive or positively non-additive mixtures but} even for negative non-additivities. The only requirement is $\KK>0$, {i.e.}, $\Deltah >-\frac{1}{8}\left(\ln\gh\right)^2$ {or, equivalently, $\Delta >-\frac{1}{8}\left(\ln\gamma\right)^2$}. Figure shows the binodal curves corresponding to $\gh=0.01$ and $\Deltah=-0.1$ (negative non-additivity), $\Deltah=0$ (additivity), and $\Deltah=0.1$ (positive non-additivity). While the high dimensionality limit has allowed us to address the problem in a mathematically simple and clear-cut way, the possibility of demixing with negative non-additivity is not an artifact of that limit. As said before, demixing is known to occur for positive non-additive binary mixtures of HS in three dimensions and there is compelling evidence on the existence of this phenomenon in the additive case, at least in the metastable fluid region. Even though in a three-dimensional mixture the EOS is certainly more complicated than Eq.\ () and the demixing transition that we have just discussed for negative non-additivity is possibly metastable with respect to the freezing transition, the main effects at work (namely the competition between depletion due to size asymmetry and hetero-coordination due to negative non-additivity) are also present. In fact, it is interesting to point out that Roth et al.\ , using the approximation of an effective single component fluid with pair interactions to describe a binary mixture of non-additive 3D HS and employing an empirical rule based on the effective second virial coefficient, have also suggested that demixing is possible for small negative non-additivity and high size asymmetry. Our exact results lend support to this suggestion and confirm that, in some cases, the limit $d\to\infty$ highlights features already present in real systems. \section{The Rational Function Approximation (RFA) Method for the Structure of Hard-Sphere Fluids} The RDF $g(r)$ and its close relative the (static) structure factor $S(q)$ are the basic quantities used to discuss the structure of a single component fluid . The latter quantity is defined as \beq S({q})=1+\rho \widetilde{h}(q), \eeq where \beq \widetilde{h}(q)=\int\D\mathbf{r}\, \ee^{-\I \mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r} }h(r) \eeq is the Fourier transform of the total correlation function $h(r)\equiv g(r)-1$, $\I$ being the imaginary unit. An important related quantity is the direct correlation function $c(r)$, which is defined in Fourier space through the Ornstein--Zernike (OZ) relation \beq \widetilde{c}(q)=\frac{\widetilde{h}(q)} {1+\rho\widetilde{h}(q)}, \eeq where $\widetilde{c}(q)$ is the Fourier transform of $c(r)$ The usual approach to obtain $g(r)$ is through one of the integral equation theories, where the OZ equation is complemented by a closure relation between $c(r)$ and $h(r)$ . However, apart from requiring in general hard numerical labor, a disappointing aspect is that the substitution of the (necessarily) approximate values of $g(r)$ obtained from them in the (exact) statistical mechanical formulae may lead to the thermodynamic inconsistency problem. The two basic routes to obtain the EOS of a single component fluid of HS are the virial route, Eq.\ \eqref{Z_s}, and the compressibility route \beqa \chi_\pure\equiv k_BT \left(\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial p}\right)_T&=&\left[1-\rho \widetilde{c}(0)\right]^{-1}= S(0)\nn &=&1+2^{d}d\eta \sigma^{-d}\int_0^\infty \D r\, r^{d-1} h(r). \eeqa Thermodynamic consistency implies that \beq \chi_\pure^{-1}(\eta)=\frac{\D }{\D \eta}[\eta Z_\pure(\eta)], \eeq but, in general, this condition is not satisfied by an approximate RDF. In the case of a HS mixture, the virial route is given by Eq.\ \eqref{1}, while the compressibility route is indicated below [{cf.}\ Eq.\ \eqref{1.1bb}]. In this section we describe the RFA method, which is an alternative to the integral equation approach and in particular leads by construction to thermodynamic consistency. \subsection{The Single Component HS Fluid} We begin with the case of a single component fluid of HS of diameter $\sigma$. The following presentation is equivalent to the one given in Refs.\ , where all details can be found, but more suitable than the former for direct generalization to the case of mixtures. The starting point will be the Laplace transform \beq G(s)=\int_0^\infty \D r\, \ee^{-sr}r g(r) \eeq and the auxiliary function $\Psi(s)$ defined through \beq G(s)=\frac{s}{2\pi}\left[\rho+\ee^{s\sigma}\Psi(s)\right]^{-1}. \eeq The choice of $G(s)$ as the Laplace transform of $r g(r)$ and the definition of $\Psi(s)$ from Eq.\ \eqref{2.2} are suggested by the exact form of $g(r)$ to first order in density . Since $g(r)=0$ for $r<\sigma$ while $g(\sigma^+)=\text{finite}$, one has \beq g(r)=\Theta(r-\sigma)\left[g(\sigma^+)+ g'(\sigma^+)(r-\sigma)+\cdots\right], \eeq where $g'(r)\equiv \D g(r)/\D r$. This property imposes a constraint on the large $s$ behavior of $G(s)$, namely \beq \ee^{\sigma s}s G(s)=\sigma g(\sigma^+ ) +\left[g(\sigma^+ )+\sigma g'(\sigma^+)\right] s^{-1}+{\cal O}(s^{-2}). \eeq Therefore, $\lim_{s\to\infty} \ee^{s\sigma}sG(s)=\sigma g(\sigma^+)=\text{finite}$ or, equivalently, \beq \lim_{s\to\infty}s^{-2}\Psi(s)=\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma g(\sigma^+)}=\text{finite}. \eeq On the other hand, according to Eq.\ \eqref{chi} with $d=3$, \beqa \chi_\pure&=&1-24\eta\sigma^{-3}\lim_{s\to 0}\frac{\D}{\D s}\int_0^\infty \D r\, \ee^{-s r}r\left[g(r)-1\right]\nn &=&1-24\eta\sigma^{-3}\lim_{s\to 0}\frac{\D}{\D s}\left[G(s)-s^{-2}\right]. \eeqa Since the (reduced) isothermal compressibility $\chi_\pure$ is also finite, one has $\int_0^\infty \D r\,r^2\left[g(r)-1\right]=\text{finite}$, so that the weaker condition $\int_0^\infty \D r\,r\left[g(r)-1\right]=\lim_{s\to 0}[G(s)-s^{-2}]=\text{finite}$ must hold. This in turn implies \beq \Psi(s)=-\rho+\rho\sigma s-\frac{1}{2}\rho \sigma^2 s^2 +\left(\frac{1}{6}\rho\sigma^3+\frac{1}{2\pi}\right)s^3- \left(\frac{1}{24}\rho\sigma^3+ \frac{1}{2\pi}\right)\sigma s^4+{\cal O}(s^5). \eeq \subsubsection{First-Order Approximation (PY Solution)} An interesting aspect to be remarked is that the minimal input we have just described on the physical requirements related to the structure and thermodynamics of the system is enough to determine the small and large $s$ limits of $\Psi(s)$, Eqs.\ \eqref{2.3} and \eqref{2.4}, respectively. While infinite choices for $\Psi(s)$ would comply with such limits, a particularly simple form is a \emph{rational function}. In particular, the rational function having the least number of coefficients to be determined is \beq \Psi(s)=\frac{\SE^\zero+\SE^\one s+\SE^\two s^2+\SE^\three s^3}{L^\zero+L^\one s}, \eeq where one of the coefficients can be given an arbitrary non-zero value. We choose $\SE^\three=1$. With such a choice and in view of Eq.\ (), one finds $\SE^\zero=-\rho L^\zero$, $\SE^\one=-\rho(L^\one-\sigma L^\zero)$, $\SE^\two=\rho(\sigma L^\one-\frac{1}{2} \sigma^2 L^\zero)$, and \beq L^\zero=2\pi \frac{1+2\eta}{(1-\eta)^2}, \eeq \beq L^\one=2\pi \sigma\frac{1+\eta/2}{(1-\eta)^2}. \eeq Upon substitution of these results into Eqs.\ () and (), we get \beq G(s)=\frac{\ee^{-\sigma s}}{2\pi s^2} \frac{L^\zero+L^\one s}{ 1-\rho\left[\varphi_2(\sigma s)\sigma^3 L^\zero +\varphi_1(\sigma s)\sigma^2 L^\one\right]}, \eeq where \beq \varphi_n(x)\equiv x^{-(n+1)}\left(\sum_{m=0}^n \frac{(-x)^m}{m!}- \ee^{-x}\right). \eeq In particular, \beq \varphi_0(x)=\frac{1-\ee^{-x}}{x},\quad \varphi_1(x)=\frac{1-x-\ee^{-x}}{x^2},\quad \varphi_2(x)=\frac{1-x+x^2/2-\ee^{-x}}{x^3}. \eeq Note that $\lim_{x\to 0}\varphi_n(x)=(-1)^n/(n+1)!$. It is remarkable that Eq.\ (), which has been derived here as the simplest rational form for $\Psi(s)$ complying with the requirements \eqref{2.3} and \eqref{2.4}, coincides with the solution to the PY closure, $c(r)=0$ for $r>\sigma$, of the OZ equation . Application of Eq.\ \eqref{2.3} yields the PY contact value $g_\pure^\text{PY}$ and compressibility factor $Z_\pure^\text{PY}$ shown in Table . Analogously, Eq.\ \eqref{GG} yields \beq \chi_\pure^{\text{PY}}=\frac{(1-\eta)^4}{(1+2\eta)^2}. \eeq It can be easily checked that the thermodynamic relation \eqref{consistent} is not satisfied by the PY theory. \subsubsection{Second-Order Approximation} In the spirit of the RFA, the simplest extension of the rational approximation () involves two new terms, namely $\alpha s^4$ in the numerator and $L^\two s^2$ in the denominator, both of them necessary in order to satisfy Eq.\ (). Such an addition leads to \beq \Psi(s)=\frac{\SE^\zero+\SE^\one s+\SE^\two s^2+\SE^\three s^3+\alpha s^4}{L^\zero+L^\one s+L^\two s^2}. \eeq Applying Eq.\ \eqref{2.4}, it is possible to express $\SE^\zero$, $\SE^\one$, $\SE^\two$, $\SE^\three$, $L^\zero$, and $L^\one$ in terms of $\alpha$ and $L^\two$. This leads to \beq G(s)=\frac{\ee^{-\sigma s}}{2\pi s^2} \frac{L^\zero+L^\one s+{L^\two} s^2}{ 1+\alpha s-\rho\left[\varphi_2(\sigma s)\sigma^3 L^\zero +\varphi_1(\sigma s)\sigma^2 L^\one +\varphi_0(\sigma s)\sigma L^\two\right]}, \eeq where \beq L^\zero=2\pi \frac{1+2\eta}{(1-\eta)^2} +\frac{12\eta}{1-\eta}\left( \frac{\pi}{1-\eta}\frac{\alpha}{\sigma}-\frac{L^\two}{\sigma^2}\right), \eeq \beq L^\one=2\pi \sigma\frac{1+\frac{1}{2}\eta}{(1-\eta)^2} +\frac{2}{1-\eta}\left( \pi\frac{1+2\eta}{1-\eta}\alpha-3\eta\frac{L^\two}{\sigma}\right). \eeq Thus far, irrespective of the values of the coefficients $L^\two$ and $\alpha$, the conditions $\lim_{s\to\infty} \ee^{s\sigma}sG(s)=\text{finite}$ and $\lim_{s\to 0}[G(s)-s^{-2}]=\text{finite}$ are satisfied. Of course, if $L^\two=\alpha=0$, one recovers the PY approximation. More generally, we may determine these coefficients by prescribing the compressibility factor $Z_\pure$ (or equivalently the contact value $g_\pure$) and then, in order to ensure thermodynamic consistency, compute from it the isothermal compressibility $\chi_\pure$ by means of Eq.\ \eqref{consistent}. {}From Eqs.\ \eqref{2.3} and \eqref{GG} one gets \beq {L^\two} ={2\pi \alpha \sigma}g_\pure, \eeq \beq \chi_\pure=\left(\frac{2\pi}{L^\zero}\right)^2 \left[1-\frac{12\eta}{1-\eta}\frac{\alpha}{\sigma}\left(1+2 \frac{\alpha}{\sigma}\right)+\frac{12\eta}{\pi}\frac{\alpha L^\two}{\sigma^3} \right]. \eeq Clearly, upon substitution of Eqs.\ () and () into Eq.\ () a quadratic algebraic equation for $\alpha$ is obtained. The physical root is \beq \alpha=-\frac{12\eta(1+2\eta)\SE_4}{(1-\eta)^2+36\eta\left[1+\eta-Z_\pure(1-\eta)\right]\SE_4}, \eeq where \begin{equation} \SE_4=\frac{1-\eta }{36\eta \left( Z_\pure-\frac{1}{3}\right) }\left\{ 1-\left[ 1+\frac{Z_\pure-\frac{1}{3}}{Z_\pure-Z_\pure^\text{PY}}\left( \frac{\chi_\pure}{\chi_\pure^\text{PY}}-1\right) \right] ^{1/2}\right\} . \end{equation} The other root must be discarded because it corresponds to a negative value of $\alpha$, which, according to Eq.\ \eqref{2.13}, yields a negative value of $L^\two$. This would imply the existence of a positive real value of $s$ at which $G(s)=0$ }, which is not compatible with a positive definite RDF. However, according to the form of Eq.\ () it may well happen that, once $Z_\pure$ has been chosen, there exists a certain packing fraction $\eta_\text{g}$ above which $\alpha$ is no longer positive. This may be interpreted as an indication that, at the packing fraction $\eta_\text{g}$ where $\alpha$ vanishes, the system ceases to be a fluid and a glass transition in the HS fluid occurs . Expanding \eqref{2.10} in powers of $s$ and using Eq.\ () one can obtain the derivatives of the RDF at $r=\sigma^+$ . In particular, the first derivative is \beq g'(\sigma^+)=\frac{1}{2\pi\alpha\sigma}\left[L^\one- L^\two\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{\sigma}\right)\right], \eeq which may have some use in connection with perturbation theory . It is worthwhile to point out that the structure implied by Eq.\ () coincides in this single component case with the solution of the Generalized Mean Spherical Approximation (GMSA) , where the OZ relation is solved under the ansatz that the direct correlation function has a Yukawa form outside the core. For a given $Z_\pure$, once $G(s)$ has been determined, inverse Laplace transformation yields $r g(r)$. First, note that Eq.\ \eqref{2.2} can be formally rewritten as \beq G(s)=-\frac{s}{2\pi}\sum_{n=1}^\infty \rho^{n-1}\left[-\Psi(s)\right]^{-n} \ee^{-ns\sigma}. \eeq Thus, the RDF is then given by \begin{equation} g\left({r}\right) =\frac{1}{2\pi r} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\rho^{n-1}\psi _{n}\left(r-n\sigma\right) \Theta \left(r-n\sigma\right) , \end{equation} with $\Theta \left(x\right)$ denoting the Heaviside step function and \begin{equation} \psi_{n}\left( r\right) =-\mathcal{L}^{-1}\left\{ s\left[ -\Psi \left( s\right) \right] ^{-n}\right\} , \end{equation} $\mathcal{L}^{-1}$ denoting the inverse Laplace transform. Explicitly, using the residue theorem, \begin{equation} \psi _{n}\left( r\right) =- \sum_{i=1}^{4} \ee^{s_{i}r} \sum_{m=1}^{n} \frac{a_{mn}^{(i)}}{\left(n - m\right)!(m-1)! } r^{n-m} , \end{equation} where \begin{equation} a_{mn}^{(i)} = \lim_{s \rightarrow s_{i}} \left(\frac{\D}{\D s}\right)^{m-1} s\left[-\Psi \left( s\right)/(s-s_i) \right] ^{-n}, \end{equation} $s_{i}$ ($i=1,\ldots,4$) being the poles of $1/\Psi(s)$, {i.e.}, the roots of $\SE^\zero+\SE^\one s+\SE^\two s^2+\SE^\three s^3+\alpha s^{4}=0$. Explicit expressions of $g(r)$ up to the second coordination shell $\sigma\leq r\leq 3\sigma$ can be found in Ref.\ . On the other hand, the static structure factor $S(q)$ [{cf}. Eq.\ \eqref{S(q)bis}] and the Fourier transform $\widetilde{h}(q)$ may be related to $G(s)$ by noting that \beq \widetilde{h}(q)=\frac{4\pi}{q}\int_0^\infty \D r \, r \sin(qr) h(r)=-2\pi \left.\frac{G(s)-G(-s)}{s} \right|_{s=\I q}. \end{equation} Therefore, the basic structural quantities of the single component HS fluid, namely the RDF and the static structure factor, may be analytically determined within the RFA method once the compressibility factor $Z_\pure$, or equivalently the contact value $g_\pure$, is specified. In Fig.\ we compare simulation data of $g(r)$ for a density $\rho \sigma^3=0.9$ with the RFA prediction and a recent approach by Trokhymchuk {et al.} , where $Z_\pure=Z_\pure^{\text{CS}}$ [{cf}.\ Table ] and the associated compressibility \beq \chi_\pure^\text{CS}=\frac{(1-\eta)^4}{1+4\eta+4\eta^2-4\eta^3+\eta^4} \eeq are taken in both cases. Both theories are rather accurate, but the RFA captures better the maxima and minima of $g(r)$ . It is also possible to obtain within the RFA method the direct correlation function $c(r)$. Using Eqs.\ \eqref{d19} and \eqref{S(q)}, and applying the residue theorem, one gets, after some algebra, \beq c(r)=\left(\aK_+\frac{\ee^{\kappa r}}{r}+\aK_-\frac{\ee^{-\kappa r}}{r}+\frac{\aK_{-1}}{r}+\aK_0+\aK_1 r+\aK_3 r^3\right) \Theta(1-r)+\aK\frac{\ee^{-\kappa r}}{r}, \eeq where \beq \kappa=\frac{1}{\alpha}\sqrt{12\alpha\eta L^\two/\pi+1-12\alpha(1+2 \alpha)\eta/(1- \eta)}, \eeq \beqa \aK_\pm&=&\frac{\ee^{\mp\kappa}}{4 \alpha^2 (1 - \eta)^4 \kappa^6} \Bigl\{ 2\left[1+2(1+3 \alpha)\eta\right]\pm \left[2 + \eta + 2\alpha (1 + 2 \eta )\right] \kappa \nn && \left.+ (1 - \eta )\left[\kappa^2 - \eta \left(12 +(\kappa \pm 6)\kappa\right)\right]L^\two/\pi\right\}\Bigl\{ 12 \eta \left[1+2(1+3 \alpha)\eta\right] \nn &&\pm 6 \eta \left[3\eta - 2 \alpha (1-4 \eta)\right] \kappa - 6 \eta(1 + 2 \alpha)(1 -\eta) \kappa^2 - (1 - \eta)^2 \kappa^3 (\alpha \kappa\mp 1)\nn &&\left.+ 6\eta (1 - \eta) \left[\kappa^2 - \eta \left(12 +(\kappa \pm 6)\kappa\right)\right]L^\two/\pi \right\}, \eeqa \beq \aK_{-1}=-\left(\frac{L^\two}{2 \pi \alpha} + \aK_+ \ee^{\kappa} + \aK_- \ee^{-\kappa}+ \aK_0 + \aK_1 + \aK_3\right), \eeq \beq \aK_0=-\left[\frac{1+2\left(1+3 \alpha\right)\eta-6 \eta \left( 1 - \eta\right)L^\two/\pi }{\alpha \kappa \left(1 -\eta \right)^2}\right]^2 , \eeq \beqa \aK_1&=&\frac{6\eta}{\kappa^2}\aK_0+\frac{3 \eta}{2 \alpha^2 \kappa^2 \left(1 -\eta \right)^4}\left\{\left[2+\eta+2\alpha(1+ 2\eta)\right]^2 - 4 \left(1 - \eta\right)\left[1 +\eta \right. \right.\nn &&\left. \left. \times (7 + \eta + 6 \alpha \left(2 + \eta \right))\right]L^\two /\pi +12 \eta \left(2 +\eta\right)(1-\eta)^2{L^\two}^2/\pi^2\right\}, \eeqa \beq \aK_3=\frac{ \eta}{2}\aK_0, \eeq \beq \aK=-\left(\aK_++\aK_-+\aK_{-1}\right). \eeq In Eqs.\ \eqref{kappa}--\eqref{aprima} we have taken $\sigma=1$ as the length unit. Note that Eq.\ \eqref{aprima} guarantees that $c(0)=\text{finite}$, while Eq.\ \eqref{eca3} yields $c(\sigma^+)-c(\sigma^-)=L^\two/2\pi\alpha=g(\sigma^+)$. The latter equation proves the continuity of the indirect correlation function $\gamma(r)\equiv h(r)- c(r)$ at $r=\sigma$. With the above results, Eqs.\ \eqref{g(r)} and \eqref{c(r)}, one may immediately write the function $\gamma(r)$. Finally, we note that the bridge function $B(r)$ is linked to $\gamma(r)$ and to the cavity (or background) function $y(r)\equiv \ee^{\phi(r)/k_BT}g(r)$, where $\phi(r)$ is the interaction potential, through \begin{equation} B(r)= \ln y(r)-\gamma(r), \end{equation} and so, within the RFA method, the bridge function is also completely specified analytically for $r>\sigma$ once $Z_\pure$ is prescribed. If one wants to have $B(r)$ also for $0\leq r \leq \sigma$, then an expression for the cavity function is required in that region. Here we propose such an expression using a limited number of constraints. First, since the cavity function and its first derivative are continuous at $r=\sigma$, we have \beq y(1)=g_\pure,\quad \frac{y'(1)}{y(1)}=\frac{L^\one}{L^\two}-\frac{1}{\alpha}-1, \eeq where Eqs.\ \eqref{2.13} and \eqref{3.19s} have been used and again $\sigma=1$ has been taken. Next, we consider the following exact zero-separation theorems : \beq \ln y(0)=Z_\pure(\eta)-1+\int_0^\eta d\eta'\frac{Z_\pure(\eta')-1}{\eta'}, \eeq \beq \frac{y'(0)}{y(0)}=-6\eta y(1). \eeq The four conditions \eqref{yp1}--\eqref{37zst} can be enforced by assuming a cubic polynomial form for $\ln y(r)$ inside the core, namely \beq y(r)=\exp\left(Y_0+Y_1 r+Y_2 r^2+Y_3 r^3\right),\quad (0\leq r\leq 1), \eeq where \beq Y_0=Z_\pure(\eta)-1+\int_0^\eta d\eta'\frac{Z_\pure(\eta')-1}{\eta'}, \eeq \beq Y_1=-6\eta y(1), \eeq \beq Y_2=3\ln y(1)-\frac{y'(1)}{y(1)}-3Y_0-2Y_1, \eeq \beq Y_3=-2\ln y(1)+\frac{y'(1)}{y(1)}+2Y_0+Y_1. \eeq The proposal \eqref{lny} is compared with available Monte Carlo data in Fig.\ , where an excellent agreement can be observed. Once the cavity function $y(r)$ provided by the RFA method is complemented by \eqref{lny}, the bridge function $B(r)$ can be obtained at any distance. Figure presents a parametric plot of the bridge function versus the indirect correlation function as given by the RFA method for two different packing fractions, as well as the result associated with the PY closure. The fact that one gets a smooth curve means that within the RFA the oscillations in $\gamma(r)$ are highly correlated to those of $B(r)$. Further, the effective closure relation in the RFA turns out to be density dependent, in contrast with what occurs for the PY theory. Note that the absolute value $|B(r)|$ for a given value of $\gamma(r)$ is smaller in the RFA than the PY value and that the RFA and PY curves become paradoxically closer for larger densities. Since the PY theory is known to yield rather poor values of the cavity function inside the core , it seems likely that the present differences may represent yet another manifestation of the superiority of the RFA method, a point that certainly deserves to be further explored. \subsection{The Multicomponent HS Fluid} The method outlined in the preceding subsection will be now extended to an $N$-component mixture of additive HS. Note that in a multicomponent system the isothermal compressibility $\chi$ is given by \beqa \chi^{-1}&=&\frac{1}{k_BT}\left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho}\right)_{T,\{x_j\}}=\frac{1}{k_BT} \sum_{i=1}^N x_i\left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho_i}\right)_{T,\{x_j\}}\nonumber\\ &=&1-\rho\sum_{i,j=1}^N x_ix_j \widetilde{c}_{ij}(0), \eeqa where $\widetilde{c}_{ij}(q)$ is the Fourier transform of the direct correlation function $c_{ij}(r)$, which is defined by the OZ equation \beq \widetilde{h}_{ij}(q)=\widetilde{c}_{ij}(q)+ \sum_{k=1}^N \rho_k\widetilde{h}_{ik}(q)\widetilde{c}_{kj}(q), \eeq where $h_{ij}(r)\equiv g_{ij}(r)-1$. Equations \eqref{1.1bb} and \eqref{1.3bb} are the multicomponent extensions of Eqs.\ \eqref{chi} and \eqref{d19}, respectively. Introducing the quantities $\widehat{h}_{ij}(q)\equiv \sqrt{\rho _{i}\rho _{j}}\widetilde{h}_{ij}(q)$ and $\widehat{c}_{ij}(q)\equiv\sqrt{\rho_{i}\rho_{j}}\,\widetilde{c}_{ij}(q)$, the OZ relation \eqref{1.3bb} becomes, in matrix notation, \begin{equation} \widehat{\sf c}(q)= \widehat{\sf h}(q)\cdot[{\sf I}+\widehat{\sf h}(q)]^{-1} , \end{equation} where $\openone$ is the $N\times N$ identity matrix. Thus, Eq.\ \eqref{1.1bb} can be rewritten as \beq \chi^{-1}=\sum_{i,j=1}^N \sqrt{x_ix_j}\left[\delta_{ij}-\widehat{c}_{ij}(0)\right]= \sum_{i,j=1}^N \sqrt{x_ix_j} {\left[\openone+\widehat{\sf h}(0)\right]_{ij}^{-1}}. \eeq Similarly to what we did in the single component case, we introduce the Laplace transforms of $r g_{ij}(r)$: \beq G_{ij}(s)=\int_0^\infty \D r\, \ee^{-sr}r g_{ij}(r). \eeq The counterparts of Eqs.\ \eqref{3.2s} and \eqref{3.3s} are \beq g_{ij}(r)=\Theta(r-\sigma_{ij})\left[g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij}^+)+ g_{ij}'(\sigma_{ij}^+)(r-\sigma_{ij})+\cdots\right], \eeq \beq \ee^{\sigma_{ij}s}s G_{ij}(s)=\sigma_{ij}g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij}^+ ) +\left[g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij}^+ )+\sigma_{ij}g_{ij}'(\sigma_{ij}^+)\right] s^{-1}+{\cal O}(s^{-2}). \eeq Moreover, the condition of a finite compressibility implies that $\widetilde{h}_{ij}(0)=\text{finite}$. As a consequence, for small $s$, \beq s^2 G_{ij}(s)=1+H_{ij}^{(0)}s^2+H_{ij}^{(1)}s^3+\cdots \eeq with $H_{ij}^\zero=\text{finite}$ and $H_{ij}^\one=-\widetilde{h}_{ij}(0)/4\pi=\text{finite}$, where \beq H_{ij}^\n\equiv \frac{1}{n!}\int_0^\infty \D r\, (-r)^n r h_{ij}(r). \eeq We are now in the position to generalize the approximation () to the $N$-component case . While such a generalization may be approached in a variety of ways, two motivations are apparent. On the one hand, we want to recover the PY result as a particular case in much the same fashion as in the single component system. On the other hand, we want to maintain the development as simple as possible. Taking all of this into account, we propose \beq G_{ij}(s)=\frac{\ee^{-\sigma_{ij} s}}{2\pi s^2} \left({\sf L}(s)\cdot \left[(1+\alpha s)\openone-{ \sf A}(s)\right]^{-1}\right)_{ij}, \eeq where $\mathsf{L}(s)$ and $\mathsf{A}(s)$ are the matrices \beq L_{ij}(s)=L_{ij}^\zero+L_{ij}^\one s+L_{ij}^\two s^2, \eeq \beq A_{ij}(s)=\rho_i\left[\varphi_2(\sigma_i s)\sigma_i^3 L_{ij}^\zero +\varphi_1(\sigma_i s)\sigma_{i}^2 L_{ij}^\one +\varphi_0(\sigma_{i} s)\sigma_{i} L_{ij}^\two\right], \eeq the functions $\varphi_n(x)$ being defined by Eq.\ \eqref{2.9}. We note that, by construction, Eq.\ () complies with the requirement $\lim_{s\rightarrow\infty} \ee^{\sigma_{ij}s}s G_{ij}(s)=\text{finite}$. Further, in view of Eq.\ (), the coefficients of $s^0$ and $s$ in the power series expansion of $s^2 G_{ij}(s)$ must be 1 and 0, respectively. This yields $2N^2$ conditions that allow us to express ${\sf L}^\zero$ and ${\sf L}^\one$ in terms of ${\sf L}^\two$ and $\alpha$. The solution is \beq L_{ij}^\zero=\lambdak+\lambdakk\sigma_j+2\lambdakk\alpha- \lambdak\sum_{k=1}^N \rho_k\sigma_k L_{kj}^\two, \eeq \beq L_{ij}^\one=\lambdak\sigma_{ij}+\frac{1}{2}\lambdakk\sigma_i\sigma_j +(\lambdak+\lambdakk\sigma_i)\alpha-\frac{1}{2}\lambdak\sigma_i \sum_{k=1}^N \rho_k\sigma_k L_{kj}^\two, \eeq where $\lambdak\equiv 2\pi/(1-\eta)$ and $\lambdakk\equiv 6\pi(\mt/\mth)\eta/(1-\eta)^2$. In parallel with the development of the single component case, ${\sf L}^\two$ and $\alpha$ can be chosen arbitrarily. Again, the choice $L_{ij}^\two=\alpha=0$ gives the PY solution . Since we want to go beyond this approximation, we will determine those coefficients by taking prescribed values for $g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij} )$, which in turn, via Eq.\ \eqref{1}, give the EOS of the mixture. This also leads to the required value of $\chi^{-1}=\partial(\rho Z)/\partial \rho$, thus making the theory thermodynamically consistent. In particular, according to Eq.\ (), \beq {L_{ij}^\two}={2\pi\alpha\sigma_{ij}} g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij}^+ ). \eeq The condition related to $\chi$ is more involved. Making use of Eq.\ (), one can get $\widetilde{h}_{ij}(0)=-4\pi H_{ij}^\one$ in terms of ${\sf L}^\two$ and $\alpha$ and then insert it into Eq.\ \eqref{3.18}. Finally, elimination of $L_{ij}^\two$ in favor of $\alpha$ from Eq.\ () produces an algebraic equation of degree $2N$, whose physical root is determined by the requirement that $G_{ij}(s)$ is positive definite for positive real $s$. It turns out that the physical solution corresponds to the smallest of the real roots. Once $\alpha$ is known, upon substitution into Eqs.\ (), (), (), and (), the scheme is complete. Also, using Eq.\ (), one can easily derive the result \beq g_{ij}'(\sigma_{ij}^+)=\frac{1}{2\pi\alpha\sigma_{ij}}\left[L_{ij}^\one- L_{ij}^\two\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{\sigma_{ij}}\right)\right]. \eeq It is straightforward to check that the results of the preceding subsection are recovered by setting $\sigma_i=\sigma$, regardless of the values of the mole factions. Once $G_{ij}(s)$ has been determined, inverse Laplace transformation directly yields $rg_{ij}(r)$. Although in principle this can be done analytically, it is more practical to use one of the efficient methods discussed by Abate and Whitt to numerically invert Laplace transforms . In Fig.\ we present a comparison between the results of the RFA method with the PY theory and simulation data for the RDF of a ternary mixture. In the case of the RFA, we have used the eCS2 contact values and the corresponding isothermal compressibility. The improvement of the RFA over the PY prediction, particularly in the region near contact, is noticeable. Although the RFA accounts nicely for the observed oscillations, it seems to somewhat overestimate the depth of the first minimum. Explicit knowledge of $G_{ij}(s)$ also allows us to determine the Fourier transform $\widetilde{h}_{ij}(q)$ through the relation \beq \widetilde{h}_{ij}(q)=-2\pi \left.\frac{G_{ij}(s)-G_{ij}(-s)}{s} \right|_{s=\I q}. \end{equation} The structure factor $S_{ij}(q)$ may be expressed in terms of $\widetilde{h}_{ij}(q)$ as \beq S_{ij}(q)=x_i \delta_{ij}+\rho x_i x_j \widetilde{h}_{ij}(q). \eeq In the particular case of a binary mixture, rather than the individual structure factors $S_{ij}(q)$, it is some combination of them which may be easily associated with fluctuations of the thermodynamic variables . Specifically, the quantities \beq S_{nn}(q)=S_{11}(q)+S_{22}(q)+2S_{12}(q), \eeq \beq S_{nc}(q)=x_2 S_{11}(q)-x_1 S_{22}(q)+(x_2-x_1)S_{12}(q), \eeq \beq S_{cc}(q)=x_2^2S_{11}(q)+x_1^2S_{22}(q)-2x_1 x_2S_{12}(q) \eeq are sometimes required. After replacement of $\widehat{h}_{ij}(q)=\sqrt{\rho_i\rho_j}\widetilde{h}_{ij}(q)$ in Eq.\ \eqref{C(q)}, one easily gets $\widetilde{c}_{ij}(q)$. Subsequent inverse Fourier transformation yields $c_{ij}(r)$. The result gives $c_{ij}(r)$ for $r>\sigma_{ij}$ as the superposition of $N$ Yukawas , namely \begin{equation} c_{ij}(r)= \sum_{\ell=1}^N K_{ij}^{(\ell)} \frac{\ee^{-\kappa_\ell r}}{r} , \end{equation} where $q=\pm \I \kappa_\ell$ with $\ell=1,\ldots,N$ are the zeros of $\det\left[{\sf I}+\widehat{\sf h}(q)\right]$ and the amplitudes $K_{ij}^{(\ell)}$ are obtained by applying the residue theorem as \begin{equation} K_{ij}^{(\ell)}=\frac{\I \kappa_\ell}{2\pi} \lim_{q\rightarrow \I \kappa_\ell} \widetilde{c}_{ij}(q)(q-\I \kappa_\ell). \end{equation} The indirect correlation functions $\gamma_{ij}(r) \equiv h_{ij}(r) - c_{ij}(r)$ readily follow from the previous results for the RDF and direct correlation functions. Finally, in this case the bridge functions $B_{ij}(r)$ for $r>\sigma_{ij}$ are linked to $g_{ij}(r)$ and $c_{ij}(r)$ through \begin{equation} B_{ij}(r)= \ln g_{ij}(r)-\gamma_{ij}(r) \end{equation} and so once more we have a full set of analytical results for the structural properties of a multicomponent fluid mixture of HS once the contact values $g_{ij}(\sigma_{ij})$ are specified. \section{Other Related Systems} The philosophy behind the RFA method to derive the structural properties of three-dimensional HS systems can be adapted to deal with other related systems. The main common features of the RFA can be summarized as follows. First, one chooses to represent the RDF in Laplace space. Next, using as a guide the low-density form of the Laplace transform, an auxiliary function is defined which is approximated by a rational or a rational-like form. Finally, the coefficients are determined by imposing some basic consistency conditions. In this section we consider the cases of sticky-hard-sphere, square-well, and hard-disk fluids. In the two former cases the RFA program is followed quite literally, while in the latter case it is done more indirectly through the RFA method as applied to hard rods ($d=1$) and hard spheres ($d=3$). \subsection{Sticky Hard Spheres} The sticky-hard-sphere (SHS) fluid model has received a lot of attention since it was first introduced by Baxter in 1968 and later extended to multicomponent mixtures by Perram and Smith and, independently, by Barboy . In this model, the molecular interaction may be defined via square-well (SW) potentials of infinite depth and vanishing width, thus embodying the two essential characteristics of real molecular interactions, namely a harsh repulsion and an attractive part. In spite of their known shortcomings , an important feature of SHS systems is that they allow for an exact solution of the OZ equation in the PY approximation . Furthermore, they are thought to be appropriate for describing structural properties of colloidal systems, micelles, and microemulsions, as well as some aspects of gas-liquid equilibrium, ionic fluids and mixtures, solvent mediated forces, adsorption phenomena, polydisperse systems, and fluids containing chainlike molecules . Let us consider an $N$-component mixture of spherical particles interacting according to the SW potential \begin{equation} \phi _{ij}(r)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \infty , & r<\sigma _{ij}, \\ -\epsilon _{ij}, & \sigma _{ij}<r<R_{ij}, \\ 0, & r>R_{ij}. \end{array} \right. \end{equation} As in the case of additive HS, $\sigma _{ij}=(\sigma _{i}+\sigma _{j})/2$ is the distance between the centers of a sphere of species $i$ and a sphere of species $j$ at contact. In addition, $ \epsilon _{ij}$ is the well depth and $R_{ij}-\sigma _{ij}$ indicates the well width. We now take the SHS limit , namely \begin{equation} R_{ij}\to \sigma _{ij},\quad \epsilon _{ij}\to \infty ,\quad \tau _{ij}\equiv \frac{1}{12 }\frac{\sigma _{ij}}{R_{ij}-\sigma _{ij}}\ee^{-\epsilon _{ij}/k_{B}T}=\text{ finite}, \end{equation} where the $\tau _{ij}$ are monotonically increasing functions of the temperature $T$ and their inverses measure the degree of ``adhesiveness'' of the interacting spheres $i$ and $j$. Even without strictly taking the mathematical limits \eqref{169kk}, short-range SW fluids can be well described in practice by the SHS model . The virial EOS for the SHS mixture is given by \begin{eqnarray} Z &=&1+\frac{1}{6}\rho \sum_{i,j=1}^N x_{i}x_{j}\int \D{\bf r}\,ry_{ij}(r)\frac{\D}{\D r} \ee^{-\phi _{ij}(r)/k_{B}T} \nonumber \\ &=&1+\frac{2\pi }{3}\rho \sum_{i,j=1}^N x_{i}x_{j}\sigma _{ij}^{3}y_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})\left[ 1-\frac{1}{12\tau _{ij}}\left( 3+\frac{ y_{ij}'(\sigma_{ij})}{y_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})}\right) \right] , \end{eqnarray} where $y_{ij}(r)\equiv g_{ij}(r)\ee^{\phi _{ij}(r)/k_{B}T}$ is the cavity function and $y_{ij}'(r) = \D y_{ij}(r)/\D r$. Since $y_{ij}(r)$ must be continuous, it follows that \begin{equation} g_{ij}(r)=y_{ij}(r)\left[ \Theta (r-\sigma _{ij})+\frac{\sigma _{ij}}{12\tau _{ij}}\delta(r-\sigma _{ij})\right] . \end{equation} The case of a HS system is recovered by taking the limit of vanishing adhesiveness $\tau_{ij}^{-1}\to 0$, in which case Eq.\ \eqref{vir} reduces to the three-dimensional version of Eq.\ \eqref{1}. On the other hand, the compressibility EOS, Eq.\ \eqref{1.1bb}, is valid for any interaction potential, including SHS. As in the case of HS, it is convenient to define the Laplace transform \eqref{3.1}. The condition $y_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})=\text{finite}$ translates into the following large $s$ behavior of $G_{ij}(s)$: \begin{equation} \ee^{\sigma _{ij}s}G_{ij}(s)=\sigma _{ij}^{2}y_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})\left( \frac{1 }{12\tau _{ij}}+\sigma _{ij}^{-1}s^{-1}\right) +{\cal O}(s^{-2}), \end{equation} which differs from \eqref{3.3}: while $\ee^{\sigma _{ij}s}G_{ij}(s)\sim s^{-1}$ for HS, $\ee^{\sigma _{ij}s}G_{ij}(s)\sim s^{0}$ for SHS. However, the small $s$ behavior is still given by Eq.\ \eqref{3.4}, as a consequence of the condition $\chi ^{-1}= \text{finite}$. The RFA proposal for SHS mixtures keeps the form \eqref{3.6}, except that now \begin{equation} L_{ij}(s)=L_{ij}^{(0)}+L_{ij}^{(1)}s+L_{ij}^{(2)}s^{2}+L_{ij}^{(3)}s^{3}, \end{equation} \begin{equation} A_{ij}(s)=\rho _{i}\left[ \varphi _{2}(\sigma _{i}s)\sigma _{i}^{3}L_{ij}^{(0)}+\varphi _{1}(\sigma _{i}s)\sigma _{i}^{2}L_{ij}^{(1)}+\varphi _{0}(\sigma _{i}s)\sigma _{i}L_{ij}^{(2)}-\ee^{-\sigma _{i}s}L_{ij}^{(3)}\right] , \end{equation} instead of Eqs.\ \eqref{3.7} and \eqref{3.8}. By construction, Eqs.\ (), \eqref{shs14}, and \eqref{shs15} comply with the requirement $\lim_{s\rightarrow \infty }\ee^{\sigma _{ij}s}G_{ij}(s)=\text{finite}$. Further, in view of Eq.\ (), the coefficients of $s^{0}$ and $s$ in the power series expansion of $ s^{2}G_{ij}(s)$ must be 1 and 0, respectively. This yields $2N^{2}$ conditions that allow us to express ${\sf L}^{(0)}$ and ${\sf L}^{(1)}$ in terms of ${\sf L}^{(2)}$, ${\sf L}^{(3)}$, and $\alpha $ as \begin{equation} L_{ij}^{(0)}=\lambdak +\lambdakk\sigma _{j}+2\lambdakk\alpha -\lambdak \sum_{k=1}^{N}\rho _{k}\left( \sigma _{k}L_{kj}^{(2)}-L_{kj}^{(3)}\right) -\lambdakk\sum_{k=1}^{N}\rho _{k}\sigma _{k}L_{kj}^{(3)}, \end{equation} \beqa L_{ij}^{(1)}&=&\lambdak \sigma _{ij}+\frac{1}{2}\lambdakk\sigma _{i}\sigma _{j}+(\lambdak +\lambdakk\sigma _{i})\alpha -\frac{1}{2} \lambdak \sigma _{i}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\rho _{k}\left( \sigma _{k}L_{kj}^{(2)}-L_{kj}^{(3)}\right)\nn && -\frac{1}{2}\left( \lambdak +\lambdakk\sigma _{i}\right) \sum_{k=1}^{N}\rho _{k}\sigma _{k}L_{kj}^{(3)}, \eeqa where $\lambdak$ and $\lambdakk$ are defined below Eq.\ \eqref{3.14}. We have the freedom to choose ${\sf L}^{(3)}$ and $\alpha $, but ${\sf L} ^{(2)}$ is constrained by the condition (), {{ i.e.}}, the ratio between the first and second terms in the expansion of $\ee^{\sigma _{ij}s}G_{ij}(s)$ for large $s$ must be exactly equal to $\sigma _{ij}/12\tau _{ij}$. \subsubsection{First-Order Approximation (PY Solution)} The simplest approximation consists of making $\alpha =0$. In view of the condition $\ee^{\sigma _{ij}s}G_{ij}(s)\sim s^{0}$ for large $s$, this implies $L_{ij}^{(3)}=0$. In that case, the large $s$ behavior that follows from Eq.\ () is \begin{equation} 2\pi \ee^{\sigma _{ij}s}G_{ij}(s)=L_{ij}^{(2)}+\left[ L_{ij}^{(1)}+\left( {\sf L}^{(2)}\cdot {\sf D}\right) _{ij}\right] s^{-1}+{\cal O}(s^{-2}), \end{equation} where \begin{equation} D_{ij}\equiv \rho _{i}\left( \frac{1}{2}\sigma _{i}^{2}L_{ij}^{(0)}-\sigma _{i}L_{ij}^{(1)}+L_{ij}^{(2)}\right) . \end{equation} Comparison with Eq.\ () yields \begin{equation} y_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})=\frac{6\tau _{ij}}{\pi \sigma _{ij}^{2}}L_{ij}^{(2)}, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{12\tau _{ij}L_{ij}^{(2)}}{\sigma _{ij}}=L_{ij}^{(1)}+ \sum_{k=1}^{N}L_{ik}^{(2)}D_{kj}. \end{equation} Taking into account Eqs.\ () and () (with $L_{ij}^{(2)}=L_{ji}^{(2)}$ and of course also with $\alpha =0$ and ${\sf L} ^{(3)}=0$), Eq.\ () becomes a closed equation for ${\sf L} ^{(2)}$: \begin{equation} \frac{12\tau _{ij}L_{ij}^{(2)}}{\sigma _{ij}}=\lambdak \sigma _{ij}+\frac{1}{2 }\lambdakk\sigma _{i}\sigma _{j}-\frac{1}{2}\lambdak \sum_{k=1}^{N}\rho _{k}\sigma _{k}\left( L_{ki}^{(2)}\sigma _{j}+L_{kj}^{(2)}\sigma _{i}\right) +\sum_{k=1}^{N}\rho _{k}L_{ki}^{(2)}L_{kj}^{(2)}. \end{equation} The physical root $\mathsf{L}^{(2)}$ of Eq.\ \eqref{shs26} is the one vanishing in the HS limit $\tau_{ij}\to\infty$. Once known, Eq.\ () gives the contact values. This first-order approximation obtained from the RFA method turns out to coincide with the exact solution of the PY theory for SHS . \subsubsection{Second-Order Approximation} As in the case of HS mixtures, a more flexible proposal is obtained by keeping $\alpha $ (and, consequently, $L_{ij}^{(3)}$) different from zero. In that case, instead of Eq.\ \eqref{shs22}, one has \begin{equation} 2\pi \ee^{\sigma _{ij}s}G_{ij}(s)=\frac{L_{ij}^{(3)}}{\alpha }\left[ 1+\left( \frac{L_{ij}^{(2)}}{L_{ij}^{(3)}}-\frac{1}{\alpha }\right) s^{-1}\right] + {\cal O}(s^{-2}). \end{equation} This implies \begin{equation} L_{ij}^{(3)} =\frac{\pi \sigma _{ij}^{2}}{6\tau _{ij}}\alpha y_{ij}(\sigma _{ij}), \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{12\tau _{ij}L_{ij}^{(3)}}{\sigma _{ij}}=L_{ij}^{(2)}-\frac{L_{ij}^{(3)} }{\alpha }. \end{equation} If we fix $y_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})$, Eqs.\ (), (), (), and () allow one to express ${\sf L}^{(0)}$, ${\sf L}^{(1)}$, ${\sf L }^{(2)}$, and ${\sf L}^{(3)}$ as {\em linear\/} functions of $\alpha $. Thus, only the scalar parameter $\alpha $ remains to be fixed, analogously to what happens in the HS case. As done in the latter case, one possibility is to choose $\alpha$ in order to reproduce the isothermal compressibility $\chi $ given by Eq.\ \eqref{3.18}. To do so, one needs to find the coefficients $H_{ij}^{(1)}$ appearing in Eq.\ (). The result is \begin{equation} {\sf H}^{(0)}={\sf C}^{(0)}\cdot \left( \openone-{\sf A}^{(0)}\right) ^{-1}, \end{equation} \begin{equation} {\sf H}^{(1)}={\sf C}^{(1)}\cdot \left( \openone-{\sf A}^{(0)}\right) ^{-1}, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} C_{ij}^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2\pi }L_{ij}^{(2)}+\sum_{k=1}^{N}A_{kj}^{(2)}- \sum_{k=1}^{N}\sigma _{ik}\left( \alpha \delta _{kj}-A_{kj}^{(1)}\right) -\sum_{k=1}^{N}\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{ik}^{2}\left( \delta _{kj}-A_{kj}^{(0)}\right) , \end{equation} \begin{eqnarray} C_{ij}^{(1)} &=&\frac{1}{2\pi }L_{ij}^{(3)}+\sum_{k=1}^{N}A_{kj}^{(3)}+ \sum_{k=1}^{N}\sigma _{ik}A_{kj}^{(2)}-\sum_{k=1}^{N}\left( \frac{1}{2} \sigma _{ik}^{2}+H_{ik}^{(0)}\right) \left( \alpha \delta _{kj}-A_{kj}^{(1)}\right) \nonumber \\ &&-\sum_{k=1}^{N}\left( \frac{1}{6}\sigma _{ik}^{3}+\sigma _{ik}H_{ik}^{(0)}\right) \left( \delta _{kj}-A_{kj}^{(0)}\right) , \end{eqnarray} \begin{equation} A_{ij}^{\n}=(-1)^{n}\rho _{i}\left[ \frac{\sigma _{i}^{n+3}}{(n+3)!} L_{ij}^{(0)}-\frac{\sigma _{i}^{n+2}}{(n+2)!}L_{ij}^{(1)}+\frac{\sigma _{i}^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}L_{ij}^{(2)}-\frac{\sigma _{i}^{n}}{n!} L_{ij}^{(3)}\right] . \end{equation} Equation () gives ${\sf H}^{(1)}$ in terms of $\alpha $: $ H_{ij}^{(1)}=P_{ij}(\alpha )/[Q(\alpha )]^{2}$, where $P_{ij}(\alpha )$ denotes a polynomial in $\alpha $ of degree $2N$ and $Q(\alpha )$ denotes a polynomial of degree $N$. It turns out then that, seen as a function of $\alpha $, $\chi $ is the ratio of two polynomials of degree $2N$. Given a value of $\chi $, one may solve for $\alpha $. The physical solution, which has to fulfill the requirement that $G_{ij}(s)$ is positive definite for positive real $s$, corresponds to the smallest positive real root. Once $\alpha $ is known, the scheme is complete: Eq.\ () gives ${\sf L}^\three$, then ${\sf L}^\two$ is obtained from Eq.\ (), and finally ${\sf L}^\one$ and ${\sf L}^\zero$ are given by Eqs.\ () and (), respectively. Explicit knowledge of $ G_{ij}(s)$ through Eqs.\ (), \eqref{shs14}, and \eqref{shs15} allows one to determine the Fourier transform $\widetilde{h}_{ij}(q)$ and the structure factor $S_{ij}(q)$ through Eqs.\ \eqref{1.7} and \eqref{1.6}, respectively. Finally, inverse Laplace transformation of $G_{ij}(s)$ yields $g_{ij}(r)$ . \subsubsection{Single Component SHS Fluids} The special case of single component SHS fluids can be obtained from the multicomponent one by taking $\sigma_{ij}=\sigma$ and $\tau_{ij}=\tau$. Thus, the Laplace transform of $rg(r)$ in the RFA is \beq G(s)=\frac{\ee^{-s}}{2\pi s^2} \frac{L^\zero+L^\one s+{L^\two} s^2+L^\three s^3}{ 1+\alpha s-\rho\left[\varphi_2(s) L^\zero +\varphi_1(s) L^\one +\varphi_0(s) L^\two-\ee^{-s}L^\three\right]}, \eeq where we have taken $\sigma=1$. Equations \eqref{shs20} and \eqref{shs21} become \beq L^\zero=2\pi \frac{1+2\eta}{(1-\eta)^2} +\frac{12\eta}{1-\eta}\left( \frac{\pi \alpha}{1-\eta}-{L^\two}\right)+\frac{12\eta}{(1-\eta)^2}(1-4\eta)L^\three, \eeq \beq L^\one=2\pi \frac{1+\frac{1}{2}\eta}{(1-\eta)^2} +\frac{2}{1-\eta}\left( \pi\frac{1+2\eta}{1-\eta}\alpha-3\eta{L^\two}\right)-\frac{18\eta^2}{(1-\eta)^2}L^\three. \eeq The choice $\alpha=L^\three=0$ makes Eq.\ \eqref{shs2.10} coincide with the exact solution to the PY approximation for SHS , where $L^\two$ is the physical root ({i.e.}, the one vanishing in the limit $\tau\to\infty$) of the quadratic equation [see Eq.\ \eqref{shs26}] \beq 12\tau L^\two=2\pi\frac{1+2\eta}{(1-\eta)^2}-\frac{12\eta}{1-\eta}L^\two+\frac{6}{\pi}\eta {L^\two}^2. \eeq We can go beyond the PY approximation by prescribing a contact value $y(1)$, so that, according to Eqs.\ \eqref{shs28} and \eqref{shs29}, \begin{equation} L^\three=\frac{\pi}{6}\frac{\alpha}{\tau} y(1), \end{equation} \begin{equation} L^\two=\left(12\tau+\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)L^\three. \end{equation} By prescribing the isothermal compressibility $\chi$, the parameter $\alpha$ can be obtained as the physical solution (namely, the one remaining finite in the limit $\tau\to\infty$) of a quadratic equation . Thus, given an EOS for the SHS fluid, one can get the thermodynamically consistent values of $y(1)$ and $\chi$ and determine from them all the coefficients appearing in Eq.\ \eqref{shs2.10}. Figure shows the cavity function for $\eta=0.164$ and $\tau=0.13$ as obtained from Monte Carlo simulations and as predicted by the PY and RFA theories, the latter making use of the EOS recently proposed by Miller and Frenkel . It can be observed that the RFA is not only more accurate than the PY approximation near $r=1$ but also near $r=2$. On the other hand, none of these two approximations account for the singularities (delta-peaks and/or discontinuities) of $y(r)$ at $r=\sqrt{{8}/{3}}, {5}/{3}, \sqrt{3}, 2,\ldots$ . \subsection{Single Component Square-Well Fluids} Now we consider again the SW interaction potential \eqref{SW} but for a single fluid, {i.e.}, $\sigma_{ij}=\sigma$, $\epsilon_{ij}=\epsilon$, $R_{ij}=R$. Since no exact solution of the PY theory for the SW potential is known, the application of the RFA method is more challenging in this case than for HS and SHS fluids. As in the cases of HS and SHS, the key quantity is the Laplace transform of $rg(r)$ defined by Eq.\ \eqref{2.1}. It is again convenient to introduce the auxiliary function $\Psi(s)$ through Eq.\ \eqref{2.2}. As before, the conditions $g(r)=\text{finite}$ and $\chi=\text{finite}$ imply Eqs.\ \eqref{2.3} and \eqref{2.4}, respectively. However, the important difference between HS and SHS fluids is that in the latter case $G(s)$ must reflect the fact that $g(r)$ is discontinuous at $r=R$ as a consequence of the discontinuity of the potential $\phi(r)$ and the continuity of the cavity function $y(r)$. This implies that $G(s)$, and hence $\Psi(s)$, must contain the exponential term $\ee^{-(R-\sigma)s}$. This manifests itself in the low-density limit, where the condition $\lim_{\rho\to 0}y(r)=1$ yields \beq \lim_{\rho\to 0}\Psi(s)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{s^3}{\ee^{1/T^*}(1+s)-\ee^{-(R-1)s} (\ee^{1/T^*}-1)(1+R s )}, \eeq where $ T^*\equiv k_BT/\epsilon$ and we have taken $\sigma=1$. In the spirit of the RFA method, the simplest form that complies with Eq.\ \eqref{2.3} and is consistent with Eq.\ \eqref{SW1} is \begin{equation} \Psi (s)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{-12\eta+\SE_1 s+\SE_2 s^2+\SE_3 s^3}{1+\aQ+\aKQ_1 s-\ee^{-(R-1)s}\left(\aQ+\aKQ_2 s\right)}, \end{equation} where the coefficients $\aQ$, $\aKQ_1$, $\aKQ_2$, $\SE_1$, $\SE_2$, and $\SE_3$ are functions of $\eta$, $T^*$, and $R$. The condition \eqref{2.4} allows one to express the parameters $\aKQ_1$, $\SE_1$, $\SE_2$, and $\SE_3$ as linear functions of $\aQ$ and $\aKQ_2$ : \beqa \aKQ_1&=&\frac{1}{1+2\eta}\left[1+\frac{\eta}{2}+2\eta(R^3-1) \aKQ_2-\frac{\eta}{2}(R-1)^2(R^2+2R+3) {\aQ}\right]\nn && +\aKQ_2-(R-1)\aQ, \eeqa \beq \SE_1=\frac{6\eta^2}{1+2\eta}\left[{3}-4(R^3-1) \aKQ_2+ (R-1)^2(R^2+2R+3) {\aQ}\right], \eeq \beqa \SE_2&=&\frac{6\eta}{1+2\eta}\left\{1-\eta-2(R-1)\left[1-2\eta R(R+1)\right]\aKQ_2 \right.\nn &&\left.+(R-1)^2\left[(1-\eta(R+1)^2\right]{\aQ}\right\}, \eeqa \beqa \SE_3&=&\frac{1}{1+2\eta}\left\{(1-\eta)^2+6\eta(R-1) \left(R+1-2\eta R^2\right)\aKQ_2\right.\nn &&\left. -\eta( R-1)^2[4+2R-\eta(3R^2+2 R+1)]{\aQ}\right\}. \eeqa {}From Eq.\ (), we have \beq g(1^+)=\frac{\aKQ_1}{ \SE_3}. \eeq The complete RDF is given by Eq.\ \eqref{g(r)}, where now Eq.\ \eqref{eq:F(t)} must be used in Eq.\ \eqref{varphi}. In particular, $\psi_1(r)$ and $\psi_2(r)$ are \beq \psi_1(r)=\psi_{10}(r)\Theta(r)+\psi_{11}(r+1- R)\Theta(r+1- R), \eeq \beq \psi_2(r)=\psi_{20}(r)\Theta(r)+\psi_{21}(r+1- R)\Theta(r+1- R)+\psi_{22}(r+2-2 R)\Theta(r+2-2 R), \eeq where \beq \psi_{1k}(r)={2\pi}\sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{\aC_{1k}(s_i)}{\SE'(s_i)}s_i \ee^{s_i x}, \eeq \beq \psi_{2k}(r)=-4\pi^2\sum_{i=1}^3 \left[r \aC_{2k}(s_i)+\aC_{2k}'(s_i)-\aC_{2k}(s_i)\frac{\SE''(s_i)}{\SE'(s_i)}\right]\frac{\ee^{s_i r}}{[\SE'(s_i)]^2}. \eeq Here, $s_i$ are the three distinct roots of $\SE(s)\equiv -12\eta+\SE_1 s+\SE_2 s^2+\SE_3s^3$ and \beq \aC_{10}(s)\equiv 1+\aQ+\aKQ_1 s,\quad \aC_{11}(s)\equiv -(\aQ+\aKQ_2 s). \eeq \beq \aC_{20}(s)\equiv s[\aC_{10}(s)]^2,\quad \aC_{21}(s)\equiv 2s \aC_{10}(s)\aC_{11}(s), \quad \aC_{22}(s)\equiv s[\aC_{11}(s)]^2. \eeq To close the proposal, we need to determine the parameters $\aQ$ and $\aKQ_2$ by imposing two new conditions. An obvious condition is the continuity of the cavity function at $r=R$, what implies \beq g( R^+)=e^{1/T^*}g( R^-). \eeq This yields \beq \left(1-e^{-1/T^*}\right)\psi_{10}( R-1)=-\psi_{11}(0)=2\pi\frac{\aKQ_2}{ \SE_3}. \eeq As an extra condition, we could enforce the continuity of the first derivative $y'(r)$ at $r=R$ . However, this complicates the problem too much without any relevant gain in accuracy. In principle, it might be possible to impose consistency with a given EOS, via either the virial route, the compressibility route, or the energy route. But this is not practical since no simple EOS for SW fluids is at our disposal for wide values of density, temperature, and range. As a compromise between simplicity and accuracy, we fix the parameter $\aQ$ at its exact zero-density limit value, namely $\aQ=e^{1/T^*}-1$ . Therefore, Eq.\ \eqref{SWB7} becomes a {transcendental} equation for $\aKQ_2$ that needs to be solved numerically. For narrow SW potentials, however, it is possible to replace the exact condition () by a simpler one allowing $\aKQ_2$ to be obtained analytically , which is especially useful {for determining} the thermodynamic properties . It can be proven that the RFA proposal \eqref{eq:F(t)} reduces to the exact solutions of the PY equation in the HS limit, i.e., $\epsilon\to 0$ or $R\to 1$, and in the SHS limit, i.e., $\epsilon\to\infty$ and $R\to 1$ with $(R-1)\ee^{1/T^*}=\text{finite}$ . Comparison with computer simulations shows that the RFA for SW fluids is rather accurate at any fluid density if the potential well is sufficiently narrow (say $R\leq 1.2$), as well as for any width if the density is small enough (say $\rho\sigma^3\leq 0.4$). However, as the width and/or the density increase, the RFA predictions worsen, especially at low temperatures. As an illustration, Fig.\ compares the RDF provided by the RFA with Monte Carlo data for three representative cases. \subsection{Hard Disks}} As is well known, the PY theory is exactly solvable for HS fluids with an odd number of dimensions . In particular, in the case of hard rods ($d=1$), the PY theory provides the exact RDF $g(r)$ or, equivalently, the exact cavity function $y(r)$ outside the hard core ({i.e.}, for $r>\sigma$). However, it does not reproduce the exact $y(r)$ in the overlapping region ({i.e.}, for $r<\sigma$) . The full exact one-dimensional cavity function is \beq y_\hr(r|\eta)=\frac{\ee^{-(r-1)\eta/(1-\eta)}}{1-\eta}+ \sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{\eta^{n-1}\ee^{-(r-n)\eta/(1-\eta)}}{(1-\eta)^n (n-1)!}(r-n)^{n-1}\Theta(r-n), \eeq where the subscript $\hr$ stands for hard rods and, as usual, $\sigma=1$ has been taken. Consequently, one has \beq g_\hr(1^+|\eta)=\frac{1}{1-\eta},\quad \int_0^\infty dr\, r h_\hr(r|\eta)\equiv H_\hr^\zero(\eta)=-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{3}\eta-\frac{1}{4}\eta^2. \eeq When $d$ is even, the PY equation is not analytically solvable for the HS interaction. In particular, in the important case of hard disks ($d=2$), one must resort to numerical solutions of the PY equation . Alternatively, a simple heuristic approach has proven to yield reasonably good results . Such an approach is based on the na\"{\i}ve assumption that the structure and spatial correlations of a hard-disk fluid share some features with those of a hard-rod and a hard-sphere fluid. This fuzzy idea becomes a more specific one by means of the following simple model : \beq g_\hd(r|\eta)=\nu(\eta)g_\hr(r|\omega_1(\eta)\eta)+[1-\nu(\eta)]g_\hs(r|\omega_3(\eta)\eta). \eeq Here, the subscript $\hd$ stands for hard disks ($d=2$) and the subscript $\hs$ stands for hard spheres ($d=3$). The parameter $\nu(\eta)$ is a density-dependent mixing parameter, while $\omega_1(\eta)\eta$ and $\omega_3(\eta)\eta$ are the packing fractions in one and three dimensions, respectively, which are ``equivalent'' to the packing fraction $\eta$ in two dimensions. In Eq.\ \eqref{HS1}, it is natural to take for $g_\hr(r|\eta)$ the exact solution, Eq.\ \eqref{2.46}. As for $g_\hr(r|\eta)$, one might use the RFA recipe described in Section . However, in order to keep the model \eqref{HS1} as simple as possible, it is sufficient for practical purposes to take the PY solution, Eq.\ \eqref{2.8}. In the latter approximation, \beq g_\hs(1^+|\eta)=\frac{1+\eta/2}{(1-\eta)^2},\quad \int_0^\infty \D r\, r h_\hs(r|\eta)\equiv H_\hs^\zero(\eta)=-\frac{10-2\eta+\eta^2}{20(1+2\eta)}. \eeq In order to close the model \eqref{HS1}, we still need to determine the parameters $\nu(\eta)$, $\omega_1(\eta)$, and $\omega_3(\eta)$. To that end, we first impose the condition that Eq.\ \eqref{HS1} must be consistent with a {prescribed} contact value $g_\hd(1^+|\eta)$ or, equivalently, with a prescribed compressibility factor $Z_\hd(\eta)=1+2\eta g_\hd(1^+|\eta)$, with independence of the choice of the mixing parameter $\nu(\eta)$. In other words, \beq g_\hd(1^+|\eta)=g_\hr(1^+|\omega_1(\eta)\eta)=g_\hs(1^+|\omega_3(\eta)\eta). \eeq Making use of Eqs.\ \eqref{HS2} and \eqref{HS3}, this yields \beq \omega_1(\eta)=\frac{g_\hd(1^+|\eta)-1}{\eta g_\hd(1^+|\eta)},\quad \omega_3(\eta)=\frac{4g_\hd(1^+|\eta)+1-\sqrt{24g_\hd(1^+|\eta)+1}}{4\eta g_\hd(1^+|\eta)}. \eeq Once $\omega_1(\eta)$ and $\omega_3(\eta)$ are known, we can determine $\nu(\eta)$ by imposing that the model \eqref{HS1} reproduces the isothermal compressibility $\chi_\hd(\eta)$ thermodynamically consistent with the prescribed $Z_\hd(\eta)$ [cf. Eq.\ \eqref{consistent}]. {}From Eqs.\ \eqref{chi} and \eqref{HS1} one has \beq \chi_\hd(\eta)=1+8\eta\int_0^\infty \D r\, r\left\{\nu(\eta)h_\hr(r|\omega_1(\eta)\eta)+\left[1-\nu(\eta)\right] h_\hs(r|\omega_3(\eta)\eta)\right\}, \eeq so that \beq \nu(\eta)=\frac{\left[\chi_\hd(\eta)-1\right]/8\eta -H_\hs^\zero(\omega_3(\eta)\eta)}{H_\hr^\zero(\omega_1(\eta)\eta)-H_\hs^\zero(\omega_3(\eta)\eta)}, \eeq where $H_\hr^\zero(\eta)$ and $H_\hs^\zero(\eta)$ are given by Eqs.\ \eqref{HS2} and \eqref{HS3}, respectively. Once a sensible EOS for hard disks is chosen [see, for instance, Table ], Eqs.\ \eqref{HS5} and \eqref{HS8} provide the parameters of the model \eqref{HS1}. The results show that the scaling factor $\omega_1(\eta)$ is a decreasing function, while $\omega_3(\eta)$ is an increasing function . As for the mixing parameter $\nu(\eta)$, it is hardly dependent of density and takes values around $\nu(\eta)\simeq 0.35$--0.40. Comparison of the interpolation model \eqref{HS1} with computer simulation results shows a surprisingly good agreement, despite the crudeness of the model and the absence of empirical fitting parameters, especially at low and moderate densities . The discrepancies become important only for distances beyond the location of the second peak and for densities close to the stability threshold. \vspace{1cm} \section{Perturbation Theory} When one wants to deal with realistic intermolecular interactions, the problem of deriving the thermodynamic and structural properties of the system becomes rather formidable. Thus, perturbation theories of liquids have been devised since the mid twentieth century. In the case of single component fluids, the use of an accurate and well characterized RDF for the HS fluid in a perturbation theory opens up the possibility of deriving a closed theoretical scheme for the determination of the thermodynamic and structural properties of more realistic models, such as the Lennard--Jones (LJ) fluid. In this section, we will consider this model system, which captures the basic physical properties of real non-polar fluids, to illustrate the procedure. In the application of the perturbation theory of liquids, the stepping stone has been the use of the HS RDF obtained from the solution to the PY equation. Unfortunately, the absence of thermodynamic consistency present in the PY approximation (as well as in other integral equation theories) may clearly contaminate the results derived from its use within a perturbative treatment. In what follows we will reanalyze the different theoretical schemes for the thermodynamics of LJ fluids that have been constructed with perturbation theory, taking as the reference system the HS fluid. This includes the consideration of the RDF as obtained with the RFA method, which embodies thermodynamic consistency, as well as the proposal of a unifying framework in which all schemes fit in. With our development, we will be able to present a formulation which lends itself to relatively easy numerical calculations while retaining the merits that analytical results provide, namely a detailed knowledge and control of all the approximations involved. Let us consider a three-dimensional fluid system defined by a pair interaction potential $\phi( r) $. The virial and energy EOS express the compressibility factor $Z$ and the excess part of the Helmholtz free energy per unit volume $f^{\text{ex}}$, respectively, in terms of the RDF of the system as \beq Z=1-\frac{2}{3}\pi\rho \beta\int_0^\infty \D r\, \frac{\partial\phi(r)}{\partial r} g(r)r^3, \eeq \begin{equation} \frac{f^{\text{ex}}}{\NN k_BT}=2\pi \rho \beta \int_{0}^{\infty }\D r \,\phi(r) g( r) r^{2} , \end{equation} where $\beta \equiv 1/k_BT$. Let us now assume that $\phi(r)$ is split into a known (reference) part $\phi _{0}( r) $ and a perturbation part $\phi _{1}( r)$. The usual perturbative expansion for the Helmholtz free energy to first order in $\beta $ leads to \begin{equation} \frac{f}{\NN k_BT}=\frac{f_{0}}{\NN k_BT}+2\pi \rho \beta \int_{0}^{\infty }\D r \,\phi_{1}(r) g_{0}( r) r^{2}+\mathcal{O}\left( \beta ^{2}\right) , \end{equation} where $f_{0}$ and $g_{0}( r) $ are the free energy and the RDF of the reference system, respectively. The LJ potential is \beq \phi _{\LJ}( r) =4\epsilon \left( r^{-12}-r^{-6}\right), \eeq where $\epsilon $ is the depth of the well and, for simplicity, we have taken the distance at which the potential vanishes as the length unit, {i.e.}, $\phi _{\LJ}( r=1) =0$. For this potential the reference system may be forced to be a HS system, {i.e.}, one can set \begin{equation} \phi _{0}( r) =\phi _{\hs}( r)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \infty , & r\leq \diam , \\ 0, & r>\diam , \end{array} \right. \end{equation} where $\diam$ is a conveniently chosen effective HS diameter. In this case the Helmholtz free energy to this order is approximated by \begin{equation} \frac{f_{\LJ}}{\NN k_BT}\approx \frac{f_{\hs}}{\NN k_BT}+2\pi \rho \beta \int_{\diam }^{\infty }\D r\,\phi _{\LJ}( r) g_\hs( {r}/{\diam}) r^{2}. \end{equation} Note that Eq.\ () may be rewritten in terms of the Laplace transform $G(s)$ of $(r/\diam) g_\hs({r}/{\diam}) $ as \begin{equation} \frac{f_{\LJ}}{\NN k_BT}\approx \frac{f_{\hs}}{\NN k_BT}+2\pi \rho \beta \diam^{3}\int_{0}^{\infty }\D s \,\Phi_{\LJ}(s) G(s) , \end{equation} where $\Phi _{\LJ}( s) $ satisfies \begin{equation} r \phi_{\LJ}( r) =\diam \int_{0}^{\infty }\D s\, \ee^{-rs/\diam}\Phi_{\LJ}(s) , \end{equation} so that \begin{equation} \Phi _{\LJ}(s) =4\epsilon \diam^{-2}\left[\frac{(s/\diam)^{10}}{10!}-\frac{(s/\diam)^{4}}{4!}\right] . \end{equation} Irrespective of the value of the diameter $\diam$ of the reference system, the right hand side of Eq.\ () represents {\it always} an upper bound for the value of the free energy of the real system. Therefore, it is natural to determine $\diam$ so as to provide the least upper bound. This is precisely the variational scheme of Mansoori and Canfield and Rasaiah and Stell , usually referred to as MC/RS, and originally implemented with the PY theory for $G(s)$, Eq.\ \eqref{2.8}. In our case, however, we will consider $G(s)$ as given by the RFA method, Eq.\ (). Therefore, at fixed $\rho$ and $\beta$, the effective diameter $\diam$ in the MC/RS scheme is obtained from the conditions \beqa \frac{\partial }{\partial \diam}\left\{ \int_{0}^{\eta_0}\D \eta\, \frac{Z_\hs(\eta)-1}{\eta }\right. &+&48\beta\epsilon \diam^{-2}\int_{0}^{\infty }\D s\, G(s|\eta_0)\nn &&\left.\times\left[\frac{(s/\diam)^{10}}{10!}-\frac{(s/\diam)^{4}}{4!}\right]\right\} =0, \eeqa \beqa \frac{\partial^2 }{\partial \diam^2}\left\{ \int_{0}^{\eta_0}\D \eta\, \frac{Z_\hs(\eta)-1}{\eta }\right. &+&48\beta\epsilon \diam^{-2}\int_{0}^{\infty }\D s\, G(s|\eta_0)\nn &&\left.\times\left[\frac{(s/\diam)^{10}}{10!}-\frac{(s/\diam)^{4}}{4!}\right]\right\} >0. \eeqa In these equations, use has been made of the thermodynamic relationship between the free energy and the compressibility factor, Eq.\ \eqref{FEN}. Moreover, we have called $\eta_0\equiv(\pi/6)\rho\diam^3$ and have made explicit with the notation $G(s|\eta_0)$ the fact that the HS RDF depends on the packing fraction $\eta_0$. Even if the reference system is not forced to be a HS fluid, one can still use Eq.\ () provided an adequate choice for $\diam $ is made such that the expansion involved in the right hand side of Eq.\ () yields the right hand side of Eq.\ () to order $\beta ^{2}$. This is the idea of the Barker and Henderson first order perturbation scheme (BH$_{1}$), where the effective HS diameter is \begin{equation} \diam=\int_{0}^{\infty }\D r\,\left[ 1-\ee^{-\beta \phi _{\LJ}\left( r\right) }\right] . \end{equation} The same ideas may be carried out to higher order in the perturbation expansion. The inclusion of the second order term in the expansion yields the so-called macroscopic compressibility approximation for the free energy, namely \begin{eqnarray} \frac{f_{\LJ}}{\NN k_BT} &=&\frac{f_{0}}{\NN k_BT}+2\pi \rho \beta \int_{0}^{\infty }\D r\,\phi _{1}( r) g_{0}( r) r^{2} \nonumber \\ &&-\pi \rho \beta ^{2}\chi _{0}\int_{0}^{\infty }\D r\,\phi _{1}^{2}( r) g_{0}( r) r^{2}+\mathcal{O}\left( \beta ^{3}\right) , \end{eqnarray} where $\chi _{0}$ is the (reduced) isothermal compressibility of the reference system . To implement a particular perturbation scheme in this approximation under a unifying framework that eventually leads to easy numerical evaluation, two further assumptions may prove convenient. First, the perturbation potential $\phi _{1}( r) \equiv \phi _{\LJ}(r) -\phi _{0}( r) $ may be split into two parts using some ``molecular size'' parameter $\xi\geq \diam $ such that \begin{equation} \phi _{1}( r) =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \phi _{1a}( r), & 0\leq r\leq \xi, \\ \phi _{1b}( r), & r>\xi. \end{array} \right. \end{equation} Next, a choice for the RDF for the reference system is done in the form \begin{equation} g_{0}\left( r\right) \approx \theta( r) y_\hs( r/\diam) , \end{equation} where $y_\hs$ is the cavity (background) correlation function of the HS system and $\theta( r) $ is a step function defined by \begin{equation} \theta ( r) =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \theta _{a}( r), & 0\leq r\leq \xi, \\ \theta _{b}( r), & r>\xi, \end{array} \right. \end{equation} in which the functions $\theta _{a}( r) $ and $\theta _b( r) $ depend on the scheme. With these assumptions the integrals involved in Eq.\ () may be rewritten as \begin{eqnarray} I_{n} &\equiv&\int_{0}^{\infty }\D r\,\phi_{1}^n( r) g_{0}( r) r^{2}\nn &=&\int_{0}^{\diam}\D r\,\phi_{1a}^n( r) \theta _{a}( r) y_\hs( r/\diam) r^{2} +\int_{\diam}^{\xi }\D r\,\phi_{1a}^n( r) \theta _{a}( r) g_\hs( r/\diam) r^{2} \nn &&+\int_{\xi }^{\infty }\D r\,\phi _{1b}^n( r) \theta _{b}( r) g_\hs( r/\diam) r^{2}, \end{eqnarray} with $n=1,2$ and where the fact that $y_\hs( r/\diam) =g_\hs(r/\diam) $ when $r>\diam$ has been used. Decomposing the last integral as $\int_\xi^\infty=\int_{\diam}^\infty-\int_{\diam}^\xi$ and applying the same step as in Eq.\ \eqref{ALT}, Eq.\ \eqref{13p} becomes \begin{eqnarray} I_{n} &=&\diam^3\int_{0}^{\infty }\D s\,\Phi_{nb}( s) G( s)+\int_{0}^{\diam}\D r\,\phi _{1a}^n( r) \theta _{a}( r) y_\hs( r/\diam) r^{2} \nonumber \\ &&+\int_{\diam}^{\xi }\D r\,\left[ \phi _{1a}^n( r) \theta _{a}( r) -\phi _{1b}^n( r) \theta _{b}( r) \right] g_\hs( r/\diam) r^{2}, \end{eqnarray} where the functions $\Phi_{1b}(s)$ and $\Phi_{2b}(s)$ are defined by the relation \begin{equation} {r}\phi _{1b}^n( r)\theta_b(r) =\diam\int_{0}^{\infty }\D s\,\ee^{-rs/\diam}\Phi _{nb}( s). \end{equation} In the Barker--Henderson second order perturbation scheme (BH$_{2}$), one takes \beq \theta _{a}( r) =0 ,\quad \theta _{b}( r) =1 ,\quad \xi =\diam,\quad \phi _{1a}( r) =0,\quad \phi _{1b}( r) =4\epsilon\left( {r^{-12}}- {r^{-6}}\right), \eeq and $\diam $ is computed according to Eq.\ (). This choice ensures that \begin{eqnarray} \frac{f_{\LJ}}{\NN k_BT} &=&\frac{f_{\hs}}{\NN k_BT}+2\pi \rho \beta \int_{\diam}^{\infty}\D r\,\phi _{1}( r) g_\hs( r/\diam) r^{2} \nonumber \\ &&-\pi \rho \beta ^{2}\chi _{\hs}\int_{\diam}^{\infty }\D r\, \phi _{1}^2( r) g_\hs( r/\diam) r^{2}+O\left( \beta ^{3}\right) . \end{eqnarray} On the other hand, if one chooses \beq \theta _{a}( r) =\exp \left[ -\beta \left( \phi _{\LJ}(r) +\epsilon \right) \right],\quad \theta _{b}( r) =1 ,\quad \xi =2^{1/6}, \eeq \beq \phi _{1a}( r) =-\epsilon ,\quad \phi _{1b}( r) =4\epsilon\left( {r^{-12}}- {r^{-6}}\right), \eeq the scheme leads to the Weeks--Chandler--Andersen (WCA) theory if one determines the HS diameter through the condition $\chi _{0}=\chi _{\hs}$ , which in turn implies \begin{equation} \int_{0}^{\diam}\D r\, r^{2}\ee^{-\beta \phi _{0}( r) }y_\hs(r/\diam)=\int_{\diam}^{2^{1/6} }\D r\,r^{2}g_\hs( r/\diam) \left[ 1-\ee^{-\beta \phi _{0}( r) }\right]. \end{equation} To close the scheme, the HS cavity function has to be provided in the range $0\leq r\leq \diam$. Fortunately, relatively simple expressions for $y_\hs(r/\diam)$ are available in the literature , apart from our own proposal, Eq.\ \eqref{lny}. Note that $\theta_b(r)$ and $\phi _{1b}( r) $, and thus also $\Phi_{nb}( s) $, are the same functions in the BH$_{2}$ and WCA schemes. It is convenient, in order to have all the quantities needed to evaluate $f_{\LJ}$ in these schemes, to provide explicit expressions for $\Phi_{1b}( s)$ and $\Phi_{2b}( s)$. These are given by [cf.\ Eq.\ ()] \beq \Phi_{1b}( s) =\Phi _{\LJ}( s) , \eeq \beq \Phi _{2b}(s)=16\epsilon ^{2}\diam^{-2}\left[ \frac{(s/\diam)^{22}}{22!} -2\frac{(s/\diam)^{16}}{16!}+\frac{(s/\diam)^{10}}{10!}\right] . \eeq Up to this point, we have embodied the most popular perturbation schemes within a unified framework that requires as input {\it only} the EOS of the HS fluid in order to compute the Helmholtz free energy of the LJ system and leads to relatively easy numerical computations. It should be clear that a variety of other possible schemes, requiring the same little input, fit in our unified framework, which is based on the RFA method for $g_\hs(r/\diam)$ and $G(s)$. Once $f_{\LJ}$ has been determined, the compressibility factor of the LJ fluid at a given order of the perturbation expansion readily follows from Eqs.\ (\ref {AO1}) or () through the thermodynamic relation \begin{equation} Z_{\LJ}=\rho \left(\frac{\partial }{\partial \rho } \frac{f_{\LJ}}{\NN k_BT}\right) _{T}. \end{equation} Taking into account that the HS fluid presents a fluid-solid transition at a freezing packing fraction $\eta_\text{f}\simeq 0.494$ and a solid-fluid transition at a melting packing fraction $\eta _\text{m}\simeq 0.54$ , the fluid-solid and solid-fluid coexistence lines for the LJ system may be computed from the values $(\rho,T)$ determined from the conditions $({\pi }/{6})\rho\diam^3(\rho,T)=\eta_\text{f}$ and $({\pi }/{6})\rho\diam^3(\rho,T)=\eta_\text{m}$, respectively, with the effective diameter $\diam(\rho,T)$ obtained using any of the perturbative schemes. Similarly, admitting that there is a glass transition in the HS fluid at the packing fraction $\eta_\text{g}\simeq 0.56$ , one can now determine the location of the liquid-glass transition line for the LJ fluid in the $(\rho,T)$ plane from the simple relationship $({\pi }/{6})\rho\diam^3(\rho,T)=\eta_\text{g}$. With a proper choice for $Z_\hs$, it has been shown that the critical point, the structure, and the phase diagram (including a glass transition) of the LJ fluid may be adequately described with this approach. \section{Perspectives} In this chapter we have given a self-contained account of a simple (mostly analytical) framework for the study of the thermodynamic and structural properties of hard-core systems. Whenever possible, the developments have attempted to cater for mixtures with an arbitrary number of components (including polydisperse systems) and arbitrary dimensionality. We started considering the contact values of the RDF because they enter directly into the EOS and are required as input in the RFA method to compute the structural properties. With the aid of consistency conditions, we were able to devise various approximate proposals which, when used in conjunction with a sensible choice for the contact value of the RDF of the single component fluid (required in the formulation but otherwise chosen at will), have been shown to be in reasonably good agreement with simulation results and lead to accurate EOS both for additive and non-additive mixtures. Some aspects of the results that follow from the use of these EOS were illustrated by looking at demixing problems in these mixtures, including the far from intuitive case of a binary mixture of non-additive hard spheres in infinite dimensionality. After that, restricting ourselves to three-dimensional systems, we described the RFA method as applied to a single component hard-sphere fluid and to a multicomponent mixture of HS. Using this approach, we have been able to obtain explicit analytical results for the RDF, the direct correlation function, the static structure factor, and the bridge function, in the end requiring as input \emph{only} the contact value of the RDF of the single component HS fluid (or equivalently its compressibility factor). One of the nice assets of the RFA approach is that it eliminates the thermodynamic consistency problem which is present in most of the integral equation formulations for the computation of structural quantities. Once again, when a sensible choice for the single component EOS is made, we have shown, through the comparison between the results of the RFA approach and simulation data for some illustrative cases, the very good performance of our development. Also, the use of the RFA approach in connection with some other related systems (sticky hard spheres, square-well fluids, and hard disks) has been addressed. The final part of the chapter concerns the use of HS results for more realistic intermolecular potentials in the perturbation theory of liquids. In this instance we have been able to provide a unifying scheme in which the most popular perturbation theory formulations may be expressed and which was devised to allow for easy computations. We illustrated this for a LJ fluid but it should be clear that a similar approach might be followed for other fluids and in fact it has recently been done in connection with the glass transition of hard-core Yukawa fluids . Finally, it should be clear that there are many facets of the equilibrium and structural properties of hard-core systems that may be studied with a similar approach but that up to now have not been considered. For instance, the generalizations of the RFA approach for systems such as hard hyperspheres, non-additive hard spheres, square-well mixtures, penetrable spheres , or the Jagla potential appear as interesting challenges. Similarly, the extension of the perturbation theory scheme to the case of LJ mixtures seems a worthwhile task. We hope to address some of these problems in the future and would be very much rewarded if some others were taken up by researchers who might find these developments also a valuable tool for their work. \begin{thebibliography}{100} \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2} \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{} \bibitem{BH76} J. A. Barker and D. Henderson, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{48}, 587 (1976). \bibitem{M76} D. A. McQuarrie, {\emph{ Statistical Mechanics}} (Harper \& Row, N. Y., 1976). \bibitem{F85} H. L. Friedman, {\em A Course in Statistical Mechanics} (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1985). \bibitem{HM86} J.-P.~Hansen and I. R. McDonald, \textit{Theory of Simple Liquids}, (Academic Press, London, 1986). \bibitem{LZ71} J. L. Lebowitz and D. Zomick, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{54}, 3335 (1971). \bibitem{JM87} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~T.} \bibnamefont{Jenkins}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Mancini}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Appl. Mech.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{54}}, \bibinfo{pages}{27} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}). \bibitem{BS01} C. Barrio and J. R. Solana, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{115}, 7123 (2001); \textbf{117}, 2451(E) (2002). \bibitem{L64} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~L.} \bibnamefont{Lebowitz}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{133}}, \bibinfo{pages}{895} (\bibinfo{year}{1964}). \bibitem{RFL59} H. Reiss, H. L. Frisch, and J. L. Lebowitz, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{31}, 369 (1959); E. Helfand, H. L. Frisch, and J. L. Lebowitz, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{34}, 1037 (1961); J. L. Lebowitz, E. Helfand, and E. Praestgaard, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{43}, 774 (1965). \bibitem{MR75} M. J. Mandell and H. Reiss, J. Stat. Phys. \textbf{13}, 113 (1975). \bibitem{R88} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Rosenfeld}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4272} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}). \bibitem{HC04} M. Heying and D. S. Corti, J. Phys. Chem. B \textbf{108}, 19756 (2004). \bibitem{B70} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Boubl\'{\i}k}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{53}}, \bibinfo{pages}{471} (\bibinfo{year}{1970}). \bibitem{GH72} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~W.} \bibnamefont{Grundke}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Henderson}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{24}}, \bibinfo{pages}{269} (\bibinfo{year}{1972}). \bibitem{LL73} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~L.} \bibnamefont{Lee}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Levesque}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{26}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1351} (\bibinfo{year}{1973}). \bibitem{MCSL71} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~A.} \bibnamefont{Mansoori}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~F.} \bibnamefont{Carnahan}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~E.} \bibnamefont{Starling}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{T.~W.~Leland}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{54}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1523} (\bibinfo{year}{1971}). \bibitem{HMLC96} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Henderson}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Malijevsk\'{y}}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Lab\'{\i}k}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Chan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{273} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}). \bibitem{YCH96} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~H.~L.} \bibnamefont{Yau}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-Y.} \bibnamefont{Chan}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Henderson}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1237} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}); \textbf{91}, 1137 (1997). \bibitem{HC98} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Henderson}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Chan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{108}}, \bibinfo{pages}{9946} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}); Mol. Phys. \textbf{94}, 253 (1998); \textbf{98}, 1005 (2000). \bibitem{HBCW98} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Henderson}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Boda}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Chan}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~T.} \bibnamefont{Wasan}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{95}}, \bibinfo{pages}{131} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem{MHC99} D. Matyushov, D. Henderson, and K.-Y. Chan, Mol. Phys. \textbf{96}, 1813 (1999). \bibitem{CCHW00} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Cao}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-Y.} \bibnamefont{Chan}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Henderson}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Wang}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{98}}, \bibinfo{pages}{619} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}). \bibitem{ML97} D. V. Matyushov and B. M. Ladanyi, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{107}, 5815 (1997). \bibitem{BS00} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Barrio}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~R.} \bibnamefont{Solana}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{113}}, \bibinfo{pages}{10180} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}). \bibitem{VS02} D. Viduna and W. R. Smith, Mol. Phys. \textbf{100}, 2903 (2002); J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{117}, 1214 (2002). \bibitem{H75} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Henderson}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{30}}, \bibinfo{pages}{971} (\bibinfo{year}{1975}). \bibitem{SHY95} A. Santos, M. L\'opez de Haro, and S. B. Yuste, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{103}, 4622 (1995); M. L\'opez de Haro, A. Santos, and S. B. Yuste, Eur. J. Phys. \textbf{19}, 281 (1998). \bibitem{L01} S. Luding, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{63}, 042201 (2001); S.~Luding, Adv. Compl. Syst. {\bf 4}, 379 (2002); S.~Luding and O.~Strau\ss{}, in {\em Granular Gases}, T.~P\"oschel and S.~Luding, eds. (LNP 564, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001), pp.\ 389--409. \bibitem{W63} M. S. Wertheim, {Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 10}, 321 (1963); E. Thiele, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{39}, 474 (1963). \bibitem{CS69} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~F.} \bibnamefont{Carnahan}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~E.} \bibnamefont{Starling}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{51}}, \bibinfo{pages}{635} (\bibinfo{year}{1969}). \bibitem{LM90} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Luban}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.~J.} \bibnamefont{Michels}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{41}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6796} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}). \bibitem{H94} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Hamad}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{101}}, \bibinfo{pages}{10195} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}). \bibitem{V98} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Vega}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{108}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3074} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem{THM99} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~M.} \bibnamefont{Tukur}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~Z.} \bibnamefont{Hamad}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~A.} \bibnamefont{Mansoori}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{110}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3463} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}). \bibitem{SYH99} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Santos}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~B.} \bibnamefont{Yuste}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{L\'opez de Haro}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{96}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}). \bibitem{MV99} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Malijevsk\'{y}}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Veverka}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{1}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4267} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}). \bibitem{SYH01} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Santos}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~B.} \bibnamefont{Yuste}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{L\'opez de Haro}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{99}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1959} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}). \bibitem{GAH01} M. Gonz\'alez-Melchor, J. Alejandre, and M. L\'opez de Haro, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{114}, 4905 (2001). \bibitem{HYS02} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{L\'opez de Haro}}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~B.} \bibnamefont{Yuste}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Santos}}, \bibinfo{howpublished}{ Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 031202} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}). \bibitem{S99} A. Santos, Mol. Phys. \textbf{96}, 1185 (1999); \textbf{99}, 617(E) (2001). \bibitem{RDA01} C. Regnaut, A. Dyan, and S. Amokrane, Mol. Phys. \textbf{99}, 2055 (2001); \textbf{100}, 2907(E) (2002). \bibitem{SYH02} A. Santos, S. B. Yuste, and M. L\'opez de Haro, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{117}, 5785 (2002). \bibitem{SYH05} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Santos}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~B.} \bibnamefont{Yuste}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{L\'opez de Haro}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{123}}, \bibinfo{pages}{234512} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}); M. L\'opez de Haro, S. B. Yuste, and A. Santos, Mol. Phys. \textbf{104}, 3461 (2006). \bibitem{LS04} S. Luding and A. Santos, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{121}, 8458 (2004). \bibitem{BMLS96} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Baro\v{s}ov\'a}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Malijevsk\'y}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Lab\'{\i}k}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~R.} \bibnamefont{Smith}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{423} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}). \bibitem{H-GR06} H. Hansen-Goos and R. Roth, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{124}, 154506 (2006). \bibitem{E90} R. Evans, in \textit{Liquids and Interfaces}, edited by J. Charvolin, J. F. Joanny, and J. Zinn-Justin (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990). \bibitem{R89} Y. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{63}, 980 (1989). \bibitem{MBS97} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Malijevsk\'y}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Baro\v{s}ov\'a}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~R.} \bibnamefont{Smith}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}}, \bibinfo{pages}{65} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}). \bibitem{MMYSH02} Al. Malijevsk\'y, A. Malijevsk\'y, S. B. Yuste, A. Santos, and M. L\'opez de Haro, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 061203 (2002). \bibitem{BPW04} M. Buzzacchi, I. Pagonabarraga, and N. B. Wilding, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{121}, 11362 (2004). \bibitem{Alexander} Al. Malijevsk\'y, S. B. Yuste, A. Santos, and M. L\'opez de Haro, preprint arXiv: cond-mat/0702284. \bibitem{L96} F. Lado, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{54}, 4411 (1996). \bibitem{PL54} I. Prigogine and S. Lafleur, Bull. Classe Sci. Acad. Roy. Belg. \textbf{40}, 484, 497 (1954). \bibitem{AO54} S. Asakura and F. Oosawa, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{22}, 1255 (1954); J. Polym. Sci. \textbf{33}, 183 (1958). \bibitem{K55} R. Kikuchi, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{23}, 2327 (1955). \bibitem{BPGG86}P. Ballone, G. Pastore, G. Galli, and D. Gazzillo, Mol. Phys. \textbf{59}, 275 (1986). \bibitem{GPE89} D. Gazzillo, G. Pastore, and S. Enzo, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter \textbf{1}, 3469 (1989); D. Gazzillo, G. Pastore, and R. Frattini, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter \textbf{2},8465 (1990). \bibitem{SHY05} A. Santos, M. L\'opez de Haro, and S. B. Yuste, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{122}, 024514 (2005). \bibitem{H96b} E. Z. Hamad, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{105}, 3229 (1996). \bibitem{H96a} E. Z. Hamad, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{105}, 3222 (1996). \bibitem{H96c} H. Hammawa and E. Z. Hamad, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. \textbf{92}, 4943 (1996). \bibitem{H99} M. Al-Naafa, J. B. El-Yakubu, and E. Z. Hamad, Fluid Phase Equilibria \textbf{154}, 33 (1999). \bibitem{JJR94a} J. Jung, M. S. Jhon, and F. H. Ree, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{100}, 528 (1994). \bibitem{JJR94b} J. Jung, M. S. Jhon, and F. H. Ree, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{100}, 9064 (1994). \bibitem{CB98b} T. Coussaert and M. Baus, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{109}, 6012 (1998). \bibitem{VM03} A. Yu. Vlasov and A. J. Masters, Fluid Phase Equilibria \textbf{212}, 183 (2003). \bibitem{HT04} M. L\'opez de Haro and C. F. Tejero, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{121}, 6918 (2004). \bibitem{YSH00a} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~B.} \bibnamefont{Yuste}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Santos}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{L\'opez de Haro}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Europhys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{52}}, \bibinfo{pages}{158} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}). \bibitem{CFP91} H.-O. Carmesin, H. L. Frisch, and J. K. Percus, J. Stat. Phys. \textbf{63}, 791 (1991). \bibitem{SH05} A. Santos and M. L\'opez de Haro, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{72}, 010501(R) (2005). \bibitem{REL01} {R. Roth, R. Evans, and A. A. Louis, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{64}, 051202 (2001).} \bibitem{YS91} S. B. Yuste and A. Santos, {Phys. Rev. A} {\bf 43}, 5418 (1991). \bibitem{YHS96} S. B. Yuste, M. L\'{o}pez de Haro, and A. Santos, {Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 53}, 4820 (1996). \bibitem{RHSY98} M. Robles, M. L\'opez de Haro, A. Santos, and S. B. Yuste, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{108}, 1290 (1998). \bibitem{RH03} M. Robles and M. L\'opez de Haro, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{62}, 56 (2003). \bibitem{RH97} M. Robles and M. L\'{o}pez de Haro, {J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 107}, 4648 (1997). \bibitem{W73} E. Waisman, Mol. Phys. \textbf{25}, 45 (1973); D. Henderson and L. Blum, Mol. Phys. {\bf 32}, 1627 (1976); J. S. H{\o}ye and L. Blum, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 16}, 399 (1977). \bibitem{DLS06} A. D\'{\i}ez, J. Largo, and J. R. Solana, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{125}, 074509 (2006). \bibitem{KLM04} J. Kolafa, S. Lab\'ik, and A. Malijevsk\'y, {Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 6}, 2335 (2004). {See also http://www.vscht.cz/fch/software/hsmd/ for molecular dynamics results of $g(r)$.} \bibitem{TNJH05} A. Trokhymchuk, I. Nezbeda, J. Jirs\'ak, and D. Henderson, {J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 123}, 024501 (2005). \bibitem{HSY06} M. L\'opez de Haro, A. Santos, and S. B. Yuste, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{124}, 236102 (2006). \bibitem{L95} L. L. Lee, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{103}, 9388 (1995); L. L. Lee, D. Ghonasgi, and E. Lomba, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{104}, 8058 (1996); L. L. Lee and A. Malijevsk\'y, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{114}, 7109 (2001). \bibitem{LM84} S. Lab\'{\i}k and A. Malijevsk\'y, Mol. Phys. \textbf{53}, 381 (1984). \bibitem{MS06} Al. Malijevsk\'y and A. Santos, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{124}, 074508 (2006). \bibitem{SM06} A. Santos and Al. Malijevsk\'y, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{75}, 021201 (2007). \bibitem{YSH98a} S. B. Yuste, A. Santos, and M. L\'opez de Haro, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{108}, 3683 (1998). \bibitem{BH77} L. Blum and J. S. H{\o}ye, J. Phys. Chem. \textbf{81}, 1311 (1977). \bibitem{AW92} {J. Abate and W. Whitt}, {Queuing Systems} {\bf 10}, 5 (1992). \bibitem{notebook} A code using the Mathematica computer algebra system to obtain $G_{ij}(s)$ and $g_{ij}(r)$ with the present method is available from the web page http://www.unex.es/eweb/fisteor/santos/filesRFA.html. \bibitem{AL67} N. W. Ashcroft and D. C. Langreth, Phys. Rev. \textbf{156}, 685 (1967). \bibitem{BT70} A. B. Bathia and D. E. Thornton, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{8}, 3004 (1970). \bibitem{YSH00} S. B. Yuste, A. Santos, and M. L\'opez de Haro, Mol. Phys. \textbf{98}, 439 (2000). \bibitem{B68} R. J. Baxter, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 49}, 2270 (1968). \bibitem{PS75} J. W. Perram and E. R. Smith, {Chem. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{35}, 138 (1975). \bibitem{BT79} B. Barboy, Chem. Phys. {\bf 11}, 357 (1975); B. Barboy and R. Tenne, Chem. Phys. {\bf 38}, 369 (1979). \bibitem{BJG97} G. Stell, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 63}, 1203 (1991); B. Bor\v{s}tnik, C. G. Jesudason, and G. Stell, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 106}, 9762 (1997). \bibitem{BB74} B. Barboy, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 61}, 3194 (1974). \bibitem{varios_SHS} J. W. Perram and E. R. Smith, Chem. Phys. Lett. {\bf 39}, 328 (1975); P. T. Cummings, J. W. Perram, and E. R. Smith, Mol. Phys. {\bf 31}, 535 (1976); E. R. Smith and J. W. Perram, J. Stat. Phys.{\bf \ 17}, 47 (1977); J. W. Perram and E. R. Smith, Proc. R. Soc. London A{\bf 353}, 193 (1977); W. G. T. Kranendonk and D. Frenkel, { Mol. Phys.} \textbf{64}, 403 (1988); C. Regnaut and J. C. Ravey, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 91}, 1211 (1989); G. Stell and Y. Zhou, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 91}, 3618 (1989); J. N. Herrera and L. Blum, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 94}, 6190 (1991); A. Jamnik, D. Bratko, and D. J. Henderson, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 94}, 8210 (1991); S. V. G. Menon, C. Manohar, and K. S. Rao, {J. Chem. Phys.}; \textbf{95}, 9186 (1991); Y. Zhou and G. Stell, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 96}, 1504 (1992); E. Dickinson, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. {\bf 88}, 3561 (1992); C. F. Tejero and M. Baus, { Phys. Rev. E}, {\bfseries 48}, 3793 (1993); K. Shukla and R. Rajagopalan, Mol. Phys. {\bf 81}, 1093 (1994); C. Regnaut, S. Amokrane, and Y. Heno, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 102}, 6230 (1995); C. Regnaut, S. Amokrane, and P. Bobola, Prog. Colloid Polym. Sci. {\bf 98}, 151 (1995); Y. Zhou, C. K. Hall, and G. Stell, Mol. Phys. {\bf 86}, 1485 (1995); J. N. Herrera-Pacheco and J. F. Rojas-Rodr\'{\i}guez, Mol. Phys. {\bf 86}, 837 (1995); Y. Hu, H. Liu, and J. M. Prausnitz, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 104}, 396 (1996); O. Bernard and L. Blum, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 104}, 4746 (1996); L. Blum, M. F. Holovko, and I. A. Protsykevych, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 84}, 191 (1996); S. Amokrane, P. Bobola and C. Regnaut, Prog. Colloid Polym. Sci. {\bf 100}, 186 (1996); S. Amokrane and C. Regnaut, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 106}, 376 (1997); C. Tutschka, G. Kahl, and E. Riegler, {Mol. Phys.} \textbf{100}, 1025 (2002); D. Gazzillo and A. Giacometti, {Mol. Phys.} \textbf{100}, 3307 (2002); M. A. Miller and D. Frenkel, { Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bfseries 90}, 135702 (2003); D. Gazzillo and A. Giacometti, {J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{120}, 4742 (2004); R. Fantoni, D. Gazzillo, and A. Giacometti, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{72}, 011503 (2005); A. Jamnik, Chem. Phys. Lett. \textbf{423}, 23 (2006). \bibitem{SG87} A. J. Post and E. D. Glandt, { J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{84}, 4585 (1986); N. A. Seaton and E. D. Glandt, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{84}, 4595 (1986); \textbf{86}, 4668 (1986); \textbf{87}, 1785 (1987). \bibitem{MF04a} M. A. Miller and D. Frenkel, { J. Phys.: Condens. Matter} {\bfseries 16}, S4901 (2004). \bibitem{MF04b} M. A. Miller and D. Frenkel, { J. Chem. Phys.} {\bfseries 121}, 535 (2004). \bibitem{MYS06} Al. Malijevsk\'y, S. B. Yuste, and A. Santos, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{125}, 074507 (2006). \bibitem{SYH98} A. Santos, S. B. Yuste, and M. L\'opez de Haro, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{109}, 6814 (1998). \bibitem{YS93b} S.~B. Yuste and A. Santos, { J. Stat. Phys.} {\bfseries 72}, 703 (1993). \bibitem{YS93c} S. B. Yuste and A. Santos, { Phys. Rev. E} {\bfseries 48}, 4599 (1993). \bibitem{YS94} S. B. Yuste and A. Santos, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{101}, 2355 (1994). \bibitem{AS01} L. Acedo and A. Santos, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{115}, 2805 (2001). \bibitem{A00} L. Acedo, J. Stat. Phys. \textbf{99}, 707 (2000). \bibitem{LSAS03} J. Largo, J. R. Solana, L. Acedo, and A. Santos, Mol. Phys. \textbf{101}, 2981 (2003). \bibitem{LSYS05} J. Largo, J. R. Solana, S. B. Yuste, and A. Santos, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{122}, 084510 (2005). \bibitem{FI81} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Freasier}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Isbister}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mol. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{42}}, \bibinfo{pages}{927} (\bibinfo{year}{1981}). \bibitem{L84} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Leutheusser}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{127}}, \bibinfo{pages}{667} (\bibinfo{year}{1984}). \bibitem{RHS04} M. Robles, M. L\'opez de Haro, and A. Santos, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{120}, 9113 (2004). \bibitem{CRR76} D. G. Chae, F. H. Ree, and T. Ree, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{50}, 1581 (1976). \bibitem{YS93a} S. B. Yuste and A. Santos, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{99}, 2020 (1993). \bibitem{MC69} G. A. Mansoori and F. B. Canfield, {J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 51}, 4958 (1969). \bibitem{MPC69} G. A. Mansoori, J. A. Provine, and F. B. Canfield, {J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 51}, 5295 (1969). \bibitem{RS70} J. Rasaiah and G. Stell, {Mol. Phys.} {\bf 18}, 249 (1970). \bibitem{BH67} J. A. Barker and D. Henderson, {J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 47}, 2856 (1967). \bibitem{note} The macroscopic compressibility approach is only one of the possibilities of approximation to the second order Barker--Henderson perturbation theory term. Another successful approach is the local-compressibility approximation (see Ref.\ \protect, p.\ 308). This expresses the free energy in terms of $\phi _{1}( r) $ and HS quantities. \bibitem{WCA71} J. D. Weeks, D. Chandler, and H. C. Andersen, {J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 53}, 149 (1971). \bibitem{VW72} A simple algorithm to compute a rather accurate approximation for the HS diameter $\diam$ in the WCA theory has been given in L. Verlet and J. J. Weis, {Phys. Rev. A} {\bf 5}, 939 (1972). \bibitem{HG75} D. Henderson and E. W. Grundke, { J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 63}, 601 (1975). \bibitem{BS85} J. A. Ballance and R. J. Speedy, { Mol. Phys.} {\bf 54}, 1035 (1985). \bibitem{ZS88} Y. Zhou and G. Stell, { J. Stat. Phys.} {\bf 52}, 1389 (1988). \bibitem{HV69} J.-P. Hansen and L. Verlet, { Phys. Rev.} {\bf 184}, 151 (1969). \bibitem{S94} R. J. Speedy, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{100}, 6684 (1994). \bibitem{RH01} M. Robles and M. L\'opez de Haro, {Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{3}, 5528 (2001). \bibitem{HR04} M. L\'opez de Haro and M. Robles, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. \textbf{16}, S2089 (2004). \bibitem{HR06} M. L\'opez de Haro and M. Robles, Physica A \textbf{372}, 307 (2006). \bibitem{L01b} C. N. Likos, Phys. Rep. \textbf{348}, 267 (2001). \bibitem{J99} E. A. Jagla, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{111}, 8980 (1999). \end{thebibliography} \printindex
|
0704.0162
|
Title: Estimation of experimental data redundancy and related statistics
Abstract: Redundancy of experimental data is the basic statistic from which the
complexity of a natural phenomenon and the proper number of experiments needed
for its exploration can be estimated. The redundancy is expressed by the
entropy of information pertaining to the probability density function of
experimental variables. Since the calculation of entropy is inconvenient due to
integration over a range of variables, an approximate expression for redundancy
is derived that includes only a sum over the set of experimental data about
these variables. The approximation makes feasible an efficient estimation of
the redundancy of data along with the related experimental information and
information cost function. From the experimental information the complexity of
the phenomenon can be simply estimated, while the proper number of experiments
needed for its exploration can be determined from the minimum of the cost
function. The performance of the approximate estimation of these statistics is
demonstrated on two-dimensional normally distributed random data.
Body: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps} gsave 72 31 moveto 72 342 lineto 601 342 lineto 601 31 lineto 72 31 lineto showpage grestore \end{filecontents} \title{Estimation of experimental data redundancy and related statistics} \author{Igor Grabec} \institute{Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana,\\ A\v{s}ker\v{c}eva 6, PP 394, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia,\\ Tel: +386 01 4771 605, Fax: +386 01 4253 135, E-mail: igor.grabec@fs.uni-lj.si \\} \date{Received: date / Revised version: date} \abstract{Redundancy of experimental data is the basic statistic from which the complexity of a natural phenomenon and the proper number of experiments needed for its exploration can be estimated. The redundancy is expressed by the entropy of information pertaining to the probability density function of experimental variables. Since the calculation of entropy is inconvenient due to integration over a range of variables, an approximate expression for redundancy is derived that includes only a sum over the set of experimental data about these variables. The approximation makes feasible an efficient estimation of the redundancy of data along with the related experimental information and information cost function. From the experimental information the complexity of the phenomenon can be simply estimated, while the proper number of experiments needed for its exploration can be determined from the minimum of the cost function. The performance of the approximate estimation of these statistics is demonstrated on two--dimensional normally distributed random data. \PACS{{06.20.DK}{Measurement and error theory} \and {02.50.+s}{Probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics} \and {89.70.+c}{Information science}} } \maketitle \section{Introduction} The basic task of experimental physical exploration of natural phenomena is to provide quantitative data on measured variables and, from them extract physical laws . Related to this task, experimenters must decide how many experiments to perform in order to provide proper experimental data. We know that it is reasonable to repeat experiments as long as they yield essentially new data, and to stop repetition when the data become redundant. In order to describe this concept objectively, we have introduced in previous articles two statistics called experimental information $I$ and redundancy $R$ of experimental data based on the entropy of information . Their difference $C=R-I$ can be interpreted as the information cost function of the experimental exploration. From the cost function minimum, the proper number $N_\circ$ of experiments can be determined in an objective way. The entropy of information is defined by the integral of a nonlinear function of the probability density function of experimental data, and consequently its calculation is numerically demanding. This property represents a serious obstacle, especially when treating multivariate data. Therefore, our aim is to show how this obstacle can be effectively avoided by estimating data redundancy without integration. For this purpose we first briefly repeat the route to the definition of redundancy and subsequently show how the integral in the corresponding expression can be approximated. The performance of the derived approximate method of calculation is demonstrated using two--dimensional normally distributed random data. \section{Redundancy of experimental data} Let us consider a phenomenon characterized by $N$ measurements of a variable $x$ using an instrument with span $S_x =(-L,L)$. Properties of the instrument are specified by calibration on a unit $u$. The probability density function (PDF) of the instrument's output scattering during calibration is described by the scattering function $\psi(x,u)$. When the scattering is caused by mutually independent disturbances in the experimental system, the scattering function is Gaussian : \begin{equation} \psi(x,u)=g(x-x_i,\sigma)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma}\exp \biggl[-\frac{(x-u)^2}{2\sigma^2}\biggr]. \end{equation} We apply this function in our further treatment. The mean value $u$ and standard deviation $\sigma$ can be estimated statistically by repetition of calibration. Let $x_i$ denote the most probable instrument output in the $i$--th experiment. Using $\psi (x,x_i)$ we describe the properties of the explored phenomenon during the $i$--th experiment. Similarly, the properties in a series of $N$ repeated experiments, which yield the basic data set $\{x_i ;\,i=1,\ldots,N\}$, are described by the experimentally estimated PDF: \begin{equation} f_N(x)\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (x,x_i) . \end{equation} In addition, we introduce a uniform reference PDF $\rho(x) = 1/(2L)$ indicating that all outcomes of the experiment are hypothetically equally probable before executing the experiments. Based upon functions $f_N(x)$ and $\rho(x)$ we describe the indeterminacy of variable $x$ by the negative value of the relative entropy : \begin{equation} H_x=-\int_{S_x} f(x) \log \Bigl(\frac{f_N(x)}{\rho(x)}\Bigr) \,dx . \end{equation} Similarly, we describe the uncertainty $H_u$ of calibration performed on a unit $u$ by: \begin{equation} H_u=-\int_{S_x} \psi(x,u) \log \Bigl(\frac{\psi(x,u)}{\rho(x)}\Bigr) \,dx . \end{equation} Using the difference of these statistics we define the experimental information: \begin{eqnarray} I&=&H_x-H_u \nonumber\\ &=&-\int_{S_x} f(x) \log (f_N(x)) \,dx \nonumber\\ &&+ \int_{S_x} \psi(x,u) \log (\psi(x,u)) \,dx . \end{eqnarray} Using Eq.\, in this expression we get: \begin{eqnarray} I=\log (N)&-&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{S_x} \psi(x,x_i) \log \Bigl(\sum_{j=1}^N \psi(x,x_j)\Bigr) \,dx \nonumber\\ &-&\int_{S_x} \psi(x,u) \log \Bigl(\psi(x,u)\Bigr) \,dx. \end{eqnarray} If we express the logarithm in the second term as: \begin{equation} \log \Bigl(\sum_{j=1}^N \psi(x,x_j)\Bigr)=\log \psi(x,x_i) + \log\Bigl(1 + \sum_{j\#i}^N \frac{\psi(x,x_j)}{\psi(x,x_i)} \Bigr) \end{equation} we obtain: \begin{eqnarray} I&=&\log (N)+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{S_x} \psi(x,x_i) \log \Bigl(\psi(x,x_i)\Bigr) \,dx\nonumber\\ &-&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{S_x} \psi(x,x_i) \log\Bigl(1 + \sum_{j\#i}^N \frac{\psi(x,x_j)}{\psi(x,x_i)} \Bigr) \,dx \nonumber\\ &-&\int_{S_x} \psi(x,u) \log \Bigl(\psi(x,u)\Bigr) \,dx. \end{eqnarray} The second and the fourth term on the right side of this equation yield 0 and we get: \begin{equation} I=\log (N)-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{S_x} \psi(x,x_i) \log\Bigl(1 + \sum_{j\#i}^N \frac{\psi(x,x_j)}{\psi(x,x_i)} \Bigr) \,dx. \end{equation} With the last term we introduce the statistic called redundancy of data: \begin{equation} R=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \int_{S_x} \psi(x,x_i) \log\Bigl(1 + \sum_{j\#i}^N \frac{\psi(x,x_j)}{\psi(x,x_i)} \Bigr) \,dx \end{equation} with which we get the basic relation: \begin{equation} I=\log (N)- R \end{equation} If $\vert x_i-x_j\vert \gg\sigma$ for all pairs $i\#j$, there is no overlapping of functions $\psi(x,x_i),\psi(x,x_j)$; therefore, the sum in the logarithm is $\sim 0$, and consequently the redundancy is $R\sim 0$. In the opposite case, when $\vert x_i-x_j\vert \ll\sigma$, it follows that $\psi(x,x_i)\sim\psi(x,x_j)$. Due to good overlapping in this case, the corresponding term in the expression of $R$ yields $\log(2)/N$ and $R>0$. This property indicates that experimental information is increasing with increasing $N$ as $I\sim\log (N)$ if the acquired data are well separated with respect to $\sigma$. However, with an increasing number of data, they are ever more densely distributed, which results in an increasing overlapping of distributions that causes increasing redundancy of measurements. Although the expression in Eq.\, for redundancy $R$ is rather cumbersome due to the included integral, we expect that $R$ could be estimated without integration by the simpler function of distances between data points. For this purpose we next consider the properties of the scattering function $\psi(x,x_i)$. If the Gaussian function $\psi(x,x_i)=g(x-x_i,\sigma)$ is considered as an approximation of the delta function $\delta(x-x_i)$, and the logarithm as a slowly changing function, the integration in Eq.\, can be carried out, which yields for the redundancy the first order approximate expression without the integral: \begin{equation} R_1\sim\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \log\biggl\{1 + \sum_{j\#i}^N \frac{\psi(x_i,x_j)}{\psi(x_i,x_i)}. \biggr\} \end{equation} If we take into account Eq.\,, we get for the redundancy the following approximate expression that depends only on standard functions of distances between data points: \begin{equation} R_1\sim\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \log \biggl\{ 1 + \sum_{j\#i}^N \exp \Bigl[-\frac{(x_i-x_j)^2}{2\sigma^2}\Bigr]\biggr\} \end{equation} However, this first order approximation is rather rough because the distribution $\psi(x_i,x_j)$ has the width $\sigma>0$ and the logarithm in Eq.\, includes the fraction of functions $\psi(x,x_j)/\psi(x,x_i)$. To proceed to a better approximation, we have examined the case of just two data points, since it mainly determines the property of the redundancy. In this case the integration of the first three terms in a Taylor series expansion of the logarithm yields the second approximation: \begin{equation} R_2\sim\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \log \biggl\{ 1 + \sum_{j\#i}^N \exp \Bigl[-\frac{(x_i-x_j)^2}{4\sigma^2}\Bigr]\biggr\}, \end{equation} which is obtained from the previous one by merely changing $2\sigma^2\rightarrow 4\sigma^2$. This property indicates that a still better approximation could be obtained by properly adapting $2\sigma^2$ in Eq.\,. For this purpose we have proceeded with numerical investigations which have shown that a nearly optimal approximation is obtained if $2\sigma^2$ in Eq.\, is replaced by $\sim 5.1\sigma^2$: \begin{equation} R_o\sim\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \log \biggl\{ 1 + \sum_{j\#i}^N \exp \Bigl[-\frac{(x_i-x_j)^2}{5.1\sigma^2}\Bigr]\biggr\}. \end{equation} Numerical investigations have further shown that this formula also yields good results in cases with many data points. Since the integral is excluded from Eq.\,, the redundancy $R$ can be estimated from Eq.\, with essentially less computational effort than from Eq.\,. This advantage is especially outstanding in a multivariate case where the redundancy is defined by multiple integrals, while in the approximate formula in Eq.\, only the term $(x_i-x_j)$ in the exponential function has to be replaced by the norm of corresponding vectors. Due to this advantage, it is also reasonable to estimate approximately the experimental information using the basic formula $I=\log(N)-R$. The experimental information $I$ converges with the increasing number of data $N$ to a certain limit value from which the complexity of the phenomenon under investigation can be estimated using the formula $K\approx \exp (I_{N\rightarrow \infty})$ introduced previously . The complexity $K$ indicates how many non--overlapping scattering distributions are needed in the estimator Eq.\, to describe the PDF of the observed phenomenon. The information cost function is the difference of the redundancy and experimental information: $C=R-I$. During minimization of this cost, the experimental information provides for a proper adaptation of the PDF estimator to the experimental data, while the redundancy prevents excessive growth of the number of data points. By the position of the cost function minimum we introduce the proper number $N_o$ of the data and the corresponding experiments that are needed to judiciously represent the phenomenon under exploration. By inserting the expression $I=\log (N) -R$ into $C=R-I$, we obtain for the information cost function the formula: \begin{equation} C=2R-\log(N). \end{equation} Therefore the proper number $N_o$ can also be determined from the approximately estimated redundancy $R_o$. This number roughly corresponds to the ratio between the magnitude of the characteristic region where experimental data appear and the magnitude of the characteristic region covered by the scattering function . \section{Numerical examples} To demonstrate the properties of the approximations $R_1$, $R_2$, $R_o$ let us first consider the case of just two data points separated by a distance $x_1 -x_2$. Fig.\, shows the dependence of redundancy $R$ on relative distance $d=(x_1 -x_2)/\sigma$ as determined by the integral in Eq.\, and approximations in Eqs.\,,,. Improvement achieved by subsequent steps of approximation and a fairly good agreement between approximation $R_o$ and $R$ calculated by the integral is evident. However, in a case with more data points we can generally expect slightly worse agreement due to overlapping of more than two scattering functions in the sum of the approximation formula in Eq.\,. The performance in such a case is demonstrated in the next example. In order to provide for reproduction of the demonstrated example, we consider a two--dimensional Gaussian random phenomenon with zero mean value. The standard deviation of both components is equal to $s=2.5$, while their covariance is zero. The data generated by a standard Gaussian generator are represented in the two-dimensional span $(-10,+10)\otimes(-10,+10)$ using the scattering width $\sigma=0.5$. In such a case we can theoretically predict that the proper number of data samples should be $N_o\approx (s/\sigma)^2=25$. For the demonstration, a set of $N_{max}=100$ two-dimensional data samples $\{(x_i,y_i); i=1\ldots N_{max}\}$ was generated. The corresponding probability density function was estimated using Eq.\, adapted to the two--dimensional case with statistically independent components: \begin{equation} f_N(x,y)\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\,\sum_{i=1}^N \psi (x,x_i)\psi (y,y_i) . \end{equation} The resulting PDF with $N=100$ is graphically represented in Fig.\,. From the generated data the redundancy was calculated using Eqs.\, and adapted to the two--dimensional case. The dependence of redundancy $R$ on the number $N$ of accounted data points is shown in Fig.\,. Fairly good agreement between both statistics is again evident. Approximately estimated redundancy was further utilized in the calculation of statistics $I$ and $C$. They are shown as functions of the number of data points $N$ in Fig.\, together with $R(N)$ and $\log(N)$. Agreement with the same statistics calculated more exactly by integration can be established by comparing this figure with Fig.\,. In both cases we obtain for the proper number the value $N_o=28$. This value depends on the statistical properties of the data set used in its calculation; a statistical estimation from $100$ different data sets yields the estimate $N_o\approx 25 \pm 13$ which agrees well with the theoretically predicted value $N_o=25$. Similarly as in the one--dimensional case , it turns out that the function $f_{N_o}(x,y)$ is only a rough estimator of the hypothetical PDF. This property is a consequence of the fact that experimental information $I$ and redundancy $R$ have equal weights in the cost function $C=R-I$. Figs.\, and indicate that experimental information $I$ converges with increasing $N$ to a certain limit value from which the complexity of the phenomenon under investigation can be approximately estimated as $K\approx \exp I_{N_{max}}$. In our case we get the estimate $K\approx 21$. The number of non--overlapping scattering distributions that represent the PDF of the observed phenomenon is thus slightly smaller than the proper number $N_o$ of experiments needed for its exploration. \section{Conclusions} From the statistics introduced in the previous articles based on information entropy, we have here derived an approximate formula for the calculation of redundancy $R$ of experimental data. It is important that this formula does not include the integral by which the information entropy is defined. This makes feasible a simplified and fairly good estimation of redundancy and, with it, the related experimental information and cost function. The advantage of the approximate calculation becomes outstanding in multivariate cases because multiple integration is not needed there. A serious obstacle for the application of the concept of experimental information and redundancy of data can thus be avoided. Efficient estimation of the experimental information and cost function, and with them the determined complexity of the phenomenon and the proper number of experiments needed for its exploration, could be considered valuable in planning experimental work. In addition, the complexity $K$ or the proper number $N_o$ could be applied in the field of neural networks to determine the appropriate number of cells needed to deal with a certain phenomenon. \noindent{\bf Acknowledgment} \newline\noindent This work was supported by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia and EU -- COST. \begin{thebibliography}{} \bibitem{gs} I. Grabec and W. Sachse, Synergetics of Measurement, Prediction and Control (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997). \bibitem{ig1} I. Grabec, Experimental modeling of physical laws, Eur. Phys. J., B, {\bf 22} 129-135 (2001) \bibitem{ig2} I. Grabec, Extraction of physical laws from joint experimental data, Eur. Phys. J., B, {\bf 48} 279-289 (2005) (DOI: 10.1140/epjb/e2005-00391-0) \bibitem{les} J. C. G. Lesurf, Information and Measurement (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 2002) \bibitem{ct} T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory (John Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1991). \bibitem{kol} A. N. Kolmogorov, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, {\bf IT-2} 102-108 (1956). \bibitem{ka} D. J. C. MacKay, Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003) \bibitem{ha} S. Haykin, Neural Networks, (Prentice Hall International, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1999) \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0164
|
Title: On smooth foliations with Morse singularities
Abstract: Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and let $\F$ be a codimension one, $C^\infty$
foliation on $M$, with isolated singularities of Morse type. The study and
classification of pairs $(M,\F)$ is a challenging (and difficult) problem. In
this setting, a classical result due to Reeb \cite{Reeb} states that a manifold
admitting a foliation with exactly two center-type singularities is a sphere.
In particular this is true if the foliation is given by a function. Along these
lines a result due to Eells and Kuiper \cite{Ku-Ee} classify manifolds having a
real-valued function admitting exactly three non-degenerate singular points. In
the present paper, we prove a generalization of the above mentioned results. To
do this, we first describe the possible arrangements of pairs of singularities
and the corresponding codimension one invariant sets, and then we give an
elimination procedure for suitable center-saddle and some saddle-saddle
configurations (of consecutive indices). In the second part, we investigate if
other classical results, such as Haefliger and Novikov (Compact Leaf) theorems,
proved for regular foliations, still hold true in presence of singularities. At
this purpose, in the singular set, $Sing(\F)$ of the foliation $\F$, we
consider {\em{weakly stable}} components, that we define as those components
admitting a neighborhood where all leaves are compact. If $Sing(\F)$ admits
only weakly stable components, given by smoothly embedded curves diffeomorphic
to $S^1$, we are able to extend Haefliger's theorem. Finally, the existence of
a closed curve, transverse to the foliation, leads us to state a Novikov-type
result.
Body: \maketitle \section*{Abstract} Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and let $\F$ be a codimension one, $C^\infty$ foliation on $M$, with isolated singularities of Morse type. The study and classification of pairs $(M,\F)$ is a challenging (and difficult) problem. In this setting, a classical result due to Reeb states that a manifold admitting a foliation with exactly two center-type singularities is a sphere. In particular this is true if the foliation is given by a function. Along these lines a result due to Eells and Kuiper classify manifolds having a real-valued function admitting exactly three non-degenerate singular points. In the present paper, we prove a generalization of the above mentioned results. To do this, we first describe the possible arrangements of pairs of singularities and the corresponding codimension one invariant sets, and then we give an elimination procedure for suitable center-saddle and some saddle-saddle configurations (of consecutive indices).\\ In the second part, we investigate if other classical results, such as Haefliger and Novikov (Compact Leaf) theorems, proved for regular foliations, still hold true in presence of singularities. At this purpose, in the singular set, $Sing(\F)$ of the foliation $\F$, we consider {\em{weakly stable}} components, that we define as those components admitting a neighborhood where all leaves are compact. If $Sing(\F)$ admits only weakly stable components, given by smoothly embedded curves diffeomorphic to $S^1$, we are able to extend Haefliger's theorem. Finally, the existence of a closed curve, transverse to the foliation, leads us to state a Novikov-type result.\\ \section*{Acknoledgements} I am very grateful to prof. Bruno Sc\'ardua for proposing me such an interesting subject and for his valuable advice. My hearthy good thanks to prof. Graziano Gentili for his suggestions on the writing of this article. \section{Foliations and Morse Foliations} {\bf{Definition .1}} A {\em{codimension $k$, foliated manifold}} $(M,\F)$ is a manifold $M$ with a differentiable structure, given by an atlas $\{(U_i, \phi_i)\}_{i \in I}$, satisfying the following properties:\\ (1) $\phi_i(U_i)= \bo ^{n-k} \times \bo ^k$;\\ (2) in $U_i \cap U_j \neq \varnothing$, we have $\phi_j \circ \phi_i^{-1}(x,y)=(f_{ij}(x,y),g_{ij}(y))$,\\ where $\{f_{ij}\}$ and $\{g_{ij}\}$ are families of, respectively, submersions and diffeomorphisms, defined on natural domains. Given a local chart ({\em{foliated chart}}) $(U, \phi)$, $\forall x \in \bo ^{n-k}$ and $y \in \bo ^k$, the set $\phi^{-1}(\cdot , y)$ is a {\em{plaque}} and the set $\phi^{-1}(x,\cdot)$ is a {\em{transverse section}}. The existence of a foliated manifold $(M,\F)$ determines a partition of $M$ into subsets, the {\em{leaves}}, defined by means of an equivalence relation, each endowed of an intrinsic manifold structure. Let $x \in M$; we denote by $\F_x$ or $L_x$ the leaf of $\F$ through $x$. With the intrinsic manifold structure, $\F_x$ turns to be an immersed (but not embedded, in general) submanifold of $M$.\\ In an equivalent way, a foliated manifold $(M,\F)$ is a manifold $M$ with a collection of couples $\{(U_i,g_i)\}_{i \in I}$, where $\{U_i\}_{i \in I}$ is an open covering of $M$, $g_i:U_i \rightarrow \bo ^k$ is a submersion, $\forall i \in I$, and the $g_i$'s satisfy the cocycle relations, $g_i=g_{ij} \circ g_j$, $g_{ii}=id$, for suitable diffeomorphisms $g_{ij}:\bo ^k \rightarrow \bo^k$, defined when $U_i \cap U_j \neq \varnothing$. Each $U_i$ is said a {\em{foliation box}}, and $g_i$ a {\em{distinguished map}}. The functions $\gamma_{ij}=\textrm{d}g_{ij}$ are the transition maps of a bundle $N \F \subset TM$, normal to the foliation. More completely, there exists a G-structure on $M$ , which is a reduction of the structure group $GL(n,\R)$ of the tangent bundle to the subgroup of the matrices $\left(\begin{array}{c|c} A & B \\\hline 0 & C \end{array}\right)$, where $A \in GL(n-k,\R)$ and $C \in GL(k, \R)$. A codimension one, $C^\infty$ foliation of a smooth manifold $M$, with isolated singularities, is a pair $\F=(\F^*,Sing(\F))$, where $Sing(\F) \subset M$ is a discrete subset and $\F^*$ is a codimension one, $C^\infty$ foliation (in the ordinary sense) of $M^*=M \setminus Sing(\F)$. The {\em{leaves}} of $\F$ are the leaves of $\F^*$ and $Sing(\F)$ is the {\em{singular set}} of $\F$. A point $p$ is a {\em{Morse singularity}} if there is a $C^\infty$ function, $f_p:U_p \subset M \rightarrow \R$, defined in a neighborhood $U_p$ of $p$, with a (single) non-degenerate critical point at $p$ and such that $f_p$ is a local first integral of the foliation, i.e. the leaves of the restriction $\F|_{U_p}$ are the connected components of the level hypersurfaces of $f_p$ in $U_p \setminus \{p \}$. A Morse singularity $p$, of index $l$, is a {\em{saddle}}, if $0<l<n$ (where $n=\dim M$), and a {\em{center}}, if $l=0,n$. We say that the foliation $\F$ has a {\em{saddle-connection}} when there exists a leaf accumulated by at least two distinct saddle-points. A {\em{Morse foliation}} is a foliation with isolated singularities, whose singular set consists of Morse singularities, and which has no saddle-connections. In this way if a Morse foliation has a (global) first integral, it is given by a Morse function.\\ Of course, the first basic example of a Morse foliation is indeed a foliation defined by a Morse function on $M$. A less evident example is given by the foliation depicted in figure . In the literature, the orientability of a codimension $k$ (regular) foliation is determined by the orientability of the $(n-k)$-plane field tangent to the foliation, $x \rightarrow T_x \F_x$. Similarly transverse orientability is determined by the orientability of a complementary $k$-plane field. A singular, codimension one foliation, $\F$, is {\em{transversely orientable}} if it is given by the natural $(n-1)$-plane field associated to a one-form, $\omega \in \Lambda ^1(M)$, which is integrable in the sense of Frobenius. In this case, choosing a Riemannian metric on $M$, we may find a global vector field transverse to the foliation, $X=grad(\omega)$, $\omega X \geq 0$, and $\omega_x X_x=0$ if and only if $x$ is a singularity for the foliation ($\omega(x)=0$). A transversely orientable, singular foliation $\F$ of $M$ is a transversely orientable (regular) foliation $\F^*$ of $M^*$ in the sense of the classical definition. Viceversa, if $\F^*$ is transversely orientable, in general, $\F$ is not. Thanks to the Morse Lemma , Morse foliations reduce to few representative cases. On the other hand, Morse foliations describe a large class among transverseley orientable foliations. To see this, let $\F$ be a foliation defined by an integrable one-form, $\omega \in \Lambda^1(M)$, with isolated singularies. We proceed with a local analysis; using a local chart around each singularity, we may suppose $\omega \in \Lambda^1(\R^n)$, $\omega(0)=0$, and 0 is the only singularity of $\omega$. We have $\omega(x)= \sum_i h_i(x) dx^i$ and, in a neighborhood of $0 \in \R^n$, we may write $\omega(x)=\omega_1(x)+O(|x|^2)$, where $\omega_1$ is the linear part of $\omega$, defined by $\omega_1(x)= \sum_{i,j}a_{ij}x^i dx^j$, $a_{ij}=\partial h^i(x)/\partial x^j$. We recall that the integrability of $\omega$ implies the integrability of $\omega_1$ and that the singularity $0 \in \R^n$ is said to be non degenerate if and only if $(a_{ij}) \in \R(n)$ is non degenerate; in this latter case $(a_{ij})$ is symmetric: it is the hessian matrix of some real function $f$, defining the linearized foliation ($\omega_1= \textrm{d}f$). We have \begin{displaymath} \begin{array}{ccc} \{\textrm{transverseley orientable foliations, with Morse singularities}\}=\\\{\textrm{foliations, defined by non degenerate linear one-forms}\} \subset \\\{\textrm{foliations, defined by non degenerate one-forms}\}. \end{array}\end{displaymath} Let $(\sigma, \tau)$ be the space $\sigma$ of integrable one-forms in $\R^n$, with a singularity at the origin, endowed with the $C^1$-Whitney topology, $\tau$. If $\omega,\omega' \in \sigma$, we say $\omega$ {\em{equivalent}} $\omega'$ ($\omega \sim \omega'$) if there exists a diffeomorphism $\phi:\R^n \rightarrow \R^n$, $\phi(0)=0$, which sends leaves of $\omega$ into leaves of $\omega'$. Moreover, we say $\omega$ is {\em{structurally stable}}, if there exists a neighborhood $V$ of $\omega$ in $(\sigma,\tau)$ such that $\omega' \sim \omega, \forall \omega' \in V$.\\ {\bf{Theorem .2 (Wagneur)}} The one-form {\em{$\omega \in \sigma$ is structurally stable, if and only if the index of $0 \in Sing(\omega)$ is neither $2$ nor $n-2$}}. Let us denote by $S$ the space of foliations defined by non degenerate one-forms with singularities, whose index is neither $2$ nor $n-2$. If $S_1 \subset S$ is the subset of foliations defined by linear one-forms, then we have:\\ {\bf{Corollary .3}} {\em{There exists a surjective map,}}$$s: S_1 \rightarrow S/_\sim.$$ \section{Holonomy and Reeb Stability Theorems} It is well known that a basic tool in the study of foliations is the holonomy of a leaf (in the sense of Ehresmann). If $L$ is a leaf of a codimension $k$ foliation $(M,\F)$, the holonomy $Hol(L,\F)=\Phi(\pi_1(L))$, is the image of a representation, $\Phi:\pi_1(L) \rightarrow Germ(\R^k,0)$, of the fundamental group of $L$ into the germs of diffeomorphisms of $\R^k$, fixing the origin. Let $x \in L$ and $\Sigma _x$ be a section transverse to $L$ at $x$; with abuse of notation, we will write that a diffeomorphism $g: Dom(g) \subset \Sigma_x \rightarrow \Sigma_x$, fixing the origin, is an element of the holonomy group. For codimension one foliations ($k=1$), we may have: {\em{(i)}} $Hol(L,\F)=\{e \}$, {\em{(ii)}} $Hol(L,\F)=\{e,g \}$, with $g^2=e, g \neq e$, {\em{(iii)}} $Hol(L,\F)=\{e,g \}$, where $g^n \neq e$, $\forall n$, and $g$ is a (orientation preserving or reversing) diffeomorphism. In particular, among orientation preserving diffeomorphisms, we might find a $g: \Sigma_x \rightarrow \Sigma_x$, such that $g$ is the identity on one component of $\Sigma_x \setminus \{x \}$ and it is not the identity on the other; in this case, we say that $L$ has {\em{unilateral holonomy}} (see figure for some examples). We recall Reeb Stability Theorems (cfr., for example, or ).\\{\bf{Theorem .1 (Reeb Local Stability)}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a $C^1$, codimension $k$ foliation of a manifold $M$ and $F$ a compact leaf with finite holonomy group. There exists a neighborhood $U$ of $F$, saturated in $\F$ (also called {\em{invariant}}), in which all the leaves are compact with finite holonomy groups. Further, we can define a retraction $\pi:U \rightarrow F$ such that, for every leaf $F' \subset U$, $\pi|_{F'} : F' \rightarrow F$ is a covering with a finite number of sheets and, for each $y \in F$, $\pi^{-1}(y)$ is homeomorphic to a disk of dimension $k$ and is transverse to $\F$. The neighborhood $U$ can be taken to be arbitrarily small.}} The last statement means in particular that, in a neighborhood of the point corresponding to a compact leaf with finite holonomy, the space of leaves is Hausdorff. Under certain conditions the Reeb Local Stability Theorem may replace the Poincar\'e Bendixon Theorem in higher dimensions. This is the case of codimension one, singular foliations $(M^n,\F)$, with $n \geq 3$, and some center-type singularity in $Sing(\F)$.\\ {\bf{Theorem .2 (Reeb Global Stability)}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a $C^1$, codimension one foliation of a closed manifold, $M$. If $\F$ contains a compact leaf $F$ with finite fundamental group, then all the leaves of $\F$ are compact, with finite fundamental group. If $\F$ is transversely orientable, then every leaf of $\F$ is diffeomorphic to $F$; $M$ is the total space of a fibration $f:M \rightarrow S^1$ over $S^1$, with fibre $F$, and $\F$ is the fibre foliation, $\{f^{-1}(\theta)| \theta \in S^1 \}$.}} This theorem holds true even when $\F$ is a foliation of a manifold with boundary, which is, a priori, tangent on certain components of the boundary and transverse on other components . In this setting, let $\h ^l=\{(x^1, \dots , x^l) \in \R^l|x^l \geq 0 \}$. Taking into account definition .1, we say that a foliation of a manifold with boundary is {\em{tangent}}, respectively {\em{transverse}} {\em{to the boundary}}, if there exists a differentiable atlas $\{(U_i, \phi_i)\}_{i \in I}$, such that property (1) of the above mentioned definition holds for domains $U_i$ such that $U_i \cap \partial M = \varnothing$, while $\phi_i(U_i) = \bo ^{n-k} \times \h ^k$, respectively, $\phi_i(U_i) = \h ^{n-k} \times \bo ^k$ for domains such that $U_i \cap \partial M \neq \varnothing$. Moreover, we ask that the change of coordinates has still the form described in property (2). Recall that $\F|_{\partial M}$ is a regular codimension $k-1$ (respectively, $k$) foliation of the $(n-1)$-dimensional boundary. After this, it is immediate to write the definition for foliations which are tangent on certain components of the boundary and transverse on others.\\ Observe that, for foliations tangent to the boundary, we have to replace $S^1$ with $[0,1]$ in the second statement of the Reeb Theorem .2 (see Lemma .6). We say that a component of $Sing(\F)$ is {\em{weakly stable}} if it admits a neighborhood, $U$, such that $\F|_{U}$ is a foliation with all leaves compact. The problem of global stability for a foliation with weakly stable singular components may be reduced to the case of foliations of manifolds with boundary, tangent to the boundary. It is enough to cut off an invariant neighborhood of each singular component. Holonomy is related to transverse orientability by the following:\\ {\bf{Proposition .3}} {\em{Let $L$ be a leaf of a codimension one (Morse) foliation $(M,\F)$. If $Hol(L,\F)=\{e,g\}$, where $g^2=e$, $g \neq e$, then $\F$ is non-transversely orientable. Moreover, if $\pi:M \rightarrow M/{\F}$ is the projection onto the space of leaves, then $\partial (M/{\F}) \neq \varnothing$ and $\pi(L) \in \partial (M/{\F})$}}.\\ {\em{Proof.}} We choose $x \in L$ and a segment $\Sigma_x$, transverse to the foliation at $x$. Then $g: \Sigma_x \rightarrow \Sigma_x$ turns out to be $g(y)= -y$. Let $y \rightarrow N_y$ a 1-plane field complementary to the tangent plane field $y \rightarrow T_y\F_y$. Suppose we may choose a vector field $y \rightarrow X(y)$ such that $N_y= \textrm{span} \{X(y) \}$. Then it shoud be $X(x)= -X(x)=(\textrm{d}g)_x(X(x))$, a contraddiction. Consider the space of leaves near $L$; this space is the quotient of $\Sigma_x$ with respect to the equivalence relation $\sim$ which identifies points on $\Sigma_x$ of the same leaf. Then $\Sigma_x/_ \sim$ is a segment of type $(z,x]$ or $[x,z)$, where $\pi^{-1}(x)=L$. At last we recall a classical result due to Reeb.\\ {\bf{Theorem .4 (Reeb Sphere Theorem) }} {\em{A transversely orientable Morse foliation on a closed manifold, $M$, of dimension $n \geq 3$, having only centers as singularities, is homeomorphic to the $n$-sphere.}}\\ This result is proved by showing that the foliation considered must be given by a Morse function with only two singular points, and therefore thesis follows by Morse theory. Notice that the theorem still holds true for $n=2$, with a different proof. In particular, the foliation need not to be given by a function (see figure ). \section{Arrangements of singularities} In section we will study the elimination of singularities for Morse foliations. To this aim we will describe here how to identify special ``couples'' of singularities and we will study the topology of the neighbouring leaves.\\ {\bf{Definition .1}} Let $n=\dim M, n \geq 2$. We define the set $\C(\F)\subset M$ as the union of center-type singularities and leaves diffeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$ (with trivial holonomy if $n=2$) and for a center singularity, $p$, we denote by $\C_p(\F)$ the connected component of $\C(\F)$ that contains $p$.\\ {\bf{Proposition .2}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a Morse foliation on a manifold $M$. We have:\\ (1) $\C(\F)$ and $\C_p(\F)$ are open in $M$.\\ (2) $\C_p(\F) \cap \C_q(\F) \neq \varnothing$ if and only if $\C_p(\F)=\C_q(\F)$. $\C_p(\F)=M$ if and only if $\partial \C_p(\F)= \varnothing$. In this case the singularities of $\F$ are centers and the leaves are all diffeomorphic to $S^{n-1}.$\\ (3) If $q \in Sing(\F) \cap \partial \C_p(\F)$, then $q$ must be a saddle; in this case $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F)= \{ q \}$. Moreover, for $n \geq 3$ and $\F$ transversely orientable, $\partial \C_p(\F) \neq \varnothing$ if and only if $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. In these hypotheses, $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains at least one separatrix of the saddle $q$.\\ (4) $\partial \C_p(\F) \setminus \{q \}$ is closed in $M \setminus \{q \}$.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} (1) $\C(\F)$ is open by the Reeb Local Stability Theorem .1. (3) If non-empty, $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F)$ consists of a single saddle $q$, as there are no saddle connections. The second part follows by the Reeb Global Stability Theorem for manifolds with boundary and the third by the Morse Lemma. (4) By the Transverse Uniformity Theorem (see, for example, ), it follows that the intrinsic topology of $\partial \C_p(\F) \setminus \{q \}$ coincides with its natural topology, as induced by $M \setminus \{q \}$. We recall the following (cfr., for example ):\\ {\bf{Lemma .3 (Holonomy Lemma)}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a codimension one, transversely orientable foliation on $M$, let $A$ be a leaf of $\F$ and $K$ be a compact and path-connected set. If $g:K \rightarrow A$ is a $C^1$ map homotopic to a constant in $A$, then $g$ has a {\em{normal extension}} i.e. there exist $\epsilon >0$ and a $C^1$ map $G:K \times [0,\epsilon] \rightarrow M$ such that $G_t(x)=G^x(t)=G(x,t)$ has the following properties: {\em{(i)}} $G_0(K)=g$, {\em{(ii)}} $G_t(K) \subset A(t)$ for some leaf $A(t)$ of $\F$ with $A(0)=A$, {\em{(iii)}} $\forall x \in K$ the curve $G^x([0, \epsilon])$ is normal to $\F$.}}\\ \hspace{3ex}For the case of center-saddle pairings we prove the following descriptions of the separatrix:\\ {\bf{Theorem .4}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one, transversely orientable, Morse foliation of a compact $n$-manifold, $M$, $n \geq 3$. Let $q$ be a saddle of index $l \notin \{1, n-1 \}$, accumulating to one center $p$. Let $L \subset \C_p(\F)$ be a spherical leaf intersecting a neighborhood $U$ of $q$, defined by the Morse Lemma. Then $\partial \C_p(\F) \setminus \{q \}$ has a single connected component (see figure ) and is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/S^{l-1}$. If $F$ is a leaf such that $F \cap \big (U \setminus \overline { \C_p(\F)} \big) \neq \varnothing$, then $F$ is homeomorphic to $\bo ^l \times S^{n-l-1} \cup_ \phi \bo ^l \times S^{n-l-1}$, where $\phi$ is a diffeomorphism of the boundary (for example, we may have $F \simeq S^l \times S^{n-l-1}$, but also $F \simeq S^{n-1}$, for $l=n/2$).}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} Let $\omega \in \Lambda^1(M)$ be a one-form defining the transversely orientable foliation. We choose a riemannian metric on $M$ and we consider the transverse vector field $X_x=grad(\omega)_x$. We suppose $||X||=1$. In $U$, we have $X=h \cdot grad (f)$ for some real function $h>0$ defined on $U$. Further, we may suppose that $\partial U$ follows the orbits of $X$ in a neighborhood of $\partial \C_p(\F)$.\\ The Morse Lemma gives a local description of the foliation near its singularities; in particular the local topology of a leaf near a saddle of index $l$ is given by the connected components of the level sets of the function $f(x)=-x_1^2- \dots -x_l^2+x_{l+1}^2+ \dots +x_n^2$. If, for $c \geq 0$, we write $f^{-1}(c)=\{(x_1, \dots ,x_n) \in \R^n|x_1^2+ \dots +x_l^2+c=x_{l+1}^2+ \dots +x_n^2 \}$, it is easy to see that $f^{-1}(0)$ is homeomorphic to a cone over $S^{l-1} \times S^{n-l-1}$ and $f^{-1}(c) \simeq \bo ^l \times S^{n-l-1}$ ($c>0$). Similarly, we obtain $f^{-1}(c) \simeq \bo ^{n-l} \times S^{l-1}$ for $c<0$. Therefore, by our hypothesis on $l$, the level sets are connected; in particular the separatrix $S \supset f^{-1}(0)$ is unique and $\partial \C_p(\F)= S \cup \{ q \}$; moreover $U$ is splitted by $f^{-1}(0)$ in two different components. A priori, a leaf may intersect more than one component. As $\F$ is transversely orientable, the holonomy is an orientation preserving diffeomorphism, and then a leaf may intersect only non adiacent components; then this is not the case, in our hypotheses.\\ Let $L$ be a spherical leaf $\subset \C_p(\F)$ enough near $q$. Then $L \cap U \neq \varnothing$ and it is not restrictive to suppose it is given by $f^{-1}(c)$ for some $c<0$. We define the compact set $K=S^{n-1} \setminus \bo ^{n-l} \times S^{l-1} \simeq L \setminus U$. As $n \geq 3$, the composition $\xymatrix{ K \ar[rr]^ \simeq && L \setminus U \ar@{^{(}->}[rr]^\imath && L }$ is homotopic to a constant in its leaf. By the proof of the Holonomy Lemma .3, $L \setminus U$ projects diffeomorphically onto $A(\epsilon)=\partial \C_p(\F)$, by means of the constant-speed vector field, $X$. Together with the Morse Lemma, this gives a piecewise description of $\partial \C_p(\F)$, which is obtained by piecing pieces toghether. It comes out $\partial \C_p(\F) \simeq S^{n-1}/S^{l-1}$, a set with the homotopy type of $S^{n-1} \vee S^l$ (where $\vee$ is the wedge sum), simply connected in our hypotheses. Consequently, the map $K \times \{\epsilon \} \rightarrow \partial \C_p(\F)$, obtained with the extension, admits, on turn, a normal extension. This completes the piecewise description of $F$. In case of presence of a saddle of index 1 or $n-1$, we have:\\ {\bf{Theorem .5}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one, transversely orientable, Morse foliation of a compact $n$-manifold, $M$, $n \geq 3$. Let $q$ be a saddle of index $1$ or $n-1$ accumulating to one center $p$. Let $L \subset \C_p(\F)$ be a spherical leaf intersecting a neighborhood $U$ of $q$, defined by the Morse Lemma. We may have: {\em{(i)}} $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains a single separatrix of the saddle (see figure ) and is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$; {\em{(ii)}} $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains both separatrices $S_1$ and $S_2$ of the saddle (see figure ) and is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/S^{n-2} \simeq S^{n-1} \vee S^{n-1}$. If this is the case, there exist two leaves $F_i$ ($i=1,2$), such that $F_i$ and $L$ intersect different components of $U \setminus S_i$ and we have that $F_i$ is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$ ($i=1,2$); {\em{(iii)}} $q$ is a self-connected saddle (see figure ) and $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/S^0$. In this case we will refer to the couple $\Big(\overline{\C_p(\F)},\F|_{\overline{\C_p(\F)}}\Big)$ as a {\em{singular Reeb component}}. Moreover, $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$ has three connected components and $L$ intersects two of them. If $F$ is a leaf intersecting the third component of $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$, then $F$ is homeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^{n-2}$, or to $\R \times S^{n-2}$.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} The proof is quite similar to the proof of the previous theorem. Nevertheless we give a brief sketch here. The three cases arise from the fact that $q$ has two local separatrices, $S_1$ and $S_2$, but not necessarily $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains both of them. When this is the case, we may have that $S_1$ and $S_2$ belong to distinct leaves, or to the same leaf (in this case all spherical leaves contained in $\C_p(\F)$ intersect two different components of $U \setminus (S_1 \cup S_2)$ ). Using the Morse lemma, we construct the set $K$ for the application of the Holonomy Lemma .3. We have, respectively: $K=\overline{\bo ^{n-1}}$, $K=K_1 \sqcup K_2= S^0 \times \overline{\bo ^{n-1}}$ (we apply twice the Holonomy Lemma), $K= \overline{\bo ^1} \times S^{n-2}$. In the first two cases, as $K$ is simply connected, the map $K \rightarrow L$, to be extended, is clearly homotopic to a constant in its leaf. Then $L \setminus U$ projects onto $\partial C_p(\F)$ and on neighbour leaves. This completes the piecewise description in case {\em{(i)}} and {\em{(ii)}}.\\In the third case, piecing pieces together after a first application of the Holonomy Lemma, we obtain $\partial \C_p(\F)\simeq S^{n-1}/S^0$ and $\partial \C_p(\F) \setminus \{ q \} \simeq \bo ^1 \times S^ {n-2}$, simply connected for $n \neq 3$. With a second application of the Holonomy Lemma ($n \neq 3$), $K$ projects diffeomorphically onto any neighbour leaf, $F$. The same also happens for $n=3$, because a curve $\gamma:S^1 \rightarrow \partial \C_p(\F)$, as the one depicted in figure , is never a generator of the holonomy, which is locally trivial (a consequence of the Morse lemma). Nevertheless, there are essentially two ways to piece pieces together. We may have $F \simeq S^1 \times S^{n-2}$ or $F \simeq \R \times S^{n-2}$. The last result gives the motivation for a new concept.\\ {\bf{Definition .6}} In a codimension one singular foliation $\F$ it may happen that, for some leaf $L$ and $q \in Sing(\F)$, the set $L \cup \{q \}$ is arcwise connected. Let $C=\{q \in Sing(\F)| L \cup \{q \}\textrm{ is arcwise connected} \}$. If for some leaf $L$ the set $C \neq \varnothing$, we define the corresponding {\em{singular leaf}} $S(L)= L \cup C$. In particular, if $\F$ is a transversely orientable Morse foliation, each singular leaf is given by $S(L)=L \cup \{ q \}$, for a single saddle-type singularity $q$, either selfconnected or not. In the case of a transversely orientable Morse foliation $\F$ on $M$ ($n= \dim M \geq 3$), given a saddle $q$ and a separatrix $L$ of $q$, we may define a sort of holonomy map of the singular leaf $S(L)$. This is done in the following way.\\ As the foliation is Morse, in a neighborhood $U \subset M$ of $q$ there exists a (Morse) local first integral $f:U \rightarrow \R$, with $f(q)=0$. Keeping into account the structure of the level sets of the Morse function $f$ (see Theorem .4 and Theorem .5) we observe that there are at most three connected components in $U \setminus S(L)= U \setminus \{ f^{-1}(0)\}$ (notice that the number of components depends on the Morse index of $q$).\\ Let $\gamma: [0,1] \rightarrow S(L)$ be a $C^1$ path through the singularity $q$. At first, we consider the case $\gamma([0,1]) \subset U$, $q= \gamma(t)$ for some $0<t<1$. For a point $x \in M \setminus Sing(\F)$, let $\Sigma_x$ be a transverse section at $x$. The set $\Sigma_x \setminus \{x \}$ is the union of two connected components, $\Sigma^+_x$ and $\Sigma ^-_x$ that we will denote by {\em{semi-transverse sections at $x$}}. For $x= \gamma(0) \in S(L)$ we have $f(x)=0$ and we can choose semi-transverse sections at $x$ in a way that $f(\Sigma^+_x)>0$ and $f(\Sigma^-_x)<0$. We repeat the construction for $y=\gamma(1)$, obtaining four semi-transverse sections, which are contained in (at most) three connected components of $U \setminus S(L)$. As a consequence, at least two of them are in the same component. By our choices, this happens for $\Sigma_x^-$ and $\Sigma_y^-$ (but we cannot exclude it happens also for $\Sigma_x^+$ and $\Sigma_y^+$). We define the {\em{semi-holonomy map}} $h^-:\Sigma^-_{\gamma(0)} \cup \gamma(0) \rightarrow \Sigma^-_{\gamma(1)} \cup \gamma(1)$ by setting $h^-(\gamma(0))=\gamma(1)$ and $h^-(z)=h(z)$ for $z \in \Sigma^-_{\gamma(0)}$, where $h:\Sigma^-_{\gamma(0)} \rightarrow \Sigma^-_{\gamma(1)}$ is a classic holonomy map (i.e. such that for a leaf $F$, it is $h(F \cap \Sigma^-_{\gamma(0)})=F \cap \Sigma^-_{\gamma(1)}$). In the same way, if it is the case, we define $h^+$.\\ Consider now any curve $\gamma: [0,1] \rightarrow S(L)$. As $\F$ is transversely orientable, the choice of a semi-transverse section for the curve $\gamma([0,1]) \cap U$, may be extended continuously on the rest of the curve, $\gamma([0,1]) \setminus U$; with this remark, we use classic holonomy outside $U$. To complete the definition, it is enough to say what a semi-transverse section at the saddle $q$ is. In this way we allow $q \in \gamma(\partial[0,1])$. To this aim, we use the orbits of the transverse vector field, $grad(f)$. By the property of gradient vector fields, there exist points $t,v$ such that $\alpha(t)=\omega(v)=q$. Let $\Sigma _q^+$ ($\Sigma _q^-$) be the negative (positive) semi-orbit through $t$ ($v$). Each of $\Sigma _q^+$ and $\Sigma _q^-$, transverse to the foliation and such that $\overline {\Sigma _q^+} \cap \overline {\Sigma _q^-}= \{ q \}$, is a {\em{semi-transverse section}} at the saddle $q$. In this way, the {\em{semi-holonomy of a singular leaf}} $Hol^+(S(L), \F)$ is a representation of the fundamental group $\pi_1(S(L))$ into the germs of diffeomorphisms of $\R _{\geq 0}$ fixing the origin, $Germ(\R _{\geq 0},0)$. Now we consider the (most interesting) case of a selfconnected separatrix $S(L)=\partial \C_p(\F)$, with $\partial \C_p(\F)$ satisfying the description of Theorem .5, case {\em{(iii)}}. The singular leaf $\partial \C_p(\F)$, homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/S^0$, has the homotopy type of $S^{n-1} \vee S^1$. We have $Hol^+(\partial \C_p(\F),\F)=\{ e, h^-_\gamma \}$, where $\gamma$ is the non trivial generator of the homotopy, and $h^-_\gamma$ is a map with domain contained in the complement $\complement \C_p(\F)$. The two options $h^-_\gamma=e$, $h^-_\gamma \neq e$ give an explanation of the two possible results about the topology of the leaves near the selfconnected separatrix. \section{Realization and elimination of pairings of singularities} Let us describe one of the key points in our work, i.e. the elimination procedure, which allows us to delete pairs of singularities in certain configurations, and, this way, to lead us back to simple situations as in the Reeb Sphere Theorem (.4). We need the following notion :\\ {\bf{Definition .1}} Let $\F$ be a codimension one foliation with isolated singularities on a manifold $M^n$. By a {\em{dead branch}} of $\F$ we mean a region $R \subset M$ diffeomorphic to the product $\bo ^{n-1} \times \bo^1$, whose boundary, $\partial R \approx \bo ^{n-1} \times S^0 \cup S^{n-2} \times \bo ^1$, is the union of two invariant components (pieces of leaves of $\F$, not necessarily distinct leaves in $\F$) and, respectively, of transverse sections, $\Sigma \approx \{t \} \times \bo^1$, $t \in S^{n-2}$.\\ Let $\Sigma_i, i=1,2$ be two transverse sections. Observe that the holonomy from $\Sigma_1 \rightarrow \Sigma_2$ is always trivial, in the sense of the Transverse Uniformity Theorem , even if $\Sigma_i \cap S(L) \neq \varnothing$ for some singular leaf $S(L)$. In this case we refer to the holonomy of the singular leaf, in the sense above. A first result includes known situations.\\ {\bf{Proposition .2}} {\em{Given a foliated manifold $(M^n,\F)$, with $\F$ Morse and transversely orientable, with $Sing(\F) \ni p,q$, where $p$ is a center and $q \in \partial \C_p(\F)$ is a saddle of index 1 or $n-1$, there exists a new foliated manifold $(M,\widetilde{\F})$, such that: {\em{(i)}} $\widetilde{\F}$ and $\F$ agree outside a suitable region $R$ of $M$, which contains the singularities $p,q$; {\em{(ii)}} $\widetilde{\F}$ is nonsingular in a neighborhood of $R$.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} We are in the situations described by Theorem .5. If we are in case {\em{(i)}}, the couple $(p,q)$ may be eliminated with the technique of the dead branch, as illustrated in . If we are in case {\em{(ii)}}, we observe that the two leaves $F_i, i=1,2$ bound a region, $A$, homeomorphic to an anulus, $S^{n-1} \times [0,1]$. We may now replace the singular foliation $\F|_A$ with the trivial foliation $\widetilde{\F}|_A$, given by $S^{n-1} \times \{t \}$, $t \in [0,1]$. If we are in case {\em{(iii)}}, we may replace the singular Reeb component with a regular one, in the spirit of . Even in this case, we may think the replacing takes place with the aid of a new sort of dead branch, the {\em{dead branch of the selfconnected saddle}}, that we describe with the picture of figure , for the case of the foliation of the torus of figure , defined by the height Morse function . Observe that the couples $(p,q)$ and $(r,s)$ of this foliation may be also seen as an example of the coupling described in Theorem .5, case {\em{(ii)}}. In this case the elimination technique and the results are completely different (see figure ).\\ {\bf{Definition .3}} If the couple $(p,q)$ satisfies the description of Theorem .5, case {\em{(i)}} (and therefore may be eliminated with the technique of the dead branch), we will say that $(p,q)$ is a {\em{trivial couple}}.\\ \hspace{3ex}A new result is the construction of saddle-saddle situations:\\ {\bf{Proposition .4}} {\em{Given a foliation $\F$ on an $n$-manifold $M^n$, there exists a new foliation $\widetilde \F$ on $M$, with $Sing(\widetilde \F)=Sing(\F) \cup \{p,q\}$, where $p$ and $q$ are a couple of saddles of consecutive indices, {\em{connecting transversely}} (i.e. such that the stable manifold of $p$, $\W^s(p)$, intersects transversely the unstable manifold of $q$, $\W^u(q)$).}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} We choose the domain of (any) foliated chart, $(U,\phi)$. Observe that $R'=U$ ($\simeq \phi(U)$) is a dead branch for a foliation $\F_{\epsilon '}$, given (up to diffeomorphisms) by the submersion $f_\epsilon= - x_1^2/2- \dots - x_{k-1}^2/2+(x_k^3/3- \epsilon x_k)+ x_{k+1}/2+ \dots + x_n^2/2$, for some $\epsilon =\epsilon '<0$. We consider $\F_{\epsilon ''}$, given by taking $\epsilon=\epsilon '' >0$ in $f_\epsilon$, which presents a couple of saddles of consecutive indices, and we choose a dead branch $R''$ around them. We also choose a homeomorphism between $R'$ and $R''$ which sends invariant sets of $\F_{\epsilon '}$ into invariant sets of $\F_{\epsilon ''}$ in a neighborhood of the boundary. With a surgery, we may replace $\F_{\epsilon '}$ with $\F_{\epsilon ''}$. The converse of the above poposition is preceded by the following\\ {\bf{Remark .5}} Given a foliation $\F$ on $M^n$ with two complementary saddle singularities $p,q \in Sing(\F)$, having a strong stable connection $\gamma$, there exist a neighborhood $U$ of $ p, q$ and $\gamma$ in $M^n$, a $\delta \in \R^+$ and a coordinate system $\phi: U \rightarrow \R^n$ taking $p$ onto $(0,\dots, \phi^k=-\delta ,\dots,0)$, $q$ onto $(0,\dots, \phi^k=\delta ,\dots,0)$, $\gamma$ onto the $x_k$-axis, $\{x_l=0\}_{l \neq k}$, and such that: {\em{(i)}} the stable manifold of $p$ is tangent to $\phi^{-1}(\{x_l=0\}_{l>k})$ at $p$, {\em{(ii)}} the unstable manifold of $q$ is tangent to $\phi^{-1}(\{x_l=0\}_{l<k})$ at $q$ (we are led to the situation considered in , A first cancelation theorem). So using the chart $\phi:U \rightarrow \R^n$ we may assume that we are on a dead branch of $\R^n$ and the foliation $\F|_U$ is defined by $f_ \epsilon$, for $\epsilon =\delta^2$. In this way the vector field $grad(f_ \epsilon)$ defines a transverse orientation in $U$. For a suitable $\mu>0$, the points $r_1=(0,\dots,\phi ^k=-\delta-\mu, \dots,0)$ and $r_2=(0,\dots,\phi ^k=\delta+\mu, \dots,0)$ are such that the modification takes place in a region of $U$ delimited by $L_{r_i}, i=1,2$.\\ {\bf{Proposition .6}} {\em{Given a foliation $\F$ on $M^n$ with a couple of saddles $p,q$ of complementary indices, having a strong stable connection, there exists a dead branch of the couple of saddles, $R \subset M$ and we can obtain a foliation $\widetilde{\F}$ on $M$ such that: {\em{(i)}} $\widetilde{\F}$ and $\F$ agree on $M \setminus R$; {\em{(ii)}} $\widetilde{\F}$ is nonsingular in a neighborhood of $R$; indeed $\widetilde{\F}|_R$ is conjugated to a trivial fibration; {\em{(iii)}} the holonomy of $\widetilde{\F}$ is conjugate to the holonomy of $\F$ in the following sense: given any leaf $L$ of $\F$ such that $L \cap (M \setminus R) \neq \varnothing$, then the corresponding leaf $\widetilde{L}$ of $\widetilde{\F}$ is such that $Hol( \widetilde{L},\widetilde{\F})$ is conjugate to $Hol(L,\F)$.}}\\ {\bf{Example .7 (Trivial Coupling of Saddles)}} Let $M=S^n, n \geq 3$. For $l=1, \dots ,n-2$ we may find a Morse foliation of $M=S^n$, invariant for the splitting $S^n=\overline{\bo ^{n-l}} \times S^l \cup_\phi S^{n-l-1} \times \overline{\bo ^{l+1}}$, where $\phi$ is a diffeomorphism of the boundary. In fact, by theorem .4 or .5, case {\em{(iii)}}, $\overline{\bo ^{n-l}} \times S^l$ admits a foliation with one center and one saddle of index $l$. Similarly, $S^{n-l-1} \times \bo ^{l+1}$ admits a foliation with a saddle of index $n-l-1$, actually a saddle of index $l+1$, after the attachment. We may eliminate the trivial couple of saddles and we are led to the well-known foliation of $S^n$, with a couple of centers and spherical leaves.\\ {\bf{Remark .8}} The elimination of saddles of consecutive indices is actually a generalization of the elimination of couples center-saddle, $(p,q)$ with $q \in \partial \C_p(\F)$. Indeed, we may eliminate $(p,q)$ only when the saddle $q$ has index $1$ or $n-1$. This means the singularities of the couple must have consecutive indices and, as $q \in \partial \C_p(\F)$, there exists an orbit of the transverse vector field having $p$ as $\alpha$-limit (backward) and $q$ as $\omega$-limit (forward), or viceversa. Such an orbit is a strong stable connection. \section{Reeb-type theorems} We shall now describe how to apply our techniques to obtain some generalizations of the Reeb Sphere Theorem (.4) for the case of Morse foliations admitting both centers and saddles.\\ A first generalization is based on the following notion:\\ {\bf{Definition .1}} We say that an isolated singularity, $p$, of a $C^ \infty$, codimension one foliation $\F$ on $M$ is a {\em{stable singularity}}, if there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ in $M$ and a $C^ \infty$ function, $f:U \rightarrow \R$, defining the foliation in $U$, such that $f(p)=0$ and $f^{-1}(a)$ is compact, for $|a|$ small. The following characterization of stable singularities can be found in .\\ {\bf{Lemma .2}} {\em{An isolated singularity $p$ of a function $f:U \subset \R^n \rightarrow \R$ defines a stable singularity for $\textrm{d}f$, if and only if there exists a neighborhood $V \subset U$ of $p$, such that, $\forall x \in V$, we have either $\omega (x) = \{p \}$ or $\alpha (x) = \{p \}$, where $\omega (x)$ (respectively $\alpha (x)$) is the $\omega$-limit (respectively $\alpha$-limit) of the orbit of the vector field $grad (f)$ through the point $x$.}} In particular it follows the well-known:\\ {\bf{Lemma .3}} {\em{If a function $f:U \subset \R^n \rightarrow \R$ has an isolated local maximum or minimum at $p \in U$ then $p$ is a stable singularity for $df$.}} The converse is also true:\\ {\bf{Lemma .4}} {\em{If $p$ is a stable singularity, defined by the function $f$, then $p$ is a point of local maximum or minimum for $f$.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} It follows immediately by Lemma .2 and by the fact that $f$ is monotonous, strictly increasing, along the orbits of $grad (f)$. With this notion, we obtain\\ {\bf{Lemma .5}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a codimension one, singular foliation on a manifold $M^n$. In a neighborhood of a stable singularity, the leaves of $\F$ are diffeomorphic to spheres.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} Let $p \in Sing(\F)$ be a stable singularity. By Lemma .4, we may suppose $p$ is a minimum (otherwise we use $-f$). Using a local chart around $p$, we may suppose we are on $\R^n$ and we may write the Taylor-Lagrange expansion around $p$ for an approximation of the function $f:U \rightarrow \R$ at the second order. We have $f(p+h)=f(p)+1/2 \langle h,H(p+ \theta h)h \rangle,$ where $H$ is the Hessian of $f$ and $0< \theta <1$. It follows $\langle h,H(p+ \theta h)h \rangle \geq 0$ in $U$. Then $f$ is convex and hence the sublevels, $f^{-1}(c)$, are also convex.\\ We consider the flow $\phi: \mathscr{D}(\phi) \subset \R \times U \rightarrow U$ of the vector field $grad(f)$. By the properties of gradient vector fields, in our hypothesis, $\mathscr{D}(\phi) \supset (- \infty,0] \times U$ and $\forall x \in U$ there exists the $\alpha$-limit, $\alpha(x)=p$. For any $x \in f^{-1}(c)$, the tangent space, $T_x f^{-1}(c)$, to the sublevels of $f$ does not contain the radial direction, $\overrightarrow{px}$. This is obvious otherwise, for the convexity of $f^{-1}(c)$, the singularity $p$ should lie on the sublevel $f^{-1}(c)$, a contraddiction because, in this case, $p$ should be a saddle. Equivalently, the orbits of the vector field $grad(f)$ are transverse to spheres centered at $p$. An application of the implicit function theorem shows the existence of a smooth function $x \rightarrow t_x$, that assigns to each point $x \in f^{-1}(c)$ the (negative) time at which $\phi(t,x)$ intersects $S^{n-1}(p, \epsilon)$, where $\epsilon$ is small enough to have $\textrm{B}^{n}(p, \epsilon) \subsetneq R(f^{-1}(c))$, the compact region bounded by $f^{-1}(c)$ . The diffeomorphism between the leaf $f^{-1}(c)$ and the sphere $S^{n-1}(p, \epsilon)$ is given by the composition $x \rightarrow \phi(t_x,x)$. The lemma is proved.\\ {\bf{Lemma .6}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a codimension one, transversely orientable foliation of $M$, with all leaves closed, $\pi:M \rightarrow M/\F$ the projection onto the space of leaves. Then we may choose a foliated atlas on $M$ and a differentiable structure on $M/ \F$, such that $M/ \F$ is a codimension one compact manifold, locally diffeomorphic to the space of plaques, and $\pi$ is a $C^\infty$ map.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} At first we notice that the space of leaves $M/\F$ (with the quotient topology) is a one-dimensional Hausorff topological space, as a consequence of the Reeb Local Stability Theorem .1. As all leaves are closed and with no holonomy, we may choose a foliated atlas $\{(U_i, \phi_i)\}$ such that, for each leaf $L \in \F, L \cap U_i$ consists, at most, of a single plaque. Let $\pi:M \rightarrow M/ \F$ be the projection onto the space of leaves and $\pi_i:U_i \rightarrow \R$ the projection onto the space of plaques. With abuse of notation, we may write $\pi_i=p_2 \circ \phi_i$, where $p_2$ is the projection on the second component. As there is a 1-1 correspondence between the quotient spaces $\pi|_{U_i}(U_i)$ and $\pi_i(U_i)$, then, are homeomorphic. Let $V \subset M/ \F$ be open. The set $\pi^{-1}(V)$ is an invariant open set. We may find a local chart $(U_i,\phi_i)$ such that $\pi(U_i)=V$. We say that $(V, \pi_i \circ (\pi|_{U_i})^{-1})$ is a chart for the differentiable atlas with the required property. To see this, it is enough to prove that, if $(V, \pi_j \circ (\pi|_{U_j})^{-1})$ is another chart with the same domain, $V$, there exists a diffeomorphism between the two images of $V$, i.e. between $\pi_i \circ (\pi|_{U_i})^{-1}(V)$ and $\pi_j \circ (\pi|_{U_j})^{-1}(V)$. This is not obvious when $U_i \cap U_j= \varnothing$. Indeed, the searched diffeomorphism exists, and it is given by the Transverse Uniformity Theorem . Observe that, in coordinates, $\pi$ coincides with the projection on the second factor.\\ {\bf{Lemma .7}} {\em{Let $n \geq 2$. A weakly stable singularity for a foliation $(M^n, \F)$ is a stable singularity.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} Let $p$ be a weakly stable singularity, $U$ a neighborhood of $p$ with all leaves compact. We need a local first integral near $p$. As a consequence of the Reeb Local Stability Theorem .1, we can find an (invariant) open neighborhood $V \subset U$ of $p$, whose leaves have all trivial holonomy. The set $V \setminus \{ p \}$ is open in $M^*=M \setminus Sing(\F)$. Let $\F^*= \F \setminus Sing(\F)$; the projection $\pi^*:M^* \rightarrow M^*/\F^*$ is an open map (see, for example ). As a consequence of Lemma .6, the connected (as $n \geq 2$) and open set $\pi^* (V \setminus \{ p \})$ is a $1$-dimensional manifold with boundary, i.e. it turns out to be an interval, for example $(0,1)$. Now, we extend smoothly $\pi^*$ to a map $\pi$ on $U$. In particular, let $W \subsetneq V$ be a neighborhood of $p$. If (for example) $\pi^*(W \setminus \{p \})=(0,b)$ for some $b<1$, we set $\pi(p)=0$. Thesis follows by lemma .3.\\ {\bf{Theorem .8}} {\em{Let $M^n$ be a closed $n$-dimensional manifold, $n \geq 3$. Suppose that $M$ supports a $C^ \infty$, codimension one, transversely orientable foliation, $\F$, with non-empty singular set, whose elements are, all, weakly stable singularities. Then $M$ is homeomorphic to the sphere, $S^n$.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} By hypothesis, $\forall p \in Sing(\F)$, $p$ is a weakly stable singularity. Then it is a stable singularity. By lemma .5, in an invariant neighborhood $U_p$ of $p$, the leaves are diffeomorphic to spheres. Now we can proceed as in the proof of the Reeb Sphere Theorem .4.\\ {\bf{Theorem .9 (Classification of codimension one foliations with all leaves compact)}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a (possibly singular, with isolated singularities) codimension one foliation of $M$, with all leaves compact. Then all possible singularities are stable. If $\F$ is (non) transversely orientable, the space of leaves is (homeomorphic to $[0,1]$) diffeomorphic to $[0,1]$ or $S^1$. In particular, this latter case ocurs if and only if $\partial M, Sing(\F)= \varnothing$. In all the other cases, denoting by $\pi:M \rightarrow [0,1]$ the projection onto the space of leaves, it is $Hol(\pi^{-1}(x), \F)=\{e \}, \forall x \in (0,1)$. Moreover, if $x=0,1$, we may have: {\em{(i)}} $\pi^{-1}(x) \subset \partial M \neq \varnothing$ and $Hol(\pi^{-1}(x), \F)=\{e \}$; {\em{(ii)}} $\pi^{-1}(x)$ is a (stable) singularity; {\em{(iii)}} $Hol(\pi^{-1}(x),\F)=\{e,g \}$, $g\neq e, g^2=e$ (in this case, $\forall y \in (0,1)$, the leaf $\pi^{-1}(y)$ is a two-sheeted covering of $\pi^{-1}(x)$.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} If $\F$ is transversely orientable, by the Reeb Global Stability Theorem .2 and Lemma .6, the space of leaves is either diffeomorphic to $S^1$ or to $[0,1]$. In particular, $M/ \F \approx S^1$ if and only if $M$ is closed and $\F$ non singular. When this is not the case, $M/ \F \approx [0,1]$, and there are exactly two points ($\partial [0,1]$) which come from a singular point and/or from a leaf of the boundary.\\ If $\F$ is non transversely orientable, there is at least one leaf with (finite) non trivial holonomy, which corresponds a boundary point in $M/ \F$ to (by Proposition .3). By the proof of Lemma .6, the projection is not differentiable and the space of leaves $M/ \F$, a Hausdorff topological $1$-dimensional space, turns out to be an orbifold (see ). We pass to the transversely orientable double covering, $p: (\widetilde{M}, \widetilde{\F}) \rightarrow (M,\F)$. The foliation $\widetilde{\F}$, pull-back of $\F$, has all leaves compact, and singular set empty or with stable components; therefore we apply the first part of the classification to $\widetilde{M}/\widetilde{\F}$. Both if $\widetilde{M}/\widetilde{\F}$ is diffeomorphic to $S^1$ or to $[0,1]$, $M/ \F$ is homeomorphic to $[0,1]$, but (clearly) with different orbifold structures. \hspace{3ex} Before going on with our main generalization of the Reeb Sphere Theorem .4, which extends a similar result of Camacho and Sc\'ardua concerning the case $n=3$, we need to recall another result, that we are going to generalize.\\ As we know, the Reeb Sphere Theorem, in its original statement, consideres the effects (on the topology of a manifold $M$) determined by the existence, on $M$, of a real valued function with exactly two non-degenerate singular points. A very similar problem was studied by Eells and Kuiper . They considered manifolds admitting a real valued function with exactly three non-degenerate singular points.They obtained very interesting results. Among other things, it sticks out the obstruction they found about the dimension of $M$, which must be even and assume one of the values $n=2m= 2,4,8,16$. Moreover, the homotopy type of the manifold turns out to vary among a finite number of cases, including (or reducing to, if $n=2,4$) the homotopy tupe of the projective plane over the real, complex, quaternion or Cayley numbers.\\ {\bf{Definition .10}} In view of the results of Eells and Kuiper , if a manifold $M$ admits a real-valued function with exactly three non-degenerate singular points, we will say that $M$ is an {\em{Eells-Kuiper}} manifold.\\ We have (see for the case $n=3$):\\ {\bf{Theorem .11} (Center-Saddle Theorem)} {\em{Let $M^n$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold, with $n \geq 2$ such that $(M,\F)$ is a foliated manifold, by means of a transversely orientable, codimension-one, Morse, $C^\infty$ foliation $\F$. Moreover $\F$ is assumed to be without holonomy if $n=2$. Let $Sing(\F)$ be the singular set of $\F$, with $\# Sing(\F)=k+l$, where $k,l$ are the numbers of, respectively, centers and saddles. If we have $k \geq l+1$, then there are two possibilities:\\ {\em{(1)}} $k=l+2$ and $M$ is homeomorphic to an $n$-dimensional sphere;\\ {\em{(2)}} $k=l+1$ and $M$ is an Eells-Kuiper manifold}}.\\ {\em{Proof.}} If $l=0$, assertion is proved by the Reeb Sphere Theorem .4. Let $l \geq 1$; we prove our thesis by induction on the number $l$ of saddles. We set $\F_l=\F$.\\ So let $l=1$ and $\F_1=\F$. By hypothesis, in the set $Sing(\F)$ there exist at least two centers, $p_1,p_2$, with $p_1 \neq p_2$, and one saddle $q$. We have necessarily $q \in \partial \C_{p_1}(\F) \cap \partial \C_{p_2}(\F)$. In fact, if this is not the case and, for example $q \notin \partial \C_{p_1}(\F)$, then (keeping into account that for $n=2$, the foliation $\F$ is assumed to be without holonomy) $\partial \C_{p_1}=\varnothing$ and $M=\overline{\C_{p_1}(\F)}$. A contraddiction. Let $i(q)$ the Morse index of the saddle $q$.\\ For $n \geq 3$ we apply the results of Theorems .4 and .5 to the couples $(p_1,q)$ and $(p_2,q)$. In particular, by Theorem .5, {\em{(iii)}}, it follows that the saddle $q$ cannot be selfconnected. We now have the following two possibilities:\\ {\em{(a)}} $i(q)=1,n-1$ and $(p_1,q)$ or (and) $(p_2,q)$ is a trivial couple,\\ {\em{(b)}} $i(q) \neq 1,n-1$ and there are no trivial couples.\\ For $n=2$, we have necessarily $i(q)=1$ and, in our hypotheses, $q$ is always selfconnected. With few changes, we adapt Theorem .5, to this case, obtaining $\partial \C_p(\F) \simeq S^1$ or $\partial \C_p(\F) \simeq S^1 \vee S^1$; in this latter case we will say that the saddle $q$ is {\em{selfconnected with respect to}} $p$. We obtain:\\ {\em{(a')}} $(p_1,q)$ or (and) $(p_2,q)$ is a trivial couple;\\ {\em{(b')}} $q$ is selfconnected both with respect to $p_1$ and to $p_2$.\\ In cases {\em{(a)}} and {\em{(a')}} we proceed with the elimination of a trivial couple, as stated in Proposition .2, and then we obtain the foliated manifold $(M,\F_0)$, with no saddle-type and some center-type singularities. We apply the Reeb Sphere Theorem .4 and obtain $\# Sing(\F)=2$ and $M \simeq S^n$.\\ In case {\em{(b)}} ($n \geq 3$), as a consequence of Theorem .4, we necessarily have $i(q)=n/2$ (and therefore $n$ must be even!). Moreover $\overline{\C_{p_1}(\F)} \approx \overline{\C_{p_2}(\F)}$ and $M=\overline{\C_{p_1}(\F)} \cup_\phi \overline{\C_{p_2}(\F)}$ may be thought as two copies of the same (singular) manifold glued together along the boundary, by means of the diffeomorphism $\phi$.\\ In case {\em{(b')}} ($n=2$), we obtain the same result as above, i.e. $\overline{\C_{p_1}(\F)} \approx \overline{\C_{p_2}(\F)}$ and $M=\overline{\C_{p_1}(\F)} \cup_\phi \overline{\C_{p_2}(\F)}$. We notice that case {\em{(b')}} occurs when the set $\C_{p_i}(\F) \simeq \bo ^2/S^0$ is obtained by identifying two points of the boundary in a way that reverses the orientation.\\ In cases {\em{(b)}} and {\em{(b')}}, it turns out that $\# Sing (\F_1)=3$. Moreover, $\F_1$ has a first integral, which is given by the projection of $M$ onto the space of (possibly singular) leaves. In fact, by Lemma .6, the space of leaves is diffeomorphic to a closed interval of $\R$. In this way $M$ turns out to be an Eells-Kuiper manifold. This ends the case $l=1$.\\ Let $l>1$ (and $\# Sing(\F) >3$). As above, in $Sing(\F)$ there exist at least one saddle $q$ and two (distinct) centers, $p_1, p_2$ such that $q \in \partial \C_{p_1}(\F) \cap \partial \C_{p_2}(\F)$; we are led to the same possibilities {\em{(a)}}, {\em{(b)}} for $n \geq 3$ and {\em{(a)'}}, {\em{(b)'}} for $n=2$. Anyway {\em{(b)}} and {\em{(b')}} cannot occur, otherwise $M=\overline{\C_{p_1}(\F)} \cup_\phi \overline{\C_{p_2}(\F)}$ and $\# Sing(\F)=3$, a contraddiction. Then we may proceed with the elimination of a trivial couple. In this way we obtain the foliated manifold $(M,\F_{l-1})$, which we apply the inductive hypothesis to. The theorem is proved, observing that, a posteriori, case {\em{(1)}} holds if $k=l+2$ and case {\em{(2)}} if $k=l+1$.\\ \section{Haefliger-type theorems} In this paragraph, we investigate the existence of leaves of singular foliations with unilateral holonomy. Keeping into account the results of the previous paragraph, for Morse foliations, we may state or exclude such an occurrence, according to the following theorem:\\ {\bf{Theorem .1}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one, Morse foliation on a compact manifold $M^n$, $n \geq 3$, assumed to be transversely orientable, but not necessarily closed. Let $k$ be the number of centers and $l$ the number of saddles. We have the following possibilities: {\em{(i)}} if $k \geq l+1$, then all leaves are closed in $M \setminus Sing(\F)$; in particular, if $\partial M \neq \varnothing$ or $k \geq l+2$ each regular (singular) leaf of $\F$, is diffeomorphic (homeomorphic) to a sphere (in the second option, it is diffeomorphic to a sphere with a pinch at one point); {\em{(ii)}} if $k=l$ there are two possibilities: all leaves are closed in $M \setminus Sing(\F)$, or there exists some compact (regular or singular) leaf with unilateral holonomy}}.\\ {\bf{Example .2}} The foliation of example .7 is an occurrence of theorem .1, case {\em{(ii)}} with all leaves closed. The Reeb foliation of $S^3$ and each foliation we may obtain from it, with the introduction of $l=k$ trivial couples center-saddle, are examples of theorem .1, case {\em{(ii)}}, with a leaf with unilateral holonomy. Now we consider other possibilities for $Sing(\F)$.\\ {\bf{Definition .3}} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one foliation on a compact manifold $M^n, n\geq 3$, with singular set $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. We say that $Sing(\F)$ is {\em{regular}} if its connected components are either isolated points or smoothly embedded curves, diffeomorphic to $S^1$. We extend the definition of stability to regular components, by saying that a connected component $\Gamma \subset Sing(\F)$ is {\em{(weakly) stable}}, if there exists a neighborhood of $\Gamma$, where the foliation has all leaves compact (notice that we can repeat the proof of Lemma .7 and obtain that a weakly stable component is a stable component). In the case $Sing(\F)$ is regular, with stable isolated singularities, when $n \geq 3$ we may exclude a Haefliger-type result, as a consequence of Lemma .5 and the Reeb Global Stability Theorem for manifolds with boundary. Then we study the case $Sing(\F)$ regular, with stable components, all diffeomorphic to $S^1$. Let $J$ be a set such that for all $j \in J$, the curve $\gamma_j:S^1 \rightarrow M$, is a smooth embedding and $\Gamma_j:= \gamma_j(S^1) \subset Sing(\F)$ is stable. Then $J$ is a finite set. This is obvious, otherwise $\forall j \in J$, we may select a point $x_j \in \Gamma_j$ and obtain that the set $\{x_j \}_{j \in J}$ has an accumulation point. But this is not possible because the singular components are separated. We may regard a singular component $\Gamma_j$, as a {\em{degenerate leaf}}, in the sense that we may associate to it, a single point of the space of leaves. We need the following definition\\ {\bf{Definition .4}} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one foliation on a compact manifold $M$. Let $\overline{D^2}$ be the closed 2-disc and $g:\overline{D^2} \rightarrow M$ be a $C^ \infty$ map. We say that $p \in \overline{D^2}$ is a {\em{tangency point of $g$ with $\F$}} if $(\textrm{d}g)_p (\R^2) \subset T_{g(p)} \F_{g(p)}.$ We recall a proposition which Haefliger's theorem (cfr. the book ) is based upon.\\ {\bf{Proposition .5}} {\em{Let $A: \overline{D^2} \rightarrow M$ be a $C^ \infty$ map, such that the restriction $A|_{\partial D^2}$ is transverse to $\F$, i.e. $\forall x \in \partial D^2,(\textrm{d}A)_x(T_x (\partial D^2))+ T_{A(x)} \F_{A(x)}=T_{A(x)}M$. Then, for every $\epsilon >0$ and every integer $r \geq 2$, there exists a $C^ \infty$ map, $g: \overline{D^2} \rightarrow M$, $\epsilon$-near $A$ in the $C^r$-topology, satisfying the following properties: {\em{(i)}} $g|_{\partial D^2}$ is transverse to $\F$. {\em{(ii)}} For every point $p \in D^2$ of tangency of $g$ with $\F$, there exists a foliation box $U$ of $\F$ with $g(p) \in U$ and a distinguished map $\pi:U \rightarrow \R$ such that $p$ is a non-degenerate singularity of $\pi \circ g:g^{-1}(U) \rightarrow \R$. In particular there are only a finite number of tangency points of $g$ with $\F$, since they are isolated, and they are contained in the open disc $D^2=\{z \in \R^2:||z||<1\}$. {\em{(iii)}} If $T=\{p_1, \dots, p_t \}$ is the set of tangency points of $g$ with $\F$, then $g(p_i)$ and $g(p_j)$ are contained in distinct leaves of $\F$, for every $i \neq j$. In particular, the singular foliation $g^*(\F)$ has no saddle connections.}} We are now able to prove a similar result, in the case of existence of singular components.\\{\bf{Proposition .6}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a codimension one, $C^ \infty$ foliation on a compact manifold $M^n$, $n \geq 3$, with regular singular set, $Sing(\F) = \cup _{j \in J} \Gamma_j \neq \varnothing$, where $\Gamma_j$ are all stable components diffeomorphic to $S^1$ and $J$ is finite. Let $A: \overline{D^2} \rightarrow M$ be a $C^ \infty$ map, such that the restriction $A|_{\partial D^2}$ is transverse to $\F$. Then, for every $\epsilon >0$ and every integer $r \geq 2$, there exists a $C^ \infty$ map, $g: \overline{D^2} \rightarrow M$, $\epsilon$-near $A$ in the $C^r$-topology, satisfying properties {\em{(i)}} and {\em{(iii)}} of proposition .5, while {\em{(ii)}} is changed in: {\em{(ii')}} for every point $p \in D^2$ of tangency of $g$ with $\F$, we have two cases: (1) if $L_{g(p)}$ is a regular leaf of $\F$, there exists a foliation box, $U$ of $\F$, with $g(p) \in U$, and a distinguished map, $\pi:U \rightarrow \R$, satisfying properties as in {\em{(ii)}} of Proposition .5; (2) if $L_{g(p)}$ is a degenerate leaf of $\F$, there exists a neighborhood, $U$ of $p$, and a singular submersion, $\pi:U \rightarrow \R$, satisfying properties as in {\em{(ii)}} Proposition .5.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} We start by recalling the idea of the classical proof.\\ We choose a finite covering of $A(\overline{D^2})$ by foliation boxes $\{Q_i\}^r_{i=1}$. In each $Q_i$ the foliation is defined by a distinguished map, the submersion $\pi_i:Q_i \rightarrow \R$. We choose an atlas, $\{(Q_i, \phi_i)\} ^r_{i=1}$, such that the last component of $\phi_i:Q_i \rightarrow \R^n$ is $\pi_i$, i.e. $\phi_i=(\phi_i^1, \phi_i^2, \dots , \phi_i^{n-1}, \pi_i)$. We construct the finite cover of $\overline{D^2}$, $\{W_i=A^{-1}(Q_i)\}^r_{i=1}$; the expression of $A$ in coordinates is $A|_{W_i}=(A_i^1, \dots , A_i^{n-1}, \pi_i \circ A)$. We may choose covers of $\overline{D^2}$, $\{U_i \}_{i=1}^r$, $\{V_i \}_{i=1}^r$, such that $\overline{U_i} \subset V_i \subset \overline {V_i} \subset W_i$, $i=1, \dots , r$; then we proceed by induction on the number $i$. Starting with $i=1$ and setting $g_0=A$, we apply a result (, Cap. VI, $\S$2, Lemma 1, pag. 120) and we modify $g_{i-1}$ in a new function $g_i$, in a way that $g_i(W_i) \subset Q_i$ and $\pi_i \circ g_i:W_i \rightarrow \R$ is Morse on the subset $U_i \subset W_i$. At last we set $g=g_r$. In the present case, essentially, it is enough to choose a set of couples, $\{(U_k,\pi_k)\}_{k \in K}$, where $\{U_k\}_{k \in K}$ is an open covering of $M$, $\pi_k:U_k \rightarrow \R$, for $k \in K$, is a (possibly singular) submersion and, if $U_k \cap U_l \neq \varnothing$ for a couple of indices $k,l \in K$, there exists a diffeomorphism $p_{lk}:\pi_k(U_k \cap U_l) \rightarrow \pi_l(U_k \cap U_l)$, such that $\pi_l=p_{lk}\circ \pi_k$. By hypothesis, there exists the set of couples $\{(U_i,\pi_i)\}_{i \in I}$, where $\{U_i\}_{i \in I}$, is an open covering of $M \setminus Sing(\F)$, and, for $i \in I$, the map $\pi_i:U_i \rightarrow \R$, is a distinguished map, defining the foliated manifold $(M \setminus Sing(\F), \F^*)$. Let $y \in Sing(\F)$, then $y \in \Gamma_j$, for some $j \in J$. As $y \in M$, there exists a neighborhood $C \ni y$, homeomorphic to an $n$-ball. Let $h:C \rightarrow \bo^n$ be such a homeomorphism. As the map $\gamma_j:S^1 \rightarrow \Gamma_j$ is a smooth embedding, we may suppose that, locally, $\Gamma_j$ is sent in a diameter of the ball $\bo^n$, i.e. $h(C \cap \Gamma_j)=\{x_2=\dots =x_n=0 \}$. For each singular point $z=h^{-1}(b,0,\dots,0)$, the set $D=h^{-1}(b,x_2,\dots ,x_n)$, homeomorphic to a small $(n-1)$-ball, is transverse to the foliation at $z$. Moreover, if $z_1 \neq z_2$, then $D_1 \cap D_2=\varnothing$. The restriction $\F|_D$ is a singular foliation with an isolated stable singularity at $z$. By lemma .5, the leaves of $\F|_D$ are diffeomorphic to $(n-2)$-spheres. It turns out that $y$ has a neighborhood homeomorphic to the product $(-1,1) \times \bo^{n-1}$, where the foliation is the image of the singular trivial foliation of $(-1,1) \times \bo^{n-1}$, given by $(-1,1) \times S^{n-2}\times \{t \}, t \in (0,1)$, with singular set $(-1,1) \times \{0 \}$. Let $\pi_y:U_y \rightarrow[0,1)$ be the projection. If, for a couple of singular points $y,w \in Sing(\F)$, we have $U_y \cap U_w \neq \varnothing$, we may suppose they belong to the same connected component, $\Gamma_j$. We have $\pi_w \circ \pi_y^{-1}(0)=0$ and, as a consequence of lemma .6, there exists a diffeomorphism between $\pi_y(U_y \cap U_w \setminus \Gamma_j)$ and $\pi_w(U_y \cap U_w \setminus \Gamma_j)$. The same happens if $U_y \cap U_i \neq \varnothing$ for some $U_i \subset M \setminus Sing(\F)$. It comes out that $\pi_y$ is singular on $U_y \cap Sing(\F)$ and non-singular on $U_y \setminus Sing(\F)$, i.e. $(d \pi_y)_z=0 \Leftrightarrow z \in U_y \cap Sing(\F)$. At the end, we set $K=I \cup Sing(\F)$.\\ Let $g: \overline{D^2} \rightarrow M$ be a map. Then $g$ defines the foliation $g^*(\F)$, pull-back of $\F$, on $\overline{D^2}$. Observe that if $Sing(\F)= \varnothing$, then $Sing(g^*(\F))=\{ \textrm{tangency points of }g \textrm{ with } \F \}$, but in the present case, as $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$, we have $Sing(g^*(\F))=\{ \textrm{tangency points of }g \textrm{ with } \F \} \cup g^*(Sing(\F))$. Either if $p$ is a point of tangency of $g$ with $\F$ or if $p \in g^*(Sing(\F))$, we have $d(\pi_k)_p=0$. With this remark, we may follow the classical proof. As a consequence of proposition .6, we have:\\ {\bf{Theorem .7 (Haefliger's theorem for singular foliations)}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a codimension one, $C^2$, possibly singular foliation of an $n$-manifold $M$, with $Sing(\F)$, (empty or) regular and with stable components diffeomorphic to $S^1$. Suppose there exists a closed curve transverse to $\F$, homotopic to a point. Then there exists a leaf with unilateral holonomy.}} \section{Novikov-type theorems} We end this article with a result based on the original Novikov's Compact Leaf Theorem and on the notion of stable singular set. To this aim, we premise the following remark. Novikov's statement establishes the existence of a compact leaf for foliations on 3-manifolds with finite fundamental group. This result actually proves the existence of an invariant submanifold, say $N \subset M$, with boundary, such that $\F|_N$ contains open leaves whose universal covering is the plane. Moreover these leaves accumulate to the compact leaf of the boundary. In what follows, a submanifold with the above properties will be called a {\em{Novikov component}}. In particular a Novikov component may be a Reeb component, i.e. a solid torus endowed with its Reeb foliation. We recall that two Reeb components, glued together along the boundary by means of a diffeomorphism which sends meridians in parallels and viceversa, give the classical example of the Reeb foliation of $S^3$.\\ If $\F$ is a Morse foliation of a 3-manifold, as all saddles have index 1 or 2, we are always in conditions of proposition .2 and then we are reduced to consider just two (opposite) cases: {\em{(i)}} all singularities are centers, {\em{(ii)}} all singularities are saddles. In case {\em{(i)}}, by the proof of the Reeb Sphere Theorem .4, we know that all leaves are compact; in case {\em{(ii)}}, all leaves may be open and dense, as it is shown by an example of a foliation of $S^3$ with Morse singularities and no compact leaves .\\ As in the previous paragraph, we study the case in which $Sing(\F)$ is regular with stable components, $\Gamma_j, j \in J$, where $J$ is a finite set. We have:\\ {\bf{Theorem .1}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one foliation on a closed $3$-manifold $M^3$. Suppose $Sing(\F)$ is (empty or) regular, with stable components. Then we have two possibilities: {\em{(i)}} all leaves of $\F$ are compact; {\em{(ii)}} $\F$ has a Novikov component.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} If $Sing(\F)= \varnothing$, thesis (case {\em{(ii)}}) follows by Novikov theorem. Let $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. We may suppose that $\F$ is transversely orientable (otherwise we pass to the transversely orientable double covering). If $Sing(\F)$ contains an isolated singularity, as we know, we are in case {\em{(i)}}. Then we suppose $Sing(\F)$ contains no isolated singularity, i.e. $Sing(\F)= \bigcup_{j \in J} \Gamma_j$. Set $\mathcal D(\F)= \{\Gamma_j, j \in J \} \cup \{ \textrm{ compact leaves with trivial holonomy} \}$. By the Reeb Local Stability Theorem .1, $\mathcal D(\F)$ is open. We may have $\partial \mathcal D(\F)= \varnothing$, and then we are in case {\em{(i)}}, or $\partial \mathcal D(\F)\neq \varnothing$, and in this case it contains a leaf with unilateral holonomy, $F$. It is clear that $F$ bounds a Novikov component, and then we are in case {\em{(ii)}}; in fact, from one side, $F$ is accumulated by open leaves. If $F'$ is one accumulating leaf, then its universal covering is $p:\R^2 \rightarrow F'$. Suppose, by contraddiction, that the universal covering of $F'$ is $p:S^2 \rightarrow F'$. By the Reeb Global Stability Theorem for manifolds with boundary, all leaves are compact, diffeomorphic to $p(S^2)$. This concludes the proof since $F$ must have infinite fundamental group. The last result may be reread in terms of the existence of closed curves, transverse to the foliation. We have:\\ {\bf{Lemma .2}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a codimension one, $C^ \infty$ foliation on a closed $3$-manifold $M$, with singular set, $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$, regular, with stable components. Then $\F$ is a foliation with all leaves compact if and only if there exist no closed transversals.}}\\ {\em{Proof.}} (Sufficiency) If the foliation admits an open (in $M \setminus Sing(\F)$) leaf, $L$, it is well known that we may find a closed curve, intersecting $L$, transverse to the foliation. Viceversa (necessity), let $\F$ be a foliation with all leaves compact. If necessary, we pass to the transversely orientable double covering $p:(\widetilde{M}, \widetilde{\F}) \rightarrow (M,\F)$. In this way, we apply Lemma .6 and obtain, as $Sing(\widetilde{\F}) \neq \varnothing$, that the projection onto the space of leaves is a (global) $C^ \infty$ first integral of $\widetilde{\F}$, $f:\widetilde{M} \rightarrow [0,1] \subset \R$. Suppose, by contraddiction, that there exists a $C^1$ closed transversal to the foliation $\F$, the curve $\gamma:S^1 \rightarrow M$. The lifting of $\gamma^2$ is a closed curve, $\Gamma:S^1 \rightarrow \widetilde{M}$, transverse to $\widetilde{\F}$. The set $f(\Gamma(S^1))$ is compact and then has maximum and minimum, $m_1,m_2 \in \R$. A contraddiction, because $\Gamma$ cannot be transverse to the leaves $\{ f^{-1}(m_1) \}, \{ f^{-1}(m_2)\}$. With this result, we may rephrase the previous theorem.\\ {\bf{Corollary .3}} {\em{Let $\F$ be a codimension one, $C^ \infty$ foliation on a $3$-manifold $M$, such that $Sing(\F)$ is regular with stable components. Then {\em{(i)}} there are no closed transversals, or equivalently, $\F$ is a foliation by compact leaves, {\em{(ii)}} there exists a closed transversal, or equivalently, $\F$ has a Novikov component.}}\\ {\bf{Remark .4}} In the situation we are considering, we cannot state a singular version of Auxiliary Theorem I (see, for example ). In fact, even though a singular version of Haefliger Theorem is given, the existence of a closed curve transverse the foliation, homotopic to a constant, does not lead, in general, to the existence of a vanishing cycle, as it is shown by the following counterexample.\\ {\bf{Example .5}} We consider the foliation of $S^3$ given by a Reeb component, $ST_1$, glued (through a diffeomorphism of the boundary which interchanges meridians with parallels) to a solid torus $ST_2= S^1 \times \overline{D^2}=T^2 \times (0,1) \cup S^1$. The torus $ST_2$ is endowed with the singular trivial foliation $\F|_{ST_2}=T^2 \times \{t \}$, for $t \in (0,1)$, where $Sing(\F|_{ST_2})=S^1=Sing(\F)$. As a closed transversal to the foliation, we consider the curve $\gamma:S^1 \rightarrow ST_1 \subset S^3$, drawed in figure . Let $f:\overline{D^2} \rightarrow S^3$ be an extension of $\gamma$; the extension $f$ is assumed to be in general position with respect to $\F$, as a consequence of proposition .5. As $\gamma(S^1)$ is linked to the singular component $S^1 \subset ST_2$, then $f(\overline{D^2}) \cap Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. As a consequence, we find a decreasing sequence of cycles, $\{\beta_n \}$, (the closed curves of the picture) which does not admit a cycle, $\beta_\infty$, such that $\beta_n > \beta _\infty$, for all $n$. In fact the ``limit'' of the sequence is not a cycle, but the point $f(\overline{D^2}) \cap Sing(\F) $. \\ {\bf{Example .6}} The different situations of Theorem .1 or Corollary .3 may be exemplified as follows. It is easy to see that $S^3$ admits a singular foliation with all leaves compact (diffeomorphic to $T^2$) and two singular (stable) components linked together, diffeomorphic to $S^1$. In fact one can verify that $S^3$ is the union of two solid tori, $ST_1$ and $ST_2$, glued together along the boundary, both endowed with a singular trivial foliation.\\ We construct another foliation on $S^3$, modifying the previous one. We set $\widetilde{ST_1}=S^1 \times \{0 \} \cup T^2 \times (0,1/2]$. In this way, $ST_1= \widetilde{ST_1} \cup T^2 \times (1/2,1]$. We now modify the foliation in $ST_1 \setminus \widetilde{ST_1}$, by replacing the trivial foliation with a foliation with cylindric leaves accumulating to the two components of the boundary. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem[Cam-LN]{Cam} C. Camacho, A. Lins Neto: Geometric theory of foliations, Boston, Birkhauser, 1985 \bibitem[Cam-Sc]{Ca-Sca} C. Camacho, B. Sc\'ardua: On codimension one foliations with Morse singularities on three-manifolds, Topology and its Applications 154 (2007) 1032-1040. \bibitem[Ee-Kui]{Ku-Ee} J. Eells, N.H. Kuiper: Manifolds which are like projective planes, Pub. Math. de l'I.H.E.S., 14, 1962. \bibitem[God]{God} C. Godbillon: Feuilletages, etudies geometriques, Basel, Birkhauser, 1991 \bibitem[Law]{Law} H.B. Lawson, jr.: Foliations, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 80, N. 3, May 1974. \bibitem[Mil 1]{Mil1} J. Milnor: Morse theory, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1963. \bibitem[Mil 2]{Mil2} J. Milnor: Lectures on the h-cobordism theorem, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1965. \bibitem[Mor-Sc]{Mo-Sca} C.A. Morales, B. Sc\'ardua: Geometry and Topology of foliated manifolds. \bibitem[Nov]{Nov} S.P. Novikov: Topology of foliations. Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obshch. 14 (1965), 248-278. \bibitem[Pal-deM]{Palis} J. Palis, jr., W. de Melo: Geometric theory of dinamical systems: an introduction, New-York, Springer,1982. \bibitem[Reeb]{Reeb} G. Reeb: Sur les points singuliers d'une forme de Pfaff compl\`etement int\'egrable ou d'une fonction num\'erique. CRAS 222 (1946), 847-849. \bibitem[Ros-Rou]{Ros-Rou} H. Rosemberg, R. Roussarie: Some remarks on stability of foliations, J. Diff. Geom. 10, 1975, 207-219. \bibitem[Stee]{Stee} N. Steenrod: The topology of fiber bundles, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1951 \bibitem[Thu]{Thu} W.P. Thurston: Three-dimensional geometry and topology, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1997. \bibitem[Wag]{Wag} E. Wagneur: Formes de Pfaff \`a singularit\'es non d\'eg\'en\'er\'ees, Annales de l'institut Fourier, tome 28 n. 3 (1978), p. 165-176. \end{thebibliography} We construct an open cover of $A(D^2)$. \\For a regular point, $y \in A(D^2) \setminus Sing(\F)$, there exists a foliation box around $y$, $(Q_y, \pi_y)$. We may choose $Q_y$ with the property $Q_y \cap L=\{ \textrm{a single plaque}\}$ for each compact leaf $L$. The distinguished map, $\pi_y$, is, actually, the projection onto the space of plaques, $\pi_y: Q_y \rightarrow \bo^1$. Clearly, we have $Q_y \cap S_j= \varnothing$, $\forall j \in J$. Now, let $y \in Sing (\F)$, then $y \in S_j$ for some $j \in J$. Let $U_j$ be a neighborhood of $S_j$, where all leaves are compact. As the codimension is one, all leaves in $U_j$ have finite holonomy and by Reeb Local Stability Theorem .1, the restriction of the space of leaves, $U_j/_{\F|_{U_j}}$ is Hausdorff, a semiclosed interval. Then $\F|_{U_j}$ has a first integral, the projection onto the restriction of the space of leaves, the real function $\pi^j:U_j \rightarrow \R$. As $y \in M$, $y$ has a neighborhood, $\widetilde{Q_y}$, homeomorphic to an $n$-ball. We may assume $\widetilde{Q_y} \subset U_j$ and we set $\widetilde{\pi_y}=\pi^j|_{\widetilde{Q_y}}$. The couple $(\widetilde{Q_y},\widetilde{\pi_y})$ replaces a foliation box around a singularity. If $y,z \in Sing(\F)$ and $\widetilde{Q_y} \cap \widetilde{Q_z} \neq \varnothing$, it is not restrictive to suppose they both intersect the same connected component, $S_j \subset Sing(\F)$. In this case $\pi_y|_{\widetilde{Q_y } \cap \widetilde{Q_z}}=\pi_z|_{\widetilde{Q_y} \cap \widetilde{Q_z}}$.\\ If, for some $y,z \in M$, $\widetilde{Q_y} \cap Q_z \neq \varnothing$, it is, obviously, $\big(\widetilde{Q_y} \cap Q_z \big) \cap Sing(\F)= \varnothing$ and, by lemma .3, the change of coodinates in the intersection $\widetilde{Q_y} \cap Q_z$ is a diffeomorphism.\\ We may select a finite subcover $Q_1, \dots, Q_k, \widetilde{Q_{k+1}}, \dots ,\widetilde{Q_{k+l}}$ of the above open cover of $A(D^2)$. At this point we can proceed as in the classical proof.\\ Let $h:\bo ^n \rightarrow U_j$, $h(0)=y$, be such a homeomorphism. $h^{-1}(S_j) \subset x_1$-axis. Then $T_y=h(\{\sum_{i=2}^n x_i^2<1\})$ is an $(n-1)$-ball transverse to $S_j$ at $y$. Let $z=h(c,0 \dots ,0) \in S_j$, $0<c<1$. Then $T_z=T_y+z-y$ is an $(n-1)$-ball transverse to $S_j$ at $z$. Moreover $T_y \cap T_z =\varnothing$. Consider $\mathcal{G}=\F|_{T_y}$. $\mathcal{G}$ is a singular foliation with all leaves compact and an isolated singularity at $y$, defined by a real function. Then $y$ is a stable singularity for $\mathcal{G}$ and, by lemma , all leaves are diffeomorphic to spheres. The same happens for $\mathcal{G'}=\F|_{T_z}$. At last, it is proved that, $\forall y \in S_j$, there exists a neighborhood, $Q_y$ of $y$, and a diffeomorphism $h_y:\bo^{n-1} \times (-1,1) \rightarrow Q_y$, where the foliation is the pull-forward of the trivial foliation $S^{n-2} \times (-1,1)$. \begin{titlepage} \thispagestyle{empty} \begin{center} \Large{UNIVERSIT\`A DEGLI STUDI DI FIRENZE}\\ \large{{\sc Dottorato di Ricerca in Matematica}\\ {\sc XVIII ciclo, anni 2003--2005}} \end{center} \vspace{2.0cm} \begin{center} \LARGE{Tesi di Dottorato}\\ \LARGE{Lilia Rosati} \end{center} \vspace{0.2cm} \begin{center} \huge{\textbf{ \uppercase{On codimension one foliations with Morse singularities}}} \end{center} \vspace{\stretch{1}} \noindent \Large{\textbf{Direttore della ricerca}: Prof.\ Bruno Sc\'ardua\\ \textbf{Coordinatore del dottorato}: Prof.\ Mario Primicerio} \end{titlepage} \clearpage{\pagestyle{empty}{\cleardoublepage}} \pagebreak \tableofcontents \listoffigures \chapter{Introduction} A differential equation has an interesting geometric interpretation. In fact it defines a vector field in the ambient space, we suppose for example in $\R^n$. In conditions of existence and uniqueness, its solutions are the trajectories of the associated vector field and, in the autonomous case, the set of solutions determines a partition of an open set of $\R^n$ by means of curves, a collection of submanifolds of $\R^n$ of dimension one.\\ The idea at the base of foliations is very similar: a foliation is a partition of the ambient manifold in submanifolds of lower dimension, the leaves. A more proper word for leaf should be {\em{folium}} as a foliation is a {\em{pile}} of such objects.\\ The connection between vector fields and foliations may be extended to plane-fields and foliations by means of a basic result, Frobenius' Theorem (19th century).\\ The first works about foliations are due to Charles Ehresmann and Georges Reeb (1940's); in particular the latter author proves a fundamental result which, in case of presence of a compact leaf, guarantees its stability if it has finite holonomy. However, the idea of foliations has its origins at the end of 19th century, when P. Painlev\'e conjectured a theory of foliations to better understand problems in the study of holomorphic differential equations in the complex field. Another distinguished mathematician, Heinz Hopf, has some credit in the development of foliations. If we do not admit the existence of singularities in a foliation, as it was done historically, there exist no foliations on the sphere $S^2$. On the contrary, Hopf's fibration, a map from $S^3$ onto $S^2$ defines a foliation of $S^3$ with leaves of dimension one. The natural question arises whether there exists on $S^3$ a foliation of dimension {\em{two}} (Hopf, 1930's). An example was given by Reeb himself, and it was emblematical at the light of further developments of the theory. The Reeb foliation of $S^3$ is a foliation with a single compact leaf, homeomorphic to a torus, with all the other leaves open and homeomorphic to planes, asintotically accumulating to the compact leaf. Reeb's work spurred other mathematicians, such as Arthur Haefliger. In his thesis in 1958, Haefliger proved that there exist no analytic foliations on $S^3$. After that, the interest towards foliations was resumed with a new question: ``Is it true that each foliation on $S^3$ of dimension 2 has a compact leaf?''. In 1965, Novikov proves that this is the case; consequently the example of the Reeb foliation of $S^3$ is essentially the only possible 2-dimensional foliation of $S^3$.\\ One of the motivations to the study of foliations was the research of non homotopic invariants for the classification of 3-manifolds. In other words, it was guessed that the existence or the non-existence of a foliation might give information on the topology of the manifold itself. At this concern, John W. Milnor defined the rank of a manifold as the higher number of linearly independent commuting vector fields that may be defined on a manifold and he proposed the problem to determine the rank of $S^3$. If an $n$-manifold has rank $l\leq n$ there exists an action of the additive group $\R^l$ on the manifold. In 1963 Elon Lages Lima proved that a simply connected compact manifold has rank one. Later H. Rosemberg, R. Roussarie and D. Weil classified compact 3-manifolds with rank 2. In the general problem of the topological classification of manifolds on the basis of the possible foliations that they admit, we may set the ``Reeb Sphere Theorem'' which states the following: A manifold which admits a transversely orientable foliation with exactly two non-degenerate singularities of center-type is homeomorphic to the sphere.\\ Having in mind the approach of Reeb, it is quite natural to ask which information about local or global properties of a foliation -or about the topology of the manifold- we may infer if we admit the possibility that $Sing(\F)$, the set of singularities of the foliation $\F$, contains some saddle-type singularities.\\ If, as in the Novikov's Compact Leaf Theorem, we are interested to state the existence, or non-existence, of a compact leaf in the foliation, it is clear that we need further hypotheses. In fact an example due to Rosemberg and Roussarie illustrates the case of a foliation on $S^3$ with Morse singularities and no compact leaves. A stronger result due to Wagneur states that, on a manifold $M$ of dimension $n$, for $n \geq 3$, there always exists a completely integrable one-form $\omega$, with Morse singularities, all of saddle-type. This result shows that the existence of a foliation whose (Morse) singularities are all of saddle-type gives no information on the topology of the ambient manifold. These considerations lead to assume the hypothesis of the coexistence of centers and saddles in $Sing(\F)$.\\ Wagneur considers $C^ \infty,$ codimension one foliations defined by completely integrable one-forms (the one-form defines a transverse orientation of the foliation) with isolated singularities. In the paper Camacho and Scardua consider a very similar situation, i.e. codimension one $C^\infty$ foliations with non-degenerate (isolated) singularities. This is a particular case of the previous one, provided we assume the hypothesis of transverse orientation. In the present dissertation we keep on with Camacho and Scardua's approach and the hypothesis of transverse orientation is not always assumed.\\ With the purpose of comparing the above mentioned results we describe briefly Wagneur's work. He introduces the concept of a singular leaf; if $F$ denotes a leaf of the foliation, a {\em{singular leaf}} is a set of the form $$F \cup \{a \in Sing(\F)|F \cup \{a\} \textrm{is arcwise connected}\}.$$ The problem of one-forms' stability is considered by Wagneur. He states that a foliation defined by an integrable one-form $\omega$ is stable if and only if the saddle singularities in the linear part of $\omega$ have index different from 2. Later on Wagneur defines the set of one-forms with non-degenerate singularities and analizes the problem of stability in connection with the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item[] P1 $\;\quad$ all saddle singularities of index 1 belong to two different leaves. \item[] P2 $\;\quad$ Each singular leaf contains a single singular point. \item[] P'2 $\!\quad$ Each singular leaf with trivial holonomy contains a single singular point. \item[] P3 $\;\quad$ the one-form $\omega$ does not have compact leaves. \end{itemize} The main result of Wagneur's paper is the following \begin{teor}[Wagneur] The singular set $Sing(\F)$ is always such that $k \leq l+2$, where $k$ is the number of centers and $l$ the number of saddles of the foliation. Moreover: in the case $k=l+2$, one has \begin{enumerate} \item $M$ is homeomorphic to $S^n$; \item all saddle singularities are of type $1\!\!-\!\!(n-1)$; \item regular leaves (resp. singular) are diffeomorphic (resp. homeomorphic) to $S^{n-1}$; \item $\omega$ has a global first integral of $C^1$ class; \item in a generic situation $\omega$ is 1-stable. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} Wagneur's paper is very interesting but we have to work hard to appreciate it. In fact many of the results that Wagneur uses to prove the main theorem are only announced in .\\ Our Center-Saddle Theorem , uses a slightly weaker hypothesis with respect to theorem . Observe that we suppose $k \geq l+2$ only if we have no information about transverse orientability. Otherwise we assume $k \geq l+1$. On the other hand, transverse orientation is implicitly assumed by Wagneur when he considers foliations defined by one-forms. Camacho and Scardua's paper follows a geometrical approach to the problem, as opposed to Wagneur's analytic approach. In this thesis we share Camacho and Scardua's point of view, we describe results in a systematic way and we give detailed proofs.\\ In our work we essentially investigate three aspects: a possible extension of the Reeb Sphere Theorem (Reeb Sphere-type theorems), a possible extension of Haefliger's theorem (Haefliger-type theorems) and a possible extension of the Novikov's Compact Leaf Theorem. Before searching into these directions, we carry on a preliminar work. In different contexts we admit different singular sets; we start with non-degenerate singularities, but we also consider some cases of a degenerate but regular singular set, i.e. a set with the property that its connected components have a fundamental system of compact ``invariant'' neighborhoods. The following classical result will be useful. \begin{lemma}[Morse Lemma] Let $f:M \rightarrow \R$ be a smooth function and let $p$ be a non-degenerate critical point for $f$. Then there is a local coordinate system $(y^1, \dots ,y^n)$ in a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ with $y^i(p)=0$ for all $i$ and such that the identity $$f=f(p)-(y^1)^2- \dots -(y^l)^2+(y^{l+1})^2+ \dots +(y^n)^2$$ holds through $U$, where the integer $l$ is the index of $f$ at $p$. \end{lemma} In case $Sing(\F)$ contains centers and/or regular components, the Reeb Stability Theorems may replace the Poincar\'e-Bendixon's theorem in higher dimensions (see section for details). These theorems are a basic and recurrent tool in our research. \begin{teor}[Reeb Local Stability Theorem] Let $\F$ be a $C^1$, codimension $k$ foliation of a manifold $M$ and $F$ a compact leaf with finite holonomy group. There exists a neighborhood $U$ of $F$, saturated in $\F$, in which all the leaves are compact with finite holonomy groups. Further we can define a retraction $\pi:U \rightarrow F$ such that, for every leaf $F' \subset U$, $\pi|_{F'} : F' \rightarrow F$ is a covering with a finite number of sheets and, for each $y \in F$, $\pi^{-1}(y)$ is homeomorphic to a disk of dimension $k$ and is transverse to $\F$. The neighborhood $U$ can be taken to be arbitrarily small. \end{teor} \begin{teor}[Reeb Global Stability Theorem] Let $\F$ be a $C^1$, codimension one foliation of a closed manifold $M$. If $\F$ contains a compact leaf $F$ with finite fundamental group then all the leaves of $\F$ are compact with finite fundamental group. If $\F$ is transversely orientable then every leaf of $\F$ is diffeomorphic to $F$; $M$ is the total space of a fibration $f:M \rightarrow S^1$ over $S^1$ with fibre $F$; and $\F$ is the fibre foliation $\{f^{-1}(\theta)| \theta \in S^1 \}$. \end{teor} Our plan is the following. In chapter 2 we list definitions and main theorems about regular foliations (classic theory) and singular foliations. This includes, among other things, a new definition of foliation on a manifold $M$ with boundary (tangent or transverse to the boundary) which extends the classic definition in the case $\partial M= \varnothing$ (see, e.g., ). Moreover we present an example of a foliation on $S^3$ slightly different from the Reeb foliation and a study of some properties of the set $\partial \C_p(\F)$. Here $\C_p(\F)$ is the connected component of some center $p$ in $\C(\F)$ and $\C(\F)=\{\textrm{centers and leaves diffeomorphic to spheres}\}$. \\ In chapter 3 we go deep into the study of orientability of a foliation in connection with the orientability, or non-orientability, of the ambient manifold. We give simple examples and pictures of different cases.\\ In chapter 4 we study the topology of $\partial \C_p(\F)$ in the case it contains a saddle singularity and we describe all the possibilities that can occur, according to the type of the saddle (we associate the type $l\!\!-\!\!(n-l)$ to a singularity of index $l$ for a foliation of an $n$-manifold). In particular we answer the question ``how many separatrices of the saddle the set $\partial \C_p(\F)$ can contain''. We have the following results. \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one, transversely orientable, Morse foliation of a compact $n$-manifold, $M$, $n \geq 3$. Let $q$ be a $l\!\!-\!\!m$ saddle ($l+m=n$), accumulating to one center $p$. Let $L \subset \C_p(\F)$ be a spherical leaf in a neighborhood $q \in U$, defined by the Morse Lemma. If $l \notin \{1, n-1 \}$, then $\partial \C_p(\F) \setminus \{q \}$ has a single connected component; there exists a leaf $F$ such that $L$ and $F$ intersect different components of $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$, and we have $$\partial \C_p(\F) \simeq S^{n-1}/S^{l-1},$$ $$F \simeq S^{m-1} \times S^l.$$ \end{teor} \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one, transversely orientable, Morse foliation of a compact $n$-manifold, $M$, $n \geq 3$. Let $q$ be a $1\!\!-\!\!(n-1)$ saddle accumulating to one center $p$. Let $L \subset \C_p(\F)$ be a spherical leaf in a neighborhood $q \in U$ defined by the Morse Lemma. Then we have three possibilities: \begin{enumerate} \item $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains a single separatrix of the saddle and is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$. \item $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains both separatrices $S_1$ and $S_2$ of the saddle and is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/S^{n-2}$, i.e. to two copies of $S^{n-1}$ with a common point. Moreover, there exist two leaves $F_i$, $i=1,2$ with the following properties: ``$F_i$ and $L$ intersect different components of $U \setminus S_i$ and $F_i$ is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$''. \item $q$ is a selfconnected saddle and $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/S^0$. $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$ has three connected components and $L$ intersect two of them. Let $F$ be a leaf such that $L$ and $F$ intersect different components of $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$. Then $F$ is homeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^{n-2}$ if $\partial \C_p(\F)$ has trivial holonomy and to $\R \times S^{n-2}$ if not. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} The above results show the existence of couples center-saddle, which are trivial in the sense they affect only an invariant bounded region of the manifold. In particular trivial couples do not affect the topology of the ambient manifold. In chapter 5 we study the ``elimination of singularities''. As an example, we consider the foliation of the torus $\T^2$ defined by the height function (a classic example by Milnor ) and we describe the foliation obtained by eliminating its four singularities, couple by couple. Next, elimination of singularities is extended to couples of saddles. To this aim we are led to extend the definition of holonomy to the invariant set $\partial \C_p(\F)$ containing one singularity. If we denote by $\W^s(q)$ (resp. $\W^u(q)$) the stable (resp. unstable) manifold of the saddle $q$, we have a result about the elimination of saddles; to state this result we need the following: \begin{defin} Given a foliation $\F$ on an $n$-manifold $M^n$, with a couple of saddles $p,q \in Sing(\F)$, {\em{of complementary indices}}, i.e. such that $$dim \W^s(p)= dim \W^s(q)+1,$$ we will say that $p$ and $q$ {\em{connect transversely}} if the stable manifold of $p$, $\W^s(p)$, intersect transversely the unstable manifold of $q$, $\W^u(q)$, in a smooth connection curve $\gamma_{pq}$. Such a connection will be called a {\em{strong stable connection}} between $p$ and $q$. \end{defin} \begin{propos} Given a foliation $\F$ on $M^n$ with a couple of saddles $p,q$ of complementary indices, having a strong stable connection, there exists a dead branch of the couple of saddles, $R \subset M$. So we can obtain a foliation $\tilde \F$ on $M$ with \begin{enumerate} \item $\# Sing(\tilde \F)= \# Sing(\F)-2,$; \item $\tilde \F$ and $\F$ agree on $M \setminus R$; \item $\tilde \F$ is nonsingular in a neighborhood of $R$; indeed $\tilde \F|_R$ is conjugated to a trivial fibration; \item the holonomy of $\tilde \F$ is conjugate to the holonomy of $\F$ in the following sense: given any leaf $L$ of $\F$ such that $L \cap (M \setminus R) \neq \varnothing$, then the corresponding leaf $\tilde L$ of $\tilde F$ satisfies $Hol(\tilde \F, \tilde L)$ is conjugate to $Hol(\F,L)$. \end{enumerate} \end{propos} For a definition of dead branch of the couple of saddles, see section . An example of a foliation with a couple of saddles connecting transversely can be found at the end of chapter 7.\\ In chapter 6 we give our proof of the Reeb Sphere Theorem. Thanks to an intermediate result, the same proof fits foliations with stable singularities, a case of degenerate regular isolated singularities in a neighborhood of which the foliation is defined by the level sets of a function $f$. As a corollary, we reobtain Milnor's version of the Reeb Sphere Theorem. The intermediate result we refer to, is the following: \begin{lemma} In a neighborhood of a stable singularity $p$ for a foliation $\F$, the leaves are diffeomorphic to spheres. \end{lemma} This lemma is also given an alternative proof in the case $f$, the function defining the stable singularity, is non-flat (for details, see example ).\\ Haefliger's theorem is based on Haefliger's theorem for the 2-disc, which states the following: A foliation of the 2-disc, transverse to the boundary, with Morse singularities, has a leaf with ``unilateral holonomy''. Looking for a possible extension of this theorem to the $2n$-ball, we find a result which states a sharp distinction between the case $n=1$ and $n>1$. In fact, as for the number $k$ of centers and $l$ of saddles of the foliation, it is known that for $n=1$ we have $k \geq l$; on the other hand, for Morse foliations (for the definition, see ), we have: \begin{teor} For $n \geq 2$, in a codimension one, $C^\infty$, Morse foliation of the compact $2n$-ball, transverse to the boundary sphere $S^{2n-1}$, we have $k\leq l$, where $k$ is the number of centers and $l$ is the number of saddles of the foliation. \end{teor} The following case excludes, in a foliation, the existence of a leaf with ``unilateral holonomy''. \begin{teor} If $\F$ is a $C^ \infty$, codimension one Morse foliation of a $n$-manifold, $M^n$, $n \geq 3$, satisfying the hypothesis $k \geq l+1$ about the number $k$ of centers and the number $l$ of saddles, then $\F$ is (an inverse modification of the first type of) a singular foliation by compact leaves. \end{teor} The research of Haefliger-type theorems leads to another Reeb Sphere-type theorem, one of our main results. \begin{teor} [Center-Saddle Theorem for $n>3$] Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one Morse foliation on a closed $n$-manifold, $M^n$, $n>3$. Let $k$ be the number of centers and $l$ the number of saddles in $Sing(\F)$. If either $k \geq l+1$ and $\F$ is transversely orientable or $k \geq l+2$, then $M^n$ is homeomorphic to $S^n$. \end{teor} Many results of this chapter are resumed in the following theorem. \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one, Morse foliation on a compact manifold $M^n$ assumed to be transversely orientable, but not necessary closed. We have the following possibilities: \begin{quote} \item $i) \; \;$ $k \geq l+1$. $\F$ is a foliation by spheres as in corollary . \item $ii) \:$ $k=l$. There are two possibilities: \item $\qquad a)$ $\F$ is a foliation by compact leaves, except for the separatrices of the saddles, or \item $\qquad b)$ there exists some compact leaf or graph with ``one-sided holonomy''; \item $iii)$ $k<l$. \end{quote} \end{teor} We complete this chapter with many examples and a nice representation of the space of leaves in the case of singular foliations with $k \geq l+1$.\\ In order to find an extension of the Novikov Compact Leaf Theorem (the subject of the last chapter), we are led to reformulate Novikov's theorem thesis. In fact we are interested to state the existence of a ``Novikov component'' (the fact actually proved by Novikov). Moreover, as we consider the case $n=3$, the only possible type for a saddle is $1\!\!-\!\!2$; this means that dealing with Morse foliations, we are led to the following cases \begin{enumerate} \item $k>0,l=0$ and then $\F$ is a foliation by spheres; \item $k=l=0$. In this case we can apply the classic Novikov Compact Leaf Theorem; \item $l>0, k=0$. This is the case of the example of Rosemberg and Roussarie . \end{enumerate} Then we pass to consider a singular set with regular components given by smoothly embedded curves, diffeomorphic to $S^1$. As the Novikov's Theorem is based on Haefliger's Theorem, we extend a classic proposition which, on turn, extends the proof of Haefliger's theorem to the singular case we are considering. As a consequence, we prove: \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$ codimension one foliation on a closed $3$-manifold $M^3$ with finite fundamental group. Suppose $Sing(\F)$ is regular and $C^0$-stable. Then we have two possibilities: \begin{enumerate} \item all leaves of $\F$ are compact \item $\F$ has a Reeb component. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} \section{Acknoledgements} During the writing of my thesis I had the chance to know the great competence and willingness to help of many persons. I refer to prof. Bruno Sc\'ardua, prof. Graziano Gentili, prof. Mario Primicerio, prof. Carla Farsi, prof. Giorgio Ottaviani, prof. Fabio Podest\`a, dott. Alberto Mancini, Mrs. Angela Caporicci, dott. Simone Cecchini, Secretaries and Librarians.\\ With a deep gratefulness I address my hearthy good thanks to those mentioned and to other persons. In particular, to prof. Bruno Sc\'ardua, my Research Director, for suggesting me such an interesting subject, for his perception and the confidence he conveyed and the broad-mindedness which consented to him to discuss about mathematical subjects with me from his high authority. My best thanks to prof. C\`esar Camacho, a reference-point in this field; to prof. Graziano Gentili, my Tutor, who followed the various stages during the draft of my thesis, listening to me, encouraging me and supporting me. I thank prof. Mario Primicerio, Co-ordinator of ``Dottorato in Matematica'' of the University of Florence, who revealed his sincere concern in more than one occasion. With prof. Carla Farsi and prof. Giorgio Ottaviani, I engaged discussions about mathematical subjects far from their own specific competence, and I enjoyed their friendship. I thank dott. Alberto Mancini for his nobility in solving each kind of problems about computer science and dott. Fabio Vlacci for his advice in the preparation of the many figures. I want to mention my colleague and friend Francesco, who becomes fond of any mathematical question, for his friendship and closeness, qualities for which, in particular, he will be indelibly written on the pages of my brief but intense stay in Rio. My colleagues and friends Clelia and Simone showed their extreme magnanimity and their readiness to solve problems of any kind. I am grateful to my colleagues, from the older ones, who helped me with their competence and experience, to the younger ones, with whom I engaged interesting mathematical discussions. It is a pleasure to thank Secretaries and Librarians for their disposition to carry out a true work, and last, but not the least, Mrs. Angela Caporicci for her position of mediator between me and the hostile machines, and for her patience.\\ I am endebted to all these people also because they were able to transform professional chances into pleasant occasions for meeting.\\\\ I thank the persons of my family, in particular, my aunt Giuseppina for her sprightly interest and for her great actual help, my parents, for their tenderness hidden behind their constant interest, my husband, without whose patience and desire to help this work would not have been possible, my wonderfull little girls, who bore little and big rinunciations, surprising me with their tenderness. \chapter{Preliminaries} In this chapter we recall some definitions and properties about foliations and singular foliations (we refer to and ). \section{Foliations} Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold, $n \in \N \setminus \{0 \}$. Let $\textrm{B}^l$ the unit ball of $\R^l$. Let $0 \leq k \leq n$ be fixed. \begin{defin} A $C^r$ {\em{foliation}} of codimension $k$ of $M$ will be a maximal atlas ({\em{foliated atlas}}) $\F= \{(U_i,\phi_i)\}_{i \in I}$ satisfying the following properties: \begin{enumerate} \item $\phi_i(U_i)=\bo^{n-k} \times \bo^k$; \item for all $i ,j \in I$ the map $\phi_j \circ \phi_i^{-1}:\phi_i(U_i \cap U_j) \rightarrow \phi_j(U_i \cap U_j)$ is $C^r$ and has the form \begin{equation} \phi_j \circ \phi_i^{-1} (x,y)=(f_{ij}(x,y),g_{ij}(y)). \end{equation} \end{enumerate} \end{defin} The number $n-k$ is called the {\em{dimension}} of $\F$. A plaque of $\F$ is a set $\alpha=\phi_i^{-1}(\{y=c \})$ for some $c \in \R^k$. The plaques of $\F$ define a relation $\approx$ in $M$ as follows: if $x,y \in M$ then $x \approx y$ if and only if there is a finite collection of plaques $\alpha_1 ,\dots , \alpha_l$ such that $x \in \alpha_1, y \in \alpha_l$ and $\alpha_i \cap \alpha_{i+1} \neq \varnothing$ for all $1 \leq i \leq l-1$. Clearly $\approx$ is an equivalence relation and then we consider the equivalence class $\F_x$ of $\approx$ containing $x \in M$. A {\em{leaf}} of $\F$ is precisely an equivalence class $L= \F_x$ of $\approx$ (for some $x \in M$). Under the view point of the equivalence $\approx$ one can define $\F$ as a partition of $M$ by submanifolds $L$ such that for all $x \in M$ there is a neighborhood $U$ diffeomorphic to $\bo^{n-k} \times \bo^k$ such that the leaves of the partition intersect $U$ in the trivial foliation $\{\bo^{n-k} \times y: y \in \bo^k \}$ on $\bo^{n-k} \times \bo ^k$. This allows to state the following equivalent definition of foliation. \begin{defin} A $C^r$ foliation of codimension $k$ of $M$ is a partition $\F$ of $M$ formed by immersed $C^r$ submanifolds $\F_x \subset M$ such that every $x \in M$ exhibits a neighborhood $U$ and a $C^r$ diffeomorphism $\phi:U \rightarrow \bo^{n-k} \times \bo^k$ such that $\forall y \in \bo^k \quad \exists F \in \F$ satisfying $$\phi^{-1}(\bo^{n-k} \times y) \subset F.$$ The elements of the partition $\F$ are called the {\em{leaves}} of $\F$. The element $\F_x$ of $\F$ containing $x \in M$ is called the leaf of $\F$ containing $x$. \end{defin} There is a third way to define foliations; it starts from a remark about the property of the transition maps. We have that $g_{ij}$ is a diffeomorphism on its domain and, defined the maps $g_i: U_i \rightarrow \bo^k, g_i= \pi_2 \circ \phi_i$, where $\pi_2$ is the projection onto the second coordinate $\pi_2:(x,y) \in \bo^{n-k} \times \bo^k \rightarrow y$, $g_{ij}$ satisfies the cocycle relations $$g_j= g_{ij} \circ g_i, g_{ii}=Id.$$ So we define \begin{defin} A $C^r$ foliation of codimension $k$ of $M$ is a covering $\{U_i: i \in I \}$ of $M$ such that $\forall i \in I$ there is a $C^r$ submersion $g_i: U_i \rightarrow \bo^k$ such that $\forall i,j \in I$ there is a diffeomorphism $g_{ij}:\bo^k \rightarrow \bo^k$ satisfying the cocycle relations $$g_j= g_{ij} \circ g_i, g_{ii}=Id.$$ The $g_i$'s are the {\em{distinguished applications}} of $\F$. \section{Intrinsic manifold stucture} \end{defin} Before the next concept we need to recall the following: \begin{defin} Let $X$, $Y$ be differentiable manifolds of dimension respectively $m$ and $n$, $m \leq n$ and $\psi:X \rightarrow Y$ a differentiable map. We say that $\psi$ is an {\em{immersion}} if $\psi$ and its differential, $d \psi:TX \rightarrow TY$ are injective.\\ We say that $\psi$ is an {\em{embedding}} if $\psi$ is an immersion and a homeomorphism on its image. \end{defin} A plaque is an embedded submanifold of $M$, but in general a leaf is not, as it may self-accumulate or accumulate to another leaf. It is worthwhile to give more details.\\ Each leaf $F$ of a $C^r$ foliation $\F$ has a $C^r$ differentiable manifold structure induced by the charts of $\F$. This structure, called the {\em{intrinsic structure}} of $\F$, is constructed in the following manner. Given $p \in F$, let $(U, \phi)$ be a chart of $\F$ such that $p \in U$ and $\phi(U)= U_1 \times U_2 \subset \R^n$, where $U_1=\bo^{n-k}$, $U_2=\bo^k$. Let $\alpha$ be the plaque of $U$ which contains $p$. Setting $\phi=(f,g)$, where $f:U \rightarrow \R^{n-k}$ and $g:U \rightarrow \R^k$, we define $\overline \phi: \alpha \rightarrow \R^{n-k}$ by $\overline \phi=f|_\alpha$. It is clear that $\overline \phi: \alpha \rightarrow U_1$ is a homeomorphism since $\phi(\alpha)= U_1 \times \{a \}$ for some $a \in U_2$. The set $$\Bi= \{(\alpha,\overline \phi)|\alpha \subset F \textrm{ is a plaque of }U \textrm{ with }(U, \phi) \in \F\}$$ is a $C^r$ atlas of dimension $n-k$ for $F$ which defines the intrinsic structure of $F$. We note that the topology of $F$ associated to the atlas $\Bi$ is such that the set of all the plaques $\alpha$ of $\F$ with $\alpha \subset F$ constitute a basis of open sets of $F$; it can be shown this basis is countable. This topology, in general, does not coincide with the one induced naturally by the topology of $M$. The reason is that the leaf $F$ can eventually meet the domain $U$ of a chart $(U,\phi) \in \F$ in a sequence of plaques $(\alpha_n)_{n \in \N}$ which accumulate to a plaque $\alpha \subset F$, respectively $\alpha \subset L$, for another leaf $L \subset \F$, i.e. any neighborhood of $\alpha$ contains an infinite number of plaques of $F$ and hence, $F$ is not locally connected, respectively, $F$ is not closed in the topology induced by $M$, while in the intrinsic topology, $F$ is a manifold and hence locally connected and closed.\\ We consider the canonical inclusion $\imath:F \rightarrow M$, $\imath(p)=p$ and $F$ with its intrinsic manifold structure. We have the following \begin{teor} Let $M$ be an $n$-manifold foliated by a $C^r$ codimension $k$ foliation $\F$. Each leaf $F$ of $\F$ has the structure of a $C^r$ manifold of dimension $n-k$ such that the domains of the local charts are plaques of $\F$. The map $\imath: F \rightarrow M$ defined by $\imath (p)=p$ is a $C^r$ one-to-one immersion, where on $F$ we take the intrinsic manifold structure. Further $\imath$ is a $C^r$ embedding and $F$ is an embedded leaf if and only if $F$ is closed in $M$. \end{teor} \section{Examples} We start with some applications of the following \begin{teor} Let $f: M^n \rightarrow N^k$ be a $C^r$ submersion between the differentiable manifolds $M,N$. Then the level curves $$L_c=f^{-1}(c),\qquad c \in N$$ are the leaves of a $C^r$ foliation of codimension $k$ of $M$. \end{teor} \begin{example} Let $M= \R^2$ and $f(x,y)=x$, the projection onto the $x$-axis. $f$ is a $C^\omega$ submersion and defines a (co)dimension one $C^\omega$ foliation of $M$ whose leaves are the vertical lines of the plane $\R^2$. \end{example} \begin{example} Let $M=\R^2$ and $f(x,y)=y - \alpha \cdot x$, where $\alpha \in \R$. The level curves of $f$ define a foliation $\F_\alpha$ whose leaves are the straight lines $y = \alpha \cdot x +c$, $c \in \R$. \end{example} \begin{example} We start observing that the foliation $\F_\alpha$ of the previous example is invariant by the translations $(x,y) \rightarrow (x+k,y+l)$, $(k,l) \in \Z^2$. It follows that $\F_\alpha$ projects into a foliation of the 2-torus $\T^2=\R^2/\Z^2$, still denoted by $\F_\alpha$. When $\alpha$ is rational all leaves are embedded circles (the intrinsic topology coincides with the natural topology induced by $\T^2$), but if $\alpha$ is irrational each leaf is a line, which self-accumulate and is dense in the torus (the two topologies on the leaves do not coincide). \end{example} Another important foliation defined by a submersion is the Reeb foliation, to which we will dedicate a specific section. \begin{example} We recall that a fibered space $(E,\pi,B,F)$ consists of differentiable manifolds $E,B,F$ and a submersion $\pi:E \rightarrow B$ such that for every $b \in B$ there is an open neighborhood $U_b$ of $b$ and a diffeomorphism $\phi_b:\pi^{-1}(U_b) \rightarrow U_b \times F$ which makes the following diagram commute: \begin{displaymath} \xymatrix{ \pi^{-1}(U_b) \ar[d]^\pi \ar[r]^{\phi_b} & U_b \times F \ar[dl]^{P_1}\\U_b} \end{displaymath} The fibers of a fiber space $(E,\pi,B,F)$ define a foliation on $E$ whose leaves are the connected components of the fiber $F$. \end{example} \begin{example} A $C^r$ ($r \geq 1$) vector field, i.e. a $C^r$ map $X:M \rightarrow TM$, such that $X(p) \in T_pM$, defines a $C^r$ dimension-one foliation whose leaves are the {\em{integral curves}} of $X$ through the points of $M$. Equivalently curves that, locally, are solutions of the differential equation \begin{equation} dx/dt=X(x) \end{equation} on a manifold $M$, define a dimension one foliation of $M$. Observe that the condition about the differentiability of the vector field $x \rightarrow X(x)$ guarantees the existence and uniqueness of the solutions to the Cauchy problem given by and $x(0)=p$, for all $p \in M$.\\ We recall that a local flow is a $C^{r}$ map $\phi:W \subset \R \times M \rightarrow M$, with the property that $\phi (0,x)=x$ and $\phi(t,\phi(s,x))=\phi(t+s,x)$ provided that $(s,x), (t,\phi(t,x)), (t+s,x) \in W$. Integral curves are the orbits of a $C^r$ local flow defined by the vector field $X$; in this case the orbits of a local flow are the leaves of a dimension one foliation on $M$. \end{example} \begin{example} A $C^r$ {\em{action of a Lie group}} $G$ on a manifold $M$ is a map $\phi: G \times M \rightarrow M$ such that $\phi(e,x)=x$ and $\phi(g_1,\cdot g_2,x)=\phi(g_1,\phi(g_2,x))$ for any $g_1,g_2 \in G$ and $x \in M$. The {\em{orbit of a point}} $x \in M$ for the action $\phi$ is the subset $\Ol_x= \{ \phi(g,x) \in M|g \in G \}$. We say that $\phi:G \times M \rightarrow M$ is a {\em{foliated action}} if for every $x \in M$ the tangent space to the orbit of $\phi$ passing through $x$ has fixed dimension $l$. When $l$ is the dimension of $G$ we say that $\phi$ is {\em{locally free}}. We have the following \begin{propos} The orbits of a foliated action define the leaves of a foliation. \end{propos} \end{example} \section{Foliations on manifolds with boundary} In the previous definitions $M$ is a manifold with no boundary ({\em{closed}} if it is compact), but we may also define foliations on manifolds with boundary. Motivated by the need that the restriction of the foliation defines a (regular) foliation on the boundary, we have two possibilities. \begin{defin} Let $M$ be an $n$-manifold (possibly with non-empty boundary). A foliation of codimension $k$, $k \leq n$, {\em{tangent to the boundary}} of $M$ will be a maximal atlas $\F= \{(U_i,\phi_i),_{i \in I}\}$ satisfying the following property instead of 1. and property 2. of definition : \begin{enumerate}\item \begin{enumerate} \item $\phi_i(U_i) \subset \bo^{n-k} \times \h^k$ (where $\h^l$ is the half positive semispace of $\R^l$ defined by $x_l \geq 0$); \end{enumerate}\end{enumerate} \end{defin} \begin{defin} Let $M$ be an $n$-manifold (possibly with non-empty boundary). A foliation of codimension $k$, $k \leq n$, {\em{transverse to the boundary}} of $M$ will be a maximal atlas $\F= \{(U_i,\phi_i),_{i \in I}\}$ satisfying the following property instead of 1. and property 2. of definition : \begin{enumerate}\item \begin{enumerate} \item $\phi_i(U_i) \subset \h^{n-k} \times \bo^k$; \end{enumerate}\end{enumerate} \end{defin} It comes out that a codimension $k$ (dimension $n-k$) foliation $\F$ of $M$ tangent to the boundary is a codimension $k-1$ (dimension $n-k$) foliation $\F|_{\partial M}$ of the boundary $\partial M$ and a codimension $k$ foliation $\F$ transverse to the boundary is a codimension $k$ (dimension $n-k-1$) foliation $\F|_{\partial M}$ of the boundary $\partial M$.\\ When $M$ is a manifold with boundary and $\#\{\textrm{connected components of }\partial M \} >1$, we admit the possibility $\F$ is either tangent or transverse to different components of the boundary, as in the example of the foliation of the cylinder in figure . \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \section{Singular foliations} Let $M$ be a differentiable $n$-manifold. In a general context a dimension $l$ $C^r$ {\em{singular foliation}}} with no other specifications, we mean {\em{regular foliation}}.} $\F$ on $M$ is a dimension $l$ (codimension $n-l$) $C^r$ foliation of $M \setminus Sing (\F)$, where $Sing(\F)$, the {\em{singular set}} of the foliation, is a submanifold satisfying the hypothesis about dimension $$\dim (Sing(\F)) < l.$$ With a single exception in the last chapter, our object of study are $C^\infty$ codimensione-one singular foliations with isolated singularities. In other words, $Sing(\F)$ will be a discrete set of points ($\dim (Sing(\F))=0$), in particular it will be finite if $M$ is compact. \begin{defin} Let $\F$ be a $C^\infty$ codimension one singular foliation on a manifold $M$ and let $s \in M$ be an isolated singularity of $\F$. We say that $s$ is a {\em{Morse type singularity}} if there is a neighborhood $s \in U \subset M$ and a $C^ \infty$ function $f:U \rightarrow \R$ such that $\F|_U$ is given by $df=0$ and $s$ is a nondegenerate critical point of $f$. \end{defin} We can assume that $s$ is the only singularity of $f$ in $U$. By the Morse Lemma there exists a local chart around $s$, whose domain we still denote by $U$, $(U,\phi)$, such that the composition $f \circ \phi^{-1}$, we still denote by $f$, defined in a neighborhood of $0=\phi(s) \in \R^n$, has the following expression \begin{equation} f(x)=-{x_1}^2- \dots -{x_l}^2+{x_{l+1}}^2+ \dots +{x_{l+m}}^2, \end{equation} where $l \in \{0, \dots ,n \}, l+m=n$. If $l=0,n$ then $p:=s$ is a center, if $l=1, \dots, n-1$ then $q:=s$ is a saddle and we say that this saddle is {\em{of type}} $l\!\!-\!\!m$. In a neighborhood of a center the nonsingular leaves of $\F$ are diffeomorphic to $(n-1)$-spheres. Given a saddle singularity $q \in Sing(\F)$ we have cone leaves locally given by the expression ${x_1}^2+ \dots +{x_l}^2={x_{l+1}}^2+ \dots +{x_{l+m}}^2=0$, where $q \equiv (0, \dots,0)$. These leaves will be called the {\em{separatrices}} of $\F$ through $q$. A {\em{saddle connection}} for a foliation $\F$ is a leaf $L$ of $\F$ that contains separatrices of two distinct saddle singularities of $\F$. We say that a saddle singularity $q \in Sing(\F)$ is {\em{self-connected}} if there is a leaf $L$ of $\F$ containing two distinct local branches of separatrices of $\F$ through $q$. \begin{defin} A codimension one $C^ \infty$ foliation $\F$ with isolated singularities on $M$ will be called a {\em{Morse foliation}} if each singularity in $Sing(\F)$ is of Morse type and $\F$ has no saddle connections. \end{defin} The first example of a Morse foliation is given by the levels of a Morse function. \section{Reeb foliations and Reeb components} As announced, a basic example of foliation is the {\em{Reeb foliation of the plane}}. This foliation is defined by a submersion $f: \R^2 \rightarrow \R$, $f(x,y)=\alpha(x^2)e^y$, where $\alpha: \R \rightarrow \R$ is a function of class $C^\infty$ such that $\alpha(t)=1$ if $t \in (-\epsilon, \epsilon)$ for some $0<\epsilon<1, \alpha(1)=0$ and $\alpha'(t)<0$ for $t>\epsilon$.\\ The foliation, given by the connected components of the level sets of $f$ is represented in figure \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm We can consider a restriction of the function $f$ to the strip $C=[-1,1] \times \R \subset \R^2$. $f|_C$ is invariant by vertical translations and by simmetries with respect to the $y$-axis, in particular, $f|_C$ is invariant by the maps $t: (x,y) \rightarrow (x,y+1)$ and $v: (x,y) \rightarrow (-x,y+1)$. This means that $f|_C$ defines a foliation on the cylinder $C/t$ and one on the M\"obius band $C/v$; respectively the {\em{Reeb foliation of the cylinder}} and the {\em{Reeb foliation of the M\"obius band}}.\\ Now suppose $f: \bo^2 \times \R \rightarrow \R$, where $\bo^2$ is the $2$-disc, defined by $f(x,y,z)=\alpha(r)e^z$, with $r=x^2+y^2$ and $\alpha$ as above. $f$ is invariant by the function $t:(x,y,z) \rightarrow (x,y,z+1)$, so it defines a foliation on the solid torus $(\bo^2 \times \R)/t$, the {\em{Reeb foliation of the solid torus}}.\\ Starting by the Reeb foliation of the solid torus we can construct the Reeb foliation of $S^3$, the $3$-sphere. At this porpuse we recall {\bf{Alexander's trick}} .\\ Let B$_1$ and B$_2$ be two $n$-balls and $\phi$ a diffeomorphism (any) between the boundaries $\phi: \partial \textrm{B}_1 \rightarrow \partial \textrm{B}_2$. Then $\textrm{B}_1 \cup_\phi\textrm{B}_2 \simeq S^n$.\\ Applying Alexander's trick we can prove that glueing $$S^k_\theta \times \textrm{B}^{n-k}_\rho \textrm{ with } \textrm{B}^{k+1}_\sigma \times S^{n-k-1}_\tau$$ for $0 \leq k <n$ and $n \geq 2$ with a diffeomorphism $\phi$ of the boundaries which sends $(\theta, \rho)$ in $(\sigma, \tau)$, $\rho \in \partial \bo^{n-k}, \sigma \in \partial \bo^{k+1}$, we obtain a manifold homeomorphic to $S^n$, i.e. $S^k \times \textrm{B}^{n-k} \cup_\phi \textrm{B}^{k+1} \times S^{n-k-1} \simeq S^n$.\\ In particular for $n=3$ we have $$S^3 \simeq S^1 \times \bo^2 \cup_\phi \bo^2 \times S^1$$ where $\phi$ is a diffeomorphism of $S^1 \times S^1$ which sends parallels of a solid torus into meridians of the other.\\ The {\em{Reeb foliation of }} $S^3$ is obtained glueing two solid tori, each foliated with the Reeb foliation of the solid torus. It is a foliation with a single compact leaf $S^1 \times S^1$, the common boundary of the solid tori, and open leaves diffeomorphic to planes, accumulating on the compact leaf. \\ At the light of Novikov's theorem stated in section the Reeb foliation is, somehow, the only foliation on $S^3$. Nevertheless we can give some examples of slightly different regular foliations on $S^3$. \begin{example} Let $ST_1$ and $ST_2$ be two solid tori foliated as in figure and let $\phi: \partial ST_1 \rightarrow \partial ST_2$ be a diffeomorphism as above. Then $S^3 \simeq ST_1 \cup_ \phi ST_2$ is a new foliation of $S^3$. \end{example} \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm The Reeb foliation of the solid torus may be easily extended to $S^1 \times \textrm{B}^{n-1}$. Suppose it is given the function $$f: \textrm{B}^{n-1} \times \R \rightarrow \R,$$ defined as $f(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)= \alpha(r)e^{x_n}$, where $r= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i^2$ and $\alpha$ as in the other cases. $f$ is invariant by the function $t:(x_1,x_2, \dots,x_n) \rightarrow (x_1, \dots,x_{n-1},x_n+1)$, so it defines a foliation on $S^1 \times \textrm{B}^{n-1} \simeq (\R \times \textrm{B}^{n-1})/t$, i.e. the {\em{Reeb foliation}} of $S^1 \times \textrm{B}^{n-1}$. In literature a Reeb component of a codimension one foliation $\F$ of a $3$-manifold $M^3$ is a solid torus $ST \subset M^3$ which is union of leaves of $\F$ such that $\F$ restricted to $ST$ is equivalent to the Reeb foliation in the solid torus $\bo^2 \times S^1$.\\ We will adopt a slightly more general definition, arising from the proof of Novikov theorem. A {\em{Reeb component}} is a solid torus $ST \subset M^3$, invariant for the codimension one foliation $\F$, such that $\F$ restricted to $ST$ has at least one compact leaf, $\partial ST$, and open leaves accumulating on $\partial ST$, whose universal covering is the plane $\R^2$. \begin{defin} An $n${\em{-dimensional Reeb component}} for a codimension one foliation $\F$ on a manifold $M$ is an invariant compact region homeomorphic to $S^1 \times$ B$^{n-1} \subset M$ with a foliation with open leaves accumulating on the boundary leaf $S^1 \times S^{n-2}$.\\ An $n$-dimensional Reeb component with the Reeb foliation of $S^1 \times$ B$^{n-1}$ will be denoted by a {\em{double Reeb component}}. \end{defin} $ST_1$ of figure is not a Reeb component, while $ST_2$ is an example of a Reeb component which is not a double Reeb component.\\ A codimension one singular foliation on a manifold $M^n$ may have invariant sets which are singular $(n-1)$-submanifolds of $M$. In some cases, these sets may be the boundary of a singular $n$-submanifold of $M$. In particular we are interested at the singular manifold $S^1 \times$ B$^{n-1}/$ B$^{n-1}$ defined by the quotient $S^1_ \theta \times$ B$^{n-1}_ \sigma/ \sim$, where $\sim$ is the equivalence relation defined as follows. We fix $\theta_0 \in S^1$; we say that $(\theta,\sigma) \sim (\theta', \sigma')$ if and only if $\theta= \theta'$ and $\sigma= \sigma'$ or $\theta_0= \theta= \theta'$ and any $\sigma, \sigma '$. We have $$\{\theta_0 \} \times \textrm{B}^{n-1} \sim \{q \},$$ a singularity for the foliation. \begin{defin} A {\em{singular ($n$-dimensional) Reeb component}} is an invariant singular manifold homeomorphic to $S^1 \times$ B$^{n-1}/$ B$^{n-1}$, foliated by a singular foliation with one saddle $q$ on the boundary, accumulating one cylindric leaf $(0,1) \times \textrm{B}^{n-1}$ on the boundary, one inner center, $p$, and spheric leaves around the center. \end{defin} \section{Plane fields and foliations} A field of $k$-planes, or a $k$-plane field, on a manifold $M$ is a map which associates to each point $x \in M$ a vector subspace of dimension $k$ of $T_xM$. We say that a $k$-plane field $\mathcal P$ on $M$ is of class $C^r $ if for every $x \in M$ there exist $k$ $C^r$ vector fields $X^1,X^2, \dots, X^k$, defined in a neighborhood $V$ of $x$ such that for every $y\in V$, $\{X^1(y),X^2(y), \dots, X^k(y) \}$ is a basis for $\mathcal P(y)$.\\ The relation between plane fields and foliations is given by the following results: \begin{teor} Every $C^r (r \geq 1)$ $k$-dimensional foliation $\F$ on $M$ defines a $C^{r-1}$ $k$-plane field on $M$ which can be denoted by $T\F$. \end{teor} \begin{defin} A plane field is {\em{involutive}} or {\em{completely integrable}} if, given two vector fields, $X$ and $Y$ such that, for each $x \in M$, $X(x)$ and $Y(x) \in \mathcal P(x)$, then the Lie bracket $[X,Y](x) \in \mathcal P(x)$. \end{defin} \begin{teor}[Frobenius] Let $\mathcal P$ be a $C^r$ $k$-plane field ($r \geq 1$) on $M$. If $\mathcal P$ is involutive then there exists a $C^r$ foliation $\F$ of dimension $k$ on $M$ such that $T_x(\F)=\mathcal P(x)$ for every $x \in M$. Conversely, if $\F$ is a $C^r$ $(r \geq 2)$ foliation and $\mathcal P$ is the tangent plane field to $\F$ then $\mathcal P$ is involutive. \end{teor} We recall the following: \begin{propos} A $C^r$ $r \geq 0$ codimension $k$ plane field can be defined locally as the kernel of $k$ $C^r$ linearly independent one-forms. Conversely if $\Omega^1, \dots,\Omega^k$ are $C^r$ linearly independent one-forms then $\mathcal P(x)=\{v \in T_xM | \Omega^1_x(v)= \dots=\Omega_x^k(v)=0\}$ defines a $C^r$ plane field. \end{propos} The above proposition allowes a version of Frobenius' theorem in terms of differential forms: \begin{teor} Let $\mathcal P$ be a $C^r$ $(r \geq 1)$ codimension $k$ plane field defined on an open set $U \subset M$ by $k$ linearly independent $C^r$ one-forms $\Omega^1, \dots,\Omega^k$. Then $\mathcal P$ is completely integrable if and only if for every $j \in \{1, \dots, k\}$ we have $$d\Omega^j \wedge \Omega^1 \wedge \dots \wedge \Omega^k=0$$ \end{teor} As our object of study are codimension one $C^ \infty$ foliations, (if it is the case) we will deal with a single $C^ \infty$ one-form $\Omega$, so our condition of integrability will be $\Omega \wedge d\Omega=0$. \section{Orientability of regular foliations} Let $\mathcal P$ be a continuous $k$-plane field on $M$. We will say that $\mathcal P$ is {\em{orientable}} if for each $x \in M$ it is possible to choose an orientation $\Ol(x)$ on $\mathcal P(x)$ such that the map $x \rightarrow \Ol(x)$ is continuous in the following sense. We consider a cover of $M$ by open sets $\{U_i\}_{i \in I}$ such that for each $i \in I$, the restriction $\mathcal P|U_i$ is defined by $k$ continuous vector fields $X^1, \dots,X^k$. For each $x \in U_i$, the bases $\Ba(x)=\{X^1(x), \dots,X^k(x)\}$ and $\Ba'(x)=\{-X^1(x),X^2(x) \dots,X^k(x)\}$ define two distinct orientations of $\mathcal P(x)$, say $\Ol^+_i(x)$ and $\Ol^-_i(x)$. We say that the choice of $\Ol$ is continuous if $\Ol|U_i=\Ol^+_i$ for every $i$ and if $U_i \cap U_j \neq \varnothing$ then $\Ol^+_i=\Ol^+_j$ in the intersection.\\ If $k=dim(M)$ and $\mathcal P(x)=T_xM$ we say that $M$ is orientable.\\ If a plane field is non-orientable, we will consider the orientable double covering, defined as follows. Let $\tilde M= \{(x, \Ol)|x \in M \textrm{ and } \Ol \textrm{ is one of the orientations of } \mathcal P(x)\}$ and $\pi: \tilde M \rightarrow M$ be the projection $\pi(x,\Ol)=x$. For each $x \in M, \pi^{-1}(x)=\{(x,\Ol),(x,-\Ol)\}$,where $\Ol$ is one of the orientation of $\mathcal P(x)$ and $-\Ol$ the other. On $\tilde M$ consider the topology whose basis of open sets is construced as follows. Given $(x_0,\Ol_0)\in \tilde M$, let $U$ be a neighborhood of $x_0$ on $M$ where there is defined a continuous orientation $\Ol$ of $\mathcal P|U$. We can assume $\Ol(x_0)=\Ol_0$. We define then a neighborhood $V$ of $(x_0,\Ol_0)$ as $V=\{(x,\Ol(x))|x \in U\}$. With this topology, $\pi: \tilde M \rightarrow M$ is a two sheeted covering (that is, $\pi^{-1}(x) $ is a set of two elements for every $x \in M$)\\ Moreover, with a standard procedure, we can define a differentiable manifold structure on $\tilde M$ so that $dim(\tilde M)=dim(M)$ and $\pi$ is a local $C^\infty$ diffeomorphism.\\ The orientable double covering of $\mathcal P$ is by definition the $k$-plane field $\pi^*(\mathcal P)$ given by $\pi^*(\mathcal P) _x={D \pi(x)}^{-1} \mathcal P(\pi(x))$. \begin{teor} Suppose $M$ is connected and let $\mathcal P$ be a continuous $k$-plane field on $M$. Let $(\tilde M, \pi,\pi^*(\mathcal P))$ be the double covering of $\mathcal P$. Then \begin{enumerate} \item $\pi^*(\mathcal P)$ is orientable. \item $\tilde M$ is connected if and only if $\Pl$ is not orientable. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} \begin{corol} If $M$ is simply connected then every $k$-plane field is orientable ($1 \leq k \leq dim(M)$). In particular, $M$ is orientable. \end{corol} \begin{defin} Let $\mathcal P$ be a continuous $k$-plane field. We say that $\mathcal P$ is {\em{transversely orientable}} if there exists a field complementary to $\mathcal P$ which is continuous and orientable. \end{defin} \begin{teor} Let $\mathcal P$ be a $C^r$ $k$-plane field on $M$. The following properties are true: \begin{enumerate} \item if $\mathcal P$ is orientable and transversely orientable, then $M$ is orientable, \item if $M$ is orientable then $\mathcal P$ is orientable if and only if it is transversely orientable. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} \begin{defin} A $C^r$, $r \geq 1$ regular foliation $\F$ is {\em{orientable}} if the plane field tangent to $\F$, $T \F$ is orientable. Similarly $\F$ is {\em{transversely orientable}} if $T\F$ is transversely orientable. \end{defin} We can immediately rewrite the previous theorem in terms of foliations, as it follows. \begin{teor} Let $\mathcal F$ be a $C^r$ $k$-foliation on $M$. The following properties are true: \begin{enumerate} \item if $\mathcal F$ is orientable and transversely orientable, then $M$ is orientable, \item if $M$ is orientable then $\mathcal F$ is orientable if and only if it is transversely orientable. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \section{The space of leaves} Let $M^n$ be a foliated manifold with a foliation $\F$ of codimension $k<n$. The {\em{space of leaves}} of $\F$ is the quotient space $M/\F$ of $M$ under the equivalence relation which identifies two points of $M$ if they are on the same leaf of $\F$. On $M/\F$ we take the quotient topology. The topology of $M/\F$ is in general very complicated, possibly being non-Hausdorff as in the case of the Reeb foliation of the plane, or the Reeb foliation of $S^3$. We denote by $\pi:M \rightarrow M/\F$ the projection onto the quotient. In the Reeb foliation of the plane, for example, the points $\pi(-1,t)$ and $\pi(1,t), t \in \R$ do not admit disjoint neighborhoods.\\ Let $A \subset M$. The {\em{saturation of $A$ in $\F$}} is the set $\F(A)=\pi^{-1}(\pi(A))= \cup_{x \in A}L_x$, where $L_x$ is the leaf through $x$. We have \begin{teor} The projection is an open map, or the saturation $\F(A)$ of an open subset $A$ of $M$ is open. \end{teor} \begin{propos} Let $\F$ be a codimension $k$, $C^ \infty$ foliation on a compact manifold $M^n$, $n>k$. If all leaves are closed, the space of leaves $M/ \F$ has a differentiable manifold structure (possibly, it is a non-Hausdorff space). \end{propos} \begin{proof} In the general case, a foliated manifold $M$ is a fiber bundle over the space of plaques. Let $\{(U_i,\phi_i)\}_{i \in I}$ be a foliated atlas on $M$. As we know, we may find distinguished applications $g_i:U_i \rightarrow \bo^k$, satisfying the cocycle relations, as in definition . On each $U_i$ we define an equivalence relation $r_i$. For $v,w \in U_i$ we say $v \; r_i \; w \Leftrightarrow v,w \in g_i^{-1}(y)$, where $y \in \bo^k$. We denote by $\Sigma_i$ the space of plaques, i.e. the quotient $U_i/r_i$, and by $P_i:U_i \rightarrow \Sigma_i$ the projection. With abuse of notation, we may assume that the $P_i$'s are related by diffeomorphisms $g_{ij}$ satisfying the cocycle relations. The space of plaques is the disjoint union $\sqcup_i \Sigma_i$. We define the projection $P:M\rightarrow \sqcup_i \Sigma_i$, as $P|{U_i}=P_i$. Then we have the fiber bundle $(M,P,\sqcup_i \Sigma_i, \bo^{n-k})$\\ Clearly $r_i \neq r_j$ for $i \neq j$. We have $r_i=r_j$ on $U_i \cap U_j$ if and only if $\phi_i^{-1}(g_i(U_i \cap U_j))=\phi_j^{-1}(g_j(U_i \cap U_j))$. In this case $\Sigma_i \cup \Sigma_j$ is connected. By the maximality of the atlas which defines the foliation, we may argue there exist sets of indices $J \subset I$, with more than a single element, such that $\cup_{i \in J} \Sigma_i$ is connected. Let $\Sigma_J= \cup_{i \in J} \Sigma_i$ be a connected component of the space of plaques. Let $\Pi_J: \Sigma_J \rightarrow M/\F$ be the projection of those plaques on the space of leaves. If it happens that $\Pi_J$ is injective, then $\Pi_J$ is a homeomorphism on its image and the subset $\Pi_J(\Sigma_J) \subset M/\F$ may be given a differentiable manifold structure. If, moreover, $\Pi_J(\Sigma_J) = M/\F$, this is a differentiable manifold structure on the hole space of leaves. Despite this, it may happen this space is not Hausdorff, as in the Reeb foliation of the plane, a case in which we may give a differentiable atlas on the space of leaves (cfr. ). Let $\pi:M \rightarrow M/\F$ be the projection on the space of leaves. A necessary and sufficient condition for injectivity of $\Pi_J$ is that each leaf in $\pi^{-1}(\Pi_J(\Sigma_J))$ is closed in $M$. In this (and only in this) case, we may suppose that, for $i \in J$, and for each leaf $L$ such that $U_i \cap L \neq \varnothing$, then $U_i \cap L$ is a single plaque. There, recalling that $\pi$ is an open map, $\{(\pi(U_i), \pi_2 \circ \phi_i)\}_{i \in J}$ is a differentiable atlas on $\Pi_J(\Sigma_J)$, in particular on $M/\F$. In fact the following commuting diagram defines a homeomorphism between $\pi(U_i)$ and $\textrm{B}^k$. \begin{displaymath} \xymatrix{ U_i \ar[d]^{Pi} \ar[r]^{\phi_i} \ar[ddr]^{\pi_2 \circ \phi_i} & \bo^{n-k} \times \bo^k \ar[dd]^{\pi_2} \\\Sigma_i \ar[d]^{\Pi_J|_{\Sigma_i}} & \\ \Pi_J(\Sigma_i)=\pi(U_i) \ar[r] & \bo^k} \end{displaymath} In what said, we have constructed the fiber bundle $(\pi^{-1}(\Pi_J(\Sigma_J)), \pi, \Pi_J(\Sigma_J), \bo^{n-k})$. By Transverse Uniformity, there exists also the fiber bundle $(\pi^{-1}(\Pi_J(\Sigma_J)), \pi, \Pi_J(\Sigma_J), L)$, where $L$ is a typical leaf of $P_J^{-1}(\Sigma_J)=\pi^{-1}(\Pi_J(\Sigma_J))$. In particular, if $M$ is compact and all leaves are closed, we have the fiber bundle $(M,\pi,M/\F,L)$. \end{proof} \begin{defin} We say that a set $A \subset M$ is {\em{invariant or saturated in $\F$}} when the saturation of $A$ in $\F$ is $A$, that is $\pi^{-1}(\pi(A))=A$. \end{defin} \begin{teor} Let $A$ be an invariant subset in $\F$. Then its interior $int(A)$, its closure $\overline{A}$ and its boundary $\partial A$ are also invariant in $\F$. \end{teor} \begin{defin} Let $\Sigma$ be a submanifold of $M$. If $L$ is a leaf of the foliation such that $L \cap \Sigma \neq \varnothing$ then $\Sigma$ is transverse to $L$ if $T_xM =T_x \Sigma +T_xL$ for all $x \in L \cap \Sigma$. We say that $\Sigma$ is transverse to $\F$ when $\Sigma$ is transverse to every leaf of $\F$ that it meats. When $dim(\Sigma)+dim(\F)=dim(M)$ we say $\Sigma$ is a {\em{transverse section of $\F$}}. \end{defin} Given $p \in M$ there is always a transverse section of $\F$ passing through $p$. Let $(U,\phi)$ be a chart such that $p \in U$. By definition $\phi(U)=\bo^{n-k} \times \bo^k$; let $\phi(p)=(x_0,y_0)$, then $\Sigma= \phi^{-1}(\{x_0 \} \times \bo^k)$ is a transverse section through $p$. \begin{teor}[Transverse Uniformity of $\F$] Let $L$ be a leaf of $\F$. Given $q_1,q_2 \in L$ there exist transverse sections of $\F$, $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$, with $q_i \in \Sigma_i$ ($i=1,2$) and a $C^r$ diffeomorphism $f: \Sigma_1 \rightarrow \Sigma_2$ such that for any leaf $L'$ of $\F$, one has $f(L' \cap \Sigma_1)= L' \cap \Sigma_2$. \end{teor} As a consequence of this theorem, we have \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a foliation of $M$, $L$ a leaf of $\F$ and $\Sigma$ a transverse section of $\F$ such that $\Sigma \cap L \neq \varnothing$. We have three possibilities: \begin{enumerate} \item $\Sigma \cap L$ is discrete. In this case we say the {\em{transverse type of $L$ is discrete}} \item The closure of $\Sigma \cap L$ in $\Sigma$ contains an open set. This occurs if and only if the closure $\overline L$ has non-empty interior. In this case we say {\em{the transverse type of $L$ is dense}}. \item $\overline {\Sigma \cap L}$ is a perfect set (i.e. without isolated points) with empty interior. In this case we say $L$ is an {\em{exceptional leaf}} and its {\em{transverse type is perfect}}. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} \begin{teor} Let $L$ be a leaf of a foliation on $M$. The following statements are equivalent: \begin{enumerate} \item $L$ is a closed leaf. \item If $(U, \phi)$ is a foliation chart of $\F$ such that $\overline{U}$ is compact then $U \cap L$ contains a finite number of plaques of $U$. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} Let $M$ be a manifold with a foliation $\F$. \begin{defin} A subset $\mu \subset M$ is {\em{minimal}} if it satisfies the following properties: \begin{enumerate} \item $\mu$ is closed, non-empty and invariant; \item if $\mu' \subset \mu$ is a closed invariant subset then either $\mu'=\varnothing$ or $\mu'= \mu$. \end{enumerate} \end{defin} \begin{example} \end{example} \begin{enumerate} \item Every closed leaf of a foliation is a minimal set. \item The Reeb foliation of $S^3$ has a single minimal set, given by the compact leaf. \item When $\alpha$ is irrational, the minimal set of the foliation of the torus $\T^2$, $\F_\alpha$, defined in the example , is the hole torus. \end{enumerate} \begin{teor} Every foliation of a compact manifold has a minimal set. \end{teor} As it is known, Poincar\`e-Bendixson theorem , affects vector fields on the 2-dimensional manifolds $\R^2$, $S^2$. One of the versions of the Poincar\`e-Bendixson theorem is given in terms of minimal sets (you can find motivations for example on ). Minimal sets are the objects of a research for a possible extension of Poincar\`e-Bendixson theorem in higher dimensions (we refer to the dimensions of both the minimal set and the ambient manifold). \section{Holonomy} Holonomy is introduced to study the behaviour of leaves near a fixed leaf $L$; it takes advantage by the results of Transverse Uniformity by which it is enough to study the first returns of leaves to a small transverse section through a point $p \in L$.\\ For each foliated chart $(U_i,\phi_i)$, we can consider the projection along plaques, the map $\pi_i: U_i \rightarrow \Sigma_i$, where $\Sigma_i$, the space of plaques of $U_i$, may be represented as a transverse section through a point of $U_i$. We recall that if $U_i \cap U_j \neq \varnothing$, $\phi_j \circ \phi_i^{-1}$ is a diffeomorphism of the form $(f_{ij}(x,y),g_{ij}(y))$. It follows that $g_{ij}:\bo^k \rightarrow \bo^k$ is a diffeomorphism. Let $(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2) \in \bo^{n-k} \times \bo^k$ be two points. We set $(z_1,t_1)= \phi_j \circ \phi_i^{-1}(x_1,y_1),(z_2,t_2)=\phi_j \circ \phi_i^{-1}(x_2,y_2)$. \begin{itemize} \item[(a)] if $y_1=y_2 \Rightarrow t_1=t_2$. Points on the same plaque are sent into points on the same plaque. \item [(b)] if $y_1 \neq y_2$ and then $(x_1,y_1) \neq (x_2,y_2)$, it follows $(z_1,t_1) \neq (z_2,t_2)$, but it cannot happen $t_1=t_2$. In the last case, from property (a) appplied to $\phi_i \circ \phi_j^{-1}$, it follows $y_1=y_2$. \end{itemize} Then $g_{ij}:Dom(g_{ij}) \subset \bo^k \rightarrow \bo^k$ is one-to-one and then a diffeomorphism onto its image. This means there is a 1-1 bijection between plaques of $U_i$ and plaques of $U_j$ in $U_i \cap U_j$, i.e. a plaque in $U_i$ intersect at most one plaque in $U_j$.\\ Let $x \in \Sigma_i$; then $\alpha_x:= \pi_i^{-1}(x)$ is the plaque of $U_i$ thrugh $x$. Suppose $\alpha_x \cap U_j \neq \varnothing$; then we can define a map $h_{i,j}:Dom(h_{i,j}) \subset \Sigma_i \rightarrow \Sigma_j$ $$h_{i,j}= \pi_j \circ \pi_i^{-1}(x).$$ $h_{i,j}$ is the {\em{holonomy map induced by the two foliated charts $(U_i,\phi_i),(U_j,\phi_j)$}}. If $U_1, \dots ,U_r$ is a finite family of foliated charts such that $U_i \cap U_{i+1} \neq \varnothing$, $i=1, \dots ,r-1$, unless restricting the domain, we can define by composition the {\em{holonomy induced by the finite family of charts}}: $h_{1, \dots , r}:Dom(h_{1, \dots , r})\subset \Sigma_1 \rightarrow \Sigma_r$ $$h_{1, \dots , r}=h_{r-1,r} \circ h_{r-2,r-1} \circ \dots \circ h_{1,2}.$$ In particular given a leaf $L$ and two points on it $x,y \in L$, let $c:[0,1] \rightarrow L$ be a path joining $x$ and $y$ ($c(0)=x,c(1)=y$). As we can always cover $c$ with a finite family of foliated charts, we can define the {\em{holonomy induced by the curve $c$}}, $h_c:Dom(h_c) \subset \Sigma_x \rightarrow \Sigma_y$. Note that $h_c(x)=y$ by definition. We can prove that $h_c$ does not depend on the choice of the foliated covering $U_1, \dots ,U_r$ of $c$; this means $h_c$ is well defined. Moreover, if $c$ and $c'$ are homotopic paths (with fixed end points) then $h_c=h_{c'}$ in an open subset of $\Sigma_x$ containing $x$. When $x=y$ we obtain a representation $\Phi:\pi_1(L) \rightarrow Germ(\Sigma_x)$ given by $\Phi(\gamma)=[h_c]$, where $c$ is a representant of $\gamma \in \pi_1(L)$ and $Germ(\Sigma_x)= \{f:Dom(f) \subset \Sigma_x \rightarrow \Sigma_x|f(x)=x \}/_{\approx_x}$ is the germ of $C^r$ maps $f$ induced by the equivalence relation $f \approx_x g$ if and only if $f$ and $g$ coincide in a neighborhood of $x$. \begin{defin} The image $Hol(L,x)= \Phi(\pi_1(L))$ is called the {\em{holonomy group of $L$}}.\end{defin} \begin{osserv} By transverse uniformity $Hol(L,x)$ does not depend on $x \in L$, then we can set $$Hol(L):=Hol(L,x)$$ \end{osserv} Notice that a simply connected leaf has trivial holonomy.\\ Let $\F$ be a foliation of codimension $k$ and class $C^r$, $r \geq 1$ on an $n$- manifold $M$. \begin{lemma}[Global trivialization] Let $\gamma:I \rightarrow M$ be a continuous, simple, (injective) path whose image is contained in a leaf $L$ of $\F$. There is a neighborhood $V \supset \gamma(I)$ and a $C^r$ diffeomorphism $$h:\bo^{n-k}\times \bo^k \rightarrow V$$ such that $h^*(\F)$ (the foliation of $\bo^{n-k}\times \bo^k$ whose leaves are the connected components of the inverse images with respect to $h$ of the leaves of $\F$) is a foliation whose leaves are the surphaces $\pi_2^{-1}(y)$ where $\pi_2: \bo^{n-k} \times \bo^k \rightarrow \bo^k$ is the projection $\pi_2(x,y)=y$. \end{lemma} When $\F$ has codimension one, this result can be improved; in fact we have: \begin{lemma}[Holonomy Lemma] Let $\F$ be a codimension one transversely orientable foliation on $M$, $A$ be a leaf of $\F$ and $K$ be a compact and path-connected set. If $g:K \rightarrow A$ is a $C^1$ map homotopic to constant in $A$, then $g$ has a {\em{normal extension}} i.e. there exist $\epsilon >0$ and a $C^1$ map $G:K \times [0,\epsilon] \rightarrow M$ such that, set $G_t(x)=G^x(t)=G(x,t),\forall (x,t) \in K \times [0,\epsilon]$, we have: \begin{enumerate} \item $G_0(K)=g$ \item $G_t(K) \subset A(t)$ for some leaf $A(t)$ of $\F$ with $A(0)=A$ \item $\forall x \in K$ the curve $G^x([0, \epsilon])$ is normal to $\F$. \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \section{Reeb Stability theorems} \begin{teor}[Reeb Local Stability Theorem] Let $\F$ be a $C^1$, codimension $k$ foliation of a manifold $M$ and $F$ a compact leaf with finite holonomy group. There exists a neighborhood $U$ of $F$, saturated in $\F$, in which all the leaves are compact with finite holonomy groups. Further we can define a retraction $\pi:U \rightarrow F$ such that, for every leaf $F' \subset U$, $\pi|_{F'} : F' \rightarrow F$ is a covering with a finite number of sheets and, for each $y \in F$, $\pi^{-1}(y)$ is homeomorphic to a disk of dimension $k$ and is transverse to $\F$. The neighborhood $U$ can be taken to be arbitrarily small. \end{teor} \begin{corol} Let $\F$ be a $C^1$, codimension $k$ foliation of a manifold $M$ and $F$ a compact leaf with finite fundamental group. Then, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $F$ saturated by $\F$ in which all the leaves are compact with finite fundamental group. \end{corol} \begin{lemma}[Corollary of the Reeb Local Stability Theorem] Let $\F$ be a codimension one, $C^r$ ($r \geq 1$) foliation. Suppose $F$ is a compact leaf of $\F$ with trivial holonomy ($\#Hol(F,x_0)=1$). Then there exists an open neighborhood $V(F)$ of $F$ in $M$, saturated by $\F$, and a $C^r$ diffeomorphism $h:(-1,1) \times F \rightarrow V(F)$ such that the leaves of $\F$ in $V(F)$ are the sets of the type $h(\{t \} \times F)$, $t \in (-1,1)$, letting $F=h( \{0 \} \times F)$. In particular $V(F)\setminus F$ has two connected components. \end{lemma} \begin{teor}[Reeb Global Stability Theorem] Let $\F$ be a $C^1$, codimension one foliation of a closed manifold $M$. If $\F$ contains a compact leaf $F$ with finite fundamental group then all the leaves of $\F$ are compact with finite fundamental group. If $\F$ is transversely orientable then every leaf of $\F$ is diffeomorphic to $F$; $M$ is the total space of a fibration $f:M \rightarrow S^1$ over $S^1$ with fibre $F$; and $\F$ is the fibre foliation $\{f^{-1}(\theta)| \theta \in S^1 \}$. \end{teor} The Reeb Global Stability Theorem takes advantage by the following two lemmas which it is useful to have in mind. \begin{lemma} Let $Hom(\R,0)$ be the germ of homeomorphisms in $\R$ fixing $0$. If $G$ is a finite subgroup of $Hom(\R,0)$ then $G$ has at most two elements. If all the elements of $G$ are represented by orientation-preserving maps, then $G=\{id \}$. \end{lemma} \begin{lemma} Let $F$ be a compact leaf of a codimension one foliation $\F$ defined on a manifold $M$. Let $F_n$ be a sequence of compact leaves of $\F$ accumulating to a point in $F$. Then for all neighborhood $F \subset W \subset M$ one has $F_n \subset W$ for all $n$ large. \end{lemma} We give the following {\em{proof}}. We use the following classical result. \begin{lemma} Let $x \in \overline{\cup_{i \in I} F_i} \subset M$, where $\{F_i \}_{i \in I}$ is a sequence of leaves of a foliation $\F$ on a manifold $M$. Then for all $y \in L_x$ we have $y \in \overline{\cup _{i \in I} F_i}$. \end{lemma} Let $U_1 , \dots , U_k \subset W$ be a covering of $F$ with charts of $\F$ such that $U_i \cap F$ is a single plaque, $\alpha _i$ of $U_i, \forall i$. As $F$ and $F_n$ $\forall n$ are compact they have the same transverse type, which is {\em{discrete}}. In particular $F \cap U_i$ and $F_n \cap U_i$ $\forall n$ contain a finite number of plaques of $U_i$. Moreover, as a consequence of the lemma stated above, $F \subset \overline{\cup_n F_n}$ and we can choose $n$ in a way that $F_n \cap U_i \neq \varnothing$ for all $1 \leq i \leq k$. We have to prove $F_n \subset U_1 \cup \dots \cup U_k$. At this purpose suppose $U_1 ,\dots , U_k$ is not a covering of $F_n$ ($n$ fixed). We may choose a finite set of foliated charts of $\F$, $U_{k+1}, \dots , U_l$, in a way that $U_1 ,\dots , U_l$ is a covering of $F_n$, $F_n \cap U_i$ contains a finite number of plaques of $U_i$ for all $i=1, \dots , l$ and $F \cap U_i = \varnothing$ $\forall i=k+1, \dots , l$. For simplicity we suppose $l=k+1$. For all $y \in F_n \cap U_{k+1}$ we can find $1 \leq i_0 \leq k$ such that the projection along plaques of the plaque through $y$ intersect a plaque $\alpha(y) \subset U_{i_0}$. By construction $U_{i_0} \cap F \neq \varnothing$, then the space of plaques $\Sigma^{i_0}$ of $U_{i_0}$ is such that $\Sigma^{i_0} \cap F \neq \varnothing$ and $\Sigma^{i_0} \cap \alpha(y) \neq \varnothing$. We may identify $\Sigma^{i_0}$ with a suitable transverse section. Let $\Sigma_y$ a transverse at $y$. By Transverse Uniformity there exists a $C^r$ diffeomorphism $f: \Sigma^{i_0} \rightarrow \Sigma_y$ such that $f(\Sigma^{i_0} \cap L)=\Sigma_y \cap L$ for any leaf $L$ of $\F$. In particular $F \cap \Sigma^{i_0} \neq \varnothing \Rightarrow F \cap \Sigma_y \neq \varnothing$, a contraddiction. The lemma is proved. \begin{osserv} As for {\bf{foliations tangent or transverse to the boundary}} on manifolds with boundary, we have that the Reeb Global Stability Theorem still holds true (cfr. ). The proof is not explicitly done in , as the boundary case differs just for the foliated atlas and the same proof fits. We can give another justification and it is the following: we can double the foliated manifold and glue the two copies along the boundary; the result is a manifold without boundary with at least one compact leaf with trivial holonomy. Moreover, as the original foliation is transversely orientable, we may choose a transverse orientation on the copy in a way that transverse orientability holds true after glueing. Notice that if the foliation $\F$ is tangent to the boundary, the compact leaf with finite holonomy $F$ may be, or not, a leaf of the boundary. Moreover, a priori, we can even admit $\F$ is, at the same time, tangent to some connected component of the boundary and transverse to some others.\\ It is clear that the Reeb Local Stability Theorem holds true for manifolds with boundary with foliations tangent or transverse to the boundary even if the compact leaf $F$ is a leaf in the boundary.\\ As for {\bf{singular foliations}}, the Reeb Local Stability Theorem still holds true, as a consequence of property $T_4$ of Hausdorff manifolds, and the Reeb Global Stability Theorem holds true on $\tilde{M}=M \setminus Sing(\F)$, foliated by $\F|_{\tilde{M}}$. \end{osserv} \section{Analytic foliations of codimension one and Novikov's Theorem} A codimension $k$ foliation on an $n$-manifold is analytic when the change of coordinates between two foliated charts is an analytic map between open sets of $\R^n$. Under these conditions any element of the holonomy of a leaf of $\F$ has a representation which is an analytic local diffeomorphism of $\R^k$. The Reeb foliation of $S^3$ is not analytic; it has been natural to ask whether $S^3$ admits analytic foliations. Haefliger gave a negative answer with the theorem we are going to state after the following definition: \begin{defin} Let $\F$ be a codimension one foliation on a manifold $M$. A leaf $L$ of $\F$ has {\em{one-side holonomy}} or {\em{unilateral holonomy}} if there is a closed curve $c \subset L$ whose holonomy map $f:Dom(f) \subset \Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma$ on a transverse $\Sigma$ intersecting $c$ at $x_0 \in c$, satisfies the following properties: \begin{enumerate} \item $f$ is not the identity, $Id$, in any neighborhood of $x_0$ in $\Sigma$; \item $f$ is the identity in one of the two connected components of $\Sigma \setminus \{x_0 \}$. \end{enumerate} \end{defin} \begin{teor}[Haefliger] Codimension one $C^2$ foliations with null-homotopic closed transversal have one-side holonomy leaves. \end{teor} Before announcing the important consequences of this theorem, we recall a basic result: \begin{lemma} Let $\F$ be a codimension one foliation, defined on a compact manifold $M$. Then there is a curve $\gamma:S^1 \rightarrow M$ transverse to $\F$. \end{lemma} \begin{corol} Codimension one $C^2$ foliations on compact manifolds with finite fundamental group have one-side holonomy leaves. In particular, there are no analytic codimension one foliations on manifolds with finite fundamental group. \end{corol} In particular \begin{corol} There is no real analytic codimension one foliations on $S^3$. \end{corol} A basic result, which improves Haefliger's theorem for 3-manifolds, is the following: \begin{teor}[Novikov Compact Leaf Theorem] Codimension one $C^2$ foliations on compact $3$-manifolds with finite fundamental group have compact leaves. \end{teor} Novikov's theorem has a difficolt jointed proof; it is interesting to recall the criterium adopted to recognise a compact leaf: \begin{propos} If $A$ is a noncompact leaf of a codimension one foliation $\F$ of a compact manifold, then for every $p \in A$, there exists a closed curve $\gamma$, transverse to $\F$, passing through $p$. \end{propos} Starting by the Reeb foliation, we may give some slightly different examples of a codimension one foliation on $S^3$. One of these examples is described in section ; others can be obtained in the following way (we refer to the notation of figure ): \begin{enumerate} \item $ST_1 \cup_\phi ST_1$ \item $ST_2 \cup_\phi ST_2$ \item $ST_2 \cup_\phi \tilde{ST_2}$ \end{enumerate} \section{Other useful results} For the results in this section we refer to \begin{teor}[Jordan-Brouwer Separation Theorem] If $\Sigma$ is a topological $(n-1)$-sphere in $S^n$ ($\R^n$), then it separates $S^n$ ($\R^n$) into exactly two disjoint domains of which it is the common boundary. \end{teor} \begin{defin} A homeomorphism $f:M^m \rightarrow N^n$, of $M$ onto a subset of $N$ ($m \leq n$), is {\em{proper}} if $f( \partial M) \subset \partial N$ and $f(int(M)) \subset int(N)$. We say that $(M,N)$ is a {\em{proper manifold pair}} if the inclusion of $M$ into $N$ is proper. If $(M,N)$ is a proper manifold pair if, then $M$ is {\em{locally flat at a point}} $x \in int(M)$ ($x \in \partial M$) if there is a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ in $N$ such that $(U,U \cap M)$ is homeomorphic to $(\R^n, \R^m)$, ($(\h^n, \h^m)$). A homeomorphism $f:M \rightarrow N$ of $M$ onto a subset of $N$ such that $f(M) \subset int(N)$ or such that $f$ is proper is said to be {\em{locally flat at a point}} $x \in M$ if $f(M)$ is locally flat at $f(x)$. Homeomorphisms onto their image and embeddings are {\em{locally flat}} if they are locally flat at every point. A homeomorphism $f:S^k \rightarrow S^n$ ($\R^n$) is said to be {\em{flat}} if there exists a homeomorphism $h:S^n \rightarrow S^n$ ($\R^n \rightarrow \R^n$) such that $h \circ f= \imath$, where $\imath$ is the inclusion of $S^k$ into $S^n$. \end{defin} \begin{teor}[Schoenflies theorem] Every homeomorphism (on its image) $f:S^1 \rightarrow S^2$ is flat. \end{teor} We cannot generalize Schoenflies Theorem to higher dimensions, because the result is false, as it is shown by the Alexander horned sphere, an homeomorph of $S^2$ in $S^3$. But we have \begin{teor}[Generalized Schoenflies Theorem] A locally flat embedding $h:S^{n-1} \rightarrow S^n$ is flat \end{teor} \begin{teor}[Cantrell] Let $\Sigma^{n-1}$ be a topological $(n-1)$-sphere contained in $S^n$ and let $R(\Sigma)$ be a complementary domain of $\Sigma$. If $\overline{R(\Sigma)}$ is a manifold, then it is homeomorphic to an $n$-ball. \end{teor} \begin{teor} If $M$ is a compact manifold such that $M=U \cup V$, where $U$ and $V$ are homeomorphic to open $n$-balls, then $M$ is an $n$-sphere. \end{teor} We end this section with the following result . Let $U \subset M^n$ be an open set such that boundary $U$ is an $(n-1)$-dimensional submanifold. Then $\overline U$ is an $n$-dimensional manifold with boundary (where not necessarily $\partial \overline U = \textrm{boundary }U$). In particular, Cantrell's thesis is true if $\Sigma$ is a manifold. \section{The minimal set in some particular cases} \begin{defin} For $n=2$ we define the set \begin{displaymath} \C(\F)=\{ \textrm{centers and leaves diffeomorphic to }S^1 \textrm{ with trivial holonomy}\}, \end{displaymath} and for $n \geq 3$ we define \begin{equation} \C(\F)= \{\textrm{centers and leaves diffeomorphic to }S^{n-1}\}. \end{equation} In fact the additional hypothesis of trivial holonomy is not necessary when $n \geq 3$, because in this case $S^{n-1}$ is simply connected. In both cases we define \begin{equation} \C_p(\F)=\textrm{connected component of } \C(\F) \textrm{ containing some center-singularity }p. \end{equation} \end{defin} \begin{propos} The sets just defined have the following properties: \begin{enumerate} \item $\C(\F)$ is open in $M$. \item $\C_p(\F)$ is open in $M$. \item $\C_p(\F) \cap \C_q(\F) \neq \varnothing$ if and only if $\C_p(\F)=\C_q(\F)$. \item $\C_p(\F)=M$ if and only if $\partial \C_p(\F)= \varnothing$. In this case the singularities of $\F$ are centers and the leaves diffeomorphic to $S^{n-1}.$ \item If $q \in Sing(\F) \cap \partial \C_p(\F)$ then $q$ must be a saddle, moreover for $n \geq 3$ and $\F$ transversely orientable $\partial \C_p(\F) \neq \varnothing$ if and only if $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. \end{enumerate} \end{propos} \begin{proof} We give a proof item by item. \begin{enumerate} \item We suppose $\varnothing \neq \{\textrm{centers} \} \subset \C(\F)$ and let $x \in \C(\F)$. If $x \in Sing(\F)$ then $x=p$, a center singularity. By the Morse Lemma $p$ admits a neighborhood in which all the leaves are spheres, $S^{n-1}$; moreover, each of them has the property it bounds an $n$-ball centered at $p$. Now suppose $x$ is a regular point. Then $L_x$, the leaf through $x$, is compact (spheric) and has trivial holonomy. By lemma $L_x$ admits an invariant neighborhood $V(L_x)$ diffeomorphic to $(-1,1) \times L_x$, whose leaves are the image of the sets $\{ t \} \times L_x$ and $L_x$ is the image of $\{ 0 \} \times L_x$. Then $\C(\F)$ is open. \item $\C_p(\F)$ is open as connected component of the open set $\C(\F)$. \item If $\C_p(\F) \cap \C_q(\F) \neq \varnothing$ then $\C_p(\F) \cup \C_q(\F) $ is connected. But $\C_p(\F)$ and $\C_q(\F)$ are connected components and so they are maximal; then $\C_p(\F) \cup \C_q(\F)=\C_p(\F)=\C_q(\F)$. \item Let $\partial \C_p(\F)= \varnothing$. Then $\C_p(\F)=M$ follows by property . \item These properties follows by the study of $\partial \C_p(\F)$.\\ Suppose $\partial \C_p(\F) \setminus Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. As $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is accumulated by spherical leaves it has the same transverse type of compact leaves. In other words the intrinsic structure of $\partial \C_p(\F)$ defines a topology (whose basis of open sets are plaques of $\partial \C_p(\F)$) which coincides with the natural topology of $\partial \C_p(\F) \subset M$ induced by $M$. Then $\partial \C_p(\F)$ may contain some closed leaf -and in this case it {\em{is}} a closed leaf- or may contain some open leaves -and it is a {\em{finite}} set of open leaves- whose closure coincide with the closure in the intrinsic topology. This means that $\overline{L}=L \cup (\overline{L} \cap Sing(\F))$. Then we have: \begin{enumerate} \item $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is a regular (non-singular) set. We can summarize the conclusion about the transverse type of $\partial \C_p(\F)$ by saying \begin{equation} \textrm{if }\partial \C_p(\F) \textrm{ has }\infty \textrm{ holonomy } \Rightarrow \textrm{ it has unilateral holonomy} \end{equation} We browse all the possibilities \begin{enumerate} \item $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is a leaf with trivial holonomy. This cannot happen because in this case $\partial \C_p(\F) \subset \C_p(\F)$, impossible. \item $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is a leaf with finite, non trivial holonomy; in codimension one by lemma this means $\#Hol(L,\F)=2$. In this case $\F$ is a non-transversely orientable foliation as it is proved in lemma . \item $\partial \C_p(\F)$ has $\infty$ holonomy. Then by it is a leaf with unilateral holonomy. A necessary condition to this chance is the fundamental group $\pi_1(\partial \C_p(\F))$ is infinite; then this can happen only in the case $n=2$. \end{enumerate} \item $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. Let $q \in \partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F)$, then $q$ cannot be a center, otherwise $q \in \C_p(\F)$, impossible. Then $q$ is a saddle. Moreover we can see that there is at least one separatrix of $q$ to which the leaves in $\C_p(\F)$ accumulate. For any foliated chart $U$, we have $q \notin U$, but we may find a foliated chart $U$ such that $U \cap \C_p(\F) \neq \varnothing$, $U \nsubseteq \C_p(\F)$ and $q \in \overline U$. In particular there exists a plaque $\alpha$ of $U$ such that $q \in \overline \alpha$. Let $\beta_n \subset \C_p(\F) \cap U$ a sequence of plaques on distinct spherical leaves accumulating to $q$. Then $\beta_n$ accumulates to $\alpha$ and then $\alpha \subset \partial \C_p(\F)$. The leaf $S$ such that $\alpha \subset S$ is a separatrix of the saddle $q$. By theorem , $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is invariant, and then $S \subset \partial \C_p(\F)$.\\ Let $L$ be a (any) separatrix of the saddle $q$. Notice that we cannot have $q' \in \overline{L} \cap Sing(\F)$ for another saddle singularity $q' \neq q$ because in our hypotheses there are no saddle connections. Then $\overline{L} \cap Sing(\F)$ is a single saddle singularity. \\Let $\{ L_i \}_{i \in I}$ be a finite set of open leaves such that $L_i \subset \partial \C_p(\F), \forall i \in I$ and $\partial \C_p(\F)= \cup_{i \in I} \overline{L_i}$. As $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is connected, $\forall i \in I$, we have $\overline{L_i}= L_i \cup \{q \}$, for the same saddle singularity $q$. As for an upper bound of $\# I$ it is given by the number of separatrices of the saddle $q$ and we will determine it in the study Topology of the Separatrices for the case of a non degenerate saddle singularity. \end{enumerate} \end{enumerate} \end{proof} By the previous discussion, if non-empty, $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is a minimal set with discrete transverse type, the most interesting case in the ambit of a possible generalization of Poincar\`e-Bendixon theorem. \chapter{About the orientability of foliations} \section{Some results about regular foliations} Given an $n$-manifold $M$ with a dimension $k$ ($k<n$) foliation $\F$, we observe that the orientability of $\F$ and the orientability of the leaves of $\F$, as $k$-manifolds, do not always agree, as we can show by the example in figure , in which all leaves are orientable manifolds but the plane field $T \F$ is non-orientable. But we can state: \begin{propos} Let $L$ be a non-orientable leaf of a $C^r, r \geq 1$ foliation $\F$. Then $\F$ is a non-orientable foliation. \end{propos} \begin{proof} Let $T \F$ be the plane field associated to the foliation and suppose it is orientable. Let $\{U_i\}_{i \in I}$ be an open cover of M such that on each $U_i$ we can choose an orientation of $ T\F$ and let $\{\Ol_i^+\}$ be a choice for the posisitive orientation of $T \F$ such that it agrees on all non-empty intersections $$\Ol_i^+=\Ol_j^+ \textrm{ on } U_i \cap U_j.$$ Then $\{\tilde U_i=U_i \cap L\}_{i \in I}$ is a cover of $L$ and $\Ol_i^+|_{\tilde {U_i}}= \Ol_j^+|_{\tilde {U_j}}$ agrees on all non-empty intersections $\tilde U_i \cap \tilde U_j$, a contraddiction.\\ More sintetically we could observe that if $x \rightarrow \mathcal P(x) \subset T_xM$ is the plane field, then $$\mathcal P|_L:x \rightarrow \mathcal P|_L(x) = T_xL$$ and $L$ is non orientable by hypothesis. \end{proof} The above proposition is equivalent to the following: \begin{propos} All leaves of a $C^r, r \geq 1$ orientable foliation are orientable manifolds. \end{propos} About transverse orientation we have: \begin{lemma} A codimension one foliation $\F$ with one leaf with finite non-trivial holonomy is non-transversely orientable. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By lemma if the holonomy group is finite non-trivial, it has exactly two elements.\\ Let $L$ be one leaf as in the lemma, $y \in L$, $\Sigma_y$ a transverse to $L$ at $y$ and $\gamma :[0,1] \rightarrow L$, with $\gamma(0)= \gamma(1)=y$, a non-trivial generator of the holonomy group $G$. Then $G=\{id, h_\gamma \}$, where \begin{displaymath} \begin{array}{lccc} h_\gamma:Dom(h_\gamma) \subset & \Sigma_y & \rightarrow & \Sigma_y\\& x & \rightarrow & -x \end{array} \end{displaymath} For simplicity we suppose $\F \in C^\infty$. Then we can consider the two $C^\infty$ plane-fields $x \rightarrow T_xL_x$ and $x \rightarrow P(x)=T_x \Sigma_x$, respectively the (integrable) $(n-1)$-plane field tangent to the foliation and the transverse $1$-plane field.\\ Let $V_y$ be a neighborhood of $y$ where the transverse plane field $x \rightarrow P(x)$ is defined by the $C^\infty$ vector field $$x \rightarrow X(x), \forall x \in V_y$$ i.e. $P(x)= span \{X(x)\}$. Then the bases formed by a single element $\{X(x)\}$ and $\{-X(x)\}$ define the two possible orientations of $P(x)$, $\Ol^+(y)$ and $\Ol^-(y)$. For the differential of $h_\gamma$ we have \begin{displaymath} \begin{array}{lccc} (dh_\gamma)_y: & T_y\Sigma_y & \rightarrow &T_y\Sigma _y\\ & X(y) & \rightarrow & -X(y) \end{array} \end{displaymath} i.e. $$\Ol^+(y) \rightarrow \Ol^-(y)$$ This means that we cannot make a choice of a positive transverse orientation, i.e. the foliation is not transversely orientable. \end{proof} The following lemma gives a further characterization of case 2 in theorem . \begin{lemma} In a codimension one foliation of an orientable manifold $M$, a non-orientable leaf $L$ has non-trivial holonomy. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $\gamma:S^1 \rightarrow L$ be a curve along which the orientation of $L$ reverses. As $M$ is orientable, the same happens for the transverse orientation. Then the holonomy of $\gamma$, $h_\gamma: Dom(h_\gamma) \subset \Sigma_x \rightarrow \Sigma_x$, for some $x \in \gamma$ is not trivial, as $sgn(h_\gamma(x'))=-sgn(x')$, where $x' \in Dom(h_\gamma) \setminus \{x \}$. \end{proof} It follows that a non-orientable compact leaf $L \subset M$ of an orientable manifold $M$ is an internal subset and the neighbor leaves are never diffeomorphic to $L$ by means of the covering map (it is a consequence of the Reeb Local Stability Theorem). As we know (cfr. the book ), $L$ does not separate $M$ and $M \setminus L$ is a manifold with boundary, where the boundary $\partial (M \setminus L)$ is an orientable double covering of $L$. As an example of an orientable manifold with a non-orientable leaf we can give the following: \begin{example} Let $M^3=S^2 \times [0,1] / \sim$, where $\sim$ is an equivalence relation such that \begin{displaymath} (x,t) \sim (x',t') \textrm{ if and only if } \left. \begin{array}{lll} x=x' & \textrm{ and } & t=t'\\x=-x'&\textrm{ and }&t=t'=0 \textrm{ or } t=t'=1\\ \end{array}\right. \end{displaymath} $M^3$ is a manifold with the homotopy type of the connected sum of two copies of $\R P^3$, each of them given by $\R P^2$ with a $3$-cell attached. On $M$ we consider the trivial foliation $\F$ given by $N^2 \times \{ t \}$ for $t \in [0,1]$ and $N^2 \simeq S^2$ or $N^2 \simeq \R P^2$ (for exactly two leaves). This example generalizes in dimension three the foliation of the Klein bottle, illustrated in figure , obtained as connected sum of two projective planes, each foliated with an orientable foliation by spheres $S^1$.\\ As $M^3$ is orientable, and $\F$ is not, then $\F$ is neither transversely orientable. In each subset given by one $\R P^2$-leaf, we cannot define continuously neither an orientation nor a transverse one. \end{example} \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \begin{propos} Let $M$ be a non-orientable manifold with a $C^ \infty$ foliation $\F$. We have the following possibilities: \begin{enumerate} \item if $\F$ is orientable (where necessarily all leaves are orientable manifolds) then $\F$ is non-transversely orientable (as the foliation of the projective plane or the one of the Klein bottle of figure ), \item if $\F$ is transversely orientable then $\F$ is non-orientable (possibly with orientable leaves, see figure ), \item $\F$ is neither orientable nor transversely orientable. \end{enumerate} \end{propos} \begin{proof} Case 1 and 2 are a consequence of Theorem (point 1). Case 3 is a consequence of the same theorem (point 2) and follows by complementarity with 1 and 2. \end{proof} A simple example of case 2 with non orientable leaves is the following: \begin{example} Let $M$ be the non-orientable manifold $M={\R P}^2 \times [0,1]$ and let $\F$ be the trivial foliation ${\R P}^2 \times \{t\}$, where $t \in [0,1]$. \end{example} We end with an example of case 3. \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \begin{example} Consider the Klein bottle, $\mathbb{K}^2$, defined by the quotient $R/_r$, where $R$ is the rectangule of vertices $(1,0),(1,1),(-1,1),(-1,0)$ and $r$ is the equivalence relation which identifies edges as in figure , and is defined by \begin{displaymath} (x,y) r (x',y') \Leftrightarrow \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} x=x', & y=y'\\ x=1,x'=-1, & y=y'\\ x=-1,x'=1, & y=y'\\ x=-x', & y=0,y'=1\\ x=-x', & y=1,y'=0\\ \end{array}\right. \end{displaymath} On $[0,1] \times R$, we define the following equivalence relation. For $t \in [0,1]$ and $(x,y) \in R$ \begin{displaymath} (t,x,y) \sim (t',x',y') \Leftrightarrow \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} t=t', & x=x', & y=y'\\t=t'=0, & |x-x'|=1, & y=y'\\ t=t'=1, & |x-x'|=1, & y=y'\\ \end{array}\right. \end{displaymath} The equivalence relation $\sim$ is invariant with respect to $r$, then it defines an equivalence relation, we still denote by $\sim$, on the quotient. Let $M$ be the closed manifold defined by $[0,1] \times \mathbb{K}^2/_ \sim$. Let $\pi: [0,1] \times \mathbb{K}^2 \rightarrow M$ be the projection onto the quotient and let $\F$ be the trivial foliation $\pi(\{t\} \times \mathbb{K}^2)=\{t\} \times \mathbb{K}^2$, where the leaves defined by $0<t<1$ have trivial holonomy and the leaves defined by $t=0,1$ have an element of order two in the holonomy group. $\F$ is not orientable nor transversely orientable; neiter $M$ is because $M \supset$ the non-orientable manifold $(0,1) \times \mathbb{K}^2$. \end{example} If all leaves are compact with trivial holonomy, then case 1 or 2 of the previous proposition holds. In fact, by Tischler's theorem, either $M$, if it is closed, or the manifold obtained by two copies of $M$ glued through the common boundary, if not, fibers over the circle.\\ \section{Orientability of singular foliations} Let $\F$ be a $C^r$ singular foliation on a surface $S$, transverse to the boundary of $S$ (if non-empty), with $Sing(\F)$ given by a finite set in the interior of $S$.\\ We say that $\F$ is $C^r$-{\em{locally orientable}} if there is an open covering $\{U_i\}_{i \in I}$ of $S$ and a $C^r$ vector field $Y_i$ in $U_i, i \in I$, such that $Sing(Y_i)=U_i \cap Sing(\F)$ and $T_xL_x=span(Y_i(x)), \forall x \in U_i \setminus Sing(Y_i)$, where $Sing(Y_i)$ denotes the set of zeroes of $Y_i$ and $L_x$ the leaf containing $x \in S \setminus Sing(\F)$.\\ We say that $\F$ is $C^r$-{\em{orientable}} if the covering $\{U_i\}_{i \in I}$ above can be chosen with a single element $U_i=S$. \begin{osserv} With this definition we require a ``good behaviour'' of the singular foliation $\F$ in a neighborhood of the singularities, so the condition involved is stronger than the condition required to assure that a regular foliation on a surphace is $C^r$-orientable. For example the foliation of figure is $C^ \infty$-orientable as a foliation of $S^2 \setminus Sing(\F)$ but it is not $C^0$-orientable as a singular foliation of $S^2$. \end{osserv} \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \begin{osserv} A $C^r$-orientable singular foliation is $C^r$-locally orientable. The converse is false in general, but true when $S=D^2$, the $2$-disc in $\R^2$. This fact is used in the proof of Haefliger's theorem and Novikov's (Auxiliary theorem I). \end{osserv} \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm We generalize this concept to codimension one singular foliations on manifolds of any dimension, adopting a different terminology for reasons that will be clear in a while. \begin{defin} A $C^\infty$ codimension one, singular foliation $\F$, with isolated singularities on $M$, is {\em{transversely orientable}} if there exists a one-form $\Omega$ of class $C^\infty$ on $M$ such that $Sing(\F)=Sing(\Omega)$, $\Omega$ integrable in the sense that $\Omega \wedge d\Omega=0$ everywhere and $\F$ coincides with the foliation $\Omega=0$ outside the singular set. \end{defin} The choice of such a one-form is called a {\em{transverse orientation}} for $\F$ and two such one forms $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ define the {\em{same}} transverse orientation for $\F$ if $\Omega'= h \cdot \Omega$ for some positive function $h$ on $M$. Transversely orientable singular foliations are well-defined. In fact we have : \begin{propos} A $C^ \infty$ codimension one singular foliation defined by an integrable one-form on a paracompact manifold is transversely orientable (in the sense of definition ). \end{propos} \begin{proof} As $M$ is paracompact, we can choose a riemannian metric on $M$. If $\Omega$ is a one-form of class $C^\infty$ defining the foliation, $grad(\Omega)$ is a $C^ \infty$ vector field defining a transverse orientation. \end{proof} \begin{osserv} Usually paracompactness is a property namely assumed for manifolds, and if it is not, it is a consequence of the existence of a countable base (assumed by hypothesis) and of local compactness (a consequence of the definition of manifolds). \end{osserv} \begin{defin} The foliation $\F$ is called {\em{locally orientable}} if each (singular) point $p \in M$ admits a neighborhood where $\F$ is transversely orientable, i.e. it is given by a one-form $\Omega_p$ as above. \end{defin} \begin{propos} A locally orientable singular foliation, locally, is orientable and transversely orientable. \end{propos} \begin{proof} Let $p \in M$ and $(U, \phi=(x^1, \dots ,x^n))$ a local chart around $p$ where the foliation $\F$ is defined by a one-form $\Omega_p: U \rightarrow T^*U$. Then we have $\Omega_p=\sum_{i=1}^n f^i dx^i$. The vector field $grad (\Omega_p)= \sum_{i=1}^n f^i \frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}$ defines a transverse orientation in $U$. As $U$ is homeomorphic to $\R^n$ the transversely orientable foliation $\F|_U$ is orientable by theorem . \end{proof} In figure we give an example of a locally orientable Morse foliation of $\R P^2$ (with one center), but not transversely orientable. This foliation is interesting also because it has a compact leaf with infinite holonomy given by the germ of an orientation reversing diffeomorphism. \begin{osserv} A $C^\infty$ codimension one foliation $\F$ on a manifold $M$ with Morse type singularities is always locally orientable. Moreover, if $M$ is simply connected, $\F$ is always orientable. We may apply corollary to $M \setminus Sing(\F)$; in fact $M \setminus Sing(\F)$ is simply connected, as Morse singularities are isolated. \end{osserv} \chapter{Spheric leaves accumulating to a saddle} \section{Topology of the Separatrices} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$ transversely orientable Morse foliation on an $n$-manifold $M$, where $n \ge 3$. Let $Sing(\F)$ be the singular set of the foliation. $\forall s \in Sing(\F)$, let $U$ be a neighborhood of $s$ defined by the Morse Lemma. In $U$, the foliation is defined by the levels of a Morse function $f$. As the foliation is transversely orientable, there exists a $C^ \infty$ one-form $\Omega: M \rightarrow T^*M$ giving the transverse orientation of $\F$. We choose a riemannian metric on $M$ and consider the transverse $C^ \infty$ vector field $x \rightarrow X(x):= grad(\Omega)(x)$. We observe that in $U$ we have $X=h \cdot grad(f)$ for some positive function $h:M \rightarrow \R$.\\ We recall the definitions $$\C(\F)= \{ \textrm{centers and leaves diffeomorphic to spheres} \}$$ and $$\C_p(\F)=\textrm{connected component of } \C(\F) \textrm{ containing some center-singularity }p.$$ We suppose $\partial \C_p(\F) \neq \varnothing$ and we recall the results of the discussion in section , 5(b): $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F)= \{q \}$, a single saddle-type singularity, and $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains at least one separatrix of the saddle. So let $q \in \partial \C_p(\F)$ be an $l\!\!-\!\!m$ saddle and let $U$ be the domain of a local chart around $q$ where the foliation is defined by the function ; let us study the level sets of $f$.\\ Locally, the separatrices of the saddle are given by the connected components of the set $f^{-1}(0) \setminus \{0\}$. We have $$f^{-1}(0)=\{(x_1, \dots ,x_{l+m}):{x_1}^2+ \dots +{x_l}^2={x_{l+1}}^2+ \dots +{x_{l+m}}^2 \} \supset \partial \C_p(\F) \cap U.$$ The set $f^{-1}(0)$ is homeomorphic to $\{0\} \cup (0,1) \times S^{l-1} \times S^{m-1}$, a cone over $S^{l-1} \times S^{m-1}$, while $f^{-1}(0) \setminus \{0\}$ is homeomorphic to an open cylinder over the same set.\\ The level sets can be of two types. For $c>0$ we have \begin{displaymath}f^{-1}(c) = \{(x_1, \dots ,x_{l+m}):{x_1}^2+ \dots +{x_l}^2+c={x_{l+1}}^2+ \dots +{x_{l+m}}^2 \}\end{displaymath} which is homeomorphic to \begin{equation}(\{0\} \cup (0,1) \times S^{l-1}) \times S^{m-1} \simeq \textrm{B}^l \times S^{m-1}\end{equation} as the set $\{0\} \cup (0,1) \times S^{l-1}$ is a cone over $S^{l-1}$, star-shaped and so homeomorphic to $\textrm{B}^l$. At the same way, for the level sets for $c<0$, we have \begin{equation} f^{-1}(c) \simeq \textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1}. \end{equation} \begin{osserv} For $l \neq 1, n-1$ the sets $f^{-1}(0) \setminus \{0 \}$ and $f^{-1}(c)$ for $c \gtrless 0$ are connected. For $l=1$ ($n-1$) the sets $f^{-1}(0) \setminus \{0 \}$ and $f^{-1}(c)$ for $c<0$ ($c>0$) have two connected components. \end{osserv} Now it is immediate to determine an upper bound for $\#I$, where $I$ is the set defined in proposition . It is clear that this number depends on the {\em{local}} behaviour of the foliation near $q$ because, by definition, a separatrix of $q$ accumulates to $q$. First, we suppose $l=1$ (the case $l=n-1$ is treated at the same way); the two connected components of $f^{-1}(0) \setminus \{0 \}$, $V_i, i=1,2$, are a local description of the separatrices of the saddle $q$ and we have $V_i \subset \partial \C_p(\F)$ for at least one $i$. In this case the upper bound for $\#I$ is $2$ and there are cases in which $\#I$ is {\em{exactly}} 2. We define \begin{eqnarray} R_1 & = & \{f^{-1}(c), c>0 \} \\ R_2 \cup R_3 & = & \{f^{-1}(c), c<0 \} \nonumber, \end{eqnarray} where by $R_2 \cap R_3= \varnothing$. Now we suppose $l \neq 1, n-1$; in this case $f^{-1}(0) \setminus \{0 \}$ has a single connected component. Then $1 \leq \#I \leq 1$ and it followes the number of leaves in $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is exactly $1$. Let $S$ be the leaf which is the separatrix of $q$; then $\partial \C_p(\F)=S \cup \{q \}$. We set \begin{eqnarray} R_1 & = & \{f^{-1}(c), c>0 \} \nonumber\\ R_2 & = & \{f^{-1}(c), c<0 \}\\ R_3 & = & \varnothing \nonumber \end{eqnarray} In this case $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$ has two connected components and $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is the boundary of each.\\ Let $L \subset \C_p(\F)$ be a spherical leaf. We can choose $L$ in a way that $L \cap f^{-1}(c) \neq \varnothing$ for some $c \in Im(f)$. Suppose $L$ intersect also a different region. Then $L\cap f^{-1}(c') \neq \varnothing$ for a suitable $c'$. As in figure , we choose a point $x \in L \cap f^{-1}(c)$ in a way that a transverse to $L$ at $x$, $\Sigma_x$ is such that $\Sigma_x \cap f^{-1}(0) \setminus \{0 \} \neq \varnothing$. Let $y \in L \cap f^{-1}(c')$ with the same property as $x$. As $n \geq 3$, the holonomy of the spherical leaf $L$ is trivial. In particular if $\gamma:[0,1] \rightarrow L$ is a $C^1$ curve such that $\gamma(0)=x$ and $\gamma(1)=y$ (leaves are arc-connected), its holonomy, $h_\gamma:Dom(h_\gamma)\subset \Sigma_x \rightarrow \Sigma_y$ is an orientation preserving diffeomorphism i.e. its differential $(dh_\gamma)_x:T_x \Sigma_x \rightarrow T_y \Sigma_y$ is such that $(dh_\gamma)_x X(x)=g(y) X(y)$, where $g:Dom(h_\gamma)\subset M \rightarrow \R$ is a positive function. \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm As a consequence we have: \begin{enumerate} \item $q$ is a selfconnected saddle. \item $x$ and $y$ belong to non adiacent regions. \end{enumerate} This is possible only in the case $l=1$ or $l=n-1$ and $c,c'<0$. Consider the normal vector field $grad(f)$; by definition, the stable and ustable manifolds of the saddle $q$ for this vector field have the property that orbits starting at points of $\W^s(q)$, respectively $\W^u(q)$, have as $\omega$-limit, respectively $\alpha$-limit, the set $\{q \}$. For our aims it is useful to determine these manifolds and their intersections with a spherical leaf $L \subset \C_p(\F)$. We have $$ \W^s(q)= \{(x_1, \dots ,x_{n}):x_{l+1}= \dots =x_{l+m}=0\} \simeq \textrm{B}^l \textrm{ and} $$ $$\W^u(q)= \{(x_1, \dots ,x_{n}):x_{1}= \dots =x_{l}=0\} \simeq \textrm{B}^m.$$ As $\W^s(q) \cap f^{-1}(c) \neq \varnothing \Leftrightarrow c<0$ and $\W^u(q) \cap f^{-1}(c) \neq \varnothing \Leftrightarrow c>0$, then \begin{eqnarray} \W^s(q) & \subset & R_2 \cup R_3\\\W^u(q) & \subset & R_1.\nonumber \end{eqnarray} For $L \subset \C_p(\F)$, we have $\varnothing \neq L \cap U \subset f^{-1}(c)$ for some constant $|c|$ small enough; if $c<0$, we have $$\varnothing \neq L \cap \W^s \simeq \{{x_1}^2 + \dots +{x_l}^2=-c\} \simeq S^{l-1},l \neq 1$$ \begin{equation}\label {stunst} \varnothing \neq L \cap \W^s \subset S^0, l=1 \end{equation} if $c>0$ we have $$\varnothing \neq L \cap \W^u \simeq S^{m-1}, m \neq 1.$$ $$\textrm{or } \varnothing \neq L \cap \W^u \subset S^0, m=1$$ Together with $L$ we consider one leaf $F$ (or more) locally defined by $f^{-1}(-c)$. As $f^{-1}(0)$ accumulates to the singularity, if $U$ is small enough, $f^{-1}(0)$ is transverse to $\partial U$, so we can suppose that, in the region bounded by $L$ and $F$, $\partial U$ is a union of pieces of orbits of the vector field $grad(f)$ starting on points of $\partial(L \cap U)$ and ending on $F$, as in the picture . \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm Essentially, we are going to prove that the saddle $q \in \partial \C_p(\F)$ changes neighbor $(n-1)$-spherical leaves into a singular $(n-1)$-manifold, homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/ (\W^s \cap L)$, where $\W^s \cap L$ is determined case by case. In some cases we may determine also the neighbor leaf $F$, less to homeomorphisms. \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one, transversely orientable, Morse foliation of a compact $n$-manifold, $M$, $n \geq 3$. Let $q$ be a $l\!\!-\!\!m$ saddle, accumulating to one center $p$. Let $L \subset \C_p(\F)$ be a spherical leaf in a neighborhood $q \in U$, defined by the Morse Lemma. If $l \notin \{1, n-1 \}$, then $\partial \C_p(\F) \setminus \{q \}$ has a single connected component; there exists a leaf $F$ such that $L$ and $F$ intersect different components of $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$, and we have $$\partial \C_p(\F) \simeq S^{n-1}/S^{l-1},$$ $$F \simeq S^{m-1} \times S^l.$$ \end{teor} \begin{proof} By the previous discussion $\partial \C_p(\F)=S \cup \{q \}$ and $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)=R_1 \cup R_2$, where $R_1 \cap R_2= \varnothing$. We can suppose $L \cap R_2 \neq \varnothing$ (the other case is obtained interchanging $f$ with $-f$ and $l$ with $m$); then $L \cap R_1 =\varnothing$ ($\Rightarrow L \cap \W^u= \varnothing$). Then, not only $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap U$ separates $U$, but also $\partial \C_p(\F)$ separates $M$. $M \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$ is the union of two disjoint regions, $\C_p(\F)$ and a region containing $R_1$, we still refer to $R_1$. By definition of $R_2$, $L \cap U$ is given by $f^{-1}(c)$ for some $c<0$ and $L \cap \W^s \simeq S^{l-1}$. In the homeomorphism between $L \cap U$ and $\textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1},$ $L \cap \W^s$ is the image of $\{0\} \times S^{l-1}$ so $L \cap U$ is a neighborhood of $L \cap \W^s$ in the leaf $L$. As $L$ is a spherical leaf, there exists a diffeomorphism $S^{n-1} \rightarrow L$; we can restrict it to a homeomorphism $h_0: S^{n-1} \setminus \textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1} \rightarrow L \setminus U$. $L$ has trivial holonomy, then $h_0$ is null-homotopic in the leaf $L$, moreover we observe that $K:=S^{n-1} \setminus \textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1}$ is compact and we recall that $\F$ is transversely orientable. By Holonomy Lemma $h_0$ has a normal extension $$H:K \times [0,\epsilon] \rightarrow M$$ for some $\epsilon>0$, such that, introducing the notation $H_t(\cdot)=H(\cdot,t),$ $t \in [0, \epsilon]$, we have \begin{enumerate} \item $H_t(K) \subset A(t)$, a leaf of $\F$, \item $H_0=h_0$ and $A(0)=L$. \end{enumerate} As $H_0$ is a homeomorphism (and the map $h_0$ extends along the orbits of the vector field $grad(\Omega)$), we can suppose $H$ is an isotopy.\\ By the discussion about the transverse type of $S$, we have $S=A(t_0)$ for some $t_0 \leq \epsilon$, where $t_0< \epsilon$ if $S$ has trivial holonomy.\\ We have already observed that in a neighborhood of $S$, $\partial U$ is union of pieces of orbits of the vector field $grad(f)$. This means that we can obtain $\partial \C_p(\F)$ by glueing $\overline{f^{-1}(0)}$ with a set homeomorphic to $S^{n-1} \setminus \textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1}$ along the common boundary, $S^{m-1} \times S^{l-1}$. In this way, introducing $k$, a diffeomorphism between the boundaries (attaching function) and $\sim$, the equivalence relation defined by $S^{l-1} \times \{0\} \sim \{0\}$, we have $k=id$ and $$\partial \C_p(\F) \simeq$$ $$\Big(S^{n-1} \setminus \textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1} \Big) {\bigcup}_k \Big( \{0\} \cup (0,1] \times S^{m-1} \times S^{l-1} \Big)\simeq$$ $$\Big(S^{n-1} \setminus \textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1} \Big) {\bigcup}_k \Big[ \big( \{0 \} \cup (0,1] \times S^{m-1} \big ) \times S^{l-1} \Big]/_{\sim} \simeq $$ $$\Big(S^{n-1} \setminus \textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1} \Big) {\bigcup}_k \overline{\textrm{B}^m} \times S^{l-1}/_{\sim} \simeq $$ $$S^{n-1}/_{\sim}=S^{n-1}/S^{l-1},$$ a set with the homotopy type of $S^{n-1} \vee S^l$, where $\vee$ is the wedge sum. As $l \neq 1, n-1$ it has trivial homotopy and so trivial holonomy; this means that $t_0< \epsilon$ and $F=A(t_1)$ for some $t_1 \leq \epsilon$. Proceeding as before we obtain that $F$ is homeomorphic to $f^{-1}(c)$ for some $c>0$ glued with a set homeomorphic to $S^{n-1} \setminus \textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1}$ along the common boundary, $S^{m-1} \times S^{l-1}$. The set $S^{n-1} \setminus \textrm{B}^m \times S^{l-1}$ is a submanifold with boundary of the sphere and is homeomorphic to $S^{m-1} \times \overline{\textrm{B}^l}$, as it is suggested by an application of Jordan-Brouwer Separation Theorem and Alexander's trick. So the leaf $F$ can be obtained by glueing two copies of $S^{m-1} \times \overline{\textrm{B}^l}$ along the boundary, what gives $$F \simeq S^{m-1} \times (\overline{\textrm{B}^l} {\cup}_k \overline{\textrm{B}^l}) \simeq S^{m-1} \times S^l$$ where $k=id$ is an extension of the previous attaching function. \end{proof} \begin{osserv} In theorem and the next theorem , it is not necessary to suppose global transverse orientability. It is enough there exists an open set $A \supset \C_p(\F)$ such that $\F|_A$ is transversely orientable. This is a very reasonable hypothesis, as related to the examples of non-transversely orientable foliations, in which transverse orientability holds on $M \setminus F$, where $F$ is a single leaf of the foliation. \end{osserv} \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$, codimension one, transversely orientable, Morse foliation of a compact $n$-manifold, $M$, $n \geq 3$. Let $q$ be a $1\!\!-\!\!(n-1)$ saddle accumulating to one center $p$. Let $L \subset \C_p(\F)$ be a spherical leaf in a neighborhood $q \in U$ defined by the Morse Lemma. Then we have three possibilities: \begin{enumerate} \item $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains a single separatrix of the saddle and is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$. \item $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains both separatrices $S_1$ and $S_2$ of the saddle and is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/S^{n-2}$, i.e. to two copies of $S^{n-1}$ with a common point. Moreover, there exist two leaves $F_i$, $i=1,2$ with the following properties: ``$F_i$ and $L$ intersect different components of $U \setminus S_i$ and $F_i$ is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$''. \item $q$ is a selfconnected saddle and $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/S^0$. $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$ has three connected components and $L$ intersects two of them. Let $F$ be a leaf such that $L$ and $F$ intersect different components of $U \setminus \partial \C_p(\F)$. Then $F$ is homeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^{n-2}$ if $\partial \C_p(\F)$ has trivial holonomy and to $\R \times S^{n-2}$ if not. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} \begin{proof} We suppose $l=1$, ($l=n-1$ is treated at the same way, interchanging $f$ with $-f$ and $l$ with $m$).\\ By the previous discussion, {\em{locally}} $q$ has two separatrices $V_1$ and $V_2$, where $V_i \subset \partial \C_p(\F)$ for at least one $i$ and we know $V_1$ and $V_2$ split $U$ in three connected components $R_1,R_2,R_3$. There are essentially three cases: \begin{enumerate} \item $L \cap R_2 \neq \varnothing$ and $L \cap R_3= \varnothing$ ($L \cap R_1 =\varnothing$). \item $L \cap R_1 \neq \varnothing$, consequently $L \cap R_2 =\varnothing$ and $L \cap R_3 =\varnothing$. \item (selfconnected case) $L \cap R_2 \neq \varnothing$ and $L \cap R_3 \neq \varnothing$ ($L \cap R_1 =\varnothing$). \end{enumerate} We will study case by case. \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \begin{enumerate} \item Two examples of this case are depicted in figure ; the case on the right can be obtained introducing a couple center-saddle with an inverse modification (see the definition in the following) on an internal leaf of the Reeb foliation of the solid torus.\\ By definition of $R_2$, $L \cap U$ is given by $f^{-1}(c) \simeq \textrm{B}^{n-1}$ for some $c<0$. By and our hypotheses, we have $\varnothing =\W^u \cap L$ and $$\W^s(q) \cap L=\{ \textrm{a single point}\}.$$ Such point is one of the two components of $W^s(q) \cap f^{-1}(c)=S^0$ for some $c<0$. Now we can proceed as in the case $l \neq 1$; there exists a normal extension of $h_0: K \rightarrow L \setminus U $, $H: K \times [0, \epsilon] \rightarrow M$, where now the compact set $K:=S^{n-1} \setminus \textrm{B}^{n-1}$ is diffeomorphic to $\overline{\textrm{B}^{n-1}}$. By the discussion about the transverse type of $\partial \C_p(\F)$, we have $\partial \C_p(\F)=A(t_0)$ for some $t_0 \leq \epsilon$ and then we glue $H_{t_0}(K)$ with $f^{-1}(0)$; this gives $$\partial \C_p(\F) \simeq S^{n-1}$$ and it is diffeomorphic to a sphere with a pinch at one point, a leaf with trivial holonomy, as $n \geq 3$. So $t_0< \epsilon$ and $F=A(t_1)$, for some $t_1 \leq \epsilon$. Then we can glue $H_{t_1}(K)$ homeomorphic to $\textrm{B}^{n-1}$ to $F \cap U$, the cylinder $(-1,1) \times S^{n-2}$, along one of the two connected components of the boundary. In this case we can only say that $F$ contains a set homeomorphic to $\textrm{B}^{n-1}$, but if also the other separatrix of the saddle, $S_2$, is homeomorphic to a sphere, even $F$ is, as we obtain repeating the above procedure. This happens, for example, when $q \in \partial \C_{p'}(\F)$ for a second center $p' \neq p$. \item Now we suppose $L \cap R_1 \neq \varnothing$. An example of this case is depicted in figure . \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm $R_1$ is bounded by both separatrices of the saddle, then $\partial \C_p(\F) \supset V_i$ for both $i$ i.e. $\partial \C_p(\F)= S_1 \cup S_2 \cup \{q \}$, where $S_i$ is the leaf (separatrix) $\supset V_i$. We have $\W^s(q) \cap L= \varnothing$, $\varnothing \neq L \cap \W^u(q) \simeq S^{n-2}$ and, by , $L \cap U \simeq \textrm{B}^1 \times S^{n-2}$, a neighborhood of the previous, while $L \setminus U \simeq \textrm{two disjoint copies of }\overline{\textrm{B}^{n-1}}=:K_1 \cup K_2$. The two maps $h_i: K_i \rightarrow L \setminus U$ (connected component by connected component) $i=1,2$ may be given a normal extension. By the same discussion about the transverse type of $\partial \C_p(\F)$ we have $S_1=A(t_0)$ and $S_2= A'(t'_0)$ for some $t_0 \leq \epsilon, t'_0 \leq \epsilon'$, leading to $S_1 \simeq S_2 \simeq S^{n-1} \setminus \{q \}$ and $\partial C_p(\F)\simeq \textrm{two copies of S}^{n-1}$ with a common point. $S_1$ and $S_2$ are null-homotopic then $t_0<\epsilon,t_0'<\epsilon'$ and for $t_1 \leq \epsilon$ and $t_1' \leq \epsilon'$ there exist leaves $F_i$, $i=1,2$, each opposite to $L$ with respect to $S_i$ such that $F_1=A(t_1)$, $F_2=A'(t'_1)$, both homeomorphic to a sphere. \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \item We are in the case of figure . We have $\varnothing = \W^u \cap L$ and, as in the other cases, $U \cap L$ is a neighborhood of $L \cap \W^s(q)=S^0$, in fact it is given by $\textrm{B}^{n-1} \times S^0$, two disjoint neighborhoods in the same leaf; we can take $K:=\overline{\textrm{B}^1} \times S^{n-2} \simeq S^{n-1} \setminus (\textrm{B}^{n-1} \times S^0)$. As in the other cases, by Holonomy Lemma, the homeomorphism $K \rightarrow L \setminus U$ has a normal extension $H$ such that $\partial \C_p(\F)=A(t_0)$ for some $t_0 \leq \epsilon$. We glue $H(K,t_0)$ to $f^{-1}(0)$ along the boundary $S^0 \times S^{n-2}$. In this way, introducing $\sim$, the equivalence relation $\{0 \} \times S^{n-2} \sim \{0\}$, where $0 \in \textrm{B}^1$, we can write $f^{-1}(0) \simeq (-1,1) \times S^{n-2}/\sim$ and we obtain \begin{equation} \partial \C_p(\F) \simeq S^1 \times S^{n-2}/ \sim \simeq S^{n-1}/S^0, \end{equation} a set with the homotopy type of $S^{n-1}\vee S^1$.\\ We underline the fact that in a coupling center-saddle this is the only case in which the holonomy group of the separatrix may be non-trivial; in that chance it is generated by the non-trivial generator of the homotopy group, a curve $S^1$ transverse to $\W^u(q)$. Even in the non-trivial case, $h_{t_0}:K \rightarrow \partial \C_p(\F)$ is null homotopic in its leaf because it doesn't contain the hole generator of the holonomy so, as usual, $t_0< \epsilon$ and $F=A(t_1)$ for some $t_1 \leq \epsilon$. After glueing, we obtain $F$ is homeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^{n-2}$ if the holonomy of $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is trivial, to $\R \times S^{n-2}$ if not.\\ Notice that if the holonomy is not trivial, it is unilateral; in any case, as $\partial \C_p(\F)$ from one side is the boundary of a singular Reeb component, from the other, as neighbor leaves are toral or cylindric, it is not the boundary of another singular Reeb component (neighbor leaves should be spheres). \end{enumerate} \end{proof} As we know in $\R^n$ a set with the homotopy type of can be the boundary of different compact regions, as \begin{equation} \textrm{B}^n/S^0, \end{equation} that can be viewed as $$(S^1_ \theta \times \textrm{B}^{n-1})/_\sim, \textrm{ where } \{\theta_0\} \times \textrm{B}^{n-1} \sim \{\theta_0\},$$ and \begin{equation} \textrm{B}^n/ \textrm{B}^1, \end{equation} homeomorphic to $$(\textrm{B}^2_\theta \times S^{n-2})/_{\sim},\textrm{ where } \{\theta_0\} \times S^{n-2} \sim \{\theta_0\}.$$ Before seeing this, we notice that by definition, $\C_p(\F)$ is given by and then it is a singular $n$-dimensional Reeb component defined in the previous section. To study the singular manifold , we suppose that in the $n$-ball, a diameter $\textrm{B}^1$ collapse to the origin along the $x_n$-axis. So if we intersect $\textrm{B}^n/ \textrm{B}^1$ with a $2$-plane through the $x_n$-axis, \begin{displaymath} \left \{ \begin{array}{l} a_1^1 x_1+ a_2^1 x_2+ \dots +a_{n-1}^1 x_{n-1}=0\\ \vdots\\a_1^{n-2} x_1+ a_2^{n-2} x_2+ \dots +a_{n-1}^{n-2} x_{n-1}=0, \end{array} \right. \end{displaymath} we obtain $\textrm{B}^2 \vee \textrm{B}^2$. We have an intersecting plane for each couple of points of the equator $S^{n-2}$, given by \begin{displaymath} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}S^{n-1}=\partial \textrm{B}^n\\ x_n=0 \end{array}\right. \end{displaymath} This gives for $\textrm{B}^n/ \textrm{B}^1$ the product $\textrm{B}^2 \times S^{n-2}$ with a fixed point of $\partial \textrm{B}^2$, i.e. $\textrm{B}^2 \times S^{n-2}/S^{n-2}$.\\ For $n=3$, for example, $S^2/S^0$, bounds respectively a torus with a strangled meridian or a torus with a strangled parallel.\\ We have already noticed $\partial \C_p(\F)$ separates $M$. If $M$ is compact, it is the boundary of two compact regions, $\overline {\C_p(\F)}$ and $M \setminus \C_p(\F)$; in particular, if $M=S^n$, it bounds, at the same time, the two compact regions listed above. This scomposition of $S^n$ generalizes the scomposition $S^n \simeq S^1 \times \bo^{n-1} \cup_f \bo^2 \times S^{n-2}$ a particular case of $S^n \simeq S^j \times \bo^{n-j} \cup_f \bo^{j+1} \times S^{n-j-1}$ which can be proved with Alexander's trick. \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \begin{osserv} In the hypothesis $M$ is a manifold homeomorphic to $S^n$ or $\bo^n$ and $q$ is a $(1\!\!-\!\!(n-1)$ saddle, case 2., both the compact hypersurpaces $S_i \cup \{q \}$, $i=1,2$ are the boundary of two compact regions $T_{2i-1}$, $T_{2i}$, $i=1,2$ and we have, for example, $\varnothing \neq T_2 \cap T_3= \overline {\C_p(\F)}$. An example of this situation may be the one depicted in figure ; here, for example, $F_1$ bounds the $n$-ball $B_1$ and $\F|_{B_1}$ is a foliation tangent to the boundary; then, as $\chi(B_1)=1$, by the Index Theorem $Sing(\F|_{B_1})=Sing(\F) \cap B_1 \neq \varnothing$, but not necessarily it contains at least one center or exactly one singularity (see figure ). For the first case consider the singular foliation of a $3$-ball, with a $1\!\!-\!\!2$ self-connected saddle at the origin and the separatrix of the saddle $S \subset \subset \textrm{B}^3$ homeomorphic to a torus with a strangled parallel. In the singular solid torus, consider a foliation as in figure on the left. \end{osserv} At the end of this study, we can ask how many distinct centers may accumulate to the same saddle $q$. It is clear that this number is less or equal to the number of regions the neighborhood $U$ is splitted by the separatrix/ces of the saddle. In case $l \neq 1, n-1$ there are two regions, $R_1$ and $R_2$, but only one can contain spherical leaves. So the answer is one.\\ In case $l=1$, or $l=n-1$ we consider separately different subcases. In case 2. we have three regions and each of them contains spherical leaves in a neighborhood of $\partial \C_p(\F)$. This does not mean that we have a center in each region, but it may happen. At this proposal consider a singular foliation of $S^2$ with a center $p_1$ and a saddle $q \in \partial \C_{p_1}(\F)$, case 2. of theorem . For the two separatrices of the saddle $q$, $S_i, i=1,2$, we have $S_i \cup \{q \} \simeq S^1$. With the notation above $T_j, j=1, \dots , 4$ are 2-balls, $\varnothing \neq T_2 \cap T_3= \C_{p_1}(\F)$. We may suppose there are two centers, $p_2$ and $p_3$, respectively in the balls $T_1$ and $T_4$. $p_3$ may be seen as a center at infinity. We have $q \in \partial \C_{p_1}(\F) \cap \partial \C_{p_2}(\F) \cap \partial \C_{p_3}(\F)$. We can also give a nice picture (see figure ). \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm The example above fits also case 1. of the same theorem. It is enough to start with the center $p_2$ (or $p_3$). We find $q \in \partial \C_{p_2}(\F) \cap \partial \C_{p_3}(\F)$. In this case we know there are spheric leaves in the complement $S^2 \setminus \overline {\C_{p_2} \cup \C_{p_3}}$. Then we may suppose the last contains a single center, i.e. $p_1$. In case 3. we have only two regions, $R_1= \C_p(\F)$ and $R_2$, and we have excluded the latter may contain spherical leaves. \chapter{Elimination of singularities} \section{Dead Branches, pairings and eliminations of pairs of singularities} When we deal with singular foliations we see there exist arrangements of singularities which reveals non-substantial to the existence of the foliation and can be removed in a sense we are going to make precise.\\ Obviously if we consider a foliation of $M=S^2$, as the Euler characteristic $\chi(S^2)=2$, it follows $S^2$ only admits foliations with singularities, then if $\F$ is a singular foliation of $S^2$, some singular points in $Sing(\F)$, the singular set of the foliation, are ineliminable.\\ From the point of view of Wagneur in a foliation with Morse singularities every center may be replaced by one saddle. By us this is possible in the way we are going to describe. Let $p$ be a center of a codimension one $C^ \infty$ foliation $\F$ of an $n$-manifold $M$. As we know, by the Morse Lemma and the Reeb Local Stability Theorem, $p$ has an open neighborhood of spherical leaves, $\C_p(\F)$. For any spherical leaf $L \subset \C_p(\F)$, $L$ has the property it bounds a ball centered at the singularity $p$. In the $n$-ball bounded by $L$, say $B$, we replace $p$ with one $1\!\!-\!\!(n-1)$ selfconnected saddle with separatrix homeomorphic to $S^{n-1}/S^0 \subset B$ bounding a region homeomorphic to B$^n/$ B$^1$, with a foliation with toral leaves with trivial holonomy $S^1 \times S^{n-2}$ close to the boundary $S^{n-1}/S^0$ and one toral leaf with unilateral holonomy bounding an $n$-dimenional Reeb component. External leaves to the invariant submanifold $\bo^n/ \bo^1$ are sperical, as we know by the study Topology of the Separatrices.\\ For our aims such a replacement involves no advantages and will not be realized. Our idea of removable singularities takes origin in saddle-node bifurcation processes, known in dynamical systems. Consider for example the function $f_ \epsilon: \R^2 \rightarrow \R,$ defined as \begin{equation}f_ \epsilon= \frac{x^3}{3}- \epsilon x+ \frac{y^2}{2},\end{equation} continuously depending on a parameter, which defines a family of foliations of the plane $\{ \F_ \epsilon \}$. $\F_ \epsilon$ are non-singular for $\epsilon<0$, $\F_0$ presents a saddle-node at the origin, and $\F_ \epsilon$ is singular, with $Sing(\F_ \epsilon)$ given by a set with a center $p$ and a saddle $q$, for $\epsilon >0$. Dealing with $\F_ \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon>0$, we can think of modifying this singular foliation in a regular one $\F_ {\epsilon '}$, for some $\epsilon '<0$, passing through $\F_0$. Moreover $\F_ {\epsilon '}$ is trivial in the region previously occupied by the couple of singularities. This procedure can be reversed, and we can introduce a couple of singularities in a regular part of a foliation.\\ It is not really necessary to modify actually a foliation; if a manifold admits a singular foliation $\F$ with suitable coupling center-saddle ($p-q$) of singularities, it admits as well a foliation $\tilde \F$, trivial in a suitable region $R \ni p,q$, with $Sing(\tilde \F)=Sing(\F) \setminus \{p,q \}$ and other properties we are going to make precise.\\ When a couple center-saddle of singularities is eliminable we will refer to it as a {\em{trivial couple}}. Our motivation for modifying a foliation is that we are interested in some aspects which are invariant under such modifications, such as the topology of the manifold or the existence of a leaf with unilateral holonomy. In this sense, it is equivalent to consider $M$ with the foliation $\F$ or $M$ with the foliation $\tilde \F$.\\ As a further step before formalizing the idea of modifications, we observe that a necessary condition in order that a couple or, sometimes, an arrangement of (isolated) singularieties $Q \subset Sing(\F)$ is removable is the existence of a region $R$ containing the finite set $Q$, delimited by two portions of leaves, $P_1$ and $P_2$ and by sets of transverse segments, such that \begin{enumerate} \item $P_1$ and $P_2$ are homeomorphic and \item$\chi(R):= \chi(sat(R))=0.$ \end{enumerate} By the study about the topology of separatrices the condition about $P_1$ and $P_2$ never holds when we deal with an $l\!\!-\!\!m$ ($l \neq 1, n-1$) saddle, $q \in \partial \C_p(\F)$. But even when we deal with a $1\!\!-\!\!(n-1)$ saddle we can find non-trivial coupling, as the couple $p-q$ of figure .\\ In the last case we might find another center $p'$ such that $p'-q$ is trivial. These considerations motivate the following: \begin{defin} Given a $C^ \infty$ codimension one singular foliation on an $n$-manifold $M^n$, a {\em{dead branch}} is a region $R$ of $M$ homeomorphic to an $n$-ball B$^n$, with $\chi(R)=0$ in the sense above, a manifold with corners, diffeorphic to the product B$^{n-1} \times [0,1]$, whose boundary is union of pieces of leaves $P_1 \cup P_2 \simeq$ B$^{n-1} \times \{0,1\}$ and of transverse segments $\Sigma \simeq \{s \} \times [0,1]$ $\forall s \in S^{n-2}= \partial \textrm{B}^{n-1}$. Moreover we ask that for each couple of transverse segments $\Sigma_i \simeq \{s_i \} \times [0,1], i=1,2$, where $s_i,\in S^{n-2}$, the holonomy from $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_2$ is trivial in the sense that $\F|_{\Sigma_1}$ and $\F|_{\Sigma_2}$ are conjugated by a diffeomorphism $h: \Sigma_1 \rightarrow \Sigma_2$ such that $L_{h(p)}=L_p$ $\forall p \in \Sigma_1$, but for if $p$ belongs to a leaf which is a separatrix of the saddle $q$; in this case we ask the image of $p$ is a point $h(p)$ belonging to a separatrix of $q$ (the same for $n \geq 3$, another separatrix for $n=2$). \end{defin} Then we have the following : \begin{propos} Let $\F$ be given on $M$ having a dead branch $R \subset M$. Then there is a foliation $\tilde \F$ on $M$ such that: \begin{enumerate} \item $\tilde \F$ and $\F$ agree on $M \setminus R$; \item $\tilde \F$ is nonsingular in a neighborhood of $R$; indeed $\tilde \F|_R$ is conjugated to a trivial fibration; \item the holonomy of $\tilde \F$ is conjugate to the holonomy of $\F$ in the following sense: given any leaf $L$ of $\F$ such that $L \cap (M \setminus R) \neq \varnothing$, then the corresponding leaf $\tilde L$ of $\tilde F$ satisfies $Hol(\tilde \F, \tilde L)$ is conjugate to $Hol(\F,L)$. \end{enumerate} \end{propos} We shall refer to $\tilde \F$ as a {\em{direct modification}} of $\F$ by elimination of the dead branch $R$. If a foliation $\F$ is obtained from a foliation $\tilde \F$ by introduction of a dead branch then we shall say $\F$ is an {\em{inverse modification}} of $\tilde \F$ by introduction of the dead branch $R$.\\ We can select a dead branch in case 1. of theorem and, sometimes, in case 2. We may find a dead branch in case 2. if one of the two separatrices $S_i$, for which we have $S_i \cup \{q \} \simeq S^{n-1}$, bounds a region, $B_i$, homeomorphic to a $n$-ball. In this case we can find a region $R \supset B_i$ which contains $q$ and an unknown arrangements of singularities ($Sing(\F|_R)= \{q \} \cup Sing(\F|_{B_i})$, that satisfies the definition of dead branch, in particular the request about the total contribution to the index. In fact by the Index Theorem , we have $$\sum_{s_i \in Sing(\F|_{B_i})} ind(s_i)=\chi (B_i)=+1.$$ So in case 1. and sometimes in case 2. we can perform a direct modification and consider a foliation $\tilde \F$, trivial in the region $R$, with $Sing(\tilde \F) \subsetneq Sing( \F) \setminus \{q \}$.\\ In the case of a selfconnected saddle $q \in \partial \C_p( \F)$ accumulating the center $p$, we can proceed to the elimination of the couple of singularities in a similar way, involving a different region, which may be assumed as a dead branch.\\ Before the next definition we need to extend the definition of holonomy. As we know, holonomy is defined for regular foliations, but we may extend this concept to the invariant set $\partial \C_p(\F)$, when $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F)\neq \varnothing$. We recall that in this case $\partial \C_p(\F)$ has a single singularity of saddle-type, $q \in \partial \C_p(\F)$. Let $\gamma:[0,1] \rightarrow \partial \C_p(\F)$ be a path. Suppose $\gamma(t)=q$ for some $t \in [0,1]$. As $q \in M$, by definition of manifold, there exist local charts around $q$ but they are never foliated charts. However transverse sections at $q$ are well-defined and we have even a wider choice. Suppose $q$ is of type $l\!\!-\!\!m$ and consider the case $\C_p(\F) \cap \W^s(q) \neq \varnothing$. This case fits the case of the selfconnected saddle we are interested to, but the case $\C_p(\F) \cap \W^u(q) \neq \varnothing$ may be treated at the same way. $\forall x \in \W^u(q)$ we consider the segment joining $x$ and $q$, $\Sigma_{q,x}$. $\Sigma_{q,x}$ is transverse to the foliation at $q$ and $\Sigma_{q,x} \setminus \{q \}$ intersects some foliated charts. As Morse singularities are isolated, we may suppose $\Sigma_{q,x} \cap Sing(\F)= \{q \}$.\\ We choose a finite covering $U_1, \dots ,U_k$ of $\gamma \setminus \{q \}$ by foliated charts, adding, if necessary, a foliated chart $U_{k+1}$, containing $\Sigma_{q,x} \setminus \{q \}$ for a fixed choice of $x \in \W^u$. For each $U_i$, we choose a transverse section. In particular, if $\gamma(0)=q$, we choose $\Sigma=\Sigma_{q,x}$. We define the holonomy, setting $h_\gamma(\gamma(0))=\gamma(1)$, while, $\forall y \in \Sigma \setminus \gamma(0)$, $h_\gamma$ is the holonomy induced by the finite covering $U_1, \dots , U_{k+1}$.\\ With this definition we can improve lemma . In fact we have \begin{lemma} Let $L_n$ be a sequence of compact leaves of a codimension one foliation $\F$ on $M$, accumulating to a point of a minimal set $K$, such that $K \cap Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. Then for each neighborhood $K \subset W \subset M$, one has $L_n \subset W$ for $n$ large. \end{lemma} \begin{defin} A {\em{dead branch for a selfconnected saddle}} is a manifold with corners homeomorphic to the product $S^1 \times \textrm{B}^{n-1}$, a region $R$ delimited by portions of leaves, $P_1,P_2$, (one is the selfconnected separatrix, say $P_2 \subset \partial \C_p(\F)$), each homemorphic to $S^{n-2} \times [0,1]$, and by transverse segments, $\Sigma$, with end-points respectively on $\partial P_1$ and $\partial P_2$. Clearly, if $n=2$, $P_1$ and $P_2$ have two connected components for each. We require $\chi(R)=0$ and that the holonomy from a transverse segment to another is trivial, where, if necessary, we refer to the holonomy of the minimal set $\partial \C_p(\F)$. \end{defin} Let us see how to construct a dead branch for a selfconnected saddle. We choose a neighborhood $U$ of the saddle defined by the Morse Lemma. As we know, $\partial U$ may be supposed transverse to $\F$ in a neighborhood of $\partial \C_p( \F)$. Let $P_2= \partial \C_p(\F) \setminus U$. By the study in the previous chapter, we know that $P_2 \simeq S^{n-2} \times [0,1]$. Let $\Sigma_1,\Sigma_2$ be transverse segments at $\partial P_2$, contained in $\partial (U \setminus \C_p( \F))$. As $\partial P_2 \simeq S^{n-2} \times \{0,1\}$, we choose $\Sigma_1$ transverse at a point corresponding to $s_1 \times \{0 \}$ and $\Sigma_2$ transverse at a point corresponding to $s_2 \times \{1 \}$, where $s_1,s_2 \in S^{n-2}$ (see figure ). Let $L_1$ be a leaf intersecting the transverse segments $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ and let $P_1=L_1 \cap U$. \begin{enumerate} \item We set $R \setminus U=\overline{\C_p( \F)} \setminus U$. \item By the Morse Lemma, $P_1$ is homeomorphic to $S^{n-2} \times [0,1]$ and bounds a region containing the singularity. We choose for $R \cap U$ the invariant subset of $U$ bounded by $P_1$. \end{enumerate} \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm Consider points $x_i \in \Sigma_i \cap \partial \C_p( \F)$, $i=1,2$. Let $\gamma:[0,1] \rightarrow \partial \C_p( \F) \cap U$ be a curve joining $x_1$ with $x_2$ and let $h: Dom(h) \subset \Sigma_1 \rightarrow \Sigma_2$ be the holonomy of $\gamma$. As $\gamma([0,1]) \subset \partial \C_p(\F)$, we refer to the holonomy of a minimal set containing singularities. As $\gamma$ is an open curve ($\gamma(0) \neq \gamma(1)$), its holonomy is trivial.\\ In $R \cap U$ we perform the modification shown in figure . This local modification changes the singular leaf/ves $\partial \C_p( \F)$ into regular, say $F_j \in \tilde \F$ ($j=1$ for $n>2$ and $j=2$ for $n=2$). Now $\cup_j F_j $ may be the boundary of a Reeb component, so we end the modifying process putting a double Reeb component inside $R( \cup_j F_j )$, the region bounded by $\cup_j F_j $. Then we can state a proposition which is very similar to proposition . \begin{propos} Let $\F$ be given on $M$, having a dead branch of a selfconnected saddle, $R \subset M$. Then there is a foliation $\tilde \F$ on $M$ such that: \begin{enumerate} \item $\tilde \F$ and $\F$ agree on $M \setminus R$. \item $\tilde \F$ is nonsingular in a neighborhood of $R$ and $\tilde \F|_R$ is a Reeb foliation; \item the holonomy of $\tilde \F$ is conjugate to the holonomy of $\F$ in the following sense: given any leaf $L$ of $\F$ such that $L \cap (M \setminus R) \neq \varnothing$, then the corresponding leaf $\tilde L$ of $\tilde \F$ satisfies $Hol(\tilde \F, \tilde L)$ is conjugate to $Hol(\F,L)$. \end{enumerate} \end{propos} \begin{defin} We will say that $\tilde \F$ is a {\em{direct modification of second type}} of $\F$, if it is obtained by $\F$ by replacement of a singular Reeb component with a regular double Reeb component. \end{defin} \begin{example} Consider the foliation of the torus by level set of the height function as in figure . It exhibits four critical points: the centers $p,s$ and the saddles $q,r$. Both saddles are selfconnected and the sigularities are eliminable couple by couple, a center with a selfconnected saddle ($p$ with $q$ and $r$ with $s$). In figure you may find a dead branch for the selfconnected saddle $q$ and the resulting foliation obtained by replacing the two singular Reeb components with two double Reeb components. \end{example} \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \section{Strong Stable Connection (coupling of two saddles)} The cases examined in the previous section are not the only cases of trivial arrangements of singularities; we may find trivial coupling of saddles among couples of Morse singularities of different types and we will eliminate them with a new generalization of the idea of the dead branch. Let $M^n$ be an $n$-manifold and $\F$ a codimension one, $C^ \infty$, transversely orientable foliation on $M$, with isolated singularities. Let $\Omega$ be the one-form of class $C^ \infty$ which gives the transverse orientation and $\varnothing \neq Sing(\Omega) \supset \{p,q \}$, a couple of saddles of different types. In what follows we suppose a riemannian metric is given on M; in this way it is defined the global $C^ \infty$ vector field $grad(\Omega)$ and everything related to it, in particular the stable and unstable manifolds of each saddle. We base our study on $\R^n$ and a family of foliations $\F_ \epsilon$, defined by $df_ \epsilon=0$, where the function $f_ \epsilon : \R^n \rightarrow \R$, depending on the parameter $\epsilon \in \R$, is given by \begin{equation}f_ \epsilon= - \frac{x_1^2}{2}- \dots - \frac {x_{k-1}^2}{2}+(\frac{x_k^3}{3}- \epsilon x_k)+ \frac {x_{k+1}}{2}+ \dots + \frac{x_n^2}{2}\end{equation} and $\epsilon$ varies in an interval around zero. The present study gives a more complete picture of what done for the case $n=2$ and $k=1$ in section .\\ For $\epsilon \geq 0$ $\F_ \epsilon$ is a singular foliation and has either a couple of singularities for $\epsilon >0$ or a single saddle-node singularity at the origin for $\epsilon=0$; for $\epsilon <0$ $\F_ \epsilon$ is nonsingular. For $\epsilon >0$ we have $$Sing(\F_ \epsilon)=Sing(grad(f_ \epsilon))=\{p=(0,\dots,0,-\sqrt{\epsilon},0,\dots,0),q=(0,\dots,0,\sqrt{\epsilon},0,\dots,0)\}.$$ We notice that $p$ and $q$ are non-degenerate singularities, but we are not using a chart defined by the Morse Lemma; anyway we see that $p$ and $q$ have respectively types $k\!\!-\!\!(n-k)$ and $(k-1)\!\!-\!\!(n-k+1)$. If $k=1,n$ one of the two singularities is a center; in the general case we assume $1<k<n$. We recall that, given a function $f: \R^n \rightarrow \R$, the vector field $grad(f): \R^n \rightarrow \R^n$ has no closed orbits as $f$ is monotonous increasing along the orbits of $grad(f)$; then the $\alpha$-limit and $\omega$-limit sets of an orbit consist of isolated singularities.\\ Suppose it is given the foliation $\F_ \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon >0$. We can decrease continuosly the parameter $\epsilon$ up to a negative value, passing through $\epsilon =0$; in this way we smoothly change the original singular foliation in a regular foliation. For $0< \epsilon <1$ such a deformation takes place in a region delimited by the leaves $L_1=L_{(0,\dots,0,-1,0,\dots,0)}$ and $L_2=L_{(0,\dots,0,1,0,\dots,0)}$, where the two singularities become closer and closer along the $x_k$-axis up to collapse into a unique saddle-node singularity at the origin and then vanish completely.\\ We can follow the deformation in the opposite direction as well; we begin with a regular foliation and then we attend the comparison of a saddle-node singularity, bifurcating in a couple of singularities of complementary indices (the index is defined as $(-1)^l$, where $l\!\!-\!\!(n-l)$ is the type of the saddle).\\ We are going to study in details the cases $n=1,2,3$, before passing to the general case.\\ The case $n=k=1$, apparently meaningless, as it deals with a foliation by points, indistiguishable by singularities (but for analytically), will be somehow useful in the following. So we begin to study the foliation of the line defined by $$f_ \epsilon= \frac{x^3}{3}- \epsilon x.$$ In this case the singularities $p$ and $q$ are centers of complementary indices, the leaves $L_1$ and $L_2$ are just the points $x=-1$ and $x=1$ and the elimination procedure can be followed in figure : \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm For $n=2$ and $k=1$, the case studied in section , the foliation and the vector field are illustrated in figures , , , , , , where we chose, respectively, $\epsilon=0.25, 0, -0.25$.\\ The act of replacing the foliation $\F_ \epsilon$ for $\epsilon>0$, with $\F_{\epsilon'}$ for some $\epsilon'<0$, is what we have defined a direct modification.\\ For $n=3, k=2$ the foliation $\F_ \epsilon$ is defined by the function $$f_ \epsilon (x,y,z)=- \frac {x^2}{2}+(\frac{y^3}{3}- \epsilon y)+\frac {z^2}{2}.$$ In the case $\epsilon >0$ the couple of singularities is actually a couple of saddles. You may find phase-portraits and three-dimensional pictures of the foliation, in the different cases $\epsilon \gtreqless 0$, in figures from to .\\ As for the vector field $grad(f_ \epsilon)$ in a region delimited by the 2-leaves $L_1,L_2$, it is described in figure : \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vspace{1ex} \pagebreak In order to understand the deformation process we will go on referring to the two dimensional case; in fact we will consider restrictions of the foliation to planes passing through the $y$-axis. For any of these planes, the foliation is singular in both the singularities of $\F_ \epsilon$ and the singularities constituite a couple center-saddle, but, if we vary continuosly the plane, the roles may counterchange. The swap takes place when the plane is tangent to both the conus leaves accumulating each singularity, i.e. for $x=\pm z$. If we restrict to these planes, the foliation is given by $y=cte$ and the singularities are degenerate in the sense that $$dim \W^s(r)+ dim \W^u(r)=1,\textrm{ for both }r=p,q,$$ so that the elination procedure can be thought to take place on the line $y$ (case $n=1$).\\ In this way, a neighborhood of both singularities, in which the modification process takes place, can be splitted in regions delimited by half-planes, where the singularities eliminate as a couple center-saddle in a dead branch. We choose one of the regions above where the roles of the singularities are fixed, say $p$=center and $q$=saddle; here we can choose a portion of a dead branch (for that couple) in a classical way; this portion is delimited, other than by the two half-planes, by two leaves, $L_1$ and $L_2$ and by space of leaves. In the adjoining regions, the same two leaves and space of leaves bound a portion of a dead branch for the couple $p$=saddle-$q$=center. The region containing the couple $p-q$, delimited by pieces of $L_1$ and $L_2$ and by space of leaves, is the {\em{dead branch for the couple of saddles}}; it has a new shape, but the same properties of the original dead branch. In fact we can think the former is obtained by the latter, cutting it through the planes $x= \pm z$, reversing two pieces with respect to the $y$-axis and then glueing the pieces together.\\ At last we study the general case (any $n$, $k \neq 1,n-1$).\\ \vspace{1ex} The only pictures we can give are obtained fixing $x_l=cte$ for all $l$, but for two or three values. The value $l=k$ play a different role and our choices are referred to this value. \vspace{1ex} As for the vector field, we have $$grad(f_ \epsilon)= (-x_1, \dots,-x_{k-1},x_k^2- \epsilon,x_{k+1},\dots,x_n)$$ and we have the pictures of figure . \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vspace{1ex} In the case $\epsilon >0$, we have the two singularities $p$ and $q$, whose stable and unstable manifolds, by considerations based on the sign of the components of $grad(f_ \epsilon)$, are given by: \begin{displaymath} \begin{array}{rccccclcllcl} \W^s(p) & = & \{ & x_k & < & \sqrt \epsilon & \} & \cap & \{x_j & = & 0 & \}_{j>k}\\ \W^u(p) & = & \{ & x_i & = & 0 & \}_{i<k} & \cap & \{x_k & = & - \sqrt \epsilon & \}\\ \W^s(q) & = & \{ & x_j & = & 0 & \}_{j>k} & \cap & \{x_k & = & \sqrt \epsilon & \}\\ \W^u(q) & = & \{ & x_k & > & -\sqrt \epsilon & \} & \cap & \{x_i & = & 0 & \}_{i<k}\\ \end{array} \end{displaymath} Observe that $\W^s(p)$ and $\W^u(q)$ intersect the $x_k$-axis and we have: $$\varnothing \neq \W^s(p) \cap \W^u(q)= \{- \sqrt\epsilon < x_k < \sqrt \epsilon \} \cap \{x_l=0\}_{l \neq k}$$ The separatrices of the saddles are the two leaves, $$F_1=f_ \epsilon ^{-1}(\frac{2}{3} \epsilon \sqrt \epsilon),$$ accumulating $p$, and $$F_2=f_ \epsilon ^{-1}(-\frac{2}{3} \epsilon\sqrt \epsilon),$$ accumulating $q$. So the separatrices are given by $$F_i=\Big \{-\frac{x_1^2}{2}- \dots - \frac{x_{k-1}^2}{2}+\frac{x^3_{k+1}}{3}- \epsilon x_k +\frac{x_{k+1}^2}{2}+\dots +\frac{x_n^2}{2}=(-1)^{i-1} \frac{2}{3} \textrm{ } \epsilon^{3/2}\Big \}$$ for $i=1,2$; obviously they are not cones, but have such an intersection with the hyperplane $x_k=(-1)^i \sqrt \epsilon$. \begin{displaymath}F_i \cap \{x_k=(-1)^i \sqrt \epsilon \}= \left\{ \begin{array}{l} -\frac{x_1^2}{2}- \dots -\frac{x_{k-1}^2}{2}+ \frac{x_{k+1}^2}{2}+ \dots +\frac{x_n^2}{2} = 0\\ x_k = (-1)^i \sqrt \epsilon \end{array} \right. \end{displaymath} The first equation, $$\frac{x_1^2}{2}+ \dots + \frac{x_{k-1}^2}{2} = \frac{x_{k+1}^2}{2}+ \dots +\frac{x_n^2}{2},$$ defines a manifold $\R \times C$, where $C$ is a $(n-2)$-dimensional cone over $S^{k-2} \times S^{n-k-1}$. So the system defines the cone $C \times \{(-1)^i \sqrt \epsilon\}$.\\ The separatrix/ces $F_i$ splits/split a neighborhood of the saddle into (at least) two regions. It is immediate to see this, intersecting the neighborhood with the hyperplane $x_k= (-1)^i\sqrt \epsilon$. Here the restriction of the foliation is given by a Morse function and defines each saddle as a $(k-1)\!\!-\!\!(n-k)$-saddle (where $k\neq 1, n$ by hypothesis). In fact each region intersect alternatively the stable or the unstable manifold of the saddle; for example, for the saddle $p$ and $x_k=-\sqrt \epsilon$, the restrictions are given by $$\W^s(p) \cap \{x_k=-\sqrt \epsilon \}\simeq \{x_j=0\}_{j \geq k}$$ $$\W^u(p) \cap \{x_k=-\sqrt \epsilon \}= \{x_i=0\}_{i < k}.$$ Then for a couple of constants $h_1^- <2/3 \epsilon^{3/2} < h_1^+$ we have $$f_ \epsilon^{-1} (h_1^-) \cap \{x_k=-\sqrt \epsilon \}=\{-x_1^2- \dots -x_{k-1}^2+x_{k+1}^2+\dots +x_n^2=h_1^-- 2/3 \epsilon^{3/2}<0\}$$ Then $$f_ \epsilon^{-1} (h_1^-) \cap \W^s(p) \neq \varnothing$$ and $$f_ \epsilon ^{-1}(h_1^-) \cap \W^u(p) = \varnothing.$$ Similarly $$f_ \epsilon ^{-1}(h_1^+) \cap \W^s(p) = \varnothing$$ $$f_ \epsilon ^{-1}(h_1^+) \cap \W^u(p) \neq \varnothing.$$ Similar results are obtained for the saddle $q$ by means of intersections with the hyperplane $x_k= \sqrt \epsilon$. \begin{osserv} We observe that if we consider the restriction of the foliation $\F|_{\W^s(p)}$, $p$ is a center but $q$ is a saddle and viceversa for $\F|_{\W^u(q)}$. \end{osserv} In order to generalize to any $n$ the modification process obtained for $n=3$, we investigate which submanifold of $\R^n$ may take the role of the planes $x= \pm z$.\\ We consider the following family of manifolds $$K_\alpha=\{(x_1, \dots ,x_n)|x_1^2+ \dots +x_{k-1}^2= \alpha (x_{k+1}^2+ \dots +x_n^2)\},$$ for $\alpha \geq 0$. For $\alpha =0$ the manifold of the family degenerates in the space $\R^{n-k+1}=\W^u(q)$, $$K_0=\{x_1= \dots =x_{k-1}=0\}.$$ For $\alpha >0$, as the definition does not depend on $x_k$, $K_ \alpha \simeq \R \times C_\alpha$, where $C_ \alpha$ is a cone over $S^{k-2} \times S^{n-k-1}$ and $C_ \alpha \simeq C_1=C$. Observe that as $k \neq 1, n$, then $k-2 \geq 0$ and $n-k-1 \geq 0$.\\ On $K_ \alpha$ the foliation $\F_ \epsilon|_{K_ \alpha}$ is defined by the function $f_ \epsilon|_{K_ \alpha}: K_ \alpha \rightarrow \R$ $$f_ \epsilon|_{K_ \alpha}=(\frac{x_k^3}{3}- \epsilon x_k)+(1- \alpha)(\frac {x_{k+1}^2}{2}+ \dots +\frac{x_n^2}{2}).$$ For $\alpha \neq 0$, we have $$grad(f_ \epsilon|_{K_ \alpha})=\Big(\frac{1- \alpha}{\alpha}x_1, \dots,\frac{1- \alpha}{\alpha}x_{k-1} ,x_k^2- \epsilon,(1- \alpha) x_{k+1}, \dots,(1- \alpha)x_n\Big),$$ and, for $\alpha=0$, $$grad(f_ \epsilon|_{K_0})=(0, \dots, 0,x_k^2- \epsilon, x_{k+1}, \dots,x_n).$$ So in $K_0$, $q$ is a center and $p$ is a saddle. The same result on $p$ and $q$ is obtained on $K_ \alpha$ for $0< \alpha <1$. For $\alpha=1$ we have $$grad(f_ \epsilon|_{K_1})=(0, \dots, 0,x_k^2- \epsilon,0, \dots, 0)$$ then on $K_1$, $p$ and $q$ are centers in dimension $1$ (in fact we have $dim \W^s(p)=dim \W^u(q)=1, dim \W^u(p)=dim \W^s(q)=0$). At last, on $K_ \alpha$ for $\alpha>1$, $p$ becomes a center and $q$ a saddle.\\ We have $$\R^n=\cup_{\alpha=0}^{+ \infty} K_ \alpha \cup lim_{\alpha \rightarrow + \infty} K_ \alpha \textrm{, where }lim_{\alpha \rightarrow + \infty} K_ \alpha \supset \W^s(p).$$ This means that a neighborhood of the couple of saddles can be splitted by the manifold $K_1$ in two regions, $V_1=\cup _{0 \leq \alpha <1} K_ \alpha$ and $V_2=\cup _{ \alpha >1} K_ \alpha \cup lim_{\alpha \rightarrow + \infty} K_ \alpha$. Here the couple of saddles can be assimilated to a couple center-saddle in complementary ways. Similarly to what done for $n=3$, we can choose portions of two leaves and of space of leaves bounding a region $R$ in a way that $R$ contains both the singularities, its intersection with $V_1$ gives a portion of a dead branch for the couple $p$=saddle-$q$=center, and viceversa its intersection with $V_2$ gives a portion of a dead branch for the couple $p$=center-$q$=saddle. Then we say that $R$ is a {\em{dead branch of the couple of saddles}}.\\ We can give a picture of a dead branch of a couple of saddles in dimension $3$. \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm At last we observe that the general case is actually a generalization of the case $n=3$, in which the couple of lines \begin{displaymath} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} x= \pm z\\ y=(-1)^i \sqrt \epsilon \end{array} \right. \end{displaymath} intersecting at $(0,(-1)^i \sqrt \epsilon,0)$ is a cone over $S^0 \times S^0$, to which reduces $C_1=C$ for $n=3$. Moreover $K_1 \simeq \R \times (\{0 \} \cup (0,+ \infty) \times (S^0 \times S^0))= \R \times C$ gives the couple of planes $x= \pm z$. After the study of an elimination procedure of a trivial couple of saddles in a foliation on $\R^n$, we go back to the manifold $M$ and to its singular foliation $\F$. We shall determine when a couple of saddles is eliminable.\\ We begin with the case $n=3$. We need the following definition: \begin{defin} Given a foliation $\F$ on a $3$-manifold $M^3$, with a couple of saddles $p,q \in Sing(\F)$ of different types, we will say that $p$ and $q$ {\em{connect transversely}} if the stable manifold of $p$, $\W^s(p)$, intersect transversely the unstable manifold of $q$, $\W^u(q)$, in a smooth connection curve $\gamma_{pq}$. Such a connection will be called a {\em{strong stable connection}} between $p$ and $q$. \end{defin} \pagebreak \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \begin{osserv} In low dimensions the index of a singularity gives information about the singularity itself. In dimension $1$ Morse singularities are centers, in dimension $2$ the index reveals the type (center or saddle), in dimension $3$ the index of a saddle reveals the dimensions of the stable and unstable manifolds. \end{osserv} At the light of the above remark we can extend the previous definition to any $n$ with an additional hypothesis. \begin{defin} Given a foliation $\F$ on an $n$-manifold $M^n$, with a couple of saddles $p,q \in Sing(\F)$ {\em{of complementary indices}}, i.e. such that \begin{equation} dim \W^s(p)= dim \W^s(q)+1, \end{equation} we will say that $p$ and $q$ {\em{connect transversely}} if the stable manifold of $p$, $\W^s(p)$, intersect transversely the unstable manifold of $q$, $\W^u(q)$, in a smooth connection curve $\gamma_{pq}$. Such a connection will be called a {\em{strong stable connection}} between $p$ and $q$. \end{defin} \begin{osserv} Condition assure the necessary condition $\W^s(p) \cap \W^u(q) \neq \varnothing$. \end{osserv} \begin{osserv} The additional hypothesis fixes the types of $p$ and $q$ in the elimination procedure, i.e. $p$ is the saddle of type $k\!\!-\!\!(n-k)$ and $q$ is the saddle of type $(k-1)\!\!-\!\!(n-k+1)$. \end{osserv} \begin{osserv} Notice that we have assumed $1<k<n$. This means $$1< dim \W^s(p)< n,$$ otherwise we have a couple center-saddle that can be eliminated with a direct modification. \end{osserv} \begin{osserv} Equality is a necessary condition for a couple of saddles to be trivial. We see that, in general, it is a necessary condition for a couple of singularities to be trivial. In a trivial couple center-saddle, we have seen the saddle's type must be $1\!\!-\!\!(n-1)$ or $(n-1)\!\!-\!\!1$. This is equivalent to condition when one of the singularities is a center (type $(0\!\!-\!\!n)$ or $(n\!\!-\!\!0)$). \end{osserv} In the next step we state the following: \begin{propos} Given a foliation $\F$ on a manifold $M^n$, we can obtain a modification $\tilde \F$ of $\F$ on $M$, with $Sing(\tilde \F)=Sing(\F) \cup \{p,q\}$, where $p$ and $q$ are a couple of saddles of complementary indices, connecting transversely. \end{propos} \begin{proof} Consider the foliations $\F_{\epsilon '}$ and $\F_{\epsilon ''}$ of $\R^n$ given by the submersion $f_\epsilon:\R^n \rightarrow \R$, for a couple of values $\epsilon = \epsilon ' <0$ and $\epsilon = \epsilon '',0< \epsilon '' <1$; cutting transversely the strips $f_{\epsilon '}^{-1}(-1,1)$ and $f_{\epsilon ''}^{-1}(-1,1)$, choose dead branches $R' \subset f_{\epsilon '}^{-1}(-1,1)$ and $R'' \subset f_{\epsilon ''}^{-1}(-1,1)$, in a way that $0 \in R'$ and $(0, \dots, \pm \sqrt {\epsilon ''}, \dots, 0) \in R''$. By the study on the family of functions $\{f_\epsilon \}$, we may choose a homeomorphism $h: R' \rightarrow R''$, which sends pieces of leaves, respectively, transverse segments of $\partial R'$ into pieces of leaves, respectively, transverse segments of $\partial R''$. In other words $\F_{\epsilon '}$ and $\F_{\epsilon ''}$ are not equivalent foliations (in the sense that there does not exist a homeomorphism between regions of $\R^n$ which sends the leaves of $\F_{\epsilon '}$ into the leaves of $\F_{\epsilon ''}$) but they are equivalent on a neighborhood of $\partial R'$.\\ Let $(U,\phi)$ be a foliated chart of $\F$ (any). Observe that we have $U \subset M \setminus Sing(\F)$. By definition $\phi(U)=\bo ^{n-1} \times (-1,1) \simeq R' \simeq R ''$. These considerations allow a surgery: we replace the foliation $\F_{\epsilon '}|_{R'}$ with $\F_{\epsilon''}|_{R ''}$, or, equivalently, we substitute the foliation defined by the submersion $\phi^n=f_{\epsilon'}$ with the foliation defined by the singular submersion $\psi^n=f_{\epsilon''}$. \end{proof} The converse of the above poposition is preceded by the following \begin{osserv} Given a foliation $\F$ on $M^n$ with two complementary saddle singularities $p,q \in Sing(\F)$ having a strong stable connection $\gamma$, there exist a neighborhood $U$ of $ p, q$ and $\gamma$ in $M^n$ and a coordinate system $\phi: U \rightarrow \R^n$ taking $p$ onto $(0, \dots,0)$, $q$ onto $(0,\dots, \phi^k=1 ,\dots,0)$, $\gamma$ onto the $x_k$-axis $\{x_l=0\}_{l \neq k}$ and such that the stable manifold of $p$ is tangent to $\phi^{-1}(\{x_l=0\}_{l>k})$ at $p$ and the unstable manifold of $q$ is tangent to $\phi^{-1}(\{x_l=0\}_{l<k})$ at $q$. So using the chart $\phi:U \rightarrow \R^n$ we may assume that we are on $\R^n$ and the foliation $\F|_U$ is defined by $f_ \epsilon$, for some $\epsilon >0$. In this way the vector field $grad(f_ \epsilon)$ defines a transverse orientation in $U$. Moreover let $\mu>0$ be such that the points $r_1=\phi^{-1}(0,\dots,\phi ^k=-\mu, \dots,0)$ and $r_2=\phi^{-1}(0,\dots,\phi ^k=1+\mu, \dots,0) \in U$. Then the leaves $L_{r_i}, i=1,2$ are such that $L_{r_i} \cap U \neq \varnothing$. \end{osserv} In $U$, using the orbits of the transverse vector field $grad(f_ \epsilon)$, we can choose a dead branch of the couple of saddles, $R \subset U$, a region delimited by pieces of leaves $P_1 \subset L_1=L_{r_1}$ and $P_2 \subset L_2=L_{r_2}$, by spaces of leaves $\Sigma$ and by pieces of the manifold $\phi ^{-1}(K_1)$. Here we can perform a modification of the foliation as we have done for $\F_ \epsilon$. \begin{propos} Given a foliation $\F$ on $M^n$ with a couple of saddles $p,q$ of complementary indices, having a strong stable connection, there exists a dead branch of the couple of saddles, $R \subset M$. So we can obtain a foliation $\tilde \F$ on $M$ with \begin{enumerate} \item $\# Sing(\tilde \F)= \# Sing(\F)-2,$; \item $\tilde \F$ and $\F$ agree on $M \setminus R$; \item $\tilde \F$ is nonsingular in a neighborhood of $R$; indeed $\tilde \F|_R$ is conjugated to a trivial fibration; \item the holonomy of $\tilde \F$ is conjugate to the holonomy of $\F$ in the following sense: given any leaf $L$ of $\F$ such that $L \cap (M \setminus R) \neq \varnothing$, then the corresponding leaf $\tilde L$ of $\tilde F$ satisfies $Hol(\tilde \F, \tilde L)$ is conjugate to $Hol(\F,L)$. \end{enumerate} \end{propos} \begin{defin} We say that $\tilde \F$ is a {\em{direct modification (of third type)}} of $\F$ and $\F$ is an {\em{inverse modification (of third type)}} of $\tilde \F$. \end{defin} \chapter{Reeb Sphere-type theorems} \section{Singular Seifert fibrations} Let $M$ be a compact connected manifold of dimension $n$, possibly with non-empty boundary, $\partial M$. Let $\F$ be a codimension one, $C^ \infty$ foliation, with isolated singularities, on $M$ and, if $\partial M \neq \varnothing$, we suppose $\F$ is tangent or transverse to $\F$. We shall say that the foliation is a (singular) {\em{Seifert fibration}} of $M$ if its leaves are compact with trivial holonomy group. Assume now $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$ and that the singularities of $\F$ are of Morse type. We recall the set $\C(\F)$ and $\C_p(\F)$, defined in and , and their properties, stated in proposition . The classification of these manifolds is given below. \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a Seifert fibration on $M$ tangent to the boundary $\partial M$ if non-empty. Suppose the singularities of $\F$ are of Morse type. Then we have the following possibilities: \begin{enumerate} \item $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$, $\partial M= \varnothing$; $Sing(\F)=\{p,q \}=Sing(f)$, where $p \neq q$ are centers, $Sing(f)$ is the set of critical points of a function $f:M^n \rightarrow [0,1] \subset \R$, defining the foliation, whose non-singular levels are diffeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$, and $M$ is homeomorphic to $S^n$. \item $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$, $\partial M \neq \varnothing$; $Sing(\F)=\{p \}=Sing(f)$, where $p$ is a center and $f:M^n \rightarrow [0,1] \subset \R$ is a function defining the foliation, with nonsingular levels diffeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$. Moreover, $\partial M$ has a single connected component and $M$ is homeomorphic to $\overline {\textrm{B}^n}$. \item $Sing(\F)= \varnothing$, $\partial M \neq \varnothing$; $\partial M$ has two connected components, each diffeomorphic to $F$, the typical leaf of $\F$. $\F$ is given by a function $f:M^n \rightarrow [0,1] \subset \R$, with no critical points and levels diffeomorphic to $F$, and $M$ is homeomorphic to the product $F \times [0,1]$. \item $Sing(\F)= \varnothing$, $\partial M= \varnothing$. Then $\F$ is given by a fibration $M^n \rightarrow S^1$ i.e. $M^n$ is a fiber bundle over $S^1$, with fiber a typical leaf $F$ of $\F$. In particular, in the orientable case, if $\F$ has some leaf diffeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$ then $M$ is homeomorphic to $S^{n-1} \times S^1$ and $\F$ is the trivial foliation by spheres, $S^{n-1} \times \{y \}$, $y \in S^1$. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} \begin{osserv} As we are considering Seifert fibrations, the holonomy is trivial; then they are transversely orientable. In case 4. for ``orientable case'' we mean the ambient manifold is orientable, consequently, in that case, we have $\F$ is orientable. \end{osserv} \begin{osserv} In point 4 we reprove the implication $iii \Rightarrow iv$ of Tishler's theorem (cfr. for example ). \end{osserv} We propose the folloing jointed {\em{proof}}.\\ By hypothesis, each leaf $F \subset \tilde M=M \setminus Sing (\F)$ of the foliation $\tilde \F= \F|_{\tilde M}$ is compact with trivial holonomy, then it has a neighborhood $V(F)$ diffeomorphic to the product $(-1,1) \times F$, say through the diffeomorphism $h_F:(-1,1) \times F \rightarrow V(F)$. Moreover, each leaf in $V(F)$ is the image of the set $\{t \} \times F$ for some $t \in (-1,1)$ and the original leaf is the image of $\{0 \} \times F$. This is a direct consequence of the Reeb Local Stability Theorem (see Corollary ).\\ If $M$ is a manifold with boundary and $F \subset \partial M$, for obvious reasons there exists a diffeomorphism of $V(F)$ with $(-1,0] \times F$ or with $[0,1) \times F$. In any case we will say that near $F$, $M$ has a {\em{local product structure}}.\\ In $\tilde M$, as all leaves are compact and $M$ is always assumed to be Hausdorff, all leaves are closed. By proposition , $\tilde M/ \tilde {\F}$ has a differentiable manifold structure and $(\tilde M, \pi, \tilde M/\tilde{\F})$ is a fiber bundle. Moreover, we have: \begin{propos} In a (singular) Seifert fibration, with Morse singularities, the space of leaves is Hausdorff. \end{propos} \begin{proof} Let $p \in Sing(\F)$ be a singularity. As all leaves are compact, $p$ is a center. By the Morse Lemma, the foliation near $p$ is defined by the level sets of a real function. Right away, it follows that, near $p$, the space of leaves is (locally) Hausdorff. It remains to prove that $\tilde M/ \tilde \F$ is Hausdorff. We adopt the following criterion: every point in $\tilde M/ \tilde \F$ is closed and has a fundamental system of closed neighborhoods. This is equivalent to require that each leaf is closed and its neighborhoods, bounded by (neighbor) leaves, are closed. As $\tilde {\F}$ is a Seifert fibration, by the local product structure, the neighborhoods of each leaf $F$, bounded by neighbor leaves, are diffeomorphic to $[- \epsilon_1, \epsilon_2] \times F$, for some $0<\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2<1$. \end{proof} \begin{osserv} This result is typical of codimension one. It cannot be generalized to higher codimensions because there exists a counterexample \end{osserv} As a consequence of this proposition, we have that for a Seifert fibration, the space of leaves is a manifold in the usual sense. In particular for codimension one Seifert fibrations of compact manifolds, the space of leaves $M/ \F$ is homeomorphic to $[0,1]$ or $S^1$, as it comes by the classification theorem of compact $1$-manifolds. \begin{claim} In a singular Seifert fibration $\F$, if $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$, and/or $M$ is a manifold with boundary, with $\F$ tangent to the boundary, then the space of leaves is homeomorphic to $[0,1]$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} Let $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$; then, as already noticed, $\forall p \in Sing(\F)$, $p$ is a center. Let $(U, \phi)$ be a local chart around $p$. By the Morse Lemma, it follows that $p$ is a point of local maximum or minimum for the function defining the foliation near $p$, $f=\pm \sum x_i^2: \phi(U) \rightarrow \R$, a local first integral. This means that the image of $U$, by means of the projection onto the space of leaves, belongs to a left, respectively right, neighborhood of $f(p)=0$ and this gives the space of leaves a boundary point, $\pi(p)$, determining the choice $M/ \F \simeq [0,1]$. At the same choice we are led if $\partial M \neq \varnothing$ and $\F$ is tangent to the boundary (or, in a more general situation, when $\# \{\text{connected components of }\partial M\}>1$ and $\F$ is tangent to at least one). In fact every leaf in $\partial M$ is a boundary point of $M/ \F$, as a consequence of the well known properties of the differential. As $\pi=cost$ on each connected component of $\partial M$. Let $c \in \partial M$, then, for $d (\pi|_{\partial M})_c: T_c \partial M \rightarrow T_{\pi(c)} M/ \F,$ we have $$d (\pi|_{\partial M})_c: T_c \partial M \rightarrow \{ 0 \}.$$ Then $d (\pi|_{\partial M})_c: T_c \partial M \rightarrow \partial M/ \F.$ \end{proof} As a consequence, when $(Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing)\bigvee (\partial M \neq \varnothing)$, as $\partial (M/ \F)\neq \varnothing$, then $$\# \partial (M/ \F)=2=\# Sing(\F) + \# \{\textrm{connected components in }\partial M\}$$ and this gives the first characterization in cases $1,2,3$.\\ Viceversa, if $M/ \F \simeq [0,1]$, the projection can be seen as the restriction to the image of a map $M \rightarrow \R$, $$\imath \circ \pi: M \rightarrow M/ \F \hookrightarrow \R.$$ As $M$ is compact, this function has a maximum and a minimum ($\in \partial (M/ \F)$). Each of these points can be a regular or a critical point; so cases $1,2,3$ get through the case $M/ \F \simeq [0,1]$ and in case $4$, $M/ \F \simeq S^1$. In the following two claims we give an alternative proof of the fact that $\tilde M$ is a fiber bundle over $\tilde M/ \tilde{\F}$. \begin{claim}Let $F$ be a leaf of $\F$. Each leaf of $\F$ is diffeomorphic to $F$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} We have two cases: $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$, $Sing(\F) = \varnothing$. Let $p \in Sing( \F)$ be a center. By the Morse Lemma there exist leaves diffeomorphic to $S^{n-1}$. In this case we assume that $F$ is one of them and we consider the open sets $\C(\F)$ and $\C_p(\F)$. Otherwise, if $Sing(\F)= \varnothing$, let $F$ be a (any) leaf. We define the set $$\{\textrm{leaves diffeomorphic to }F \textrm{ with trivial holonomy}\}$$ and we consider its connected component containing $F$, $$\C_F(\F)$$ By the Reeb Local Stability Theorem, also $\C_F(\F)$ is open. Now we prove that $\C_p(\F)$ or $\C_F(\F)$ is closed in $M$.\\ At this purpose, let $\{x_n\}$ be a sequence of points in $\C_p(\F)$, resp. $\C_F(\F)$ converging to $x_0 \in M$. We show that $x_0 \in \C_p(\F)$, resp. $x_0 \in \C_F(\F)$. In the first case it can happen $x_0 \in Sing(\F)$; in this case $x_0$ is a center and so $x_0 \in \C(\F)$. But $x_0 \in \overline{\C_p(\F)}$, by hypothesis, and $\C_p(\F)$ is closed in $\C(\F)$, so $x_0 \in \C_p(\F)$.\\ So let $x_0$ be a regular point for the foliation. If the points $x_n, n>m_0 \in \N$ belong to the same leaf $L$, by compactness of $L$, $x_0 \in L$ too. Otherwise, let $L_x$ be the leaf through the point $x$. By hypothesis, $L_{x_n}$ is diffeomorphic to $F$, for all $n$; by the local product structure, all the leaves in $V(L_{x_0})$ are diffeomorphic to $L_{x_0}$ and $V(L_{x_0})$ contains leaves diffeomorphic to $F$. So $x_0 \in L_{x_0} \subset \C_p(\F)$, resp. $\C_F(\F)$.\\ As $M$ is connected we have $M=\C_p(\F)$, resp. $M=\C_F(\F)$. \end{proof} \begin{claim} $\tilde M= M \setminus Sing (\F)$ is a fiber bundle with base space given by the space of leaves $\tilde M/ \tilde \F=(M/ \F) \setminus \pi(Sing(\F))$ with fiber $F$, a typical leaf of $\F$. \end{claim} \begin{proof} This is a consequence of the local product structure and so of the Reeb Local Stability Theorem.\\ Set $B=\tilde M/ \tilde \F$. $\forall x \in B$, $\pi^{-1}(x)=F_x$ a leaf of $\F$. We can find a neighborhood $V(F_x)$ defined by the local product structure. If it happens $x \in \partial B$ then $\pi^{-1}(x)=F_x \subset \partial \tilde M$, as we have excluded singularities. In this case, we know $V(F_x)$ is diffeomorphic to $[0,1) \times F_x$ or $(-1,0] \times F_x$. The set \begin{displaymath} \{\pi(V(F_x))\}_{x \in B} \end{displaymath} is an open cover of $B=\tilde M/ \tilde \F$. Let \begin{displaymath} \{U_i=\pi(V(F_i))\}_{i \in I} \end{displaymath} a locally finite open subcover. $\pi^{-1}(U_i)$ is diffeomorphic to $(-1,1) \times F_i$, or to $[0,1) \times F_i$ or $(-1,0] \times F_i$ through the diffeomorphism $h_i= h_{F_i}$, i.e. to $(-1,1 ) \times F$, or $[0,1) \times F$ or $(-1,0] \times F$, as all leaves are diffeomorphic. Then, set $\phi_i= \pi_1(h_i(V(F_i))$, where $\pi_1$ is the projection on the first component, $ \forall i \in I$ we have a diffeomorphism \begin{displaymath} \phi_i:U_i \rightarrow(-1,1)\textrm{ or }\phi_i:U_i \rightarrow(-1,0]\textrm{ or } \phi_i:U_i \rightarrow[0,1) \end{displaymath} In this way $\{(U_i,\phi_i)\}_{i \in I}$ is a (locally finite) atlas on $\tilde M/\tilde \F$, where the change of coordinates, the composition of diffeomorphisms $\phi_j \circ \phi_i^{-1}:\phi_i(U_i \cap U_j) \rightarrow \phi_j(U_i \cap U_j)$, is clearly a diffeomorphisms. At last $\pi^{-1}(U_i)=V(F_i)$ are diffeomorphic to $U_i \times F$ and $\tilde M$ is given a fiber bundle structure on $\tilde M/\tilde \F$. \end{proof} In cases 1,2,3 $\tilde M$ is a fiber bundle over an interval, so by classical reasons (cfr. for example the book ) $\tilde M$ is the trivial bundle. In particular, in case 1, $\tilde M= M \setminus \{p,q\} \simeq (0,1) \times S^{n-1}$ (and $M$ is defined by a singular fibration $\pi: M \rightarrow [0,1]$); in case 2, $\tilde M= M \setminus \{p \} \simeq [0,1) \times S^{n-1}$ or $\simeq (-1,0] \times S^{n-1}$; in case 3, $M \simeq [0,1] \times F$. This completes case 3.\\ As for case 1, the conclusion $M \simeq S^n$ could be obtained with an application of classical Reeb Sphere theorem (that we recall in the next pages), as we have proved that $\F$ has a first integral, the map $\imath \circ \pi:M \rightarrow \R$, or with the theorem . Alternatively, we can extend the homeomorphism $\tilde h$ \begin{displaymath} \xymatrix{ M \setminus \{p,q \} \ar[r]^{\tilde h} & (0,1) \times S^{n-1} & \simeq & \pi(M \setminus \{p,q \}) \times S^{n-1}} \end{displaymath} to a homeomorphism $h$ on $M$ \begin{displaymath} \xymatrix{ M \ar[r]^{\!\!h \qquad} & [0,1]_t \times S^{n-1}_s/_ \sim & = &\Sal (S^{n-1}) & \simeq & S^n,} \end{displaymath} where $\Sal$ denote the suspension and $\sim$ is the equivalence relation \begin{displaymath} (t,s) \sim (t',s') \Leftrightarrow \left\{\begin{array}{ll} t'=t, & s=s'\\ t=t'=0, & s,s' \in S^{n-1}\\ t=t'=1, & s,s' \in S^{n-1} \end{array}\right. \end{displaymath} Then if $[\cdot]$ denote an equivalence class of the relation $\sim$, we may set $h(p)=h(\pi^{-1}(0))=[(0,s)]$ and $h(q)=h(\pi^{-1}(1))=[(1,s)]$. So $h$ is a bijection and it is continuous, for the continuity of $\pi$. It is also a homeomorphism, by the local description of the manifold around centers, given by the Morse Lemma.\\ Similarly we can complete case 2, extending the homeomorphism \begin{displaymath} \begin{array}{llccl} & \tilde h: & M \setminus \{ p \} & \rightarrow & (0,1] \times S^{n-1}\\ \textrm{to a homeomorphism} & & & & \\ & h: & M & \rightarrow & [0,1]_t \times S^{n-1}_s/_\sim \simeq \overline{\textrm{B}^n}, \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \end{array} \end{displaymath} where $\sim$ is the equivalence relation \begin{displaymath} (t,s) \sim (t',s') \Leftrightarrow \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} t=t', & s=s'\\ t=t'=0, & \forall s,s' \in S^{n-1}, \end{array}\right. \end{displaymath} setting $h(p)=[(0,s)]$.\\ In case 4, $M$ is a fiber bundle over $S^1$ and the foliation is the trivial foliation $\pi^{-1}(x)$ (with leaves diffeomorphic to $\{x \} \times F$, for $x \in S^1$). In the case $F$ is diffeomorphic to the $(n-1)$-sphere, $S^{n-1}$, by classical theory, we know there exists only one non-trivial bundle, a sort of generalization of the Klein bottle. We can think at this bundle as the product $S^{n-1} \times [0,1]$ modulo an equivalence relation that identify the boundaries, by an orientation reversing diffeomorphism. The resulting bundle is always non-orientable (cfr. ). In the orientable case, $M$ is the trivial bundle $S^{n-1} \times S^1$. This completes case 4. \begin{flushright} $\square$ \end{flushright} \section{Reeb Sphere Theorem} In the classical and in the Milnor's version, Reeb Sphere theorem gives the characterization of a compact $n$-dimensional manifold admitting a Morse foliation, whose singularities are centers and $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. In fact it states: \begin{teor} [Reeb Sphere Theorem] Let $\F$ be a codimension one transversely orientable $C^\infty$ foliation with Morse singularities on a closed manifold $M^n$, $n \geq 3$. Suppose $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$ consists only of centers. Then $M^n$ is homeomorphic to an $n$-sphere $S^n$. \end{teor} In particular, we have: \begin{teor} Let $f:M \rightarrow \R$ be a $C^\infty$ function, defined on a compact $n$-dimensional manifold $M^n$, with exactly two non-degenerate critical points. Then $M^n$ is homeomorphic to $S^n$. \end{teor} \begin{osserv} The manifold is not necessarily diffeomorphic to a sphere with the original differentiable structure \end{osserv} We propose the following {\em{proof}} of the Reeb Sphere Theorem.\\ Let $p_1,\dots , p_k$, where $k>1$, be the centers of the foliation. By the Morse Lemma each of them admits a neighborhood foliated by leaves diffeomorphic to spheres $S^{n-1}$. Each such a spheric leaf has the property it bounds an $n$-ball centered at the singularity. For $i=1, \dots , k$ let $L_i$ be a spherical leaf in a neighborhood of $p_i$ and $R(L_i)$ the open $n$-ball bounded by $L_i$ containing $p_i$ in its interior. Observe that $\F|_{R(L_i)}$ is a singular foliation by spheres. Consider the compact manifold with boundary $$\tilde M = M \setminus ( \cup^k_{i=1} R(L_i) )$$ with the foliation $\tilde \F= \F|_{\tilde M}$, tangent to the boundary. By hypothesis this foliation is transversely orientable and admits spherical leaves, for example $L_1$. As $n \geq 3$, $L_1$ is (compact) with trivial fundamental group and, by Reeb Global Stability theorem for manifolds with boundary , all leaves of $\tilde \F$ are diffeomorphic to $L_1$. By the observation above, the same result is true for the leaves of $\F$. The theorem follows by the classification of singular Seifert fibrations, theorem , case 1. \begin{flushright} $\square$ \end{flushright} \begin{corol} Let $M^n$ be a compact $n$-dimensional manifold , $n \geq 3$, with non-empty boundary. Suppose $M$ supports a $C^ \infty$ transversely orientable foliation $\F$, tangent to the boundary. Let $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$ and, for each $p \in Sing(\F)$, let $p$ be a center. Then $M^n$ is homeomorphic to $\overline {\textrm{B}^n}$. \end{corol} \begin{proof} The result follows by the proof of theorem and an application of the classification theorem , case 2. We can also proceed this way.\\ By the proof of the theorem we know that all non-singular leaves, in particular each connected component of $\partial M$, are diffeomorphic to spheres.\\ We can consider a copy of $M$, with a copy of the foliation $\F$. If $X:M \rightarrow TM$ is a vector field (with singularities) defining a transverse orientation of $\F$, we choose $-X$ as a transverse orientation on the copy of $M$. In this way we can glue the two copies of $M$ through the boundary and we obtain a manifold $N$ without boundary with a transversely orientable singular foliation, where all singularities are centers. Then by theorem , $N$ is homeomorphic to a sphere $S^n$.\\ Let $A$ (diffeomorphic to a sphere) be any connected component of $\partial M$; by Jordan-Brouwer Separation theorem, $N \setminus A$ has two connected components and $A$ is the boundary of each. This means that $A$ is the only connected component of $\partial M$. By Cantrell's theorem , $M$ is homeomorphic to $\overline {\textrm{B}^n}$. \end{proof} We can give a generalization of Reeb Sphere Theorem, after introducing a new concept.\\ \begin{defin} We say that an isolated singularity$p$$p$ of a $C^ \infty$, codimension one foliation $\F$ on $M$ is a {\em{stable singularity}}, if there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ in $M$ and a $C^ \infty$ function $f:U \rightarrow \R$, singular at $p$, such that $\F|_U$ is a compact foliation given by $\ker df$ (i.e. $f^{-1}(a)$ is compact, for $|a|$ small, $f(p)=0$). \end{defin} By definition, the space of leaves near a stable singularity is a subset of the real line, and then (locally) it is Hausdorff. Right away, we may extend the result of proposition \begin{propos} In a (singular) Seifert fibration, with stable singularities, the space of leaves is Hausdorff. \end{propos} \begin{example} The first example of stable singularities are centers, i.e. the origin for the foliation (locally) defined by the function $f: \R^n \rightarrow \R$ given by $f= \sum_i x_i^2$. Centers are the only examples of stable singularities which are also non-degenerate. \end{example} \begin{example} The foliation defined by the function $f= \sum_j x_j^{m_j}$, with $2 \leq m_j$ even $\forall j$ and $m_j>2$ for at least one $j$, has a stable singularity at the origin. In this case the stable singularity is degenerate, but the function $f$ is not flat. \end{example} \begin{example} The foliation defined by the function $f= \exp (- \frac {1}{\sum x_j^2})$ has a stable singularity at the origin; it is degenerate and the Taylor polynomial of $f$ is identically zero at $x=0$ ($f$ flat). \end{example} We can give a characterization of stable singularities . \begin{lemma} An isolated singularity $p$ of a function $f:U \subset \R^n \rightarrow \R$ defines a stable singularity for $df$ if and only if there exists a neighborhood $p \in V \subset U$ such that $\forall x \in V$ either we have $\omega (x) = \{p \}$ or $\alpha (x) = \{p \}$, where $\omega (x)$, resp. $\alpha (x)$, is the $\omega$-limit, resp. $\alpha$-limit, of the orbit of the vector field $grad (f)$ through the point $x$. \end{lemma} In particular it follows the well-known: \begin{lemma} If a function $f:U \subset \R^n \rightarrow \R$ has an isolated local maximum or minimum at $p \in U$ then $p$ is a stable singularity for $df$. \end{lemma} It is also true the converse: \begin{lemma} If $p$ is a stable singularity defined by the function $f$, then $p$ is a point of local maximum or minimum for $f$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By the characterization above there exists a neighborhood $p \in V \subset U$ such that $\forall x \in V$ either $\omega (x) =\{p \}$ or $\alpha (x)= \{p \}$. Let us suppose $\omega (x) =\{p \}$ (the other case is similar). Then $p$ is a point of maximum for $f$. In fact it is well known that $f$ is monotonous, strictly increasing, along the orbits of $grad (f)$. So if $x \in V$ and $\{\phi (t,x),t>0 \}$ is the positive semiorbit through $x$, we have $$lim_{t \rightarrow + \infty} \phi (t,x)=p$$ So $f(\phi(t,x))<f(p), \textrm{ } t \geq 0.$ In particular $f(x)<f(p)$. \end{proof} As a consequence, in the set $$\mathscr{A}= \{f^{-1}(a) | a \in Im(f|_V) \}$$ we can define a total order. We say that $f^{-1}(a) < f^{-1}(b)$ if and only if $R(f^{-1}(a)) \subseteq R(f^{-1}(b))$, where for each $a \in Im(f|_V)$, $R(f^{-1}(a))$ is the neighborhood of $p$ bounded by $f^{-1}(a)$. As $f^{-1}(a) \cap f^{-1}(b)= \varnothing$, if $a \neq b \in Im(f|_V)$, then the order is total.\\ The following example and the next lemma precise in what sense these singularities are stable. \begin{example} Let us consider the function $f_0=x^3 -3xy^2$ presenting one singularity at the origin, the Monkey saddle singularity. Now we perturb $f_0$, so we consider functions $f= f_0 + \epsilon (x^2+y^2)$, $\epsilon \in \R$. Even for small $|\epsilon|$, $f$ presents four singularities: a center at $(0,0)$ and three saddles at resp. $(-2/3 \epsilon, 0)$ and $(\epsilon /3, \pm \epsilon/{\sqrt 3})$. We have $Sing(f_0) \subsetneq Sing(f)$. \end{example} This does not happen when we deal with stable singularities. In fact we have : \begin{lemma} Let $f:U \subset \R^n \rightarrow \R$ be a $C^ \infty$ function with a stable singularity at the point $p \in U$. Then we can perturb $f$ to obtain a function $\tilde f$ with a Morse center-type singularity at $p$ and no other singularity in a neighborhood of $p$. \end{lemma} The likeness between stable singularities and and center-type singularities reflects heavily on the level hyperurfaces of the respective defining functions. In fact we have: \begin{lemma} In a neighborhood of a stable singularity $p$ for a foliation $\F$ on a manifold $M^n$, the leaves are diffeomorphic to spheres. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $p \in Sing(\F)$ be a stable singularity. By definition, there exist a neighborhood $U \subset M$ of $p$ and a smooth function $f:U \rightarrow \R$ such that $Sing(\F) \cap U = \{ p \}$, $df(p)=0$, $f(p)=0$ and $\F|_U$ is defined by $\ker df$. By characterization, $p$ is a local maximum or minimum; it is not restrictive to suppose it is a minimum (otherwise we use $-f$). Using a local chart around $p$, we may suppose we are on $\R^n$ and we may write the Taylor-Lagrange formula around $p$ for an approximation of the function $f$ at the second order. As $df(p)=0$ we have $$f(p+h)=f(p)+\frac{1}{2} \langle h,H(p+ \theta h)h \rangle,$$ where $H$ is the Hessian of $f$ and $0< \theta <1$. It follows $\langle h,H(p+ \theta h)h \rangle > 0$ in $U \setminus \{p \}$ and $\langle h,H(p+ \theta h)h \rangle \geq 0$ in $U$, as, in general, $f$ is degenerate in $p$. By a characterization of convex functions, $f$ is convex; then the sublevels $f^{-1}(c)$ are also convex ($|c|$ small enough).\\ We consider the flow $\phi: \mathscr{D}(\phi) \subset \R \times U \rightarrow U$ of the vector field $grad \textrm{ }f$. By the properties of gradient vector fields and by our choices, $\mathscr{D}(\phi) \supset (- \infty,0] \times U$ and $\forall x \in U$ there exists the $\alpha$-limit, and it is $\alpha(x)=p$; in other words, at all $x \in f^{-1}(c)$, the integral curve though $x$, $t \rightarrow \phi(t,x)$, comes from $p$.\\ The tangent space to the sublevels of $f$, $T_x f^{-1}(c)$ does not contain the radial direction $\overrightarrow{px}, \forall x \in f^{-1}(c)$. This is obvious otherwise, for the convexity of $f^{-1}(c)$, the singularity $p$ should lie on the sublevel $f^{-1}(c)$, a contraddiction because, in this case, $p$ should be a saddle. This is equivalent to say that the orbits of the vector field $grad \textrm{ }f$ are transverse to spheres centered at $p$. In particular, by definition of manifold, we may choose a sphere $S^{n-1}(p, \epsilon)$, with $\epsilon$ small enough to have $\textrm{B}^{n}(p, \epsilon) \subsetneq R(f^{-1}(c))$, the compact region bounded by $f^{-1}(c)$ . An application of the implicit function theorem shows the existence of a smooth function $x \rightarrow t_x$, that assigns to each point $x \in f^{-1}(c)$ the (negative) time at which $\phi(t,x)$ intersects $S^{n-1}(p, \epsilon)$. The diffeomorphism between the leaf $f^{-1}(c)$ and the sphere $S^{n-1}(p, \epsilon)$ is given by the composition $x \rightarrow \phi(t_x,x)$. \end{proof} If a stable singularity is defined by a function which is not flat at the singularity, we can give an alternative \begin{proof} Let $f:U \subset \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a non-flat function defining a stable singularity $p$; this means the Taylor polynomial of $f$ at $0$ is non-trivial, but exhibits a first non-trivial jet of the form \begin{equation} \pm \sum _{j=1}^n a_j {x_j}^{2m_j},\end{equation} where $a_j>0$ $\forall j\in \{1,\dots, n\}$ and $m_j \in \mathbb{N}.$\\ If $m_j=1$ $\forall j \in \{1,\ldots, n\},$ we are already dealing with a center-type singularity and so the diffeomorphism exists by the Morse Lemma.\\ So let $m_j>1$ for some index $j \in \{1,\ldots, n\}$. Moreover let us suppose that $p$ is a minimum so that in the expression we may select the positive sign (we can proceed in a similar way if $p$ is a maximum). First of all we observe that $W=\overline{R(f^{-1}(a))}=\{f^{-1}(\alpha)\}_{0 \leq \alpha \leq a}$ is homeomorphic to $\overline{\textrm{B}^n}$. This is a consequence of the fact that $W$ is star-shaped with respect to the origin, i.e. $x \in \partial W \Rightarrow tx \in W, 0 \leq t \leq1$. This happens $\Leftrightarrow f(x)-f(tx) \geq 0$. In fact we have $$\sum _{j=1}^n a_j {x_j}^{2m_j}-\sum _{j=1}^n a_j {t_j}^{2m_j} {x_j}^{2m_j}=\sum _{j=1}^n a_j (1-{t_j}^{2m_j}) {x_j}^{2m_j} \ge 0$$ since it is a sum of products of non negative terms. Then $W \simeq \overline{\textrm{B}^n}$. Observe that a homeomorphism between the two sets is given by the $C^1$ function $$\phi(x)=\left \{ \begin{array}{lc} f(x)\frac {x}{\|x\|} & x \neq 0\\0 & x=0 \end{array} \right.$$ that moves $x$ along the positive ray through it. Observe that $\phi(x)$ sends level sets of the function $f$, i.e. leaves of $\F$ in a neighborhood of $p$, into leaves of the singular trivial foliation of $\overline{\textrm{B}^n}$.\\ We can see that $\phi$ is surjective. In fact let $y \in \overline{\textrm{B}^n}$. Then there exists $x \in \phi^{-1}(y)$, given by the intersection of the level set $f^{-1}(\|y\|)$ with the ray $\lambda y, \lambda >0$ ($\lambda<0$ if $p$ is a local maximum).\\ We see also that $\phi$ is injective. Let $x_1 \neq x_2$ be two points of $W$. We have $\phi(x_1)=f(x_1)\frac{x_1}{\|x_1\|}$ and $\phi(x_2)=f(x_2)\frac{x_2}{\|x_2\|}$. If $f(x_1) \neq f(x_2) \Rightarrow \|\phi(x_1)\| \neq \| \phi(x_2) \|$ and so $\phi(x_1) \neq \phi(x_2)$. So let $f(x_1) = f(x_2)$. If $\phi(x_1) = \phi(x_2)$ then $\frac{x_1}{\|x_1\|}=\frac{x_2}{\|x_2\|}$ and so two points of the same leaf lie on the same ray, but this is a contraddiction with the fact that $W$ is star-shaped with respect to the origin. So we have $\phi(x_1) \neq \phi(x_2)$.\\ At last we see that $\phi$ is an open map. Let $A \subset W$ be an open set, $x \in A$ and $y=\phi(x)$. We can find an open neighborhood of $y$ contained in $\phi(A)$. Recalling that $\phi$ is a bijection, it is enough to choose a neighborhood of $y$ given by the intersection of the anulus $D=\{||y||- \epsilon<||z||<||y||+ \epsilon\}$ with a little open cone $C$ with vertex at the origin, centered at $y$ and choose $\epsilon$ and the wideness of $C$ in a way that $\phi^{-1}(D \cap C) \subset A$.\\ For classical reasons $\phi$ is a homeomorphism between $(W, \partial W)$ and $(\overline {\textrm{B}^n}, S^{n-1})$. We consider the restriction $$\psi=\phi|_{W \setminus \{0 \}}:(W \setminus \{0 \}, \partial W) \rightarrow(\overline{\textrm{B}^n} \setminus \{0 \}, S^{n-1}).$$ $\psi$ is a diffeomorphism and $\psi|_{\partial W}$ is the diffeomorphism of $f^{-1}(a)$ with $S^{n-1}$. \end{proof} With the last result we have \begin{teor} Let $M^n$ be a closed $n$-dimensional manifold, $n \geq 3$. Suppose $M$ supports a $C^ \infty$ codimension one transversely orientable foliation $\F$, with non-empty singular set, whose elements are all stable singularities. Then $M$ is homeomorphic to the sphere $S^n$ \end{teor} \begin{proof} Let $p_1, \dots , p_k$, $k \geq 1$ be the stable singularities of the foliation and $f_i:U_i \ni p_i \rightarrow \R$, $f_i(p_i)=0$ for all $i$, their defining functions. For $|a|$ small and $i=1, \dots ,k$, by lemma , the compact leaf $f_i^{-1}(a)$ is diffeomorphic to a little sphere around $p_i$, $S^{n-1}(p_i, \epsilon)$, and bounds a region $R(f^{-1}(a))$ diffeomorphic to $\textrm{B}^n(p_i,\epsilon)$. From this point we can go on as in the proof of theorem . In particular, as by the space of leaves is Hausdorff, we may apply the classification theorem for singular Seifert fibrations. \end{proof} As a consequence of the last theorem we reobtain the Milnor's version of Reeb Sphere theorem. In fact we have: \begin{corol} [Milnor] Let $M^n$ be an $n$-dimensional compact manifold admitting a $C^ \infty$ function $f:M \rightarrow \R$ with exactly two (possibly degenerate) critical points. Then $M^n$ is homeomorphic to the sphere $S^n$. \end{corol} \begin{proof} $f$ defines a singular foliation with compact leaves. Then the two singularities of $f$ are stable singularities for the foliation. Then we apply theorem . \end{proof} \chapter{Haefliger-type theorems} \section{Haefliger-type theorems} Let us study the existence of a $C^ \infty$ Morse foliation $\F$, defined on a neighborhood $W$ of the compact ball $\overline{\textrm{B}^n}$, transverse to the boundary sphere, $S^{n-1}$. Our aim is to give an answer to the question if Haefliger's theorem for the disk $D^2$ has an extension in higher dimensions for foliations with singularities.\\ We recall that a non-degenerate singularity of type $l\!\!-\!\!m$, where $l+m=n$, has {\em{index}} $\Il nd(\F,q)=(-1)^l$. As $\textrm{B}^n$ is simply connected, by remark and corollary , the foliation $\F$ is orientable and transversely orientable, so there exists $\Omega$, a one-form defining the orientation. As $\chi(\textrm{B}^n)=1$, by the Index Theorem , we have $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. In the situation we are considering, by hypothesis, the boundary sphere admits a regular foliation $\F|_{S^{n-1}}$, so by the same Index Theorem we have $\chi(S^{n-1})=0$, what means $n$ even. We have the following \begin{teor} For $n \geq 4$, in a codimension one $C^\infty$ Morse foliation of the compact $n$-ball ($n$ even), transverse to the boundary sphere $S^{n-1}$, we have $k\leq l$, where $k$ is the number of centers and $l$ is the number of saddles of the foliation. \end{teor} \begin{proof} We are going to give an algoritmic proof.\\ We suppose that there exists a foliation $\F$ with $k$ centers and $l$ saddles, with $k \geq l+1$; then we proceed in order to find a contraddiction.\\ We begin with some considerations about the index. By the already mentioned Index Theorem, for a foliation of $\textrm{B}^n$ transverse to the boundary we have \begin{equation} \sum_{s \in Sing(\F)} \Il nd(\F;s)=1 \end{equation} We observe that, as $n$ is even, a center $p$ has always $\Il nd(\F;p)=+1>0$, while a saddle may have both negative or posive index, $\Il nd(\F;q_1)=-1$, $\Il nd(\F;q_2)=+1$. So let $l_1$ be the number of saddles with negative index and $l_2$ the number of saddles with positive index, $l_1 + l_2=l$. So by hypothesis, \begin{equation} k \geq l_1 + l_2 +1 \end{equation} and can be written as $$k + l_2 - l_1 =1.$$ So is verified only if $l_2=0$. Then each saddle must have negative index, in particular for an $l\!\!-\!\!m$ saddle, both $l$ and $m$ must be odd. Consequently our hypothesis becomes \begin{equation} k=l_1 +1, \textrm{ }l_1 \geq 0, k \geq 1. \end{equation} Let $p_1 \dots p_k$ be the centers of the foliation. We examine all the centers and saddles in order to find a configuration satisfying .\\ {\bf{Claim}} $\forall p_i, i=1, \dots ,k$ there $\exists q_i$, a saddle.\\ {\em{Proof of Claim.}} Let $k=1$. If $\partial \C_{p_1}(\F)= \varnothing$, we know that $\F$ is Seifert and the same is for its restriction to the boundary, $\F|_{S^{n-1}}$, but the last is impossible because for $n \geq 4$ there are no fibrations $S^{n-1} \rightarrow S^1$, so $\partial \C_{p_1}(\F)\neq \varnothing$. By the proof of proposition , item 5.(b) there exists a singularity $q_1 \in \partial \C_{p_1}(\F)$, necessary a saddle. Let $k>1$ and $p_i$ any center. The existence of other centers excludes $\partial \C_{p_i}(\F)= \varnothing$, otherwise $\C_{p_i}(\F)= \textrm{B}^n$, impossible. Then as above there exists a saddle $q_i \in \partial \C_{p_i}(\F)$, where not necessarily $q_i \neq q_j,$ for $i \neq j$. \begin{flushright} $\square$ \end{flushright} \begin{enumerate} \item Set $i=1$. \item Consider $p_i$ and find $q_i$ \item If $q_i$ is an $l\!\!-\!\!m, l \neq 1, n-1$ or a selfconnected saddle, then by the study about the Topology of the Separatrices, there are no other centers $p'_i$ such that $q_i \in \partial \C_{p'_i}(\F)$, then in both cases set $i=i +1$ and go to step 2. \item If $q_i$ is of type $1\!\!-\!\!(n-1)$, case 1 of theorem , $p_i-q_i$ is a trivial coupling and we can eliminate it with a direct modification; this means that we can substitute $\F$ with a new foliation $\tilde \F$ with one center and one saddle less, satisfying . In particular there exists a center, $p_{i+1}$. Then set $\F=\tilde \F$, $i=i+1$ and go to step 2. \item $q_i$ is of type $1\!\!-\!\!(n-1)$, case 2 of theorem . We recall there exist spheric leaves $F_j$, $j=1,2$ in a neighborhood of $\partial \C_p(\F)$. By Cantrell's theorem , one between $\overline{S_1}$ and $\overline{S_2}$ and one between $F_j$, $j=1,2$ bounds a submanifold homeomorphic to an $n$-ball, $B_j$, respectively $\tilde {B_j}$ (where now $j$ is fixed); in particular we have a foliation $\F|_{\tilde{B_j}}$ tangent to the boundary $F_j$. So we can apply the Index Theorem to $\F|_{\tilde{B_j}}$ recalling that, by hypothesis, for the number of saddles with positive index contained in $\tilde{B_j}$ we have $0=l_2 \geq \tilde{l_2}$ obtaining (with obvious notation) $\tilde{k}= \tilde{l_1} +1$ for the number of singularities in $\tilde{B_j}$. With this computation $\overline{B_j}$ is a dead branch and we can eliminate it (recall that $q_i \in \partial B_j$). This leads to a new foliation $\tilde \F$ agreeing with $\F$ outside the dead branch (in particular transverse to the boundary) with exactly $\tilde k$ centers and $\tilde l +1 = \tilde k$ saddles less than the original foliation $\F$ and so $\tilde \F$ satisfys the same hypothesis of $\F$ about the number of singularities. Observe that during the elination procedure we have eliminated $q_i$ so we must go on finding the new $q_i \in \partial \C_{p_i}(\tilde \F)$. At this purpose set $\F=\tilde \F, k=k- \tilde k, l_1= \tilde l_1- \tilde k$ and go to step 2. \item Exit. \end{enumerate} In summary, we observe that in the proof we never reach the exit point. This means $k= \infty$, a contraddiction. \end{proof} We go on with our study about Haefliger's theorem recalling the following result about $S^3$. \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$ codimension one Morse foliation on the $3$-sphere $S^3$. Suppose the number $k$ of centers and the number $l$ of saddles satisfy the inequality $k \geq l$. Then we have \begin{quote} \item $i)$ $\F$ has some compact codimension one invariant set whose holonomy group is one-sided, or \item $ii)$ $\F$ is an inverse modification of a Seifert fibration of $S^3$, i.e. a singular foliations by spheres $S^2$. \end{quote} \end{teor} We observe that the hypothesis $k \geq l$ is in particular verified in the case $k \geq l+1$. We have \begin{equation} k \geq l+1 \Rightarrow \textrm{case }ii) \end{equation} as we prove in the following, but the converse is not true, as we can show with the following example. \begin{example} We know that $S^3$ can be seen as two copies of $S^1 \times \textrm{B}^2$ attached along the boundary, $S^1 \times S^1$, with a diffeomorphism that sends meridians in parallels and viceversa. In each $S^1 \times \textrm{B}^2$, we consider a foliation tangent to the boundary torus, with a singular Reeb component, $SR \subset \subset S^1 \times \bo^2$, and a trivial foliation with leaves homeomorphic to a torus, in $(S^1 \times \bo^2) \setminus SR$. This is an inverse modification (of the third type) of a singular Seifert fibration of $S^3$ (as there are two saddles in trivial coupling) and verify $k=l=2$. This case may be led either to $i$ by regularization of the two singular Reeb components, or to $ii$ by a direct modification (of the third type). \end{example} The saddles involved in this example are in trivial coupling; so in this sense we are led to the case $k \geq l+1$. We need the following: \begin{lemma} Let $\F$ be a codimension one $C^ \infty$ foliation on a manifold $M$, let $L$ be a leaf with finite non-trivial holonomy and $\pi:M \rightarrow M/{\F}$ the projection onto the space of leaves. Then $\partial (M/{\F}) \neq \varnothing$ and $\pi(L) \in \partial (M/{\F})$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let us consider an open transverse $\Sigma_x$ to the leaf $L$. The choice of the point $x \in L$ is arbitrary by Transverse Uniformity. The space of leaves near $L$ is the quotient of $\Sigma_x$ with the equivalence relation $\sim$ which identifies points on $\Sigma_x$ of the same leaf. Let $\gamma: S^1 \rightarrow L$ be a non-trivial generator of the holonomy $h_ \gamma: Dom(h_\gamma) \subset \Sigma_x \rightarrow \Sigma_x$. If $y \in Dom(h_\gamma) \setminus \{x \}$ then $h_\gamma(y)= -y$. In particular this happens as $y$ goes toward $x$. Then $\Sigma_x/_ \sim$ is a segment $(z,x]$ or $[x,z)$. In any case $\pi(L) \in \partial {(M/\F)}$. \end{proof} \begin{osserv} We notice that, in a neighborhood of a compact leaf $L$ with finite, non-trivial holonomy, the leaves have trivial holonomy. In fact we have $Hol(L)=\{e, h \}$, where $h$ is the non-trivial generator of the holonomy. By the Reeb Local Stability Theorem, $L$ has a neighborhood with compact leaves with finite holonomy. In particular, if $L'$ is one of such leaves, we have $Hol(L') \subset Hol(L)$. Let $\gamma \subset L$ be the non-trivial generator of the holonomy. As the lifting of $\gamma$ to $L'$ is an open curve, we have $Hol(L')= \{e \}$.\\ By proposition , if there are leaves with finite, non-trivial holonomy, the foliation is non-transversely orientable. Moreover, it is clear that each of these leaves is isolated.\\ We can study and classify manifolds admitting a foliation by compact leaves with at least one leaf, $L$, with finite non-trivial holonomy. Also in this case, the space of leaves is Hausdorff, then it is a $1$-manifold with non-empty boundary, i.e. $M/{\F}$ is homeomorphic to the interval $[0,1]$ and we have: \begin{enumerate} \item $M$ has exactly two leaves with non-trivial holonomy; they are diffeomorphic, the other leaves are a two-sheeted covering of $L$ and $M$ is closed. \item $\partial M \neq \varnothing$; it has a single connected component and the foliation is tangent to the boundary. All leaves (boundary included) are a two-sheeted covering of $L$. \item $\F$ is singular and $Sing(\F)= \{p\}$, a single center. In this case $L \simeq \R P^{n-1}$ is a projective space and $M$ is closed. \end{enumerate} \end{osserv} The implication is, under some aspects, a general fact; we can state the following \begin{teor} If $\F$ is a $C^ \infty$ codimension one Morse foliation of a $n$-manifold, $M^n$, $n \geq 3$, satisfying the hypothesis $k \geq l+1$ about the number $k$ of centers and the number $l$ of saddles, then $\F$ is (an inverse modification of the first type of) a singular foliation by compact leaves. \end{teor} \begin{proof} We prove our thesis by induction on the number of saddles.\\ Let $l=0$, then $k \geq 1$. Let $p \in Sing(\F)$ a center. As $l=0$, $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F)= \varnothing$ and we have: \begin{enumerate} \item$\partial \C_p(\F)= \varnothing$ \item$\partial \C_p(\F)$ is a compact leaf with finite, non-trivial holonomy. \end{enumerate} In case 1 all leaves are spheric with trivial holonomy, $M=\overline{\C_p(\F)}$ and thesis follows. In case 2 by lemma and the next remark we have $M/{\F}=[0,1]$ where, set $\pi:M \rightarrow M/{\F}$, it follows $\pi^{-1}(0)=p, \pi^{-1}(1)= \partial \C_p(\F)$, or viceversa.\\ Now let $l>0$ and suppose thesis be true for foliations with $l'=l-1$ saddles. As $l \geq 1$ and $k \geq l+1$, with the same arguments as in the last part of Claim in Theorem , we prove that for all center there exists one saddle. By hypothesis the number of centers is greater than the number of centers, then there exists at least one saddle shared by two distinct centers $q \in \partial \C_p(\F) \cap \partial \C_{p'}(\F)$, $p \neq p'$. In particular $q \in \partial \C_p(\F)$ and the couple $p-q$ is as in the case 1. or 2. of theorem . Observe that even in the case $\partial \C_p(\F)$ contains both separatrices of the saddle and $p-q$ is not a trivial couple, then $p'-q$ is a trivial couple. So we can eliminate the trivial couple obtaining a new foliation $\tilde \F$ with the same holonomy of $\F$, with $k'=k-1$ centers and $l'=l-1$ saddles, to which we can apply the inductive hypothesis. Observe that in each direct modification, we cut out spherical leaves together with the two singularities and one separatrix of the saddle. \end{proof} \begin{corol} A Morse foliation satisfying the condition $k \geq l+1$ for the number $k$ of centers and $l$ of saddles has no leaves with unilateral holonomy. \end{corol} \begin{corol} If $\F$ and $\M$ are as in the theorem and also $\F$ is transversely orientable, then $\F$ is (an inverse modification of) a Seifert fibration, in particular $\F \setminus Sing(\F)$ is a foliation by spheres (but for the separatrices of the possible saddles). \end{corol} \begin{proof} In the case $l=0$ of the proof of the previous theorem, we deduce $\partial \C_p(\F)= \varnothing$. So all compact leaves of $\F$ are spheres. \end{proof} We recall the Center-Saddle Theorem . \begin{teor}[Center-Saddle Theorem] Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$ codimension one Morse foliation on a closed $3$-manifold, $M^3$. Suppose that the number $k$ of centers and the number $l$ of saddles in $Sing(\F)$ satisfy $k \geq l+1$, then $\M$ is homeomorphic to $S^3$. \end{teor} We can give the following generalization: \begin{teor} [Center-Saddle Theorem for $n>3$] Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$ codimension one Morse foliation on a closed $n$-manifold, $M^n$, $n>3$. Let $k$ be the number of centers and $l$ the number of saddles in $Sing(\F)$. If either $k \geq l+1$ and $\F$ is transversely orientable or $k \geq l+2$, then $M^n$ is homeomorphic to $S^n$. \end{teor} \begin{proof} In the hypothesis of transverse orientability, by corollary , we can apply the theorem to case $l=0$ (and $k \geq 1$). Now suppose $k \geq l+2$. By theorem we can suppose $l=0$; by hypothesis it follows $k \geq 2$. This means $Sing(\F) \supset \{p,q\}$, a couple of centers. Consider $\C_p(\F)$ and its boundary. As there are no saddles, $\partial \C_p(\F) \cap Sing(\F)= \varnothing$. From the other side if $\partial \C_p(\F)$ is a leaf with non trivial holonomy, by the classification of manifolds admitting similar foliations, we have $k=1$, a contraddiction. Then $\partial \C_p(\F)= \varnothing$, $\F$ is transversely orientable and the thesis follows from the above mentioned theorem. \end{proof} \begin{osserv} For $n>3$ either the additional hypothesis of transverse orientability or the stronger request about the number of centers cannot be cancelled, otherwise thesis is false, as it is shown by the following counterexamples. \end{osserv} \begin{example} $M^4,M^8,M^{16},M^{32}$ admit Morse functions with exactly two centers and one saddle if and only if they look like projective spaces. As a consequence, for eample $M^4=\Cool P(2)$, as a real manifold, admits a real foliation with exactly two centers and one saddle. This result is due to Kuiper and Eells ; they also proved those mentioned are the only manifolds admitting functions with $k=l+1$. \end{example} We also obtain in general: \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$ codimension one Morse foliation on a compact manifold $M^n$ assumed to be transversely orientable, but not necessary closed. We have the following possibilities: \begin{quote} \item $i) \; \;$ $k \geq l+1$. $\F$ is a foliation by spheres as in corollary . \item $ii) \:$ $k=l$. There are two possibilities: \item $\qquad a)$ $\F$ is a foliation by compact leaves, but for the separatrices of the saddles, or \item $\qquad b)$ there exists some compact leaf or graph with one-sided holonomy; \item $iii)$ $k<l$. \end{quote} \end{teor} \begin{proof} Case $i$ follows from the proof of theorem . \end{proof} \begin{example} We can give some examples of every chance of case $ii)$. \begin{enumerate} \item case $b)$ with $k=l=0$, $n=3$ (Novikov Theorem). \item case $b)$ with $k=l=1$, $n=3$. We perform an inverse modification on a regular foliation of a 3-manifold, with finite fundamental group.. \item case $b)$ with $k=l=1$, $n=3$, $M^3=S^3$. As already mentioned we see $S^3$ as $\textrm{B}^3 / S^0 \cup_k \textrm{B}^3 / \textrm{B}^1$, where $k$ is a diffeomorphism between the boundaries, $S^2 /S^0$. $\textrm{B}^3 / S^0$ is a singular Reeb component. $\textrm{B}^3 / \textrm{B}^1$ contains a regular double Reeb component, $ST \subset \subset \textrm{B}^3 / \textrm{B}^1$, and a foliation with cylinders $\R \times S^1$ in $\textrm{B}^3 / \textrm{B}^1 \setminus ST$, as in figure . \item case $a)$ with $k=l=1$, $M^n= \textrm{B}^m \times S^{n-m}$, where and $m \neq 1, n-1$. We can give a foliation of $\textrm{B}^m \times S^{n-m}$, with one center and spherical leaves accumulating to an $(n-m)\!\!-\!\!m$ saddle (this is also such an example). By theorem the center is contained in a region $\textrm{B}^n / S^{n-m-1}$, external leaves are homeomorphic to $S^{m-1} \times S^{n-m}$. \item case $a)$ with $k=l=2$, $M^3=S^3$ with the foliation of example . More in general \item case $a)$ with $k=l=2$, $M^n=S^n= \textrm{B}^m \times S^{n-m} \cup_k S^{m-1} \times \textrm{B}^{n-m+1}$, where $k$ is a diffeomorphism between the boundaries. We can give a foliation of $S^n$ giving one foliation of $\textrm{B}^m \times S^{n-m}$ and one of $S^{m-1} \times \textrm{B}^{n-m+1}$, both tangent to the boundary. $\textrm{B}^m \times S^{n-m}$ is foliated as descripted above and, similarly, $S^{m-1} \times \textrm{B}^{n-m+1}$ has a foliation with one center and a $(m-1)\!\!-\!\!(n-m+1)$ saddle. This is also an other example of a trivial coupling of saddles. \end{enumerate} \end{example} We have also \begin{teor} An $n$-manifold, $n \geq 3$, with finite fundamental group, always admits a foliation with Morse singularities which exhibits a leaf with unilateral holonomy. \end{teor} \begin{proof} It follows by Proposition 3 of Wagneur's work and by the classic Haefliger's theorem \end{proof} \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \section{The space of leaves in some particular cases} We have studied the space of leaves of manifolds with a singular Seifert fibration. Now we can study the space of leaves in the hypotheses of theorem or corollary .\\ As we know, in those hypotheses there exists at least one saddle shared by two centers, $q \in \partial \C_p(\F) \cap \partial \C_{p'}(\F)$, $p \neq p'$ (this means we are dealing with a $1-(n-1)$-saddle). The space of leaves is not Hausdorff. In a neighborhood of $q$, the space of leaves contains three closed segments, say $[\pi(p), \pi(\partial \C_p(\F))]$, $[\pi(p'), \pi(\partial \C_{p'}(\F))]$ and $[\pi(F),\pi(q)]$, where $\pi$ is the projection onto the space of leaves and $F$ is a leaf as in the study about Topology of Separatrices. For each segment, consider its second end. They are different points, but they do not admit disjoint neighborhoods. If we identify these three points in a single one, we get the following nice picture, which is arbitrarily extensible in any configuration satisfying the hypothesis $k \geq l+1$, as in figure and . \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm \chapter{Novikov-type theorems} \section{A Novikov-type theorem for singular foliations} The classical theorem by Novikov states that a $C^ \infty$ codimension one foliation of a 3-manifold with finite fundamental group has a compact leaf, or more properly a Reeb component. We are going to investigate about the existence of a Reeb component for singular foliations.\\ H. Rosemberg and R. Roussarie gave an example of a foliation of $S^3$ with Morse singularities and no compact leaves; in particular all leaves are open and dense. This means that we must put restrictions on the singular set. At this purpose we recall the following definition . \begin{defin} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$ codimension one foliation on a compact manifold $M$ with singular set $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$. We shall say that $Sing(\F)$ is {\em{regular}} if its connected components are either isolated points or smoothly embedded curves diffeomorphic to $S^1$. We say that a connected component $\Gamma$ of $Sing(\F)$ is {\em{topologically stable}} or $C^0${\em{-stable}} if $\Gamma$ has a fundamental system of neighborhoods in $M$ bounded by compact leaves of $\F$. \end{defin} Stable singularities are examples of isolated $C^0$-stable singularities, but the latter looks like a more general concept because, a priori, we do not have a local first integral around a $C^0$-stable singularity. However we have the following: \begin{lemma} Let $M$ be a compact manifold and $\F$ a $C^ \infty$ codimension one foliation with $Sing(\F)\neq \varnothing$. Let $p \in Sing(\F)$ an isolated $C^0$-stable singularity for $\F$. Then $p$ is a stable singularity. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} By definition $p$ has a fundamental system of neighborhoods bounded by compact leaves. Now we prove that there exists an invariant neighborhood of $p$ foliated by leaves with trivial holonomy. Suppose it is not true; in codimension one there are two cases \begin{enumerate} \item we can find a compact leaf $L$ with infinite holonomy, which is arbitrarily near $p$. Let $x \in L$, $\Sigma_x$ be a transverse to $L$ through $x$ and $F$ a leaf in a neighborhood of $L$; $F$ is an open leaf as $\Sigma_x \cap F$ is an infinite set accumulating to $x \notin F$. This means that we can find non-compact leaves arbitrarily near $p$, a contraddiction; \item we can find compact leaves with finite, non-trivial holonomy arbitrarily near $p$. This is not possible because it is in contraddiction with the fact that such leaves are isolated, as we observed in remark . \end{enumerate} We have proved that in a neighborhood $U$ of $p$, the foliation $\F|_U$ is given by a singular Seifert fibration. We can deduce that the space of leaves is Hausdorff, as in proposition or , if we prove that in a neighborhood of a $C^0$-stable singularity, the space of leaves is Haudorff.\\ It is known that there is a 1-1 bijection between invariant closed sets of $M$ and closed sets of $M/\F$. Let $\Il$ be the collection of compact leaves bounding the fundamental system's neighborhoods. For each leaf $L \in \Il$ we may consider $R(L)$, the region bounded by $L$. It contains the singularity and it is invariant. $\overline {R(L)}$, a compact manifold with boundary (cfr. ), is also invariant. As for the intersection of all closed invariant sets containing $p$, it is clearly given by $$\cap_{L \in \Il} \overline {R(L)}=\{p \}.$$ This gives the expected property. It is also clear that $\pi(R(L))$, for some $L \in \Il$, is a semiclosed interval. So $$f=\imath \circ \pi|_U: U \rightarrow \R$$ is a function locally defining the foliation near $p$ (a local first integral) and $p$ is stable. \end{proof} \begin{osserv} For $n \geq 3$, transversely orientable foliations with $C^0$-stable isolated singularities are singular Seifert fibrations, with compact leaves diffeomorphic to spheres (consequence of the Reeb Global Stability Theorem). \end{osserv} It remains to study the case of a singular set $Sing(\F)= \cup _{j \in J} S_j$, where $\forall j \in J$, $S_j$ is a $C^0$-stable curve \begin{displaymath} \xymatrix{ S_j: S^1 \ar[r]^{\quad C^ \infty} & M} \end{displaymath} A priori we cannot exclude $S_j$ has finite, non trivial holonomy; but actually this cannot happen. Let $y \in S_j \subset M$, then $y$ has a neighborhood $C_y$ homeomorphic to an $n$-ball, let $h: C_y \rightarrow \bo^n$ such homeomorphism. We may suppose $h(C_y \cap S_j)$ is the diameter of $\textrm{B}^n$ along the $x_1$-axis. Then $B_y=h^{-1}(\{\sum_{i=2}^n x_i^2<1 \})$ is a little $(n-1)$-ball transverse to $S_j$. $\F|_{B_y}$ has a $C^0$-stable isolated singularity at $y$. By lemma and the leaves of $\F|_{B_y}$ are diffeomorphic to $(n-2)$-spheres. We may think they are given by $h^{-1}(\{\sum_{i=2}^n x_i^2=r \}), 0<r<1$. Let $z \in S_j$ be another point and $B_z$ a $(n-1)$-ball transverse in $z$. We may suppose $\partial B_y$ and $\partial B_z$ lie on the same leaf. For each diffeomorphism $\psi: \partial \textrm{B}^{n-1} \rightarrow \partial \textrm{B}^{n-1}$, by Alexander's trick, we may extend it to the hole $\textrm{B}^{n-1}$ in a way that it sends concentric levels into concentric levels. As a consequence, for a fixed choice of $\psi$, we have a diffeomorphism $B_y \rightarrow B_z$, which improves Transverse Uniformity in the case we are considering. Such a diffeomorphism may be assumed to be the holonomy map of a curve, lying on the singular component $S_j$, $\gamma:[0,1] \rightarrow S_j$, $\gamma(0)=y, \gamma(1)=z$. In particular for $z=y$, we have a diffeomorphism $\chi: B_y \rightarrow B_y$. If $\chi(B_y) \subset int(B_y)$ (or viceversa), then the holonomy is not finite. Then $\chi(\partial B_y)= \partial B_y$. If $\chi$ is an orientation reversing diffeomorphism, then $\chi(B_y) \cap B_y= \partial B_y$, but this is impossible because we have $y \in \chi(B_y) \cap B_y$. We may deduce that $S_j$ has trivial holonomy.\\ We notice that we also proved that $\forall y \in S_j$, $y$ has a neighborhood $V_y \subset S_j$, $V_y \simeq [-1,1]$, and a neighborhood $W_y \subset M$, such that $W_y$ is a manifold with boundary and corners and it is delimited by a piece of leaf diffeomorphic to $[-1,1] \times S^{n-2}$ and by two transverse sections to the (singular) foliation in $\partial V_y$, diffeomorphic to $(n-1)$-balls. $W_y$ is homeomorphic to an $n$-ball and diffeomorphic to a cylinder over $\textrm{B}^{n-1}$; the restriction, $\F|_{W_y}$, is a foliation with a singular component, $V_y$ and leaves diffeomorphic to cylinders over $t \cdot S^{n-2}$, $t \in (0,1)$. Moreover, as the holonomy of $S_j$ is trivial, the leaves of an invariant neighborhood, $N_j$, defined by $C^0$-stability are diffeomorphic to the product $S^1 \times S^{n-2}$ and $N_j$ is diffeomorphic to $S^1 \times \textrm{B}^{n-1}$. \begin{claim} $J$ is a finite set. \end{claim} \begin{proof} As $M$ is compact we can cover $M$ with a finite number, say $k$, of invariant connected open sets (in general they are not foliated charts). Their projection gives $k$ connected open sets on $M/ {\F}$, the intervals $U_i, 1 \leq i \leq k$. If $U_i$ contains $\pi(S_j)$ for some $j \in J$, then it has a boundary point. So $J$ has at most $2k$ elements and we set $J=\{1, \dots , l \}$, where $l \leq 2k$. \end{proof} Novikov's theorem is a consequence of Haefliger's theorem, which, on turn, bases on the proposition below (cfr. the book ). We need the following definition \begin{defin} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$ codimension one foliation on a compact manifold $M$. Let $D^2$ be the 2-disc and $g:D^2 \rightarrow M$ be a $C^ \infty$ map. We say that $p\in D^2$ is a {\em{tangency point of $g$ with $\F$}} if $$Dg(p) \cdot \R^2 \subset T_{h(p)} \F.$$ \end{defin} \begin{propos} Let $A: D^2 \rightarrow M$ be a $C^ \infty$ map such that the restriction $A|_{\partial D^2}$ is transverse to $\F$. Then for every $\epsilon >0$ and every $r \geq 2$ there exists $g: D^2 \rightarrow M$, $C^ \infty$, $\epsilon$-near $A$ in the $C^r$-topology, and satisfying the following properties \begin{itemize} \item [(a)] $g|_{\partial D^2}$ is transverse to $\F$. \item [(b)] For every point of tangency $p \in D^2$ of $g$ with $\F$, there exists a foliation box $U$ of $\F$ with $g(p) \in U$ and a distinguished map $\pi:U \rightarrow \R$ such that $p$ is a non-degenerate singularity of $\pi \circ g:g^{-1}(U) \rightarrow \R$. In particular there are only a finite number of tangency points, since they are isolated, and they are contained in the open disc $D^2=\{z \in \R^2:||z||<1\}$. \item [(c)] If $T=\{p_1, \dots, p_t \}$ is the set of points of tangency of $g$ with $\F$, then $g(p_i)$ and $g(p_j)$ are contained in distinct leaves of $\F$, for every $i \neq j$. In particular the singular foliation $\F^*= g^*(\F)$ has no distinct connected saddles. \end{itemize} \end{propos} Now let $\F$ be a codimension one $C^ \infty$ foliation on a compact manifold $M^n$, $n \geq 3$, with $\varnothing \neq Sing(\F) = \cup ^l_{j=1} S_j$, where $S_j$ is a curve diffeomorphic to $S^1$, $\forall j=1, \dots, l$. We can give a similar proposition. \begin{propos} Let $A$ be as in proposition . Then there exists $g$ as in with properties $(a)$ and $(c)$,while $(b)$ is changed in \begin{itemize} \item [(b')] for every point of tangency $p \in D^2$ of $g$ with $\F$ \begin{enumerate} \item if $L_{g(p)}$ is a regular leaf of $\F$ there exists a foliation box $U$ of $\F$ with $g(p) \in U$ and a distinguished map $\pi:U \rightarrow \R$ with the properties as in $(b)$; \item if $L_{g(p)}$ is a singular leaf of $\F$ ($S_j$ for some $j$) there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ and a singular submersion $\pi:U \rightarrow \R$ (a sort of singular distinguished map) with the properties as in $(b)$. \end{enumerate} \end{itemize} \end{propos} \begin{proof} We start recalling the idea of the classical proof.\\ We choose a finite covering of $A(D^2)$ by foliation boxes $\{Q_i\}^r_{i=1}$. In each $Q_i$ the foliation is defined by a distinguished map, the submersion $$\pi_i:Q_i \rightarrow \R.$$ We choose an atlas, $\{(Q_i, \phi_i)\} ^r_{i=1}$, such that the last component of $\phi_i:Q_i \rightarrow \R^n$ is $\pi_i$, i.e. $\phi_i=(\phi_i^1, \phi_i^2, \dots , \phi_i^{n-1}, \pi_i)$. We construct the finite cover of $D^2$, $\{W_i=A^{-1}(Q_i)\}^r_{i=1}$; the expression of $A$ in coordinates is $$A|_{W_i}=(A_i^1, \dots , A_i^{n-1}, \pi_i \circ A).$$ We choose a subcover of $D^2$, $\{U_i \}_{i=1}^r$, where $U_i \subset \subset W_i$, $i=1, \dots , r$; then we proceed by induction on the number $i$. Starting with $i=1$, we apply a previous result and we modify $A$ in a new function $g_i$, in a way that $g_i(W_i) \subset Q_i$ and $\pi_i \circ g_i:W_i \rightarrow \R$ is Morse on the subset $U_i \subset W_i$. At last we set $g=g_r$.\\ In the present case we proceed as follows. We construct an open cover of $A(D^2)$. \\If $y \in A(D^2)$ is a regular point ($y \in M \setminus Sing(\F)$), there exists a foliated chart $(Q_y, \phi_y)$ with domain $Q_y \ni y$. We choose, as distinguished map, $\pi_y$, the projection onto the space of plaques, $\pi_y: Q_y \rightarrow \bo^1$. Moreover, we may ask $Q_y$ has the property $Q_y \cap L=\{ \textrm{a single plaque}\}$ for each compact leaf $L$. We have $Q_y \cap S_j= \varnothing$, $\forall j \in J$.\\Now, let $y \in Sing (\F)$, then $y \in S_j$ for some $j \in J$. By hypothesis, $S_j$ is $C^0$-stable; it follows there exists an invariant compact neighborhood, $N_j \supset S_j$. By arguments already developped, the space of leaves in $N_j$, $N_j/\F|_{N_j}$ is Hausdorff and homeomorphic to $[0,1)$. In this case, the projection onto the space of leaves, $$\pi_y: N_j \rightarrow [0,1)$$ is a singular fibration and we have $\pi_j(S_j)=0 \in [0,1)$. Then we choose $(Q_y,\pi_y=\pi_j|_{Q_y})$. Here $Q_y =W_y \subset N_j$, is a neighborhood of $y \in S_j$ diffeomorphic to $[-1,1] \times \textrm{B}^{n-1}$ and delimited by a piece of leaf and two transverse sections, defined before the claim . Let $\phi_y:Q_y \rightarrow [-1,1] \times \bo ^{n-1}$ be such a diffeomorphism. In this way if $Q_y \cap Q_z \neq \varnothing$ and they both intersect $Sing(\F)$, by property $T_4$ of Hausdorff manifolds, it is not restrictive to suppose they both intersect the same connected component, $S_j \subset Sing(\F)$. In this case $\pi_y|_{Q_y \cap Q_z}=\pi_z|_{Q_y \cap Q_z}$.\\ If $Q_y \cap Q_z \neq \varnothing$ and $y \notin Sing(\F) \ni z$, $Q_y \cap Q_z$ is regular for the foliation. $\forall L$ such that $L \cap Q_z \neq \varnothing$, $L$ is compact and, by construction, it intersects $Q_y$ in a single plaque. Then there is a bijection between the space of leaves in $Q_y \cap Q_z$ and its space of plaques, and we may easily find a diffeomorphism between the two.\\ In all cases, we have diffeomorphisms such that $\pi_y$ and $\pi_z$ satisfy the cocycle relations in $Q_y \cap Q_z$.\\ We constructed an open cover of $A(D^2)$, $\{Q_y\}_{y \in A(D^2)}$. By compactness of $A(D^2)$, we may select a finite subcover $Q_1, \dots, Q_k$.\\ Observe that if $A(D^2) \cap S_j \neq \varnothing$ for some $1 \leq j \leq l$ then there exists $1 \leq i \leq k$ such that $Q_i$ is a singular foliation box. At this point we can proceed as in the classical proof. \end{proof} The above proposition removes any obstruction to the extension of Haefliger's theorem to the case we are considering; so we have: \begin{teor} [Haefliger's theorem for singular foliations] Let $\F$ be a codimension one $C^2$ singular foliation of an $n$-manifold $M$, with $Sing(\F)$ regular and $C^0$-stable if non-empty. Suppose there exists a closed curve transverse to $\F$ homotopic to a point. Then there exists a leaf with unilateral holonomy. \end{teor} We underline the fact that the conclusion by Haefliger and the possibility of a Novikov-type theorem is subordinated to the existence of a closed transversal. The difference between a regular and a singular foliation stands in the fact that a codimension one regular foliation defined on a compact manifold has always a closed transversal () but the same is not true for singular foliations. \begin{example} We consider $S^3$ with a singular foliation $\F$ by torus leaves, presenting two regular components of the singular set $Sing(\F)=S_1 \cup S_2$, two embedded curves diffeomorphic to $S^1$, linked together. $\F$ admits no closed transversals, as all integral curves of any vector field transverse to the foliation start on $S_1$ and ends on $S_2$ or viceversa. \end{example} \vskip 3mm \vskip 3mm Let $N_j$ be an open invariant neighborhood of $S_j \subset Sing(\F)$, defined by its $C^0$-stability. By arguments already discussed, the foliation in $N_j$ has trivial holonomy. Let $F_j$ be a leaf in $N_j \setminus S_j$. We define the sets \begin{displaymath}\C'(\F)= \{S_j \subset Sing(\F)\textrm{ and leaves diffeomorphic to }F_j , \forall j \in J \} \end{displaymath} and \begin{displaymath}\C_j(\F)= \textrm{ connected component of }\C'(\F) \textrm{ containing } S_j \end{displaymath} The sets $\C_j(\F)$ and $\C'(\F)$ are open. Let $y \in \C'(\F)$. If $y \in S_j$, by definition of a $C^0$-stable singular set, $y$ has a neighborhood of compact leaves, contained in $\C_j(\F)$; if $y \in \C_j(\F) \setminus S_j$, $y$ belongs to a compact leaf with trivial holonomy and thesis follows by the Reeb Local Stability Theorem.\\ We define \begin{defin} We say that the foliation $\F$ on $M^3$ has a {\em{Novikov component}} if there exists an invariant submanifold with boundary $N \subset M$, such that $\F|_N$ is a foliation tangent to the boundary, with open leaves accumulating to the boundary leaf, whose universal covering is the plane. \end{defin} In particular Reeb components are Novikov components, but we may find, for example, Novikov components also in the non-orientable case. Keeping in account that we may easily extend a similar definition to 2-manifolds, we can give the following example. The invariant M\"obius strip contained in the projective plane of figure , obtained by $\R P^2 \setminus \C_p(\F)$, where $p$ is the only center of the foliation, is an example of a Novikov component. We notice that a transverse may be closed only if it avoids $\C'(\F)$. In fact if it intersects $\C_j(\F)$ for some $1 \leq j \leq l$, it starts or ends on the component $S_j$, as in the previous example. However we can state: \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a $C^ \infty$ codimension one foliation on a closed $3$-manifold $M^3$ with finite fundamental group. Suppose $Sing(\F)$ is regular and $C^0$-stable. Then we have two possibilities: \begin{enumerate} \item all leaves of $\F$ are compact, \item $\F$ has a Novikov component. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} \begin{proof} If $Sing(\F)= \varnothing$ then thesis, case 2, follows by Novikov's theorem.\\If $Sing(\F) \ni p$, an isolated, $C^0$-stable singularity, then (as $n=3$) we are in case 1; in fact, unless passing to the transversely orientable double covering, we can complete by remark .\\ So let us suppose $Sing(\F) \neq \varnothing$ and $Sing(\F)$ contains no isolated points, but smoothly embedded curves diffeomorphic to $S^1$. Let $S_1, \dots , S_l$ be such curves, $l \geq 1$. Then $\C'(\F)$ and $\C_1(\F) \neq \varnothing$. We have the following possibilities: \begin{enumerate} \item \begin{enumerate}\item $\partial \C_1(\F)= \varnothing$, then $M=\C_1(\F)$ and $\F$ is a foliation by compact leaves and singular components, as $S_1$. By considerations on the space of leaves we have $l=2$. We are in the case of the example . \item $\partial \C_1(\F) \neq \varnothing$ and $\partial \C_1(\F)$ is a compact leaf with finite non-trivial holonomy. As in Remark , we may extend to the singular case, with $C^0$-stable singular components of $Sing(\F)$, the classification of manifolds with compact leaves, among which a leaf with finite non-trivial holonomy. We obtain $M= \overline {\C_1(\F)}$. \end{enumerate} \item $\partial \C_1(\F) \neq \varnothing$ is a leaf with unilateral holonomy. In this case $\partial \C_1(\F)$ bounds a Novikov component. It is enough to prove the universal covering of an open leaf, in a neighborhood of $\partial \C_1(\F)$, is the plane. We suppose it is not.\\ We observe that in a neighborhood of $\partial \C_1(\F)$ the foliation is transversely orientable. Let $\Sigma_x$ be a transverse section at $x \in \partial \C_1(\F)$; $\Sigma_x \setminus \{x \}= \Sigma_1 \cup \Sigma_2$. As the holonomy is unilateral, we have, for example, it is the identity in $\Sigma_1$ and it is not the identity in $\Sigma_2$. In the last case, the only possibility is that it is an orientation preserving diffeomorphism. But this is not enough to say we are in the transversely orientable case; however we may suppose we are, unless passing to the transversely orientable double covering.\\ By the hypothesis supposed in order to find a contraddiction, there exists some open leaf $L$ accumulating to $\partial \C_1(\F)$, whose universal covering is the sphere $\pi: \hat{L} =S^2 \rightarrow L$. As $S^2$ is compact and simply connected $\pi: S^2 \rightarrow L$ is a finite covering and $\pi_1(L)$ is finite. By the Reeb Global Stability Theorem for foliations on manifolds with boundary, tangent to the boundary , all leaves of $M \setminus \C'(\F)$ are diffeomorphic to $L$, a contraddiction because $\partial \C_1(\F) \subset M \setminus \C'(\F)$, is a leaf with unilateral holonomy and necessarily it has infinite fundamental group. We recall $Hol(F)$ is a representation of $\pi_1(F)$, for each leaf $F$. So the universal covering is $\pi :\hat{L}=\R^2 \rightarrow L$ and $M \setminus \C_1(\F)$ is a Novikov component. \end{enumerate} \end{proof} We give two examples of singular foliations on $S^3$ with a Reeb component. \begin{example} Let $M=S^3$ foliated by a foliation $\F$, such that $Sing(\F)$ has one connected component, diffeomorphic to $S^1$. We describe the foliation on $S^3$ by means the foliation of two solid tori glued together, $ST_1$ and $ST_2$, both homeomorphic to $S^1 \times \bo^2$. We may suppose $ST_1$ has a foliation with trivial holonomy, with leaves diffeomorphic to tori and a singular leaf, $Sing(\F)$, and $ST_2$ is a double Reeb component. \end{example} \begin{example} Consider $S^3$ splitted in $ST_1$ and $ST_2$, two solid tori, as above. Moreover, we suppose $ST_2$ is splitted in two parts, by means of an inner solid torus $\tilde{ST_2}$. Now we suppose $Sing(\F)$ is a set of two connected components, both diffeomorphic to $S^1$, contained respectively in $ST_1$ and $\tilde{ST_2}$. $ST_1$ and $\tilde{ST_2}$ are foliated as $ST_1$ in the example above. $ST_2 \setminus \tilde{ST_2}$ has a foliation with cylindric leaves, accumulating on both the components of its boundary. This foliation has a Reeb component, which may be selected in two different ways: $ST_2$ or $M \setminus \tilde{ST_2}$. \end{example} At last we have a complete picture of all possible cases: \begin{teor} Let $\F$ be a codimension one $C^ \infty$ foliation on a $3$-manifold $M$, assumed to be closed, such that $Sing(\F)$ is regular and $C^0$ stable (if non-empty). Then we have: \begin{enumerate} \item there are no closed transversal, or equivalently, $\F$ is a foliation by compact leaves, \item there exists a null homotopic closed transversal, or equivalently, $\F$ has a Reeb component, \item all closed transversal are an infinite element in $\pi_1(M)$. In particular $\pi_1(M)$ is not finite. \end{enumerate} \end{teor} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{ree} Wu Wen-Tsun; Reeb, Georges: Sur les espace fibr\'es et les vari\'et\'es feuillet\'ees, Paris, Hermann, 1952. \bibitem{camacho} Camacho, C\`esar; Lins Neto, Alcides: Geometric theory of foliations, Boston, Birkhauser, 1985 \bibitem{scardua} Morales, C.A.; Sc\`ardua, B.: Geometry and Topology of foliated manifolds \bibitem{CS} Camacho, C\`esar; Sc\`ardua, Bruno: On codimension one foliations with Morse singularities (preprint), http://www.preprint.impa.br/Shadows/SERIE\_A/2004/310.html \bibitem{godbillon} Godbillon, Claude: Feuilletages, etudies geometriques, Basel, Birkhauser, 1991 \bibitem{mil} Milnor, J.: Morse theory, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1963. \bibitem{hirsch} Hirsch, Morris W., Differential topology, New York, Springer, 1988. \bibitem{spivak} Spivak, Michael: A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, vol. 1, Houston, TX, Berkeley, Publish or perish, 1979. \bibitem{steenrod} Steenrod, Norman: The topology of fiber bundles, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1951 \bibitem{rose} Rosemberg, H.; Roussarie R.: Some remarks on stability of foliations, J. Diff. Geom. 10, 1975, 207-219. \bibitem{Wagneur} Wagneur, Edward: Formes de Pfaff \`a singularit\'es non d\'eg\'en\'er\'ees, Annales de l'institut Fourier, tome 28 n. 3 (1978), p. 165-176. \bibitem{kuiper} Eells, James; Kuiper, Nicolaas H.: Manifolds which are like projective planes, Pub. Math. de l'I.H.E.S., 14, 1962. \bibitem{palis} Palis, Jacob Jr.; de Melo, Welington: Geometric theory of dynamical systems: an introduction, New-York, Springer, 1982 \bibitem{hale} Hale, Jack K.; Kocak, Huseyin: Dynamics and bifurcations, New-York, Springer-Verlag, 1981 \bibitem{russo} Nemytskii, Viktor Vladimirovic; Stepanov, Vjaceslav Vasilevic: Qualitative theory of differential equations, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1960. \bibitem{thu} Thurston, William P.: Three-dimensional geometry and topology, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1997. \bibitem{sullivan} Sullivan, D.: A counterexample to the periodic orbit conjecture, Pub. Math. de l'I.H.E.S. 46 (1976). \bibitem{rushing} Rushing, Benny T.: Toplogical embeddings, New York and London, Academic Press, 1973. \end{thebibliography} le \section{Problem}
|
0704.0166
|
Title: Supersymmetry breaking metastable vacua in runaway quiver gauge theories
Abstract: In this paper we consider quiver gauge theories with fractional branes whose
infrared dynamics removes the classical supersymmetric vacua (DSB branes). We
show that addition of flavors to these theories (via additional non-compact
branes) leads to local meta-stable supersymmetry breaking minima, closely
related to those of SQCD with massive flavors. We simplify the study of the
one-loop lifting of the accidental classical flat directions by direct
computation of the pseudomoduli masses via Feynman diagrams. This new approach
allows to obtain analytic results for all these theories. This work extends the
results for the $dP_1$ theory in hep-th/0607218. The new approach allows to
generalize the computation to general examples of DSB branes, and for arbitrary
values of the superpotential couplings.
Body: \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{section} \makeatother \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}} \pagestyle{empty} \rightline{ IFT-UAM/CSIC-07-14} \rightline{ CERN-PH-TH/2007-063} \vspace{0.1cm} \begin{center} \LARGE{Supersymmetry breaking metastable vacua \\ in runaway quiver gauge theories \\[12mm]} \large{I. Garc\'{\i}a-Etxebarria, F. Saad, A.M.Uranga\\[3mm]} \footnotesize{PH-TH Division, CERN CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\\ and \\ Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica C-XVI,\\[-0.3em] Universidad Aut\'onoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain\\[2mm] } \small{\bf Abstract} \\[5mm] \end{center} \begin{center} \begin{minipage}[h]{16.0cm} In this paper we consider quiver gauge theories with fractional branes whose infrared dynamics removes the classical supersymmetric vacua (DSB branes). We show that addition of flavors to these theories (via additional non-compact branes) leads to local meta-stable supersymmetry breaking minima, closely related to those of SQCD with massive flavors. We simplify the study of the one-loop lifting of the accidental classical flat directions by direct computation of the pseudomoduli masses via Feynman diagrams. This new approach allows to obtain analytic results for all these theories. This work extends the results for the $dP_1$ theory in hep-th/0607218. The new approach allows to generalize the computation to general examples of DSB branes, and for arbitrary values of the superpotential couplings. \end{minipage} \end{center} \newpage \setcounter{page}{1} \pagestyle{plain} \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}} \setcounter{footnote}{0} \section{Introduction} Systems of D-branes at singularities provide a very interesting setup to realize and study diverse non-perturbative gauge dynamics phenomena in string theory. In the context of $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric gauge field theories, systems of D3-branes at Calabi-Yau singularities lead to interesting families of tractable 4d strongly coupled conformal field theories, which extend the AdS/CFT correspondence to theories with reduced (super)symmetry and enable non-trivial precision tests of the correspondence (see for instance ). Addition of fractional branes leads to families of non-conformal gauge theories, with intricate RG flows involving cascades of Seiberg dualities , and strong dynamics effects in the infrared. For instance, fractional branes associated to complex deformations of the singular geometry (denoted deformation fractional branes in ), correspond to supersymmetric confinement of one or several gauge factors in the gauge theory . The generic case of fractional branes associated to obstructed complex deformations (denoted DSB branes in ), corresponds to gauge theories developing a non-perturbative Affleck-Dine-Seiberg superpotential, which removes the classical supersymmetric vacua . As shown in (see also ), assuming canonical Kahler potential leads to a runaway potential for the theory, along a baryonic direction. A natural suggestion to stop this runaway has been proposed for the particular example of the $dP_1$ theory (the theory on fractional branes at the complex cone over $dP_1$) in . It was shown that, upon the addition of D7-branes to the configuration (which introduce massive flavors), the theory develops a meta-stable minimum (closely related to the Intriligator-Seiberg-Shih (ISS) model ), parametrically long-lived against decay to the runaway regime (see for an alternative suggestion to stop the runaway, in compact models). In this paper we show that the appearance of meta-stable minima in gauge theories on DSB fractional branes, in the presence of additional massless flavors, is much more general (and possibly valid in full generality). We use the tools of to introduce D7-branes on general toric singularities, and give masses to the corresponding flavors. Since quiver gauge theories are rather involved, we develop new techniques to efficiently analyze the one-loop stability of the meta-stable minima, via the direct computation of Feynman diagrams. These tools can be used to argue that the results plausibly hold for general systems of DSB fractional branes at toric singularities. It is very satisfactory to verify the correspondence between the existence of meta-stable vacua and the geometric property of having obstructed complex deformations. The present work thus enlarges the class of string models realizing dynamical supersymmetry breaking in meta-stable vacua (see for other proposed realizations, and for models of dynamical supersymmetry breaking in orientifold theories). Although we will not discuss it in the present paper, these results can be applied to the construction of models of gauge mediation in string theory as in (based on the additional tools in ), in analogy with . This is another motivation for the present work. The paper is organized as follows. In Section we review the ISS model, evaluating one-loop pseudomoduli masses directly in terms of Feynman diagrams. In Section we study the theory of DSB branes at the $dP_1$ and $dP_2$ singularities upon the addition of flavors, and we find that metastable vacua exist for these theories. In Section we extend this analysis to the general case of DSB branes at toric singularities with massive flavors, and we illustrate the results by showing the existence of metastable vacua for DSB branes at some well known families of toric singularities. Finally, the Appendix provides some technical details that we have omitted from the main text in order to improve the legibility. \section{The ISS model revisited} In this Section we review the ISS meta-stable minima in SQCD, and propose that the analysis of the relevant piece of the one-loop potential (the quadratic terms around the maximal symmetry point) is most simply carried out by direct evaluation of Feynman diagrams. This new tool will be most useful in the study of the more involved examples of quiver gauge theories. \subsection{The ISS metastable minimum} The ISS model (see also for a review of these and other models) is given by $\cn=1$ $SU(N_c)$ theory with $N_f$ flavors, with small masses \begin{equation} W_\textrm{electric} = m \Tr \phi \tilde\phi, \end{equation} where $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$ are the quarks of the theory. The number of colors and flavors are chosen so as to be in the free magnetic phase: \begin{equation} N_c+1 \leq N_f < \frac{3}{2} N_c. \end{equation} This condition guarantees that the Seiberg dual is infrared free. This Seiberg dual is the $SU(N)$ theory (with $N=N_f-N_c$) with $N_f$ flavors of dual quarks $q$ and $\tilde q$ and the meson $M$. The dual superpotential is given by rewriting () in terms of the mesons and adding the usual coupling between the meson and the dual quarks: \begin{equation} W_\textrm{magnetic}\, =\, h\, (\Tr \tilde q M q - \mu^2 \Tr M), \end{equation} where $h$ and $\mu$ can be expressed in terms of the parameters $m$ and $\Lambda$, and some (unknown) information about the dual K\"ahler metric\footnote{The exact expressions can be found in (5.7) in , but we will not need them for our analysis. We just take all masses in the electric description to be small enough for the analysis of the metastable vacuum to be reliable.}. It was also argued in that it is possible to study the supersymmetry breaking minimum in the origin of (dual) field space without taking into account the gauge dynamics (their main effect in this discussion consists of restoring supersymmetry dynamically far in field space). In the following we will assume that this is always the case, and we will forget completely about the gauge dynamics of the dual. Once we forget about gauge dynamics, studying the vacua of the dual theory becomes a matter of solving the F-term equations coming from the superpotential (). The mesonic F-term equation reads: \begin{equation} -\overline F_{M_{ij}} = h \tilde q^i \cdot q^j - h \mu^2 \delta^{ij} = 0, \end{equation} where $i$ and $j$ are flavor indices and the dot denotes color contraction. This has no solution, since the identity matrix $\delta^{ij}$ has rank $N_f$ while $\tilde q^i \cdot q^j$ has rank $N=N_f-N_c$. Thus this theory breaks supersymmetry spontaneously at tree level. This mechanism for F-term supersymmetry breaking is called the {\em rank condition}. The classical scalar potential has a continuous set of minima, but the one-loop potential lifts all of the non-Goldstone directions, which are usually called pseudomoduli. The usual approach to study the one-loop stabilization is the computation of the complete one-loop effective potential over all pseudomoduli space via the Coleman-Weinberg formula : \begin{equation} V = \frac{1}{64\pi^2}\Tr\left(\cam_B^4\log\frac{\cam_B^2}{\Lambda^2} - \cam_F^4\log\frac{\cam_F^2}{\Lambda^2}\right). \end{equation} This approach has the advantage that it allows the determination of the one-loop minimum, without {\em a priori} information about its location, and moreover it provides the full potential around it, including higher terms. However, it has the disadvantage of requiring the diagonalization of the mass matrix, which very often does not admit a closed expression, e.g. for the theories we are interested in. In fact, we would like to point out that to determine the existence of a meta-stable minimum there exists a computationally much simpler approach. In our situation, we have a good ansatz for the location of the one-loop minimum, and are interested just in the one-loop pseudomoduli masses around such point. This information can be directly obtained by computing the one-loop masses via the relevant Feynman diagrams. This technique is extremely economical, and provides results in closed form in full generality, e.g. for general values of the couplings, etc. The correctness of the original ansatz for the vacuum can eventually be confirmed by the results of the computation (namely positive one-loop squared masses, and negligible tadpoles for the classically massive fields \footnote{Since supersymmetry is spontaneously broken the effective potential will get renormalized by quantum effects, and thus classically massive fields might shift slightly. This appears as a one loop tadpole which can be encoded as a small shift of $\mu$. This will enter in the two loop computation of the pseudomoduli masses, which are beyond the scope of the present paper.}). Hence, our strategy to study the one-loop stabilization in this paper is as follows: \begin{itemize} \item First we choose an ansatz for the classical minimum to become the one-loop vacuum. It is natural to propose a point of maximal enhanced symmetry (in particular, close to the origin in the space of vevs for $M$ there exist and R-symmetry, whose breaking by gauge interactions (via anomalies) is negligible in that region). Hence the natural candidate for the one-loop minimum is \begin{equation} q = \tilde q ^{\mathrm{T}} = \left(\begin{array}{c} \mu \\ 0 \end{array}\right), \end{equation} with the rest of the fields set to 0. This initial ansatz for the one-loop minimum is eventually confirmed by the positive square masses at one-loop resulting from the computations described below. In our more general discussion of meta-stable minima in runaway quiver gauge theories, our ansatz for the one-loop minimum is a direct generalization of the above (and is similarly eventually confirmed by the one-loop mass computation). \item Then we expand the field linearly around this vacuum, and identify the set of classically massless fields. We refer to these as pseudomoduli (with some abuse of language, since there could be massless fields which are not classically flat directions due to higher potential terms) \item As a final step we compute one-loop masses for these pseudomoduli by evaluating their two-point functions via conventional Feynman diagrams, as explained in more detail in appendix and illustrated below in several examples. \end{itemize} The ISS model is a simple example where this technique can be illustrated. Considering the above ansatz for the vacuum, we expand the fields around this point as: \begin{equation} q = \left(\begin{array}{c}\mu + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi_+ + \xi_-) \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\rho_+ + \rho_-) \end{array}\right),\qquad \tilde q^{\mathrm T} = \left(\begin{array}{c}\mu + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi_+ - \xi_-) \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\rho_+ - \rho_-) \end{array}\right),\qquad M = \left(\begin{array}{cc} Y & Z \\ \tilde Z^{\mathrm T} & \Phi \end{array}\right), \end{equation} where we have taken linear combinations of the fields in such a way that the bosonic mass matrix is diagonal. This will also be convenient in section , where we discuss the Goldstone bosons in greater detail. We now expand the superpotential () to get \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber W & = & \sqrt{2}\mu \xi_+Y + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mu Z\rho_+ + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mu Z\rho_- + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mu \rho_+\tilde Z - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mu \rho_-\tilde Z \\ && + \frac{1}{2} \rho_+^2 \Phi - \frac{1}{2} \rho_-^2 \Phi - \mu^2\Phi + \ldots, \end{eqnarray} where we have not displayed terms of order three or higher in the fluctuations, unless they contain $\Phi$, since they are irrelevant for the one loop computation we will perform. Note also that we have set $h=1$ and we have removed the trace (the matricial structure is easy to restore later on, here we just set $N_f=2$ for simplicity). The massless bosonic fluctuations are given by $\re\rho_+$, $\im\rho_-$, $\Phi$ and $\xi_-$. The first two together with $\im \xi_-$ are Goldstone bosons, as explained in section . Thus the pseudomoduli we are interested in are given by $\Phi$ and $\re \xi_-$. Let us focus on $\Phi$ (the case of $\re\xi_-$ admits a similar discussion). In this case the relevant terms in the superpotential simplify further, and just the following superpotential contributes: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber W & = & \mu Z\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\rho_+ + \rho_-) + \mu \tilde Z \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\rho_+ - \rho_-) + \frac{1}{2} \rho_+^2 \Phi - \frac{1}{2} \rho_-^2 \Phi - \mu^2\Phi + \ldots, \end{eqnarray} which we recognize, up to a field redefinition, as the symmetric model of appendix . We can thus directly read the result \begin{equation} \delta m^2_\Phi = \frac{|h|^4\mu^2}{8\pi^2}(\log 4 - 1). \end{equation} This matches the value given in , which was found using the Coleman-Weinberg potential. \subsection{The Goldstone bosons} One aspect of our technique that merits some additional explanation concerns the Goldstone bosons. The one-loop computation of the masses for the fluctuations associated to the symmetries broken by the vacuum, using just the interactions described in appendix , leads to a non-vanishing result. This puzzle is however easily solved by realizing that certain (classically massive) fields have a one-loop tadpole. This leads to a new contribution to the one-loop Goldstone two-point amplitude, given by the diagram in Figure . Adding this contribution the total one-loop mass for the Goldstone bosons is indeed vanishing, as expected. This tadpole does not affect the computation of the one-loop pseudomoduli masses (except for $\re\xi_+$, but its mass remains positive) as it is straightforward to check. The structure of this cancellation can be understood by using the derivation of the Goldstone theorem for the 1PI effective potential, as we now discuss. The proof can be found in slightly more detail, together with other proofs, in . Let us denote by $V$ the 1PI effective potential. Invariance of the action under a given symmetry implies that \begin{equation} \frac{\delta V}{\delta \phi_i} \Delta \phi_i = 0, \end{equation} where we denote by $\Delta \phi_i$ the variation of the field $\phi_i$ under the symmetry, which will in general be a function of all the fields in the theory. Taking the derivative of this equation with respect to some other field $\phi_k$ \begin{equation} \frac{\delta^2 V}{\delta\phi_i \delta\phi_k} \Delta \phi_i + \frac{\delta V}{\delta\phi_i}\cdot \frac{\delta\Delta\phi_i}{\delta\phi_k} = 0. \end{equation} Let us consider how this applies to our case. At tree level, there is no tadpole and the above equation (truncated at tree level) states that for each symmetry generator broken by the vacuum, the value of $\Delta\phi_i$ gives a nonvanishing eigenvector of the mass matrix with zero eigenvalue. This is the classical version of the Goldstone theorem, which allows the identification of the Goldstone bosons of the theory. For instance, in the ISS model in the previous section (for $N_f=2$), there are three global symmetry generators broken at the minimum described around (). The $SU(2)\times U(1)$ symmetry of the potential gets broken down to a $U(1)'$, which can be understood as a combination of the original $U(1)$ and the $t_z$ generator of $SU(2)$. The Goldstone bosons can be taken to be the ones associated to the three generators of $SU(2)$, and correspond (for $\mu$ real) to $\im\xi_-$, $\im \rho_-$ and $\re \rho_+$, in the parametrization of the fields given by equation (). Even in the absence of tree-level tadpoles, there could still be a one-loop tadpole. When this happens, there should also be a non-trivial contribution to the mass term for the Goldstone bosons in the one-loop 1PI potential, related to the tadpole by the one-loop version of (). This relation guarantees that the mass term in the physical (i.e. Wilsonian) effective potential, which includes the 1PI contribution, plus those of the diagram in Figure , vanishes, as we described above. In fact, in the ISS example, there is a non-vanishing one-loop tadpole for the real part of $\xi_+$ (and no tadpole for other fields). The calculation of the tadpole at one loop is straightforward, and we will only present here the result \begin{equation} i\cam = \frac{-i |h|^4\mu^3}{(4\pi)^2}(2\log 2). \end{equation} The 1PI one-loop contribution to the Goldstone boson mass is also simple to calculate, giving the result \begin{equation} i\cam = \frac{-i |h|^4\mu^2}{(4\pi)^2}(\log 2). \end{equation} Using the variations of the relevant fields under the symmetry generator, e.g. for $t_z$, \begin{eqnarray} \Delta\re \xi_+ & = & - \im \xi_- \\ \Delta\im \xi_- & = & \re \xi_+ + 2\mu. \end{eqnarray} we find that the () is satisfied at one-loop. \begin{equation} \left\langle \frac{\delta^2 V}{\delta\phi_i \delta\phi_k} \Delta \phi_i + \frac{\delta V}{\delta\phi_i}\cdot \frac{\delta\Delta\phi_i}{\delta\phi_k}\right\rangle = m^2_{\im \xi_-}\cdot 2\mu + (\re \xi_+ \mathrm{ tadpole})\cdot (-1) = 0. \end{equation} A very similar discussion applies to $t_x$ and $t_y$. \smallskip The above discussion of Goldstone bosons can be similarly carried out in all examples of this paper. Hence, it will be enough to carry out the computation of the 1PI diagrams discussed in appendix , and verify that they lead to positive squared masses for all classically massless fields (with Goldstone bosons rendered massless by the additional diagrams involving the tadpole). \section{Meta-stable vacua in quiver gauge theories with DSB branes} In this section we show the existence of a meta-stable vacuum in a few examples of gauge theories on DSB branes, upon the addition of massive flavors. As already discussed in , the choice of fractional branes of DSB kind is crucial in the result. The reason is that in order to have the ISS structure, and in particular supersymmetry breaking by the rank condition, one needs a node such that its Seiberg dual satisfies $N_{f}>N$, with $N=N_f-N_c$ with $N_c$, $N_f$ the number of colors, flavors of that gauge factor. Denoting $N_{f,0}$, $N_{f,1}$ the number of massless and massive flavors (namely flavors arising from bi-fundamentals of the original D3-brane quiver, or introduced by the D7-branes), the condition is equivalent to $N_{f,0}<N_c$. This is precisely the condition that an ADS superpotential is generated, and is the prototypical behavior of DSB branes . Another important general comment, also discussed in , is that theories on DSB branes generically contain one or more chiral multiplets which do not appear in the superpotential. Being decoupled, such fields remain as accidental flat directions at one-loop, so that the one-loop minimum is not isolated. The proper treatment of these flat directions is beyond the reach of present tools, so they remain an open question. However, it is plausible that they do not induce a runaway behavior to infinity, since they parametrize a direction orthogonal to the fields parametrizing the runaway of DSB fractional branes. \subsection{The complex cone over $dP_1$} In this section we describe the most familiar example of quiver gauge theory with DSB fractional branes, the $dP_1$ theory. In this theory, a non-perturbative superpotential removes the classical supersymmetric vacua . Assuming canonical K\"ahler potential the theory has a runaway behavior . In this section, we revisit with our techniques the result in that the addition of massive flavors can induce the appearance of meta-stable supersymmetry breaking minima, long-lived against tunneling to the runaway regime. As we show in coming sections, this behavior is prototypical and extends to many other theories with DSB fractional branes. The example is also representative of the computations for a general quiver coming from a brane at a toric singularity, and illustrates the usefulness of the direct Feynman diagram evaluation of one-loop masses. Consider the $dP_1$ theory, realized on a set of $M$ fractional D3-branes at the complex cone over $dP_1$. In order to introduce additional flavors, we introduce sets of $N_{f,1}$ D7-branes wrapping non-compact 4-cycles on the geometry and passing through the singular point. We refer the reader to , and also to later sections, for more details on the construction of the theory, and in particular on the introduction of the D7-branes. Its quiver is shown in Figure , and its superpotential is \begin{eqnarray} W & = & \lambda (X_{23}X_{31}Y_{12} - X_{23} Y_{31} X_{12}) \nonumber \\ &+& \lambda' (Q_{3i} {\tilde Q}_{i2} X_{23} + Q_{2j} {\tilde Q}_{j1} X_{12} + Q_{1k} {\tilde Q}_{k3} X_{31}) \nonumber \\ &+&m_3 Q_{3i} {\tilde Q}_{k3} \delta_{ik} + m_2 Q_{2j} {\tilde Q}_{i2} \delta_{ji} + m_1 Q_{1k} {\tilde Q}_{j1} \delta_{kj}, \end{eqnarray} where the subindices denote the groups under which the field is charged. The first line is the superpotential of the theory of fractional brane, the second line describes 77-73-37 couplings between the flavor branes and the fractional brane, and the last line gives the flavor masses. Note that there is a massless field, denoted $Z_{12}$ in , that does not appear in the superpotential. This is one of the decoupled fields mentioned above, and we leave its treatment as an open question. We are interested in gauge factors in the free magnetic phase. This is the case for the $SU(3M)$ gauge factor in the regime \begin{equation} M+1 \leq N_{f,1} < \frac{5}{2}M. \end{equation} To apply Seiberg duality on node 3, we introduce the dual mesons: \begin{equation} \begin{array}{rlcrl} M_{21} & =\, {1\over \Lambda} X_{23} X_{31} & \quad ; \quad & N_{k1} & = \, {1\over \Lambda} {\tilde Q}_{k3}X_{31} \\ M_{21}' & =\, {1\over \Lambda} X_{23} Y_{31} & \quad ; \quad & N_{k1}' & = \, {1 \over \Lambda} {\tilde Q}_{k3}Y_{31} \\ N_{2i} & =\, {1\over \Lambda} X_{23} Q_{3i} & \quad ; \quad & \Phi_{ki} & = \, {1\over \Lambda} {\tilde Q}_{k3}Q_{3i} \end{array} \end{equation} and we also replace the electric quarks $Q_{3i}$, ${\tilde Q}_{k3}$, $X_{23}$, $X_{31}$, $Y_{31}$ by their magnetic duals ${\tilde Q}_{i3}$, $Q_{3k}$, $X_{32}$, $X_{13}$, $Y_{13}$. The magnetic superpotential is given by rewriting the confined fields in terms of the mesons and adding the coupling between the mesons and the dual quarks, \begin{eqnarray} W & = & h\, (\, M_{21} X_{13} X_{32} \, + \, M_{21}' Y_{13} X_{32} \, +\, N_{2i} {\tilde Q}_{i3} X_{32} \nonumber \\ & + & N_{k1}X_{13}Q_{3k} \, + \, N_{k1}' Y_{13} Q_{3k} \, +\, \Phi_{ki} {\tilde Q}_{i3} Q_{3k}\, ) \nonumber \\ & + & h\mu_0\,(\, M_{21} Y_{12} \, -\, M_{21}' X_{12} \,)\, +\, \mu'\, Q_{1k} N_{k1}\, +\, \mu'\, N_{2i} {\tilde Q}_{i2}\nonumber \\ & - & h\mu^{\, 2} \Tr\Phi \, +\, \lambda' \, Q_{2j} {\tilde Q}_{j1} X_{12} \, +\, m_2 Q_{2i}{\tilde Q}_{i2} \, +\, m_1 Q_{1i}{\tilde Q}_{i1}. \end{eqnarray} This is the theory we want to study. In order to simplify the treatment of this example we will disregard any subleading terms in $m_i/\mu'$, and effectively integrate out $N_{k1}$ and $N_{2i}$ by substituting them by 0. This is not necessary, and indeed the computations in the next sections are exact. We do it here in order to compare results with . As in the ISS model, this theory breaks supersymmetry via the rank condition. The fields $\tilde Q_{i3}$, $Q_{3k}$ and $\Phi_{ki}$ are the analogs of $q$, $\tilde q$ and $M$ in the ISS case discussed above. This motivates a vacuum ansatz analogous to () and the following linear expansion: \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ccccc} \Phi = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \phi_{00} & \phi_{01} \\ \phi_{10} & \phi_{11} \end{array}\right) & ; & \tilde Q_{i3} = \left(\begin{array}{c} \mu e^{\theta} + Q_{3,1} \\ \tilde Q_{3,2} \end{array}\right) & ; & Q_{3i}^{\mathrm{T}} = \left(\begin{array}{c} \mu e^{-\theta} + Q_{3,1} \\ Q_{3,2} \end{array}\right) \\ \tilde Q_{k1} = \left(\begin{array}{c} \tilde Q_{1,1} \\ y \end{array}\right) & ; & Q_{2j} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} Q_{2, 11} & x \\ Q_{2, 21} & x' \end{array}\right) & ; & M_{21} = \left(\begin{array}{c} M_{21,1} \\ M_{21,2} \end{array}\right) \\ Y_{13}=\left(Y_{13}\right) & ; & X_{12}^\mathrm{T} = \left(\begin{array}{c} X_{12,1} \\ X_{12,2} \end{array}\right) & ; & X_{32}^\mathrm{T} = \left(\begin{array}{c} X_{32,1} \\ X_{32, 2} \end{array}\right) \\ Y_{12}^\mathrm{T} = \left(\begin{array}{c} Y_{12,1} \\ Y_{12,2} \end{array}\right) & ; & N'_{k1} = \left(\begin{array}{c} N'_{k1,1} \\ z \end{array}\right) & ; & M'_{21} = \frac{\lambda'}{h\mu_0}\left(\begin{array}{c} M'_{21,1} \\ M'_{21,2} \end{array}\right) \\ && X_{13} = \left(X_{13}\right). \end{array} \end{equation} Note that we have chosen to introduce the nonlinear expansion in $\theta$ in order to reproduce the results found in the literature in their exact form\footnote{A linear expansion would lead to identical conclusions concerning the existence of the meta-stable vacua, but to one-loop masses not directly amenable to comparison with results in the literature.}. Note also that for the sake of clarity we have not been explicit about the ranks of the different matrices. They can be easily worked out (or for this case, looked up in ), and we will restrict ourselves to the 2 flavor case where the matrix structure is trivial. As a last remark, we are not being explicit either about the definitions of the different couplings in terms of the electric theory. This can be done easily (and as in the ISS case they involve an unknown coefficient in the K\"ahler potential), but in any event, the existence of the meta-stable vacua can be established for general values of the coefficients in the superpotential. Hence we skip this more detailed but not very relevant discussion. The next step consists in expanding the superpotential and identifying the massless fields. We get the following quadratic contributions to the superpotential: \begin{eqnarray} W_{\mathrm{mass}} & = & 2 h\mu\phi_{00}\tilde Q_{3,1} + h\mu \phi_{01}\tilde Q_{3,2} + h\mu\phi_{10}Q_{3,2} \nonumber \\ & + & h\mu_0 M_{21,1} Y_{12,1} + h\mu_0 M_{21,2} Y_{12,2} - \lambda' M'_{21,1} X_{12,1} - \lambda' M'_{21,2} X_{12,2} \nonumber \\ & + & h\mu N'_{k1,1} Y_{13} - h_1\mu \tilde Q_{1,1} X_{13} - h_2\mu Q_{2,11} X_{32,1} - h_2\mu Q_{2,21} X_{32,2}. \end{eqnarray} The fields massless at tree level are $x$, $x'$, $y$, $z$, $\phi_{11}$, $\theta$, $Q_{3,2}$ and $\tilde Q_{3,2}$. Three of these are Goldstone bosons as described in the previous section. For real $\mu$ they are $\im\theta$, $\re(\tilde Q_{3,2} + Q_{3,2})$ and $\im(\tilde Q_{3,2} - Q_{3,2})$. We now show that all other classically massless fields get masses at one loop (with positive squared masses). As a first step towards finding the one-loop correction, notice that the supersymmetry breaking mechanism is extremely similar to the one in the ISS model before, in particular it comes only from the following couplings in the superpotential: \begin{equation} W_{\mathrm{rank}} = h Q_{3,2} \tilde Q_{3,2} \phi_{11} - h\mu^2 \phi_{11} + \ldots \end{equation} This breaks the spectrum degeneracy in the multiplets $Q_{3,2}$ and $\tilde Q_{3,2}$ at tree level, so we refer to them as the fields with broken supersymmetry. Let us compute now the correction for the mass of $x$, for example. For the one-loop computation we just need the cubic terms involving one pseudomodulus and at least one of the broken supersymmetry fields, and any quadratic term involving fields present in the previous set of couplings. From the complete expansion one finds the following supersymmetry breaking sector: \begin{equation} W_{\mathrm{symm.}} = h \phi_{11} Q_{3,2} \tilde Q_{3,2} + h\mu\phi_{01}\tilde Q_{3,2} + h\mu \phi_{10} Q_{3,2} - h\mu^2 \phi_{11}. \end{equation} The only cubic term involving the pseudomodulus $x$ and the broken supersymmetry fields is \begin{equation} W_{\mathrm{cubic}} = -h_2\, x\, \tilde Q_{3,2} X_{32,1}, \end{equation} and there is a quadratic term involving the field $X_{32,1}$ \begin{equation} W_{\mathrm{mass\,coupling}} = -h_2\mu Q_{2,11} X_{32,1}. \end{equation} Assembling the three previous equations, the resulting superpotential corresponds to the {\em asymmetric} model in appendix , so we can directly obtain the one-loop mass for $x$: \begin{equation} \delta m^2_x = \frac{1}{16\pi^2}|h|^4\mu^2 \cc\left(\frac{|h_2|^2}{|h|^2}\right). \end{equation} Proceeding in a similar way, the one-loop masses for $\phi_{11}$, $x'$, $y$ and $z$ are: \begin{eqnarray} \delta m^2_{\phi_{11}} & = & \frac{1}{8\pi^2}|h|^4\mu^2(\log 4 - 1) \nonumber \\ \delta m^2_{x'} & = & \frac{1}{16\pi^2}|h|^4\mu^2 \cc\left(\frac{|h_2|^2}{|h|^2}\right), \nonumber \\ \delta m^2_y & = & \frac{1}{16\pi^2}|h|^4\mu^2\cc\left(\frac{|h_1|^2}{|h|^2}\right) \nonumber \\ \delta m^2_z & = & \frac{1}{16\pi^2}|h|^4\mu^2(\log 4 - 1). \end{eqnarray} There is just one pseudomodulus left, $\re\theta$, which is qualitatively different to the others. With similar reasoning, one concludes that it is necessary to study a superpotential of the form \begin{equation} W = h(X\phi_1\phi_2 + \mu e^{\theta}\phi_1 \phi_3 +\mu e^{-\theta}\phi_2\phi_4 - \mu^2 X). \end{equation} Due to the non-linear parametrization, the expansion in $\theta$ shows that there is a term quadratic in $\theta$ which contributes to the one-loop mass via a vertex with two bosons and two fermions, the relevant diagram is shown in Figure d. The result is a vanishing mass for ${\im \theta}$, as expected for a Goldstone boson (the one-loop tadpole vanishes in this case), and a non-vanishing mass for ${\re\theta}$ \begin{equation} \delta m^2_{\re\theta} = \frac{1}{4\pi^2}|h|^4 \mu^4(\log 4 - 1). \end{equation} We conclude by mentioning that all squared masses are positive, thus confirming that the proposed point in field space is the one-loop minimum. As shown in , this minimum is parametrically long-lived against tunneling to the runaway regime. \subsection{Additional examples: The $dP_2$ case} Let us apply these techniques to consider new examples. In this section we consider a DSB fractional brane in the complex cone over $dP_2$, which provides another quiver theory with runaway behavior . The quiver diagram for $dP_2$ is given in Figure , with superpotential \begin{eqnarray} W & = & X_{34}X_{45}X_{53}-X_{53}Y_{31}X_{15}-X_{34}X_{42}Y_{23} + Y_{23}X_{31}X_{15}X_{52} \nonumber\\ & + & X_{42}X_{23}Y_{31}X_{14}-X_{23}X_{31}X_{14}X_{45}X_{52} \end{eqnarray} We consider a set of $M$ DSB fractional branes, corresponding to choosing ranks $(M,0,M,0,2M)$ for the corresponding gauge factors. The resulting quiver is shown in Figure , with superpotential \begin{eqnarray} W = -\lambda X_{53}Y_{31}X_{15} \end{eqnarray} Following and appendix , one can introduce D7-branes leading to D3-D7 open strings providing (possibly massive) flavors for all gauge factors, and having cubic couplings with diverse D3-D3 bifundamental chiral multiplets. We obtain the quiver in Figure . Adding the cubic 33-37-73 coupling superpotential, and the flavor masses, the complete superpotential reads \begin{eqnarray} W_{total} & = & -\lambda X_{53}Y_{31}X_{15}-\lambda'(Q_{1i}\tilde{Q}_{i3}Y_{31}+Q_{3j}\tilde{Q}_{j5}X_{53}+ Q_{5k}\tilde{Q}_{k1}X_{15}) \nonumber\\ & + & m_{1}Q_{1i}\tilde{Q}_{k1} + m_{2}Q_{3j}\tilde{Q}_{i3} + m_{5}Q_{5k}\tilde{Q}_{j5} \end{eqnarray} where $1,2,3$ are the gauge group indices and $i,j,k$ are the flavor indices. We consider the $U(2M)$ node in the free magnetic phase, namely \begin{eqnarray} M+1 & \leq & N_{f,1} \, < \, 2M \end{eqnarray} After Seiberg Duality the dual gauge factor is $SU(N)$ with $N=N_{f,1}-M$ and dynamical scale $\Lambda$. To get the matter content in the dual, we replace the microscopic flavors $Q_{5k}$, ${\tilde Q}_{j5}$, $X_{53}$, $X_{15}$ by the dual flavors ${\tilde Q}_{k5}$, $Q_{5j}$, $X_{35}$, $X_{51}$ respectively. We also have the mesons related to the fields in the electric theory by \begin{equation} \begin{array}{rlcrl} M_{1k} & =\, {1\over \Lambda} X_{15} Q_{5K} & \quad ; \quad & {\tilde N}_{j3} & = \, {1\over \Lambda} {\tilde Q}_{j5}X_{53} \\ M_{13} & =\, {1\over \Lambda} X_{15} X_{53} & \quad ; \quad & {\tilde \Phi}_{jk} & = \, {1 \over \Lambda} {\tilde Q}_{j5}Q_{5k} \end{array} \end{equation} There is a cubic superpotential coupling the mesons and the dual flavors \begin{eqnarray} W_{mes.} & = & h\, (\, M_{1k} {\tilde Q}_{k5} X_{51} \, + \, M_{13} X_{35} X_{51} \, +\, {\tilde N}_{j3} X_{35} Q_{5j} \, + \, {\tilde \Phi}_{jk} {\tilde Q}_{k5 }Q_{5j} \, ) \end{eqnarray} where $h\, =\, \Lambda/\hat\Lambda$ with $\hat\Lambda$ given by $\Lambda_{elect}^{\, 3N_c-N_f}\, \Lambda^{3(N_f-N_c)-N_f}\, =\, \hat \Lambda^{N_f}$, where $\Lambda_{elect}$ is the dynamical scale of the electric theory. Writing the classical superpotential terms of the new fields gives \begin{eqnarray} W_{clas.} & = & - \, h \, \mu_0\, M_{13} Y_{31} \, +\, \lambda' \, Q_{1i} {\tilde Q}_{i3} Y_{31} \, +\, \mu'\, {\tilde N}_{j3} Q_{3j} \, + \, \mu'\, M_{1k} {\tilde Q}_{k1} \, \nonumber \\ & + & \, m_1 Q_{1i}{\tilde Q}_{k1} \, +\, m_3 Q_{3j}{\tilde Q}_{i3} \, - \, h\mu^{\, 2} \Tr\Phi \end{eqnarray} where $\mu_0=\lambda \Lambda$, $\mu'=\lambda'\Lambda$, and $\mu^{\,2}=-m_5\hat\Lambda$. So the complete superpotential in the Seiberg dual is \begin{eqnarray} W_{dual} & = & - \, h \, \mu_0\, M_{13} Y_{31} \, +\, \lambda' \, Q_{1i} {\tilde Q}_{i3} Y_{31} \, +\, \mu'\, {\tilde N}_{j3} Q_{3j} \, + \, \mu'\, M_{1k} {\tilde Q}_{k1} \, \nonumber \\ & + & \, m_1 Q_{1i}{\tilde Q}_{k1} \, +\, m_3 Q_{3j}{\tilde Q}_{i3} \, - \, h\mu^{\, 2} \Tr\Phi \nonumber \\ & + & \, h\, (\, M_{1k} {\tilde Q}_{k5} X_{51} \, + \, M_{13} X_{35} X_{51} \, +\, {\tilde N}_{j3} X_{35} Q_{5j} \, + \, {\tilde \Phi}_{jk} {\tilde Q}_{k5 }Q_{5j} \, ) \end{eqnarray} This superpotential has a sector completely analogous to the ISS model, triggering supersymmetry breaking by the rank condition. This suggests the following ansatz for the point to become the one-loop vacuum \begin{equation} Q_{5k} = \tilde Q_{5k}^{\, \mathrm{T}} = \left(\begin{array}{c} \mu \\ 0 \end{array}\right), \end{equation} with all other vevs set to zero. Following our technique as explained above, we expand fields at linear order around this point. Focusing on $N_{f,1} = 2$ and $N_c =1$ for simplicity (the general case can be easily recovered), we have \begin{equation} \begin{array}{c} \begin{array}{ccccc} {\tilde Q}_{k5}\, =\, \pmatrix{\mu + \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,1} \cr \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,2}} & \ \ ; \ \ & Q_{5k}\, =\, ( \mu + \delta Q_{5,1} \, ; \, \delta Q_{5,2}) & \ \ ; \ \ & \Phi\, =\, \pmatrix{\delta \Phi_{0,0} & \delta \Phi_{0,1} \cr \delta \Phi_{1,0} & \delta \Phi_{1,1}} \end{array} \\ \\ \begin{array}{ccccccc} {\tilde Q}_{k1}\, =\, \pmatrix{ \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,1} \cr \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,2}} & ; \ Q_{1i}\, =\, ( \delta Q_{1,1} \, ; \, \delta Q_{1,2}) & ; \ {\tilde Q}_{i3}\, =\, \pmatrix{ \delta {\tilde Q}_{3,1} \cr \delta {\tilde Q}_{3,2}} & ; \ Q_{3j}\, =\, ( \delta Q_{3,1} \, ; \, \delta Q_{3,2}) \end{array} \\ \\ \begin{array}{cccccc} {\tilde N}_{j3}\, =\, \pmatrix{ \delta {\tilde N}_{3,1} \cr \delta {\tilde N}_{3,2}} & ; \ M_{1k}\, =\, ( \delta M_{1,1} \, ; \, \delta M_{1,2}) & ; \ M_{13} = \delta M_{13} & ; \ Y_{31} = \delta Y_{31} & ; \ X_{51} = \delta X_{51} \end{array} \\ \\ X_{35} = \delta X_{35} \end{array} \end{equation} Inserting this into equation () gives \begin{eqnarray} W_{dual} & = & - \, h \, \mu_0\, \delta M_{13} \delta Y_{31} \, +\, \lambda' \, \delta Q_{1,1} \delta {\tilde Q}_{3,1} \delta Y_{31} \, +\, \lambda' \, \delta Q_{1,2} \delta {\tilde Q}_{3,2} \delta Y_{31} \, \nonumber \\ & + &\, \mu'\, \delta {\tilde N}_{3,1} \delta Q_{3,1} \, +\, \mu'\, \delta {\tilde N}_{3,2} \delta Q_{3,2} \, + \, \mu'\, \delta M_{1,1} \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,1} \, + \, \mu'\, \delta M_{1,2} \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,2} \, \nonumber \\ & + & \, m_1 \delta Q_{1,1} \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,1} \, + \, m_1 \delta Q_{1,2} \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,2} \, +\, m_3 \delta Q_{3,1} \delta {\tilde Q}_{3,1} \, +\, m_3 \delta Q_{3,2} \delta {\tilde Q}_{3,2} \, \nonumber \\ & - & \, h\mu^{\, 2} \delta \Phi_{11} + \, h\, (\, \mu \delta M_{1,1} \delta X_{51} \, + \, \delta M_{1,1} \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,1} \delta X_{51} \, + \, \delta M_{1,2} \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,2} \delta X_{51} \, \nonumber \\ & + & \, \delta M_{13} \delta X_{35} \delta X_{51} + \, \mu \delta X_{35} \delta {\tilde N}_{3,1} \, + \, \delta X_{35} \delta {\tilde N}_{3,1} \delta Q_{5,1} \, + \, \delta X_{35} \delta {\tilde N}_{3,2} \delta Q_{5,2} \, \nonumber \\ & + & \mu \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,1} \delta \Phi_{00}\, + \, \mu \delta Q_{5,1} \delta \Phi_{00} \, + \, \delta Q_{5,1} \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,1} \delta \Phi_{00} \, + \, \mu \delta \Phi_{01} \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,2} \, \nonumber \\ & + & \, \delta Q_{5,1} \delta \Phi_{01}\delta {\tilde Q}_{5,2} \, + \, \mu \delta \Phi_{10}\delta Q_{5,2} \, + \, \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,1} \delta \Phi_{10}\delta Q_{5,2} \, + \, \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,2} \delta \Phi_{11}\delta Q_{5,2}). \nonumber \end{eqnarray} We now need to identify the pseudomoduli, in other words the massless fluctuations at tree level. We focus then just on the quadratic terms in the superpotential \begin{eqnarray} W_{mass} & = &- \, h \, \mu_0\, \delta M_{13} \delta Y_{31} \nonumber\\ & + & \, \mu'\, \delta {\tilde N}_{3,1} \delta Q_{3,1}\,+ m_3 \delta Q_{3,1} \delta {\tilde Q}_{3,1}\,+ h \mu \delta X_{35} \delta {\tilde N}_{3,1} \nonumber\\ & + & \, \mu'\, \delta {\tilde N}_{3,2} \delta Q_{3,2} \,+ m_3 \delta Q_{3,2} \delta {\tilde Q}_{3,2} \nonumber\\ & + & \, \mu'\, \delta M_{1,1} \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,1} \, + \, m_1 \delta Q_{1,1} \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,1} \, + h\mu \delta M_{1,1} \delta X_{51} \nonumber\\ & + & \, \mu'\, \delta M_{1,2} \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,2} \, + \, m_1 \delta Q_{1,2} \delta {\tilde Q}_{1,2} \nonumber \\ & + & \, h\mu \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,1} \delta \Phi_{00}\, + \, h\mu \delta Q_{5,1} \delta \Phi_{00} \nonumber\\ & + & \, h\mu \delta \Phi_{01} \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,2} + \, \mu \delta \Phi_{10}\delta Q_{5,2}. \end{eqnarray} We have displayed the superpotential so that fields mixing at the quadratic level appear in the same line. In order to identify the pseudomoduli we have to diagonalize\footnote{As a technical remark, let us note that it is possible to set all the mass terms to be real by an appropriate redefinition of the fields, so we are diagonalizing a real symmetric matrix.} these fields. Note that the structure of the mass terms corresponds to the one in appendix , in particular around equation (). From the analysis performed there we know that upon diagonalization, fields mixing in groups of four (i.e., three mixing terms in the superpotential, for example the $\delta M_{1,1}$, $\delta {\tilde Q}_{1,1}$, $\delta Q_{1,1}$, $\delta X_{51}$ mixing) get nonzero masses, while fields mixing in groups of three (two mixing terms in the superpotential, for example $\delta M_{1,2}$, $\delta {\tilde Q}_{1,2}$ and $\delta Q_{1,2}$) give rise to two massive perturbations and a massless one, a pseudomodulus. We then just need to study the fate of the pseudomoduli. From the analysis in appendix , the pseudomoduli coming from the mixing terms are \begin{eqnarray} Y_1 & = & m_3 \delta {\tilde N}_{3,2} - \mu' \delta {\tilde Q}_{3,2}\, ,\nonumber\\ Y_2 & = & m_1 \delta M_{1,2} - \mu' \delta Q_{1,2}\, , \nonumber\\ Y_3 & = & h\mu(\delta Q_{5,1} - \delta {\tilde Q}_{5,1})\,. \end{eqnarray} In order to continue the analysis, one just needs to change basis to the diagonal fields and notice that the one loop contributions to the pseudomoduli are described again by the asymmetric model of appendix , so they receive positive definite contributions. The exact analytic expressions can be easily found with the help of some computer algebra program, but we omit them here since they are quite unwieldy. \section{The general case} In the previous section we showed that several examples of quiver gauge theories on DSB fractional branes have metastable vacua once additional flavors are included. In this section we generalize the arguments for general DSB branes. We will show how to add D7--branes in a specific manner so as to generate the appropriate cubic flavor couplings and mass terms. Once this is achieved, we describe the structure of the Seiberg dual theory. The results of our analysis show that, with the specified configuration of D7--branes, the determination of metastability is greatly simplified and only involves looking at the original superpotential. Thus, although we do not prove that DSB branes on arbitrary singularities generate metastable vacua, we show how one can determine the existence of metastability in a very simple and systematic manner. Using this analysis we show further examples of metastable vacua on systems of DSB branes. \subsection{The general argument} \subsubsection{Construction of the flavored theories} Consider a general quiver gauge theory arising from branes at singularities. As we have argued previously, we focus on DSB branes, so that there is a gauge factor satisfying $N_{f,0}<N_c$, which can lead to supersymmetry breaking by the rank condition in its Seiberg dual. To make the general analysis more concrete, let us consider a quiver like that in Figure , which is characteristic enough, and let us assume that the gauge factor to be dualized corresponds to node 2. In what follows we analyze the structure of the fields and couplings in the Seiberg dual, and reduce the problem of studying the meta-stability of the theory with flavors to analyzing the structure of the theory in the absence of flavors. The first step is the introduction of flavors in the theory. As discussed in , for any bi-fundamental $X_{ab}$ of the D3-brane quiver gauge theory there exist a supersymmetric D7-brane leading to flavors $Q_{bi}$, ${\tilde Q}_{ia}$ in the fundamental (antifundamental) of the $b^{th}$ ($a^{th}$) gauge factor. There is also a cubic coupling $X_{ab}Q_{bi}{\tilde Q}_{ia}$. Let us now specify a concrete set of D7-branes to introduce flavors in our quiver gauge theory. Consider a superpotential coupling of the D3-brane quiver gauge theory, involving fields charged under the node to be dualized. This corresponds to a loop in the quiver, involving node 2, for instance $X_{32}X_{21}X_{14}Y_{43}$ in Figure . For any bi-fundamental chiral multiplet in this coupling, we introduce a set of $N_{f,1}$ of the corresponding D7-brane. This leads to a set of flavors for the different gauge factors, in a way consistent with anomaly cancellation, such as that shown in Figure . The description of this system of D7-branes in terms of dimer diagrams is carried out in Appendix . The cubic couplings described above lead to the superpotential terms\footnote{Here we assume the same coupling, but the conclusions hold for arbitrary non-zero couplings.} \begin{equation} W_{flavor} = \lambda' \,( \, X_{32}Q_{2b}Q_{b3} \, + \, X_{21}Q_{1a}Q_{a2} \, + \, X_{14}Q_{4d}Q_{d1}\, + \, Y_{43}Q_{3c}Q_{c4} \,) \end{equation} Finally, we introduce mass terms for all flavors of all involved gauge factors: \begin{equation} W_{mass} = m_2 Q_{a2}Q_{2b} \, + \, m_3 Q_{b3}Q_{3c} \, + \, m_4 Q_{c4}Q_{4d}\, + \, m_1 Q_{d1}Q_{1a} \end{equation} These mass terms break the flavor group into a diagonal subgroup. \subsubsection{Seiberg duality and one-loop masses} We consider introducing a number of massive flavors such that node 2 is in the free magnetic phase, and consider its Seiberg dual. The only relevant fields in this case are those charged under gauge factor 2, as shown if Figure . The Seiberg dual gives us Figure where the $M$'s are mesons with indices in the gauge groups, $R$'s and $S$'s are mesons with only one index in the flavor group, and $X_{ab}$ is a meson with both indices in the flavor groups. The original cubic superpotential and flavor mass superpotentials become \begin{eqnarray} W_{flavor\,dual} & = & \lambda' \,( \, S^1_{3b}Q_{b3} \, + \, R^1_{a1}Q_{1a} \, + \, X_{14}Q_{4d}Q_{d1}\, + \, Y_{43}Q_{3c}Q_{c4} \,) \nonumber \\ W_{mass\,dual} & = & m_2\underline{X_{ab}} \, + \, m_3 Q_{b3}Q_{3c} \, + \, m_4 Q_{c4}Q_{4d}\, + \, m_1 Q_{d1}Q_{1a} \end{eqnarray} In addition we have the extra meson superpotential \begin{eqnarray} W_{mesons} & = & h\,( \, \underline{X_{ab}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{Q}_{2a}} \, + \, R^1_{a1}\tilde{X}_{12}\tilde{Q}_{2a} \, + \, R^2_{a1}\tilde{Y}_{12}\tilde{Q}_{2a} \, + \, S^1_{3b}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{X}_{23} \, + \, S^2_{3b}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{Y}_{23} \nonumber \\ & + & \, S^3_{3b}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{Z}_{23} \, + \, M^1_{31}\tilde{X}_{12}\tilde{X}_{23} \, + \, M^2_{31}\tilde{X}_{12}\tilde{Y}_{23} \, + \, M^3_{31}\tilde{X}_{12}\tilde{Z}_{23} \nonumber \\ & + & \, M^4_{31}\tilde{Y}_{12}\tilde{X}_{23} \, + \, M^5_{31}\tilde{Y}_{12}\tilde{Y}_{23} \, + \, M^6_{31}\tilde{Y}_{12}\tilde{Z}_{23} \, ). \end{eqnarray} The crucial point is that we always obtain terms of the kind underlined above, namely a piece of the superpotential reading $m_2 X_{ab} + h X_{ab}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{Q}_{2a}$. This leads to tree level supersymmetry breaking by the rank condition, as announced. Moreover the superpotential fits in the structure of the generalized asymmetric O'Raifeartaigh model studied in appendix , with $X_{ab}$, $\tilde{Q}_{b2}$, $\tilde{Q}_{2a}$ corresponding to $X$, $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$ respectively. The multiplets $\tilde{Q}_{b2}$ and $\tilde{Q}_{2a}$ are split at tree level, and $X_{ab}$ is massive at 1-loop. From our study of the generalized asymmetric case, any field which has a cubic coupling to the supersymmetry breaking fields $\tilde{Q}_{b2}$ or $\tilde{Q}_{2a}$ is one-loop massive as well. Using the general structure of $W_{mesons}$, a little thought shows that all dual quarks with no flavor index (e.g. $\tilde{X}$, $\tilde{Y}$) and all mesons with one flavor index (e.g. $R$ or $S$) couple to the supersymmetry breaking fields. Thus they all get one-loop masses (with positive squared mass). Finally, the flavors of other gauge factors (e.g. $Q_{b3}$) are massive at tree level from $W_{mass}$. The bottom line is that the only fields which do not get mass from these interactions are the mesons with no flavor index, and the bi-fundamentals which do not get dualized (uncharged under node 2). All these fields are related to the theory in the absence of extra flavors, so they can be already stabilized at tree-level from the original superpotential. So, the criteria for a metastable vacua is that the original theory, {\em in the absence of flavors} leads, after dualization of the node with $N_f<N_c$, to masses for all these fields (or more mildly that they correspond to directions stabilized by mass terms, or perhaps higher order superpotential terms). For example, if we apply this criteria to the $dP_2$ case studied previously, the original superpotential for the fractional DSB brane is \begin{eqnarray} W = -\lambda X_{53}Y_{31}X_{15} \end{eqnarray} so after dualization we get \begin{eqnarray} W = -\lambda M_{13}Y_{31} \end{eqnarray} which makes these fields massive. Hence this fractional brane, after adding the D7-branes in the appropriate configuration, will generate a metastable vacua will all moduli stabilized. The argument is completely general, and leads to an enormous simplification in the study of the theories. In the next section we describe several examples. A more rigorous and elaborate proof is provided in the appendix where we take into account the matricial structure, and show that all fields, except for Goldstone bosons, get positive squared masses at tree-level or at one-loop. \subsection{Additional examples} \subsubsection{The $dP_3$ case} Let us consider the complex cone over $dP_3$, and introduce fractional DSB branes of the kind considered in . The quiver is shown in Figure and the superpotential is \begin{equation} W = X_{13}X_{35}X_{51} \end{equation} Node 1 has $N_f < N_c$ so upon addition of massive flavors and dualization will lead to supersymmetry breaking by the rank condition. Following the procedure of the previous section, we add $N_{f,1}$ flavors coupling to the bi-fundamentals $X_{13}$, $X_{35}$ and $X_{51}$. Node 1 is in the free magnetic phase for $P + 1 \leq N_{f,1} \, < \, \frac{3}{2}P+\frac 12$ . Dualizing node 1, the above superpotential becomes \begin{equation} W = X_{35}M_{53} \end{equation} where $M_{53}$ is the meson $X_{51}X_{13}$. So, following the results of the previous section, we can conclude that this DSB fractional brane generates a metastable vacua with all pseudomoduli lifted. \subsubsection{Phase 1 of $PdP_4$} Let us consider the $PdP_4$ theory, and introduce the DSB fractional brane of the kind considered in . The quiver is shown in Figure . The superpotential is \begin{equation} W = - X_{25}X_{51}X_{12} \end{equation} Node 1 has $N_f < N_c$ and will lead to supersymmetry breaking by the rank condition in the dual. Following the procedure of the previous section, we add $N_{f,1}$ flavors coupling to the bi-fundamentals $X_{12}$, $X_{25}$ and $X_{51}$. Node 1 is in the free magnetic phase for $P + 2 \leq M + N_{f,1} \, < \, \frac{3}{2}(M+P)$. Dualizing node 1, the above superpotential becomes $W = X_{25}M_{52}$, where $M_{53}$ is the meson $X_{51}X_{12}$. Again we conclude that this DSB fractional brane generates a metastable vacua with all pseudomoduli lifted. \subsubsection{The $Y^{p,q}$ family} Consider D3-branes at the real cones over the $Y^{p,q}$ Sasaki-Einstein manifolds , whose field theory were determined in . The theory admits a fractional brane of DSB kind, which namely breaks supersymmetry and lead to runaway behavior . The analysis of metastability upon addition of massive flavors for arbitrary $Y^{p,q}$'s is much more involved than previous examples. Already the description of the field theory on the fractional brane is complicated. Even for the simpler cases of $Y^{p,q}$ and $Y^{p,p-1}$ the superpotential contains many terms. In this section we do not provide a general proof of metastability, but rather consider the more modest aim of showing that all directions related to the runaway behavior in the absence of flavors are stabilized by the addition of flavors. We expect that this will guarantee full metastability, since the fields not involved in our analysis parametrize directions orthogonal to the runaway at infinity. \\ The dimer for $Y^{p,q}$ is shown in Figure and consists of a column of $n$ hexagons and $2\,m$ quadrilaterals which are just halved hexagons . The labels $(n,m)$ are related to $(p,q)$ by \begin{equation} n= 2q \ \ ; \ \ m = p-q \end{equation} \medskip $\bullet$ {\bf The $Y^{p,1}$ case} The dimer for the theory on the DSB fractional brane in the $Y^{p,1}$ case is shown in Figure , a periodic array of a column of two full hexagons, followed by $p-1$ cut hexagons (the shaded quadrilateral has $N_c=0$). As shown in , the top quadrilateral which has $N_f<N_c$, and induces the ADS superpotential triggering the runaway. The relevant part of the dimer is shown in Figure , where $V_1$ and $V_2$ are the fields that run to infinity . This node will lead to supersymmetry breaking by the rank condition in the dual. It is in the free magnetic phase for $M + 1 \leq N_{f,1} \, < \, pM + \frac{M}{2}$. The piece of the superpotential involving the $V_1$ and $V_2$ terms is \begin{equation} W = Y U_2 V_2 - Y U_1 V_1. \end{equation} In the dual theory, the dual superpotential makes the fields massive. Hence, the theory has a metastable vacua where the runaway fields are stabilized. \medskip $\bullet$ {\bf The $Y^{p,p-1}$ case} The analysis for $Y^{p,p-1}$ is similar but in this case it is the bottom quadrilateral which has the highest rank and thus gives the ADS superpotential . The relevant part of the dimer is shown in Figure , and the runaway direction is described by the fields $V_1$ and $V_2$. Upon addition of $N_{f,1}$ flavors, the relevant node in the in the free magnetic phase for $M + 1 \leq N_{f,1} \, < \, pM + \frac{M}{2}$ Considering the superpotential, it is straightforward to show that the runaway fields become massive. Complementing this with our analysis in previous section, we conclude that the theory has a metastable vacua where the runaway fields are stabilized. We have thus shown that we can obtain metastable vacua for fractional branes at cones over the $Y^{p,1}$ and $Y^{p,p-1}$ geometries. Although there is no obvious generalization for arbitrary $Y^{p,q}$'s, our results strongly suggest that the existence of metastable vacua extends to the complete family. \section{Conclusions and outlook} The present work introduces techniques and computations which suggest that the existence of metastable supersymmetry breaking vacua is a general property of quiver gauge theories on DSB fractional branes, namely fractional branes associated to obstructed complex deformations. It is very satisfactory to verify the correlation between a non-trivial dynamical property in gauge theories and a geometric property in their string theory realization. The existence of such correlation fits nicely with the remarkable properties of gauge theories on D-branes at singularities, and the gauge/gravity correspondence for fractional branes. Beyond the fact that our arguments do not constitute a general proof, our analysis has left a number of interesting open questions. In fact, as we have mentioned, all theories on DSB fractional branes contain one or several fields which do not appear in the superpotential. We expect the presence of these fields to have a direct physical interpretation, which has not been uncovered hitherto. It would be interesting to find a natural explanation for them. Finally, a possible extension of our results concerns D-branes at orientifold singularities, which can lead to supersymmetry breaking and runaway as in . Interestingly, in this case the field theory analysis is more challenging, since they would require Seiberg dualities of gauge factors with matter in two-index tensors. It is very possible that the string theory realization, and the geometry of the singularity provide a much more powerful tool to study the system. Overall, we expect other surprises and interesting relations to come up from further study of D-branes at singularities. \section*{Acknowledgments} We thank S. Franco for useful discussions. A.U. thanks M. Gonz\'alez for encouragement and support. This work has been supported by the European Commission under RTN European Programs MRTN-CT-2004-503369, MRTN-CT-2004-005105, by the CICYT (Spain), and by the Comunidad de Madrid under project HEPHACOS P-ESP-00346. The research by I.G.-E. is supported by the Gobierno Vasco PhD fellowship program. The research of F.S is supported by the Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia through an FPU grant. I.G.-E. and F.S. thank the CERN Theory Division for hospitality during the completion of this work. \newpage \appendix \section{Technical details about the calculation via Feynman diagrams} \subsection{The basic amplitudes} In the main text we are interested in computing two point functions for the pseudomoduli at one loop, and in section also tadpole diagrams. There are just a few kinds of diagrams entering in the calculation, which we will present now for the two-point function, see Figure . The (real) bosonic fields are denoted by $\phi_i$ and the (Weyl) fermions by $\psi_i$. The pseudomodulus we are interested in is denoted by $\varphi$. \subsubsection*{Bosonic contributions} These come from two terms in the Lagrangian. First there is a diagram coming from terms of the form (Figure b): \begin{equation} \cl = \ldots + \lambda \varphi^2 \phi^2 - \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2, \end{equation} giving an amplitude (we will be using dimensional regularization) \begin{equation} i\cam = \frac{-2i\lambda}{(4\pi)^2}m^2\left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} - \g + 1 + \log4\pi -\log m^2\right). \end{equation} The other contribution comes from the diagram in Figure a: \begin{equation} \cl = \ldots + \lambda \varphi \phi_1 \phi_2 - \frac{1}{2} m_1^2 \phi_1^2 - \frac{1}{2} m_2^2 \phi_2^2, \end{equation} which contributes to the two point function with an amplitude: \begin{equation} i\cam = \frac{i\lambda^2}{(4\pi)^2}\left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} - \g + \log4\pi - \int_0^1 dx \log \Delta \right), \end{equation} where here and in the following we denote $\Delta \equiv x m_1^2 + (1-x)m_2^2$. \subsubsection*{Fermionic contributions} The relevant vertices here are again of two possible kinds, one of which is nonrenormalizable. The cubic interaction comes from terms in the Lagrangian given by the diagram in Figure c: \begin{equation} \cl = \ldots + \varphi(a\psi_1 \psi_2 + a^* \bar\psi_1\bar\psi_2) + \frac{1}{2} m_1 (\psi_1^2+\bar\psi_1^2) + \frac{1}{2} m_2 (\psi_2^2+\bar\psi_2^2). \end{equation} We are assuming real masses for the fermions here, in the configurations we study this can always be achieved by an appropriate field redefinition. The contribution from such vertices is given by: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber i\cam & = & \int_0^1 dx \left\lbrace \frac{-2i m_1m_2}{(4\pi)^2}(a^2 + (a^2)^*)\left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} - \g + \log4\pi - \log \Delta \right) \right.\\ && - \left. \frac{8i|a|^2}{(4\pi)^2}\Delta\left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} - \g + \log4\pi +\frac{1}{2} - \log \Delta \right) \right\rbrace. \end{eqnarray} The other fermionic contribution, which one does not need as long as one is dealing with renormalizable interactions only (but we will need in the main text when analyzing the pseudomodulus $\theta$), is given by terms in the Lagrangian of the form (Figure d): \begin{equation} \cl = \ldots + \lambda \varphi^2 (\psi^2 + \bar\psi^2) + \frac{1}{2} m (\psi^2 + \bar\psi^2), \end{equation} which contributes to the total amplitude with: \begin{equation} i\cam = \frac{8\lambda m i}{(4\pi)^2} m^2 \left( \frac{1}{\epsilon} - \g + 1 + \log4\pi - \log m^2 \right). \end{equation} \subsection{The basic superpotentials} The previous amplitudes are the basic ingredients entering the computation, but in general the number of diagrams contributing to the two point amplitudes is quite big, so calculating all the contributions by hand can get quite involved in particular examples\footnote{The authors wrote the computer program in {\tt http://cern.ch/inaki/pm.tar.gz } which helped greatly in the process of computing the given amplitudes for the relevant models.}. Happily, one finds that complicated models (such as $dP_1$ or $dP_2$, studied in the main text) reduce to performing the analysis for only two different superpotentials, which we analyze in this section. \subsubsection*{The symmetric case} We want to study in this section a superpotential of the form: \begin{equation} W = h(X\phi_1\phi_2 + \mu \phi_1 \phi_3 + \mu \phi_2 \phi_4 - \mu^2 X). \end{equation} This model is a close cousin of the basic O'Raifeartaigh model. We are interested in the one loop contribution to the two point function of $X$, which is massless at tree level. From the (F-term) bosonic potential one obtains the following terms entering the one loop computation: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber V & = & \left[ |h X \phi_2|^2 + |h|^2 \mu(X\phi_2\phi_3^* + X^* \phi_2^* \phi_3) + |h|^2 \mu(X\phi_1\phi_4^* + X^* \phi_1^* \phi_4)\right] \\ &+& |h|^2 \mu^2(\phi_1\phi_2 + \phi_1^*\phi_2^*) + \sum_{i=1}^4 |h|^2 \mu^2 |\phi_i|^2 \end{eqnarray} In order to do the computation it is useful to diagonalize the mass matrix by introducing $\phi_+$ and $\phi_-$ such that: \begin{equation} \phi_1 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_+ + i\phi_-) \qquad \phi_2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_+ - i\phi_-) \end{equation} and $\phi_a$, $\phi_b$ such that: \begin{equation} \phi_3^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_a + i\phi_b) \qquad \phi_4^* = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_a - i\phi_b). \end{equation} With these redefinitions the bosonic scalar potential decouples into identical $\phi_+$ and $\phi_-$ sectors, giving two decoupled copies of: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber V & = & |h|^2 |X|^2 |\phi_+|^2 + |h|^2\mu^2 (|\phi_+|^2 + |\phi_a|^2) \\ && +|h|^2\mu (X\phi_+\phi_a + X^*\phi_+^*\phi_a^*) - \frac{|h|^2\mu^2}{2}\left(\phi_+^2 + (\phi_+^2)^*\right). \end{eqnarray} Calculating the amplitude consists simply of constructing the (very few) two point diagrams from the potential above and plugging the formulas above for each diagram (the fermionic part is even simpler in this case). The final answer is that in this model the one loop correction to the mass squared of $X$ is given by: \begin{equation} \delta m_X^2 = \frac{|h^4|\mu^2}{8\pi^2}(\log 4 - 1). \end{equation} \subsubsection*{The generalized asymmetric case} The next case is slightly more complicated, but will suffice to analyze completely all the models we encounter. We will be interested in the one loop contribution to the mass of the pseudomoduli $Y$ in a theory with superpotential: \begin{equation} W = h(X\phi_1\phi_2 + \mu \phi_1 \phi_3 + \mu \phi_2 \phi_4 - \mu^2 X) + k(r Y\phi_1\phi_5 + \mu\phi_5\phi_7), \end{equation} with $k$ and $r$ arbitrary complex numbers. The procedure is straightforward as above, so we will just quote the result. We obtain an amplitude given by: \begin{equation} i\cam = \frac{-i}{(4\pi)^2} |h^2 r \mu|^2 \cc\left(\frac{|k|^2}{|h|^2}\right), \end{equation} where we have defined $\cc(t)$ as: \begin{equation} \cc(t) = \frac{t}{2-t}\left( \log 4 - \frac{t}{t-1}\log t \right). \end{equation} Note that this is a positive definite function, meaning that the one loop correction to the mass is always positive, and the pseudomoduli get stabilized for any (nonzero) value of the parameters. Also note that the limit of vanishing $t$ with $|r|^2t$ fixed (i.e., vanishing masses for $\phi_5$ and $\phi_7$, but nonvanishing coupling of $Y$ to the supersymmetry breaking sector) gives a nonvanishing contribution to the mass of $Y$. \section{D7--branes in the Riemann surface} The gauge theory of D3-branes at toric singularities can be encoded in a dimer diagram . This corresponds to a bi-partite tiling of $T^2$, where faces correspond to gauge groups, edges correspond to bi-fundamentals, and nodes correspond to superpotential terms. As an example, the dimer diagram of D3--branes on the cone over $dP_2$ is shown in Figure . As shown in , D3--branes on a toric singularity are mirror to D6--branes on intersecting 3-cycles in a geometry given by a fibration of a Riemann surface $\Sigma$ with punctures. This Riemann surface is just a thickening of the web diagram of the toric singularity , with punctures associated to external legs of the web diagram. The mirror D6-branes wrap non-trivial 1-cycles on this Riemann surface, with their intersections giving rise to bi-fundamental chiral multiplets, and superpotential terms arising from closed discs bounded by the D6-branes. In , it was shown that D7--branes passing through the singular point can be described in the mirror Riemann surface $\Sigma$ by non-compact 1-cycles which come from infinity at one puncture and go to infinity at another. Figure shows the 1-cycles corresponding to some D3- and D7-branes in the Riemann surface in the geometry mirror to the complex cone over $dP_2$. A D7-brane leads to flavors for the two D3-brane gauge factors whose 1-cycles are intersected by the D7-brane 1-cycle, and there is a cubic coupling among the three fields (related to the disk bounded by the three 1-cycles in the Riemann surface). As stated in Section , given a gauge theory of D3-branes at a toric singularity, we introduce flavors for some of the gauge factors in a specific way. We pick a term in the superpotential, and we introduce flavors for all the involved gauge factors, and coupling to all the involved bifundamental multiplets. For example, the quiver with flavors for the $dP_2$ theory is shown in Figure . On the Riemann surface, this procedure amounts to picking a node and introducing D7-branes crossing all the edges ending on the node, see Figure . In this example we obtain the superpotential terms \begin{eqnarray} W_{flavor} = \lambda'(Q_{1i}\tilde{Q}_{i3}Y_{31}+Q_{3j}\tilde{Q}_{j5}X_{53}+ Q_{5k}\tilde{Q}_{k1}X_{15}) \end{eqnarray} In addition we introduce mass terms \begin{eqnarray} W_{mass} = m_{1}Q_{1i}\tilde{Q}_{k1} + m_{2}Q_{3j}\tilde{Q}_{i3} + m_{5}Q_{5k}\tilde{Q}_{j5} \end{eqnarray} This procedure is completely general and applies to all gauge theories for branes at toric singularities. \section{Detailed proof of Section } Recall that in Section we considered the illustrative example of the gauge theory given by the quiver in Figure . Since node 2 is the one we wish to dualize, the only relevant part of the diagram is shown in Figure . We show the Seiberg dual in Figure . The above choice of D7--branes, which we showed in appendix can be applied to arbitrary toric singularities, gives us the superpotential terms \begin{eqnarray} W_{flavor} & = & \lambda' \,( \, X_{32}Q_{2b}Q_{b3} \, + \, X_{21}Q_{1a}Q_{a2} \, + \, X_{14}Q_{4d}Q_{d1}\, + \, Y_{43}Q_{3c}Q_{c4} \,) \nonumber \\ W_{mass} & = & m_2 Q_{a2}Q_{2b} \, + \, m_3 Q_{b3}Q_{3c} \, + \, m_4 Q_{c4}Q_{4d}\, + \, m_1 Q_{d1}Q_{1a} \end{eqnarray} Taking the Seiberg dual of node 2 gives \begin{eqnarray} W_{flavor\,dual} & = & \lambda' \,( \, S^1_{3b}Q_{b3} \, + \, R^1_{a1}Q_{1a} \, + \, X_{14}Q_{4d}Q_{d1}\, + \, Y_{43}Q_{3c}Q_{c4} \,) \nonumber \\ W_{mass\,dual} & = & m_2\underline{X_{ab}} \, + \, m_3 Q_{b3}Q_{3c} \, + \, m_4 Q_{c4}Q_{4d}\, + \, m_1 Q_{d1}Q_{1a} \nonumber\\ W_{mesons} & = & h\,( \, \underline{X_{ab}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{Q}_{2a}} \nonumber \\ \, & + & \, R^1_{a1}\tilde{X}_{12}\tilde{Q}_{2a} \, + \, R^2_{a1}\tilde{Y}_{12}\tilde{Q}_{2a} \nonumber \\ \, & + & \, S^1_{3b}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{X}_{23} \, + \, S^2_{3b}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{Y}_{23} \, + \, S^3_{3b}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{Z}_{23} \nonumber \\ \, & + & \, M^1_{31}\tilde{X}_{12}\tilde{X}_{23} \, + \, M^2_{31}\tilde{X}_{12}\tilde{Y}_{23} \, + \, M^3_{31}\tilde{X}_{12}\tilde{Z}_{23} \nonumber \\ \, & + & \, M^4_{31}\tilde{Y}_{12}\tilde{X}_{23} \, + \, M^5_{31}\tilde{Y}_{12}\tilde{Y}_{23} \, + \, M^6_{31}\tilde{Y}_{12}\tilde{Z}_{23} \, ) \end{eqnarray} where we have not included the original superpotential. The crucial point is that the underlined terms appear for any quiver gauge theory with flavors introduced as described in appendix . As described in the main text, supersymmetry is broken by the rank condition due to the F-term of the dual meson associated to the massive flavors. Our vacuum ansatz is (we take $N_f = 2$ and $N_c = 1$ for simplicity; this does not affect our conclusions) \begin{equation} \begin{array}{cc} \tilde{Q}_{b2}\, =\, \pmatrix{\mu \mathbf{1}_{N_c} \cr 0} & \, ; \ \tilde{Q}_{2a}\, =\, (\mu \mathbf{1}_{N_c} \, ; \, 0) \end{array} \end{equation} with all other vevs set to zero. We parametrize the perturbations around this minimum as \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ccc} \tilde{Q}_{b2}\, =\, \pmatrix{\mu + \phi_1 \cr \phi_2 } & \, ; \ {\tilde Q}_{2a}\, =\, ( \mu + \phi_3 \, ; \, \phi_4) \, & ; \ X_{ab} =\, \pmatrix{ X_{00} & X_{01} \cr X_{10} & X_{11}} \end{array} \end{equation} and the underlined terms give \begin{eqnarray} h X_{ab}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{Q}_{2a} - h \mu^2 X_{ab} & = & h X_{11}\, \phi_2 \,\phi_4 - h \mu^2 X_{11} + h \mu \, \phi_2 \, X_{01} + h \mu \, \phi_4 \, X_{10} \nonumber \\ & + & h \mu \, \phi_1 \, X_{00} + h \mu \, \phi_3 \, X_{00} + h \, \phi_1 \, \phi_3 X_{00} + h \, \phi_2 \, \phi_3 X_{01} \nonumber \\ & + & h \, \phi_1 \, \phi_4 X_{10} \end{eqnarray} It is important to note that all the fields in () will have quadratic couplings only in the underlined term (). Thus, one can safely study this term, and the conclusions are independent of the other terms in the superpotential. Diagonalizing () gives \begin{eqnarray} h X_{ab}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{Q}_{2a} - h \mu^2 X_{ab} & = & h X_{11}\, \phi_2 \,\phi_4 - h \mu^2 X_{11} + h \mu \, \phi_2 \, X_{01} + h \mu \, \phi_4 \, X_{10} \nonumber \\ & + & \sqrt{2} h \mu \, \phi_+ \, X_{00} + \frac{h}{2} \, \phi_+^2 \, X_{0 0} - \frac{h}{2} \, \phi_-^2 \, X_{0 0} \nonumber \\ & + & \frac{h}{\sqrt{2}}\,(\xi_+ - \xi_-) \, \phi_2 X_{01} + \frac{h}{\sqrt{2}}\,(\xi_+ + \xi_-) \, \phi_4 X_{10} \end{eqnarray} where \begin{equation} \xi_+ = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,(\phi_1 + \phi_3) \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ \xi_- = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,(\phi_1 - \phi_3) \end{equation} This term is similar to the generalized asymmetric case studied in appendix with \begin{equation} X_{11} \rightarrow X \, ; \, \phi_4 \rightarrow \phi_1 \, ; \, \phi_2 \rightarrow \phi_2 \, ; \, X_{10} \rightarrow \phi_3 \, ; \, X_{01} \rightarrow \phi_4 \, \end{equation} So here $X_{11}$ is the linear term that breaks supersymmetry, and $\phi_2$, $\phi_4$ are the broken supersymmetry fields. In (), the only massless fields at tree-level are $X_{11}$ and $\xi_-$. Comparing to the ISS case in Section shows that $\im\xi_-$ is a Goldstone boson and $X_{11}$, $\re \xi_-$ get mass at tree-level. As for $\phi_2$ and $\phi_4$, setting $\rho_+ = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_2 + \phi_4)$ and $\rho_- = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_2 - \phi_4)$ gives us Re$(\rho_+)$ and $\im(\rho_-)$ massless and the rest massive. Following the discussion in Section , Re$(\rho_+)$ and $\im(\rho_-)$ are just the Goldstone bosons of the broken $SU(N_f)$ symmetry\footnote{In the case where the flavor group is $SU(2)$, these Goldstone bosons are associated to the generators $t_x$ and $t_y$.}. We have thus shown that the dualized flavors (e.g. $\tilde{Q}_{b2}$, $\tilde{Q}_{2a}$) and the meson with two flavor indices (e.g. $X_{ab}$) get mass at tree-level or at 1-loop unless they are Goldstone bosons. Now, we need to verify that this is the case for the remaining fields. The Seiberg dual of the original quiver diagram is shown in Figure . The dualized bi-fundamentals come in two classes. The first are the ones that initially (before dualizing) had cubic flavor couplings, there will always be only two of those (e.g. $\tilde{X}_{12}$, $\tilde{X}_{23}$). The second are those that did not initially have cubic couplings to flavors, there is an arbitrary number of those (e.g. $\tilde{Y}_{12}$, $\tilde{Y}_{23}$, $\tilde{Z}_{23}$). Figure shows the relevant part of the quiver for the first class. Recalling the superpotential terms (), there are several possible sources of tree-level masses. For instance, these can arise in $W_{flavor\,dual}$ and $W_{mass\,dual}$. Also, remembering our assignation of vevs in (), tree-level masses can also arise in $W_{mesons}$ from cubic couplings involving the broken supersymmetry fields (e.g. $\tilde{Q}_{b2}$, $\tilde{Q}_{2a}$). The first class of bi-fundamentals (e.g. $\tilde{X}_{12}$, $\tilde{X}_{23}$) only appear in $W_{mesons}$ coupled to their respective mesons (e.g. $R^1$, $S^1$). In turn these mesons will appear in quadratic terms in $W_{flavor\,dual}$ coupled to flavors (e.g. $S^1_{3b}Q_{b3}$ and $R^1_{a1}Q_{1a}$), and these flavors each appear in one term in $W_{mass}$. Thus there are two sets of three terms which are coupled at tree-level and which always couple in the same way. Consider for instance the term \begin{eqnarray} \lambda' \,S^1_{3b}Q_{b3} \, + \, m_3 Q_{b3}Q_{3c} \, + \, h\, S^1_{3b}\tilde{Q}_{b2}\tilde{X}_{23} & = & \lambda' \, (S_1 \, \, S_2) \pmatrix{B_1 \cr B_2} + m_1 (C_1 \, \, C_2) \pmatrix{B_1 \cr B_2} \nonumber \\ & +& \, h\, (S_1 \, \, S_2) \pmatrix{\mu + \phi_1 \cr \phi_2 } \tilde{X}_{23} \nonumber \\ & = & \lambda' (S_1 B_1 + S_2 B_2) + m_1 (B_1 C_1 + B_2 C_2) \nonumber \\ & + & h \mu \, S_1 \,\tilde{X}_{23} \,+ \,h \,S_1 \, \phi_1 \,\tilde{X}_{23} \,+ \,h\, S_2\, \phi_2\, \tilde{X}_{23} \nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray} where $S_i$, $B_i$, $C_i$ and $\tilde{X}_{23}$ are the perturbations around the minimum. Diagonalizing (which can be done analytically for any values of the couplings), we get that all terms except one get tree-level masses, the massless field being: \begin{equation} Y = m_1 S_2 - \lambda'C_2 \end{equation} This massless field has a cubic coupling to $\phi_2\, \tilde{X}_{23}$ and gets mass at 1-loop since $\phi_2$ is a broken supersymmetry field, as described in appendix . Figure shows the relevant part of the quiver for the second class of bi-fundamentals (i.e. those that are dualized but do not have cubic flavor couplings). These fields and their mesons only appear in one term, so will always couple in the same way. Taking as an example \begin{eqnarray} h\, R^2_{a1}\tilde{Y}_{12}\tilde{Q}_{2a} & = & \pmatrix{R_1 \cr R_2} \tilde{Y}_{12}\, ( \mu + \phi_3 \, ; \, \phi_4) \nonumber \\ & = & \mu R_1\, \tilde{Y}_{12}\, + \, R_1\, \phi_3 \,\tilde{Y}_{12} + R_2 \,\phi_4\, \tilde{Y}_{12} \end{eqnarray} This shows that $R_1$ and $\tilde{Y}_{12}$ get tree-level masses and $R_2$ gets a mass at 1-loop since it couples to the broken supersymmetry field $\phi_4$. The only remaining fields are flavors like $Q_{c4}$, $Q_{4d}$, which do not transform in a gauge group adjacent to the dualized node (i.e. not adjacent in the quiver loop corresponding to the superpotential term used to introduce flavors). These are directly massive from the tree-level $W_{mass}$ term. So, as stated, all fields except those that appear in the original superpotential (i.e. mesons with gauge indices and bi-fundamentals which are not dualized) get masses either at tree-level or at one-loop. So we only need to check the dualized original superpotential to see if we have a metastable vacua. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Maldacena:1997re} J.~M.~Maldacena, Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2}, 231 (1998) [Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 38}, 1113 (1999)] [arXiv:hep-th/9711200]. \bibitem{Gubser:1998bc} S.~S.~Gubser, I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~M.~Polyakov, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 428}, 105 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9802109]. \bibitem{Witten:1998qj} E.~Witten, Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2}, 253 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9802150]. \bibitem{Kachru:1998ys} S.~Kachru and E.~Silverstein, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 4855 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9802183]. \bibitem{Klebanov:1998hh} I.~R.~Klebanov and E.~Witten, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 536}, 199 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9807080]. \bibitem{Morrison:1998cs} D.~R.~Morrison and M.~R.~Plesser, Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 3}, 1 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9810201]. \bibitem{Bertolini:2004xf} M.~Bertolini, F.~Bigazzi and A.~L.~Cotrone, JHEP {\bf 0412}, 024 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0411249]. \bibitem{Benvenuti:2004dy} S.~Benvenuti, S.~Franco, A.~Hanany, D.~Martelli and J.~Sparks, JHEP {\bf 0506}, 064 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0411264]. \bibitem{Klebanov:2000hb} I.~R.~Klebanov and M.~J.~Strassler, JHEP {\bf 0008}, 052 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0007191]. \bibitem{Franco:2003ja} S.~Franco, A.~Hanany, Y.~H.~He and P.~Kazakopoulos, arXiv:hep-th/0306092. \bibitem{Franco:2004jz} S.~Franco, Y.~H.~He, C.~Herzog and J.~Walcher, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 046006 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0402120]. \bibitem{Franco:2005fd} S.~Franco, A.~Hanany and A.~M.~Uranga, JHEP {\bf 0509}, 028 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0502113]. \bibitem{Herzog:2004tr} C.~P.~Herzog, Q.~J.~Ejaz and I.~R.~Klebanov, JHEP {\bf 0502}, 009 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0412193]. \bibitem{Berenstein:2005xa} D.~Berenstein, C.~P.~Herzog, P.~Ouyang and S.~Pinansky, JHEP {\bf 0509}, 084 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0505029]. \bibitem{Franco:2005zu} S.~Franco, A.~Hanany, F.~Saad and A.~M.~Uranga, JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 011 [arXiv:hep-th/0505040]. \bibitem{Bertolini:2005di} M.~Bertolini, F.~Bigazzi and A.~L.~Cotrone, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 061902 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0505055]. \bibitem{Intriligator:2005aw} K.~Intriligator and N.~Seiberg, JHEP {\bf 0602}, 031 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0512347]. \bibitem{Brini:2006ej} A.~Brini and D.~Forcella, arXiv:hep-th/0603245. \bibitem{Franco:2006es} S.~Franco and A.~M.~Uranga, JHEP {\bf 0606} (2006) 031 [arXiv:hep-th/0604136]. \bibitem{Intriligator:2006dd} K.~Intriligator, N.~Seiberg and D.~Shih, JHEP {\bf 0604} (2006) 021 [arXiv:hep-th/0602239]. \bibitem{Florea:2006si} B.~Florea, S.~Kachru, J.~McGreevy and N.~Saulina, arXiv:hep-th/0610003. \bibitem{Ooguri:2006bg} H.~Ooguri and Y.~Ookouchi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641} (2006) 323 [arXiv:hep-th/0607183]. \bibitem{Argurio:2006ny} R.~Argurio, M.~Bertolini, S.~Franco and S.~Kachru, JHEP {\bf 0701} (2007) 083 [arXiv:hep-th/0610212]. \bibitem{Franco:2006ht} S.~Franco, I.~Garcia-Etxebarria and A.~M.~Uranga, JHEP {\bf 0701} (2007) 085 [arXiv:hep-th/0607218]. \bibitem{Bena:2006rg} I.~Bena, E.~Gorbatov, S.~Hellerman, N.~Seiberg and D.~Shih, JHEP {\bf 0611} (2006) 088 [arXiv:hep-th/0608157]. \bibitem{Argurio:2007qk} R.~Argurio, M.~Bertolini, S.~Franco and S.~Kachru, arXiv:hep-th/0703236. \bibitem{Lykken:1998ec} J.~D.~Lykken, E.~Poppitz and S.~P.~Trivedi, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 543}, 105 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9806080]. \bibitem{Wijnholt:2007vn} M.~Wijnholt, arXiv:hep-th/0703047. \bibitem{Antebi:2007xw} Y.~E.~Antebi and T.~Volansky, arXiv:hep-th/0703112. \bibitem{Garcia-Etxebarria:2006rw} I.~Garcia-Etxebarria, F.~Saad and A.~M.~Uranga, JHEP {\bf 0608}, 069 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0605166]. \bibitem{Garcia-Etxebarria:2006aq} I.~Garcia-Etxebarria, F.~Saad and A.~M.~Uranga, JHEP {\bf 0606}, 055 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0603108]. \bibitem{Diaconescu:2005pc} D.~E.~Diaconescu, B.~Florea, S.~Kachru and P.~Svrcek, JHEP {\bf 0602}, 020 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0512170]. \bibitem{Intriligator:2007cp} K.~Intriligator and N.~Seiberg, arXiv:hep-ph/0702069. \bibitem{Coleman:1973jx} S.~R.~Coleman and E.~Weinberg, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 7} (1973) 1888. \bibitem{Weinberg:1996kr} S.~Weinberg, {\it Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (1996) 489 p} \bibitem{Gauntlett:2004zh} J.~P.~Gauntlett, D.~Martelli, J.~Sparks and D.~Waldram, Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 21}, 4335 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0402153]. \bibitem{Gauntlett:2004yd} J.~P.~Gauntlett, D.~Martelli, J.~Sparks and D.~Waldram, Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 8}, 711 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0403002]. \bibitem{Gauntlett:2004hh} J.~P.~Gauntlett, D.~Martelli, J.~F.~Sparks and D.~Waldram, Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 8}, 987 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0403038]. \bibitem{Martelli:2004wu} D.~Martelli and J.~Sparks, Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 262}, 51 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0411238]. \bibitem{Hanany:2005ve} A.~Hanany and K.~D.~Kennaway, arXiv:hep-th/0503149. \bibitem{Franco:2005rj} S.~Franco, A.~Hanany, K.~D.~Kennaway, D.~Vegh and B.~Wecht, arXiv:hep-th/0504110. \bibitem{Hanany:2005ss} A.~Hanany and D.~Vegh, arXiv:hep-th/0511063. \bibitem{Feng:2005gw} B.~Feng, Y.~H.~He, K.~D.~Kennaway and C.~Vafa, arXiv:hep-th/0511287. \bibitem{Franco:2006gc} S.~Franco and D.~Vegh, arXiv:hep-th/0601063. \bibitem{Aharony:1997ju} O.~Aharony and A.~Hanany, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 504}, 239 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9704170]. \bibitem{Aharony:1997bh} O.~Aharony, A.~Hanany and B.~Kol, JHEP {\bf 9801}, 002 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9710116]. \bibitem{Leung:1997tw} N.~C.~Leung and C.~Vafa, Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2}, 91 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9711013]. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0167
|
Title: Low Energy Aspects of Heavy Meson Decays
Abstract: I discuss low energy aspects of heavy meson decays, where there is at least
one heavy meson in the final state. Examples are $B -\bar{B}$ mixing, $B \to D
\bar{D}$, $B \to D \eta'$, and $B \to D \gamma$. %and $B \to D W $ (Isgur-Wise
function). The analysis is performed in the heavy quark limit within
heavy-light chiral perturbation theory. Coefficients of $1/N_c$ suppressed
chiral Lagrangian terms (beyond factorization) have been estimated by means of
a heavy-light chiral quark model.
Body: \title{ Low Energy Aspects of Heavy Meson Decays . \thanks{Presented at the Euridice meeting in Kazimierz, Poland, 24-27th of august 2006} } \author{Jan O. Eeg \address{Department of Physics, University of Oslo, \\ P.O.Box 1048 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway} } \maketitle \begin{abstract} I discuss low energy aspects of heavy meson decays, where there is at least one heavy meson in the final state. Examples are $B -\overline{B}$ mixing, $B \rightarrow D \overline{D}$, $B \rightarrow D \eta'$, and $B \rightarrow D \gamma$. The analysis is performed in the heavy quark limit within heavy-light chiral perturbation theory. Coefficients of $1/N_c$ suppressed chiral Lagrangian terms (beyond factorization) have been estimated by means of a heavy-light chiral quark model. \end{abstract} \PACS{PACS numbers 13.20.Hw , 12.39.St , 12.39.Fe , 12.39.Hg } \section{Introduction} In this paper we consider non-leptonic ``heavy meson to heavy meson(s)'' transitions, for instance $B-\overline{B}$-mixing , $B \rightarrow D \bar{D}$ and with only one $D$-meson in the final state, like $B \rightarrow D \eta'$ and $B \rightarrow \gamma \, D^* $ . The methods used to describe heavy to light tansitions like $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$ and $B \rightarrow K \pi$ are not suited for the decays we consider. We use heavy-light chiral perturbation theory (HL$\chi$PT). Lagrangian terms corresponding to factorization are then determined to zeroth order in $1/m_Q$, where $m_Q$ is the mass of the heavy quark ($b$ or $c$). For $B-\overline{B}$-mixing we have also calculated $1/m_b$ corrections . Colour suppressed $1/N_c$ terms beyond factorization can be written down, but their coefficients are unknown. However, these coefficients can be calculated within a heavy-light chiral quark model (HL$\chi$QM) based on the heavy quark effective theory (HQEFT) and HL$\chi$PT . The $1/N_c$ suppressed non-factorizable terms calculated in this way will typically be proportional to a model dependent gluon condensate . \section{Quark Lagrangians for non-leptonic decays} The effective non-leptonic Lagrangian at quark level has the form : \begin{equation} {\mathcal L}_{W}= \sum_i C_i(\mu) \; \hat{Q}_i (\mu) \; , \end{equation} where the Wilson coefficients $C_i$ contain $G_F$ and KM factors. Typically, the operators are four quark operators being the product of two currents: \begin{eqnarray} \hat{Q}_{i} \, = \, j_W^\mu(q_1 \to q_2) \; j^W_\mu(q_3 \to q_4) \; , \end{eqnarray} where $j_W^\mu(q_i \to q_j) = \overline{(q_j)_L} \, \gamma^\mu \, (q_i)_L$, and some of the quarks $q_{i,j}$ are heavy. To leading order in $1/N_c$, matrix elements of $\hat{Q}_{i}$ factorize in products of matrix elements of currents. Non-factorizable $1/N_c$ suppressed terms are obtained from ``coloured quark operators''. Using Fierz transformations and \begin{equation} \delta_{i j}\delta_{l n} = \frac{1}{N_c} \delta_{i n} \delta_{l j} \; + \; 2 \; t_{i n}^a \; t_{l j}^a \; , \end{equation} where $t^a$ are colour matrices, we may rewrite the operator $\hat{Q}_i$ as \begin{eqnarray} \hat{Q}_i^F = \frac{1}{N_c} \, j_W^\mu(q_1 \to q_4) \; j^W_\mu(q_3 \to q_2) + 2 \, j_W^\mu(q_1 \to q_4)^a \; j^W_\mu(q_3 \to q_2)^a \; , \end{eqnarray} where $j_W^\mu(q_i \to q_j)^a = \overline{(q_j)_L} \, \gamma^\mu \, t^a \, (q_i)_L$ is a left-handed coloured current. The quark operators in $\hat{Q}_i^F$ give $1/N_c$ suppressed terms. \section{Heavy-light chiral perturbation theory} The QCD Lagrangian involving light and heavy quarks is: \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L}_{Quark}= \pm \overline{Q^{(\pm)}_{v}} i v \cdot D Q^{(\pm)}_{v} + {\cal O}(m_Q^{- 1}) \, + \, \bar{q}i\gamma \cdot D q \; + ... \end{eqnarray} where $Q^{(\pm)}_{v}$ are the quark fields for a heavy quark and a heavy anti-quark with velocity $v$, $q$ is the light quark triplet, and $i D_\mu = i \partial_\mu -e_q A_\mu - g_s t^a A_\mu^a$. The bosonized Lagrangian have the following form, consistent with the underlying symmetry : \bea {\cal L}_{\chi}(Bos) = \mp Tr\left[\overline{H_{a}^{(\pm)}}(iv\cdot {\cal D}_{fa})H_{f}^{(\pm)}\right] - g_{\cal A}Tr\left[\overline{H_{a}^{(\pm)}}H_{f}^{(\pm)} \gamma_\mu\gamma_5 {\cal A}^\mu_{fa}\right] + ... \eea where the covariant derivative is $i {\cal D}_{fa}^\mu \equiv \delta_{af} (i \partial^\mu - e_H A^\mu) -{\cal V}_{fa}^\mu \; $ ; $a,f$ being SU(3) flavour indices. The axial coupling is $\; \ga \simeq 0.6$. Furthermore, \begin{equation} {\cal V}_{\mu} (\text{or} \, {\cal A}_\mu ) \, = \, \pm \frac{i}{2}(\xi^\dagger\partial_\mu\xi \pm \xi\partial_\mu\xi^\dagger ) \; , \end{equation} where $\xi=exp(i\Pi/f)$, and $\Pi$ is a 3 by 3 matrix containing the light mesons ($\pi, K \eta$), and the heavy $(1^-,0^-)$ doublet field $(P_\mu,P_5)$ is \begin{equation} H^{(\pm)} = P_{\pm} (P_{\mu}^{(\pm)} \gamma^\mu - i P_{5}^{(\pm)} \gamma_5) \; \, , \, P_{\pm} = (1 \pm \gamma \cdot v)/2 \; , \end{equation} where superscripts $(\pm)$ means meson and anti-meson respectively. To bosonize the non-leptonic quark Lagrangian, we need to bosonize the currents. Then the $b$, $c$, and $\overline{c}$ quarks are treated within HQEFT, which means the replacements $b \rightarrow Q_{v_b}^{(+)} \; , c \rightarrow Q_{v_c}^{(+)} \; $, and $\overline{c} \rightarrow Q_{\bar{v}}^{(-)}$. Then the bosonization of currents within HQEFT for decay of a heavy $B$-meson will be: \begin{equation} \overline{q_L} \,\gamma^\mu\, Q_{v_b}^{(+)} \; \longrightarrow \; \frac{\alpha_H}{2} Tr\left[\xi^{\dagger} \gamma^\mu L \, H_{b}^{(+)} \right] \; \equiv \; J_b^\mu \; , \end{equation} where $L$ is the left-handed projector in Dirac space, and $\alpha_H = f_H \sqrt{M_H}$ for $H=B,D$ before pQCD and chiral corrections are added. Here, $H_{b}^{(+)}$ represents the heavy meson (doublet) containing a $b$-quark. For creation of a heavy anti-meson $\overline{B}$ or $\overline{D}$, the corresponding currents $J_{\bar{b}}^\mu$ and $J_{\bar{c}}^\mu$ are given by () with $H_{b}^{(+)}$ replaced by $H_{b}^{(-)}$ and $H_{c}^{(-)}$, repectively. For the $B \rightarrow D$ transition we have \begin{equation} \overline{Q_{v_b}^{(+)}} \,\gamma^\mu\, L Q_{v_c}^{(+)}\; \longrightarrow \; - \zeta(\omega) Tr\left[ \overline{H_c^{(+)}} \gamma^\mu L H_{b}^{(+)} \right] \; \equiv \; J_{b \rightarrow c}^\mu \; , \end{equation} where $\zeta(\omega)$ is the Isgur-Wise function, and $\; \omega = v_b \cdot v_c$. For creation of $D \overline{D}$ pair we have the same expression for the current $J_{c\bar{c}}^\mu$ with $H_{b}^{(+)}$ replaced by $H_{c}^{(-)}$, and $\zeta(\omega)$ replaced by $\zeta(-\lambda)$, where $\lambda= \bar{v} \cdot v_c \; $. In addition there are $1/m_Q$ corrections for $Q=b,c$. The low velocity limit is $\omega \rightarrow 1 \, $. For $ \, B \rightarrow D \overline{D}$ and $ \, B \rightarrow D^* \gamma$ one has $\omega \simeq 1.3 \, ,$ and $\omega \simeq 1.6 \, $, respectively. \subsection{Factorized lagrangians for non-leptonic processes} For $B -\overline{B}$ mixing, the factorized bosonized Lagrangian is \begin{equation} {\mathcal L}_{B}^{} = C_B \; J_b^\mu \; (J_{\bar{b}})^\mu \; , \end{equation} where $C_B$ is a short distance Wilson coefficient (containing $(G_F)^2$), which is taken at $\mu = \Lambda_\chi \simeq$ 1 GeV, and the currents are given by (). For processes obtained from two different four quark operators for $b \rightarrow c \bar{c} q \; \; (q=d,s)$, we find the factorized Lagrangian corresponding to Fig.~: \bea {\mathcal L}_{Fact}^{Spec}= (C_2+\frac{C_1}{N_c}) J_{b \rightarrow c}^\mu \; (J_{\bar{c}})_\mu \; , \eea where $C_i = \frac{4}{\sqrt{2}} G_F V_{cb} V_{cq}^* \, a_i$, and $a_1 \simeq -0.35-0.07i$, $a_2 \simeq 1.29+0.08i$. We have considered the process $\overline{B^0_d} \rightarrow D_s^+ D_s^- \, $. Note that there is no factorized contribution to this process if both $D$-mesons in the final state are pseudoscalars! But the factorized contribution to $\overline{B^0_d} \rightarrow D^+ D_s^- $ will be the starting point for chiral loop contributions to the process $\overline{B^0_d} \rightarrow D_s^+ D_s^- $. The factorizable term from annihilation is shown in Fig.~, and is: \bea {\mathcal L}_{Fact}^{Ann}= (C_1+\frac{C_2}{N_c}) \, J_{c \bar{c}}^\mu \; (J_{b})_\mu \; . \eea Because $(C_1+C_2/N_c)$ is a non-favourable combination of the Wilson coefficients, this term will give a small non-zero contribution if at least one of the mesons in the final state is a vector. \subsection{Possible $1/N_c$ suppressed tree level terms } For $B- \bar{B}$ mixing, we have for instance the $1/N_c$ suppressed term \bea Tr\left[\xi^{\dagger} \sigma^{\mu \alpha} L \, H_{b}^{(+)} \right] \cdot Tr\left[\xi^{\dagger} \sigma_{\mu \alpha} R H_{\bar{b}}^{(-)} \right] \; . \eea For $B \rightarrow D \bar{D}$, we have for instance the terms \bea Tr\left[\xi^{\dagger} \sigma^{\mu \alpha} L \, H_{b}^{(+)} \right] \cdot Tr\left[ \overline{H_c^{(+)}} \gamma_\alpha L H_{\bar{c}}^{(-)} \gamma_\mu \right] \; , \eea \bea Tr\left[\xi^{\dagger} \sigma^{\mu \alpha} L \, H_{b}^{(+)} \right] \cdot Tr\left[ \overline{H_c^{(+)}} \gamma_\alpha L H_{\bar{c}}^{(-)} \right] (\bar{v}-v_c)_\mu \; \, . \eea One needs a framework to estimate the coefficients of such terms. We use the HL$\chi$QM, which will pick a certain linear combination of $1/N_c$ terms. \subsection{Chiral loops for non-leptonic processes} Within HL$\chi$PT, the leading chiral corrections are proportional to \bea \chi(M) \equiv (\frac{\ga m_M}{4 \pi f})^2 \ln(\frac{\Lambda_\chi^2}{m_M^2}) \; , \eea where $m_M$ is the appropriate light meson mass and $\Lambda_\chi$ is the chiral symmetry breaking scale, which is also the matching scale within our framework. For $B -\overline{B}$ mixing there are chiral loops obtained from () and () shown in Fig.~. These have to be added to the factorized contribution. For the process $\overline{B^0_d} \rightarrow D_s^+ D_s^-$ we obtain a chiral loop amplitude corresponding to Fig.~. This amplitude is complex and depend on $\omega$ and $\lambda$ defined previously. It has been recently shown that $(0^+,1^+)$ states in loops should also be added to the result. \section{The heavy-light chiral quark model} The Lagrangian for HL$\chi$QM contains the Lagrangian (): \begin{equation} {\cal L}_{HL \chi QM} = {\cal L}_{HQET}+ {\cal L}_{\chi QM} + {\cal L}_{Int} \; , \end{equation} where ${\cal L}_{HQET}$ is the heavy quark part of (), and the light quark part is \begin{equation} {\cal L}_{\chi QM} = \overline{\chi} \left[\gamma^\mu (i D_\mu + {\cal V}_{\mu} + \gamma_5 {\cal A}_{\mu}) - m \right]\chi \; . \end{equation} Here $\chi_L = \xi^\dagger q_L \, $ and $\, \chi_R = \xi q_R $ are flavour rotated light quark fields, and $m$ is the light constituent mass. The bosonization of the (heavy-light) quark sector is performed via the ansatz: \begin{equation} {\cal L}_{Int} = - G_H \, \left[\overline{\chi}_f \, \overline{H_{v}^{f}} \, Q_{v} \, + \overline{Q_{v}} \, H_{v}^{f} \, \chi_f \right] \; . \end{equation} The coupling $G_H$ is determined by bosonization through the loop diagrams in Fig~. The bosonization lead to relations between the model dependent parameters $G_H$, $m$, and $\gc$, and the quadratic-, linear, and logarithmic- divergent integrals $I_1, I_{3/2}, I_1$, and the physical quantities $f_\pi$, $\qc$, $\ga$ and $f_H$ ($H=B,D$). For example, the relation obtained for identifying the kinetic term is: \begin{equation} - iG_H^2N_c \, (I_{3/2} + 2mI_2 + \frac{i(8-3\pi)}{384 N_c m^3}\gc) = 1 \; , \end{equation} where we have used the prescription: \begin{equation} g_s^2 G_{\mu \nu}^a G_{\alpha \beta}^a \; \rightarrow 4 \pi^2 \gc \frac{1}{12} (g_{\mu \alpha} g_{\nu \beta} - g_{\mu \beta} g_{\nu \alpha} ) \, . \end{equation} The parameters are fitted in strong sector, with $ \gc= [(0.315\pm0.020)$ GeV]$^{4} \; , $ and $ \; {G_H}^2 = \frac{2 m}{f^2} \rho \,$, where $\rho \simeq 1$. For details , see . \section{$1/N_c$ terms from HL$\chi$QM} To obtain the $1/N_c$ terms for $B -\overline{B}$ mixing in Fig.~ , we need the bosonization of colored current in the quark operators of eq. (): \bea \left(\overline{q_L}\, t^a \,\gamma^\alpha \, Q_{v_b}^{(+)}\right)_{1G} \; \longrightarrow - \frac{G_H \, g_s}{64 \pi} \,G_{\mu\nu}^a Tr\left[\xi^\dagger \gamma^\alpha L \, H_b^{(+)} \Sigma_{\mu \nu} \right] \; , \eea \bea \Sigma^{\mu\nu} = \sigma^{\mu\nu} \, - \frac{2 \pi f^2}{m^2 \, N_c} [ \sigma^{\mu\nu}, \gamma \cdot v_b ]_+ \; \, . \eea This coloured current is also used for $B \rightarrow D \overline{D}$ in Fig.~, for $B \rightarrow D \, \eta'$ in Fig.~, and for $B \rightarrow \gamma D^{*}$ in Fig.~ In addition there are more complicated bosonizations of coloured currents as indicated in Fig.~. For $B \rightarrow D \, \eta'$ and $B \rightarrow \gamma D^{*}$ decays there are two different four quark operators, both for $b \rightarrow c \bar{u} q$ and $ b \rightarrow \bar{c} u q$, respectively. At $\mu=1$ GeV they have Wilson coefficients $a_2 \simeq 1.17 \;, \; a_1 \simeq -0.37$ (up to prefactors $G_F$ and KM-factors). For $B \rightarrow D \, \eta'$, we must also attach a propagating gluon to the $\eta' g g^*$-vertex. Note that for $\overline{B_{s,d}^0} \rightarrow \gamma D^{0*}$, the $1/N_c$ suppressed mechanism in Fig.~ dominates, unlike $\overline{B_{s,d}^0} \rightarrow \overline{\gamma D^{0*}}$. Factorized contributions are proportional to either the favourable contribution $a_f \; = \; a_{2} + a_{1}/N_c \simeq 1.05$ or the non-favourable contribution $a_{nf} \; = \; a_{1} + a_{2}/N_c \simeq 0.02$. \subsection{$1/m_c$ correction terms } For the $B \rightarrow D$ transition we have the $1/m_c$ suppressed terms: \bea \frac{1}{m_c} \, Tr\left[ \left( Z_0 \overline{H_c^{(+)}} + Z_1 \gamma^\alpha \overline{H_c^{(+)}} \gamma_\alpha + Z_2 \overline{H_c^{(+)}} \gamma \cdot v_b \right) \gamma^\alpha L H_{b}^{(+)} \right] \; , \eea where the $Z_i$'s are calculable within HL$\chi$QM. The relative size of $1/m_c$ corrections are typically of order $ 20-30 \ \section{Results} \subsection{$B- \overline{B}$ mixing} The result for the B(ag) parameter in $B-\overline{B}$-mixing has the form \begin{equation} \hat{B}_{B_q}=\frac{3}{4} \, \widetilde{b} \left[ 1 + \frac{1}{N_c} \left(1 - \delta_G^B \right) + \frac{\tau_b}{m_b} + \frac{\tau_\chi}{32 \pi^2 f^2} \right] \; \, , \end{equation} similar to the $K-\overline{K}$-mixing case . From perturbative QCD we have $\widetilde{b} \simeq 1.56$ at $\mu= \Lambda_\chi$ = 1 GeV. From calculations within the HL$\chi$QM we obtain, $\delta_G^B=0.5\pm0.1$ and $\tau_b =(0.26\pm0.04)$GeV, and from chiral corrections $\tau_{\chi,s}=(-0.10\pm0.04)$GeV$^2$, and $\tau_{\chi,d}=(-0.02\pm0.01)$GeV$^2$. We obtained \bea \hat{B}_{B_d}=1.51\pm 0.09 \qquad \hat{B}_{B_s}=1.40 \pm 0.16 \; , \eea in agreement with lattice results. \subsection{$B \rightarrow D \, \overline{D}$ decays} Keeping the chiral logs and the $1/N_c$ terms from the gluon condensate, we find the branching ratios in the ``leading approximation''. For decays of $\bar{B}_d^0$ ($\sim V_{cb} V^*_{cd}$) and $\bar{B}_s^0$ ($\sim V_{cb} V^*_{cs}$) we obtain branching ratios of order few $\times 10^{-4}$ and $\times 10^{-3}$, respectively Then we have to add counterterms $\sim m_s$ for chiral loops. These may be estimated in HL$\chi$QM. \subsection{$B \rightarrow D \, \eta'$ and $B \rightarrow \gamma D^{*}$ decays} The result corresponding to Fig.~ is: \begin{equation} Br(B\rightarrow D\eta^{'}) \,\simeq \, 2 \times 10^{-4} \; \, . \end{equation} The partial branching ratios from the mechanism in Fig.~ are \begin{equation} Br(\overline{B^0_d} \rightarrow \gamma \, D^{*0})_G \, \simeq 1 \times 10^{-5} \quad ; \quad Br(\overline{B^0_s} \rightarrow \gamma \, D^{*0})_G \, \simeq 6 \times 10^{-7} \; . \end{equation} The corresponding factorizable contribibutions are roughly two orders of magnitude smaller. Note that the process $\overline{B^0_d} \rightarrow \gamma \, \overline{D^{*0}}$ has substantial meson exchanges (would be chiral loops for $\omega \rightarrow 1$), and is different. \section{Conclusions} Our low energy framework is well suited to $B - \overline{B}$ mixing, and to some extent to $B \rightarrow D \overline{D}$. Work continues to include $(0^+,1^+)$, states, counterterms, and $1/m_c$ terms. Note that the amplitude for $\overline{B^0_d} \rightarrow D_s^+ D_s^- \, $ is zero in the factorized limit. For processes like $B \rightarrow D \eta'$ and $B \rightarrow D \gamma \; $ we can give order of magnitude estimates when factorization give zero or small amplitudes. \vspace{0.1cm} \begin{center} * * * \end{center} \vspace{0.1cm} JOE is supported in part by the Norwegian research council and by the European Union RTN network, Contract No. HPRN-CT-2002-00311 (EURIDICE). He thanks his collaborators : A. Hiorth, S. Fajfer, A. Polosa, A. Prapotnik Brdnik, J.A. Macdonald S\o rensen, and J. Zupan \bibliographystyle{unsrt} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{ahjoeB} A.~Hiorth and J.~O.~Eeg, Eur. Phys. J. direct {\bf C30}, 006 (2003) (see also references therein). \bibitem{EFHP} J.O. Eeg, S. Fajfer , and A. Hiorth, Phys.Lett. {\bf B570}, 46-52 (2003);\\ J. O. Eeg, S. Fajfer, and A. Prapotnik Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C42}, 29-36 (2005). \\ See also: J.O. Eeg, S. Fajfer, J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 64}, 034010 (2001). \bibitem{EHP} J.~O.~Eeg, A.~Hiorth, A.~D.~Polosa, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 65}, 054030 (2002). \bibitem{GriLe} B.Grinstein and R.F. Lebed, Phys.Rev. {\bf D60}, 031302(R) (1999). \bibitem{AnVal} O. Antipin and G. Valencia, Phys.Rev. {\bf D74}, 054015 (2006), hep-ph/0606065. \bibitem{MacDJoe} J.A. Macdonald S\o rensen and J.O. Eeg, hep-ph/0605078. \bibitem{BBNS} M. Beneke {\em et. al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1914 (1999); C.~W.~Bauer {\em et al.} Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 054015 (2004) \bibitem{ahjoe} A.~Hiorth and J.~O.~Eeg, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 66}, 074001 (2002), and references therein. \bibitem{neu} For a review, see M.~Neubert, Phys. Rep. {\bf 245}, 259 (1994). \bibitem{itchpt} For a review, see: R.~Casalbuoni {\em et al.} Phys. Rep. {\bf 281}, 145 (1997). \bibitem{BEF} S.~Bertolini, J.O.~Eeg and M.~Fabbrichesi, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B449}, 197 (1995); \\ V.~Antonelli {\em et al.} Nucl. Phys. {\bf B469}, 143 (1996); S.~Bertolini {\em et al.} Nucl. Phys. {\bf B514}, 63 (1998); {\it ibid} {\bf B514}, 93 (1998). \bibitem{BuBuLa} See for example: G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 68}, 1125 (1996), and references therein. \bibitem{GKMWF} B. Grinstein {\em et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B363} , 19 (1991). R. Fleischer, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 412}, 201 (1994). \end{thebibliography} {GKMWF}
|
0704.0174
|
Title: Reparametrization Invariance, the controversial extraction of $\alpha$
from $B\to\pi\pi$ and New Physics
Abstract: The extraction of the weak phase $\alpha$ from $B\to\pi\pi$ decays has been
controversial from a statistical point of view, as the frequentist vs. bayesian
confrontation shows. We analyse several relevant questions which have not
deserved full attention and pervade the extraction of $\alpha$.
Reparametrization Invariance proves appropriate to understand those issues. We
show that some Standard Model inspired parametrizations can be senseless or
inadequate if they go beyond the minimal Gronau and London assumptions: the
single weak phase $\alpha$ just in the $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitudes, the isospin
relations and experimental data. Beside those analyses, we extract $\alpha$
through the use of several adequate parametrizations, showing that there is no
relevant discrepancy between frequentist and bayesian results. The most
relevant information, in terms of $\alpha$, is the exclusion of values around
$\alpha\sim \pi/4$; this result is valid in the presence of arbitrary New
Physics contributions to the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece.
Body: \begin{flushright} IFIC/07-17\\ FTUV-07-0402 \end{flushright} \begin{center} \begin{Large} {\bf Reparametrization Invariance, the controversial extraction of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ from $\boldsymbol{B\to\pi\pi}$ and New Physics}\\ \end{Large} \vspace{0.5cm} Francisco J. Botella$^{~a}$, Miguel Nebot$^{~b}$\\ \vspace{0.3cm} {\small \emph{ $^a$ Departament de F\'{\i}sica Te\`orica and IFIC,\\ Universitat de Val\`encia-CSIC,\\ E-46100, Burjassot, Spain\\ $^b$ Centro de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica de Part\'{\i}culas (CFTP),\\ Instituto Superior T\'ecnico,\\ P-1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal }} \end{center} \begin{abstract} The extraction of the weak phase $\alpha$ from $B\to\pi\pi$ decays has been controversial from a statistical point of view, as the frequentist vs. bayesian confrontation shows. We analyse several relevant questions which have not deserved full attention and pervade the extraction of $\alpha$. Reparametrization Invariance proves appropriate to understand those issues. We show that some Standard Model inspired parametrizations can be senseless or inadequate if they go beyond the minimal Gronau and London assumptions: the single weak phase $\alpha$ just in the $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitudes, the isospin relations and experimental data. Beside those analyses, we extract $\alpha$ through the use of several adequate parametrizations, showing that there is no relevant discrepancy between frequentist and bayesian results. The most relevant information, in terms of $\alpha$, is the exclusion of values around $\alpha\sim \pi/4$; this result is valid in the presence of arbitrary New Physics contributions to the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece. \end{abstract} \newpage \section{Introduction} The extraction of the CP violating phase $\alpha$ has lead to some recent controversy confronting the results and statistical methods of two different collaborations: the frequentist approach advocated in references and the bayesian approach employed in reference . In reference J. Charles et al. presented an important criticism to the bayesian methods used by the UTfit collaboration in order to extract the angle $\alpha$ of the unitarity triangle $b$--$d$ from $\pi\pi$ and $\rho\rho$ data. The criticism relies heavily on the statistical treatment of data: frequentist vs. bayesian. The answer of the UTfit collaboration rises some interesting points, both on the interpretation of the results and on the importance of the physical assumptions on the hadronic amplitudes. The authors of have recently answered to this UTfit reply in . The aim of the present work is to clarify several issues central to an adequate understanding of the physics at stake. We also want to call the attention on the importance of reparametrization invariance (RpI) in the sense introduced by F.J.B. and J. Silva in reference to do so. We will not enter the polemic arena of statistical confrontation. With regard to this, we will instead illustrate the compatibility of results obtained in both approaches as long as things are done properly; notwithstanding, we will not ignore some ``obscure'' aspects of both approaches that are somehow swept under the rug as the statistical confrontation rages on, they illustrate that rather than sticking to one approach and deprecating the other it may be wiser to learn lessons from both. This work is organized as follows. We start section with a short reminder on reparametrization invariance and its implications, then we use the exclusion or inclusion of $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ data together with RpI to clarify the origin of our knowledge on $\alpha$. In section we study critically Standard Model inspired parametrizations. We devote section to a detailed analysis of the impact on the results of allowed ranges for some parameters. The lessons from previous sections set up the stage for an adequate extraction of $\alpha$, to which section is dedicated, especially in the presence of New Physics (NP) in loops. Several appendices deal with aspects left out of the main flow of the discussion. \section{Reparametrization invariance and $\boldsymbol{B\to\pi\pi}$} \subsection{Weak Phases} We start this section with a short reminder of the findings presented in reference concerning the parametrization of decay amplitudes and the election of weak phases. A generic parametrization of the decay amplitude of a B meson to a given final state and the CP-conjugate amplitude is the following: \begin{eqnarray} A&=&M_1~ e^{+i\phi_1}~e^{i\delta_1}+M_2~ e^{+i\phi_2}~e^{i\delta_2}~,\notag\\ \bar A&=&M_1~ e^{-i\phi_1}~e^{i\delta_1}+M_2~ e^{-i\phi_2}~e^{i\delta_2}~, \end{eqnarray} where $\phi_j$ are CP-odd weak phases, $\delta_j$ are CP-even strong phases and $M_j$ the magnitudes of the different contributions. The first property to consider is the full generality, as long as $\phi_1-\phi_2\neq 0 \mod [\pi]$, of \eq{EQ:0200:01}, i.e. any additional contribution $M_3e^{\pm i\phi_3}e^{i\delta_3}$ can be recast into the previous form as \begin{equation} e^{\pm i\phi_3}=\frac{\sin(\phi_3-\phi_2)}{\sin(\phi_1-\phi_2)}~e^{\pm i\phi_1}+\frac{\sin(\phi_3-\phi_1)}{\sin(\phi_2-\phi_1)}~e^{\pm i\phi_2}~, \end{equation} and thus \begin{eqnarray} A^\prime&=&A+M_3e^{+i\phi_3}e^{i\delta_3}=M_1^\prime e^{+i\phi_1}e^{i\delta^\prime_1}+M_2^\prime e^{+i\phi_2}e^{i\delta^\prime_2}~,\notag\\ \bar A^\prime&=&\bar A+M_3e^{-i\phi_3}e^{i\delta_3}=M_1^\prime e^{-i\phi_1}e^{i\delta^\prime_1}+M_2^\prime e^{-i\phi_2}e^{i\delta^\prime_2}~, \end{eqnarray} with \begin{eqnarray} M_1^\prime e^{i\delta^\prime_1}&=&M_1 e^{i\delta_1}+M_3e^{i\delta_3}\frac{\sin(\phi_3-\phi_2)}{\sin(\phi_1-\phi_2)}~,\notag\\ M_2^\prime e^{i\delta^\prime_2}&=&M_2 e^{i\delta_2}+M_3e^{i\delta_3}\frac{\sin(\phi_3-\phi_1)}{\sin(\phi_2-\phi_1)}~. \end{eqnarray} We can also use \eq{EQ:0200:02} to change our basic set $\{\phi_1,\phi_2\}$ of weak phases to any other arbitrary set of weak phases $\{\varphi_1,\varphi_2\}$, as long as $\varphi_1-\varphi_2\neq 0 \mod [\pi]$: \begin{eqnarray} A&=&\mathcal M_1~ e^{+i\varphi_1}~e^{i\Delta_1}+\mathcal M_2~ e^{+i\varphi_2}~e^{i\Delta_2}~,\notag\\ \bar A&=&\mathcal M_1~ e^{-i\varphi_1}~e^{i\Delta_1}+\mathcal M_2~ e^{-i\varphi_2}~e^{i\Delta_2}~, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal M_1e^{i\Delta_1}&=& M_1 e^{i\delta_1}\frac{\sin(\phi_1-\varphi_2)}{\sin(\varphi_1-\varphi_2)}+M_2 e^{i\delta_2}\frac{\sin(\phi_2-\varphi_2)}{\sin(\varphi_1-\varphi_2)}~,\notag\\ \mathcal M_2e^{i\Delta_2}&=& M_1 e^{i\delta_1}\frac{\sin(\phi_1-\varphi_1)}{\sin(\varphi_2-\varphi_1)}+M_2 e^{i\delta_2}\frac{\sin(\phi_2-\varphi_1)}{\sin(\varphi_2-\varphi_1)}~. \end{eqnarray} This change in the basic set of chosen weak phases should have no physical implications, hence the name \emph{reparametrization invariance}. We remind two main consequences of RpI in the absence of hadronic inputs. For an extensive discussion see : \begin{enumerate} \item Consider two basic sets of weak phases $\{\phi_1,\phi_2\}$ and $\{\phi_1,\varphi_2\}$ with $\phi_2\neq\varphi_2$; if an algorithm allows us to write $\phi_2$ as a function of physical observables then, owing to the functional similarity of equation () and (), we would extract $\varphi_2$ with exactly the same function, leading to $\phi_2=\varphi_2$, in contradiction with the assumptions; then, a priori, the weak phases in the parametrization of the decay amplitudes have no physical meaning, or cannot be extracted without hadronic input. \item If, experimentally, the direct CP asymmetry $C=(|A|^2-|\bar A|^2)/(|A|^2+|\bar A|^2)$ is $C=0$, then the decay amplitudes can be expressed in terms of a single weak phase, which could be sensibly extracted, up to discrete ambig\"uities, through the indirect CP asymmetry $S=2~\text{Im}(\bar A A^\ast)/(|A|^2+|\bar A|^2)$. Additionally, if the theoretical description of the decay amplitudes only involves a single weak phase from a basic Lagrangian, then it can be identified with the phase measured through $S$. \end{enumerate} As we will see, this two results apply respectively to the $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\pi^+\pi^0$ channels. Essentially, the first one will be operative in the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece and the second one in the $\Delta I=3/2$. \subsection{Removing $\boldsymbol{\pi^0\pi^0}$ information} To make our point transparent we will start by studying the extraction -- in fact the \emph{non-extraction} -- of $\alpha$ from $\pi\pi$ data when $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ experimental information is removed. Let us start with a widely used , Standard Model inspired, parametrization of the decay amplitudes: \begin{align} \Apm &\equiv A(\Bd\to\pi^+\pi^-)=e^{-i\alpha}\Tpm+\Pe~, \notag\\ \sqrt 2\Apo &\equiv \sqrt 2 A(\Bp\to\pi^+\pi^0)=e^{-i\alpha}(\Tpm+\Too)~,\notag\\ \sqrt 2\Aoo &\equiv \sqrt 2 A(\Bd\to\pi^0\pi^0)\equiv\sqrt 2\Apo-\Apm=e^{-i\alpha}\Too-\Pe ~,\notag\\ \ApmB &\equiv A(\Bbd\to\pi^+\pi^-)=e^{+i\alpha}\Tpm+\Pe~, \notag\\ \sqrt 2\ApoB &\equiv \sqrt 2 A(\Bm\to\pi^-\pi^0)=e^{+i\alpha}(\Tpm+\Too)~,\notag\\ \sqrt 2\AooB &\equiv \sqrt 2 A(\Bbd\to\pi^0\pi^0)\equiv\sqrt 2\ApoB-\ApmB=e^{+i\alpha}\Too-\Pe ~. \end{align} When $\pi^0\pi^0$ experimental information is removed we have two \emph{decoupled} decays: \begin{enumerate} \item $\pi^+\pi^0$ data, i.e. the average branching ratio $\Bpo$ and the direct CP asymmetry $\Cpo$, provide, respectively, $|\Tpm+\Too|$ and a consistency check $\Cpo=0$; $\alpha$ is \emph{irrelevant} there. \item $\pi^+\pi^-$ data, i.e. $\Bpm$, $\Cpm$ and the mixing induced CP asymmetry $\Spm$, give information on $\alpha$ \emph{decoupled} from $\pi^+\pi^0$, on $|\Tpm|$, $|\Pe|$ and the relative (strong) phase $\delta_{\Pe\Tpm}$ between $\Tpm$ and $\Pe$. \end{enumerate} With three observables and four parameters everybody knows or suspects that one cannot really extract $\alpha$: we have $\Cpm\neq 0$, as reminded in section , $\alpha$ \emph{cannot} be extracted from $B\to\pi^+\pi^-$ in this limited case. One can try, nevertheless, to obtain a probability distribution function (PDF) for $\alpha$ as in reference . This PDF, obtained in an analysis with three observables and four unknowns, has obviously a strong dependence in the priors, as in figure 2 of . Even worse, reparametrization invariance tells us that $\Apm,\ApmB$ can also be written as \begin{equation} \Apm=e^{-i\alpha^\prime}T^{\prime +-}+P^\prime,\qquad \ApmB=e^{+i\alpha^\prime}T^{\prime +-}+P^\prime~, \end{equation} where $\alpha^\prime$ is any weak phase -- known or unknown, $\alpha^\prime\neq 0,\pi$ --. In this scenario the conclusion is clear: \emph{any} information one would get for $\alpha$ would also be valid for \emph{any} $\alpha^\prime$ and thus it cannot be assigned to $\alpha$. This solves the puzzle raised in the MA and RI parametrizations within figure 4 of reference : those PDFs cannot be attributable to $\alpha$. Just with that data alone we cannot extract $\alpha^\prime$ -- whatever it is --, as we have emphasized in . To illustrate this issue we compute the PDFs of figure in the following parametrization: \begin{align} \Apm &\equiv A(\Bd\to\pi^+\pi^-)=e^{-i\alpha^\prime}\Tpm+\Pe~, \notag\\ \sqrt 2\Apo &\equiv \sqrt 2~ A(\Bp\to\pi^+\pi^0)=e^{-i\alpha}(\Tpm+\Too)~,\notag\\ \sqrt 2\Aoo &\equiv \sqrt 2~ A(\Bd\to\pi^0\pi^0)\equiv\sqrt 2\Apo-\Apm~, \notag\\ \ApmB &\equiv A(\Bbd\to\pi^+\pi^-)=e^{+i\alpha^\prime}\Tpm+\Pe~, \notag\\ \sqrt 2\ApoB &\equiv \sqrt 2~ A(\Bm\to\pi^-\pi^0)=e^{+i\alpha}(\Tpm+\Too)~,\notag\\ \sqrt 2\AooB &\equiv \sqrt 2~ A(\Bbd\to\pi^0\pi^0)\equiv\sqrt 2\ApoB-\ApmB~. \notag\\ \end{align} Notice that just with $\alpha=\alpha^\prime$, \eq{EQ:AlphaPrime:Parametrization} recovers the parametrization in \eq{EQ:SMparam}. The phase of $\Tpm$ is set to zero (i.e. all strong phases are relative to $\arg(\Tpm)$) and flat priors are used for all the parameters\text{ ps}^{-1/2}$.}, that is, moduli $|\Tpm|$, $|\Too|$, $|\Pe|$ and phases $\dPe=\arg(\Pe)$, $\dToo=\arg(\Too)$, $\alpha$ and $\alpha^\prime$. Results in other parametrizations, being equally illustrative, are relegated to appendix . The lesson of this example is rather obvious: the set of observables being insensitive to $\alpha$, its PDF is uninformative (just the flat prior in this case); the PDF in figure , erroneously identified with $\alpha$, is nothing else than $\alpha^\prime$ itself, whatever it could be. \subsection{Including back $\boldsymbol{\pi^0\pi^0}$ information} When we incorporate $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ data to the isospin construction, $|\Aoo|$ ($|\AooB|$) gives the angle among $\Apo$ ($\ApoB$) and $\Apm$ ($\ApmB$); using then the known phase difference between $\Apm$ and $\ApmB$, the angle among $\Apo$ and $\ApoB$ is obtained. This is just the isospin analysis giving $\alpha$. Knowing $\alpha$, i.e. with $\alpha$ fixed, $\Apm=e^{-i\alpha}\Tpm+\Pe$ would have full meaning and $\{B_{+-},C_{+-},S_{+-}\}$ would fix the three hadronic parameters. Unfortunately the isospin analysis as explained above yields allowed values for $\alpha$ spanning a wide range. The degeneracy of solutions together with the experimental errors do not fix $\alpha$, just exclude some region. In this situation $\{B_{+-},C_{+-},S_{+-}\}$ do not really fix the hadronic parameters and, consequently, they tend to generate a spurious PDF for $\alpha$ as we have seen. The final ``$\alpha$'' is thus a sort of convolution of the $\alpha$ obtained from the isospin analysis and the spurious one ``extracted'' purely from $\pi^+\pi^-$ data. This is illustrated with the PDFs of figure , making use of the parametrization in \eq{EQ:AlphaPrime:Parametrization}. To stress the importance of this issue we repeat the previous example while arbitrarily reducing \emph{all} experimental uncertainties by a common factor of 5. The PDFs corresponding to this fake scenario are displayed in figure . The results shown in figures , and deserve some comment: \begin{enumerate} \item Figures and are almost identical; in the former we were not using $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ information while in the later we were doing so. This similarity is a dramatic illustration of the spurious nature of the ``extracted'' $\alpha^\prime$. \item Figure is the cut of the joint PDF in figure along the line $\alpha=\alpha^\prime$. Therefore the so called MA extraction of $\alpha$ is a sort of convolution of the Gronau-London $\alpha$ -- figure -- and the spurious one. \item This $\alpha^\prime$ PDF basically allows any value of $\alpha^\prime$ except the neighborhoods of $0$ and $\pi$, which are a priori forbidden by $\Spm,\Cpm\neq 0$: obviously there is no way to produce CP violation in the $\pi^+\pi^-$ channel without two weak phases in the amplitude that controls it. The exclusion of $\alpha^\prime=0,\pi$ is the only physical information one can extract in the SM from the PDF of $\alpha^\prime$. \item The deep in the $\alpha$ distributions around $\alpha\sim \pi/4$, which is transmitted to the $\alpha=\alpha^\prime$ PDF, is senseful. The exclusion of $\alpha\sim 0,\pi$ is also physical inside the SM. Nevertheless, how strongly these $0,\pi$ regions are excluded is highly sensitive to the allowed ranges for $|\Tpm|$, $|\Too|$ and $|\Pe|$ -- see section --. As we move away form the $\alpha=0,\pi$ points, the final PDF of $\alpha$ would be more influenced by the spurious $\alpha^\prime$ distribution. One can see that in the shape of the $\alpha$ distribution for $\alpha<25^\circ$ or $\alpha>75^\circ$. \item As uncertainties are reduced, even with $\alpha\equiv\alpha^\prime$, the valid ranges for the ``real'' $\alpha$ emerge, despite the $\alpha^\prime$ distribution. That is, as experimental uncertainties are reduced, the $\alpha^\prime$ ``pollution'' of $\alpha$ through $\alpha\equiv\alpha^\prime$ becomes increasingly ineffective, as it should, and just transmits the physical exclusion of $\alpha=0,\pi$ inside the SM. \end{enumerate} The main lesson from the previous example is: $\alpha$ is obtained from purely $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitudes, without additional \emph{hadronic} input. Including it in $\Delta I=1/2$ pieces, as reparametrization invariance shows, pollutes the legitimate extraction with information that one cannot claim is concerning $\alpha$. \section{Standard Model inspired parametrizations} As stated above, following the consequences of reparametrization invariance, the really legitimate sources of our knowledge on $\alpha$ are $\Apo,\ApoB$. We have referred to the parametrization in \eq{EQ:SMparam} as a ``SM inspired parametrization'' of the amplitudes and we have discussed how the inclusion of $\alpha$ in $\Apm,\ApmB$ is dangerous with present uncertainties. Nevertheless, it is clear that the exclusion of $\alpha\sim 0,\pi$ inside the SM is a valid physical consequence that comes from having $\alpha$ in $\Apm$ and $\ApmB$. To further illustrate the importance and the subtlety of this issue let us consider in detail what can be interpreted as a ``SM inspired parametrization''. Once we take into account reparametrization invariance, we only need to focus on $\Apm$ and $\ApmB$: \begin{enumerate} \item RpI allows us to write $\{\Apm,\ApmB\}$ in terms of any pair of weak phases $\{\phi_1,\phi_2\}$ (as long as $\phi_1-\phi_2\neq 0\mod[\pi]$), \emph{nothing} enforces the use of $\{0,\alpha\}$. \item SM compliance of any parametrization only requires that the vanishing of all the SM phases leads to no CP violation, once again \emph{nothing} singles out or requires the use of $\{0,\alpha\}$. \end{enumerate} Consequently, as we have at our disposal other SM phases that we can choose to parametrize $\Apm,\ApmB$, namely\V{cb}\Vc{ub}\Vc{cd})$, $\beta=\arg(-\V{cd}\V{tb}\Vc{cb}\Vc{td})$, $\chi=\arg(-\V{cb}\V{ts}\Vc{cs}\Vc{tb})$ and $\chi^\prime=\arg(-\V{us}\V{cd}\Vc{ud}\Vc{cs})$ .} $\gamma$, $\beta$, $\chi$, $\chi^\prime$, instead of $\Apm=e^{-i\alpha}\Tpm+\Pe$ and $\ApmB=e^{i\alpha}\Tpm+\Pe$, we can for example write, on equal footing, \begin{equation} \Apm=M_1 e^{i\delta_1}e^{-i\chi}+M_2e^{i\delta_2} e^{-i\beta},\qquad \ApmB=M_1 e^{i\delta_1}e^{+i\chi}+M_2e^{i\delta_2} e^{+i\beta}~, \end{equation} or \begin{equation} \Apm=e^{-i\chi}\Tpm+\Pe,\qquad \ApmB=e^{+i\chi}\Tpm+\Pe~. \end{equation} Within the SM $\chi\sim\mathcal O(\lambda^2)$, had we used this last parametrization (\eq{EQ:Apm:chi1}), we would have found extreme compatibility problems.} that would be absent with another SM inspired parametrization: this is a dramatic illustration of the consequences of RpI mentioned in section . In other words, pretending that one obtains information on SM ``theoretical'' phases just by parametrizing $\Apm$ and $\ApmB$ with them is in general senseless. In this case we would have obtained that figure is the PDF of the phase $\chi$, the one that appears in $B_s$--$\bar B_s$ mixing . \section{Physics and parametrical problems} In section we mentioned that the exclusion of the ``dangerous'' $\alpha^\prime$ near $0$ and $\pi$ depended on the allowed ranges for the parameters $|T^{ij}|$ and $|\Pe|$. Figure shows the PDFs of $\alpha$, $\alpha^\prime$ and $\alpha=\alpha^\prime$ for four different sets of allowed ranges of $|T^{ij}|$ and $|\Pe|$. On the one hand, the PDFs of $\alpha$ in figures , , and are quite similar. On the other hand, the PDFs of $\alpha^\prime$ in figures , , and are completely different: the ``dangerous'' $\alpha^\prime$, especially in the regions close to $0$,$\pi$, is sensitive to the applied bounds. This is automatically transmitted to the $\alpha=\alpha^\prime$ PDF and it is in this way that the region with ``$\alpha$'' close to $0$,$\pi$ is suppressed (even wipped out as in figures and ) through the cuts on the spurious $\alpha^\prime$, induced by the cuts on $|T^{ij}|$ and $|\Pe|$. One could think that this is particular to the bayesian statistical approach, figure shows the frequentist confidence level curves for $\alpha$ computed under the same parametric restrictions. As we use the parametrization of \eq{EQ:SMparam}, they correspond to the $\alpha=\alpha^\prime$ plots in \fig{FIG:PDFscaling:01}. It is rather clear that without regard to the statistical approach, limiting the values of $|T^{ij}|$ and $|\Pe|$ has observable effects in the extraction of $\alpha$. Note that figure differs from figure not by a cut but by a change in the shape, even if it is not a dramatic change. The authors of reference pointed out that there is some peculiar limit with $\alpha\to 0$ together with $\Pe/\Tpm,\Too/\Tpm\to -1$, $|\Tpm|\to\infty$ -- using the parametrization of \eq{EQ:SMparam} -- that keeps all the observables ``in place'': it is in fact a question of having $\alpha^\prime\to 0$ rather than $\alpha\to 0$. This peculiar limit is useful to understand the $\alpha\sim 0,\pi$ exclusion above mentioned. To obtain parameter configurations with high likelihood when $\alpha^{(\prime)}$ approaches $0$ or $\pi$, the required values of $|T^{ij}|$ and $|\Pe|$ are increasingly large. Imposing bounds on $|T^{ij}|$ and $|\Pe|$ automatically limits how close to $0,\pi$ one can push the weak phase while producing likely branching ratios and asymmetries. The use of the parametrization in \eq{EQ:AlphaPrime:Parametrization} shows how this works for the dangerous $\alpha^\prime$ and is then transmitted to $\alpha$. \clearpage \newpage \section{The extraction of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ from $\boldsymbol{B\to\pi\pi}$ and New Physics} Recently the UTfit collaboration has proposed to add information on the moduli of the amplitudes in order to extract $\alpha$ inside the SM. In particular, to add reasonable QCD based cuts on the moduli of $T^{ij}$ and $\Pe$. Even if we agree with this procedure, we must stress that the resulting PDF of $\alpha$ -- see figures or -- in the non zero region mixes $\Delta I=3/2$ information with spurious $\Delta I=1/2$ information. In this case it does not seem dramatic, but it can be so in the $B\to\rho\rho$ case -- see --. In addition, if one is trying to make a general fit of the SM it is more natural to use the $\Delta I=3/2$ piece of $B\to\pi\pi$ to get reliable bounds on $\alpha$ and once $\alpha$ is fixed by the general unitarity triangle analysis, use the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece of $B\to\pi\pi$ to obtain better information on the hadronic parameters. In fact, the UTfit collaboration presents results along this line in . This implies our recommendation of using $\alpha$ in the $\Apo$ amplitude and another phase in $\Apm$ or in the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece. After confronting the SM \emph{\`a la CKM} with data, the most important objective in overconstraining the unitarity triangle is in fact to look for New Physics (NP) . When there is NP -- just in the mixings or also in the $\Delta I=1/2$ decay amplitudes -- it is not appropriate to use a SM inspired parametrization. In the limit where all SM phases go to zero, $\Cpm$ and $\Spm$ can still be reproduced by NP loops. So, if we want to interpret the $\alpha$ PDF as^d=r_d^2 e^{-i2\phi_d}[M_{12}^d]_{SM}$.} $\bar\alpha$ we have to use a different CP-violating phase in the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece or in $\Apm$. Parametrizations that fulfill these requirements are the so-called PLD, ES, the '$\tau$' parametrization in and even our SM-like parametrization with $\alpha^\prime$ in \eq{EQ:AlphaPrime:Parametrization} despite having one more parameter. A similar one, which additionally factorizes an overall scale of the amplitudes, is the following, that we call '1i': \begin{equation} \begin{array}{rclcrcl} \Apm &\equiv& e^{-i\alpha}T_{3/2}(T+iP), & &\sqrt 2\Aoo &\equiv & e^{-i\alpha}T_{3/2}(1-T-iP),\\ \sqrt 2\Apo &\equiv & e^{-i\alpha}T_{3/2},& & \sqrt 2\ApoB &\equiv & e^{+i\alpha}T_{3/2},\\ \ApmB &\equiv &e^{+i\alpha}T_{3/2}(T-iP), & & \sqrt 2\AooB &\equiv &e^{+i\alpha}T_{3/2}(1-T+iP). \end{array} \end{equation} Notice that a global weak phase in $\Apm$ is irrelevant in $\Cpm$ and amounts to a global shift of $\arg(\ApmB\Apm^\ast)$. In this section we will ``extract'' $\alpha$ in a bayesian approach making use of different parametrizations; we will show the consistency of all those results and then compare to frequentist results. From a fundamental point of view, as stressed in previous sections, we are not willing to use information beside assuming the triangular isospin relations, the single ``tree level'' weak phase of the $\Delta I=3/2$ piece and experimental results themselves. Reparametrization invariance and the presence of a single weak phase, $\alpha$, in the $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitudes $\Apo$ and $\ApoB$ imply that all the results to be presented in this section will be valid in the presence of New Physics in loops. Figure shows the PDF of $\alpha$ in three different cases: the 'PLD' and '1i' (\eq{EQ:1iparam:01}) parametrizations, and the explicit extraction (as in or ). Corresponding 68\ \begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|} \hline & 68\ PLD & {\small $[0;5]^\circ \cup [85;101]^\circ\cup$}& {\small $[0;8]^\circ \cup [82;107]^\circ\cup$}& {\small $[0;9]^\circ \cup [82;110]^\circ$}\\ & {\small $ [121;150]^\circ\cup [168;180]^\circ$} & {\small $ [114;157]^\circ\cup [162;180]^\circ$}& {\small $ \cup[113;180]^\circ$}\\\hline 1i &{\small $[95;174]^\circ$}&{\small $[0;1]^\circ \cup [89;180]^\circ$}& {\small $[0;5]^\circ \cup [85;180]^\circ$}\\ \hline &{\small $[2;8]^\circ \cup [82;88]^\circ\cup$}&{\small $[0;9]^\circ \cup [81;91]^\circ$}&\\ Explicit &{\small $[100;120]^\circ \cup [125;145]^\circ\cup$}&{\small $[95;175]^\circ \cup [179;180]^\circ$}&{\small $[0;10]^\circ \cup [80;180]^\circ$}\\ &{\small $[150;170]^\circ$}& &\\ \hline CL &{\small $[0;7]^\circ \cup [83;104]^\circ$}&{\small $[0;12]^\circ \cup [78;180]^\circ$}& {\small $[0;14]^\circ \cup [76;180]^\circ$}\\ & {\small $ [115;154]^\circ\cup [166;180]^\circ$} & & \\\hline \end{tabular} \caption{$\alpha$ regions within $[0;180^\circ]$.} \end{center} \end{table} \clearpage \newpage \section*{Conclusions} To our knowledge the discrepancies between frequentist and bayesian approaches using the so-called MA and RI parametrizations with \eq{EQ:SMparam} have not been previously understood. We explain that with present experimental uncertainties it is extremely unsecure to introduce the phase $\alpha$ in the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece. To a great extent a spurious PDF of $\alpha$ tends to be generated. The Gronau and London analysis is critically based on the appearance of one weak phase in the $\Delta I=3/2$ piece ($\Cpm=0$). Introducing $\alpha$ in the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece -- or $\Apm$ -- ($\Cpm\neq 0$) brings this ``second'' $\alpha$ to the category of 'not observable' even if one is using a Standard Model inspired parametrization. This difficulty is operative in the so-called MA and RI parametrizations. The introduction of $\alpha$ in the $\Delta I=1/2$ piece and some QCD-based bounds on the amplitudes allows -- as done by the UTfit collaboration -- to eliminate the solutions around $\alpha\sim 0,\pi$ inside the SM. The PDF can still be partially contaminated with the spurious $\alpha$ distribution. In $B\to\pi\pi$ it is not dramatic but it could be so in other channels. This last procedure cannot be applied to an analysis with NP in loops. Therefore, we strongly recommend to use parametrizations where $\alpha$ is just included in the $\Delta I=3/2$ piece. We partially agree with the UTfit collaboration that, in spite of the differences among the frequentist and bayesian methods, both approaches give similar results if one uses parametrizations with a clear physical meaning. In this sense the most relevant result is the exclusion of the region $\bar\alpha\sim 25^\circ-75^\circ$. \section*{Acknowledgments} This research has been supported by European FEDER, Spanish MEC under grant FPA 2005-01678, \emph{Generalitat Valenciana} under GVACOMP 2007-172, by \emph{Funda\c{c}\~{a}o para a Ci\^{e}ncia e a Tecnologia} (FCT, Portugal) through the projects PDCT/FP/63912/2005, PDCT/FP/63914/2005, CFTP-FCT UNIT 777, and by the Marie Curie RTN MRTN-CT-2006-035505. M.N. acknowledges financial support from FCT. The authors thank J. Bernab\'eu and P. Paradisi for reading the manuscript and useful comments. \newpage \appendix \section{Inputs and numerical methods} Along this work we use the set of experimental measurements , combined by the Heavy Flavour Averaging Group , in table . \begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|} \hline $\Bpm_{\pi\pi}$ & $\Boo_{\pi\pi}$ & $\Bpo_{\pi\pi}$\\ \hline $5.2\pm 0.2$ & $1.31\pm 0.21$ & $5.7\pm 0.4$\\ \hline\hline $\Cpm_{\pi\pi}$ & $\Spm_{\pi\pi}$ & $\Coo_{\pi\pi}$\\ \hline $-0.39\pm 0.07$ & $-0.59\pm 0.09$ & $-0.37\pm 0.32$\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Experimental results, branching ratios are multiplied by $10^{-6}$.} \end{center} \end{table} In terms of $B\to\pi\pi$ amplitudes, \begin{equation} B^{ij}=\tau_{B^{i+j}}\frac{|A^{ij}|^2+|\bar A^{ij}|^2}{2},\quad C^{ij}=\frac{|A^{ij}|^2-|\bar A^{ij}|^2}{|A^{ij}|^2+|\bar A^{ij}|^2},\quad S^{ij}=\frac{2\text{ Im}(\bar A^{ij}{A^{ij}}^\ast)}{|A^{ij}|^2+|\bar A^{ij}|^2}~. \end{equation} All frequentist CL computations are performed by: (1) minimizing $\chi^2$ with respect to all parameters except the one of interest which is fixed (in this case $\alpha$), (2) computing the corresponding CL through an incomplete $\Gamma$ function. All bayesian PDFs are computed using especially adapted Markov Chain MonteCarlo techniques. \section{Experimental results and isospin relations} The isospin relations \begin{eqnarray} \Apm+\sqrt 2\Aoo&=&\sqrt 2\Apo~, \notag\\ \ApmB+\sqrt 2\AooB&=&\sqrt 2\ApoB~, \end{eqnarray} define two triangles in the complex plane whose relative orientation fixes $\alpha$. The sizes of the different sides follow from \eq{EQ:isospin}. \begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline $|\Apm|$ & $\sqrt 2|\Aoo|$ & $\sqrt 2|\Apo|$ & $|\ApmB|$ & $\sqrt 2|\AooB|$ & $\sqrt 2|\ApoB|$\\ \hline 1.441& 1.040& 2.634& 2.176& 1.533& 2.634\\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Numerical values of the sides of the isospin triangles computed with experimental central values, to be multiplied by $10^{-3}\text{ ps}^{-1/2}$.} \end{center} \end{table} This allows the reconstruction, up to a number of discrete ambig\"{u}ities - namely up to eight -, of both triangles. Central values of present measurements yield the values of the sides in table . One straightforward question is mandatory: do those would-be triangles ``close''? The answer is in the negative because \begin{eqnarray*} |\Apm|+\sqrt 2|\Aoo|=2.481 &{\boldsymbol{\ngtr}}& 2.634=\sqrt 2|\Apo|~,\\ |\ApmB|+\sqrt 2|\AooB|=3.709 &>& 2.634=\sqrt 2|\ApoB|~. \end{eqnarray*} In fact, for those central values, the first triangle \emph{is not} a triangle . In terms of likelihood, the closest configuration to that situation, the most likely one, is having the first triangle \emph{flat}, a feature which naturally explains the reduced -- by a factor of two, from eight to four -- degeneracy of $\alpha$ ``solutions''. That is, while for old data the almost flatness of this same isospin triangle yielded eight different solutions distributed in four almost-degenerate pairs, those pairs are now degenerate and rather than exact solutions for the central values of the observables they produce best-fitting points. Consequently, the use of explicit solution constructions requires the rejection of the joint regions of experimental input incompatible with the isospin relations \eqs{EQ:isospin}. For old data, this meant rejecting some 48.2\ \section{Removing $\boldsymbol{B\to\pi^0\pi^0}$ information} \subsection{Explicit extraction of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$} This appendix is devoted to some complementary results extending what is presented in section . The first issue we will address is the explicit extraction we also make use of the extraction of $\alpha$ explained in ; the results are completely equivalent, however the later does not make any use of a particular parametrization of the amplitudes and is easily interpreted in terms of the isospin construction.} of $\alpha$ when $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ information is removed, that is, no knowledge of $\Boo$ and $\Coo$. The explicit extraction of $\alpha$ assumes the isospin relations in \eqs{EQ:isospin} so to start with, the \emph{ignorance} on $\Boo$ is not "just plain ignorance" (whatever this could stand for) as it will operatively mean that for any experimental set of results $\{\Bpm,\Bpo,\Cpm,\Spm\}$, $\Boo$ and $\Coo$ should be such that both would-be isospin triangles \emph{are} in fact isospin triangles. $\Coo$ is obviously restricted to be in the range $[-1;1]$; what about $\Boo$? One could argue that if there is no information on $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ it should be smaller than a given bound or one can just let it be as large as allowed by other data and isospin constraints. This rather trivial fact is apparently at the origin of the discrepancy in the results presented in references for the explicit extraction of $\alpha$ ``without'' $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ information: figure shows two PDFs of $\alpha$. They are obtained by generating known experimental sets $\{\Bpm,\Bpo,\Cpm,\Spm\}$ according to gaussian distributions with central values and standard deviations given by the quoted measurements and uncertainties ($\Cpm$ and $\Spm$ are also restricted to be within $[-1;1]$), then $\Coo$ and $\Boo$ are generated through flat distributions, $\Coo$ in the range $[-1;1]$ and $\Boo$ in a range $[0;\Boo_{Max}]$. Sets $\{\Bpm,\Bpo,\Cpm,\Spm,\Boo,\Coo\}$ which fulfill the isospin relations \eqs{EQ:isospin} are retained and used to extract $\alpha$. The PDFs of $\alpha$ represented in figure only differ in the value of $\Boo_{Max}$, Fig. was obtained with $\Boo_{Max}$ equal to \emph{two} times the present measurement while Fig. was obtained with $\Boo_{Max}$ equal to \emph{twenty} times the present measurement. On the one hand, the PDF in figure coincides with the one presented in figure 4 'ES' of reference ; on the other hand the PDF in figure agrees, more or less, with figure 4 of reference . It is now clear that the difference among both may be just due to the numerical procedure. Figure shows that the removal of $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ information leads to a loss of knowledge on $\alpha$. Ironically, there is a lesson in this example: numerics apart, the smallness of $\Boo$ is responsible for the exclusion of values $\alpha\sim \pi/4$. \subsection{Parametrizations} To complete the picture we now proceed to repeat the extraction of $\alpha$ when $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ information is removed in several parametrizations. We will make use of the 'PLD' parametrization , of the '1i' parametrization with fixed weak phases in $\{\Apm,\ApmB\}$ (\eq{EQ:1iparam:01}) and, finally, of the parametrization in \eq{EQ:AlphaPrime:Parametrization} but in this case, apart from $\alpha$ and $\alpha^\prime$, instead of moduli and phases we will use real and imaginary parts of $\Tpm$, $\Pe$ and $\Too$ (the RI parametrization in reference ). The PDFs of $\alpha$ obtained for the first two parametrizations are shown in figure , they are eloquent: no knowledge on $\alpha$. For the RI parametrization we show the PDFs of $\alpha$, $\alpha^\prime$ and the one obtained by setting $\alpha=\alpha^\prime$ in figure . Once again it is clear that there is no information on $\alpha$ and that inappropriately insisting on including it in $\{\Apm,\ApmB\}$ produces the senseless result of figure . The conclusion of this appendix is straightforward: just dealing with a reduced scenario in which $B\to\pi^0\pi^0$ information is removed, a proper understanding of the subtleties involved in the parametrization of $B\to\pi\pi$ amplitudes avoids peculiar results as for instance the 'MA' and 'RI' ones included in figure 4 of reference . We have shown here that starting with a flat prior for $\alpha$ consistently gives highly non-informative posteriors in several sensible parametrizations. \section{Using the RI parametrization} In section we used the parametrization in \eq{EQ:AlphaPrime:Parametrization} to obtain figure with flat $|\Tpm|$, $|\Pe|$, $|\Too|$, $\arg(\Pe)$, $\arg(\Too)$, $\alpha$ and $\alpha^\prime$ priors. For completness we also show -- figure -- the PDFs of $\alpha$, $\alpha^\prime$ and $\alpha=\alpha^\prime$ in case one uses flat $|\Tpm|$, $\re{\Pe}$, $\im{\Pe}$, $\re{\Too}$, $\im{\Too}$, $\alpha$ and $\alpha^\prime$ priors. Beside the effect of the spurious $\alpha^\prime$ in the PDF of $\alpha=\alpha^\prime$, we can also appreciate the influence of the change in the priors: the integration domain is the same as in figure but the integration measure is now different. The main effect is the relative enhancement of the contributions from regions with large parameters, including the contributions from the $\alpha^\prime\to 0$ driven region. \newpage \section{One short statistical comment} Leaving completely aside philosophical aspects of probability, both frequentist and bayesian approaches start with a common likelihood function. Each approach reduces the information provided by the likelihood function in a different manner. Consequently, they do not yield strictly coincident results: \begin{itemize} \item Bayesian posteriors obviously depend on the priors, for example the allowed ranges or the shape. As we have seen, we obtain different posteriors with different priors. However, as long as one is using sensible parametrizations and reasonable priors, we end up finding rather compatible results. \item Frequentist CL curves do depend on the parametrization, to be precise, they depend on the allowed ranges for the parameters; once sensible parametrizations and adequate ranges are used, CL curves obtained with them are identical. The $\alpha\to 0$ limit in the SM inspired parametrization of \eq{EQ:SMparam} illustrates this issue. \end{itemize} Beside those well known issues, we may find troublesome that: \begin{enumerate} \item Most probable values in the bayesian PDFs do not coincide with the analytical solutions for $\alpha$. \item Intimately related to this aspect, bayesian PDFs seem unable to distinguish among degenerate solutions. \end{enumerate} We remind that these statements concern one dimensional PDFs of $\alpha$. Frequentist one dimensional CL curves distinguish $\alpha$ solutions because they are obtained through best fitting points for fixed $\alpha$. Bayesian PDFs do not distinguish them as the uncertainties produce distributions for the degenerate solutions which overlap and add up in the complete PDF. One can still have a hint of the proximity of different solutions from this kind of overlap, but this is not the point here. For reduced experimental uncertainties, bayesian PDFs would not overlap and would distinguish among those different solutions. This could be sufficient to think that, \emph{per se}, there is no discriminating advantage in using one or the other approach. With present uncertainties, bayesian analyses seem incapable of pinning down the right location of the solutions in $\alpha$ and telling us something about their degeneracy. It is not a fundamental problem of bayesian methods as reduced uncertainties would overcome these ``difficulties''. If it is not a fundamental problem, could we somehow overcome these ``difficulties'' with present uncertainties? The answer is in the positive as the problem only arises because we are insisting in the reduction of the available experimental information to obtain one-dimensional PDFs of $\alpha$; let us take a look to the joint PDFs in figure . These are the joint PDFs of $(\delta,\alpha)$ and $(\alpha_{eff},\alpha)$ obtained with the 'PLD' parametrization. They are quite illustrative, one can see the different solutions in $\alpha$ concentrated around the values of $\alpha$ dictated by the analytical expectations. The pretended fundamental drawbacks of bayesian methods to adequately place and distinguish the solutions are just a consequence of pushing too far, for the present level of experimental uncertainty in the results, the statistical ``reduction of information process''. A simultaneous look to both frequentist and bayesian results will not put an end to the statistical discrepancies, notwithstanding it will be very helpful to understand the physical results we are interested in. Both approaches are ``information reduction processes'' and strictly sticking to one and deprecating the other may not be the wiser strategy. \newpage \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{Gronau:1990ka} M.~Gronau and D.~London, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 3381 (1990). \bibitem{Charles:2006vd} J.~Charles, A.~H\"ocker, H.~Lacker, F.~R. Le~Diberder, and S.~T'Jampens, \newblock hep-ph/0607246. \bibitem{Bona:2007qt} UTfit, M.~Bona {\em et~al.}, \newblock hep-ph/0701204. \bibitem{Charles:2007yy} J.~Charles, A.~H\"ocker, H.~Lacker, F.~Le~Diberder, and S.~T'Jampens, \newblock hep-ph/0703073. \bibitem{Botella:2005ks} F.~J. Botella and J.~P. Silva, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 094008 (2005), hep-ph/0503136. \bibitem{Botella:2002fr} F.~J. Botella, G.~C. Branco, M.~Nebot, and M.~N. Rebelo, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B651}, 174 (2003), hep-ph/0206133. \bibitem{Aguilar-Saavedra:2004mt} J.~A. Aguilar-Saavedra, F.~J. Botella, G.~C. Branco, and M.~Nebot, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B706}, 204 (2005), hep-ph/0406151. \bibitem{Ligeti:2006pm} Z.~Ligeti, M.~Papucci, and G.~Perez, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 101801 (2006), hep-ph/0604112. \bibitem{Ball:2006xx} P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer, \newblock Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C48}, 413 (2006), hep-ph/0604249. \bibitem{Grossman:2006ce} Y.~Grossman, Y.~Nir, and G.~Raz, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 151801 (2006), hep-ph/0605028. \bibitem{Bona:2006sa} UTfit, M.~Bona {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 151803 (2006), hep-ph/0605213, \texttt{http://www.utfit.org/}. \bibitem{Charles:2006yw} J.~Charles, \newblock hep-ph/0606046. \bibitem{Botella:2006va} F.~J. Botella, G.~C. Branco, and M.~Nebot, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B768}, 1 (2007), hep-ph/0608100. \bibitem{Charles:2004jd} CKMfitter Group, J.~Charles {\em et~al.}, \newblock Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C41}, 1 (2005), hep-ph/0406184. \bibitem{Bona:2005vz} UTfit, M.~Bona {\em et~al.}, \newblock JHEP {\bf 07}, 028 (2005), hep-ph/0501199. \bibitem{Botella:2005fc} F.~J. Botella, G.~C. Branco, M.~Nebot, and M.~N. Rebelo, \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B725}, 155 (2005), hep-ph/0502133. \bibitem{Pivk:2004hq} M.~Pivk and F.~R. Le~Diberder, \newblock Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C39}, 397 (2005), hep-ph/0406263. \bibitem{Aubert:2007mj} BABAR Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et~al.}, \newblock hep-ex/0703016. \bibitem{Aubert:2006fh} BABAR Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D75}, 012008 (2007), hep-ex/0608003. \bibitem{Aubert:2005av} BABAR Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 151803 (2005), hep-ex/0501071. \bibitem{Aubert:2004aq} BABAR Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 181802 (2005), hep-ex/0412037. \bibitem{Abe:2006cc} BELLE Collaboration, K.~Abe {\em et~al.}, \newblock hep-ex/0608035. \bibitem{Abe:2005dz} BELLE Collaboration, K.~Abe {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 101801 (2005), hep-ex/0502035. \bibitem{Abe:2004mp} BELLE Collaboration, K.~Abe {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 181803 (2005), hep-ex/0408101. \bibitem{Abe:2004us} BELLE Collaboration, K.~Abe {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 021601 (2004), hep-ex/0401029. \bibitem{Chao:2003ue} BELLE Collaboration, Y.~Chao {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D69}, 111102 (2004), hep-ex/0311061. \bibitem{Abe:2003yy} BELLE Collaboration, K.~Abe {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 261801 (2003), hep-ex/0308040. \bibitem{Abe:2003ja} BELLE Collaboration, K.~Abe {\em et~al.}, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 012001 (2003), hep-ex/0301032. \bibitem{HFAG} The Heavy Flavour Averaging Group, \newblock http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/. \bibitem{Botella:2006zi} F.~J. Botella, D.~London, and J.~P. Silva, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D73}, 071501 (2006), hep-ph/0602060. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0177
|
Title: Robust manipulation of electron spin coherence in an ensemble of singly
charged quantum dots
Abstract: Using the recently reported mode locking effect we demonstrate a highly
robust control of electron spin coherence in an ensemble of (In,Ga)As quantum
dots during the single spin coherence time. The spin precession in a transverse
magnetic field can be fully controlled up to 25 K by the parameters of the
exciting pulsed laser protocol such as the pulse train sequence, leading to
adjustable quantum beat bursts in Faraday rotation. Flipping of the electron
spin precession phase was demonstrated by inverting the polarization within a
pulse doublet sequence.
Body: \preprint{\large\it } \sloppy \title{Robust manipulation of electron spin coherence in an ensemble of singly charged quantum dots} \author{A. Greilich, M. Wiemann, F.~G.~G. Hernandez$^{\dag}$, D.~R. Yakovlev$^{\S}$, I.~A. Yugova$^{\ddag}$, and M. Bayer} \affiliation{Experimentelle Physik II, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany} \author{A. Shabaev$^{\star}$ and Al.~L. Efros} \affiliation{Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USA} \author{D. Reuter and A.~D. Wieck} \affiliation{Angewandte Festk\"orperphysik, Ruhr-Universit\"at Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany} \date{\today, robustcontrol-03-27-07-fin.tex} \begin{abstract} Using the recently reported mode locking effect we demonstrate a highly robust control of electron spin coherence in an {\em ensemble} of (In,Ga)As quantum dots during the single spin coherence time. The spin precession in a transverse magnetic field can be fully controlled up to 25\, K by the parameters of the exciting pulsed laser protocol such as the pulse train sequence, leading to adjustable quantum beat bursts in Faraday rotation. Flipping of the electron spin precession phase was demonstrated by inverting the polarization within a pulse doublet sequence. \end{abstract} \pacs{72.25.Dc, 72.25.Rb, 78.47.+p, 78.55.Cr} \maketitle The spin of an electron in a quantum dot (QD) is an attractive quantum bit candidate due to its favorable coherence properties . As the interaction strength is rather small for direct spin manipulation, the idea to swap spin into charge has been furbished . For example, the electron may be converted into a charged exciton by optical injection of an electron-hole pair , depending on the residual electron's spin orientation, leading to distinctive polarization selection rules. The fundamental quantity regarding spin coherence is the transverse relaxation time $T_2$. In a QD ensemble, this time is masked by dephasing, mostly caused by dot-to-dot variations of the spin dynamics. The dephasing time does not exceed 10 ns, much shorter than $T_2$. This leads to the general believe that manipulations ought to be performed on a single spin. Measurement of a single electron spin polarization, however, also results in dephasing due to temporal sampling of varying nuclear spin configurations , as statistically significant measurements on a single QD may require multiple repetition of the experiment. The dephasing can be overcome by spin-echo techniques, which give a single electron spin coherence time on the scale of micro-seconds . This long coherence time derived by spin-echo is result of a refocusing of the electron spin and possibly the nuclear spin configuration , and it is viewed as an upper bound on the free-induction decay of spin coherence . Recently, however, we have shown that mode locking of electron spin coherence allows one to overcome the ensemble dephasing and to measure the single electron spin relaxation time $T_2$ without applying spin-echo refocusing . For monitoring the coherence, pump-probe Faraday rotation (FR) measurements on a QD ensemble were used: after optical alignment of the spins normal to an external magnetic field the electron spins precess about this field. Due to precession frequency variations the ensemble phase coherence is quickly lost. However, a periodic train of circularly polarized pulses emitted by a mode-locked laser synchronizes those spin precession modes, for which the precession frequency is a multiple of the laser repetition rate. This synchronization leads to constructive interference (CI) of these modes in the ensemble spin polarization before arrival of each pump pulse (see Fig. 1, upper left trace). The limit for spin mode locking is set by the single electron spin coherence time which can last up to a few microseconds reaching the low bound on echo-like decays . Here we develop a detailed understanding of the degree of control which can be reached for the electron spin coherence in an ensemble of singly charged QDs by exploiting the mode locking. For this purpose trains of excitation pump pulse doublets were designed to vary the phase synchronization condition (PSC) for electron spin precession frequencies. The PSC selects a QD subset, whose contribution to the ensemble spin polarization shows a well controlled phase recovery. Variation of the pulse separation results in tunable patterns of quantum oscillation bursts in time-resolved FR, in good agreement with our calculation, which rely on a newly developed theoretical model. This tailoring of electron spin coherence is very robust, as the spin mode locking is stable up to 25 K. For higher temperatures the coherence amplitude decreases due to phonon-assisted scattering of holes during the laser pulse excitation by which the spin coherence is created. The studied self-assembled (In,Ga)As/GaAs QDs were fabricated by molecular beam epitaxy on a (001)-oriented GaAs substrate. The sample contains 20 QD layers with a layer dot density of about 10$^{10}$\,cm$^{-2}$, separated by 60 nm wide barriers . For average occupation by a single electron per dot, the structures were $n$-modulation doped 20 nm below each layer with a Si-dopant density matching roughly the dot density. The sample was held in the insert of an optical magneto-cryostat, allowing temperature variation from $T = 6$ to 50~K. FR with picosecond time resolution was used for studying the spin dynamics: Thereby spin polarization along the growth direction ($z$-axis) is generated by a circularly polarized pump pulse hitting the sample along $z$, and its precession in a transverse magnetic field $B \leq 7$\,T along the $x$-axis is tested by the rotation of the linear polarization of a probe pulse. For optical excitation, a Ti-sapphire laser was used emitting pulses with a duration of $\sim$1.5 ps (full width at half maximum of $\sim$1 meV) at 75.6 MHz repetition rate (corresponding to a repetition period $T_R = 13.2$\,ns). The laser energy was tuned into resonance with the QD ground state transition and the laser pulses were split into pump and probe. The pump beam was split further into two pulses with variable delay $T_D$ in between. The circular polarization of the two pumps could be controlled individually. For detecting the rotation angle of the probe beam linear polarization, a homodyne technique was used. Figure 1 shows FR traces excited by the two-pulse train with a repetition period $T_R = 13.2$\,ns, in which both pulses have the same intensity and polarization, and the delay between these pulses $T_D$ was varied between $\sim T_R/7$ and $\sim T_R/2$. The FR pattern varies strongly for the case when the delay time $T_D$ is commensurate with the repetition period $T_R$: $T_D= T_R/i$ with $i=2,3,...$, and for the case $T_D\neq T_R/i$. For commensurability $T_D=T_R/i$, the FR signal shows strong periodic bursts of quantum oscillations only at times equal to multiples of $T_D$, as seen in the left panel of Fig. 1 for $T_D=1.86$\,ns$\approx T_R/7$. Commensurability is also given to a good approximation for delays $T_D=T_R/4\approx 3.26$\,ns and $T_D=T_R/3\approx 4.26$\,ns. For incommensurability of $T_D$ and $T_R$, $T_D\neq T_R/i$, the FR signal shows bursts of quantum oscillations between the two pulses of each pump doublet, in addition to the bursts outside of the doublet. For example, one can see a single burst in the mid between the pumps for $T_D=3.76$ and 5.22\,ns. Two bursts, each equidistant from the closest pump and also equidistant from one another, appear at $T_D=4.92~{\rm and}~5.62$\,ns. Three equidistant bursts occur at $T_D=5.92$\,ns. Note also that the FR amplitude before the second pump arrival is always significantly larger than before the first pump for any $T_D$. Although the time dependencies of the FR signal look very different for commensurate and incommensurate $T_D$ and $T_R$, in both cases they can be fully controlled by designing the synchronization of electron spin precession modes in order to reach CI of their contributions to the FR signal . A train of circularly polarized pump pulse singlets synchronizes those spin precessions for which the precession frequency satisfies the PSC : $\omega_e=2\pi N /T_R$. Then the electron spin undergoes an integer number, $N\gg 1$, of full $2\pi$ rotations in the interval $T_R$ between the pump pulses. For a train of pump pulse doublets the PSC has to be extended to account for the intervals $T_D$ and $T_R-T_D$ in the laser excitation protocol \be \omega_e=2\pi NK/T_D=2\pi NL/(T_R -T_D)~, \ee where $K$ and $L$ are integers. On first glance this condition imposes severe limitations on the $T_D$ values, for which synchronization is obtained: \be T_D=[K/( K+L)] T_R ~, \ee which for $T_D<T_R/2$ leads to $K<L$. When Eq. () is satisfied, the contribution of synchronized precession modes to the average electron spin polarization $\overline{S}_z(t)$ is proportional to $-0.5\cos[N(2\pi K t/T_D)]$. Summing over all relevant oscillations leads to CI of their contributions with a period $T_D/K$ in time . The rest of QDs does not contribute to $\overline{S}_z(t)$ at times longer than the ensemble dephasing time. The PSC Eq. () explains the position of all bursts in the FR signal for commensurate and incommensurate ratios of $T_D$ and $T_R$. For commensurability, $K\equiv 1$ and $T_D=T_R/(1+L)$ according to Eq. (). In this case CIs should occur with period $T_D$ as seen in Fig. 1 for $T_D=1.86$\,ns ($L= 6$). For incommensurability of $T_D$ and $T_R$ the number of FR bursts between the two pulses within a pump doublet and the delays at which they appear can be tailored. There should be just one burst between the pulses, when $K\equiv 2$, because then the CI must have a period $T_D/2$. A single burst is seen in Fig. 1 for $T_D=3.76$ and 5.22\,ns. The corresponding ratios $T_D/T_R$ are 0.285 and 0.395, respectively. At the same time Eq.() gives a ratio $T_D/T_R=2/(L+2)$, which is equal to 0.285 and 0.4 for $L$=5 and 3, respectively, in good accord with experiment. Next, two FR bursts are seen for $T_D=4.92$ and 5.62\,ns, corresponding to $T_D/T_R \approx $0.372 and 0.426. The corresponding CI period $T_D/3$ is reached for $K\equiv 3$. Then from Eq.() $T_D/T_R=3/(L+3)$, giving 0.375 and 0.429 for $L=5$ and 4, respectively. Finally, the FR signal with $T_D=5.92$\,ns ($T_D/T_R \approx $0.448) shows three FR bursts between the two pumps. The CI period $T_D/4$ is obtained for $K\equiv 4$, for which Eq.() gives $T_D/T_R=4/(L+4)\approx 0.444$ with $L=5$. Obviously good general agreement between experiment and theory is established, highlighting the high flexibility of the laser protocol. In turn, this understanding can be used to induce FR bursts at wanted delays $T_D /K$, so that at these times further coherent manipulation of all electron spins involved in the burst is facilitated. However, the question arises how accurate condition Eq. () for the $T_D/T_R$ ratio must be fulfilled to reach phase synchronization. Formally, one can find for any arbitrary $T_D/T_R$ large $K$ and $L$ values such that Eq. () is satisfied with high accuracy. But the above analysis shows, that only the smallest of all available $L$ leads to PSC matching. Experimentally, the facilities to address this point are limited, as the largest $T_D$ for which FR signal can be measured are delays around 5 ns between the two pumps. For larger delays the FR bursts shift out of the scanning range. For short $T_D$, on the other hand, the bursts are overlapping with the FR signal from the pump pulses. To answer this question, we have modeled the FR signal for commensurate and incommensurate ratios of $T_D$ and $T_R$. Figure 2 shows the results together with spectra of synchronized spin precession modes (SSPM) at the moment of the first and second pump pulse arrival. The SSPM were calculated similar those induced by a single pulse train . Figure 2(a) gives the SSPM for commensurate $T_D=T_R/3$ superimposed on the SSPM created by a single pulse train with the same $T_R$. Panel (c) shows the FR signal created by such a two pulse train. The SSPM for the considered strong excitation are considerably broadened and contain modes for which $\omega_e=2\pi M/T_D=2\pi 3M/T_R$ with integer $M$, which coincide with each third mode created by a single pulse train. However, the SSPM given by $\omega_e=2\pi N/T_R$, which do not satisfy the PSC for a two pulse train, are not completely suppressed, because the train synchronizes the electron spin precession in some frequency range around the PSC. One sees also, that at $t=0$ the two pulse train leads to a significant alignment of electron spins opposite to the direction of spins satisfying the PSC. This "negative" alignment decreases the CI magnitude and therefore the FR signal before the first pulse arrival, and is also responsible for a significantly larger magnitude of the FR signal before the second pulse arrival [see Figs. 1 and 2 (c)]. For incommensurate ratios of $T_D$ and $T_R$ the SSPM become much more complex. Still we are able to recover the modes which satisfy the PSC at the pulse arrival times. In Fig. 2 (b) we show the SSPM at $t=0$ and $t=T_D$ for $T_D=2T_R/7$ ($K=2$, $L=5$), where the arrows indicate the frequencies which satisfy the PSC for the two pulse train. Only a small number of such modes fall within the average distribution of electron spin precession modes, because the distance between the PSC modes is proportional to $2\pi K/T_D=2\pi(K+L)/T_R$. The diluted spectra of PSC modes for incommensurability decrease the magnitude of the FR bursts between the pump pulses, in accord with experiment. This shows, that although any ratio of $T_D/T_R$ can be satisfied by large $K$ and $L$, the FR signal between the pulses should be negligibly small in this case. Consequently, not any ratio of $T_D/T_R$ leads to pronounced FR bursts. To obtain further insight into the tailoring of electron spin coherence, which can be reached by a two-pulse train, we have turned from co- to counter-circularly polarized pumps. The delay between pumps $T_D$ was fixed at $T_R/6\approx 2.2$\,ns. The time dependencies of the corresponding FR signals are similar, as shown in Fig. 3. Besides the two FR bursts directly connected to the pump pulses, one sees a burst $+1$ due to CI of spin synchronized modes. The insets in Fig. 3 (a) show closeups of the different FR bursts. The sign, $\kappa$, of the FR amplitude for the counter-circular configuration undergoes $2T_D$-periodic changes in time relative to the co-circular case, as seen in Fig. 3 (b), which demonstrates optical switching of the electron spin precession phase by $\pi$ in an {\em ensemble} of QDs. The observed effect of sign reversal is well described by our model. Let us consider first a two-pulse train with delay time $T_D= T_R/2$ for which the two pumps are counter-circularly polarized. In this case an electron spin can be synchronized only if at the moment of pulse arrival it has an orientation opposite to the orientation at the previous pulse. This leads to the PSC $\omega_e=2\pi(N+1/2)/T_D$. The contribution of such precession modes to the electron spin polarization is proportional to $\cos[2\pi (N+1/2)t/T_D)]=\cos(2\pi Nt/T_D)\cos(\pi t/T_D)-\sin(2\pi Nt/T_D)\sin(\pi t/T_D)$. Summing these contributions, only the first term gives a CI, whose modulus has period $T_D$, while the sign of $\cos(\pi t/T_D)$ changes with period $2T_D$. Only each third of the precession frequencies can be synchronized by a counter-circularly polarized two pulse train when the delay time is $T_R/6$ as in our experiment. However, the corresponding PSC has the same dependence on $T_D$. The CI modulus also has period $T_D$ and its sign changes with period $2T_D$. The relative sign of the FR amplitude for the counter- and co-circularly case, $\kappa={\rm sgn}\{\cos[\pi t/T_D]\}$, is in accord with the experimental dependence in Fig. 3 (b). The CIs of the electron spin contributions can be seen only as long as the coherence of the electron spins is maintained. In this respect the temperature stability of the CI is especially important. Fig. 3 (c) shows FR traces in a two-pump-pulse configuration with $T_D$ = 1.88 ns at different temperatures. For both positive and negative delays, the FR amplitude at a fixed delay is about constant for temperatures up to 25 K, irrespective of slight variations which might arise from changes in the phase synchronization of QD subsets. Above 30 K a sharp drop occurs, which can be explained by thermally activated destruction of the spin coherence. The electron spin coherence in charged QDs is initiated by generation of a superposition of an electron and a charged exciton state by resonant pump pulses . The simultaneous decrease of the FR magnitude before each pump pulse and afterwards (when the CI signal is controlled by the excitation pulse) suggests that the coherence at elevated temperatures is lost already during its generation. The 30\,K temperature threshold corresponds to an activation energy of $\sim$2.5 meV. This energy may be assigned only to the splitting between the two lowest confined hole levels, because the electron level splitting dominates the 20 meV splitting between p- and s-shell emission in photoluminescence and is much larger than 2.5 meV. The decoherence of the hole spin results from two phonon scattering, which is thermally activated and should occur on a sub-picosecond time scale, i.e. within the laser pulse . The fast decoherence of the hole spin at $T>30$~K suppresses formation of the electron-trion superposition state. ps-pulses as used here are therefore not sufficiently short for initialization of the superposition and creation of a long-lived electron spin coherence. In summary, we have demonstrated that the mode-locking effect allows a far-reaching control of electron spin coherence in QD ensembles during the spin coherence time of microseconds . Two-pulse train mode-locking selects QD subsets which give a non-dephasing contribution to the ensemble spin precession. The technique shows remarkable stability with respect to temperature increase up to 25 K, a property which is important for utilizing it in quantum information processing. The robustness of this control technique is provided by the dispersion of the spin precession frequencies in the QD ensemble. {\bf Acknowledgments.} This work was supported by the BMBF program nanoquit, the DARPA program QuIST, the ONR, the DFG (FOR485) and FAPESP. \begin{references} \bibitem[$^\dag$]{brazil} on leave from the Instituto de Fisica Gleb Wataghin, Campinas, SP , Brazil. \bibitem[$^\S$]{pti} also at Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, 194021, St. Petersburg, Russia. \bibitem[$^\ddag$]{univ} also at Institute of Physics, St. Petersburg State University, 198504, St. Petersburg, Russia. \bibitem[$^\star$]{comp} also at School of Computational Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax VA 22030. \bibitem{Grei06} A. Greilich {\it et al.}, Science {\bf 313}, 341 (2006). \bibitem{LossPRA98} D. Loss and D.~P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 57}, 120 (1998). \bibitem{ImamogluPRL99} A. Imamoglu {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 4204 (1999). \bibitem{Spintr} {\em Semiconductor Spintronics and Quantum Computation}, ed. by D. D. Awschalom, D. Loss, and N. Samarth (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg 2002). \bibitem{Yamamoto}S. M. Clark {\it et al.}, cond-mat/0610152. \bibitem{Elz04} J. M. Elzerman {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 430}, 431 (2004). \bibitem{Kro04} M. Kroutvar {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 432}, 81 (2004). \bibitem{Pet05} J. R. Petta {\it et al.}, Science {\bf 309}, 2180 (2005). \bibitem{Hanson05} see, for example, R. Hanson {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 196802 (2005). \bibitem{Calarco03} see, for example, T. Calarco {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 68}, 012310 (2003); P. Chen {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 075320 (2004). \bibitem{Sham} W. Yao, R. Liu, and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 74}, 195301 (2006). \bibitem{Liu} R. Liu, S.~E. Economou, L.~J. Sham, and D.~G. Steel, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 75}, 085322 (2007). \bibitem{CoishLoss} W. A. Coish {\it et al.}, Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) {\bf 243}, 3658 (2006). \bibitem{Kurizki} For a general treatment on suppression of phase noise see A.~G. Kofman and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 130406 (2004). \bibitem{Kikkawa} J. M. Kikkawa and D. D. Awschalom, Science {\bf 287}, 473 (2000). \bibitem{Hanson} R. Hanson {\it et al.}, cond-mat/0610433. \bibitem{Grei05} A. Greilich {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 227401 (2006). \bibitem{SEM} A. Shabaev {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 201305(R) (2003). \bibitem{Kenn06} T. A. Kennedy {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 045307 (2006). \bibitem{Takaga} T. Takagahara, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 16840 (2000). \end{references}
|
0704.0178
|
Title: Equation of state for dense hydrogen and plasma phase transition
Abstract: We calculate the equation of state of dense hydrogen within the chemical
picture. Fluid variational theory is generalized for a multi-component system
of molecules, atoms, electrons, and protons. Chemical equilibrium is supposed
for the reactions dissociation and ionization. We identify the region of
thermodynamic instability which is related to the plasma phase transition. The
reflectivity is calculated along the Hugoniot curve and compared with
experimental results. The equation-of-state data is used to calculate the
pressure and temperature profiles for the interior of Jupiter.
Body: \DOIsuffix{theDOIsuffix} \Volume{} \Issue{} \Copyrightissue{} \Month{} \Year{} \Receiveddate{date?} \Reviseddate{date?} \Accepteddate{date?} \Dateposted{date?} \keywords{equation of state, dense hydrogen, phase transitions} \subjclass[pacs]{51.30+i, 52.25.Jm, 52.25.Kn, 52.35.Tc} \title[EOS for dense hydrogen]{Equation of state for dense hydrogen and plasma phase transition} \author[]{B.~Holst\footnote{Corresponding author: e-mail: {\sf bastian.holst@uni-rostock.de}, Phone: +49\,381\,498\,6919, Fax: +49\,381\,498\,6912}\inst{1}} \address[\inst{1}]{Universit\"at Rostock, Institut f\"ur Physik, D-18051 Rostock, Germany} \author[]{N.~Nettelmann \inst{1}} \author[]{R.~Redmer \inst{1}} \begin{abstract} We calculate the equation of state of dense hydrogen within the chemical picture. Fluid variational theory is generalized for a multi-component system of molecules, atoms, electrons, and protons. Chemical equilibrium is supposed for the reactions dissociation and ionization. We identify the region of thermodynamic instability which is related to the plasma phase transition. The reflectivity is calculated along the Hugoniot curve and compared with experimental results. The equation-of-state data is used to calculate the pressure and temperature profiles for the interior of Jupiter. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The equation of state (EOS) of hydrogen and helium at high pressures is of great relevance for models of the interior of giant planets and other astrophysical objects as well as for inertial confinement fusion experiments. For detailed calculations accurate knowledge of the EOS over a wide range of densities and temperatures is needed. Especially, in the range of \textit{warm dense matter} with high densities characteristic for condensed matter and at temperatures of a few eV the EOS is crucial for modelling giant planets. This region is challenging for many-particle theory because strong correlations dominate the physical behavior. Progress in shock-wave experimental technique has allowed to study this region only recently. To probe the EOS, experimental investigations were performed statically with diamond anvil cells or dynamically by using shock waves, see~ for a recent review. The experimental data indicate that a nonmetal-to-metal transition occurs at about 1~Mbar which is identified by a strong increase of the conductivity~ and reflectivity~. Some theoretical models yield a thermodynamic instability in this transition region, the \textit{plasma phase transition} (PPT)~, which would strongly affect models for planetary interiors and the evolution of giant planets~. After a long period of controversial discussions, new results of shock wave experiments on deuterium support the existence of such a PPT~. This fundamental problem of high-pressure physics will also be studied with the FAIR facility at GSI Darmstadt within the LAPLAS project, see~. In this paper we present new results for the EOS of dense hydrogen within the chemical picture. We treat the reactions pressure dissociation and ionization self-consistently via respective mass action laws. We identify the region of thermodynamic instability and calculate the phase diagram as well as the reflectivity in order to verify the corresponding nonmetal-to-metal transition. The EOS data is used to model the interior of Jupiter within a three-layer model. The agreement with astrophysical constraints such as the core mass and the fraction of heavier elements can serve as an additional test of the theoretical EOS. \section{Equation of state for dense hydrogen} Warm dense hydrogen is considered as a partially ionized plasma in the chemical picture. A mixture of a neutral component (atoms and molecules) and a plasma component (electrons and protons) is in chemical equilibrium with respect to dissociation and ionization. The EOS is derived from an expression for the free energy of the neutral ($F_0$) and charged particles ($F_\pm$), see~: \begin{equation} F(T,V,N)=F_0+F_\pm+F_{pol}. \end{equation} The first two terms consist of ideal and interaction contributions and can be written as $F_0=F_0^{id}+F_0^{int}$ and $F_\pm=F_\pm^{id}+F_\pm^{int}$. $F_{pol}$ contains interaction terms between charged and neutral components caused by polarization~. Applying fluid variational theory (FVT), the EOS is determined by calculating the free energy $F_0^{int}(T,V,N)$ via the Gibbs-Bogolyubov inequality~. This method has been generalized to two-component systems with a reaction~ so that also molecular systems at high pressure can be treated where pressure dissociation occurs, e.g.\ H$_2 \rightleftharpoons$ 2H for hydrogen. In chemical equilibrium, $\mu_{\rm H_2}=2\mu_{\rm H}$ is fulfilled, and the number of atoms and molecules can be determinded self-consistently via the chemical potentials $\mu_c=(\partial F/\partial N_c)_T$. The effective interactions between the neutral species are modeled by exp-6 potentials, and the free energy of a multi-component reference system of hard spheres has to be known; for details, see~. The charged component is treated by using efficient Pad\'{e} approximations for the free energy developed by Chabrier and Potekhin~. The coupling with the neutral component occurs via the ionization equilibrium, H$\rightleftharpoons$e+p. In chemical equilibrium, the relation $\mu_{\rm H}=\mu_{\rm e}+\mu_{\rm p}$ determines the degree of ionization. Since atoms and molecules are particles of finite size there is an additional interaction between the charged component and the neutral fluid. According to the concept of reduced volume, point-like particles cannot penetrate into the volume occupied by atoms and molecules. This leads to a correction in the description of the ideal gas of the charged component~ so that the ideal free energy of protons and electrons $F_\pm^{id}$ is dependent on the reduced volume $V^*=V\cdot(1-\eta)$, \begin{equation} F_\pm^{id}(T,V^*,N)=N_\pm k_B T \cdot f_\pm^{id,*}, \end{equation} where $\eta$ is the ratio of the volume which cannot be penetrated by point-like particles to the total volume. It is derived from hard sphere diameters obtained within the FVT self-consistently. The free energy density $f_\pm^{id,*}$ is given by Fermi integrals which take into account quantum effects. In order to avoid an intersection of pressure isotherms, which is important for modelling planetary interiors, a minimum diameter $d_\text{min}$ has been introduced. It was determined starting at low temperatures where it remains almost constant up to 15.000~K, then it increases up to 20.000~K and remains constant again for higher temperatures, see Fig.~. These values are in the range of the results for the diameter of the hydrogen atom derived from the confined atom model~. Consequently, the reduced volume concept changes the chemical potential of each component drastically at higher densities and results in pressure ionization. This is due to the fact that additional terms appear in the chemical potential, which is the particle number derivative of the free energy, and thermodynamic functions of degenerate plasmas are very sensitive to changes in density. This current model FVT$^+$ includes all interaction contributions to the chemical potentials, thus being a generalization of earlier work~ where only ideal plasma contributions have been treated (FVT$^+_{\rm id}$). In Fig.~ the composition of hydrogen derived from the present approach is shown for two temperatures. Hydrogen is an atomic gas at low temperatures (left) and low densities. With increasing densities molecules are formed due to the mass action law. Pressure dissociation and ionization can be observed in the high-density region. The nonideality corrections to the free energy force a transition from a molecular fluid to a fully ionized plasma. At higher temperatures (right) the formation of molecules is suppressed and pressure ionization becomes the dominating process. At low densities and high temperatures a fully ionized plasma is produced due to thermal ionization. We show pressure isotherms over a wide range of temperatures and densities in Fig.~. At low densities the system behaves like a neutral fluid. Between densities of 10$^{-3}$ g/cm$^3$ and 10$^{-1}$ g/cm$^3$ nonideality corrections to the free energy of atoms and molecules lead to a nonlinear behavior of the isotherms. For still higher densities a phase transition occurs which is treated by a Maxwell construction. The thermodynamic instability vanishes with increasing temperatures, and the critical point is located at 16.800~K, 0.35~g/cm$^3$, and 45~GPa. The critical point and the related coexistence line are shown in Fig.~ and compared with results of other EOS. The critical point itself lies within the range of other predictions, whereas the coexistence line is lower than most of the other results. For a comparison of data concerning the PPT, see Table~. New shock-wave experiments~ imply that a PPT occurs in deuterium at densities of 1.5 g/cm$^3$ and a coexistence pressure of about 1 megabar. Each of these values is twice as high as evaluated in the recent model. \begin{table}[htb] \begin{footnotesize} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ccclll} \hline\hline $T_c$ & $p_c$ & $\rho_c$ & Method & Authors & Reference \\ (10$^3$ K) & (GPa) & (g/cm$^3$) & & & \\ \hline 12.6 & 95 & 0.95 & PIP & Ebeling/S\"andig (1973) & \protect \\ 19 & 24 & 0.14 & PIP & Robnik/Kundt (1983) & \protect\\ 16.5 & 22.8 & 0.13 & PIP & Ebeling/Richert (1985) & \protect \\ 16.5 & 95 & 0.43 & PIP & Haronska {\it et al.} (1987) & \protect \\ 15 & 64.6 & 0.36 & PIP & Saumon/Chabrier (1991) & \protect\\ 15.3 & 61.4 & 0.35 & PIP & Saumon/Chabrier (1992) & \protect\\ 14.9 & 72.3 & 0.29 & PIP & Schlanges {\it et al.} (1995) & \protect\\ 16.5 & 57 & 0.42 & PIP & Reinholz {\it et al.} (1995) & \protect\\ 11 & 55 & 0.25 & PIMC & Magro {\it et al.} (1996) & \protect\\ 20.9 & 0.3 & 0.002 & & Kitamura/Ichimaru (1998) & \protect\\ 16.8 & 45 & 0.35 & PIP & present FVT$^+$ & \\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{footnotesize} \caption{Theoretical results for the critical point of the hypothetical plasma~phase transition (PPT) in hydrogen which was predicted by Zeldovich and Landau~\protect and Norman and Starostin~\protect. } \end{table} \section{Conductivity and reflectivity} The PPT is an instability driven by the nonmetal-to-metal transition (pressure ionization). We calculate the electrical conductivity as well as the reflectivity by applying the COMPTRA04 program package~ in order to locate this transition in the density-temperature plane. Optical properties are calculated within the Drude model. The reflectivity $R(\omega)$ is given in the long-wavelength limit via the dielectric function $\varepsilon(\omega)$ which is determined by a dynamic collision frequency $\nu(\omega)$ or, alternatively, by the dynamic conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$~: \begin{eqnarray} R(\omega) &=& \left|\frac{ \sqrt{\varepsilon(\omega)}-1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon(\omega)}-1} \right|^2,\\ \varepsilon(\omega)&=& 1-\frac{\omega_{pl}^2} {\omega\left[\omega+\text{i}\nu(\omega)\right]} = 1+\frac{\text{i}}{\varepsilon_0\omega}\sigma(\omega) ,\\ \sigma(\omega)&=& \sigma(0)\left[ 1-\frac{\text{i}\omega}{\varepsilon_0\omega_{\text{pl}}^2} \sigma(0) \right]^{-1}. \end{eqnarray} $\omega_{\text{pl}}=\sqrt{n_e e^2/(\varepsilon_0 m_e)}$ is the plasma frequency of the electrons. The reflectivity was determined along the Hugoniot curve and is compared with experimental results~ and those of the earlier model FVT$^+_{\rm id}$~ in Fig.~. The results of the current model show a much better agreement with the experiment. The characteristic and abrupt rise with increasing pressure was reproduced more accurately. This drastic increase appears due to pressure ionization in the vicinity of the criotical point of the PPT. As a result, the reflectivity advances from very low values to metallic-like ones almost instantly. \section{Planetary interiors} Modelling the interiors of giant planets and comparison with their observational parameters offers an alternative tool besides laboratory experiments of probing the EOS of the components the planets are predominantly made of. Giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn consist mainly of hydrogen and, in decreasing order, of helium, water and rocks, covering a wide range of pressures and temperatures. Independently from the H-EOS used for modelling, the simplest interior structure that is compatible with the observational constraints requires at least three homogenous layers with a transition from a cold molecular fluid in the outer envelope to a pressure ionized plasma in the deep interior and a dense solid core of ices and rocks. A solid core may be explained as a result of the formation process and the seperation into two fluid envelopes with different particle abundances by an existence of a PPT as provided by the FVT$^+$ EOS. The constraining observational parameters are the total mass of the planet $M$, its equatorial radius $R_{eq}$, the temperature $T$ at the outer boundary, the average helium content $\bar{Y}$, the period of rotation $\omega$ and the gravitational moments $J_2, J_4, J_6$. From measurements of the luminosity it has been argued that the temperature profile should be adiabatic. For a given EOS, the interior profiles of pressure $P$ and density $\rho$ are calculated by integration of the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium \begin{equation} \frac{1}{\rho(r,\theta)} \nabla_{\vec{r}} P(r,\theta) = \nabla_{\vec{r}} \left(G\int_{dV}d^3r'\frac{\rho(r,\theta)}{|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'|} + \frac{1}{2}\omega^2 r^2\sin\theta^2\right) \end{equation} along an isentrope defined by the outer boundary. The first term on the right hand side of eq. () is the gravitational potential and the second term the centrifugal potential assuming axialsymmetric rotation. We apply the \textsl{theory of figures} up to third order to solve this equation and to calculate the gravitational moments. They are defined as the coefficients of the expansion of the gravitational potential into Legendre polynomials, taken at the outer boundary. Being integrals of the density distribution weighted by some power of the radius, they are very sensitive with respect to the amount and distribution of helium and heavier elements within the planet. In accordance with previous calculations , mixtures of hydrogen with helium and heavier elements have been derived from the EOS of the pure materials via the additive volume rule. It states that the entropy of mixing can be neglected. Assuming a three-layer structure, we present results for Jupiter for the profiles of temperature, density, and pressure along the radius in Fig.~ using two different H-EOS, the standard Sesame table 5251 for hydrogen~ and the FVT$^+$ model presented above. The profiles of temperature appear very similar, meaning a small uncertainty about the real profiles. Contrary, the density and pressure profiles exhibit more differences and require some explanation. In the fluid part of Jupiter, the presence of a PPT leads to a jump in density between the envelopes. Since the gravitational moments as integrals over the density have to be the same for both H-EOS, the density profile of a H-EOS with PPT has to be smaller in the outer envelope and larger in the inner envelope. The different size and composition of the core for these specific H-EOS are a consequence of their different compressibility in the regime of pressure ionization at about 1~Mbar, where the gravitational moments are most sensitive to the density distribution. In case of a stiff H-EOS like Sesame, a larger amount of heavy elements is needed in the two fluid envelopes to compensate for the smaller hydrogen density at a given pressure. As a result, this material is added to the well-known density-pressure relation of degenerate electrons in the deep interior, leaving less material for the core. Thus, in case of the Sesame-EOS, the amount of heavy elements becomes with 10\ unlikely solution with a very small core of light material (e.g.\ water) can be found. In case of the FVT$^+$ EOS which is more compressible than the Sesame EOS at about 1~Mbar, the helium content is below the value of 27.5\ for the protosolar cloud in order to reproduce the lowest gravitational moment $J_2$. Furthermore, the next gravitational moment $J_4$ cannot be reproduced correctly because the transition to the metallic envelope occurs already at about 90\ reasons, both the Sesame and FVT$^+$ EOS applied in a three-layer model of Jupiter are not compatible with {\it all} of the observational constraints. While Sesame is probably too stiff, the FVT$^+$ model is likely too soft in the WDM region at about 1~Mbar. \section{Conclusions} In this paper, we have extended the earlier chemical model FVT$^+_{id}$ to calculate the EOS of dense hydrogen. The current model FVT$^+$ includes nonideality corrections to the free energy of each commponent of the partially ionized plasma. We have shown results for the composition and the thermodynamic properties of dense hydrogen. The PPT was located in the phase diagram, its critical point coincides with earlier results. Furthermore, we have determined optical properties such as reflectivity and conductivity, within linear response theory using the program package COMPTRA04. The calculated reflectivity along the experimental Hugoniot curve shows a good agreement with the experiments. However, application of the FVT$^+$ EOS to the interior structure of Jupiter indicates that the behavior at about 1~Mbar is probably too soft. The same conclusion can be drawn from a comparison with shock-wave experiments that indicate the existence of a PPT~. FVT$^+$ predicts the PPT at too low pressures as well as at too low densities. Further efforts to solve this problem, especially concerning the reduced volume concept, are necessary. \begin{acknowledgement} We thank P.~M.~Celliers, W.~Ebeling, V.~E.~Fortov, V.~K.~Gryaznov, W.-D.~Kraeft, and G.~R\"opke for stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the DFG within the SFB 652 Strongly Correlated Matter in Radiation Fields and the GRK 567 Strongly Correlated Many Particle Systems. \end{acknowledgement} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Nellis06} W.~J.~Nellis, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 69}, 1479 (2006). \bibitem{weir} S.~T.~Weir, A.~C.~Mitchell, W.~J.~Nellis, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. \textbf{76}, 1860 (1996). \bibitem{Celliers00} P.~M.~Celliers et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 84}, 5564 (2000). \bibitem{SC1} D. Saumon and G. Chabrier, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 44}, 5122 (1991). \bibitem{SC2} D. Saumon and G. Chabrier, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 46}, 2084 (1992). \bibitem{EbelNorm} W. Ebeling and G. Norman, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 110} 861 (2003). \bibitem{BHRO} W. Ebeling, H. Hache, H. Juranek, R. Redmer, and G. R\"opke, Contrib. Plasma Phys. {\bf 45} 160 (2005). \bibitem{FIL06} V. S. Filinov et al., J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 39}, 4421 (2006). \bibitem{MIT-Planets} D. Saumon, W.~B.~Hubbard, G. Chabrier, and H.~M.~Van~Horn, Astrophys. J. {\bf 391} 827 (1992). \bibitem{CSHL} G. Chabrier, D. Saumon, W.~B.~Hubbard, and J.~I.~Lunine, Astrophys. J. {\bf 391} 817 (1992). \bibitem{Planets-PPT} D.~J.~Stevenson, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. {\bf 10} 11227 (1998). \bibitem{Fortov} V.~E.~Fortov et al., unpublished. \bibitem{Tahir} N.~A. Tahir, H. Juranek, A.~Shutov, R.~Redmer, A.~R.~Piriz, M.~Temporal, D.~Varentsov, S.~Udrea, D.~H.~H.~Hoffmann, C.~Deutsch, I.~Lomonosov, V.~E.~Fortov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 184101 (2003). \bibitem{Tahir-PNP12} N.~A. Tahir et al., Contrib. Plasma Phys. (this issue). \bibitem{SFB-CPP} H. Juranek, N. Nettelmann, S. Kuhlbrodt, V. Schwarz, B. Holst, and R. Redmer, Contrib. Plasma Phys. {\bf 45}, 432 (2005). \bibitem{SCCS05} R. Redmer, B. Holst, H. Juranek, N. Nettelmann, and V. Schwarz, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 39}, 4479 (2006). \bibitem{PolRR} R. Redmer and G. R\"opke, Physica A {\bf 130}, 523 (1985). \bibitem{RRY} M.~Ross, F.~H.~Ree, and D.~A.~Young, J.\ Chem.\ Phys.\ {\bf 79}, 1487 (1983). \bibitem{FVT1} H.~Juranek and R.~Redmer, J.\ Chem.\ Phys.\ {\bf 112}, 3780 (2000). \bibitem{FVT2} H.~Juranek, R.~Redmer, and Y.~Rosenfeld, J.\ Chem.\ Phys.\ {\bf 117}, 1768 (2002). \bibitem{N2} Qi-Feng Chen et al., J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 124}, 074510 (2006). \bibitem{PCCP05} V.~Schwarz, H.~Juranek, R.~Redmer, Phys.~Chem.~Chem.~Phys. \textbf{7}, 1990 (2005). \bibitem{Potek} G.~Chabrier and A.~Y.~Potekhin, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58}, 4941 (1998). \bibitem{McLellan56} A.~G.~McLellan and B.~J.~Alder, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 24}, 115 (1956). \bibitem{Kahlbaum92} T.~Kahlbaum and A.~F\"orster, Fluid Phase Equilibria {\bf 76}, 71 (1992). \bibitem{confatom} H. C. {Graboske, Jr.}, D. J. Harwood, and F. J. Rogers, Phys. Rev. {\bf 186}, 210 (1969). \bibitem{Robnik} M. Robnik and W. Kundt, Astron. Astrophys {\bf 120}, 227 (1983). \bibitem{MH} M. S. Marley and W. B. Hubbard, Icarus {\bf 88}, 536 (1988). \bibitem{EbelRich} W.~Ebeling and W.~Richert, phys.~stat.~sol.~(b) \textbf{128}, 467 (1985); Phys.~Lett.~A \textbf{108}, 80 (1985); Contrib.~Plasma~Phys. \textbf{25}, 1 (1985). \bibitem{SBT} M.~Schlanges, M.~Bonitz, and A.~Tschttschjan, Contrib.~Plasma~Phys. \textbf{35}, 109 (1995). \bibitem{RRN} H.~Reinholz, R.~Redmer, and S.~Nagel, Phys.~Rev.~E \textbf{52}, 5368 (1995). \bibitem{BEF} D.~Beule, W.~Ebeling, A.~F\"orster, H.~Juranek, S.~Nagel, R.~Redmer, and G.~R\"opke, Phys.~Rev.~B \textbf{59}, 14~177 (1999). \bibitem{MCPB} W. R. Magro, D. M. Ceperley, C. Pierleoni, and B. Bernu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 1240 (1996). \bibitem{EbelSand} W. Ebeling and R. S\"andig, Annalen der Physik {\bf 28}, 289 (1973). \bibitem{Harry} P. Haronska, D. Kremp, and M. Schlanges, Wiss. Zeit. Univ. Rostock {\bf 36}, 98 (1987). \bibitem{Ichi} H. Kitamura and S. Ichimaru, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. {\bf 67}, 950 (1998). \bibitem{Landau} Ya. B. Zeldovich and L. D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 14}, 32 (1944). \bibitem{Norman} G. E. Norman and A. N. Starostin, High Temp. {\bf 6}, 394 (1968); {\it ibid.} {\bf 8}, 381 (1970). \bibitem{Comptra04} S.~Kuhlbrodt, B.~Holst, R.~Redmer, Contrib.~Plasma~Phys. \textbf{45}, 73 (2005). \bibitem{www-comptra} The COMPTRA04 source code and data files can be found at http://www.mpg.uni-rostock.de/sp/pages/comptra. \bibitem{collision} H.~Reinholz et al., Phys. Rev. E {\bf 68}, 036403 (2003). \bibitem{SCCM} R. Redmer, H. Juranek, N. Nettelmann, and B. Holst, AIP Conf. Proc. {\bf 845}, 127 (2006). \bibitem{Hubbard68} W. B. Hubbard, Astrophys. J. {\bf 152}, 745 (1968). \bibitem{ZharkovTrubitsyn} V. N. Zharkov and V. P. Trubytsin, \textsl{Physics of planetary Interiors}, in: Astronomy and Astrophysics Series (Pachart, Tucson/AZ, 1978) \bibitem{SC92} G. Chabrier, D. Saumon, W. B. Hubbard, and J. I. Lunine, Astrophys. J. \textbf{391}, 817 (1992). \bibitem{TGs} D. Saumon and T. Guillot, Astrophys. J. \textbf{609}, 1170 (2004). \bibitem{Sesame} Sesame table 5251 (1982), derived from Sesame table 5263, G. Kerley, Report LA-4776 (1972). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0179
|
Title: Experimental nonclassicality of single-photon-added thermal light states
Abstract: We report the experimental realization and tomographic analysis of novel
quantum light states obtained by exciting a classical thermal field by a single
photon. Such states, although completely incoherent, possess a tunable degree
of quantumness which is here exploited to put to a stringent experimental test
some of the criteria proposed for the proof and the measurement of state
non-classicality. The quantum character of the states is also given in quantum
information terms by evaluating the amount of entanglement that they can
produce.
Body: \title{Experimental nonclassicality of single-photon-added thermal light states} \author{Alessandro Zavatta} \email{azavatta@inoa.it}\affiliation{Istituto Nazionale di Ottica Applicata (CNR), L.go E. Fermi, 6, I-50125, Florence, Italy} \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Florence, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy} \author{Valentina Parigi} \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Florence, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy} \affiliation{LENS, Via Nello Carrara 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy} \author{Marco Bellini} \email{bellini@inoa.it} \affiliation{Istituto Nazionale di Ottica Applicata (CNR), L.go E. Fermi, 6, I-50125, Florence, Italy} \affiliation{LENS, Via Nello Carrara 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} We report the experimental realization and tomographic analysis of novel quantum light states obtained by exciting a classical thermal field by a single photon. Such states, although completely incoherent, possess a tunable degree of quantumness which is here exploited to put to a stringent experimental test some of the criteria proposed for the proof and the measurement of state nonclassicality. The quantum character of the states is also given in quantum information terms by evaluating the amount of entanglement that they can produce. \end{abstract} \pacs{42.50.Dv, 03.65.Wj} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The definition and the measurement of the nonclassicality of a quantum light state is a hot and widely discussed topic in the physics community; nonclassical light is the starting point for generating even more nonclassical states~ or producing the entanglement which is essential to implement quantum information protocols with continuous variables~. A quantum state is said to be nonclassical when it cannot be written as a mixture of coherent states. In terms of the Glauber-Sudarshan $P$ representation~, the $P$ function of a nonclassical state is highly singular or not positive, i.e. it cannot be interpreted as a classical probability distribution. In general however, since the $P$ function can be badly behaved, it cannot be connected to any observable quantity. In recent years, a nonclassicality criterion based on the measurable quadrature distributions obtained from homodyne detection has been proposed by Richter and Vogel~. Moreover, a variety of nonclassical states has recently been characterized by means of the negativeness of their Wigner function~, this however being just a sufficient and not necessary condition for nonclassicality~. It is still an open question which is the universal way to experimentally characterize the nonclassicality of a quantum state. A conceptually simple way to generate a quantum light state with a varying degree of nonclassicality consists in adding a single photon to any completely classical one. This is quite different from photon subtraction which, on the other hand, produces a nonclassical state only when starting from an already nonclassical one~. In this Letter we report the generation and the analysis of single-photon-added thermal states (SPATSs), i.e., completely classical states excited by a single photon, first described by Agarwal and Tara in 1992 . We use the techniques of conditioned parametric amplification recently demonstrated by our group~ to generate such states, and we employ ultrafast pulsed homodyne detection and quantum tomography to investigate their character. The peculiar nonclassical behavior of SPATSs has recently triggered an interesting debate and has been described in several theoretical papers~; their experimental generation has already been proposed, although with more complex schemes~, but never realized. Thanks to their adjustable degree of quantumness, these states are an ideal benchmark to test the different experimental criteria of nonclassicality recently proposed, and to investigate the possibility of multi-photon entanglement generation. The nonclassicality of SPATSs is here analyzed by reconstructing their negative-valued Wigner functions, by using the quadrature-based Richter-Vogel (RV) criterion, and finally comparing these with two other methods based on quantum tomography. In particular, we show that the so-called \textit{entanglement potential}~ is a sensitive measurement of nonclassicality, and that it provides quantitative data about the possible use of the states for quantum information applications in terms of the entanglement that they would generate once sent to a 50-50 beam-splitter. \section{Experimental} The main source of our apparatus is a mode-locked Ti:Sa laser which emits 1.5 ps pulses with a repetition rate of 82 MHz. The pulse train is frequency-doubled to 393 nm by second harmonic generation in a LBO crystal. The spatially-cleaned UV beam then serves as a pump for a type-I BBO crystal which generates spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) at the same wavelength of the laser source. Pairs of SPDC photons are emitted in two distinct spatial channels called signal and idler. Along the idler channel the photons are strongly filtered in the spectral and spatial domain by means of etalon cavities and by a single-mode fiber which is directly connected to a single-photon-counting module (further details are given in~). The signal field is mixed with a strong local oscillator (LO, an attenuated portion of the main laser source) by means of a 50\ wide-bandwidth amplifier which provides the difference (homodyne) signal between the two photocurrents on a pulse-to-pulse basis~. Whenever a single photon is detected in the idler channel, an homodyne measurement is performed on the correlated spatio-temporal mode of the signal channel by storing the corresponding electrical signal (proportional to the quadrature operator value) on a digital scope. When no field is injected in the SPDC crystal, conditioned single-photon Fock states are generated from spontaneous emission in the signal channel~. We have recently shown that, if the SPDC crystal is injected with a coherent state, stimulated emission comes into play and single-photon excitation of such a pure state is obtained~. However, a coherent state is still at the border between the quantum and the classical regimes; it is therefore extremely interesting to use a truly classical state, like the thermal one, as the input, and to observe its degaussification~. In order to avoid the technical problems connected to the handling of a true high-temperature thermal source, we use pseudo-thermal one, obtained by inserting a rotating ground glass disk (RD) in a portion of the laser beam (see Fig.). By coupling a fraction (much smaller than the typical speckle size) of the randomly scattered light into a single-mode fiber, at the output we obtain a clean spatial mode with random amplitude and phase yielding the photon distribution typical of a thermal source~ which is then used to inject the parametric amplifier. \section{Properties of SPATSs} In order to describe the state generated in our experiment, we give a general treatment of photon addition based on conditioned parametric amplification. By first-order perturbation theory, the output of the parametric amplifier when a pure state $\ket{\varphi_m}$ is injected along the signal channel is given by \begin{equation} \ket{\psi_m} = [1+(g\hat a^\dag_s\hat a^\dag_i - g^* \hat a_s\hat a_i)] \ket{\varphi_m}_s\ket{0}_i, \end{equation} where $g$ accounts for the coupling and the amplitude of the pump and $\hat a$, $\hat a^\dag$ are the usual noncommuting annihilation and creation operators. For a generic signal input, the output state of the parametric amplifier can be written as \begin{equation} \hat \rho_{\rm{out}} = \sum_m P_m \ket{\psi_m}\bra{\psi_m} \end{equation} where the input mixed state is $\hat \rho_s = \sum P_m \ket{\varphi_m}\bra{\varphi_m}$ and $P_m$ is the probability for the state $\ket{\varphi_m}$. If we condition the preparation of the signal state to single-photon detection on the idler channel, we obtain the prepared state \begin{equation} \hat \rho = {\rm{Tr}}_i(\hat \rho_{\rm{out}} \ket{1}_i\bra{1}_i) = |g|^2 \hat a^\dag_s \hat \rho_s \hat a_s. \end{equation} When the input state $\hat \rho_s$ is a thermal state with mean photon number $\bar n$, we obtain that the single-photon-added thermal state is described by the following density operator expressed in the Fock base: \begin{equation} \hat \rho = \frac{1}{\bar n (\bar n +1)}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\left( \frac{\bar n}{1+\bar n} \right)^n n \ket{n} \bra{n}}. \end{equation} The lack of the vacuum term and the rescaling of higher excited terms is evident in this expression. The $P$ phase-space representation can be easily calculated and is given by (see also~) \begin{equation} P(\alpha) = \frac{1}{\pi \bar n^3} [(1+\bar n)|\alpha|^2-\bar n] e^{-|\alpha|^2/\bar n}, \end{equation} while the corresponding Wigner function reads as \begin{equation} W(\alpha)=\frac{2}{\pi} \frac{|2\alpha|^2(1+\bar n)-(1+2 \bar n)}{(1+2\bar n)^3} \ e^{-2|\alpha|^2/(1+2\bar n)} \end{equation} where $\alpha = x + i y$. SPATSs have a well-behaved $P$ function which is always negative around $\alpha = 0$; this feature is also present in the Wigner function and assures their nonclassicality, however both $P(0)$ and $W(0)$ tend to zero in the limit of $\bar n \rightarrow \infty$. \section{Data analysis and discussion} After the acquisition of about $10^5$ quadrature values with random phases, we have performed the reconstruction of the diagonal density matrix elements using the maximum likelihood estimation~. This method gives the density matrix that most likely represents the measured homodyne data. Firstly, we build the likelihood function contracted for a density matrix truncated to $25$ diagonal elements (with the constraints of Hermiticity, positivity and normalization), then the function is maximized by an iterative procedure~ and the errors on the reconstructed density matrix elements are evaluated using the Fisher information~. The results are shown in Fig.~, together with the corresponding reconstructed~ Wigner functions for two different temperatures of the injected thermal state. Since in the low-gain regime the count rate in the idler channel is given by $\langle\hat n \rangle = \mathrm{Tr}(\hat \rho_{\mathrm{out}} \hat a^\dag_i \hat a_i )=|g|^2(1+\bar n)$, the mean photon number values $\bar n$ reported in Fig.~ and in the following are obtained from the ratio between the trigger count rates when the thermal injection is present and when it is blocked (see Ref.~ and references therein). The finite experimental efficiency in the preparation and homodyne detection of SPATSs is fully accounted for by a loss mechanism which can be modeled by the transmission of the ideal state $\hat \rho$ of Eq.() through a beam splitter of trasmittivity $\eta$ coupling vacuum into the detection mode, such that the detected state $\hat \rho_{\eta}$ is finally found as: \begin{equation} \hat \rho_{\eta}=\mathrm{Tr}_R \{U_{\mathrm{\eta}}(\hat\rho \ket{0}\bra{0})U^\dag_{\mathrm{\eta}}\} \end{equation} where $U_{\mathrm{\eta}}$ is the beam splitter operator acting on two input modes containing the state $\hat \rho$ and the vacuum, and the states of the reflected mode (indicated by $R$) are traced out. In the case of finite efficiency the expression for the Wigner function thus results: \begin{equation} W_{\eta}(\alpha)=\frac{2}{\pi} \frac{1+2\eta[\bar n +2(1+\bar n)|\alpha|^2-2\bar n \eta-1]}{(1+2\bar n\eta)^3} \ e^{\frac{-2|\alpha|^2}{1+2\bar n\eta}}. \end{equation} It should be noted that the value of experimental efficiency which best fits the data is the same ($\eta = 0.62$) as that obtained for single-photon Fock states (i.e., without injection), and implies that only a portion of vacuum due to losses enters the mode during the generation of SPATS. Thanks to a very low rate of dark counts in the trigger detector, the portion of the injected thermal state which survives the conditional preparation procedure and contributes to degradation of the SPATSs is in fact completely negligible. However, since the nonclassical features of the state get weaker for large $\bar n$, a limited efficiency ($\eta<1$) has the effect of progressively hiding them among unwanted vacuum components. Indeed, the measured negativity of the Wigner function at the origin (see Fig.a and b) rapidly gets smaller as the mean photon number of the input thermal state is increased. With the current level of efficiency and reconstruction accuracy we are able to prove the nonclassicality of all the generated states (up to $\bar n=1.15$), but one may expect to experimentally detect negativity above the reconstruction noise, and thus prove state nonclassicality, up to about $\bar n \approx 1.5$ (also see Fig.a). It should be noted that, even for a single-photon Fock state, the Wigner function loses its negativity for efficiencies lower than $50\ threshold is an essential requisite in order to use this nonclassicality criterion. After having experimentally proved the nonclassicality of the states for all the investigated values of $\bar n$, it is interesting to verify the nonclassical character of the measured SPATSs also using different criteria. The first one has been recently proposed by Richter and Vogel~ and is based on the characteristic function $G(k,\theta)=\langle e^{ik\hat x(\theta)}\rangle$ of the quadratures (i.e., the Fourier transform of the quadrature distribution), where $\hat x(\theta)= (\hat a e^{-i\theta} + \hat a^{\dag}e^{i\theta})/2$ is the phase-dependent quadrature operator. At the first-order, the criterion defines a phase-independent state as nonclassical if there is a value of $k$ such that $|G(k,\theta)|\equiv|G(k)| > G_{\rm gr}(k)$, where $G_{\rm gr}(k)$ is the characteristic function for the vacuum measured when the signal beam is blocked before homodyne detection. In other words, the evidence of structures narrower than those associated to vacuum in the quadrature distribution is a sufficient condition to define a nonclassical state~. However, it has been shown that nonclassical states exist (as pointed out by Di\'osi~ for a vacuum-lacking thermal state~, which is very similar to SPATSs) which fail to fulfil such inequality; when this happens, the first-order Richter-Vogel (RV) criterion has to be extended to higher orders: the second-order RV inequality reads as \begin{equation} 2 G^2(k/2)G_{\rm gr}(k/\sqrt{2})-G(k) > G_{\rm gr}(k). \end{equation} It is evident that, as higher orders are investigated, the increasing sensitivity to experimental and statistical noise may soon become unmanageable. The measured $|G(k)|$ and left hand side of Eq.~() are plotted in Fig.~a) and b), together with the $G_{\rm gr}(k)$ characteristic function, also obtained from the experimental quadrature distribution of vacuum. While the detected SPATSs satisfy the nonclassical first-order RV criterion only for the two lowest values of $\bar n$, it is necessary to extend the criterion to the second order to just barely show nonclassicality at large values of $k$ for $\bar n=0.53$ (see the inset of Fig.b, where the shaded region indicates the error area of the experimental $G_{\rm gr}(k)$). At higher temperatures, no sign of nonclassical behavior is experimentally evident with this approach, although the Wigner function of the corresponding states still clearly exhibits a measurable negativity (see Fig.). It should be noted that the second-order RV criterion for the ideal state of Eq.~() is expected to prove the nonclassicality of SPATSs up to $\bar n \approx 0.6$ ; however, when the limited experimental efficiency and the statistical noise is taken into account, it will start to fail even earlier. The tomographic reconstruction of the state that was earlier used for the nonclassicality test based on the negativity of the Wigner function, can also be exploited to test alternative criteria: for example by reconstructing the photon-number distribution $\rho_n = \bra{n}\hat \rho_{meas} \ket{n}$ and then looking for strong modulations in neighboring photon probabilities by the following relationship~ \begin{equation} B(n) \equiv (n+2) \rho_{n} \rho_{n+2}-(n+1)\rho_{n+1}^2<0, \end{equation} introduced by Klyshko in 1996, which is known to hold for nonclassical states. In the ideal situation of unit efficiency SPATSs should always give $B(0)<0$ due to the absence of the vacuum term $\rho_{0}$, in agreement with Ref.~. The experimental results obtained for $B(0)$ by using the reconstructed density matrix $\hat \rho_{meas}$ are presented in Fig.a) together with those calculated for the state described by $\hat \rho_{\eta}$ (see Eq.()) with $\eta=0.62$. The agreement between the experimental data and the expected ones is again very satisfactory, showing that our model state $\hat \rho_{\eta}$ well represents the experimental one. Our current efficiency should in principle allow us to find negative values of $B(0)$ even for much larger values of $\bar n$; however, if one takes the current reconstruction errors due to statistical noise into account, the maximum $\bar n$ for which the corresponding SPATS can be safely declared nonclassical is of the order of $2$. It should be noted that, differently from the Wigner function approach, here the nonclassicality can be proved even for experimental efficiencies much lower than $50\ mean photon number of the thermal state is not too high (see Fig.b). Finally, it is particularly interesting to measure the entanglement potential (EP) of our states as recently proposed by Asboth \textit{et al.}~. This measurement is based on the fact that, when a nonclassical state is mixed with vacuum on a 50-50 beam splitter, some amount of entanglement (depending on the nonclassicality of the input state) appears between the BS outputs. No entanglement can be produced by a classical initial state. For a given single-mode density operator $\hat\rho$, one calculates the entanglement of the bipartite state at the BS outputs $\hat \rho'=U_{\mathrm{BS}}(\hat\rho |0\rangle\langle 0|)U^\dag_{\mathrm{BS}}$ by means of the logarithmic negativity $E_\mathcal{N}(\hat \rho')$ based on the Peres separability criterion and defined in~, where $U_{\mathrm{BS}}$ is the 50-50 BS transformation. The computed entanglement potentials for the reconstructed SPATS density matrices $\hat \rho_{meas}$ are shown in Fig.~b) together with those expected at the experimentally-evaluated efficiency (i.e., obtained from $\hat \rho_{\eta}$ with $\eta=0.62$). The EP is definitely greater than zero (by more than $13 \sigma$) for all the detected states, thus confirming that they are indeed nonclassical, in agreement with the findings obtained by the measurement of $B(0)$ and $W(0)$. As a comparison, the EP would be equal to unity for a pure single-photon Fock state, while it would reduce to 0.43 for a single-photon state mixed with vacuum $\hat \rho = (1-\eta)\ket{0}\bra{0}+\eta \ket{1}\bra{1}$ with $\eta = 0.62$. To summarize, the three tomographic approaches to test nonclassicality have all been able to experimentally prove it for all the generated states (i.e., SPATSs with an average number of photons in the seed thermal state up to $\bar n=1.15$) for a global experimental efficiency of $\eta=0.62$. In order to gain a better view of the range of values for $\bar n$ and for the global experimental efficiency $\eta$ which allow to prove the nonclassical character of single-photon-added thermal states under realistic experimental conditions, we have calculated the indicators $W(0)$, $B(0)$, and EP from the model state described by $\hat \rho_{\eta}$. The results are shown in Fig.: the contour plots define the regions of parameters where the detected state is classical (white areas), where it would result nonclassical if the reconstruction errors coming from statistical noise could be neglected (grey areas) and, finally, where it is definitely nonclassical even with the current level of noise (black areas). \begin{figure*}[ht] \caption{Calculated regions of nonclassical behavior of SPATSs as a function of $\bar n$ and $\eta$ according to: a) the negativity of the Wigner function at the origin $W(0)$; b) the Klyshko criterion $B(0)$; c) the entanglement potential EP. White areas indicate classical behavior; grey areas indicate where a potentially nonclassical character is not measurable due to experimental reconstruction noise (estimated as the average error on the experimentally reconstructed parameters); black areas indicate regions where the nonclassical character is measurable given the current statistical uncertainties.} \end{figure*} From such plots it is evident that, as already noted, the Wigner function negativity only works for sufficiently high efficiencies, while both $B(0)$ and EP are able to detect nonclassical behavior even for $\eta < 50\ criterion, at least for these particular states, and to allow for an experimental proof of nonclassicality for all combinations of $\bar n$ and $\eta$, as long as reconstruction errors can be neglected. Also considering the current experimental parameters, EP should show the quantum character of SPATSs even for $\bar n>3$, thus demonstrating its higher immunity to noise. Although at a different degree, all three indicators are however very sensitive to the presence of reconstruction noise of statistical origin which may completely mask the nonclassical character of the states, even for relatively low values of $\bar n$ or for low efficiencies. In order to unambiguously prove the quantum character of higher-temperature SPATSs in these circumstances the only possibility is to reduce the ``grey zone'' by significantly increasing the number of quadrature measurements. \section{Conclusions} In conclusion, we have generated a completely incoherent light state possessing an adjustable degree of quantumness which has been used to experimentally test and compare different criteria of nonclassicality. Although the direct analysis of quadrature distributions, done following the criterion proposed by Richter and Vogel, has been able to show the nonclassical character of some of the states with lower mean photon numbers, quantum tomography, with the reconstruction of the density matrix and the Wigner function from the homodyne data, has allowed us to unambiguously show the nonclassical character of all the generated states: three different criteria, the negativity of the Wigner function, the Klyshko criterion and the entanglement potential, have been used with varying degree of effectiveness in revealing nonclassicality. Besides being a useful tool for the measurement of nonclassicality through the definition of the entanglement potential, the combination of nonclassical field states - such as those generated here - with a beam-splitter, can be viewed as a simple entangling device generating multi-photon states with varying degree of purity and entanglement and allowing the future investigation of continuous-variable mixed entangled states~. \section{Acknowledgments} The authors gratefully acknowledge Koji Usami for giving the initial stimulus for this work and Milena D'Angelo and Girish Agarwal for useful discussions and comments. This work was partially supported by Ente Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze and MIUR, under the PRIN initiative and FIRB contract RBNE01KZ94. \bibliography{Fock_bib}
|
0704.0181
|
Title: Genetic Optimization of Photonic Bandgap Structures
Abstract: We investigate the use of a Genetic Algorithm (GA) to design a set of
photonic crystals (PCs) in one and two dimensions. Our flexible design
methodology allows us to optimize PC structures which are optimized for
specific objectives. In this paper, we report the results of several such
GA-based PC optimizations. We show that the GA performs well even in very
complex design spaces, and therefore has great potential for use as a robust
design tool in present and future applications.
Body: \title{Genetic Optimization of Photonic Bandgap Structures} \author{Joel Goh, Ilya Fushman, Dirk Englund, Jelena Vu\v{c}kovi\'{c}} \address{Ginzton Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA} \email{joelgoh@stanfordalumni.org; ifushman@stanford.edu; englund@stanford.edu; jela@stanford.edu} \begin{abstract} We investigate the use of a Genetic Algorithm (GA) to design a set of photonic crystals (PCs) in one and two dimensions. Our flexible design methodology allows us to optimize PC structures which are optimized for specific objectives. In this paper, we report the results of several such GA-based PC optimizations. We show that the GA performs well even in very complex design spaces, and therefore has great potential for use as a robust design tool in present and future applications. \end{abstract} \ocis{(130) Integrated optics; (130.2790) Guided waves; (130.3210) Integrated optics devices; (140) Lasers and laser optics; (140.3410) Laser resonators; (140.5960) Semiconductor lasers; (230) Optical devices; (230.5750) Resonators; (230.6080) Sources; (250) Optoelectronics; (250.5300) Photonic integrated circuits; (260) Physical optics; (260.5740) Resonance;} \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{John1} Sajeev John. \newblock Strong localization of photons in certain disordered dielectric superlattices. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 58(23):2486--2489, Jun 1987. \bibitem{Yab1} Eli Yablonovitch. \newblock Inhibited spontaneous emission in solid-state physics and electronics. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 58(20):2059--2062, May 1987. \bibitem{Eng1} Dirk Englund, David Fattal, Edo Waks, Glenn Solomon, Bingyang Zhang, Toshihiro Nakaoka, Yasuhiko Arakawa, Yoshihisa Yamamoto, and Jelena Vu\v{c}kovi\'{c}. \newblock Controlling the spontaneous emission rate of single quantum dots in a two-dimensional photonic crystal. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 95(013904), July 2005. \bibitem{Bor1} Misha Boroditsky, Rutger Vrijen, Thomas Krauss, Roberto Coccioli, Raj Bhat, and Eli Yablonovitch. \newblock Control of spontaneous emission in photonic crystals. \newblock {\em Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering}, 3621:190--197, 1999. \bibitem{Alt1} Hatice Altug and Jelena Vu\v{c}kovi\'{c}. \newblock Experimental demonstration of the slow group velocity of light in two-dimensional coupled photonic crystal microcavity arrays. \newblock {\em Applied Phys. Lett.}, 86(111102), March 2005. \bibitem{Vla1} Yurii~A. Vlasov, Martin O'Boyle, Hendrik~F. Hamann, and Sharee~J. McNab. \newblock Active control of slow light on a chip with photonic crystal waveguides. \newblock {\em Nature}, 438:65--69, November 2005. \bibitem{Alt2} Hatice Altug and Jelena Vu\v{c}kovi\'{c}. \newblock Photonic crystal nanocavity array laser. \newblock {\em Opt. Express}, 13:8819 -- 8828, October 2005. \bibitem{Song1} Bong-Shik Song, Susumu Noda, Takashi Asano, and Yoshihiro Akahane. \newblock Ultra-high-{Q} photonic double-heterostructure nanocavity. \newblock {\em Nature Materials}, 4:207--210, 2005. \bibitem{Vuc1} Jelena Vu\v{c}kovi\'{c}, Marko Lon\v{c}ar, Hideo Mabuchi, and Axel Scherer. \newblock Design of photonic crystal microcavities for cavity {QED}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 65(1):016608, Dec 2001. \bibitem{Eng2} Dirk Englund, Ilya Fushman, and Jelena Vu\v{c}kovi\'{c}. \newblock General recipe for designing photonic crystal cavities. \newblock {\em Opt. Express}, 13:5961--5975, August 2005. \bibitem{Jia1} David A.B.~Miller Yang~Jiao, Shanhui~Fan. \newblock Demonstration of systematic photonic crystal device design and optimization by low-rank adjustments: an extremely compact mode separator. \newblock {\em Opt. Lett.}, 30:141--143, 2005. \bibitem{Pre1} Stefan Preble, Hod Lipson, and Michal Lipson. \newblock Two-dimensional photonic crystals designed by evolutionary algorithms. \newblock {\em Applied Phys. Lett.}, 86(061111), 2005. \bibitem{Drup1} Robert~P. Drupp, Jeremy~A. Bossard, Douglas~H. Werner, and Theresa~S. Mayer. \newblock Single-layer multiband infrared metallodielectric photonic crystals designed by genetic algorithm optimization. \newblock {\em Applied Phys. Lett.}, 86, Feb 2005. \bibitem{Hol1} J.~H. Holland. \newblock {\em Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control and Artificial Intelligence}. \newblock Univ. of Michigan Press, 1975. \bibitem{Gol1} D.~E. Goldberg. \newblock {\em Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning}. \newblock Addison Wesley, 1989. \bibitem{Dav1} L.~Davis. \newblock {\em Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing}. \newblock Morgan Kaufmann, 1987. \bibitem{Shen1} Linfang Shen, Zhuo Ye, and Sailing He. \newblock Design of two-dimensional photonic crystals with large absolute band gaps using a genetic algorithm. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. B}, 68(035109), 2003. \bibitem{Ker1} E.~{Kerrinckx}, L.~{Bigot}, M.~{Douay}, and Y.~{Quiquempois}. \newblock {Photonic crystal fiber design by means of a genetic algorithm}. \newblock {\em Opt. Express}, 12, May 2004. \bibitem{Johnson1} Steven~G. Johnson and J.~D. Joannopoulos. \newblock Block-iterative frequency-domain methods for maxwell's equations in a planewave basis. \newblock {\em Opt. Express}, 8(3):173--190, 2001. \bibitem{Aka1} Yoshihiro Akahane, Takashi Asano, Bong-Shik Song, and Susumu Noda. \newblock High-\emph{Q} photonic nanocavity in a two-dimensional photonic crystal. \newblock {\em Nature}, 425:944--947, 2003. \bibitem{Lal1} P.~{Lalanne}, S.~{Mias}, and J.~{Hugonin}. \newblock {Two physical mechanisms for boosting the quality factor to cavity volume ratio of photonic crystal microcavities}. \newblock {\em Opt. Express}, 12:458--467, Feb 2004. \bibitem{Yar1} A.~{Yariv} and P.~{Yeh}. \newblock {\em Optical Waves in Crystals: Propagation and Control of Laser Radiation}. \newblock John Wiley and Sons Inc, 2002. \end{thebibliography} \section{Introduction} Photonic crystals (PCs) describe a class of semiconductor structures which exhibit a periodic variation of refractive index in 1, 2, or 3 dimensions. As a result of this periodic variation, PCs possess a photonic band gap -- a range of frequencies in which the propagation of light is forbidden~. This is the analog of the electronic bandgap in traditional semiconductors. This unique characteristic of PCs enables them to be used to effectively manipulate light. PCs have already been used for applications such as modifying the spontaneous emission rate of emitters ~\cite{Eng1, Bor1}, slowing down the group velocity of light~, and designing highly efficient nanoscale lasers~. Given that Photonic Crystals find applications in a myriad of areas, we proceed to investigate the question: \emph{What is the best possible PC design for a given application?} Traditionally, the design of optimal PC structures has been largely done by either trial-and-error, iterative searches through a design space, by physical intuition, or some combination of the above methods~. However, such methods of design have their limitations, and recent developments in PC design optimization have instead taken on a more systematic and algorithmic nature ~\cite{Eng2, Jia1, Pre1, Drup1}. In this work, we report the results of a Genetic Algorithm to optimize the design of a set of one and two-dimensional PC structures. We show that the Genetic Algorithm can effectively optimize PC structures for any given design objective, and is thus a highly robust and useful design tool. \section{Genetic Algorithms} Genetic Algorithms (also known as Evolutionary Algorithms) are a class of optimization algorithms that apply principles of natural evolution to optimize a given objective~. In the genetic optimization of a problem, different solutions to the problem are picked (usually randomly), and a measure of fitness is assigned to each solution. On a given generation of the design, a set of operations, analogous to mutation and reproduction in natural selection, are performed on these solutions to create a new generation of solutions, which should theoretically be ``fitter'' than their parents. This process is repeated until the algorithm terminates, typically after a pre-defined number of generations, or after a particularly ``fit'' solution is found, or more generally, when a generation of solutions meets some pre-defined convergence criterion. \section{Implementation} Genetic Algorithms have already been used in PC design - to find non-intuitive large-bandgap designs~ and for designing PC fibers~. In our work, we performed the genetic optimization by varying the sizes of circular holes in a triangular lattice. This approach was chosen because the search space is conveniently constrained in this paradigm, and the optimized structures can be easily fabricated, if desired. A freely available software package~ was used to simulate the designed structures. In addition, we used the following parameters for the implementation of our Genetic Algorithm: \medskip \begin{description} \item{\textbf{Chromosome Encoding.}} We used a direct-chromosome encoding, where the various optimization parameters were stored in a vector. For the current simulations, for simplicity, we only varied the radii of cylindrical holes in a triangular lattice. Our implementation can be easily modified to include other optimization parameters as well, such as the positions of the various holes, or the refractive index of the dielectric material. \smallskip \item{\textbf{Selection.}} We used fitness-proportionate selection (also known as roulette-wheel selection), to choose parent chromosomes for mating. In this selection scheme, a chromosome is selected with a probability $P_i$ that is proportional to its fitness $f_i$, as shown in Eq. (). \begin{equation} P_i = \frac{f_i}{\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{N}f_k} \end{equation} \smallskip \item{\textbf{Mating.}} After a pair of parent chromosomes $v_{parent,1}$ and $v_{parent,2}$ were selected, they were mated to produce a child chromosome $v_{child}$ by taking a random convex combination of the parent vectors, as in Eq. (). \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber \lambda &\sim& U(0, 1) \\ \vec{v}_{child} &=& \lambda \vec{v}_{parent,1} + (1-\lambda)\vec{v}_{parent,2} \end{eqnarray} \smallskip \item{\textbf{Mutation.}} Mutation was used to introduce diversity in the population. We used two types of mutation in our simulations, a random-point crossover and a gaussian mutation. \textbf{1) Random-point crossover}: For an original chromosome vector $\vec{v}_{orig}$ of length $N$, we select a random index, $k$, from 0 to $N$ as the crossover point, and swap the two halves of $\vec{v}_{orig}$ to produce the mutated vector, $\vec{v}_{mut}$, as represented in Eq. (). \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber \vec{v}_{orig} &=& (v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_N)^T \\ \nonumber \qquad k &\sim& U\{0, 1, 2, .... , N\} \\ \vec{v}_{mut} &=& (v_{k+1}, v_{k+2}, \ldots, v_N, v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_{k-1})^T \end{eqnarray} \textbf{2) Gaussian mutation}: To mutate a chromosome vector by Gaussian mutation, we define each element of $\vec{v}_{mut}$ to be independent and identically distributed Gaussian Random Variables with mean $\vec{v}_{orig}$ and a standard deviation proportional to the corresponding elements of $\vec{v}_{orig}$. This searches the space in the \emph{vicinity} of the original chromosome vector $\vec{v}_{orig}$. \begin{eqnarray} v_{i}^{mut} \sim N\left(v_{i}^{orig}, \sigma^2 \right), \qquad i \in \{0, 1, 2, .... , N\} \end{eqnarray} $\sigma^2$ is a algorithm-specific variance, and can be tuned to change the extent of parameter-space exploration due to mutation. \smallskip \item{\textbf{Cloning.}} To ensure that the maximum fitness of the population was would never decrease, we copied (cloned) the top few chromosomes with the highest fitness in each generation and inserted them into the next generation. \end{description} \section{Simulation Results} \subsection{Optimizing Planar Photonic Cavity Cavities} \subsubsection{\emph{Q}-factor Maximization} One problem of interest in PC design is the inverse problem, where one tries to find a dielectric structure to confine a given (target) electromagnetic mode. Here we consider the inverse design problem of optimizing a linear-defect cavity in a planar photonic crystal cavity. The \emph{Q}-factor is a common figure of merit measuring how well a cavity can confine a given mode, and can be approximated (assuming no material absorption) by the following expression: \begin{equation} \frac{1}{Q_{\emph{total}}} = \frac{1}{Q_{||}} + \frac{1}{Q_{\bot}} \end{equation} where $Q_{||}$ represents the \emph{Q}-factor in the direction parallel to the slab, and $Q_{\bot}$ represents the \emph{Q}-factor perpendicular to the slab. $Q_{\bot}$ is usually the limiting factor for $Q_{\emph{total}}$. As was shown previously~\cite{Eng2, Aka1}, the vertical mode confinement, which occurs through total internal reflection (TIR), can be improved if the mode has minimal k-space components inside the light cone. In the subsequent sections, we report the results where we employed our GA to minimize the light cone radiation of such cavities. We used one-dimensional photonic crystals as approximations to these cavities~, and simulated these cavities using the standard Transfer Matrix method for the E-field~. \subsubsection{Matching to a Target Function} In~ it was noted that minimization of light cone radiation could be performed via mode-matching to a target function which already possessed such a property. We therefore used a fitness function that was equal (up to a normalizing factor) to the reciprocal of the mean-squared difference between our simulated mode and a target mode (see Eq~()). For this simulation, our chromosome encoded the thicknesses of the dielectric slabs in the structure, and was a vector of length 10. We used 100 chromosomes in each generation and allowed them to evolve for 80 generations. \begin{equation} fitness \propto \left\{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{|f_{sim}(x) - f_{target}(x)|^2}dx\right\}^{-1} \end{equation} We used target modes that were sinusoidal functions multiplied by \emph{sinc} and \emph{sinc-squared} envelope respectively. Such target modes have theoretically no radiation at or near the Gamma point and are therefore ideal candidates as target functions. The results, shown in Fig.~, clearly feature a suppression of k-vector components at low spatial-frequencies. Matching using the the \emph{sinc-squared} envelope target function appeared to produce a better match. From the k-space plots, the GA evidently had difficulty matching the sharp edges for the \emph{sinc}-envelope target mode. \medskip \subsubsection{Direct Minimization of Light Cone Radiation} In the preceding subsection, we observed that when we formulated our objective as a matching problem, in the case of the \emph{sinc}-envelope, the GA sacrificed the desired low spatial-frequency suppression in an effort to match the overall shape of the function. The preceding formulation therefore poses an implicit constraint on our optimization. By reformulating the optimization problem, we were able to effectively remove this constraint, and obtain a better result. Our reformulation directly minimized the k-vector components in the light cone, by minimizing the integrated square-magnitude of the simulated E-field mode in k-space inside the light cone. The fitness function that we used is given as in Eq~(), where \emph{V} represents the set of k-vectors within the light cone. \begin{equation} fitness = \left\{\int_{V}{|F(k)|^2dk}\right\}^{-1} \end{equation} The final, evolved structure, together with the corresponding real-space and k-space mode profiles are shown in Fig~. The k-space mode profile features a strong suppression of radiation at low frequencies, to a greater extent as compared to the optimized fields from the preceding simulations. By relaxing our constraint and performing a direct optimization, our GA has designed a structure that achieves better light cone suppression than before. Our direct optimization paradigm has exploited the extreme generality of the GA, which simply requires that a fitness function be defined, with little further constraint thereafter. \medskip \subsection{Maximal Gap at any k-vector Point} Moving on to the more generic case of 2D photonic crystals, we will proceed to show the results of simulations for maximizing the TE bandgap at any point in k-space for a 2-Dimensional PC structure with a triangular lattice of air holes. This could be useful for PC design applications where the target mode to be confined is centered around a particular point in k-space~. By maximizing the bandgap at that k-space point, we would effectively design a better mirror for a mode resonating along this k-space direction. We used a supercell which was three periods wide in each dimension and varied the radii of the nine holes in total, and we encoded the chromosome as a vector of these nine holes. We used a population size of 60 chromosomes for each generation, and allowed the optimization to run for a total of 100 generations. To evaluate the fitness of each chromosome, we used the eigensolver in Ref~ to calculate the gap-to-midgap ratio at the K-point of the band diagram. We then scaled the calculated ratio exponentially to tune the selection pressure of the optimization. Figure~ shows the variation of the gap-to-midgap ratio of our structures as the algorithm progressed. Our Genetic Algorithm performs as expected, and we get a general increase of fitness as the algorithm progresses. All the four runs do not show any significant increase in fitness after Generation 80, at which point they have maximum fitnesses (i.e. ratio of their bandgap to midgap value) of around 72\ run have similar dielectric structures and band diagrams. The dielectric structures and a sample band diagram is shown in Figure~. \medskip \medskip \subsection{Optimal dual PC structures} As a more complex example, let us consider two similar PC designs, (1) a triangular lattice of air holes in a dielectric slab, and (2) a triangular lattice of dielectric rods in air. Structure (1) possesses a bandgap for TE light, but no bandgap for TM light, while structure (2) possesses a bandgap for TM light, but not for TE light. Our objective is to use the Genetic Algorithm to find a PC design in which the TE eigenmode for structure (1) and the TM eigenmode for structure (2) are most similar. Maxwell's equations can be cast as eigenproblems for the Electric or Magnetic fields, and our approach could be potentially useful in future PC design, because solving the inverse problem is analytically simpler (at least intuitively) for the eigenproblem involving the \emph{E}-field. We used a 3x3 supercell for the optimization, and we minimize the mean-square difference of the z-components of the electric and magnetic fields of the dual structures at the K-point of the band diagram. We recognize \emph{a priori} that a trivial solution, which we wish to avoid, is a structure that has a uniform refractive index (either dielectric or air) throughout, and so we prevent the genetic algorithm from obtaining this by restricting our mutation to only a Gaussian mutation (see Eq.~). This preferentially searches the locality of points, and is a necessary trade-off for obtaining a reasonable solution. This illustrates the versatility of the Genetic approach - the extent of the search can be easily modified by a simple change of algorithm parameters. Fig.~ shows the optimal dual structures with the corresponding simulated fields. \medskip \section{Conclusion} From the results above, we have shown that our Genetic Algorithm is able to effectively optimize PC designs to meet specific design criteria. Furthermore, by our choice of encoding, we could easily impose constraints upon the design space to ensure that every design searched by the algorithm could be realistically fabricated. Between different optimizations, all that needed to be changed was the measure of how well a given structure complied with our design criterion - the "fitness function" in Genetic Algorithm parlance. Our Genetic Algorithm is therefore highly robust and can be easily modified to optimize any user-defined objective function.
|
0704.0186
|
Title: Dark energy and neutrino model in SUSY -- Remarks on active and sterile
neutrinos mixing --
Abstract: We consider a Mass Varying Neutrinos (MaVaNs) model in supersymmetric theory.
The model includes effects of supersymmetry breaking transmitted by the
gravitational interaction from the hidden sector, in which supersymmetry was
broken, to the dark energy sector. Then evolutions of the neutrino mass and the
equation of state parameter of the dark energy are presented in the model. It
is remarked that only the mass of a sterile neutrino is variable in the case of
the vanishing mixing between the left-handed and a sterile neutrino on
cosmological time scale. The finite mixing makes the mass of the left-handed
neutrino variable.
Body: \markboth{Ryo Takahashi}{Dark energy and neutrino model in SUSY\\ -- Remarks on active and sterile neutrinos mixing --} \catchline{}{}{}{}{} \title{Dark energy and neutrino model in SUSY\\ -- Remarks on active and sterile neutrinos mixing --} \author{\footnotesize Ryo Takahashi\footnote{talked at the International Workshop on Neutrino Masses and Mixings, University of Shizuoka, Shizuoka, Japan, December 17-19, 2006}} \address{Graduate School of Science and Technology, Niigata University, 950-2181 Niigata, Japan\\ takahasi@muse.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp} \author{Morimitsu Tanimoto} \address{Department of Physics, Niigata University, 950-2181 Niigata, Japan\\ tanimoto@muse.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp} \maketitle \begin{abstract} We consider a Mass Varying Neutrinos (MaVaNs) model in supersymmetric theory. The model includes effects of supersymmetry breaking transmitted by the gravitational interaction from the hidden sector, in which supersymmetry was broken, to the dark energy sector. Then evolutions of the neutrino mass and the equation of state parameter of the dark energy are presented in the model. It is remarked that only the mass of a sterile neutrino is variable in the case of the vanishing mixing between the left-handed and a sterile neutrino on cosmological time scale. The finite mixing makes the mass of the left-handed neutrino variable. \end{abstract} \section{Introduction} Cosmological observations have provided the strong evidence that the Universe is flat and its energy density is dominated by the dark energy component whose negative pressure causes the cosmic expansion to accelerate. In order to clarify the origin of the dark energy, one has tried to understand the connection of the dark energy with particle physics. In the Mass Varying Neutrinos (MaVaNs) scenario proposed by Fardon, Nelson and Weiner, relic neutrinos could form a negative pressure fluid and cause the present cosmic acceleration. In the model, an unknown scalar field, which is called ``acceleron'', is introduced and neutrinos are assumed to interact through a new scalar force. The acceleron sits at the instantaneous minimum of its potential, and the cosmic expansion only modulates this minimum through changes in the number density of neutrinos. Therefore, the neutrino mass is given by the acceleron, in other words, it depends on the number density of neutrinos and changes with the expansion of the Universe. The equation of state parameter $w$ and the energy density of the dark energy also evolve with the neutrino mass. Those evolutions depend on the form of a scalar potential and the relation between the acceleron and the neutrino mass strongly. Some examples of the potential have been considered. The idea of the variable neutrino mass was considered at first in a model of neutrino dark matter and was discussed for neutrino clouds. Interacting dark energy scalar with neutrinos was considered in the model of a sterile neutrino. The coupling to the left-handed neutrino and its implication on the neutrino mass limit from baryogenesis was discussed. In the context of the MaVaNs scenario, there have been a lot of works. In this talk, we present a MaVaNs model including the supersymmetry breaking effect mediated by the gravity. Then we show evolutions of the neutrino mass and the equation of state parameter in the model. \section{MaVaNs Model in Supersymmetric Theory} We discuss the Mass Varying Neutrinos scenario in supersymmetric theory and present a model. We assume a chiral superfield $A$ in dark sector. $A$ is assumed to be a singlet under the gauge group of the standard model. It is difficult to construct a viable MaVaNs model without fine-tunings in some parameters when one assumes one chiral superfield in dark sector, which couples to only the left-handed lepton doublet superfield. Therefore, we assume that the superfield $A$ couples to both the left-handed lepton doublet superfield $L$ and the right-handed neutrino superfield $R$. For simplicity, we consider the MaVaNs scenario in one generation of neutrinos.\footnote{Three generations model of this scenario has presented in non supersymmetric theory.} In such framework, we suppose the following superpotential, \begin{eqnarray} W=\frac{\lambda}{6}A^3+\frac{M_A}{2}AA+m_DLA+M_DLR +\frac{M_R}{2}RR, \end{eqnarray} where $\lambda$ is a coupling constant of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ and $M_A$, $M_D$, $M_R$ and $m_D$ are mass parameters.\footnote{Other supersymmetric model so called ``hybrid model'' has been proposed.} The scalar and the spinor component of $A$ are represented by $\phi$ and $\psi$, respectively. The scalar component corresponds to the acceleron which cause the present cosmic acceleration. The spinor component is a sterile neutrino. The third term of the right-hand side in Eq. () is derived from the Yukawa coupling such as $yLAH$ with $y<H>=m_D$, where $H$ is the Higgs doublet. In the MaVaNs scenario, the dark energy is assumed to be composed of the neutrinos and the scalar potential for the acceleron. Therefore, the energy density of the dark energy is given as \begin{equation} \rho _{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}}=\rho _\nu +V(\phi ). \end{equation} Since only the acceleron potential contributes to the dark energy, we assume the vanishing vacuum expectation values of sleptons, and thus we find the following effective scalar potential, \begin{equation} V(\phi )=\frac{\lambda^2}{4}|\phi |^4+M_A^2|\phi |^2 +m_D^2|\phi |^2. \end{equation} We can write down a lagrangian density from Eq. (), \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{L}=\lambda\phi\psi\psi +M_A\psi\psi+m_D\nu_L\psi +M_D\nu_L\nu _R+M_R\nu _R\nu _R+h.c.. \end{eqnarray} It is noticed that the lepton number conservation in the dark sector is violated because this lagrangian includes both $M_A\psi\psi$ and $m_D\nu_L\psi$. After integrating out the right-handed neutrino, the effective neutrino mass matrix is given by \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{M}\simeq \left( \begin{array}{cc} c & m_D \\ m_D & M_A+\lambda\phi \end{array} \right), \end{eqnarray} in the basis of $(\nu_L,\psi )$, where $c\equiv -M_D^2/M_R$ and we assume $\lambda\phi\ll M_D\ll M_R$. The first term of the $(1,1)$ element of this matrix corresponds to the usual term given by the seesaw mechanism in the absence of the acceleron. We obtain masses of the left-handed and a sterile neutrino as follows, \begin{eqnarray} m_{\nu _L}&=&\frac{c+M_A+\lambda<\phi>}{2} +\frac{\sqrt{[c-(M_A+\lambda<\phi>)]^2+4m_D^2}}{2},\\ m_\psi&=&\frac{c+M_A+\lambda<\phi>}{2} -\frac{\sqrt{[c-(M_A+\lambda<\phi>)]^2+4m_D^2}}{2}. \end{eqnarray} It is remarked that only the mass of a sterile neutrino is variable in the case of the vanishing mixing ($m_D=0$) between the left-handed and a sterile neutrino on cosmological time scale. The finite mixing ($m_D\neq 0$) makes the mass of the left-handed neutrino variable. We will consider these two cases of $m_D=0$ and $m_D\neq 0$ later. In the MaVaNs scenario, there are two constraints on the scalar potential. The first one comes from cosmological observations. It is that the magnitude of the present dark energy density is about $0.74\rho _c$. $\rho _c$ is the critical density. Thus, the first constraint turns to \begin{eqnarray} V(\phi ^0)=0.74\rho _c-\rho _\nu ^0, \end{eqnarray} where ``$0$'' means the present value. The second one is the stationary condition: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial\rho_{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}}}{\partial\phi} =\frac{\partial\rho_\nu}{\partial\phi} +\frac{\partial V(\phi)}{\partial\phi}=0. \end{eqnarray} In this scenario, the neutrino mass is represented by a function of the acceleron; $m_\nu=f(\phi)$. Since the energy density of the neutrino varies on cosmological times scale, the vacuum expectation value of the acceleron also varies. This property makes the neutrino mass variable. If $\partial m_\nu/\partial\phi\neq0$, Eq. () is equivalent to \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial\rho _{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}}}{\partial m_\nu} =\frac{\partial\rho _\nu}{\partial m_\nu} +\frac{\partial V(\phi (m_\nu))}{\partial m_\nu}=0. \end{eqnarray} Eq. () is rewritten by using the cosmic temperature $T$: \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial V(\phi )}{\partial m_\nu} =-T^3\frac{\partial F(\xi )}{\partial\xi}, \end{eqnarray} where $\xi\equiv m_\nu /T$, $\rho _\nu =T^4F(\xi )$ and \begin{eqnarray} F(\xi )\equiv\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\int _0^\infty \frac{dyy^2\sqrt{y^2+\xi ^2}}{e^y+1}. \end{eqnarray} We can get the time evolution of the neutrino mass from Eq. (). Since the stationary condition should be always satisfied in the evolution of the Universe, this one at the present epoch is the second constraint on the scalar potential: \begin{eqnarray} \left.\frac{\partial V(\phi )}{\partial m_\nu}\right| _{m_\nu =m_\nu^0} =\left.-T^3\frac{\partial F(\xi )}{\partial\xi}\right| _{m_\nu =m_\nu^0,T=T_0}. \end{eqnarray} In addition to two constraints for the potential, we also have two relations between the vacuum expectation value of the acceleron and the neutrino masses at the present epoch: \begin{eqnarray} m_{\nu _L}^0&=&\frac{c+M_A+\lambda<\phi>^0}{2} +\frac{\sqrt{[c-(M_A+\lambda<\phi>^0)]^2+4m_D^2}} {2},\\ m_\psi ^0&=&\frac{c+M_A+\lambda<\phi>^0}{2} -\frac{\sqrt{[c-(M_A+\lambda<\phi>^0)]^2+4m_D^2}}{2}. \end{eqnarray} Next, let us consider the dynamics of the acceleron field. In order that the acceleron does not vary significantly on distance of inter-neutrino spacing, the acceleron mass at the present epoch must be less than $\mathcal{O}(10^{-4}\mbox{eV})$ . Here and below, we fix the present acceleron mass as \begin{eqnarray} m_\phi ^0=10^{-4}\mbox{ eV}. \end{eqnarray} Once we adjust parameters which satisfy five equations () and ()$\sim$(), we can have evolutions of the neutrino masses by using the Eq. (). The dark energy is characterized by the evolution of the equation of state parameter $w$. The equation of state is derived from the energy conservation law and the stationary condition Eq. (): \begin{eqnarray} w+1=\frac{[4-h(\xi )]\rho _\nu}{3\rho _{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}}}, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} h(\xi )\equiv\frac{\xi\frac{\partial F(\xi )}{\partial\xi}}{F(\xi )}. \end{eqnarray} It seems that $w$ in this scenario depend on the neutrino mass and the cosmic temperature. This means that $w$ varies with the evolution of the Universe unlike the cosmological constant. In the last of this section, we comment on the hydrodynamical stability of the dark energy in the MaVaNs scenario. The speed of sound squared in the neutrino-acceleron fluid is given by \begin{eqnarray} c_s^2=\frac{\dot{p}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}}} {\dot{\rho}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}}} =\frac{\dot{w}\rho _{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}} +w\dot{\rho}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}}} {\dot{\rho}_{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}}}, \end{eqnarray} where $p_{\mbox{{\scriptsize DE}}}$ is the pressure of the dark energy. Recently, it was argued that when neutrinos are non-relativistic, this speed of sound squared becomes negative in this scenario. The emergence of an imaginary speed of sound means that the MaVaNs scenario with non-relativistic neutrinos is unstable, and thus the fluid in this scenario cannot acts as the dark energy. However, finite temperature effects provide a positive contribution to the speed of sound squared and avoid this instability. Then, a model should satisfy the following condition, \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial m_\nu}{\partial z} \left(1-\frac{5aT^2}{3m_\nu ^2}\right) +\frac{25aT_0^2(z+1)}{3m_\nu}>0, \end{eqnarray} where $z$ is the redshift parameter, $z\equiv (T/T_0)-1$, and \begin{eqnarray} a\equiv\frac{\int _0^\infty\frac{dyy^4}{e^y+1}} {2\int _0^\infty\frac{dyy^2}{e^y+1}}\simeq 6.47. \end{eqnarray} The first and the second term of left hand side in Eq. () are negative and positive contributions to the speed of sound squared, respectively. We find that a model which leads to small $\partial m_\nu/\partial z$ is favored. A model with a small power-law scalar potential; $V(\phi)=\Lambda^4(\phi/\phi^0)^k$, $k\ll1$, and a constant dominant neutrino mass; $m_\nu=C+f(\phi)$, $f(\phi)\ll C$, leads to small $\partial m_\nu/\partial z$.\footnote{A model with the masses of the left-handed neutrinos given by the see-saw mechanism is unstable even if it has a small power-law scalar potential.} Actually, some models have been presented. \section{Effect of supersymmetry breaking} Let us consider effect of supersymmetry breaking in the dark sector. We assume a superfield $X$, which breaks supersymmetry, in the hidden sector, and the chiral superfield $A$ in the dark sector is assumed to interact with the hidden sector only through the gravity. This framework is shown graphically in Fig. . Once supersymmetry is broken at TeV scale, its effect is transmitted to the dark sector through the following operators: \begin{eqnarray} \int d^4\theta\frac{X^\dagger X}{M_{p\ell}^2}A^\dagger A, \hspace{3mm} \int d^4\theta\frac{X^\dagger +X}{M_{p\ell}}A^\dagger A, \end{eqnarray} where $M_{p\ell}$ is the Planck mass. Then, the scale of soft terms $F_X(\mbox{TeV}^2)/M_{p\ell}\sim \mathcal{O}(10^{-3}$-$10^{-2}\mbox{eV})$ is expected. In the ``acceleressence'' scenario, this scale is identified with the dark energy scale. We consider only one superfield which breaks supersymmetry for simplicity. If one extends the hidden sector, one can consider a different mediation mechanism between the standard model and the hidden sector from one between the dark and the hidden sector. In this framework, taking supersymmetry breaking effect into account, the scalar potential is given by \begin{eqnarray} V(\phi )=\frac{\lambda^2}{4}|\phi |^4-\frac{\kappa}{3}(\phi ^3+h.c.) +M_A^2|\phi |^2+m_D^2|\phi |^2-m^2|\phi |^2+V_0, \end{eqnarray} where $\kappa$ and $m$ are supersymmetry breaking parameters, and $V_0$ is a constant determined by the condition that the cosmological constant is vanishing at the true minimum of the acceleron potential. We consider two types of the neutrino mass matrix in this scalar potential. They are the cases of the vanishing and the finite mixing between the left-handed and a sterile neutrino. \subsection{Case of the Vanishing Mixing} When the mixing between the left-handed and a sterile neutrino is vanishing, $m_D=0$ in the neutrino mass matrix (). Then we have the masses of the left-handed and a sterile neutrino as \begin{eqnarray} m_{\nu _L} &=& c,\\ m_\psi &=& M_A+\lambda<\phi>. \end{eqnarray} In this case, we find that only the mass of a sterile neutrino is variable on cosmological time scale due to the second term of the right hand side in Eq. (). Let us adjust parameters which satisfy Eqs. () and ()$\sim$(). In Eq. (), the scalar potential Eq. () is used. Putting typical values for four parameters by hand as follows: \begin{eqnarray} \lambda=1,\hspace{3mm}m_D=0, \hspace{3mm}m_{\nu _L}^0=2\times 10^{-2}\mbox{ eV},\hspace{3mm} m_\psi ^0=10^{-2}\mbox{ eV}, \end{eqnarray} we have \begin{eqnarray} &&<\phi>^0\simeq -1.31\times 10^{-5}\mbox{ eV},\hspace{3mm} c=2\times 10^{-2}\mbox{ eV},\hspace{3mm} M_A\simeq 10^{-2}\mbox{ eV},\nonumber\\ &&m\simeq 10^{-2}\mbox{ eV},\hspace{3mm} \kappa\simeq 4.34\times 10^{-3}\mbox{ eV}. \end{eqnarray} We need fine-tuning between $M_A$ and $m$ in order to satisfy the constraint on the present accerelon mass of Eq. (). We show evolutions of the mass of a sterile neutrino and the equation of state parameter in Figs. , and . The behavior of the mass of a neutrino near the present epoch is shown in Fig. . We find that the mass of a sterile neutrino have varied slowly in this epoch. This means that the first term of the left hand side in Eq. (), which is a negative contribution to the speed of sound squared, is tiny. We can also check the positive speed of sound squared in a numerical calculation. Therefore, the neutrino-acceleron fluid is hydrodynamically stable and acts as the dark energy. \subsection{Case of the Finite Mixing} Next, we consider the case of the finite mixing between the left-handed and a sterile neutrino ($m_D\neq 0$). In this case, the left-handed and a sterile neutrino mass are given by \begin{eqnarray} m_{\nu _L}&=&\frac{c+M_A+\lambda<\phi>}{2} +\frac{\sqrt{[c-(M_A+\lambda<\phi>)]^2+4m_D^2}} {2},\\ m_\psi&=&\frac{c+M_A+\lambda<\phi>}{2} -\frac{\sqrt{[c-(M_A+\lambda<\phi>)]^2+4m_D^2}}{2}. \end{eqnarray} We find that both masses of the left-handed and a sterile neutrino are variable on cosmological time scale due to the term of the acceleron dependence. Taking typical values for four parameters as \begin{eqnarray} \lambda=1,\hspace{3mm}m_D=10^{-3}\mbox{ eV},\hspace{3mm} m_{\nu _L}^0=2\times 10^{-2}\mbox{ eV},\hspace{3mm} m_\psi ^0=10^{-2}\mbox{ eV}, \end{eqnarray} we have \begin{eqnarray} &&<\phi>^0\simeq -1.31\times 10^{-5}\mbox{ eV},\hspace{3mm} c\simeq 1.99\times 10^{-2}\mbox{ eV},\hspace{3mm} M_A\simeq 1.01\times 10^{-2}\mbox{ eV},\nonumber\\ &&m\simeq 1.02\times 10^{-2}\mbox{ eV},\hspace{3mm} \kappa\simeq 4.34\times 10^{-3}\mbox{ eV}. \end{eqnarray} where we required that the mixing between the active and a sterile neutrino is tiny. In our model, the small present value of the acceleron is needed to satisfy the constraints on the scalar potential in Eqs. () and (). Values of parameters in () are almost same as the case of the vanishing mixing (). However, the mass of the left-handed neutrino is variable unlike the vanishing mixing case. The time evolution of the left-handed neutrino mass is shown in Fig. . The mixing does not affect the evolution of a sterile neutrino mass and the equation of state parameter, which are shown in Figs. , . Since the variation in the mass of the left-handed neutrino is not vanishing but extremely small, the model can also avoid the instability of speed of sound. Finally, we comment on the smallness of the evolution of the neutrino mass at the present epoch. In our model, the mass of the left-handed and a sterile neutrino include the constant part. A variable part is a function of the acceleron. In the present epoch, the constant part dominates the neutrino mass because the present value of the acceleron should be small. This smallness of the value of the acceleron is required from the cosmological observation and the stationary condition in Eqs. () and (). \section{Summary} We presented a supersymmetric MaVaNs model including effects of the supersymmetry breaking mediated by the gravity. Evolutions of the neutrino mass and the equation of state parameter have been calculated in the model. Our model has a chiral superfield in the dark sector, whose scalar component causes the present cosmic acceleration, and the right-handed neutrino superfield. In our framework, supersymmetry is broken in the hidden sector at TeV scale and the effect is assumed to be transmitted to the dark sector only through the gravity. Then, the scale of soft parameters of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3}$-$10^{-2})(\mbox{eV})$ is expected. We considered two types of model. One is the case of the vanishing mixing between the left-handed and a sterile neutrino. Another one is the finite mixing case. In the case of the vanishing mixing, only the mass of a sterile neutrino had varied on cosmological time scale. In the epoch of $0\leq z \leq 20$, the sterile neutrino mass had varied slowly. This means that the speed of sound squared in the neutrino acceleron fluid is positive, and thus this fluid can act as the dark energy. In the finite mixing case, the mass of the left-handed neutrino had also varied. However, the variation is extremely small and the effect of the mixing does not almost affect the evolution of the sterile neutrino mass and the equation of state parameter. Therefore, this model can also avoid the instability. \begin{thebibliography}{8} \bibitem{Riess} A. G. Riess $et$ $al$., Astron. J. {\bf 116}, 1009 (1998); S. Perlmutter $et$ $al$., Astrophys. J. {\bf 517}, 565 (1999); P. de Bernardis $et$ $al$., Nature {\bf 404}, 955 (2000); A. Baldi $et$ $al$., Astrophys. J. {\bf 545}, L1 (2000), [Erratum-ibid. {\bf 558}, L145 (2001)]; A. T. Lee $et$ $al$., Astrophys. J. {\bf 561}, L1 (2001); R. Stompor $et$ $al$., Astrophys. J. {\bf 561}, L7 (2001); N. W. Halverson $et$ $al$., Astrophys. J. {\bf 568}, 38 (2002); C. L. Bennet $et$ $al$., Astrophys. J. Suppl. {\bf 148}, 1 (2003); D. N. Spergel $et$ $al$., Astrophys. J. Suppl. {\bf 148}, 175 (2003), [astro-ph/0603449]; J. A. Peacock $et$ $al$., Nature {\bf 410}, 169 (2001); W. J. Percival $et$ $al$., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. {\bf 327}, 1297 (2001); M. Tegmark $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 103501 (2004); K. Abazajian $et$ $al$., Astron. J. {\bf 128}, 502 (2004); U. Seljak $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 103515 (2005); P. McDonald, U. Seljak, R. Cen, P. Bode, and J. P. Ostriker, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. {\bf 360}, 1471 (2005). \bibitem{Weiner} R. Fardon, A. E. Nelson and N. Weiner, JCAP. {\bf 0410}, 005 (2004). \bibitem{Peccei} R. D. Peccei, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 023527 (2005). \bibitem{Yanagida} M. Kawasaki, H. Murayama and T. Yanagida, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 7}, 563 (1992); G. J. Stephenson, T. Goldman and B. H. J. McKellar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 13}, 2765 (1998), Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 12}, 2391 (1997). \bibitem{Hung} P. Q. Hung, hep-ph/0010126. \bibitem{Wang} P. Gu, X-L. Wang and X-Min. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 087301 (2003). \bibitem{Kaplan} D. B. Kaplan, A. E. Nelson, N. Weiner, Phy. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 091801 (2004); V. Barger, D. Marfatia and K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 73}, 013005 (2006); P-H. Gu, X-J. Bi, B. Feng, B-L. Young and X. Zhang, hep-ph/0512076; X-J. Bi, P. Gu, X-L. Wang and X-Min. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 113007 (2004); P. Gu and X-J. Bi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 063511 (2004); P. Q. Hung and H. P\"as, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 20}, 1209 (2005); V. Barger, P. Huber and D. Marfatia, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 211802 (2005); M. Cirelli and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pe\~na-Garay, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 719}, 219 (2005); X-J. Bi, B. Feng, H. Li and X-Min. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 72} 123523, (2005); A. W. Brookfield, C. van de Bruck, D. F. Mota and D. Tocchini-Valentini, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf96}, 061301 (2006); R. Horvat, JCAP {\bf 0601}, 015 (2006); R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, S. J. Oliver and A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 625}, 189 (2005); N. Weiner and K. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 023517 (2006); H. Li, B. Feng, J-Q. Xia and X-Min. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 103503 (2006); A. W. Brookfield, C. van de Bruck, D. F. Mota and D. Tocchini-Valentini, Phys. Rev. D {\bf73}, 083515 (2006); P-H. Gu, X-J. Bi and X. Zhang, hep-ph/0511027; E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 638}, 356 (2006); A. Zanzi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 124010 (2006); R. Takahashi and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 055002 (2006); A. Ringwald and L. Schrempp, JCAP. {\bf 0610}, 012 (2006); R. Takahashi and M. Tanimoto, hep-ph/0610347; S. Das and N. Weiner, astro-ph/0611353; C.T. Hill, I. Mocioiu, E.A. Paschos and U. Sarkar, hep-ph/0611284; L. Schrempp, astro-ph/0611912. \bibitem{our} R. Takahashi and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 633}, 675 (2006). \bibitem{Honda} M. Honda, R. Takahashi and M. Tanimoto, JHEP {\bf 0601}, 042 (2006). \bibitem{hybrid} R. Fardon, A. E. Nelson and N. Weiner, JHEP {\bf 0603}, 042 (2006). \bibitem{stability} N. Afshordi, M. Zaldarriaga and K. Kohri, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 065024 (2005). \bibitem{Speed} R. Takahashi and M. Tanimoto, JHEP {\bf 0605}, 021 (2006). \bibitem{Spitzer} C. Spitzer, astro-ph/0606034. \bibitem{acceleressence} Z. Chacko, L. J. Hall and Y. Nomura, JCAP. {\bf 0410}, 011 (2004). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0190
|
Title: The Reliability on the Direction of the Incident Neutrino for the Fully
Contained Events and Partially Contained Events due to QEL in the
Super-Kamiokande
Abstract: In the SK analysis of the neutrino events for [Fully Contained Events] and
[Partially Contained Events] on their zenith angle distribution, it is assumed
that the zenith angle of the incident neutrino is the same as that of the
detected charged lepton. In the present paper, we examine the validity of [the
SK assumption on the direction] of the incident neutrinos. Concretely speaking,
we analyze muon-like events due to QEL. For the purpose, we develop [Time
Sequential Monte Carlo Simulation] to extract the conclusion on the validity of
the SK assumption. In our [Time Sequential Simulation], we simulate every
physical process concerned as exactly as possible without any approximation.
From the comparison between the zenith angle distributon of the emitted muons
under [the SK assumption on the direction] and the corresponding one obtained
under our [Time Sequential Simulation], it is concluded that the measurement of
the direction of the incident neutrino for the neutrino events occurring inside
the detector in the SK analysis turns out to be unreliable, which holds
irrespective of the existence and/or non-existence of the neutrino oscillation.
Body: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps} gsave 72 31 moveto 72 342 lineto 601 342 lineto 601 31 lineto 72 31 lineto showpage grestore \end{filecontents} \title{The Reliability on the Direction of the Incident Neutrino for the Fully Contained Events and Partially Contained Events due to QEL in the Super-Kamiokande} \author{E. Konishi\inst{1}, Y. Minorikawa\inst{2}, V.I. Galkin\inst{3}, M. Ishiwata\inst{4}, I. Nakamura\inst{4}, N. Takahashi\inst{1}, M. Kato\inst{5} \and A. Misaki\inst{6} } \institute{ Graduate School of Science and Technology, Hirosaki University, Hirosaki, 036-8561, Japan \and Department of Science, School of Science and Engineering, Kinki University, Higashi-Osaka, 577-8502, Japan \and Department of Physics, Moscow State University, Moscow, 119992, Russia \and Department of Physics, Saitama University, Saitama, 338-8570, Japan \and Kyowa Interface Science Co.,Ltd., Saitama, 351-0033, Japan \and Advanced Research Institute for Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo, 169-0092, Japan \\\email{misaki@kurenai.waseda.jp} } \date{Received: / Revised version: March 30, 2007 } \abstract{ In the SK analysis of the neutrino events for {\it Fully Contained Events} and {\it Partially Contained Events} on their zenith angle distribution, it is assumed that the zenith angle of the incident neutrino is the same as that of the detected charged lepton. In the present paper, we examine the validity of \textit{the SK assumption on the direction} of the incident neutrinos. Concretely speaking, we analyze muon-like events due to QEL. For the purpose, we develop {\it Time Sequential Monte Carlo Simulation} to extract the conclusion on the validity of the SK assumption. In our {\it Time Sequential Simulation}, we simulate every physical process concerned as exactly as possible without any approximation. From the comparison between the zenith angle distributon of the emitted muons under \textit{the SK assumption on the direction} and the corresponding one obtained under our {\it Time Sequential Simulation}, it is concluded that the measurement of the direction of the incident neutrino for the neutrino events occurring inside the detector in the SK analysis turns out to be unreliable, which holds irrespective of the existence and/or non-existence of the neutrino oscillation. \PACS{ {Superkamiokande,}{QEL,} {Fully Contained Event,} {Time Sequential Monte Carlo Simulation} } } \authorrunning{E.Konishi et. al.,} \titlerunning{The Reliability on the Direction of Neutrino in SK} \maketitle \section{Introduction} Superkamiokande have been analyzing {\it Fully Contained Events } and {\it Partially Contained Events} which are generated inside the detector, and {\it Upward Through Going Events} and {\it Stopping Events } which are generated outside the detector, for the studies on the neutrino oscillation in atmospheric neutrinos. The report of oscillations between muon and tau neutrinos for atmospheric neutrinos detected with SuperKamiokande (SK, hereafter) is claimed to be robustly established for the following reasons: \begin{enumerate} \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})} \item The discrimination between electrons and muons in the SK energy range, say, several hundred MeV to several GeV, has been proved to be almost perfect, as demonstrated by calibration using accelerator beams $ to $14^{\circ}$ in the incident direction of the charged lepton and uncertainties of $2m$ to $7m$ in the vertex point of the events. See, our papers . However, SK give $1.8^{\circ}$ to $3.0^{\circ}$ and $0.3m$ for the same physical quantities. See, accompanied two papers.}. \\ \item The analysis for the electron-like events and the muon-like events which give the single-ring structure in {\it Fully Contained Events} and {\it Partially Contained Events} with their zenith angle distribution, based on the well established discrimination procedure mentioned in (1), reveals a significant deficit of muon-like events but the expected level of electron-like events. It is, thus, concluded that muon neutrinos oscillate into tau neutrinos which cannot be detected due to the small geometry of SK. As the most new one, the SK collaboration published their comprehensive paper. The analysis of SK data presently yields ${\rm sin}^22\theta > 0.92$ and $1.5\times 10^{-3}{\rm eV}^2<\Delta m^2 < 3.4\times 10^{-3}{\rm eV}^2$ at 90\ \item The analysis of {\it Upward Through Going Events} and {\it Stopping Events}, in which the neutrino interactions occur outside the detector, leads to similar results to (2). The charged leptons which are produced in these categories are regarded as being exclusively muons, because electrons have negligible probabilities to produce such events as they lose energy very rapidly in the sorrounding rock. Thus for these events the discrimination procedure described in (1) is not required, and, therefore, the analysis here is independent of the analysis in (2). For these events, however, the SK group obtains the same parameters for neutrino oscillations as in (2) whose information is totally inside the detector are of higher experimental qualities compared with those of both {\it Upward Through Going Events} and {\it Stopping Events}.}.\\ \item Now, SK assert that they have found the oscillatory signature in atomospheric neutrinos from L/E analysis, which should be the ultimate evidence for the exsistence of the neutrino oscillation Our critical examination on the L/E analysis by SK will be published elsewhere. \end{enumerate} As for item(3), we have clarified that SK hardly discriminate electron( neutrino) from muon( neutrino ) in the SK manner and, instead, propose more rigorous and suitable procedure with theoretical background for the discrimination between them in the preceeding two papers.\\ Among the neutrino events both occurring inside and outside the detector, the most robust evidence for the neutrino oscillation, if exists, should have been obtained from the analysis of both electron-like events and muon-like events in {\it Fully Contained Events}. Because (i) all neccessary informations for the physical interpretation are included in {\it Fully Contained Events} due to their character and (ii), \\ furthermore, both electron-like events and muon-like events give the single structure image free from arbitrary interpretation with the proper electron/muon discrimination procedure. SK treat neutrino events whose energies cover from several hundred MeV to several GeV, if the neutrino events occur inside the detector. In this energy region, Quasi Elastic Scattering(QEL) is dominant compared with other physical processes, such as one-pion production , coherent pion production and deep inelastic scattering . Events due to other processes, except QEL, are not free from ambiguities due to multi-ring structure of the images. {\bf Therefore, SK should have analyzed the muon-like events and the electron-like events with the single ring image in {\it Fully Contained Events} exculusively where QEL is dominant, without utilizing poorer quality events, if SK pursue to obtain the clear cut conclusion on the neutrino oscillation to the experimental data as those with the same quality under the assumption that they belong to muon-like events in {\it Fully Contained Events} to raise the statistics higher. However, such the assumption lacks in theoretical background. Furthermore, SK utilize to add multi-ring structure events which are caused by one-pion roduction, coherent pion production and deep inelastic scattering. However, the discrimination among the multi-ring structures is not so easy, which may lead the worse estimation of energies as well as directions of the events concerned.}. } Therefore, it is essential for us to examine single ring structure events among {\it Fully Contained Events} due to QEL which have the least ambiguities among the neutrino events concerned to obtain clear cut conclusion as for the neutrino oscillation. Here, the main concern of the present paper is devoted to the detailed analysis of the muon-like events from QEL, focusing on the direction of the incident neutrino. Situation around the corresponding electron-like event is the same as in the muon-like event. The examination on the separation of {\it Fully Contained Events} from {\it Partially Contained Events} will be discussed in subsequent papers. Here, it should be emphasized that the direction of the incident neutrino is assumed to be the same as that of the emitted charged lepton, i.e., the (anti-)muon or (anti-)electron, in the SK analysis of both {\it Fully Contained Events} and {\it Partially Contained Events} . The SK {\it Detector Simulation} is to be constructed without any contradiction with \textit{the SK assumption on the direction}. From the point of orthodoxical Monte Carlo Simulation, it seems to be unnatural for SK to impose such the assumption that the direction of the incident neutrino is the same as that of the emitted lepton ( hereafter, we call this assumption simply "\textit{the SK assumption on the direction}") upon their {\it Detector Simulation}. Obviously, one need not any assumption on the relation between the direction of the incident neutrino and that of the emitted lepton in any sense, if we develop the Monte Carlo Simulation in a rigorous manner, which will be shown later in the present paper. In order to avoid any misunderstanding toward \textit{the SK assumption on the direction} we reproduce this assumption from the original SK paper: \\ "{\it However, the direction of the neutrino must be estimated from the reconstructed direction of the products of the neutrino interaction. In water Cherenkov detectors, the direction of an observed lepton is assumed to be the direction of the neutrino. Fig. and Fig. show the estimated correlation angle between neutrinos and leptons as a function of lepton momentum. At energies below 400 MeV/c, the lepton direction has little correlation with the neutrino direction. The correlation angle becomes smaller with increasing lepton momentum. Therefore, the zenith angle dependence of the flux as a consequence of neutrino oscillation is largely washed out below 400 MeV/c lepton momentum. With increasing momentum, the effect can be seen more clearly. } " \footnote {It could be understood from this statement that SK justify the validity of this assumption above 400 MeV/c. However, it is not correct, because SK put "to be proved " as the proposition. See, page 101 in their paper .}. \\ On the other hand, Ishitsuka states in his Ph.D thesis which is exclusively devoted into the L/E analysis of the atmospheric neutrino from Super Kamiokande as follows: \\ \\ " {\it 8.4 Reconstruction of $L_\nu$ \vskip 2mm Flight length of neutrino is determined from the neutrino incident zenith angle, although the energy and the flavor are also involved. First, the direction of neutrino is estimated for each sample by a different way. Then, the neutrino flight lenght is calclulated from the zenith angle of the reconstructed direction. \\ \\ 8.4.1 Reconstruction of Neutrino Direction \vspace{-2mm} {\flushleft{\underline {FC Single-ring Sample} } } \vspace{2mm} The direction of neutrino for FC single-ring sample is simply assumed to be the same as the reconstructed direction of muon. Zenith angle of neutrino is reconstructed as follows: \[ \hspace{2cm}\cos\Theta^{rec}_{\nu}=\cos\Theta_{\mu} \hspace{2cm}(8.17) \] ,where $\cos\Theta^{rec}_{\nu}$ and $\cos\Theta_{\mu}$ are cosine of the reconstructed zenith angle of muon and neutrino, respectively.} " may hold on the following possible two cases: [1] The scattering angle of the emitted lepton is so small that the effect of the scattering angle could be neglected really. However, in the present case, it could not be true from Fig. and Fig. and Table 1. [2] One may assert that the assumption could not hold on individual case, but it could hold statistically after accumulation of large amount of the data. However, such assertion should be verified. We verify such assumption could not hold. See, Fig. and Fig. in the present paper.}.\\ In our understanding, SK Monte Carlo Simulation is named usually as the {\it Detector Simulation}. It is, however, noticed that the effect of the azimuthal angles of the emitted leptons in QEL could not be taken into account in their Simulation. As will be shown in later (see Section 3), this effect greatly influences over the final zenith angle distribution of the emitted leptons. Also, the back scattering due to QEL can not be neglected for the rigorous determination of the direction of the incident neutrino, but this effect could not be treated in the SK {\it Detector Simulation}, which is beyond the application limitaition \footnote{SK have never clarified not only the details, but also the principle and its validity on their Monte Carlo Simulation. We hope disclosure of their {\it Detector Simulation} for open and fair scientific discussion.}. On the other hand, we could take into account these effects correctly in our Monte Carlo Simulation which is named as {\it Time Sequential Simulation}. In the present paper, we carry out the full Monte Carlo Time Sequential Simulation as exactly as possible, without \textit{the SK assumption on the direction} to clarify the problematic issue raised by SK. We carry out simulation which starts from the opposite side of the Earth to the SK detector. A neutrino sampled from the atmospheric neutrino energy spectrum at the opposite side of the Earth traverses through the medium with different densities in the interior of the Earth and penetrates finally into the SK detector where the neutrino interactions occur. The emitted energy of the individual lepton thus produced and its direction are simulated exactly based on the probability function of the cross sections concerned. We finally show the zenith angle distribution of the emitted leptons as well as that of the incident neutrinos are quite different from corresponding ones of the SK. This indicates that the SK assumption on the direction coud not be a reliable estimator as for the determination of the direction of the incident neutrino (See, section 5). \section{Cross Sections of Quasi Elastic Scattering in the Neutrino Reaction and the Scattering Angle of Charged Leptons.} We examine the following reactions due to the charged current interaction (c.c.) from QEL. \\ \begin{eqnarray} \nu_e + n \longrightarrow p + e^- \nonumber\\ \nu_{\mu} + n \longrightarrow p + \mu^- \nonumber\\ \bar{\nu}_e + p \longrightarrow n + e^+ \\ \bar{\nu}_{\mu}+ p \longrightarrow n + \mu^+ \nonumber \end{eqnarray} The differential cross section for QEL is given as follows .\\ \begin{eqnarray} \frac{ {\rm d}\sigma_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) }{{\rm d}Q^2} = \frac{G_F^2{\rm cos}^2 \theta_C}{8\pi E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}^2} \Biggl\{ A(Q^2) \pm B(Q^2) \biggl[ \frac{s-u}{M^2} \biggr] + \nonumber \\ C(Q^2) \biggl[ \frac{s-u}{M^2} \biggr]^2 \Biggr\}, \end{eqnarray} \noindent where \begin{eqnarray*} A(Q^2) &=& \frac{Q^2}{4}\Biggl[ f^2_1\biggl( \frac{Q^2}{M^2}-4 \biggr)+ f_1f_2 \frac{4Q^2}{M^2} \\ &&+ f_2^2\biggl( \frac{Q^2}{M^2} -\frac{Q^4}{4M^4} \biggr) + g_1^2\biggl( 4+\frac{Q^2}{M^2} \biggl) \Biggr], \\ B(Q^2) &=& (f_1+f_2)g_1Q^2, \\ C(Q^2) &=& \frac{M^2}{4}\biggl( f^2_1+f^2_2\frac{Q^2}{4M^2}+g_1^2 \biggr). \end{eqnarray*} \noindent The signs $+$ and $-$ refer to $\nu_{\mu(e)}$ and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu(e)}$ for charged current (c.c.) interactions, respectively. The $Q^2$ denotes the four momentum transfer between the incident neutrino and the charged lepton. Details of other symbols are given in . The relation among $Q^2$, $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, the energy of the incident neutrino, $E_{\ell}$, the energy of the emitted charged lepton (muon or electron or their anti-particles) and $\theta_{\rm s}$, the scattering angle of the emitted lepton, is given as \begin{equation} Q^2 = 2E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}E_{\ell}(1-{\rm cos}\theta_{\rm s}). \end{equation} \noindent Also, the energy of the emitted lepton is given by \begin{equation} E_{\ell} = E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} - \frac{Q^2}{2M}. \end{equation} Now, let us examine the magnitude of the scattering angle of the emitted lepton in a quantitative way, as this plays a decisive role in determining the accuracy of the direction of the incident neutrino, which is directly related to the reliability of the zenith angle distribution of both {\it Fully Contained Events} and {\it Partially Contained Events} in SK. By using Eqs. () to (), we obtain the distribution function for the scattering angle of the emitted leptons and the related quantities by a Monte Carlo method. The procedure for determining the scattering angle for a given energy of the incident neutrino is described in the Appendix A. Fig. shows this relation for muon, from which we can easily understand that the scattering angle $\theta_{\rm s}$ of the emitted lepton ( muon here ) cannot be neglected. For a quantitative examination of the scattering angle, we construct the distribution function for ${\theta_{\rm s}}$ of the emitted lepton from Eqs. () to () by using a Monte Carlo method. Fig. gives the distribution function for $\theta_{\rm s}$ of the muon produced in the muon neutrino interaction. It can be seen that the muons produced from lower energy neutrinos are scattered over wider angles and that a considerable part of them are scattered even in backward directions. Similar results are obtained for anti-muon neutrinos, electron neutrinos and anti-electron neutrinos. Also, in a similar manner, we obtain not only the distribution function for the scattering angle of the charged leptons, but also their average values $<\theta_{\rm s}>$ and their standard deviations $\sigma_{\rm s}$. Table~1 shows them for muon neutrinos, anti-muon neutrinos, electron neutrinos and anti-electron neutrinos. In the SK analysis, it is assumed that the scattering angle of the charged particle is zero . \begin{table*} \caption{ The average values $<\theta_{\rm s}>$ for scattering angle of the emitted charged leptons and their standard deviations $\sigma_{\rm s}$ for various primary neutrino energies $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$.} \vspace{5mm} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline &&&&&\\ $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ (GeV)&angle&$\nu_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}$&$\bar{\nu}_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}$&$\nu_e$&$\bar{\nu_e}$ \\ &(degree)&&&&\\ \hline 0.2&$<\theta_\mathrm{s}>$&~~ 89.86 ~~&~~ 67.29 ~~&~~ 89.74 ~~&~~ 67.47 ~~\\ \cline{2-6} & $\sigma_\mathrm{s}$ & 38.63 & 36.39 & 38.65 & 36.45 \\ \hline 0.5&$<\theta_\mathrm{s}>$& 72.17 & 50.71 & 72.12 & 50.78 \\ \cline{2-6} & $\sigma_\mathrm{s}$ & 37.08 & 32.79 & 37.08 & 32.82 \\ \hline 1 &$<\theta_\mathrm{s}>$& 48.44 & 36.00 & 48.42 & 36.01 \\ \cline{2-6} & $\sigma_\mathrm{s}$ & 32.07 & 27.05 & 32.06 & 27.05 \\ \hline 2 &$<\theta_\mathrm{s}>$& 25.84 & 20.20 & 25.84 & 20.20 \\ \cline{2-6} & $\sigma_\mathrm{s}$ & 21.40 & 17.04 & 21.40 & 17.04 \\ \hline 5 &$<\theta_\mathrm{s}>$& 8.84 & 7.87 & 8.84 & 7.87 \\ \cline{2-6} & $\sigma_\mathrm{s}$ & 8.01 & 7.33 & 8.01 & 7.33 \\ \hline 10 &$<\theta_\mathrm{s}>$& 4.14 & 3.82 & 4.14 & 3.82 \\ \cline{2-6} & $\sigma_\mathrm{s}$ & 3.71 & 3.22 & 3.71 & 3.22 \\ \hline 100&$<\theta_\mathrm{s}>$& 0.38 & 0.39 & 0.38 & 0.39 \\ \cline{2-6} & $\sigma_\mathrm{s}$ & 0.23 & 0.24 & 0.23 & 0.24 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table*} \section{Influence of Azimuthal Angle of Quasi Elastic Scattering over the Zenith Angle of both the Fully Contained Events and Partially Contained Events} In the present section, we examine the effect of the azimuthal angles of the emitted leptons over their own zenith angles for given zenith angles of the incident neutrinos )}$ = - $\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ in SK)}. For three typical cases (vertical, horizontal and diagonal), Fig. 3 gives a schematic representation of the relationship between, $\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, the zenith angle of the incident neutrino, and ($\theta_{\rm s}$, $\phi$) a pair of scattering angle of the emitted lepton and its azimutal angle. From Fig. 3(a), it can been seen that the zenith angle $\theta_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}$ of the emitted lepton is not influenced by its $\phi$ in the vertical incidence of the neutrinos $(\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}=0^{\rm o})$, as it must be. From Fig. 3(b), however, it is obvious that the influence of $\phi$ of the emitted leptons on their own zenith angle is the strongest in the case of horizontal incidence of the neutrino $(\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}=90^{\rm o})$. Namely, one half of the emitted leptons are recognized as upward going, while the other half is classified as downward going ones. The diagonal case ( $\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}=43^{\rm o}$) is intermediate between the vertical and the horizontal. In the following, we examine the cases for vertical, horizontal and diagonal incidence of the neutrino with different energies, say, $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}=0.5$ GeV, $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}=1$ GeV and $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}=5$ GeV. The detailed procedure for the Monte Carlo simulation is described in the Appendix A. \subsection{Dependence of the spreads of the zenith angle for the emitted leptons on the energies of the emitted leptons for different incident directions with different energies} We give the scatter plots between the fractional energies of the emitted muons and their zenith angle for a definite zenith angles of the incident neutrino with different energies in Figs. to . In Fig. , we give the scatter plots for vertically incident neutrino with different energies 0.5 GeV, 1 GeV and 5 GeV . In this case, the relations between the emitted energies of the muon and and their zenith angles are unique, which comes from the definition of the zenith angle of the emitted lepton. However, the densities (frequencies of event number) along each curve is different in position to position and depend on the energies of the incident neutrinos. Generally speaking,densities along curves become higher toward $\cos\theta_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}= 1$. In this case, $\cos\theta_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}$ is never influenced by the azimuthal angel in the scattering by the definition . Fig. 5 tells us that the horizontally incident neutrinos give the most widely spread of the zenith angle distribution of the emitted lepton influenced by the azimuthal angle. The more lower incident neutrino energies, the more wider spreads of the emitted leptons. The diagonally incident neutrinos give the intermediate distribution of the emitted leptons between those of vertically incident neutrinos and horizontally incident neutrinos. \begin{figure*} \hspace{2.9cm}(a) \hspace{5.5cm}(b) \hspace{5.5cm}(c) \vspace{-0.3cm} \begin{center} \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \hspace{1cm} \hspace{1cm} } \caption{ The scatter plots between the fractional energies of the produced muons and their zenith angles for vertically incident muon neutrinos with 0.5~GeV, 1~GeV and 5~GeV, respectively. The sampling number is 1000 for each case. } \end{center} \vspace{0.5cm} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \hspace{2.9cm}(a) \hspace{5.5cm}(b) \hspace{5.5cm}(c) \vspace{-0.3cm} \begin{center} \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \hspace{1cm} \hspace{1cm} } \caption{ The scatter plots between the fractional energies of the produced muons and their zenith angles for horizontally incident muon neutrinos with 0.5~GeV, 1~GeV and 5~GeV, respectively. The sampling number is 1000 for each case. } \end{center} \vspace{0.5cm} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \hspace{2.9cm}(a) \hspace{5.5cm}(b) \hspace{5.5cm}(c) \vspace{-0.3cm} \begin{center} \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \hspace{1cm} \hspace{1cm} } \caption{ The scatter plots between the fractional energies of the produced muons and their zenith angles for diagonally incident muon neutrinos with 0.5~GeV, 1~GeV and 5~GeV, respectively. The sampling number is 1000 for each case. } \end{center} \end{figure*} \subsection{Zenith angle distribution of the emitted lepton for the different incidence of the neutrinos with different energies} \begin{figure*} \hspace{2.9cm}(a) \hspace{5.5cm}(b) \hspace{5.5cm}(c) \vspace{-0.3cm} \begin{center} \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \hspace{1cm} \hspace{1cm} } \caption{ Zenith angle distribution of the muon for the vertically incident muon neutrino with 0.5~GeV, 1~GeV and 5~GeV, respectively. The sampling number is 10000 for each case. SK stand for the corresponding ones under the SK assumption. } \end{center} \vspace{0.5cm} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \hspace{2.9cm}(a) \hspace{5.5cm}(b) \hspace{5.5cm}(c) \vspace{-0.3cm} \begin{center} \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \hspace{1cm} \hspace{1cm} } \caption{ Zenith angle distribution of the muon for the horizontally incident muon neutrino with 0.5~GeV, 1~GeV and 5~GeV, respectively. The sampling number is 10000 for each case. SK stand for the corresponding ones under the SK assumption. } \end{center} \vspace{0.5cm} \end{figure*} \begin{figure*} \hspace{2.9cm}(a) \hspace{5.5cm}(b) \hspace{5.5cm}(c) \vspace{-0.3cm} \begin{center} \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \hspace{1cm} \hspace{1cm} } \caption{ Zenith angle distribution of the muon for the diagonally incident muon neutrino with 0.5~GeV, 1~GeV and 5~GeV, respectively. The sampling number is 10000 for each case. SK stand for the corresponding ones under the SK assumption. } \end{center} \end{figure*} In Figs. to , we give the zenith angle distributions of the emitted muons for the given direction of the incident neutrinos with different energies of the neutrino. These figures are obtained through summation on the energies of the emitted muons for their definite zenith angles in Figs. to . In Figs. (a) to (c), we give the zenith angle distribution of the emitted muon for the case of vertically incident neutrinos with different energies, say, $E_{\nu}=0.5$ GeV, $E_{\nu}=1$ GeV and $E_{\nu}=5$ GeV. Comparing the case for 0.5 GeV with that for 5 GeV, we understand the big contrast between them as for the zenith angle distribution. The scattering angle of the emitted muon for 5 GeV neutrino is relatively small (See, Table 1) that the emitted muons keep roughly the same direction as their original neutrino. In this case, the effect of their azimuthal angle on the zenith angle is also small. However, in the case for 0.5 GeV which is the dominant energy for \textit{Fully Contained Events} in the Superkamiokande, there is even a possibility for the emitted muon to be emitted in the backward direction due to the large angle scattering, the effect of which is enhanced by their azimuthal angle. The most frequent occurrence in the backward scattering of the emitted muon appear in the horizontally incident neutrino as shown in Figs. 8(a) to 8(c). In this case, the zenith angle distribution of the emitted muon should be symmetrical to the horizontal direction. Comparing the case for 5 GeV with those both for $\sim$0.5 GeV and for $\sim$1 GeV, even 1 GeV incident neutrinos lose almost the original sense of the incidence if we measure it by the zenith angle of the emitted muon. Figs. 9(a) to 9(c) for the diagonally incident neutrino tell us that the situation for diagonal cases lies between the case for the vertically incident neutrino and that for horizontally incident one. \section{Zenith Angle Distribution of Fully Contained Events and Partially Contained Events for a Given Zenith Angle of the Incident Neutrino, Taking Their Energy Spectrum into Account} \begin{table*} \caption{Average values and their standerd deviations in cos${\theta}_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}$ for the zenith angle distributions of the muons with different primary energies of the insident neutrinos.} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c } \hline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Vertical} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Diagonal} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Horizontal} \\ & \multicolumn{2}{c} { cos$\theta_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}=1\, (0^{\circ})$} & \multicolumn{2}{c} {cos$\theta_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}=0.731\, (43^{\circ}) $} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ cos$\theta_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}=0\, (90^{\circ}) $} \\ \hline $E_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}$(GeV) & $\overline{\cos\theta_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}}$ & $\sigma_{\cos\theta_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}}$ &\, \, $\overline{\cos\theta_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}} $ & $\sigma_{\cos\theta_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}}$ & \, $\overline{\cos\theta_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}} $ & $\sigma_{\cos\theta_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}} $ \\ \hline 0.5 & 0.262 & 0.547 &\, \, 0.189 & 0.556 &\, -0.003 & 0.564 \\ 1.0 & 0.590 & 0.439 &\, \, 0.432 & 0.463 &\, 0.001 & 0.480 \\ 2.0 & 0.581 & 0.250 &\, \, 0.623 & 0.290 &\, 0.001 & 0.325 \\ 5.0 & 0.978 & 0.067 &\, \, 0.715 & 0.103 &\, 0.006 & 0.141 \\ \hline Spectrum$^{*}$ & 0.468 & 0.531 &\, \, 0.339 & 0.519 &\, -0.005 & 0.500 \\ SK$^{**}$ & 1.00 & 0.00 &\, \, 0.731 & 0.000 &\, 0.000 & 0.000 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table*} In the previous sections, we discuss the relation between the zenith angle distribution of the incident neutrino with a single energy and that of the emited muons produced by the neutrino for the different incident direction. In order to apply our motivation around the uncertainty of \textit{the SK assumption on the direction} for \textit{Fully Contained Events} and \textit{Partially Contained Events}, we must consider the effect of the energy spectrum of the incident neutrino. The Monte Carlo simulation procedure for this purpose are given in the Appendix B. \begin{figure*} \hspace{2.9cm}(a) \hspace{5.5cm}(b) \hspace{5.5cm}(c) \vspace{-0.5cm} \begin{center} \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \hspace{1cm} \hspace{1cm} \hspace{1cm} }\\ \end{center} \caption{ Zenith angle distribution of $\mu^-$ and $\mu^+$ for $\nu$ and $\bar{\nu}$ for the incident neutrinos with the vertical, horizontal and diagonal directions, respectively. The overall neutrino spectrum at Kamioka site is taken into account. The sampling number is 10000 for each case. SK stand for the corresponding ones under the SK assumption. } \end{figure*} In Fig. , we give the zenith angle distributions of the sum of $\mu^+(\bar{\mu})$ and $\mu^-$ for a given zenith angle of $\bar{\nu}_{\bar{\mu}}$ and $\nu_{\mu}$, taking into account primary neutrino energy spectrum at Kamioka site. In Table 2, the average values for ${\rm cos}{\theta}_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}$ and their standard deviation for different incidences of the incident neutrinos with different energies are presented . In the SK case, their average values are given by ${\rm cos}{\theta}_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ themselves by definition and, consequently, the standard deviations are zero under the assumption, because the SK assumption is of the delta function for the incidence direction. They are shown in the bottom line of Table 2. In the second line from the bottom in this table, we give the average values and their standard deviations for ${\cos\theta_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}}$ obtained under the inclusion of the energy spectrum for primary neutrinos. Thus, we found these values correspond to those for incident neutrino with the effective single energy between 0.5 GeV and 1 GeV. If we compare the average energies and the standard deviations for the inclusion of incident neutrino energy spectrum with those under the SK assumption, it is easily understood that SK assumption does not represent real zenith angle distribution of the emitted muon. \section{Relation between the Zenth angle Distribution of the Incident Neutrinos and that of the emitted leptons} Now, we extend the results for the definite zenith angle obtained in the previous section to the case in which we consider the zenih angle distribution of the incident neutrinos totally. Here, we examine the real correlation between ${\cos\theta_{\nu}}$ and ${\cos{\theta}_{\mu}}$, by peforming the exact Monte Carlo simulation. The detail for the simulation procedure is given the Appendix C. In Fig. we classsify the correlation between ${\cos\theta_{\nu}}$ and ${\cos{\theta}_{\mu}}$ according to the different energy range of the incident muon neutrinos. It should be noticed that the SK assumption on ${\cos\theta_{\nu}}$ = ${\cos{\theta}_{\mu}}$ is roughly hold only for $E_{\nu} \geq 5$ GeV, but the widths in ${\cos{\theta}_{\mu}}$ for the definite ${\cos\theta_{\nu}}$ near ${\cos\theta_{\nu}}$ =0 (for horizontally incident neutrino ) are much larger than those near ${\cos\theta_{\nu}}$ =1 ( for the vertically incident neutrino). Of course, this is due to the effect of the azimutal angle in QEL which could not be derived by the SK simulation (\textit{DETECTOR SIMULATION}). Such tendencies become more remarkable in $E_{\nu} \leq 5$ GeV and in these energies the SK assumption on the direction does not hold any more. \newline In Fig. , we classify the correlation between ${\cos\theta_{\nu}}$ and ${\cos\theta_{\mu}}$ according to the different energy range of $E_{\mu}$. The similar argument on Fig. can be done on the case of Fig. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{ \hspace{1cm} } \caption{ Correlation diagrams between ${\cos\theta_{\nu}}$ and $\cos{\theta}_{\mu}$ for different muon energy ranges.} \end{center} \end{figure*} Thus, it could be surely concluded from Fig. and Fig. that the SK assumption on the direction never holds as a good estimator for the determination of the directions of the incident neutrinos. In order to obtain the zenith angle distribution of the emitted leptons for that of the incident neutrinos, we divide the cosine of the zenith angle of the incident neutrino into twenty regular intervals from $\cos{\theta_{\nu}}=0$ to $\cos{\theta_{\nu}}=1$. For the given interval of $\cos{\theta_{\nu}}$, we carry out the exact Monte Carlo simulation, the detail of which is give in the Appendix D and obtain the cosine of the zenith angle of the emitted leptons, taking account of the geometry for surronding the SK detector. Thus, for each interval of $\cos{\theta_{\nu}}$, we obtain the corresponding zenith angle distribution of the emitted leptons. Then, we sum up these corresponding ones over all zenth angles of the incident neutrinos and we finally obtain the relation between the zenith angle distribution for the incident neutrinos and that for the emitted leptons. In a similar manner, we could obtain between $\cos{\theta_{\bar{\nu}}}$ and $\cos{\theta_{\bar{\mu}}}$ for anti-neutrinos. The situation for anti-neutrinos is essentially same as that for neutrinos. Here, we examine the zenith angle distribution of the muons from both upward neutrinos and downward ones in the case that neutrino oscillation does not exist. By performing the procedures described in Appendix C, a pair of sampling ( $\cos{\theta_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}}$, $E_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}$ ) gives a pair of ( $\cos{\theta_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}}$, $E_{\mu+\bar{\mu}}$ ). In Fig. , we give the zenith angle distribution of the upward neutrinos ( the sum of $\nu_{\mu}$ and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ ) which is constructed from the energy spectra for different $\cos{\theta_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}}$. (see, Honda et. al. and Appendix B) Upward neutrinos may produce even downward leptons due to both the backscattering effect and the effect of azimuthal angle on larger forward scattering for the interaction concerned (see, Figure 3 and Figures 4 to 6 in the text). As the result of it, the zenith angle distribution of the emitted muons for the upward neutrino may leak in the downward direction. From Figure 13, it is very clear that the shape of the zenith angle distribution for the incident neutrinos is quite different from that of the emitted muons produced by these neutrinos. If \textit{the SK assumption on the direction} statistically holds, the zenith angle distribution for the emitted muons should coincide totally with that of the incident neutrinos. In other words, one may say that the zenith angle distribution for the emitted muons should be understood as that of the incident neutrino under \textit{the SK assumption on the direction}. However, the muon spectrum is distinctively different from the real (computational) incident neutrino spectrum as shown in the figure. Thus we conclude that SK assumption on the direction leads to the wrong conclusion on the neutrino oscillation. The further examination on the experimental data obtained by SK will be carried out in the subsequent papers. It is, further, noticed that upward neutrino energy spectrum in the figure biggest near $\cos{\theta_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}}=0$ and the smallest near $\cos{\theta_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}}=1$, which reflects from the enhancement of the primary incident neutrino energy spectrum from the inclined direction and is independent on the neutrino oscillation, while in SK opinion, such tendency may be favor of the existence of neutrino oscillation. \section{Discussions and Conclusion} In order to extract the definite conclusion on the neutrino oscillation from the experiment by cosmic ray neutrinos whose intensity as well as interaction with the substance are both very weak, first of all, one should analyze the most clear cut and ambiguity free events. Among neutrino events analyzed by SK, the most clear cut events are {\it Single Ring Events}, such as electron-like events and muon-like events in {\it Fully Contained Events} which are generated by QEL. These events are provided with simplicity due to single ring and all possible measureable physical quantities are confined in the detector. Furthermore, QEL is the most dominant source for neutrino events which are generated in the SK detector. This is the reason why we examine the QEL events exculsively in present and subsequent papers. If the neutrino oscillation really exists, the most clear cut evidence surely appears in the analysis of single ring events due to QEL in \textit{Fully Contained Events} and one does not need the analysis of any other type of events, such as single ring events in \textit{Partially Contained Events}, multi-ring events in either \textit{Fully Contained Events} or \textit{Partially Contained Evetns}, all of which include inevitably ambiguities for the interpretation and show merely sub-evidences compared with that from the single ring events due to QEL in \textit{Fully Contained Events}. SK analyze the zenith angle distribution of the incident neutrinos under the asssumption that the direction of the incident neutrino is the same as that of the emitted lepton. We conclude that this assumption is supplemented by their Monte Carlo Simulation named as {\it Detector Simulation} for obtaing the zenith angle distribtuion of the incident neutrino as for the neutrino oscillatiom has never been disclosed in their papers, even in the Ph.D thesis. Consequently, this is only our onjecture as for utilization of the {\it SK Detector Simulation }. A clear thing is only that SK impose the proposittion that the direction of the incident neutrino is the same as that of the emitted lepton upon the neutrino oscillation analysis.}. In the present paper, we adopt {\it Time Sequential Simulation} which starts from the incident neutrino energy spectrum on the opposite side of the Earth to the SK detector and simulate all posible physical processes which are connected with the zenith angle distribution of the incident neutrinos according to their probability functions concerned for the examination on the validity of the SK assumption on the direction. Concretely speaking, we take the following treatment, (i) the stochastic treatments of the scattering angle of the emitted lepton in QEL, including the scattering on the backward as well as the azimuthal angle, which could not be treated in {\it Detector Simulation}, (ii) the stochastic treatment on the zenith angle distribution of the emitted lepton, considering the incident neutrino energy spectrum, (iii) the stochastic treatment on the detection of the QEL events inside the SK detector. Furthermore, the discrimination between \textit{Fully Contained Events} and \textit{Partially Contained Events} is only possible in the \textit{Time Sequential Simulation}, because the events concerned may be classified into different categories by chance, \textit{Fully Contained Events} and \textit{Partially Contained Events} due to different occurring points and different directions. The conclusions thus obtained are as follows: \begin{enumerate} \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})} \item The zenith angle distributions of the emitted lepton in QEL for the incident neutrino with both the definite zenith angle and the definite energy are widely spread, particularly, into even the backward region due to partly pure backscattering and partly the combination of the azimuthal angle with the slant direction of the incident neutrinos. However, for every incident neutrino with a definte zenith angle, SK give the same definite zenith angle to the emitted lepton. Already in this stage, \textit{the SK assumption on the direction} does not hold.\\ \item Taking account of the incident neutrino energy spectrum and simulating all physical processes concerned, we obtain the zenith angle distribution of the emitted leptons for the incident neutrino with a definite zenith angle. It is proved that \textit{the SK assumption on the direction} does not hold again.\\ \item The correlation diagrams between ${\cos\theta_{\nu}}$ and ${\cos{\theta}_{\mu}}$ show that SK assumption does noty hold well even for higher energies of the incident neutrinos, and it is shown that the correlation between them become weaker in more inclined incident neutrinos due to the effect of the azimuthal angle in QEL.\\ \item Taking into account the detection efficiency for the events concerned in the simulation for upward neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, we obtain the zenith angle distribution of the leptons ( muons plus anti-muons ). According to the {\it SK Assumption on the direction}, the zenith angle distribution is the same as that of the incident neutrinos. However, the original zenith angle distribution of incident neutrino is found to be quite different from that derived from that of leptons. This is the final conclusion that SK have not measured the direction of the incident neutrinos reliably, which is quite independent on either the existence or non-existence of the neutrino oscillation.\\ \item The SK assume that the {\it Partially Contained Events } exclusively belong to the muon-like event. However, such the assumption lacks in theoretical background. Electron events can also contribute to the \textit{Partially Contained Events} under some geometrical condition, for example, partly coming from the transformation by Eq.(A.5). The quantitative examination on the {\it Partially Contained Events } among the electron-like event will be published elsewhere. \end{enumerate} In subsequent papers, we will give the relation between the zenith angle distributions of the incident neutrinos and the corresponding muons in the cases with and without neutrino oscillation, including downward neutrino and will examine whether it is possible to or not to detect the neutrino oscillation by using atmospheric neutrino. \newpage In the following Appendices we give the concrete Monte Carlo Simulations, namely, the details of our \textit{Time Sequential Simulation}. \appendix \section{\appendixname:{} Monte Carlo Procedure for the Decision of Emitted Energies of the Leptons and Their Direction Cosines } \setcounter {equation} {0} \def\theequation{\Alph{section}\textperiodcentered\arabic{equation}} Here, we give the Monte Carlo Simulation procedure for obtaining the energy and its direction cosines, $(l_{r},m_{r},n_{r})$, of the emitted lepton in QEL for a given energy and its direction cosines, $(l,m,n)$, of the incident neutrino. The relation among $Q^2$, $E_{\nu+\bar{\nu}}$, the energy of the incident neutrino, $E_{\ell}$, the energy of the emitted lepton (muon or electron or their anti-particles) and $\theta_{\rm s}$, the scattering angle of the emitted lepton, is given as \begin{equation} Q^2 = 2E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}E_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(1-{\rm cos}\theta_{\rm s}). \end{equation} \noindent Also, the energy of the emitted lepton is given by \begin{equation} E_{\ell(\bar{\ell})} = E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} - \frac{Q^2}{2M}. \end{equation} \noindent {\bf Procedure 1}\\ \noindent We decide $Q^2$ from the probability function for the differential cross section with a given $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ (Eq. () in the text) by using the uniform random number, ${\xi}$, between (0,1) in the following\\ \begin{equation} \xi = \int_{Q_{\rm min}^2}^{Q^2}P_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},Q^2) {\rm d}Q^2, \end{equation} \noindent where \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{ P_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},Q^2) =} \nonumber \\ && \frac{ {\rm d}\sigma_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},Q^2) }{{\rm d}Q^2} \Bigg /\!\!\!\! \int_{Q_{\rm min}^2}^{Q_{\rm max}^2} \frac{ {\rm d}\sigma_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},Q^2) }{{\rm d}Q^2} {\rm d}Q^2 . \nonumber \\ && \end{eqnarray} \\ \noindent From Eq. (A$\cdot$1), we obtain $Q^2$ in histograms together with the corresponding theoretical curve in Fig. . The agreement between the sampling data and the theoretical curve is excellent, which shows the validity of the utlized procedure in Eq. (A$\cdot$3) is right. \\ \noindent {\bf Procedure 2}\\ \noindent We obtain $E_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}$ from Eq. (A$\cdot$2) for the given $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ and $Q^2$ thus decided in the Procedure 1.\\ \noindent {\bf Procedure 3}\\ \noindent We obtain $\cos{\theta_{\rm s}}$, cosine of the the scattering angle of the emitted lepton, for $E_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}$ thus decided in the Procedure 2 from Eq. (A$\cdot$1) .\\ \noindent {\bf Procedure 4}\\ \noindent We decide $\phi$, the azimuthal angle of the scattering lepton, which is obtained from\\ \begin{equation} \phi = 2\pi\xi. \end{equation} \noindent Here, $\xi$ is a uniform random number (0, 1). \\ As explained schematically in the text(see Fig. {\bf } in the text), we must take account of the effect due to the azimuthal angle $\phi$ in the QEL to obtain the zenith angle distribution of both {\it Fully Contained Events} and {\it Partially Contained Events} correctly.\\ \noindent {\bf Procedure 5}\\ \noindent The relation between direction cosines of the incident neutrinos, $(\ell_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}, m_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}, n_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} )$, and those of the corresponding emitted lepton, $(\ell_{\rm r}, m_{\rm r}, n_{\rm r})$, for a certain $\theta_{\rm s}$ and $\phi$ is given as \\ \begin{equation} \left( \begin{array}{c} \ell_{\rm r} \\ m_{\rm r} \\ n_{\rm r} \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \displaystyle \frac{\ell n}{\sqrt{\ell^2+m^2}} & -\displaystyle \frac{m}{\sqrt{\ell^2+m^2}} & \ell_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} \\ \displaystyle \frac{mn}{\sqrt{\ell^2+m^2}} & \displaystyle \frac{\ell}{\sqrt{\ell^2+m^2}} & m_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} \\ -\sqrt{\ell^2+m^2} & 0 & n_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} {\rm sin}\theta_{\rm s}{\rm cos}\phi \\ {\rm sin}\theta_{\rm s}{\rm sin}\phi \\ {\rm cos}\theta_{\rm s}, \end{array} \right), \end{equation} \\ \noindent where $n_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}={\rm cos}\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, and $n_{\rm r}={\rm cos}\theta_{\ell}$. Here, $\theta_{\ell}$ is the zenith angle of the emitted lepton. \\ The Monte Carlo procedure for the determination of $\theta_{\ell}$ of the emitted lepton for the parent (anti-)neutrino with given $\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ and $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ involves the following steps:\\ We obtain $(\ell_r, m_r, n_r)$ by using Eq. (). The $n_r$ is the cosine of the zenith angle of the emitted lepton which should be contrasted to $n_{\nu}$, that of the incident neutrino. \\ Repeating the procedures 1 to 5 just mentioned above, we obtain the zenith angle distribution of the emitted leptons for a given zenth angle of the incident neutrino with a definite energy. \\ In the SK analysis, instead of Eq. (), they assume \\ $n_r = n_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} $ uniquely for ${E_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}} \geq$ 400 MeV.\\ \newpage \section{\appendixname:{ Monte Carlo Procedure to Obtain the Zenith Angle of the Emitted Lepton for a Given Zentith Angle of the Incident Neutrino}} \setcounter {equation}{0} \def\theequation{\Alph{section}\textperiodcentered\arabic{equation}} The present simulation procedure for a given zenith angle of the incident neutrino starts from the atmospheric neutrino spectrum at the opposite site of the Earth to the SK detector. We define, $N_{\rm int}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,{\rm cos}\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})})$, the interaction neutrino spectrum at the depth $t$ from the SK detector in the following way \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{ N_{\rm int}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,{\cos}\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) =N_{\rm sp}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) \times } \nonumber \\ && \Bigg(1-\frac{{\rm d}t}{\lambda_1(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t_1,\rho_1)} \Bigg) \times \cdots \times \Bigg(1-\frac{{\rm d}t}{\lambda_n(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t_n,\rho_n)} \Bigg).\nonumber \\ && \end{eqnarray} Here, $N_{\rm sp}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})})$ is the atmospheric (anti-) neutrino spectrum for the zenith angle at the opposite surface of the Earth. Here $\lambda_i(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t_i,\rho_i)$ denotes the mean free path due to the neutrino(anti neutrino) with the energy $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ from QEL at the distance, $t_i$, from the opposite surface of the Earth inside whose density is $\rho_i$. The procedures of the Monte Carlo Simulation for the incident neutrino(anti neutrino) with a given energy, $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, whose incident direction is expressde by $(l,m,n)$ are as follows.\\ \noindent {\bf Procedure A}\\ \noindent For the given zenith angle of the incident neutrino, ${\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}}$, we formulate, $N_{\rm pro}( E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, the production function for the neutrino flux to produce leptons at the Kamioka site in the following \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{N_{\rm pro}( E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} } \nonumber \\ &&= \sigma_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) N_{\rm int}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,{\rm cos}\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}, \end{eqnarray} \noindent where \begin{equation} \displaystyle \sigma_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) = \int^{Q_{\rm max}^2}_{Q_{\rm min}^2} \frac{ {\rm d}\sigma_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},Q^2)}{{\rm d}Q^2}{\rm d}Q^2. \end{equation} \noindent Each differential cross section above is given in Eq. () in the text.\\ Utilizing, $\xi$, the uniform random number between (0,1), we determine $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, the energy of the incident neutrino in the following sampling procedure\\ \begin{equation} \xi = \int_{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm min}}}^{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}} P_d(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}(\bar{\nu})){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}, \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{ P_d(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos{\theta}_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} } \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{ N_{pro}( E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos{\theta}_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} } { \displaystyle \int_{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm min}}}^{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm max}}} N_{pro}( E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos{\theta}_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} } . \end{eqnarray} In our Monte Carlo procedure, \\ the reproduction of, $P_d(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, the normalized differential neutrino interaction probability function, is confirmed in the same way as in Eq. (A$\cdot$4). \\ \\ \noindent {\bf Procedure B}\\ \noindent For the (anti-)neutrino concerned with the energy of $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, we sample $Q^2$ utlizing $\xi_{3}$, the uniform random number between (0,1). The Procedure B is exactly the same as in the Procedure 1 in the Appendix A. \\ \noindent {\bf Procedure C}\\ \noindent We decide, ${\theta_{\rm s}}$, the scattering angle of the emitted lepton for given $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ and $Q^2$. The procedure C is exactly the same as in the combination of Procedures 2 and 3 in the Appendix A. \\ \noindent {\bf Procedure D}\\ \noindent We randomly sample the azimuthal angle of the charged lepton concerned. The Procedure D is exactly the same as in the Procedure 4 in the Appendix A. \\ \noindent {\bf Procedure E}\\ \noindent We decide the direction cosine of the charged lepton concerned. The Procedure E is exactly the same as in the Procedure 5 in the Appendix A.\\ We repeat Procedures A to E until we reach the desired trial number. \\ \\ \newpage \section{\appendixname:{ }Correlation between the Zenith Angles of the Incident Neutrinos and Those of the Emitted Leptons} \setcounter{equation}{0} \def\theequation{\Alph{section}\textperiodcentered\arabic{equation}} \noindent {\bf Procedure A}\\ By using, $N_{\rm pro}( E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, which is defined in Eq. (), \noindent we define the spectrum for $\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ in the following. \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{ I(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) = } \nonumber \\ && {\rm d}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) \int_{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm min}}}^{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm max}}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!N_{\rm pro}( E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}. \end{eqnarray} \noindent By using Eq. () and $\xi$, a sampled uniform random number between (0,1), then we could determine $\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ from the following equation \begin{equation} \xi = \int_0^{\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}}P_n(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) {\rm d}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}), \end{equation} \noindent where \begin{equation} P_n(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) = I(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) \Bigg/ \int_0^1 I(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}). \end{equation} \\ \noindent {\bf Procedure B}\\ \noindent For the sampled ${\rm d}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})})$ in the Procedure A, we sample $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ from Eq.() by using ${\xi}$, the uniform randum number between (0,1) \begin{equation} \displaystyle \xi = \int_{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm min}}}^{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}} P_{pro}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}, \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{ P_{pro}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} = } \nonumber \\ && \frac{ N_{\rm pro}( E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} } {\displaystyle \int_{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm min}}}^{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm max}}} N_{\rm pro}( E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} }. \end{eqnarray} \noindent {\bf Procedure C}\\ \noindent For the sampled $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ in the Procedure B, we sample $E_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}$ from Eqs. () and (). For the sampled $E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ and $E_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}$, we determine $\cos{\theta}_s$, the scattering angle of the muon uniquely from Eq. ().\\ \noindent {\bf Procedure D}\\ \noindent We determine, $\phi$, the azimuthal angle of the scattering lepton from Eq. () by using ${\xi}$, an uniform randum number between (0,1). \\ \noindent {\bf Procedure E}\\ \noindent We obtain $\cos{\theta}_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}$ from Eq. (). As the result, we obtain a pair of ($\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, $\cos{\theta}_{\mu(\bar{\mu})}$) through Procedures A to E. Repeating the Procedures A to E, we finally the correlation between the zenith angle of the incident neutrino and that of the emitted muon. \newpage \section{\appendixname:{ }Detection of the Neutrino Events in the SK Detector and Their Interaction Points} \setcounter{equation}{0} \def\theequation{\Alph{section}\textperiodcentered\arabic{equation}} The plane ABCD is always directed vertically to the direction of the incident neutrino with a given zenith angle, which is shown in Fig. . The rectangular ABCDEFGH encloses the SK detector whose radius and height is denoted by \textit{R} and \textit{H}, respectively. The width and the height of the plane ABCD for a given zenith angle, ${\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}}$, is given as, \textit{R} and \textit{R}$\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ + \textit{H}$\sin{\theta}_{\nu}$,respectively, which are shown in Fig. 16-c. Now, let us estimate the ratio of the number of the neutrino events inside the SK detector to that in the rectangular ABCDEFGH. As the number of the neutrino events inside some material is proportional to the number of the nucleons in the material concerned. The number of the nucleons inside the SK detector $(\rho=1)$ is given as \begin{equation} N_{\rm sk}=\frac{\pi}{4}N_{\rm avoga}R^2H, \end{equation} \\ \noindent where $N_{\rm avoga}$ denotes the Avogadro number, and the number of the nucleons in the exterior of the SK detector inside ABCDEFGH is given as \\ \begin{eqnarray} N_{\rm extr}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}&) &=\rho N_{\rm avoga} \biggl[ \biggl( 1-\frac{\pi}{4} \biggr)R^2H + \nonumber \\ & & R(H^2 \!\! + \!\! R^2)\sin{\theta}_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} \biggr], \end{eqnarray} \noindent where $\rho$ is the density of the rock which surrounds the SK detector. Then, the total number of the target in the rectangularABCDEFGH is given as \\ \begin{equation} N_{\rm tot}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) =N_{\rm sk}+N_{\rm extr}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) . \end{equation} \noindent Here, we take 2.65, as ${\rho}$ (standard rock).\\ Then, $R_{\rm theor}$, the ratio of the number of the neutrino events in the SK detector to that in the rectangular ABCDEFGH is given as \begin{equation} R_{\rm theor}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) = N_{\rm sk} / N_{\rm tot}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) . \end{equation} \noindent We obtain $R_{\rm theor}$ for different values of $\cos{\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}}$ given in the Table 3. \\ Here, we simulate neutrino events occured in the rectangular ABCDEFH, by using the atmospheric neutrino beam which falls down on the plane ABCD. Thus, $N_{\rm smaple}$, the sampling number of the (anti-)neutrino events inside the rectangular ABCDEFG for a given ${\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}}$ is given as \\ \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{ N_{\rm sample} (\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) = N_{\rm tot}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})})\times } \nonumber \\ && \int_{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm min}}}^{E_{\nu(\bar{\nu}),{\rm max}}} \sigma_{_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})})N_{\rm int}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,{\rm cos}\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) {\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})} \nonumber \\ && \end{eqnarray} \noindent where $\sigma_{\ell(\bar{\ell})}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})})$ is the total cross section for (anti-)neutrino due to QEL, and $N_{\rm int}(E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})},t,{\rm cos}\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}){\rm d}E_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$ is the differential nutrino energy spectrum for the definite zenith angle, $\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}$, in the plane ABCD. The injection points of the neutrinos in the plane ABCD are distributed over the plane randomly and uniformely and the injection points are determined from a pair of the uniform random numbers between (0,1). They penetrate into the rectangular ABCDEFGH from the injection point in the plane ABCD and some of them may penetrate into the SK detector or may not, which depend on their injection point. In the neutrino events which penetrate into the SK detectorr, their geometrical total track length, $T_{\rm track}$, are devided into three parts\\ \begin{equation} T_{\rm track} = T_{\rm b} + T_{\rm sk} + T_{\rm a}, \end{equation} \\ \noindent where $T_{\rm b}$ denotes the track length from the plane ABCD to the entrance point of the SK detector, $T_{\rm sk}$ denotes the track length inside the SK detector, and $T_{\rm a}$ denotes the track length from the escaping point of the SK detector to the exit point of the rectangular ABCDEF, and thus $T_{\rm track}$ denotes the geometrical length of the neutrino concerned in the rectangular ABCDEFGH. \newline By the definition, the neutrinos concerned with $T_{\rm track}$ interact surely somewhere along the $T_{\rm track}$. Here, we are interested only in the interaction point which ocuurs along $T_{\rm sk}$. We could determine the interaction point in the $T_{\rm sk}$ in the following.\\ We define the following quantities for the purpose. \begin{eqnarray} T_{\rm weight} &=& T_{\rm sk} + \rho(T_{\rm b} + T_{\rm a}),\\ \rho_{\rm av} &=& T_{\rm weight} / T_{\rm track},\\ \xi_{\rho} &=& \rho_{\rm av} / \rho,\\ \xi_{\rm sk} &=& T_{\rm sk} / T_{\rm weight}. \end{eqnarray} The flow chart for the choice of the neutrino events in the SK detector and the determination of the interaction points inside the SK detector is given in Fig. . Thus, we obtain neutrino events whose occurrence point is decided in the SK detector in the following. \ \begin{eqnarray} x_f &=& x_0,\\ y_f &=& y_0 + \xi T_{\rm sk}\sin{\theta}_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}\\ z_f &=& z_0 + \xi T_{\rm sk}\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}. \end{eqnarray} If we carry out the Monte Carlo Simulation, following the flow chart in Fig. , then, we obtain $N_{\rm event}$, the number of the neutrino events generasted in the SK detector. The ratio of the selected events to the total trial is given as \begin{equation} R_{\rm monte}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) = N_{\rm event}(\cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}) / N_{\rm sample}( \cos\theta_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}). \end{equation} \noindent Comparison between $R_{\rm theor}$ and $R_{\rm monte}$ in Table 3 shows that our Monte Carlo procedure is valid. \begin{table} \caption{{}Occurrence probabilities of the neutrino events inside the SK detector for different $\cos \theta_{\nu}$'s. Comparison between $R_{\rm theor}$ and $R_{\rm monte}$. The sampling numbers for the Monte Carlo Simulation are, 1000, 10000, 100000, respectively.} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline cos $\theta_{\nu}$ & \, $R_{\rm {theor}}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\, \, $R_{\rm {monte}}$} \\ \cline{3-5} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\, \, Sampling Number} \\ \cline{3-5} & & \, \, 1000 & 10000 & 100000 \\ \hline 0.000&\, 0.58002&\, \, 0.576&0.5750&0.57979\\ 0.100&\, 0.41717&\, \, 0.425&0.4185&0.41742\\ 0.200&\, 0.32792&\, \, 0.353&0.3252&0.32657\\ 0.300&\, 0.27324&\, \, 0.282&0.2731&0.27163\\ 0.400&\, 0.23778&\, \, 0.223&0.2329&0.23582\\ 0.500&\, 0.21491&\, \, 0.206&0.2063&0.21203\\ 0.600&\, 0.20117&\, \, 0.197&0.1946&0.19882\\ 0.700&\, 0.19587&\, \, 0.193&0.1925&0.19428\\ 0.800&\, 0.20117&\, \, 0.198&0.2002&0.20001\\ 0.900&\, 0.22843&\, \, 0.230&0.2248&0.22803\\ 1.00 &\, 0.58002&\, \, 0.557&0.5744&0.57936\\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \begin{thebibliography}{} \bibitem{r1} Kasuga, S. {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B374} (1996) 238. \bibitem{r2} Ashie,Y. {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71} (2005) 112005. \bibitem{r3} Ashie,Y. {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.{\bf 93} (2004) 101801. \bibitem{r4} Renton, P., {\it Electro-weak Interaction}, Cambridge University Press (1990). See p. 405. \bibitem{r5} D.Rein and L.M.Sehgal, Ann. of Phys. {\bf 133} (1981) 1780. \bibitem{r6} D.Rein and L.M.Sehgal Nucl. Phys. {\bf B84} (1983) 29. \bibitem{r7} R.H.Gandhi {\it et. al.} \ Astropart. Phys. {\bf 5} (1996) 81. \bibitem{kajita} Kajita, T. and Totsuka, Y. Rev. Mod. Phys., {\bf 73} (2001) 85. See p. 101. \bibitem{ishitsuka} Ishitsuka, M., Ph.D thesis, University of Tokyo (2004). See p. 138. \bibitem{honda} Honda, M., {\it et al.}, \ Phys.\ Rev. D {\bf 52} (1996) 4985 \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0194
|
Title: Quantum mechanical approach to decoherence and relaxation generated by
fluctuating environment
Abstract: We consider an electrostatic qubit, interacting with a fluctuating charge of
single electron transistor (SET) in the framework of exactly solvable model.
The SET plays a role of the fluctuating environment affecting the qubit's
parameters in a controllable way. We derive the rate equations describing
dynamics of the entire system for both weak and strong qubit-SET coupling.
Solving these equation we obtain decoherence and relaxation rates of the qubit,
as well as the spectral density of the fluctuating qubit's parameters. We found
that in the weak coupling regime the decoherence and relaxation rates are
directly related to the spectral density taken at Rabi or at zero frequency,
depending on what a particular qubit's parameters is fluctuating. This relation
holds also in the presence of weak back-action of the qubit on the fluctuating
environment. In the case of strong back-action, such simple relationship no
longer holds, even if the qubit-SET coupling is small. It does not hold either
in the strong-coupling regime, even in the absence of the back-action. In
addition, we found that our model predicts localization of the qubit in the
strong-coupling regime, resembling that of the spin-boson model.
Body: \title{Quantum mechanical approach to decoherence and relaxation generated by fluctuating environment} \author{S.A. Gurvitz} \email{shmuel.gurvitz@weizmann.ac.il} \affiliation{Department of Particle Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel and Theoretical Division and CNLS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA} \author{D. Mozyrsky} \affiliation{Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA} \date{\today} \pacs{03.65.Yz, 05.60.Gg, 73.23.-b, 73.23.Hk} \begin{abstract} We consider an electrostatic qubit, interacting with fluctuating charge of a single electron transistor (SET) in the framework of an exactly solvable model. The SET plays role of an environment affecting the qubits' parameters in a controllable way. We derive the rate equations describing the dynamics of the entire system for an arbitrary qubit-SET coupling. Solving these equations we obtain decoherence and relaxation rates of the qubit, as well as the spectral density of qubit parameters' fluctuations. We found that in a weak coupling regime decoherence and relaxation rates are directly related to the spectral density taken at either zero or Rabi frequency, depending on which qubit parameter is fluctuating. In the latter case our result coincides with that of the spin-boson model in the weak coupling limit, despite different origin of the fluctuations. We show that this relation holds also in the presence of weak back-action of the qubit on the environment. In case of strong back-action such a simple relationship no longer holds, even if qubit-SET coupling is small. It does not hold also in the strong coupling regime, even in the absence of the back-action. In addition, we found that our model predicts localization of the qubit in the strong-coupling regime, resembling that in the spin-boson model. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The influence of environment on a single quantum system is the issue of crucial importance in quantum information science. It is mainly associated with decoherence, or dephasing, which transforms any pure state of a quantum system into a statistical mixture. Despite a large body of theoretical work devoted to decoherence, its mechanism has not been clarified enough. For instance, how decoherence is related to environmental noise, in particular in the presence of back-action of the system on the environment (quantum measurements). Moreover, decoherence is often intermixed with relaxation. Although each of them represents an irreversible process, decoherence and relaxation affect quantum systems in quite different ways. In order to establish a relation between the fluctuation spectrum and decoherence and relaxation rates one needs a model that describes the effects of decoherence and relaxation in a consistent quantum mechanical way. An obvious candidate is the spin-boson model which represents the environment as a bath of harmonic oscillators at equilibrium, where the fluctuations obey Gaussian statistics . Despite its apparent simplicity, the spin-boson model cannot be solved exactly . Also, it is hard to manipulate the fluctuation spectrum in the framework of this model. In addition, mesoscopic structures may couple only to a few isolated fluctuators, like spins, local currents, background charge fluctuations, etc. This would require models of the environment, different from the spin-boson model (see for instace ). In general, the environment can be out of equilibrium, like a steady-state fluctuating current, interacting with the qubit . This for instance, takes place in the continuous measurement (monitoring) of quantum systems and in the ``control dephasing'' experiments. All these types on non-Gaussian and non-equilibrium environments attracted recently a great deal of attention . In this paper we consider an electrostatic qubit, which can be viewed as a generic example of two-state systems. It is realized by an electron trapped in coupled quantum dots , Fig.~1. Here $E_1$ and $E_2$ denote energies of the electron states in each of the dots and $\Omega_0$ is a coupling between these states. It is reasonable to assume that the decoherence of a qubit is associated with fluctuations of the qubit parameters, $E_{1,2}$ and $\Omega_0$, generated by the environment. Indeed, a stochastic averaging of the Schr\"odinger equation over these fluctuations parameters results in the qubit's decoherence, which transfers any qubit state into a statistical mixture . In general, one can expect that the fluctuating environment should result in the qubit's relaxation, as well, as for instance in the phenomenological Redfield's description of relaxation in the magnetic resonance . As a quantum mechanical model of the environment we consider a Single Electron Transistor (SET) capacitively coupled to the qubit, e.g., Fig.~2. Such setup has been contemplated in numerous solid state quantum computing architectures where SET plays role of a readout device and contains most of the generic features of a fluctuating non-equilibrium environment. The discreteness of the electron charge creates fluctuations in the electrostatic field near the SET. If the electrostatic qubit is placed near the SET, this fluctuating field should affect the qubit behavior as shown in Fig.~2. It can produce fluctuations of the tunneling coupling between the dots (off-diagonal coupling) by narrowing the electrostatic opening connecting these dots, as in Fig.~2a, or make the energy levels of the dots fluctuate, as shown schematically in Fig.~2b. Note that while in some regimes the SET operates as a measuring device , in other regimes it corresponds purely to a source of noise. Indeed, if the energy level $E_0$, Fig.~2, is deeply inside the voltage bias -- the case we consider in the beginning, the SET current is not modulated by the qubit electron. In this case the SET represents only the fluctuating environment affecting the qubit behavior (``pure environment'' ). A similar model of the fluctuating environment has been studied mostly for small bias (linear response) or for the environment in an equilibrium. Here, however, we consider strongly non-equilibrium case where the bias voltage applied on the SET ($V=\mu_L-\mu_R$) is much larger than the levels widths and the coupling between the SET and the qubit. In this limit our model can be solved exactly for both weak and strong coupling (but is still smaller than the bias voltage). This constitutes an essential advantage with regard to perturbative treatments of similar models. For instance, the results of our model can be compared in different regimes with phenomenological descriptions used in the literature. Such a comparison would allow us to determine the regions where these phenomenological models are valid. Since our model is very simple in treatment, the decoherence and relaxation rates can be extracted from the exact solution analytically, as well as the time-correlator of the electric charge inside the SET. This would make it possible to establish a relation between the frequency-dependent fluctuation spectrum of the environment and the decoherence and the relaxation rates of the qubit, and to determine how far this relation can be extended. We expect that such a relation should not depend on a source of fluctuations. This point can be verified by a comparison with a similar results obtained for equilibrium environment in the framework of the spin-boson model . It is also important to understand how the decoherence and relaxation rates depend on the frequency of the environmental fluctuations. This problem has been investigated in many phenomenological approaches for ``classical'' environments at equilibrium. Yet, there still exists an ambiguity in the literature related to this point for non-equilibrium environment. For instance, it was found by Levinson that the decoherence rate, generated by fluctuations of the energy level in a single quantum dot is proportional to the spectral density of fluctuations at zero frequency . The same result, but for a double-dot system has been obtained by Rabenstein {\em et al.} . On the other hand, it follows from the Redfied's approach that the corresponding decoherence rate is proportional to the spectral density at the frequency of the qubit's oscillations (the Rabi frequency). Since our model is the exactly solvable one, we can resolve this ambiguity and establish the appropriate physical conditions that can result in different relations of decoherence rate to the environmental fluctuations. The most important results of our study are related to the situation when back-action of the qubit on the environment takes place. This problem did not receive such a considerable amount of attention in the literature as, for example, the case of ``inert'' environment. This is in spite of a fact that the back-action always takes place in the presence of measurement. There are many questions related to the effects of a back-action. For instance, what would be a relation between decoherence (relaxation) of the qubit and the noise spectrum of the environment? Or, how decoherence is affected by a strong response of environment? We believe that our model appears to be more suitable for studying these and other problems related to the back-action than most of the other existing approaches. The plan of this paper is as follows: Sect. II presents a phenomenological description of decoherence and relaxation in the framework of Bloch equations, applied to the electrostatic qubit. Sect. III contains description of the model and the quantum rate-equation formalism, used for its solution. Detailed quantum-mechanical derivation of these equations for a specific example is presented in Appendix A. Sect. IV deals with a configuration where the SET can generate only decoherence of the qubit. We consider separately the situations when SET produces fluctuations of the tunneling coupling (Rabi frequency) or of the energy levels. The results are compared with the SET fluctuation spectrum, evaluated in Appendix B. Sect. V deals with a configuration where the SET generates both decoherence and relaxation of the qubit. Sect. VI is summary. \section{Decoherence and relaxation of a qubit} In this section we describe in a general phenomenological framework the effect of decoherence and relaxation on the qubit behavior. Although the results are known, there still exists some confusion in the literature in this issue. We therefore need to define precisely these quantities and demonstrate how the corresponding decoherenece and relaxation rates can be extracted from the qubit density matrix. Let us consider an electrostatic qubit, realized by an electron trapped in coupled quantum dots, Fig.~1. This system is described by the following tunneling Hamiltonian \begin{align}H_\rqb = E_1 a_1^{\dagger}a_{1}+E_2 a_2^{\dagger}a_{2} -\Omega_0 (a_2^{\dagger}a_{1}+ a_1^{\dagger}a_{2}) \end{align} where $a^\dagger_{1,2}, a_{1,2}$ are the creation and annihilation operators of the electron in the first or in the second dot. For simplicity we consider electrons as spinless fermions. In addition, we assume that $a_1^{\dagger}a_{1}+a_2^{\dagger}a_{2}=1$, so that only one electron is present in the double-dot. The electron wave function can be written as \begin{align}|\Psi (t)\rangle = \left [b^{(1)}(t)a_1^{\dagger} + b^{(2)}(t)a_2^{\dagger}\right ] |\b0\rangle \end{align} where $b^{(1,2)}(t)$ are the probability amplitudes for finding the electron in the first or second well, obtained from the Schr\"odinger equation $i\partial_t |\Psi (t)\rangle =H_\rqb |\Psi (t)\rangle$ (we adopt the units where $\hbar =1$ and the electron charge $e=1$). The corresponding density matrix, $\sigma_{jj'}(t)=b^{(j)}(t)b^{{(j')}*}(t)$, with $j,j'=\{1,2\}$, is obtained from the equation $i\partial_t\,\sigma =[H,\sigma ]$. This can be written explicitly as \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \dot{\sigma}_{11}&=&i\Omega_0(\sigma_{21}-\sigma_{12})\\ \dot{\sigma}_{12}&=&-i\epsilon\sigma_{12}+i\Omega_0(1-2\sigma_{11})\, , \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} where $\sigma_{22}(t)=1-\sigma_{11}(t)$, $\sigma_{21}(t)=\sigma_{12}^*(t)$ and $\epsilon =E_1-E_2$. Solving these equations one easily finds that the electron oscillates between the two dots (Rabi oscillations) with frequency $\omega_R=\sqrt{4\Omega_0^2+\epsilon^2}$. For instance, for the initial conditions $\sigma_{11}(0)=1$ and $\sigma_{12}(0)=1$, the probability of finding the electron in the second dot is $\sigma_{22}(t)=2(\Omega_0/\omega_R)^2(1-\cos\omega_R t)$. This result shows that for $\epsilon\gg\Omega_0$ the amplitude of the Rabi oscillations is small, so the electron remains localized in its initial state. The situation is different when the qubit interacts with the environment. In this case the (reduced) density matrix of the qubit $\sigma (t)$ is obtained by tracing out the environment variables from the total density matrix. The question is how to modify Eqs.~(), written for an isolated qubit, in order to obtain the reduced density matrix of the qubit, $\sigma (t)$. In general one expects that the environment could affect the qubit in two different ways. First, it can destroy the off-diagonal elements of the qubit density matrix. This process is usually referred to as decoherence (or dephasing). It can be accounted for phenomenologically by introducing an additional (damping) term in Eq.~(), \begin{align} \dot{\sigma}_{12}=-i\epsilon\sigma_{12}+i\Omega_0(1-2\sigma_{11}) -{\Gamma_d\over 2}\sigma_{12}\, \end{align} where $\Gamma_d$ is the decoherence rate. As a result the qubit density-matrix $\sigma (t)$ becomes a statistical mixture in the stationary limit, \begin{align} \sigma(t) \stackrel{\small t\to\infty}{\longrightarrow} \left (\begin{array}{cc}1/2&0\\ 0&1/2\end{array}\right )\, . \end{align} This happens for any initial conditions and even for large level displacement, $\epsilon\gg\Omega_0,\Gamma_d$ (provided that $\Omega_0\not =0$). Note that the statistical mixture () is proportional to the unity matrix and therefore it remains the same in any basis. Secondly, the environment can put the qubit in its ground state, for instance via photon or phonon emission. This process is usually referred to as relaxation. For a symmetric qubit we would have \begin{align} \sigma(t) \stackrel{\small t\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}\left ( \begin{array}{cc}1/2&1/2\\ 1/2&1/2\end{array} \right )\, . \end{align} In contrast with decoherence, Eq.~(), the relaxation process puts the qubit into a pure state. That implies that the corresponding density matrix can be always written as $\delta_{1i}\delta_{1j}$ in a certain basis (the basis of the qubit eigenstates). This is in fact the essential difference between decoherence and relaxation. With respect to elimination of the off-diagonal density matrix elements, note that relaxation would eliminate these terms only in the qubit's eigenstates basis. In contrast, decoherence eliminates the off-diagonal density matrix element in any basis (Eq.~()). In fact, if the environment has some energy, it can put the qubit into an exited state. However, if the qubit is finally in a pure state, such excitation process generated by the environment affects the qubit in the same way as relaxation: it eliminates the off-diagonal density matrix elements only in a certain qubit's basis. Therefore excitation of the qubit can be described phenomenologically on the same footing as relaxation. It is often claimed that decoherence is associated with an absence of energy transfer between the system and the environment, in contrast with relaxation (excitation). This distinction is not generally valid. For instance, if the initial qubit state corresponds to the electron in the state $|E_2\rangle$, Fig.~1, the final state after decoherence corresponds to an equal distribution between the two dots, $\langle E\rangle =(E_1+E_2)/2$. In the case of $E_1\gg E_2$, this process would require a large energy transfer between the qubit and the environment. Therefore decoherence can be consistently defines as a process leading to a statistical mixture, where all states of the system have equal probabilities (as in Eq.~()). The relaxation (excitation) process can be described most simply by diagonalizing the qubit Hamiltonian, Eqs.~(), to obtain $H_\rqb = E_+ a_+^{\dagger}a_{+}+E_- a_-^{\dagger}a_{-}$, where the operators $a_{\pm}$ are obtained by the corresponding rotation of the operators $a_{1,2}$ . Here $E_+$ and $E_-$ are the ground (symmetric) and excited (antisymmetric) state energies. Then the relaxation process can be described phenomenologically in the new qubit basis $|\pm\rangle= a_{\pm}^\dagger|\b0 \rangle$ as \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} && \dot\sigma_{--}(t)=-\Gamma_r\sigma_{--}(t) \\ && \dot\sigma_{+-}(t)=i(E_--E_+)\sigma_{+-}(t) -{\Gamma_r\over 2}\sigma_{+-}(t)\, , \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} where $\sigma_{++}(t)=1-\sigma_{--}(t)$, $\sigma_{-+}(t)=\sigma^*_{+-}(t)$ and $\Gamma_r$ is the relaxation rate. In order to add decoherence, we return to the original qubit basis $|1,2\rangle= a_{1,2}^\dagger|\b0\rangle$ and add the damping term to the equation for the off-diagonal matrix elements, Eq.~(). We arrive at the quantum rate equation describing the qubit's behavior in the presence of both decoherence and relaxation , \begin{widetext} \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} &&\dot\sigma_{11}=i\Omega_0(\sigma_{21}-\sigma_{12}) -\Gamma_r\, {\kappa\epsilon \over2 \tilde\epsilon}\, (\sigma_{12}+\sigma_{21}) -{\Gamma_r\over4}\left[1+\left({\epsilon\over\tilde\epsilon }\right)^2\right](2\sigma_{11}-1) +\Gamma_r{\epsilon \over 2\tilde\epsilon} \\[5pt] &&\dot\sigma_{12}=-i\epsilon\sigma_{12} +\left[i\Omega_0+\Gamma_r{\kappa\epsilon \over 2\tilde\epsilon}\right] (1-2\sigma_{11}) +\Gamma_r\left[\kappa -{1\over2}\sigma_{12} -\kappa^2(\sigma_{12}+\sigma_{21})\right] -{\Gamma_d\over2}\sigma_{12}\, , \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} \end{widetext} where $\tilde\epsilon =(\epsilon^2+4\Omega_0^2)^{1/2}$ and $\kappa =\Omega_0/\tilde\epsilon$. In fact, these equations can be derived in the framework of a particular model, representing an electrostatic qubit interacting with the point-contact detector and the environment, described by the Lee model Hamiltonian . Equations~() can be rewritten in a simpler form by mapping the qubit density matrix $\sigma =\{\sigma_{11},\sigma_{12},\sigma_{21}\}$ to a ``polarization'' vector $\bS(t)$ via $\sigma (t)=[1+\btau\cdot \bS (t)]/2$, where $\tau_{x,y,z}$ are the Pauli matrices. For instance, one obtains for the symmetric case, $\epsilon =0$, \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} &&\dot S_z=-{\Gamma_r\over2}S_z-2\Omega_0\, S_y \\ &&\dot S_y=2\Omega_0\, S_z-{\Gamma_d+\Gamma_r\over2}S_y \\ &&\dot S_x=-{\Gamma_d+2\Gamma_r\over2}(S_x-\bar S_x) \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} where $\bar S_x=S_x(t\to\infty )=2\Gamma_r/(\Gamma_d+2\Gamma_r)$. One finds that Eqs.~() have a form of the Bloch equations for spin-precession in the magnetic field , where the effect of environment is accounted for by two relaxation times for the different spin components: the longitudinal $T_1$ and the transverse $T_2$, related to $\Gamma_d$ and $2\Gamma_r$ as \begin{align} T_1^{-1}={\Gamma_d+2\Gamma_r\over 2},~~~ {\mbox{and}}~~~ T_2^{-1}={\Gamma_d+\Gamma_r\over 2}\, , \end{align} The corresponding damping rates, the so-called ``depolarization'' ($\Gamma_{1}=1/T_{1}$) and the ``dephasing'' ($\Gamma_{2}=1/T_{2}$) are used for phenomenological description of two-level systems . However, neither $\Gamma_1$ nor $\Gamma_2$ taken alone would drive the qubit density matrix into a statistical mixture Eq.~() or into a pure state Eq.~(). In contrast, our definition of decoherence and relaxation (excitation) is associated with two opposite effects of the environment on the qubit: the first drives it into a statistical mixture, whereas the second drives it into a pure state. We expect therefore that such a natural distinction between decoherence and relaxation would be more useful for finding a relation between these quantities and the environmental behavior than other alternative definitions of these quantities existing in the literature. In general, the two rates, $\Gamma_{d,r}$, introduced in phenomenological equations~(), (), are consistent with our definitions of decoherence and relaxation. The only exception is the case of $\Gamma_r=0$ and $\Omega_0=0$, where are no transitions between the qubit's states even in the presence of the environment (``static'' qubit). One easily finds from Eqs.~(), () that $\sigma_{12}(t)\to 0$ for $t\to\infty$, whereas the diagonal density-matrix elements of the qubit remain unchanged (so-called ``pure dephasing'' ): \begin{align} \sigma(t) \stackrel{\small t\to\infty}{\longrightarrow} \left (\begin{array}{cc}\sigma_{11}(0)&0\\ 0&\sigma_{22}(0)\end{array}\right )\, . \end{align} Thus, if the initial probabilities of finding the qubit in each of its states are not equal, $\sigma_{11}(0)\not =\sigma_{22}(0)$, then the final qubit state is neither a mixture nor a pure state, but a combination of the both. It implies that $\Gamma_d$ in Eqs.~() would also generate relaxation (excitation) of the qubit. Note that in this case the off-diagonal density-matrix elements, absent in Eq.(), would reappear in a different basis. This implies that the ``pure dephasing'' occurs only in a particular basis. Let us evaluate the probability of finding the electron in the first dot, $\sigma_{11}(t)$. Solving Eqs.~() for the initial conditions $\sigma_{11}(0)=1$, $\sigma_{12}(0)=0$, we find : \begin{align} \sigma_{11}(t)=\frac{1}{2} +{e^{-\Gamma_rt/2}\over 4}\left (C_1 e^{-e_-t} +C_2e^{-e_+t}\right ) \end{align} where $e_{\pm}={1\over4}(\Gamma_d\pm\tilde\Omega)$, $\tilde\Omega =\sqrt{\Gamma_d^2-64\Omega_0^2}$ and $C_{1,2}=1\pm(\Gamma_d/\tilde\Omega)$. Solving the same equations in the limit of $t\to\infty$, we find that the steady-state qubit density matrix is \begin{align} \sigma(t) \stackrel{\small t\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}\left (\begin{array}{cc} 1/2&\Gamma_r/(\Gamma_d+2\Gamma_r)\cr\Gamma_r/(\Gamma_d+2\Gamma_r)&1/2 \end{array}\right )\, . \end{align} Thus the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix can provide us with a ratio of relaxation to decoherence rates. \section{Description of the model} Consider the setup shown in Fig.~2. The entire system can be described by the following tunneling Hamiltonian, represented by a sum of the qubit and SET Hamiltonians and the interaction term, $H=H_\rqb +H_\rset +H_\rint $. Here $H_\rqb$ is given by Eq.~() and describes the qubit. The second term, $H_\rset$, describes the single-electron transistor. It can be written as \begin{align} H_\rset&=\sum_lE_lc_l^\dagger c_l+\sum_rE_rc_r^\dagger c_r+E_0c_0^\dagger c_0\nonumber\\&+\sum_{l,r}(\Omega_lc^\dagger_l c_0 +\Omega_rc^\dagger_r c_0+H.c.)\, , \end{align} where $c_{l,r}^\dagger$ and $c_{l,r}$ are the creation and annihilation electron operators in the state $E_{l,r}$ of the right or left reservoir; $c_{0}^\dagger$ and $c_{0}$ are those for the level $E_0$ inside the quantum dot; and $\Omega_{l,r}$ are the couplings between the level $E_0$ and the level $E_{l,r}$ in the left (right) reservoir. In order to avoid too lengthy formulaes, our summation indices $l,r$ indicate simultaneously the left and the right leads of the SET, where the corresponding summation is carried out. As follows from the Hamiltonian~(), the quantum dot of the SET contains only one level ($E_0$). This assumption has been implied only for the sake of simplicity for our presentation, although our approach is well suited for a case of $n$ levels inside the SET, $E_0c_0^\dagger c_0\to\sum_nE_nc_n^\dagger c_n$, and even when the interaction between these levels is included (providing that the latter is much less or much larger than the bias $V$) . We also assumed a weak energy dependence of the couplings $\Omega_{l,r}\simeq\Omega_{L,R}$. The interaction between the qubit and the SET, $H_\rint$, depends on a position of the SET with respect to the qubit. If the SET is placed near the middle of the qubit, Fig.~2a, then the tunneling coupling between two dots of the qubit in Eq.~() decreases, $\Omega_0\to\Omega_0-\delta\Omega_0$, whenever the quantum dot of the SET is occupied by an electron. This is due to the electron's repulsive field. In this case the interaction term can be written as \begin{align} H_\rint=\delta\Omega\, c_0^\dagger c_0(a_1^\dagger a_2+a_2^\dagger a_1)\, . \end{align} On the other hand, in the configuration shown in Fig.~2b where the SET is placed near one of the dots of the qubit, the electron repulsive field displaces the qubit energy levels by $\Delta E=U$. The interaction terms in this case can be written as \begin{align} H_\rint =U\, a_1^\dagger a_1 c_0^\dagger c_0 \, . \end{align} Consider the initial state where all the levels in the left and the right reservoirs are filled with electrons up to the Fermi levels $\mu_{L,R}$ respectively. This state will be called the ``vacuum'' state $|\b0 \rangle$. The wave function for the entire system can be written as \begin{widetext} \begin{eqnarray} &&|\Psi (t)\rangle = \left [ b^{(1)}(t)a_1^\dagger + \sum_l b^{(1)}_{0l}(t)a_1^\dagger c_{0}^{\dagger}c_{l}+ \sum_{l,r} b^{(1)}_{rl}(t) a_1^\dagger c_{r}^{\dagger}c_{l} +\sum_{l<l',r} b^{(1)}_{0rll'}(t)a_1^\dagger c_{0}^{\dagger}c_{r}^{\dagger}c_{l}c_{l'}+\cdots\right. \nonumber\\ &&\left.+b^{(2)}(t)a_2^\dagger + \sum_l b^{(2)}_{0l}(t)a_2^\dagger c_{0}^{\dagger}c_{l}+ \sum_{l,r} b^{(2)}_{rl}(t) a_2^\dagger c_{r}^{\dagger}c_{l} +\sum_{l<l',r} b^{(2)}_{0rll'}(t)a_2^\dagger c_{0}^{\dagger}c_{r}^{\dagger}c_{l}c_{l'} +\ldots \right ] |\b0\rangle, \end{eqnarray} \end{widetext} where $b^{(j)}(t)$, $b^{(j)}_\alpha(t)$ are the probability amplitudes to find the entire system in the state described by the corresponding creation and annihilation operators. These amplitudes are obtained from the Schr\"odinger equation $i|\dot\Psi(t)\rangle= H|\Psi(t)\rangle$, supplemented with the initial condition $b^{(1)}(0)=p_1$, $b^{(2)}(0)=p_2$, and $b_{\alpha}^{(j)}(0)=0$, where $p_{1,2}$ are the amplitudes of the initial qubit state. Note that Eq.~() implies a fixed electron number ($N$) in the reservoirs. At the first sight it would lead to depletion of the left reservoir of electrons over the time. Yet in the limit of $N\to\infty$ (infinite reservoirs) the dynamics of an entire system reaches its steady state before such a depletion takes place. The behavior of the qubit and the SET is given by the reduced density matrix, $\sigma_{ss'}(t)$. It is obtained from the entire system's density matrix $|\Psi (t)\rangle\langle\Psi (t)|$ by tracing out the (continuum) reservoir states. The space of such a reduced density matrix consists of four discrete states $s,s'=a,b,c,d$, shown schematically in Fig.~3 for the setup of Fig.~2a. The corresponding density-matrix elements are directly related to the amplitudes $b(t)$, for instance, \begin{widetext} \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \sigma_{aa}(t)&=&|b^{(1)}(t)|^2+\sum_{l,r}|b^{(1)}_{lr}(t)|^2 +\sum_{l<l',r<r'}|b^{(1)}_{rr'll'}(t)|^2+\cdots \\ \sigma_{dd}(t)&=&\sum_l|b_{0l}^{(2)}(t)|^2+\sum_{l<l',r}|b^{(2)}_{0rll'}(t)|^2 +\sum_{l<l'<l'',r<r'}|b^{(2)}_{0rr'll'}(t)|^2+\cdots\\ \sigma_{bd}(t)&=&\sum_lb_{0l}^{(1)}(t)b_{0l}^{(2)*}(t) +\sum_{l<l',r}b^{(1)}_{0rll'}(t)b^{(2)*}_{0rll'}(t) +\sum_{l<l'<l'',r<r'}b^{(1)}_{0rr'll'}(t)b^{(2)*}_{0rr'll'}(t)+\cdots . \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} \end{widetext} In was shown in that the trace over the reservoir states in the system's density matrix can be performed in the large bias limit (strong non-equilibrium limit) \begin{align} V=\mu_L-\mu_R\gg \Gamma, \Omega_0, U \end{align} where the level (levels) of the SET carrying the current are far away from the chemical potentials, and $\Gamma$ is the width of the level $E_0$. In this derivation we assumed only weak energy dependence of the transition amplitudes $\Omega_{l,r}\equiv\Omega_{L,R}$ and the density of the reservoir states, $\rho(E_{l,r})=\rho_{L,R}$. As a result we arrive at Bloch-type rate equations for the reduced density matrix without any additional assumptions. The general form of these equations is \cite {g1,gmb} \begin{align} \dot\sigma_{jj'}&=i(E_{j' }-E_j)\sigma_{jj'} + i \sum_{k}\left(\sigma_{jk}\tilde\Omega_{k\to j'} -\tilde\Omega_{j\to k} \sigma_{kj'}\right ) \nonumber\\ &-{\sum_{k,k'}}{\cal P}_2 \pi\rho(\sigma_{jk}\Omega_{k\to k'}\Omega_{k'\to j'} +\sigma_{kj'}\Omega_{k\to k'}\Omega_{k'\to j}) \nonumber\\&+\sum_{k,k'}{\cal P}_2 \pi\rho\,(\Omega_{k\to j}\Omega_{k'\to j'}+ \Omega_{k\to j'}\Omega_{k'\to j}) \sigma_{kk'} \end{align} \noindent Here $\Omega_{k\to k'}$ denotes the single-electron hopping amplitude that generates the $k\to k'$ transition. We distinguish between the amplitudes $\tilde\Omega$ describing single-electron hopping between isolated states and $\Omega$ describing transitions between isolated and continuum states. The latter can generate transitions between the isolated states of the system, but only indirectly, via two consecutive jumps of an electron, into and out of the {\em continuum} reservoir states (with the density of states $\rho$). These transitions are represented by the third and the fourth terms of Eq.~(). The third term describes the transitions ($k\to k' \to j$) or ($k\to k' \to j'$), which cannot change the number of electrons in the collector. The fourth term describes the transitions ($k\to j$ and $k' \to j'$) or ($k\to j'$ and $k' \to j$) which increase the number of electrons in the collector by one. These two terms of Eq.~() are analogues of the ``loss'' (negative) and the ``gain'' (positive) terms in the classical rate equations, respectively. The factor ${\cal P}_2=\pm 1$ in front of these terms is due anti-commutation of the fermions, so that ${\cal P}_2=-1$ whenever the loss or the gain terms in Eq.~() proceed through a two-fermion state of the dot. Otherwise ${\cal P}_2=1$. Note that the reduction of the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation, $i|\dot\Psi(t)\rangle= H|\Psi(t)\rangle$, to Eqs.~() is performed in the limit of large bias without explicit use of any Markov-type or weak coupling approximations. The accuracy of these equations is respectively $\max (\Gamma ,\Omega_0,U,T)/|\mu_{L,R}-E_j|$. A detailed example of this derivation is presented in Appendix A for the case of resonant tunneling through a single level. The derivation there and in Refs. were performed by assuming zero temperature in the leads, $T=0$. Yet, this assumption is not important in the case of large bias, providing the levels carrying the current are far away from the Fermi energies, $|\mu_{L,R}-E_j|\gg T$. \section{No back-action on the environment} \subsection{Fluctuation of the tunneling coupling} Now we apply Eqs.~() to investigate the qubit's behavior in the configurations shown in Fig.~2. First we consider the SET placed near the middle of the qubit, Figs.~2a,3. In this case the electron current through the SET will influence the coupling between two dots of the qubit, making it fluctuate between the values $\Omega_0$ and $\Omega'_0=\Omega_0-\delta\Omega$. The corresponding rate equations can be written straightforwardly from Eqs.~(). One finds, \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \dot\sigma_{aa}&=&-\Gamma_L\sigma_{aa}+\Gamma_R\sigma_{bb} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{ac}-\sigma_{ca}),\\ \dot\sigma_{bb}&=&-\Gamma_R\sigma_{bb}+\Gamma_L\sigma_{aa} -i\Omega'_0(\sigma_{bd}-\sigma_{db}),\\ \dot\sigma_{cc}&=&-\Gamma_L\sigma_{cc}+\Gamma_R\sigma_{dd} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{ca}-\sigma_{ac}),\\ \dot\sigma_{dd}&=&-\Gamma_R\sigma_{dd}+\Gamma_L\sigma_{cc} -i\Omega'_0(\sigma_{db}-\sigma_{bd}),\\ \dot\sigma_{ac}&=&-i\epsilon_0\sigma_{ac} -i\Omega_0 (\sigma_{aa}-\sigma_{cc}) -\Gamma_L\sigma_{ac}\nonumber\\ &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\Gamma_R\sigma_{bd}, \\ \dot\sigma_{bd}&=&-i\epsilon_0\sigma_{bd}- i\Omega'_0(\sigma_{bb}-\sigma_{dd})-\Gamma_R\sigma_{bd}\nonumber\\ &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\Gamma_L\sigma_{ac}, \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} where $\Gamma_{L,R}=2\pi |\Omega_{L,R}|^2\rho_{L,R}$ are the tunneling rates from the reservoirs and $\epsilon_0 =E_1-E_2$. These equations display explicitly the time evolution of the SET and the qubit. The evolution of the former is driven by the first two terms in Eqs.~()-(). They generate charge-fluctuations inside the quantum dot of the SET (the transitions a$\longleftrightarrow$b and c$\longleftrightarrow$d), described by the ``classical'' Boltzmann-type dynamics. The qubit's evolution is described by the Bloch-type terms (c.f. Eqs.~()), generating the qubit transitions (a$\longleftrightarrow$c and b$\longleftrightarrow$d). Thus Eqs.~() are quite general, since they described fluctuations of the tunneling coupling driven by the Boltzmann-type dynamics. The resulting time evolution of the qubit is given by the qubit (reduced) density matrix: \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \sigma_{11}(t)&=&\sigma_{aa}(t)+\sigma_{bb}(t)\, ,\\ \sigma_{12}(t)&=&\sigma_{ac}(t)+\sigma_{bd}(t)\, , \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} and $\sigma_{22}(t)=1-\sigma_{11}(t)$. Similarly, the charge fluctuations of SET are determined by the probability of finding the SET occupied, \begin{eqnarray} P_1(t)&=&\sigma_{bb}(t)+\sigma_{dd}(t)\, . \end{eqnarray} It is given by the equation \begin{align} \dot P_1(t)=\Gamma_L-\Gamma P_1(t)\, , \end{align} obtained straightforwardly from Eqs.~(). Here $\Gamma =\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R$ is the total width. The same equation for $P_1(t)$ can be obtained if the qubit is decoupled from the SET ($\delta\Omega =0$). Thus there is no back-action of the qubit on the charge fluctuations inside the SET in the limit of large bias voltage. Consider first the stationary limit, $t\to\infty$, where $\dot P_1(t)\to 0$ and $\dot\sigma (t)\to 0$. It follows from Eq.~() that the probability of finding the SET occupied in this limit is $\bar P_1=\Gamma_L/\Gamma$. This implies that the fluctuations of the coupling $\Omega_0$, induced by the SET, would take place around the average value $\Omega =\Omega_0-\bar P_1\, \delta\Omega$. With respect to the qubit in the stationary limit, one easily obtains from Eqs.~() that the qubit density matrix always becomes the statistical mixture (), when $t\to\infty$. This takes place for any initial conditions and any values of the qubit and the SET parameters. Therefore the effect of the fluctuating charge inside the SET does not lead to relaxation of the qubit, but rather to its decoherence. It is important to note, however, that for the aligned qubit, $\epsilon =0$, the decoherence due to fluctuations of the tunneling coupling $\Omega_0$ is not complete. Indeed, it follows from Eqs.~() that $d/dt [{\mbox{Re}}\ \sigma_{12}(t)]=0$. The reason is that the corresponding operator, $a_1^\dagger a_2+a_2^\dagger a_1$ commutes with the total Hamiltonian $H=H_\rqb +H_\rset +H_\rint$, Eqs.~(), () and (15), for $E_1=E_2$. As a result, ${\mbox{Re}}\ \sigma_{12}(t)={\mbox{Re}}\ \sigma_{12}(0)$. In order to determine the decoherence rate analytically, we perform a Laplace transform on the density matrix, $\tilde\sigma (E)=\int_0^\infty\sigma (t)\exp (-iEt)dE$. Then solving Eq.~() we can determine the decoherence rate from the locations of the poles of $\tilde\sigma (E)$ in the complex $E$-plane. Consider for instance the case of $\epsilon_0 =0$ and the symmetric SET, $\Gamma_L=\Gamma_R=\Gamma/2$. One finds from Eqs.~() and () that \begin{align} \tilde\sigma_{11}(E)&= \frac{i}{2E} +\frac{i(E-2\Omega +i\Gamma)}{\displaystyle 4(E-2\Omega+i\Gamma /2 )^2 +\Gamma^2-(2\,\delta\Omega)^2}\nonumber\\[5pt] &+\frac{i(E+2\Omega +i\Gamma)}{\displaystyle 4(E+2\Omega+i\Gamma /2 )^2 +\Gamma^2-(2\,\delta\Omega)^2} \, . \end{align} Upon performing the inverse Laplace transform, \begin{align} \sigma_{11}(t)=\int\limits_{-\infty +i 0}^{\infty +i 0}\tilde\sigma_{11} (E)\,e^{-iEt}\,{dE\over 2\pi i}, \end{align} and closing the integration contour around the poles of the integrand, we obtain for $\Gamma > 2\delta\Omega$ and $t\gg 1/\Gamma$ \begin{align} \sigma_{11}(t)-(1/2)\propto e^{-( \Gamma -\sqrt{\Gamma^2-4\delta\Omega^2})t/2}\sin (2\Omega\, t). \end{align} Comparing this result with Eq.~() we find that the decoherence rate is \begin{align} \Gamma_d=2\left ( \Gamma -\sqrt{\Gamma^2-4\delta\Omega^2}\right) \stackrel{\small \Gamma\gg\delta\Omega}{\longrightarrow} (2\delta\Omega)^2/\Gamma\, . \end{align} For $\epsilon_0\not =0$ and $\epsilon_0, \Gamma\ll\Omega$ the decoherece rate $\Gamma_d$ is multiplied by an additional factor $[1-(\epsilon_0/2\Omega)^2]$. In a general case, $\Gamma_L\not =\Gamma_R$, we obtain in the same limit ($\Gamma_{L,R}\gg\delta\Omega$) for the decoherence rate: \begin{align} \Gamma_d={(4\,\delta\Omega)^2\over\displaystyle 1+\left({\epsilon_0\over 2\Omega}\right)^2}{\Gamma_L\Gamma_R\over(\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R)^3} \end{align} It is interesting to compare this result with the fluctuation spectrum of the charge inside the SET, Eq.~(), Appendix B. We find \begin{align} \Gamma_d=2\,(\delta\omega_R)^2\,S_Q(0)\, , \end{align} where $\omega_R=\sqrt{4\Omega^2+\epsilon_0^2}$ is the Rabi frequency. The latter represents the energy splitting in the diagonalized qubit Hamiltonian. Thus $\delta\omega_R$ corresponds to the amplitude of energy level fluctuations in a single dot. Although Eq.~() has been obtained for small fluctuations $\delta\omega_R$, it might be approximately correct even if $\delta\omega_R$ is of the order of $\Gamma$. It is demonstrated in Fig.~4, where we compare $\sigma_{11}(t)$ and $\sigma_{12}(t)$, obtained from Eqs.~() and () (solid line) with those from Eqs.~() and () (dashed line) for the decoherence rate $\Gamma_d$ given by Eq.~(). The initial conditions correspond to $\sigma_{11}(0)=1$ and $\sigma_{12}(0)=0$ (respectively, $\sigma_{aa}(0)=\Gamma_R/\Gamma$ and $\sigma_{bb}(0)=\Gamma_R/\Gamma$). In the case of aligned qubit, however, ${\mbox{Re}}\ \sigma_{12}(t)={\mbox{Re}}\ \sigma_{12}(0)$, as was explained above. On the other hand, one always obtains from () and () that ${\mbox{Re}}\, [\sigma_{12}(t\to\infty )]=0$. Therefore the phenomenological Bloch equations are not applicable for evaluation of ${\mbox{Re}}\, [\sigma_{12}(t)]$, even in the weak coupling limit (besides the case of ${\mbox{Re}}\, [\sigma_{12}(t=0)] =0$). In the large coupling regime ($\delta\Omega\gg\Gamma$) the phenomenological Bloch equations, Eqs.~() and (), cannot be used, as well. Consider for simplicity the case of $\epsilon =0$ and $\Gamma_{L,R}=\Gamma /2$. Then one finds from Eq.~(27) that the damping oscillations between the two dots take place at two different frequencies, $2\Omega\pm\sqrt{(\delta\Omega)^2-(\Gamma/ 2)^2}$, instead of the one frequency, $\omega_R=2\Omega$, given the Bloch equations. Moreover, Eq.~() does not reproduce the decoherence (damping) rate in this limit. Indeed, one obtains from Eq.~(28) that the decoherence rate $\Gamma_d =2\Gamma$ for $\delta\Omega >\Gamma /2$, so $\Gamma_d$ does not depend on the coupling ($\delta \Omega$) at all. \subsection{Fluctuation of the energy level} Consider the SET placed near one of the qubit dots, as shown in Fig.~2b. In this case the qubit-SET interaction term is given by Eq.~(). As a result the energy level $E_1$ will fluctuate under the influence of the fluctuations of the electron charge inside the SET. The available discrete states of the entire system are shown in Fig.~5. Using Eqs.~() we can write the rate equations, similar to Eqs.~(), \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \dot\sigma_{aa}&=&-\Gamma'_L\sigma_{aa}+\Gamma'_R\sigma_{bb} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{ac}-\sigma_{ca}),\\ \dot\sigma_{bb}&=&-\Gamma'_R\sigma_{bb}+\Gamma'_L\sigma_{aa} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{bd}-\sigma_{db}),\\ \dot\sigma_{cc}&=&-\Gamma_L\sigma_{cc}+\Gamma_R\sigma_{dd} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{ca}-\sigma_{ac}),\\ \dot\sigma_{dd}&=&-\Gamma_R\sigma_{dd}+\Gamma_L\sigma_{cc} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{db}-\sigma_{bd}),\\ \dot\sigma_{ac}&=&-i\epsilon_0\sigma_{ac} -i\Omega_0 (\sigma_{aa}-\sigma_{cc}) -{\Gamma_L+\Gamma'_L\over 2}\sigma_{ac}\nonumber\\&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +\sqrt{\Gamma_R\Gamma'_R}\sigma_{bd},\\ \dot\sigma_{bd}&=&-i(\epsilon_0+U)\sigma_{bd}- i\Omega_0(\sigma_{bb}-\sigma_{dd}) -{\Gamma_R+\Gamma'_R\over 2}\sigma_{bd} \nonumber\\&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +\sqrt{\Gamma_L\Gamma'_L}\sigma_{ac}\, , \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} where $\Gamma'_{L,R}$ are the tunneling rate at the energy $E_0+U$ . Let us assume that $\Gamma'_{L,R}=\Gamma_{L,R}$. Then it follows from Eqs.~() that the behavior of the charge inside the SET is not affected by the qubit, the same as in the previous case of the Rabi frequency fluctuations. Also the qubit density matrix becomes the mixture () in the stationary state for any values of the qubit and the SET parameters. Hence, there is no qubit relaxation in this case either (except for the static qubit, $\Omega_0=0$, and $\sigma_{11}(0)\not =\sigma_{22}(0)$, Eq.~()). Since according to Eq.~(), the probability of finding an electron inside the SET in the stationary state is $\bar P_1=\Gamma_L/\Gamma$, the energy level $E_1$ of the qubit is shifted by $\bar P_1 U$. Therefore it is useful to define the ``renormalized'' level displacement, $\epsilon=\epsilon_0 +\bar P_1 U$. As in the previous case we use the Laplace transform, $\sigma (t)\to\tilde\sigma (E)$, in order to determine the decoherence rate analytically. In the case of $\Gamma_L=\Gamma_R=\Gamma /2$ and $\epsilon =0$ we obtain from Eqs.~() \begin{align} \tilde\sigma_{11}(E)=\frac{i}{2E}+\frac{i}{\displaystyle 2E+\frac{32 (E+i\Gamma ) \Omega_0 ^2}{U^2-4 E (E+i\Gamma )}}. \end{align} The position of the pole in the second term of this expression determines the decoherence rate. In contrast with Eq.~(), however, the exact analytical expression for the decoherence rate ($\Gamma_d$) is complicated, since it is given by a cubic equation. We therefore evaluate $\Gamma_d$ in a different way, by substituting $E=\pm 2\Omega_0-i\gamma$ in the second term of Eq.~() and then expanding the latter in powers of $\gamma$ by keeping only the first two terms of this expansion. The decoherence rate $\Gamma_d$ is related to $\gamma$ by $\Gamma_d=4 \gamma$, as follows from Eq.~(). Then we obtain: \begin{align} \Gamma_d=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle U^2\Gamma\over\displaystyle 2(\Gamma^2+4\Omega_0^2)}& {\mbox{for}} ~~U\ll (\Omega_0^2+\Gamma\Omega_0)^{1/2}\\ {\displaystyle 64\Gamma\Omega_0^2\over\displaystyle U^2+16\Omega_0^2}& {\mbox{for}} ~~U\gg (\Omega_0^2+\Gamma\Omega_0)^{1/2}\end{array}\right. \end{align} In general, if $\Gamma_L\not =\Gamma_R$, one finds from Eqs.~() that $\Gamma_d=2U^2\Gamma_L\Gamma_R/[\Gamma (\Gamma^2+4\Omega_0^2)]$ for $U\ll (\Omega_0^2+\Gamma\Omega_0)^{1/2}$. The same as in the previous case, Eq.~(), the decoherence rate in a weak coupling limit is related to the fluctuation spectrum of the SET, $S_Q(\omega )$, Eq.~(), but now taken at a different frequency, $\omega =2\Omega_0$. The latter corresponds to the level splitting of the diagonalized qubit's Hamiltonian, $\omega_R$. Thus, \begin{align} \Gamma_d=U^2\,S_Q(\omega_R)\, , \end{align} which can be applied also for $\epsilon\not =0$. This is illustrated by Fig.~6 which shows $\sigma_{11}(t)$ obtained from Eqs.~() and () (solid line) with Eqs.~() and () (dashed line) for the decoherence rate $\Gamma_d$ given by Eq.~(). As in the previous case, shown in Fig.~4, the initial conditions correspond to $\sigma_{11}(0)=1$ and $\sigma_{12}(0)=0$ (respectively, $\sigma_{aa}(0)=\Gamma_R/\Gamma$ and $\sigma_{bb}(0)=\Gamma_R/\Gamma$). One finds from Fig.~6 that Eq.~() can be used for an estimation of $\Gamma_d$ even for $U\sim\Gamma, \Omega_0$. In contrast with the tunneling-coupling fluctuations, Eq.~(), where the decoherence rate is given by $S_Q(0)$, the fluctuations of the qubit's energy level generate the decoherence rate, determined by the fluctuation spectrum at Rabi frequency, $S_Q(\omega_R)$, Eq.~(). A similar distinction between the decoherence rates generated by different components of the fluctuating field, exists in a phenomenological description of magnetic resonance . One can understand this distinction by diagonalizing the qubit's Hamiltonian. In this case the Rabi frequency, $\omega_R$, becomes the level splitting of the qubit's states $|\pm\rangle=(|1\rangle\pm |2\rangle )/\sqrt{2}$ (for $\epsilon =0$). So in this basis, the tunneling-coupling fluctuations correspond to simultaneous fluctuations of the energy levels in the both dots. Since these fluctuations are ``in phase'', we could expect that the corresponding dephasing rate is determined by spectral density at zero frequency. In fact, it looks like as fluctuations of a single dot state, considered by Levinson in a weak coupling limit . On the other hand by fluctuating the energy level in one of the dots only, one can anticipate that the corresponding dephasing rate is determined by the fluctuation spectrum at the Rabi frequency, $\omega_R$, Eq.~(), which is a frequency of the inter-dot transitions. Since $\omega_R$ can be controlled by the qubit's levels displacement, $\epsilon$, the relation () can be implied by using qubit for a measurement of the shot-noise spectrum of the environment. For instance, it can be done by attaching a qubit to reservoirs at different chemical potentials. The corresponding resonant current which would flow through the qubit in this case, can be evaluated via a simple analytical expression that includes explicitly the decoherence rate, Eq.~(). Thus by measuring this current for different level displacement of the qubit ($\epsilon_0$), one can extract the spectral density of the fluctuating environment acting on the qubit. Although Eq.~() for the decoherence rate has been obtained by using a particular mechanism for fluctuations of the qubit's energy levels, we suggest that this mechanism is quite general. Indeed, the rate equations~() can describe any fluctuating media near a qubit, driven by the Boltzmann type of equations. Therefore it is rather natural to assume that Eq.~() would be valid for any type of such (classical) environment in weak coupling limit. This implies that the decoherence rate is always determined via the spectral density of a fluctuating qubit's level, whereas the nature of a particular medium inducing these fluctuations would be irrelevant. In order to substantiate this point it is important to compare Eq.~() with the corresponding decoherence rate induced by the thermal environment in the framework of the spin-boson model. In a weak damping limit this model predicts $T_1^{-1}=T_2^{-1}=(q_0^2/2)S(\omega_R)$ , where $q_0$ is a coupling of the medium with the qubit levels ($q_0$ corresponds to $U$ in our case) and $S(\omega )$ is a spectral density. Using Eq.~() one finds that this result coincides with Eq.~(). \subsection{Strong-coupling limit and localization} Let us consider the limit of $U\gg (\Omega_0^2+\Gamma\Omega_0)^{1/2}$. Our rate equation~() are perfectly valid in this region, providing only that $E_0+U$ is deeply inside of the potential bias, Eq.~(). We find from Eq.~() that the decoherence rate is not directly related to the spectrum of fluctuations in strong coupling limit. In addition, the effective frequency of the qubit's Rabi oscillations ($\omega_R^{eff}$) decreases in this limit. Indeed, by using Eqs.~(), (), one finds that the main contribution to $\sigma_{11}(t)$, is coming from a pole of $\tilde\sigma_{11}(E)$, which lies on the imaginary axis. This implies that the effective frequency of Rabi oscillations strongly decreases when $U\gg (\Omega_0^2+\Gamma\Omega_0)^{1/2}$. In addition, the decoherence rate $\Gamma_d\to 0$ in the same limit, Eq.~(). As a result, the electron would localize in the initial qubit state, Fig.~7. The results displayed in this figure show that the solution of the Bloch-type rate equations, with the decoherence rate given by Eq.~(), represents damped oscillations (dashed line). It is very far from the exact result (solid line), obtained from Eqs.~() and corresponding to the electron localization in the first dot. The latter is a result of an effective decrease of the Rabi frequency for large $U$ that slows down electron transitions between the dots. Thus such an environment-induced localization is different from the Zeno-type effect (unlike an assumption of Ref. ). Indeed, the Zeno effect takes place whenever the decoherence rate is much larger then the coupling between the qubit's states. However, the decoherence rate in the strong coupling limit is much smaller then the coupling $\Omega_0$ . In fact, the localization shown in Fig.~7 is rather similar to that in the spin-boson model . It shows that in spite of their defferences, both models trace the same physics of the back-action of the environment (SET) on the qubit. \section{Back-action of the qubit on the environment} \subsection{Weak back-action effect} Now we investigate a weak dependence of the width's $\Gamma_{L,R}$ on the energy $U$, Fig.~5. We keep only the linear term, $\Gamma'_{L,R}=\Gamma_{L,R}+\alpha_{L,R} U$, by assuming that $U$ is small. (A similar model has been considered in ). In contrast with the previous examples, where the widths have not been dependent on the energy, the qubit's oscillation would affect the SET current and its charge correlator. A more interesting case corresponds to $\alpha_{L}\not =\alpha_R$. Let us take for simplicity $\alpha_{L}=0$ and $\alpha_{R}=\alpha\not =0$. Similarly to the previous case we introduce the ``renormalized'' level displacement, $\epsilon =\epsilon_0 - (\Gamma_L/\Gamma )U$, where $\epsilon =0$ corresponds to the aligned qubit. Solving Eqs.~() in the steady-state limit, $\bar\sigma =\sigma (t\to\infty )$, and keeping only the first term in expansion in powers of $U$, we find for the reduced density matrix of the qubit, Eqs.~(): \begin{align} \bar\sigma =\left (\begin{array}{cc}\displaystyle{1\over2}-{\alpha\,\epsilon\over 4\Gamma_R}&\displaystyle{\alpha\Omega_0(1+c\,\alpha\, U)\over 2\Gamma_R} \cr\noalign{\vskip7pt}\displaystyle{\alpha\Omega_0(1+c\,\alpha\, U)\over 2\Gamma_R} &\displaystyle{1\over2}+{\alpha\,\epsilon\over 4\Gamma_R}\end{array} \right )\, , \end{align} where $c=(\alpha\epsilon -2\Gamma )/(4\Gamma_R\Gamma)$. It follows from Eqs.~() that the qubit's density matrix in the steady-state is no longer a mixture, Eq.~() . Indeed, the probability to occupy the lowest level is always larger than $1/2$ and $\bar\sigma_{12}\not =0$. This implies that relaxation takes place together with decoherence. The ratio of the relaxation and decoherence rates is given by the off-diagonal terms of the reduced density matrix of the qubit. For $\epsilon =0$ one finds from Eq.~() that $\Gamma_d/\Gamma_r=\bar\sigma^{-1}_{12}-2$. In order to find a relation between the decoherence and relaxation rates, $\Gamma_{d,r}$, and the fluctuation spectrum of the qubit energy level, $S_Q(\omega )$, we first evaluate the total damping rate of the qubit's oscillations ($\gamma$). Using Eq.~() we find that this quantity is related to the decoherence and relaxation rates by $\gamma=(\Gamma_d+2\Gamma_r)/4$. The same as in the previous case the rate $\gamma$ is determined by poles of Laplace transformed density matrix $\sigma (t)\to\tilde\sigma (E)$ in the complex $E$-plane. Consider for simplicity the case of $\epsilon =0$ and $\Gamma_L=\Gamma_R=\Gamma /2$. Performing the Laplace transform of Eqs.~() we look for the poles of $\sigma_{11}(E)$ at $E=\pm 2\Omega_0-i\gamma$ by assuming that $\gamma$ is small. We obtain \begin{align} \Gamma_d+2\Gamma_r= \frac{U^2 }{2 (\Gamma ^2+4 \Omega_0^2)}\left [\Gamma - \alpha\, U \frac{\Gamma^2-4\Omega_0^2}{2\left(\Gamma ^2+4 \Omega_0^2\right)}\right ] \end{align} for $U\ll\Omega_0$. Now we evaluate the correlator of the charge inside the SET, $S_Q(\omega )$ which induces the energy-level fluctuations of the qubit. Using Eqs.~() and () we find, \begin{align} S_Q(\omega )=\frac{\Gamma }{2 \left(\Gamma ^2+\omega ^2\right)}-\alpha\, U \frac{ \Gamma ^2-\omega ^2}{4 \left(\Gamma ^2+\omega ^2\right)^2} \end{align} for $\alpha U\ll\Gamma$. Therefore in the limit of $U\ll\Omega_0$ and $\alpha\, U\ll\Gamma$ the total damping rate of the qubit's oscillations is directly related to the spectral density of the fluctuations spectrum taken at the Rabi frequency, \begin{align} \Gamma_d+2\Gamma_r= U^2 S_Q(2\Omega_0) . \end{align} This represents a generalization of Eq.~() for the case of a weak back-action of qubit oscillations on the spectral density of the environment. As a result, the qubit displays relaxation together with decoherence. It is remarkable that the total qubit's damping rate is still given by the fluctuation spectrum of the SET (environment) modulated by the qubit. Note that Eq.~() can be applied only if the modulation of the tunneling rate through the SET (tunneling current) is small $\alpha\, U\ll\Gamma $, in addition to a weak distortion of the qubit ($U\ll\Omega_0$). In the case of strong back-action of the qubit on the environment the decorerence and relaxation rates of the qubit are not directly related to the fluctuation spectrum of the environment, even if the distortion of the qubit is small. This point is illustrated by the following example. \subsection{Strong back-action} Until now we considered the case where $E_0+U\ll \mu_L$, so that the interacting electron of the SET remains deeply inside the voltage bias. If however, the interaction $U$ between the qubit and the SET is such that $E_0+U\gg\mu_L$, the qubit's oscillation would strongly affect the fluctuation of charge inside the SET. Indeed, the current through the SET is blocked whenever the level $E_1$ of the qubit is occupied, Fig.~8. In fact, this case can be treated with small modification of the rate equations (), if only $\mu_L-E_0\gg\Gamma$ and $E_0+U-\mu_L\gg\Gamma$, where $E_0$ is a level of the SET carrying the current. The corresponding quantum rate equations describing the system are obtained directly from Eqs.~(). Assuming that the widths $\Gamma_{L,R}$ are energy independent we find \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} &&\dot\sigma_{aa}=(\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R)\sigma_{bb} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{ac}-\sigma_{ca}),\\ &&\dot\sigma_{bb}=-(\Gamma_R+\Gamma_L)\sigma_{bb} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{bd}-\sigma_{db}),\\ &&\dot\sigma_{cc}=-\Gamma_L\sigma_{cc}+\Gamma_R\sigma_{dd} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{ca}-\sigma_{ac}),\\ &&\dot\sigma_{dd}=-\Gamma_R\sigma_{dd}+\Gamma_L\sigma_{cc} -i\Omega_0(\sigma_{db}-\sigma_{bd}),\\ &&\dot\sigma_{ac}=-i\epsilon_0\sigma_{ac} -i\Omega_0 (\sigma_{aa}-\sigma_{cc}) -{\Gamma_L\over 2}\sigma_{ac}\nonumber\\ &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +\Gamma_R\sigma_{bd},\\ &&\dot\sigma_{bd}=-i(\epsilon_0+U)\sigma_{bd}- i\Omega_0(\sigma_{bb}-\sigma_{dd})\nonumber\\ &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -\left(\Gamma_R+{\Gamma_L\over2}\right)\sigma_{bd}\, . \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} Solving Eqs.~() in the stationary limit, $\bar\sigma =\sigma (t\to\infty )$ and introducing the ``renormalized'' level displacement, $\epsilon =\epsilon_0 - U\Gamma_L/(2\Gamma)$, we obtain for the qubit's density matrix, Eqs.~() in the steady state: \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \bar\sigma_{11}&=&\frac{1}{2}-\frac{8 \epsilon U}{16 \epsilon^2+8 U \epsilon+48 \Omega_0^2+9 (U^2+\Gamma^2)}\, ,\\[5pt] \bar\sigma_{12}&=&\frac{12 U \Omega _0}{16 \epsilon ^2+8 U \epsilon +48 \Omega _0^2+9 \left(U^2+\Gamma ^2\right)}\, , \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} where for simplicity we considered the symmetric case, $\Gamma_L=\Gamma_R=\Gamma /2$. It follows from Eqs.~() that similarly to the previous example, the qubit's density matrix is no longer a mixture (). The relaxation takes place together with decoherence in this case too. Let us consider weak distortion of the qubit by the SET, $U<\Omega_0$. Although the values of $U$ are restricted from below ($U\gg \Gamma +\mu_L - E_0$), this limit can be achieved if the level $E_0$ is close to the Fermi energy, providing only that $\mu_L-E_0\gg\Gamma$, and $\Gamma\ll U$. Now we evaluate $\sigma_{11}(t)$ with the rate equations~() and then compare it with the same quantity obtained from the Bloch equations, Eq.~(), where $\Gamma_{d,r}$ are given by Eqs.~()and (). The corresponding charge-correlator, $S_Q(\omega_R)$, is evaluated by Eqs.~() and (). As an example, we take symmetric qubit with aligned levels, $\epsilon =0$, $\Gamma_L=\Gamma_R=0.05\Omega_0$ and $U=0.5\Omega_0$. The decoherence and relaxation rates, corresponding to these parameters are respectively: $\Gamma_d/\Omega_0=0.0038$ and $\Gamma_r/\Omega_0=0.00059$. The results are presented in Fig.~9a. The solid line shows $\sigma_{11}(t)$, obtained from the rate equations~(), where the dashed line is the same quantity obtained from Eq.~(). We find that Eq.~() (or ()) underestimates the actual damping rate of $\sigma_{11}(t)$ by an order of magnitude). This lies in a sharp contrast with the previous case, where the energy level of the SET is not distorted by the qubit, $\Gamma'_{L,R}=\Gamma_{L,R}$, Fig.~5. Indeed, in this case $\sigma_{11}(t)$ obtained Eq.~() with $\Gamma_d$ given by Eq.~() and $\Gamma_r=0$, agrees very well with that obtained from the rate equations~(), as shown in Fig.~9b. Such an example clearly illustrates that the decoherence is not related to the fluctuation spectrum of the environment, whenever the environment is strongly affected by the qubit, even if the coupling with a qubit is small. This is a typical case of measurement, corresponding to a noticeable response of the environment to the qubit's state (a ``signal''). \section{summary} In this paper we propose a simple model describing a qubit interacting with fluctuating environment. The latter is represented by a single electron transistor (SET) in close proximity of the qubit. Then the fluctuations of the charge inside the SET generate fluctuating field acting on the qubit. In the limit of large bias voltage, the Schr\"odinger equation for the entire system is reduced to the Bloch-type rate equations. The resulting equations are very simple, so that one can easily analyze the limits of weak and strong coupling of the qubit with the SET. We considered separately two different cases: (a) there is no back-action of the qubit on the SET behavior, so that the latter represents a ``pure environment''; and (b) the SET behavior depends on the qubit's state. In the latter case the SET can ``measure'' the qubit. The setup corresponding to the ``pure environment'' is realized when the energy level of the SET carrying the current lies deeply inside the potential bias. The second (measurement) regime of the SET is realized when the tunneling widths of the SET are energy dependent, or when the energy level of the SET carrying the current is close enough to the Fermi level of the corresponding reservoir. Then the electron-electron interaction between the qubit and the SET modulates the electron current through the SET. In the case of the ``pure environment'' (``no-measurement'' regime) we investigate separately two different configurations of the qubit with respect to the SET. In the first one the SET produces fluctuations of the off-diagonal coupling (Rabi frequency) between two qubit's states. In the second configuration the SET produces fluctuations of the qubit's energy levels. In the both cases we find no relaxation of the qubit, despite the energy transfer between the qubit and the SET can take place. As a result the qubit always turns asymptotically to the statistical mixture. We also found that in both cases the decoherence rate of the qubit in the weak coupling limit is given by the spectral density of the corresponding fluctuating parameter. The difference is that in the case of the off-diagonal coupling fluctuations the spectral density is taken at zero frequency, whereas in the case of the energy level fluctuations it is taken at the Rabi-frequency. In the case of the strong coupling limit, however, the decoherence rate is not related to the fluctuation spectrum. Moreover we found that the electron in the qubit is localized in this limit due to an effective decrease of the off-diagonal coupling. This phenomenon may resemble the localization in the spin-boson model in the strong coupling limit. If the charge correlator and the total SET current are affected by the qubit (back-action effect), we found that the off-diagonal density-matrix elements of the qubit survive in the steady-state limit and therefore the relaxation rate is not zero. We concentrated on the case of weak coupling, when the Coulomb repulsion between the qubit and the SET is smaller then the Rabi frequency. The back-action of the qubit on the SET, however, can be weak or strong. In the first case we found that the total damping rate of the qubit due to decoherence and relaxation is again given by the spectral density of the SET charge fluctuations, {\em modulated by the qubit}. This relation, however, is not working if the back-action is strong. Indeed, we found that the damping rate of the qubit in this case is larger by an order of magnitude than that given by the spectral density of the corresponding fluctuating parameter. This looks like that in the strong back-action of the qubit on the SET the major component of decoherence is not coming from the fluctuation spectrum of the qubit's parameters only, but also from the measurement ``signal'' of the SET. On the first sight it could agree with an analysis of Ref.~, suggesting that the decoherence rate contains two components, generated by a measurement and by a ``pure environment'' (environmental fluctuations). The latter therefore represents an unavoidable decoherence, generated by any environment. Yet, in a weak coupling regime such a separation seems not working. In this case the damping (decoherence) rate is totally determined by the environment fluctuations, even so modulated by the qubit. Although our model deals with a particular setup, it bears the main physics of a fluctuating environment, acting on a qubit. Indeed, the Bloch-type rate equations, which we used in our analysis have a pronounced physical meaning: they relate the variation of qubit parameters with a nearby fluctuating field described by rate equations. A particular mechanism, generated this field should not be relevant for an evaluations of the decoherence and relaxation rates, but only its fluctuation spectrum. Indeed, in the weak coupling limit our result for the decorence rate coincides with that obtained in a framework of the spin-boson model. Thus our model can be considered as a generic one. Its main advantage is that it can be easily extended to multiple coupled qubits. Such an analysis would allow to determine how decoherence scales with number of qubits , which is extremely important for a realization of quantum computations. In addition, our model can be extended to a more complicated fluctuating environments, such as containing characteristic frequencies in its spectrum. It would formally correspond to a replacement of the SET in Fig.~2 by a double-dot (DD) coupled to the reservoirs . All these situations, however, must be a subject of a separate investigation. \section{Acknowledgement} One of us (S.G.) thanks T. Brandes and C. Emary for helpful discussions and important suggestions. S.G is also grateful to the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden, Germany, and to NTT Basic Research Laboratories, Atsugi-shi, Kanagawa, Japan, for kind hospitality. \appendix \section{Quantum-mechanical derivation of rate equations for quantum transport} Consider the resonant tunneling through the SET, shown schematically in Fig.~10. The entire system is described by the Hamiltonian $H_\rset$, given by Eq.~(). The wave function can be written in the same way as Eq.~(), where the variables related to the qubit are omitted, \begin{align} |\Psi (t)\rangle = \Big [ b(t) &+ \sum_l b_{0l}(t) c_{0}^{\dagger}c_{l}+ \sum_{l,r} b_{rl}(t) c_{r}^{\dagger}c_{l}\nonumber\\[5pt] &+\sum_{l<l',r} b_{0rll'}(t) c_{0}^{\dagger}c_{r}^{\dagger}c_{l}c_{l'}+\cdots\Big]|\b0\rangle. \end{align} Substituting $|\Psi (t)\rangle$ into the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation, $i\partial_t|\Psi (t)\rangle=H_\rset |\Psi (t)\rangle$, and performing the Laplace transform, $\tilde{b}(E)=\int_0^{\infty}\exp (iEt)\, b(t)dt$, we obtain the following infinite set of algebraic equations for the amplitudes $\tilde b(E)$: \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} &&E \tilde{b}(E) - \sum_l \Omega_{l}\tilde{b}_{0l}(E)=i \\ &&(E + E_{l} - E_0) \tilde{b}_{0l}(E) - \Omega_{l} \tilde{b}(E)\nonumber\\[5pt] &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - \sum_r \Omega_{r}\tilde{b}_{lr}(E)=0 \\ &&(E + E_{l} - E_{r}) \tilde{b}_{lr}(E) - \Omega_{r} \tilde{b}_{0l}(E)\nonumber\\[5pt] &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -\sum_{l'} \Omega_{l'}\tilde{b}_{0ll'r}(E)=0 \\ &&(E + E_{l} + E_{l'} - E_0 - E_{r}) \tilde{b}_{0ll'r}(E)- \Omega_{l'} \tilde{b}_{lr}(E)\nonumber\\[5pt] &&~~~~~~~~+ \Omega_{l} \tilde{b}_{l'r}(E)- \sum_{r'} \Omega_{r'}\tilde{b}_{ll'rr'}(E)=0 \\[5pt] & &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\cdots\cdots\cdots\ \nonumber \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} (The r.h.s of Eq.~() reflects the initial condition.) Let us replace the amplitude $\tilde b$ in the term $\sum\Omega\tilde b$ of each of the equations () by its expression obtained from the subsequent equation. For example, substituting $\tilde{b}_{0l}(E)$ from Eq.~() into Eq.~() we obtain \begin{align} &\left [ E - \sum_l \frac{\Omega^2_{l}}{E + E_{l} - E_0} \right ] \tilde{b}(E)\nonumber\\[5pt] &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - \sum_{l,r} \frac{\Omega_{l}\Omega_{r}}{E + E_{l} - E_0} \tilde{b}_{lr}(E)=i. \end{align} Since the states in the reservoirs are very dense (continuum), one can replace the sums over $l$ and $r$ by integrals, for instance $\sum_{l}\;\rightarrow\;\int \rho_{L}(E_{l})\,dE_{l}\:$, where $\rho_{L}(E_{l})$ is the density of states in the emitter, and $\Omega_{l,r}\to\Omega_{L,R}(E_{l,r})$. Consider the first term \begin{align} S_1=\int_{-\Lambda}^{\mu_L} {\Omega_L^2(E_l)\over E+E_l-E_0}\rho_L(E_l)dE_l \end{align} where $\Lambda$ is the cut-off parameter. Assuming weak energy dependence of the couplings $\Omega_{L,R}$ and the density of states $\rho_{L,R}$, we find in the limit of high bias, $\mu_L=\Lambda\to\infty$ \begin{align} S_1=-i\pi\Omega_L^2(E_0-E)\rho_L(E_0-E)=-i{\Gamma_L\over 2}\, . \end{align} Consider now the second sum in Eq.~(). \begin{align} &S_2=\int_{-\Lambda}^\Lambda\rho_R(E_r) dE_r\nonumber\\ &\times\int_{-\Lambda}^{\Lambda} {\Omega_L(E_l)\Omega_R(E_r) \tilde b_{lr}(E,E_l,E_r )\over E+E_l-E_0}\rho_L(E_l) dE_l\, , \end{align} where we replaced $\tilde b_{lr}(E)$ by $\tilde b(E,E_l,E_r )$ and took $\mu_L=\Lambda,\, \mu_R=-\Lambda$. In contrast with the first term of Eq.~(), the amplitude $\tilde b$ is not factorized out the integral (). We refer to this type of terms as ``cross-terms''. Fortunately, all ``cross-terms'' vanish in the limit of large bias, $\Lambda\to\infty$. This greatly simplifies the problem and is very crucial for a transformation of the Schr\"odinger to the rate equations. The reason is that the poles of the integrand in the $E_l(E_r)$-variable in the ``cross-terms'' are on the same side of the integration contour. One can find it by using a perturbation series the amplitudes $\tilde b$ in powers of $\Omega$. For instance, from iterations of Eqs.~() one finds \begin{align} \tilde b(E,E_l,E_r)={i\Omega_L\Omega_R \over E(E+E_l-E_r)(E+E_l-E_0)}+\cdots \end{align} The higher order powers of $\Omega$ have the same structure. Since $E\to E+i\epsilon$ in the Laplace transform, all poles of the amplitude $\tilde b(E,E_l,E_r)$ in the $E_l$-variable are below the real axis. In this case, substituting Eq.~() into Eq.~() we find \begin{widetext} \begin{align} \lim_{\Lambda\to\infty}\int_{-\Lambda}^\Lambda \left [{\Omega_L\Omega_R \over (E+i\epsilon )( E+E_0-E_1+i\epsilon )^2( E+E_0-E_r+i\epsilon )} +\cdots\right ]dE_l=0\, , \end{align} \end{widetext} Thus, $S_2\to 0$ in the limit of $\mu_L\to\infty$, $\mu_R\to -\infty$. Applying analogous considerations to the other equations of the system (), we finally arrive at the following set of equations: \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} && (E + i\Gamma_L/2) \tilde{b}(E)=i \\ && (E + E_{l} - E_0 + i\Gamma_R/2) \tilde{b}_{0l}(E) \nonumber\\ &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- \Omega_{l} \tilde{b}(E)=0 \\ && (E + E_{l} - E_{r} + i\Gamma_L/2) \tilde{b}_{lr}(E)\nonumber\\ && ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- \Omega_{r} \tilde{b}_{0l}(E)=0 \\ && (E + E_{l} + E_{l'} - E_0 - E_{r} + i\Gamma_R/2) \tilde{b}_{0ll'r}(E)\nonumber\\[5pt] &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -\Omega_{l'} \tilde{b}_{lr}(E)+\Omega_{l} \tilde{b}_{l'r}(E)=0 \\[5pt] & &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\cdots\cdots\cdots \nonumber \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} Eqs.~() can be transformed directly to the reduced density matrix $\sigma_{jj'}^{(n,n')}(t)$, where $j=0,1$ denote the state of the SET with an unoccupied or occupied dot and $n$ denotes the number of electrons which have arrived at the collector by time $t$. In fact, as follows from our derivation, the diagonal density-matrix elements, $j=j'$and $n=n'$, form a closed system in the case of resonant tunneling through one level, Fig.~10. The off-diagonal elements, $j\not =j'$, appear in the equation of motion whenever more than one discrete level of the system carry the transport (see Eq.~(). Therefore we concentrate below on the diagonal density-matrix elements only, $\sigma_{00}^{(n)}(t)\equiv\sigma_{00}^{(n,n)}(t)$ and $\sigma_{11}^{(n)}(t)\equiv\sigma_{11}^{(n,n)}(t)$. Applying the inverse Laplace transform on finds \begin{widetext} \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \sigma_{00}^{(n)}(t)&=& \sum_{l\ldots , r\ldots}\int \frac{dEdE'}{4\pi^2}\tilde b_{\underbrace{l\cdots}_{n} \underbrace {r\cdots}_{n}}(E) \tilde b^*_{\underbrace{l\cdots}_{n} \underbrace {r\cdots}_{n}}(E')e^{i(E'-E)t}\\ \sigma_{11}^{(n)}(t)&=& \sum_{l\ldots , r\ldots}\int \frac{dEdE'}{4\pi^2}\tilde b_{0{\underbrace{l\cdots}_{n+1} \underbrace {r\cdots}_{n}}}(E) \tilde b^*_{0{\underbrace{l\cdots}_{n+1} \underbrace {r\cdots}_{n}}}(E')e^{i(E'-E)t} \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} \end{widetext} Consider, for instance, the term $\sigma_{11}^{(0)}(t)=\sum_l |b_{0l}(t)|^2$. Multiplying Eq.~() by $\tilde{b}^*_{0l}(E')$ and then subtracting the complex conjugated equation with the interchange $E\leftrightarrow E'$ we obtain \begin{eqnarray} &&\int\frac{dEdE'}{4\pi^2}\sum_l\left[(E'-E -i\Gamma_R)\tilde b_{0l}(E)\tilde b^*_{0l}(E')\right.\nonumber\\&&\left.~~-2{\mbox {Im}}\sum_l\Omega_l \tilde b_{0l}(E)\tilde b^*(E')\right]e^{i(E'-E)t}=0 \end{eqnarray} Using Eq.~() one easily finds that the first integral in Eq.~() equals to $-i[\dot\sigma_{11}^{(0)}(t)+ \Gamma_R\sigma_{11}^{(0)}(t)]$. Next, substituting \begin{align} \tilde{b}_{0l}(E)=\frac{\Omega_{l} \tilde{b}(E)} {E + E_{l} - E_0 + i\Gamma_R/2} \end{align} from Eq.~() into the second term of Eq.~(), and replacing a sum by an integral, one can perform the $E_l$-integration in the large bias limit, $\mu_L\to\infty$, $\mu_R\to -\infty$. Then using again Eq.~() one reduces the second term of Eq.~() to $i\Gamma_L\sigma_{00}^{(0)}(t)$. Finally, Eq.~() reads $\dot{\sigma}^{(0)}_{11}(t)=\Gamma_L \sigma^{(0)}_{00}(t) - \Gamma_R \sigma_{11}^{(0)}(t)$. The same algebra can be applied for all other amplitudes $\tilde b_\alpha (t)$. For instance, by using Eq.~() one easily finds that Eq.~() is converted to the following rate equation $\dot{\sigma}^{(1)}_{00}(t)=-\Gamma_L \sigma^{(1)}_{00}(t) +\Gamma_R \sigma_{11}^{(0)}(t)$. With respect to the states involving more than one electron (hole) in the reservoirs (the amplitudes like $\tilde b_{0ll'r}(E)$ and so on), the corresponding equations contain the Pauli exchange terms. By converting these equations into those for the density matrix using our procedure, one finds the ``cross terms'', like $\sum\Omega_{l} \tilde{b}_{l'r}(E)\Omega_{l'} \tilde{b}^*_{lr}(E')$, generated by Eq.~(). Yet, these terms vanish after an integration over $E_{l(r)}$ in the large bias limit, as the second term in Eq.~(). The rest of the algebra remains the same, as described above. Finally we arrive at the following infinite system of the chain equations for the diagonal elements, $\sigma_{00}^{(n)}$ and $\sigma_{11}^{(n)}$, of the density matrix, \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} & &\dot{\sigma}^{(0)}_{00}(t) = - \Gamma_L \sigma^{(0)}_{00}(t)\;, \\ & &\dot{\sigma}^{(0)}_{11}(t) = \Gamma_L \sigma^{(0)}_{00}(t) - \Gamma_R \sigma_{11}^{(0)}(t)\;, \\ & &\dot{\sigma}^{(1)}_{00}(t) = - \Gamma_L \sigma^{(1)}_{00}(t) + \Gamma_R \sigma_{11}^{(0)}(t)\;, \\ & &\dot{\sigma}^{(1)}_{11}(t) = \Gamma_L \sigma^{(1)}_{00}(t) - \Gamma_R \sigma_{11}^{(1)}(t)\;, \\ & &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\cdots\cdots\cdots \nonumber \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} Summing over $n$ in Eqs.~() we find for the reduced density matrix of the SET, $\sigma (t)=\sum_n\sigma^{(n)}(t)$, the following ``classical'' rate equations, \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \dot\sigma_{00}(t)&=&-\Gamma_L\sigma_{00}(t)+\Gamma_R\sigma_{11}(t) \\ \dot\sigma_{11}(t)&=&\Gamma_L\sigma_{00}(t)-\Gamma_R\sigma_{11}(t) \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} These equations represent a particular case of our general quantum rate equations (), which are derived using the above described technique. \section{Correlator of electric charge inside the SET.} The charge correlator inside the SET is given by $S_Q(\omega )=\bar S_Q(\omega )+\bar S_Q(-\omega )$, where \begin{align} \bar S_Q(\omega )=\int_0^\infty \langle\delta \hat Q(0)\delta \hat Q(t)\rangle e^{i\omega t}dt\, . \end{align} Here $\delta \hat Q(t)=c_0^\dagger (t)c_0(t)-\bar q$ and $\bar q=\bar P_1=P_1(t\to\infty )$ is the average charge inside the dot. Since the initial state, $t=0$ in Eq.~() corresponds to the steady state, one can represent the time-correlator as \begin{align} \langle\delta \hat Q(0)\delta \hat Q(t)\rangle=\sum_{q=0,1}P_q(0)(q-\bar q)(\langle Q_q(t)\rangle -\bar q)\, , \end{align} where $P_q(0)$ is the probability of finding the charge $q=0,1$ inside the quantum dot in the steady state, such that $P_1(0)=\bar q$ and $P_0(0)=1-\bar q$, and $\langle Q_q(t)\rangle =P_1^{(q)}(t)$ is the average charge in the dot at time $t$, starting with the initial condition $P^{(q)}_1(0) =q$. Substituting Eq.~() into Eq.~() we finally obtain \begin{align} \bar S_Q(\omega )=\bar q(1-\bar q)[\tilde P_1^{(1)}(\omega )-\tilde P_1^{(0)}(\omega ) ]\, , \end{align} where $\tilde P_1^{(q)}(\omega )$ is a Laplace transform of $P_1^{(q)}(t)$. These quantities are obtained directly from the rate equations, such that $\bar q=\bar\sigma_{bb}+\bar\sigma_{dd}$ and $\tilde P_1^{(q)}(\omega )=\tilde\sigma^{(q)}_{bb}(\omega )+\tilde\sigma^{(q)}_{dd}(\omega )$, where $\bar\sigma =\sigma (t\to\infty )$ and $\tilde\sigma^{(q)}(\omega )$ is the Laplace transform $\sigma^{(q)}(t)$ with the initial conditions corresponding to the occupied ($q=1$) or unoccupied ($q=0$) SET. In order to find these quantities it is useful to rewrite the rate equations in the matrix form, $\dot\sigma (t)=M \sigma (t)$, representing $\sigma (t)$ as the eight-vector, $\sigma =\{\sigma_{aa},\sigma_{bb},\sigma_{cc},\sigma_{dd},\sigma_{ac}, \sigma_{ca},\sigma_{bd},\sigma_{db}\}$ and $M$ as the corresponding $8\times 8$-matrix. Applying the Laplace transform we find the following matrix equation, \begin{align} (i\,\omega\, I +M)\tilde\sigma^{(q)}(\omega )=-\sigma^{(q)}(0)\, , \end{align} where $I$ is the unit matrix and $\sigma^{(q)}(0)$ is the initial condition for the density-matrix obtained by projecting the total wave function () on occupied ($q=1$) and unoccupied ($q=0$) states of the SET in the limit of $t\to\infty$, \begin{subequations} \begin{eqnarray} \sigma^{(1)}(0)&=&{\cal N}_1\{0,\bar\sigma_{bb},0,\bar\sigma_{dd},0,0,\bar\sigma_{bd}, \bar\sigma_{db}\}\, , \\ \sigma^{(0)}(0)&=&{\cal N}_0\{\bar\sigma_{aa},0,\bar\sigma_{cc},0,\bar\sigma_{ac}, \bar\sigma_{ca},0,0\}\, , \end{eqnarray} \end{subequations} and ${\cal N}_1=1/\bar q$ and ${\cal N}_0=1/(1-\bar q)$ are the corresponding normalization factors. Finally one obtains: \begin{align} S_Q(\omega )=2\bar q(1-\bar q){\mbox{Re}}\,[\tilde\sigma_{bb}^{(1)}&(\omega )+\tilde\sigma_{dd}^{(1)}(\omega )\nonumber\\[5pt] &-\tilde\sigma_{bb}^{(0)}(\omega )-\tilde\sigma_{dd}^{(0)}(\omega )]. \end{align} In the case shown in Fig.~2 one finds from Eqs.~() or Eqs.~() for $\Gamma'_{L,R}=\Gamma_{L,R}$ that $\bar\sigma_{ac}=\sigma_{bd}=0$, $\bar q=\Gamma_L/\Gamma$ and $\tilde\sigma_{bb}^{(q)}(\omega )+\tilde\sigma_{dd}^{(q)}(\omega )=\tilde P_1^{(q)}(\omega )$. The latter equation is given by \begin{align} (i\omega -\Gamma )\tilde P_1^{(q)}(\omega )=-q+{i\Gamma_L\over\omega}\, . \end{align} Substituting Eq.~() into Eq.~() one obtains: \begin{align} S_Q(\omega )={2\Gamma_L\Gamma_R\over\Gamma(\omega^2 +\Gamma^2)}\, . \end{align} Obviously, for a more general case when $\Gamma'_{L,R}\not =\Gamma_{L,R}$, or when the electron-electron interaction excites the electron inside the SET above the Fermi level, Fig.~8, the expressions for $S_Q(\omega )$, obtained from Eq.~() have a more complicated than Eq.~(). \begin{thebibliography}{999} \bibitem{legg} A.J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A.T. Dorsey, M.P.A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 59}, 1 (1987). \bibitem{weiss} U. Weiss, {\em Quantum Dissipative Systems} (World Scientific, Singapure, 2000). \bibitem{shnir} A. Shnirman, Y. Makhlin, and G. Scho\"on, Phys. Scr. T{\bf 102}, 147 (2002). \bibitem{gass} H. Gassmann, F. Marquardt, and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. E{\bf 66}, 041111 (2002). \bibitem{paladino} E. Paladino, L. Faoro, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 228304 (2002). \bibitem{tokura} T. Itakura and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 67}, 195320 (2003). \bibitem{nori2} J.Q. You, X. Hu, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72}, 144529 (2005). \bibitem{grishin} A. Grishin, I.V. Yurkevich and I.V. Lerner, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 72}, 060509(R) (2005). \bibitem{machlin} J. Schriefl1, Y. Makhlin, A. Shnirman, and Gerd Sch\"on, New J. Phys. {\bf 8}, 1 (2006). \bibitem{galp} Y.M. Galperin, B.L. Altshuler, J. Bergli, and D.V. Shantsev, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 96}, 097009 (2006). \bibitem{nori1} S. Ashhab, J.R. Johansson, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A{\bf 74}, 052330 (2006); {\em ibid}, Physica C {\bf 444}, 45 (2006); {\em ibid}, New J. Phys. {\bf 8}, 103 (2006). \bibitem{hart} U. Hartmann and F.K. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 75}, 165308 (2007). \bibitem{g2} S.A. Gurvitz, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 56}, 15215 (1997). \bibitem{but} S. Pilgram and M. B\"uttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 89}, 200401 (2002). \bibitem{clerk} A.A. Clerk, S.M. Girvin, and A.D. Stone, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 67}, 165324 (2003). \bibitem{gb} S.A. Gurvitz and G.P. Berman, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 72}, 073303 (2005). \bibitem{kak} A. K\"ack, G. Wendin, and G. Johansson, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 035301 (2003). \bibitem{agu} R. Aguado and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 1986 (2000). \bibitem{kouw} E. Onac, F. Balestro, L.H. Willems van Beveren, U. Hartmann, Y.V. Nazarov, and L.P. Kouwenhoven, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 176601 (2006). \bibitem{neder1} I. Neder, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 98}, 036803 (2007). \bibitem{izhar} I. Neder and F. Marquardt, New J. Phys. {\bf 9}, 112 (2007), and references therein. \bibitem{exp2} W.G. van der Wiel, T. Fujisawa, S. Tarucha, L.P. Kouwenhoven, Japanese Jour. Appl. Phys. {\bf 40}, 2100 (2001). \bibitem{exp1} J. M. Elzerman, R. Hanson, J. S. Greidanus, L. H. W. van Beveren, S. De Franceschi, L. M. K. Vandersypen, S. Tarucha, L. P. Kouwenhoven, Physica E {\bf 25}, 135 (2004). \bibitem{exp3} T. Hayashi, T. Fujisawa, H.D. Cheong, Y.H. Jeong, Y. Hirayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 226804 (2003). \bibitem{shao} J. Shao, C. Zerbe, and P. Hanggi, Chem. Phys. {\bf 235}, 81 (1998). \bibitem{wang} X.R. Wang, Y.S. Zheng, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 72}, 121303(R) (2005). \bibitem{slich} C.P. Slichter, {\em Principles of Magnetic Resonance}, (Springer-Verlag, 1980). \bibitem{makh} Y. Makhlin, G. Scho\"on, and A. Shnirman, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73}, 357 (2001). \bibitem{goan} H.S. Goan, Quantum Information and Computation, {\bf 2}, 121 (2003); {\em ibid}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 70}, 075305 (2004). \bibitem{kor1} A.N. Korotkov, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 63}, 085312 (2001); {\em ibid}, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 63}, 115403 (2001). \bibitem{levins} Y. Levinson, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 61}, 4748 (2000). \bibitem{raben} K. Rabenstein, V.A. Sverdlov, and D.V. Averin, JETP Lett. {\bf 79}, 646 (2004). \bibitem{gfmb} S.A. Gurvitz, L. Fedichkin, D. Mozyrsky and G.P. Berman, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 91}, 066801 (2003). \bibitem{ithier} G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P.J. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Esteve, F. Chiarello, A. Shnirman, Y. Makhlin, J. Schriefl, and G. Sch\"on, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 72}, 134519 (2005). \bibitem{ieee} S.A. Gurvitz, IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology 4, 45 (2005). \bibitem{gmb} S.A. Gurvitz, D. Mozyrsky, and G.P. Berman, Phys.Rev. B{\bf 72}, 205341 (2005). \bibitem{gp} S.A. Gurvitz and Ya.S. Prager, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 53}, 15932 (1996). \bibitem{g1} S.A. Gurvitz, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 57}, 6602, (1998). \bibitem{fn1} In a strict sense the quantum rate equations~() were derived by assuming constant widths $\Gamma$. Yet these equation are also valid when the widths are weakly energy dependent, as follows from their derivations (see and Appendix A). \bibitem{schoel} R.J. Schoelkopf, A.A. Clerk, S.M. Girvin, K.W. Lehnert and M.H. Devoret, {\em Quantum Noise in Mesoscopic Physics}, edited by Yu.V. Nazarov, (Springer, 2003). \bibitem{shnir1} Y. Makhlin, G. Scho\"on, and A. Shnirman, in {\em Exploring the Quantum-Classical Frontier}, edited by J.R. Friedman and S. Han (Nova Science, Commack, New York, 2002). \bibitem{zagos} A.M. Zagoskin, S. Ashhab, J.R. Johansson, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 077001 (2006). \bibitem{gg} T. Gilad and S.A. Gurvitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 116806 (2006); H.J. Jiao, X.Q. Li, and J.Y. Luo, Phys. Rev. B75, 155333 (2007). \end{thebibliography} The results of our model can be compared with phenomenological descriptions used in the literature and as a result, to determine the region of their applicability. In particular we can find specific configurations of the qubit and the environment where the qubit's decoherence is essentially lower than that in frameworks of phenomenological models. It is important to note, however, that in the case of symmetric qubit ($\epsilon_0=0$), the decoherence due to fluctuation of the tunneling coupling is not complete. Indeed, it follows from Eqs.~() that $d/dt [{\mbox{Re}}\ \sigma_{12}(t)]=0$. Therefore ${\mbox{Re}}\ \sigma_{12}(t\to\infty )={\mbox{Re}}\ \sigma_{12}(0)$. As a result for certain initial configurations the qubit can be hold in a pure state, despite the fluctuating environment.
|
0704.0196
|
Title: Remarks on N_c dependence of decays of exotic baryons
Abstract: We calculate the N_c dependence of the decay widths of exotic eikosiheptaplet
within the framework of Chral Quark Soliton Model. We also discuss
generalizations of regular baryon representations for arbitrary N_c.
Body: \maketitle \section{Introduction} One of the most puzzling results of the chiral quark-soliton model ($\chi$ QSM) for exotic baryons consists in a very small hadronic decay width , governed by the decay constant $G_{\overline{10}}$. While the small mass of exotic states is rather generic for all chiral models the smallness of the decay width appears as a subtle cancelation of three different terms that contribute to $G_{\overline{10}}$. Decay width in solitonic models is calculated in terms of a matrix element $\mathcal{M}$ of the collective axial current operator corresponding to the emission of a pseudoscalar meson $ \varphi$ -- see Ref. \citenum{Weigel:2007yx} for criticism of this approach: \begin{equation} \hat{O}_{\varphi}^{(8)}=3\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left( G_{0}\,D_{\varphi i}^{(8)}-G_{1}\,d_{ibc}\,D_{\varphi b}^{(8)}\hat{S}_{c}-\frac{G_{2}}{\sqrt{3} }\,D_{\varphi8}^{(8)}\hat{S}_{i}\right) \times p_{\varphi}^{i}. \end{equation} For notation see Ref. \citenum{Diakonov:1997mm}. Constants $G_{0,1,2}$ are constructed from the so called \emph{ moments of inertia} that are calculable in $\chi$QSM. The decay width is given as \begin{equation} \mathit{\Gamma}_{B\rightarrow B^{\prime}+\varphi}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\frac{ p_{\varphi}}{M\,M^{\prime}}\overline{\mathcal{M}^{2}}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{ p_{\varphi}^{3}}{M\,M^{\prime}}\overline{\mathcal{A}^{2}}. \end{equation} The \textquotedblleft bar\textquotedblright\ over the amplitude squared denotes averaging over initial and summing over final spin (and, if explicitly indicated, over isospin). For $B^{(\overline{10})}\rightarrow B^{\prime(8)}+\varphi$ for spin "up" and $\vec{p}_{\varphi}=(0,0,p_{\varphi})$ we have \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.7} \begin{equation} \mathcal{M}=\left\langle 8_{1/2},B^{\prime}\right\vert \hat{O} _{\varphi}^{(8)}\left\vert \overline{10}_{1/2},B\right\rangle =-\frac{3G_{ \overline{10}}}{\sqrt{15}}\left( \begin{array}{cc} 8 & 8 \\ \varphi & B^{\prime} \end{array} \right\vert \left. \begin{array}{c} \overline{10} \\ B \end{array} \right) \times p_{\varphi} \end{equation} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0} and \begin{equation} G_{\overline{10}}=G_{0}-G_{1}-\frac{1}{2}G_{2}. \end{equation} In order to have an estimate of the width () the authors of Ref. \citenum{Diakonov:1997mm} calculated $G_{\overline{10}}$ in the nonrelativistic limit of $ \chi$QSM and got $G_{\overline{10}}\equiv0$. It has been shown that this cancelation between terms that scale differently with $N_{c}$ ($G_{0}\sim N_{c}^{3/2},\,G_{1,2}\sim N_{c}^{1/2}$) is in fact consistent with large $ N_{c}$ counting , since \begin{equation} G_{\overline{10}}=G_{0}-\frac{N_{c}+1}{4}G_{1}-\frac{1}{2}G_{2} \end{equation} where the $N_{c}$ dependence comes from the SU(3) Clebsch-Gordan coefficients calculated for large $N_{c}$. In the nonrelativistic limit (NRL): \begin{equation} G_{0}=-(N_{c}+2)\,G,\quad G_{1}=-4G,\quad G_{2}=-2G,\quad G\sim N_{c}^{1/2}. \end{equation} In this paper we ask whether the similar cancelation takes place for the decays of $27$ of spin $1/2$ and $3/2$. We also discuss the possible modifications of the $N_{c}$ dependence of the decay width due to the different choice of the large $N_{c}$ generalizations of regular SU(3) multiplets. \section{Baryons in large $N_{c}$ limit} Soliton is usually quantized as quantum mechanical symmetric top with two moments of inertia $I_{1,2}$: \begin{equation} M_{B}^{(\mathcal{R)}}=M_{\text{cl}}+\frac{1}{2I_{1}}S(S+1)+\frac{1}{2I_{2}} \left( C_{2}(\mathcal{R})-S(S+1)-\frac{N_{{c}}^{2}}{12}\right) +\delta _{B}^{(\mathcal{R)}}. \end{equation} Here $S$ denotes baryon spin, $C_{2}(\mathcal{R})$ the Casimir operator for the SU(3) representation $\mathcal{R}=(p,q)$: \begin{equation} C_{2}(\mathcal{R})=\frac{1}{3}\left( p^{2}+q^{2}+pq+3(p+q)\right) \end{equation} and quantities $\delta_{B}^{(\mathcal{R})}$ denote matrix elements of the SU(3) breaking hamiltonian: \begin{equation} \hat{H}^{\prime}=\frac{N_{c}}{3}\sigma+\alpha D_{88}^{(8)})+\beta Y+\frac{ \gamma}{\sqrt{3}}D_{8A}^{(8)}\hat{J}_{A}. \end{equation} Model parameters that can be found in Ref. \citenum{Blotz:1992pw} \[ \alpha=-\frac{N_{c}}{3}(\sigma+\beta),\quad\beta=-m_{s}{\frac{K_{2}}{I_{2}}} ,\;\gamma=2m_{s}\left( {\frac{K_{1}}{I_{1}}}-{\frac{K_{2}}{I_{2}}}\right) ,\;\sigma={\frac{2}{N_{c}}}{\frac{m_{s}}{m_{u}+m_{d}}}\Sigma_{\pi N} \] scale with $N_{c}$ in the following way: \begin{equation} i_{1,2}={3I_{1,2}}/N_{c} \quad\text{where}\quad i_{1,2}\sim \mathcal{O} (N_{c}^{0}),\;\sigma,\beta,\gamma\sim\mathcal{O}(m_{s}N_{c}^{0}). \end{equation} Here $\Sigma_{\pi N}$ is pion-nucleon sigma term and $m_{q}$ denote current quark masses. Numerically $\sigma>\left\vert \beta\right\vert ,\left\vert \gamma\right\vert $. So far we have specified \emph{explicit }$N_{c}$ dependence () that follows from the fact that model parameters are given in terms of the quark loop. Another type of the $N_{c}$ dependence comes from the constraint that selects SU(3)$_{\text{flavor}}$ representations $\mathcal{R}=(p,q)$ containing states with hypercharge $ Y_{R}=N_{c}/3$. Therefore for arbitrary $N_{c}$ ordinary baryon representations have to be extended and one has to specify which states correspond to the physical ones. Usual choice \begin{equation} "8"=\left( 1,(N_{c}-1)/2 \right) ,\;"10"=\left( 3,(N_{c}-3)/2 \right) ,\;"\overline{10}"=\left( 0,(N_{c}+3)/2 \right) , \end{equation} depicted in Fig.~\ref {fig:choice1} corresponds -- in the quark language -- to the case when each time when $N_{c}$ is increased by 2, a spin-isospin singlet (but charged) $\overline{3}$ diquark is added, as depicted in Fig.~. \vspace{0.2cm} Extension () leads to (). It implies that mass differences between centers of multiplets scale differently with $N_{c}$: \begin{equation} \Delta_{10-8}=\frac{3}{2I_{1}}\sim\mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}),\quad\Delta _{ \overline{10}-8}=\frac{N_{c}+3}{4I_{2}}\sim\mathcal{O}(1). \end{equation} The fact that $\Delta_{\overline{10}-8}\ne 0$ in large $N_{c}$ limit triggered recently discussion on the validity of the semiclassical quantization for exotic states . Since in the chiral limit the momentum $p_{\varphi}$ of the outgoing meson scales according to ( ), overall $N_{c}$ dependence of the decay width is strongly affected by its third power (): \begin{equation} \mathit{\Gamma}_{B\rightarrow B^{\prime}+\varphi}\sim\frac{1}{N_{c}^{2}} \mathcal{O}(\overline{\mathcal{A}^{2}})\mathcal{O(}p_{\varphi}^{3}). \end{equation} Phenomenologically, however, scaling () is not sustained. Indeed, meson momenta in $\Delta$ and $\Theta$ decays are almost identical (assuming $M_{\Theta}^{(\overline{10})}\simeq1540$ MeV): \begin{equation} p_{\pi}\simeq225\;\text{MeV},\;p_{K}\simeq268\;\text{MeV}. \end{equation} Unfortunately, going off SU(3)$_{\text{flavor}}$ limit does not help. Explicitly: \begin{align} \delta^{(8)} & =\frac{N_{c}}{3}\sigma+\frac{(N_{c}-3)}{3}\beta+\frac { (N_{c}-2)\alpha+\frac{3}{2}\gamma}{N_{c}+7}+\left( \beta+\frac { 3(N_{c}+2)\alpha-\frac{1}{2}(2N_{c}+9)\gamma}{(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+7)}\right) Y \notag \\ & +\frac{\left( 6\alpha+(N_{c}+6)\gamma\right) }{(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+7)}\left( \frac{Y^{2}}{4}-I(I+1)\right) =3\sigma+2\beta-\sigma Y+\ldots \\ \delta^{(10)} & =\frac{N_{c}}{3}\sigma+\frac{(N_{c}-3)(N_{c}+4)}{ (N_{c}+1)(N_{c}+9)}\alpha+\frac{N_{c}-3}{3}\beta+\frac{5(N_{c}-3)}{ 2(N_{c}+1)(N_{c}+9)}\gamma \notag \\ & +\left( \beta+\frac{3(N_{c}-1)\alpha-\frac{5}{2}(N_{c}+3)\gamma}{ (N_{c}+1)(N_{c}+9)}\right) Y=3\sigma+2\beta-\sigma Y+\ldots \\ \delta^{(\overline{10})} & =\frac{N_{c}}{3}\sigma+\frac{N_{c}(N_{c}-3)}{ (N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+9)}\alpha+\frac{N_{c}-3}{3}\beta-\frac{3(N_{c}-3)}{ 2(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+9)}\gamma \notag \\ & +\left( \beta+\frac{6N_{c}\alpha-9\gamma}{2(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+9)}\right) Y=5\sigma+4\beta-\sigma Y+\ldots \end{align} where $\ldots$ denote terms $\mathcal{O}(1/N_{c})$, $Y$ and $I$ denote {\em physical} hypercharge and isospin. Interestingly in all cases in the large $N_{c}$ limt, $m_{s}$ splittings are proportional to the hypercharge differences only. In this limit $\Sigma -\Lambda$ splitting in the octet is zero and this degeneracy is lifted in the next order at $\mathcal{O}(1/N_{c})$. This explains the smallness of $\Sigma-\Lambda$ mass difference. Additionally $ \delta_{N}^{(8)}\simeq\delta_{\Delta}^{(10)}$ up to higher order terms $ \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}^{2})$, however $\delta_{\Theta}^{(\overline{10} )}-\delta_{N}^{(8)}$ $\simeq\sigma+2\beta>0$. This implies that \begin{align} M_{\Theta}^{(\overline{10})}-M_{N}^{(8)} & =\frac{3}{2I_{2}}-\frac{1}{20} \alpha+\beta-\frac{3}{40}\gamma\rightarrow\frac{3}{4i_{2}}+\sigma +2\beta+ \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}),\quad \notag \\ M_{\Delta}^{(10)}-M_{N}^{(8)} & =\frac{3}{2I_{1}}-\frac{7}{40}\alpha -\frac{ 21}{80}\gamma\rightarrow\mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}). \end{align} The first equation shows that the $\Theta-N \ne 0$ in the large $N_{c}$ limit even if $m_{s}$ corrections are included. We will come back to this problem in the last section. \section{Decay constants of twentysevenplet for large $N_{c}$} In this section we shall consider decays of eikosiheptaplet (27-plet) \begin{equation} "27"=\left( 2,(N_{c}+1)/2 \right) \end{equation} that can have either spin $1/2$ or $3/2$, the latter being lighter. Mass differences read \begin{align} \Delta_{27_{3/2}-8} & =\frac{3}{2I_{1}}+\frac{N_{c}+1}{4I_{2}}\sim\mathcal{O} (1),\;\,\Delta_{27_{1/2}-8}=\frac{N_{c}+7}{4I_{2}}\sim\mathcal{O}(1), \notag \\ \Delta_{27_{3/2}-10} & =\frac{N_{c}+1}{4I_{2}}\sim\mathcal{O}(1),\;\qquad \quad\Delta_{27_{1/2}-10}=-\frac{3}{2I_{1}}+\frac{N_{c}+7}{4I_{2}}\sim \mathcal{O}(1), \notag \\ \Delta_{27_{3/2}-\overline{10}} & =\frac{3}{2I_{1}}-\frac{1}{2I_{2}}\sim \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}),\;\Delta_{27_{1/2}-\overline{10}}=\frac{1}{I_{2}}\sim \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}). \end{align} Matrix elements for the decays of eikosiheptaplet (with $S_{3}=1/2$) read: \begin{align} \mathcal{A}(B_{27_{3/2}} & \rightarrow B_{8}^{\prime}+\varphi)=3\left( \begin{array}{cc} 8 & "8" \\ \varphi & B^{\prime} \end{array} \right\vert \left. \begin{array}{c} "27" \\ B \end{array} \right) \sqrt{\frac{8(N_{c}+5)}{9(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+9)}}\times G_{27}, \notag \\ \mathcal{A}(B_{27_{3/2}} & \rightarrow B_{10}^{\prime}+\varphi)=-3\left( \begin{array}{cc} 8 & "10" \\ \varphi & B^{\prime} \end{array} \right\vert \left. \begin{array}{c} "27" \\ B \end{array} \right) \sqrt{\frac{(N_{c}-1)(N_{c}+7)}{9(N_{c}+1)(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+9)}}\times F_{27}, \notag \\ \mathcal{A}(B_{27_{3/2}} & \rightarrow B_{\overline{10}}^{\prime}+\varphi)=3 \left( \begin{array}{cc} 8 & "\overline{10}" \\ \varphi & B^{\prime} \end{array} \right\vert \left. \begin{array}{c} "27" \\ B \end{array} \right) \sqrt{\frac{2(N_{c}+1)(N_{c}+7)}{3(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+9)}}\times E_{27}, \end{align} and \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \begin{equation*} \begin{array}{|c|rl|c|} \hline \text{Decay} & \text{Large }N_{c} & \text{NRL} & \begin{array}{c} \text{Scaling} \\ \text{in NRL} \end{array} \\ \hline 27_{3/2}\rightarrow 8_{1/2} & G_{27}=G_{0}-\frac{N_{c}-1}{4}G_{1} & =-3G & N_{c}^{1/2} \\ 27_{3/2}\rightarrow 10_{3/2} & F_{27}=G_{0}-\frac{N_{c}-1}{4}G_{1}-\frac{3}{2 }G_{2} & =0 & 0 \\ 27_{3/2}\rightarrow \overline{10}_{1/2} & E_{27}=G_{0}+G_{1} & =-(N_{c}+6)G & N_{c}^{3/2} \\ \hline \end{array} \end{equation*} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1} For $S=1/2$ and $S_{3}=1/2$ we have: \begin{align} \mathcal{A}(B_{27_{1/2}}& \rightarrow B_{8}^{\prime }+\varphi )=-3\left( \begin{array}{cc} 8 & "8" \\ \varphi & B^{\prime } \end{array} \right\vert \left. \begin{array}{c} "27" \\ B \end{array} \right) \sqrt{\frac{(N_{c}+1)(N_{c}+5)}{9(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+7)(N_{c}+9)}}\times H_{27}, \notag \\ \mathcal{A}(B_{27_{1/2}}& \rightarrow B_{10}^{\prime }+\varphi )=-3\left( \begin{array}{cc} 8 & "10" \\ \varphi & B^{\prime } \end{array} \right\vert \left. \begin{array}{c} "27" \\ B \end{array} \right) \sqrt{\frac{8(N_{c}-1)}{9(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+9)}}\times G_{27}^{\prime }, \notag \\ \mathcal{A}(B_{27_{1/2}}& \rightarrow B_{\overline{10}}^{\prime }+\varphi )=3\left( \begin{array}{cc} 8 & "\overline{10}" \\ \varphi & B^{\prime } \end{array} \right\vert \left. \begin{array}{c} "27" \\ B \end{array} \right) \frac{N_{c}+4}{\sqrt{9(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+9)}}\times H_{27}^{\prime }, \end{align} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5} \begin{equation*} \begin{array}{|c|rl|c|} \hline \text{Decay} & \text{Large }N_{c} & \text{NRL} & \begin{array}{c} \text{Scaling} \\ \text{in NRL} \end{array} \\ \hline 27_{1/2}\rightarrow8_{1/2} & {H_{27}=G}_{0}{-}\frac{N_{c}+5}{4}{G_{1}+\frac { 3}{2}G_{2}} & {=0} & 0 \\ 27_{1/2}\rightarrow10_{3/2} & G_{27}^{\prime}={G}_{0}{-\frac{N_{c}+5}{4}G_{1} } & {=3G} & N_{c}^{1/2} \\ 27_{1/2}\rightarrow\overline{10}_{1/2} & H_{27}^{\prime}=G_{0}+\frac{2N_{c}+5 }{2N_{c}+8}G_{1}+\frac{3}{2N_{c}+8}G_{2} & =-\frac{(N_{c}+3)(N_{c}+7)}{ N_{c}+4}G & N_{c}^{3/2} \\ \hline \end{array} \end{equation*} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1} In order to calculate the $N_{c}$ behavior of the width we have to know the $ N_{c}$ dependence of the flavor Clebsch-Gordan coefficients that depend on the states involved. For the decays into 8 and 10 the only possible channels are $\Theta_{27}\rightarrow N(\Delta)+K$, and the pertinent Clebsches do not depend on $N_{c}$. For the decays into $\overline{ 10}$ we have $\Theta_{27}\rightarrow\Theta_{\overline{10}}+\pi$ that scales like $\mathcal{O}(1)$ and $\Theta_{27}\rightarrow N_{\overline {10}}+K $ that scales like $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{N_{c}})$. The resulting scaling of $\mathit{ \Gamma}_{\Theta_{27}\rightarrow B^{\prime}+\varphi}$ calculated from Eq.(\ref {gamNc}) reads as follows: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3} \begin{equation*} \begin{array}{|lcc||lcc|} \hline \text{decay of } & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{N_{c}\text{ scaling}} & \text{decay of } & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{N_{c}\text{ scaling}} \\ \;\;\Theta_{27_{3/2}} & \text{exact} & \text{NRL} & \;\;\Theta_{27_{1/2}} & \text{exact} & \text{NRL} \\ \hline \rightarrow N_{8}+K & \mathcal{O}(1) & \mathcal{O} (1/N_{c}^{2}) & \rightarrow N_{8}+K & \mathcal{O}(1) & 0 \\ \rightarrow\Delta_{10}+K & \mathcal{O}(1) & 0 & \rightarrow\Delta_{10}+K & \mathcal{O}(1) & \mathcal{O} (1/N_{c}^{2}) \\ \rightarrow N_{\overline{10}}+K & \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}^{3}) & \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}^{3}) & \rightarrow N_{\overline{10}}+K & \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}^{3}) & \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}^{3}) \\ \rightarrow\Theta_{\overline{10}}+\pi & \mathcal{O} (1/N_{c}^{2}) & \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}^{2}) & \rightarrow \Theta_{\overline{10}}+\pi & \mathcal{O}(1/N_{c}^{2}) & \mathcal{O} (1/N_{c}^{2}) \\ \hline \end{array} \end{equation*} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1} Interestingly, we see that whenever the exact scaling is $\mathcal{O}(1)$, the nonrelativistic cancelation (exact or partial) lowers the power of $N_{c}$, whereas in the case when the width has \emph{good} behavior for large $N_{c}$, there is no NRL cancelation. \section{Alternative choices for large $N_{c}$ multiplets} So far we have only considered the "standard" generalization () of baryonic SU(3)$_{\text{flavor}}$ representations for large $N_{c}$. This choice is based on the requirement that generalized baryonic states have physical spin, isospin and strangeness, however their hypercharge and charge are not physical . Moreover, the generalization of the octet is not selfadjoint and antidecuplet is not complex conjugate of decuplet. Some years ago it has been proposed to consider alternative schemes . \vspace{0.4cm} If we require the generalized octet to be self-adjoint we are led to the following set of representations \begin{equation} "8"=\left( N_{c}/{3},N_{c}/{3}\right) ,\quad "10"=\left( (N_{c}+6)/{3},(N_{c}-3)/{3}\right) ,\quad "\overline{10}"="10"^{\ast} \end{equation} that are depicted in Figs. and . This means that we enlarge $N_{c}$ in steps of $3$ adding each time a $uds$ triquark. Generalized states have physical isospin, hypercharge (and charge), but unphysical strangeness and spin that is of the order of $N_{c}$ . With this choice both $\Delta _{10-8}$, $\Delta _{\overline{10}-8} \ne 0$ in large $N_{c}$ limit: \begin{equation} \Delta _{10-8}=\left( N_{c}/{6}-1\right)/{I_{1}},\quad \Delta _{\overline{10}-8}=\left( N_{c}/{6}-1\right)/{I_{2}}. \end{equation} With this power counting we can calculate large $N_{c}$ approximation of the meson momenta in the decays of $\Delta $ and $\Theta $: \begin{align} \Delta & \rightarrow N\qquad p_{\pi }=\sqrt{(M_{\Delta }-M_{N})^{2}-m_{\pi }^{2}}=256\;\text{MeV,} \notag \\ \Theta & \rightarrow N\qquad p_{K}=\sqrt{(M_{\Theta }-M_{N})^{2}-m_{K}^{2}} =339\;\text{MeV} \end{align} that are much closer to the physical values () than ( ). \vspace{0.1cm} Finally let us mention a third possibility in which we require generalized decuplet to be a completely symmetric SU(3)$_{\text{flavor}}$ representation for arbitrary $N_{c}$. This leads to (see Figs. and \ref {fig:young3}): \begin{equation} "8"=\left( N_{c}-2,1\right) \qquad"10"=\left( N_{c},0\right) \qquad" \overline{10}"=\left( N_{c}-3,3\right) . \end{equation} Interestingly this choice has a smooth limit to the one flavor case. In the quark language it amounts to adding a symmetric diquark to the original SU(3) $_{\text{flavor}}$ representation when increasing $N_{c}$ in steps of $2$. As seen from Fig. physical states are situated at the bottom of infinite representations () and therefore have unphysical strangeness, charge (hypercharge) and also spin. The mass splittings for this choice read \begin{equation} \Delta _{10-8}=N_{c}/\;{2I_{1}},\quad \Delta _{\overline{10}-8}= 3/\;{2I_{2}}. \end{equation} Here the generalized decuplet remains split from the $"8"$, while $\Delta _{ \overline{10}-8}\rightarrow 0$ for large $N_{c}$. The phase space factor for $\Theta $ decay is therefore suppressed with respect to the one of $\Delta $. \section{Summary} In this short note we have shown that very small width of exotic baryons -- if they exist -- cannot be explained by the standard $N_{c}$ counting alone. Certain degree of \emph{nonrelativisticity} is needed to ensure cancelations between different terms in the decay constants. This phenomenon observed firstly for antidecuplet, is also operative for the decays of eikosiheptaplet. We have shown that in $\chi $QSM in the nonrelativistic limit all decays are suppressed for large $N_{c}$. Exact cancelations occur for $\Theta _{27_{3/2}}\rightarrow \Delta _{10}+K$ and $\Theta _{27_{1/2}}\rightarrow N_{8}+K$, leading $N_{c}$ terms cancel for $\Theta _{27_{3/2}}\rightarrow N_{8}+K$ and $\Theta _{27_{1/2}}\rightarrow \Delta _{10}+K$. For $27\rightarrow \overline{10}$ there are no cancelations, but the phase space is $N_{c}^{-3}$ suppressed. We have also briefly discussed nonstandard generalizations of regular baryon representations for arbitrary $N_{c}$. For $N_{c}>3$ bayons are no longer composed from 3 quarks and therefore they form large SU(3)$_{\text{flavor}}$ representations that reduce to octet, decuplet and antidecuplet for $N_{c}=3$ . The standard way to generalize regular baryon representations is to add antisymmetric antitriplet diqaurk when $N_{c}$ is increased in intervals of 2. This choice fulfils many reasonable requirements; most importantly for SU(2)$_{\text{flavor}}$ these representations form regular isospin multiplets. However, representations () do not obey conjugation relations characteristic for regular representations. Therefore we have proposed generalization () that satisfies conjugation relations. Most important drawback of () is that spin $S\sim N_{c}$ that contradicts semiclassical quantization. Nevertheless as a result meson momenta emitted in $10$ and $\overline{10}$ decays scale in the same way with $N_{c}$ (), consistently with "experimental" values ( ), whereas for () the scaling is different (\ref {split1}). \bigskip \noindent{\bf Acknowledgements} One of us (MP) is grateful to the organizers of the Yukawa International Symposium (YKIS2006) for hospitality during this very successful workshop. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Diakonov:1997mm} D.~Diakonov, V.~Petrov and M.~V.~Polyakov, Z.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 359} (1997) 305 [arXiv:hep-ph/9703373]. \bibitem{BieDo} L.C Biedenharn and Y. Dothan, {\em Monopolar Harmonics in SU(3)$_{\rm F}$ as eigenstates of the Skyrme-Witten model for baryons}, E. Gotsman and G. Tauber (eds.), {\em From SU(3) to gravity}, p. 15-34. \bibitem{prasz} M.~Prasza{\l}owicz, talk at \emph{Workshop on Skyrmions and Anomalies}, M. Je\.{z}abek and M. Prasza{\l}owicz eds., World Scientific 1987, page 112 and Phys. Lett. B \textbf{575} (2003) 234 [hep-ph/0308114]. \bibitem{ANW} G.~S.~Adkins, C.~R.~Nappi and E.~Witten, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 228} (1983) 552; \bibitem{Weigel:2007yx} H.~Weigel, arXiv:hep-ph/0703072. \bibitem {limit} M. Prasza\l owicz, A. Blotz and K. Goeke, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{354} (1995) 415 [hep-ph/9505328]; M. Prasza\l owicz, T. Watabe and K. Goeke, Nucl. Phys. A \textbf{647} (1999) 49 [hep-ph/9806431]. \bibitem{Praszalowicz:2003tc} M.~Prasza{\l}owicz, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 583}, 96 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311230]. \bibitem{Blotz:1992pw} A.~Blotz, D.~Diakonov, K.~Goeke, N.~W.~Park, V.~Petrov and P.~V.~Pobylitsa, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 555}, 765 (1993). \bibitem{SU3SM} E. Guadagnini, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{236} (1984) 35; \newline P.O. Mazur, M. Nowak and M. Prasza\l owicz, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{147}(1984) 137; \newline S. Jain and S.R. Wadia, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{258} (1985) 713. \bibitem{largereps} G. Karl, J. Patera and S. Perantonis, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{172} (1986) 49; \newline J. Bijnens, H. Sonoda and M. Wise, Can. J. Phys. \textbf{64} (1986) 1. \newline Z. Duli{\'n}ski and M. Prasza{\l}owicz, Acta Phys. Pol. B \textbf{18} (1988) 1157. \bibitem{Pobylitsa:2003ju} P.~V.~Pobylitsa, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 074030 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0310221]. \newline T.~D.~Cohen, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 014011 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0312191]. \bibitem{dul} Z. Duli{\'n}ski, Acta. Phys. Pol. B \textbf{19} (1988) 891. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0202
|
Title: Towards Minimal Resources of Measurement-based Quantum Computation
Abstract: We improve the upper bound on the minimal resources required for
measurement-based quantum computation. Minimizing the resources required for
this model is a key issue for experimental realization of a quantum computer
based on projective measurements. This new upper bound allows also to reply in
the negative to the open question about the existence of a trade-off between
observable and ancillary qubits in measurement-based quantum computation.
Body: \title[Towards Minimal Resources of Measurement-based Quantum Computation]{Towards Minimal Resources of Measurement-based Quantum Computation} \author{Simon Perdrix} \address{PPS, CNRS - Universit\'e Paris 7} \ead{simon.perdrix@pps.jussieu.fr} \begin{abstract} We improve the upper bound on the minimal resources required for measurement-based quantum computation . Minimizing the resources required for this model is a key issue for experimental realization of a quantum computer based on projective measurements. This new upper bound allows also to reply in the negative to the open question presented in about the existence of a trade-off between observable and ancillary qubits in measurement-based quantum computation. \end{abstract} \section{Introduction} The discovery of new models of quantum computation (QC), such as the one-way quantum computer and the projective measurement-based model , have opened up new experimental avenues toward the realisation of a quantum computer in laboratories. At the same time they have challenged the traditional view about the nature of quantum computation. Since the introduction of the quantum Turing machine by Deutsch , unitary transformations plays a central r\^ole in QC. However, it is known that the action of unitary gates can be simulated using the process of quantum teleportation based on projective measurements-only . Characterizing the minimal resources that are sufficient for this model to be universal, is a key issue. Resources of measurement-based quantum computations are composed of two ingredients: ($i$) a universal family of observables, which describes the measurements that can be performed ($ii$) the number of ancillary qubits used to simulate any unitary transformation. Successive improvements of the upper bounds on these minimal resources have been made by Leung and others . These bounds have been significantly reduced when the state transfer (which is a restricted form of teleportation) has been introduced: one two-qubit observable ($Z\otimes X$) and three one-qubit observables ($X$, $Z$ and $( X + Y)/ \sqrt 2$), associated with only one ancillary qubit, are sufficient for simulating any unitary-based QC . Are these resources minimal ? In , a sub-family of observables ($Z\otimes X$, $Z$, and $(X-Y)/\sqrt 2$) is proved to be universal, however two ancillary qubits are used to make this sub-family universal. These two results lead to an open question : is there a trade-off between observables and ancillary qubits in measurement-based QC ? In this paper, we reply in the negative to this open question by proving that the sub-family $\{ Z\otimes X,Z,(X-Y)/\sqrt 2\}$ is universal using only one ancillary qubit, improving the upper bound on the minimal resources required for measurement-based QC. \section{Measurement-based QC} The simulation of a given unitary transformation $U$ by means of projective measurements can be decomposed into: \begin{itemize} \item (\emph{Step of simulation}) First, $U$ is probabilistically simulated up to a Pauli operator, leading to $\sigma U$, where $\sigma$ is either identity or a Pauli operator $\sigma_x, \sigma_y$, or $\sigma_z$. \item (\emph{Correction}) Then, a corrective strategy consisting in combinig conditionally steps of simulation is used to obtain a non-probabilistic simulation of $U$. \end{itemize} Teleportation can be realized by two successive Bell measurements (figure ), where a Bell measurement is a projective measurement in the basis of the Bell states $\{ \ket{B_{ij}}\}_{i,j\in \{0,1\}}$, where $\ket {B_{ij}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} (\sigma_{z}^i \otimes \sigma_{x}^j) (\ket{00} +\ket {11})$. A step of simulation of $U$ is obtained by replacing the second measurement by a measurement in the basis $\{(U^\dagger \otimes Id) \ket {B_{ij}}\}_{i,j\in \{0,1\}}$ (figure ). If a step of simulation is represented as a probabilistic black box (figure , left), there exists a corrective strategy (figure , {right}) which leads to a full simulation of $U$. This strategy consists in conditionally composing steps of simulation of $U$, but also of each Pauli operator. A similar step of simulation and strategy are given for the two-qubit unitary transformation $\Lambda X$ (\emph{Controlled}-$X$) in . Notice that this simulation uses four ancillary qubits. As a consequence, since any unitary transformation can be decomposed into $\Lambda X$ and one-qubit unitary transformations, any unitary transformation can be simulated by means of projective measurements only. More precisely, for any circuit $C$ of size $n$ -- with basis $\Lambda X$ and all one-qubit unitary transformations -- and for any $\epsilon >0$, $O(n\log(n/\epsilon))$ projective measurements are enough to simulate $C$ with probability greater than $1-\epsilon$. Approximative universality, based on a finite family of projective measurements, can also be considered. Leung has shown that a family composed of five observables $\mathcal F_{0}=\{Z,X\otimes X, Z\otimes Z, X\otimes Z, \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} (X-Y)\otimes X\}$ is approximatively universal, using four ancillary qubits. It means that for any unitary transformation $U$, any $\epsilon >0$ and any $\delta> 0$, there exists a conditional composition of projective measurements from $\mathcal F_{0}$ leading to the simulation of a unitary transformation $\tilde U$ with probability greater than $1-\epsilon $ and such that $|| U-\tilde U || <\delta$. In order to decrease the number of two-qubit measurements -- four in $\mathcal F_{0}$ -- and the number of ancillary, an new scheme called \emph{state transfer} has been introduced . The state transfer (figure ) replaces the teleportation scheme for realizing a step of simulation. Composed of one two-qubit measurements, two one-qubit measurements, and using only one ancillary qubit, the state transfer can be used to simulate any one-qubit unitary transformation up to a Pauli operator (figure ). For instance, simulations of $H$ and $HT$ -- see section for definitions of $H$ and $T$ -- are represented in figure . Moreover a scheme composed of two two-qubit measurements, two one-qubit measurements, and using only one ancillary qubit can be used to simulated $\Lambda X$ up to a Pauli operator (figure ). Since $\{H,T, \Lambda X\}$ is a universal family of unitary transformations, the family $\mathcal F_{1}=\{Z\otimes X,X,Z, \frac 1{\sqrt 2}(X-Y)\}$ of observables is approximatively universal, using one ancillary qubit . This result improves the result by Leung, since only one two-qubit measurement and one ancillary qubit are used, instead of four two-qubit measurements and four ancillary qubits. Moreover, one can prove that at least one two-qubit measurement and one ancillary qubit are required for approximative universality. Thus, it turns out that the upper bound on the minimal resources for measurement-based QC differs form the lower bound, on the number of one-qubit measurements only. In , it has been shown that the number of these one-qubit measurements can be decreased, since the family $F_{2} = \{Z\otimes X, Z, \frac 1{\sqrt 2}(X-Y)\}$, composed of one two-qubit and only two one-qubit measurements, is also approximatively universal, using \emph{two} ancillary qubit. The proof is based on the simulation of $X$-measurements by means of $Z$ and $Z\otimes X$ measurements (figure ). This result leads to a possible \emph{trade-off} between the number of one-qubit measurements and the number of ancillary qubits required for approximative universality. In this paper, we meanly prove that the family $\mathcal F_{2}$ is approximatively universal, using only one ancillary qubit. Thus, the upper bound on the minimal resources required for approximative universality is improved, and moreover we answer the open question of the trade-off between observables and ancillary qubits. Notice that we prove that the trade-off conjectured in does not exist, but another trade-off between observables and ancillary qubits may exist since the bounds on the minimal resources for measurement-based quantum computation are not tight. \section{Universal family of unitary transformations} There exist several universal families of unitary transformations, for instance $\{H, T, \Lambda X\}$ is one of them: \begin{center} $H=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1\\ 1 & -1\\ \end{array} \right)$, $T=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\ 0&e^{\frac{i\pi}{4}}\\ \end{array} \right)$, $\Lambda X=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0&0&0\\ 0 & 1&0&0\\ 0 & 0&0&1\\ 0& 0&1&0 \end{array} \right)$ $\Lambda Z=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0&0&0\\ 0 & 1&0&0\\ 0 & 0&1&0\\ 0& 0&0&-1 \end{array} \right)$ \end{center} We prove that the family $\{HT,\sigma_{y}, \Lambda Z\}$ is also approximatively universal: \begin{theo} $\mathcal U =\{HT,\sigma_{y}, \Lambda Z\}$ is approximatively universal. \end{theo} The proof is based on the following properties. Let $R_{\bf n}(\alpha)$ be the rotation of the Bloch sphere about the axis ${\bf n}$ through an angle $\alpha$. \begin{prop} If $\;{\bf n}=(a,b,c)$ is a real unit vector, then for any $\alpha$, $R_{\bf n}(\alpha) = \cos (\alpha/2) I -i\sin(\alpha/2)(a\sigma_x+b\sigma_y+c\sigma_z)$. \end{prop} \begin{prop} For a given vector ${\bf n}$ of the Bloch sphere, if $\theta$ is an irrational multiple of $\pi$, then for any $\alpha$ and any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $k$ such that $$||R_{\bf n}(\alpha)-R_{\bf n}(\theta)^k)||<\epsilon/3$$ \end{prop} \begin{prop} If $\;{\bf n}$ and ${\bf m}$ are non parallel vectors of the Bloch sphere, then for any one-qubit unitary transformation $U$, there exists $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta$ such that: $$U=e^{i\alpha}R_{\bf n}(\beta)R_{\bf m}(\gamma)R_{\bf n}(\delta)$$ \end{prop} \begin{prop}[W\l odarski ] If $\alpha$ is not an integer multiple of $\pi/4$ and $\cos \beta = \cos^2 \alpha$, then either $\alpha$ or $\beta$ is an irrational multiple of $\pi$. \end{prop} \noindent \emph{Proof of theorem :} First we prove that any $1$-qubit unitary transformation can be approximated by $HT$ and $\sigma_yHT$. Consider the unitary transformations $U_1=T$, $U_2=HTH$, $U_3=\sigma_yHTH\sigma_y$. Notice that $T$ is, up to an unimportant global phase, a rotation by $\pi/4$ radians around $z$ axis on the Block sphere: \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{lclcl} $U_1$&$=$&$T$ &$=$&$ e^{-i\pi/8}(\cos(\pi/8)I-i\sin(\pi/8) \sigma_z)$\\ $U_2$&$ =$&$ HTH $&$=$&$ e^{-i\pi/8}(\cos(\pi/8)I-i\sin(\pi/8) \sigma_x)$\\ $U_3$&$ =$&$ \sigma_yHTH\sigma_y $&$= $&$ e^{-i\pi/8}(\cos(\pi/8)I+i\sin(\pi/8) \sigma_x)$ \end{tabular} \end{center} Composing $U_1$ and $U_2$ gives, up to a global phase: \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{lcl} $U_2U_1$&$=$&$(\cos(\pi/8)I-i\sin(\pi/8) \sigma_x) (\cos(\pi/8)I-i\sin(\pi/8) \sigma_z)$\\ &$=$&$\cos^2(\pi/8)I -i[\cos(\pi/8)(\sigma_x+\sigma_z)-\sin(\pi/8)\sigma_y]\sin(\pi/8)$ \end{tabular} \end{center} According to proposition , $U_2U_1$ is a rotation of the Bloch sphere about an axis along ${\bf n}=(\cos(\pi/8),$ $-\sin(\pi/8),\cos(\pi/8))$ and through an angle $\theta$ defined as a solution of $\cos(\theta/2)=\cos^2(\pi/8)$. Since $\pi/8$ is not an integer multiple of $\pi/4$ but a rational multiple of $\pi$, according to proposition , a such $\theta$ is an irrational multiple of $\pi$. This irrationality implies that for any angle $\alpha$, the rotation around ${\bf n}$ about angle $\alpha$ can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy by repeating rotations around ${\bf n}$ about angle $\theta$ (see proposition ). For any $\alpha$ and any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $k$ such that $$||R_{\bf n}(\alpha)-R_{\bf n}(\theta)^k)||<\epsilon/3$$ Moreover, composing $U_1$ and $U_3$ gives, up to a global phase: \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{lcl} $U_3U_1$&$=$&$(\cos(\pi/8)I+i\sin(\pi/8) \sigma_x) (\cos(\pi/8)I-i\sin(\pi/8) \sigma_z)$\\ &$=$&$\cos^2(\pi/8)I -i[\cos(\pi/8)(-\sigma_x+\sigma_z)+\sin(\pi/8)\sigma_y]\sin(\pi/8)$ \end{tabular} \end{center} $U_3U_1$ is a rotation of the Bloch sphere about an axis along ${\bf m}=(-\cos(\pi/8),\sin(\pi/8),\cos(\pi/8))$ and through the angle $\theta$. Thus, for any $\alpha$ and any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $k$ such that $$||R_{\bf m}(\alpha)-R_{\bf m}(\theta)^k)||<\epsilon/3$$ Since ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf m}$ are non-parallel, any one-qubit unitary transformation $U$, according to proposition , can be decomposed into rotations around ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf m}$ : There exist $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta$ such that $$U= e^{i\alpha}R_{\bf n}(\beta)R_{\bf m}(\gamma)R_{\bf n}(\delta)$$ Finally, for any $U$ and $\epsilon>0$, there exist $k_1,k_2,k_3$ such that $$||U - R_{\bf n}(\theta)^{k_1}R_{\bf m}(\theta)^{k_2}R_{\bf n}(\theta)^{k_3}||<\epsilon$$ Thus, any one-qubit unitary transformation can be approximated by means of $U_2U_1$, and $U_3U_1$. Since $U_2U_1=(HT)(HT)$ and $U_3U_1= \sigma_yHTH\sigma_yT= -(\sigma_yHT)(\sigma_yHT)$, the family $\{ HT, \sigma_y\}$ approximates any one-qubit unitary transformation. With the additional $\Lambda Z$ gate, the family $\mathcal{U}$ is approximatively universal. $\hfill \Box$ \section{Universal family of projective measurements} In , the family of observables $\mathcal F_2=\{Z\otimes X, Z, \frac{X-Y}{\sqrt 2}\}$ is proved to be approximatively universal using two ancillary qubits. We prove that this family requires only one ancillary qubit to be universal: \begin{theo} $\mathcal F_2=\{Z\otimes X, Z, \frac{X-Y}{\sqrt 2}\}$ is approximatively universal, using one ancillary qubit only. \end{theo} The proof consists in simulating the unitary transformations of the universal family $\mathcal U$. First, one can notice that $HT$ can be simulated up to a Pauli operator, using measurements of $\mathcal F_{2}$, as it is depicted in figure . So, the universality is reduced to the ability to simulate $\Lambda Z$ and the Pauli operators -- Pauli operators are needed to simulated $\sigma_{y}\in \mathcal F$, but also to perform the corrections required by the corrective strategy (figure ). \begin{lemme} For a given 2-qubit register $a,b$ and one ancillary qubit $c$, the sequence of measurements according to $Z_{c}$, $Z_{a}\otimes X_{c}$, $Z_{c}\otimes X_{b}$, and $Z_{b}$ (see figure ) simulates $\Lambda Z (Id\otimes H)$ on qubits $a,b$, up to a Pauli operator. The resulting state is located on qubits $a$ and $c$. \end{lemme} \noindent \emph{Proof:} One can show that, if the state of the register $a,b$ is $\ket \Phi$ before the sequence of measurements, the state of the register $a,b$ after the measurements is $\sigma \Lambda Z (Id\otimes H) \ket \Phi$, where $\sigma = \sigma_{z}^{s_{1}}\otimes \sigma_{x}^{s_{3}}\sigma_{z}^{s_{2}+s_{4}}$ and $s_{i}$'s are the classical outcomes of the sequence of measurements. \hfill $\Box$ In order to simulate Pauli operators, a new scheme, different from the state transfer, is introduced. \begin{lemme} For a given qubit $b$ and one ancillary qubit $a$, the sequence of measurements $Z_{a}$, $X_{a}\otimes Z_{b}$, and $Z_{a}$ (figure ) simulates, on qubit $b$, the application of $\sigma_{z}$ with probability $1/2$ and $Id$ with probability $1/2$. \end{lemme} \noindent\emph{Proof:} Let $\ket \Phi = \alpha \ket 0 + \beta \ket 1$ be the state of qubit $b$. After the first measurement, the state of the register $a,b$ is $ \ket {\psi_1}= (\sigma_x^{s_{1}} \otimes Id)\ket 0\otimes\ket\Phi$ where $s_{ 1}\in \{0,1\}$ is the classical outcome of the measurement. Since $\bra {\psi_1} X\otimes Z \ket{\psi_1} = 0$, the state of the register $a,b$ is: $$\begin{array}{rcl} \ket {\psi_2}&=& \frac{\sqrt 2}2 (\sigma_x^{s_{1}} \otimes Id)(Id +(-1)^{s_{2}}X\otimes Z)\ket 0\otimes\ket\Phi \\ &=& \frac{\sqrt 2}2 (\sigma_x^{s_{1}}\sigma_{z}^{s_{2}} \otimes Id)(\ket 0\otimes\ket\Phi + \ket 1\otimes (\sigma_z\ket \Phi) \\ \end{array}$$ Let $s_{3}\in \{0,1\}$ be the outcome of the last measurement, on qubit $a$. If $s_{1}=s_{3}$ then state of the qubit $b$ is $\ket \Phi$, and $\sigma_{z}\ket \Phi$ otherwise. One can prove that these two possibilities occur with equal probabilities. \hfill $\Box$ \begin{lemme} For a given qubit $b$ and one ancillary qubit $a$, the sequence of measurements $\left(\frac{X-Y}{\sqrt 2}\right)_a$, $Z_{a}\otimes X_{b}$, and $\left(\frac{X-Y}{\sqrt 2}\right)_a$ (figure ) simulates, on qubit $b$, the application of $\sigma_{x}$ with probability $1/2$ and $Id$ with probability $1/2$. \end{lemme} \noindent The proof of lemma is similar to the proof of lemma . \noindent\emph{Proof of theorem :} First notice that the family of unitary transformations $\mathcal U'=\{HT, \sigma_y, \Lambda Z(I\otimes H)\}$ is approximatively universal since $\mathcal U=\{HT, \sigma_y, \Lambda Z\}$ is universal. $HT$ and $ \Lambda Z(I\otimes H)$ can be simulated up to a Pauli operator (lemmas ). The universality of the family of observables $\mathcal F_2=\{Z\otimes X, Z, \frac{X-Y}{\sqrt 2}\}$ is reduced to the ability to simulate any Pauli operators. Lemma (resp. lemma ), shows that $\sigma_{x}$ ($\sigma_{z}$) can be simulated with probability $1/2$, moreover if the simulation fails, the resulting state is same as the original one. Thus, this simulation can be repeated until a full simulation of $\sigma_{x}$ ($\sigma_{z}$). Finally, $\sigma_{y} = i\sigma_z\sigma_{x}$ can be simulated, up to a global phase, by combining simulations of $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_{z}$. Thus, $\mathcal F_2=\{Z\otimes X, Z, \frac{X-Y}{\sqrt 2}\}$ is approximatively universal using only one ancillary qubit. \hfill $\Box$ \section{Conclusion} We have proved a new upper bound on the minimal resources required for measurement-based QC: one two-qubit, and two one-qubit observables are universal, using one ancillary qubit only. This new upper bound has experimental applications, but allows also to prove that the trade-off between observables and ancillary qubits, conjectured in , does not exist. This new upper bound is not tight since the lower bound on the minimal resources for this model is one two-qubit observable and one ancillary qubit. \section*{References} \begin{thebibliography}{1} \bibitem{Deu85a} D.~Deutsch. \newblock Quantum theory, the {Church-Turing} principle and the universal quantum computer. \newblock {\em Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A}, 400:97--117, 1985. \bibitem{FZ01} S.~A. Fenner and Y.~Zhang. \newblock Universal quantum computation with two- and three-qubit projective measurements, 2001. \bibitem{Leu04} D.~W. Leung. \newblock Quantum computation by measurements. \newblock {\em IJQI}, 2:33, 2004. \bibitem{N01} M.~A. Nielsen. \newblock Universal quantum computation using only projective measurement, quantum memory, and preparation of the 0 state. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. A}, 308:96--100, 2003. \bibitem{Per04a} S.~Perdrix. \newblock Qubit vs observable resouce trade-offs in measurement-based quantum computation. \newblock In {\em proceedings of Quantum communication measurement and computing}, 2004. \bibitem{Per05a} S.~Perdrix. \newblock State transfer instead of teleportation in measurement-based quantum computation. \newblock {\em International Journal of Quantum Information}, 3(1):219--223, 2005. \bibitem{RBB02} R.~Raussendorf, D.~E. Browne, and H.~J. Briegel. \newblock The one-way quantum computer - a non-network model of quantum computation. \newblock {\em Journal of Modern Optics}, 49:1299, 2002. \bibitem{wlod} L.~Wlodarski. \newblock On the equation $\cos \alpha_1 + \cos \alpha_2 \cos \alpha_3 + \cos \alpha_4 = 0$. \newblock {\em Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest. E{\"o}tv{\"o}s Sect. Math.}, 1969. \end{thebibliography} \maketitle
|
0704.0206
|
Title: Resonant activation in bistable semiconductor lasers
Abstract: We theoretically investigate the possibility of observing resonant activation
in the hopping dynamics of two-mode semiconductor lasers. We present a series
of simulations of a rate-equations model under random and periodic modulation
of the bias current. In both cases, for an optimal choice of the modulation
time-scale, the hopping times between the stable lasing modes attain a minimum.
The simulation data are understood by means of an effective one-dimensional
Langevin equation with multiplicative fluctuations. Our conclusions apply to
both Edge Emitting and Vertical Cavity Lasers, thus opening the way to several
experimental tests in such optical systems.
Body: \title{Resonant activation in bistable semiconductor lasers} \author{Stefano Lepri} \email{stefano.lepri@isc.cnr.it} \author{Giovanni Giacomelli} \affiliation{Istituto dei Sistemi Complessi, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, via Madonna del Piano 10, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} We theoretically investigate the possibility of observing resonant activation in the hopping dynamics of two-mode semiconductor lasers. We present a series of simulations of a rate-equations model under random and periodic modulation of the bias current. In both cases, for an optimal choice of the modulation time-scale, the hopping times between the stable lasing modes attain a minimum. The simulation data are understood by means of an effective one-dimensional Langevin equation with multiplicative fluctuations. Our conclusions apply to both Edge Emitting and Vertical Cavity Lasers, thus opening the way to several experimental tests in such optical systems. \end{abstract} \pacs{42.55.Px, 05.40.-a, 42.65.Sf} \maketitle \section{Introduction} It is currently established that stochastic fluctuations may have a constructive role in enhancing the response of nonlinear systems to an external coherent stimulus. Relevant examples are the enhancement of the decay time from a metastable state (noise--enhanced stability) , the synchronization with a weak periodic input signal (stochastic resonance) or the regularizaton of the response at an optimal noise intensity (coherence resonance) . Another instance is the phenomenon of resonant activation that was discovered by Doering and Gadoua . They showed that the escape of an overdamped Brownian particle over a fluctuating barrier can be enhanced by suitably choosing the correlation time of barrier fluctuations themselves. In other words, the escape time from the potential well attains a minimum for an optimal choice of such correlation time. Since its discovery, the phenomenon received a considerable attention from theorists (see e.g. Refs.~). Detailed studies by means of analog simulations have also been reported for both Gaussian and dichotomous fluctuations . More recently, the phenomenon has been shown to occur also for the case in which the barrier oscillates periodically . To our knowledge, experimental evidences of resonant activation were only given for a bistable electronic circuit and, very recently, for a colloidal particle subject to a periodically--modulated optical potential . It is therefore important to look for other setups where the effect could be studied in detail. As a matter of fact, multimode laser systems are good candidates to investigate noise--activated dynamics like the switching among modes induced by quantum fluctuations (spontaneous emission) . In particular, semiconductor lasers proved to be particularly versatile for detailed experimental investigations of modulation and noise-induced phenomena like stochastic resonance and noise--induced phase synchronization . In those previous studies, the resonance regimes are attained by a suitable random modulation of the bias current which can be tuned in a well-controlled way. It is thus natural to argue about the possibility of observing resonant activation with the same type of experimental setup. In this paper, we theoretically demonstrate the phenomenon of resonant activation in a generic rate--equations model for a two-mode semiconductor laser under modulation of the bias current. The basic ingredients that act in the theoretical descriptions are a fluctuating potential barrier and some activating noise. In the laser system, the latter is basically provided by spontaneous emission while current fluctuations, that appear additively into the rate equations, effectively act multiplicatively if a suitable separation of time scales holds . In a previous paper , we have explicitely demonstrated such multiplicative--noise effects on the mode--hopping dynamics. This was shown by a reduction to a bistable one--dimensional potential system with both multiplicative and additive stochastic forces. Several predictions drawn from such a simplified model are in good agreement with the experimental observations carried out for a bulk, Edge-Emitting Laser (EEL) . In the present context, we will show that this reduced description is of great help in the interpretation of simulation data. The outline of the paper is the following. In Sec.~II we recall the model for a two-mode semiconductor laser. In Sec.~III we present the numerical simulation for two physically distinct cases displaying resonant activation. These results are discussed and interpreted by comparing with the reduced one--dimensional Langevin model mentioned above (Sec.~IV). We draw our conclusions in Sec.~V. \section{Rate equations} Our starting point is a stochastic rate-equation model for a semiconductor laser that may operate in two longitudinal modes whose complex amplitudes are denoted by $E_\pm$. Both of them interact with a single carrier density $N$ that provides the necessary amplification. The two modes have very similar linear gains, provided that their wavelengths are almost equal and they are close to the gain peak. Let $J(t)$ denote the bias (injection) current, the model can be written as \begin{subequations} \begin{equation} \dot E_+ = \frac{1}{2}\Big[ (1 + i \alpha) g_+ - 1 \Big] E_+ + \sqrt{2D_{sp} N}\, \xi_+ \end{equation} \begin{equation} \dot E_- = \frac{1}{2}\Big[ (1 + i \alpha) g_- - 1 \Big] E_- + \sqrt{2D_{sp} N}\, \xi_- \end{equation} \begin{equation} \dot N = \gamma\Big[ J(t) - N - g_+ |E_+ |^2 - g_- |E_- |^2\Big] \end{equation} \end{subequations} where $\gamma$ is carrier density relaxation rate, $\alpha$ is the linewidth enhancement factor . The modal gains read \begin{equation} g_\pm \;=\; \frac{N \pm \varepsilon(N - N_c)}{ 1+ s |E_\pm |^2 +c |E_\mp |^2} \; , \end{equation} where $\varepsilon$ determines the difference in differential gain among the two modes while $N_c$ defines the carrier density where the unsaturated modal gains are equal. The parameters $s$ and $c$ are respectively the self- and cross-saturation coefficients. The $\xi_\pm$ are two independent, complex white noise processes with zero mean [$\langle\xi_{\pm}(t)\rangle = 0$] and unit variance [$\langle\xi_i (t) \xi_j^*(t')\rangle = \delta_{ij} \delta(t-t')$] that model spontaneous emission. The noise terms in Eqs.~() and () are gauged by the spontaneous emission coefficient $D_{sp}$. All quantities are expressed in suitable dimensionless units. In particular, time is normalized to the photons' lifetime, which for semiconductor laser is typically of the order of a few picoseconds or less (see e.g. ) A detailed analysis of the stationary solutions of Eqs.~() is reported in Ref.~. For a constant bias current $J(t)=J_0$ and $D_{sp} = 0$, Eqs.~() admit four different steady state solutions: the trivial one $E_{\pm} = 0$, two single-mode solutions --- $E_+ \neq 0 , \ E_- = 0$ and viceversa --- and a solution where both modes are lasing, $E_{\pm} \neq 0$. For $N_c > 1$, and $c > s$, there exist a finite interval of $J_0$ values for which the two single--mode solutions coexist and are stable while the $E_{\pm} \neq 0$ is unstable (bistable region). Here, for $D_{sp}> 0$ the laser performs stochastic mode-hopping, with the total emitted intensity remains almost constant while each mode switches on and off alternately at random times. We point out that the emission in each mode is nonvanishing even in the ``off" state, as the average power spontaneously emitted in each mode at any time is given by $4 D_{sp}N$ [recall that Eqs.~() are usually interpreted in It\^o sense ]. Observation of this behaviour has been reported in several experimental works on EELs . We remark that while Eqs.~() aim at modeling EELs, the results presented henceforth would apply also to polarization switching in Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers (VCSELs). Indeed, experimental data show strong similarities between this phenomenon and the longitudinal mode dynamics. On the theoretical side, this analogy is supported by the fact that the polarization dynamics in VCSELs is described by models that are mathematically similar to the one discussed here . In the following, we will focus on the effect of the externally imposed fluctuation/modulation of the injected current. This situation is modeled by letting \begin{equation} J(t) \;=\; J_0 + \delta J(t) \quad. \end{equation} The DC value $J_0$ sets the working point and will be always chosen to be in the bistability region. We focus on the case in which $\delta J$ is a Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with zero average $\langle\delta J(t)\rangle \;=\;0$ and correlation time $\tau$: \begin{equation} \dot{ \delta J} \;=\; -{\delta J \over \tau} + \sqrt{2D_J\over \tau} \,\xi_J \end{equation} that means \begin{equation} \langle\delta J(t) \delta J(0)\rangle \;=\; {D_J} \exp(-|t|/\tau) \quad . \end{equation} This choice is suitable to model a finite-bandwith noise generator. Notice that $\tau$ and the variance of fluctuations ${D_J}=\langle\delta J^2\rangle$ can be fixed independentely. Another case of experimental interest that we will consider is using the current modulation \begin{equation} \delta J \;=\; A \sin \Omega t \end{equation} To assess the nature of the stochastic process at hand, it is important to introduce the relevant time scales. We define first of all the switching or relaxation time $T_R$ as the typical time for the emission to change from one mode to the other. The main quantities we are interested in are the Kramers or residence times $T_\pm$ defined as the average times for which the emission occurs in each mode. In semiconductor lasers $T_\pm$ are generally much larger than $T_R$. Typically, $T_R\sim 1-10 ns$ while residence times may range between 0.1 and 100 $\mu s$ . The third time-scale is of course given by the characteristic time of the external driving, namely, $\tau$ and $2\pi/\Omega$ respectively. In the following, we will study how the hopping dynamics changes upon varying these latter parameters as well as the strength of the perturbation. \section{Numerical simulations} In this Section we present the outcomes of a series of numerical simulation of Eqs.~(). In Ref.~ it was observed that the sensitivity of each of the $T_\pm$ on the imposed current fluctuations may be notably different depending on the parameters' choice. This is a typical signature of the multiplicative nature of the stochastic process. In particular, one can argue that such ``simmetry-breaking" effects mostly depend on the ratio $\varepsilon\sigma/\delta$ where \begin{equation} \sigma \;=\; {c + s \over 2}, \qquad \delta \;=\; {c - s \over 2} \quad. \end{equation} The parameter $\sigma$ represents the gain saturation induced by the total power in the laser, while $\delta$ describes the reduction in gain saturation due to partitioning of the power between the two modes. The possibility of obtaining qualitatively different responses depending on the actual parameters corresponds to the different experimental observations reported for both EELs and VCSELs . Those two classes of lasers were indeed found to display markedly different simmetry-breaking effects under current modulation. To account for those features, we consider two different sets of phenomenological parameters. For definiteness, in both cases we fix $\varepsilon=0.1$, $s=1.0$, $N_c=1.1$, $\gamma=0.01$ and change the values of $c$ and $D_{sp}$ (see Table I). The first set ($\delta=0.05$) corresponds to the case in which added modulation changes the hopping time scale in an almost symmetric way. On the contrary, in the second case ($\delta=0.15$) the asymmetry effect of the noise is stronger . We can thus consider the two as representative of the VCSELs and EELs case respectively. The value of $J_0$ has been empirically adjusted to yield $T_+\simeq T_- \equiv T_s$ and an almost symmetric distribution of intensities in absence of modulation. The actual values are about 10\ laser threshold. The spontaneous emission coefficient $D_{sp}$ has been chosen to yield a value of the residence times of the same order of magnitude of the experimental ones. In the following, we decide to set $\alpha=0$ which is appropriate for our EEL model where the phase dynamics is not relevant . This choice may however not be fully justified for the VCSEL case. In this respect, the simulations presented below are representative of the VCSEL dynamics only in a qualitative sense. Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that a 1D Langevin model independent of $\alpha$ describes also the VCSEL case ~. Since resonant activation is mainly due to the multiplicative noise effect described by such equations [see Eq.~() below] we consider this as an indirect proof that phenomenology we will report below should be observable also in the VCSEL case. The largest part of the simulations were performed with Euler method with time steps 0.01-0.05 for times in the range $10^7 - 10^8$ time units depending on the values of $\tau$ and $\Omega$. For comparison, some checks with Heun method have also been carried on. Within the statistical accuracy, the results are found to be insensitive the the choice of the algorithm. \begin{table} \caption{ The parameter values used in the two series of simulations of Eqs.~(), the other values are given in the text. } \begin{ruledtabular} \begin{tabular}{ccccc} $c$ & $D_{sp}$ & $J_0$ & $\delta$ & $\sigma$ \\ \hline 1.1 & $0.7 \times 10^{-5}$ & 1.197 & 0.05 & 1.05 \\ 1.3 & $1.5 \times 10^{-5}$ & 1.194 & 0.15 & 1.15 \\ \end{tabular} \end{ruledtabular} \end{table} \subsection{Stochastic modulation} Let us start illustrating the results in the case of stochastic current modulation (Eq.~()). In Fig.~ and we report the measured dependence of the residence times $T_\pm$ on the correlation time $\tau$ for the two parameter sets given in Table I and different values of the noise variance $D_J$. In all cases, the curves display well-pronounced minima at an optimal value of $\tau$. This is the typical signature of resonant activation. The minima are almost located between the relaxation time $T_R$ and the hopping time $T_s$ (marked by the vertical dashed lines). The values of $T_R$ reported in the figures have been estimated from the reduced model discussed in the next Section, see Eq.~() below. The effect manifest in a different way for the second parameter set. In the case of Fig.~ \textit{both} times attain a minimum, albeit with different values. On the contrary the data of Fig.~ show that one of the two times is hardly affected from the external perturbation regardless of the value of $\tau$. In other terms, we can tune the current correlation in such a way that emission along only one of the two modes is strongly reduced (about a factor 10 in the simulation discussed here). \subsection{Periodic modulation} Let us now turn to the case of sinusoidal current modulation (Eq.~). In Fig.~ and we report the measured dependence of the residence times $T_\pm$ on the frequency $\Omega$ for the two parameter sets given in Table I and different values of the amplitude $A$. For comparison with the previous case we choose $A$ such that the RMS value of () is roughly equal to the variance of (), i.e. $A\simeq \sqrt{2D_J}$. As in the previous case, the curves display resonant activation at an optimal value of $\Omega$. For the second set of parameters, one of the two hopping times is more reduced than the other (compare Fig.~ with Fig.~). It should be also noticed that the data in Fig.~ display some statistical fluctuations while the curves for the periodic modulation are smoother. \section{Insights from a reduced model} In order to better understand the activation phenomenon it is useful to reduce the five--dimensional dynamical system () to an effective one-dimensional system. This has been accomplished in Ref.~. For completeness, we only recall here some basic steps of the derivation. In the first place, we introduce the change of coordinates \begin{equation} E_+ = r \cos \phi \exp i\psi_+,\qquad E_- = r \sin \phi\exp i\psi_- \; . \end{equation} In these new variables, $r^2$ is the total power emitted by the laser, and $\phi$ determines how this power is partitioned among the two modes. The values $\phi=0,\pi/2$ correspond to pure emission in mode $+$ and $-$ respectively. The phases $\psi_\pm$ do not influence the evolution of the modal amplitudes and carrier density and can be ignored. In order to simplify the analysis, we assume that (i) The difference between modal gains is very small, i.e., $N_c \gtrsim 1$, $\varepsilon \ll 1$, $c\gtrsim s$; (ii) the laser operates close enough to threshold, so that $r^2 \ll 1$ and the saturation term is small: in this limit, $r$ and $N$ decouple to leading order from $\phi$; (iii) $r$ and $N$ can be adiabatically eliminated and (iv) only their fluctuations around the equilibrium values due to $J$ are retained. This last assumption holds for weak spontaneous noise and amounts to say that $r$ and $N$ are stochastic processes given by nonlinear transformations of $J$ (see Eqs.~(16) in Ref.~). This requires that $J$ does not change too fast. For example, in the case of the Orstein--Uhlenbeck process, Eq.~(), $\tau$ should be larger than the relaxation time of the total intensity. The validity of the above reduction has been carefully checked against simulations of the complete model . For the scope of the present work, we performed a further check by comparing the spectrum of fluctuations of $r^2$ with the imposed one, Eq.~(). Indeed, the behaviour is the same for $\tau>T_R$ while for shorter $\tau$ some differences are detected. This means that the reduced description discussed below becomes less and less accurate. On the other hand, in this regime spontaneous fluctuation should dominate and this limitation become less relevant for our purposes. Altogether, the hopping dynamics is effectively one-dimensional and is described by the slow variable $\phi$. Its evolution is ruled by the effective Langevin equation \begin{equation} \dot \phi\; =\; -\frac{1}{2}\Big[a \cos2\phi + b\Big]\sin2\phi \,+\, {2D_\phi\over \tan 2\phi} + \sqrt{2 D_\phi}\, \xi_\phi \end{equation} where, together with () we have defined the new set of parameters \begin{eqnarray} && J_s \;=\; {(1+\sigma) N_c -1 \over \sigma}\\ && a \;=\; {\delta \over 1+\sigma}\,(J-1) \\ && b\;=\; {\varepsilon \sigma \over 1+\sigma}\,(J-J_s) \\ && D_\phi \;=\;\frac {( 1 + \sigma J)^2} {(1 + \sigma) (J-1)} \, D_{sp}\quad. \end{eqnarray} We remind in passing that the same equation () has been derived by Willemsen et al.~ to describe polarization switches in VCSELs (see also Ref.~ for a similar reduction). The starting point of their derivation is the San Miguel-Feng-Moloney model~. The physical meaning of the variable $\phi$ is different from here as it represents the polarization angle of emitted light. This supports the above claim that, upon a suitable reinterpretation of variables and parameters, many of the results presented henceforth may apply also to the dynamics of VCSELs. In absence of modulation ($\delta J=0$), Eq.~() is bistable in an interval of current values where it admits two stable stationary solutions $\phi_\pm$ and an unstable one $\phi_0$ (double-well). This regime correspond to the bistability region of model (). Notice that for $J_0=J_s$, $b=0$ the hopping between the two modes occurs at the same rate. The above definitions allows an estimate of relaxation time $T_R$ defined above. This is is the inverse of the curvature of the potential in $\phi_0$. For $J_0=J_s$ this is straightforwardly evaluated to be \begin{equation} T_R \; \simeq \; \frac{(1+\sigma)}{\delta(J_s - 1)} \end{equation} For the two parameter sets given in Table I one finds $T_R = 210$ $T_R = 77.0$, respectively. These are the values emploied to draw the leftmost vertical lines in Figs.~-. The effect of a time-dependent current is to make the coefficients $a$, $b$ and $D_\phi$ fluctuating. It can be shown that the effect on $D_\phi$ can be recasted as a renormalization of the intensity of the spontaneous-emission noise. However, for the parameters employed in the present work it turns out that this correction is pretty small and will be neglected henceforth by simply considering $D_{\phi}$ as constant . For simplicity, we also disregard the dependence of $D_\phi$ on $\delta J$ in the drift term of Eq.~(). Under those further simplifications the Langevin equation can be rewritten as \begin{equation} \dot \phi \;=\; - U'(\phi) - V'(\phi)\,\delta J + \sqrt{2 D_\phi} \, \xi_\phi \end{equation} where we have express the force term as derivatives of the ``potentials" \begin{eqnarray} U(\phi) &\;=\;& -{\delta (J_0-1)\over 16(1+\sigma)}\cos 4\phi - {\varepsilon \sigma (J_0-J_s)\over 4(1+\sigma)}\cos 2\phi \nonumber \\ && - D_\phi \ln \sin 2\phi \\ V(\phi) &\;=\;& -{\delta\over 16(1+\sigma)} \cos 4\phi - {\varepsilon\sigma\over 4(1+\sigma)}\cos 2\phi . \end{eqnarray} Langevin equations of the form () with () have been thoroughly studied in the literature (see e.g. and references therein) as prototypical examples of the phenomenon of activated escape over a fluctuating barrier. In view of their non-Markovian nature, their full analytical solution for arbitrary $\tau$ is not generally feasible. Several approximate results can be provided in some limits. For an arbitrary choice of the parameters, $V$ has a different symmetry with respect to $U$ meaning that the effective amplitude of multiplicative noise is different within the two potential wells. If this difference is large enough, current fluctuation will remove the degeneracy between the two stationary solutions. This is best seen by computing the istantaneous potential barriers $\Delta U_\pm (t)$ close to the symmetry point $J_0 = J_s$ . For weak noise and $\delta J \ll (J_s-1)$, they are given to first-order in $\delta J(t)$ by \begin{equation} \Delta U_\pm (t) \;\simeq\; \frac{\delta}{8(1+\sigma)}(J_s-1) \,+\, \frac{\delta \pm 2\varepsilon\sigma}{8(1+\sigma)} \delta J(t) \, . \end{equation} Obviously, this last expression makes sense only when the fluctuating term is sub-threshold i.e. whenever the system is bistable. In the case of periodic modulation, formula () allows estimating the range of amplitude values for a sub-threshold driving \begin{equation} A \;<\; \frac{\delta (J_s-1)}{\delta \pm 2\varepsilon\sigma}\quad. \end{equation} Using this condition, along with the parameter values at hand, we deduce that the cases displayed in lower panels of Figs.~ and correspond to superthreshold driving. However, while the minima are much more pronounced than in the other panels, there is no qualitative difference in the system response. In the case of stochastic modulation, the same remark applies in a probabilistic sense for the last panels of Figs.~ and . Altogether, the mode switching can be seen as an activated escape over fluctuating barriers given by Eq.~(). The statistical properties of the latter process is controlled by the current fluctuations. We now discuss the properties of various regimes. For simplicity, we refer to the case of stochastic modulations. Most of the remarks and formulas reported in the following Subsection should apply also to the periodic case by replacing $\tau$ and $D_J$ with $2\pi/\Omega$ and $A^2/2$ whenever appropriate. \subsection{Fast barrier fluctuations: $ \tau < T_R \ll T_\pm$} As we already pointed out, in this regime the reduction to Eq.~() is not justified. We may thus only expect some qualitative insight on the behaviour of the rate-equations. From a mathematical point of view, some analytical approximations for equations like () are feasible in this limit (see e.g. Ref.~ for the stochastic case). For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that in this regime the effect of $\delta J$ is hardly detected for both types of driving (see again Figs.~-). Note also that working at $D_J$ fixed means that for $\tau \to 0$ the fluctuation become negligible. \subsection{Resonant activation: $T_R < \tau \ll T_\pm$} If $T_R < \tau$ we are in the colored noise case. The problem is amenable of a kinetic description which amounts to neglect intrawell motion and reduce to a rate model describing the statistical transitions in terms of transition rates. If we consider $\tau$ as a time scale of the external driving we can follow the terminology of Ref.~ and refer to this situation as the ``semiadiabatic" limit of Eq.~(). In this regime, the residence time is basically the shortest escape time, which in turn correspond to the lowest value of the barrier (the noise is approximatively constant in the current range considered henceforth). For the case of interest, $\delta < 2\varepsilon \sigma$ we can use () to infer that the minimal values of $\Delta U_\pm$ should be attained for $\delta J \propto \mp\sqrt{D_J}$ respectively. This yields \begin{equation} T_\pm \;\simeq\; T_s \exp\Big[-K \frac{2\varepsilon\sigma\pm\delta}{1+\sigma} \,\frac{\sqrt{D_J}}{D_\phi} \Big] \end{equation} where $K$ is a suitable numerical constant. Notice that $\delta$ controls the asymmetry level: if $\delta \ll 2\varepsilon\sigma$ the two residence times decrease at approximatively the same rate. This prediction is verified in the simulations and also in the experiment . As a further argument in support of the above reasoning, we also evaluated the probability distributions of the residence times obtained from the simulation of the rate equations. In Fig.~, we show two representative cumulative distributions. The data are well fitted by a Poissonian $P(T)=1-\exp(-T/T_\pm)$ for both the stochastic and periodic modulation cases. This confirms that hopping occours preferentially when a given (minimal) barrier occurs. \subsection{Slow barrier, frequent hops: $T_R \ll T_\pm \ll \tau$} This corresponds to the adiabatic limit in which the time scale of the external driving is slower than the intrinsic dynamics of the system . To a first approximation we can here treat current fluctuations in a parametric way. Correction terms may be evaluated by means of a suitable perturbation expansion in the small parameter $1/\tau$ . If $\delta J$ is small enough for the expression () to make sense, the escape time can be estimated as the average of escape times over the distribution of barrier fluctuations, i.e. $\langle T_\pm \rangle_{\delta J}$. For the case of Eq.~(), the variable $\delta J$ is Gaussian and we can use the identity $\langle \exp{\beta z}\rangle= \exp(\beta^2\langle z^2\rangle /2)$ to obtain \begin{equation} T_\pm \;\simeq\; T_s \exp\Big[ {2(\delta\pm 2\varepsilon\sigma)^2 \over (1+\sigma)^2 D_\phi^2} \, D_J \Big] . \end{equation} This reasoning implies that for large $\tau$ the residence times should approach two different constant values. A closer inspection of the graphs (in linear scale) reveals that this is not fully compatible with the data of Fig. even for the smallest value of $D_J$. In several cases, $T_\pm$ continue to increase with $\tau$ and no convincing evidence of saturation is observed. We note that the same type of behaviour was already observed in the analog simulations data of Ref.~. There, an increase of hopping times duration at large $\tau$ was found. The Authors of Ref.~ explained this as an effect of a too large value of the noise fluctuation forcing the system to jump roughly every $\tau$. We argue that the same explanation holds for our case. This is also consistent with the fact that the exponential factors in Eq.~() evaluated with the simulation parameters turn out to be much larger than unity. \section{Conclusions} In this paper, we have explored numerically and analytically the effects of external current fluctuations on the mode-hopping dynamics in a model of a bistable semiconductor laser. To the best of our knowledge, this setup provides the first theoretical evidence of resonant activation in a laser system. As the phenomenon has hardly received any experimental confirmation in optics, we believe that our study may open the way to future research in this subfield. The model we investigated is based on a rate-equation description, where the bias current enters parametrically into the evolution of the modal amplitudes. We considered, two kinds of current flutuations, namely, a stochastic process ruled by an Orstein-Uhlenbeck statistics, and a coherent, sinusoidal modulation. These choices are motivated by the aim of proposing a suitable setup for an experimental verification of our results. Upon varying the characteristic time-scale of the imposed fluctuations, we have shown that the residence times attain a minimum for a well-defined value, which is the typical signature of resonant activation. The magnitude of the effect can be different depending on the parameters of the model. Moreover, the response of the system appears very much similar for both periodic and random modulations. The reduction of the rate equations to a one-dimensional Langevin equation allowed us to recast the problem as an activated escape over a fluctuating barrier. To first approximation, the fluctuating barrier (multiplicative term) is mainly controlled by current modulations while the spontaneous noise act as an additive source. This simplified description has allowed us to draw some predictions (e.g. the dependence of residence times on noise strength) and to better understand the role of the physical parameters. Given the generality of the description, our results should apply to a broad class of multimode lasers, including both Edge Emitting and Vertical Cavity Lasers. From an experimental point of view, driving the laser in a orders-of-magnitude wide range of time-scales is more feasible in the case of a sinusoidal modulation than for a colored, high frequency noise. However, given the evidence of a resonant activation phenomenon for such modulation, our results indicate that it occurs almost for the same parameters in the case of colored noise, provided that the RMS of the modulations equals the amplitude of the added noise. Thus, the phenomenon could be fully exploited along those lines. Since the reported experimental evidences of the phenomenon are so far scarce, we hope that the present work could suggest a detailed characterization in optical systems that allows for both very precise measurements and careful control of parameters. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Graham} R. Graham and A. Schenzle, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{26}, 1676 (1982). \bibitem{Mantegna} R. N. Mantegna and B. Spagnolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{76}, 563 (1996). \bibitem{sto_res} L. Gammaitoni, P. H\"anggi, P. Jung, and F. Marchesoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 70}, 223 (1998). \bibitem{coh_res} A. S. Pikovsky and J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{78}, 775 (1997). \bibitem{doering} C.R. Doering and J.C. Gadoua, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{69}, 2318 (1992). \bibitem{ba93} M. Bier and R. D. Astumian, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{71}, 1649 (1993). \bibitem{h94} P. H\"anggi, Chem. Phys. \textbf{180} 157 (1994) \bibitem{h95} A. J. R. Madureira, P. H\"anggi, V. Buonomano, J. Rodrigues and A. Waldyr, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{51} 3849 (1995). \bibitem{r95} P. Reimann, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{52} 1579 (1995). \bibitem{iw96} J. Iwaniszewski, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{54} 3173 (1996). \bibitem{m96} M. Marchi, F. Marchesoni, L. Gammaitoni, E. Menichella- Saetta and S. Santucci, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{54} 3479 (1996). \bibitem{salerno} A. L. Pankratov and M. Salerno, Phys. Lett. A \textbf{273}, 162 (2000). \bibitem{chaos} M.I. Dykman, B. Golding, L.I. McCann, V.N. Smelyanskiy, D.G. Luchinsky, R. Mannella and P.V.E. McClintock, Chaos \textbf{11}, 587 (2001). \bibitem{maspa} R. N. Mantegna and B. Spagnolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{84}, 3025 (2000). \bibitem{schmitt} C. Schmitt, B. Dybiec, P. H\"anggi and C. Bechinger, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{74}(6), 937 (2006). \bibitem{roy} R. Roy, R. Short, J. Durnin and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 45}, 1486 (1980). \bibitem{gianni4} G. Giacomelli, F. Marin and I. Rabbiosi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 675 (1999). \bibitem{srbulk} F.Pedaci, M. Giudici, J.R. Tredicce and G. Giacomelli, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{71}, 036125 (2005). \bibitem{nips} S. Barbay, G. Giacomelli, S. Lepri and A. Zavatta, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{68}, 020101(R) (2003). \bibitem{Schenzle} A. Schenzle and H. Brand, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{20}, 1628 (1979). \bibitem{noi} F.Pedaci, S. Lepri, S. Balle, G. Giacomelli, M. Giudici and J.R. Tredicce, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{73}, 041101 (2006). \bibitem{petermann} K. Petermann, \emph{Laser Diode Modulation and Noise}, ADOP-Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (The Nederlands), 1988. \bibitem{Agrawal} G. P. Agrawal and N. K. Dutta, \emph{Long wavelength semiconductor lasers}, Van Nostran Reinhold, New York, 1986. \bibitem{sale} T.E. Sale, \emph{Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers} Wiley, New York, 1995. \bibitem{Albert} J. Albert et al., Opt. Comm. \textbf{248}, 527 (2005). \bibitem{Ohtsu} M. Ohtsu, Y. Teramachi, Y. Otsuka, and A. Osaki, IEEE J. of Quantum Electron. vol. \textbf{22}, 535 (1986). \bibitem{Ohtsu2} M. Ohtsu and Y. Teramachi, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. vol. \textbf{25}, 31 (1989). \bibitem{IEEE} L. Furfaro, F. Pedaci, X. Hachair, M. Giudici, S. Balle, J.R. Tredicce, IEEE J. of Quantum Electron. \textbf{40}, 1365 (2004). \bibitem{gianni3} G. Giacomelli and F. Marin, Quantum Semiclass. Opt. \textbf{10}, 469 (1998). \bibitem{will} M.B. Willemsen, M. U. F. Khalid, M. P. van Exter and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{82}, 4815 (1999). \bibitem{will2} M. P. van Exter, M.B. Willemsen, J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{58} 4191 (1998). \bibitem{belgi} B. Nagler \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{68} 013813 (2003). \bibitem{AppB} F. Pedaci, M. Giudici, G. Giacomelli, J. R. Tredicce, Appl. Physics \textbf{B81}, 993 (2005). \bibitem{toral} R. Toral and M. San Miguel, "Stochastic effects in physical systems", in \emph{Instabilities and Nonequilibrium Structures VI}, 35-130, edited by Enrique Tirapegui, Javier Martinez, and Rolando Tiemann, Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000). \bibitem{VanDerSande} G. Van der Sande, J. Danckaert, I. Veretennicoff and T. Erneux, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{67} 013809 (2003). \bibitem{Feng} M. San Miguel, Q. Feng, J.V. Moloney, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{52} 1728 (1995) \bibitem{belgi2} B. Nagler, M. Peeters, I. Veretennicoff and J. Danckaert, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67}, 056112 (2003). \bibitem{note} For specific choices of the parameters, this approximation may not be justified. For example, when $\delta \simeq 2\varepsilon\sigma$ the barrier fluctuations $\Delta U_-$ is hardly affected by a change in $J$ and the renormalization of spontaneous noise cannot be neglected. Since the parameters are independent we restrict to the generic case in which the above condition is not fulfilled. \bibitem{talk} P. Talkner, J. Luczka, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{69} 046109 (2004). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0208
|
Title: Some non-braided fusion categories of rank 3
Abstract: We classify all fusion categories for a given set of fusion rules with three
simple object types. If a conjecture of Ostrik is true, our classification
completes the classification of fusion categories with three simple object
types. To facilitate the discussion we describe a convenient, concrete and
useful variation of graphical calculus for fusion categories, discuss
pivotality and sphericity in this framework, and give a short and elementary
re-proof of the fact that the quadruple dual functor is naturally isomorphic to
the identity.
Body: \input{tobedefs.tex} \title[Some non-braided fusion categories of rank 3] {Some non-braided fusion categories of rank 3} \author{ Tobias J. Hagge and Seung-Moon Hong } \address{Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indana} \email{thagge@indiana.edu,seuhong@indiana.edu} \thanks{} \thanks{} \subjclass{} \keywords{} \date{} \dedicatory{} \commby{} \begin{abstract} \input{abstract.tex} \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} \input{intro} \section{Main theorem and outline} \input{outline} \section{Preliminaries and notational conventions} \input{prelim} \section{Proof of Theorem~ part ~:possible tensor category structures} In this section we classify, up to monoidal equivalence, all $\fld{C}$-linear semisimple tensor categories with fusion rules given in Theorem~. This amounts to solving the matrix equations described in the previous section. The simplest equations (those involving $1 \times 1$ matrices) are solved first, and normalizations are performed as necessary in order to simplify the equations. \subsection{Setting up the pentagon equations} The fusion rules are given by $x \otimes x \cong \trivobject \oplus y \oplus x \oplus x$, $x \otimes y \cong y \otimes x \cong x$, and $y \otimes y \cong \trivobject$. The non-trivial vector spaces are $V^{1}_{11}$, $V^{x}_{1x}$ ,$V^{x}_{x1}$, $V^{y}_{1y}$, $V^{y}_{y1}$, $V^{x}_{xy}$, $V^{x}_{yx}$, $V^{1}_{yy}$, $V^{1}_{xx}$, $V^{y}_{xx}$,and $V^{x}_{xx}$, and they are all 1-dimensional except the last space which is 2-dimensional. Let's choose basis vectors in each space. If we fix any non-zero vector $v^{1}_{11} \in V^{1}_{11}$, then there are unique vectors $v^{x}_{1x} \in V^{x}_{1x}$, $v^{x}_{x1} \in V^{x}_{x1}$,$v^{y}_{1y} \in V^{y}_{1y}$, and $v^{y}_{y1} \in V^{y}_{y1}$ such that the triangle equality holds. For the other spaces, choose any non-zero vectors in each space and denote them by $v^{x}_{xy} \in V^{x}_{xy}$, $v^{x}_{yx} \in V^{x}_{yx}$, $v^{1}_{yy} \in V^{1}_{yy}$, $v^{1}_{xx} \in V^{1}_{xx}$, $v^{y}_{xx} \in V^{y}_{xx}$, $v_1$ and $v_2 \in V^{x}_{xx}$ where the two vectors $v_1$ and $v_2$ are linearly independent. There are 30 associativities. It is a well known fact that if at least one of the bottom objects is $\trivobject$ then the associativity is trivial. That is, with the above basis choices the matrix for $\alpha^{z}_{u,v,w}$ is trivial if at least one of the $u,v$ and $w$ is $\trivobject$. Now we have ten non-trivial 1-dimensional associativities, $\alpha^{y}_{y,y,y}$,$\alpha^{x}_{x,y,y}$,$\alpha^{x}_{y,y,x}$,$\alpha^{1}_{x,y,x}$, $\alpha^{y}_{x,y,x}$,$\alpha^{x}_{y,x,y}$,$\alpha^{1}_{x,x,y}$,$\alpha^{y}_{x,x,y}$, $\alpha^{1}_{y,x,x}$, and $\alpha^{y}_{y,x,x}$, five non-trivial 2-dimensional ones, $\alpha^{x}_{x,y,x}$,$\alpha^{x}_{x,x,y}$,$\alpha^{x}_{y,x,x}$,$\alpha^{1}_{x,x,x}$, and $\alpha^{y}_{x,x,x}$, and one 6-dimensional one, $\alpha^{x}_{x,x,x}$. \subsection{Normalizations} With the above basis choices we obtain a basis for each tensor product of vector spaces in a canonical way and can parameterize each associativity and pentagon equation. However, at this point our basis elements have not been uniquely specified, and we should expect to obtain solutions with free parameters. As the calculation progresses it will be convenient to simplify the pentagon equations by requiring certain coefficients of certain associativity matrices to be $1$ or $0$. These normalizations should be thought of as restrictions on the basis choices made above. Normalizations simplify the equations and have an additional advantage: once the set of possible bases is sufficiently restricted, Ocneanu rigidity guarantees a finite set of possibilities for the associativity matrices of fusion categories, which can be found algorithmically by computing a Gr{\"o}bner basis. \subsection{Associativity matrices} The following are the 1-dimensional associativities: $ \alpha^{y}_{y,y,y}:v^{1}_{yy} v^{y}_{y1} \mapsto a^{y}_{y,y,y}v^{1}_{yy} v^{y}_{1y} $ $ \alpha^{x}_{x,y,y}:v^{1}_{yy} v^{x}_{x1} \mapsto a^{x}_{x,y,y}v^{x}_{xy} v^{x}_{xy} $ $ \alpha^{x}_{y,y,x}:v^{x}_{yx} v^{x}_{yx} \mapsto a^{x}_{y,y,x}v^{1}_{yy} v^{x}_{1x} $ $ \alpha^{1}_{x,y,x}:v^{x}_{yx} v^{1}_{xx} \mapsto a^{1}_{x,y,x}v^{x}_{xy} v^{1}_{xx} $ $ \alpha^{y}_{x,y,x}:v^{x}_{yx} v^{y}_{xx} \mapsto a^{y}_{x,y,x}v^{x}_{xy} v^{y}_{xx} $ $ \alpha^{x}_{y,x,y}:v^{x}_{xy} v^{x}_{yx} \mapsto a^{x}_{y,x,y}v^{x}_{yx} v^{x}_{xy} $ $ \alpha^{1}_{x,x,y}:v^{x}_{xy} v^{1}_{xx} \mapsto a^{1}_{x,x,y}v^{y}_{xx} v^{1}_{yy} $ $ \alpha^{y}_{x,x,y}:v^{x}_{xy} v^{y}_{xx} \mapsto a^{y}_{x,x,y}v^{1}_{xx} v^{y}_{1y} $ $ \alpha^{1}_{y,x,x}:v^{y}_{xx} v^{1}_{yy} \mapsto a^{1}_{y,x,x}v^{x}_{yx} v^{1}_{xx} $ $ \alpha^{y}_{y,x,x}:v^{1}_{xx} v^{y}_{y1} \mapsto a^{y}_{y,x,x}v^{x}_{yx} v^{y}_{xx} $ where associativity coefficients are all non-zero. For 2-dimensional and 6-dimensional associativities we need to fix the ordering of basis elements in each Hom vector space. The orderings are as follows: $\{ v^{x}_{yx} v_1, v^{x}_{yx} v_2 \}$ for $V^{x}_{x(yx)}$, $\{ v^{x}_{xy} v_1, v^{x}_{xy} v_2 \}$ for $V^{x}_{(xy)x}$, $\{ v^{x}_{xy} v_1, v^{x}_{xy} v_2 \}$ for $V^{x}_{x(xy)}$, $\{ v_1 v^{x}_{xy}, v_2 v^{x}_{xy} \}$ for $V^{x}_{(xx)y}$, $\{ v_1 v^{x}_{yx} , v_2 v^{x}_{yx} \}$ for $V^{x}_{y(xx)}$, $\{ v^{x}_{yx} v_1, v^{x}_{yx} v_2 \}$ for $V^{x}_{(yx)x}$, $\{ v_1 v^{1}_{xx}, v_2 v^{1}_{xx} \}$ for $V^{1}_{x(xx)}$, $\{ v_1 v^{1}_{xx}, v_2 v^{1}_{xx} \}$ for $V^{1}_{(xx)x}$, $\{ v_1 v^{y}_{xx}, v_2 v^{y}_{xx} \}$ for $V^{y}_{x(xx)}$, $\{ v_1 v^{y}_{xx}, v_2 v^{y}_{xx} \}$ for $V^{y}_{(xx)x}$, $\{ v^{1}_{xx} v^{x}_{x1}, v^{y}_{xx} v^{x}_{xy}, v_1 v_1, v_1 v_2, v_2 v_1, v_2 v_2 \}$ for $V^{x}_{x(xx)}$, and $\{ v^{1}_{xx} v^{x}_{1x}, v^{y}_{xx} v^{x}_{yx}, v_1 v_1, v_1 v_2, v_2 v_1, v_2 v_2 \}$ for $V^{x}_{(xx)x}$. With these ordered bases, each associativity has a matrix form (recall that we are using the right multiplication convention). That is, $\alpha^{x}_{x,y,x}$ is given by the invertible $2 \times 2$ matrix $a^{x}_{x,y,x}$, and $\alpha^{x}_{x,x,y}$ is given by the invertible $2 \times 2$ matrix $a^{x}_{x,x,y}$,etc., and finally $\alpha^{x}_{x,x,x}$ is given by the invertible $6 \times 6$ matrix $a^{x}_{x,x,x}$. \subsection{Pentagon equations with $1 \times 1$ matrices} Considering only nontrivial associativities, there are 17 1-dimensional pentagon equations, 14 2-dimensional pentagon equations, 6 6-dimensional ones, and 1 16-dimensional one. Without redundancy, the following are the 1-dimensional equations: $P^{x}_{x,y,y,y}$ : $a^{y}_{y,y,y}$ $a^{x}_{x,y,y}=$ $a^{x}_{x,y,y}$. $P^{1}_{x,x,y,y}$ : $a^{x}_{x,y,y}$$a^{1}_{x,x,y}$ $a^{y}_{x,x,y}=1$ , $P^{1}_{x,y,x,y}$ : $a^{x}_{y,x,y}$ $a^{y}_{x,y,x}=$ $a^{1}_{x,y,x}$ , $P^{y}_{x,y,x,y}$ : :$a^{x}_{y,x,y}$ $a^{1}_{x,y,x}=$ $a^{y}_{x,y,x}$ , $P^{1}_{x,y,y,x}$ : $a^{x}_{y,y,x}$ $a^{x}_{x,y,y}=$ $(a^{1}_{x,y,x})^2$ , $P^{y}_{x,y,y,x}$ : $a^{x}_{y,y,x}$ $a^{x}_{x,y,y}=$ $(a^{y}_{x,y,x})^2$ , $P^{x}_{y,x,y,y}$ :$(a^{x}_{y,x,y})^2=1$ , $P^{1}_{y,y,x,x}$ : $a^{y}_{y,x,x}$ $a^{1}_{y,x,x}$ $a^{x}_{y,y,x}=1$ , $P^{1}_{y,x,x,y}$ : $a^{y}_{x,x,y}$ $a^{y}_{y,x,x}=$ $a^{1}_{y,x,x}$ $a^{1}_{x,x,y}$ If we normalize the basis we may assume $a^{x}_{y,y,x}, a^{1}_{x,y,x}$ and $a^{1}_{x,x,y}$ to be 1 (for normalization see or ), and we can solve the above 1-dimensional equations. Here is the solution: $a^{y}_{y,y,y}=$ $a^{x}_{x,y,y}=$ $a^{y}_{x,x,y}=1$, $a^{x}_{y,x,y}=$ $a^{y}_{x,y,x}=\pm 1$, $a^{1}_{y,x,x}=$ $a^{y}_{y,x,x}= \pm 1$. Let's say $g:=a^{x}_{y,x,y}=a^{y}_{x,y,x}$ and $h:=a^{1}_{y,x,x}=a^{y}_{y,x,x}$ in the sequel. Also let $A:=a^x_{x,y,x}$, $B:=a^x_{x,x,y}$, $D:=a^1_{x,x,x}$, $E:=a^y_{x,x,x}$, $F:=a^x_{y,x,x}$ and $\Phi:=a^x_{x,x,x}$ for brevity. \subsection{Pentagon equations with $2 \times 2$ or $6 \times 6$ matrices} Now, the following are the 2-dimensional pentagon equations using the above 1-dimensional solutions: $P^{x}_{y,y,x,x}$ : $F^2=Id_2$ $P^{x}_{y,x,y,x}$ : $g A F=FA$ $P^{x}_{x,y,y,x}$ : $A^2=Id_2$ $P^{x}_{y,x,x,y}$ : $g B F=FB$ $P^{x}_{x,y,x,y}$ : $g B A=AB$ $P^{x}_{x,x,y,y}$ : $B^2=Id_2$ $P^{1}_{y,x,x,x}$ : $E F=D$ $P^{y}_{y,x,x,x}$ : $D F=E$ $P^{1}_{x,y,x,x}$ : $F D A=D$ $P^{y}_{x,y,x,x}$ : $F E A= g E$ $P^{1}_{x,x,y,x}$ : $A D B= D$ $P^{y}_{x,x,y,x}$ : $A EB= g E$ $P^{1}_{x,x,x,y}$ : $B E =D$ $P^{y}_{x,x,x,y}$ : $B D = E$ It should be noted that for this particular category the large number of one dimensional morphism spaces gives us $q$-commutativity relations and matrices with $\pm 1$ eigenvalues, which are of great help when simplifying the pentagon equations by hand. To analyze 2-dimensional and 6-dimensional pentagon equations, at first let's look at the isomorphism $\tau $ interchanging the first and the second factors of tensor products. This change of basis is necessary for 6-dimensional pentagon equations because the image basis of the matrix for $\alpha_{x,y,zw}^u$ and the domain basis of the matrix for $\alpha_{xy,z,w}^{u}$ may not be the same. For $P^{x}_{x,y,x,x}$, $\tau $ is an isomorphism from the space $V^1_{xx} V^x_{xy} V^x_{x1} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} V^x_{xy}\oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xy}V^x_{xx}$ to $V^x_{xy} V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} \oplus V^x_{xy} V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy}\oplus V^x_{xy}V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx}$, both of which correspond to $Hom ((x\otimes y)\otimes(x\otimes x),x)$. With the canonically ordered basis $\{v^1_{xx}v^x_{xy}v^x_{x1}, v^y_{xx}v^x_{xy}v^x_{xy}, v_iv^x_{xy}v_j \}$ and $\{v^x_{xy}v^1_{xx}v^x_{x1}$, $v^x_{xy}v^y_{xx}v^x_{xy}$, $v^x_{xy}v_iv_j \}$, respectively, $\tau$ turns out to be $I_6$. For $P^{x}_{y,x,x,x}$, $P^{x}_{x,x,y,x}$ and $P^{x}_{x,x,x,y}$, $\tau$ is also $I_6$. But for $P^{1}_{x,x,x,x}$, it is $\tau_1$, and for $P^{y}_{x,x,x,x}$, it is $\tau_2$, defined as follows: $\tau_1:= \left[\begin{array}{cccccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0&1&0&0&0&0\\0&0&1&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1&0&0\\0&0&0&0&0&1 \end{array} \right]$, $\tau_2:=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc} 0&1&0&0&0&0\\ 1&0&0&0&0&0\\0&0&1&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1&0&0\\0&0&0&0&0&1 \end{array} \right]$. Here are the 6 6-dimensional pentagon equations: $P^{x}_{y,x,x,x}$ ; $ \Phi (I_2 \oplus I_2 \otimes F) \left( \bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}0&h\\h&0 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus F\otimes I_2 \right)=\left(\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&g\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus I_2 \otimes F \right) \Phi $ $P^{x}_{x,y,x,x}$ ; $\left( \bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}0&h\\h&0\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus F \otimes I_2\right) \Phi \left(\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&g\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus A \otimes I_2\right)= (I_2 \oplus I_2 \otimes A)\Phi $ $P^{x}_{x,x,y,x}$ ; $\left(\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&g\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus A\otimes I_2\right) \Phi \left(\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus B\otimes I_2\right)= \Phi(I_2 \oplus I_2 \otimes A) $ $P^{x}_{x,x,x,y}$ ; $\left(\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus B \otimes I_2 \right) ( I_2 \oplus I_2 \otimes B) \Phi = \Phi\left( \bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&g\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus I_2 \otimes B\right) $ $ P^{1}_{x,x,x,x}$ ; $ (I_2 \oplus I_2 \otimes D) \Phi =( I_2 \oplus I_2 \otimes D) \tau_1 \left(\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&h\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus I_2 \otimes D\right) $ $P^{y}_{x,x,x,x}$ ; $\Phi\left(\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&g\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus I_2 \otimes E\right) \Phi =( I_2 \oplus I_2 \otimes E) \tau_2 \left(\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&h\end{smallmatrix} \bigr] \oplus I_2 \otimes E\right) $. If we normalize the basis $\{v_1,v_2 \}$ of $V^x_{xx}$, we may assume $A$ is of the form $\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{smallmatrix} \bigr]$, and then get $g=-1$ and $h=1$ using the above equations. Following is the computation for this: At first we may assume that matrix $A$ is of the Jordan canonical form, then $A=$ $\pm I_2$ or $ \bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix} 1&0 \\0&-1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr]$ from $P^{x}_{x,y,y,x}$. We eliminate the possibility $A=$ $\pm I_2$ from $P^{x}_{y,x,y,x}$, $P^{1}_{x,y,x,x}$ and $P^{x}_{y,x,x,x}$ which imply respectively that $g=1$, $F=\pm I_2$ and then $det( \Phi )=0$, since the first two columns of $\Phi$ are scalar multiples of each other. So we conclude $A=$ $ \bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix} 1&0 \\0&-1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr]$. Now we eliminate the possibility $g=1$ using $P^{x}_{y,x,y,x}$, $P^{x}_{y,y,x,x}$ and $P^{x}_{y,x,x,x}$, which imply $F$ is a diagonal matrix, with entries $\pm 1$ and then $ det ( \Phi ) =0$, respectively. For the case $A=$ $\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{smallmatrix} \bigr]$ and $g=-1$, $F$ is of the form $\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}0&f\\1/f&0\end{smallmatrix} \bigr]$ from $P^{x}_{y,x,y,x}$ and $P^{x}_{y,y,x,x}$, and $B$ is of the form $\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}0&b\\1/b&0\end{smallmatrix} \bigr]$ from $P^{x}_{x,y,x,y}$ and $P^{x}_{x,x,y,y}$. If $h=-1$, the first column of $\Phi$ has to be zero by comparing the first and the second columns of $P^{x}_{y,x,x,x}$, $P^{x}_{x,y,x,x}$, $P^{x}_{x,x,y,x}$, and $P^{x}_{x,x,x,y}$. At this point we have fixed all 1-dimensional associativity matrices. From the above equations, we get $\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}0&f\\1/f&0\end{smallmatrix} \bigr]$ for $F$ and $\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}0&b\\1/b&0\end{smallmatrix} \bigr]$ for $B$ with the relation $f^2 + b^2 =0$ from $P^{x}_{y,x,x,y}$. We note that the diagonalization of $A$ defines each basis element $v_1$ and $v_2$ only up to choice of a nonzero scalar. By using up one of these degrees of freedom, we may assume $f=1$. Then from the above 6-dimensional equations, we get the following: $D= d \left[ \begin{array}{cc}1&b\\1&-b\end{array} \right]$ $E= d \left[ \begin{array}{cc}b&1\\-b&1\end{array} \right]$ $\Phi= \left[ \begin{array}{cccccc} \phi & \phi & -wb & w&w&-wb\\ \phi & -\phi & -wb & w&-w&wb \\x&x&-yb&z&y&-zb \\ x&x&-zb&y&z&-yb\\ x&-x&-yb&z&-y&zb\\ -x&x&zb&-y&z&-yb \end{array} \right]$ \subsection{The pentagon equation with $16 \times 16$ matrices} Now we analyze the 16-dimensional pentagon equation $P^{x}_{x,x,x,x}$. It is convenient to express each Hom vector space in two different ways and put basis permutation matrices into the pentagon equation. The following are two expressions with ordered direct sum. $Hom(x(x(xx)),x):$ $\:\:\: V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} \oplus V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$, and $\:\:\:V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$ $Hom(x((xx)x)),x)$ : $\:\:\:V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} \oplus V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{yx} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$, and $\:\:\: V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{yx} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$ $Hom((x(xx))x),x)$ : $\:\:\:V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{yx} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$, and $ \:\:\:V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{yx} \oplus V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$ $Hom((((xx)x)x),x)$ : $\:\:\:V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{yx} \oplus V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{yx} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$, and $\:\:\:V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{yx} V^x_{xx} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{yx} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$ $Hom((xx)(xx),x)$ : $\:\:\:V^1_{xx} V^x_{xx} V^x_{x1} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{xx} V^x_{xy} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{yx} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$, and $\:\:\: V^1_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{1x} \oplus V^y_{xx} V^x_{xx} V^x_{yx} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{x1} \oplus V^x_{xx} V^y_{xx} V^x_{xy} \oplus V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$ where each direct summand space has canonical ordered basis. For example $V^x_{xx}V^x_{xx} V^x_{xx}$ has basis $ \{v_i v_j v_k \}$ where $(i,j,k)$ range from 1 to 2 in the order $(1,1,1),(1,1,2),(1,2,1),$ etc., and $V^x_{xx} V^1_{xx} V^x_{1x}$ has $\{v_1 v^1_{xx} v^x_{1x},v_2 v^1_{xx} v^x_{1x} \}$. Let $\tau_3:= \left( \left[ \begin{array}{cc}0&1\\1&0\end{array} \right] \otimes I_4 \right) \oplus I_8$ and $\tau_4:= \left( \left[ \begin{array}{cc}0&1\\1&0\end{array} \right] \otimes I_4 \right) \oplus \left( \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}1&0&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&0&1 \end{array} \right] \otimes I_2 \right)$. Then the pentagon equation $P^{x}_{x,x,x,x}$ is of the form: $$ ( D \oplus E \oplus \Phi \otimes I_2) \tau_3 (I_2 \oplus A \oplus \tilde{\Phi}) \tau_3 ( D \oplus E \oplus \Phi \otimes I_2) \tau_3 $$ $$ =\tau_3 (I_2 \oplus B \oplus \tilde{\Phi}) \tau_4 (I_2 \oplus F \oplus \tilde{\Phi} )$$ where $\tilde{\Phi}= \left[ \begin{array}{cccccccccccc} \phi &0& \phi&0 & -wb & w&w&-wb&0&0&0&0 \\ 0& \phi &0& \phi &0&0&0&0& -wb & w&w&-wb \\ \phi &0& -\phi &0& -wb & w&-w&wb &0&0&0&0 \\0&\phi &0& -\phi &0&0&0&0& -wb & w&-w&wb \\x&0&x&0&-yb&z&y&-zb&0&0&0&0 \\ x&0&x&0&-zb&y&z&-yb&0&0&0&0 \\x&0&-x&0&-yb&z&-y&zb&0&0&0&0 \\ -x&0&x&0&zb&-y&z&-yb&0&0&0&0 \\0&x&0&x&0&0&0&0&-yb&z&y&-zb \\ 0&x&0&x&0&0&0&0&-zb&y&z&-yb \\0&x&0&-x&0&0&0&0&-yb&z&-y&zb \\ 0&-x&0&x&0&0&0&0&zb&-y&z&-yb \end{array} \right]$. \subsection{Solutions} We may assume $x=1$ once we normalize basis vector $v^x_{xy}$. Then from the equations, we get four explicit solution sets for the parameters $b,\phi,d,w,y$, and $z$. We list one solution here. All of its values lie in the field $\fld{Q}(\sqrt{3},i)$; the other solutions are obtained by applying Galois automorphisms. The full set of associativity matrices for this solution is given in Appendix~. \[b = i, \phi = \frac{-1+\sqrt{3}}{2}, d = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} e^{7 \pi i /12}, w = \frac{1- \sqrt{3}}{4} e^{2\pi i /3},\] \[ y = \frac{1}{2} (e^{-\pi i /3} + i), z = \frac{1}{2} e^{5\pi i /6}. \] \subsection{Inequivalence of the solutions} To see that these solutions are monoidally inequivalent, recall from the previous section that for strictified skeletons a natural equivalence between two solutions to the pentagon equations is limited to change of basis on the $(2,0)$ and $(2,1)$-stranded morphism spaces, along with permutation of the strands. In our case permutation of strands does not preserve the fusion rules. Therefore, we must show that it is not possible to replicate the effect of a nontrivial Galois automorphism by change of basis choices for the $(2,0)$ and $(2,1)$-stranded morphism spaces. The Galois automorphism that fixes $\sqrt{3}$ and sends $i$ to $-i$ changes the eigenvalues of the matrix $a^1_{x,x,x}$. However, $a^1_{x,x,x}$ is determined by the basis choices $v_1$ and $v_2$, and its rows and columns are indexed by $v_1$ and $v_2$. Thus changes to $v_1$ and $v_2$ conjugate $a^1_{x,x,x}$ by a change of basis matrix, which doesn't affect its eigenvalues. Therefore this automorphism does not correspond to a change of basis. The other two Galois automorphisms send $\sqrt{3}$ to $-\sqrt{3}$ and thus change the value of the $(1,1)$ entry of $a^x_{x,x,x}$. But this entry is invariant under change of basis. Therefore no Galois automorphism corresponds to a change in basis, and the four solutions given above are mutually monoidally inequivalent. \section{Proof of Theorem~ part : rigidity structures} This section explicitly computes rigidity structures for the categories given in the previous section. Rigidity implies that these categories are fusion categories. Given $v^1_{xx}\in V^1_{xx}$, choose a vector $ v^{x x}_1\in V^{x x}_1$ such that $ v^{xx}_1 \circ v^1_{x,x} = id_1$(see Figure ). Now we define right death and birth, $d_x := v^1_{xx} :x \otimes x \rightarrow \trivobject,$ $b_x:= \frac{1}{\phi} v^{xx}_1: \trivobject \rightarrow x \otimes x$ (see Figure ). With these definitions, right rigidity is an easy consequence by direct computation. The following is a graphical version of it: \psset{unit=3mm} \begin{pspicture}[.3](0,0)(3,5) \psline{<-}(0,5)(0,2.5) \psbezier(0,2.5)(0,0)(1.5,0)(1.5,2.5) \psbezier(1.5,2.5)(1.5,5)(3,5)(3,2.5) \psline(3,2.5)(3,0) \end{pspicture} $= \frac{1}{\phi}$ \begin{pspicture}[.3](0,0)(5,7) \psline(2,7)(2,6) \psline(2,6)(1,5)\psline[linestyle=dotted](2,6)(3,5) \psline(1,5)(0,4)\psline(3,5)(2,4)\psline(3,5)(4,4) \psline(0,4)(0,3)\psline(2,4)(2,3)\psline(4,4)(4,3) \psline(0,3)(1,2)\psline(2,3)(1,2)\psline(4,3)(3,2) \psline(3,2)(2,1) \psline(2,1)(2,0) \end{pspicture} $=$ \begin{pspicture}[.3](0,0)(5,7) \psline(2,7)(2,6) \psline(2,6)(3,5) \psline(1,5)(0,4)\psline(1,5)(2,4)\psline(3,5)(4,4) \psline(0,4)(0,3)\psline(2,4)(2,3)\psline(4,4)(4,3) \psline(0,3)(1,2)\psline(2,3)(1,2)\psline(4,3)(3,2) \psline(3,2)(2,1) \psline(2,1)(2,0) \end{pspicture} $=$ \begin{pspicture}[.3](0,0)(3,5) \psline(1,5)(1,0) \end{pspicture} $= id_x$, \psset{unit=3mm} \begin{pspicture}[.3](0,0)(3,5) \psline{<-}(0,0)(0,2.5) \psbezier(0,2.5)(0,5)(1.2,5)(1.5,2.5) \psbezier(1.5,2.5)(1.5,0)(3,0)(3,2.5) \psline(3,2.5)(3,5) \end{pspicture} $= \frac{1}{\phi}$ \begin{pspicture}[.3](0,0)(5,7) \psline(2,7)(2,6) \psline[linestyle=dotted](2,6)(1,5)\psline(2,6)(3,5) \psline(1,5)(0,4)\psline(1,5)(2,4)\psline(3,5)(4,4) \psline(0,4)(0,3)\psline(2,4)(2,3)\psline(4,4)(4,3) \psline(0,3)(1,2)\psline(2,3)(3,2)\psline(4,3)(3,2) \psline(1,2)(2,1) \psline(2,1)(2,0) \end{pspicture} $=$ \begin{pspicture}[.3](0,0)(5,7) \psline(2,7)(2,6) \psline(2,6)(1,5) \psline(1,5)(0,4)\psline(3,5)(2,4)\psline(3,5)(4,4) \psline(0,4)(0,3)\psline(2,4)(2,3)\psline(4,4)(4,3) \psline(0,3)(1,2)\psline(2,3)(3,2)\psline(4,3)(3,2) \psline(1,2)(2,1) \psline(2,1)(2,0) \end{pspicture} $=$ \begin{pspicture}[.3](0,0)(3,5) \psline(1,5)(1,0) \end{pspicture}$= id_x$ where the first and the third equalities are from the definitions above, and the second equalities are the associativity $\alpha^x_{xxx}$ and $(\alpha^x_{xxx})^{-1}$, respectively. The same morphisms give a left rigidity structure when treated as left birth and left death. Treat the objects $y$ and $\trivobject$ analogously by replacing $\phi$ with 1. \section{Proof of Theorem~ part : the absence of braidings} The categories under consideration are known not to be braided (see ). However, once associativity matrices are known it is in principle not difficult to classify braidings by direct computation. In this section we perform this computation and show that no braidings are possible. A braiding consists of a natural family of isomorphisms $\{ c_{x,y} : x \otimes y \rightarrow y \otimes x \} $ such that two hexagon equalities hold: $ (c_{x,y}\otimes z) \circ \alpha_{y,x,z}\circ (y \otimes c_{x,z})= \alpha_{x,y,z}\circ c_{x,yz}\circ \alpha_{y,z,x} $ and $ ((c_{y,x})^{-1}\otimes z) \circ \alpha_{y,x,z}\circ (y \otimes (c_{z,x})^{-1}) = \alpha_{x,y,z}\circ (c_{yz,x})^{-1}\circ\alpha_{y,z,x} $. We define isomorphisms $R^z_{x,y}: V^z_{yx}\rightarrow V^z_{xy}$ by $f \mapsto c_{x,y} \circ f $ and $\bar{R}^z_{x,y}: V^z_{yx}\rightarrow V^z_{xy}$ by $f \mapsto (c_{x,y})^{-1} \circ f $ for any $f \in V^z_{yx}$. Figure shows the 1-dimensional case where $r^z_{x,y}$ is nonzero and $\bar{r}^z_{x,y}=$ $(r^z_{y,x})^{-1}$. For higher dimensional spaces it can be expressed as an invertible matrix, also denoted $r^z_{x,y}$ on the canonically ordered basis as before. With this linear isomorphism, the hexagon equations are equivalent to the equations $ \oplus_{s} R^{s}_{x,z} V^{t}_{ys} \circ \alpha^{t}_{y,x,z} \circ \oplus_{s} R^{s}_{x,y} V^{t}_{sz} = \alpha^{t}_{y,z,x} \circ \oplus_{s} V^{s}_{yz}R^{t}_{x,s} \circ \alpha^{t}_{x,y,z}$, and $ \oplus_{s} \bar{R}^{s}_{x,z} V^{t}_{ys} \circ \alpha^{t}_{y,x,z} \circ \oplus_{s} \bar{R}^{s}_{x,y} V^{t}_{sz} = \alpha^{t}_{y,z,x} \circ \oplus_{s} V^{s}_{yz}\bar{R}^{t}_{x,s} \circ \alpha^{t}_{x,y,z}$, which we still call hexagon equations, referred to as $H^{t}_{x,y,z}$ and $\bar{H}^{t}_{x,y,z}$, respectively. These are illustrated graphically in Figure~). We show the absence of a braiding by assuming the existence and deriving a contradiction. We need five 2-dimensional hexagon equations as follows: $H^{x}_{y,x,x} : R^{x}_{y,x}\otimes I_2 \circ \alpha^{x}_{x,y,x} \circ R^{x}_{y,x}\otimes I_2 = \alpha^{x}_{x,x,y} \circ I_2\otimes R^{x}_{y,x} \circ \alpha^{x}_{y,x,x} $ $\bar{H}^{x}_{y,x,x} : \bar{R}^{x}_{y,x}\otimes I_2 \circ \alpha^{x}_{x,y,x} \circ \bar{R}^{x}_{y,x} \otimes I_2 = \alpha^{x}_{x,x,y} \circ I_2\otimes \bar{R}^{x}_{y,x} \circ \alpha^{x}_{y,x,x} $ $H^{x}_{x,y,x} : R^{x}_{x,x}\otimes 1 \circ \alpha^{x}_{y,x,x} \circ R^{x}_{x,y} \otimes I_2 = \alpha^{x}_{y,x,x} \circ 1\otimes R^{x}_{x,x} \circ \alpha^{x}_{x,y,x} $ $\bar{H}^{x}_{x,y,x} : \bar{R}^{x}_{x,x}\otimes 1 \circ \alpha^{x}_{y,x,x} \circ \bar{R}^{x}_{x,y} \otimes I_2 = \alpha^{x}_{y,x,x} \circ 1\otimes \bar{R}^{x}_{x,x} \circ \alpha^{x}_{x,y,x} $ $H^{1}_{x,x,x} : R^{x}_{x,x}\otimes 1 \circ \alpha^{1}_{x,x,x} \circ R^{x}_{x,x} \otimes 1 = \alpha^{1}_{x,x,x} \circ I_2\otimes R^{1}_{x,x} \circ \alpha^{1}_{x,x,x} $ These are of the following forms, respectively: $ (r^{x}_{y,x})^{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1 &0\\0&-1\end{array}\right] =r^{x}_{y,x}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 &b\\1/b & 0\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 &1\\1& 0\end{array}\right]$ $ (r^{x}_{x,y})^{-2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1 &0\\0&-1\end{array}\right] =(r^{x}_{x,y})^{-1}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 &b\\1/b & 0\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 &1\\1& 0\end{array}\right]$ $r^{x}_{x,y}\left[\begin{array}{cc}k &l\\m&n\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0 &1\\1& 0\end{array}\right] = \left[\begin{array}{cc}0 &1\\1& 0\end{array}\right] \left[\begin{array}{cc}k &l\\m&n\end{array}\right] \left[\begin{array}{cc}1 &0\\0&-1\end{array}\right] $ $ (r^{x}_{y,x})^{-1} \left[\begin{array}{cc}k &l\\m&n \end{array}\right]^{-1} \left[\begin{array}{cc}0 &1\\1& 0\end{array}\right] = \left[\begin{array}{cc}0 &1\\1& 0\end{array}\right] \left[\begin{array}{cc}k &l\\m&n\end{array}\right]^{-1} \left[\begin{array}{cc}1 &0\\0&-1\end{array}\right] $ $d \left[\begin{array}{cc}k &l\\m&n\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1 &b\\1& -b\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}k &l\\m&n\end{array}\right] = d^2 r^1_{x,x}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1 &b\\1& -b\end{array}\right]^2 $ where $\left[\begin{array}{cc}k &l\\m&n \end{array}\right]$ represents the matrix $r^{x}_{x,x}$. From the first four equations, we get $r^{x}_{y,x}=b$, $r^{x}_{x,y}= 1/b$, $-n=r^{x}_{x,y} k$, $m=r^{x}_{x,y} l$, $-n=r^{x}_{y,x} k$, which imply $k=n=0$ since $r^x_{x,y} \neq r^x_{y,x}$ as above. Now from the final one we get $l^2 = d r^1_{x,x}(b+1)$ and $-blm=d r^1_{x,x}(1+b)$, and the later equality means $l^2 =-dr^1_{x,x}(1+b)$ by substituting $m=r^{x}_{x,y} l$. We get easily a contradiction for either case $b= \pm i$. \section{Pivotal structures and sphericity} \input{pivotalprelim} \section{Proof of Theorem~ part : spherical structure calculations} \input{pivotal} \appendix \section{Associativity matrices} In this section, we give explicit associativity matrices for the categorical realization given in Section~. $a^{y}_{y,y,y}=$ $a^{x}_{x,y,y}=$ $a^{x}_{y,y,x}=$ $a^{1}_{x,y,x}=$ $a^{1}_{x,x,y}=$ $a^{y}_{x,x,y}=$ $a^{1}_{y,x,x}=$ $a^{y}_{y,x,x}=1$, $a^{y}_{x,y,x}=$ $a^{x}_{y,x,y}= -1$, $a^{x}_{x,y,x}= \left[\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\0&-1\end{array} \right]$ $a^{x}_{x,x,y}= \left[\begin{array}{cc}0&i\\-i&0\end{array} \right]$ $a^{x}_{y,x,x}= \left[\begin{array}{cc}0&1\\1&0\end{array} \right]$ $a^{1}_{x,x,x}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} e^{7 \pi i /12} \left[\begin{array}{cc}1&i\\1&-i\end{array} \right]$ $a^{y}_{x,x,x}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} e^{7 \pi i /12} \left[\begin{array}{cc}i&1\\-i&1\end{array} \right]$ $a^{x}_{x,x,x}=$ $\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} \frac{-1+\sqrt{3}}{2}&\frac{-1+\sqrt{3}}{2}& \frac{1- \sqrt{3}}{4} e^{\pi i /6}&\frac{1- \sqrt{3}}{4} e^{2\pi i /3} &\frac{1- \sqrt{3}}{4} e^{2\pi i /3}&\frac{1- \sqrt{3}}{4} e^{\pi i /6} \\ \frac{-1+\sqrt{3}}{2}&\frac{1-\sqrt{3}}{2}& \frac{1- \sqrt{3}}{4} e^{\pi i /6}&\frac{1- \sqrt{3}}{4} e^{2\pi i /3}&-\frac{1- \sqrt{3}}{4} e^{2\pi i /3}&-\frac{1- \sqrt{3}}{4} e^{\pi i /6} \\1&1&-\frac{1}{2} (e^{\pi i /6} -1)&\frac{1}{2} e^{5\pi i /6}&\frac{1}{2} (e^{-\pi i /3} + i)&\frac{1}{2} e^{\pi i /3} \\1&1&\frac{1}{2} e^{\pi i /3}&\frac{1}{2} (e^{-\pi i /3} + i)&\frac{1}{2} e^{5\pi i /6}&-\frac{1}{2} (e^{\pi i /6} -1) \\1&-1&-\frac{1}{2} (e^{\pi i /6} -1)&\frac{1}{2} e^{5\pi i /6}&-\frac{1}{2} (e^{-\pi i /3} + i)&-\frac{1}{2} e^{\pi i /3} \\-1&1&-\frac{1}{2} e^{\pi i /3}&-\frac{1}{2} (e^{-\pi i /3} + i)&\frac{1}{2} e^{5\pi i /6}&-\frac{1}{2} (e^{\pi i /6} -1) \end{smallmatrix} \right]$ \bibliographystyle{chicago} \bibliography{references} We classify all fusion categories for a given set of fusion rules with three simple object types. If a conjecture of Ostrik is true, our classification completes the classification of fusion categories with three simple object types. To facilitate the discussion we describe a convenient, concrete and useful variation of graphical calculus for fusion categories, discuss pivotality and sphericity in this framework, and give a short and elementary re-proof of the fact that the quadruple dual functor is naturally isomorphic to the identity. Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. A {\em fusion category} $\cat{C}$ over $k$ is a $k$-linear semi-simple rigid monoidal category with finitely many (isomorphism classes of) simple objects, finite dimensional morphism spaces, and $End(\trivobject) \cong k$. See or for definitions, and for many of the known results about fusion categories. The {\em rank} $r$ of $\cat{C}$ is the number of isomorphism classes of simple objects in $\cat{C}$. Let $\{x_i\}_{1 \le i \le r}$ be a set of simple object representatives. The {\em fusion rules} for $\cat{C}$ are a set of $r \times r$ $\fld{N}$-valued matrices $N=\{N_i\}_{1 \le i \le r}$, with $(N_i)_{j,k}$ denoted $N_{i j}^k$ or, when convenient, $N_{x_i x_j}^{x_k}$, such that $x_i \otimes x_j \cong \bigoplus_{1 \le k \le r} N_{i j}^k x_k$. In the sequel, assume $k=\fld{C}$. Fusion categories appear in representation theory, operator algebras, conformal field theory, and in constructions of invariants of links, braids, and higher dimensional manifolds. There is currently no general classification of them. Classifications of fusion categories for various families of fusion rules have been given in work by Kerler (), Tambara and Yamagami (), Kazhdan and Wenzl (), and Wenzl and Tuba (). For a given set of fusion rules, there are only finitely many monoidal natural equivalence classes of fusion categories. This property is called Ocneanu rigidity (see ). It is not known whether or not the number of fusion categories of a given rank is finite. If one assumes a modular structure, the possibilities up to rank four have been classified by Belinschi, Rowell, Stong and Wang in . Ostrik has classified fusion categories up to rank two in , and constructed a finite list of realizable fusion rules for braided categories up to rank three in , in which the number of categories for each set of fusion rules is known. The rank two classification relies in an essential way on the theory of modular tensor categories; Ostrik shows that the quantum double of a rank two category must be modular, and uses the theory of modular tensor categories to eliminate most of the possibilities. The classification of modular tensor categories is of independent interest; in many contexts one must assume modularity. We consider the only set of rank three fusion rules which is known to be realizable as a fusion category but which has no braided realizations. Ostrik conjectured in that a classification for this rule set completes the classification of rank three fusion categories. The axioms for fusion categories over $\fld{C}$ reduce to a system of polynomial equations over $\fld{C}$. In this context, Ocneanu rigidity, roughly translated, says that normalization of some of the variables in the equations gives a finite solution set. In this case, one can compute a Gr\"{o}bner basis for the system and obtain the solutions (see ). However, normalization becomes complicated when there are $i,j,k$ such that $N_{i j}^k > 1$. The fusion rules we consider are the smallest realizable set with this property. \begin{thrm}[Main Theorem] Consider the set of fusion rules with three simple object types, $x$, $y$ and $\trivobject$. Let $\trivobject$ be the trivial object, and let $x \otimes x \cong x \oplus x \oplus y \oplus \trivobject$, $x \otimes y \cong y \otimes x \cong x$ and $y \otimes y \cong \trivobject$. Then the following hold: \begin{enumerate} \item Up to monoidal natural equivalence, there are four semisimple tensor categories with the above fusion rules. A set of associativity matrices for one of these categories is given in Appendix~. Applying a nontrivial Galois automorphism to all of the coefficients gives a set of matrices for any one of the other three categories. \item The categories in part are fusion categories. \item The categories in part do not admit braidings. \item The categories in part are spherical. \end{enumerate} \end{thrm} The structure of the remainder of the paper is as follows: Section~ describes the notation and categorical preliminaries used in later parts of the paper. It constructs a canonical representative for each monoidal natural equivalence class of fusion categories. This construction is really just two well known constructions, skeletization and strictification, applied in sequence. These constructions, taken together, form a bridge between the category theoretic language in the statements of the theorems and the algebra appearing in the proofs. For some of the calculations in this paper the translation between the category theory and the algebra is already widely known, but there are some subtleties when discussing pivotal structure that justify the treatment. Section~ concludes by describing the algebraic equations corresponding to the axioms for a fusion category, using the language of strictified skeletons. Section~ proves part of Theorem~. The proof amounts to solving the variety of polynomial equations defined in the previous section, performing normalizations along the way in order to simplify calculations. The section ends by arguing that the nature of the normalizations guarantees that the solutions obtained really are monoidally inequivalent. Section~ proves part of Theorem~ by explicitly computing rigidity structures. Part of Theorem~ follows from Ostrik's classification of rank three braided fusion categories in . Section~ gives a direct proof by showing that there are no solutions to the hexagon equations. Section~ defines pivotal and spherical structures and discusses their properties. The focus is on the question of whether every fusion category is pivotal and spherical. A novel and elementary proof that the quadruple dual functor is naturally isomorphic to the identity functor is given. This proof makes use of the strictified skeleton construction developed in Section~. The section concludes by describing what a pivotal category which does not admit a spherical structure would look like. In particular, it must have at least five simple objects. Section~ proves part of Theorem~ by computing explicit pivotal structures for the four categories given in Section~, and invoking a lemma from Section~ for sphericity. In this section we explicitly compute pivotal structures for the categories found in Section~. Since these categories have self dual simple objects, Lemma~ implies that they are spherical. It is not hard to determine whether or not a fusion category is pivotal once a set of associativity matrices is known. One way is to perform the calculations directly using the associativity matrices, but there is an easier calculation. In order to explain this calculation, it is convenient to extend the definition of composition of morphisms over extra-categorical direct sums of morphism spaces. Suppose $f \in Mor(a,b)$ and $g \in Mor(c,d)$. Define $f \circ g$ as usual if $b=c$, and $f \circ g = 0 \in Mor(a,d)$ otherwise. Extend this definition over direct sums of morphism spaces, distributing composition over direct sum. Given a strictified skeletal fusion category $C$ and a set of associativity matrices, choose bases for the $(2,0)$ and $(2,1)$-stranded morphism spaces compatible with the associativity matrices and choose rigidity so that for each strand $x$, the basis element for $V_{x^* x}^1$ is $d_x$. Define morphisms $b=\oplus_{x} b_x$, $d=\oplus_x d_x$, and $I=\oplus_x Id_x$, taking sums over the strands. Then $B$ acts on $\bigoplus_{x,y,z} V_{x y}^z$ as follows: \[B(f)=(I \otimes I \otimes b) \circ (I \otimes f \otimes I) \circ (d \otimes I)\] For a single $(2,1)$-stranded morphism space, this action amounts to ``bending arms''. The cube of $B$ is the double dual. The action of $B$ on a morphism $f \in V_{x y}^z$ is given by the associativity matrix $a_{z^*,x,y}^\trivobject$, since $(Id_{z^*} \otimes f) \circ d_{z} = (g \otimes id_{y}) \circ d_{y}$ for some $g \in V_{z^* x}^{y^*}$ implies that $B(f)=(Id_{z^*} \otimes Id_x \otimes b_y) \circ (Id_{z^*} \otimes f \otimes Id_{y^*}) \circ (d_{z} \otimes Id_{y^*}) = (Id_{z^*} \otimes Id_x \otimes b_{y}) \otimes (g \otimes Id_{y} \otimes Id_{y^*}) \circ (d_{y} \otimes Id_{y^*}) = g$ by rigidity. For the fusion rules at hand, the matrix for $B$ is as follows: $$ \begin{array}{l|ccccc} & v_1 & v_2 & v_{x x}^y & v_{y x}^x & v_{x y}^x \\ \hline v_1 & (a_{x x x}^\trivobject)_{1,1} & (a_{x x x}^\trivobject)_{1,2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ v_2 & (a_{x x x}^\trivobject)_{2,1} & (a_{x x x}^\trivobject)_{2,2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ v_{x x}^y & 0 & 0 & 0 & a_{y x x}^\trivobject & 0 \\ v_{y x}^x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & a_{x y x}^\trivobject \\ v_{x y}^x & 0 & 0 & a_{x x y}^\trivobject & 0 & 0 \end{array} $$ For all of the solutions given in Section~, $B^3$ is the identity matrix, so the corresponding strictified categories have a strict pivotal structure. Non-strict pivotality would mean that $B^3$ is a diagonal matrix with eigenvalues determined by a family of invertible scalars $t$, coherent as described in Section~. Let $\cat{C}$ be a rigid monoidal category. A {\em pivotal structure} for $\cat{C}$ is a monoidal natural isomorphism $\pi$ from $**$ to $Id$. A {\em strict pivotal structure} is a pivotal structure which is the identity. In a pivotal monoidal category, the {\em right trace} $tr_r$ of an endomorphism $f:x \to x$ is given by $tr_r(f)=b_x \circ (f \otimes Id_{x^*}) \circ (\pi_x^{-1} \otimes Id_{x^*}) \circ d_{x^*} \in End(\trivobject) \cong \fld{C}$. The {\em left trace} $tr_l$ is given by $tr_l(f)=b_{x^*} \circ (f^* \otimes Id_{x^{**}}) \circ ((\pi_x)^* \otimes Id_{x^{**}}) \circ d_{x^{**}}$. A pivotal monoidal category is {\em spherical} if $tr_r=tr_l$. Pivotal structures may not be unique. For example, in a fusion category with object types given by a finite group $G$, group multiplication as tensor product and trivial associativity matrices, any group homomorphism $G \to \fld{C}$ induces a pivotal structure. Furthermore, pivotal structures depend on choices of rigidity. However, if one chooses a new rigidity structure with $b'_x = c b_x$ and $d'_x = c^{-1} d_x$, then $\pi'_x = c^{-1} \pi_x$ gives a new pivotal structure $\pi'$ inducing the same traces as $\pi$. For a strictified skeletal fusion category, we shall assume the rigidity structures described in Section~. Then $**$ is an object fixing monoidal endofunctor. The isomorphisms $J_{a,b}:a^{**} \otimes b^{**} \to (a \otimes b)^{**}$ associated with $**$ considered as a monoidal functor may be taken to be the identity on $a \otimes b$. If such a category has a pivotal structure $\pi$, it must take the following form: for each strand $(x)$, there is a scalar $t_x$ such that $\pi_x = t_x Id_x$, and $\pi_{(x_1,\ldots,x_n)} = t_{x_1} \ldots t_{x_n} Id_{(x_1, \ldots x_n)}$. Then for all sequences $(x_1, \ldots, x_m)$ and $(y_1, \ldots, y_n)$, and all $f:(x_1, \ldots, x_m) \to (y_1, \ldots, y_n)$, $f^{**}=t_{x_1} \ldots t_{x_m} t_{y_1}^{-1} \ldots t_{y_n}^{-1} f$. This implies that, in particular, $t_\trivobject=1$. Writing out the diagrams for $b_x^{**}$ and $d_x^{**}$ and applying rigidity gives that $b_x^{**}=b_x$ and $d_x^{**}=d_x$. Thus one must have $t_x t_{x^*} = 1$, and for self-dual strands, $t_x = \pm 1$; in this case $t_x$ is called the {\em Frobenius-Schur indicator} for $x$. Furthermore, in a strictified skeleton the left and right trace on a strand may be rewritten as follows: \[tr_r(f)=t_x^{-1} b_x \circ (f \otimes Id_{x^*}) \circ d_{x^*},\] \[tr_l(f)=t_x b_{x^*} \circ (Id_{x^*} \otimes f) \circ d_x.\] \begin{lmm} Every pivotal fusion category with self-dual simple objects is spherical. \end{lmm} \begin{proof} The result holds since if $x$ is a self dual strand then $b_x=b_{x^*}$, $d_x=d_{x^*}$ and $t_x=t_x^{-1}$. Thus for each $f:x \to x$ we have $tr_r(f)=tr_l(f)$. \end{proof} Kitaev has shown in that every unitary category admits a spherical structure. A more general property called {\em pseudo-unitarity} is shown in to guarantee a spherical structure. However, it is not known if every fusion category admits a pivotal or spherical structure. For arbitrary fusion categories, one has that $**** \cong Id$. This was shown in , using an analog of Radford's formula for $S^4$ for representation categories of weak Hopf algebras, which was developed in . The following theorem shows that, in a strictified skeletal fusion category, a convenient choice of rigidity makes $****$ the identity on the nose. Extending the result to general fusion categories via natural equivalences gives an elementary proof that $**** \cong Id$. \begin{thrm} In a strictified skeletal fusion category, there is a choice of rigidity structures such that $****=Id$. \end{thrm} \begin{proof} The functor $****$ is the identity on $(2)$-stranded morphisms by rigidity; it suffices to prove the result for $(2,1)$ stranded morphisms. Let $V=V_{x y}^z$ be a $(2,1)$ stranded morphism space with a basis $\{v_i\}$, and let $\{w_i\}$ be an algebraically dual basis for the space $W=V_z^{x y}$, in the sense that $w_i \circ v_j=\delta_{ij} Id_z$. For any simple object $z$, define the {\em right pseudo-trace} $ptr_r$ of an endomorphism $f:z \to z$ by $ptr_r(f)=b_{z} \circ (f \otimes Id_{z^*}) \circ d_{z^*}$, and the {\em left pseudo-trace} $ptr_l$ by $ptr_l(f) = b_{z^*} \circ (Id_{z^*} \otimes f) \circ d_{z}$. This definition is possible because $**$ is the identity on objects. Scale rigidity morphisms if necessary so that for any strand $z$, $ptr_r(Id_z)=ptr_l(Id_z)$. Because $d_z$ and $b_{z^*}$ are nonzero elements of one dimensional algebraically dual morphism spaces, $ptr_r(Id_z) \ne 0$. One may now exchange left pseudo-traces for right pseudo-traces, just like with traces in a graphical calculus for a spherical category. Figure~ gives the proof. On the left side, bending arms and pseudo-sphericity implies that the algebraic dual basis of the basis $\{w_i^{**}\}$ is $\{\leftexp{**}{v_i}\}$. However, on the right side the functoriality of the double dual implies that the algebraic dual basis of $\{w_i^{**}\}$ is $\{v_i^{**}\}$. Since the left and right double dual are inverse functors, $****$ is the identity. \end{proof} \standardfigsized{fig_quadrupledual}{In a strictified skeletal fusion category, with the right choice of rigidity structures the quadruple dual is the identity.}{scale=.7} Even if a category admits a pivotal structure it is not known whether it admits a spherical pivotal structure. Pictorial considerations do not readily provide an answer. It is possible, however, to partially describe what a pivotal strictified skeleton which did not admit a spherical structure would look like. Let $\cat{C}$ be a pivotal strictified skeletal fusion category which does not admit a spherical structure. Choose rigidity morphisms which give a pseudo-spherical structure as above, and a matching pivotal structure. Then for any object $x$, one has the following: \[\frac{tr_l(Id_x)}{tr_r(Id_x)}= \frac{t_x ptr_l(x)}{t_x^{-1} ptr_r(x)}=t_x^2.\] Therefore, $\cat{C}$ is spherical iff there exists a pivotal structure such that all of the $t_x$ are $\pm 1$. Thus there must be some strand $x$ such that $t_x \neq \pm 1$. For strands $u$ and $v$, $u \otimes v$ has a nontrivial morphism to some object $w$, and $t_u t_v (t_w)^{-1}=\pm 1$, since $****=Id$. Thus the set of scalars $t$ and their additive inverses forms a finite subgroup $G$ of $\fld{C}$. Note that we can apply any group homomorphism that preserves $\pm 1$ to the set of scalars $t$ and get a new set of scalars $t'$ which also gives a pivotal structure. At least one product $t_u t_v (t_w)^{-1}$ must be equal to $-1$, or else we could apply the trivial homomorphism to the set of scalars $t$ to get a new pivotal structure with $t'_u=1$ for all strands $u$, which would make $\cat{C}$ spherical. Every finite subgroup of $\fld{C}$ is a cyclic group of roots of unity. We have $|G|=2k$ for some $k$, and since $\cat{C}$ is not spherical, $|G| \ge 4$. Using a homomorphism which preserves $-1$ we may switch to a new pivotal structure which gives $|G|=2^k$ for some $k$, where $k \ge 2$ to contradict sphericity. Pick an object $v$ with $t_v^2=-1$. Then $v$ is not self dual, and for a simple summand $w$ in $v \otimes v$, one has $w \ne \trivobject$ and $t_w^2=1$. Therefore, $\cat{C}$ has at least four objects, $v$, $v^*$, $w$ and $\trivobject$. The set of objects $u$ such that $t_u^2=1$ generates a spherical subcategory $\cat{C}'$ with at least two simple objects, and missing at least two. \begin{lmm} Any fusion category which is pivotal but admits no spherical structure contains at least five simple object types. \end{lmm} \begin{proof} Assume that $\cat{C}$ has four simple object types, $\trivobject$, $w$, $v$ and $v'$ as above. Then $\cat{C}'$ has two simple object types, and by the classification of fusion categories with two simple object types in , its fusion rules are given by $w \otimes w \cong n w \oplus \trivobject$, where $n \in \{0,1\}$. The pivotal structure places limitations on the fusion rules, for example $v \otimes w \cong a v \oplus b v'$ for some $a$ and $b$ in $\fld{N}$. An easy calculation shows that $\cat{C}$ admits only one associative fusion ring, in which objects and tensor products are given by the group $\fld{Z}_4$. Any such category is pseudo-unitary and therefore spherical, as described in , which contradicts the assumption. Therefore, a pivotal fusion category which can't be made spherical must have at least five simple object types. \end{proof} This paper uses the ``composition of morphisms'' convention for functions as well as morphisms, and left to right matrix multiplication. For calculations of the fusion rules, our treatment is similar to , but the notation differs superficially for typographic reasons. The notation captures algebraic data sufficient to classify a fusion category up to monoidal natural equivalence, and is reviewed later in this section. We assume that the reader is familiar with the notions of a monoidal category, a monoidal functor and a monoidal equivalence; for precise definitions, see . Recall that a monoidal category is equipped with an associative bifunctor $\otimes$ and a distinguished object $\trivobject$. Reassociation of tensor factors in a monoidal category is described by a natural isomorphism of trifunctors $\alpha:(- \otimes -) \otimes - \to - \otimes (- \otimes -)$. Tensor products with $\trivobject$ have natural isomorphisms $\rho: - \otimes \trivobject \to -$ and $\lambda: \trivobject \otimes - \to -$. These isomorphisms are subject to a coherency condition, namely that for any pair of multifunctors there is at most one natural isomorphism between them which may be constructed from $\lambda$, $\rho$, $\alpha$ and their inverses, along with $Id$ and $\otimes$. This coherency condition is well known to be equivalent to the statement that the category satisfies the {\em pentagon} and {\em triangle} axioms (see for a proof). The triangle equations are the equations $\rho_x \otimes y = \alpha_{x,1,y} \circ (x \otimes \lambda_y)$ for all ordered pairs $(x, y)$ of objects. Here, and in the sequel when the context is unambiguous, the name of an object is used as a shorthand for the identity morphism on that object. The pentagon equations, defined for all tuples of objects $(w, x, y, z)$, are as follows (see also Figure~): $$ (\alpha_{x,y,z} \otimes w)\circ \alpha_{x,y \otimes z,w} \circ( x \otimes \alpha_{y,z,w}) = \alpha_{x \otimes y,z,w}\circ \alpha_{x,y,z \otimes w}, $$ When studying fusion categories up to monoidal equivalence, one may choose categories within an equivalence class which have desirable attributes. Since the categorical properties considered in this paper (fusion rule structure, monoidality, pivotality, sphericity, presence of braidings) are all well known to be preserved under monoidal equivalence, the desirable attributes may be assumed without loss. In particular, one may construct, given an arbitrary fusion category, a canonical representative for that category's equivalence class in which one may replace instances of the words ``is isomorphic to'' with ``equals''. \subsection{Skeletization} The {\em skeleton} $\cat{C}^\cat{SKEL}$ of an arbitrary category $\cat{C}$ is any full subcategory of $\cat{C}$ containing exactly one object from each isomorphism class in $\cat{C}$. If $\cat{C}$ is semi-simple, every object in $\cat{C}$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of simple objects in $\cat{C}^\cat{SKEL}$. One may then assume without loss that the objects of $\cat{C}^\cat{SKEL}$ consist of simple object representatives and direct sums of such. It is a well known fact that $\cat{C}^\cat{SKEL}$ may be given a monoidal structure such that $\cat{C}^\cat{SKEL}$ and $\cat{C}$ are monoidally equivalent. The proof is a straightforward but tedious extension of Maclane's proof of the natural equivalence an ordinary category and its skeleton (see section~IV.4 in ). In that proof, one defines a family of isomorphisms $i_x$ from objects $x$ to their isomorphic representatives in $\cat{C}^\cat{SKEL}$ and uses it to construct a pair of functors $F$ and $G$ which give a natural equivalence. For the extension, the $i_x$ are used to define the tensor product functor on $\cat{C}^\cat{SKEL}$, as well as $\alpha$, $\lambda$, $\rho$ and the monoidal structures for $F$ and $G$. One then writes out all of the relevant commutative diagrams and removes any compositions $i_x \circ i_x^{-1}$. The result in each case is a commutative diagram in $\cat{C}$. \subsection{Strictification} Given a monoidal category $\cat{C}$, one may construct a strict monoidal category $\cat{C}^\cat{STR}$ equivalent to $\cat{C}$. In a strict monoidal category, $\alpha$, $\lambda$ and $\rho$ are the identity. It is common practice to assume that a monoidal category is strict without explicit reference to the construction. However, by using the construction explicitly we will be able to pick a canonical representative for an equivalence class of monoidal categories and provide a natural interpretation of the graphical calculus. Strictification of a monoidal category is analogous to the construction of a tensor algebra; it gives an equivalent strict category $\cat{C}^\cat{STR}$ by replacing the tensor product with a strictly associative formal tensor product. The objects of $\cat{C}^\cat{STR}$ are finite sequences of objects in $\cat{C}$. Morphism spaces of the form \[Mor((a_1,a_2, \ldots, a_{m-1},a_m), (b_1,b_2, \ldots, b_{n-1},b_n))\] are given by \[Mor(a_1 \otimes (a_2 \otimes \ldots (a_{m-1} \otimes a_m) \dots ),b_1 \otimes (b_2 \otimes \ldots (b_{n-1} \otimes b_n) \dots ))\] in $\cat{C}$. The tensor product on objects is just concatenation of sequences, for morphisms it is the tensor product in $\cat{C}$ pre and post-composed with appropriate associativity morphisms. Monoidal equivalence of $\cat{C}$ with $\cat{C}^\cat{STR}$ is proven in section~XI.3 of . It is not usually possible to make a fusion category strict and skeletal at the same time. However, the category $(\cat{C}^\cat{SKEL})^\cat{STR}$, while not a skeleton, is still unique up to strict natural equivalence. Also, it is a categorical realization of a graphical calculus, as will shortly become clear. The next subsection describes what strictified skeleta of fusion categories look like, up to strict equivalence. \subsection{Strictified skeletal fusion categories} A {\em strictified skeletal fusion category} $\cat{C}$ is as follows: Let $N$ be a set of fusion rules for a set of objects $S$. Then the objects in $\cat{C}$ are multisets of finite sequences of elements of $S$. $\cat{C}$ has a tensor product $\otimes$, which is defined on objects by pairwise concatenation of sequences, distributed over elements of multisets. Direct sum of objects is given by multiset disjoint union. A {\em strand} is an object which is a sequence of length one. Strands correspond to simple object types. If $x$, $y$ and $z$ are strands, define $Mor(x \otimes y,z)$ to be a $k$ vector space isomorphic to $k^{N_{x y}^z}$. For brevity, $V_x^y$ will denote $Mor(x,y)$, and tensor products will be omitted when the context is clear. A morphism is {\em $(n,m)$-stranded} if its source and target are sequences of length $n$ and $m$, respectively. A morphism is {\em $(n)$-stranded} if it is $(m,n-m)$-stranded for some $0 \le m \le n$. Semi-simplicity of $\cat{C}$ means that for all objects $w$, $x$, $y$ and $z$ there are vector space isomorphisms $\sum_{v \in S}V_{x y}^v \otimes V_{w v}^z \cong V_{w x y}^z \cong \sum_{v \in S} V_{w x}^v \otimes V_{v y}^z$. The first isomorphism is given by $f \otimes g \to (Id_w \otimes f) \circ g$, the inverse of the second by $h \otimes l \to (h \otimes Id_y) \circ l$. The composition of the two isomorphisms is denoted $\alpha_{w,x,y}^z$. Additionally, each morphism space $V_{x y}^z$ has an algebraically dual space $V_z^{x y}$, in the sense that there are bases $\{v_i\}_i \subset V_{x y}^z$ and $\{w_i\}_i \subset V_z^{x y}$ such that $w_i \circ v_j = \delta_{ij} Id_z$. In a strictified skeleton, the trivial object $\trivobject$ is the zero length sequence. There is a strand which is isomorphic to the trivial object, but not equal. This strand shall be taken to be $\trivobject$ in the sequel. This choice makes the category non-strict, since $\lambda$ and $\rho$ are no longer the identity, but it is convenient for graphical calculus purposes. (Right) rigidity in a strictified skeleton means that there is a set involution $*$ on the strands, and each strand $x$ has morphisms $b_x: \trivobject \to x \otimes x^*$ and $d_x: x^* \otimes x \to \trivobject$ such that $(Id_{x^*} \otimes b_{x}) \circ (d_x \otimes Id_{x^*}) = Id_{x^*}$ and $(b_x \otimes Id_{x}) \circ (Id_{x} \otimes d_x) = Id_{x}$. This implies that $N_{xy}^{z}=N_{z^*x}^{y^*}$. Left rigidity is similar, and in the sequel, the right rigidity morphism for $x^*$ will be defined to be the left rigidity morphism for $x$. Define $*$, $b$, and $d$ on concatenations of strands such that $d_{x \otimes y}=(Id_{y^*} \otimes d_x \otimes Id_{y}) \circ d_y$ and extend to direct sums. Then there is a contravariant {\em (right) dual} functor $*$ which sends $f \in V_x^y$ to $f^* = (Id_{y^*} \otimes b_x) \circ (Id_{y^*} \otimes f \otimes Id_{x^*}) \circ (d_y \otimes Id_{x^*}) \in V_{y^*}^{x^*}$. The definition of a left dual functor is similar, and the two duals are inverse functors by rigidity. Monoidality for a strictified skeletal fusion category implies that the $\alpha$ are identity morphisms. For this to be true, it is necessary and sufficient that the following equation holds for all objects $x, y, z, w$, and $u$. Each instance will be referred to as $P^u_{x, y, z, w}$ in the sequel. $$ \bigoplus_{t} \alpha_{y,z,w}^{t} V^{u}_{x t} \circ \bigoplus_{s}V^{s}_{y z} \alpha_{x,s,w}^{u} \circ \bigoplus_{t} \alpha_{x,y,z}^{t} V^{u}_{tw} : $$ $$ \bigoplus_{s,t}V^{s}_{z w} V^{t}_{y s} V^{u}_{xt} \rightarrow \bigoplus_{s,t}V^{s}_{yz} V^{t}_{sw} V^{u}_{xt} \rightarrow \bigoplus_{s,t}V^{s}_{yz} V^{t}_{xs} V^{u}_{tw} \rightarrow \bigoplus_{s,t}V^{s}_{xy} V^{t}_{sz} V^{u}_{tw} $$ is equal to $$ \bigoplus_{s} V^{s}_{z w} \alpha_{x,y,s}^{u} \circ \tau \circ \bigoplus_{s} V^{s}_{xy} \alpha_{s,z,w}^{u} : $$ $$ \bigoplus_{s,t}V^{s}_{z w} V^{t}_{ys} V^{u}_{xt} \rightarrow \bigoplus_{s,t}V^{s}_{zw} V^{t}_{xy} V^{u}_{ts} \rightarrow \bigoplus_{s,t}V^{s}_{xy} V^{t}_{zw} V^{u}_{st} \rightarrow \bigoplus_{s,t}V^{s}_{xy} V^{t}_{sz} V^{u}_{tw}. $$ Here $\otimes$ for vector spaces and morphisms are omitted, and $\tau$ is the isomorphism interchanging the first and the second factors of vector space tensor products (see Figure~). \subsection{Remarks} \begin{enumerate} \item Every fusion category is monoidally naturally equivalent to a strictified skeleton. Also, two naturally equivalent strictified skeleta have an invertible equivalence functor that takes strands to strands. This implies that equivalences are given by permutations of strands along with changes of basis on the $(2,0)$ and $(2,1)$-stranded morphism spaces. \item The functor $**$ fixes objects. The isomorphisms $J_{x,y}: x^{**} \otimes y^{**} \to (x \otimes y)^{**}$ associated with $**$ in the definition of a monoidal functor (see ) may be taken to be trivial. There is an invertible scalar worth of freedom in the choice of each $b_x$, $d_x$ pair. \item Semi-simplicity allows every morphism to be built up from $(3)$-stranded morphisms. Choosing bases for the $(3)$-stranded morphisms allows morphisms in $\cat{C}$ to be characterized as undirected trivalent graphs with labeled edges and vertices, subject to associativity relations given by the pentagon equations. The labels for the edges are isomorphism types of simple objects; the labels for the vertices are basis vectors for the corresponding morphism spaces. This gives a categorically precise interpretation of an arrowless graphical calculus for $\cat{C}$. \item If $\cat{C}$ is pivotal (see Section~ for the definition), a well known construction allows one to add a second copy of each object and get a strict pivotal category. This construction gives a graphical calculus with arrows on the strands. \item Strictified skeleta give any categorical structure preserved under natural equivalence (and any functorial property preserved under natural isomorphism) a purely algebraic description. \end{enumerate} \newtheorem{thrm}{Theorem} \newtheorem{lmm}[thrm]{Lemma} \newtheorem{crllry}[thrm]{Corollary} \newtheorem{cnjctr}[thrm]{Conjecture} \newtheorem{dfntn}[thrm]{Definition} \newcommand{\ignore}[1]{} \newcommand{\cat}[1]{\mathcal{#1}} \newcommand{\fld}[1]{\mathbb{#1}} \newcommand{\leftexp}[2]{{\vphantom{#2}}^{#1}{#2}} \newcommand{\standardfigsized}[3]{ } \newcommand{\substandardfigsized}[3]{ } \newcommand{\standardfig}[2]{ \standardfigsized{#1}{#2}{} }\newcommand{\substandardfig}[2]{ \substandardfigsized{#1}{#2}{} } \newcommand{\standardgraph}[1]{} \newcommand{\trivobject}{{\mathbf 1}} \newcommand{\nnr}[2]{\langle #1,#2 \rangle} \newcommand{\snnr}[2]{(#1,#2)} \newcommand{\moon}[1]{{\color{blue}#1}} \newcommand{\tobe}[1]{{\color{red}#1}} \newcommand{\tobedel}[1]{{\color{red}\sout{#1}}} \newcommand{\tobeadd}[1]{{\color{green}#1}} \ignore{\newcommand{\fixme}[1]{}}
|
0704.0211
|
Title: Linkedness and ordered cycles in digraphs
Abstract: The minimum semi-degree of a digraph D is the minimum of its minimum
outdegree and its minimum indegree. We show that every sufficiently large
digraph D with minimum semi-degree at least n/2 +k-1 is k-linked. The bound on
the minimum semi-degree is best possible and confirms a conjecture of
Manoussakis from 1990. We also determine the smallest minimum semi-degree which
ensures that a sufficiently large digraph D is k-ordered, i.e. that for every
ordered sequence of k distinct vertices of D there is a directed cycle which
encounters these vertices in this order.
Body: \setlength{\parindent}{1.2em} \def\COMMENT#1{} \def\TASK#1{} \def\noproof{{\unskip\nobreak\hfill\penalty50\hskip2em\hbox{}\nobreak\hfill $\square$\parfillskip=0pt\finalhyphendemerits=0\par}\goodbreak} \def\endproof{\noproof\bigskip} \newdimen\margin \def\textno#1\par{ \margin=\hsize \advance\margin by -4\parindent \setbox1=\hbox{\sl#1} \ifdim\wd1 < \margin $$\box1\eqno#2$$ \else \bigbreak \hbox to \hsize{\indent$\vcenter{\advance\hsize by -3\parindent \sl\noindent#1}\hfil#2$} \bigbreak \fi} \def\proof{\removelastskip\penalty55\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof. }} \def\enddiscard{} \long\def\discard#1\enddiscard{} \newtheorem{firstthm}{Proposition} \newtheorem{thm}[firstthm]{Theorem} \newtheorem{prop}[firstthm]{Proposition} \newtheorem{lemma}[firstthm]{Lemma} \newtheorem{cor}[firstthm]{Corollary} \newtheorem{problem}[firstthm]{Problem} \newtheorem{defin}[firstthm]{Definition} \newtheorem{conj}[firstthm]{Conjecture} \newtheorem{theorem}[firstthm]{Theorem} \newtheorem{claim}{Claim} \def\eps{{\varepsilon}} \def\N{\mathbb{N}} \def\R{\mathbb{R}} \def\P{\mathcal{P}} \def\Ybar{\bar{Y}} \title{Linkedness and ordered cycles in digraphs} \author{Daniela K\"uhn \and Deryk Osthus} \date{} \maketitle \vspace{-.8cm} \begin{abstract} \noindent Given a digraph~$D$, let $\delta(D):=\min\{\delta^+(D), \delta^-(D)\}$ be the minimum degree of~$D$. We show that every sufficiently large digraph~$D$ with $\delta(D)\ge n/2 +\ell-1$ is $\ell$-linked. The bound on the minimum degree is best possible and confirms a conjecture of Manoussakis~. We also determine the smallest minimum degree which ensures that a sufficiently large digraph~$D$ is $k$-ordered, i.e.~that for every sequence $s_1,\dots,s_k$ of distinct vertices of~$D$ there is a directed cycle which encounters $s_1,\dots,s_k$ in this order. \end{abstract} \section{Introduction} The \emph{minimum degree~$\delta(D)$} of a digraph~$D$ is the minimum of its minimum outdegree~$\delta^+(D)$ and its minimum indegree~$\delta^-(D)$. When referring to paths and cycles in digraphs we always mean that these are directed without mentioning this explicitly. A digraph $D$ is $\ell$-linked if $|D|\ge 2\ell$ and if for every sequence $x_1,\dots,x_\ell,y_1,\dots,y_\ell$ of distinct vertices there are disjoint paths $P_1,\dots,P_\ell$ in~$D$ such that $P_i$ joins~$x_i$ to~$y_i$. Since this is a very strong and useful property to have in a digraph, the question of course arises how it can be forced by other properties. In the case of (undirected) graphs, much progress has been made in this direction. In particular, linkedness is closely related to connectivity: Bollob\'as and Thomason~ showed that every $22k$-connected graph is $k$-linked (this was recently improved to~$10k$ by Thomas and Wollan~). However, for digraphs the situation is quite different: Thomassen~ showed that for all $k$ there are strongly $k$-connected digraphs which are not even $2$-linked. Our first result determines the minimum degree forcing a (large) digraph to be $\ell$-linked, which confirms a conjecture of Manoussakis~ for large digraphs. \begin{thm} Let $\ell\ge 2$. Every digraph $D$ of order $n\ge 1600\ell^3$ which satisfies $\delta(D)\ge n/2 +\ell-1$ is $\ell$-linked. \end{thm} It is not hard to see that the bound on minimum degree in Theorem~ is best possible (see Proposition~). It is also easy to see that for $\ell=1$ the correct bound is $\delta(D)\ge \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$. The cases~$\ell=2,3$ of Theorem~ were proved by Heydemann and Sotteau~ and Manoussakis~ respectively. Manoussakis~ also determined the number of edges which force a digraph to be $\ell$-linked. A discussion of these and related results can be found in the monograph by Bang-Jensen and Gutin~. Note that it does not make sense to ask for the minimum outdegree of a digraph~$D$ which ensures that~$D$ is $\ell$-linked (or similarly, to ask for the minimum indegree). Indeed, the digraph obtained from a complete digraph~$A$ of order~$n-1$ by adding a new vertex~$x$ which sends an edge to every vertex in~$A$ has minimum outdegree $n-2$ but is not even 1-linked. A slightly weaker notion is that of a $k$-ordered digraph: a digraph $D$ is \emph{$k$-ordered} if $|D|\ge k$ and if for every sequence $s_1,\dots,s_k$ of distinct vertices of~$D$ there is a cycle which encounters $s_1,\dots,s_k$ in this order. It is not hard to see that every $\ell$-linked digraph is also $\ell$-ordered. \COMMENT{This is true if every $\ell$-linked digraph $D$ has minimum outdegree at least~$2\ell-1$. (Indeed, if the latter is true then for each $s_i$ we can pick an outneighbour $s'_i$ such that $s_1,\dots,s_\ell,s'_1,\dots,s'_\ell$ are distinct. If $D$ is $\ell$-linked then we can find disjoint $s'_i$-$s_{i+1}$ paths which together with the edges $\overrightarrow{s_is'_i}$ form the required cycle.) If some vertex $x$ has outdegree $\le 2\ell-2$ then $D$ is not $\ell$-linked: take $x_1:=x$, let $x_2,\dots,x_\ell$ and $y_2,\dots,y_\ell$ be the $2\ell-2$ vertices in the outneighbourhood of~$x$ and let $y_1$ be any other vertex.} Conversely, every~$2\ell$-ordered digraph~$D$ is also $\ell$-linked: if $x_1,\dots,x_\ell,y_1,\dots,y_\ell$ is a sequence of vertices as in the definition of $\ell$-linkedness then a cycle which encounters $x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2,\dots,x_\ell,y_\ell$ in this order would yield the paths required for the linking. The next result says that as far as the minimum degree is concerned it is no harder to guarantee the~$2\ell$ paths forming such a cycle than to guarantee just the~$\ell$ paths required for the linking. In particular, note that Theorem~ immediately implies Theorem~. \begin{thm} Let $k\ge 2$. Every digraph $D$ of order $n\ge 200k^3$ which satisfies $\delta(D)\ge (n+k)/2-1$ is $k$-ordered. \end{thm} Again, the bound on the minimum degree is best possible (see Proposition~). Moreover, it is easy to see that if $k=1$ then the correct bound is $\delta(D)\ge n/2 -1$. The proof of Theorem~ yields paths between the $k$ `special' vertices whose length is at most~6 and it is also easy to translate the proof into an algorithm which finds these paths in polynomial time (see the remarks after the end of the proof). Somewhat surprisingly, the minimum degree in both theorems is not quite the same as in the undirected case: Kawarabayashi, Kostochka and Yu~ proved that the smallest minimum degree which guarantees a graph on $n$ vertices to be $\ell$-linked is $\lfloor n/2 \rfloor +\ell-1$ for large $n$. (Egawa et al.~ independently determined the smallest minimum degree which guarantees the existence of $\ell$ disjoint cycles containing $\ell$ specified independent edges, which is clearly a very similar property.) Kierstead, Sark\"ozy and Selkow~ proved that the smallest minimum degree which guarantees a graph on $n$ vertices to be $k$-ordered is $\delta(D)\ge \lceil n/2\rceil + \lfloor k/2 \rfloor -1$ for large $n$. So in the undirected case the `$2\ell$-ordered' result does not quite imply the `$\ell$-linked' result. The proofs in~ do not seem to generalize to digraphs. \section{Further work and open problems} In a sequel to this paper, we hope to apply Theorem~ to obtain the following stronger results, which would also generalize the theorem of Ghouila-Houri~ that any digraph $D$ on $n$ vertices with $\delta(D)\ge n/2$ contains a Hamilton cycle: we aim to apply Theorem~ to show that if $k\ge 2$ and~$D$ is a sufficiently large digraph whose minimum degree is as in Theorem~ then~$D$ is even $k$-ordered Hamiltonian, i.e.~for every sequence $s_1,\dots,s_k$ of distinct vertices of~$D$ there is a Hamilton cycle which encounters $s_1,\dots,s_k$ in this order. One can use this to prove that the minimum degree condition in Theorem~ already implies that the digraph~$D$ is Hamiltonian $\ell$-linked, i.e.~the paths linking the pairs of vertices span the entire vertex set of~$D$. Note that this in turn would immediately imply that $D$ is $\ell$-arc ordered Hamiltonian, i.e.~$D$ has a Hamilton cycle which contains any $\ell$ disjoint edges in a given order. Note that in each case the examples in Section~ show that the minimum degree condition would be best possible. \COMMENT{They work for $\ell$-arc orderedness too. Indeed, if $n$ is even we take $\ell-2$ edges $\vec{e}_2,\dots,\vec{e}_{\ell-1}$ inside $A\cap B$, the first edge $\vec{e}_1$ joins a vertex $a_1\in A\setminus B$ to some vertex $x_1\in A\cap B$ and the last edge $\vec{e}_\ell$ will join the remaining vertex $x_\ell\in A\cap B$ to some vertex $b_\ell \in B\setminus A$. Then there is no cycle which contains $\vec{e}_1,\dots,\vec{e}_{\ell}$ in that order. If $n$ is odd we take $\ell-3$ edges $\vec{e}_3,\dots,\vec{e}_{\ell-1}$ inside $X$. Let $x,x',x''$ be the remaining vertices in~$X$. Let $\vec{e}_1:= \overrightarrow{xx_1}$, $\vec{e}_2:= \overrightarrow{y_1x_2}$ and $\vec{e}_\ell:= \overrightarrow{y_2x'}$. Then any cycle which encounters $\vec{e}_1,\dots,\vec{e}_{\ell}$ in that order must meet $x''$ when going from $x_1$ to $y_1$ and when going from $x_2$ to $y_2$, which is impossible.} Undirected versions of these statements were first obtained by Kierstead, Sark\"ozy and Selkow~ and Egawa et al.~ respectively (and a common generalization of these in~). For graphs, the concepts `$\ell$-linked' and `$k$-ordered' were generalized to `$H$-linked' by Jung~: a graph $G$ is \emph{$H$-linked} if $G$ contains a subdivision of $H$ with prescribed branch vertices (so $G$ is $k$-ordered if and only if it is $C_k$-linked). The minimum degree which forces a graph to be $H$-linked for an arbitrary $H$ was determined in~. Clearly, one can ask similar questions also for digraphs. Finally, we believe that the bound on $n$ which we require in Theorem~ (and thus in Theorem~) can be reduced to one which is linear in $k$. \section{Notation and extremal examples} Before we discuss the examples showing that the bounds on the minimum degree in Theorems~ and~ are best possible, we will introduce the basic notation used throughout the paper. A digraph~$D$ is \emph{complete} if every pair of vertices of~$D$ is joined by edges in both directions. The order~$|D|$ of a digraph~$D$ is the number of its vertices. We write~$N^+(x)$ for the outneighbourhood of a vertex~$x$ and $d^+(x):=|N^+(x)|$ for its outdegree. Similarly, we write~$N^-(x)$ for the inneighbourhood of a vertex~$x$ and $d^-(x):=|N^-(x)|$ for its indegree. We set $d(x):=\min\{d^+(x),d^-(x)\}$. Given a set~$A$ of vertices of~$D$, we write $N^+_A(x)$ for the set of all outneighbours of~$x$ in~$A$. $N^-_A(x)$, $d^+_A(x)$ and $d^-_A(x)$ are defined similarly. Given two vertices $x,y$ of a digraph~$D$, an \emph{$x$-$y$ path in~$D$} is a directed path which joins~$x$ to~$y$. Given two disjoint vertex sets~$A$ and~$B$ of~$D$, an~$A$-$B$ edge is an edge $\overrightarrow{ab}$ where $a\in A$ and $b\in B$. The following proposition shows that the bound on the minimum degree in Theorem~ cannot be reduced. \begin{prop} For every $\ell\ge 2$ and every $n\ge 2\ell$ there exists a digraph~$D$ on~$n$ vertices with minimum degree~$\lceil n/2\rceil +\ell-2$ which is not $\ell$-linked. \end{prop} \proof We will distinguish the following cases. \COMMENT{The correct threshold for~$\ell=1$ is~$\lfloor n/2\rfloor$. Indeed, suppose that~$D$ is a digraph of minimum degree at least $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ and that we wish to find an $x$-$y$ path. Clearly we may assume that $\overrightarrow{xy}$ is not an edge and that $N^+(x)\cap N^-(y)=\emptyset$. But this is impossible since then $n=|D|\ge |\{x,y\}|+|N^+(x)|+ |N^-(y)|\ge 2+2\lfloor n/2\rfloor>n$. A digraph of minimum degree $\lfloor n/2\rfloor-1$ can be obtained from disjoint complete graphs of order $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ and $\lceil n/2\rceil$.} \smallskip \noindent \textbf{Case 1.} \emph{$n$ is even.} \medskip \noindent Let~$D$ be the digraph which consists of complete digraphs~$A$ and~$B$ of order~$n/2 +\ell-1$ which have precisely $2\ell-2$ vertices in common. To see that~$D$ is not $\ell$-linked let $x_1,\dots,x_{\ell-1},y_1,\dots,y_{\ell-1}$ denote the vertices in~$A\cap B$. Pick some vertex $x_\ell\in A\setminus B$ and some vertex $y_\ell\in B\setminus A$. Then~$D$ does not contain disjoint paths between~$x_i$ and~$y_i$ for all~$i=1,\dots,\ell$. The minimum degree of~$D$ is attained by the vertices in $(A\setminus B)\cup (B\setminus A)$ and thus is as desired. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Case 2.} \emph{$n$ is odd.} \smallskip \noindent In this case, we define~$D$ as follows. Let~$A$ and~$B$ be disjoint complete digraphs of order $\lceil n/2\rceil-\ell-1$. Add a complete digraph~$X$ of order~$2\ell-3$ and join all vertices in~$X$ to all vertices in~$A\cup B$ with edges in both directions. Add a set $S:=\{x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2\}$ of~4 new vertices such that each vertex in~$S$ is joined to each vertex in~$X$ with edges in both directions. Moreover, we add all the edges between different vertices in~$S$ except for~$\overrightarrow{x_1y_1}$ and~$\overrightarrow{x_2y_2}$. Finally, we connect the vertices in~$S$ to the vertices in~$A\cup B$ as follows. Both~$x_1$ and~$y_1$ receive edges from every vertex in~$B$ and send edges to every vertex in~$A$. Additionally, $x_1$ will receive an edge from every vertex in~$A$ and $y_1$ will send an edge to every vertex in~$B$. Both~$x_2$ and~$y_2$ receive edges from every vertex in~$A$ and send edges to every vertex in~$B$. Additionally, $x_2$ will receive an edge from every vertex in~$B$ and $y_2$ will send an edge to every vertex in~$A$ (see Figure~1). To check that~$D$ has the required minimum degree, consider first any vertex~$a\in A$. As~$a$ sends edges to~3 vertices in~$S$ and receives edges from~$3$ such vertices, we have that $d(a)=|A|-1+|X|+3=\lceil n/2\rceil+\ell-2$. It follows similarly that the vertices in~$B$ have the correct degree. Thus consider any vertex~$s\in S$. Then~$s$ sends edges to all vertices in~$A$ or to all vertices in~$B$ (or both) and~$s$ receives edges from all vertices in~$A$ or from all vertices in~$B$ (or both). Thus $d(s)=|A|+|X|+2=\lceil n/2\rceil+\ell-2$. It is easy to check that the vertices in~$X$ have the required degree and thus $\delta(D)=\lceil n/2\rceil+\ell-2$. To see that~$D$ is not $\ell$-linked, let $x,x_3,\dots,x_\ell,y_3,\dots,y_\ell$ denote the vertices in~$X$. Then we cannot link~$x_i$ to~$y_i$ for each~$i=1,\dots,\ell$ since every $x_1$-$y_1$ path must meet~$X\cup\{x_2,y_2\}$ (and thus would contain~$x$) and the analogue is true for every~$x_2$-$y_2$ path. \endproof We conclude this section with the examples showing that the bound on the minimum degree in Theorem~ is best possible. \begin{prop} For every $k\ge 2$ and every $n\ge 2k$ there exists a digraph~$D$ on~$n$ vertices with minimum degree~$\lceil (n+k)/2\rceil-2$ which is not $k$-ordered. \end{prop} \proof We will distinguish the following cases. \COMMENT{To see that for every $n\ge 3$ there exists a digraph~$D$ on~$n$ vertices with minimum degree~$\lceil n/2\rceil-2$ which is not $1$-ordered, look at the digraph~$D$ obtained from two disjoint complete digraphs~$A$ and~$B$ of order $\lceil n/2\rceil-1$ and $\lfloor n/2 \rfloor$ by adding a new vertex~$s$ and all edges from~$A$ to~$s$ as well as all edges from~$s$ to~$B$. Then $\delta(D)=|A|-1=\lceil n/2\rceil-2$. $D$ is not~$1$-ordered since~$s$ does not lie on a cycle.} \smallskip \noindent \textbf{Case 1.} \emph{$k\ge 3$ is odd and~$n$ is even.} \smallskip \noindent In this case, we define~$D$ as follows. Let~$A$ and~$B$ be disjoint complete digraphs of order $n/2-k+1$. Add a complete digraph~$X$ of order~$k-2$ and join all its vertices to all vertices in~$A\cup B$ with edges in both directions. Add new vertices $s_1,\dots,s_k$ such that every~$s_i$ is joined to all vertices in~$X$ with edges in both directions. Moreover, we add all the edges $\overrightarrow{s_is_j}$ for~$j\neq i,i+1$ where $s_{k+1}:=s_1$. We also \COMMENT{Adding $\overrightarrow{s_1s_2}$ is not necessary but the picture is easier to draw that way.} add the edge $\overrightarrow{s_1s_2}$. Finally, we connect the~$s_i$ to the vertices in~$A\cup B$ as follows. Both~$s_1$ and~$s_2$ receive edges from every vertex in~$B$ and send edges to every vertex in~$B$. Additionally, $s_1$ will send an edge to every vertex in~$A$ and $s_2$ will receive an edge from every vertex in~$A$. Each of $s_3,s_5,\dots,s_k$ receives an edge from every vertex in~$A$ and sends an edge to every vertex in~$A$. Each of $s_4,s_6,\dots,s_{k-1}$ receives an edge from every vertex in~$B$ and sends an edge to every vertex in~$B$ (see Figure~2). Let us now check that the minimum degree of the digraph~$D$ thus obtained is as required. Let~$S:=\{s_1,\dots,s_k\}$. Note that each vertex $v\in A\cup B$ sends edges to precisely $(k+1)/2$ vertices in~$S$ and receives edges from precisely that many vertices. Since $|A|=|B|$, it follows that $d(v)=|A|-1+|X|+(k+1)/2=n/2-2+(k+1)/2=\lceil (n+k)/2\rceil-2$. Now consider any~$s_i\in S$. Then~$s_i$ receives edges from either all vertices in~$A$ or all vertices in~$B$ (or both) and $s_i$ sends edges to either all vertices in~$A$ or all vertices in~$B$ (or both). Hence $d(s_i)\ge |A|+|X|+|S|-2=n/2-1+k-2\ge \lceil (n+k)/2\rceil-2$. It is easy to check that the degree of the vertices in~$X$ is $> \lceil (n+k)/2\rceil-2$. To see that~$D$ is not~$k$-ordered note that every cycle in~$D$ which encounters $s_1,\dots,s_k$ in this order would use at least one vertex from~$X$ between~$s_i$ and~$s_{i+1}$ for every $i\neq 1$ (see Figure~2). But since $|X|=k-2$ this is impossible. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Case 2.} \emph{$k$ is even.} \smallskip \noindent Let~$D$ be the digraph which consists of a complete digraph~$A$ of order~$\lceil n/2\rceil +k/2-1$ and a complete digraph~$B$ of order~$\lfloor n/2\rfloor +k/2$ which has precisely $k-1$ vertices in common with~$A$. It is easy to check that $\delta(D)=|A|-1=\lceil (n+k)/2\rceil -2$. To see that~$D$ is not $k$-ordered, pick vertices $s_1,s_3,\dots,s_{k-1}$ in~$A\setminus B$ and $s_2,s_4,\dots,s_k$ in~$B\setminus A$. Then every cycle in~$D$ which encounters $s_1,\dots,s_k$ in this order would meet~$A\cap B$ when going from~$s_i$ to~$s_{i+1}$, i.e.~it would meet~$A\cap B$ $k$ times, which is impossible. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Case 3.} \emph{$k\ge 3$ is odd and $n$ is odd.} \smallskip \noindent This time we take~$D$ to be the digraph which consists of two complete digraphs~$A$ and~$B$ of order~$(n+k)/2-1$ having~$k-2$ vertices in common. Then $\delta(D)=|A|-1=(n+k)/2 -2$. To see that~$D$ is not $k$-ordered, pick vertices $s_1,s_3,\dots,s_k$ in~$A\setminus B$ and $s_2,s_4,\dots,s_{k-1}$ in~$B\setminus A$. \endproof Note that in the proof of Proposition~ we could have omitted the (easy) case when~$k$ is even as Proposition~ already gives a digraph of the required minimum degree which is not~$k/2$-linked and thus not $k$-ordered. \section{Proof of Theorem~} We first prove Theorem~ for the case \COMMENT{To check the case when~$k=1$ let~$D$ be any digraph of minimum degree at least $\lceil n/2\rceil-1$. Let~$s$ be the vertex which our cycle has to contain. If $N^+(s)\cap N^-(s)\neq \emptyset$ then~$s$ lies on a cycle. So suppose that $N^+(s)\cap N^-(s)= \emptyset$ and let~$A\subseteq N^+(s)$ and $B\subseteq N^-(s)$ be sets of size $\lceil n/2\rceil-1$. Pick any vertex $a\in A$. If~$a$ has an outneighbour~$b\in B$ then~$sab$ is a cycle. If $N^+(a)\cap B=\emptyset$ then~$n$ must be even and~$a$ must send an edge to the unique vertex~$x$ outside $A\cup B\cup\{s\}$. Pick any vertex $b\in B$. As before, we may assume that $N^-(b)\cap A=\emptyset$ and so~$b$ must receive an edge from~$x$. Thus $saxb$ is a cycle.} when~$k=2$. So suppose that~$D$ is a digraph of minimum degree at least $\lceil n/2\rceil$. Let~$s_1$ and~$s_2$ be the vertices which our cycle has to encounter. If $\overrightarrow{s_1s_2}$ is not an edge then $s_1,s_2\notin N^+(s_1)\cup N^-(s_2)$ and so $|N^+(s_1)\cap N^-(s_2)|\ge 2\delta(D)-(n-2)\ge 2$. Similarly, if $\overrightarrow{s_2s_1}$ is not an edge then $|N^-(s_1)\cap N^+(s_2)|\ge 2$. Altogether this shows that there is a cycle of length at most~4 which contains both~$s_1$ and~$s_2$. Thus we may assume that $k \ge 3$ and that~$D$ is a digraph of minimum degree at least $\lceil (n+k)/2\rceil-1$. Let $S:=(s_1,\dots,s_k)$ be the given sequence of vertices of~$D$ which our cycle has to encounter. We will call these vertices \emph{special} and will sometimes also use~$S$ for the set of these vertices. We set $s_{k+1}:=s_1$. Given a set $I\subseteq [k]$ and a family $T:=(t_i)_{i\in I}$ of positive integers, an \emph{$(S,I,T)$-system} is a family $(\P_i)_{i\in I}$ where each~$\P_i$ is a set of~$t_i$ paths joining~$s_i$ to~$s_{i+1}$ and each path in~$\P_i$ has length at most~6 and is internally disjoint from~$S$, from all other paths in~$\P_i$ and from the paths in all the other~$\P_j$. An \emph{$(S,I)$-system} is an \emph{$(S,I,T)$-system} where~$t_i=1$ for all $i\in I$. Thus to prove Theorem~ we have to show that there exists an $(S,[k])$-system. Let $I$ be the set of all those indices $i\in [k]$ for which~$D$ does not contain at least~$6k$ internally disjoint $s_i$-$s_{i+1}$ paths of length at most~6. \begin{claim} It suffices to show that~$D$ contains an $(S,I)$-system. \end{claim} \noindent Indeed, suppose that $(\P_i)_{i\in I}$ is an $(S,I)$-system in~$D$. So each~$\P_i$ contains precisely one path~$P_i$. We will show that for every $i\in [k]\setminus I$ we can find an $s_i$-$s_{i+1}$ path~$P_i$ of length at most~6 which meets $S$ only in~$s_i$ and $s_{i+1}$ such that all the paths $P_1,\dots,P_k$ are internally disjoint. We will choose such a path~$P_i$ for every $i\in [k]\setminus I$ in turn. Suppose that next we want to find~$P_j$. Recall that since $j\in [k]\setminus I$ the digraph~$D$ contains a set~$\P$ of at least~$6k$ internally disjoint $s_j$-$s_{j+1}$ paths of length at most~6. Since at most $5(k-1)+k<6k$ vertices of $D$ lie in~$S$ or in the interior of some of the other paths~$P_i$, one of the paths in~$\P$ must be internally disjoint from~$S$ and all the other paths~$P_i$, and so we can take this path to be~$P_j$. This proves Claim~. \medskip \noindent In order to prove the existence of an $(S,I)$-system, choose an $(S,J,T)$-system $(\P_j)_{j\in J}$ in~$D$ such that $J\subseteq I$ is as large as possible and subject to this $\sum_{j\in J} t_j$ is maximal. Note that $t_j<6k$ for all $j\in J$ since $J\subseteq I$. Assume that $|J|<|I|$. By relabelling the special vertices, we may assume that $k\in I\setminus J$. So we would like to extend $(\P_j)_{j\in J}$ by a suitable $s_k$-$s_1$ path. Let $X'$ be the set of all those vertices which lie in the interior of some path belonging to $(\P_j)_{j\in J}$. Note that \begin{equation*} |S\cup X'|<6k\cdot 5(k-1)+|S|<30k^2=:k_0. \end{equation*} Let $A:=N^+(s_k)\setminus (S\cup X')$ and $B:=N^-(s_1)\setminus (S\cup X')$. Then \begin{equation} |A|,|B|\ge \delta(D)-|S\cup X'|\ge n/2-k_0. \end{equation} Moreover, $A\cap B=\emptyset$ as otherwise we could extend our $(S,J,T)$-system $(\P_j)_{j\in J}$ by adding the path $P_k:=s_kxs_1$ where $x\in A\cap B$, a contradiction to the choice of $(\P_j)_{j\in J}$. In particular, this shows that the set~$X''$ of all vertices outside $A\cup B\cup S\cup X'$ has size at most~$2k_0$ and thus, setting $Y:=S\cup X'\cup X''$, we have that $$|Y|\le 3k_0.$$ Note that~$D$ does not contain an edge $\overrightarrow{ab}$ with $a\in A$ and $b\in B$. Indeed, otherwise we could extend $(\P_j)_{j\in J}$ by adding the path $P_k:=s_kabs_1$. We will often use the following claim. \begin{claim} Let $a\in A$ and let $A'\subseteq A$ be a set of size at least~$k_0$. Then $N^+(a)\cap A'\neq \emptyset$. Similarly, if $b\in B$ and $B'\subseteq B$ is a set of size at least~$k_0$ then $N^-(b)\cap B'\neq \emptyset$. \end{claim} \noindent Suppose that $N^+(a)\cap A'= \emptyset$. Then~() together with the fact that~$D$ does not contain an $A$-$B$ edge implies that $d^+(a)\le n-|B|-k_0\le n/2$, a contradiction. The proof of the second part of the claim is similar. \medskip \noindent We say that a special vertex~$s_i$ has \emph{out-type~$A$} if~$s_i$ sends at least~$k_0$ edges to~$A$. Similarly we define when~$s_i$ has \emph{out-type~$B$}, \emph{in-type~$A$} and \emph{in-type~$B$}. As $|Y|+2k_0\le 5k_0\le \delta(G)$, it follows that each~$s_i$ has out-type~$A$ or out-type~$B$ (or both) and in-type~$A$ or in-type~$B$ (or both). \COMMENT{Here we use that $\delta\ge 5k_0=150k^2$, which is true if $n\ge 300k^2$ The latter is true since $k\ge 3$ and $n\ge 100k^3\ge 300k^2$.} Note that~$s_1$ has in-type~$B$ but not in-type~$A$ whereas~$s_k$ has out-type~$A$ but not out-type~$B$. \begin{claim} Let $j\in J$. If~$s_j$ has out-type~$A$ then~$s_{j+1}$ has in-type~$B$ but not in-type~$A$. Similarly, if~$s_j$ has out-type~$B$ then~$s_{j+1}$ has in-type~$A$ but not in-type~$B$. \end{claim} \noindent Suppose that~$s_j$ has out-type~$A$ and~$s_{j+1}$ has in-type~$A$. Let $a\in N^+_A(s_j)$. Claim~ implies that $a$~sends an edge to one of the at least~$k_0$ vertices in~$N^-_A(s_{j+1})$. Let $a'\in N^-_A(s_{j+1})$ be such a neighbour of~$a$. Then we could extend our $(S,J,T)$-system by adding the path $s_jaa's_{j+1}$, a contradiction. The proof of the second part of Claim~ is similar. \begin{claim} No vertex in~$B$ sends an edge to~$A$. \end{claim} \noindent Suppose that $\overrightarrow{b^*a^*}$ is an edge of~$D$, where $a^*\in A$ and $b^*\in B$. Given vertices $a\in A$ and $b\in B$, put $N_{ab}:=N^+(a)\cap N^-(b)$. Note that $N_{ab}\subseteq Y$ and $a,b\notin N^+(a)\cup N^-(b)$ as~$D$ does not contain an $A$-$B$~edge. Thus \begin{equation} |N_{ab}|\ge 2\delta(D)-(n-2)= \left(2\left\lceil\frac{n+k}{2}\right\rceil-2\right)-(n-2)\ge k. \end{equation} Let us now show that no special vertex~$s_i$ with $i\in J$ has out-type~$B$. So suppose $i\in J$ and $s_i$ has out-type~$B$. Then Claim~ implies that $s_{i+1}$ has in-type~$A$. By Claim~ some of the at least $k_0$ vertices in $N^-_A(s_{i+1})$ receives an edge from~$a^*$. Let $a'$ be such a vertex. Similarly, some of the vertices in $N^+_B(s_i)$ sends an edge to~$b^*$. Let $b'$ be such a vertex. Then we could extend our $(S,J,T)$-system by adding the path $s_ib'b^*a^*a's_{i+1}$, a contradiction. This shows that whenever $s_i$ is a special vertex of out-type~$B$ then $i\notin J$. Let~$Q$ denote the set of such vertices~$s_i$. Note that $s_k\not\in Q$ as~$s_k$ does not have out-type~$B$. Thus each special vertex in~$Q$ forbids one index in~$J$. Altogether this shows that \begin{equation} |J|\le k-1-|Q|. \end{equation} Let~$S_A$ be the set of all those special vertices~$s_i$ with $1\le N^-_A(s_i)<k_0$. Let~$S_B$ be the set of all those special vertices~$s_i$ with $1\le N^+_B(s_i)<k_0$. Let~$A^*$ be the set of all those vertices in~$A$ which do not send an edge to some vertex in~$S_A$. Then \COMMENT{$A^*$ is non-empty since $|A^*| > n/2-k_0-kk_0=n/2-30k^2-30k^3\ge n/2-10k^3-30k^3\ge 0$ as $n\ge 80k^3$ (here we used that $k\ge 3$).} $|A^*|> |A|-kk_0$. Similarly, let~$B^*$ be the set of all those vertices in~$B$ which do not receive an edge from some vertex in~$S_B$. Then $|B^*|> |B|-kk_0$. Consider any pair~$a,b$ with $a\in A^*$ and $b\in B^*$. As each special vertex in~$N_{ab}$ belongs to~$Q$, it follows that \begin{equation} |N_{ab}\setminus S|\ge |N_{ab}|-|Q|\stackrel{()}{\ge } k-|Q| \stackrel{()}{> } |J|. \end{equation} Suppose first that $J\neq \emptyset$. Given $j\in J$, let~$X''_j$ be the union of~$X''$ with the set of all vertices lying in the interior of paths in~$\P_j$. As $N_{ab}\subseteq Y$ there must be an index $j_{ab}\in J$ such that~$N_{ab}$ contains at least two vertices in~$X''_{j_{ab}}$. Note that \COMMENT{$|A^*|,|B^*|> 2k_0k$ holds if $n/2-k_0-kk_0\ge 60k^3$. The latter holds if $n/2-40k^3\ge 60k^3$, ie if $n\ge 200k^3$.} $|A^*|,|B^*|> 2k_0k$. Thus there are $2k_0+1$ disjoint pairs~$a,b$ for which this index~$j_{ab}$ must be the same. Let $a_q,b_q$ ($q=0,\dots, 2k_0$) denote these pairs and let~$j\in J$ denote the common index. Note that $s_j$ has out-type~$A$ since we have seen before that no special vertex~$s_i$ with $i\in J$ has out-type~$B$. Claim~ now implies that~$s_{j+1}$ has in-type~$B$. Pick vertices $a\in N^+_A(s_j)$ and $b\in N^-_B(s_{j+1})$ such that $a\neq a_0$ and $b\neq b_0$. Claim~ implies that there are indices $q_1,\dots,q_{k_0}$ such that~$a$ sends an edge to each $a_{q_r}$. Apply Claim~ again to find an index~$r\le k_0$ such that~$b$ receives an edge from~$b_{q_r}$. Let $x\in N_{a_{q_r} b_{q_r}}$ and $y\in N_{a_0b_0}$ be distinct vertices such that $x,y\in X''_j$. We can now modify our $(S,J,T)$-system to obtain an $(S,J\cup\{k\},T')$-system in~$D$ by replacing~$\P_j$ with the single path $s_ja a_{q_r} x b_{q_r} bs_{j+1}$ and adding the $s_k$-$s_1$ path $s_ka_0 y b_0s_1$ (see Figure~3). If $J=\emptyset$ then we just add the $s_k$-$s_1$ path (which is still guaranteed by~()). In both cases this contradicts the choice of our $(S,J,T)$-system and completes the proof of Claim~. \begin{claim} Let $a\in A$ and let $A'\subseteq A$ be a set of size at least~$k_0$. Then $N^-(a)\cap A'\neq \emptyset$. Similarly, if $b\in B$ and $B'\subseteq B$ is a set of size at least~$k_0$ then $N^+(b)\cap B'\neq \emptyset$. \end{claim} \noindent Using Claim~, this can be shown similarly as Claim~. \medskip \noindent Let $S^+_A$ be the set of all those special vertices which send an edge to~$A$ and let $S^-_A$ be the set of all those special vertices which receive an edge from~$A$. Define~$S^+_B$ and~$S^-_B$ similarly. Note that these sets are not disjoint. The proof of the next claim is similar to that of Claim~. (To prove the second and third part of Claim~ we use Claim~ instead of Claim~.) \begin{claim} If $j\in J$ and $s_j\in S^+_A$ then~$s_{j+1}$ cannot have in-type~$A$. If $j-1\in J$ and $s_j\in S^-_A$ then~$s_{j-1}$ cannot have out-type~$A$. If~$j\in J$ and $s_j\in S^+_B$ then~$s_{j+1}$ cannot have in-type~$B$. Finally, if~$j-1\in J$ and $s_j\in S^-_B$ then~$s_{j-1}$ cannot have out-type~$B$. \end{claim} \noindent Let $q^+_A:=|S^+_A|$ and define $q^-_A$, $q^+_B$ and~$q^-_B$ similarly. Let $\Ybar:=V(D)\setminus Y=A\cup B$ and $X:=X'\cup X''=Y\setminus S$. Consider any pair~$a,b$ with $a\in A$ and $b\in B$. Then \begin{equation} \left\lceil\frac{n+k}{2}\right\rceil-1\le |N^+(a)|\le q^-_A+|N^+_X(a)|+|N^+_{\Ybar}(a)| \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \left\lceil\frac{n+k}{2}\right\rceil-1\le |N^-(b)|\le q^+_B+|N^-_X(b)|+|N^-_{\Ybar}(b)|. \end{equation} Since $N^+_{\Ybar}(a)\cap N^-_{\Ybar}(b)=\emptyset$ (as~$D$ does not contain an $A$-$B$ edge) and $a,b\notin N^+_{\Ybar}(a)\cup N^-_{\Ybar}(b)$ we have $$|N^+_{\Ybar}(a)|+| N^-_{\Ybar}(b)|\le |\Ybar|-2=n-|X|-k-2. $$ Adding~() and~() together now gives $$ 2\left\lceil\frac{n+k}{2}\right\rceil-2\le q^-_A+q^+_B+|N^+_X(a)|+|N^-_X(b)|+n-|X|-k-2. $$ Hence \begin{equation} |N^+_X(a)\cap N^-_X(b)|\ge |N^+_X(a)|+|N^-_X(b)|-|X| \ge 2\left\lceil\frac{n+k}{2}\right\rceil-n+k-q^-_A-q^+_B \ge 2k-q^-_A-q^+_B. \end{equation} Similarly, using Claim~, one can show that \begin{equation} |N^-_X(a)\cap N^+_X(b)| \ge 2k-q^+_A-q^-_B. \end{equation} Consider any $j\in J$. Recall that by Claim~ we have that either~$s_j$ has out-type~$A$ and~$s_{j+1}$ has in-type~$B$ or~$s_j$ has out-type~$B$ and~$s_{j+1}$ has in-type~$A$. Let $J_{AB}$ denote the set of all those indices~$j\in J$ for which the former holds and let~$J_{BA}$ be the set of all those~$j\in J$ for which the latter holds. Our next aim is to estimate~$j_{AB}:=|J_{AB}|$ and~$j_{BA}:=|J_{BA}|$. Note that Claim~ implies that if $s_j\in S^+_B$ then $j\notin J_{AB}$. As $s_k\notin S^+_B$ and $k\notin J$, this shows that $$j_{AB}\le k-1-|S^+_B\setminus\{s_k\}|=k-1-|S^+_B|=k-1-q^+_B. $$ Also, if $s_j\in S^-_A$ then $j-1\notin J_{AB}$ by Claim~. As $s_1\notin S^-_A$, this shows that $$j_{AB}\le k-1-|S^-_A\setminus\{s_1\}|=k-1-|S^-_A|=k-1-q^-_A. $$ Adding these two inequalites gives \begin{equation} j_{AB}\le k-1-\frac{q^-_A+q^+_B}{2}. \end{equation} In order to give an upper bound for~$j_{BA}$, note that if $s_j\in S^+_A$ then $j\notin J_{BA}$ by Claim~. Thus $$j_{BA}\le k-1-|S^+_A\setminus\{s_k\}|\le k-q^+_A. $$ Also, if $s_j\in S^-_B$ then $j-1\notin J_{BA}$ by Claim~. Thus $$j_{BA}\le k-1-|S^-_B\setminus\{s_1\}|\le k-q^-_B. $$ Adding these two inequalites gives \begin{equation} j_{BA}\le k-\frac{q^+_A+q^-_B}{2}. \end{equation} Our next aim is to show that~$D$ contains a $(S,J\cup\{k\})$-system. This will complete the proof of Theorem~ since it contradicts the choice of our $(S,J,T)$-system. Pick distinct vertices $a_0\in A$, $a_j\in N^+_A(s_j)$ for all $j\in J_{AB}$, $a'_j\in N^-_A(s_{j+1})$ for all $j\in J_{BA}$, $b_0\in B$, $b_j\in N^-_B(s_{j+1})$ for all $j\in J_{AB}$ and $b'_j\in N^+_B(s_j)$ for all $j\in J_{BA}$. Choose \COMMENT{This can be done as by~() $|N^+_X(a_0) \cap N^-_X(b_0)|\ge 2k-q^-_A-q^+_B\ge 2$ (the latter holds since $q^-_A\le k-1$ as $s_1\notin S^-_A$ and $q^+_B\le k-1$ as $s_k\notin S^+_B$).} a vertex $x_0\in N^+_X(a_0) \cap N^-_X(b_0)$ and link~$s_k$ to~$s_1$ by the path $Q_k:=s_ka_0x_0b_0s_1$. (This can be done since the right hand side of~() is at least 2.) To find the other paths, we distinguish two cases. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Case~1.} $j_{BA}\le j_{AB}$ \smallskip \noindent For all $j\in J_{BA}$ we pick a vertex $x_j\in N^-_X(a'_j)\cap N^+_X(b'_j)$ such that all these~$x_j$ are pairwise distinct and distinct from~$x_0$. Inequalities~() and~() together imply that this can be done. \COMMENT{By~() we need that $2k-q^+_A-q^-_B\ge j_{BA}+1$. But () implies that $2k-q^+_A-q^-_B\ge 2j_{BA}\ge j_{BA}+1$. ($j_{BA}\neq 0$ as otherwise we don't have to do anything.)} Inequality~() together with the fact that $$2k-q^-_A-q^+_B-1-j_{BA}\stackrel{()}{\ge } 2j_{AB}+1-j_{BA}\ge j_{AB}+1, $$ implies that for all $j\in J_{AB}$ we can now pick a vertex $x_j\in N^+_X(a_j)\cap N^-_X(b_j)$ such that~$x_0$ and all the $x_j$ ($j\in J$) are pairwise distinct. If $j\in J_{AB}$ we link~$s_j$ to~$s_{j+1}$ by the path $Q_j:=s_ja_jx_jb_js_{j+1}$. If $j\in J_{BA}$ we link~$s_j$ to~$s_{j+1}$ by the path $Q_j:=s_jb'_jx_ja'_js_{j+1}$. The paths $Q_j$ ($j\in J$) and~$Q_k$ are internally disjoint and have length~4, so they form an $(S,J\cup\{k\})$-system, as required. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Case~2.} $j_{BA}> j_{AB}$ \smallskip \noindent We proceed similiarly as in Case~1, but this time we choose the vertices $x_j\in N^+_X(a_j)\cap N^-_X(b_j)$ for all $j\in J_{AB}$ first. As $$2k-q^+_A-q^-_B-1-j_{AB}\stackrel{()}{\ge } 2j_{BA}-1-j_{AB}> j_{BA}-1, $$ inequality~() implies that we can then pick the vertices $x_j\in N^-_X(a'_j)\cap N^+_X(b'_j)$ for all $j\in J_{BA}$. The paths $Q_j$ ($j\in J$) and~$Q_k$ are then defined as before. This completes the proof of Theorem~. \medskip Note that throughout the proof, the paths we constructed always had length at most~6 (the only case where they had length exactly~6 was in the proof of Claim~). This means that the proof can easily be translated into polynomial algorithm so that the exponent of the running time does not depend on $k$: We simply start with any $(S,J,T)$-system with $J \subseteq I$. Now we go through the steps of the proof and find a `better' $(S,J',T')$-system with $J' \subseteq I$. Claim~ implies that for fixed~$k$ we only need to do this a bounded number of times. Since the paths we need have length at most~6 and there are only a bounded number of cases to consider in the proof, it is clear that one can find the better system in polynomial time with exponent independent of~$k$. Altogether this means that the problem of finding a cycle encountering a given sequence of~$k$ vertices is fixed parameter tractable for digraphs whose minimum degree satisfies the conditon in Theorem~ (where~$k$ is the fixed parameter). The same applies to the problem of linking~$\ell$ given pairs of vertices. In general, even the problem of deciding whether a digraph is $2$-linked is already NP-complete~. For a survey on fixed parameter tractable digraph problems, see~. \section{Acknowledgement} We are grateful to Andrew Young for reading through the manuscript. \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{digraphsbook} J.~Bang-Jensen and G.~Gutin, \emph{Digraphs: Theory, Algorithms and Applications}, Springer, 2000. \bibitem{BT96} B.~Bollob\'as and A.~Thomason, Highly linked graphs, \emph{Combinatorica} {\bf 16} (1996), 313--320. \bibitem{Chenetalk-arc} G.~Chen, R.J.~Faudree, R.J.~Gould, L.~Lesniak and M.S.~Jacobson, Linear forests and ordered cycles, \emph{Discussiones Mathematicae -- Graph theory} {\bf 24} (2004), 47--54. \bibitem{Egawaetal} Y.~Egawa, R.~Faudree, E.~Gy\"ori, Y.~Ishigami, R.~Schelp and H.~Wang, Vertex-disjoint cycles containing specified edges, \emph{Graphs and Combinatorics} {\bf 16} (2000), 81--92. \bibitem{FGTW} M.~Ferrara, R.~Gould, G.~Tansey and T.~Whalen, On $H$-linked graphs, \emph{Graphs and Combinatorics} {\bf 22} (2006), 217--224. \bibitem{GhouilaHouri} A.~Ghouila-Houri, Une condition suffisante d'existence d'un circuit Hamiltonien, \emph{C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris} {\bf 251} (1960), 495--497. \bibitem{GKYlinked} R.~Gould, A.V.~Kostochka and G.~Yu, On minimum degree implying that a graph is $H$-linked, \emph{SIAM J. on Discrete Math.}, to appear. \bibitem{Gutinsurvey} G.~Gutin and A.~Yeo, Some parameterized problems on digraphs, preprint 2007. \bibitem{HS} M.C.~Heydemann and D.~Sotteau, About some cyclic properties in digraphs, \emph{J.~Combinatorial Theory~B}~\textbf{38} (1985), 261--278. \bibitem{NPlinked} S.~Fortune, J.E.~Hopcroft, J.~Wyllie, The directed subgraph homeomorphism problem, \emph{Theoretical Computer Science}~{\bf 10} (1980), 111--121. \bibitem{Jung} H.A.~Jung, Eine Verallgemeinerung des $k$-fachen Zusammenhangs f\"ur Graphen, \emph{Math.~Annalen} {\bf 187} (1970), 95--103. \bibitem{KKYlinked} K.~Kawarabayashi, A.~Kostochka and G.~Yu, On sufficient degree conditions for a graph to be $k$-linked, \emph{Combinatorics, Probability and Computing}, to appear. \bibitem{KSSkordered} H.~Kierstead, G.~Sark\"ozy and S.~Selkow, On $k$-ordered Hamiltonian graphs, \emph{J.~Graph Theory}~{\bf 32} (1999), 17--25. \bibitem{KYlinked} A.~Kostochka and G.~Yu, An extremal problem for $H$-linked graphs, \emph{J. Graph Theory} {\bf 50} (2005), 321--339. \bibitem{KYlinked2} A.~Kostochka and G.~Yu, Minimum degree conditions for $H$-linked graphs, \emph{Discrete Applied Math.}, to appear. \bibitem{Manoussakis} Y.~Manoussakis, $k$-linked and $k$-cyclic digraphs, \emph{J.~Combinatorial Theory~B}~\textbf{48} (1990), 216--226. \bibitem{ThomasWollan} R.~Thomas and P.~Wollan, An improved extremal function for graph linkages, \emph{European Journal of Combinatorics} {\bf 26} (2005), 309--324. \bibitem{Thomassen} C.~Thomassen, Note on highly connected non-2-linked digraphs, \emph{Combinatorica} {\bf 11} (1991), 393--395. \end{thebibliography} \medskip {\footnotesize \obeylines \parindent=0pt Daniela K\"{u}hn, Deryk Osthus School of Mathematics University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT UK } {\footnotesize \parindent=0pt \it{E-mail addresses}: \tt{\{kuehn,osthus\}@maths.bham.ac.uk}}
|
0704.0212
|
Title: Curvature and isocurvature perturbations in two-field inflation
Abstract: We study cosmological perturbations in two-field inflation, allowing for
non-standard kinetic terms. We calculate analytically the spectra of curvature
and isocurvature modes at Hubble crossing, up to first order in the slow-roll
parameters. We also compute numerically the evolution of the curvature and
isocurvature modes from well within the Hubble radius until the end of
inflation. We show explicitly for a few examples, including the recently
proposed model of `roulette' inflation, how isocurvature perturbations affect
significantly the curvature perturbation between Hubble crossing and the end of
inflation.
Body: \title{\bf Curvature and isocurvature perturbations \\ in two-field inflation } \author{Z.~Lalak$^1$, D.~Langlois$^{2,3}$, S.~Pokorski$^1$, K.~Turzy\'nski$^{1,4}$\\ {\small {}}\\ {\small ${}^1${\it Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University,}}\\ {\small {\it ul.\ Ho\.za 69, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland; }}\\ {\small ${}^2${\it APC (Astroparticules et Cosmologie, CNRS-UMR 7164), Universit\'e Paris 7}}\\ {\small {\it 10, rue Alice Domon et L�onie Duquet, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France;}}\\ {\small ${}^3${\it GReCO, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS,}}\\ {\small {\it 98bis Boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France; }}\\ {\small ${}^4${\it Physics Department, University of Michigan,}}\\ {\small {\it 450 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI-48109, USA }}\\ } \date{\today} \maketitle \begin{abstract} We study cosmological perturbations in two-field inflation, allowing for non-standard kinetic terms. We calculate analytically the spectra of curvature and isocurvature modes at Hubble crossing, up to first order in the slow-roll parameters. We also compute numerically the evolution of the curvature and isocurvature modes from well within the Hubble radius until the end of inflation. We show explicitly for a few examples, including the recently proposed model of `roulette' inflation, how isocurvature perturbations affect significantly the curvature perturbation between Hubble crossing and the end of inflation. \end{abstract} \newpage \section{Introduction} Inflation provides a simple and elegant scenario for the early Universe (see e.g. for a recent textbook presentation). Although single field inflation models are perfectly compatible with the present cosmological data, many early universe models based on high energy physics, in particular derived from supergravity or string theory, usually involve many scalar fields which can have non-standard kinetic terms. This is why multi-field inflationary scenarios, where several scalar fields play a dynamical role during inflation, have received some attention in the literature (see e.g. -). However, except for a few specific models, the predictions for the spectra of primordial perturbations are, in general, a nontrivial task, in contrast with single-field models. The main reason is that the curvature (or adiabatic) perturbation, which is generated during inflation and eventually observed, can evolve on super-Hubble scales in multi-field inflation whereas it remains frozen in single-field inflation. This is due to the presence of additional perturbation modes, often called isocurvature (or entropy) modes, corresponding to relative perturbations between the various scalar fields, which act as a source term in the evolution equation for the curvature perturbation. This property was first pointed out in in the context of Brans-Dicke inflation. This phenomenon occurs during inflation and affects the final curvature perturbation at the end of inflation, independently whether isocurvature modes survive or not after inflation. The purpose of the present work is to study in detail how the isocurvature perturbations, present during inflation, affect the curvature perturbations, {\it both at Hubble crossing and in the subsequent evolution on super-Hubble scales}. Since our intention is to stress some qualitative properties specific to multi-field inflation, we have chosen to restrict our study to the case of two scalar fields. Moreover, we consider models where a non-standard kinetic term is allowed for one of the scalar fields. This includes, in particular, scenarios motivated by supergravity and string theory, which have been recently proposed (see, e.g., -). The production of adiabatic and isocurvature modes for two-field inflation with a generic potential, in the slow-roll approximation, was studied in where a decomposition into adiabatic and isocurvature modes was introduced. Models with non-standard kinetic terms for inflatons have been studied in the slow-roll approximation in and , and the adiabatic-isocurvature decomposition technique of was later extended to such two-field models in and . Very recently, two-field inflation with standard kinetic terms was investigated in at next-to-leading order correction in a slow-roll expansion and it was also shown that the adiabatic and isocurvature modes at Hubble crossing are correlated at first order in slow-roll parameters. In parallel to these analytical studies, a numerical study of the evolution of adiabatic and isocurvature was presented in and . In the present work, we extend the previous analyses in the following directions. First, we present a detailed analysis of the correlation of adiabatic and isocurvature just after Hubble crossing, both analytically and numerically. This correlation was in general supposed to vanish in most previous works, except in the numerical study and the analytical work , both in the context of canonical kinetic terms. Here, we extend the analysis with non-standard kinetic terms. We compute analytically the spectra and correlation at Hubble crossing in the slow-roll approximation, by taking special care of the time-dependence shortly after Hubble crossing. Second, we study numerically the whole evolution of adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations from within the Hubble radius until the end of inflation. This allows us to go beyond the slow-roll approximation which is needed to derive analytical results. Our numerical study enables us to see precisely how isocurvature perturbations can be transferred into adiabatic perturbations during the inflationary phase depending on the background trajectory in field space. We illustrate this behaviour by studying numerically three models. The last one is the so-called 'roulette' inflation model, which has been proposed recently . The plan of the paper is the following. The next section presents the class of models we consider and gives the homogeneous equations of motion as well as the equations governing the perturbations. The third section is devoted to the study of the perturbations from deep inside the Hubble radius until a few e-folds after Hubble crossing. We then discuss, in section 4, analytical methods to determine the evolution of the perturbations on super-Hubble scales. Section 5 is devoted to the numerical study of the evolution of the perturbations, which is compared with the analytical estimates of the previous sections. We finally draw our conclusions in the last section. \section{The model} In this paper, we study models with two scalar fields, in which one of the scalar fields has a non-standard kinetic term, described by an action of the form \beq S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left[ \frac{M_P^2}{2}R - \frac{1}{2} (\partial_\mu\phi)(\partial^\mu\phi) - \frac{e^{2b(\phi)}}{2} (\partial_\mu\chi)(\partial^\mu\chi) - V (\phi, \chi) \right], \eeq where $\mP$ is the reduced Planck mass, $\mP\equiv (8\pi G)^{-1/2}$. This type of action usually appears when $\chi$ corresponds to an axionic component. It is also motivated by generalized Einstein theories . When $b(\phi)=0$ one recovers standard kinetic terms for the two fields. In this section, we give the equations of motion for the homogeneous fields and then for the linear perturbations, following the results (and notation) of and , where the same type of models was considered. \subsection{Homogeneous equations} Let us start with the homogeneous equations of motion. We assume a spatially flat FLRW (Friedmann-Lema\^itre-Robertson-Walker) geometry, with metric \beq ds^2=-dt^2+a(t)^2 d{\bf x}^2, \eeq where $t$ is the cosmic time. One can also define the comoving time $\tau=\int dt/a(t)$. The equations of motion for the scale factor and the homogeneous fields read \beq \ddot \phi + 3 H \dot \phi + V_\phi = b_\phi e^{2 b} \dot \chi^2 \,, \eeq \beq \ddot \chi + (3 H + 2 b_\phi \dot \phi) \dot \chi + e^{- 2 b} \, V_\chi = 0 \,, \eeq \beq H^2 = \frac{1}{3 M_P^2} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \dot \phi^2 + \frac{e^{2 b}}{2} \dot \chi^2 + V \right] \,, \eeq and \beq \dot H = - \frac{1}{2 M_P^2} \left[ \dot \phi^2 + e^{2 b} \dot \chi^2 \right] \, , \eeq where $H\equiv \dot a/a$ and a dot stands for a derivative with respect to the cosmic time $t$ and a subscript index $\phi$ or $\chi$ denotes a derivative with respect to the corresponding field. It is also useful to introduce the following slow-roll parameters \beq \epsilon_{\phi\phi}=\frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{2M_P^2H^2}, \quad \epsilon_{\phi\chi}=e^b\frac{\dot{\phi}\dot{\chi}}{2M_P^2H^2}, \quad \epsilon_{\chi\chi}=e^{2b}\frac{\dot{\chi}^2}{2M_P^2H^2}, \eeq \beq \eta_{IJ}=\frac{V_{IJ}}{3H^2} \eeq and \beq \epsilon=\epsilon_{\phi\phi}+\epsilon_{\chi\chi}=-\frac{\dot H}{H^2}. \eeq \subsection{Linear perturbations} We now discuss the linear perturbations of our model (one can find a detailed presentation of the theory of cosmological perturbations in e.g. and a pedagogical introduction in e.g. ). For simplicity, we shall directly work in the longitudinal gauge. In the absence of anistropic stress (the off-diagonal spatial components of the stress-energy tensor), which is the case when matter consists of scalar fields, the metric in the longitudinal gauge is of the form \beq \mathrm{d}s^2 = -( 1 + 2 \Phi) \mathrm{d}t^2 + a^2 (1 - 2 \Phi) \mathrm{d} {\bf x}^2 \, . \eeq where only scalar perturbations are taken into account. We now decompose the scalar fields into their homogeneous (background) parts and the perturbations: \beq \phi(t,{\bf x}) = \phi(t) +\delta\phi(t,{\bf x}) \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \chi(t,{\bf x}) = \chi(t) +\delta\chi(t,{\bf x}) \, . \eeq We shall work with the Fourier components of the perturbations, $\delta\phi_\mathbf{k}(t)$ and $\delta\chi_\mathbf{k}(t)$, routinely omitting the subscript $\mathbf{k}$ to shorten the expressions. The perturbed Klein-Gordon equations read \begin{eqnarray} \ddot{\delta \phi} &+& 3 H \dot{\delta \phi} + \left[ \frac{k^2}{a^2} + V_{\phi \phi} - (b_{\phi \phi} + 2 b_\phi^2) \dot \chi^2 e^{2 b} \right] \delta \phi + V_{\phi \chi} \delta \chi - 2 b_\phi e^{2 b} \dot \chi \dot{\delta \chi} \nonumber \\ &=& 4 \dot \phi \dot \Phi - 2 V_\phi \Phi \, \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} \ddot{\delta \chi} &+& (3 H + 2 b_\phi \dot \phi) \dot{\delta \chi} + \left[ \frac{k^2}{a^2} + e^{- 2 b} V_{\chi \chi} \right] \delta \chi + 2 b_\phi \dot \chi \, \dot{\delta \phi} + \nonumber \\ &+& \left[ e^{- 2 b} \left( V_{\chi \phi} - 2 b_\phi V_\chi\right) + 2 b_{\phi \phi} \dot \phi \dot \chi \right] \delta \phi = 4 \dot \chi \dot \Phi - 2 e^{- 2 b} V_\chi \Phi \, . \end{eqnarray} The energy and the momentum constraints, given by Einstein equations, are, respectively: \beq 3 H (\dot \Phi + H \Phi) + \dot H \Phi + \frac{k^2}{a^2} \Phi = - \frac{1}{2 M_P^2} \left[ \dot \phi\, \dot{\delta \phi} + e^{2 b} \dot \chi\, \dot \delta \chi + b_\phi e^{2 b} \dot \chi^2 \delta \phi + V_\phi \delta \phi + V_\chi \delta \chi \right] \eeq \beq \dot \Phi + H \Phi = \frac{1}{2 M_P^2} \left( \dot \phi \, \delta \varphi + e^{2 b} \dot \chi \,\delta \chi \right)\,\, . \eeq It is convenient, instead of using the perturbations $\delta\phi$ and $\delta\chi$, defined here in the longitudinal gauge, to introduce the so-called gauge-invariant Mukhanov-Sasaki variables: \beq Q_\phi \equiv \delta\phi + \frac{\dot\phi}{H}\Phi \qquad\textrm{and}\qquad Q_\chi \equiv \delta\chi + \frac{\dot\chi}{H}\Phi \, , \eeq which can be identified with the scalar field perturbations in the flat gauge. Substituting () into ()-() and using the background equations of motion as well as the energy and momentum constraints, one finds \begin{eqnarray} && \ddot{Q}_\phi+3H\dot{Q}_\phi-2e^{2b}b_\phi\,\dot{\chi}\,\dot{Q}_\chi +\left(\frac{k^2}{a^2}+C_{\phi\phi}\right)Q_\phi + C_{\phi\chi}Q_\chi =0\\ && \ddot{Q}_\chi+3H\dot{Q}_\chi+2b_\phi\,\dot{\phi}\,\dot{Q}_\chi+2b_\phi\,\dot{\chi}\,\dot{Q}_\phi +\left(\frac{k^2}{a^2}+C_{\chi\chi}\right)Q_\chi + C_{\chi\phi}Q_\phi =0\, , \end{eqnarray} where we have defined the following background-dependent coefficients: \begin{eqnarray} C_{\phi\phi} &=& -2e^{2b}b_\phi^2\dot{\chi}^2+\frac{3\dot{\phi}^2}{M_P^2}-\frac{e^{2b}\dot{\phi}^2\dot{\chi}^2}{2M_P^4H^2}-\frac{\dot{\phi}^4}{2M_P^4H^2}-e^{2b}b_{\phi\phi}\dot{\chi}^2+\frac{2\dot{\phi}V_{\phi}}{M_P^2H}+V_{\phi\phi} \\ C_{\phi\chi} &=& \frac{3e^{2b}\dot{\phi}\dot{\chi}}{M_P^2}-\frac{e^{4b}\dot{\phi}\dot{\chi}^3}{2M_P^4H^2}-\frac{e^{2b}\dot{\phi}^3\dot{\chi}}{2M_P^4H^2}+\frac{\dot{\phi}V_\chi}{M_P^2H}+\frac{e^{2b}\dot{\chi}V_\phi}{M_P^2H}+V_{\phi\chi} \\ C_{\chi\chi} &=& \frac{3e^{2b}\dot{\chi}^2}{M_P^2}-\frac{e^{4b}\dot{\chi}^4}{2M_P^4H^2}-\frac{e^{2b}\dot{\phi}^2\dot{\chi}^2}{2M_P^4H^2}+\frac{2\dot{\chi}V_\chi}{M_P^2H}+e^{-2b}V_{\chi\chi} \\ C_{\chi\phi} &=& \frac{3\dot{\phi}\dot{\chi}}{M_P^2}-\frac{e^{2b}\dot{\phi}\dot{\chi}^3}{2M_P^4H^2}-\frac{\dot{\phi}^3\dot{\chi}}{2M_P^4H^2}+2b_{\phi\phi}\dot{\phi}\dot{\chi}-2e^{-2b}b_\phi V_\chi + \nonumber \\ && + \frac{e^{-2b}\dot{\phi}V_\chi}{M_P^2H}+\frac{\dot{\chi}V_\phi}{M_P^2H}+e^{-2b}V_{\phi\chi} \end{eqnarray} The two equations () and () form a closed system for the two gauge-invariant quantities $Q_\phi$ and $Q_\chi$. \subsection{Decomposition into adiabatic and entropy components} As originally proposed in , in order to facilitate the interpretation of the evolution of cosmological perturbations, it can be useful to decompose the scalar field perturbations along the two directions respectively parallel and orthogonal to the homogeneous trajectory in field space. The projection parallel to the trajectory is usually called the adiabatic, or curvature, component while the orthogonal projection corresponds to the entropy, or isocurvature, component. Note that there was a semantic shift in the terminology since one used to call adiabatic and entropy modes during inflation the two particular solutions for the perturbations that would match after inflation, respectively, to the adiabatic and isocurvature modes defined in the radiation era. This terminology is used for example in the papers on double inflation such that and . This decomposition into {\it instantaneous} adiabatic and entropy components, introduced in , has recently been extended to fully nonlinear perturbations in the context of the covariant nonlinear formalism introduced in . Here, we consider only the decomposition at the linear level, but since we allow for non-standard kinetic terms, we will need to generalize the equations to such a case, as was done in . Let us recall here the main results. The essential idea is to introduce the linear combinations \beq \delta\sigma \equiv \cos\theta\, \delta\phi + \sin\theta\,e^b\, \delta\chi \qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \ds \equiv -\sin\theta\, \delta\phi + \cos\theta\,e^b\, \delta\chi \, , \eeq where \beq \cos\theta \equiv \frac{\dot\phi}{\dot\sigma}, \qquad \sin\theta \equiv \frac{\dot\chi\,e^b}{\dot\sigma} \qquad\textrm{with}\qquad \dot\sigma \equiv \sqrt{\dot\phi^2+e^{2b}\dot\chi^2} \, . \eeq The notations $\dot\sigma$ and $\delta\sigma$ are just used for convenience; they do not refer to any scalar field $\sigma$. Instead of $\delta\sigma$, it is in fact more convenient to work directly with the Mukhanov-Sasaki variables and therefore to define \beq \qo \equiv \cos\theta\, Q_\phi + \sin\theta\,e^b\, Q_\chi \qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \ds \equiv -\sin\theta\, Q_\phi + \cos\theta\,e^b\, Q_\chi \, , \eeq by noting that \beq \qo \equiv \delta\sigma + \frac{\dot\sigma}{H}\Phi. \eeq In the so-called comoving gauge, the perturbation $\qo$ is directly related to the three-dimensional curvature of the constant time space-like slices. This gives the gauge-invariant quantity refered to as the comoving curvature perturbation: \beq \mathcal{R}\equiv\frac{H}{\odot}Q_\sigma. \eeq The perturbation $\ds$, called the isocurvature perturbation, is automatically gauge-invariant. It is sometimes convenient, by analogy with the curvature perturbation, to introduce a renormalized entropy perturbation which is defined as \beq \mathcal{S}\equiv\frac{H}{\odot}\delta s. \eeq In field space, $\qo$ corresponds to perturbations parallel to the velocity vector $(\dot\phi,e^b\dot\chi)$, while $\ds$ to the orthogonal ones. Introducing the adiabatic and entropy ``vectors'' in field space, respectively \beq E_\sigma^I=\left(\cos\theta, e^{-b}\sin\theta\right), \qquad E_s^I=\left(-\sin\theta, e^{-b}\cos\theta\right), \qquad I=\left\{\phi,\chi\right\}, \eeq one can define various derivatives of the potential with respect to the adiabatic and entropy directions. Assuming an implicit summation on the indices $I$ (and $J$), the first order derivatives are defined as \beq V_\sigma=E_\sigma^IV_I, \qquad V_s=E_s^IV_I, \eeq whereas the second order derivatives are \beq V_{\sigma\sigma}=E_\sigma^I E_\sigma^JV_{IJ}, \quad V_{\sigma s}=E_\sigma^I E_s^JV_{IJ}, \quad V_{ss}=E_s^I E_s^JV_{IJ}. \eeq By combining the two Klein-Gordon equations for the background fields, () and (), one gets the background equations of motion along the adiabatic and entropy directions, respectively, \bea && \ddot \sigma+3H\dot\sigma+V_\sigma=0,\\ && \dot\theta=-\frac{V_s}{\dot\sigma}-b_\phi\dot\sigma \sin\theta, \label {dot_theta} \eea while the equations of motion for the perturbations read: \begin{eqnarray} && \ddot{Q}_\sigma+3H\dot{Q}_\sigma +\left(\frac{k^2}{a^2}+C_{\sigma\sigma}\right)Q_\sigma +\frac{2V_s}{\odot}\dot{\ds} + C_{\sigma s}\,\delta s =0 \\ && \ddot{\ds}+3H\dot{\ds} +\left(\frac{k^2}{a^2}+C_{ss}\right)\ds -\frac{2V_s}{\odot}\dot{Q}_\sigma +C_{s\sigma} Q_\sigma=0 \, , \end{eqnarray} with \begin{eqnarray} C_{\sigma\sigma} &=& V_{\sigma\sigma}-\left(\frac{V_s}{\odot}\right)^2 +2\frac{\odot V_\sigma}{M_P^2 H} +\frac{3\odot^2}{M_P^2}-\frac{\odot^4}{2M_P^4H^2} -b_\phi\left(s_\theta^2c_\theta V_\sigma+(c_\theta^2+1)s_\theta V_s\right) \\ C_{\sigma s} &=& 6H\frac{V_s}{\odot}+\frac{2V_\sigma V_s}{\odot^2}+2V_{\sigma s}+ \frac{\odot V_s}{M_P^2 H} +2b_\phi(s_\theta^3V_\sigma-c_\theta^3V_s) \\ C_{ss} &=& V_{ss} -\left(\frac{V_s}{\odot}\right)^2 +b_\phi(1+s_\theta^2)c_\theta V_\sigma +b_\phi c_\theta^2s_\theta V_s - \dot{\sigma}^2(b_{\phi\phi}+b_\phi^2) \\ C_{s\sigma} &=& -6H\frac{V_s}{\odot}-\frac{2V_\sigma V_s}{\odot^2} +\frac{\odot V_s}{M_P^2 H} \end{eqnarray} where $s_\theta\equiv\sin\theta$ and $c_\theta\equiv\cos\theta$. The above system consists (-) of two coupled second order differential equations involving only $\qo$ and $\ds$. In order to relate these variables to the metric perturbation $\Phi$ defined in the longitudinal gauge, it is useful to use the Poisson-like constraint, which follows from the energy and momentum constraints () and (), \beq \frac{k^2}{a^2}\Phi=-\frac{1}{2M_P^2}\epsilon_m \eeq where $\epsilon_m$ is the comoving energy density and can be expressed as \beq \epsilon_m= \dot\sigma\dot{Q}_\sigma+\left(3H+\frac{\dot H}{H}\right) \dot\sigma Q_\sigma+V_\sigma Q_\sigma+2V_s\delta s. \eeq \subsection{Perturbation spectra} The inflationary observables are customarily expressed in terms of power spectra and correlation functions. Given their origin as quantum fluctuations, the perturbations can be represented as random variables. We introduce the power spectra of the adiabatic and entropy perturbations, respectively \beq \langle {Q_\sigma}^\ast_\mathbf{k}\, {Q_\sigma}_{\mathbf{k}'}\rangle=\frac{2\pi^2}{k^3}\mathcal{P}_{Q_\sigma}(k)\delta(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}'), \quad \langle \ds^\ast_\mathbf{k}\, \ds_{\mathbf{k}'}\rangle= \frac{2\pi^2}{k^3} \mathcal{P}_{\ds}(k)\delta(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}'), \eeq as well as the correlation spectrum \beq \langle {Q_\sigma}^\ast_\mathbf{k}\, \ds_{\mathbf{k}'}\rangle=\frac{2\pi^2}{k^3} \mathcal{C}_{Q_\sigma\, \ds}(k)\delta(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}'). \eeq \section{Evolution of perturbations inside the Hubble radius} In order to study the generation of perturbations from vacuum fluctuations, we start, for a given comoving wave number $k$, at an instant $t_i$ (or $\tau_i$) during inflation when the physical wave number $k/a$ is much bigger than the Hubble parameter $H$. Our initial conditions are given, as usual, by the Minkowski-like vacuum at $\tau_i$, \beq Q_\sigma(\tau_i)\simeq\frac{e^{-\imath k\tau_i}}{a(\tau_i)\sqrt{2k}} \qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \delta s(\tau_i)\simeq\frac{e^{-\imath k\tau_i}}{a(\tau_i)\sqrt{2k}} \eeq for initial adiabatic and isocurvature fluctuations, respectively. These two initial fluctuations are statistically independent because the corresponding equations of motion are decoupled in the limit $k\gg aH$. Although the adiabatic and entropy fluctuations are initially, i.e.\ deep inside the Hubble radius, statistically independent, this is, in general, no longer the case at Hubble crossing. In the context of two-field inflation with {\sl canonical} kinetic terms, this point has been stressed in the numerical analysis of and studied analytically in . In the following, we extend the analysis of to non-canonical kinetic terms. \subsection{Equations in the slow-roll approximation} We start with the perturbations $Q_\sigma$ and $\delta s$, whose dynamics is described by eqs.\ () and (). Using the conformal time $\tau$ and introducing the variables \beq u_\sigma=a\,Q_\sigma, \qquad u_s=a\,\delta s, \eeq these equations can be rewritten in the form \begin{eqnarray} &&u_\sigma''+ \frac{2V_s}{\odot}a u_s'+\left[k^2-\frac{a''}{a}+a^2 {C}_{\sigma\sigma}\right]u_\sigma +\left[-\frac{2V_s}{\odot}a' +a^2 {C}_{\sigma s}\right]u_s=0,\\ &&u_s''- \frac{2V_s}{\odot}a u_\sigma'+\left[k^2-\frac{a''}{a}+a^2 {C}_{ss}\right]u_s +\left[\frac{2V_s}{\odot}a' +a^2 {C}_{s\sigma}\right]u_\sigma=0, \end{eqnarray} where the four coefficients ${C}_{IJ}$ are given in eqs.\ ()-() and a prime denotes a derivative with respect to the conformal time $\tau$. Let us now discuss the slow-roll approximation. The only difference with respect to the case with canonical kinetic terms will arise from some of the terms depending on the derivatives of $b$. In the slow-roll approximation, one can use the relation \beq \frac{V_s}{\dot{\sigma}} = H\eta_{\sigma s}-b_\phi\dot{\sigma}s_\theta^3 \, , \eeq and the various coefficients in the above system of equations simplify to yield \beq \left[ \left( \frac{\mathrm{d}^2{ }}{\mathrm{d}\tau^2}+k^2-\frac{2+3\epsilon}{\tau^2}\right)\mathbf{1}+ 2\mathbf{E}\frac{1}{\tau} \frac{\mathrm{d}{ }}{\mathrm{d}\tau} +\mathbf{M} \frac{1}{\tau^2}\right] \left( \begin{array}{c} u_\sigma \\ u_s \end{array}\right)=0 \, \eeq where the matrices $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{M}$ are given by \begin{eqnarray} \mathbf{E} &=& \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & -\eta_{\sigma s} \\ \eta_{\sigma s} & 0 \end{array}\right) + \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & \xikt s_\theta^3 \\ -\xikt s_\theta^3 & 0 \end{array}\right) \\ \mathbf{M} &=& \left( \begin{array}{cc} -6\epsilon + 3\eta_{\sigma\sigma} & 4\eta_{\sigma s} \\ 2\eta_{\sigma s} & 3\eta_{ss} \end{array}\right)+ \left( \begin{array}{cc} 3\xikt s_\theta^2c_\theta & -4\xikt s_\theta^3 \\ -2\xikt s_\theta^3 & -3\xikt c_\theta (1+s_\theta^2) \end{array}\right) \end{eqnarray} with \beq \xikt\equiv\sqrt{2}b_\phi M_P\sqrt{\epsilon}. \eeq In eqs.\ () and (), we have kept only the terms linear in $b_\phi$, i.e. proportional to $\xikt$, and neglected the terms quadratic in $b_\phi$ as well as the terms proportional to $b_{\phi\phi}$. We thus treat $\xikt$ on the same footing as the other slow-roll parameters. In order to emphasize the difference between generalized kinetic terms and canonical kinetic terms, we have however separated the terms proportional $\xikt$ from the others. The system of equations () that we have obtained is of the form \beq u''+2\mathbf{L}u'+\mathbf{Q}u=0 \, . \eeq The matrix coefficient for the first order time derivative is $2\mathbf{L}=2\mathbf{E}/\tau$, where $\mathbf{E}$ is an antisymmetric matrix, linear in the slow-roll parameters. Let us introduce a {\it time-dependent} orthogonal matrix $\mathbf{R}$ which satisfies $\mathbf{R}'=-\mathbf{L}\mathbf{R}$. Note that this is possible only if $\mathbf{L}$ is an antisymmetric matrix. Reexpressing the above equation () in terms of a new matrix vector $v$, defined by $u=\mathbf{R}v$, one can eliminate the terms proportional to the first order time derivative and we obtain the following equation \beq v''+\mathbf{R}^{-1}\left(-\mathbf{L}^2-\mathbf{L}'+\mathbf{Q}\right)\mathbf{R} v=0. \eeq At linear order in the slow-roll parameters, one finds \beq -\mathbf{L}^2-\mathbf{L}'\simeq \frac{1}{\tau^2}\mathbf{E}. \eeq Therefore, apart from the trivial part proportional to the identity matrix, the combination $-\mathbf{L}^2-\mathbf{L}'+\mathbf{Q}$ contains \beq \frac{1}{\tau^2}(\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{M})=\frac{3}{\tau^2}\left( \begin{array}{cc} -2\epsilon+\eta_{\sigma\sigma}+\xikt s_\theta^2c_\theta & \eta_{\sigma s} -\xikt s_\theta^3 \\ \eta_{\sigma s}-\xikt s_\theta^3 & \eta_{ss}-\xikt c_\theta (1+s_\theta^2) \end{array}\right) \, , \eeq which is a symmetric matrix. We now assume that the slow-roll parameters vary sufficiently slowly during the few e-folds when the given scale crosses out the Hubble radius. We thus replace the time-dependent matrix on the right hand side of () by the same matrix evaluated at Hubble crossing, i.e. for $k=aH$, and the only remaining time dependence appears in the global coefficient $3/\tau^2$. One can now diagonalize this matrix by introducing the time-independent rotation matrix \beq \mathbf{\tilde{R}}_*=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos\Theta_* & -\sin\Theta_* \\ \sin\Theta_* & \cos\Theta_* \end{array} \right), \eeq so that \beq \mathbf{\tilde{R}}_*^{-1}\left(\mathbf{M}+\mathbf{E}\right) \mathbf{\tilde{R}}_*= {\rm Diag}(\tilde{\lambda}_1,\tilde{\lambda}_2). \eeq In particular, one can easily compute the following linear combinations, which will be useful later: \begin{eqnarray} && \tilde\lambda_1+\tilde\lambda_2=3\left(\eta_{\sigma\sigma}+\eta_{ss}-2\epsilon -\xikt c_\theta\right), \\ && (\tilde\lambda_1-\tilde\lambda_2)\sin 2\Theta_*=6 \left(\eta_{\sigma s}- \xikt s_\theta^3\right), \\ && (\tilde\lambda_1-\tilde\lambda_2)\cos 2\Theta_* =3 \left(\eta_{\sigma\sigma}-\eta_{ss}-2\epsilon +\xikt c_\theta (1+2 s_\theta^2)\right), \end{eqnarray} where the right hand sides of the three above equations are evaluated at $k=aH$. Similarly, the rotation matrix $\mathbf{R}$ is slowly varying per efold, since $(\mathrm{d}\mathbf{R}/\mathrm{d}\,\ln a)\mathbf{R}^T=\mathbf{E}$, where $\mathbf{E}$ is linear in slow-roll parameters. Around Hubble crossing, one can thus replace $\mathbf{R}$ by its value $\mathbf{R}_*$ at Hubble crossing. By introducing \beq w=\mathbf{\tilde{R}}_*^{-1}\mathbf{R}_*v, \eeq the system of equations can be written as two independent equations of the form \beq w_A''+\left[k^2-\frac{1}{\tau^2}\left(2+3\lambda_A\right)\right]w_A=0, \qquad \left(A=1,2\right) \eeq with \beq \lambda_A=\epsilon-\frac{1}{3}\tilde{\lambda}_A. \eeq Defining \beq \mu_A=\sqrt{\frac{9}{4}+3\lambda_A} \eeq the solution of () with the proper asymptotic behaviour can be written as \beq w_A=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}e^{i(\mu_A+1/2)\pi/2}\sqrt{-\tau}H_{\mu_A}^{(1)}(-k\tau) e_A(k), \eeq where $H_{\mu}^{(1)}$ is the Hankel function of the first kind of order $\mu$ and the $e_A$ are two independent normalized Gaussian random variables so that \beq \langle e_A(k)\rangle=0, \qquad \langle e_A(k) e_B^*(k')\rangle =\delta_{AB} \delta^{(3)}(k-k'). \eeq Using the independence of the variables $w_1$ and $w_2$, one can express the correlations for the variables $u_\sigma$ and $u_s$ around Hubble crossing time as \begin{eqnarray} a^2 \langle Q_\sigma^\dagger Q_\sigma \rangle &=& \cos^2\Theta_* \langle w_1^\dagger w_1 \rangle+ \sin^2\Theta_*\langle w_2^\dagger w_2 \rangle \\ a^2 \langle \delta s^\dagger Q_\sigma \rangle &=& \frac{1}{2}\sin2\Theta_* \left( \langle w_1^\dagger w_1 \rangle-\langle w_2^\dagger w_2 \rangle \right) \\ a^2 \langle \delta s^\dagger \delta s \rangle &=& \sin^2\Theta \langle w_1^\dagger w_1 \rangle+ \cos^2\Theta \langle w_2^\dagger w_2 \rangle \end{eqnarray} where one can substitute \beq \langle w_A^\dagger w_A \rangle=\frac{\pi}{4}(-\tau)|H^{(1)}_{\mu_A}(-k\tau)|^2\equiv \frac{1}{2k}\frac{1}{(k\tau)^2}{\cal F}_A(-k\tau). \eeq This yields \begin{eqnarray} {\cal P}_{Q_\sigma} &=& \left(\frac{H_*}{2\pi}\right)^2(1-2\epsilon_*)\left[\cos^2\Theta_*\ {\cal F}_1(-k\tau) +\sin^2\Theta_*\ {\cal F}_2(-k\tau)\right] \\ {\cal C}_{Q_\sigma \delta s} &=& \left(\frac{H_*}{2\pi}\right)^2(1-2\epsilon_*)\frac{\sin2\Theta_*}{2}\ \left[ {\cal F}_1(-k\tau)-{\cal F}_2(-k\tau)\right] \\ {\cal P}_{\delta s} &=& \left(\frac{H_*}{2\pi}\right)^2(1-2\epsilon_*) \left[\sin^2\Theta_*\ {\cal F}_1(-k\tau)+\cos^2\Theta_*\ {\cal F}_2(-k\tau) \right] , \end{eqnarray} where we have used \beq a\simeq-\frac{1+\epsilon_*}{H_*\tau}. \eeq At this stage, it is worth noting that our derivation is still valid if the parameter $\eta_{ss}$, which corresponds to the curvature of the potential along the direction orthogonal to the field trajectory, is not small. In this case, the entropy fluctuations are effectively suppressed and only adiabatic fluctuations are generated. As far as the perturbations are concerned, this particular situation is similar to the single field case. A further simplification occurs when $\lambda_A\ll 1$, in which case $\mu_A\simeq \frac{3}{2}+\lambda_A$. The functions ${\cal F}_A(x)$ can be expanded as \beq {\cal F}_A(x)=\frac{\pi}{2}x^3|H_{3/2}(x)|^2\left(1+2\lambda_A f(x)\right)=(1+x^2)\left(1+2\lambda_A f(x)\right), \eeq with \beq f(x) = \mathrm{Re}\left( \frac{1}{H^{(1)}_{3/2}(x)}\left. \frac{\mathrm{d}H^{(1)}_\mu (x)}{\mathrm{d}\mu}\right|_{\mu=3/2} \right). \eeq Using the relations (-) and (), we finally get for the curvature and entropy perturbations defined in () and (), the following expressions \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{R} &=& \left(\frac{H_*^2}{2\pi\dot\sigma_*}\right)^2(1+k^2\tau^2) \left[1-2\epsilon_*+\left(6\epsilon_*-2\eta_{\sigma\sigma *}-2\xikt_* s_{\theta *}^2c_{\theta *}\right) \,f\left(\frac{k}{aH_*}\right)\right] \\ \mathcal{C}_\mathcal{RS} &=& \left(\frac{H_*^2}{2\pi\dot\sigma_*}\right)^2(1+k^2\tau^2) \left( 2\xikt_* s_{\theta *}^3-2\eta_{\sigma s*} \right)\,f\left(\frac{k}{aH_*}\right) \\ \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{S} &=& \left(\frac{H_*^2}{2\pi\dot\sigma_*}\right)^2(1+k^2\tau^2) \left[1-2\epsilon_*+\left(2\epsilon_*-2\eta_{ss *}+2\xikt_* (1+s_{\theta *}^2)c_{\theta *}\right)\,f\left(\frac{k}{aH_*}\right)\right]. \end{eqnarray} Let us comment these results. First, one can verify that, for canonical kinetic terms (i.e. $\xikt=0$), we recover the results of if we replace the factor $(1+k^2\tau^2)$ by $1$ and the function $f(-k\tau)$ by the number $C=2-{\rm ln}2-\gamma\simeq 0.7296$, where $\gamma\simeq 0.5772$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Our final expression depends explicitly on $\tau$ and allows us a more precise estimate of the spectra around the time of Hubble crossing. As we will see explicitly later, there are some inflationary scenarios where the amplitude of the curvature perturbation spectrum evolves very quickly after Hubble crossing and never reaches its asymptotic value (corresponding to the limit $k\tau\to 0$). In these cases, one needs to evaluate more precisely the amplitude around Hubble crossing, which our more detailed formula enables to do. Another difference with is that we derived the adiabatic and isocurvature spectra by working directly with the equations for the adiabatic and entropy components, instead of working with the initial scalar fields. \section{Evolution of perturbations on super-Hubble scales} When the isocurvature modes are suppressed, for instance if the effective mass along the isocurvature direction is large with respect to the Hubble parameter the final adiabatic spectrum can be computed simply by taking the usual single-field result applied to the adiabatic direction: \beq {\cal P}_{\cal R}^\mathrm{sf}(k)\simeq \frac{H^4}{4\pi^2\dot\sigma^2}=\frac{H^4}{8\pi^2 \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{kin}}\, , \eeq where all the quantities are evaluated at Hubble crossing. The simplification works because, in this particular situation where isocurvature fluctuations are absent, the curvature perturbation remains frozen on super-Hubble scales. If isocurvature modes are present however, they will affect the super-Hubble evolution of the adiabatic perturbations because they will act as a source term on the right hand side of the equation governing the evolution of the curvature perturbation (and for the non-linear generalisation). In order to obtain the final power spectra and correlations, and to compare the predictions of a multi-inflaton model with observations, one must then solve the coupled system of differential equations (-). In general, a numerical approach is necessary and will be considered in the next section. In some particular cases, within the slow-roll approximation, one can solve analytically the equations of motion on super-Hubble scales. We now discuss these cases in the rest of this section. Following , we can then write eqs.\ () and () in the slow-roll approximation as: \beq \dot{\qo} \simeq AH\qo+BH\ds \qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \dot{\ds}\simeq DH\ds \, , \eeq where: \begin{eqnarray} A &=& -\eta_{\sigma\sigma}+2\epsilon-\xikt c_\theta s^2_\theta \\ B &=& -2\eta_{\sigma s}+2\xikt s^3_\theta \simeq 2\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{\mathrm{d}N}-2\xikt s_\theta\\ D &=& -\eta_{ss}+\xikt c_\theta (1+s^2_\theta) \, . \end{eqnarray} Qualitatively, it is clear that if the isocurvature perturbations do not decay very fast, there is a strong interaction between the adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations, whenever the coefficient $B$ becomes large, i.e.\ when the classical trajectory makes a sharp turn in the field space or when $\xikt$ is relatively large and inflation is driven at least partially by the field $\chi$ ($s_\theta\neq0$). For {\it constant} $A,B,D$, the equations () can be solved explicitly to give \beq \qo(N) \simeq e^{AN}Q_{\sigma*} + \frac{B}{D-A}(e^{DN}-e^{AN})\delta s_* \qquad\textrm{and} \qquad \ds(N) \simeq e^{DN} \delta s_* \, \eeq where $N$ stands for the number of efolds after Hubble crossing. Taking into account that $(H/\dot{\sigma})\simeq(H_*/\dot{\sigma}_*)e^{-AN}$, we can express the power spectra and correlations as: \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{R}^{(a)}(N) &\simeq& \bar{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{R}*} + \bar{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{S}*}\left(\frac{B}{\gamma}\right)^2\left(e^{\gamma N}-1\right)^2 + 2\bar{\mathcal{C}}_{\mathcal{RS}*} \frac{B}{\gamma}\left(e^{\gamma N}-1\right) \\ \mathcal{C}_\mathcal{RS}^{(a)}(N) &\simeq& \bar{\mathcal{C}}_{\mathcal{RS}*}\,e^{\gamma N}+\bar{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{ S}*}\frac{B}{\gamma}e^{\gamma N}\left(e^{\gamma N}-1\right) \\ \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{S}^{(a)}(N) &\simeq& \bar{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{S}*}\,e^{2\gamma_*N} \, , \end{eqnarray} where $\gamma=D-A$. The quantities $\bar{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{R}*}$, $\bar{\mathcal{C}}_{\mathcal{RS}*}$ and $\bar{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{S}*}$ correspond to the asymptotic limit, i.e. when $k\tau \to 0$, of the expressions (-). The use of this approximation is in practice rather limited because it relies on the assumption that the slow-roll parameters are {\it time-independent} between Hubble crossing and the final time. In most cases, this approximation, which we call {\it constant slow-roll approximation}, holds only for a few e-folds and breaks down long before the end of inflation. In some simple inflationary models, there exists an analytical approach to compute analytically the evolution of the perturbations on super-Hubble scales. This is the case for double inflation with canonical kinetic terms (i.e. $b=0$) and potential \beq V(\phi,\chi) = \frac{1}{2}m_\phi^2\phi^2 + \frac{1}{2}m_\chi^2\chi^2 \, , \eeq where the equations of motion for the metric perturbation $\Phi$ and the two scalar field perturbations can be integrated explicitly in the slow-roll approximation and on super-Hubble scales (this can be seen as a particular case within a more general context discussed in ). One finds \begin{equation} \Phi\simeq -\frac{C_1\dot H}{H^2}+2C_3\frac{(m_\chi^2-m_\phi^2)m_\chi^2\chi^2 m_\phi^2\phi^2} {3(m_\chi^2\chi^2+m_\phi^2\phi^2)^2}, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{\delta\phi}{\dot\phi}\simeq \frac{C_1}{H}-2C_3\frac{Hm_\chi^2\chi^2}{m_\chi^2\chi^2+m_\phi^2\phi^2},\quad \frac{\delta\chi}{\dot\chi}\simeq \frac{C_1}{H}+2C_3\frac{Hm_\phi^2\phi^2}{ m_\chi^2\chi^2+m_\phi^2\phi^2}, \end{equation} where $C_1$ and $C_3$ are time-independent constants of integration. The curvature and isocurvature perturbations during inflation are respectively \beq \mathcal{R}=\Phi+H\, \frac{\dot\chi\, \delta\chi+\dot\phi\, \delta\phi}{\dot\chi^2+\dot\phi^2}, \quad \mathcal{S}=H\, \frac{\dot\phi\, \delta\chi-\dot\chi\, \delta\phi}{\dot\chi^2+\dot\phi^2}. \eeq By plugging the solutions (-) into the above expressions, one obtains the explicit evolution of the adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations, knowing that the background evolution is given by \begin{equation} \chi=2M_P\sqrt{s} \sin \alpha ,\quad \phi=2M_P\sqrt{s} \cos \alpha, \quad s=s_0\frac{(\sin \alpha)^{2/(R^2-1)}}{ (\cos \alpha)^{2R^2/(R^2-1)}} \end{equation} where $s=-\ln (a/a_e)$ is the number of e-folds between a given instant and the end of inflation, and $R\equiv {m_\chi/ m_\phi}$. Note that the isocurvature perturbation $\mathcal{S}$ that we have defined {\it during inflation}, following other works, is proportional but does not coincide with the isocurvature perturbation $S_{\rm rad}$ defined {during the radiation era}. In the scenario discussed in , where the heavy field $\chi$ decays into dark matter, the isocurvature perturbation $S_{\rm rad}=\delta_{\rm cdm}-(3/4)\delta_{\rm \gamma}$ is related to the perturbations during inflation via the relation \beq S_{\rm rad}=-\frac{4}{3}m_\chi^2 C_3=-\frac{2}{3}\frac{m_\chi^2}{H}\left(\frac{\delta\chi}{\dot\chi}- \frac{\delta\phi}{\dot\phi}\right). \eeq Another method to calculate the final curvature perturbations is the so-called $\delta N$ formalism . In practice however, this method requires the expression of the number of e-folds as a function of the initial values of the scalar fields and except in a few simple cases where this expression can be determined analytically, a numerical approach is also needed in the general case. Moreover, the approach we have adopted allows to follow not only the evolution of the curvature perturbation but also that of the isocurvature perturbation. This is important if some isocurvature perturbations survive after the end of inflation. Their evolution then depends on the details of the processes which occur at the end inflation and after, in particular the reheating (or preheating) processes, which goes beyond the scope of this study. \section{Numerical analysis} In Section , we studied the spectra and correlations of the perturbations in the vicinity of the Hubble crossing and we obtained analytic approximations ()-(). The aim of the present section is to confront these expressions with the result of a numerical integration of the equations of motion ()-(). We would also like to study numerically the super-Hubble dynamics of the perturbations, which is often the only way to calculate the inflationary observables such as the spectral index $n_s$ with a precision required by the present and forthcoming observations. \subsection{Numerical procedure} Our numerical procedure, similar to that of , is the following. In order to take into account the statistical independence of the adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations deep inside the Hubble radius, we integrate eqs.\ ()-() twice: first with the initial value of $\qo$ corresponding to the Minkowski-like vacuum and $\delta s=0$, then with the initial value of $\ds$ corresponding to the Minkowski-like vacuum and $\qo=0$. Unless stated otherwise, we impose the initial conditions 8 efolds before the Hubble crossing. The initial conditions also include the slow-roll for the background fields. The evolution proceeds along a background trajectory which provides a sufficient number of efolds before the end of inflation (50-60, depending on the model). We identify the end of inflation, at which we terminate the evolution, when $\epsilon=1$. As the outcome of the first (second) run, we obtain the curvature and entropy perturbations, $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_1$ ($\mathcal{R}_2$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$). We then calculate the spectra and correlations as: \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{R} &=& \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \left( |\mathcal{R}_1|^2+|\mathcal{R}_2|^2\right) \\ \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{S} &=& \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \left( |\mathcal{S}_1|^2+|\mathcal{S}_2|^2\right) \\ \mathcal{C}_\mathcal{RS} &=& \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \left( \mathcal{R}_1^\dagger\mathcal{S}_1+\mathcal{R}_2^\dagger\mathcal{S}_2 \right) \, . \end{eqnarray} We shall sometimes describe the correlations using the relative correlation coefficient: \beq \tilde{\cal C} = \frac{|\mathcal{C}_\mathcal{RS}|}{\sqrt{\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{R}\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{S}}} \eeq The value of $\tilde{\cal C}$ lies between 0 and 1, and it indicates to what extent the final curvature perturbations result from the interactions with the isocurvature perturbations. \subsection{Examples of inflationary models} There is an enormous number of examples of inflationary models. Here we restrict our analysis to just three cases described below. We will use these examples to check the analytical results of the preceding Sections and to illustrate some generic features in the evolution of adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations. \subsubsection{Double inflation with canonical kinetic terms} Double inflation (with $b=0$) is certainly the most thoroughly studied example of multi-field inflation. It employs the potential \beq V(\phi,\chi) = \frac{1}{2}m_\phi^2\phi^2 + \frac{1}{2}m_\chi^2\chi^2 \, . \eeq In order to make definite calculations, we set $7 m_\phi = m_\chi$ and we choose the initial conditions $\phi_i=\chi_i$ (later we shall also comment on the case $\phi_i=50\chi_i$), 8 efolds before the scale we consider leaves the Hubble radius, after which inflation goes on for about $\sim60$ efolds. The classical trajectory in field space is shown in Figure . In our example, the trajectory is strongly bent roughly 35th efolds after the Hubble crossing. As we shall see, it is at this moment when the adiabatic perturbations are strongly fed by the isocurvature ones. \subsubsection{Double inflation with non-canonical kinetic terms} In order to concentrate just on the effects due to the non-canonical nature of the kinetic terms, we consider a very simple generalization of the previous example by taking $b(\phi)=-\phi/M_P$ and $m_\phi=m_\chi$ in (). We choose the initial conditions so that $\phi_i=0$. Then it is almost exlusively the field $\chi$ which slides down to the minimum of the potential during inflation, but due to non-canonicality of the kinetic terms, the interaction of $\chi$ with $\phi$ drives the latter slightly away from zero. The classical trajectory in the field space is shown in Figure . \subsubsection{Roulette inflation} Recently, inflation in the large volume compactification scheme in the type IIB string theory model has been investigated in (see also ). In our notation, this model can be effectively described by \beq b(\phi) = b_0 - \frac{1}{3} \ln \left(\frac{\phi}{M_P}\right) \eeq and \beq V(\phi,\chi) = V_0 + V_1 \sqrt{\psi(\phi)}e^{-2\beta_1\psi(\phi)}+V_2\psi(\phi) e^{-\beta_1\psi(\phi)}\cos(\beta_2\chi) \, , \eeq where $\psi(\phi)=(\phi/M_P)^{4/3}$ and $b_0$, $V_i$, $\beta_i$ are functions of the parameters of the underlying string model. A generic feature of the potential () is that it has an infinite number of minima arranged periodically in $\chi$ and a plateau for large values of $\phi$, admitting a large variety of inflationary trajectories, which may end at different minima even if they originate from neighboring points in the field space -- hence the model has been dubbed {\em roulette inflation}. In this work, we adopt the parameter set no.\ 1 (in Planck units: $b_0 = -11$; $V_0 = 9.0 \times 10^{-14}$; $V_1 = 3.2 \times 10^{-4}$; $V_2 = 1.1 \times 10^{-5}$; and $\beta_1 = 9.4 \times 10^5$; $\beta_2 = 2\pi/3$) from and choose the particular inflationary trajectory shown in Figure . For this trajectory, the factor $b_\phi M_P$ is rather large, of the order $10^3$, but the effect of the non-canonical kinetic terms is strongly suppressed by a very small value of $\epsilon$ on the plateau of the potential. The smallness of $\epsilon$ also suppresses the energy scale of inflation and one needs a smaller number of efolds than in the models described above. For definiteness, we assumed that there are $\sim50$ efolds between the moment that the scale of interest crosses the Hubble radius and the end of inflation. \subsection{Numerical results for the perturbations} For the three inflationary models described in Section , we performed the numerical analysis, as described in Section . Here, we discuss the outcome for the spectra and correlations in Figures -. In the right panel of each Figure we plot the evolution of ${\cal P}_{\cal R}$ and ${\cal P}_{\cal S}$, normalized to the single-field result ${\cal P}_{\cal R}^\mathrm{sf}$ given in eq.\ (), as well as the evolution of the correlation coefficient $\tilde{\cal C}$ defined in () and the parameter $B$, defined in (), which is the coupling between the isocurvature and the curvature perturbations. These quantities are plotted as functions of the number of efolds $N$ after Hubble crossing. Left panels of each Figures - are basically close-ups of the right ones to the vicinity of the Hubble crossing. There, we plot the evolution of ${\cal P}_{\cal R}$, ${\cal P}_{\cal S}$ and ${\cal C}_{\cal{RS}}$, normalized to the single-field result ${\cal P}_{\cal R}^\mathrm{sf}$ given in eq.\ (). These are shown as functions of the variable $(k/aH)^{-1}$ which allows us to compare directly the numerical results with the predictions of the eqs.\ ()-(). Note that in the leading order in the slow-roll parameters $\ln(aH/k)=N$, hence the logarithmic scale in the left panels directly corresponds to the linear scale in the right panels. In Figures -, we also plot the evolution of the spectra, denoted by the superscript $(a)$, when one assumes the constant slow-roll approximation after Hubble crossing, i.e. when one uses eqs.\ (), () and (). For completeness, we also discuss briefly the particular case where the generation of isocurvature modes is effectively suppressed, situation which applies to some of the models discussed in the literature for specific parameters and/or initial conditions. \subsubsection{Double inflation with canonical kinetic terms} In this example, the field $\chi$ initially dominates the energy density of the Universe and drives the first part of inflation, and only when it is almost at its minimum, inflation is further driven by $\phi$. All the slow-roll parameters are small at the Hubble crossing, which makes eqs.\ ()-() an excellent approximation of the numerical solutions of the equations of motion. Due to the smallness of $B=-2\eta_{\sigma s}\approx 2\mathrm{d}\theta/\mathrm{d}N$ right after the Hubble crossing, the curvature perturbations become practically constant during the $\chi$-domination. At the transition to $\phi$-dominated inflation $B$ becomes large, which leads to a sizable increment in $\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{R}$ because of interaction with the isocurvature perturbations. During $\phi$-dominated inflation the trajectory is almost straight again, the isocurvature perturbations decay quickly and the curvature perturbations are frozen at the value acquired at the transition. This model has the advantage that the numerical results can be directly compared to analytical ones, as the time evolution of the perturbations can be solved without assuming constancy of the slow-roll parameters , and we find a good agreement between two approaches. \subsubsection{Double inflation with non-canonical kinetic terms} In this example, the background trajectory is almost straight. However, the slow-roll parameter $\epsilon$ is around $0.1$, which makes the coupling $B$ large throughout the entire inflationary era. Figure shows that eqs.\ ()-() are a good approximation for the spectra and correlations at the Hubble crossing, $k/aH=1$, but it is no longer true at super-Hubble scales, $k/aH=0.1$ or $0.01$, because the isocurvature perturbations already start feeding the curvature ones sizably. As a result, the final curvature perturbations originate almost exclusively from the interactions with the isocurvature modes, not from the fluctuations along the inflationary trajectory, which makes the relative correlation coefficient very close to 1. \subsubsection{Roulette inflation} As we already argued in Section , most of the inflationary trajectory in this example lies on the plateau of the potential (), the slow-roll parameter $\epsilon$ is very small, which makes the direct impact of the non-canonicality negligible. The trajectory is, however, strongly curved in the field space and the interaction between the isocurvature and curvature modes is still important. Again, eqs.\ ()-() accurately predict the spectra and correlations in the vicinity of the Hubble crossing, with deviations on super-Hubble scales resulting from the sourcing of the curvature perturbations by the isocurvature ones. Eventually, most of the curvature perturbations arise through this effect. \subsubsection{Impact of the non-canonical terms} In order to estimate the impact of the non canonical kinetic terms, one can separate each of the coefficients (-) into two parts: the terms that depend explicitly on the derivatives of non-canonical function $b$ and those which do not. For example, the coefficient that is directly responsible for the transfer of isocurvature modes into curvature modes, $C_{\sigma s}$ is decomposed into a `canonical' component $C^{\rm (c)}_{\sigma s}$ and a 'non-canonical' component $C^{\rm (nc)}_{\sigma s}$: \beq C_{\sigma s} = C^{\rm (c)}_{\sigma s}+C^{\rm (nc)}_{\sigma s}, \eeq with \beq C^{\rm (c)}_{\sigma s}=6H\frac{V_s}{\odot}+\frac{2V_\sigma V_s}{\odot^2}+2V_{\sigma s}+ \frac{\odot V_s}{M_P^2 H}, \quad C^{\rm(nc)}_{\sigma s}=2b_\phi(s_\theta^3V_\sigma-c_\theta^3V_s). \eeq The other coefficients can be decomposed similarly\footnote{Note that there is some arbitrariness in this decomposition: the decomposition would be different if one expresses $V_\sigma$ in terms of $\dot\theta$ via the background equation ().}. For the two models with non-canonical kinetic terms, we have compared in Fig.~ the canonical and non-canonical contributions of the various coefficients. For double inflation with non-canonical kinetic terms, the non-canonical contribution in $C_{\sigma s}$ is dominant and therefore plays a crucial role in the evolution of the curvature mode. For roulette inflation, as already noticed earlier, the non-canonical contributions turn out to be negligible. \subsubsection{Effectively single-field cases} Many supergravity- or string-inspired models aim at describing supersymmetry breaking and inflation in a unified framework. Often, despite the presence of many scalar fields, one can find model parameters and initial conditions such that only for one combination of the fields a potential is sufficiently flat to support inflation, e.g.~in pseudo-Goldstone inflation , ``better racetrack'' scenario , no-scale supergravity models with moduli stabilised through D-terms or in D-term uplifted supergravity of . In these works, small values of the field velocity (i.e.~$\epsilon\ll1$) have been ensured by setting the initial conditions in the vicinity of the saddle point of the potential, while small curvature of the potential along one direction has been obtained by a fine-tuning of the parameters. It has been assumed that the isocurvature perturbations decay fast after the Hubble radius crossing and do not affect the curvature perturbations even though the trajectory in the field space can have sharp turns at later stages of the inflationary evolution. Consequently, the single field approximation () has been used in these works to account for the spectra of the curvature perturbation. In the two-field language developed in the present paper, the situation described above corresponds to \mbox{$\eta_{ss}\simgt \mathcal{O}(1)\gg |\eta_{\sigma\sigma}|, |\eta_{\sigma s}|, \epsilon$}. This justifies setting $\Theta_*=0$ in eqs.\ ()-(), which is equivalent to the assumption that the curvature and isocurvature modes evolve independently. While we can still apply the slow-roll expansion that led to eq.~() for the power spectrum of the curvature perturbations, we now have to use the full result () to describe the spectrum of the isocurvature modes. For $\eta_{ss}\simgt \mathcal{O}(1)$, the latter result decays very fast for $k|\tau|\to 0$ and we conclude that the isocurvature modes become irrelevant for the evolution of the curvature perturbations soon after the Hubble radius crossing. We checked numerically that the above conclusion applies for the models described in , which are easily reduced to the two-field case and their inflationary trajectories are curved in the field space. For simplicity, we would like, however, to illustrate this point with the model of double inflation with standard kinetic terms, described in Section , for which we set the initial condition \mbox{$\phi_i=50\chi_i$}. Then the heavy field $\chi$ contributes negligibly to the potential energy and $\eta_{ss*}\simeq 0.4$. In Figure , we plot the numerically calculated spectra of the curvature and isocurvature perturbations and compare them with the analytic approximations outlined above. The decay of the isocurvature modes agrees with the solution (), for which we show two cases: the small solid stars correspond to the constant value of $\eta_{ss}$, whereas the large empty stars show the result corresponding to adjusting the index of the Hankel function in eq.~() to the value of $\eta_{ss}$ at a given instant, i.e.\ $\eta_{ss}=0.40,\,0.42,\,0.44$ for $(k/aH)^{-1}=1,\,10,\,100$, respectively. With the isocurvature modes absent, the curvature perturbations are excellently described by the single-field result, which justifies the use of the single-field approximations in the situations described above. \subsubsection{Closing discussion} The three examples presented here show that in multi-field inflationary models, a large part of the curvature perturbations can originate from interactions between the curvature and isocurvature perturbations on super-Hubble scales, not only from quantum fluctuations along the trajectory at the Hubble exit. In such cases, the single-field result () does not provide a correct prediction either for the normalization of the power spectrum or for its spectral index \beq n_s=1+\mathrm{d}\ln\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{R}/\mathrm{d}\ln k \, . \eeq There are techniques which allow relating the spectral index of the curvature perturbations, $n_s$, to the spectral indices of the entropy perturbations and the curvature-entropy correlations through a set of consistency relations , but all these quantities separately depend on the super-Hubble evoulution of the perturbations. Again, we find it the most straightforward to calculate the spectral index $n_s$ for each model numerically. In Table , we compare naive estimate $n_s\sim1-6\epsilon_*+2\eta_{\sigma\sigma*}$ and the predictions of eq.\ () for the spectral index $n_s$ with the numerical results of Section . In our three examples, one can see that the single-field result significantly overestimates the correct spectral index. The discrepancies that we find follow from the fact that the two types of perturbations experience the slow-roll of the background fields and the curvature of the inflationary potential in a different way. Then, if the final curvature perturbations originate mainly from the isocurvature ones, they inherit the features of the isocurvature power spectra at the Hubble crossing. \begin{table}[t] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|} \hline $n_s$ & $1-6\epsilon_*+2\eta_{\sigma\sigma*}$ & single-field result & full result \\ \hline double inflation (canonical) & 0.929 & 0.982 & 0.967 \\ double inflation (non-canonical) & 0.953 & 0.968 & 0.934 \\ roulette inflation & 1.017 & 1.019 & 0.932 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{\em A comparison between the predictions for the spectral index $n_s$ in the three examples of inflationary models described in Section . The third column contains result derived from the single-field approximation (); the result of full numerical calculations are shown in the fourth column. } \end{table} \section{Conclusion} In this paper, we have studied two-field inflation and extended several previous results on curvature and isocurvature perturbations to the case of non-standard kinetic terms. First, we have calculated analytically the curvature and isocurvature spectra, as well as the correlation, just after Hubble crossing for two-field inflation models, including next-to-leading order corrections in the slow-roll approximation. Our results ()-() generalize those of Byrnes and Wands, who assumed only standard kinetic terms. We have also given a refined analytical treatment of the spectra around Hubble crossing, which is important when the perturbations still evolve after Hubble crossing. Second, we have studied numerically the evolution of the curvature and isocurvature perturbations {\it after} the Hubble crossing. This type of analysis is important since in multi-field inflation, in contrast with single-field inflation, the curvature perturbation spectrum after inflation is in general different from the curvature perturbation spectra at Hubble crossing because of isocurvature perturbations, as first emphasized in . This well-known result applies to multi-field inflation with either standard or non-standard kinetic terms. This effect has been studied numerically for {\it standard} kinetic terms, using the decomposition into instantaneous curvature and isocurvature, in the analysis of . We have done a similar analysis here for {\it non-standard} kinetic terms. In particular, we have compared the numerical evolution of the perturbations with an analytical approximation, which we denoted the {\it constant slow-roll approximation}: this approximation assumes not only that the slow-roll approximation is valid, but also that the slow-roll parameters remain almost constant during the subsequent evolution where isocurvature perturbations are significant. This approximation has been used in to compute the ``final'' spectra in the context of non-standard kinetic terms. In most cases, this approximation is however not very realistic as we clearly show in our numerical study. We have also estimated the impact of non-standard kinetic terms on the coupled evolution of the curvature and isocurvature modes. There has been a recent interest in constructing inflationary models in the context of string theory. These models naturally lead to scalar fields with non-standard kinetic terms, to which our analysis can apply. In this work, we have studied a very recent model, called `roulette'' inflation, and computed quantitatively the final curvature spectrum, thus showing that the influence of isocurvature modes on super-Hubble scales turns out to be very important. Note that the authors of computed the final curvature spectrum by using a ``single inflaton approximation''. They stress however that isocurvature effects ``could produce big effects'', which we indeed confirm in our analysis. As a message of caution for the readers who are not familiar with the effect of isocurvature modes in multi-field inflation, we have also computed the spectral index for curvature perturbations in a few models and contrasted it with the value that one would naively obtain by using the curvature perturbation at Hubble radius like in single field inflation. Finally, an interesting question, which goes beyond the scope of this paper, would be to investigate in which circumstances these multi-field models could produce isocurvature perturbations, after inflation and the reheating phase. These ``primordial'' isocurvature perturbations are today severely constrained by CMB data. \vskip 1cm {\bf Acknowledgements} We would like to thank V.~Mukhanov for stimulating discussions. D.L.~would like to thank the Institute of Theoretical Physics of Warsaw for their warm hospitaly and for their financial support via a ``Marie Curie Host Fellowship for Transfer of Knowledge'' , project MTKD-CT-2005-029466. Z.L. was partially supported by TOK project MTKD-CT-2005-029466, by the EC 6th Framework Programme MRTN-CT-2006-035863, and by the grant MEiN 1 P03D 014 26. S.P. was partially supported by TOK project MTKD-CT-2005-029466 and by the grant MEiN 1 P03B 099 29. The work of K.T.~is partially supported by the US Department of Energy. K.T.~would also like to acknowledge support from the Foundation for Polish Science through its programme START. \vskip 1cm \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{mukhanov} V.~Mukhanov, ``Physical foundations of cosmology,'' {\it Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (2005) 421 p} \bibitem{Kofman:1986wm} L.~A.~Kofman and A.~D.~Linde, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 282} (1987) 555. \bibitem{Mukhanov:1991rp} V.~F.~Mukhanov and M.~I.~Zelnikov, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 263} (1991) 169. \bibitem{Deruelle:1991gy} N.~Deruelle, C.~Gundlach and D.~Langlois, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45}, 3301 (1992); Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46} (1992) 5337. \bibitem{Polarski:1992dq} D.~Polarski and A.~A.~Starobinsky, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 385} (1992) 623. \bibitem{sy} A.~A.~Starobinsky and J.~Yokoyama, arXiv:gr-qc/9502002 \bibitem{Wands:1996kb} D.~Wands and J.~Garcia-Bellido, Helv.\ Phys.\ Acta {\bf 69} (1996) 211 [arXiv:astro-ph/9608042]. \bibitem{Garcia-Bellido:1996ke} J.~Garcia-Bellido and D.~Wands, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 7181 [arXiv:astro-ph/9606047]. \bibitem{Mukhanov:1997fw} V.~F.~Mukhanov and P.~J.~Steinhardt, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 422} (1998) 52 [arXiv:astro-ph/9710038]. \bibitem{Langlois:1999dw} D.~Langlois, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 123512 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9906080]. \bibitem{Starobinsky:2001xq} A.~A.~Starobinsky, S.~Tsujikawa and J.~Yokoyama, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 610}, 383 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0107555]. \bibitem{Bartolo:2001vw} N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 083514 [arXiv:astro-ph/0106022]. \bibitem{vanTent:2003mn} B.~van Tent, Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 21} (2004) 349 [arXiv:astro-ph/0307048]. \bibitem{Bond:2006nc} J.~R.~Bond, L.~Kofman, S.~Prokushkin and P.~M.~Vaudrevange, arXiv:hep-th/0612197. \bibitem{Lalak:2005hr} Z.~Lalak, G.~G.~Ross and S.~Sarkar, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 766} (2007) 1 [arXiv:hep-th/0503178]. \bibitem{Blanco-Pillado:2006he} J.~J.~Blanco-Pillado {\it et al.}, JHEP {\bf 0609}, 002 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0603129]. \bibitem{Ellis:2006ar} J.~Ellis, Z.~Lalak, S.~Pokorski and K.~Turzynski, JCAP {\bf 0610}, 005 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0606133]. \bibitem{deCarlos:2007dp} B.~de Carlos, J.~A.~Casas, A.~Guarino, J.~M.~Moreno and O.~Seto, arXiv:hep-th/0702103. \bibitem{Gordon:2000hv} C.~Gordon, D.~Wands, B.~A.~Bassett and R.~Maartens, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 023506 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0009131]. \bibitem{DiMarco:2002eb} F.~Di Marco, F.~Finelli and R.~Brandenberger, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 063512 (2003) [arXiv:astro-ph/0211276]. \bibitem{DiMarco:2005nq} F.~Di Marco and F.~Finelli, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 123502 (2005) [arXiv:astro-ph/0505198]. \bibitem{Byrnes:2006fr} C.~T.~Byrnes and D.~Wands, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 043529 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0605679]. \bibitem{Tsujikawa:2002qx} S.~Tsujikawa, D.~Parkinson and B.~A.~Bassett, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 083516 (2003) [arXiv:astro-ph/0210322]. \bibitem{Choi:2007su} K.~Y.~Choi, L.~M.~H.~Hall and C.~van de Bruck, JCAP {\bf 0702} (2007) 029 [arXiv:astro-ph/0701247]. \bibitem{ks} H.~Kodama and M.~Sasaki, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 78}, 1 (1984). \bibitem{mfb} V.~F.~Mukhanov, H.~A.~Feldman and R.~H.~Brandenberger, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 215}, 203 (1992). \bibitem{cargese} D.~Langlois, ``Inflation, quantum fluctuations and cosmological perturbations,'' Lectures given at Cargese School of Particle Physics and Cosmology: the Interface, Cargese (2003). Published in ``Cargese 2003, Particle physics and cosmology'',p 235-278. arXiv:hep-th/0405053. \bibitem{Langlois:2006vv} D.~Langlois and F.~Vernizzi, JCAP {\bf 0702}, 017 (2007) [arXiv:astro-ph/0610064]. \bibitem{Langlois:2005ii} D.~Langlois and F.~Vernizzi, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 091303 (2005) [arXiv:astro-ph/0503416]. \bibitem{Langlois:2005qp} D.~Langlois and F.~Vernizzi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 103501 (2005) [arXiv:astro-ph/0509078]. \bibitem{Starobinsky} A.~A.~Starobinsky, JETP\ Lett.\ {\bf 42}, 152 (1985) [Pis. Hz. Esp. Tor. Fizz. 42, 124 (1985)]. \bibitem{Sasaki:1995aw} M.~Sasaki and E.~D.~Stewart, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 95}, 71 (1996) [arXiv:astro-ph/9507001]. \bibitem{Sasaki:1998ug} M.~Sasaki and T.~Tanaka, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 99}, 763 (1998) [arXiv:gr-qc/9801017]. \bibitem{Conlon:2005jm} J.~P.~Conlon and F.~Quevedo, JHEP {\bf 0601}, 146 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0509012]. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0217
|
Title: Capacity of a Multiple-Antenna Fading Channel with a Quantized Precoding
Matrix
Abstract: Given a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channel, feedback from the
receiver can be used to specify a transmit precoding matrix, which selectively
activates the strongest channel modes. Here we analyze the performance of
Random Vector Quantization (RVQ), in which the precoding matrix is selected
from a random codebook containing independent, isotropically distributed
entries. We assume that channel elements are i.i.d. and known to the receiver,
which relays the optimal (rate-maximizing) precoder codebook index to the
transmitter using B bits. We first derive the large system capacity of
beamforming (rank-one precoding matrix) as a function of B, where large system
refers to the limit as B and the number of transmit and receive antennas all go
to infinity with fixed ratios. With beamforming RVQ is asymptotically optimal,
i.e., no other quantization scheme can achieve a larger asymptotic rate. The
performance of RVQ is also compared with that of a simpler reduced-rank scalar
quantization scheme in which the beamformer is constrained to lie in a random
subspace. We subsequently consider a precoding matrix with arbitrary rank, and
approximate the asymptotic RVQ performance with optimal and linear receivers
(matched filter and Minimum Mean Squared Error (MMSE)). Numerical examples show
that these approximations accurately predict the performance of finite-size
systems of interest. Given a target spectral efficiency, numerical examples
show that the amount of feedback required by the linear MMSE receiver is only
slightly more than that required by the optimal receiver, whereas the matched
filter can require significantly more feedback.
Body: \title{Capacity of a Multiple-Antenna Fading Channel With a Quantized Precoding Matrix} \author{Wiroonsak~Santipach,~\IEEEmembership{Member,~IEEE,} and Michael L. Honig,~\IEEEmembership{Fellow,~IEEE} \thanks{Manuscript recieved December 22, 2006; revised July 17, 2008. This work was supported by the U.S. Army Research Office under grant DAAD19-99-1-0288 and the National Science Foundation under grant CCR-0310809, and was presented in part at IEEE Military Communications (MILCOM), Boston, MA, USA, October 2003, IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Chicago, IL, USA, June 2004, and IEEE International Symposium on Spread Spectrum Techniques and Applications (ISSSTA), Sydney, Australia, August 2004.} \thanks{W. Santipach was with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 USA. He is currently with the Department of Electrical Engineering; Faculty of Engineering; Kasetsart University, Bangkok, 10900 Thailand (email: wiroonsak.s@ku.ac.th).} \thanks{M. L. Honig is with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 USA (email: mh@eecs.northwestern.edu).} \thanks{Communicated by H. Boche, Associate Editor for Communications.} \thanks{Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIT.2008.2011437}} \markboth{IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 55, NO. 3, MARCH 2009}{SANTIPACH AND HONIG: CAPACITY OF A MULTIPLE-ANTENNA FADING CHANNEL WITH A QUANTIZED PRECODING MATRIX} \IEEEpubid{0018--9448/\$25.00~\copyright~2009 IEEE} \maketitle \begin{abstract} Given a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channel, feedback from the receiver can be used to specify a transmit precoding matrix, which selectively activates the strongest channel modes. Here we analyze the performance of {\em Random Vector Quantization (RVQ)}, in which the precoding matrix is selected from a random codebook containing independent, isotropically distributed entries. We assume that channel elements are {\em i.i.d.} and known to the receiver, which relays the optimal (rate-maximizing) precoder codebook index to the transmitter using $B$ bits. We first derive the large system capacity of beamforming (rank-one precoding matrix) as a function of $B$, where large system refers to the limit as $B$ and the number of transmit and receive antennas all go to infinity with fixed ratios. RVQ for beamforming is asymptotically optimal, i.e., no other quantization scheme can achieve a larger asymptotic rate. We subsequently consider a precoding matrix with arbitrary rank, and approximate the asymptotic RVQ performance with optimal and linear receivers (matched filter and Minimum Mean Squared Error (MMSE)). Numerical examples show that these approximations accurately predict the performance of finite-size systems of interest. Given a target spectral efficiency, numerical examples show that the amount of feedback required by the linear MMSE receiver is only slightly more than that required by the optimal receiver, whereas the matched filter can require significantly more feedback. \end{abstract} \begin{IEEEkeywords} Beamforming, large system analysis, limited feedback, Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO), precoding, vector quantization. \end{IEEEkeywords} \section{Introduction} \IEEEPARstart{G}{iven} a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) channel, providing channel information at the transmitter can increase the achievable rate and simplify the coder and decoder. Namely, this channel information can specify a precoding matrix, which aligns the transmitted signal along the strongest channel modes (i.e., singular vectors corresponding to the largest singular values). In practice, the precoding matrix must be quantized at the receiver, and relayed to the transmitter via a feedback channel. The corresponding achievable rate is therefore limited by the accuracy of the quantizer. The design and performance of quantized precoding matrices for multi-input single-output (MISO) and MIMO channels has been considered in numerous references, including \cite{narula98,mukkavilli03,love03,LoveHeath05,lau04,roh_it06, roh_sp06,dai_liu,dai_liu_rider_Grassman,zhou05,xia06,mukkavilli03asilomar}. In those references, and in this paper, the channel is assumed to be stationary, known at the receiver, and the performance is evaluated as a function of the number of quantization bits $B$. (This is in contrast with other work, which models estimation error at the receiver, but does not explicitly account for quantization error (e.g., ), and which assumes a time-varying channel with feedback of second-order statistics .) Optimization of vector quantization codebooks is discussed in for beamforming, and in for MIMO channels with precoding matrices that provide multiplexing gain (i.e., have rank larger than one). It is shown in that this optimization can be interpreted as maximizing the minimum distance between points in a Grassmannian space. (See also .) The performance of this class of Grassmannian codebooks is also studied in . \IEEEpubidadjcol In this paper, we evaluate the performance of a {\em Random Vector Quantization (RVQ)} scheme for the precoding matrix. Namely, given $B$ feedback bits, the precoding matrix is selected from a random codebook containing $2^B$ matrices, which are independent and isotropically distributed. RVQ has been analyzed in other source coding contexts (e.g., see and the related discussion in ), and achieves the rate-distortion bound for ergodic Gaussian sources. This work is motivated by prior work in which RVQ is considered for signature quantization in Code-Division Multiple Access (CDMA). In that scenario, limited feedback is used to select a signature for a particular user, which maximizes the received Signal-to-Interference-Plus-Noise-Ratio (SINR). RVQ has the attractive properties of being tractable and asymptotically optimal. Namely, in the received SINR with RVQ is evaluated in the asymptotic (large system) limit as processing gain, number of users, and feedback bits all tend to infinity with fixed ratios. Furthermore, it is shown that no other quantization scheme can achieve a larger asymptotic SINR. Here we assume an {\em i.i.d.} block Rayleigh fading channel model with independent channel gains, and take ergodic capacity as the performance criterion. The receiver relays $B$ bits to the transmitter (per codeword) via a reliable feedback channel (i.e., no feedback errors) with no delay. We start by evaluating the capacity of MISO and MIMO channels with a quantized {\em beamformer}, i.e., rank-one precoding matrix. Our results are asymptotic as the number of transmit antennas $N_t$ and feedback bits $B$ both tend to infinity with fixed $B/N_t$ (feedback bits per degree of freedom). For the MIMO channel the number of receive antennas $N_r$ also tends to infinity in proportion with $N_t$ and $B$. The asymptotic expressions accurately predict the performance of finite-size systems of interest as a function of normalized feedback and background Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). In analogy with the optimality result shown in , RVQ is also asymptotically optimal in this scenario, i.e., no other quantization scheme can achieve a larger asymptotic rate. Furthermore, numerical examples for small $N_t$ show that RVQ performance averaged over codebooks is essentially the same as that obtained from codebooks optimized via the Lloyd-Max algorithm . (See also the numerical examples in , which compare RVQ performance with the optimized (Grassmannian) codebooks in .) We then consider quantization of a precoding matrix with arbitrary rank. Namely, a rank $K$ precoding matrix multiplexes $K$ independent streams of transmitted information symbols onto the $N_t$ transmit antennas. In that case, the capacity with limited feedback is approximated in the limit as $B$, $N_t$, $N_r$, and $K$ all tend to infinity with fixed ratios $K/N_t$, $N_r/N_t$, and $B/N_r^2$. That is, the number of feedback bits again scales linearly with the number of degrees of freedom, which is proportional to $N_r^2$. Although our results for beamforming suggest that RVQ is also asymptotically optimal in this scenario, this remains an open question. The asymptotic results for a precoder matrix with arbitrary rank $K$ can be used to determine the normalized rank, or multiplexing gain $K/N_t$, which maximizes the capacity. This optimized rank in general depends on the normalized feedback, the ratio of antennas $N_t/N_r$, and the SNR. For example, if $N_t/N_r \geq 1$ and the SNR is sufficiently large, then as the feedback increases from zero to infinity, the optimized rank decreases from one to $N_r/N_t$. Numerical results are presented, which illustrate the effect of normalized rank on achievable rate, and also show that the asymptotic results accurately predict simulated results for finite-size systems of interest. We also evaluate the performance of RVQ with linear receivers (i.e., the matched filter and linear Minimum Mean Squared Error (MMSE) receivers), and compare their performance with the optimal (capacity-achieving) receiver. With the optimal precoding matrix, corresponding to infinite feedback, both linear receivers are optimal. With limited feedback the two linear receivers are simpler than the optimal receiver, but require more feedback to achieve a target rate. Numerical results show that this additional feedback required by the linear MMSE receiver is quite small, whereas the additional feedback required by the matched filter can be significant (e.g., about one bit per precoding matrix element). In addition to quantizing the optimal precoding matrix, power for each data stream can also be optimized, quantized, and fed back to the transmitter (e.g., see ). Asymptotically, the amount of feedback required to specify the power is negligible compared to the feedback required for the precoding matrix. Furthermore, uniform power over the set of activated channel typically performs close to the optimal (water-filling) performance . We therefore only consider quantization of the precoding matrix. Other related work on RVQ for MIMO channels has been presented in . Namely, exact expressions for the ergodic capacity with beamforming and RVQ for a finite-size MISO channel are derived in . The performance of RVQ for precoding over a broadcast MIMO channel is analyzed in . A closely related random beamforming scheme for the multiuser MIMO broadcast channel was previously presented in . In that work, the growth in sum capacity is characterized asymptotically as the number of users becomes large with a {\em fixed} number of antennas. (Random beamforming was previously proposed in , although there the main focus is to improve fairness among users.) The paper is organized as follows. Section~ describes the channel model, Section~ considers the capacity of beamforming with limited feedback, and sections~ and examine the capacity of a quantized precoding matrix with optimal and linear receivers, respectively. Derivations of the main results are given in the appendices. \section{Channel Model} We consider a point-to-point, flat Rayleigh fading channel with $N_t$ transmit antennas and $N_r$ receive antennas. Let $\bm{x} = [ x_k ]$ be a $K \times 1$ vector of transmitted symbols with covariance matrix $\bm{I}_K$, where $\bm{I}_K$ is the $K \times K$ identity matrix, and $K$ is the number of independent data streams. The received $N_r \times 1$ vector is given by \begin{equation} \bm{y} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{K}} \bm{H} \bV \bm{x} + \bm{n} \end{equation} where $\bm{H} = [ h_{n_r,n_t} ]$ is an $N_r \times N_t$ channel matrix, $\bV = [\bm{v}_1 \ \bm{v}_{2} \ \ldots \ \bm{v}_{K} ]$ is an $N_t \times K$ precoding matrix, and $\bm{n}$ is a complex Gaussian noise $N_r \times 1$ vector with covariance matrix $\varn \bm{I}_{N_r}$. Assuming rich scattering and Rayleigh fading, the elements of $\bm{H}$ are independent, and the channel coefficient between the $n_t$th transmit antenna and the $n_r$th receive antenna, $h_{n_r,n_t}$, is a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random variable with zero mean and unit variance ($E [ | h_{n_r,n_t} |^2 ] = 1$). We assume {\em i.i.d.} block fading, i.e., the channel is static within a fading block, and the channels across blocks are independent. The ergodic capacity is achieved by coding the transmitted symbols across an infinitely large number of fading blocks. With perfect channel knowledge at the receiver and a given precoding matrix $\bV$, the ergodic capacity is the mutual information between $ \bm{x} $ and $ \bm{y} $ with a complex Gaussian distributed input, averaged over the channel, given by \begin{equation} I( \bm{x} ; \bm{y} ) = E_{\bm{H}} \left[ \log \det \left( \bm{I} + \frac{\rho}{K} \bm{H} \bV \bV^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} \right) \right] \end{equation} where $ \rho = 1/\sigma_n^2 $ is the background SNR. We wish to specify the precoding matrix $ \bV $ that maximizes the mutual information, subject to a power constraint $ \| \bm{v}_{k} \| \le 1$, for $1 \le k \le K$. With unlimited feedback, the columns of the optimal precoding matrix, which maximizes \eqref{eq:mut}, are eigenvectors of the channel covariance matrix $\bm{H}^{\dag} \bm{H}$. With $B$ feedback bits per fading block, we can specify the precoding matrix from a quantization set or codebook $\mathcal{V} = \{ \bV_1, \cdots, \bV_{2^B} \}$ known {\em a priori} to both the transmitter and receiver. The receiver chooses the $\bV_j$ that maximizes the sum mutual information, and relays the corresponding index back to the transmitter. Of course, the performance (ergodic capacity) depends on the codebook $\mathcal{V}$. \section{Beamforming with Limited Feedback} We start with a rank-one precoding matrix, corresponding to a single data stream ($K = 1$). In that case, the precoding matrix is specified by an $N_t \times 1$ beamforming vector $\bm{v}$, which ideally corresponds to the strongest channel mode. That is, the optimal $\bm{v}$, which maximizes the ergodic capacity in \eqref{eq:mut}, is the eigenvector of $\bm{H}^\dag \bm{H}$ corresponding to the largest eigenvalue. This vector is computed at the receiver and a quantized version is relayed back to the transmitter. Let $\mathcal{V} = \{ \bm{v}_1, \ldots, \bm{v}_{2^B} \}$ denote the quantization codebook for $\bm{v}$, given $B$ feedback bits. Optimization of this codebook has been considered in with outage capacity and ergodic capacity as performance metrics. The performance of an optimized codebook is difficult to evaluate exactly, and is approximated in . Here we consider RVQ in which $\bm{v}_1 , \cdots , \bm{v}_{2^B}$ are independent, isotropically distributed random vectors, each with unit norm. This is motivated by the observation that given a channel matrix $\bm{H}$ with {\em i.i.d.} elements, the eigenvectors of $\bm{H}^\dag \bm{H}$ are isotropically distributed , hence the codebook entries should be uniformly distributed over the space of beamforming vectors. \subsection{MISO Channel} We first consider a MISO channel, corresponding to a single receive antenna ($N_r = 1$). In that case, $\bm{H}$ is an $N_t \times 1$ channel vector, which we denote as $\bm{h}$. The optimal beamformer, which maximizes the mutual information in (), is the normalized channel vector $\bm{h} / \| \bm{h} \|$ and the corresponding mutual information is $E_{\bm{h}} [ \log ( 1 + \rho \bm{h}^{\dag} \bm{h} ) ]$. The receiver selects the quantized precoding vector to maximize the mutual information, i.e., \begin{equation} \hat{\bm{v}} = \arg \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} \left\{ I_j = \log (1 + \rho | \bm{h}^{\dag} \bm{v}_j |^2 ) \right\} \end{equation} and the corresponding achievable rate is \begin{equation} I_{\rvq}^{N_t} \triangleq \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} I_j . \end{equation} where the superscript $N_t$ denotes the system size. The achievable rate depends on the codebook $\mathcal{V}$ and the channel vector $\bm{h}$, and is therefore random. Rather than averaging $I_{\rvq}^{N_t}$ over $\mathcal{V}$ and $\bm{h}$ to find the ergodic capacity, we instead evaluate the limiting performance as $N_t$ and $B$ tend to infinity with fixed $\bar{B} = B/N_t$ (feedback bits per transmit antenna). In this limit, $I_{\rvq}^{N_t}$ converges to a deterministic constant. This is illustrated in Fig. , which shows the pdf of $|\bm{h}^\dag \hat{\bm{v}}|^2 / \| \bm{h} \|^2$ for different $N_t$ with no feedback ($\bar{B}=0$), and for RVQ with $\bar{B}=2$. The figure shows that convergence of the pdf to a point mass is faster with feedback than without. As $N_t \to \infty$, $(\bm{h}^\dag \bm{h})/N_t \to 1$ almost surely, so that $\log(1+\rho\bm{h}^\dag \bm{h}) - \log(\rho N_t)\to 0$. That is, with perfect channel knowledge at the transmitter, the ergodic capacity increases as $\log(\rho N_t)$. With finite feedback there is a rate loss, which is defined as \begin{equation} I_{\rvq}^{\triangle} = I_{\rvq}^{N_t} - \log(\rho N_t) . \end{equation} For finite $N_t$, $I_{\rvq}^{\triangle}$ is random; however, in the large system limit $I_{\rvq}^{\triangle}$ converges to a deterministic constant. \begin{theorem} As $(N_t,B) \to \infty$ with fixed $\bar{B} = B/N_t$, the rate difference $I_{\rvq}^{\triangle}$ converges in the mean square sense to \begin{equation} \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}^{\triangle} = \log ( 1 - 2^{-\bar{B}} ) . \end{equation} \end{theorem} The proof is given in Appendix~. For $\bar{B} > 0$, the rate loss due to finite feedback is a constant. As $\bar{B} \to 0$, this rate loss tends to infinity, since with $\bar{B}=0$, the capacity tends to a constant as $N_t \to \infty$, whereas the capacity grows as $\log N_t$ for $\bar{B} > 0$. Of course, as $\bar{B} \to \infty$ (unlimited feedback), the rate loss vanishes. RVQ is asymptotically optimal in the following sense. Suppose that $\{ \mathcal{V}_{N_t} \}$ is an arbitrary sequence of codebooks for the beamforming vector where \begin{equation} \mathcal{V}_{N_t} = \left\{ \bm{v}_1^{N_t}, \bm{v}_2^{N_t}, \ldots, \bm{v}_{2^B}^{N_t} \right\} \end{equation} is the codebook for a particular $N_t$ and $\|\bm{v}_j^{N_t} \|^2 = 1$ for each $j$. The associated rate is given by \begin{equation} I_{\mathcal{V}_{N_t}} = \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} \log (1 + \rho | \bm{h}^{\dag} \bm{v}_j^{N_t} |^2 ) \end{equation} and the rate difference $I^{\triangle}_{\mathcal{V}_{N_t}} = I_{\mathcal{V}_{N_t}} - \log(\rho N_t)$. \begin{theorem} For any sequence of codebooks $\{ \mathcal{V}_{N_t} \}$, \begin{equation} \limsup_{(N_t,B) \to \infty} E_{\bm{h}} [ I^{\triangle}_{\mathcal{V}_{N_t}}] \le \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}^{\triangle} . \end{equation} \end{theorem} The proof is given in Appendix . Although the optimality of RVQ holds only in the large system limit, numerical results in Section show that for finite-size systems of interest RVQ performs essentially the same as optimized quantization codebooks. \subsection{Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO) Channel} We now consider quantized beamforming for a MIMO channel, i.e., with multiple transmit {\em and} receive antennas. Taking the rank $K=1$ maximizes the diversity gain , but the corresponding capacity grows only as $\log N_t$ instead of linearly with $N_t$, which is the case when $K$ grows proportionally with $N_t$. (This is true with both unlimited and limited feedback, assuming a fixed number of feedback bits per precoder element.) Also, a beamformer is significantly less complex than a matrix precoder with $K>1$, and requires less feedback to specify. We again consider an RVQ codebook $\mathcal{V}$ with $2^B$ independent unit-norm vectors, where each vector is uniformly distributed over the $N_t$-dimensional unit sphere. The achievable rate is $E_{\bH} [ I_{\rvq}^{N_t} ]$, where \begin{eqnarray} I_{\rvq}^{N_t} & = & E_{\mathcal{V}} \left[ \left. \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} \log \left( 1 + \rho \| \bm{H} \bm{v}_j \|^2 \right) \right| \bm{H}\right] \\ & = & E_{\mathcal{V}} \left[ \log ( 1 + \rho \left. \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} \| \bm{H} \bm{v}_j \|^2 )\right| \bm{H} \right] . \end{eqnarray} As for the MISO channel, with unlimited feedback the achievable rate increases as $\log (\rho N_t)$. We again define the rate difference due to quantization as \begin{equation} I^{\triangle}_{\rvq} \triangleq I_{\rvq}^{N_t} - \log(\rho N_t) = E_{\mathcal{V}} \left[ \left. \log \left( \frac{1}{\rho N_t} + \max_j \gamma_j \right) \right| \bm{H} \right] \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \gamma_j = \frac{1}{N_t} \bm{v}_j^\dag \bm{H}^\dag \bm{H} \bm{v}_j . \end{equation} Evaluating the expectation in \eqref{IDr} is difficult for finite $N_t$, $N_r$, and $B$, so that we again resort to a large system analysis. Namely, we let $N_t$, $N_r$, and $B$ each tend to infinity with fixed $\B = B/N_t$ and $\N = N_r/N_t$. For each $N_t$ and $N_r$ the channel matrix $\bm{H}$ is chosen as the $N_r \times N_t$ upper-left corner of a matrix $\bar{\bm{H}}$ with an infinite number of rows and columns, and with {\em i.i.d.} complex Gaussian entries. The received power in this large system limit is given by \begin{equation} \gamma^{\infty}_{\rvq} = \lim_{(N_t, N_r, B) \to \infty} \left[ \left. \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} \gamma_j \right| \bar{\bm{H}} \right] \end{equation} where convergence to the deterministic limit can be shown in the mean square sense. Conditioned on $\bar{\bm{H}}$, the $\gamma_j$'s are {\em i.i.d.} since the beamforming vectors $\bm{v}_j$ are {\em i.i.d.}, and applying \cite[Theorem 2.1.2]{galambos}, it can be shown that \begin{equation} \gamma^{\infty}_{\rvq} = \lim_{(N_t, N_r, B) \to \infty} F^{-1}_{\gamma | \bar{\bm{H}}} \left( 1 - 2^{-B} \right) \end{equation} where $F_{\gamma | \bar{\bm{H}}} ( \cdot )$ is the cdf of $\gamma_j$ given $\bar{\bm{H}}$. Analogous results for the interference power in CDMA with quantized signatures have been presented in , so that we omit the proofs of \eqref{vrr} and \eqref{gir}. Note that $\N \leq \gamma^{\infty}_{\rvq} \leq (1 + \sqrt{\N})^2$, where the lower and upper bounds correspond to $\B = 0$ and $\B = \infty$, respectively. That is, $ (1 + \sqrt{\N})^2$ is the asymptotic maximum eigenvalue of the channel covariance matrix $\frac{1}{N_t} \bm{H}^{\dag}\bm{H}$ . The asymptotic rate difference is given by \begin{equation} \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}^{\Delta} = \lim_{(N_t, N_r, B) \to \infty} I^{\Delta}_{\rvq} = \log ( \gamma^{\infty}_{\rvq} ) \end{equation} The limit in \eqref{gir} can be explicitly evaluated, and is independent of the channel realization $\bar{\bm{H}}$. \begin{theorem} For $0 \le \B \le \B^*$, $\srvq$ satisfies \begin{equation} \left( \srvq \right)^{\N} \me^{-\srvq} = 2^{-\B} \left( \frac{\N}{\me} \right)^{\N} \end{equation} and for $\B \ge \B^*$, \begin{equation} \begin{split} \srvq &= (1 + \sqrt{\N})^2 - \exp \big\{ \frac{1}{2} \N \log(\N) \\ &\quad - (\N-1) \log (1 + \sqrt{\N}) + \sqrt{\N} - \B \log(2) \big\} \end{split} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \B^* = \frac{1}{\log(2)} \left( \N\log \left(\frac{\sqrt{\N}}{1+\sqrt{\N}} \right) + \sqrt{\N} \right). \end{equation} \end{theorem} The proof is given in Appendix~ and is motivated by an analogous result for CDMA, presented in . As stated in Theorem , $\srvq$ depends only on $\B$ and $\N$. Letting $\N \to 0$ gives the the asymptotic capacity of the MISO channel with RVQ. As for the MISO channel, RVQ is asymptotically optimal. \begin{theorem} As $(N_t,N_r,B) \to \infty$ with fixed $\N = N_r/N_t$ and $\B = B/N_t$, \begin{equation} \limsup_{(N_t,N_r,B) \to \infty} I_{\mathcal{V}_{N_t}}^{N_t} - \log(\rho N_t) \le \mathcal{I}_ {\rvq}^{\Delta} \end{equation} for any sequence of codebooks $\{ \mathcal{V}_{N_t} \}$. \end{theorem} The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem~2 in and is therefore omitted. \subsection{Numerical Results} Figs.~ and~ show $\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}^{\triangle}$ for MISO and MIMO channels, respectively, with beamforming and RVQ versus normalized feedback bits ($\bar{B}$) with $\rho = 5$ and 10 dB. Also shown for comparison are achievable rates with a quantization codebook optimized via the Lloyd-Max algorithm , and the capacity with perfect beamforming, corresponding to unlimited feedback. The results for RVQ are averaged over codebook realizations, and are essentially the same as those shown for the optimized Lloyd-Max codebooks. For the MISO channel, the asymptotic capacity \eqref{eq:miso} accurately predicts the simulated results shown even with a relatively small number of transmit antennas ($N_t = 3 \text{ and } 6 $). For the MIMO results $\N = 1.5$, and simulation results are shown for $4 \times 6$ and $16 \times 24$ channels. The asymptotic results accurately predict the performance for the larger channel, and are somewhat less accurate for the smaller channel. Comparing finite feedback with perfect beamforming, the results show that one feedback bit per complex entry ($\B = 1$) provides more than 50\ MIMO examples shown, the perfect beamforming capacity is nearly achieved with two feedback bits per complex coefficient. \section{Precoding Matrix with Arbitrary Rank} In this section we consider the performance of a single-user MIMO channel with precoding matrix $\bV$ having rank $K > 1$. We wish to determine the asymptotic capacity with RVQ as in the previous section. Here we consider the large system limit as $ ( N_t, N_r, B, K ) \to \infty $ with fixed ratios $ \N = N_r/N_t $, $ \hat{B} = B/N_r^2 $, and $ \bar{K} = K/N_t$. That is, we scale the rank of the precoding matrix with $N_t$. The number of feedback bits is normalized by $N_r^2$, instead of $N_r$, since the feedback must scale linearly with degrees of freedom (in this case the number of channel elements $N_r N_t$).) Given a fixed number of feedback bits per channel coefficient, the capacity grows {\em linearly} with the number of antennas ($N_t$ or $N_r$). Given a rank $ K \le N_t $, the precoding matrix is chosen from the RVQ set \begin{equation} \mathcal{V} = \{ \bV_j, 1 \le j \le 2^B \}, \end{equation} where the entries are independent $ N_t \times K $ random unitary matrices, i.e., $ \bV_j^{\dag} \bV_j = \bm{I}_K $. This codebook is an extension of the RVQ codebook for beamforming. Letting \begin{equation} J^{N_r}_j = \frac{1}{N_r} \log \det \left( \bm{I}_{N_r} + \frac{\rho}{K} \bm{H} \bV_j \bV_j^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} \right) , \end{equation} the receiver again selects the quantized precoding matrix, which maximizes the mutual information \begin{equation} \hat{\bV} = \arg \max_{\quad 1 \le j \le 2^B} J^{N_r}_j . \end{equation} For finite $N_r$, we define \begin{align} I_{\rvq}^{N_r} & = E_{\mathcal{V}} [ \max_{\quad 1 \le j \le 2^B} J^{N_r}_j | \bar{\bH} ]\\ &= E_{\mathcal{V}} \left[ \left. \frac{1}{N_r} \log \det \left( \bm{I}_{N_r} + \frac{\rho}{K} \bm{H} \hat{\bV} \hat{\bV}^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} \right) \right| \bar{\bH} \right] \end{align} and the average sum mutual information per receive antenna with $ B $ feedback bits is then $E_{\bH} [ I_{\rvq}^{N_r} ] $. Here the power allocation over channel modes is ``on-off''. Namely, active modes are assigned equal powers. This simplifies the analysis, and it has been observed that the additional gain due to an optimal power allocation (water pouring) is quite small . Since the entries of the RVQ codebook are {\em i.i.d.}, the mutual informations $J^{N_r}_j, j= 1, \ldots, 2^B$, are also {\em i.i.d.} for a given $\bm{H}$. In principle, the large system limit of $I_{\rvq}^{N_r}$ can be evaluated, in analogy with \eqref{gir}, given the cdf of $J^{N_r}_j $ given $\bm{H}$, denoted as $F_{J;N_r | \bm{H}}$. This cdf appears to be difficult to determine in closed-form for general $(N_r,N_t,K)$, so that we are unable to derive the exact asymptotic capacity with RVQ. Still, we can provide an accurate approximation for this large system limit. Before presenting this approximation, we first compare the capacity with no channel information at the transmitter ($ \hat{B} = 0 $) to the capacity with perfect channel information ($ \hat{B}= \infty $). If $\hat{B}=0$, then the optimal transmit covariance matrix $ \bV \bV^{\dag} = \bm{I}_{N_t} $ and $K = N_t$ . That is, all channel modes are allocated equal power. As $ (N_t, N_r) \to \infty $ with fixed $ \N = N_r/N_t $, the capacity per receive antenna is given by \begin{align} \frac{1}{N_r} \log \det \left( \bm{I}_{N_r} + \frac{\rho}{N_t} \bm{H} \bm{H}^{\dag} \right) & \to \int_0^{\infty} \log \left( 1 + \rho \lambda \right) g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda \\ & = \mathcal{I}_{\rvq} ( \hat{B} = 0) \end{align} where convergence is in the almost sure sense, and $ g(\lambda) $ is the asymptotic probability density function for a randomly chosen eigenvalue of $ \frac{1}{N_t} \bm{H} \bm{H}^{\dag} $, and is given by \begin{gather} g(\lambda) = \frac{ \sqrt{(\lambda - a)(b - \lambda)} }{ 2 \pi \lambda \N } \quad {\mathrm{for}} \quad a \le \lambda \le b, \\ a = \left( 1 - \sqrt{\N} \right)^2 \quad {\mathrm{and}} \quad b = \left( 1 + \sqrt{\N} \right)^2 \end{gather} for $\N \le 1$. The integral in \eqref{int} has been evaluated in , which gives the closed-form expression \begin{equation} \mathcal{I}_{\rvq} ( \hat{B} = 0) = \log \rho y + \frac{1 - \N}{\N} \log \left( \frac{1}{1 - z} \right) - \frac{z}{\N} \end{equation} where \begin{align} y & = \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 + \N + \frac{1}{\rho} + \sqrt{ \left( 1 + \N + \frac{1}{\rho} \right)^2 - 4\N } \right) \\ z & = \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 + \N + \frac{1}{\rho} - \sqrt{ \left( 1 + \N + \frac{1}{\rho} \right)^2 - 4\N } \right). \end{align} If $ \hat{B} = \infty $, then the $K$ columns of the optimal $ \bV$ are the eigenvectors of the channel covariance matrix corresponding to the $K$ largest eigenvalues. As $( N_t, N_r, B ) \to \infty $, we have \begin{equation} \mathcal{I}_{\rvq} (\hat{B} = \infty) = \int_\eta^{\infty} \log \left( 1 + \frac{\rho}{\K} \lambda \right) g(\lambda) \,\diff \lambda \end{equation} where $ \eta $ satisfies \begin{equation} \int_{\eta}^\infty g(\lambda) \,\diff \lambda = \min\{1, \frac{\K}{\N}\} \end{equation} for $\N \le 1$. We emphasize that this corresponds to a uniform allocation of power over the set of $K$ active eigenvectors. (This result has also been presented in .) The rank of the optimal $\bV$, or optimal multiplexing gain, is at most $ \min \{ N_t, N_r \} $ and can be obtained by differentiating \eqref{wt2} with respect to $\K$. It can be verified that $ \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = 0) \le \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = \infty) $. To illustrate the increase in capacity with feedback, in Fig.~ we plot the rate ratio $\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = \infty)/ \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = 0)$ versus SNR for different values of $\N$, where $\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = \infty )$ is optimized over rank $K$. For large SNR $\rho$, we can expand \begin{align} \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = 0) & = \log(\rho) + o(\log(\rho))\\ \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = \infty) & = \log(\rho) \int_{\eta}^{\infty} g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda + o(\log(\rho)) . \end{align} Therefore \begin{equation} \lim_{\rho \to \infty} \frac{\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = \infty)}{\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = 0)} = \int_{\eta}^{\infty} g(\lambda)\, \diff \lambda \\ = \min\{1, \frac{\K}{\N}\} \end{equation} which implies that the optimal rank $K^* = \min \{ N_t, N_r \}$, and the corresponding asymptotic rate ratio is one. The increase in achievable rate from feedback is small in this case, since for large SNRs, the transmitter excites all channel modes, and the uniform power allocation asymptotically gives the same capacity as water pouring. Of course, although the increase in rate is small, feedback can simplify coding and decoding. For small $\rho$, we can expand $\log(1 + \rho \lambda)$ and $\log(1 + \rho \lambda /\K)$ in Taylor series. Taking $\rho \to 0$ gives \begin{align} \lim_{\rho \to 0} & \frac{\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = \infty)}{\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}(\hat{B} = 0)} \nonumber\\ & = \frac{1}{\K} \int_{\eta}^{\infty} \lambda g (\lambda) \, \diff \lambda \le \frac{1}{\N} \frac{\int_{\eta}^\infty \lambda g(\lambda) \,\diff \lambda}{\int_{\eta}^\infty g(\lambda) \,\diff \lambda} \\ & \le \frac{1}{\N} \frac{b \int_{\eta}^b g(\lambda) \,\diff \lambda}{\int_{\eta}^b g(\lambda) \,\diff \lambda} = \left( 1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\N}} \right)^2 \end{align} where $b$ is the asymptotic maximum eigenvalue given by \eqref{eq:marcenko-pastur2}. The inequality in \eqref{eq:rateratio2} follows from \eqref{wt1}, which implies $ \K \ge \N \int_{\eta}^\infty g(\lambda) \,\diff \lambda $. Note that () corresponds to allocating all transmission power to the strongest channel mode, which is known to maximize capacity at low SNRs. The maximal rate ratio~\eqref{eq:rateratio3} can also be obtained from Theorem~. The rate increase due to feedback is substantial when $\N$ is small, and the rate ratio tends to infinity as $\N \to 0$. This is because the channel becomes a MISO channel, in which case the capacity is a constant with $\B=0$ and increases as $\log (\rho N_t)$ with $\B = \infty$. To evaluate the asymptotic capacity with arbitrary $\hat{B}$, we approximate $J_j^{N_r}$ given $\bar{\bm{H}}$ as a Gaussian random variable. This is motivated by the fact that $J_j^{N_r}$ is Gaussian in the large system limit , since $\bH \bV$ is {\em i.i.d.} Conditioning on $\bm{H}$ introduces dependence among the elements of $\bH \bV$; however, numerical examples indicate that the Gaussian assumption is still valid for large $N_t$ and $N_r$. Alternatively, if we do not condition on $\bH$, then the rates $\{J_j^{N_r}\}$ are dependent. Application of the results from extreme statistics, assuming the rates $\{J_j^{N_r}\}$ are independent, gives an upper bound on the asymptotic achievable rate (e.g., see the proof of Theorem 2 in ). This is illustrated by subsequent numerical results. Evaluating the large system limit of $I_{\rvq}^{N_r}$, assuming that the cdf of $J_j^{N_r}$ is Gaussian, gives the approximate rate \begin{equation} \tilde{\mathcal{I}}_{\rvq} = \mu_J + \sigma_J \sqrt{ 2 \hat{B} \log 2 } \end{equation} independent of the channel realization, where $\mu_J$ and $\sigma_J^2$ are the asymptotic mean of $J_j^{N_r}$, and variance of $N_r^2 J_j^{N_r}$, respectively. The derivation of \eqref{appxm} is a straightforward extension of \cite[Sec. 2.3.2]{galambos} and is not shown here. As $ \hat{B} \to 0 $, this approximation becomes exact. However, as $ \hat{B} \to \infty $, the approximate rate $ \tilde{\mathcal{I}}_{\rvq} \to \infty $, whereas the actual rate $ \mathcal{I}_{\rvq} (\hat{B} = \infty) $ is finite, and can be computed from \eqref{wt2} and \eqref{wt1}. This is because $ J_j^{N_r}$ is bounded for all $N_r$, whereas a Gaussian random variable can assume arbitrarily large values. Therefore the Gaussian approximation gives an inaccurate estimate of $ \mathcal{I}_{\rvq} $ for large $ \hat{B} $. (This implies that we should approximate $\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}$ as $\min \{ \tilde{\mathcal{I}}_{\rvq}, \mathcal{I}_{\rvq} (\hat{B} =\infty) \}$.) The asymptotic mean and variance of $J_j^{N_r}$ are computed in Appendix~. The asymptotic mean is given by \begin{equation} \begin{split} \mu_J = \frac{\K}{\N} \log \left( 1 + \frac{\N}{\K} \rho - \frac{\N}{\K} \rho v \right) \\ + \log \left( 1 + \rho - \frac{\N}{\K} \rho v \right) - v \end{split} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} v = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\K}{2\N} + \frac{\K}{2 \N \rho} - \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ \left(1 + \frac{\K}{\N} + \frac{\K}{\N \rho} \right)^2 - \frac{4 \K}{\N}} . \end{equation} The asymptotic variance is approximated for $0 \le \K = \N \le 1$ and small SNR ($\rho \le -5\, \text{dB}$) as \begin{equation} \sigma_J^2 \approx \rho^2 (1 - \N) . \end{equation} The asymptotic variance for moderate SNRs and normalized rank $\K \ne \N$ can be computed easily via numerical simulation.\footnote{We note that the simulation needed to compute this variance is much simpler than the simulation, which would be required to obtain the RVQ rate directly, especially with a moderate to large number of feedback bits.} In contrast with the beamforming results in the preceding section, we are unable to show that RVQ is asymptotically optimal when the precoding matrix has arbitrary rank. The corresponding argument for beamforming relies on the evaluation of the asymptotic rate difference $\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}^\Delta$. Since here we are unable to evaluate $\mathcal{I}_{\rvq}$ exactly, we cannot apply that argument. Nevertheless, numerical results have indicated that the performance of RVQ matches that of optimized codebooks (e.g., see ). Fig.~ shows $ \tilde{\mathcal{I}}_{\rvq} $ with normalized rank $ \K = \N $ versus $ \hat{B} $ for $ \rho = -5, 0, 5 \ \text{dB}$ and $ \N = 0.5 $. The dashed lines show the unlimited feedback capacity $ \mathcal{I}_{\rvq} (\hat{B} = \infty) $, which is computed from \eqref{wt2} with optimized $\K$. The asymptotic rate with RVQ is computed from \eqref{appxm}, where $\sigma_J$ for $\rho = -5 \, \text{dB}$ is approximated by \eqref{ll1}, and $\sigma_J$ is determined from simulation with $N_t = 20$ for $\rho = 0 \text{ and } 5 \text{ dB}$. Also shown in Fig.~ are simulation results for $ \mathcal{I}_{\rvq} $ with $N_t = 8$ and $N_r = 4$. Because the size of the RVQ codebook increases exponentially with $\hat{B}$, it is difficult to generate simulation results for moderate to large values of $\hat{B}$. Hence simulation results are shown only for $\hat{B} \leq 0.8$. The asymptotic results accurately approximate the simulated results shown. The accuracy increases as the feedback $\hat{B}$ decreases. Since $ \tilde{\mathcal{I}}_{\rvq} $ is a function of both rank $ \K $ and feedback $ \hat{B} $, for a given $\hat{B}$, we can select $ \K$ to maximize $ \tilde{\mathcal{I}}_{\rvq} $. Fig.~ shows mutual information per receive antenna versus normalized rank from \eqref{appxm} with $ \N = 0.2 $, $ \rho = 5 $ dB, and different values of $ \hat{B} $. ($\sigma_J$ is obtained from numerical simulations.) The maximal rates are attained at $ \K = 1$, $0.3$, and $0.2$ for $\hat{B} = 0$, $0.5$, and $2$, respectively. In general, the optimal rank is approximately $\N$ for large enough $\hat{B}$ and SNR. The results in Fig.~ indicate that taking $\K=\N$ achieves near-optimal performance, independent of $\hat{B}$ when $\hat{B}>0$. As $ \hat{B} $ increases, the rate increases and the difference between the rate with optimized rank and full-rank ($\K=1$) also increases. For the example shown, the rate increase from selecting the optimal rank is as high as $50\ \section{Quantized Precoding with Linear Receivers} In this section we evaluate the performance of a quantized precoding matrix with linear receivers (matched filter and MMSE), and compare with the performance of the optimal receiver. As $\hat{B} \to \infty$, the optimal precoding matrix eliminates the cross-coupling among channel modes, and the optimal receiver becomes the linear matched filter. Hence the corresponding achievable rates should be the same in this limit. However, for finite $\hat{B}$ the optimal receiver is expected to perform better than the linear receiver. Given a target rate, increasing the feedback therefore enables a reduction in receiver complexity. We again assume that there are $K$ independent data streams, which are multiplexed by the linear precoder onto $N_t$ transmit antennas. To detect the transmitted symbols in data stream $k$, the received signal $\bm{y}$ is passed through the $N_r \times 1$ receive filter $\bm{c}_k$. The matched filter is given by \begin{equation} \bm{c}_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{K}} \bm{H} \bm{v}_{k} \end{equation} where $\bm{v}_{k}$ is the $k$th column of the precoding matrix $\bV$, and the linear MMSE filter is given by \begin{equation} \bm{c}_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{K}} \left( \frac{1}{K} \bm{H} \bV \bV^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} + \varn \bm{I}_{N_r} \right)^{-1} \bm{H} \bm{v}_{k} . \end{equation} The SINR at the output of the linear filter $\bm{c}_k$ is \begin{equation} \mathrm{{\sf SINR}}_k = \frac{| \bm{c}_k^{\dag} \bm{H} \bm{v}_{k} |^2}{\bm{c}_k^{\dag} \left( \sum_{i \ne k} \bm{H} \bm{v}_{i} \bm{v}_{i}^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} + K \varn \bm{I}_{N_r} \right) \bm{c}_k} . \end{equation} Of course, the interference among data streams can significantly decrease the channel capacity. The performance measure is again mutual information between the transmitted symbol $x_k$ and the output of the filter $\bm{c}_k$, denoted by $\hat{x}_k$. In what follows, we assume independent coders and decoders for each data stream. Assuming that the interference plus noise at the output of the linear filter has a Gaussian distribution, which is true in the large system limit to be considered, the sum mutual information of all data streams per receive antenna is given by \begin{eqnarray} R^{N_r} & = & \frac{1}{N_r} \sum_{k = 1}^K I( x_k, \hat{x}_k) \\ & = & \frac{1}{N_r} \sum_{k = 1}^K \log (1 + \gamma_k) . \end{eqnarray} where $\gamma_k$ is the SINR for the $k$th data stream. Given a channel matrix $\bm{H}$, the sum rate $R^{N_r}$ depends on the precoding matrix $\bV$. We are interested in maximizing $R^{N_r}$ subject to the power constraint $ \| \bm{v}_{k} \| \le 1\mathrm{,} \ \forall k$, assuming that the power is allocated equally across streams. Given the codebook of precoding matrices $\mathcal{V} = \{ \bV_j, \ 1 \le j \le 2^B \}$, the receiver selects the precoding matrix \begin{equation} \hat{\bV} = \arg \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} R^{N_r}( \bV_j ) . \end{equation} We again consider RVQ, in which the $\bV_j$'s are {\em i.i.d.} unitary matrices. \subsection{Matched filter} Substituting \eqref{mfr} into \eqref{sinr}, the SINR at the output of the matched filter is given by \begin{equation} \gamma_{k;\mf} = \frac{(\bm{v}_{k}^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} \bm{H} \bm{v}_{k})^2}{K \varn ( \bm{v}_{k}^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} \bm{H} \bm{v}_{k}) + \sum_{i = 1, i \ne k}^K | \bm{v}_{k}^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} \bm{H} \bm{v}_{i} |^2} \end{equation} where subscript $k$ denotes the $k$th data stream. The average sum rate per receive antenna is given by \begin{equation} E_{\bH, \mathcal{V}} \left[ \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} \{ R_{\mf}^{N_r} (\bV_j) = \frac{1}{N_r} \sum_{k = 1}^K \log( 1 + \gamma_{k;\mf}) \} \right] \end{equation} where the expectation is over the channel matrix and codebook. Since the pdf of $R_{\mf}^{N_r}$ is unknown for finite $(N_t, N_r, K)$, we are unable to evaluate \eqref{eq:mf}. Motivated by the central limit theorem,\footnote{The terms in the sum in \eqref{eq:mf} are not {\em i.i.d.}, which prevents a direct application of the central limit theorem.} in what follows we approximate the cdf of $R_{\mf}^{N_r}$ as Gaussian. The mean is taken to be the asymptotic limit \begin{equation} \mu_{\mf} = \lim_{(N_t,N_r,K) \to \infty} R_{\mf}^{N_r} = \frac{\K}{\N} \log \left( 1 + \frac{\N}{\K (1 + \varn)} \right) . \end{equation} This limit follows from the fact that $\gamma_{k;\mf}$ converges almost surely to $[ \K(1 + \varn)/\N ]^{-1}$ as $(N_t,N_r,K) \to \infty$ with fixed $\N$ and $\K$. As for the optimal receiver, \begin{equation} N_r^2 \var [ R_{\mf}^{N_r} | \bV_j ] \to \sigma^2_{\mf} \end{equation} where $\sigma^2_{mf}$ can be easily obtained by numerical simulations. The accuracy of the Gaussian approximation for $R_{\mf}^{N_r}$ is illustrated in Fig.~, which compares the empirical pdf with the Gaussian approximation for $N_r = 10$, $\N = 1$, $K/N_r = 0.3$ and $\mathrm{SNR} = 5 \, \mathrm{dB}$. The difference between the empirical and asymptotic means vanishes as $(N_t,N_r,K) \to \infty$. We wish to apply the theory of extreme order statistics to evaluate the large system limit \begin{equation} \mathcal{R}_{\rvq;\mf} = \lim_{(N_t,N_r,K,B) \to \infty} [ \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} R_{\mf}^{N_r} (\bV_j) | \mathcal{V}]. \end{equation} Given $\mathcal{V}$, the sum rates $\{ R_{\mf}^{N_r} (\bV_1), \ldots, R_{\mf}^{N_r} (\bV_{2^B}) \}$ are identically distributed. However, the $R_{\mf}^{N_r} (\bV_j)$'s are not independent since each depends on $\bH$. This makes an exact calculation of the asymptotic rate difficult. Nevertheless, for a small number of entries in the codebook (small $B$), assuming that the rates for a given codebook are independent leads to an accurate approximation. We therefore replace the rates $R_{\mf}^{N_r} (\bV_j)$, $j=1,\cdots,2^B$, with {\em i.i.d.} Gaussian variables with mean $\mu_{\mf}$ and variance $\sigma^2_{\mf} / N_r^2$. In analogy with the analysis of the optimal receiver in the preceding section, this gives the approximate asymptotic rate \begin{equation} \tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{\rvq;\mf} = \mu_{\mf} + \sigma_{\mf} \sqrt{2 \hat{B} \log 2} . \end{equation} Numerical results, to be presented, show that this asymptotic approximation is very accurate for small to moderate values of normalized feedback $\hat{B}$. As $\hat{B} \to 0$, this approximation becomes exact. However, as $ \hat{B} \to \infty $, $ \tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{\rvq;\mf} \to \infty $, whereas $ \mathcal{R}_{\rvq;\mf}$ with $\hat{B} = \infty$ is the same as the asymptotic rate with RVQ and an optimal receiver, given by \eqref{wt2} and \eqref{wt1}. Hence $ \mathcal{R}_{\rvq;\mf}$ with $\hat{B} = \infty$ is finite. As for the analysis of the optimal receiver, this discrepancy is again due to the fact that the cdf of $R_{\mf}^{N_r}$, which has compact support, is being approximated by a Gaussian cdf with infinite support, and also because the dependence among the sum rates $R^{N_r}_{\mf} (\bm{V}_j)$ is being ignored. \subsection{MMSE receiver} Substituting \eqref{mmser} into \eqref{sinr} gives the SINR at the output of MMSE receiver for the $k$th symbol stream \begin{equation} \gamma_{k;\mmse} = \bm{v}_{k}^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} \left( \sum_{i \ne k} \bm{H} \bm{v}_{i} \bm{v}_{i}^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} + K \varn \bm{I}_{N_r} \right)^{-1} \bm{H} \bm{v}_{k} . \end{equation} As for the matched filter receiver, given a codebook $\mathcal{V}$, we approximate the pdf of the instantaneous sum rate \begin{equation} R_{\mmse}^{N_r} = \frac{1}{N_r} \sum_{k = 1}^K \log( 1 + \gamma_{k;\mmse}) \end{equation} as a Gaussian pdf with mean \begin{equation} \mu_{\mmse} = \lim_{(N_t,N_r)\to\infty} R_{\mmse}^{N_r} = \frac{\K}{\N} \log ( 1 + \gamma_{\mmse} ) \end{equation} where the large system SINR is given by \begin{equation} \begin{split} \gamma_{\mmse} &= \frac{1 - \K/\N}{2 \varn} - \frac{1}{2} \\ &\quad + \sqrt{\frac{(1 - \K/\N)^2}{4 \sigma_n^4} + \frac{1 + \K/\N}{2 \varn} + \frac{1}{4}} . \end{split} \end{equation} As for the matched filter, the asymptotic variance $\sigma^2_{\mmse}$ can be obtained via numerical simulation. In analogy with \eqref{rvqmf}, the asymptotic rate with RVQ and the MMSE receiver is given by \begin{equation} \mathcal{R}_{\rvq;\mmse} \approx \tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{\rvq;\mmse} = \mu_{\mmse} + \sigma_{\mmse} \sqrt{2 \hat{B} \log 2} . \end{equation} As for the matched filter receiver, when $\hat{B}$ is large, $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{\mmse}$ over-estimates $\mathcal{R}_{\mmse}$. For $\hat{B} = \infty$, $\mathcal{R}_{\mmse} = \mathcal{R}_{\mf} = \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}$ with the optimal receiver, given by \eqref{wt2}. \subsection{Numerical Results} Fig.~ compares the approximation for asymptotic RVQ performance with a matched filter receiver from \eqref{rvqmf} with simulated results for $N_t = 12$, $\N = 0.75$, $K/N_t = 1/2$, and $\text{SNR} = 5 \, \text{dB}$. Also shown for comparison are the asymptotic rate for RVQ with an optimal receiver, derived in Section~, the water-filling capacity ($\hat{B}= \infty$), and the rate achieved with a scalar quantizer for each coefficient.\footnote{For the scalar quantization results the available bits are spread evenly over the corresponding fraction of precoding coefficients. The remaining coefficients are set to one.} For the case shown, the analytical approximation gives an accurate estimate of the performance of the finite size system with limited feedback. The capacity with the water-filling power allocation is only slightly greater than that achieved with the on-off power allocation. The optimal receiver requires $\hat{B} \approx 0.6$ bit/dimension to achieve the capacity corresponding to unlimited feedback \eqref{wt2}, whereas the matched filter requires $1.2$ feedback bits per dimension to reach that capacity. For other target rates, these curves illustrate the trade-off between feedback and receiver complexity. Fig.~ shows the same set of results as those shown in Fig.~, but with an MMSE receiver. These results show that for the parameters selected, the MMSE receiver performs nearly as well as the optimal receiver, and requires substantially less feedback than the matched filter to achieve a target rate. Again the asymptotic approximation accurately predicts the performance of a system with a relatively small number of antennas. \section{Conclusions} We have studied the capacity of single-user MISO and MIMO fading channels with limited feedback. The feedback specifies a transmit precoding matrix, which can be optimized for a given channel realization. We first considered the performance with a rank-one precoding matrix (beamformer), and showed that the RVQ codebook is asymptotically optimal. Exact expressions for the asymptotic mutual information for MISO and MIMO channels were presented, and reveal how much feedback is required to achieve a desired performance. For the cases considered, one feedback bit for each precoder coefficient can achieve close to the water-filling capacity. Perhaps more important than the increase in capacity provided by this feedback is the associated simplification in the coding and decoding schemes that can achieve a rate close to capacity. The performance of a precoding matrix with rank $K > 1$ was also evaluated with RVQ. Although numerical examples and our beamforming results ($K=1$) suggest that RVQ is also asymptotically optimal in this case, proving this is an open problem. To compute the asymptotic achievable rate for RVQ with both optimal and linear receivers, the achievable rate with a random channel and fixed precoding matrix is approximated as a Gaussian random variable. The asymptotic rate then depends on the asymptotic mean and variance of this random variable. Although the asymptotic variance appears to be difficult to compute analytically, it can be easily obtained by simulation. Numerical results have shown that the resulting approximation accurately estimates the achievable rate with limited feedback for finite-size systems of interest. Numerical examples comparing the performance of optimal and linear receivers have shown that the linear MMSE receiver requires little additional feedback, relative to the optimal receiver, to achieve a target rate close to the water-filling capacity. The matched filter requires significantly more feedback than the MMSE receiver (more than 0.5 bit per degree of freedom for the cases shown). At low feedback rates the achievable rate with RVQ is generally much greater than that associated with scalar quantization. Of course, this comes at a price of high complexity, since the receiver is assumed to compute the performance metric for every entry in the codebook. Other reduced complexity schemes for quantizing a beamforming vector are presented in . Key assumptions for our results are that the channel is stationary and known at the receiver, and that the channel elements are {\em i.i.d.} Depending on user mobility and associated Doppler shifts, the channel may change too fast to allow reliable channel estimation and feedback. In that case, feedback of channel {\em statistics}, as proposed in , can exploit correlation among channel elements. The design of quantization codebooks for precoders, which takes correlation into account, is addressed in . The effect of channel estimation error on the performance of limited feedback beamforming with finite coherence time (i.e., block fading) is presented in . We have also assumed that the channel gains are not frequency-selective. Limited feedback schemes for frequency-selective scalar channels are discussed in , and could be combined with the quantization schemes considered here. Finally, the approach presented here for a single-user MIMO channel can also be applied to multi-user models. Quantization of beamformers for the MIMO downlink have been considered in . In that scenario the potential capacity gain due to feedback is generally much more than for the single-user channel considered here. The benefits of limited feedback for related models (e.g., frequency-selective MIMO downlink) are currently being studied. \appendix \subsection{Proof of Theorem~} Given $\bm{h}$, the receiver selects the quantized beamforming vector $\hat{\bv}$ to maximize the instantaneous rate in \eqref{hbv}. Since $\log$ is monotonically increasing, the quantized beamforming vector is given by \begin{equation} \hat{\bv} = \arg \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} \left\{ Y_j = |\bv_j^{\dag}\bm{h}|^2 /\|\bm{h}\|^2 \right\} . \end{equation} Since the codebook entries $\bv_j$, $j = 1, \cdots, 2^B$, are {\em i.i.d.}, the $Y_j$'s, given $\bm{h}$, are also {\em i.i.d.} with the cdf \begin{equation} F_{Y | \bm{h}} (y) = 1 - (1 - y)^{N_t - 1}, \quad 0 \le y \le 1 . \end{equation} We wish to determine the distribution of $\max_j Y_j$ given $\bm{h}$. From \cite[Theorem 2.1.2]{galambos} it follows that \begin{equation} \frac{\max_j Y_j - a_n}{b_n} \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{Y} \end{equation} where $\mathcal{Y} $ is a Weibull random variable having distribution \begin{equation} H_{\gamma} (x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l@{\quad}l} 1, & x \ge 0 \\ \exp ( - (- x)^{\gamma}), & x < 0 \end{array} \right. , \end{equation} $\mathcal{D}$ denotes convergence in distribution, and $a_n$ and $b_n$ are normalizing sequences, where $n = 2^B$. Specifically, the theorem requires that $\omega(F_{Y | \bm{h}}) = \sup \{y: F_{Y | \bm{h}} (y) < 1 \}$ be finite, and that the distribution function $F^{\ast}_{Y | \bm{h}} (y) = F_{Y | \bm{h}} ( \omega(F_{Y | \bm{h}}) - 1/y ), y > 0$ satisfies, for all $y > 0$, \begin{equation} \lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{1 - F^{\ast}_{Y | \bm{h}} (t y)}{1 - F^{\ast}_{Y | \bm{h}} (t)} = y^{- \gamma} \end{equation} where the constant $\gamma > 0$. Substituting the expression for $F_{Y | \bm{h}}$ in \eqref{Fyy} into \eqref{lti}, where $\omega(F_{Y | \bm{h}}) = 1$, gives \begin{eqnarray} \lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{1 - F^{\ast}_{Y | \bm{h}} (t y)}{1 - F^{\ast}_{Y | \bm{h}} (t)} & = & \lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{\left( 1/(ty) \right)^{N_t - 1}}{\left( 1/t \right)^{N_t - 1}} \\ & = & y^{-(N_t - 1)} \end{eqnarray} so that \cite[Theorem 2.1.2]{galambos} applies when $N_t > 1$. Furthermore, the normalizing constants are given by \begin{equation} a_n = \omega(F_{Y | \bm{h}}) = 1 \end{equation} and \begin{eqnarray} b_n & = & \omega(F_{Y | \bm{h}}) - \inf \left\{ y : 1 - F_{Y | \bm{h}} (y) \le \frac{1}{n} \right\} \\ & = & 1 - F^{-1}_{Y | \bm{h}} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{n} \right) = \left( \frac{1}{n} \right)^{\frac{1}{N_t - 1}} . \end{eqnarray} To take the limit as $N_t \to \infty$, we will assume that the channel vector $\bm{h}$ contains the first $N_t$ elements of an infinite-length {\em i.i.d.} complex Gaussian vector $\bar{\bm{h}}$. Rearranging terms in \eqref{fmj} and taking the large system limit gives \begin{align} \lim_{(N_t,n) \to \infty} & E_{\mathcal{V}}[ \max_j Y_j | \bar{\bm{h}}] \\ & = \lim_{(N_t,n) \to \infty} a_n + b_n E [\mathcal{Y} ]\\ & = 1 - \lim_{(N_t,n) \to \infty} \left( \frac{1}{n} \right)^{\frac{1}{N_t - 1}} \Gamma \left( 1 - \frac{1}{N_t - 1} \right) \\ & = 1 - \lim_{(N_t,B) \to \infty} 2^{-\frac{B}{N_t - 1}} \\ & = 1 - 2^{-\B} \end{align} where the gamma function $\Gamma(z) = \int_0^{\infty} t^{z-1} \me^{-t} \, \diff t$ and we have used the fact that $E [\mathcal{Y} ] = -\Gamma(1 - 1/(N_t-1))$ . From \eqref{fmj}, as $(n, N_t) \to \infty$, \begin{equation} \var[ \max_j Y_j | \bar{\bm{h}} ] - b_n^2 \var[\mathcal{Y}] \to 0 . \end{equation} Since $\var[\mathcal{Y}] = \Gamma(1 - 2/(N_t-1)) - \Gamma^2(1 - 1/(N_t -1))\to 0$, it follows that $\var[ \max_j Y_j | \bm{h} ] \to 0$. This establishes that given $\bar{\bm{h}}$, \begin{equation} \max_j Y_j \to 1 - 2^{-\B} \end{equation} in the mean square sense. The asymptotic rate difference is given by \begin{align} \mathcal{I}_{\rvq}^{\triangle} & = \lim_{(N_t,B) \to \infty} \left( \log ( 1 + \rho \| \bm{h} \|^2 \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} Y_j ) \right) - \log ( \rho N_t ) \\ & = \lim_{(N_t,B) \to \infty} \left( \log \left( \frac{1}{\rho N_t} + \frac{1}{N_t} \| \bm{h} \|^2 \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} Y_j \right) \right)\\ & = \log(1 - 2^{-\B}) \end{align} in the mean square sense, since $\| \bm{h} \|^2 / N_t \to 1 $ almost surely. \subsection{Proof of Theorem~} The rate difference associated with codebook $\mathcal{V}_{N_t}$ is \begin{align} I^{\triangle}_{\mathcal{V}_{N_t}} & = \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} \log \left( \frac{1}{\rho N_t} + \frac{1}{N_t} | \bm{h}^{\dag} \bm{v}_j^{N_t} |^2 \right) \\ & = \log \left( \frac{1}{\rho N_t} + \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} \frac{1}{N_t} | \bm{h}^{\dag} \bm{v}_j^{N_t} |^2 \right) . \end{align} Taking expectation of the rate difference with respect to $\bm{h}$ and applying Jensen's inequality, we obtain \begin{align} E [ I^{\triangle}_{\mathcal{V}_{N_t}} ] & \le \log \left( \frac{1}{\rho N_t} + E [ \frac{1}{N_t} | \bm{h}^{\dag} \hat{\bm{v}}^{N_t} |^2] \right) \\ & = \log \left( \frac{1}{\rho N_t} + E [ \frac{1}{N_t} \| \bm{h} \|^2 ] E [ \mu ] \right) \end{align} where the optimal beamforming vector \begin{equation} \hat{\bm{v}}^{N_t} = \arg \max_{1 \le j \le 2^B} | \bm{h}^{\dag} \bm{v}_j^{N_t} |^2 , \end{equation} $\mu = |\bm{h}^{\dag} \hat{\bm{v}}^{N_t} |^2 / \| \bm{h} \|^2$, and \eqref{lfr} follows from the fact that $\| \bm{h} \|^2$ and $\mu$ are independent . We now derive an upper bound for $E [ |\bm{h}^{\dag} \hat{\bm{v}}^{N_t} |^2 / \| \bm{h} \|^2 ]$ . From (30) in we have \begin{equation} \begin{split} \mathrm{Pr} \{ |\bm{h}^{\dag} \hat{\bm{v}}^{N_t} |^2 >\gamma s ~|~ &\| \bm{h} \|^2 = \gamma \} \\ &\le \left\{ \begin{array}{l@{\quad}l} 1, & 0 \le s < s^* \\ 2^B ( 1 - s )^{N_t -1} , & s^* \le s \le 1 \end{array} \right. \end{split} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} s^* = 1 - 2^{-\frac{B}{N_t - 1}} . \end{equation} Since the right-hand side of \eqref{pha} is independent of $\gamma$, averaging over $\gamma$ gives \begin{equation} \mathrm{Pr} \{ \mu > s \} \le \left\{ \begin{array}{l@{\quad}l} 1, & 0 \le s < s^* \\ 2^B ( 1 - s )^{N_t -1} , & s^* \le s \le 1 \end{array} \right. . \end{equation} Integrating by parts, we have that \begin{align} E [ \mu ] & = \int_0^1 \mathrm{Pr} \{ \mu > x \} \, \diff x \\ & = \int_0^{s^*} \mathrm{Pr} \{ \mu > x \} \, \diff x + \int_{s^*}^1 \mathrm{Pr} \{ \mu > x \} \, \diff x . \end{align} Substituting \eqref{prm} into \eqref{prs} and evaluating both integrals gives \begin{equation} E [ \mu ] \le 1 - 2^{-\frac{B}{N_t-1}} + \frac{1}{N_t}2^{-\frac{B}{N_t-1}} . \end{equation} Substituting $E [\|\bm{h}\|^2 ]=N_t$ and \eqref{Emb} into \eqref{lfr} gives \begin{equation} E [ I^{\triangle}_{\mathcal{V}_{N_t}} ] \le \log \left( 1 - 2^{-\frac{B}{N_t-1}} + \frac{1}{N_t}2^{-\frac{B}{N_t-1}} + \frac{1}{\rho N_t} \right) \end{equation} and taking the large system limit gives \begin{equation} \lim_{(N_t,B) \to \infty} E [ I^{\triangle}_{\mathcal{V}_{N_t}} ] \le \log(1 - 2^{-\B}). \end{equation} Theorem~ states that RVQ achieves this upper bound, and therefore upper bounds the asymptotic rate difference corresponding to any quantization scheme. \subsection{Proof of Theorem~} We first prove the theorem for $\N \ge 1$. Let $z = F_{\gamma | \bar{\bH}}^{-1} (1 - 2^{-B})$. Rearranging \eqref{gir} gives \begin{equation} \lim_{\substack{(N_t, N_r) \to \infty \\ z \to \srvq}} \left[ 1 - F_{\gamma | \bar{\bH}} (z) \right]^{\frac{1}{N_t}} = 2^{-\B} . \end{equation} Next, we derive upper and lower bounds for the left-hand side of \eqref{lnr} and show that they are the same. The derivation of the upper bound is motivated by the evaluation of a similar bound for CDMA signature optimization in . That is, \begin{align} 1 - F_{\gamma | \bar{\bH}} (z) & = \Pr \left\{ \left. \gamma_j > z \right| \bar{\bH} \right\} \\ & = \Pr \left\{ \bv_j^{\dag} \bU \bLd \bU^{\dag} \bv_j > z | \bLd, \bU \right\}\\ & = \Pr \left\{ \left. \frac{\bw_j^{\dag}\bU \bLd \bU^{\dag} \bw_j}{\bw_j^{\dag} \bw_j} > z \right| \bLd, \bU \right\} \end{align} where $\gamma_j = \frac{1}{N_t} \bv_j^{\dag} \bH^{\dag} \bH \bv_j$ and we have applied the singular value decomposition $\frac{1}{N_t} \bH^{\dag} \bH = \bU \bLd \bU^{\dag}$, where $\bU$ is an $N_t \times N_t$ unitary matrix, $\bLd = \mathrm{diag} \{ \lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_{N_t} \}$, and the eigenvalues are ordered as $\lambda_1 \ge \lambda_2 \ge \cdots \ge \lambda_{N_t}$. Also, $\bw_j$ is an $N_t \times 1$ vector with independent, circularly symmetric, zero-mean and unit-variance Gaussian elements. Both $\bv_j$ and $\bw_j/\| \bw_j \|$ are isotropically distributed, i.e., $\bU\bw_j/\| \bw_j \|$ and $\bw_j / \| \bw_j \|$ have the same distribution, so that \begin{align} 1 - F_{\gamma | \bar{\bH}} (z) & = 1 - F_{\gamma | \bLd} (z) \\ & = \Pr \left\{ \left. \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \lambda_i w_i^2}{\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} w_i^2} > z \right| \bLd \right\} \\ & = \Pr \left\{ \left. - \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} ( z - \lambda_i ) w_i^2 > 0 \right| \bLd \right\} \\ & = \Pr \left\{ \left. - \rho \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} ( z - \lambda_i ) w_i^2 > 0 \right| \bLd \right\}, \quad \forall \rho > 0 \\ & = \Pr \left\{ \left. \exp \left( - \rho \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} ( z - \lambda_i ) w_i^2 \right) > 1 \right| \bLd \right\} \end{align} where $\{ w_i \}$ are elements of $\bw_j$. (We omit the index $j$ to simplify the notation.) Applying Markov's inequality and the independence of the $w_i$'s gives \begin{align} 1 - F_{\gamma | \bLd} (z) & \le E_{\{ w_i \}} \left[ \exp \left\{ \left. - \rho \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} ( z - \lambda_i ) w_i^2 \right\} \right| \bLd \right] \\ & = \prod_{i=1}^{N_t} E_{w_i} \left[ \exp \left\{ - \rho ( z - \lambda_i ) w_i^2 \right\} | \lambda_i \right]\\ & = \prod_{i=1}^{N_t} \int^\infty_0 \exp \left\{ - \rho ( z - \lambda_i ) x \right\} \me^{-x} \diff x \\ & = \prod_{i=1}^{N_t} \int^\infty_0 \exp \left\{ -(1 + \rho( z - \lambda_i )) x \right\} \diff x \\ & = \prod_{i=1}^{N_t} \frac{1}{1 + \rho ( z - \lambda_i )} \\ & = \exp \left\{ - \sum_{i = 1}^{N_t} \log(1 + \rho ( z - \lambda_i )) \right\} \end{align} when $ 1 + \rho(z - \lambda_i) > 0$ for all $i$, or $\rho < 1/(\lambda_1 - z)$. Taking the large system limit, we obtain \begin{equation} \lim_{\substack{(N_t, N_r) \to \infty \\ z \to \srvq}} \left[ 1 - F_{\gamma | \bLd} (z) \right]^{\frac{1}{N_t}} \le \exp \{ - \Phi(\srvq, \rho) \} \end{equation} for $0 < \rho < \frac{1}{\lmax - \srvq}$, where \begin{equation} \Phi(\srvq, \rho) \triangleq \int^b_a \log (1 + \rho (\srvq - \lambda)) g (\lambda) \diff \lambda , \end{equation} $g( \lambda )$ is given by \eqref{eq:marcenko-pastur1}-\eqref{eq:marcenko-pastur2}, and $\lmax = \lim_{(N_t,N_r) \to \infty} \lambda_1 = (1+ \sqrt{\N})^2$. To tighten the upper bound, we minimize \eqref{lsi} with respect to $\rho$, i.e., \begin{equation} \lim_{\substack{(N_t, N_r) \to \infty \\ z \to \srvq}} \left[ 1 - F_{\gamma | \bLd} (z) \right]^{\frac{1}{N_t}} \le \exp \{ - \Phi(\srvq, \rho^*) \} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \rho^* = \arg \max_{0 < \rho < \frac{1}{\lmax - \srvq}} \Phi(\srvq, \rho) . \end{equation} A similar expression for RVQ performance when used to quantize signatures for CDMA is derived in . To derive the lower bound, we use a change of measure. (A similar approach was used in \cite[Section 1.2]{shwartz}.) Let $y_i \triangleq (\lambda_i - z)w_i^2$, which is a scaled exponential random variable with cdf $F_i(\cdot)$. We define the new distribution \begin{equation} G_i(x) \triangleq \frac{1}{M_i(\rho^*)} \int_{-\infty}^x \me^{\rho^* y} \, \diff F_i(y) , \end{equation} so that \begin{equation} M_i(\rho^*) \diff G_i(x) = \me^{\rho^*x}\diff F_i(x), \end{equation} where $\rho^*$ is given in \eqref{eq:rhoopt}, and the moment generating function for $y_i$ is \begin{align} M_i(\theta) & \triangleq E [ \me^{\theta y_i} ] \\ & = \int_0^\infty \me^{\theta(\lambda_i - z) x} \me^{-x} \, \diff x \\ & = \frac{1}{1 + \theta(z - \lambda_i)} . \end{align} Applying the change of measure \eqref{Mir}, we have \begin{align} &1 - F_{\gamma | \bLd} (z) \nonumber \\ & = \Pr \{ \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} y_i > 0\} \\ & = \idotsint {\bf 1}[\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} y_i > 0] \, \diff F_1(y_1) \cdots \diff F_{N_t}(y_{N_t}) \\ & = \idotsint {\bf 1}[\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} y_i > 0] \me^{-\rho^* \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} y_i} \me^{\rho^*y_1}\diff F_1(y_1) \\ &\qquad \cdots \me^{\rho^*y_{N_t}} \diff F_{N_t}(y_{N_t}) \nonumber \\ & = \prod_{i=1}^{N_t} M_i(\rho^*) \idotsint {\bf 1}[\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} y_i > 0] \me^{-\rho^* \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} y_i} \,\diff G_1(y_1) \\ &\qquad \cdots \diff G_{N_t}(y_{N_t}) \nonumber \end{align} where \begin{equation} {\bf 1}[x > 0] = \left\{ \begin{array}{r@{\quad:\quad}l} 1 & x > 0\\ 0 & x \le 0 \end{array}\right. . \end{equation} For any $\epsilon >0$, \begin{align} &1 - F_{\gamma | \bLd} (z) \nonumber \\ & \ge \prod_{i=1}^{N_t} M_i(\rho^*) \idotsint {\bf 1}[\epsilon N_t \ge \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} y_i > 0]\me^{-\rho^* \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} y_i} \,\\ & \qquad \diff G_1(y_1) \cdots \diff G_{N_t}(y_{N_t}) \nonumber\\ & \ge \prod_{i=1}^{N_t} M_i(\rho^*) \me^{-\rho^* \epsilon N_t} \idotsint {\bf 1}[\epsilon N_t \ge \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} y_i > 0] \,\\ &\qquad \diff G_1(y_1) \cdots \diff G_{N_t}(y_{N_t}) \nonumber\\ & = \prod_{i=1}^{N_t} M_i(\rho^*) \me^{-\rho^* \epsilon N_t} \Pr\{ \epsilon N_t \ge \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \tilde{y}_i > 0 \} \end{align} where the $\tilde{y}_i$'s are independent random variables with cdf $G_i(\cdot)$, and the second inequality follows since $\rho^* > 0$. To determine the probability on the right-hand side of \eqref{yi0}, we first compute the mean of $\tilde{y}_i$, \begin{align} m_i &= \int y \, \diff G_i(y) \\ & = \frac{1}{M_i(\rho^*)} \int y \me^{\rho^* y} \diff F_i(y) \\ & = (1 + \rho^*(z - \lambda_i)) \int_0^\infty (\lambda_i - z) x \me^{\rho^* (\lambda_i - z) x} \me^{-x}\, \diff x \\ & = \frac{\lambda_i - z}{1 + \rho^*(z - \lambda_i)} . \end{align} Therefore \begin{equation} \frac{1}{N_t} \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} m_i = \frac{1}{N_t} \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \frac{\lambda_i - z}{1 + \rho^*(z - \lambda_i)} \end{equation} and the asymptotic mean \begin{align} m_{\infty} & = \lim_{\substack{(N_t, N_r) \to \infty \\ z \to \srvq}} \frac{1}{N_t} \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} m_i\\ & = \int_a^b \frac{\lambda - \srvq}{1 + \rho^*(\srvq - \lambda)} g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda < \infty . \end{align} Similarly, since $\tilde{y}_i$ is exponentially distributed, the variance of $\tilde{y}_i$ is \begin{equation} \sigma_i^2 = \left( \frac{\lambda_i - z}{1 + \rho^*(z - \lambda_i)} \right)^2 < \infty \end{equation} and the asymptotic variance \begin{align} \sigma_{\infty}^2 & = \lim_{\substack{(N_t, N_r) \to \infty \\ z \to \srvq}} \frac{1}{N_t} \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \sigma_i^2\\ & = \int_a^b \left( \frac{\lambda - \srvq}{1 + \rho^*(\srvq - \lambda)} \right)^2 g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda < \infty . \end{align} Both the asymptotic mean and variance are finite. Since the $\tilde{y}_i$'s are independent with finite mean and variance, the central limit theorem implies that the cdf for \begin{equation} T \triangleq \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \tilde{y}_i - \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} m_i}{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \sigma^2_i}} \end{equation} converges to a Gaussian cdf with zero mean and unit variance. Therefore we have \begin{align} &\Pr\{ 0 < \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \tilde{y}_i \le \epsilon N_t \} \nonumber\\ & = \Pr \{-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t} < T \le -\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t} + \sqrt{N_t} \epsilon \frac{1}{b_{N_t}} \} \\ & = F_T(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t} + \sqrt{N_t} \epsilon \frac{1}{b_{N_t}}) - F_T(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t}) \end{align} where $F_T(\cdot)$ is the cdf for $T$ and \begin{gather} a_{N_t} \triangleq \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} m_i /N_t}{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \sigma_i^2 / N_t}} \to \frac{m_{\infty}}{\sigma_{\infty}} ,\\ b_{N_t} \triangleq \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \sigma_i^2 / N_t} \to \sigma_{\infty} . \end{gather} Let $\phi(\cdot)$ denote a Gaussian cdf with zero mean and unit variance. We can rewrite \eqref{sNt} as \begin{equation} \begin{split} \Pr\{ 0 < \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \tilde{y}_i \le \epsilon N_t \} = \phi(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t} + \sqrt{N_t} \epsilon \frac{1}{b_{N_t}}) \\ - \phi(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t}) + \zeta_{N_t} - \xi_{N_t} \end{split} \end{equation} where \begin{align} \zeta_{N_t} & \triangleq F_T(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t} + \sqrt{N_t} \epsilon \frac{1}{b_{N_t}}) \nonumber\\ &\quad - \phi(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t} + \sqrt{N_t} \epsilon \frac{1}{b_{N_t}}), \\ \xi_{N_t} & \triangleq F_T(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t}) - \phi(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t}) . \end{align} Applying the Berry-Ess\'{e}en theorem , we can bound both $\zeta_{N_t}$ and $\xi_{N_t}$ for large $N_t$ as \begin{equation} |\zeta_{N_t}|, \quad |\xi_{N_t}| \le \frac{C}{\sqrt{N_t}} \end{equation} where $C$ is a positive constant that depends on the variance and third moment of $\tilde{y}$. Similar to the mean and variance, we can show that the third moment is also finite. We can now evaluate \begin{align} &\phi(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t} + \sqrt{N_t} \epsilon \frac{1}{b_{N_t}}) - \phi(-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t}) \nonumber\\ & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t}}^{-\sqrt{N_t} a_{N_t} + \sqrt{N_t} \epsilon \frac{1}{b_{N_t}}} \me^{-t^2/2}\, \diff t\\ & \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \me^{-N_t(a_{n_t} - \epsilon/b_{N_t})^2}\sqrt{N_t}\epsilon \frac{1}{b_{N_t}} . \end{align} Substituting \eqref{zqe} and \eqref{ebn} into \eqref{PrN}, we have \begin{equation} \Pr\{ 0 < \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \tilde{y}_i \le \epsilon N_t \} = O(1/\sqrt{N_t}) \end{equation} Taking the large system limit and applying L'Hopital's rule, it follows that \begin{equation} \lim_{\substack{(N_t, N_r) \to \infty \\ z \to \srvq}} [\Pr\{ 0 < \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \tilde{y}_i \le \epsilon N_t \}]^{\frac{1}{N_t}} = 1. \end{equation} Taking the $N_t$th root and large system limit on both sides of \eqref{yi0} gives \begin{equation} \lim_{\substack{(N_t, N_r) \to \infty \\ z \to \srvq}} \left[ 1 - F_{\gamma | \bLd} (z) \right]^{\frac{1}{N_t}} \ge \exp\{-\Phi(\srvq, \rho^*)\} \end{equation} where we use \eqref{l1l} and let $\epsilon \to 0$. The lower bound in \eqref{gm0} is exactly the upper bound \eqref{sNtr}. Therefore, \begin{align} \lim_{\substack{(N_t, N_r) \to \infty \\ z \to \srvq}} \left[ 1 - F_{\gamma | \bLd} (z) \right]^{\frac{1}{N_t}} & = \exp \{ - \Phi(\srvq, \rho^*) \} \\ & = 2^{-\B} \end{align} and the asymptotic RVQ received power satisfies the fixed-point equation \begin{equation} \Phi(\srvq, \rho^*) = \B \log(2) \end{equation} where $\rho^*$ is given by \eqref{eq:rhoopt}. The goal of the rest of the proof is to simplify \eqref{Psr}. To determine $\rho^*$, we first compute \begin{align} \frac{\partial \Phi (\srvq, \rho)}{\partial \rho} & = \int_a^b \left[ \frac{\srvq - \lambda}{1 + (\srvq - \lambda)\rho} \right] g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda \\ & = \frac{1}{\rho} + \frac{1}{\rho^2} \int_a^b \frac{1}{\lambda - \underbrace{\left(\frac{1}{\rho} + \srvq \right)}_y} g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda \\ & = \frac{1}{\rho} + \frac{1}{\rho^2} \mathcal{S}_{\bLd} (y) \end{align} where $\mathcal{S}_{\bLd} (\cdot)$ is the Stieltj\'{e}s Transform of the asymptotic eigenvalue distribution of $\bLd$. Setting the derivative to zero and solving for $\rho$ gives \begin{equation} \mathcal{S}_{\bLd} ( y ) = - \rho = \frac{1}{\srvq - y} \end{equation} as the only valid solution. Substituting the expression for $\mathcal{S}_{\bLd}$ given in into \eqref{mSy} gives \begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{(-1 + \N - y) \pm \sqrt{y^2 - 2 (\N + 1) y + (\N - 1)^2}}{2 y}\\ = \frac{1}{\srvq - y} , \end{split} \end{equation} which simplifies to the quadratic equation \begin{equation} (\N - \srvq) y^2 + [\srvq + \N \srvq + (\srvq)^2]y = 0 . \end{equation} Solving for $y$ gives $y = 0$ or $y = \srvq[1 + 1/(\srvq - \N)]$, or equivalently, $\rho = -1/\srvq$ or $\rho = (\srvq - \N)/\srvq$. Since $\rho > 0$, we must have \begin{equation} \rho^* = \frac{\srvq - \N}{\srvq} . \end{equation} Since \begin{align} \frac{\partial^2 \Phi (\srvq, \rho)}{\partial \rho^2} & = - \int_a^b \left( \frac{\lambda - \srvq}{1 + \rho^*(\srvq - \lambda)} \right)^2 g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda \\ & < 0, \end{align} therefore $\rho^*$ achieves a maximum. By also evaluating $\Phi(\srvq, \rho)$ at the boundary points $\rho = 0$ and $\rho = 1/(\lmax - \srvq)$, we have \begin{equation} \begin{split} & \rho^* \\ & = \left\{ \begin{array}{l@{,\quad}l} \frac{\srvq - \N}{\srvq} & \N \le \srvq \le \N + \sqrt{\N} \\ \frac{1}{(1 + \sqrt{\N})^2 - \srvq} & \N + \sqrt{\N} \le \srvq < (1 + \sqrt{\N})^2 \end{array} \right. . \end{split} \end{equation} To evaluate $\Phi( \srvq, \rho^* )$, we re-write \eqref{Pst} as \begin{align} &\Phi( \srvq, \rho^* ) \nonumber\\ & = \int_a^b \left[ \log(\rho^*) + \log \left( \left(\frac{1}{\rho^*} + \srvq \right) - \lambda \right) \right] g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda\\ & = \log(\rho^*) + \int_a^b \log \left( \left(\frac{1}{\rho^*} + \srvq \right) - \lambda \right) g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda . \end{align} To evaluate the integral in \eqref{llh}, we apply the following Lemma. \begin{lemma} For $x \ge (1 + \sqrt{\N})^2$, \begin{align} \Theta(x) & \triangleq \int^b_a \log (x - \lambda) g(\lambda) \, \diff \lambda \\ & = \log(w(x)) + \sqrt{\N} u(x) - (\N-1)\log \left(1 + \frac{u(x)}{\sqrt{\N}} \right) \end{align} where \begin{align} w(x) & = \frac{(x - 1 - \N) + \sqrt{(x-1-\N)^2 - 4\N}}{2}, \\ u(x) & = \frac{(x - 1 - \N) - \sqrt{(x-1-\N)^2 - 4\N}}{2 \sqrt{\N}} . \end{align} \end{lemma} The proof of this Lemma is similar to that given in and is therefore omitted here. For $\N + \sqrt{\N} \le \srvq < (1 + \sqrt{\N})^2$, we substitute $\rho^* = [(1 + \sqrt{\N})^2 - \srvq]^{-1}$ into \eqref{llh} to obtain \begin{align} & \Phi( \srvq, [(1 + \sqrt{\N})^2 - \srvq]^{-1}) \\ & = - \log[(1 + \sqrt{\N})^2 - \srvq ] + \Theta \left( (1 + \sqrt{\N})^2 \right) \\ & = - \log[(1 + \sqrt{\N})^2 - \srvq ] + \frac{1}{2}\N \log(\N) \nonumber\\ &\quad -(\N - 1) \log ( 1 + \sqrt{\N}) +\sqrt{\N}\\ & = \B \log(2) . \end{align} Solving for $\srvq$ gives \eqref{g1N}. Taking $\srvq = \N + \sqrt{\N}$ and solving for $\B$ gives $\B^*$ in \eqref{bst}. For $\N \le \srvq < \N + \sqrt{\N}$, or $0 \le \B \le \B^*$, we substitute $\rho^* = \frac{\srvq - \N}{\srvq}$ into \eqref{llh} to obtain \begin{equation} \begin{split} \Phi \left( \srvq, \frac{\srvq - \N}{\srvq} \right) = \log(\srvq - \N) - \log( \srvq) \\ + \Theta \left( \srvq + \frac{\srvq}{\srvq - \N} \right). \end{split} \end{equation} To simplify \eqref{psq}, we let $\psi \triangleq \srvq - \N$ and re-write \eqref{psq} as \begin{equation} \begin{split} \Phi \left( \psi - \N, \frac{\psi}{\psi + \N} \right) = \log(\psi) - \log( \psi + \N) \\ + \Theta \left( 1 + \N + \psi + \frac{\N}{\psi} \right). \end{split} \end{equation} After some manipulation we have \begin{eqnarray} w \left( 1 + \N + \psi + \frac{\N}{\psi} \right) & = & \frac{\N}{\psi}, \\ u \left( 1 + \N + \psi + \frac{\N}{\psi} \right) & = & \frac{\psi}{\sqrt{\N}}, \end{eqnarray} and \begin{equation} \begin{split} \Theta \left( 1 + \N + \psi + \frac{\N}{\psi} \right) = \log(\N) - \log(\psi) \\ - (\N - 1)\log \left( 1 + \frac{\psi}{\N} \right) + \psi . \end{split} \end{equation} Substituting \eqref{Tl1} into \eqref{pNp}, we obtain \begin{align} &\Phi \left( \psi - \N, \frac{\psi}{\psi + \N} \right) \nonumber\\ & = \psi - \N \log \left( 1 + \frac{\psi}{\N} \right)\\ & = \srvq - \N - \N \log ( \srvq ) + \N \log (\N). \end{align} Setting this to $\B \log(2)$ and simplifying gives \eqref{lsr}. For $\N < 1$, the asymptotic eigenvalue density of $\frac{1}{N_t} \bH^{\dag} \bH$ is given by \begin{equation} g(\lambda) = (1 - \N) \delta (\lambda) + \frac{\sqrt{(\lambda - a)(b - \lambda)}}{2 \pi \lambda} . \end{equation} where $a$ and $b$ are given by \eqref{eq:marcenko-pastur1}-\eqref{eq:marcenko-pastur2}. Following the same steps again from \eqref{Pst} gives \eqref{g1N} and \eqref{lsr}. This completes the proof of Theorem~. \subsection{Derivation of \eqref{mu}-\eqref{ll1}} To compute $ \mu_J $, we first write \begin{equation} J_j^{N_r} = \frac{1}{N_r} \sum_{k = 1}^{N_r} \log \left( 1 + \rho \frac{\N}{\K} \upsilon_k \right) \end{equation} where $ \upsilon_k $ is the $k$th eigenvalue of $ \bm{\Upsilon} = \frac{1}{N_r} \bm{H} \bm{V}_j \bm{V}_j^{\dag} \bm{H}^{\dag} $. As $ (N_t, N_r, K) \to \infty $, the empirical eigenvalue distribution converges to a deterministic function $ F_{\bm{\Upsilon}} (t) $. The asymptotic mean is given by \begin{equation} \mu_J = \lim_{(N_t,N_r,K) \to \infty} E [ J_j^{N_r} ] = \int_0^{\infty} \log \left( 1 + \rho \frac{\N}{\K} t \right) \, \diff F_{\bm{\Upsilon}} (t) . \end{equation} A similar integral has been evaluated in \cite[Eq.~(6)]{rapajic00}, and the result can be directly applied to \eqref{jnm}, giving \eqref{mu}. To compute the variance, we express $J_j^{N_r}$ differently by first performing the singular value decomposition $\bm{H} = \bm{V}_{\bm{H}} \bm{\Sigma}_{\bm{H}} \bm{U}_{\bm{H}}^{\dag}$, where $\bm{V}_{\bm{H}}$ is the $N_r \times N_r$ left singular matrix, $\bm{U}_{\bm{H}}$ is the $N_t \times N_r$ right singular matrix, and $\bm{\Sigma}_{\bm{H}}$ is an $N_r \times N_r$ diagonal matrix. Here we assume that $N_t \ge N_r$. (The result for $N_t < N_r$ can be shown by a similar approach.) We therefore have \begin{align} J_j^{N_r} & = \frac{1}{N_r} \log \det \left( \bm{I}_{N_r} + \rho \bm{\Lambda} \bm{L}_j \right) \\ & = \frac{1}{N_r} \sum_{i = 1}^{N_r} \log \left( 1 + \rho \eta_i \right) \end{align} where $\bm{\Lambda} = \frac{1}{K} \bm{\Sigma}^2_{\bH}$, $\bm{L}_j = \bU^{\dag}_{\bH} \bV_j \bV_j^{\dag} \bU_{\bH}$, and $\eta_i$ is the $i$th eigenvalue of $\bm{\Lambda} \bm{L}_j$. To compute $\var [J_j^{N_r} ]$, correlations between pairs of $\eta_i$'s are needed. Although the joint distribution of eigenvalues is known, it is complicated, so that computing the variance appears intractable. To approximate the variance of $J_j^{N_r}$, we substitute a Taylor series expansion for $\log(1 + \delta x)$ into \eqref{f1nr} to write \begin{align} J_j^{N_r} & = \frac{\rho}{N_r} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r} \eta_i - \frac{\rho^2}{2 N_r} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r} \eta_i^2 + \frac{\rho^3}{3 N_r} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r} \eta_i^3 + \ldots \\ & = \frac{\rho}{N_r} \tr\{ \bm{\Lambda} \bm{L} \} - \frac{\rho^2}{2 N_r} \tr\{ (\bm{\Lambda} \bm{L})^2 \} + \frac{\rho^3}{3 N_r} \tr\{ (\bm{\Lambda} \bm{L})^3 \} \nonumber\\ & \quad + \ldots \end{align} for $\rho \eta_{\max} < 1$, where $\eta_{\max} = \max_i \eta_i$, and is the maximum eigenvalue of $\bH \bV \bV^\dag \bH^\dag / K$. Since $\bH \bV$ is $N_r \times K$ and {\em i.i.d.}, $\eta_{\max}$ has asymptotic value $(1+\sqrt{\N/\K})^2$. If $\bar{K}/\bar{N_r} = 1$, then the condition asymptotically becomes $\rho < 1/4$ (-6 dB). Ignoring the terms of order $\rho^3$ and higher, we can approximate the variance of $J_j^{N_r}$ at low SNR as \begin{equation} \var [ J_j^{N_r} ] \approx \rho^2 \var \left[ \frac{1}{N_r} \tr\{ \bm{\Lambda} \bm{L} \} \right] . \end{equation} Letting $\bm{\Lambda} = \mathrm{diag} \{ \lambda_i \}$ and $l_{ij}$ denote the $(i,j)$th element of $\bm{L}$, the first term in \eqref{vjnr} can be expanded as \begin{equation} \begin{split} \var [ \tr \{ \bm{\Lambda} \bm{L} \} | \bm{\Lambda} ] = \sum_{i=1}^{N_r} \lambda_i^2 \left( E [l_{ii}^2] - E^2 [ l_{ii} ] \right) \\ + \sum_{i \ne j} \lambda_i \lambda_j \left( E [l_{ii} l_{jj}] - E [l_{ii}] E [l_{jj}] \right) . \end{split} \end{equation} For a given $\bm{U}_{\bm{H}}$ and random unitary $\bm{V}$ with $K = N_r$, Theorem~3 in states that $\bm{L}$ has a multivariate beta distribution with parameters $N_r$ and $N_t - N_r$. (The distribution of $\bm{L}$ is not known for general $K$.) From Theorem 2 in , we have \begin{align} E [ l_{ii} ] &= \frac{N_r + 1}{N_t + 2} \\ E [ l_{ii}^2 ] &= \frac{(N_r + 1)(N_r + 3)}{(N_t + 2)(N_t + 4)} \\ E [l_{ii} l_{jj}] &= \frac{N_r(N_r+1)(N_t+4) + (N_r+1)(N_t-N_r+1)}{(N_t+1)(N_t+2)(N_t+4)},\nonumber\\ & \quad ~~~ i \ne j, \end{align} for $1\leq i,j \leq N_r$. Substituting \eqref{elii}-\eqref{eliiljj} into \eqref{vtrbm} gives \begin{equation} \begin{split} \var [ \tr \{ \bm{\Lambda} \bm{L} \} | \bm{\Lambda} ] = \left( \frac{1}{N_r} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r} \lambda_i^2 \right) \left( \N^2(1 - \N) + O\left( \frac{1}{N_r} \right) \right) \\ + \left( \frac{1}{N_r^2} \sum_{i \ne j} \lambda_i \lambda_j \right) \left( (\N - 1)\N^3 + O\left( \frac{1}{N_r} \right) \right) . \end{split} \end{equation} Taking expectation with respect to $\bm{\Lambda}$, and the large system limit, we have \begin{equation} E_{\bm{\Lambda}} \left( \var [ \tr \{ \bm{\Lambda} \bm{L} \} | \bm{\Lambda} ] \right) \to 1 - \N . \end{equation} Also, in the large system limit \begin{eqnarray} \frac{1}{N_r} \sum_{i=1}^{N_r} \lambda_i^2 & \to & \int t^2 \diff F_{\bm{\Lambda}}(t) = \frac{1}{\N} \left( 1 + \frac{1}{\N} \right) \\ \frac{1}{N_r^2} \sum_{i \ne j} \lambda_i \lambda_j & \to & \left[ \int t \diff F_{\bm{\Lambda}}(t) \right]^2 = \frac{1}{\N^2} \end{eqnarray} where $F_{\bm{\Lambda}} (t)$ is the asymptotic distribution for the diagonal elements of $\bm{\Lambda}$ or, equivalently, the asymptotic eigenvalue distribution of $\bm{H} \bm{H}^{\dag}/N_r$. Substituting \eqref{ebmv} into \eqref{vjnr}, we have \begin{eqnarray} \sigma^2_J & = & \lim_{(N_r, N_t) \to \infty} N_r^2 \var [ J_j^{N_r} ] \\ & \approx & \rho^2 ( 1 - \N ) . \end{eqnarray} \section*{Acknowledgement} The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and for pointing out mistakes in the proofs of Theorems~ and~, which appeared in an earlier draft. \begin{thebibliography}{10} \providecommand{\url}[1]{#1} \csname url@rmstyle\endcsname \providecommand{\newblock}{\relax} \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2} \providecommand\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing{\spaceskip=0pt\relax} \providecommand\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor{4} \providecommand\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing{\spaceskip=\fontdimen2\font plus \BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor\fontdimen3\font minus \fontdimen4\font\relax} \providecommand\BIBforeignlanguage[2]{{ \expandafter\ifx\csname l@#1\endcsname\relax \typeout{** WARNING: IEEEtran.bst: No hyphenation pattern has been} \typeout{** loaded for the language `#1'. Using the pattern for} \typeout{** the default language instead.} \else \language=\csname l@#1\endcsname \fi #2}} \bibitem{narula98} A.~Narula, M.~J. Lopez, M.~D. Trott, and G.~W. Wornell, ``Efficient use of side information in multiple antenna data transmission over fading channels,'' \emph{{IEEE} J. Select. Areas Commun.}, vol.~16, no.~8, pp. 1423--1436, Oct. 1998. \bibitem{mukkavilli03} K.~K. Mukkavilli, A.~Sabharwal, E.~Erkip, and B.~Aazhang, ``On beamforming with finite rate feedback in multiple antenna systems,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~49, no.~10, pp. 2562--2579, Oct. 2003. \bibitem{love03} D.~J. Love and R.~W. Heath, Jr., ``Grassmannian beamforming for multiple-input multiple-output wireless systems,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~49, no.~10, pp. 2735--2745, Oct. 2003. \bibitem{LoveHeath05} ------, ``Limited feedback unitary precoding for spatial multiplexing systems,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~51, no.~8, pp. 2967--2976, Aug. 2005. \bibitem{lau04} V.~K.~N. Lau, Y.~Liu, and T.-A. Chen, ``On the design of {MIMO} block-fading channels with feedback-link capacity constraint,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Commun.}, vol.~52, no.~1, pp. 62--70, Jan. 2004. \bibitem{roh_it06} J.~C. Roh and B.~D. Rao, ``Transmit beamforming in multiple-antenna systems with finite rate feedback: {A} {VQ}-based approach,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~52, no.~3, pp. 1101--1112, Mar. 2006. \bibitem{roh_sp06} ------, ``Design and analysis of {MIMO} spatial multiplexing systems with quantized feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Signal Processing}, vol.~54, no.~8, pp. 2874--2886, Aug. 2006. \bibitem{dai_liu} W.~Dai, Y.~Liu, V.~K.~N. Lau, and B.~Rider, ``On the information rate of {MIMO} systems with finite rate channel state feedback and power on/off strategy,'' in \emph{Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Info. Theory ({ISIT})}, Adelaide, Australia, Sept. 2005, pp. 1549--1553. \bibitem{dai_liu_rider_Grassman} W.~Dai, Y.~Liu, and B.~Rider, ``Quantization bounds on {G}rassmann manifolds and applications to {MIMO} communications,'' \emph{IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory}, vol.~54, no.~3, pp. 1108--1123, Mar. 2008. \bibitem{zhou05} S.~Zhou, Z.~Wang, and G.~B. Giannakis, ``Quantifying the power-loss when transmit-beamforming relies on finite rate feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol.~4, no.~4, pp. 1948--1957, July 2005. \bibitem{xia06} P.~Xia and G.~B. Giannakis, ``Design and analysis of transmit-beamforming based on limited-rate feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Signal Processing}, vol.~54, no.~5, pp. 1853--1863, May 2006. \bibitem{mukkavilli03asilomar} K.~K. Mukkavilli, A.~Sabharwal, and B.~Aazhang, ``Generalized beamforming for {MIMO} systems with limited transmitter information,'' in \emph{Proc. Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems, and Computers}, vol.~1, Pacific Grove, CA, Nov. 2003, pp. 1052--1056. \bibitem{jongren02} G.~J{\"o}ngren, M.~Skoglund, and B.~Ottersten, ``Combining beamforming and orthogonal space-time block coding,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~48, no.~3, pp. 611--625, Mar. 2002. \bibitem{skoglund03} M.~Skoglund and G.~J{\"o}ngren, ``On the capacity of a multiple-antenna communication link with channel side information,'' \emph{{IEEE} J. Select. Areas Commun.}, vol.~21, no.~3, pp. 395--405, Apr. 2003. \bibitem{visotsky01} E.~Visotsky and U.~Madhow, ``Space-time transmit precoding with imperfect feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~47, no.~6, pp. 2632--2639, Sept. 2001. \bibitem{zhou02} S.~Zhou and G.~B. Giannakis, ``Optimal transmitter eigen-beamforming and space-time block coding based on channel mean feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Signal Processing}, vol.~50, no.~10, pp. 2599--2613, Oct. 2003. \bibitem{simon03} S.~H. Simon and A.~L. Moustakas, ``Optimizing {MIMO} antenna systems with channel covariance feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} J. Select. Areas Commun.}, vol.~21, no.~3, pp. 406--417, Apr. 2003. \bibitem{jafar04} S.~A. Jafar and A.~J. Goldsmith, ``Transmitter optimization and optimality of beamforming for multiple antenna systems,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol.~3, no.~4, pp. 1165--1175, July 2004. \bibitem{Zador} P.~Zador, ``Asymptotic quantization error of continuous signals and the quantization dimension,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~28, no.~2, pp. 139--149, Mar. 1982. \bibitem{GrayNeuhoff} R.~M. Gray and D.~L. Neuhoff, ``Quantization,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~44, no.~6, pp. 2325--2383, Oct. 1998. \bibitem{cdma04} W.~Santipach and M.~L. Honig, ``Signature optimization for {CDMA} with limited feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~51, no.~10, pp. 3475--3492, Oct. 2005. \bibitem{commag04} D.~J. Love, R.~W. Heath, Jr., W.~Santipach, and M.~L. Honig, ``What is the value of limited feedback for {MIMO} channels?'' \emph{{IEEE} Commun. Mag.}, vol.~42, no.~10, pp. 54--59, Oct. 2004. \bibitem{bhashyam02} S.~Bhashyam, A.~Sabharwal, and B.~Aazhang, ``Feedback gain in multiple antenna systems,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Commun.}, vol.~50, no.~5, pp. 785--798, May 2002. \bibitem{lau02} V.~K.~N. Lau, Y.~Liu, and T.-A. Chen, ``Role of transmit diversity for wireless communications -- reverse link analysis with partial feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Commun.}, vol.~50, no.~12, pp. 2082--2090, Dec. 2002. \bibitem{chun_love} C.~K. Au-Yeung and D.~J. Love, ``On the performance of random vector quantization limited feedback beamforming,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Wireless Commun.}, vol.~6, no.~2, pp. 458--462, Feb. 2005. \bibitem{jindal} N.~Jindal, ``{MIMO} broadcast channels with finite-rate feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~52, no.~11, pp. 5045--5060, Nov. 2006. \bibitem{goldsmith_jindal_isit} T.~Yoo, N.~Jindal, and A.~Goldsmith, ``Multi-antenna downlink channels with limited feedback and user selection,'' \emph{IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun.}, vol.~25, no.~7, pp. 1478--1491, Sep. 2007. \bibitem{sharif} M.~Sharif and B.~Hassibi, ``On the capacity of {MIMO} broadcast channel with partial side information,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~51, no.~2, pp. 506--522, Feb. 2005. \bibitem{viswanath_oppo_ant} P.~Viswanath, D.~N.~C. Tse, and R.~Laroia, ``Opportunistic beamforming using dumb antennas,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~48, no.~6, pp. 1277--1294, June 2002. \bibitem{tse00} D.~N.~C. Tse and O.~Zeitouni, ``Linear multiuser receivers in random environments,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~46, no.~1, pp. 171--188, Jan. 2000. \bibitem{ZhengTse} L.~Zheng and D.~N.~C. Tse, ``Diversity and multiplexing: A fundamental tradeoff in multiple-antenna channels,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~49, no.~5, pp. 1073--1096, May 2003. \bibitem{galambos} J.~Galambos, \emph{The Asymptotic Theory of Extreme Order Statistics}, 2nd~ed.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax Robert E. Krieger, 1987. \bibitem{marcenko} V.~A. Mar\u{c}enko and L.~A. Pastur, ``Distribution of eigenvalues for some sets of random matrices,'' \emph{Math. USSR-Sbornik}, vol.~1, pp. 457--483, 1967. \bibitem{dai_ciss} W.~Dai, Y.~Liu, and B.~Rider, ``Performance analysis of {CDMA} signature optimization with finite rate feedback,'' in \emph{Proc. Conf. on Info. Sciences and Systems (CISS)}, Princeton, NJ, Mar. 2006. \bibitem{telatar99} {\.I}.~E. Telatar, ``Capacity of multi-antenna {G}aussian channels,'' \emph{European Trans. on Telecommun.}, vol.~10, pp. 585--595, Nov. 1999. \bibitem{rapajic00} P.~B. Rapajic and D.~Popescu, ``Information capacity of a random signature multiple-input multiple-output channel,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Commun.}, vol.~48, no.~8, pp. 1245--1248, Aug. 2000. \bibitem{bai04} Z.~D. Bai and J.~W. Silverstein, ``{CLT} for linear spectral statistics of large dimensional sample covariance matrices,'' \emph{Annals of Probability}, vol.~32, no.~1A, pp. 553--605, 2004. \bibitem{isssta02} W.~Santipach and M.~L. Honig, ``Signature optimization for {DS-CDMA} with limited feedback,'' in \emph{Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Spread-Spectrum Tech. and Appl. ({ISSSTA})}, Prague, Czech Republic, Sept. 2002, pp. 180--184. \bibitem{Ryan07} D.~J. Ryan, I.~V.~L. Clarkson, I.~B. Collings, D.~Guo, and M.~L. Honig, ``{QAM} and {PSK} codebooks for limited feedback {MIMO} beamforming,'' to appear in \emph{IEEE Trans. on Commun.}, Feb. 2009. \bibitem{raghavan} V.~Raghavan, R.~W. Heath, Jr., and A.~M. Sayeed, ``Systematic codebook designs for quantized beamforming in correlated {MIMO} channels,'' \emph{{IEEE} J. Select. Areas Commun.}, vol.~25, no.~7, pp. 1298--1310, Sept. 2006. \bibitem{isit06} W.~Santipach and M.~L. Honig, ``Capacity of beamforming with limited training and feedback,'' in \emph{Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Info. Theory ({ISIT})}, Seattle, WA, July 2006. \bibitem{wcnc07} ------, ``Optimization of training and feedback for beamforming over a {MIMO} channel,'' in \emph{Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. and Networking Conf. (WCNC)}, Hong Kong, China, Mar. 2007. \bibitem{sun08} Y.~Sun and M.~L. Honig, ``Asymptotic capacity of multicarrier transmission with frequency-selective fading and limited feedback,'' \emph{{IEEE} Trans. Info. Theory}, vol.~54, no.~7, pp. 2879--2902, July 2008. \bibitem{castillo} E.~Castillo, \emph{Extreme Value Theory in Engineering}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax Academic Press, 1988. \bibitem{shwartz} A.~Shwartz and A.~Weiss, \emph{Large Deviations for Performance Analysis. Queues, Communications, and Computing}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax London, UK: Chapman \& Hall, 1995. \bibitem{HBNormal} J.~K. Patel and C.~B. Read, \emph{Handbook of the Normal Distribution}, 2nd~ed., ser. Statistics: a Series of Textbooks and Monographs.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax New York: Marcel Dekker, 1996. \bibitem{khatri} C.~G. Khatri and K.~C.~S. Pillai, ``Some results on the non-central multivariate {B}eta distribution and moments of traces of two matrices,'' \emph{Annals of Mathematical Statistics}, vol.~36, no.~5, pp. 1511--1520, Oct. 1965. \end{thebibliography} \begin{IEEEbiographynophoto}{Wiroonsak Santipach} (S'00-M'06) received the B.S. ({\em summa cum laude}), M.S., and Ph.D. degrees all in electrical engineering from Northwestern University, Illinois, USA in 2000, 2001, and 2006, respectively. He is currently a lecturer at the Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University in Bangkok, Thailand. His research interests are in wireless communications, and include performance evaluation of CDMA and MIMO system. \end{IEEEbiographynophoto} \begin{IEEEbiographynophoto}{Michael L. Honig} (S'80-M'81-SM'92-F'97) received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1977, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1978 and 1981, respectively. He subsequently joined Bell Laboratories in Holmdel, NJ, where he worked on local area networks and voiceband data transmission. In 1983 he joined the Systems Principles Research Division at Bellcore, where he worked on Digital Subscriber Lines and wireless communications. Since the Fall of 1994, he has been with Northwestern University where he is a Professor in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department. He has held visiting scholar positions at the Technical University of Munich, Princeton University, the University of California, Berkeley, Naval Research Laboratory (San Diego), and the University of Sydney. He has also worked as a free-lance trombonist. Dr. Honig has served as an editor for the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (1998-2000), the IEEE Transactions on Communications (1990-1995), and was a guest editor for the European Transactions on Telecommunications and Wireless Personal Communications. He has also served as a member of the Digital Signal Processing Technical Committee for the IEEE Signal Processing Society, and as a member of the Board of Governors for the Information Theory Society (1997-2002). He is the recipient of a Humboldt Research Award for Senior U.S. Scientists, and the co-recipient of the 2002 IEEE Communications Society and Information Theory Society Joint Paper Award. \end{IEEEbiographynophoto}
|
0704.0228
|
Title: Einstein vs Maxwell: Is gravitation a curvature of space, a field in
flat space, or both?
Abstract: Starting with a field theoretic approach in Minkowski space, the
gravitational energy momentum tensor is derived from the Einstein equations in
a straightforward manner. This allows to present them as {\it acceleration
tensor} = const. $\times$ {\it total energy momentum tensor}. For flat space
cosmology the gravitational energy is negative and cancels the material energy.
In the relativistic theory of gravitation a bimetric coupling between the
Riemann and Minkowski metrics breaks general coordinate invariance. The case of
a positive cosmological constant is considered. A singularity free version of
the Schwarzschild black hole is solved analytically. In the interior the
components of the metric tensor quickly die out, but do not change sign,
leaving the role of time as usual. For cosmology the $\Lambda$CDM model is
covered, while there appears a form of inflation at early times. Here both the
total energy and the zero point energy vanish.
Body: \maketitle It is said that in introducing the general theory of relativity (GTR), Einstein made the step that Lorentz and Poincar\'e had failed to make: to go from flat space to curved space. Technically, this arises from the group of general coordinate transformations~. One fundamental difficulty is then how to deal with the physics of gravitation itself, since there is only a quasi energy-momentum tensor~. For gravitational wave detection, e.g., this leaves open the question as to how energy can be faithfully transferred from the wave to the detector. The proper energy momentum tensor of gravitation was derived only recently by Babak and Grishchuk~, who start with a field theoretic approach to gravitation, in terms of a tensor field $ h^\mn$ in a Minkowski background space-time. The metric of the latter, $\eta_\mn={\rm diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$, is denoted in arbitrary coordinates by $\gamma_\mn=(\gamma^\mn)^{-1}$. The Riemann metric tensor $g_\mn=(g^\mn)^{-1}$, is then defined by \BEQ \sqrt{\frac{g}{\gamma}}g^\mn=\gamma^\mn+ h^\mn\equiv k^\mn, \qquad \frac{g}{\gamma}=\frac{{\rm det}(g_\mn)}{{\rm det}(\gamma_\mn)}. \EEQ It is just a way to code the gravitational field, allowing to expresses distances by $\d s^2=g_\mn\d x^\mu\d x^\nu$. Such a non-linear way to code distances in a flat space is not uncommon. For diffuse light transport through clouds, one may express distances in the optical thickness, the number of extinction lengths. If the cloud is not homogeneous, points at the same physical distance are described by a different optical distance and, vice versa. The Maxwell view that gravitation is a field in flat space, was actually the starting point for Einstein, and reappeared regularly. Nathan Rosen~, coauthor of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper that led the basis for quantum information, considers a bimetric theory, involving the Minkowski metric and the Riemann metric. Bimetrism is quite natural, with $\eta_\mn$ entering e.g. particle physics, and $g_\mn$ e.g. cosmology. Rosen considers covariant derivatives $D_\mu$ of Minkowski space, with Christoffel symbols $\gamma^\lambda_{\ed\mn}$ vanishing in Cartesian coordinates. When replacing in the Riemann Christoffel symbols partial derivatives by Minkowski covariant ones, \BEA \Gamma^\lambda_{\ed\mn}&=&\half g^{\lambda\sigma}(\p_\mu g_{\nu\sigma}+\p_\nu g_{\mu\sigma}- \p_\sigma g_{\mn}) \mapsto \nn\\ G^\lambda_{\ed\mn}&=&\half g^{\lambda\sigma}(D_\mu g_{\nu\sigma}+D_\nu g_{\mu\sigma}- D_\sigma g_{\mn}), \EEA the obtained Christoffel-type symbols $ G^\lambda_{\ed\mn}$ are tensors in Minkowski space. Inspired by the Landau-Lifshitz and Babak-Grishchuk results, we may define the {\it acceleration tensor} \BEQ A^\mn=\half D_\alpha D_\beta(k^\mn k^{\alpha\beta}-k^{\mu\alpha}k^{\nu\beta}),\quad \EEQ where $k^\mn=\gamma^\mn+h^\mn$ and in which the $\gamma\gamma$ terms do not contribute. Then we can calculate the combination \BEQ \tau^\mn=\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}\left[\frac{\gamma}{g}A^\mn-(R^\mn-\half g^\mn R)\right].\EEQ In doing so, we make use of Rosen's observation that $R^\mn$ remain unchanged if one replaces all partial derivatives by covariant ones in Minkowski space~. It appears that all second order derivatives drop out from (), leaving a bilinear form in first order covariant derivatives, \BEQ && \tau^\mn= \frac{c^4\,\gamma}{8\pi G\,g}\left( \half h^\mn_{\td:\lambda}h^{\lambda\rho}_{\td:\rho} -\half h^{\mu\lambda}_{\td:\lambda}h^{\nu\rho}_{\td:\rho}\right. \nn\\&&+\half h^{\mu\lambda:\rho}h^\nu_{\ed\lambda:\rho} +\frac{1}{4}k^\mn h^{\lambda\rho:\sigma}h_{\lambda\sigma:\rho} -\half h^{\lambda\rho:\mu}h^\nu_{\ed\lambda:\rho} \nn\\&&- \half h^{\mu\lambda:\rho}h^{\td:\nu}_{\lambda\rho} +\frac{1}{4}h^{\lambda\rho:\mu}h^{\td:\nu}_{\lambda\rho} -\frac{1}{8}h_\lambda^{\ed\lambda:\mu}h_\rho^{\ed\rho:\nu}\nn\\&& -\frac{1}{8}k^\mn h^{\lambda\rho:\sigma}h_{\lambda\rho:\sigma} +\left.\frac{1}{16}k^\mn h_\rho^{\,\ed\rho:\lambda}h^\sigma_{\,\ed\sigma:\lambda} \right). \EEQ in which $X_{:\mu}\equiv D_\mu X$ and raising (lowering) of indices of $h^\mn_{\td:\rho}$ is performed with $k^\mn$ ($k_\mn$). $\tau^\mn$ is a tensor in Minkowski space. For Cartesian coordinates, it coincides with the Landau-Lifshitz quasi-tensor. In general, it coincides with the Babak-Grishchuk tensor $\gamma t^\mn/g$. Inclusion of matter is now much easier than in ~. Inserting the Einstein equations in the right hand side of (), we may write the Einstein equations in the Newton shape: acceleration=mass$^{-1}\times$force, \BEA A^\mn&=&\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}\Theta^\mn,\nn \\ \Theta^\mn&=&\frac{g}{\gamma}\theta^\mn,\qquad \quad \theta^\mn\equiv \tau^\mn+T^\mn.\EEA $\Theta^\mn$ is {\it the total energy momentum tensor of gravitation and matter}. It is conserved, $D_\nu \Theta^\mn=0$, since Eq. () implies $D_\nu A^\mn=0$, because covariant Minkowski derivatives commute. As an application, let us consider cosmology, described by the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric, \BEQ \d s^2&=&U(t)c^2\d t^2-V(t)\left(\frac{\d r^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2\d\Omega^2\right), \\ \d\Omega^2&=&\d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\d \phi^2.\nn \EEQ Let us consider flat space, $k=0$, and $U=1$, $V(t)=a^2(t)$ with $a$ the scale factor. Then $\d s^2=c^2\d t^2-a^2(t)\d{\bf r}^2$ is space-independent, implying that $A^{00}=0$, due to the shape (). According to () it then follows that {\it the total energy density is zero}, because {\it the gravitational energy density}, $\tau^{00}=-3c^4\dot a^2/(8\pi Ga^2)$, {\it is negative and cancels the one of matter}, $T^{00}=\rho$, due to the Friedman equation. In other words, {\it such a universe contains no overall energy}. So far we have discussed an alternative, field theoretic formulation of GTR. If we consider a local energy momentum density as a {\it sine qua non} property, then we are led to consider Minkowski space as a fixed ``pre-space'', that exist already without matter, just as a region of space ahead of the earth's orbit is right now almost empty (Minkowskian), and when the earth arrives, there will be more gravitational and matter fields, but, in our view, no change of space. Also for cosmology there is a different interpretation. In GTR coordinates are fixed to clusters of galaxies, this is called ``coordinate space'', but due to the increasing scale factor galaxies are said to move away from each other: physical space (i.e. Riemann space) is said to expand. Here we are led to another view: Coordinate space is physical space, so clusters of galaxies do not move away from each other in time. However, the cosmic speed of light $\d r/\d t=c/a(t)$, which was very large at early times, keeps on decreasing, thus causing a redshift, till $a$ is infinite, when galaxies are invisible. {\it Relativistic Theory of Gravitation, RTG}. Let us move on to an extension of GTR, giving up general coordinate invariance. Discarding a total derivative of the Hilbert-Einstein action, Rosen expresses the gravitational action $S_R=\int\d^3x\d t\sqrt{-g\,}\,L_R$ in terms of ~ \BEQ L_R&=& \frac{c^4g^\mn}{16\pi G}(G^\lambda_{\ed\mn} G^\sigma_{\ed\lambda\sigma} -G^\lambda_{\ed\mu\sigma}G^\sigma_{\ed\nu\lambda})=\frac{c^4\sqrt{\gamma/g}}{128\pi G} \\ &\times& (2h^{\mu\nu:\rho}h_{\mu\nu:\rho}-4h^{\mu\nu:\rho}h_{\mu\rho:\nu} -h^{\nu}_{\,\ed\nu:\mu}h_\rho^{\,\ed\rho:\mu}).\nn \EEQ Involving only Minkowski covariant first order derivatives, it is close to general approaches in field theory. Logunov and coworkers continue on this~. The subgroup of gauge transformations that transform $ h^\mn$ but leave coordinates invariant, allows three extra terms ~, \BEQ L_g&=&L_R -\rho_\Lambda+\half\rho_\bi \gamma_\mn g^\mn-\rho_0\sqrt{\gamma/g}. \EEQ Here $\rho_\Lambda$ is the familiar energy related to a cosmological constant. The $\rho_0$ term describes a harmless shift of the zero level of energy, $\delta S=-\int\d^3x\d t\sqrt{-\gamma}\rho_0$. The bimetric term $\rho_\bi $ couples the Minkowski and the Riemann metrics. It acts like a mass term, because it breaks general coordinate invariance, and has some analogy to a mass term in massive electrodynamics. Logunov then imposes the relation \BEQ \rho_\Lambda=\rho_\bi=\rho_0 ,\EEQ which, in the absence of matter, keeps space flat, $ h^\mn=0$, $g^\mn=\gamma^\mn$ and also $L_g=0$. Thus one free parameter remains. Logunov's choice $\rho_\bi \equiv -m^2c^4/(16\pi G)<0$ leads to an inverse length $m$ and, in quantum language, a graviton mass $\hbar m/c$. The negative cosmological constant can be counteracted by an inflaton field ~. The obtained theory has some drawbacks, such as self-repulsive properties for matter falling onto a black hole, and a minimal and a maximal size of the scale factor in cosmology ~. For a related approach to finite range gravity, based on a generalized Fierz-Pauli coupling, see . We shall focus on the opposite choice, a positive cosmological constant $\Lambda$, ~ \BEQ \rho_\Lambda&\equiv& \frac{\Lambda c^4}{8\pi G}=\frac{3c^2}{8\pi G}\,\Om_{v,0}H_0^2 =\frac{3c^2}{8\pi G}\,0.74\left(\frac{0.71}{9.78 \textrm{Gyr}}\right)^2, \nn\\ \rho_\bi&\equiv&\frac{\Lambda_\bi c^4}{8\pi G}=\rho_\Lambda. \EEQ Now the graviton has an ``imaginary mass'', $m=\hbar\sqrt{-2\Lambda_\bi}/c$, it is a ``tachyon'': Gravitational waves are unstable at today's Hubble scale. But this is of no concern, since on that scale, not single gravitational waves but the whole Universe matters, being unstable (expanding) anyhow. Though we take $\rho_\bi= \rho_\Lambda$, $\Lambda_\bi=\Lambda$, our further notation is valid for the general case $\rho_\bi\neq \rho_\Lambda$, $\Lambda_\bi\neq\Lambda$. The Einstein equations that couple the Riemann metric to matter read \BEQ &&R^\mn-\half g^\mn R=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T^\mn_{\rm tot},\qquad \\ &&T^\mn_{\rm tot}=T^\mn+\rho_\Lambda g^\mn+\rho_\bi\gamma_{\rho\sigma} ( g^{\mu\rho}g^{\sigma\nu}-\half g^\mn g^{\rho\sigma}).\nn \EEQ Conservation of energy momentum, $T^\mn_{{\rm tot};\nu}=0$, imposes a constraint due to the $\rho_\bi$ terms,~ \BEQ D_\nu\left(\sqrt{\frac{g}{\gamma}}g^\mn\right)=0,\qquad \textrm{or}\qquad D_\nu h^\mn=0, \EEQ which for Cartesian coordinates coincides with the GTR harmonic condition $\p_\nu( \sqrt{-g}g^\mn)=0$ ~. Thus the theory automatically demands the harmonic constraint for $g^\mn$, or, equivalently, the Lorentz gauge for $h^\mn$, thereby severely reducing the gauge invariance of GTR. Changes of Einstein's GTR have mostly met deep troubles with one or another established property, though not all proposals are ruled out~. The present one is rather subtle and promising. For most applications, the Hubble-size $\rho_\Lambda=\rho_\bi$ terms in Eq. (,) are too small to be relevant, so known results from general relativity can be reproduced. Indeed, viewed from a GTR standpoint, Eq. () is only a particular gauge, and actually often considered, while the cosmological constant only plays a role in cosmology. Logunov checked a number of effects in the solar system: deflection of light rays by the sun, the delay of a radio signal, the shift of Mercury's perihelion, the precession of a gyroscope, and the gravitational shift of spectral lines.~ Likewise, we expect agreement for binary pulsars.~ Differences between GTR and RTG may arise, though, for large gravitational fields, that we consider now. {\it Black holes}. It is known that true black holes, objects that have a horizon, do not occur in the RTG with $\rho_\Lambda,\rho_\bi\to0$.~ But there are solutions very similar to it, that might be named ``grey holes'', but we just call them ``black holes''. The Minkowski line element in spherical coordinates is simply $\gamma_\mn\d x^\mu\d x^\nu=c^2\d t^2-\d r^2-r^2\d\Omega^2$. The one of Riemann space is \BEQ \d s^2=g_\mn\d x^\mu\d x^\nu=U(r)c^2\d t^2-V(r)\d r^2-W^2(r)\d\Omega^2.\EEQ In harmonic coordinates, the Schwarzschild black hole is described by~ \BEQ U_s=\frac{1}{V_s}=\frac{r-\rs}{r+\rs},\quad W_s=r+\rs,\quad \rs=\frac{GM}{c^2}. \EEQ The horizon radius $r_h$ equals half the Schwarzschild radius. Let us scale $r\to r\rs$, and define \BEQ U=e^u,\quad V=e^v,\quad W=2\rs e^w, \EEQ so that $w$ is small near the horizon. The dimensionless small parameter arising from $\rho_\bi=\rho_\Lambda$, is very small, \BEQ \bar\lambda\equiv r_h\sqrt{2\Lambda}= 2.38\, 10^{-23}\,\frac{M}{M_\odot}. \qquad \bar\mu\equiv r_h\sqrt{2\Lambda_\bi}=\bar\lambda. \EEQ The sum and difference of the $(t,t)$ and $(r,r)$ Einstein equations give \BEQ &{}&\frac{1}{2}e^{v-2w}-w'(u'-v'+4w')-2w''\nn \\ &{}&=e^v(\bar\lambda^2-\frac{1}{4}\mub^2r^2e^{-2w})+\frac{8\pi Gr_h^2}{c^4} e^v(\rho-p), \\ &{}& w'(u'+v'-2w')-2w''\nn\\ &&=\frac{1}{2}\mub^2(e^{v-u}-1)+\frac{8\pi Gr_h^2}{c^4} e^v(\rho+p), \EEQ respectively. The harmonic condition imposes \BEQ u'-v'+4w'=r\exp({v-2w}). \nn\EEQ In the Schwarzschild black hole of GTR, there is no matter outside the origin. We shall focus on that situation. A parametric solution of these equations then reads \BEQ r&=&\frac{1+\eta(e^\xi+\xi+\log\eta+r_0)}{1-\eta(e^\xi+\xi+\log\eta+r_0)}, \qquad \\ u&=&\xi+\log\eta,\nn \\ v&=&\xi-\ln\eta-2\log(e^\xi+1), \qquad \\ w&=&\eta e^\xi+\mub^2(\xi+\log\eta+w_0). \nn \EEQ where $\xi$ is the running variable and $\eta$ is a small scale. Corrections of next order in $\eta$ can be expressed in dilogarithms, but they are not needed since $\mub$ is very small. To fix the scale $\eta$, we note that energy momentum conservation implies, as in GTR, $(\rho+p)u'+2p'=0$. In the stationary state all matter is located at the origin, which is only possible if $p(r)\equiv 0$, implying $\rho(r)u'(r)=0$. This is obeyed for $r\neq0$ since $\rho=0$ there, but since $\rho(0)>0$ (it is infinite), we have to demand $u'(0)=0$. Let us define a factor $\alpha$ by $\alpha={\mub^2}/{\eta}$. The above solution brings $w'(r)={\p_\xi w}/{\p_\xi r}=({e^\xi+\alpha})/[{2(e^\xi+1)}],$ so in the interior $w'=\half\alpha$. Since $e^{v}\ll 1$ there, Eqs. (,) confirm that $ w''=0$, and with $w(1)={\cal O}(\eta)$ this solves $w(r)=\half\alpha\,(r-1)$. Moreover, from the harmonic constraint () we have in the interior $u(r)-v(r)+4w(r)={\rm const}=2\ln\eta$, implying that Eq. () yields in the interior $u'(r)=\{\exp[2\alpha(r-1)]-\eta^2-\mub^2\}/(2\eta)$. From $ u'(0)=0$ we can now solve $\alpha$, \BEQ \alpha=\log\frac{1}{\mub},\qquad \eta=\frac{\mub^2}{\ln1/\mub}. \EEQ As seen in fig. 1, our solution (,,-) coincides with Schwarzschild's for $\xi\gg1$. In the regime $\xi={\cal O}(1)$, there is a transition towards the interior $\xi\ll-1$, where exponential corrections can be neglected. Both $U=\eta e^\xi$ and $V=e^\xi/\eta$ are very small there, but, contrary to the Schwarzschild case, they remain positive: {\it The behavior in the interior of the RTG black hole is not qualitatively different from usual, be it that the gravitational field is large}. {\it Width of the brick wall}. The transition layer $\xi={\cal O}(1)$ acts like 't Hooft's brick wall,~ of characteristic width $\ell_\star=\eta r_h$. Comparing to the Planck length $\ell_P=\sqrt{\hbar G/c^3}$, we get \BEQ \frac{\ell_\ast}{\ell_{\rm P}}=\frac{0.977\,\,10^{-9}}{1+0.019\log(M/M_\odot)} \,\frac{M^3}{M_\odot^3}. \EEQ If quantum physics sets in at the Planck scale, our approach makes sense only for $ M>10^3\,\,M_\odot$. {\it Motion of test particles}. For RTG with a negative cosmological constant, ~ it was claimed that an incoming spherical shell of matter is scattered off from a black hole, a counter-intuitive finding. Let us reconsider this issue. The motion of a test body occurs along a geodesic \BEQ \frac{\d v^\mu}{\d s}+\Gamma^\mu_{\nu\rho}v^\nu v^\rho=0, \qquad v^\mu=\frac{\d x^\mu}{\d s}. \EEQ For spherical shells of in-falling matter one needs $\Gamma^{0}_{01}=U'/(2U)$. This brings $\d t/\d s=v^0=1/({C_i}{U})$, for some $C_i$. Solving $v^1=\d r/\d s$ from $g_\mn v^\mu v^\nu=1$, we then get $ {\d r}/{\d t}=({\d s}/{\d t})({\d r}/{\d s})=-c\sqrt{U(1-C_i^2U)/V}.$ We can now fix $C_i$ at the initial position $r=r_i$, where the spherical shell is assumed to have a speed $\d r_i/\d t=v_i=\beta_ic\sqrt{U_i/V_i}$, viz. $C_i=\sqrt{(1-\beta_i^2)/U_i}$, with $|\beta_i|\le1$. The differential proper time $\d\tau=\sqrt{U}\d t$ and length $\d\ell=\sqrt{V}\d r$ bring in the particle's rest frame $\d\ell/\d\tau=\sqrt{V/U}\d r/\d t$, yielding \BEQ \frac{\d \ell}{\d \tau}=-c\sqrt{1-\frac{U(r(\tau))}{U(r_i)}(1-\beta_i^2)}. \EEQ The extreme case is when $\beta_i=0$ at $r_i=\infty$, ${\d \ell}/{\d \tau} =-c\sqrt{1-U}.$ To have $|{\d \ell}/{\d \tau}|< c$, it thus suffices that $0<U\le1$, which is the case. Near the horizon, $|\d\ell/\d\tau|$ is almost equal to $c$ and the more the shell penetrates the interior, the closer its speed gets to $c$. For an outside observer, the time to see it hit the center of the hole, $T=\int\d r/|\dot r|$ equals $(r_h/c)\int_0^1\d r\exp[\half(v-u)]$. It is finite and predominantly comes from the horizon, $T=r_h/c\mub^2= 2.74\times10^{32}M/M_\odot$ yr. The approaches ~ have a similar a black hole. While properly has $U'(0)=0$, in Logunov's case one has $\bar\mu^2<0$, so $w'=\half\alpha <0$ in the interior. This seems to solve the paradox of ``matter reflected by the black hole'': In-falling matter just enters, but the Logunov coordinate $x=\exp (w)-1$ is non-monotonic ($x'<0$ in the interior). However, the situation is more severe: For $\alpha<0$, the theory does not allow a solution with $u'(0)=0$, depriving that theory of a proper black hole. This condition can neither be obeyed in GTR: {\it If the central mass is slightly smeared, the Schwarzschild black hole cannot obey energy-momentum conservation in GTR.} {\it Cosmology}. Starting from the FLRW metric, the harmonic condition brings two relations: $U\sim V^3$ and $k=0$: Minkowski space filled homogeneously with matter remains flat ~. We may thus put $U=a^6(t)/a_\ast ^4$, $V=a^2(t)$. Going from cosmic time $t$ to conformal time $\tau=\int a^3a_\ast ^{-2}\d t$ yields the familiar Einstein equations, extended by $\Lambda_\bi$ terms, \BEQ \frac{\dot a^2}{a^2c^2}&=&\frac{8\pi G}{3c^4}\rho+ \frac{\Lambda}{3}-\frac{\Lambda_\bi}{2a^2} +\frac{\Lambda_\bi a_\ast ^4}{6a^6},\quad \\ \frac{\ddot a}{a\,c^2}&=&-\frac{4\pi G}{3c^4}\,(\rho+3p) +\frac{\Lambda }{3}-\frac{\Lambda_\bi }{3}\frac{a_\ast ^4}{a^6}.\nn \EEQ The first is the modified Friedman equation, the second corresponds to the first law $\d(\rho_{\rm tot}a^3)=-p_{\rm tot}\d a^3$ provided we define $\rho_{\rm tot}=\rho+\rho_\Lambda+\rho_2+\rho_6$ and $p_{\rm tot}=p-\rho_\Lambda-\frac{1}{3}\rho_2+\rho_6$, with $\rho_2=-3\rho_\bi/2a^2$ and $\rho_6= \rho_\bi a_\ast^4/2a^6$. Note that $\rho_2$ acts as a positive curvature term. The scale factor has an absolute meaning. If we assume that $a\gg1$ and $a\gg a_\ast^{2/3}$, Eq. () just coincides with the $\Lambda$CDM model (cosmological constant plus cold dark matter), that gives the best fit of the observations~. The $\rho_2$ term allows a positive curvature-type contribution. At large times, there is the exponential growth $a(\tau)=C \exp(H_\infty\tau)$ with $H_\infty=c\sqrt{\Lambda/3}$. In cosmic time this reads $a(t)=a_\ast^{2/3}[3H_\infty(t_0-t)]^{-1/3}$, where $t_0$ is ``the end of time'', the moment where the scale factor has become infinite. The minimal scale factor is zero: in this theory a big bang can occur since $\rho_\bi>0$. Without including an inflaton field, Eq. () yields an initial growth of the expansion $a=(a_\ast^2c\,\tau\sqrt{3\Lambda_\bi/2} )^{1/3}$. In cosmic time this reads $a=a_1\,\exp(ct\sqrt{\Lambda_\bi/6})$, i. e., a certain inflation scenario starting at $t=-\infty$. Also in RTG the gravitational energy precisely compensates the other energy contributions at all times. The vacuum energy also vanishes: In empty space, the cosmological constant energy $\rho_\Lambda$ cancels the $\rho_\bi$ terms, due to Eq. (). See Eq. () for $g_\mn=\gamma_\mn$. {\it In conclusion}, we have first written the Einstein equation in a form that involves the gravitational energy momentum tensor. An underlying Minkowski space is needed, in which gravitation is a field. The metric tensor is a way to deal with it, but the equations for the field itself exist too, see Eq. (). For flat cosmology it follows that the total energy vanishes. Next we have broken general coordinate invariance by going to the bimetric theory of Logunov, called Relativistic Theory of Gravitation. We have shown that the choice of a positive bimetric constant allows to regularize the interior of the Schwarzschild black hole: time keeps its standard role and escape is, in principle, possible. While neither the Schwarzschild nor the Logunov black hole survives smearing of the central mass by a tiny pressure in the equation of state, ours does. Our modification of the Einstein equations involves the cosmological constant, so it is of Hubble size, immaterial for solar problems. In cosmology, the theory directly leads to the $\Lambda$CDM model, while it could accommodate a positive curvature-like term. At short times, there is a form of inflation. The gravitational energy exactly compensates the material energy. The zero point energy vanishes (``again''), though the cosmological constant is finite and positive: It is canceled by the bimetric terms. Euclidean space, a special case of Riemann geometry, seems to be invoked by Nature, at least far away from bodies and in cosmology. Our approach supports the following space-time interpretation: curvature is a geometric description of the gravitational field in flat space. Clusters of galaxies do not move away from each other, but the speed of light changes with cosmic time, $\d r/\d t=[a(t)/a_\ast]^2c$, while the conformal speed is $\d r/\d\tau=c/a(\tau)$ as usual. An empirical way to establish the Minkowski metric is to present the Einstein equations as $(c^4/8\pi G)R_\mn-T_\mn+\half g_\mn T+\rho_\Lambda g_\mn=\rho_\bi\gamma_\mn$, and to measure the left hand side, which in the geometric view is considered to consist of curved space properties alone.~ As in the standard model of elementary particles, the separation of curved space into flat space and the gravitational field has the following implication: the quantum version of RTG -- if it exists -- will involve quantization of fields, but not of space. \vspace{0.5cm} Finally we answer the question posed in the title. The field theoretic approach to gravitation is by itself equivalent to a curved space description, so both views apply, describing the same physics from a different angle. But when the theory is extended to the relativistic theory of gravitation, the bimetrism forces to describe the Minkowski metric separately, and then we see it as most natural to view gravitation as a field in flat space, which is Maxwell's view. Topics such as a realistic equation of state for black holes and classical tunneling of its radiation, regularization of other singularities, as well as aspects of the inflation and of inhomogeneous cosmology are under study. \acknowledgments Discussion with Martin Nieuwenhuizen and Armen Allahverdyan is gratefully remembered. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{elephant} C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, {\it Gravitation}, (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973). \bibitem{WeinbergGR} S. Weinberg, {\it Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Application of the General Theory of Relativity}, (Wiley, New York, 1972). \bibitem{LandauLifshitz} L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, {\it The Classical Theory of Fields}, (Pergamon, Oxford, U.K., 1951; revised 1979). \bibitem{BabakGrishchuk} S. V. Babak and L. P. Grishchuk, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 61}, 024038 (1999). \bibitem{Rosen} N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. {\bf 57}, 147 (1940); ibid 150; Ann. Phys. {\bf 22}, 11 (1963). \bibitem{LogunovBook} A.A. Logunov, {\it The Theory of Gravity}, (Nauka, Moscow, 2001). \bibitem{LogInflaton} S.S. Gershtein, A.A. Logunov and M.A.Mestvirishvili, gr-qc/0602029. \bibitem{BabakGrishchuk2} S. V. Babak and L. P. Grishchuk, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D{\bf 12}, 1905 (2003). \bibitem{ThemAgain} M. Tegmark, A. Aguirre, M.J. Rees, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev D{\bf 73}, 023505 (2006). \bibitem{WMAP} D. N. Spergel, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003). \bibitem{CliffordWill} C.M. Will, {\it Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics}, (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1993), chapter 12.3, discusses that gravitational radiation of binary pulsars rules out a more recent bimetric theory of Rosen, in which black holes do not have the Schwarzschild shape. \bibitem{tHooft} G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 256}, 727 (1985). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0231
|
Title: Interpolating and sampling sequences in finite Riemann surfaces
Abstract: We provide a description of the interpolating and sampling sequences on a
space of holomorphic functions with a uniform growth restriction defined on
finite Riemann surfaces.
Body: \maketitle \begin{abstract} We provide a description of the interpolating and sampling sequences on a space of holomorphic functions with a uniform growth restriction defined on finite Riemann surfaces. \end{abstract} \section{Introduction and statement of the results} Let $S$ be an open finite Riemann surface endowed with the Poincar\'e (hyperbolic) metric. We will study some properties of holomorphic functions in the Riemann surface with uniform growth control. Namely we will deal with the Banach space $A_\phi(S)$ of holomorphic functions in $S$ such that $\|f\|:=\sup_S |f|e^{-\phi}<\infty$ where $\phi$ is a given subharmonic function that controls the growth of the functions in the space. The fact that $\phi$ is subharmonic is a natural assumption on the weight that limits the growth since any other growth control given by a weight $\psi$, $\|f\|_*=\sup_S |f|e^{-\psi}$ can be replaced by an equivalent subharmonic function because $\phi=\sup_{\|f\|_*\le 1}\log|f|$ is a subharmonic function and $A_\psi(S)=A_\phi(S)$ with equality of norms, $\sup_S |f|e^{-\psi}= \sup_S |f|e^{-\phi}$. We have fixed a metric. It is then natural to restrict the possible weights $\phi$, in a way that the functions in $A_\phi$ oscillate in a controlled way when the points are nearby in the Poincar\'e metric. This is achieved for instance by assuming that $\phi$ has bounded Laplacian (the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the hyperbolic measure). That is, if in a local coordinate chart the Poincar\'e metric is of the form $ds^2= e^{2\nu(z)}|dz|^2$, then we assume that $\Delta\phi = 4 e^{-2\nu(z)} \frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial z\partial \bar z}$ satisfies $C^{-1}\le \Delta \phi \le C$. If we want to deal with other weights then it is possible to introduce a natural metric associated to the weight as it is done in the plane in . In this work we will only consider the Poincar\'e metric and bounded Laplacian since it already covers many interesting cases and it is technically simpler. The problems that we will consider are the following: \begin{enumerate} \item[(A)] The description of the interpolating sequences for $A_\phi(S)$: i.e. the sequences $\Lambda\subset S$ such that it is always possible to find an $f\in A_\phi(S)$ such that $f(\lambda)=v_\lambda$ for all $\lambda\in \Lambda$ whenever the data $\{v_\lambda\}_{\Lambda}$, satisfies the compatibility condition $\sup_\Lambda |v_\lambda|e^{-\phi(\lambda)}<+\infty$ \item[(B)] The description of sampling sets for $A_\phi(S)$: i.e. the sets $E\subset S$ such that there is a constant $C>0$ that satisfies \[ \sup_{S} |f|e^{-\phi}\le C \sup_{E} |f|e^{-\phi},\quad \forall f\in A_\phi(S). \] \end{enumerate} In the solution of these problems the Poincar\'e distance and the potential theory in the surface play a key role. This has already been observed by A.~Schuster and D.~Varolin in , where they provide sufficient conditions for a sequence to be interpolating/sampling for functions in a slightly different context where the weighted uniform control of the growth of the functions is replaced by a weighted $L^2$ control. Their condition basically coincides with the description that we reach so our work can be considered as the counterpart of their theorems, although we will give a different proof of their results as well. We will rely on the well-known case of the disk and some simplifying properties of finite Riemann surfaces. Their method of proof looks more promising if one wants to extend the result to Riemann surfaces with more complicated topology. When the surface is a disk, which will be our model situation, the corresponding problems have been solved in , and in a different way in . Of course, the more basic problem of describing the interpolating sequences for bounded holomorphic functions in finite Riemann surfaces (in our notation $\phi\equiv 0$), has been known for a long time, see ). We introduce now some definitions that will be needed to state our results. For any point $z\in S$ and any $r>0$ we denote by $D(z,r)$ the domain in the surface $S$ that consits of points at hyperbolic distance from $z$ less than $r$. They are topological disks if the center $z$ is outside a big compact of $S$, or if $r$ is small enough, as we will see in Section~. A sequence $\Lambda$ of points in $S$ is hyperbolically separated if there is an $\varepsilon>0$ such that the domains $\{D(\lambda,\varepsilon)\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ are pairwise disjoint. Let $g_r(z,w)$ be the Green function associated to the surface $D(z,r)$ with pole at the ``center'' $z$ and $g(z,w)=g_\infty(z,w)$ be the Green function associated to the surface $S$. We define the densities \begin{equation} \begin{split} D^+_\phi(\Lambda):=\limsup_{r\to\infty} \sup_{z\in S} \frac{\displaystyle \sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}1/2<d(z,\lambda)<r\\ \lambda\in\Lambda\end{subarray}}g_r(z,\lambda)} {\displaystyle\int_{D(z,r)}g_r(z,w)i\ddbar\phi(w) }.\\ D^-_\phi(\Lambda):=\liminf_{r\to\infty} \inf_{z\in S}\frac{\displaystyle \sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}1/2<d(z,\lambda)<r\\ \lambda\in\Lambda\end{subarray}}g_r(z,\lambda)} {\displaystyle\int_{D(z,r)}g_r(z,w)i\ddbar\phi(w) }. \end{split} \end{equation} The main result is \begin{theorem} Let $S$ be a finite Riemann surface and let $\phi$ be a subharmonic function with bounded Laplacian. \begin{enumerate} \item [(A)]A sequence $\Lambda\subset S$ is an interpolating sequence for $A_\phi(S)$ if and only if it is hyperbolically separated and $D^+_\phi(\Lambda)<1$. \item[(B)] A set $E\subset S$ is a sampling set for $A_\phi(S)$ if and only if it contains an hyperbolically separated sequence $\Lambda\subset E$ such that $D^-_\phi(\Lambda)>1$. \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} In Section~ we will prove some key properties of finite Riemann surfaces. In particular we need to study the behavior of the hyperbolic metric as we approach the boundary of the surface. We will also prove some weighted uniform estimates for the inhomogeneous Cauchy-Riemann equation in the surface, Theorem~, that has an interest by itself. In the next section, we use the tools and Lemmas proved in Section~ to reduce the interpolating and sampling problem in $S$ to a problem near the boundary that can be reduced to the known case of the disk. Finally in Section~ we show how our results can be extended to other Banach spaces of holomorphic functions where the uniform growth is replaced by weighted $L^p$ spaces. A final word on notation. By $f\lesssim g$ we mean that there is a constant $C$ independent of the relevant variables such that $f\le C g$ and by $f\simeq g$ we mean that $f\lesssim g$ and $g\lesssim f$. \section{Basic properties of finite Riemann surfaces} We start by the definition and then we collect some properties of $S$ that follow from the restrictions that we are assuming on the topology of $S$. \begin{definition} A finite Riemann Surface is the interior of a smooth bordered compact Riemann surface. \end{definition} Our surface is an open Riemann surface and it is in fact an open subset of a compact surface (the double, see ). See Figure~ for a typical representation. Observe that the genus is finite and the border of the surface consists of a finite number of smooth closed Jordan curves. In most of what follows the particular case of a smooth finitely connected open set in $\C$ has all the difficulties of the general case. The following claim follows from instance from \cite[Prop 7.1-7.4]{Scheinberg78} \begin{lemma} For any $(0,1)$-form $\omega$ there is a solution $u$ to the inhomogeneous Cauchy-Riemann equation $\dbar u =\omega$. Moreover since $S$ has an essential extension to a compact Riemann surface if the data is a smooth form with compact support $K$ in $S$ then there is a bounded linear solution $u=T[w]$ with the bound $|u|\le C_K \langle\omega\rangle$. \end{lemma} In this statement and in the following $\langle \omega\rangle$ is the Poincar\'e length of the $(0,1)$-form $\omega$. In the disk we have Blaschke factors that are very convenient to divide out zeros of holomorphic functions without changing essentially the norm. The analogous functions that provide us with the same property in the case of finite Riemann surfaces are given by the next proposition: \begin{proposition} There is a constant $C=C(S)>0$ such that for any point $z\in S$ there is a function $h_z\in \H(S)$ with \[ \sup_{w\in S} |\log|h_z(w)|-g(z,w)|<C. \] In particular $h_z(w)$ is a bounded holomorphic function that vanishes only on the point $z$ and for any $\varepsilon>0$ $K>|h_z(w)|>C(\varepsilon)$ if $d(z,w)>\varepsilon$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} The obstruction for an harmonic function $u$ to have an harmonic conjugate is that for a set of generators $\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1}^m$ of the homology we have $\int_{\gamma_i} *d u =0$, $i=1,\ldots,m$. If we want $u=\log|f|$ for an $f\in \mathcal H(S)$, we just need that $\int_{\gamma_i} *d u \in\mathbb Z$. Being a finite Riemann surface there are $\{h_j\}_{j=1}^n$ functions in the algebra of $S$ without zeros such that $\int_{\gamma_i} *d\log|h_j|=\delta_{ij}$, see \cite[Lemma~1]{Wermer64}. Thus the function \[ v(z)=u(z)-\sum_i \Bigl(\int_{\gamma_i} *d u\Bigr) \log|h_i(z)| \] is the logarithm of an holomorphic function $\log|f|=v$. Therefore there is a constant $C$ such that any harmonic function $u$ in $S$ admits an holomorphic function $f$ with $|u-\log|f||<C$. Take a point $z\in S$ and any holomorphic function $k_z\in \mathcal H(S)$ that vanishes only on $z$. Then $g(z,w)-\log|k_z(w)|$ is harmonic in $S$ and therefore there is a holomorphic function $f_z$ such that $|g(z,w)-k_z(w)-\log |f_z| |<C$. Thus we may define $h_z(w)=f_z(w) k_z(w)$ and it has the estimate $|g(z,w)-\log |h_z| |<C$. The estimate $|g(z,w)|>C(\varepsilon)$ when $d(z,w)>\varepsilon$ holds in finite Riemann surfaces, see for instance \cite[Theorem~5.5]{Diller95}. \end{proof} \subsection{The hyperbolic metric in a finite Riemann surface} The open ends of the Riemann surface can be parametrized as follows: The border of the Riemann surface $S$ is a finite union of smooth closed curves $\tilde\gamma_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$. Near each $\tilde\gamma_i$ there is a closed geodesic $\gamma_i$ that is homotopic to $\tilde\gamma_i$. The subdomain of $S$ bounded by $\gamma_i$ and $\tilde \gamma_i$ is denoted a ``funnel'' following the terminology of and . We need to be more precise about the hyperbolic metric in the funnel. There are nice coordinates in the funnel that provide good estimates. These are given by the collar theorem. Let $\D$ be the universal holomorphic cover of $S$ and let $T_\gamma\in \operatorname{Aut}(\D)$ be the deck transformation corresponding to the closed loop $\gamma$. Consider the surface $Y=\D/\{T_\gamma^n\}_{n\in\Z}$. This an annulus since $\pi_1(Y)=\Z$. If we quotient it by the rest of the deck transformations of the universal cover we get an holomorphic covering map $\pi_{\gamma}$ from $Y\to S$ which is a local isometry (in $Y$ and $S$ we consider the Poincar\'e metric inherited from $\D$). In fact $Y=\{e^{-R}<|z|<e^R\}$, where $R=\pi^2/\operatorname{Length}(\gamma)$, and $\pi_\gamma$ maps the unit circle isometrically to $\gamma$. Moreover $\pi_\gamma$ is an isometric injection of the outer part of the annulus $\{1<|z|<e^{R}\}$ onto the funnel. These will be called the standard coordinates of the funnel. See and for details. The Poincare metric in the the funnel is explicit in the standard coordinates and it is comparable to the hyperbolic metric on the disk in the coordinate disk $|z|<e^R$ when restricted to $|z|>1$. We denote by $A_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$ the funnels of $S$ bounded by $\gamma_i$ and $\tilde\gamma_i$. \subsection{The inhomogeneous Cauchy-Riemann equation on the surface} We want to solve the inhomogeneous Cauchy-Riemann equation on $S$ with weighted uniform estimates. In order to get good estimates it is useful to find functions $f\in \H(S)$ with precise size control, i.e., $|f|\simeq e^\phi$ outside a neighborhood of the zero set of $f$. With this function we can later modify an integral formula to get a bounded solution to the $\dbar$-equation when the data has compact support. The following Lemma provides such a function that in other context has been termed a ``multiplier'': \begin{lemma}~ Let $S$ be a finite Riemann surface and let $\phi$ be a subharmonic function with bounded Laplacian. Then there is a function $f$ with hyperbolically separated zero set $\Sigma$ such that $|f|\simeq e^{\phi}$ whenever $d(z,\Sigma)>\varepsilon$. Moreover if we fix any compact $K$ in $S$ it is possible to find $f$ with the above properties and without zeros in $K$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} In any of the funnels $A_i$ we transfer the subharmonic weight $\phi$ to the standard coordinate chart $1<|z|<e^{R_i}$. We define a weight $\phi_i$ on the disk $|z|<e^{R_i}$ in such a way that $\phi_i$ has bounded invariant Laplacian and moreover $|\phi-\phi_i|<C$ on the region $1<|z|<e^{R_i}$. One way to do so is the following: we assume from the very beginning that $\phi$ is smooth (this is no restriction since otherwise it can be approximated by a smooth function). Define \begin{equation} \phi_i(z)= \phi(z) \chi(z) + M_i \|z\|^2, \end{equation} where $\chi$ is a cutoff function such that $\chi\equiv 1$ in $e^{R_i/2}<|z|<e^{R_i}$, $\chi\equiv 0$ in $|z|<1$ and $M_i$ is taken big enough such that $\phi_i$ is subharmonic and the invariant Laplacian of $\phi_i$ is bounded above and below. We are under the hypothesis of the result from that states that there is an holomorphic function in the disk $f_i$ with separated zero set $Z(f_i)$ (in the hyperbolic metric of the disk) such that $|f_i|\simeq e^{\phi_i}$ whenever $d(z,Z(f_i))>\varepsilon$. Since the hyperbolic metric of the disk is comparable to the hyperbolic metric in the funnel, we have found a function $f_i\in \H(A_i)$ with separated zero set such that $|f_i(z)|\simeq e^{\phi(z)}$ if $d(z,Z(f_i))>\varepsilon$. Moreover dividing out $f_i$ by a finite Blaschke product we can assume that $f_i$ is zero free in any prefixed compact of the disk. We consider the ``core'' of $S$ to be $S\setminus \tilde A_i$, where $\widetilde {A_i}$ are the outer part of the funnels mapped by $e^{S_i}<|z|<e^{R_i}$. The values of the $S_i$ are taken so big as to make sure that the compact $K$ in the hypothesis of the Lemma is contained in the core of $S$. We adjust the $f_i$ $i=1,\ldots,n$ as mentioned before to make sure that they are zero free in the inner part of the funnels $1<|z|<e^{S_i}$. We finally define $f_0\equiv 1$ in the core of $S$. To patch the different $f_i$ together we will need to solve a Cousin II problem with bounds. Our data is $f_i$ defined on the inner parts of the funnels mapped by $1<|z|<e^{S_i}$. The data are bounded above and below in the inner parts of the funnels (because $\phi$ is bounded above and below in any compact of $S$ and $f_i$ have no zeros there). We want to find functions $g_i\in H(A_i)$ and $g_0$ holomorphic on the core of $S$ such that $f_i=g_0/g_i$ in the inner part of the funnel. If moreover $g_i$ and $g_0$ are bounded (above and below) then the function $f$ defined as $f_ig_i$ in each of the funnels $A_i$ and $g_0$ on the core of $S$ is holomorphic on $S$ and has the desired growth properties. To find the functions $g_i$ observe that since the intersection of the funnel $A_i$ with the core of $S$ strictly separates the outer part of the funnel from the inner part of the core we can reduce the Cousin II problem to solving a $\dbar$-equation with bounded estimates of the solution on $S$ when the data is bounded and with compact support (the support is in the inner part of the funnels). This can be achieved by Lemma~. \end{proof} With this function we can then obtain the following result which is interesting by itself: \begin{theorem} Let $S$ be a finite Riemann surface and let $\phi$ be a subharmonic function with a bounded Laplacian. There is a constant $C>0$ such that for any $(0,1)$-form $\omega$ on $S$ there is a solution $u$ to the inhomogeneous Cauchy-Riemann equation $\dbar u=\omega$ in $S$ with the estimate \[ \sup_{z\in S} |u(z)|e^{-\phi(z)}\le C \sup_{z\in S} \langle\omega(z)\rangle e^{-\phi(z)},\] whenever the right hand is finite. \end{theorem} Recall that the notation $\langle\omega(z)\rangle$ means the hyperbolic norm of $\omega$ at the point $z$. \begin{proof} Let $w_i$ be the form $w$ restricted to the funnel $A_i$. We take a standard coordinate chart and we may think of $w_i$ as a $(0,1)$-form defined on the disk $|z|<e^{R_i}$ and with support in $1<|z|<e^{R_i}$. Consider as in the proof of Lemma~ a subharmonic function $\phi_i$ in the disk with bounded laplacian and such that $|\phi-\phi_i|<C$ if $1<|z|<e^{R_i}$. By the results in \cite[Thm~2]{Ortega02} there is a solution $u_i$ to the problem $\dbar u_i =w_i$ in the disk $|z|<e^{R_i}$ with the estimate \[ \sup_{|z|<e^{R_i}} |u_i|e^{-\phi_i} \le C_i \sup_{1<|z|<e^{R_i}} \langle w_i\rangle e^{-\phi} \] Observe that the hyperbolic metric of the disk and of the surface $S$ in the funnel are equivalent. We consider $\tilde u_i = u_i \chi_i$, where $\chi_i$ is a cutoff function with support in $1<|z|<e^{R_i}$ and such that $\chi_i\equiv 1$ if $|z|>e^{R_i/2}$. The function $\tilde u_i$ is extended by $0$ to the remaining of $S$ and it has the estimate $\sup_{S} |\tilde u_i|e^{-\phi}\le C_i \sup_S \langle w\rangle e^{-\phi}$. Now $\dbar \tilde u_i$ coincides with $w$ on the outer part of the funnel $A_i$. Thus the $(0,1)$-form $w_k=w-\sum_i \dbar \tilde u_i$ has compact support in $S$ and it satisfies $\sup_S \langle w_k\rangle e^{-\phi}\le \sup_S \langle w\rangle e^{-\phi}$. The desired solution is then $u=\sum \tilde u_i +v$, where $v$ is such that $\dbar v = w_k$. We must then solve $\dbar v = w_k$ with weighted uniform estimates but with the advantage that $w_k$ has compact support $K$. Let $T(\omega_k)$ be a solution operator for $\partial\bar u =\omega_k$. We take the operator $T$ given by Lemma~ the estimate $\sup_S |T[w_k](z)|\le C_K \sup_K \langle w_k\rangle$ holds. Take $f$ with $|f|\simeq e^{\phi}$ and without zeros in $K$ as given in Lemma~. Then we define $R$ as \begin{equation} R[\omega_k](z) = f(z) T[\omega_k/f](z), \end{equation} It solves $\bar\partial R[\omega_k] =\omega_k$ with the estimate \[ \sup_S |R[\omega_k]| e^{-\phi} \le C_K \sup_K \langle\omega_k\rangle e^{-\phi}. \] The solution is thus $v=R[w_k]$. \end{proof} \section{The main results} \begin{proposition} A separated sequence $\Lambda\subset S$ is interpolating for $A_\phi(S)$ if and only if the sequences $\Lambda_i=\Lambda \cap A_i$ are interpolating in $A_\phi(A_i)$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} We only need to prove that we can pass from the local to the global interpolation property. We split the proof in two steps \begin{enumerate} \item From a funnel $A_i$ to global $S$: We need to prove that there are finite sets $F_i\subset \Lambda_i$ such that $\cup_{i=1}^n (\Lambda_i\setminus F_i)$ is interpolating globally. \item Filling up the remainder. We shall prove that by adding a finite number of points to an interpolating sequence we still get an interpolating sequence. Thus $\Lambda$ is interpolating if $(\Lambda_1\setminus F_1)\cup\cdots\cup(\Lambda_n\setminus F_n)$ is interpolating. \end{enumerate} \end{proof} Let $\tilde \gamma$ be one of the closed curves on the boundary. Take a funnel $A$ with outer end curve in $\tilde\gamma$ and inner end curve in $\gamma$. The constant of interpolation in the funnel $A$ is $K>0$. Take a cutoff function $\chi_\varepsilon$ with support in the funnel such that $\langle\dbar\chi_\varepsilon\rangle <\varepsilon/(KC)$ (where $C$ is the constant in Theorem~), the support is in a thick annulus of hyperbolic thickness $M=M(\varepsilon,K,C)$. We consider a smaller funnel where $\chi_\varepsilon\equiv 1$. The sequence $\Lambda$ in this smaller funnel has still at most interpolation constant $K$. We can interpolate arbitrary values on $\Lambda$ being small near the inner curve $\gamma$ of $A$ in the following way. Take some values $v_\lambda$ with norm one. Take a function in the funnel $f$ with norm at most $K$ that solves the interpolation problem. We are going to approximate it by a function in $A$ that is small near $\gamma$. Cut it off by $\chi_\varepsilon$ and correct via the following inhomogeneous Cauchy-Riemann equation: \[ \dbar u = f \dbar \chi \] The function $h=u-f\chi$ is holomorphic. By using Theorem~ on it is possible to solve the equation with a solution $u$ such that $\sup|u|e^{-\phi}\le \varepsilon$. The function $h$ does not solve the problem directly but it almost does. We reiterate the procedure (interpolating the error $v_\lambda-h(\lambda)$ and with a convergent series we get finally a function $g$ such that $h(\lambda)=v_\lambda$, $\sup_A |h|e^{-\phi}\le 2$ and moreover in the inner half of the funnel that we denote by $\tilde A$, $\sup_{\tilde A}|h|e^{-\phi}\le \varepsilon$. Now it is easier to make it global. Take a new cutoff function $\chi$ with support in the funnel $A$ and that is one on the outer part of (i.e. $A\setminus \tilde A$. Then we need to solve \[ \dbar u = h\dbar \chi, \] with good global estimates in $S$. These are given by Theorem~. We have solved the interpolation problem when the sequence lies in the funnels. For the general situation we only need to add a finite number of points. The existence of ``Blaschke''-type factors $h_\lambda(z)$ provided by Theorem~ shows that $\Lambda\cup\lambda$ is interpolating if $\Lambda$ is interpolating (it is immediate to build functions in the space such that $f|_\Lambda\equiv 0$ and $f(\lambda)\ne 0$). \qed For the sampling part we need the following definition \begin{definition} Given the pair $(S,\phi)$ of a finite Riemann surface and a subharmonic function defined on it, we associate to it the pairs: $(D_i,\phi_i)_{i=1,\ldots n}$ of disks $D_i$ and subharmonic functions $\phi_i$ defined on the disks as follow: If $A_i=\{1<|z|<e^{R^i}\}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$ are the standard charts of the funnels of $S$ we define $D_i=\{|z|<e^{R_i}\}$ and $\phi_i$ is any subharmonic function in $D_i$ such that $|\phi_i-\phi|<C$ in the region $1<|z|<e^{R_i}$, $\Delta \phi_i=\Delta \phi$ in $e^{R_i/2}<|z|<e^{R_i}$ and $\Delta\phi_i \simeq 1$ in $|z|<e^{R_i/2}$. They can be defined similarly as in \eqref{eq1}, but to make sure $\Delta \phi_i=\Delta \phi$ we may take instead \[ \phi_i(z)=\phi(z)\chi(z)+M_i\psi(z), \] where $\psi$ is any bounded subharmonic function in $D_i$ such that $\Delta\psi(z)=1$ if $|z|<e^{R_i/2}$ and $0$ elsewhere. \end{definition} The funnels $A_i$ can be considered funnels of $S$ and they are subdomains of $D_i$ too. We will exploit this double nature in the following theorem \begin{theorem} Let $S$ be a finite Riemann surface and let $\phi$ be a subharmonic function with bounded Laplacian. A separated sequence $\Lambda$ is sampling for $A_\phi(S)$ if and only if all the sequences in the funnels $\Lambda_i=\Lambda_i\cap A_i\subset D_i$ are sampling sequences for $A_{\phi_i}(D_i)$, where $(D_i,\phi_i)$ are the associated pairs to $S$ given by Definition~. \end{theorem} Thus this Theorem and Proposition~ show that the properties of sampling and interpolation only depend on the behavior of the sequence and the weight near the boundary pieces. To prove Theorem~ we need some previous results \begin{lemma} Let $S$ be a finite Riemann surface and let $\phi$ be a subharmonic function with bounded Laplacian. A sequence $\Lambda\subset S$ is a uniqueness sequence for $A_\phi(S)$ if and only if all the sequences in the funnels $\Lambda_i=\Lambda_i\cap A_i\subset D_i$ are uniqueness sequences for $A_{\phi_i}(D_i)$, where $(D_i,\phi_i)$ are the associated pairs to $S$ given by Definition~. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} It is easier to deal by negation. Let $\Lambda$ be contained in the zero set of a function $f\in A_\phi(S)$. Therefore $\Lambda_i$ is in the zero set of $f\in A_\phi(A_i)$. We divide by a finite number of zeros $E_i$ and we obtain a new function $g\in A_\phi(A_i)$ without zeros in $1<|z|\le e^{R_i/2}$ and such that $\Lambda_i\setminus E_i\subset Z(g)$. Take the disk $D_i$ and consider the cover by two open sets $|z|>1$ and $|z|<e^{R_i/2}$. On the first set we have the function $g$ and on the second the function $1$. The quotient is bounded above and below in the intersection of the sets. This defines a bounded Cousin II in the disk $D_i$ problem that can be solved with bounded data. We get a new function $h\in A_{\phi_i}(D_i)$ that vanishes in $Z(g)$. We can now add the finite number of zeros $E_i$ without harm. The reciprocal implication follows with the same argument. \end{proof} The next result is inspired by a result of Beurling (\cite[pp. 351--365]{Beurling89b}) that relates the property of sampling sequence to that of uniqueness for all weak limits of the sequence. In the context of the Bernstein space (in the original work by Beurling) the space was fixed (it was $\C$, the space of functions was fixed, the Bernstein class, and he considered translates and limits of it of the sampling sequence). Here we need to move and take limits of the sequence (by zooming on appropriate portions of it) but we also need to change the support space (portions of $S$ near the funnel that look like the unit disk) and we will also move the space of functions by changing the weights. We need some definitions: \begin{definition} We consider triplets $(D_n,\phi_n,\Lambda_n)$ where $D_n$ are disks $D_n=D(0,r_n)\subset \D$, $\phi_n$ are subharmonic functions defined in a neighborhood of $D_n$ and $\Lambda_n$ is a finite collection of points in $D_n$. We say that $(D_n,\phi_n,\Lambda_n)$ converges weakly to $(\D,\phi,\Lambda)$ (where $\D$ is the unit disk, $\phi$ a subharmonic function in $\D$ and $\Lambda$ a discrete sequence in $\D$) if the following conditions are fullfilled: \begin{itemize} \item The domains $D_n$ tend to $\D$, i.e.: $r_n\to 1$, \item The weights $\phi_n$ tend to the weight $\phi$ in the sense that $\Delta\phi_n$ as measures converges weakly to $\Delta\phi$. \item The sequences $\Lambda_n$ converge weakly to $\Lambda$, i.e, the measure $\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n} \delta_{\lambda}$ converges weakly to the measure $\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} \delta_{\lambda}$. \end{itemize} \end{definition} Let us fix a point $p\in S$. If a sequence of points $z_n\in S$ goes to $\infty$, i.e. $d(z_n, p)\to\infty$, from a point $n_0$ on it will eventually belong to the union of the funnels $A_1\cup \cdots \cup A_n$. If we take the set of points $D_n=\{z\in S;\ d(z,z_n)<d(z_n,p)/2\}$ then $D_n$ is an hyperbolic disk contained in the funnels if $n$ is big enough. In each of the $D_n$ we consider the function $\phi_n=\phi|_{D_n}$ and $\Lambda_n=\Lambda\cap D_n$. Thus for any sequence of points $z_n$ with $d(p,z_n)\to\infty$ we build a triplet $(D_n,\phi_n,\Lambda_n)$ for $n$ big enough. \begin{definition} Let $W(S,\phi,\Lambda)$ be the set of all triplets $(\D,\phi^*,\Lambda^*)$ which are weak limits of triplets $(D_n,\phi_n,\Lambda_n)$ associated to any sequence $z_n$ such that $d(p,z_n)\to\infty$. \end{definition} The theorem of Beurling on our context is \begin{theorem} Let $S$ be Riemann surface of finite type and let $\phi$ be a subharmonic function with bounded Laplacian. A separated sequence $\Lambda$ is sampling for $A_\phi(S)$ if and only if \begin{itemize} \item The sequence $\Lambda$ is a uniqueness set for $A_\phi(S)$ \item For any triplet $(\D,\phi^*,\Lambda^*)\in W(S,\phi,\Lambda)$, the sequence $\Lambda^*$ is a uniqueness set for $A_{\phi^*}(\D)$. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Let us prove that the uniqueness conditions imply that $\Lambda$ is a sampling sequence. If it were not, there would be a sequence of functions $f_n\in A_\phi(S)$ such that $\sup_{\Lambda}|f_n|e^{-\phi}\le 1/n$ and $\sup_{S}|f_n|e^{-\phi}=1$. Take a sequence of points $z_n$ with $|f_n(z_n)|e^{-\phi}\ge 1/2$. If $z_n$ are bounded we can take a subsequence of points that we still denote $z_n$ convergent to $z^*\in S$ and by a normal family argument there is a partial of $f_n$ convergent to $f\in A_\phi$, such that $f|_\Lambda\equiv 0$, $f(z^*)\ne 0$ and this is not possible. Thus $z_n$ must be unbounded. Then we take the triplets $(D_n,\phi_n,\Lambda_n)$ associated to $z_n$ and $D_n\to \D$ because $z_n\to\infty$ and the hyperbolic radius of $D_n$ is $d(z_n,p)/2$. Since $\phi_n$ has bounded Laplacian, the mass of $\Delta\phi_n$ restricted to any compact $K$ in $\D$ is bounded, thus we can take a subsequence that converges weakly to a positive measure $\mu$ in $\D$ which satisfies $(1-|z|)^2\mu \simeq 1$ because all the mesures $\Delta\phi_n$ satisfy this inequalities with uniform constants. Let $\phi$ be such that $\Delta\phi^*=\mu$. Since $\Lambda_n=D_n\cap \Lambda$ are all separated with uniform bound, there is a weak limit $\Lambda^*$. The functions $f_n$ in the disks can be modified by a factor $e^{g_n}$ in such a way that $h_n=f_ne^{g_n}$ satisfies $h_n(0)=1$ and $|h_n|\le e^{\phi_n+\Re(g_n)}$, if $n$ big enough and $\sup_{\Lambda_n} |h_n| e^{-\phi_n+\Re(g_n)}\le 1/n$. We can add an harmonic function $v$ to $\phi^*$ in such a way that $\phi_n+\Re(g_n)\to v+\phi^*$ uniformly on compact sets. Thus $h_n$ has a partial convergent to $h\in A_{\phi^*}$, $h(0)=1$ and $h|_{\Lambda^*}\equiv 0$ which was not possible by assumption. In the other direction, we assume that $\Lambda$ is a sampling sequence for $A_\phi(S)$, and $(\D,\phi^*,\Lambda^*)\in W(S,\phi,\Lambda)$. We want to prove that any $f\in A_\phi^*(\D)$ that vanishes in $\Lambda^*$ is identically $0$. Take a sequence of points $z_n$ that escapes to infinity and $(D_n,\phi_n,\Lambda_n)$ the associated triple that converges weakly to $(\D,\phi^*,\Lambda^*)$. As $\phi_n\to \phi^*$ and $\Lambda_n\to\Lambda^*$ uniformly on compact sets we can take a sequence of radii $s_n$ such that $d(\Lambda\cap D(z_n,s_n),\Lambda^ *\cap D(0,s_n))<1/n$, $D(z_n,s_n)\subset D(z_n,r_n)$ and $|\phi_n-\phi^*|\le 1/n$. If $f$ vanishes in $\Lambda^*$ that means that $f$ is very small in $D(z_n,s_n)\cap \Lambda$. Assume that $f(0)=1$. Take a cutoff function $\chi_n$ such that $\chi_n\equiv 0$ outside $D(z_n,s_n)$, $\chi(z_n)=1$, and $\langle d\chi\rangle<\varepsilon_n$. Define $g_n=f\chi_n-u_n$, where $\dbar u= f \dbar \chi_n$ is the solution estimates by Theorem~. Clearly $g_n$ is small in all points of $\Sigma$ and it has at least norm $1$. Thus we are contradicting the fact that $\Lambda$ is sampling. \end{proof} Observe that one particular instance of finite Riemann surface, where we can apply the result are the disks $D_i$ associated to the funnels with the metric $\phi_i$. The final piece for the proof of Theorem~ is then \begin{lemma} If $S$ is a finite Riemann surface, $\phi$ a subharmonic function with bounded Laplacian and $\Lambda$ is a uniformly separated sequence, then all possible weak limits coincide with the weak limits of the disks associated to the surface, i.e, \[ W(S,\phi,\Lambda)=W(D_1,\phi_1,\Lambda_1)\cup\cdots \cup W(D_n,\phi_n,\Lambda_n). \] \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The proof amounts to the observation that the metric in $D_i$ converges uniformly to the metric in $S$ as $z\to\partial \D_i$, and in the definition of weak limits we only consider uniform convergence over compacts. \end{proof} Theorem~ follows now immediately from Theorem~ and Lemmas and . \qed Now Theorem~ and Theorem~ show that the property of being a sampling/interpolating sequence are determined by the behavior near the boundary, more precisely in the associated disks. In these disks there is a precise description of the interpolating and sampling sequences (see and ) that can be transported to the surface. If we rewrite it we get the density conditions of Theorem~, but the disks are not hyperbolic disks on the surface, they correspond to hyperbolic disks in disks $D_i$, but since the condition is only relevant near the boundary, then the disks in both metrics look more an more similar. Moreover the difference between the corresponding Green functions converge to $0$ uniformly as we go to the boundary. Finally, as the sequence is uniformly discrete and the Laplacian of the weight is bounded above and bellow, the small difference is absorbed by the fact that the inequalities are strict and this proves Theorem~. In fact it is possible to replace in the definition of the density, \eqref{densities} the Green function $g_r$ of $D(z,r)$ by the Green function $g$ of $S$, because as before $\sup_{w\in D(z,r)}|g_r(z,w)-g(z,w)|\to 0$ as $z$ approaches the boundary. \section{Some $L^p$-variants} We have considered up to now pointwise growth restrictions. It is possible to obtain from our Theorem other results in different Banach spaces of holomorphic functions. Consider for instance the weighted Bergman spaces \[ A_\phi^p(S) = \{f\in \mathcal H (S);\ \int_S |f|^p e^{-\phi}\, dA<+\infty\}, \] where $dA$ is s the hyperbolic area measure in $S$ and $p\in [1,\infty)$. The natural problem in this context is the following: \begin{definition} Let $S$ be a finite Riemann surface, and let $\phi$ be a subharmonic function with bounded Laplacian bigger than one, i.e., $1+\varepsilon <\Delta \phi <M$. \begin{itemize} \item A sequence $\Lambda\subset S$ is interpolating for $A_\phi^p(S)$ if for any values $v_\lambda$ such that \[ \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} |v_\lambda|^p e^{-\phi(\lambda)} <\infty \] there is a function $f\in A_\phi^p(S)$ such that $f(\lambda)=v_\lambda$. \end{itemize} \end{definition} The spaces $A^p_\phi$ can be empty if we only ask $\phi$ to be with positive bounded Laplacian. It is then natural to require that the Laplacian is strictly bigger than one so that the Laplacian plus the curvature of the metric in the manifold is strictly positive and there are functions in the space (consider the case of the disk $S=\D$ for instance). Let $\phi_0$ be a subharmonic function in $S$ such that $\Delta \phi_0=1$. The corresponding theorem will be \begin{theorem} Let $S$ be a finite Riemann surface, and let $\phi$ be a subharmonic function with bounded Laplacian strictly bigger than one. Let $p\in [1,+\infty)$ and $\Lambda$ be a separated sequence. \begin{itemize} \item The sequence $\Lambda$ is interpolating for $A_\phi^p(S)$ if and only if $D^+_{(\phi-\phi_0)}(\Lambda)<1/p$. \end{itemize} \end{theorem} In the case of the unit disk $dA(z)=(1-|z|)^{-2}$ this description is well-known, see for instance \cite[Thm 2,3]{Seip98}. \begin{proof} The proof of the theorem is the same mutatis-mutandi as in the $L^\infty$ setting. The basic tool that allows us to glue the pieces together is the next theorem which is the generalization of Theorem~ and it is proved in the same way: \begin{theorem} Let $S$ be a finite Riemann surface, let $\phi$ be a subharmonic function with a bounded Laplacian strictly bigger than one and let $p\in [1,\infty)$. There is a constant $C=C(p,S)>0$ such that for any $(0,1)$-form $\omega$ on $S$ there is a solution $u$ to the inhomogeneous Cauchy-Riemann equation $\dbar u=\omega$ in $S$ with the estimate \[ \int_{S} |u(z)|^p e^{-\phi(z)}dA(z)\le C \int_{S} \langle\omega(z)\rangle^p e^{-\phi(z)} dA(z), \] whenever the right hand is finite. \end{theorem} The proof of this result is again the same as in Theorem~. We can separately solve the C-R equation in each funnel using Theorem~2 from . We glue them together with a C-R equation with data that has compact support that can be solved with the operator \eqref{pes}. \end{proof} \def\cprime{$'$} \providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace} \providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR } \providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{ {#2} } \providecommand{\href}[2]{#2} \begin{thebibliography}{MMOC03} \bibitem[BOC95]{BerOrt95} Bo~Berndtsson and Joaquim Ortega~Cerd{\`a}, \emph{On interpolation and sampling in {H}ilbert spaces of analytic functions}, J. Reine Angew. Math. \textbf{464} (1995), 109--128. \MR{96g:30070} \bibitem[Beu89]{Beurling89b} Arne Beurling, \emph{The collected works of {A}rne {B}eurling. {V}ol. 1}, Contemporary Mathematicians, Birkh\"auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1989, Complex analysis, Edited by L. Carleson, P. Malliavin, J. Neuberger and J. Wermer. \MR{92k:01046a} \bibitem[Bus92]{Buser92} Peter Buser, \emph{Geometry and spectra of compact {R}iemann surfaces}, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 106, Birkh\"auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1992. \MR{93g:58149} \bibitem[Dil95]{Diller95} Jeffrey Diller, \emph{A canonical {$\overline \partial$} problem for bordered {R}iemann surfaces}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. \textbf{44} (1995), no.~3, 747--763. \MR{96m:30063} \bibitem[Dil01]{Diller01} \bysame, \emph{Green's functions, electric networks, and the geometry of hyperbolic {R}iemann surfaces}, Illinois J. Math. \textbf{45} (2001), no.~2, 453--485. \MR{2003j:30064} \bibitem[DPRS87]{DPRS87} Jozef Dodziuk, Thea Pignataro, Burton Randol, and Dennis Sullivan, \emph{Estimating small eigenvalues of {R}iemann surfaces}, The legacy of Sonya Kovalevskaya (Cambridge, Mass., and Amherst, Mass., 1985), Contemp. Math., vol.~64, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1987, pp.~93--121. \MR{88h:58119} \bibitem[MMOC03]{MarMasOrt03} N.~Marco, X.~Massaneda, and J.~Ortega-Cerd{\`a}, \emph{Interpolating and sampling sequences for entire functions}, Geom. Funct. Anal. \textbf{13} (2003), no.~4, 862--914. \MR{2004j:30073} \bibitem[OC02]{Ortega02} Joaquim Ortega-Cerd{\`a}, \emph{Multipliers and weighted {$\overline\partial$}-estimates}, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana \textbf{18} (2002), no.~2, 355--377. \MR{2003j:32046} \bibitem[OCS98]{OrtSei98} Joaquim Ortega-Cerd{\`a} and Kristian Seip, \emph{Beurling-type density theorems for weighted {$L\sp p$} spaces of entire functions}, J. Anal. Math. \textbf{75} (1998), 247--266. \MR{2000k:46030} \bibitem[Sch78]{Scheinberg78} Stephen Scheinberg, \emph{Uniform approximation by functions analytic on a {R}iemann surface}, Ann. of Math. (2) \textbf{108} (1978), no.~2, 257--298. \MR{58 \#17111} \bibitem[Sei95]{Seip95b} Kristian Seip, \emph{On {K}orenblum's density condition for the zero sequences of {$A\sp {-\alpha}$}}, J. Anal. Math. \textbf{67} (1995), 307--322. \MR{97c:30044} \bibitem[Sei98]{Seip98} \bysame, \emph{Developments from nonharmonic {F}ourier series}, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. II (Berlin, 1998), no. Extra Vol. II, 1998, pp.~713--722 (electronic). \MR{99h:42023} \bibitem[SS54]{SchSpe54} Menahem Schiffer and Donald~C. Spencer, \emph{Functionals of finite {R}iemann surfaces}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1954. \MR{16,461g} \bibitem[Sto65]{Stout65} E.~L. Stout, \emph{Bounded holomorphic functions on finite {R}iemann surfaces}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. \textbf{120} (1965), 255--285. \MR{32\#1358} \bibitem[SV04]{SchVar04} A.~Schuster and D.~Varolin, \emph{{I}nterpolation and {S}ampling for generalized {B}ergman spaces on finite {R}iemann {S}urfaces.}, Preprint, 2004. \bibitem[Wer64]{Wermer64} John Wermer, \emph{Analytic disks in maximal ideal spaces}, Amer. J. Math. \textbf{86} (1964), 161--170. \MR{28 \#5355} \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0232
|
Title: New algebraic aspects of perturbative and non-perturbative Quantum Field
Theory
Abstract: In this expository article we review recent advances in our understanding of
the combinatorial and algebraic structure of perturbation theory in terms of
Feynman graphs, and Dyson-Schwinger equations. Starting from Lie and Hopf
algebras of Feynman graphs, perturbative renormalization is rephrased
algebraically. The Hochschild cohomology of these Hopf algebras leads the way
to Slavnov-Taylor identities and Dyson-Schwinger equations. We discuss recent
progress in solving simple Dyson-Schwinger equations in the high energy sector
using the algebraic machinery. Finally there is a short account on a relation
to algebraic geometry and number theory: understanding Feynman integrals as
periods of mixed (Tate) motives.
Body: \ifthenelse{\boolean{icmpstyle}}{ \title{New algebraic aspects of perturbative and non-perturbative Quantum Field Theory} \author{Christoph Bergbauer$\left.^{1,4}\right.$ and Dirk Kreimer$\left.^{2,3}\right.$\\[7mm] $\left.^1\right.$Freie Universit\"at Berlin, Institut f\"ur Mathematik II\\ Arnimallee 3, 14195 Berlin, Germany\\[2mm] $\left.^2\right.$CNRS at Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques\\ 35 route de Chartres, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France\\[2mm] $\left.^3\right.$Boston University, Center for Mathematical Physics\\ 111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA\\[2mm] $\left.^4\right.$Erwin-Schr\"odinger-Institut\\ Boltzmanngasse 9, 1090 Wien, Austria\\[2mm] \texttt{bergbau@math.fu-berlin.de, kreimer@ihes.fr}} \date{April 1, 2007} \maketitle \begin{abstract} In this expository article we review recent advances in our understanding of the combinatorial and algebraic structure of perturbation theory in terms of Feynman graphs, and Dyson-Schwinger equations. Starting from Lie and Hopf algebras of Feynman graphs, perturbative renormalization is rephrased algebraically. The Hochschild cohomology of these Hopf algebras leads the way to Slavnov-Taylor identities and Dyson-Schwinger equations. We discuss recent progress in solving simple Dyson-Schwinger equations in the high energy sector using the algebraic machinery. Finally there is a short account on a relation to algebraic geometry and number theory: understanding Feynman integrals as periods of mixed (Tate) motives. \end{abstract} } { \title[New algebraic aspects of perturbative and non-perturbative QFT]{New algebraic aspects of perturbative and non-perturbative Quantum Field Theory} \author{Christoph Bergbauer and Dirk Kreimer} \address{Freie Universit\"at Berlin\\Institut f\"ur Mathematik II\\ Arnimallee 3\\ 14195 Berlin\\ Germany and \newline Erwin-Schr\"odinger-Institut\\Boltzmanngasse 9\\1090 Wien\\Austria} \email{bergbau@math.fu-berlin.de} \address{CNRS at Institut des Hautes \'Etudes Scientifiques\\35 route de Chartres\\91440 Bures-sur-Yvette\\France and \newline Center for Mathematical Physics\\Boston University\\111 Cummington Street\\Boston, MA 02215\\USA} \email{kreimer@ihes.fr} \ifthenelse{\boolean{draft}}{\date{(Draft) \today}}{\date{April 1, 2007}} \begin{abstract} In this expository article we review recent advances in our understanding of the combinatorial and algebraic structure of perturbation theory in terms of Feynman graphs, and Dyson-Schwinger equations. Starting from Lie and Hopf algebras of Feynman graphs, perturbative renormalization is rephrased algebraically. The Hochschild cohomology of these Hopf algebras leads the way to Slavnov-Taylor identities and Dyson-Schwinger equations. We discuss recent progress in solving simple Dyson-Schwinger equations in the high energy sector using the algebraic machinery. Finally there is a short account on a relation to algebraic geometry and number theory: understanding Feynman integrals as periods of mixed (Tate) motives. \end{abstract} \maketitle \setcounter{tocdepth}{2} \tableofcontents } \section{Introduction} As \ifthenelse{\boolean{icmpstyle}}{} { \footnote{Contribution to the Proceedings of the International Congress on Mathematical Physics 2006, Rio de Janeiro. Based on a talk given by the first named author in the Quantum Field Theory session.}} elements of perturbative expansions of Quantum field theories, Feynman graphs have been playing and still play a key role both for our conceptual understanding and for state-of-the-art computations in particle physics. This article is concerned with several aspects of Feynman graphs: First, the combinatorics of perturbative renormalization give rise to Hopf algebras of rooted trees and Feynman graphs. These Hopf algebras come with a cohomology theory and structure maps that help understand important physical notions, such as locality of counterterms, the beta function, certain symmetries, or Dyson-Schwinger equations from a unified mathematical point of view. This point of view is about self-similarity and recursion. The atomic (primitive) elements in this combinatorial approach are divergent graphs without subdivergences. They must be studied by additional means, be it analytic methods or algebraic geometry and number theory, and this is a significantly more difficult task. However, the Hopf algebra structure of graphs for renormalization is in this sense a substructure of the Hopf algebra structure underlying the relative cohomology of graph hypersurfaces needed to understand the number-theoretic properties of field theory amplitudes . \section{Lie and Hopf algebras of Feynman graphs} Given a Feynman graph $\Gamma$ with several divergent subgraphs, the Bogoliubov recursion and Zimmermann's forest formula tell how $\Gamma$ must be renormalized in order to obtain a finite conceptual result, using only local counterterms. This has an analytic (regularization/extension of distributions) and a combinatorial aspect. The basic \emph{combinatorial} question of perturbative renormalization is to find a good model which describes disentanglement of graphs into subdivergent pieces, or dually insertion of divergent pieces one into each other, from the point of view of renormalized Feynman rules. It has been known now for several years that commutative Hopf algebras and (dual) Lie algebras provide such a framework with many ramifications in pure mathematics. From the physical side, it is important to know that, for example, recovering aspects of gauge/BRST symmetry and the transition to nonperturbative equations of motion are conveniently possible in this framework, as will be discussed in subsequent sections. \\\\ In order to introduce these Lie and Hopf algebras, let us now fix a renormalizable quantum field theory (in the sense of perturbation theory), given by a local Lagrangian. A convenient first example is massless $\phi^3$ theory in 6 dimensions. We look at its perturbative expansion in terms of 1PI Feynman graphs. Each 1PI graph $\Gamma$ comes with two integers, $|\Gamma|=\operatorname{rank} H_1(\Gamma),$ its number of loops, and $\operatorname{sdd}(\Gamma),$ its superficial degree of divergence. As usual, vacuum and tadpole graphs need not be considered, and the only remaining superficial divergent graphs have exactly two or three external edges, a feature of renormalizability. Graphs without subdivergences are called \emph{primitive}. Here are two examples. \begin{equation*} \phifull\quad\phitop \end{equation*} Both are superficially divergent as they have three external edges. The first one has two subdivergences, the second one is primitive. Note that there are infinitely many primitive graphs with three external edges. In particular, for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ one finds a primitive $\Gamma$ such that $|\Gamma|=n.$ \\\\ Let now $L$ be the $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space generated by all the superficially divergent $(\operatorname{sdd}\ge 0)$ 1PI graphs of our theory, graded by the number of loops $|\cdot|. $ There is an operation on $L$ given by insertion of graphs into each other: Let $\gamma_1,\gamma_2$ be two generators of $L.$ Then \begin{equation*} \gamma_1\star\gamma_2 := \sum_\Gamma n(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\Gamma) \end{equation*} where $n(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\Gamma)$ is the number of times that $\gamma_1$ shows up as a subgraph of $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma/\gamma_1\cong \gamma_2.$ Here are two examples: \begin{eqnarray*} \seone\star\vert &=& \vertir+\vertiu+\vertid\\ \vert\star\seone &=& 2 \setwo \end{eqnarray*} This definition is extended bilinearly onto all of $L.$ Note that $\star$ respects the grading as $|\gamma_1\star\gamma_2|=|\gamma_1|+|\gamma_2|.$ The operation $\star$ is not in general associative. Indeed, it is pre-Lie : \begin{equation} (\gamma_1\star\gamma_2)\star \gamma_3 - \gamma_1\star(\gamma_2\star\gamma_3) = (\gamma_1\star\gamma_3)\star\gamma_2 - \gamma_1\star(\gamma_3\star\gamma_3). \end{equation} To see that () holds observe that on both sides nested insertions cancel. What remains are disjoint insertions of $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$ into $\gamma_1$ which do obviously not depend on the order of $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3.$ One defines a Lie bracket on $L:$ \begin{equation*} [\gamma_1,\gamma_2] := \gamma_1\star\gamma_2-\gamma_2\star\gamma_1. \end{equation*} The Jacobi identity for $[\cdot,\cdot]$ is satisfied as a consequence of the pre-Lie property () of $\star.$ This makes $L$ a graded Lie algebra. The bracket is defined by mutual insertions of graphs. As usual, $\mathcal{U}(L),$ the universal envelopping algebra of $L$ is a cocommutative Hopf algebra. Its graded dual, in the sense of Milnor-Moore, is therefore a commutative Hopf algebra $\mathcal{H}.$ As an algebra, $\mathcal{H}$ is free commutative, generated by the vector space $L$ and an adjoined unit $\mathbb{I}.$ By duality, one expects the coproduct of $\mathcal{H}$ to disentangle its argument into subdivergent pieces. Indeed, one finds \begin{equation} \Delta(\Gamma) = \mathbb{I}\otimes \Gamma+\Gamma\otimes \mathbb{I} + \sum_{\gamma\subsetneq \Gamma} \gamma\otimes \Gamma/\gamma. \end{equation} The relation $\gamma\subsetneq\Gamma$ refers to disjoint unions $\gamma$ of 1PI superficially divergent subgraphs of $\Gamma.$ Disjoint unions of graphs are in turn identified with their product in $\mathcal{H}.$ For example, \begin{equation*} \Delta\left(\setwo\right) = \mathbb{I}\otimes\setwo+\setwo\otimes\mathbb{I}+2\vert\otimes\seone. \end{equation*} The coproduct respects the grading by the loop number, as does the product (by definition). Therefore $\mathcal{H}=\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty \mathcal{H}_n$ is a graded Hopf algebra. Since $\mathcal{H}_0\cong \mathbb{Q}$ it is connected. The counit $\epsilon$ vanishes on the subspace $\bigoplus_{n=1}^\infty \mathcal{H}_n,$ called augmentation ideal, and $\epsilon(\mathbb{I})=1.$ As usual, if $\Delta(x)=\mathbb{I}\otimes x+x\otimes \mathbb{I},$ the element $x$ is called \emph{primitive}. The linear subspace of primitive elements is denoted $\operatorname{Prim}\mathcal{H}.$\\\\ The interest in $\mathcal{H}$ and $L$ arises from the fact that the Bogoliubov recursion is essentially solved by the antipode of $\mathcal{H}.$ In any connected graded bialgebra, the antipode $S$ is given by \begin{equation} S(x) = -x - \sum S(x') x'', \quad x\notin \mathcal{H}_0 \end{equation} in Sweedler's notation. Let now $V$ be a $\mathbb{C}$-algebra. The space of linear maps $\mathcal{L}_\mathbb{Q}(\mathcal{H},V)$ is equipped with a convolution product $(f,g)\mapsto f\ast g = m_V(f\otimes g)\Delta$ where $m_V$ is the product in $V.$ Relevant examples for $V$ are suggested by regularization schemes such as the algebra $V=\mathbb{C}[[\epsilon,\epsilon^{-1}]$ of Laurent series with finite pole part for dimensional regularization (space-time dimension $D=6+2\epsilon.$) The (unrenormalized) Feynman rules provide then an algebra homomorphism $\phi: \mathcal{H}\rightarrow V$ mapping Feynman graphs to Feynman integrals in $6+2\epsilon$ dimensions. On $V$ there is a linear endomorphism $R$ (renormalization scheme) defined, for example minimal subtraction $R(\epsilon^n)=0$ if $n\ge0,$ $R(\epsilon^n)=\epsilon^n$ if $n<0.$ If $\Gamma$ is primitive, as defined above, then $\phi(\Gamma)$ has only a simple pole in $\epsilon,$ hence $(1-R)\phi(\Gamma)$ is a good renormalized value for $\Gamma.$ If $\Gamma$ does have subdivergences, the situation is more complicated. However, the map $S_R^\phi: \mathcal{H}\rightarrow V$ \begin{equation*} S_R^\phi(\Gamma) = -R\left(\phi(\Gamma)-\sum S_R^\phi(\Gamma')\phi(\Gamma'')\right) \end{equation*} provides the counterterm prescribed by the Bogoliubov recursion, and $(S_R^\phi\ast\phi)(\Gamma)$ yields the renormalized value of $\Gamma.$ The map $S_R^\phi$ is a recursive deformation of $\phi\circ S$ by $R,$ compare its definition with (). These are results obtained by one of the authors in collaboration with Connes .\\\\ For $S_R^\phi$ to be an algebra homomorphism again, one requires $R$ to be a Rota-Baxter operator, studied in a more general setting by Ebrahimi-Fard, Guo and one of the authors in . The Rota-Baxter property is at the algebraic origin of the Birkhoff decomposition introduced in . In the presence of mass terms, or gauge symmetries etc. in the Lagrangian, $\phi,$ $S_R^\phi$ and $S_R^\phi\star\phi$ may contribute to several form factors in the usual way. This can be resolved by considering a slight extension of the Hopf algebra containing projections onto single structure functions, as discussed for example in . For the case of gauge theories, a precise definition of the coefficients $n(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\Gamma)$ is given in .\\\\ The Hopf algebra $\mathcal{H}$ arises from the simple insertion of graphs into each other in a completely canonical way. Indeed, the pre-Lie product determines the coproduct, and the coproduct determines the antipode. Like this, each quantum field theory gives rise to such a Hopf algebra $\mathcal{H}$ based on its 1PI graphs. It is no surprise then that there is an even more universal Hopf algebra behind all of them: The Hopf algebra $\mathcal{H}_{rt}$ of rooted trees . In order to see this, imagine a purely nested situation of subdivergences like \begin{equation*} \phifull \end{equation*} which can be represented by the rooted tree \begin{equation*} \oc. \end{equation*} To account for each single graph of this kind, the tree's vertices should actually be labeled according to which primitive graph they correspond to (plus some gluing data) which we will suppress for the sake of simplicity. The coproduct on $\mathcal{H}_{rt}$ -- corresponding to the one () of $\mathcal{H}$ -- is \begin{equation*} \Delta (\tau)=\mathbb{I}\otimes \tau+\tau\otimes\mathbb{I}+ \sum_{adm. c} P_c(\tau)\otimes R_c(\tau) \end{equation*} where the sum runs over all \emph{admissible cuts} of the tree $\tau.$ A cut of $\tau$ is a nonempty subset of its edges which are to be removed. A cut $c(\tau)$ is defined to be admissible, if for each leaf $l$ of $\tau$ at most one edge on the path from $l$ to the root is cut. The product of subtrees which fall down when those edges are removed is denoted $P_c(\tau).$ The part which remains connected with the root is denoted $R_c(\tau).$ Here is an example: \begin{eqnarray*} \Delta\left(\ofork\right)&=&\ofork\otimes\mathbb{I}+\mathbb{I}\otimes\ofork+ 2\bullet\otimes\olongline+\\ &+&\bullet\bullet\otimes\oline+\oc\otimes\bullet. \end{eqnarray*} Compared to $\mathcal{H}_{rt},$ the advantage of $\mathcal{H}$ is however that overlapping divergences are resolved automatically. To achieve this in $\mathcal{H}_{rt}$ requires some care . \section{From Hochschild cohomology to physics} There is a natural cohomology theory on $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{rt}$ whose non-exact 1-cocycles play an important ''operadic'' role in the sense that they drive the recursion that define the full 1PI Green's functions in terms of primitve graphs. In order to introduce this cohomology theory, let $A$ be any bialgebra. We view $A$ as a bicomodule over itself with right coaction $(id\otimes\epsilon)\Delta.$ Then the Hochschild cohomology of $A$ (with respect to the coalgebra part) is defined as follows : Linear maps $L: A\rightarrow A^{\otimes n}$ are considered as $n$-cochains. The operator $b,$ defined as \begin{equation} bL := (id\otimes L)\Delta+\sum_{i=1}^n(-1)^i\Delta_i L+(-1)^{n+1}L\otimes \mathbb{I} \end{equation} furnishes a codifferential: $b^2 = 0.$ Here $\Delta$ denotes the coproduct of $A$ and $\Delta_i$ the coproduct applied to the $i$-th factor in $A^{\otimes n}$. The map $L\otimes\mathbb{I}$ is given by $x\mapsto L(x)\otimes\mathbb{I}.$ Clearly this codifferential encodes only information about the \emph{coalgebra} (as opposed to the algebra) part of $A.$ The resulting cohomology is denoted $\operatorname{HH}^\bullet_\epsilon(A).$ For $n=1,$ the cocycle condition $bL=0$ is simply \begin{equation} \Delta L = (id\otimes L) \Delta+L\otimes\mathbb{I} \end{equation} for $L$ a linear endomorphism of $A.$ In the Hopf algebra $\mathcal{H}_{rt}$ of rooted trees (where things are often simpler), a 1-cocycle is quickly found: the grafting operator $B_+,$ defined by \begin{eqnarray*} B_+(\mathbb{I})&=&\bullet\nonumber\\ B_+(\tau_1 \ldots\tau_n)&=&\ocf\quad\mbox{for trees }\tau_i \end{eqnarray*} joining all the roots of its argument to a newly created root. Clearly, $B_+$ reminds of an operad multiplication. It is easily seen that $B_+$ is not exact and therefore a generator (among others) of $\operatorname{HH}^1_\epsilon(\mathcal{H}_{rt}).$ Foissy showed that $L\mapsto L(\mathbb{I})$ is an onto map $\operatorname{HH}^1_\epsilon(\mathcal{H}_{rt})\rightarrow \operatorname{Prim}\mathcal{H}_{rt}.$ The higher Hochschild cohomology $(n\ge 2)$ of $\mathcal{H}_{rt}$ is known to vanish . The pair $(\mathcal{H}_{rt},B_+)$ is the universal model for all Hopf algebras of Feynman graphs and their 1-cocycles . Let us now turn to those 1-cocycles of $\mathcal{H}.$ Clearly, every primitve graph $\gamma$ gives rise to a 1-cocycle $B_+^\gamma$ defined as the operator which inserts its argument, a product of graphs, into $\gamma$ in all possible ways. Here is a simple example: \begin{equation*} B_{+}^{\seone}\left(\vert\right) = \frac{1}{2}\setwo \end{equation*} See for the general definition involving some combinatorics of insertion places and symmetries.\\\\ It is an important consequence of the $B_+^\gamma$ satisfying the cocycle condition () that \begin{equation} (S_R^\phi\ast\phi)B_+ = (1-R)\tilde B_+(S_R^\phi\ast\phi) \end{equation} where $\tilde B_+$ is the push-forward of $B_+$ along the Feynman rules $\phi.$ In other words, $\tilde B_+^\gamma$ is the integral operator corresponding to the skeleton graph $\gamma.$ This is the combinatorial key to the proof of locality of counterterms and finiteness of renormalization . Indeed, equation () says that after treating all subdivergences, an overall subtraction $(1-R)$ suffices. The only analytic ingredient is Weinberg's theorem applied to the primitive graphs. In it is emphasized that $\mathcal{H}$ is actually generated (and determined) by the action of prescribed 1-cocycles and the multiplication. A version of () with decorated trees is available which describes renormalization in coordinate space . \\\\ The 1-cocycles $B_+^\gamma$ give rise to a number of useful Hopf subalgebras of $\mathcal{H}.$ Many of them are isomorphic. They are studied in on the model of decorated rooted trees, and we will come back to them in the next section. In one of the authors showed that in nonabelian gauge theories, the existence of a certain Hopf subalgebra, generated by 1-cocycles, is closely related to the Slavnov-Taylor identities for the couplings to hold. In a similar spirit, van Suijlekom showed that, in QED, Ward-Takahashi identities, and in nonabelian Yang-Mills theories, the Slavnov-Taylor identities for the couplings generate Hopf ideals $\mathcal{I}$ of $\mathcal{H}$ such that the quotients $\mathcal{H}/\mathcal{I}$ are defined and the Feynman rules factor through them . The Hopf algebra $\mathcal{H}$ for QED had been studied before in . \section{Dyson-Schwinger equations} The ultimate application of the Hochschild 1-cocycles introduced in the previous section aims at non-perturbative results. Dyson-Schwinger equations, reorganized using the correspondence $\operatorname{Prim}\mathcal{H}\rightarrow \operatorname{HH}_\epsilon^1(\mathcal{H}),$ become recursive equations in $\mathcal{H}[[\alpha]],$ $\alpha$ the coupling constant, with contributions from (degree 1) 1-cocycles. The Feynman rules connect them to the usual integral kernel representation. We remain in the massless $\phi^3$ theory in 6 dimensions for the moment. Let $\Gamma^\Yleft$ be the \emph{full} 1PI vertex function, \begin{equation} \Gamma^\Yleft = \mathbb{I}+\sum_{\operatorname{res} \Gamma=\Yleft} \alpha^{|\Gamma|}\frac{\Gamma} {\operatorname{Sym}\Gamma} \end{equation} (normalized such that the tree level contribution equals 1). This is a formal power series in $\alpha$ with values in $\mathcal{H}.$ Here $\operatorname{res} \Gamma$ is the result of collapsing all internal lines of $\Gamma.$ The graph $\operatorname{res} \Gamma$ is called the residue of $\Gamma.$ In a renormalizable theory, $\operatorname{res}$ can be seen as a map from the set of generators of $\mathcal{H}$ to the terms in the Lagrangian. For instance, in the $\phi^3$ theory, vertex graphs have residue $\Yleft,$ and self energy graphs have residue $-.$ The number $\operatorname{Sym}\Gamma$ denotes the order of the group of automorphisms of $\Gamma,$ defined in detail for example in . Similarly, the \emph{full} inverse propagator $\Gamma^-$ is represented by \begin{equation} \Gamma^- = \mathbb{I}-\sum_{\operatorname{res} \Gamma = -}\alpha^{|\Gamma|}\frac{\Gamma}{\operatorname{Sym}\Gamma}. \end{equation} These series can be reorganized by summing only over primitive graphs, with all possible insertions into these primitive graphs. In $\mathcal{H},$ the insertions are afforded by the corresponding Hochschild 1-cocycles. Indeed, \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma^{\Yleft} &=& \mathbb{I} + \sum_{\gamma\in\operatorname{Prim}\mathcal{H},\operatorname{res}\gamma=\Yleft} \frac{\alpha^{|\gamma|}B_+^\gamma(\Gamma^{\Yleft} Q^{|\gamma|})}{\operatorname{Sym}\gamma}\nonumber\\ \Gamma^{-} &=& \mathbb{I} - \sum_{\gamma\in\operatorname{Prim}\mathcal{H},\operatorname{res}\gamma=-} \frac{\alpha^{|\gamma|}B_+^\gamma(\Gamma^{-} Q^{|\gamma|})}{\operatorname{Sym}\gamma}. \end{eqnarray} The universal invariant charge $Q$ is a monomial in the $\Gamma^{r}$ and their inverses, where $r$ are residues (terms in the Lagrangian) provided by the theory. In $\phi^3$ theory we have $Q=(\Gamma^{\Yleft})^2(\Gamma^-)^{-3}.$ In $\phi^3$ theory, the universality of $Q$ (i.~e.~ the fact that the same $Q$ is good for \emph{all} Dyson-Schwinger equations of the theory) comes from a simple topological argument. In nonabelian gauge theories however, the universality of $Q$ takes care that the solution of the corresponding system of coupled Dyson-Schwinger equations gives rise to a Hopf subalgebra and therefore amounts to the Slavnov-Taylor identities for the couplings .\\\\ The system () of coupled Dyson-Schwinger equations has (,) as its solution. Note that in the first equation of () an \emph{infinite} number of cocycles contributes as there are infinitely many primitive vertex graphs in $\phi^3_6$ theory -- the second equation has only finitely many contributions -- here one. Before we describe how to actually attempt to solve equations of this kind analytically (application of the Feynman rules $\phi$), we discuss the combinatorial ramifications of this construction in the Hopf algebra. It makes sense to call all (systems of) recursive equations of the form \begin{eqnarray*} X_1 &=& \mathbb{I} \pm \sum_n \alpha^{k^1_n} B^{d^1_n}_+(M^1_n)\\ &\ldots&\\ X_s & = & \mathbb{I} \pm \sum_n \alpha^{k^s_n} B^{d^s_n}_+(M^s_n) \end{eqnarray*} \emph{combinatorial} Dyson-Schwinger equations, and to study their combinatorics. Here, the $B^{d_n}_+$ are non-exact Hochschild 1-cocycles and the $M_n$ are monomials in the $X_1\ldots X_s.$ In we studied a large class of single (uncoupled) combinatorial Dyson-Schwinger equations in a decorated version of $\mathcal{H}_{rt}$ as a model for vertex insertions: \begin{equation*} X=\mathbb{I}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \alpha^n w_n B_+^{d_n}(X^{n+1}) \end{equation*} where the $w_n\in\mathbb{Q}.$ For example, $X=\mathbb{I}+\alpha B_+(X^2)+\alpha^2 B_+(X^3)$ is in this class. It turns out that the coefficients $c_n$ of $X,$ defined by $X = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \alpha^n c_n$ generate a Hopf subalgebra themselves: \begin{equation*} \Delta(c_n)= \sum_{k=0}^n P^n_k\otimes c_k. \end{equation*} The $P^n_k$ are homogeneous polynomials of degree $n-k$ in the $c_l,$ $l\le n.$ These polynomials have been worked out explicitly in . One notices in particular that the $P^n_k$ are independent of the $w_n$ and $B_+^{d_n},$ and hence that under mild assumptions (on the algebraic independence of the $c_n$) the Hopf subalgebras generated this way are actually isomorphic. For example, $X=\mathbb{I}+\alpha B_+(X^2)+\alpha^2 B_+(X^3)$ and $X=\mathbb{I}+\alpha B_+(X^2)$ yield isomorphic Hopf subalgebras. This is an aspect of the fact that \emph{truncation} of Dyson-Schwinger equations -- considering only a finite instead of an infinite number of contributing cocycles -- does make (at least combinatorial) sense. Indeed, the combinatorics remain invariant. Similar results hold for Dyson-Schwinger equations in the true Hopf algebra of graphs $\mathcal{H}$ where things are a bit more difficult though as the cocycles there involve some bookkeeping of insertion places.\\\\ The simplest nontrivial Dyson-Schwinger equation one can think of is the \emph{linear} one: \begin{equation*} X = \mathbb{I}+\alpha B_+(X). \end{equation*} Its solution is given by $X=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\alpha^n (B_+)^n (\mathbb{I}).$ In this case $X$ is grouplike and the corresponding Hopf subalgebra of $c_n$s is \emph{cocommutative} . A typical and important \emph{non-linear} Dyson-Schwinger equation arises from propagator insertions: \begin{equation*} X=\mathbb{I}-\alpha B_+(1/X), \end{equation*} for example the massless fermion propagator in Yukawa theory where only the fermion line obtains radiative corrections (other corrections are ignored). This problem has been studied and solved by Broadhurst and one of the authors in and revisited recently by one of the authors and Yeats . As we now turn to the analytic aspects of Dyson-Schwinger equations, we briefly sketch the general approach presented in on how to successfully treat the nonlinearity of Dyson-Schwinger equations. Indeed, the \emph{linear} Dyson-Schwinger equations can be solved by a simple scaling ansatz . In any case, let $\gamma$ be a primitive graph. The following works for amplitudes which depend on a single scale, so let us assume a massless situation with only one non-zero external momentum -- how more than one external momentum (vertex insertions) are incorporated by enlarging the set of primitive elements is sketched in . The grafting operator $B_+^\gamma$ associated to $\gamma$ translates to an integral operator under the (renormalized) Feynman rules \begin{equation*} \phi_R(B_+^\gamma)(\mathbb{I})(p^2/\mu^2) = \int (I_\gamma(k,p)-I_\gamma(k,\mu)) dk \end{equation*} where $I_\gamma$ is the integral kernel corresponding to $\gamma,$ the internal momenta are denoted by $k,$ the external momentum by $p,$ and $\mu$ is the fixed momentum at which we subtract: $R(x)=x|_{p^2=\mu^2}.$ \\\\ In the following we stick to the special case discussed in where only \emph{one} internal edge is allowed to receive corrections. The integral kernel $\phi(B_+^\gamma)$ defines a Mellin transform \begin{equation*} F(\rho) = \int I_\gamma(k,\mu) (k_i^2)^{-\rho} dk \end{equation*} where $k_i$ is the momentum of the internal edge of $\gamma$ at which insertions may take place (here the fermion line). If there are several insertion sites, obvious multiple Mellin transforms become necessary. The case of two (propagator) insertion places has been studied, at the same example, in . \\\\ The function $F(\rho)$ has a simple pole in $\rho$ at 0. We write \begin{equation*} F(\rho) = \frac{r}{\rho}+\sum_{n=0}^\infty f_n \rho^n \end{equation*} We denote $L= \log p^2/\mu^2.$ Clearly $\phi_R(X)=1+\sum_n \gamma_n L^n.$ An important result of is that, even in the difficult nonlinear situation, the anomalous dimension $\gamma_1$ is implicitly defined by the residue $r$ and Taylor coefficients $f_n$ of the Mellin transform $F.$ On the other hand, all the $\gamma_n$ for $n\ge 2,$ are recursively defined in terms of the $\gamma_i,$ $i<n.$ This last statement amounts to a renormalization group argument that is afforded in the Hopf algebra by the scattering formula of . Curiously, for this argument only a linearized part of the coproduct is needed. We refer to for the actual algorithm. For a \emph{linear} Dyson-Schwinger equation, the situation is considerably simpler as the $\gamma_n=0$ for $n\ge 2$ since $X$ is grouplike . \\\\ Let us restate the results for the high energy sector of non-linear Dyson-Schwinger equations : Primitive graphs $\gamma$ define Mellin transforms via their integral kernels $\tilde B^\gamma_+.$ The anomalous dimension $\gamma_1$ is \emph{implicitly} determined order by order from the coefficients of those Mellin transforms. All non-leading log coefficients $\gamma_n$ are recursively determined by $\gamma_1,$ thanks to the renormalization group. This reduces, in principle, the problem to a study of all the primitive graphs and the intricacies of insertion places. \\\\ Finding useful representations of those Mellin transforms -- even one-dimensional ones -- of higher loop order skeleton graphs is difficult. However, the two-loop primitive vertex in massless Yukawa theory has been worked out by Bierenbaum, Weinzierl and one of the authors in , a result that can be applied to other theories as well. Combined with the algebraic treatment sketched in the previous paragraphs and new geometric insight on primitive graphs (see section ), there is reasonable hope that actual solutions of Dyson-Schwinger equations will be more accessible in the future. \\\\ Using the Dyson-Schwinger analysis, one of the authors and Yeats were able to deduce a bound for the convergence of superficially divergent amplitudes/structure functions from the (desirable) existence of a bound for the superficially convergent amplitudes. \\\\ \section{Feynman integrals and periods of mixed (Tate) Hodge structures} A primitive graph $\Gamma\in \operatorname{Prim} \mathcal{H}$ defines a real number $r_\Gamma$, called the \emph{residue} of $\Gamma$, which is independent of the renormalization scheme. In the case that $\Gamma$ is massless and has one external momentum $p,$ the residue $r_\Gamma$ is the coefficient of $\log p^2/\mu^2$ in $\phi_R(\Gamma)=(1-R)\phi(\Gamma).$ It coincides with the coefficient $r$ of the Mellin transform introduced in the previous section. One may ask what kind of a number $r$ is, for example if it is rational or algebraic. The origin of this question is that the irrational or transcendental numbers that show up for various $\Gamma$ strongly suggest a motivic interpretation of the $r_\Gamma.$ Indeed, explicit calculations display patterns of Riemann zeta and multiple zeta values that are known to be periods of mixed Tate Hodge structures -- here the periods are provided by the Feynman rules which produce $\Gamma\mapsto r_\Gamma.$ By disproving a related conjecture of Kontsevich, Belkale and Brosnan have shown that not all these Feynman motives must be mixed Tate, so one may expect a larger class of Feynman periods than multiple zeta values. Our detailed understanding of these phenomena is still far from complete, and only some very first steps have been made in the last few years. However, techniques developed in recent work by Bloch, Esnault and one of the authors do permit reasonable insight for some special cases which we briefly sketch in the following.\\\\ Let $\Gamma$ be a logarithmically divergent massless primitive graph with one external momentum $p$. It is convenient to work in the ''Schwinger'' parametric representation obtained by the usual trick of replacing propagators \begin{equation*} \frac{1}{k^2} = \int_0^\infty d a e^{-ak^2}, \end{equation*} and performing the loop integrations (Gaussian integrals) first which leaves us with a (divergent) integral over various Schwinger parameters $a.$ It is a classical exercise to show that in four dimensions, up to some powers of $i$ and $2\pi,$ \begin{equation*} \phi(\Gamma) = \int_0^\infty da_1\ldots da_n \frac{e^{-Q_\Gamma(a,p^2)/\Psi_\Gamma(a)}}{\Psi_\Gamma^2(a)} \end{equation*} where $n$ is the number of edges of $\Gamma.$ $Q_\Gamma$ and $\Psi_\Gamma$ are graph polynomials of $\Gamma$, where $\Psi_\Gamma,$ sometimes called \emph{Symanzik} or \emph{Kirchhoff polynomial}, is defined as follows: Let $T(\Gamma)$ be the set of spanning trees of $\Gamma,$ i.~e.~ the set of connected simply connected subgraphs which meet all vertices of $\Gamma.$ We think of the edges $e$ of $\Gamma$ as being numbered from 1 to $n.$ Then \begin{equation*} \Psi_\Gamma = \sum_{t\in T(\Gamma)} \prod_{e\not\in t} a_e \end{equation*} This is a homogeneous polynomial in the $a_i$ of degree $|H_1(\Gamma)|.$ It is easily seen (scaling behaviour of $Q_\Gamma$ and $\Psi_\Gamma)$ that $r_\Gamma=\frac{\partial\phi_R(\Gamma)}{\partial \log p^2/\mu^2}$ is extracted from $\phi(\Gamma)$ by considering the $a_i$ as homogeneous coordinates of $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}(\mathbb{R})$ and evaluating at $p^2=0:$ \begin{equation} r_\Gamma = \int_{\sigma\subset \mathbb{P}^{n-1}(\mathbb{R})} \frac{\Omega}{\Psi_\Gamma^2} \end{equation} where $\sigma=\{[a_1,\ldots,a_n]: \mbox{ all } a_i \mbox{ can be choosen }\ge 0\}$ and $\Omega$ is a volume form on $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}.$ Let $X_\Gamma:=\{\Psi_\Gamma = 0\}\subset\mathbb{P}^{n-1}.$ If $|H_1(\Gamma)|=1,$ the integrand in () has no poles. If $|H_1(\Gamma)|>1,$ poles will show up on the union $\Delta=\bigcup_{\gamma\subsetneq \Gamma, H_1(\gamma) \neq 0} L_\gamma$ of coordinate linear spaces $L_\gamma=\{a_e = 0$ for $e$ edge of $\gamma\}$ -- these need to be separated from the chain of integration by blowing up. The blowups being understood, the Feynman motive is, by abuse of notation, \begin{equation*} H^{n-1}(\mathbb{P}^{n-1}-X_\Gamma,\Delta-\Delta\cap X_\Gamma) \end{equation*} with Feynman period given by (). See for details. Some particularly accessible examples are the \emph{wheel with $n$ spokes graphs} \begin{equation*} \Gamma_n := \wheel \end{equation*} studied extensively in . The corresponding Feynman periods () yield rational multiples of zeta values \begin{equation*} r_{\Gamma_n} \in \zeta(2n-3)\mathbb{Q}. \end{equation*} Due to the simple topology of the $\Gamma_n,$ the geometry of the pairs $(X_{\Gamma_n},\Delta_{\Gamma_n})$ are well understood and the corresponding motives have been worked out explicitly . The methods used are however nontrivial and not immediately applicable to more general situations. \\\\ When confronted with non-primitive graphs, i.~e.~ graphs with subdivergences, there are more than one period to consider. In the Schwinger parameter picture, subdivergences arise when poles appear along exceptional divisors as pieces of $\Delta$ are blown up. This situation can be understood using limiting mixed Hodge structures , see also for a toy model approach to the combinatorics involved. In it is also shown how the Hopf algebra $\mathcal{H}$ of graphs lifts to the category of motives. For the motivic role of solutions of Dyson-Schwinger equations we refer to work in progress. Finally we mention that there is related work by Connes and Marcolli who attack the problem via Riemann-Hilbert correspondences and motivic Galois theory.\\\\ \bf Acknowledgements. \rm We thank Spencer Bloch and Karen Yeats for discussion on the subject of this review. The first named author (C.~B.) thanks the organizers of the ICMP 2006 and the IHES for general support. His research is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The IHES, Boston University and the Erwin-Schr\"odinger-Institute are gratefully acknowledged for their kind hospitality. At the time of writing this article, C.~B.~ is visiting the ESI as a Junior Research Fellow. \bibliographystyle{plain} \bibliography{lit}
|
0704.0235
|
Title: The Determination of the Helicity of $W'$ Boson Couplings at the LHC
Abstract: Apart from its mass and width, the most important property of a new charged
gauge boson, $W'$, is the helicity of its couplings to the SM fermions. Such
particles are expected to exist in many extensions of the Standard Model. In
this paper we explore the capability of the LHC to determine the $W'$ coupling
helicity at low integrated luminosities in the $\ell +E_T^{miss}$ discovery
channel. We find that measurements of the transverse mass distribution,
reconstructed from this final state in the $W-W'$ interference region, provides
the best determination of this quantity. To make such measurements requires
integrated luminosities of $\sim 10(60) fb^{-1}$ assuming $M_{W'}=1.5(2.5)$ TeV
and provided that the $W'$ couplings have Standard Model magnitude. This
helicity determination can be further strengthened by the use of various
discovery channel leptonic asymmetries, also measured in the same interference
regime, but with higher integrated luminosities.
Body: \begin{titlepage} \rightline{\vbox{\halign{&#\hfil\cr &SLAC-PUB-12392\cr }}} \begin{center} \thispagestyle{empty} \flushbottom { { \Large\bf The Determination of the Helicity of $W'$ Boson Couplings at the LHC \footnote{Work supported in part by the Department of Energy, Contract DE-AC02-76SF00515} \footnote{e-mail: $^a$rizzo@slac.stanford.edu}}} \medskip \end{center} \centerline{Thomas G. Rizzo$^{a}$} \vspace{8pt} \centerline{\it Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, 2575 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park, CA, 94025} \vspace*{0.3cm} \begin{abstract} Apart from its mass and width, the most important property of a new charged gauge boson, $W'$, is the helicity of its couplings to the SM fermions. Such particles are expected to exist in many extensions of the Standard Model. In this paper we explore the capability of the LHC to determine the $W'$ coupling helicity at low integrated luminosities in the $\ell +E_T^{miss}$ discovery channel. We find that measurements of the transverse mass distribution, reconstructed from this final state in the $W-W'$ interference region, provides the best determination of this quantity. To make such measurements requires integrated luminosities of $\sim 10(60)~fb^{-1}$ assuming $M_{W'}=1.5(2.5)$ TeV and provided that the $W'$ couplings have Standard Model magnitude. This helicity determination can be further strengthened by the use of various discovery channel leptonic asymmetries, also measured in the same interference regime, but with higher integrated luminosities. \end{abstract} \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}} \end{titlepage} \section{Introduction} The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the LHC will begin taking data in a few months and it is widely believed that new physics beyond the Standard Model(SM) will be discovered in the coming years. There are many expectations as to what this new physics may be and in what form it will manifest itself, but it is likely that we will be in for a surprise. Once this new physics is discovered our primary goal will be to understand its essential nature and how the specific discoveries, such as the production and observed properties of new particles, fit into a broader theoretical framework. The existence of a new charged gauge boson, $W'$, or a $W'$-like object, is now a relatively common prediction which results from many new physics scenarios. These possibilities include the Little Higgs(LH) model{\cite {LH}}, the Randall-Sundrum(RS){\cite {RS}} model with bulk gauge fields{\cite {bulk}}, Universal Extra Dimensions(UED){\cite {UED}}, TeV scale extra dimensions{\cite {TeV,precision,sphere}}, as well as many different extended electroweak gauge models, such as the prototypical Left-Right Symmetric Model(LRM){\cite {LRM,other}}. Although the physics of a new $Z'$ has gotten much attention in the literature{\cite {review}}, the detailed study of a possible $W'$ has fared somewhat less well{\cite {however}}. Perhaps the most important property of a $W'$, apart from its mass and width, is the helicity of its couplings to the fermions in the SM. For all of the models discussed in the literature above, these couplings are either purely left- or right-handed, apart from some possible small mixing effects. Determining the helicity of the couplings of a newly discovered $W'$ is thus the first major step in opening up the underlying physics as it is an order one discriminator between different classes of models.{\footnote {This is similar in nature to determining whether the known light neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana particles.}} As will be discussed below, there have been many suggestions over the last 20-plus years as to how to measure the helicity of $W'$ couplings, all of which have their own strengths and weaknesses. These analyses have generally relied upon the use of the narrow width approximation. However, in employing this approximation much valuable information about the properties of the $W'$ can be lost, in particular, that obtained from $W-W'$ interference. The goal of this paper will be to explore the effects of this interference on the transverse mass dependent distributions of the $W'$. As we will see the rather straightforward measurement of the transverse mass distribution itself will allow us obtain the necessary $W'$ helicity information. Furthermore, we will demonstrate that such measurements will require only relatively low integrated luminosities for $W'$ masses which are not too large, and will employ the traditional $\ell+E_T^{miss}$ $W'$ discovery channel. Section II of the paper contains some background material and a historically-oriented overview of previous ideas that have been suggested to address the $W'$ helicity issue including a discussion of their various strengths and weaknesses. Section III will present an analysis of the $W'$ transverse mass distribution and its helicity dependence for a range of $W'$ masses, coupling strengths and LHC integrated luminosities. The use of various asymmetries evaluated in the $W-W'$ interference region in order to assist with the $W'$ helicity determination will also be discussed. Section IV contains a final summary and discussion of our results. \section{Background and History} Let us begin by establishing some notation; since much of this should be fairly familiar we will be rather sketchy and refer the interested reader to Ref.{\cite {review}} for details. We denote the couplings of the SM fermions to the $W_i=(W=W_{SM},W')$ as \begin{equation} \Big({{G_FM_W^2}\over {\sqrt 2}}\Big)^{1/2}V_{ff'}C^{\ell,q}_i\bar f \gamma_\mu (1-h_i\gamma_5)f'W^\mu_i+ h.c.\,, \end{equation} where for the case of $W_i=W_{SM}$, the coupling strength(for leptons and quarks, respectively) and helicity factors are given by $C^{\ell,q}_i,h_i=1$ and $V_{ff'}$ is the CKM(unit) matrix when $f,f'$ are quarks(leptons); note that the helicity structure for both leptons and quarks is assumed to be the same as in all the model cases above.{\footnote {For simplicity in what follows we will further assume that the corresponding RH and LH CKM matrices are identical up to phases and we will generally neglect any possible small effects arising from $W-W'$ mixing. In the case of RH couplings, we will further assume that the SM neutrinos are Dirac fields.}} Following the notation given in Ref.{\cite {review}}, with some obvious modifications, the inclusive $pp\to W^+_i \to\ell^+ \nu+X$ differential cross section can be written as \begin{equation} {{d\sigma}\over {d\tau~dy~dz}}= K~{{G_F^2M_W^4}\over {48\pi}} \sum_{qq'} |V_{qq'}|^2~\Big[SG_{qq'}^+(1+z^2)+2AG_{qq'}^-z\Big]\,, \end{equation} where $K$ is a kinematic/numerical factor that accounts for NLO and NNLO QCD corrections{\cite {nnlo}} as well as leading electroweak corrections{\cite {electroweak} and is roughly of order $\simeq 1.3$ for suitably defined couplings, $\tau=M^2/s$ ($\sqrt s=14$ TeV at the LHC) with $M^2$ being the lepton pair invariant mass. Furthermore, \begin{eqnarray} S &=& \sum_{ij}P_{ij}(C_iC_j)^\ell (C_iC_j)^q(1+h_ih_j)^2\\ \nonumber A &=& \sum_{ij}P_{ij}(C_iC_j)^\ell (C_iC_j)^q(h_i+h_j)^2\,, \end{eqnarray} where the sums extend over all of the exchanged particles in the $s$-channel. Here \begin{equation} P_{ij}=\shat{{(\shat-M_i^2)(\shat-M_j^2)+\Gamma_i\Gamma_jM_iM_j}\over {[(\shat-M_i^2)^2+\Gamma_i^2M_i^2][i\to j]}}\,, \end{equation} with $\shat=M^2$ being the square of the total collision energy and $\Gamma_i$ the total widths of the exchanged $W_i$ particles. Note that we have employed $z=\cos \theta$, the scattering angle in the CM frame defined as that between the incoming $u$-type quark and the outgoing neutrino (both being fermions as opposed to being one fermion and one anti-fermion). Furthermore, the following combinations of parton distribution functions appear: \begin{equation} G^\pm_{qq'}=\Big[q(x_a,M^2)\bar q'(x_b,M^2)\pm q(x_b,M^2)\bar q'(x_a,M^2)]\,, \end{equation} where $q(q')$ is a $u(d)-$type quark and $x_{a,b}=\sqrt \tau e^{\pm y}$ are the corresponding parton momentum fractions. Analogous expressions can also be written in the case of $W^-_i$ exchange by taking $z\to -z$ and interchanging initial state quarks and anti-quarks. In most cases of interest one usually converts the distribution over $z$ above into one over the transverse mass, $M_T$, formed from the final state lepton and the missing transverse energy associated with the neutrino; at fixed $M$, one has $z=(1-M_T^2/M^2)^{1/2}$. The resulting transverse mass distribution can then be written as \begin{equation} {{d\sigma}\over {dM_T}} =\int _{M_T^2/s}^1~d\tau \int^Y_{-Y} ~dy~J(z\to M_T)~{{d\sigma}\over {d\tau~dy~dz}}\,, \end{equation} where $Y=min(y_{cut},-1/2 \log \tau)$ allows for a rapidity cut on the outgoing leptons and $J(z\to M_T)$ is the appropriate Jacobian factor{\cite {BP}}. In practice, $y_{cut}\simeq 2.5$ for the two LHC detectors. Note that ${{d\sigma}\over {dM_T}}$ will only pick out the $z$-even part of ${{d\sigma}\over {d\tau~dy~dz}}$ as well as the even combination of terms in the product of the parton densities, $G^+_{qq'}$. In the usual analogous fashion to the $Z'$ case{\cite {review}}, as we will see in our discussion below, one can also define the forward-backward asymmetry as a function of the transverse mass, in principle prior to integration over the rapidity $y$, $A_{FB}(M_T,y)$, whose numerator now picks out the $z$-odd terms in ${{d\sigma}\over {d\tau~dy~dz}}$ as well as the odd combination of terms in the parton densities $G^-_{qq'}$. To be complete, we note that historically when discussing new gauge boson production, particularly when dealing with states which are weakly coupled as will be the case in what follows, use is often made of the narrow width approximation(NWA). In the $W'$ case of relevance here, the NWA essentially replaces the integration over $d\tau \sim dM$ by a $\delta$ function, \ie, the $W'$ is assumed to be produced on-shell. Thus, for any smooth function $f(M)$, essentially, $\int ~dM~f(M)$ $\to \int ~dM~f(M)~{{\pi}\over {2}}\Gamma_{W'}\delta (M-M_{W'})$ $\to {{\pi}\over {2}}\Gamma_{W'}f(M_{W'})$, apart from some overall factors. Note that use of the NWA implies that we evaluate quantities on the `peak' of the $W'$ mass distribution, \ie , at $M=M_{W'}$. This approximation is usually claimed to be valid up to $O(\Gamma_{W'}/M_{W'})$ corrections(at worst), but there are occasions, \eg, when $W-W'$ interference is important, when its use can lead to a loss of valuable information and may even lead to wrong conclusions{\cite {NWA}}. Unfortunately, in the $W'$ case, the quantity $M$ itself is not a true observable due to the missing longitudinal momentum of the neutrino. Given this background, let us now turn to an historical discussion of the determination of the $W'$ coupling helicity. To be concrete, we will consider two different $W'$ models; we will assume for simplicity that $C^{\ell,q}_{W'}=1$ in both cases and that only the value of $h_{W'}=\pm 1$ distinguishes them. In this situation, employing the NWA, the cross section for on-shell $W'$ production (followed by its leptonic decay) is proportional to $\sim (1+h_{W'}^2)$ and is trivially seen to be independent of the helicity of the couplings. We would thus conclude that cross section measurements are not useful helicity discriminants. More interestingly, as was noted long ago{\cite {Haber:1984gd}}, we find that the rapidity integrated value of $A_{FB}$, given in the NWA by \begin{equation} A_{FB} \sim {{h_{W'}^2}\over {(1+h_{W'}^2)^2}}\,, \end{equation} also has the {\it same value} for either purely LH or RH couplings{\footnote {This follows immediately from the fact that we have assumed that both the hadronic and leptonic couplings of the $W'$ have to have the {\it same} helicity.}}. Thus, in the NWA, $A_{FB}$ provides no help in determining the $W'$ coupling helicity structure for the cases we consider here. However, we note that if the quark and leptonic coupling helicities of the $W'$ are {\it opposite}, then the value of $A_{FB}$ will flip sign in comparison to the above expectation. It is apparent from this result that some other observable(s) must be used to distinguish these two cases. Keeping the NWA assumption, the first suggestion{\cite {Haber:1984nh}} along these lines was to examine the polarization of $\tau$'s originating in the decay $W'\to \tau \nu$. In that paper it was explicitly shown that the the energy spectrum of the final state particle in the decay $\tau \to \ell, \pi$ or $\rho$ (in the $\tau$ rest frame) was reasonably sensitive to the original $W'$ helicity since the $\tau$ itself effectively decays only through the SM LH couplings of the $W$(provided the $W'$ is sufficiently massive as we will assume here). The difficulty with this method is that the observation of this decay mode at the LHC is not all that straightforward and even the corresponding $Z'\to \tau \tau$ mode, which is somewhat easier to observe, is just beginning to be studied by the LHC experimental collaborations{\cite {Vickey}}. Clearly, measuring the polarization of the $\tau$'s in $W'\to \tau \nu$ will be reasonably difficult in the LHC detector environment and may, at the very least, require large integrated luminosities even for a relatively light $W'$. The results of detailed studies by the LHC collaborations to address this issue are anxiously awaited. In the early 90's, two important NWA-based methods for probing the helicity of the $W'$ were suggested{\cite {Cvetic}}. The first of these is an examination of the rare decay mode $W'\to \ell^+\ell^-W$ (with the $W$ decaying into jets); in particular, one makes a measurement of the ratio of branching fractions \begin{equation} R_W={{B(W'\to \ell^+\ell^-W)}\over {B(W'\to \ell \nu)}}\,, \end{equation} obtained by employing the NWA. $R_W$ is expected to be roughly $\sim$O(0.01) or so after suitable cuts. One of the main SM backgrounds, \ie, $WZ$ production, can essentially be removed by demanding that the dileptons do not form a $Z$, demanding that the mass of the $jj\ell \ell$ system be not far from the (already known) value of $M_{W'}$ and that of the dijets reconstructs to the $W$ mass. Even after there requirements, however, some background from the continuum would remain. Furthermore, as the energy of the final state $W$ increases it is more likely that the resulting dijets will coalesce into a single jet depending on the jet cone definition which is employed. In this case, at the very least, a very large additional background from single jets may appear; it is also possible that the events with a final state $W$ would be completely lost without the dijet mass reconstruction. The $3\ell+E_T^{miss}$ final state, with suitable cuts, would be obviously cleaner and would avoid some of these issues but at the price of an overall suppression due to ratio of branching fractions of $\simeq 1/3$ thus reducing the mass range over which this process would be useful. In a general gauge model, the amplitude for this process is the sum of two graphs. In the first graph, $W^{'-}\to \ell^- \bar \nu^*$, \ie, the production of a virtual neutrino followed by the `decay' $\bar \nu^* \to \ell^+ W^-$. Clearly, if the $W'$ couples in a purely RH manner to the SM leptons then this graph will vanish in the limit of massless neutrinos due to the presence of two opposite helicity projection operators. This graph will, of course, be non-zero only if the $W'$ couples in an at least partially LH manner. The second graph involves the presence of the trilinear couplings $W'ZW$ and $W'Z'W$; recall that in any model with a $W'$, a $Z'$ will also appear just based on gauge invariance. In this case, the decay proceeds as $W'\to WZ/Z^{'*} \to W\ell^+\ell^-$, noting that the on-shell SM $Z$ contribution can be removed by a suitable cut on the dilepton invariant mass. The main issue is the size of the $W'Z'W$ (and $W'ZW$) couplings and this can involve such things such as, \eg, the detailed electroweak symmetry breaking patterns of the given model under study. {\it Generically} in extra dimensional models{\cite {bulk, UED,TeV,precision,sphere}}, these couplings are absent in the limit of small mixing due the orthogonality of the Kaluza-Klein wavefunctions of the states. In models where the SM $SU(2)_L$ arises from a diagonal breaking of the form $G_1 \otimes G_2 \to SU(2)_{Diag}$, such as in LH models{\cite {LH}}, the $W'Z'W$ coupling is of order the SM weak coupling, $g$, while the $W'ZW$ coupling is either of order $g$ or can be mixing angle suppressed. In other cases, such as in the LRM{\cite {LRM}}, where $SU(2)_L\otimes SU(2)_R$ just breaks to $SU(2)_L$, the $W'ZW,WZ'W$ couplings are only generated by mixings and for the diagrams of interest are not longitudinally enhanced. Since the amplitude associated with the pure leptonic graphs are absent in this case, the entire amplitude is mixing angle suppressed so that this process has an unobservably small rate. In fact, there are no known models where the $W'$ helicity is RH and the $W'ZW,WZ'W$ couplings are not mixing angle suppressed{\footnote {In a {\it fundamental} UV complete theory, this may follow directly from arguments based solely on gauge invariance and the requirement of high energy unitarity.}}. Thus, {\it based on known models}, it appears that the observation of the rare decay $W'\to \ell^+\ell^-W$ would be a compelling indication that the $W'$ is at least partially coupled in a LH manner with apparently most of the serious SM backgrounds being removable by conventional cuts. However, in making a truly model-independent analysis one must exercise care in the use of this result. A detailed analysis of the signal and backgrounds, including that for the $jj\ell^+\ell^-$ final state, for such decays including realistic detector effects would be very useful in addressing all these issues and should be performed. However, it also seems clear that is unlikely that a reliable measurement of $R_W$ can be made with relatively low integrated luminosities. A second, imaginative possibility is to observe $WW'$ associated production{\cite {Cvetic}} with $W\to jj$ for the same reasons as above. Many of the arguments made in the previous paragraph will also apply in this case as well since the diagrams responsible for this process are quite similar to previously discussed. Essentially these graphs are obtained by crossing, with the final state leptons now replaced by an initial state $q\bar q$. In this case one looks for the $jj\ell E_T^{miss}$ final state with the $\ell E_T^{miss}$ transverse mass peaking near $M_{W'}$. One would anticipate this cross section to be of order $\sim 0.01$ of that of the $W'$ discovery channel. The main issues here are, as above, the SM backgrounds and the nature of the triple gauge vertices. It is not likely that a reliable measurement of this cross section will be performed with low luminosities that could be interpreted in a model-independent way until all of the background and detector issues are dealt with. Again, a detailed analysis including detector effects should be performed. \section{$W-W'$ Interference as a Function of $M_T$} What we have learned from the previous discussion is that tools which employ the NWA are not particularly useful when we are trying to determine the $W'$ coupling helicity with relatively low luminosities in an easily examined final state. One of the key reasons for this is that the use of NWA does not allow us to examine the influence of $W-W'$ interference to which we now turn{\cite {Boos:2006xe}}{\footnote {We note in passing that the usual experimental analyses at LHC{\cite {analyses}} performed by both the ATLAS and CMS collaborations (as well as those at the Tevatron by CDF and D0{\cite {limit}}) ignore the effects of $W-W'$ interference since these contributions are absent from default versions of stand-alone PYTHIA{\cite {pythia}}.}}. To be specific, in the analysis that follows, we will employ the CTEQ6M parton densities{\cite {CTEQ}} and will restrict our attention only to the $\ell=e$ final state since it is better measured at these energies{\cite {analyses}} yielding a better $M_T$ resolution. Furthermore, we will assume that only SM particles are accessible in the decay of the $W'$ so that the total width can be straightforwardly calculated from the assumptions described above and its assumed mass value; for example, we obtain $\Gamma(W')=51.9$ GeV assuming a $W'$ mass of 1.5 TeV including QCD corrections. NLO QCD modifications to the distributions we discuss below have been ignored but those distributions we consider are rather robust against large corrections. The most obvious distribution to examine first is ${{d\sigma}\over {dM_T}}$ itself; for the moment let us restrict ourselves to the two cases where $C^{\ell,q}_{W'}=1$ and $h_{W'}=\pm 1$. Fig.~ shows this distribution for a large integrated luminosity, assuming $M_{W'}=1.5$ TeV{\cite {limit}}, as well as the SM continuum background{\footnote {Note that we would expect to see many excess events for such $W'$ masses as only $\simeq 25~pb^{-1}$ of luminosity would be needed to discover($5\sigma$) such as state at the LHC.}}. In obtaining these and other $M_T$-deprndent distributions below, a cut on the lepton rapidity, $|\eta_\ell \leq 2.5$, has been applied. Several things are immediately clear: ($i$) In the region near the Jacobian peak both distributions are quite similar; this is not surprising as this is the region where the NWA is most applicable since now $M_T \simeq M$ and $W-W'$ interference is minimal. In this limit we would indeed recover our earlier result that the cross section is helicity independent. ($ii$) In the lower $M_T$ region where interference effects are important the two models lead to quite different distributions. In particular, for the LH case with $h_{W'}=1$, we observe a destructive interference with the SM amplitude producing a distribution that lies below that of the pure SM continuum background. (This is not surprising as the overall signs of the $W$ and $W'$ contributions are the same but we are at values of $\sqrt {\shat}$ that are above $M_W$ yet below $M_{W'}$ so that the relevant propagators have opposite signs.) However, for the RH case with $h_{W'}=-1$, there is no such interference and therefore the resulting distribution always lies above the SM background. It is fairly obvious that these two distributions are trivially distinguishable at these large integrated luminosities. Note that other contributions to the SM background, \eg, those from the decay of top quarks as well as guage boson pairs, have been shown to be rather small at these masses at the detector level {\cite {analyses}}, at the level of a few percent, and will be ignored in the analysis that follows. Fig.~ shows the same ${{d\sigma}\over {dM_T}}$ distribution on a linear scale but now for far smaller integrated luminosities that may be obtained during early LHC running; here we include the effects of detector smearing, with $\delta M_T/M_T \simeq 2\ It is immediately apparent that even with only $\sim 10~fb^{-1}$ of luminosity the two cases remain quite distinct; however, it also appears unlikely that much smaller luminosities would be very useful in this regard. This result is a significant improvement over previous attempts to determine the $W'$ coupling helicity with low luminosities in clean channels. At this point there are several important questions one might ask: ($i$) What happens for a more massive $W'$, \ie, how much luminosity will be needed in such cases to distinguish $W'$ couplings of opposite helicities? ($ii$) What if the the $W'$ couplings are weaker than our canonical choice above? ($iii$) Do other observables, \eg, $A_{FB}$, measured in the interference region below the Jacobian peak assist us in model separation? ($iv$) In the case where the $W'$ is a KK excitation, does the presents of the additional $W$ KK tower members alter these results? ($v$) In the discussion above we have assumed that $C_{W'}^\ell=C_{W'}^q$; what would happen, \eg, if their signs were opposite thus modifying the interference bewteen the $W$ and $W'$? ($vi$) What if the $W'$ couplings are not purely chiral and are an admixture of LH and RH helicities? It is to these issues that we now turn. Fig.~ provides us with a high luminosity overview for the more massive cases where $M_{W'}=2.5$ or 3.5 TeV. In the $M_{W'}=2.5$ TeV case, Fig.~ demonstrates that the full 300 $fb^{-1}$ luminosity is not required to distinguish the two possibly helicities; $\sim 60 fb^{-1}$ seems to be the approximate minimum luminosity that appears to be necessary. For higher masses, distinguishing the two cases becomes far more difficult due to the smaller production cross section as we see from Fig.~ for the case of $M_{W'}=3.5$ TeV assuming a luminosity of 300 $fb^{-1}$; essentially the full luminosity is required for model distinction in this case. What if the $W'$ couplings are weaker? Clearly if they are too weak there will be insufficient statistics to discriminate the two possible coupling helicity assignments for any fixed value of $M_{W'}$. In order to examine a realistic example of this situation, we consider the case of the second $W$ KK excitation in the UED model{\cite {UED,narrow}} with a conserved KK-parity. In such a scenario the LH couplings of this field to SM fermions vanish at tree level but are induced by one loop effects. In this case one finds that the effective values of $C^{\ell,q}$ are distinct but are qualitatively of order $\sim 0.05$ though we employ the specific values obtained in Ref.{\cite {UED,narrow} below in the actual calculations. Fig.~ shows the transverse mass distributions in this case assuming that $M_{W'}=$1 TeV for the second level KK state. The signal for this $W$ KK state is clearly visible above the SM background. However, we also see that for even for these high luminosities and low masses the two helicity choices are not distinguishable. Clearly, one cannot determine the $W'$ coupling helicity for such very weak interaction strengths. Semi-quantitatively, we find that that this breakdown in the discriminating power occurs when $(C^\ell C^q)^{1/2}\sim 0.1$ at these luminosities and masses. We now turn to the next question we need to address: can asymmetries be useful in strengthening our ability to determine the $W'$ coupling helicity? We know from the discussion above that the answer is apparently `no' in the NWA limit, \ie, when $M_T \simeq M$. Thus we must focus our attention on the $M_T$ region below the peak where $W-W'$ interference is strongest or, more generally, examine the asymmetries' $M_T$-dependence directly. The most obvious quantity to begin with is the $y$-integrated value of $A_{FB}$ for both $W'^{\pm }$ channels. To make such a measurement, we need to know several things in addition to the sign of the lepton (which we assume can be done with $\simeq 100\ $A_{FB}$ lies between the incoming $d$-type quark and the outgoing $\ell^-$. Reconstructing this direction presents us with two problems: first, since the longitudinal momentum of the $\nu$ is unknown there is an, in principle, two-fold ambiguity in the motion of the center of mass in the lab frame; this can cause a serious dilution of the observed asymmetry but can be corrected for statistically using Monte Carlo once the $W'$ mass is known. Second, even when it is determined, the direction of motion of the center of mass is not necessarily that of the $d$-type quark though it is likely to be so when the boost of the center of mass frame is large. The later problem also arises for the case of a $Z'$ and has also been shown to be mostly correctable in detailed Monte Carlo studies{\cite {afb}}. For the moment, let us forget these issues and ask what the $y$-integrated $A_{FB}(M_T)$ looks like in both $\ell^\pm$ channels; the results are shown in Fig.~\ref {fig6} assuming high luminosities and $M_{W'}=1.5$ TeV. Here we see that these integrated quantities, even for luminosities of 300 $fb^{-1}$, are essentially useless in distinguishing the two coupling helicity cases. Furthermore, we also see that the two coupling helicities lead to essentially identical results when $M_T \simeq M_{W'}$ as would be expected based on the NWA. A short analysis indicates that approximately ten times more integrated luminosity would be required before some separation in the two cases becomes possible{\cite {slhc}}. Clearly this situation would only become worse if we were to raise the mass of the $W'$ or reduce its coupling strength. It is perhaps possible that some information is lost by only using the integrated quantity $A_{FB}$ and we need to consider instead $A_{FB}(y_W)$, where $y_W$ is the rapidity of the center of mass frame. This distribution is odd under the interchange $y_W \to -y_W$ at the LHC so we can simply fold this distribution over the $y_W=0$ boundary to double the statistics. Furthermore, by integrating over a wide $M_T$ range in the interference region below the $W'$ peak, \eg, $0.4 \leq M_T \leq 1$ TeV in the case of a 1.5 TeV $W'$, further statistics can be gained. Fig~ shows the resulting $A_{FB}(y_W)$ distributions for a $W'^{\pm}$ with mass of 1.5 TeV assuming a luminosity of 300 $fb^{-1}$ for $h_{W'}=\pm 1$. At these large luminosities, the $A_{FB}(y_W)$ distributions for the two helicity choices are clearly distinguishable but this will certainly become more difficult for lower luminosities or for larger masses. We find that we essentially loose all coupling helicity information when the luminosity falls much below $\simeq 100 fb^{-1}$ for this $W'$ mass. The next observable we consider is the charge asymmetry, $A_{WQ}(y_W)$: \begin{equation} A_{WQ}(y_W)={{N_+(y_W)-N_-(y_W)}\over {N_+(y_W)+N_-(y_W)}}\,, \end{equation} where $N_\pm(y_W)$ are the number of events with charged leptons of sign $\pm$ in a given bin of rapidity. Note that at the LHC, $A_{WQ}(y_W)$ is symmetric under $y_W \to -y_W$ so that we can again fold the distribution around $y_W=0$. Fig.~ shows this distribution, integrated over the interference region $0.4 \leq M_T \leq 1$ TeV, assuming $M_{W'}=1.5$ TeV and a luminosity of 300 $fb^{-1}$. It is clear that at this level of integrated luminosity the two distributions are reasonably distinguishable. However, as we lower the luminosity or raise the mass of the $W'$ the quality of the separation degrades significantly. Certainly for luminosities less that $\simeq 100$ $fb^{-1}$, this asymmetry measurement would not be very helpful. Thus $A_{WQ}(y_W)$ is not a very useful tool for coupling helicity determination until high luminosities become available. A last asymmetry possibility to consider is the rapidity asymmetry for the final state charged leptons themselves, $A_\ell(y_\ell)$: \begin{equation} A_{\ell}(y_\ell)={{N_+(y_\ell)-N_-(y_\ell)}\over {N_+(y_\ell)+N_-(y_\ell)}}\,, \end{equation} which is also an even function of $y_\ell$ so the distribution can again be folded around $y_\ell=0$. The resulting distribution can be seen in Fig.~ for large integrated luminosities. Here we again see reasonable model differentiation at low values of $y_\ell \lsim 1$ but this fades in utility as integrated luminosities drop much below $\simeq 100$ $fb^{-1}$ as the two curves are generally rather close. From this general discussion of possibly asymmetries that one can form employing this final state we can thus conclude that their usefulness in coupling helicity determination will require $\simeq 100 fb^{-1}$. In the case of extra dimensions we know that an entire tower of $W'$-like KK states is expected to exist. Do the presence of these additional states modify the results we have obtained above for an ordinary $W'$? To address this, consider the simplified case of a second $W'$-like KK state which have the same coupling strength as the SM $W$ and is twice as heavy as the $W'$ discussed above, \ie,3 TeV. Now imagine that the coupling helicity of this second state is uncorrelated with that of the $W'$; in the $M_T$ distribution in the $W-W'$ interference region influenced by this state? The upper panel in Fig. ~ addresses this issue for modest luminosities including the effects of smearing. The upper(lower) set of three histograms corresponds to the case where $h_{W'}=-1(1)$ and either there is no $W''$, as above, or $h_{W''}=\pm 1$. This demonstrates that the existence of the extra KK states has little influence on the results we obtained above independent of {\it their} coupling helicities. Up to now we have assumed that $C_{W'}^\ell=C_{W'}^q$; what if this was no longer true? How would the $M_T$ distribution and our ability to determine coupling helicity be modified? The simplest case to examine is $C_{W'}^\ell=-C_{W'}^q=1$ with $h_{W'}=\pm 1$. (Note that interchanging the signs of these two couplings, \ie, which one of these two couplings we choose to be negative, has no physical effect on the $M_T$ distribution or on any of the asymmetries discussed earlier.) The result of this investigation is shown in the lower panel of Fig. ~. Here the red(green) histograms correspond to the cases analyzed above where $C_{W'}^\ell=C_{W'}^q=1$ and $h_{W'}=1(-1)$ whereas the blue(magenta) histograms corresponds to the cases where $C_{W'}^\ell=-C_{W'}^q=1$ with $h_{W'}=1(-1)$. It is clear from this Figure that the $M_T$ distribution distinguishes only three of these cases with the $C_{W'}^\ell=\pm C_{W'}^q=1, h_{W'}=-1$ possibilities being degenerate. The reason for this is that in both these cases there is no interference with the SM $W'$ exchange and in the pure $W'$ term in the cross section this sign change is irrelevant; these two degenerate cases are, of course, separable using the information obtained from $A_{FB}$ as they produce values with opposite sign. Lastly, and to be more general, we must at least consider possible scenarios where the couplings of the $W'$ to SM fermions are a substantial admixture of both LH and RH helicities, though obvious examples of such kinds of models are apparently absent from the existing literature. To get a feel for such a possibility, we perform two analyses: first, we set $C^{\ell,q}=1$ as before and vary the values of $h_{W'}$ between pairs of positive and negative values. As we do this, the helicity of the couplings of the $W'$ will vary as will its total decay width which behaves as $\sim 1+h_W^2$. In a second analysis, we can rescale the values of the $C^{\ell,q}$ so that the $W'$ width is held fixed. In this case, as we will see, the resulting histograms for the transverse mass distribution lie especially close to one another. The results of these two sets of calculations are shown in Fig.~ in the case of large integrated luminosities assuming the default value of $M_{W'}=1.5$ TeV. In the first analysis shown in the top panel, we see that at these assumed luminosities all of the different histograms are distinguishable and not just the two pairs of cases with opposite helicities. This result generally remains true down to luminosities $\sim 75 fb^{-1}$ or so. If we are {\it only} interested in separating opposite helicity pairs then we find that the cases $h_{W'}=\pm 0.8(0.6,0.4,0.2)$ can be distinguished down to luminosities of order $\sim 10(25,50,75) fb^{-1}$, respectively. In the second analysis, as seen in the lower panel of the figure, the histograms for $h_{W'}=0.8,~0.6$ and 0.4 (as well as for their corresponding opposite helicity partners) are very close to one another and are essentially inseparable even at these high luminosities. However, the two sets of opposite helicity histograms remain distinguishable and this will remains true down to luminosities of order $30-75~fb^{-1}$. It would seem from these analyses that the transverse mass distribution will play the dominant role in $W'$ coupling helicity determination in all possible cases although somewhat higher integrated luminosities may be required in some scenarios. \section{Summary and Conclusions} Apart from its mass and width, the most important property of a new charged gauge boson, $W'$, is the helicity of its couplings to the SM fermions. Such particles are predicted to exist in the TeV mass range in many new physics models and this coupling helicity is an order one discriminator between the various classes of models. The main difficulties with the existing techniques for determining this helicity are potentially threefold: ($i$) they require rather high integrated luminosities even for a relatively light $W'$, and/or ($ii$) they are sufficiently intricate as to require a detailed background and detector study to determine their feasibility, and/or ($iii$) they make use of more complex final states other than the standard $\ell +E_T^{miss}$ discovery channel. Some of these techniques also suffer from employing the narrow width approximation which can result in loss of valuable information regarding the effects of $W-W'$ interference. In this paper we propose a simple technique for making this helicity determination at the LHC. In order to attempt to circumvent all of these difficulties, we have examined the $W-W'$ interference region of the transverse mass distribution for the $\ell +E_T^{miss}$ discovery mode. We have found that this distribution is particularly sensitive to the helicity of the $W'$ couplings. In particular, using this technique we have shown that such helicity differentiation requires only $\sim 10(60,300)~fb^{-1}$ assuming $M_{W'}=1.5(2.5,3.5)$ TeV and provided that the $W'$ has Standard Model strength couplings. This helicity determination can be further strengthened by the use of various discovery channel leptonic asymmetries also measured in the same interference regime once higher integrated luminosities are available as well as by the more traditional approaches. Hopefully the LHC will observe a $W'$ so that this approach can be employed. \noindent{\Large\bf Acknowledgments} The author would like to thank A. De Roeck, S.Godfrey and J. Hewett for input and discussions related to this paper. \def\MPL #1 #2 #3 {Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\NPB #1 #2 #3 {Nucl. Phys. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\PLB #1 #2 #3 {Phys. Lett. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\PR #1 #2 #3 {Phys. Rep. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\PRD #1 #2 #3 {Phys. Rev. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\PRL #1 #2 #3 {Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\RMP #1 #2 #3 {Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\NIM #1 #2 #3 {Nuc. Inst. Meth. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\ZPC #1 #2 #3 {Z. Phys. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\EJPC #1 #2 #3 {E. Phys. J. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\IJMP #1 #2 #3 {Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \def\JHEP #1 #2 #3 {J. High En. Phys. {\bf#1},\ #2 (#3)} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{LH} N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 513}, 232 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0105239]; N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz and A.~E.~Nelson, JHEP {\bf 0207}, 034 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206021]. \bibitem{RS} L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221]. \bibitem{bulk} H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 473}, 43 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9911262]; A.~Pomarol, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 486}, 153 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9911294]; Y.~Grossman and M.~Neubert, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 474}, 361 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9912408]; H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 075004 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0006041]; T.~Gherghetta and A.~Pomarol, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586}, 141 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0003129]; S.~Chang, J.~Hisano, H.~Nakano, N.~Okada and M.~Yamaguchi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 084025 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9912498]; S.~J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 498}, 256 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0010195] and Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 045010 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0005286]; R.~Kitano, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 481}, 39 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0002279]; J.~L.~Hewett, F.~J.~Petriello and T.~G.~Rizzo, JHEP {\bf 0209}, 030 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0203091]. \bibitem{UED} T.~Appelquist, H.~C.~Cheng and B.~A.~Dobrescu, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035002 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0012100]; H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 056006 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0205314] and Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 036005 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0204342]. \bibitem{TeV} I.~Antoniadis, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246}, 377 (1990); \bibitem{precision} T.~G.~Rizzo and J.~D.~Wells, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 016007 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9906234]; K.~m.~Cheung and G.~Landsberg, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 076003 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0110346]; A.~Strumia, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 466}, 107 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9906266]; A.~Delgado, A.~Pomarol and M.~Quiros, JHEP {\bf 0001}, 030 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9911252]; F.~Cornet, M.~Relano and J.~Rico, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 037701 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9908299]; C.~D.~Carone, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 015008 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9907362]; P.~Nath and M.~Yamaguchi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 116004 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9902323]; A.~Muck, A.~Pilaftsis and R.~Ruckl, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 085037 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0110391]; G.~Polesello and M.~Prata, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 32S2}, 55 (2003); P.~Nath, Y.~Yamada and M.~Yamaguchi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 466}, 100 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905415]; \bibitem{sphere} H.~Davoudiasl and T.~G.~Rizzo, arXiv:hep-ph/0702078. \bibitem{LRM} For a classic review and original references, see R.N. Mohapatra, {\it Unification and Supersymmetry}, (Springer, New York,1986). \bibitem{other} See, for example, K.~R.~Lynch, E.~H.~Simmons, M.~Narain and S.~Mrenna, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 035006 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0007286]; H.~Georgi, E.~Jenkins and E.~H.~Simmons, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 331}, 541 (1990); A.~Bagneid, T.~K.~Kuo and N.~Nakagawa, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 2}, 1351 (1987). \bibitem{review} For classic reviews of Z' physics, see A.~Leike, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 317}, 143 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9805494]; J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 183}, 193 (1989); M.~Cvetic and S.~Godfrey, arXiv:hep-ph/9504216; T.~G.~Rizzo, ``Extended gauge sectors at future colliders: Report of the new gauge boson subgroup,'' eConf {\bf C960625}, NEW136 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9612440] and arXiv:hep-ph/0610104. \bibitem{however} See, however, S.~Godfrey, P.~Kalyniak, B.~Kamal, M.~A.~Doncheski and A.~Leike, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 16S1B}, 879 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0009325]; S.~Godfrey, P.~Kalyniak, B.~Kamal and A.~Leike, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 113009 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0001074]. \bibitem{nnlo} For a recent analysis and original references, see K.~Melnikov and F.~Petriello, arXiv:hep-ph/0609070. \bibitem{electroweak} U.~Baur and D.~Wackeroth, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 116}, 159 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0211089]; \bibitem{Zykunov:2005tc} V.~A.~Zykunov, arXiv:hep-ph/0509315. \bibitem{BP} See, for example, V.~Barger and R.~J.~N.~Phillips in {\it Collider Physics}, Frontiers in Physics Series Vol.71, 1996. \bibitem{NWA} D.~Berdine, N.~Kauer and D.~Rainwater, arXiv:hep-ph/0703058. \bibitem{Haber:1984gd} H.~E.~Haber, ``Signals Of New W's And Z's,'' SLAC-PUB-3456 {\it Presented at 1984 Summer Study on the Design and Utilization of the Superconducting Super Collider, Snowmass, CO, Jun 23 - Jul 23, 1984} \bibitem{Haber:1984nh} H.~E.~Haber, ``Taus: A Probe Of New W And Z Couplings,'' {\it Presented at 1984 Summer Study on the Design and Utilization of the Superconducting Super Collider, Snowmass, CO, Jun 23 - Jul 23, 1984}. \bibitem{Vickey} See the talk given by T. Vickey, at the ATLAS Exotics Working Group Meeting, 2/21/07. \bibitem{Cvetic} M.~Cvetic, P.~Langacker and B.~Kayser, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 68}, 2871 (1992); M.~Cvetic, P.~Langacker and J.~Liu, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 2405 (1994) [arXiv:hep-ph/9308251]; M.~Cvetic and P.~Langacker, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 4943 (1992) [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 48}, 4484 (1993)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9207216]. \bibitem{Boos:2006xe} The possibility of probing $W-W'$ interference in the $t\bar b$ channel has recently been discussed in E.~Boos, V.~Bunichev, L.~Dudko and M.~Perfilov, arXiv:hep-ph/0610080. \bibitem{limit} The direct search lower limit on the mass of a $W'$ with such couplings is approaching 1 TeV from Run II data at the Tevatron; see, for example, P.~Savard, ``Searches for Extra Dimensions and New Gauge Bosons at the Tevatron,'' talk given at the {\it XXXIII International Conference on High Energy Physics}, 26 July-2 August 2006, Moscow, Russia; T.~Adams, ``Searches for New Phenomena with Lepton Final States at the Tevatron,'' talk given at {Rencontres de Moriond Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories 2007}, La Thuile, Italy 10-17 March 2007; A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0611022. In the case of the LRM, the lower bound from indirect measurements may be somewhat larger: P.~Langacker and S.~Uma Sankar, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 40}, 1569 (1989). \bibitem{analyses} See, for example, G.~Azuelos {\it et al.}, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\b 39S2}, 13 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0402037]; C.~Hof, T.~Hebbeker and K.~Hoepfner, \bibitem{pythia} T.~Sjostrand, S.~Mrenna and P.~Skands, JHEP {\bf 0605}, 026 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0603175]. \bibitem{CTEQ} S.~Kretzer, H.~L.~Lai, F.~I.~Olness and W.~K.~Tung, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 114005 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0307022]. We employ the CTEQ6M PDFs throughout this analysis. For full details, see http://www.phys.psu.edu/~cteq/. \bibitem{narrow} A.~Datta, K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 096006 (2005) [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 72}, 119901 (2005)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0509246]. \bibitem{afb} See, for example, R.~Cousins, J.~Mumford and V.~Valuev, CMS Note 2005/022; I. Golutin \etal, CMS AN-2007/003. \bibitem{slhc} F.~Gianotti {\it et al.}, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 39}, 293 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0204087]. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0240
|
Title: Viscosity, Black Holes, and Quantum Field Theory
Abstract: We review recent progress in applying the AdS/CFT correspondence to
finite-temperature field theory. In particular, we show how the hydrodynamic
behavior of field theory is reflected in the low-momentum limit of correlation
functions computed through a real-time AdS/CFT prescription, which we
formulate. We also show how the hydrodynamic modes in field theory correspond
to the low-lying quasinormal modes of the AdS black p-brane metric. We provide
a proof of the universality of the viscosity/entropy ratio within a class of
theories with gravity duals and formulate a viscosity bound conjecture.
Possible implications for real systems are mentioned.
Body: \ifx\epsfannounce\undefined \def\epsfannounce{\immediate\write16}\fi \epsfannounce{This is `epsf.tex' v2.7k <10 July 1997>} \newread\epsffilein \newif\ifepsfatend \newif\ifepsfbbfound \newif\ifepsfdraft \newif\ifepsffileok \newif\ifepsfframe \newif\ifepsfshow \epsfshowtrue \newif\ifepsfshowfilename \newif\ifepsfverbose \newdimen\epsfframemargin \newdimen\epsfframethickness \newdimen\epsfrsize \newdimen\epsftmp \newdimen\epsftsize \newdimen\epsfxsize \newdimen\epsfysize \newdimen\pspoints \pspoints = 1bp \epsfxsize = 0pt \epsfysize = 0pt \epsfframemargin = 0pt \epsfframethickness = 0.4pt \def\epsfbox#1{\global\def\epsfllx{72}\global\def\epsflly{72} \global\def\epsfurx{540}\global\def\epsfury{720} \def\lbracket{[}\def\testit{#1}\ifx\testit\lbracket \let\next=\epsfgetlitbb\else\let\next=\epsfnormal\fi\next{#1}} \def\epsfgetlitbb#1#2 #3 #4 #5]#6{ \epsfgrab #2 #3 #4 #5 .\\ \epsfsetsize \epsfstatus{#6} \epsfsetgraph{#6} } \def\epsfnormal#1{ \epsfgetbb{#1} \epsfsetgraph{#1} } \newhelp\epsfnoopenhelp{The PostScript image file must be findable by TeX, i.e., somewhere in the TEXINPUTS (or equivalent) path.} \def\epsfgetbb#1{ \openin\epsffilein=#1 \ifeof\epsffilein \errhelp = \epsfnoopenhelp \errmessage{Could not open file #1, ignoring it} \else { \chardef\other=12 \def\do##1{\catcode`##1=\other} \dospecials \catcode`\ =10 \epsffileoktrue \epsfatendfalse \loop \read\epsffilein to \epsffileline \ifeof\epsffilein \epsffileokfalse \else \expandafter\epsfaux\epsffileline:. \\ \fi \ifepsffileok \repeat \ifepsfbbfound \else \ifepsfverbose \immediate\write16{No BoundingBox comment found in file #1; using defaults} \fi \fi } \closein\epsffilein \fi \epsfsetsize \epsfstatus{#1} } \def\epsfclipon{\def\epsfclipstring{ clip}} \def\epsfclipoff{\def\epsfclipstring{\ifepsfdraft\space clip\fi}} \epsfclipoff \def\epsfspecial#1{ \epsftmp=10\epsfxsize \divide\epsftmp\pspoints \ifnum\epsfrsize=0\relax \special{PSfile=\ifepsfdraft psdraft.ps\else#1\fi\space llx=\epsfllx\space lly=\epsflly\space urx=\epsfurx\space ury=\epsfury\space rwi=\number\epsftmp \epsfclipstring } \else \epsfrsize=10\epsfysize \divide\epsfrsize\pspoints \special{PSfile=\ifepsfdraft psdraft.ps\else#1\fi\space llx=\epsfllx\space lly=\epsflly\space urx=\epsfurx\space ury=\epsfury\space rwi=\number\epsftmp\space rhi=\number\epsfrsize \epsfclipstring } \fi } \def\epsfframe#1 { \leavevmode \setbox0 = \hbox{#1} \dimen0 = \wd0 \advance \dimen0 by 2\epsfframemargin \advance \dimen0 by 2\epsfframethickness \vbox { \hrule height \epsfframethickness depth 0pt \hbox to \dimen0 { \hss \vrule width \epsfframethickness \kern \epsfframemargin \vbox {\kern \epsfframemargin \box0 \kern \epsfframemargin } \kern \epsfframemargin \vrule width \epsfframethickness \hss } \hrule height 0pt depth \epsfframethickness } } \def\epsfsetgraph#1 { \leavevmode \hbox{ \ifepsfframe\expandafter\epsfframe\fi {\vbox to\epsfysize { \ifepsfshow \vfil \hbox to \epsfxsize{\epsfspecial{#1}\hfil} \else \vfil \hbox to\epsfxsize{ \hss \ifepsfshowfilename { \epsfframemargin=3pt \epsfframe{{\tt #1}} } \fi \hss } \vfil \fi } }} \global\epsfxsize=0pt \global\epsfysize=0pt } \def\epsfsetsize { \epsfrsize=\epsfury\pspoints \advance\epsfrsize by-\epsflly\pspoints \epsftsize=\epsfurx\pspoints \advance\epsftsize by-\epsfllx\pspoints \epsfxsize=\epsfsize{\epsftsize}{\epsfrsize} \ifnum \epsfxsize=0 \ifnum \epsfysize=0 \epsfxsize=\epsftsize \epsfysize=\epsfrsize \epsfrsize=0pt \else \epsftmp=\epsftsize \divide\epsftmp\epsfrsize \epsfxsize=\epsfysize \multiply\epsfxsize\epsftmp \multiply\epsftmp\epsfrsize \advance\epsftsize-\epsftmp \epsftmp=\epsfysize \loop \advance\epsftsize\epsftsize \divide\epsftmp 2 \ifnum \epsftmp>0 \ifnum \epsftsize<\epsfrsize \else \advance\epsftsize-\epsfrsize \advance\epsfxsize\epsftmp \fi \repeat \epsfrsize=0pt \fi \else \ifnum \epsfysize=0 \epsftmp=\epsfrsize \divide\epsftmp\epsftsize \epsfysize=\epsfxsize \multiply\epsfysize\epsftmp \multiply\epsftmp\epsftsize \advance\epsfrsize-\epsftmp \epsftmp=\epsfxsize \loop \advance\epsfrsize\epsfrsize \divide\epsftmp 2 \ifnum \epsftmp>0 \ifnum \epsfrsize<\epsftsize \else \advance\epsfrsize-\epsftsize \advance\epsfysize\epsftmp \fi \repeat \epsfrsize=0pt \else \epsfrsize=\epsfysize \fi \fi } \def\epsfstatus#1{ \ifepsfverbose \immediate\write16{#1: BoundingBox: llx = \epsfllx\space lly = \epsflly\space urx = \epsfurx\space ury = \epsfury\space} \immediate\write16{#1: scaled width = \the\epsfxsize\space scaled height = \the\epsfysize} \fi } {\catcode`\ \global\def\epsfatend{(atend)} \long\def\epsfaux#1#2:#3\\ { \def\testit{#2} \ifx#1\epsfpercent \ifx\testit\epsfbblit \epsfgrab #3 . . . \\ \ifx\epsfllx\epsfatend \global\epsfatendtrue \else \ifepsfatend \else \epsffileokfalse \fi \global\epsfbbfoundtrue \fi \fi \fi } \def\epsfempty{} \def\epsfgrab #1 #2 #3 #4 #5\\{ \global\def\epsfllx{#1}\ifx\epsfllx\epsfempty \epsfgrab #2 #3 #4 #5 .\\\else \global\def\epsflly{#2} \global\def\epsfurx{#3}\global\def\epsfury{#4}\fi } \def\epsfsize#1#2{\epsfxsize} \let\epsffile=\epsfbox \endinput \renewcommand\d{\partial} \newcommand\x{\mathbf{x}} \renewcommand\k{\mathbf{k}} \newcommand\<{\langle} \renewcommand\>{\rangle} \newcommand\Tr{\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}} \renewcommand\Im{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}} \newcommand{\ti}{{t_{\mathrm{i}}}} \newcommand{\tf}{{t_{\mathrm{f}}}} \input epsf.tex \input psfig.sty \ARinfo{\hspace{5in}INT PUB 07-02} \title{Viscosity, Black Holes, and Quantum Field Theory} \markboth{Son, Starinets}{Viscosity, Black Holes, and QFT} \author{Dam T. Son \affiliation{Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1550, USA} Andrei O. Starinets \affiliation{Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada}} \begin{keywords} AdS/CFT correspondence, hydrodynamics \end{keywords} \begin{abstract} We review recent progress in applying the AdS/CFT correspondence to finite-temperature field theory. In particular, we show how the hydrodynamic behavior of field theory is reflected in the low-momentum limit of correlation functions computed through a real-time AdS/CFT prescription, which we formulate. We also show how the hydrodynamic modes in field theory correspond to the low-lying quasinormal modes of the AdS black p-brane metric. We provide a proof of the universality of the viscosity/entropy ratio within a class of theories with gravity duals and formulate a viscosity bound conjecture. Possible implications for real systems are mentioned. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{INTRODUCTION} This review is about the recently emerging connection, through the gauge/gravity correspondence, between hydrodynamics and black hole physics. The study of quantum field theory at high temperature has a long history. It was first motivated by the Big Bang cosmology when it was hoped that early phase transitions might leave some imprints on the Universe~. One of those phase transitions is the QCD phase transitions (which could actually be a crossover) which happened at a temperature around $T_c\sim 200$~MeV, when matter turned from a gas of quarks and gluons (the quark-gluon plasma, or QGP) into a gas of hadrons. An experimental program was designed to create and study the QGP by colliding two heavy atomic nuclei. Most recent experiments are conducted at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Although significant circumstantial evidence for the QGP was accumulated~, a theoretical interpretation of most of the experimental data proved difficult, because the QGP created at RHIC is far from being a weakly coupled gas of quarks and gluons. Indeed, the temperature of the plasma, as inferred from the spectrum of final particles, is only approximately 170 MeV, near the confinement scale of QCD. This is deep in the nonperturbative regime of QCD, where reliable theoretical tools are lacking. Most notably, the kinetic coefficients of the QGP, which enter the hydrodynamic equations (reviewed in Sec.~), are not theoretically computable at these temperatures. The paucity of information about the kinetic coefficients of the QGP in particular and of strongly coupled thermal quantum field theories in general is one of the main reasons for our interest in their computation in a class of strongly coupled field theories, even though this class does not include QCD. The necessary technological tool is the anti--de Sitter--conformal field theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence~, discovered in the investigation of D-branes in string theory. This correspondence allows one to describe the thermal plasmas in these theories in terms of black holes in AdS space. The AdS/CFT correspondence is reviewed in Sec.~. The first calculation of this type, that of the shear viscosity in ${\cal N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theory~, is followed by the theoretical work to establish the rules of real-time finite-temperature AdS/CFT correspondence~. Applications of these rules to various special cases~ clearly show that even very exotic field theories, when heated up to finite temperature, behave hydrodynamically at large distances and time scales (provided that the number of space-time dimensions is $2{+}1$ or higher). This development is reviewed in Sec.~. Moreover, the way AdS/CFT works reveals deep connections to properties of black holes in classical gravity. For example, the hydrodynamic modes of a thermal medium are mapped, through the correspondence, to the low-lying quasi-normal modes of a black-brane metric. It seems that our understanding of the connection between hydrodynamics and black hole physics is still incomplete; we may understand more about gravity by studying thermal field theories. One idea along this direction is reviewed in Sec.~. From the point of view of heavy-ion (QGP) physics, a particularly interesting finding has been the formulation of a conjecture on the lowest possible value of the ratio of viscosity and volume density of entropy. This conjecture was motivated by the universality of this ratio in theories with gravity duals. This is reviewed in Sec.~. This review is written primarily for readers with a background in QCD and QGP physics who are interested in learning about AdS/CFT correspondence and its applications to finite-temperature field theory. Some parts of this review (for example, the section about hydrodynamics) should be useful for readers with a string theory or general relativity background who are interested in the connection between string theory, gravity, and hydrodynamics. The perspectives here are shaped by our personal taste and therefore may appear narrow, but the authors believe that this review may serve as the starting point to explore the much richer original literature. In this review we use the ``mostly plus'' metric signature $-+++$. \section{HYDRODYNAMICS} From the modern perspective, hydrodynamics~ is best thought of as an effective theory, describing the dynamics at large distances and time-scales. Unlike the familiar effective field theories (for example, the chiral perturbation theory), it is normally formulated in the language of equations of motion instead of an action principle. The reason for this is the presence of dissipation in thermal media. In the simplest case, the hydrodynamic equations are just the laws of conservation of energy and momentum, \begin{equation} \d_\mu T^{\mu\nu} = 0\,. \end{equation} To close the system of equations, we must reduce the number of independent elements of $T^{\mu\nu}$. This is done through the assumption of \emph{local thermal equilibrium:} If perturbations have long wavelengths, the state of the system, at a given time, is determined by the temperature as a function of coordinates $T(\x)$ and the local fluid velocity $u^\mu$, which is also a function of coordinates $u^\mu(\x)$. Because $u_\mu u^\mu=-1$, only three components of $u^\mu$ are independent. The number of hydrodynamic variables is four, equal to the number of equations. In hydrodynamics we express $T^{\mu\nu}$ through $T(x)$ and $u^\mu(x)$ through the so-called constitutive equations. Following the standard procedure of effective field theories, we expand in powers of spatial derivatives. To zeroth order, $T^{\mu\nu}$ is given by the familiar formula for ideal fluids, \begin{equation} T^{\mu\nu} = (\epsilon + P)u^\mu u^\nu + Pg^{\mu\nu}\,, \end{equation} where $\epsilon$ is the energy density, and $P$ is the pressure. Normally one would stop at this leading order, but qualitatively new effects necessitate going to the next order. Indeed, from Eq.~ and the thermodynamic relations $d\epsilon=TdS$, $dP=sdT$, and $\epsilon+P=Ts$ ($s$ is the entropy per unit volume), one finds that entropy is conserved~ \begin{equation} \d_\mu (su^\mu) = 0\,. \end{equation} Thus, to have entropy production, one needs to go to the next order in the derivative expansion. At the next order, we write \begin{equation} T^{\mu\nu} = (\epsilon + P)u^\mu u^\nu + Pg^{\mu\nu} -\sigma^{\mu\nu}\,, \end{equation} where $\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ is proportional to derivatives of $T(x)$ and $u^\mu(x)$ and is termed the dissipative part of $T^{\mu\nu}$. To write these terms, let us first fix a point $x$ and go to the local rest frame where $u^i(x)=0$. In this frame, in principle one can have dissipative corrections to the energy-momentum density $T^{0\mu}$. However, one recalls that the choice of $T$ and $u^\mu$ is arbitrary, and thus one can always redefine them so that these corrections vanish, $\sigma^{00}=\sigma^{0i}=0$, and so at a point $x$, \begin{equation} T^{00} = \epsilon, \qquad T^{0i} = 0\,. \end{equation} The only nonzero elements of the dissipative energy-momentum tensor are $\sigma_{ij}$. To the next-to-leading order there are extra contributions whose forms are dictated by rotational symmetry: \begin{equation} \sigma_{ij} = \eta\left(\d_i u_j + \d_j u_i - \frac 23\delta_{ij}\d_k u^k\right) + \zeta\delta_{ij} \d_k u^k\,. \end{equation} Going back to the general frame, we can now write the dissipative part of the energy-momentum tensor as \begin{equation} \sigma^{\mu\nu} = P^{\mu\alpha} P^{\nu\beta} \left[\eta\left(\d_\alpha u_\beta + \d_\beta u_\alpha - \frac23g_{\alpha\beta} \d_\lambda u^\lambda \right) + \zeta g_{\alpha\beta} \d_\lambda u^\lambda\right]\,, \end{equation} where $P^{\mu\nu}=g^{\mu\nu}+u^\mu u^\nu$ is the projection operator onto the directions perpendicular to $u^\mu$. If the system contains a conserved current, there is an additional hydrodynamic equation related to the current conservation, \begin{equation} \d_\mu j^\mu = 0\,. \end{equation} The constitutive equation contains two terms: \begin{equation} j^\mu = \rho u^\mu - DP^{\mu\nu}\d_\nu\alpha\,, \end{equation} where $\rho$ is the charge density in the fluid rest frame and $D$ is some constant. The first term corresponds to convection, the second one to diffusion. In the fluid rest frame, ${\bf j}=-D\nabla\rho$, which is Fick's law of diffusion, with $D$ being the diffusion constant. \subsection{Kubo's Formula For Viscosity} As mentioned above, the hydrodynamic equations can be thought of as an effective theory describing the dynamics of the system at large lengths and time scales. Therefore one should be able to use these equations to extract information about the low-momentum behavior of Green's functions in the original theory. For example, let us recall how the two-point correlation functions can be extracted. If we couple sources $J_a(\x)$ to a set of (bosonic) operators $O_a(x)$, so that the new action is \begin{equation} S = S_0 + \int_x J_a(x) O_a(x)\,, \end{equation} then the source will introduce a perturbation of the system. In particular, the average values of $O_a$ will differ from the equilibrium values, which we assume to be zero. If $J_a$ are small, the perturbations are given by the linear response theory as \begin{equation} \<O_a(x)\> = -\int_y G^R_{ab}(x-y) J_b(y)\,, \end{equation} where $G^R_{ab}$ is the retarded Green's function \begin{equation} iG^R_{ab}(x-y) = \theta(x^0-y^0) \<[O_a(x),\, O_b(y)]\> \,. \end{equation} The fact that the linear response is determined by the retarded (and not by any other) Green's function is obvious from causality: The source can influence the system only after it has been turned on. Thus, to determine the correlation functions of $T^{\mu\nu}$, we need to couple a weak source to $T^{\mu\nu}$ and determine the average value of $T^{\mu\nu}$ after this source is turned on. To find these correlators at low momenta, we can use the hydrodynamic theory. So far in our treatment of hydrodynamics we have included no source coupled to $T^{\mu\nu}$. This deficiency can be easily corrected, as the source of the energy-momentum tensor is the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. One must generalize the hydrodynamic equations to curved space-time and from it determine the response of the thermal medium to a weak perturbation of the metric. This procedure is rather straightforward and in the interest of space is left as an exercise to the reader. Here we concentrate on a particular case when the metric perturbation is homogeneous in space but time dependent: \begin{eqnarray} g_{ij}(t,\x) &=& \delta_{ij} + h_{ij}(t), \qquad h_{ij}\ll 1\\ g_{00}(t,\x) &=& -1, \qquad g_{0i}(t,\x) =0\,. \end{eqnarray} Moreover, we assume the perturbation to be traceless, $h_{ii}=0$. Because the perturbation is spatially homogeneous, if the fluid moves, it can only move uniformly: $u^i=u^i(t)$. However, this possibility can be ruled out by parity, so the fluid must remain at rest all the time: $u^\mu=(1,0,0,0)$. We now compute the dissipative part of the stress-energy tensor. The generalization of Eq.~ to curved space-time is \begin{equation} \sigma^{\mu\nu} = P^{\mu\alpha} P^{\nu\beta} \left[ \eta (\nabla_\alpha u_\beta + \nabla_\beta u_\alpha) + \left(\zeta - \frac23\eta\right)g_{\alpha\beta}\nabla\cdot u\right]\,. \end{equation} Substituting $u^\mu=(1,0,0,0)$ and $g_{\mu\nu}$ from Eq.~, we find only contributions to the traceless spatial components, and these contributions come entirely from the Christoffel symbols in the covariant derivatives. For example, \begin{equation} \sigma_{xy} = 2\eta\Gamma^0_{xy} = \eta\d_0 h_{xy} \,. \end{equation} By comparison with the expectation from the linear response theory, this equation means that we have found the zero spatial momentum, low-frequency limit of the retarded Green's function of $T^{xy}$: \begin{equation} G^R_{xy,xy}(\omega,{\bf 0}) = \int\!dt\,d\x\, e^{i\omega t} \theta(t) \<[ T_{xy}(t,\x),\, T_{xy}(0,{\bf 0})]\> = -i\eta\omega + O(\omega^2) \end{equation} (modulo contact terms). We have, in essence, derived the Kubo's formula relating the shear viscosity and a Green's function: \begin{equation} \eta = -\lim_{\omega\to0} \frac1\omega\Im G^R_{xy,xy}(\omega, {\bf 0})\,. \end{equation} There is a similar Kubo's relation for the charge diffusion constant $D$. \subsection{Hydrodynamic Modes} If one is interested only in the locations of the poles of the correlators, one can simply look for the normal modes of the linearized hydrodynamic equations, that is, solutions that behave as $e^{-i\omega t+i\k\cdot\x}$. Owing to dissipation, the frequency $\omega(\k)$ is complex. For example, the equation of charge diffusion, \begin{equation} \d_t\rho - D\nabla^2 \rho =0, \end{equation} corresponds to a pole in the current-current correlator at $\omega=-iDk^2$. To find the poles in the correlators between elements of the stress-energy tensor one can, without loss of generality, choose the coordinate system so that $\k$ is aligned along the $x^3$-axis: $\k=(0,0,k)$. Then one can distinguish two types of normal modes: \begin{itemize} \item[1.]\underline{Shear modes} correspond to the fluctuations of pairs of components $T^{0a}$ and $T^{3a}$, where $a=1,2$. The constitutive equation is \begin{equation} T^{3a} = -\eta\d_3 u^a = -\frac\eta{\epsilon+P}\d_3 T^{0a}\,, \end{equation} and the equation for $T^{0a}$ is \begin{equation} \d_t T^{0a} - \frac\eta{\epsilon+P} \d_3^2 T^{0a} = 0\,. \end{equation} That is, it has the form of a diffusion equation for $T^{0a}$. Substituting $e^{-i\omega t+ikx^3}$ into the equation, one finds the dispersion law \begin{equation} \omega = -i \frac\eta{\epsilon+P} k^2\,. \end{equation} \item[2.]\underline{Sound modes} are fluctuations of $T^{00}$, $T^{03}$, and $T^{33}$. There are now two conservation equations, and by diagonalizing them one finds the dispersion law \begin{equation} \omega = c_s k -\frac i2 \left(\frac43\eta+\zeta\right) \frac{k^2}{\epsilon+P}\,, \end{equation} where $c_s=\sqrt{dP/d\epsilon}$. This is simply the sound wave, which involves the fluctuation of the energy density. It propagates with velocity $c_s$, and its damping is related to a linear combination of shear and bulk viscosities. \end{itemize} In CFTs it is possible to use conformal Ward identities to show that the bulk viscosity vanishes: $\zeta=0$. Hence, we shall concentrate our attention on the shear viscosity $\eta$. \subsection{Viscosity In Weakly Coupled Field Theories} We now briefly consider the behavior of the shear viscosity in weakly coupled field theories, with the $\lambda \phi^4$ theory as a concrete example. At weak coupling, there is a separation between two length scales: The mean free path of particles is much larger than the distance scales over which scatterings occur. Each scattering event takes a time of order $T^{-1}$ (which can be thought of as the time required for final particles to become on-shell). The mean free path $\ell_{\rm mfp}$ can be estimated from the formula \begin{equation} \ell_{\rm mfp} \sim \frac1{n\sigma v}\,, \end{equation} where $n$ is the density of particles, $\sigma$ is the typical scattering cross section, and $v$ is the typical particle velocity. Inserting the values for thermal $\lambda \phi^4$ theory, $n\sim T^3$, $\sigma\sim\lambda^2 T^{-2}$, and $v\sim 1$, one finds \begin{equation} \ell_{\rm mfp} \sim \frac1{\lambda^2 T}\gg \frac1T\,. \end{equation} The viscosity can be estimated from kinetic theory to be \begin{equation} \eta \sim \epsilon \ell_{\rm mfp}\,, \end{equation} where $\epsilon$ is the energy density. From $\epsilon\sim T^4$ and the estimate of $\ell_{\rm mft}$, one finds \begin{equation} \eta \sim \frac{T^3}{\lambda^2}\,. \end{equation} In particular, the weaker the coupling $\lambda$, the larger the viscosity $\eta$. This behavior is explained by the fact that the viscosity measures the rate of momentum diffusion. The smaller $\lambda$ is, the longer a particle travels before colliding with another one, and the easier the momentum transfer. It may appear counterintuitive that viscosity tends to infinity in the limit of zero coupling $\lambda\to0$: At zero coupling there is no dissipation, so should the viscosity be zero? The confusion arises owing to the fact that the hydrodynamic theory, and hence the notion of viscosity, makes sense only on distances much larger than the mean free path of particles. If one takes $\lambda\to0$, then to measure the viscosity one has to do the experiment at larger and larger length scales. If one fixes the size of the experiment and takes $\lambda\to0$, dissipation disappears, but it does not tell us anything about the viscosity. As will become apparent below, a particularly interesting ratio to consider is the ratio of shear viscosity and entropy density $s$. The latter is proportional to $T^3$; thus \begin{equation} \frac\eta s \sim \frac1{\lambda^2}\,. \end{equation} One has $\eta/s \gg 1$ for $\lambda\ll1$. This is a common feature of weakly coupled field theories. Extrapolating to $\lambda\sim1$, one finds $\eta/s\sim1$. We shall see that theories with gravity duals are strongly coupled, and $\eta/s$ is of order one. More surprisingly, this ratio is the same for all theories with gravity duals. To compute rather than estimate the viscosity, one can use Kubo's formula. It turns out that one has to sum an infinite number of Feynman graphs to even find the viscosity to leading order. Another way that leads to the same result is to first formulate a kinetic Boltzmann equation for the quasi-particles as an intermediate effective description, and then derive hydrodynamics by taking the limit of very long lengths and time scales in the kinetic equation. Interested readers should consult Refs.~ for more details. \section{AdS/CFT CORRESPONDENCE} \subsection{Review Of AdS/CFT Correspondence At Zero Temperature} This section briefly reviews the AdS/CFT correspondence at zero temperature. It contains only the minimal amount of materials required to understand the rest of the review. Further information can be found in existing reviews and lecture notes~. The original example of AdS/CFT correspondence is between ${\cal N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theory and type IIB string theory on AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ space. Let us describe the two sides of the correspondence in some more detail. The ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory is a gauge theory with a gauge field, four Weyl fermions, and six real scalars, all in the adjoint representation of the color group. Its Lagrangian can be written down explicitly, but is not very important for our purposes. It has a vanishing beta function and is a conformal field theory (CFT) (thus the CFT in AdS/CFT). In our further discussion, we frequently use the generic terms ``field theory'' or CFT for the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory. On the string theory side, we have type IIB string theory, which contains a finite number of massless fields, including the graviton, the dilaton $\Phi$, some other fields (forms) and their fermionic superpartners, and an infinite number of massive string excitations. It has two parameters: the string length $l_s$ (related to the slope parameter $\alpha'$ by $\alpha'=l_s^2$) and the string coupling $g_s$. In the long-wavelength limit, when all fields vary over length scales much larger than $l_s$, the massive modes decouple and one is left with type IIB supergravity in 10 dimensions, which can be described by an action~ \begin{equation} S_{\rm SUGRA} = \frac1{2\kappa_{10}^2} \int\!d^{10}x\,\sqrt{-g}\, e^{-2\Phi} \left({\cal R} + 4\,\d^\mu\Phi\d_\mu\Phi +\cdots\right)\,, \end{equation} where $\kappa_{10}$ is the 10-dimensional gravitational constant, \begin{equation} \kappa_{10} = \sqrt{8\pi G}= 8\pi^{7/2}g_s l_s^4\,, \end{equation} and $\cdots$ stay for the contributions from fields other than the metric and the dilaton. One of these fields is the five-form $F_5$, which is constrained to be self-dual. The type IIB string theory lives is a 10-dimensional space-time with the following metric: \begin{equation} ds^2 = \frac{r^2}{R^2}(-dt^2+d\x^2) + \frac{R^2}{r^2}dr^2 + R^2 d\Omega_5^2\,. \end{equation} The metric is a direct product of a five-dimensional sphere ($d\Omega_5^2$) and another five-dimensional space-time spanned by $t$, $\x$, and $r$. An alternative form of the metric is obtained from Eq.~() by a change of variable $z=R^2/r$, \begin{equation} ds^2 = \frac{R^2}{z^2}(-dt^2+d\x^2+dz^2) + R^2 d\Omega_5^2\,. \end{equation} Both coordinates $r$ and $z$ are known as the radial coordinate. The limiting value $r=\infty$ (or $z=0$) is the boundary of the AdS space. It is a simple exercise to check that the $(t,\x,r)$ part of the metric is a space with constant negative curvature, or an anti de-Sitter (AdS) space. To support the metric~() (i.e., to satisfy the Einstein equation) there must be some background matter field that gives a stress-energy tensor in the form of a negative cosmological constant in AdS$_5$ and a positive one in S$^5$. Such a field is the self-dual five-form field $F_5$ mentioned above. Field theory has two parameters: the number of colors $N$ and the gauge coupling $g$. When the number of colors is large, it is the 't Hooft coupling $\lambda=g^2N$ that controls the perturbation theory. On the string theory side, the parameters are $g_s$, $l_s$, and radius $R$ of the AdS space. String theory and field theory each have two dimensionless parameters which map to each other through the following relations: \begin{eqnarray} g^2 &=& 4\pi g_s, \\ g^2N_c &=& \frac{R^4}{l_s^4}\,. \end{eqnarray} Equation~() tells us that, if one wants to keep string theory weakly interacting, then the gauge coupling in field theory must be small. Equation~() is particularly interesting. It says that the large 't Hooft coupling limit in field theory corresponds to the limit when the curvature radius of space-time is much larger than the string length $l_s$. In this limit, one can reliably decouple the massive string modes and reduce string theory to supergravity. In the limit $g_s\ll1$ and $R\gg l_s$, one has classical supergravity instead of string theory. The practical utility of the AdS/CFT correspondence comes, in large part, from its ability to deal with the strong coupling limit in gauge theory. One can perform a Kaluza-Klein reduction~ by expanding all fields in S$^5$ harmonics. Keeping only the lowest harmonics, one finds a five-dimensional theory with the massless dilaton, SO(6) gauge bosons, and gravitons~: \begin{equation} S_{\rm 5D} = \frac{N^2}{8\pi^2R^3}\int\!d^5x\, \left({\cal R}_{\rm 5D}-2\Lambda -\frac12 \d^\mu\Phi\d_\mu\Phi -\frac{R^2}8 F^a_{\mu\nu}F^{a\mu\nu} + \cdots \right)\,. \end{equation} In AdS/CFT, an operator $O$ of field theory is put in a correspondence with a field $\phi$ (``bulk'' field) in supergravity. We elaborate on this correspondence below; here we keep the operator and the field unspecified. In the supergravity approximation, the mathematical statement of the correspondence is \begin{equation} Z_{\rm 4D}[J] = e^{iS[\phi_{\rm cl}]}\,. \end{equation} On the left is the partition function of a field theory, where the source $J$ coupled to the operator $O$ is included: \begin{equation} Z_{\rm 4D}[J] = \int\!D\phi\,\exp\left(iS + i\!\int\!d^4x\, J O\right)\,. \end{equation} On the right, $S[\phi_{\rm cl}]$ is the classical action of the classical solution $\phi_{\rm cl}$ to the field equation with the boundary condition: \begin{equation} \lim_{z\to0} \frac{\phi_{\rm cl}(z,x)}{z^\Delta} = J(x)\,. \end{equation} Here $\Delta$ is a constant that depends on the nature of the operator $O$ (namely, on its spin and dimension). In the simplest case, $\Delta=0$, and the boundary condition becomes $\phi_{\rm cl}(z{=}0)=J$. Differentiating Eq.~() with respect to $J$, one can find the correlation functions of $O$. For example, the two-point Green's function of $O$ is obtained by differentiating $S_{\rm cl}[\phi]$ twice with respect to the boundary value of $\phi$, \begin{equation} G(x-y) = -i \< T O(x) O(y)\> = \left. - \frac{\delta^2 S[\phi_{\rm cl}]}{\delta J(x)\delta J(y)} \right|_{\phi(z=0)=J}\,. \end{equation} The AdS/CFT correspondence thus maps the problem of finding quantum correlation functions in field theory to a classical problem in gravity. Moreover, to find two-point correlation functions in field theory, one can be limited to the quadratic part of the classical action on the gravity side. The complete operator to field mapping can be found in Refs.~. For our purpose, the following is sufficient: \begin{itemize} \item The dilaton $\Phi$ corresponds to $O=-{\cal L}=\frac14 F_{\mu\nu}^2+\cdots$, where ${\cal L}$ is the Lagrangian density. \item The gauge field $A_\mu^a$ corresponds to the conserved R-charge current $J^{a\mu}$ of field theory. \item The metric tensor corresponds to the stress-energy tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$. More precisely, the partition function of the four-dimensional field theory in an external metric $g^0_{\mu\nu}$ is equal to \begin{equation} Z_{\rm 4D}[g^0_{\mu\nu}] = \exp(iS_{\rm cl}[g_{\mu\nu}])\,, \end{equation} where the five-dimensional metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ satisfies the Einstein's equations and has the following asymptotics at $z=0$: \begin{equation} ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu = \frac{R^2}{z^2} (dz^2 + g^0_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu)\,. \end{equation} \end{itemize} From the point of view of hydrodynamics, the operator $\frac14F^2$ is not very interesting because its correlator does not have a hydrodynamic pole. In contrast, we find the correlators of the R-charge current and the stress-energy tensor to contain hydrodynamic information. We simplify the graviton part of the action further. Our two-point functions are functions of the momentum $p=(\omega,\k)$. We can choose spatial coordinates so that $\k$ points along the $x^3$-axis. This corresponds to perturbations that propagate along the $x^3$ direction: $h_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}(t,r,x^3)$. These perturbations can be classified according to the representations of the O(2) symmetry of the $(x^1,x^2)$ plane. Owing to that symmetry, only certain components can mix; for example, $h_{12}$ does not mix with any other components, whereas components $h_{01}$ and $h_{31}$ mix only with each other. We assume that only these three metric components are nonzero and introduce shorthand notations \begin{equation} \phi = h^1_2, \qquad a_0 = h^1_0,\qquad a_3 = h^1_3\,. \end{equation} The quadratic part of the graviton action acquires a very simple form in terms of these fields: \begin{equation} S_{\rm quad} = \frac{N^2}{8\pi^2R^3}\int\!d^4x\,dr\,\sqrt{-g} \left(-\frac12g^{\mu\nu}\d_\mu\phi\d_\nu\phi -\frac1{4g_{\rm eff}^2} g^{\mu\alpha}g^{\nu\beta} f_{\mu\nu}f_{\alpha\beta}\right)\,, \end{equation} where $f_{\mu\nu}=\d_\mu a_\nu-\d_\nu a_\mu$, and $g_{\rm eff}^2=g_{xx}$. In deriving Eq.~(), our only assumption about the metric is that it has a diagonal form, \begin{equation} ds^2 = g_{tt}dt^2 + g_{rr}dr^2 + g_{xx}d\x^2\,, \end{equation} so it can also be used below for the finite-temperature metric. As a simple example, let us compute the two-point correlation function of $T^{xy}$, which corresponds to $\phi$ in gravity. The field equation for $\phi$ is \begin{equation} \d_\mu(\sqrt{-g}\,g^{\mu\nu}\d_\nu\phi)=0\,. \end{equation} The solution to this equation, with the boundary condition $\phi(p,z=0)=\phi_0(p)$, can be written as \begin{equation} \phi(p,z) = f_p(z)\phi_0(p)\,, \end{equation} where the mode function $f_p(z)$ satisfies the equation \begin{equation} \left(\frac{f_p'}{z^3}\right)' - \frac{p^2}{z^3}f_p =0 \end{equation} with the boundary condition $f_p(0)=1$. The mode equation () can be solved exactly. Assuming $p$ is spacelike, $p^2>0$, the exact solution and its expansion around $z=0$ is \begin{equation} f_p(z) = \frac12(pz)^2 K_2(pz) = 1 - \frac14(pz)^2 -\frac1{16} (pz)^4\ln(pz) + O((pz)^4)\,. \end{equation} The second solution to Eq.~(), $(pz)^2I_2(pz)$, is ruled out because it blows up at $z\to\infty$. We now substitute the solution into the quadratic action. Using the field equation, one can perform integration by parts and write the action as a boundary integral at $z=0$. One finds \begin{equation} S = \frac{N^2}{16\pi^2}\int\! d^4x\, \frac1{z^3}\phi(x,z)\phi'(x,z)|_{z\to0} = \int\! \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\, \phi_0(-p){\cal F}(p,z) \phi_0(p)|_{z\to0}\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} {\cal F}(p,z) = \frac{N^2}{16\pi^2}\frac1{z^3} f_{-p}(z)\d_z f_p(z)\,. \end{equation} Differentiating the action twice with respect to the boundary value $\phi_0$ one finds \begin{equation} \< T_{xy} T_{xy}\>_p = -2 \lim_{z\to 0}{\cal F}(p,z) = \frac{N^2}{64\pi^2}p^4\ln(p^2)\,. \end{equation} Note that we have dropped the term $\sim p^4\ln z$, which, although singular in the limit $z\to0$, is a contact term [i.e., a term proportional to a derivative of $\delta(x)$ after Fourier transform]. Removing such terms by adding local counter terms to the supergravity action is known as the holographic renormalization . It is, in a sense, a holographic counterpart to the standard renormalization procedure in quantum field theory, here applied to composite operators. For time-like $p$, $p^2<0$, there are two solutions to Eq.~() which involve Hankel functions $H^{(1)}(z)$ and $H^{(2)}(z)$ instead of $K_2(z)$. Neither function blows up at $z\to\infty$, and it is not clear which should be picked. Here we encounter, for the first time, a subtlety of Minkowski-space AdS/CFT, which is discussed in great length in subsequent sections. At zero temperature this problem can be overcome by an analytic continuation from space-like $p$. However, this will not work at nonzero temperatures. \subsection{Black Three-Brane Metric} At nonzero temperatures, the metric dual to ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory is the black three-brane metric, \begin{equation} ds^2 = \frac{r^2}{R^2}(-fdt^2+d\x^2) + \frac{R^2}{r^2f}dr^2 + R^2 d\Omega_5^2\,, \end{equation} with $f=1-r_0^4/r^4$. The event horizon is located at $r=r_0$, where $f=0$. In contrast to the usual Schwarzschild black hole, the horizon has three flat directions $\x$. The metric~() is thus called a black three-brane metric. We frequently use an alternative radial coordinate $u$, defined as $u=r_0^2/r^2$. In terms of $u$, the boundary is at $u=0$, the horizon at $u=1$, and the metric is \begin{equation} ds^2 = \frac{(\pi TR)^2}{u^2}(-f(u)dt^2+d\x^2) + \frac{R^2}{4u^2f(u)}du^2 + R^2 d\Omega_5^2\,. \end{equation} The Hawking temperature is determined completely by the behavior of the metric near the horizon. Let us concentrate on the $(t,r)$ part of the metric, \begin{equation} ds^2 = -\frac{4r_0}{R^2}(r-r_0)dt^2 + \frac{R^2}{4r_0(r-r_0)}dr^2\,. \end{equation} Changing the radial variable from $r$ to $\rho$, \begin{equation} r = r_0 + \frac{\rho^2}{r_0}\,, \end{equation} and the metric components become nonsingular: \begin{equation} ds^2 = \frac{R^2}{r_0^2}\left( d\rho^2 - \frac{4r_0^2}{R^2} \rho^2 dt^2\right)\,. \end{equation} Note also that after a Wick rotation to Euclidean time $\tau$, the metric has the form of the flat metric in cylindrical coordinates, $ds^2\sim d\rho^2+\rho^2d\varphi^2$, where $\varphi=2r_0R^{-2}\tau$. To avoid a conical singularity at $\rho=0$, $\varphi$ must be a periodic variable with periodicity $2\pi$. This fact matches with the periodicity of the Euclidean time in thermal field theory $\tau\sim\tau+1/T$, from which one finds the Hawking temperature: \begin{equation} T_H = \frac{r_0}{\pi R^2}\,. \end{equation} One of the first finite-temperature predictions of AdS/CFT correspondence is that of the thermodynamic potentials of the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory in the strong coupling regime. The entropy is given by the Bekenstein-Hawking formula $S=A/(4G)$, where $A$ is the area of the horizon of the metric~(); the result can then be converted to parameters of the gauge theory using Eqs.~(), (), and (). One obtains \begin{equation} s =\frac SV = \frac{\pi^2}2N^2T^3\,, \end{equation} which is 3/4 of the entropy density in ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory at zero 't Hooft coupling. We now try to generalize the AdS/CFT prescription to finite temperature. In the Euclidean formulation of finite-temperature field theory, field theory lives in a space-time with the Euclidean time direction $\tau$ compactified. The metric is regular at $r=r_0$: If one views the $(\tau, r)$ space as a cigar-shaped surface, then the horizon $r=r_0$ is the tip of the cigar. Thus, $r_0$ is the minimal radius where the space ends, and there is no point in space with $r$ less than $r_0$. The only boundary condition at $r=r_0$ is that fields are regular at the tip of the cigar, and the AdS/CFT correspondence is formulated as \begin{equation} Z_{\rm 4D}[J] = Z_{\rm 5D}[\phi]|_{\phi(z=0)\to J}\,. \end{equation} \section{REAL-TIME AdS/CFT} In many cases we must find real-time correlation functions not given directly by the Euclidean path-integral formulation of thermal field theory. One example is the set of kinetic coefficients expressed, through Kubo's formulas, via a certain limit of real-time thermal Green's functions. Another related example appears if we want to directly find the position of the poles in the correlation functions that would correspond to the hydrodynamic modes. In principle, some real-time Green's functions can be obtained by analytic continuation of the Euclidean ones. For example, an analytic continuation of a two-point Euclidean propagator gives a retarded or advanced Green's function, depending on the way one performs the continuation. However, it is often very difficult to directly compute a quantity of interest in that way. In particular, it is very difficult to get the information about the hydrodynamic (small $\omega$, small $\k$) limit of real-time correlators from Euclidean propagators. The problem here is that we need to perform an analytic continuation from a discrete set of points in Euclidean frequencies (the Matsubara frequencies) $\omega=2\pi i n$, where $n$ is an integer, to the real values of $\omega$. In the hydrodynamic limit, we are interested in real and small $\omega$, whereas the smallest Matsubara frequency is already $2\pi T$. Therefore, we need a real-time AdS/CFT prescription that would allow us to directly compute the real-time correlators. However, if one tries to naively generalize the AdS/CFT prescription, one immediately faces a problem. Namely, now $r=r_0$ is not the end of space but just the location of the horizon. Without specifying a boundary condition at $r=r_0$, there is an ambiguity in defining the solution to the field equations, even as the boundary condition at $r=\infty$ is set. As an example, let us consider the equation of motion of a scalar field in the black hole background, $\d_\mu (g^{\mu\nu}\d_\nu\phi)=0$. The solution to this equation with the boundary condition $\phi=\phi_0$ at $u=0$ is $\phi(p,u)=f_p\phi_0(p)$, where $f_p(u)$ satisfies the following equation in the metric~(): \begin{equation} f_p'' - \frac{1+u^2}{uf}f_p' + \frac{w^2}{uf^2}f_p - \frac{q^2}{uf}f_p =0\,. \end{equation} Here the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $u$, and we have defined the dimensionless frequency and momentum: \begin{equation} w = \frac\omega{2\pi T}\,, \qquad q = \frac k{2\pi T}\, . \end{equation} Near $u=0$ the equation has two solutions, $f_1\sim 1$ and $f_2\sim u^2$. In the Euclidean version of thermal AdS/CFT, there is only one regular solution at the horizon $u=1$, which corresponds to a particular linear combination of $f_1$ and $f_2$. However, in Minkowski space there are two solutions, and both are finite near the horizon. One solution termed $f_p$ behaves as $(1-u)^{-iw/2}$, and the other is its complex conjugate $f_p^*\sim(1-u)^{iw/2}$. These two solutions oscillate rapidly as $u\to1$, but the amplitude of the oscillations is constant. Thus, the requirement of finiteness of $f_p$ allows for any linear combination of $f_1$ and $f_2$ near the boundary, which means that there is no unique solution to Eq.~(). \subsection{Prescription For Retarded Two-Point Functions} Physically, the two solutions $f_p$ and $f_p^*$ have very different behavior. Restoring the $e^{-i\omega t}$ phase in the wave function, one can write \begin{eqnarray} e^{-i\omega t} f_p \sim e^{-i\omega(t+r_*)}\,,\\ e^{-i\omega t} f_p^* \sim e^{i\omega(t-r_*)}\,, \end{eqnarray} where the coordinate \begin{equation} r_* = \frac{\ln(1-u)}{4\pi T} \end{equation} was introduced so that Eqs.~() and () looked like plane waves. In fact, Eq.~() corresponds to a wave that moves toward the horizon (incoming wave) and Eq.~() to a wave that moves away from the horizon (outgoing wave). The simplest idea, which is motivated by the fact that nothing should come out of a horizon, is to impose the incoming-wave boundary condition at $r=r_0$ and then proceed as instructed by the AdS/CFT correspondence. However, now we encounter another problem. If we write down the classical action for the bulk field, after integrating by parts we get contributions from both the boundary and the horizon: \begin{equation} S = \int\!\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\, \phi_0(-p){\cal F}(p,z)\phi_0(p)\Bigl|^{z=z_H}_{z=0}\,. \end{equation} If one tried to differentiate the action with respect to the boundary value $\phi_0$, one would find \begin{equation} G(p) = {\cal F}(p,z)|^{z_H}_0 + {\cal F}(-p,z)|^{z_H}_0\,. \end{equation} From the equation satisfied by $f_p$ and from $f_p^*=f_{-p}$, it is easy to show that the imaginary part of ${\cal F}(p,z)$ does not depend on $z$; hence the quantity $G(p)$ in Eq.~() is real. This is clearly not what we want, as the retarded Green's functions are, in general, complex. Simply throwing away the contribution from the horizon does not help because ${\cal F}(-p,z)={\cal F}^*(p,z)$ owing to the reality of the equation satisfied by $f_p$. A partial solution to this problem was suggested in Ref.~. It was postulated that the retarded Green's function is related to the function ${\cal F}$ by the same formula that was found at zero temperature: \begin{equation} G^R(p) = -2 \lim_{z\to0} {\cal F}(p,z)\,. \end{equation} In particular, we throw away all contributions from the horizon. This prescription was established more rigorously in Ref.~ (following an earlier suggestion in Ref.~) as a particular case of a general real-time AdS/CFT formulation, which establishes the connection between the close-time-path formulation of real-time quantum field theory with the dynamics of fields in the whole Penrose diagram of the AdS black brane. Here we accept Eq.~() as a postulate and proceed to extract physical results from it. It is also easy to generalize this prescription to the case when we have more than one field. In that case, the quantity ${\cal F}$ becomes a matrix ${\cal F}_{ab}$, whose elements are proportional to the retarded Green's function $G_{ab}$. \subsection{Calculating Hydrodynamic Quantities} As an illustration of the real-time AdS/CFT correspondence, we compute the correlator of $T_{xy}$. First we write down the equation of motion for $\phi=h^x_y$: \begin{equation} \phi_p'' - \frac{1+u^2}{uf} \phi_p' + \frac{w^2-q^2f}{uf^2}\phi_p = 0\,. \end{equation} In contrast to the zero-temperature equation, now $\omega$ and $k$ enter the equation separately rather than through the combination $\omega^2-k^2$. Thus the Green's function will have no Lorentz invariance. The equation cannot be solved exactly for all $\omega$ and $k$. However, when $\omega$ and $k$ are both much smaller than $T$, or $w,q\ll1$, one can develop series expansion in powers of $w$ and $q$. There are two solutions that are complex conjugates of each other. The solution that is an incoming wave at $u=1$ and normalized to 1 at $u=0$ is \begin{equation} f_p(z) = (1-u^2)^{-i w/2} + O(w^2,q^2)\,. \end{equation} The kinetic term in the action for $\phi$ is \begin{equation} S = -\frac{\pi^2N^2T^4}8\int\!du\,\frac fu \phi'^2\,. \end{equation} Applying the general formula~(), one finds the retarded Green's function of $T_{xy}$, \begin{equation} G^R_{xy,xy}(\omega,k) = -\frac{\pi^2N^2T^4}{4} i w \,, \end{equation} and, using Kubo's formula for $\eta$, the viscosity, \begin{equation} \eta = \frac\pi 8 N^2 T^3\,. \end{equation} It is instructive to compute other correlators that have poles corresponding to hydrodynamic modes. As a warm-up, let us compute the two-point correlators of the R-charge currents, which should have a pole at $\omega=-iDk^2$, where $D$ is the diffusion constant. We first write down Maxwell's equations for the bulk gauge field. Let the spatial momentum be aligned along the $x^3$-axis: $p=(\omega,0,0,k)$. Then the equations for $A_0$ and $A_3$ are coupled: \begin{eqnarray} w A_0' + q f A_3' &=& 0\,,\\ A_0'' - \frac1{uf} (q^2 A_0 + wq A_3) &=& 0\,,\\ A_3'' + \frac{f'}f A_3' + \frac1{uf^2}(w^2A_3+wqA_0) &=& 0\,. \end{eqnarray} One can eliminate $A_3$ and write down a third-order equation for $A_0$, \begin{equation} A_0''' + \frac{(uf)'}{uf} A_0'' + \frac{w^2-q^2f}{uf^2}A_0' = 0\,. \end{equation} Near $u{=}1$ we find two independent solutions, $A_0'\sim(1-u)^{\pm iw/2}$, and the incoming-wave boundary condition singles out $(1-u)^{-iw/2}$. One can substitute $A_0'=(1-u)^{-iw/2}F(u)$ into Eq.~(). The resulting equation can be solved perturbatively in $w$ and $q^2$. We find \begin{equation} A_0' = C (1-u)^{-iw/2} \left( 1+ \frac{iw}2\ln\frac{2u^2}{1+u} + q^2\ln\frac{1+u}{2u} \right)\,. \end{equation} Using Eq.~() one can express $C$ through the boundary values of $A_0$ and $A_3$ at $u=0$: \begin{equation} C = \left. \frac{q^2 A_0 + wq A_3}{iw-q^2}\right|_{u=0}\,. \end{equation} Differentiating the action with respect to the boundary values, we find, in particular, \begin{equation} \<J_0 J_0\>_p = \frac{N^2T}{16\pi} \frac{k^2}{i\omega-Dk^2}\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} D = \frac1{2\pi T}\,. \end{equation} The correlator given by Eq.~() has the expected hydrodynamic diffusive pole, and $D$ is the R-charge diffusion constant. Similarly, one can observe the appearance of the shear mode in the correlators of the metric tensor. We note that the shear flow along the $x^1$ direction with velocity gradient along the $x^3$ direction involves $T_{01}$ and $T_{31}$, hence the interesting metric components are $a_0=h_0^1$ and $a_3=h_3^1$. Two of the field equations are \begin{eqnarray} && a_0' - \frac{qf}w a_3' = 0\,,\\ && a_3'' - \frac{1+u^2}{uf}a_3' + \frac1{uf^2}(w^2a_3+wqa_0) = 0\,. \end{eqnarray} They can be combined into a single equation: \begin{equation} a_0''' - \frac{2u}f a_0'' + \frac{2uf-q^2f+w^2}{uf^2}a_0' = 0\,. \end{equation} Again, the solution can be found perturbatively in $w$ and $q$: \begin{equation} a_0' = C (1-u)^{-iw/2} \left[ u- iw \left( 1-u-\frac u2 \ln \frac{1+u}2\right) + \frac{q^2}2 (1-u)\right]\,. \end{equation} Applying the prescription, one finds the retarded Green's functions. For example, \begin{equation} G_{tx,tx}(\omega,k) = \frac{\xi k^2}{i\omega-{\cal D}k^2}\,, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \xi = \frac\pi8 N^2T^3, \qquad {\cal D}=\frac1{4\pi T}\,. \end{equation} Thus, we found that the correlator contains a diffusive pole $\omega=-i{\cal D}k^2$, just as anticipated from hydrodynamics. Furthermore, the magnitude of the momentum diffusion constant ${\cal D}$ also matched our expectation. Indeed, if one recalls the value of $\eta$ from Eq.~() and the entropy density from Eq.~(), one can check that \begin{equation} {\cal D} = \frac\eta{\epsilon+P}\,. \end{equation} \section{THE MEMBRANE PARADIGM} Let us now look at the problem from a different perspective. The existence of hydrodynamic modes in thermal field theory is reflected by the existence of the poles of the retarded correlators computed from gravity. Are there direct gravity counterparts of the hydrodynamic normal modes? If the answer to this question is yes, then there must exist linear gravitational perturbations of the metric that have the dispersion relation identical to that of the shear hydrodynamic mode, $\omega\sim-iq^2$, and of the sound mode, $\omega=c_s q-i\gamma q^2$. It turns out that one can explicitly construct the gravitational counterpart of the shear mode. (It should be possible to find a similar construction for the sound mode, but it has not been done in the literature; for a recent work on the subject, see .) Our discussion is physical but somewhat sketchy; for more details see Ref.~. First, let us construct a gravity perturbation that corresponds to a diffusion of a conserved charge (e.g., the R-charge in ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory). To keep the discussion general, we use the form of the metric~(), with the metric components unspecified. Our only assumptions are that the metric is diagonal and has a horizon at $r=r_0$, near which \begin{equation} g_{00} = -\gamma_0 (r-r_0), \qquad g_{rr} = \frac{\gamma_r}{r-r_0}\,. \end{equation} The Hawking temperature can be computed by the method used to arrive at Eq.~(), and one finds $T=(4\pi)^{-1}(\gamma_0/\gamma_r)^{1/2}$. We also assume that the action of the gauge field dual to the conserved current is \begin{equation} S_{\rm gauge} = \int\!dx\, \sqrt{-g}\left(-\frac1{4g_{\rm eff}^2} F^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu}\right)\,, \end{equation} where $g_{\rm eff}$ is an effective gauge coupling that can be a function of the radial coordinate $r$. For simplicity we set $g_{\rm eff}$ to a constant in our derivation of the formula for $D$; it can be restored by replacing $\sqrt{-g}\to\sqrt{-g}/g_{\rm eff}^2$ in the final answer. The field equations are \begin{equation} \d_\mu\left( \frac1{g_{\rm eff}^2}\sqrt{-g}\, F^{\mu\nu}\right) =0\,. \end{equation} We search for a solution to this equation that vanishes at the boundary and satisfies the incoming-wave boundary condition at the horizon. The first indication that one can have a hydrodynamic behavior on the gravity side is that Eq.~() implies a conservation law on a four-dimensional surface. We define the stretched horizon as a surface with constant $r$ just outside the horizon, \begin{equation} r = r_h = r_0 + \varepsilon, \qquad \varepsilon\ll r_0\,, \end{equation} and the normal vector $n_\mu$ directed along the $r$ direction (i.e., perpendicularly to the stretched horizon). Then with any solution to Eq.~(), one can associate a current on the stretched horizon: \begin{equation} j^\mu = n_\nu F^{\mu\nu}\Big|_{r_h}\,. \end{equation} The antisymmetry of $F^{\mu\nu}$ implies that $j^\mu$ has no radial component, $j^r=0$. The field equation () and the constancy of $n_\nu$ on the stretched horizon imply that this current is conserved: $\d_\mu j^\mu = 0$. To establish the diffusive nature of the solution, we must show the validity of the constitutive equation $j^i=-D\d_i j^0$. Such constitutive equation breaks time reversal and obviously must come from the absorptive boundary condition on the horizon. The situation is analogous to the propagation of plane waves to a non-reflecting surface in classical electrodynamics. In this case, we have the relation ${\bf B}=-{\bf n}\times{\bf E}$ between electric and magnetic fields. In our case, the corresponding relation is \begin{equation} F_{ir} = -\sqrt{\frac{\gamma_r}{\gamma_0}}\, \frac{F_{0i}}{r-r_0}\,, \end{equation} valid when $r$ is close to $r_0$. This relates $j_i\sim F_{ir}$ to the parallel to the horizon component of the electric field $F_{0i}$, which is one of the main points of the ``membrane paradigm'' approach to black hole physics~. We have yet to relate $j_i$ to $j_0\sim F_{0r}$, which is the component of the electric field normal to the horizon. To make the connection to $F_{0r}$, we use the radial gauge $A_r=0$, in which \begin{equation} F_{0i} \approx - \d_i A_0\,. \end{equation} Moreover, when $k$ is small the fields change very slowly along the horizon. Therefore, at each point on the horizon the radial dependence of the scalar potential $A_0$ is determined by the Poisson equation, \begin{equation} \d_r (\sqrt{-g}\, g^{rr}g^{00}\d_r A_0 ) = 0\,, \end{equation} whose solution, which satisfies $A_0(r=\infty)=0$, is \begin{equation} A_0(r) = C_0 \int\limits_r^\infty\! dr'\, \frac{g_{00}(r')g_{rr}(r')}{\sqrt{-g(r')}}\,. \end{equation} This means that the ratio of the scalar potential $A_0$ and electric field $F_{0r}$ approaches a constant near the horizon: \begin{equation} \left. \frac{A_0}{F_{0r}}\right|_{r=r_0} = \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{g_{00}g_{rr}}(r_0)\int\limits_{r_0}^\infty\! dr\, \frac{g_{00}g_{rr}}{\sqrt{-g}}(r)\,. \end{equation} Combining the formulas $j^i\sim F_{0i}\sim\d_i A_0$, and $A_0\sim F_{0r}\sim j^0$, we find Fick's law $j^i=-D\d_i j^0$, with the diffusion constant \begin{equation} D = \frac{\sqrt{-g}}{g_{xx}g^2_{\rm eff}\sqrt{-g_{00}g_{rr}}}(r_0) \int\limits_{r_0}^\infty\!dr\, \frac{-g_{00}g_{rr}g^2_{\rm eff}}{\sqrt{-g}}(r)\,. \end{equation} Thus, we found that for a slowly varying solution to Maxwell's equations, the corresponding charge on the stretched horizon evolves according to the diffusion equation. Therefore, the gravity solution must be an overdamped one, with $\omega=-iDk^2$. This is an example of a quasi-normal mode. We also found the diffusion constant $D$ directly in terms of the metric and the gauge coupling $g_{\rm eff}$. The reader may notice that our quasinormal modes satisfy a vanishing Dirichlet condition at the boundary $r{=}\infty$. This is different from the boundary condition one uses to find the retarded propagators in AdS/CFT, so the relation of the quasinormal modes to AdS/CFT correspondence may be not clear. It can be shown, however, that the quasi-normal frequencies coincide with the poles of the retarded correlators~. We can now apply our general formulas to the case of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory. The metric components are given by Eq.~(). For the R-charge current $g_{\rm eff}=\textrm{const}$, Eq.~() gives $D=1/(2\pi T)$, in agreement with our AdS/CFT computation. For the shear mode of the stress-energy tensor we have effectively $g^2_{\rm eff}=g_{xx}$, so ${\cal D}=1/(4\pi T)$, which also coincides with our previous result. In both cases, the computation is much simpler than the AdS/CFT calculation. \section{THE VISCOSITY/ENTROPY RATIO} \subsection{Universality} In all thermal field theories in the regime described by gravity duals the ratio of shear viscosity $\eta$ to (volume) density of entropy $s$ is a universal constant equal to $1/(4\pi)$ [$\hbar/(4\pi k_B)$, if one restores $\hbar$, $c$ and the Boltzmann constant $k_B$]. One proof of the universality is based on the relationship between graviton's absorption cross section and the imaginary part of the retarded Green's function for $T_{xy}$ . Another way to prove the universality is via the direct AdS/CFT calculation of the correlation function in Kubo's formula (). We, however, follow a different method. It is based on the formula for the viscosity derived from the membrane paradigm. A similar proof was given by Buchel \& Liu~. The observation is that the shear gravitational perturbation with $k=0$ can be found exactly by performing a Lorentz boost of the black-brane metric~(). Consider the coordinate transformations $r,t,x_i \rightarrow r',t',x_i'$ of the form \begin{eqnarray} r &=& r'\,, \nonumber \\ t &=& \frac{t' + v y'}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}\approx t' + v y'\,, \nonumber \\ y &=& \frac{y' + v t'}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}\approx y' + v t'\,, \nonumber \\ x_i &=& x_i'\,, \end{eqnarray} where $v<1$ is a constant parameter and the expansion on the right corresponds to $v\ll 1$. In the new coordinates, the metric becomes \begin{equation} ds^2 = g_{00}dt'\,^2 + g_{rr}dr'\,^2 + g_{xx}(r) \sum_{i=1}^p (dx'\,^i)^2 + 2 v ( g_{00} + g_{xx} ) dt' dy'\,. \end{equation} This is simply a shear fluctuation at $k=0$. In our language, the corresponding gauge potential is \begin{equation} a_0 = v g^{xx}(g_{00}+g_{xx})\,. \end{equation} This field satisfies the vanishing boundary condition $a_0(r=\infty)=0$ owing to the restoration of Poincar\'e invariance at the boundary: $g_{00}/g_{xx}\to-1$ when $r\to\infty$. This clearly has a much simpler form than Eq.~() for the solution to the generic Poisson equation. The simple form of solution~() is valid only for the specific case of the shear gravitational mode with $g_{\rm eff}^2=g_{xx}$. We have also implicitly used the fact that the metric satisfies the Einstein equations, with the stress-energy tensor on the right being invariant under a Lorentz boost. Equation~() now becomes \begin{equation} \frac{a_0}{f_{0r}}\Biggl|_{r\rightarrow r_0} = - \frac{1+g^{xx}g_{00}} {\partial_r (g^{xx}g_{00})}\Biggl|_{r\rightarrow r_0} = \frac{g_{xx}(r_0)}{ \gamma_0}\,. \end{equation} The shear mode diffusion constant is \begin{equation} {\cal D} = \frac{a_0}{f_{0r}}\Biggl|_{r\rightarrow r_0} \frac{\sqrt{\gamma_0 \gamma_r}}{g_{xx}(r_0)} = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_r}{\gamma_0}} = \frac{1}{4\pi T}\,. \end{equation} Because ${\cal D}=\eta/(\epsilon+P)$, and $\epsilon+P=Ts$ in the absence of chemical potentials, we find that \begin{equation} \frac\eta s = \frac1{4\pi}\,. \end{equation} In fact, the constancy of this ratio has been checked directly for theories dual to $Dp$-brane , $M$-brane , Klebanov-Tseytlin and Maldacena-Nunez backgrounds , ${\cal N}=2^*$ SYM theory and others. Curiously, the viscosity to entropy ratio is also equal to $1/4\pi$ in the pre-AdS/CFT ``membrane paradigm'' hydrodynamics : there, for a four-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole one has $\eta_{\mbox{{\tiny m.p.}}} = 1/16 \pi G_N$, while the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is $s=1/4G_N$. As remarked in Sec.~, the ratio $\eta/s$ is much larger than the one for weakly coupled theories. The fact that we found the ratio to be parametrically of order one implies that all theories with gravity duals are strongly coupled. In ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory, the ratio $\eta/s$ has been computed to the next order in the inverse 't Hooft coupling expansion~ \begin{equation} \frac\eta s = \frac1{4\pi} \left( 1+ \frac{135\zeta(3)}{8(g^2N)^{3/2}} \right)\,. \end{equation} The sign of the correction can be guessed from the fact that in the limit of zero 't Hooft coupling $g^2N\to0$, the ratio diverges, $\eta/s\to\infty$. \subsection{The Viscosity Bound Conjecture} From our discussion above, one can argue that \begin{equation} \frac\eta s \geq \frac{\hbar}{4\pi} \end{equation} in all systems that can be obtained from a sensible relativistic quantum field theory by turning on temperatures and chemical potentials. The bound, if correct, implies that a liquid with a given volume density of entropy cannot be arbitrarily close to being a perfect fluid (which has zero viscosity). As such, it implies a lower bound on the viscosity of the QGP one may be creating at RHIC. Interestingly, some model calculations suggest that the viscosity at RHIC may be not too far away from the lower bound~. One place where one may think that the bound should break down is superfluids. The ability of a superfluid to flow without dissipation in a channel is sometimes described as ``zero viscosity''. However, within the Landau's two-fluid model, any superfluid has a measurable shear viscosity (together with three bulk viscosities). For superfluid helium, the shear viscosity has been measured in a torsion-pendulum experiment by Andronikashvili~. If one substitutes the experimental values, the ratio $\eta/s$ for helium remains larger than $\hbar/4\pi k_B \approx 6.08\times 10^{-13}$ K$\,$s for all ranges of temperatures and pressures, by a factor of at least 8.8. As discussed in Sec.~, the ratio $\eta/s$ is proportional to the ratio of the mean free path and the de Broglie wavelength of particles, \begin{equation} \frac\eta s \sim \frac{\ell_{\rm mfp}}{\lambda}\,. \end{equation} For the quasi-particle picture to be valid, the mean free path must be much larger than the de Broglie wavelength. Therefore, if the coupling is weak and the system can be described as a collection of quasi-particles, the ratio $\eta/s$ is larger than 1. We have found is that, within the ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory and, more generally, theories with gravity duals, even in the limit of infinite coupling the ratio $\eta/s$ cannot be made smaller than $1/(4\pi)$. \section{CONCLUSION} In this review, we covered only a small part of the applications of AdS/CFT correspondence to finite-temperature quantum field theory. Here we briefly mention further developments and refer the reader to the original literature for more details. In addition to ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory, there exists a large number of other theories whose hydrodynamic behavior has been studied using the AdS/CFT correspondence, including the worldvolume theories on M2- and M5-branes~, theories on D$p$ branes~, and little string theory~. In all examples the ratio $\eta/s$ is equal to $1/(4\pi)$, which is not surprising because the general proofs of Sec.~ apply in these cases. We have concentrated on the shear hydrodynamic mode, which has a diffusive pole ($\omega\sim -ik^2$). One can also compute correlators which have a sound-wave pole from the AdS/CFT prescription . One such correlator is between the energy density $T^{00}$ at two different points in space-time. The result confirms the existence of such a pole, with both the real part and imaginary part having exactly the values predicted by hydrodynamics (recall that in conformal field theories the bulk viscosity is zero and the sound attenuation rate is determined completely by the shear viscosity). Some of the theories listed above are conformal field theories, but many are not (e.g., the D$p$-brane worldvolume theories with $p\neq3$). The fact that $\eta/s=1/(4\pi)$ also in those theories implies that the constancy of this ratio is not a consequence of conformal symmetry. Theories with less than maximal number of supersymmetries have been found to have the universal value of $\eta/s$, for example, the ${\cal N}=2^*$ theory~, theories described by Klebanov-Tseytlin, and Maldacena-Nunez backgrounds~. A common feature of these theories is that they all have a gravitational dual description. The bulk viscosity has been computed for some of these theories~. Besides viscosity, one can also compute diffusion constants of conserved charges by using the AdS/CFT correspondence. Above we presented the computation of the R-charge diffusion constant in ${\cal N}=4$ SYM theory; for similar calculations in some other theories see Ref.~. Recently, the AdS/CFT correspondence was used to compute the energy loss rate of a quark in the fundamental representation moving in a finite-temperature plasma~. This quantity is of importance to the phenomenon of ``jet quenching'' in heavy-ion collisions. So far, the only quantity that shows a universal behavior at the quantitative level, across all theories with gravitational duals, is the ratio of the shear viscosity and entropy density. Recently, it was found that this ratio remains constant even at nonzero chemical potentials \cite{Son:2006em,Mas:2006dy,Maeda:2006by,Saremi:2006ep, Benincasa:2006fu}. What have we learned from the application of AdS/CFT correspondence to thermal field theory? Although, at least at this moment, we cannot use the AdS/CFT approach to study QCD directly, we have found quite interesting facts about strongly coupled field theories. We have also learned new facts about quasi-normal modes of black branes. However, we have also found a set of puzzles: Why is the ratio of the viscosity and entropy density constant in a wide class of theories? Is there a lower bound on this ratio for all quantum field theories? Can this be understood without any reference to gravity duals? With these open questions, we conclude this review. \bigskip \noindent {\sc Acknowledgments} \noindent The work of DTS is supported in part by U.S.\ Department of Energy under Grant No.\ DE-FG02-00ER41132. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported in part by the Government of Canada through NSERC and by the Province of Ontario through MEDT. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Kirzhnits:1972ut} Kirzhnits DA, Linde AD. Macroscopic consequences of the Weinberg model. {\it Phys.\ Lett.\ B} 42:471 (1972) \bibitem{Gyulassy:2004zy} Gyulassy M, and McLerran L, New forms of QCD matter discovered at RHIC. {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ A} 750:30 (2005) \bibitem{Maldacena:1997re} Maldacena JM. The large $N$ limit of superconformal field theory and supergravity. {\it Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.} 2:231 (1998) \bibitem{Gubser:1998bc} Gubser SS, Klebanov IR, Polyakov AM. Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory. {\it Phys. Lett. B} 428:105 (1998) \bibitem{Witten:1998qj} Witten E. Anti de Sitter space and holography. {\it Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.} 2:253 (1998) \bibitem{Policastro:2001yc} Policastro G, Son DT, Starinets AO. Shear viscosity of strongly coupled ${\cal N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills plasma. {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} 87:081601 (2001) \bibitem{Son:2002sd} Son DT, Starinets AO. Minkowski-space correlators in AdS/CFT correspondence: Recipe and applications. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0209:042 (2002) \bibitem{Herzog:2002pc} Herzog CP, Son DT. Schwinger-Keldysh propagators from AdS/CFT correspondence. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0303:046 (2003) \bibitem{Policastro:2002se} Policastro G, Son DT, Starinets AO. From AdS/CFT correspondence to hydrodynamics. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0209:042 (2002) \bibitem{Policastro:2002tn} Policastro G, Son DT, Starinets AO. From AdS/CFT correspondence to hydrodynamics. II: Sound waves. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0212:054 (2002) \bibitem{Herzog:2002fn} Herzog CP. The hydrodynamics of M-theory. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0212:026 (2002) \bibitem{Herzog:2003ke} Herzog CP. The sound of M-theory. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ D} 68:024013 (2003) \bibitem{Forster} Forster D. {\it Hydrodynamic Fluctuations, Broken Symmetry, and Correlation Functions,} Reading: Benjamin (1975) \bibitem{LL6} Landau LD, Lifshitz EM. {\it Fluid Mechanics,} Oxford: Pergamon Press (1987) \bibitem{Jeon:1994if} Jeon S. Hydrodynamic transport coefficients in relativistic scalar field theory. {\it Phys.\ Rev. D} 52:3591 (1995) \bibitem{Jeon:1995zm} Jeon S, Yaffe LG. From quantum field theory to hydrodynamics: transport coefficients and effective kinetic theory. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ D} 53:5799 (1996) \bibitem{Aharony:1999ti} Aharony O et al. Large N field theories, string theory and gravity. {\it Phys.\ Rep.} 323:183 (2000) \bibitem{Klebanov:2000me} Klebanov IR. TASI lectures: Introduction to the AdS/CFT correspondence. arXiv:hep-th/0009139 \bibitem{Polchinski} Polchinski J. {\it String theory,} Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1998). \bibitem{KK} Appelquist T, Chodos A, Freund PG. {\it Modern Kaluza-Klein theories,} Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley (1987) \bibitem{Kim:1985ez} Kim HJ, Romans LJ, van Nieuwenhuizen P. The mass spectrum of chiral $N=2$ $D = 10$ supergravity on $S^5$. {\it Phys.\ Rev. D} 32:389 (1985) \bibitem{Bianchi:2001kw} Bianchi M, Freedman DZ, Skenderis K. Holographic renormalization. {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ B} 631:159 (2002) \bibitem{Maldacena:2001kr} Maldacena JM. Eternal black holes in anti-de-Sitter. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0304:021 (2003) \bibitem{Saremi:2007dn} Saremi O. Shear waves, sound waves on a shimmering horizon. arXiv:hep-th/0703170 \bibitem{Kovtun:2003wp} Kovtun P, Son DT, Starinets AO. Holography and hydrodynamics: Diffusion on stretched horizons. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0310:064 (2003) \bibitem{Damour:1978cg} Damour T. Black Hole Eddy Currents. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ D} 18: 3598 (1978) \bibitem{paradigm} Thorne, KS, Price RH, Macdonald DA. {\it Black Hole: The Membrane Paradigm,} New Haven: Yale University Press (1986) \bibitem{Kovtun:2005ev} Kovtun PK, Starinets AO. Quasinormal modes and holography. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ D} 72:086009 (2005) \bibitem{andrei} Starinets AO. Quasinormal spectrum and black hole membrane paradigm. {\it Unpublished} \bibitem{Buchel:2003tz} Buchel A, Liu JT. Universality of the shear viscosity in supergravity. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}, 93:090602 (2004) \bibitem{Kovtun:2004de} Kovtun P, Son DT, Starinets AO. Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} 94:111601 (2004) \bibitem{Buchel:2004qq} Buchel A. On universality of stress-energy tensor correlation functions in supergravity, {\it Phys.\ Lett.\ B}, 609:392 (2005). \bibitem{Buchel:2004hw} Buchel A. N = 2* hydrodynamics. {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ B} 708:451 (2005) \bibitem{damour} Damour T. Surface effects in black hole physics. {\it Proceedings of the Second Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity. Ed. R. Ruffini,} Amsterdam: North Holland (1982) \bibitem{Buchel:2004di} Buchel A, Liu JT, Starinets AO. Coupling constant dependence of the shear viscosity in ${\cal N} = 4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ B } 707:56 (2005) \bibitem{Teaney:2003kp} Teaney D. Effect of shear viscosity on spectra, elliptic flow, and Hanbury Brown-Twiss radii. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ C} 68:034913 (2003) \bibitem{Shuryak:2003xe} Shuryak E. Why does the quark gluon plasma at RHIC behave as a nearly ideal fluid? {\it Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.} 53:273 (2004) \bibitem{Andronikashvili} Andronikashvili E. {\it Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.} 18:429 (1948) \bibitem{Parnachev:2005hh} Parnachev A, Starinets A. The silence of the little strings. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0510:027 (2005) \bibitem{Buchel:2003ah} Buchel A, Liu JT, Thermodynamics of the ${\cal N} = 2^*$ flow. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0311:031 (2003) \bibitem{Benincasa:2005iv} Benincasa P, Buchel A, Starinets AO. Sound waves in strongly coupled non-conformal gauge theory plasma. {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ B} 733:160 (2006) \bibitem{Herzog:2006gh} Herzog CP et al. Energy loss of a heavy quark moving through ${\cal N}=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills plasma. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0607:013 (2006) \bibitem{Liu:2006ug} Liu H, Rajagopal K, Wiedemann UA. Calculating the jet quenching parameter from AdS/CFT, {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} 97:182301 (2006) \bibitem{Casalderrey-Solana:2006rq} Casalderrey-Solana J, Teaney D. Heavy quark diffusion in strongly coupled ${\cal N} = 4$ Yang Mills. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ D} 74:085012 (2006) \bibitem{Gubser:2006bz} Gubser, SS. Drag force in AdS/CFT. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ D} 74:126005 (2006) \bibitem{Son:2006em} Son DT, Starinets AO. Hydrodynamics of R-charged black holes. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0603:052 (2006) \bibitem{Mas:2006dy} Mas J, Shear viscosity from R-charged AdS black holes. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0603:016 (2006) \bibitem{Maeda:2006by} Maeda K, Natsuume M, Okamura T. Viscosity of gauge theory plasma with a chemical potential from AdS/CFT. {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ D} 73:066013 (2006) \bibitem{Saremi:2006ep} Saremi O. The viscosity bound conjecture and hydrodynamics of M2-brane theory at finite chemical potential. {\it J. High Energy Phys.} 0610:083 (2006) \bibitem{Benincasa:2006fu} Benincasa P, Buchel A, Naryshkin R. The shear viscosity of gauge theory plasma with chemical potentials. {\it Phys.\ Lett.\ B} 645:309 (2007) \end{thebibliography} \subsection{The close-time-path formalism and AdS/CFT} The general solution to this problem was found in Ref.~. One needs to to consider not only the region of space outside the horizon $r=r_0$, but the whole Penrose diagram of the AdS black hole. In Kruskal coordinates (which will be introduced later) the Penrose diagram has 4 quadrants (see Fig.~). The left and the right quadrants both have their own boundary. Previously, our discussion was limited to the right quadrant. Time flow forward in the right quadrant R and backward in the left quadrant time L. One notices a striking similarity with the close-time-path (CTP) formulation of thermal field theory. In this formulation, one write the partition function as the trace of a product of four evolution operators, \begin{equation} Z= \Tr e^{-\beta H} = \Tr \left( e^{-(\beta-\sigma) H} e^{i(t_f-t_i)H} e^{-\sigma H} e^{-i(t_f-t_i)H}\right) \end{equation} and then, using the path-integral representation of the evolution operator, write the partition function as \begin{equation} Z = \int\! D\phi\, \exp\left(i\int_C\!dt\int\!d\x\, {\cal L}(\phi)\right) \end{equation} where the action is evaluate along the contour $C$ of Fig.. The advantage of introducing the countour $C$ is that one can introduce the sources coupled to the field $\phi$. In particular, one can introduce as source $J_1(x)$ that lives on the upper part of $C$, and another source $J_2(x)$ that lives on the lower part of that contour. One can then define a $2\times2$ matrix of propagators, \begin{equation} G_{ab}(x,y) = \frac{\delta^2\ln Z}{\delta J_a(x)\delta J_b(y)} \end{equation} These propagators are also called the Schwinger-Keldysh propagators. In quantum field theory the choise of $\sigma$ is arbitrary. Changing $\sigma$ by $\Delta\sigma$ does not affect the diagonal components of the CTP propagators, but changes the off-diagonal ones by factors of $e^{\pm\beta\Delta\sigma}$ There are two special choices that are convenient. The first is $\sigma=0$, in which case the upper and lower parts of the CTP countour lies on top of each other. In this choice the retarded and advanced propagators are related in a simple way to the CTP propagators, \begin{equation} G_R = G_{11}-G_{12} \end{equation} The other choice is $\sigma=\beta/2$. In this case the CTP propagator matrix is symmetric: $G_{12}=G_{21}$. One now note that the Penrose diagram of an AdS black hole also has two boundaries, which match with the upper and lower parts of the CTP contour. Therefore, one can tentatively formulate the following correspondence between the CTP partition function in field theory and the supergravity partition function, \begin{equation} Z_{\rm 4D}[J_1,J_2] = Z_{\rm 5D}[\phi_{\rm cl}] \end{equation} where in the right hand side $\phi_{\rm cl}$ is the classical solution to the equation of motion which becomes $J_1$ on the right-handed boundary and $J_2$ on the left-handed boundary. The solution to the field equation can be written separately in the R and L quadrants, \begin{equation} adf \end{equation} However, we are still left with the issue of the boundary condition for our field at the horizon $r=r_0$. In order to fix it one needs use the \emph{Kruskal coordinates.} These coordinates are easy to introduce near the horizon coordinate explictly for the region near the horizon $r=r_0$, where the formulas are simple. The $(t,r)$ part of the metric has the form \begin{equation} ds^2 = \end{equation} introduces Kruskal coordinates, which near horizon looks like: \begin{equation} A = ... \end{equation} In terms of the Kruskal coordinates the metric is completely regular at the horizon. We can introduce the notion of positive frequency and negative frequency with respect to Kruskal coordinates. We require that near the horizion the field contains only incoming positive frequency modes and outgoing negative frequency modes (but not incoming negative frequency and outgoing positive frequency modes).
|
0704.0245
|
Title: One-loop MHV Rules and Pure Yang-Mills
Abstract: It has been known for some time that the standard MHV diagram formulation of
perturbative Yang-Mills theory is incomplete, as it misses rational terms in
one-loop scattering amplitudes of pure Yang-Mills. We propose that certain
Lorentz violating counterterms, when expressed in the field variables which
give rise to standard MHV vertices, produce precisely these missing terms.
These counterterms appear when Yang-Mills is treated with a regulator,
introduced by Thorn and collaborators, which arises in worldsheet formulations
of Yang-Mills theory in the lightcone gauge. As an illustration of our
proposal, we show that a simple one-loop, two-point counterterm is the
generating function for the infinite sequence of one-loop, all-plus helicity
amplitudes in pure Yang-Mills, in complete agreement with known expressions.
Body: \newcommand{\Acal}{{\mathcal A}} \newcommand{\Rcal}{{\mathcal R}} \newcommand{\Dcal}{{\mathcal D}} \newcommand{\Mcal}{{\mathcal M}} \newcommand{\Ncal}{{\mathcal N}} \newcommand{\Lcal}{{\mathcal L}} \newcommand{\Scal}{{\mathcal S}} \newcommand{\Wcal}{{\mathcal W}} \newcommand{\Bcal}{\mathcal{B}} \newcommand{\Ccal}{\mathcal{C}} \newcommand{\Vcal}{\mathcal{V}} \newcommand{\Ocal}{\mathcal{O}} \newcommand{\Qcal}{\mathcal{Q}} \newcommand{\Urm}{{\mathrm U}} \newcommand{\Srm}{{\mathrm S}} \newcommand{\SO}{\mathrm{SO}} \newcommand{\Sp}{\mathrm{Sp}} \newcommand{\SU}{\mathrm{SU}} \newcommand{\Zset}{{\mathbb Z}} \newcommand{\Cset}{{\,\,{{{^{_{\pmb{\mid}}}}\kern-.47em{\mathrm C}}}}} \newcommand{\zb}{{\bar{z}}} \newcommand{\Zb}{\overline{Z}} \newcommand{\tQ}{\tilde{Q}} \newcommand{\trho}{\tilde{\rho}} \newcommand{\tphi}{\tilde{\phi}} \newcommand{\tlambda}{\tilde{\lambda}} \newcommand{\dagphi}{{\phi^\dagger}} \newcommand{\dagq}{{q^\dagger}} \newcommand{\dagz}{{z^\dagger}} \newcommand{\bzeta}{{\bar{\zeta}}} \newcommand{\blambda}{{\bar{\lambda}}} \newcommand{\bchi}{{\bar{\chi}}} \newcommand{\tmu}{\tilde{\mu}} \newcommand{\bA}{\bar{A}} \newcommand{\bB}{\bar{B}} \newcommand{\ba}{\bar{a}} \newcommand{\bq}{\bar{q}} \newcommand{\bp}{\bar{p}} \newcommand{\doublet}[2]{\left(\begin{array}{c}#1\\#2\end{array}\right)} \newcommand{\twobytwo}[4]{\left(\begin{array}{cc} #1\\#3\end{array}\right)} \newcommand{\ip}[1]{\langle #1\rangle} \newcommand{\p}{\partial} \newcommand{\Dslash}{\not{\hbox{\kern-4pt $D$}}} \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}} \newcommand{\diff}{\mathrm{d}} \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow} \newcommand{\vp}{{\vec{p\,}}} \newcommand{\dslash}{\slash{\mathrm d}} \newcommand{\dbar}{\bar{\partial}} \newcommand{\sint}{{\textstyle \int}} \newcommand{\Supertwistor}{\mathrm{C} \mathrm{P}^{3|4}} \newcommand{\Twistorspace}{\mathrm{C} \mathrm{P}^{3}} \newcommand{\pplfour}{{p_+^1p_+^2p_+^3p_+^4}} \newcommand{\comment}[1]{{}} \newcommand{\note}[2]{{\footnotesize [#1}---{\footnotesize \sc #2]}} \newcommand{\Yrm}{{\mathrm{Y}}} \begin{flushright} QMUL-PH-07-09 \end{flushright} \vspace{20pt} \begin{center} {\Large \bf One-loop MHV Rules and Pure Yang-Mills }\\ \vspace{33pt} {\bf {\mbox{Andreas Brandhuber, Bill Spence, Gabriele Travaglini and Konstantinos Zoubos}}} \}{\tt @qmul.ac.uk }}} {\em Centre for Research in String Theory \\ Department of Physics\\ Queen Mary, University of London\\ Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS\\ United Kingdom} \vspace{40pt} {\bf Abstract} \end{center} \noindent It has been known for some time that the standard MHV diagram formulation of perturbative Yang-Mills theory is incomplete, as it misses rational terms in one-loop scattering amplitudes of pure Yang-Mills. We propose that certain Lorentz violating counterterms, when expressed in the field variables which give rise to standard MHV vertices, produce precisely these missing terms. These counterterms appear when Yang-Mills is treated with a regulator, introduced by Thorn and collaborators, which arises in worldsheet formulations of Yang-Mills theory in the lightcone gauge. As an illustration of our proposal, we show that a simple one-loop, two-point counterterm is the generating function for the infinite sequence of one-loop, all-plus helicity amplitudes in pure Yang-Mills, in complete agreement with known expressions. \vspace{0.5cm} \setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty} \newpage \tableofcontents \setcounter{footnote}{0} \section{Introduction} One of the success stories arising from twistor string theory (see for a review) has been the development of new techniques in perturbative quantum field theory. These include recursion relations , generalised unitarity and MHV methods (see for a review). One of the key motivations of this work is to provide new approaches to study and derive phenomenologically relevant scattering amplitudes. In particular, this requires that one be able to deal with non-supersymmetric theories, and to include fermions, scalars, and particles with masses. A vital first step is to apply these new methods to pure Yang-Mills (YM) theory, and indeed, some of the first new results inspired by twistor string theory involved pure YM amplitudes at tree- and one-loop level. A recalcitrant issue in this work is the derivation of rational terms in quantum amplitudes. Unitarity-based techniques and loop MHV methods are successful in obtaining the cut-constructible parts of amplitudes; essentially this is because at some level they are dealing with four-dimensional cuts. In principle performing $D$-dimensional cuts generates all parts of amplitudes as long as only massless particles are involved, however these techniques still appear to be relatively cumbersome. Combinations of recursive techniques and unitarity have led to important progress recently , but it would be preferable to have a more powerful prescriptive formulation, particularly keeping in mind that applications to more general situations are sought. A promising development from this point of view is the Lagrangian approach . Here it has been argued that lightcone Yang-Mills theory, combined with a certain change of field variables, yields a classical action which comprises precisely the MHV vertices. A full Lagrangian description of MHV techniques would in principle give a prescription for applying such methods to diverse theories. The next step in developing this is to understand the quantum corrections in this Lagrangian approach. If one directly uses in a path integral the classical MHV action, containing only purely four-dimensional MHV vertices, then it is immediately clear that this cannot yield all known quantum amplitudes. For example, there is no way to construct one-loop amplitudes where the external gluons all have positive helicities, or where only one gluon has negative helicity, as all MHV vertices contain two negative helicity particles (this issue has been recently discussed in ). These amplitudes are particular cases where the entire amplitude consists of rational terms. More generally, it seems clear that the vertices of the classical MHV Lagrangian will not yield the rational parts of amplitudes, but only the cut-constructible terms . Important insights into this question can be obtained from the study of self-dual Yang-Mills theory, which has the same all-plus one-loop amplitude of full YM as its sole quantum correction. \footnote{In real Minkowski space, this is in fact its single non-vanishing amplitude.} An example, relevant to the discussion in this paper, is given in where it was shown how these amplitudes might be obtained from the Jacobian arising from a B\"{a}cklund-type change of variables which takes the self-dual Yang-Mills theory to a free theory. A discussion of the full Yang-Mills theory in the lightcone gauge has recently been given by Chakrabarti, Qiu and Thorn (CQT) in . These papers employ an interesting regularisation which, importantly, does not change the dimension of spacetime. For this reason, we find it particularly suitable for setting the scene for the MHV diagram method, which is inherently four-dimensional in current approaches. The regularisation of CQT requires the introduction of certain counterterms, which prove to be rather simple in form. What we will show in this paper is that these simple counterterms provide a very compact and powerful way to represent the rational terms in gauge theory amplitudes; specifically, we will demonstrate that the single two-point counterterm contains {\it all} the $n$-point all-plus amplitudes. The way this happens is through the use of the new field variables of . Other counterterms will combine with vertices from the Lagrangian and should generate the rational parts of more general amplitudes. Based on the discussion in this paper, we propose that the counterterms, expressed in the field variables which give rise to standard MHV vertices, in combination with Lagrangian vertices, generate the rational terms previously missing from MHV diagram formulations. The rest of the paper is organised as follows. After giving some background material in section 2, we explicitly derive in section 3 the four point all-plus amplitude from the two-point counterterm of CQT. We follow this by showing that the $n$-point expression, obtained by writing the counterterm in new variables, has precisely the right collinear and soft limits required for it to be the correct all-plus $n$-point amplitude. We present our conclusions in section 4, and our notation and derivations of certain identities have been collected in two appendices. \section{Background} In this section, we first review the classical field redefinition from the lightcone Yang--Mills Lagrangian to the MHV--rules Lagrangian. We then move on to motivate the four--dimensional regularisation scheme we will employ, and argue that it leads directly to the introduction of a certain Lorentz--violating counterterm in the Yang--Mills Lagrangian. We close the section with the remarkable observation that this counterterm provides a simple way to calculate the four--point all-plus one--loop amplitude using only tree--level combinatorics. \subsection{The classical MHV Lagrangian} It seemed clear from the beginning that the MHV diagram approach to Yang-Mills theory must be closely related to lightcone gauge theory. This idea was substantiated by Mansfield (see also ). The starting point of is the lightcone gauge-fixed YM Lagrangian for the fields corresponding to the two physical polarisations of the gluon. It was argued convincingly in that a certain canonical change of the field variables re-expresses this lightcone Lagrangian as a theory containing the infinite series of MHV vertices. Some of the arguments in were rather general; these were reviewed in , where the change of variables was discussed in more detail, and in particular it was shown how the four- and five-point MHV vertices arise from the change of variables. In this paper we will mainly follow the notation of . The general structure of the lightcone YM Lagrangian, after integrating out unphysical degrees of freedom, is (see appendix for more details) \be \Lcal_{\rm YM}=\Lcal_{+-}+\Lcal_{++-}+\Lcal_{--+}+\Lcal_{++--} \ , \ee where the gauge condition is $\eta^\mu A_\mu = 0$ with the null vector $\eta = (1/\sqrt{2},0,0,1/\sqrt{2})$. Since this Lagrangian contains a $++-$ vertex, it is not of MHV type. In , Mansfield proposed to eliminate this vertex through a suitably chosen field redefinition. Specifically, he performed a canonical change of variables from $(A,\bar A)$ to new fields $(B,\bar B)$, in such a way that \be \Lcal_{+-}(A,\Abar) + \Lcal_{++-}(A,\Abar) = \Lcal_{+-}(B,\Bbar) \ . \ee The remarkable result is that upon inserting this change of variables into the remaining two vertices, the Lagrangian, written in terms of $(B,\Bbar)$, becomes a sum of MHV vertices, \be \Lcal_{\rm YM}=\Lcal_{+-}+\Lcal_{+--}+\Lcal_{++--}+\Lcal_{+++--}+ \dots \ . \ee The crucial property of Mansfield's transformation that makes this possible is that, while both $A$ and $\bA$ are series expansions in the new $B$ fields, $A$ has no dependence on the $\bB$ fields while $\bA$ turns out to be \emph{linear} in $\bB$. Thus, since the remaining vertices are quadratic in the $\bB$, the new interaction vertices have the helicity configuration of an MHV amplitude. Mansfield was also able to show that the explicit form of the vertices coincides with the CSW off-shell continuation of the Parke-Taylor formula for the MHV scattering amplitudes, as proposed by . One of the main results of was the derivation of an explicit, closed formula for the expansion of the original fields $(A,\Abar)$ in terms of the new fields $(B,\Bbar)$. This was then used to verify that the new vertices are indeed precisely the MHV vertices of , at least up to the five-point level. We will now briefly review these results. First, recall that the positive helicity field $A$ is a function of the positive helicity $B$ field only. It is expanded as follows: \be A(\vp)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\int_{\Sigma} \prod_{i=1}^n\frac{\diff^3p^i}{(2\pi)^3} \; \Delta(\vp,\vp^1,\dots\vp^n) \; \Yrm(\vp;1\cdots n)\ B(\vp^1)B(\vp^2)\cdots B(\vp^n) \ , \ee where $\Delta(\vp,\vp^1,\dots\vp^n) := (2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\vp-\vp^1-\cdots -\vp^n)$. Note that the $x^-$ coordinate is common to all the fields, which is why we have restricted the transformation to the lightcone quantisation surface $\Sigma$. By inserting this expansion into \eqref{mansf} and using the requirement that the transformation be canonical, Ettle and Morris succeeded in deriving a very simple expression for the coefficients $\Yrm$. After translating to our conventions (see appendix ), they are given by: \be \Yrm(\vp;12\cdots n)=(\sqrt2ig)^{n-1}\frac{p_+}{\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^n}}\ \frac{1}{\ip{12}\ip{23}\cdots\ip{n-1,n}} \ . \ee The first few terms in () are then: \be \begin{split} A(\vp)=&B(\vp)+\sqrt2igp_+ \int_{\Sigma} \frac{\diff^3p^1\diff^3p^2}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\delta^{(3)}(\vp-\vp^1-\vp^2)} {\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^2}} \frac{1}{\ip{12}}\ B(\vp^1)B(\vp^2) \\ & -2g^2p_+\int_{\Sigma} \frac{\diff^3p^1\diff^3p^2\diff^3p^3}{(2\pi)^6} \frac{\delta^{(3)}(\vp-\vp^1-\vp^2-\vp^3)} {\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}}\frac{1}{\ip{12}\ip{23}}\ B(\vp^1)B(\vp^2)B(\vp^3)\\ &+\cdots \ . \end{split} \ee \normalsize Similarly, one can write down the expansion of the negative helicity field $\bar{A}$, which, as discussed above, is linear in $\bB$, but is an infinite series in the new field $B$. In it was shown that the coefficients in the expansion of $\bA$ are very closely related to those for $A$. by considering that, in the context of $\Ncal=4$ SYM, $A$ and $B$ are part of the same lightcone superfield.} The expansion of $\bB$ turns out to be simply \be \begin{split} \bar{A}(\vp)=&\!-\!\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{s=1}^{n} \int_{\Sigma} \prod_{i=1}^n\frac{\diff^3p^i}{(2\pi)^3} \; \Delta(\vp,\vp^1,\dots,\vp^n) \frac{(p_+^s)^2}{(p_+)^2}\ \Yrm(\vp;1\cdots n)\ B(\vp^1){\cdots} \bar{B}(\vp_s){\cdots} B(\vp^n)\\ &=-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \int_{\Sigma} \prod_{i=1}^n\frac{\diff^3p^i}{(2\pi)^3} \; \Delta(\vp,\vp^1,\ldots,\vp^n)\; \frac{1}{(p_+)^2}\Yrm(\vp;1\cdots n) \\ &\qquad\qquad\times\sum_{s=1}^{n} (p_+^s)^2 \ B(\vp^1)\cdots \bar{B}(\vp^s) \cdots B(\vp^n) \ . \end{split} \ee \normalsize Thus we see that at each order in the expansion, we need to sum over all possible positions of $\bB$. Explicitly, the first few terms are: \be \begin{split} \bar{A}(\vp)&=\bB(\vp) -\sqrt2ig\int_{\Sigma} \frac{\diff^3p^1\diff^3p^2}{(2\pi)^3}\delta^{(3)}(\vp-\vp^1-\vp^2) \frac{1}{p_+\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^2}}\frac{1}{\ip{12}}\times \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \times\left[(p_+^1)^2\bB(\vp^1) B(\vp^2)+(p_+^2)^2 B(\vp^1)\bB(\vp^2)\right]\\ &+2g^2\int_{\Sigma} \frac{\diff^3p^1\diff^3p^2\diff^3p^3}{(2\pi)^6} \delta^{(3)}(\vp-\vp^1-\vp^2-\vp^3) \frac{1}{p_+\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}}\frac{1}{\ip{12}\ip{23}}\times \\ &\times\!\left[(p_+^1)^2 \bB(\vp^1) B(\vp^2) B(\vp^3)\!+\! (p_+^2)^2B(\vp^1) \bB(\vp^2) B(\vp^3) \!+\!(p_+^3)^2B(\vp^1)B(\vp^2)\bB(\vp^3) \right]\\ &+\cdots \end{split} \ee \normalsize Using the above results, it is in principle straightforward to derive the terms that arise on inserting the Mansfield transformation into the two remaining vertices of the theory. For the simplest cases, one can see explicitly that these combine to produce MHV vertices, and some arguments were also given in that this must be true in general. In supersymmetric theories, the MHV vertices are enough to reproduce complete scattering amplitudes at one loop . However, as we mentioned earlier, for pure YM it is clear that the terms in the MHV Lagrangian \eqref{MHVlag} will not be enough to generate complete quantum amplitudes. For instance, the scattering amplitude with all gluons with positive helicity, which at one loop is finite and given by a rational term, cannot be obtained by only using MHV diagrams, for the simple reason that one cannot draw any diagram contributing to it by only resorting to MHV vertices. that the parity conjugate all-minus amplitude is correctly generated by using MHV diagrams.} Another amplitude which cannot be derived within conventional MHV diagrams is the amplitude with only one gluon of negative helicity. Similarly to the all-plus amplitude, this single-minus amplitude vanishes at tree level, and at one loop is given by a finite, rational function of the spinor variables. The lesson we learn from this is that, in order to apply the MHV method to derive complete amplitudes in pure YM, one should look more closely at the change of variables in the full quantum theory. There are several possible subtleties one should pay careful attention to at the quantum level. First of all, it is possible that the canonical nature of the transformation is not preserved, leading to a non--trivial Jacobian which could provide the missing amplitudes. Another possible source of contributions could come from violations of the equivalence theorem. This theorem states that, although correlation functions of the new fields are in general different from those of the old fields, the scattering amplitudes are actually the same , as long as the new fields are good interpolating fields. These issues were explored in some detail in (see also ) where it was shown, for a different (non-canonical) field redefinition, how a careful treatment of these effects can combine to reproduce some of the amplitudes that would seem to be missing at first sight. Another aim of was to demonstrate how to reproduce one of the above--mentioned rational amplitudes, the one with all--minus helicities, in the MHV formalism. This amplitude is slightly less mysterious than the all--plus amplitude in the sense that one can write down the contributing diagrams using only MHV vertices; however a calculation without a suitable regulator in place would give a vanishing answer, despite the fact that this amplitude is finite. In , it was shown, using dimensional regularisation, that the full nonzero result arises from a slight mismatch between four-- and $D$ ($=4-2\epsilon$)--dimensional momenta. It is natural therefore to expect that dimensional regularisation will be helpful also for the problem at hand, which is to recover the rational amplitudes of pure Yang--Mills after the Mansfield transformation. Decomposing the regularised lightcone Lagrangian into a pure four-dimensional part and the remaining $\epsilon$--dependent terms, and performing the transformation on the four-dimensional part only, will give rise to several new $\epsilon$--dependent terms that can potentially give finite answers when forming loops. Although this approach shows promise, it is not the one we will make use of in the following. Instead, motivated by the fact that the Mansfield transformation seems to be deeply rooted in four dimensions, we would like to look for a purely four--dimensional regularisation scheme. We now turn to a review of the particular scheme we will use. \subsection{A four--dimensional regulator for lightcone Yang--Mills} In the above we explained why a na\"{\i}ve application of the Mansfield transform leads to puzzles at the quantum level, and discussed possible ways to improve the situation. The conclusion was that, since the missing amplitudes arise from subtle mismatches in regularisation, one should be careful to perform the Mansfield transform on a suitably regularised version of the lightcone Yang--Mills action. Here we will review one approach to the regularisation of lightcone Yang--Mills, which, despite several slightly unusual features, appears to be ideally suited for the problem at hand. The regularisation we propose to use is inspired by recent work of CQT on Yang--Mills amplitudes in the lightcone worldsheet approach . This is an attempt to understand gauge--string duality which is similar in spirit to 't Hooft's original work on the planar limit of gauge theory , and aims at improving on early dual model techniques . We recall that one of the main goals in those works is to exhibit the string worldsheet as made up of very large planar diagrams (``fishnets''). In their recent work, Thorn and collaborators make this statement more precise, using techniques that were unavailable when the original ideas were put forward. It is hoped that, by understanding how to translate a generic Yang--Mills planar diagram to a configuration of fields (with suitable boundary conditions) on the lightcone worldsheet, it will eventually become possible to perform the sum of all these diagrams. This approach to gauge--string duality is thus complementary to that using the AdS/CFT correspondence. The field content and structure of the worldsheet theory dual to Yang--Mills theory is rather intricate (see e.g.~), but for our purposes the details are not important. What is most relevant for us is that one of the principles of this approach is that all quantities on the Yang--Mills side should have a local worldsheet description. This includes the choice of regulator that needs to be introduced when calculating loop diagrams. This requirement led Thorn (see also ) to introduce an exponential UV cutoff, which we will discuss in a short while. Since one of the goals of this programme is to translate an arbitrary planar diagram into worldsheet form (and eventually calculate it), it is an important intermediate goal to understand how to do standard Yang--Mills perturbation theory in ``worldsheet--friendly" language. In CQT do exactly that for the simplest case, that of one--loop diagrams in Yang--Mills theory, by analysing how familiar features like renormalisation are affected by the unusual regularisation procedure and other special features of the lightcone worldsheet formalism. To conclude this brief overview of the lightcone worldsheet formalism, the main point for our current purposes is that it provides motivation and justification for a slightly unusual regularisation of lightcone Yang--Mills, which we will now describe. Let us momentarily focus on the self--dual part of the lightcone Yang--Mills Lagrangian: \be \Lcal=\Lcal_{-+}+\Lcal_{++-}=-A_\zb\Box A_z +2ig[A_z,\p_+A_\zb](\p_+)^{-1}(\p_\zb A_z) \ . \ee This action provides one of the representations of self-dual Yang-Mills theory. After transforming to momentum space, we find that the only vertex in the theory is the following (suppressing the gauge index structure): \be \begin{picture}(30,30)(5,10) \put(0,0){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(5,5)(15,15) \Line(25,5)(15,15) \Line(15,15)(15,25) \Text(4,4)[tr]{$A_2$} \Text(26,4)[tl]{$A_1$} \Text(15,27)[bc]{$\bar{A}_3$} } \end{picture} =-2g\frac{p_+^3}{p_+^1p_+^2}[p_+^1p_\zb^2-p_+^2p_\zb^1]= -\sqrt{2}g\frac{p_+^3}{\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^2}}~[12] \ . \ee As for propagators, following , we will use the Schwinger representation: \be \frac{1}{p^2}=-\int_0^\infty\diff T e^{+Tp^2} \ . \ee In () $p^2$ is understood to be the appropriate ($p^2<0$) Wick rotated version of the Minkowski space inner product. For our choice of signature, the latter is \be p\cdot q=p_+q_-+p_-q_+-{\bf p\cdot q}=p_+q_-+p_-q_+-(p_zq_\zb+p_\zb q_z) \ , \ee so that $p^2=2(p_+p_--p_zp_\zb)$. We will also make use of the dual or \lq\lq region momentum\rq\rq\ representation, where one assigns a momentum to each \emph{region} that is bounded by a line in the planar diagram. By convention, the actual momentum of the line is given by the region momentum to its right minus that on its left, as given by the direction of momentum flow the flow of momentum is chosen to always match the flow of helicity, but we will not use this convention.}. Clearly such a prescription can only be straightforwardly implemented for planar diagrams, which is the case considered in . This is also sufficient for our purposes, since we are calculating the leading single--trace contribution to one--loop scattering amplitudes. Non--planar (multi--trace) contributions can be recovered from suitable permutations of the leading--trace ones (see e.g.~). To demonstrate the use of region momenta, a sample one--loop diagram is pictured in Figure . The ``worldsheet--friendly'' regulator that CQT employ is simply defined as follows : For a general $n$--loop diagram, with $q_i$ being the loop region momenta, one simply inserts an exponential cutoff factor \be \mathrm{exp}(-\delta\sum_{i=1}^n{\bf q}_i^2) \ee in the loop integrand, where $\delta$ is positive and will be taken to zero at the end of the calculation. This clearly regulates UV divergences (from large transverse momenta), but, as we will see, has some surprising consequences since it will lead to finite values for certain Lorentz--violating processes, which therefore have to be cancelled by the introduction of appropriate counterterms. Note that ${\bf q}^2=2q_z q_\zb$ has components only along the two transverse directions, hence it breaks explicitly even more Lorentz invariance than the lightcone usually does. This might seem rather unnatural from a field-theoretical point of view, however it is crucial in the lightcone worldsheet approach. Indeed, the lightcone time $x^-$ and $x^+$ (or in practice its dual momentum $p_+$) parametrise the worldsheet itself, and are regulated by discretisation; thus, they are necessarily treated very differently from the two transverse momenta $q_z,q_\zb$ which appear as dynamical worldsheet scalars. Fundamentally, this is because of the need to preserve longitudinal ($x^+$) boost invariance (which eventually leads to conservation of discrete $p_+$). The fact that the regulator depends on the region momenta rather than the actual ones is a consequence of asking for it to have a local description on the worldsheet. The main ingredient for what will follow later in this paper is the computation of the $(++)$ one--loop gluon self--energy in the regularisation scheme discussed earlier. This is performed on page 10 of , and we will briefly outline it here. This helicity--flipping gluon self--energy, which we denote by $\Pi^{++}$, is the only potential self--energy contribution in self--dual Yang--Mills; in full YM we would also have $\Pi^{+-}$ and, by parity invariance, $\Pi^{--}$. There are two contributions to this process, corresponding to the two ways to route helicity in the loop, but they can be easily shown to be equal so we will concentrate on one of them, which is pictured in Figure . In Figure , $p,-p$ are the outgoing line momenta, $l$ is the loop line momentum, and $k,k',q$ are the region momenta, in terms of which the line momenta are given by \be p=k'-k,\quad l=q-k' \;. \ee Remembering to double the result of this diagram, we find the following expression for the self--energy: \be \begin{split} \Pi^{++}=&8g^2N\int \frac{\diff^4 l}{(2\pi)^4}\left[ \frac{-(p+l)_+}{p_+l_+}(p_+l_\zb-l_+p_\zb) \right]\times \frac{1}{l^2(p+l)^2}\times\\ &\qquad\qquad\quad\times\left[ \frac{-l_+}{(-p_+)(p+l)_+}((-p_+)(p_\zb+l_\zb)-(p_++l_+)(p_\zb)) \right]\\ =&\frac{g^2N}{2\pi^4}\int \diff^4 l\frac{1}{(p_+)^2}(p_+l_\zb-l_+p_\zb) (p_+(p_\zb+l_\zb)-(p_++l_+)p_\zb)\frac{1}{l^2(p+l)^2} \ . \end{split} \ee Although we are suppressing the colour structure, the factor of $N$ is easy to see by thinking of the double--line representation of this diagram\footnote{ For simplicity, we take the gauge group to be $\Urm(N)$.}. One of the crucial properties of () is that the factors of the loop momentum $l_+$ coming from the vertices have cancelled out, hence there are no potential subtleties in the loop integration as $l_+\ra0$. This means that, although for general loop calculations one would have to follow the DLCQ procedure and discretise $l_+$ (as is done for other processes considered in ), this issue does not arise at all for this particular integral, and we are free to keep $l_+$ continuous. To proceed, we convert momenta to region momenta, rewrite propagators in Schwinger representation, and regulate divergences using the regulator (). Employing the unbroken shift symmetry in the $+$ region momenta to further set $k_+=0$, () can be recast as: \be \begin{split} \Pi^{++}=&\frac{g^2N}{2\pi^4}\int_0^\infty\diff T_1\diff T_2\int\diff^4q \frac{1}{(k'_+)^2} e^{T_1(q-k)^2+T_2(q-k')^2-\delta \bf{q}^2}\times\\ &\times \left[k'_+(q_\zb-k'_\zb)-(q_+-k'_+)(k'_\zb-k_\zb)\right] \left[k'_+(q_\zb-k_\zb)-q_+(k'_\zb-k_\zb)\right] \ . \end{split} \ee Since $q_-$ only appears in the exponential, the $q_-$ integration will lead to a delta function containing $q_+$, which can be easily integrated and leads to a Gaussian--type integral for $q_z,q_\zb$. Performing this integral, we obtain (setting $T=T_1+T_2$, $x=T_1/(T_1+T_2)$) \be \Pi^{++}=\frac{g^2N}{2\pi^2}\int_0^1\diff x\int_0^\infty\diff T~ \delta^2~\frac{[xk_\zb+(1-x)k'_\zb]^2}{(T+\delta)^3}~ e^{Tx(1-x) p^2-\frac{\delta T}{T+\delta}(x{\bf{k}}+(1-x){\bf k}')^2} \ . \ee Notice that, had we not regularised using the $\delta$ regulator, we would have obtained zero at this stage. Instead, now we can see that there is a region of the $T$ integration (where $T\sim \delta$) that can lead to a nonzero result. On performing the $T$ and $x$ integrations, and sending $\delta$ to zero at the end, we obtain the following finite answer: \begin{equation} \Pi^{++}=2\left(+ \SetScale{0.3} \begin{picture}(33,15)(0,0) \put(-5,-12){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(20,50)(50,50) \SetColor{Blue} \CArc(70,50)(20,0,180) \CArc(70,50)(20,180,0) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(90,50)(120,50) } \end{picture} +\right) =\frac{g^2N}{12\pi^2}\left((k_\zb)^2+(k'_\zb)^2+k_\zb k'_\zb\right) \,. \ee Notice that this nonvanishing, finite result violates Lorentz invariance, since it would imply that a single gluon can flip its helicity. Also, it explicitly depends on only the $\zb$ components of the region momenta. Such a term is clearly absent in the tree-level Lagrangian (unlike e.g.~the $\Pi^{+-}$ contribution in full Yang--Mills theory), thus it cannot be absorbed through renormalisation -- it will have to be explicitly cancelled by a counterterm. This counterterm, which will play a major r\^{o}le in the following, is defined in such a way that: \be \SetScale{0.3} \begin{picture}(33,20)(0,0) \put(-5,-12){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(20,50)(50,50) \SetColor{Blue} \CArc(70,50)(20,0,180) \CArc(70,50)(20,180,0) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(90,50)(120,50) } \end{picture} + \SetScale{0.3} \begin{picture}(33,20)(0,0) \put(-5,-12){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(20,50)(60,50) \SetColor{Blue} \CCirc(70,50){10}{Blue}{Green} \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(80,50)(120,50) } \end{picture} =0\ , \ee in other words it will cancel all insertions of $\Pi^{++}$, diagram by diagram. Let us note here that, had we been doing dimensional regularisation, all bubble contributions would vanish on their own, so there would be no need to add any counterterms. So this effect is purely due to the ``worldsheet--friendly'' regulator (). It is also interesting to observe that in a supersymmetric theory this bubble contribution would vanish\footnote{This can in fact be derived from the results of , where similar calculations were considered with fermions and scalars in the loop.} so this effect is only of relevance to pure Yang--Mills theory. \subsection{The one--loop (++++) amplitude} Now let us look at the all--plus four-point one--loop amplitude in this theory. It is easy to see that it will receive contributions from three types of geometries: boxes, triangles and bubbles. It is a remarkable property \footnote{This observation is attributed to Zvi Bern .} that the sum of all these geometries adds up to zero. In particular, with a suitable routing of momenta, the integrand itself is zero. Pictorially, we can state this as: \begin{equation} \begin{picture}(50,50)(0,0) \put(-10,-25){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,20) \Line(10,50)(20,40) \SetColor{Blue} \Line(20,20)(20,40) \Line(20,40)(40,40) \Line(40,40)(40,20) \Line(40,20)(20,20) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(40,40)(50,50) \Line(40,20)(50,10) } \end{picture} +4\times \begin{picture}(60,50)(0,0) \put(-10,-25){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,20) \Line(10,50)(20,40) \SetColor{Blue} \Line(20,20)(20,40) \Line(20,40)(35,30) \Line(35,30)(20,20) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(35,30)(50,30) \Line(50,30)(60,50) \Line(50,30)(60,10) } \end{picture} +2\times \begin{picture}(70,50)(0,0) \put(-10,-25){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,30) \Line(10,50)(20,30) \Line(20,30)(30,30) \SetColor{Blue} \CArc(40,30)(10,0,360) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(50,30)(60,30) \Line(60,30)(70,50) \Line(60,30)(70,10) } \end{picture} +8\times \begin{picture}(70,50)(0,0) \put(-10,-25){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(30,30) \Line(10,50)(30,30) \Line(30,30)(50,30) \Line(50,30)(70,50) \Line(50,30)(70,10) \CCirc(20,40){5}{Blue}{White} } \end{picture} =0 \, . \end{equation} The coefficients mean that we need to add that number of inequivalent orderings. So we see (and refer to for the explicit calculation) that the sum of all the diagrams that one can construct from the single vertex in our theory, gives a vanishing answer. However, as discussed in the previous section, this is not everything: we need to also include the contribution of the counterterm that we are forced to add in order to preserve Lorentz invariance. Since this counterterm, by design, cancels all the bubble graph contributions, we are left with just the sum of the box and the four triangle diagrams. In pictures, \be \Acal^{++++}= \SetScale{0.6} \begin{picture}(25,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,20) \Line(10,50)(20,40) \SetColor{Blue} \Line(20,20)(20,40) \Line(20,40)(40,40) \Line(40,40)(40,20) \Line(40,20)(20,20) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(40,40)(50,50) \Line(40,20)(50,10) } \end{picture} +4\times \begin{picture}(30,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,20) \Line(10,50)(20,40) \SetColor{Blue} \Line(20,20)(20,40) \Line(20,40)(35,30) \Line(35,30)(20,20) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(35,30)(50,30) \Line(50,30)(60,50) \Line(50,30)(60,10) } \end{picture} +\left(2\times \begin{picture}(35,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,30) \Line(10,50)(20,30) \Line(20,30)(30,30) \SetColor{Blue} \CArc(40,30)(10,0,360) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(50,30)(60,30) \Line(60,30)(70,50) \Line(60,30)(70,10) } \end{picture} +8\times \begin{picture}(35,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(30,30) \Line(10,50)(30,30) \Line(30,30)(50,30) \Line(50,30)(70,50) \Line(50,30)(70,10) \CCirc(20,40){5}{Blue}{White} } \end{picture} +2\times \begin{picture}(35,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,30) \Line(10,50)(20,30) \Line(20,30)(60,30) \CCirc(40,30){3}{Blue}{Green} \Line(60,30)(70,50) \Line(60,30)(70,10) } \end{picture} +8\times \begin{picture}(35,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(30,30) \Line(10,50)(30,30) \Line(30,30)(50,30) \Line(50,30)(70,50) \Line(50,30)(70,10) \CCirc(20,40){3}{Blue}{Green} } \end{picture} \right) \ee where $\Acal^{++++}$ is the known result for the leading--trace part of the four--point all-plus amplitude: \be \Acal^{++++}(A_1A_2A_3A_4)=i\frac{g^4N}{48\pi^2}\frac{[12][34]}{\ip{12}\ip{34}} \ , \ee and the terms in the parentheses clearly cancel among themselves. This leaves the box and triangle diagrams, which are exactly those appearing in the calculation of the parity conjugate amplitude using dimensional regularisation , where the bubbles were zero to begin with. Following , we make the obvious, but important for the following, observation that one can change the position of the parentheses: \be \Acal^{++++}= \SetScale{0.6} \left( \begin{picture}(30,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,20) \Line(10,50)(20,40) \SetColor{Blue} \Line(20,20)(20,40) \Line(20,40)(40,40) \Line(40,40)(40,20) \Line(40,20)(20,20) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(40,40)(50,50) \Line(40,20)(50,10) } \end{picture} +4\times \begin{picture}(30,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,20) \Line(10,50)(20,40) \SetColor{Blue} \Line(20,20)(20,40) \Line(20,40)(35,30) \Line(35,30)(20,20) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(35,30)(50,30) \Line(50,30)(60,50) \Line(50,30)(60,10) } \end{picture} +2\times \begin{picture}(35,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,30) \Line(10,50)(20,30) \Line(20,30)(30,30) \SetColor{Blue} \CArc(40,30)(10,0,360) \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(50,30)(60,30) \Line(60,30)(70,50) \Line(60,30)(70,10) } \end{picture} +8\times \begin{picture}(35,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(30,30) \Line(10,50)(30,30) \Line(30,30)(50,30) \Line(50,30)(70,50) \Line(50,30)(70,10) \CCirc(20,40){5}{Blue}{White} } \end{picture} \right) +2\times \begin{picture}(35,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,30) \Line(10,50)(20,30) \Line(20,30)(60,30) \CCirc(40,30){3}{Blue}{Green} \Line(60,30)(70,50) \Line(60,30)(70,10) } \end{picture} +8\times \begin{picture}(35,30)(0,0) \put(-6,-15){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(30,30) \Line(10,50)(30,30) \Line(30,30)(50,30) \Line(50,30)(70,50) \Line(50,30)(70,10) \CCirc(20,40){3}{Blue}{Green} } \end{picture} \ee where again the terms in the parentheses are zero (by ()). This demonstrates that one can compute the all-plus amplitude just from a tree-level calculation with counterterm insertions (of course, these diagrams are at the same order of the coupling constant as one--loop diagrams because of the counterterm insertion). This remarkable claim is verified in , where CQT explicitly calculate the 10 counterterm diagrams and recover the correct result for the four-point amplitude (see pp.~22-23 of ) \footnote{In practice, these authors choose to insert the self-energy result () in the tree diagrams, so what they compute is \emph{minus} the all--plus amplitude.}. This result, apart from being very appealing in that one does not have to perform any integrals (apart from the original integral that defined the counterterm) so that the calculation reduces to tree--level combinatorics, will also turn out to be a convenient starting point for performing the Mansfield transformation. Specifically, our claim is that the whole series of all-plus amplitudes will arise just from the counterterm action. In the following we will show how this works explicitly for the four-point all-plus case, and then we will argue for the $n$-point case that the corresponding expression derived from the counterterm has all the correct singularities (soft and collinear), giving strong evidence that the result is true in general. \section{The all-plus amplitudes from a counterterm} Having reviewed the relevant new features that arise when doing perturbation theory with the worldsheet--motivated regulator of , we now have all the necessary ingredients to perform the Mansfield change of variables on the regulated lightcone Lagrangian. In this section, we will carry out this procedure. We will first regulate lightcone self--dual Yang--Mills, which, as discussed, will require us to introduce an explicit counterterm in the Lagrangian. Then we will perform the Mansfield transformation on the original Lagrangian (converting it to a free theory). We will then show that, upon inserting the change of variables into the counterterm Lagrangian, we recover the all--plus amplitudes as vertices in the theory. \subsection{Mansfield transformation of $\Lcal_{\rm CT}$} As we saw, the ``worldsheet-friendly'' regularisation requires us to add a certain counterterm to the lightcone Yang--Mills action, required in order to cancel the Lorentz-violating helicity--flipping gluon selfenergy. As mentioned previously, the calculation of the all--plus amplitude can be tackled purely within the context of \emph{self-dual} Yang--Mills, which we will focus on from now on. We see that, as a result of this regularisation, the complete action at the quantum level becomes: \be \Lcal_{\rm SDYM}^{(r)}=\Lcal_{+-}+\Lcal_{++-}+\Lcal_{\rm CT} \ , \ee where $\Lcal_{+-}+\Lcal_{++-}$ is the classical Lagrangian for self-dual Yang-Mills introduced in \eqref{lclaga}. Although CQT do not write down a spacetime Lagrangian for $\Lcal_{\rm CT}$, it is easy to see that the following expression would have the right structure: \be \Lcal_{\rm CT}=-\frac{g^2N}{12\pi^2}\int_{\Sigma}\diff^{3} k^i\diff^{3} k^j \ A^i_{\;\;j}(k^i,k^j) [(k_\zb^i)^2+(k_\zb^j)^2+k_\zb^i k_\zb^j] A^j_{\;\;i}(k^j,k^i) \ . \ee This expression depends explicitly on the dual, or region, momenta. In () we have made use of the simplest way to associate region momenta to fields, which is to assign a region momentum to each \emph{index} line in double--line notation , and thus a momentum $k^i$, $k^j$ to each of the indices of the gauge field $A^i_{\;\;j}$ (now slightly extended into a dipole, as would be natural from the worldsheet perspective, where an index is associated to each boundary). Since each line has a natural orientation, the actual momentum of each line can be taken to be the difference of the index momentum of the incoming index line and the outgoing index line. So the momentum of $A^i_{\;\;j}(k^i,k^j)$ is taken to be $p=k^j\!-\!k^i$. As discussed above, this assignment can only be performed consistently for planar diagrams, which is sufficient for our purposes. Clearly, the structure of () is rather unusual. First of all, it depends only on the antiholomorphic ($\zb$) components of the region momenta, and so is clearly not (lightcone) covariant. Even more troubling is the fact that it does not depend only on \emph{differences} of region momenta, but also on their sums. Since each field thus carries more information than just its momentum, $\Lcal_{\rm CT}$ is a non--local object from a four--dimensional point of view (although, as shown in , it can be given a perfectly local worldsheet description). Leaving the above discussion as food for thought, we will now rewrite () in a more conventional way that is most convenient for inserting into Feynman diagrams, \be \Lcal_{\rm CT}= -\frac{g^2N}{12\pi^2}\int_{\Sigma}\diff^{3} p\, \diff^{3} p' \, \delta(p+p')\ A^i_{\;\;j}(p')((k_\zb^i)^2+(k_\zb^j)^2+k_\zb^i k_\zb^j) A^j_{\;\;i}(p) \ . \ee In this expression, which can be thought of as the zero--mode or field theory limit of (), all the region momentum dependence is confined to the polynomial factor $(k_\zb^i)^2\!+\!(k_\zb^j)^2\!+\!k_\zb^i k_\zb^j$. This vertex, inserted into tree diagrams, would exactly reproduce the effects of the counterterm pictured in (). Although () still exhibits some of the apparently undesirable features we discussed above, the calculations in demonstrate that, after summing over all possible insertions of this term, the final result is covariant and correctly reproduces the all--plus amplitudes \footnote{Note that similar--looking treatments using index momenta instead of line momenta for vertices, but which in the end sum up to covariant results have appeared in the context of noncommutative geometry (see e.g.~). Although it is possible to write e.g. () in star--product form, at this stage it is not clear whether that is a useful reformulation.}. Therefore, we believe that its problematic properties are really a virtue in disguise, and (as we will see explicitly) they seem to be crucial in obtaining the full series of $n$--point all--plus amplitudes from the Mansfield transformation of a \emph{single} term. We are now ready to perform the Mansfield change of variables. In the spirit of the discussion earlier, we will perform the transformation on the \emph{classical} part of the action only: \be \Lcal_{+-}(A,\bA)+\Lcal_{++-}(A,\bA)= \Lcal_{+-}(B,\bB) \ee Hence the classical part of the action has been converted to a free theory. Without a regulator, this would be the whole story. However we now see that, within the particular regularisation we are working with, the full Lagrangian $\Lcal_{\rm SDYM}^{(r)}$ contains one extra, one--loop piece, given by $\Lcal_{\rm CT}$ in (), which is quadratic in the positive helicity fields $A$. To complete the Mansfield transformation, we will clearly need to expand this term in the new fields $B$, using the Ettle--Morris coefficients (). Since $\Lcal_{\rm CT}$ depends only on the holomorphic $A$ fields, we will only need the expansion of $A$ in terms of $B$ given in (). As a first check that $\Lcal_{\rm CT}$ leads to the right kind of structure, note that since $A$ depends only on the holomorphic $B$ fields, all the new vertices are all--plus. Thus, the full action, when expressed in terms of the $B$ fields, takes the schematic form: \be \Lcal_{\rm SDYM}^{(r)}(A,\bA)=\Lcal_{+-}(B,\bB)+\Lcal_{++}(B)+\Lcal_{+++}(B)+\Lcal_{++++}(B)+\cdots \ee In the next section we will calculate the four--point term $\Lcal_{++++}$ and demonstrate that, when restricted on--shell, it reproduces the known form () for the all--plus amplitude. \subsection{The four--point case} To begin with, we focus on the derivation of the four-point all-plus vertex, whose on-shell version will give us the four-point scattering amplitude. We will thus expand the old fields $A$ in the counterterm \eqref{LCTtwo} (or \eqref{LCTone}) up to terms containing four $B$-fields. When inserting the Ettle--Morris coefficients into (), one has to sum over all possible cyclic orderings with which this can be done. A complication is that now the counterterm itself depends on the ordering. In other words, we need to sum over all the ways of assigning dual momenta to the indices. Schematically, the inequivalent terms that we obtain are: \be \begin{split} AA&\ra (\sint B_1 B_2)(\sint B_3 B_4)+(\sint B_2 B_3)(\sint B_4 B_1)\\ &\quad+(\sint B_1 B_2 B_3) B_4 +(\sint B_2 B_3 B_4) B_1 +(\sint B_3 B_4 B_1) B_2 +(\sint B_4 B_1 B_2) B_3 \ , \end{split} \ee where the terms on the first line arise from doing two quadratic substitutions and those on the second from doing one cubic substitution. All the other possibilities are related by cyclicity of the trace. For definiteness, let us now write down what one of these terms means explicitly: \footnote{We suppress the overall factor of $-g^2N/(12\pi^2)$ until the end of this section. Also, the integrals are implicitly taken to be on the quantisation surface $\Sigma$. } \be \begin{split} (\int B_1 &B_2 B_3) B_4\\ &=-2g^2\;\tr\int\diff p \diff p^4 \delta(p\!+\!p^4)\Big[\int\diff p^1\diff p^2\diff p^3 \delta(p\!-\!p^1\!-\!p^2\!-\!p^3)\frac{p_+}{\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}}\frac{1}{\ip{12}\ip{23}}\times\\ &\quad\times B(p^1)B(p^2)B(p^3)\Big] \left[(k_\zb^3)^2+(k_\zb^4)^2+k_\zb^4 k_\zb^3\right]\; B(p^4)\\ &=2g^2\;\int\diff p^1\diff p^2\diff p^3\diff p^4\delta(p^1+p^2+p^3+p^4)\times\\ &\qquad\times\frac{p_+^4}{\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}} \frac{(k_\zb^3)^2+(k_\zb^4)^2+k_\zb^4 k_\zb^3} {\ip{12}\ip{23}}\tr\left[B(p^1)B(p^2)B(p^3)B(p^4)\right] \ . \end{split} \ee The reason this particular combination of $k_\zb$'s appears here is that, given the ordering we chose, after the Mansfield transformation the counterterm ends up being on leg 4, and its line bounds the regions with momenta $k_3$ and $k_3$. This is represented pictorially in Figure . Although Figure might suggest that there is a propagator between the counterterm insertion and the location of the original $A$, which has now split into three $B$'s, this is of course not the case since the whole expression is a vertex at the same point. We have drawn the diagram in this fashion to emphasise which leg the counterterm is located on after the transformation. On the other hand, this vertex is nonlocal (as discussed above, it was nonlocal even in the original variables, but this is now compounded by the Mansfield coefficients, which contain momenta in the denominator), so this notation serves as a useful reminder of that fact. It is interesting to note that () is essentially the same expression as the sum of the two channels with the same region momentum dependence that appear in CQT's calculation of this amplitude using tree--level diagrammatics (compare with Eq.~83 in ), which we illustrate in Fig. . Thus we have a picture where one post--Mansfield transform vertex (with $B$'s) effectively sums \emph{two} tree--level pre--transformation (with $A$'s) Feynman diagrams. This is a first indication that our calculation of the all--plus vertex can be mapped, practically one--to--one, to that of the all--plus amplitude on pp.~22-23 of . Another type of contribution to the vertex arises when we transform \emph{both} of the $A$'s in $\Lcal_{\rm CT}$. One of the two terms that we find is: \be \begin{split} (\sint &B_2 B_3)(\sint B_4 B_1)\\ &=-2g^2\;\tr\int\diff p\, \diff p' \delta(p+p')\left[\int\diff p^2\diff p^3\delta(p-p^2-p^3) \frac{p_+}{\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^3}}\frac{1}{\ip{23}}B(p^2)B(p^3)\right]\times\\ &\times \left((k_\zb^1)^2+(k_\zb^3)^2+k_\zb^1k_\zb^3\right) \left[\int\diff p^4\diff p^1\delta(p'-p^4-p^1)\frac{p'_+}{\sqrt{p_+^4p_+^1}} \frac{1}{\ip{41}}B(p^4)B(p^1)\right]\\ &=-2g^2\int\diff p^1\cdots \diff p^4\delta(p^1\!+\!p^2\!+\!p^3\!+\!p^4) \frac{(p_+^2+p_+^3)(p_+^1+p_+^4)}{\sqrt{\pplfour}} \frac{\left((k_\zb^1)^2+(k_\zb^3)^2+k_\zb^1k_\zb^3\right)}{\ip{23}\ip{41}}\\ &\qquad\qquad\times \tr\left[B(p^1)B(p^2)B(p^3)B(p^4)\right] \ . \end{split} \ee This contribution can also be mapped to one of the two terms with bubbles on internal lines in CQT. We can now tabulate all the terms that we obtain in this way by making the schematic form () precise. Since the delta--function and trace over $B$ parts are the same for all these terms, in Table we just list the rest of the integrand. \begin{table}[h] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline Schematic form & Pictorial form & Integrand \\ \hline $(\sint B_1B_2B_3)B_4$ & \SetScale{0.5} \begin{picture}(20,30)(0,0) \put(-5,-5){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(50,50) \Line(10,50)(30,30) \SetColor{Blue} \DashLine(40,20)(30,30){1} \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(40,20)(50,10) \CCirc(40,20){3}{Blue}{Green} }\end{picture} & $\frac{p_+^4}{\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}}\frac{k_3^2+k_4^2+k_3k_4}{\ip{12}\ip{23}}$\\ \hline $(\sint B_2B_3B_4)B_1$ & \SetScale{0.5} \begin{picture}(20,30)(0,0) \put(-5,-5){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,20) \Line(10,50)(50,10) \SetColor{Blue} \DashLine(20,20)(30,30){1} \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(30,30)(50,50) \CCirc(20,20){3}{Blue}{Green} }\end{picture} & $\frac{p_+^1}{\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}}\frac{k_1^2+k_4^2+k_1k_4}{\ip{23}\ip{34}}$\\ \hline $(\sint B_3B_4B_1)B_2$ & \SetScale{0.5} \begin{picture}(20,30)(0,0) \put(-5,-5){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(50,50) \Line(10,50)(20,40) \SetColor{Blue} \DashLine(20,40)(30,30){1} \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(30,30)(50,10) \CCirc(20,40){3}{Blue}{Green} }\end{picture} & $\frac{p_+^2}{\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^1}}\frac{k_1^2+k_2^2+k_2k_1}{\ip{34}\ip{41}}$\\ \hline $(\sint B_4B_1B_2)B_3$ & \SetScale{0.5} \begin{picture}(20,30)(0,0) \put(-5,-5){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(30,30) \Line(10,50)(50,10) \SetColor{Blue} \DashLine(40,40)(30,30){1} \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(40,40)(50,50) \CCirc(40,40){3}{Blue}{Green} }\end{picture} & $\frac{p_+^3}{\sqrt{p_+^4p_+^2}}\frac{k_2^2+k_3^2+k_2k_3}{\ip{41}\ip{12}}$\\ \hline $(\sint B_2 B_3)(\sint B_4 B_1)$ & \SetScale{0.5} \begin{picture}(20,30)(0,0) \put(-5,-5){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(30,20) \Line(10,50)(30,40) \SetColor{Blue} \DashLine(30,20)(30,40){1} \SetColor{BrickRed} \CCirc(30,30){3}{Blue}{Green} \Line(30,40)(50,50) \Line(30,20)(50,10) } \end{picture} & $-\frac{(p_+^2+p_+^3)(p_+^1+p_+^4)}{\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^2p_+^3p_+^4}} \frac{k_1^2+k_3^2+k_1k_3}{\ip{23}\ip{41}}$ \\ \hline $(\sint B_1 B_2)(\sint B_3 B_4)$ & \SetScale{0.5} \begin{picture}(20,30)(0,0) \put(-5,-5){ \SetColor{BrickRed} \Line(10,10)(20,30) \Line(10,50)(20,30) \SetColor{Blue} \DashLine(20,30)(40,30){1} \SetColor{BrickRed} \CCirc(30,30){3}{Blue}{Green} \Line(40,30)(50,50) \Line(40,30)(50,10) } \end{picture} &$-\frac{(p_+^3+p_+^3)(p_+^2+p_+^1)}{\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^2p_+^3p_+^4}} \frac{k_4^2+k_2^2+k_4k_2}{\ip{34}\ip{12}}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{The various contributions to the all--plus four--point vertex. Note that we use the simplifying notation $k_i:=k_\zb^i$.} \end{table} To obtain the final form of the vertex, we are now instructed to sum over all these contributions. Thus we can write \be \Lcal_{++++}(B)=2g^2\int\diff p^1\diff p^2\diff p^3 \diff p^4 \delta(p^1\!+\!p^2\!+\!p^3\!+\!p^4) ~\Vcal^{(4)}~\tr[B(p^1)B(p^2)B(p^3)B(p^4)] \ee where $\Vcal^{(4)}$ is given by the following expression: $ in the region momenta appearing in \eqref{initial}.} \be \begin{split} \Vcal^{(4)}=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pplfour}}\frac{1}{\ip{12}\ip{23}\ip{34}\ip{41}}\times\\ &\times\bigg[p_+^4\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}(k_3^2+k_4^2+k_3k_4)\ip{34}\ip{41} +p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}(k_1^2+k_4^2+k_1k_4)\ip{12}\ip{41}\\ &+p_+^2\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}(k_2^2+k_1^2+k_2k_1)\ip{12}\ip{23} +p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^1}(k_3^2+k_2^2+k_2k_3)\ip{23}\ip{34}\\ &-(p_+^2+p_+^3)(p_+^1+p_+^4)(k_1^2+k_3^2+k_1k_3)\ip{12}\ip{34}\\ &-(p_+^3+p_+^4)(p_+^2+p_+^1)(k_4^2+k_2^2+k_4k_2)\ip{23}\ip{41}\bigg] \; . \end{split} \ee Comparing this to the expected answer (), we see that the (quadratic) antiholomorphic momentum dependence should arise from the various $k_\zb$ factors in (). In , CQT start from essentially the same expression and demonstrate that it gives the correct result for the all-plus amplitude. Therefore, following practically the same steps as those authors, we can easily see that we obtain the expected answer. However, since we would like to find the full vertex $\Vcal$, we will need to keep off--shell information, and so we will choose a slightly different route. The main complication in bringing () into a manageable form is clearly the presence of the region momenta. We would like to disentangle their effects as cleanly as possible. Therefore, our derivation will proceed by the following steps: \begin{enumerate} \item First, we will show that () can be manipulated so that the quadratic dependence on region momenta drops out, leaving only terms linear in the region momenta. \item Second, we will decompose the resulting expression into a part that depends on the region momenta and one that does not. The $k$--dependent part turns out to have a very simple form, and vanishes on--shell. \item Finally, we will show that the $k$--independent part reduces to the known amplitude. \end{enumerate} For the first step, we will need the following identity, which is proved in appendix : \be \begin{split} &p_+^4\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}\ip{34}\ip{41} +p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}\ip{12}\ip{41} +p_+^2\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}\ip{12}\ip{23} +p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^1}\ip{23}\ip{34}\\ &-(p_+^2+p_+^3)(p_+^1+p_+^4)\ip{12}\ip{34} -(p_+^3+p_+^4)(p_+^2+p_+^1)\ip{23}\ip{41}=0 \end{split} \ee Also, using the shorthand notation $K_{ij}:=(k_\zb^i)^2+(k_\zb^j)^2+k_\zb^ik_\zb^j$: we note the following very useful identity: \be K_{ij}=K_{ik}+(k_\zb^j-k_\zb^k)(k_\zb^i+k_\zb^j+k_\zb^k)= K_{ik}+(k_\zb^j-k_\zb^k)l_{ijk} \ee where $1\leq k\leq n$ and $l_{ijk}=k_\zb^i+k_\zb^j+k_\zb^k$. Noting that, for $j>k$, $k_\zb^j-k_\zb^k=p_\zb^{k+1}+p_\zb^{k+2}+\cdots p_\zb^j$, we can use this to rewrite all the region momentum combinations appearing in () in the following way: \be \begin{split} K_{34}&=\frac{1}{4}\left(K_{12}+K_{23}+K_{34}+K_{41}+(\bp_3+\bp_4)(l_{124}+l_{234}) +2(\bp_2+\bp_3)l_{134}\right)\\ K_{14}&=\frac{1}{4}\left(K_{12}+K_{23}+K_{34}+K_{41}-(\bp_2+\bp_3)(l_{134}+l_{123}) +2(\bp_3+\bp_4)l_{124}\right)\\ K_{12}&=\frac{1}{4}\left(K_{12}+K_{23}+K_{34}+K_{41}-(\bp_3+\bp_4)(l_{124}+l_{234}) -2(\bp_2+\bp_3)l_{123}\right)\\ K_{23}&=\frac{1}{4}\left(K_{12}+K_{23}+K_{34}+K_{41}+(\bp_2+\bp_3)(l_{134}+l_{123}) -2(\bp_3+\bp_4)l_{234}\right)\\ K_{13}&=\frac{1}{4}\left(K_{12}+K_{23}+K_{34}+K_{41}+(\bp_3-\bp_2)l_{123} +(\bp_1-\bp_4)l_{134}\right)\\ K_{24}&=\frac{1}{4}\left(K_{12}+K_{23}+K_{34}+K_{41}+(\bp_4-\bp_3)l_{234} +(\bp_2-\bp_1)l_{124}\right)\\ \end{split} \ee where we have introduced the notation $\bp_i=p_\zb^i$. We have thus expressed all the quadratic region momentum dependence in terms of the common factor $K_{12}+K_{23}+K_{34}+K_{41}$, and, given (), it is clear that this contribution will vanish. \footnote{One could have chosen a different combination of the $K_{ij}$'s, but we find the symmetric choice in () convenient.} After this step, we are left with an expression which is linear in the region momenta. We will now proceed in a similar way, and rewrite all the expressions that contain $l_{ijk}$ in terms of a suitably chosen common factor: \be \begin{split} &l_{124}+l_{234}=\frac{3}{2}(k_\zb^1+k_\zb^2+k_\zb^3+k_\zb^4)-\half(p_\zb^1+p_\zb^3)\\ &l_{134}+l_{123}=\frac{3}{2}(k_\zb^1+k_\zb^2+k_\zb^3+k_\zb^4)-\half(p_\zb^2+p_\zb^4)\\ &2l_{234}=\frac{3}{2}(k_\zb^1+k_\zb^2+k_\zb^3+k_\zb^4)+\half(2p_\zb^2+p_\zb^3-p_\zb^1)\\ &2l_{123}=\frac{3}{2}(k_\zb^1+k_\zb^2+k_\zb^3+k_\zb^4)+\half(2p_\zb^1+p_\zb^2-p_\zb^4)\\ &2l_{134}=\frac{3}{2}(k_\zb^1+k_\zb^2+k_\zb^3+k_\zb^4)+\half(2p_\zb^3+p_\zb^4-p_\zb^2)\\ &2l_{124}=\frac{3}{2}(k_\zb^1+k_\zb^2+k_\zb^3+k_\zb^4)+\half(2p_\zb^4+p_\zb^1-p_\zb^3)\\ \end{split} \ee In appendix we show that the total coefficient of the common $(k_\zb^1+k_\zb^2+k_\zb^3+k_\zb^4)$ factor is \be \begin{split} &\frac{3}{8}\left[p_+^4\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}(+(\bp_3+\bp_4) +(\bp_2+\bp_3))\ip{34}\ip{41} +p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}(-(\bp_2+\bp_3) +(\bp_3+\bp_4))\ip{12}\ip{41}\right.\\ &+p_+^2\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}(-(\bp_3+\bp_4) -(\bp_2+\bp_3))\ip{12}\ip{23} +p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^1}(+(\bp_2+\bp_3) -(\bp_3+\bp_4))\ip{23}\ip{34}\\ &-(p_+^2+p_+^3)(p_+^1+p_+^4)(\half(\bp_3-\bp_2)+\half(\bp_1-\bp_4))\ip{12}\ip{34}\\ &-(p_+^3+p_+^4)(p_+^2+p_+^1)(\half(\bp_4-\bp_3)+\half(\bp_2-\bp_1))\ip{23}\ip{41} \bigg]=\\ &=-\frac{3}{16}[(12)+(23)+(34)+(41)]\sum_{i=i}^4\frac{(p_i)^2}{p_+^i} \ , \end{split} \ee where $(p_i)^2$ is the full covariant momentum squared, and $(ij)=p_+^ip_z^j-p_+^jp_z^i$. Thus we see that the complete dependence on the region momenta can be rewritten as follows: \be \Vcal^{(4)}_{k}=-\frac{3}{16}\frac{(12)+(23)+(34)+(41)}{\ip{12}\ip{23}\ip{34}\ip{41}}~\left[\sum_{i=1}^4 ~k_\zb^i\right]~\sum_{i=i}^4\frac{(p_i)^2}{p_+^i} \ . \ee It is rather satisfying that the region momentum dependence of the vertex takes this simple form, which clearly vanishes when the external legs are on--shell, and thus will not contribute to the all--plus amplitudes. Having completely disentangled the region momenta $k_\zb$ from the actual momenta $p_\zb$, we will now focus on the terms containing only the latter, which were produced during the decompositions in (). After a few simple manipulations, they can be rewritten as=\sqrt{\pplfour}\ip{12}\ip{23}\ip{34}\ip{41}\Vcal^{(4)}$.} \be \begin{split} V^{(4)}_p=\frac{1}{8}&\bigg[ p_+^4\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}[(\bp_1+\bp_2)(\bp_1-\bp_2)+(\bp_3+\bp_2)(\bp_3-\bp_2)]\ip{34}\ip{41}\\ &+p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}[(\bp_2+\bp_3)(\bp_2-\bp_3)+(\bp_4+\bp_3)(\bp_4-\bp_3)]\ip{41}\ip{12}\\ &+p_+^2\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}[(\bp_3+\bp_4)(\bp_3-\bp_4)+(\bp_1+\bp_4)(\bp_1-\bp_4)]\ip{12}\ip{23}\\ &+p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^1}[(\bp_4+\bp_1)(\bp_4-\bp_1)+(\bp_2+\bp_1)(\bp_2-\bp_1)]\ip{23}\ip{34}\\ &-(p_+^2+p_+^3)(p_+^1+p_+^4)[(\bp_3-\bp_2)(\bp_1-\bp_4)-(\bp_1+\bp_2)^2]\ip{12}\ip{34}\\ &-(p_+^3+p_+^4)(p_+^2+p_+^1)[(\bp_4-\bp_3)(\bp_2-\bp_1)-(\bp_2+\bp_3)^2]\ip{23}\ip{41} \bigg] \ . \end{split} \ee This expression, together with () is our proposal for the off--shell four--point all--plus vertex that should be part of the MHV-rules formalism at the quantum level. It would be very interesting to elucidate its structure and bring it into a more compact form. For the moment, however, we will be content to demonstrate that () is equal on shell to the sought--for amplitude. To that end, we will follow a similar approach to CQT, and rewrite all the holomorphic spinor brackets in terms of the following three: $\ip{12}\ip{34},\ip{23}\ip{41},\ip{12}\ip{41}$. To achieve this, we use momentum conservation and a certain cyclic identity (see appendix ) to write \be \begin{split} p_+^4\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}\ip{34}\ip{41}&= p_+^4\sqrt{p_+^4}\left(-\sqrt{p_+^3}\ip{42}-\sqrt{p_+^4}\ip{23}\right)\ip{41}\\ &=\left[-p_+^4\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^4}\ip{42}-(p_+^4)^2\right]\ip{41}\\ &=\left[-p_+^4\sqrt{p_+^3}\left(-\sqrt{p_+^1}\ip{12}-\sqrt{p_+^3}\ip{32}\right) -(p_+^4)^2\ip{23}\right]\ip{41}\\ &=p_+^4\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^1}\ip{12}\ip{41}-p_+^4(p_+^4+p_+^3)\ip{23}\ip{41} \ . \end{split} \ee In a similar way, we can show that \be \begin{split} &p_+^2\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^4}\ip{12}\ip{23}= p_+^2\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^1}\ip{12}\ip{41} -p_+^2(p_+^2+p_+^3)\ip{34}\ip{12}\;,\\ &p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}\ip{23}\ip{34}= \!-\!\left[p_+^3(p_+^3\!+\!p_+^2)\ip{12}\ip{34}-p_+^3(p_+^1\!+\!p_+^2)\ip{23}\ip{41} \!+\!p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}\ip{12}\ip{14}\right]\;. \end{split} \ee Collecting all the terms together, and manipulating the resulting expressions, it is straightforward to show that () simplifies to just \be \begin{split} V^{(4)}_p=\frac{1}{4}\bigg[&\ip{23}\ip{41}\{34\}(p_+^1+p_+^2)[(\bp_1-\bp_2)-(\bp_2+\bp_3)]\\ &\!+\!\ip{12}\ip{34}\{23\}(p_+^2+p_+^3)[(\bp_1+\bp_2)+(\bp_1-\bp_4)]\\ &\!+\!\ip{12}\ip{41}\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^1}\big[(\bp_1+\bp_2)(\{41\}+\{32\}) \!+\!(\bp_2+\bp_3)(\{12\}+\{43\})\big]\bigg]\;, \end{split} \ee where we use the notation $\{ij\}=p_+^ip_\zb^j-p_+^jp_\zb^i=(1/\sqrt{2}) \sqrt{p_+^ip_+^j}[ij]$. Converting to the usual antiholomorphic bracket notation, we rewrite () as \be \begin{split} V^{(4)}_p=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}\bigg[&\ip{23}\ip{41}\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^4}[34](p_+^1+p_+^2) [(\bp_1\!-\!\bp_2)-(\bp_2\!+\!\bp_3)]\\ &+\ip{12}\ip{34}\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^3}[23](p_+^2+p_+^3)[(\bp_1\!+\!\bp_2)+(\bp_1\!-\!\bp_4)]\\ &+\ip{12}\ip{41}\big[(\bp_1+\bp_2)(p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^4}[41]+p_+^2\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^1}[32])\\ &+(\bp_2+\bp_3)(p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^3}[12]+p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^4}[43])\big]\bigg] \ . \end{split} \ee Note that so far this expression is completely off shell. We will now show that on shell it reduces to the known result (). In doing this we will keep track of the $p^2$ terms that appear when applying momentum conservation in the form \be \sum_k \ip{ik}[kj]= \sqrt{p_+^ip_+^j}\sum_k \frac{(p_k)^2}{p_+^k} \ . \ee These terms are collected in appendix . We start by rewriting each of the terms in the last two lines of () as follows \be \begin{split} &\ip{12}\ip{41}[41]~p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^4}(\bp_1+\bp_2)= -\ip{23}\ip{41}[34]~p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^4}(\bp_1+\bp_2)\\ &\ip{12}\ip{41}[32]~p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^2}(\bp_1+\bp_2) =-\ip{12}[32]\ip{42}p_+^2p_+^3(\bp_1+\bp_2)\\ &\phantom{\ip{12}\ip{41}[32]~p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^2}(\bp_1+\bp_2)=} -\ip{12}\ip{34}[23]~p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^3}(\bp_1+\bp_2)\\ &\ip{12}\ip{41}[12]~p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^3}(\bp_2+\bp_3)= -\ip{12}\ip{34}[23]~p_+^1\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^3}(\bp_2+\bp_3)\\ &\ip{12}\ip{41}[43]~p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^4}(\bp_2+\bp_3) =-\ip{41}\ip{23}[34]~p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^4}(\bp_2+\bp_3)\\ &\phantom{\ip{12}\ip{41}[43]~p_+^3\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^4}(\bp_2+\bp_3)=} -\ip{41}[43]\ip{42}p_+^4p_+^3(\bp_2+\bp_3) \, . \end{split} \ee We also transform the $\ip{12}\ip{34}$ term using the Schouten identity and also momentum conservation, \be \ip{12}\ip{34}[23]\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^3}\!=\! \ip{23}\ip{41}[34]\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^4}\!+\!\ip{14}\ip{23}[13]\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3} \!-\!\ip{13}\ip{42}[23]\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^3} \ , \ee and add up all contributions to the $\ip{23}\ip{41}$ term, which are \be \begin{split} \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}\ip{23}\ip{41}[34]\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^4}& \big[4(p_+^2\bp_1-p_+^1\bp_2)+2(p_+^3\bp_1-p_+^1\bp_3)\big]\\ =\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}\ip{23}\ip{41}[34]\sqrt{p_+^3p_+^4}&[4\{21\}+2\{31\}]\;. \end{split} \ee Converting to the spinor bracket, the first of these terms is \be -\half\sqrt{\pplfour}[12]\ip{23}[34]\ip{41} \ , \ee while the remaining terms from () and () combine to give \be \begin{split} &\left(\ip{14}\ip{23}[13]\sqrt{p_+^1p_+^3}-\ip{13}\ip{42}[23]\sqrt{p_+^2p_+^3}\right) (p_+^2+p_+^3)[(\bp_1\!+\!\bp_2)+(\bp_1\!-\!\bp_4)]\\ &+\ip{12}[32]\ip{42}p_+^2[p_+^2(\bp_1+\bp_2)-p_+^4(\bp_2+\bp_3)]\\ =&-\ip{14}[13]\ip{12}p_+^3(p_+^2+p_+^3)[(\bp_1\!+\!\bp_2)+(\bp_1\!-\!\bp_4)]\\ &+\ip{12}[32]\ip{42}p_+^2[p_+^2(\bp_1+\bp_2)-p_+^4(\bp_2+\bp_3)]\\ =&-\ip{14}[13]\ip{12}p_+^3(2(p_+^2+p_+^3)\bp_1-2p_+^1(\bp_2+\bp_3))=2\ip{14}[13]\ip{12}p_+^3\{41\} \end{split} \ee (where we suppress an overall $1/(4\sqrt2)$) and we see that () cancels the second term in (), thus showing that () is the complete on-shell answer. Reintroducing all the prefactors, we thus find that the amplitude is \be \begin{split} \Acal^{(4)}&=-\frac{g^2N}{12\pi^2} \frac{2g^2}{\sqrt{\pplfour}}\frac{1}{\ip{12}\ip{23}\ip{34}\ip{41}}\times \left[-\half\sqrt{\pplfour}[12]\ip{23}[34]\ip{41}\right]\\ &=\frac{g^4N}{12\pi^2}\frac{[12][34]}{\ip{12}\ip{34}} \ . \end{split} \ee Now note that, as discussed in appendix , in order to convert to the usual Yang--Mills theory normalisation we need to send $g\ra g/\sqrt{2}$. We conclude that $\Acal^{(4)}$ gives precisely the result () for the all--plus scattering amplitude. \subsection{The general all--plus amplitude} We have just given an explicit derivation of the four point all-plus amplitude, from the two-point counterterm (). We will argue in the following that this two-point counterterm contains {\it all} the all-plus amplitudes. First, we can see immediately that the counterterm () has the right kind of structure. Consider the $n$--point all--plus amplitude : \be {\cal{A}}^{(n)}=\sum_{1\leq i<j<k<l\leq n}\frac{\ip{ij}[jk]\ip{kl}[li]}{\ip{12}\cdots \ip{n1}} \ . \ee In terms of spinor brackets this amplitude has terms of the form $\ip{\ \ }^{2-n} [\ \ ]^2$. A quick look at the Ettle-Morris coefficients shows that, for an $n$--point vertex coming from $\Lcal_{\rm CT}$, they contribute exactly $2-n$ powers of the spinor brackets $\ip{\ \ }$. Furthermore, there are exactly two powers of $[\ \ ]$ coming from the counterterm Lagrangian $\Lcal_{\rm CT}\sim(k_\zb^2)A^2$ -- one for each power of $k$. Thus the general structure of $\Lcal_{\rm CT}$ is appropriate to reproduce (). Pictorially, we can represent the general $n$--point amplitude, arising from the counterterm in the new variables, as in Figure . Thus we can write this $n$--point all--plus vertex as follows: \be \begin{split} \Acal^{(n)}_{+\cdots +}=&\int_{1\cdots n}\delta(p+p') \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\Yrm(p;j+1,\ldots,i) \left((k_\zb^{i})^2+(k_\zb^{j})^2+k_\zb^{i}k_\zb^{j}\right) \Yrm(p';i+1,\ldots, j)\times\\ \\ &\times\tr[B_iB_{i+1}\cdots B_jB_{j+1}\cdots B_{i-1}]\\ \\ =& (\sqrt2i)^{n-2}\int_{1\cdots n}\!\delta(p^1\!+\!\cdots\! +\!p^n) \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\frac{(p_+^{j+1}+\cdots+ p_+^{i})}{\sqrt{p_+^{j+1} p_+^{i}}} \frac{1}{\ip{j+1,j+2}\cdots\ip{i-1,i}}\times\\ \\ &\times\left((k_\zb^{i})^2+(k_\zb^{j})^2+k_\zb^{i}k_\zb^{j}\right) \frac{(p_+^{i+1}+\cdots+ p_+^{j})}{\sqrt{p_+^{i+1} p_+^{j}}} \frac{1}{\ip{i+1,i+2}\cdots \ip{j-1,j}}\tr[B_1\cdots B_n] \ . \end{split} \ee Focusing only on the relevant part of the above expression, and ignoring all coefficients, the general structure we obtain is the following: \be \Vcal^{(n)}_{+\cdots+}=\frac{1}{\ip{12}\cdots \ip{n1}}\!\times\!\!\left[\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} \frac{\ip{j,j+1}\ip{i,i+1}}{\sqrt{p_+^ip_+^{i+1}p_+^jp_+^{j+1}}} (k_+^{j}-k_+^{i})^2((k_\zb^{i})^2 +(k_\zb^{j})^2+k_\zb^{i}k_\zb^{j})\right] \ee where we have extracted the denominator at the expense of introducing the two missing holomorphic factors $\ip{j,j+1}$ and $\ip{i,i+1}$ in the numerator. We also made use of the fact that \be k^{j}-k^{i}=p^{i+1}+p^{i+2}+\cdots+ p^{j}=-(p^{j+1}+p^{j+2}+\cdots+ p^{i})\;, \ee applied to the $+$ components, to rewrite the two $p_+$ sums in the numerator in terms of the $k$'s (this gives rise to a minus which we suppress). It is easy to verify that, for $n=4$, this sum reproduces the 6 contributions that appeared in the four--point case, and (as we explicitly showed above) combined to give the expected answer. Therefore, we would like to propose that the vertex () will reduce on--shell to an expression proportional to (). We will not attempt to prove this statement here \footnote{It is perhaps interesting to remark that the proof would involve converting the double sum in () to the quadruple sum in ()---a state of affairs which has appeared before in a rather different context .}, but will instead move on to study the general properties of the $n$-point expression (). Whilst the explicit calculation for the four point case was rather involved as we saw earlier, the study of the general properties of the $n$--point amplitudes proves much simpler. In particular, we will show that the collinear and soft limits of the expressions proposed for the $n$--point case can be very easily shown to be correct. Let us start by introducing some simplifying notation. One can write the change of variables for the $A$ field as \be A_1 = \Yrm_{12}B_2 + \Yrm_{123}B_2B_3 + \Yrm_{1234}B_2B_3B_4 + \cdots, \ee where \be \Yrm_{12} = \delta_{12}, \qquad \Yrm_{123} = \frac{1_+}{(23)}, \qquad \Yrm_{1234} = \frac{1_+3_+}{(23)(34)}, \ee and generally \be \Yrm_{12\dots n} = \frac{1_+3_+4_+\dots(n-1)_+}{(23)(34)\dots(n-1\ n)} \ \ee (for simplicity, we are dropping inconsequential constant factors in this discussion). This notation is similar to that of . Integrations and the insertion of suitable delta functions are understood, and can be illustrated by comparing the short-hand expressions above with the full equations given earlier. It will prove convenient to define \be K_{ij} = k_i^2 + k_j^2 + k_i k_j, \qquad k_i:= k_\zb^i. \ee We will use the expression $\Yrm_{\bullet 12\dots n}$ in the following, where the dot in the first placemark in the $\Yrm$ means that one substitutes in that place the negative of the sum of the other momenta. Then the result which we have proved above for the four point amplitude $V_{1234}$ can be expressed as \be \begin{split} V_{1234} =& K_{43}\Yrm_{\bullet 4} \Yrm_{\bullet 123} + K_{14} \Yrm_{\bullet 1} \Yrm_{\bullet 234} + K_{21}\Yrm_{\bullet 2} \Yrm_{\bullet 341} + K_{32} \Yrm_{\bullet 3} \Yrm_{\bullet 412}\\ &+ K_{31}\Yrm_{\bullet 23} \Yrm_{\bullet 41} + K_{24} \Yrm_{\bullet 12} \Yrm_{\bullet 34}\ , \end{split} \ee or very simply \be V_{1234} = \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq 4} K_{i j}\Yrm_{\bullet\, j+1 \dots i} \Yrm_{\bullet\, i+1\dots j}\ . \ee It is clear that the general conjecture that all the $n$--point all plus amplitudes are generated from the two-point counterterm \eqref{LCTtwo} translates into the proposal that the $n$-point all-plus amplitude $V_{12\dots n}$ is given by \be V_{12\dots n} = \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} K_{i j}\Yrm_{\bullet\, j+1 \dots i} \Yrm_{\bullet\, i+1\dots j}\ , \ee Let us now show that the expression on the right-hand side of \eqref{conj} has precisely the same soft and collinear limits as the known amplitude on the left-hand side. \noindent{\bf Collinear limits} Under the collinear limit \be p_i \rightarrow z P\ , \qquad p_{i+1} \rightarrow (1-z)P\ , \qquad P^2 \to 0 \ , \ee the $n$-point amplitude $V_{12\dots n}$ behaves as \be V_{12\dots n} \rightarrow \frac{1}{z(1-z)} \frac{i_+}{(i\, i+1)}\ V_{12\dots i\ i+2\dots n} \ , \ee where we relabel $P\rightarrow p_i$ after the limit is taken (the $i_+$ and $(i\ i+1)$ factors involve momenta rather than spinors, which is why the $z$-dependent factor is $1/z(1-z)$, rather than the conventional $1/\sqrt{z(1-z)}$). Consider the behaviour of the right-hand side of \eqref{conj} under the limit \eqref{collinear1}. The first point is that if the indices $i, i+1$ lie on different $\Yrm$'s, then there are no poles generated in this collinear limit. This is clear from the explicit expressions for the $\Yrm$'s in \eqref{Ys}. Thus we may ignore any terms of this type. It is then immediate from the explicit forms of the $\Yrm$'s that \be \Yrm_{12\dots s} \rightarrow \frac{1}{z(1-z)} \frac{i_+}{(i\, i+1)}\ \Yrm_{12\dots i\ i+2\dots s} \ , \ee for any $i = 2,\dots s-1$, with $s\leq n$ (the first index in $\Yrm$ never contributes in a collinear limit, as one can see from the conjecture \eqref{conj}). Thus we see that the $\Yrm$ expressions have the right sort of collinear behaviour. It is straightforward to see that the $K$ coefficients in \eqref{conj} also get relabelled correctly in the collinear limit; they are not explicitly involved as they refer to pairs of momenta attached to different $\Yrm$ fields, and as we saw, these do not contribute. It is then immediate to see that the summation over the products of $\Yrm$'s in \eqref{conj} reduces correctly in the collinear limit to the required summation over products of $\Yrm$'s with one fewer leg in total. Hence the proposal \eqref{conj} for the amplitude has precisely the same collinear limits as the physical amplitude. \noindent{\bf Soft limits} We also find that there is a simple derivation of the soft limits of the expression in \eqref{conj}. In the soft limit \be p_j \rightarrow 0 \ , \ee the $n$-point amplitude $V_{12\dots n}$ behaves as \be V_{12\dots n} \rightarrow S(j)\ V_{12\dots j-1\ j+1\dots n} \ , \ee where we assume cyclic ordering as usual, so that, for example, $p_{n+1}=p_1$. The soft function $S(j)$ is given in terms of the momentum brackets by \be S(j) = \frac{j_+ (j-1\, j+1)}{(j-1 \,j)\,(j\, j+1)}\ . \ee The $\Yrm$ functions have a simple behaviour under soft limits. One has immediately that in the soft limit $p_j\rightarrow 0$, \be \Yrm_{12\dots s} \rightarrow S(j)\ \Yrm_{12\dots j-1\ j+1\dots s} \ , \ee for $j=3,\dots s-1$ (with $s\leq n$). For the soft limits corresponding to the case missing in the above, we need the results \be \Yrm_{\bullet s+1\dots j} = \Yrm_{\bullet s+1\dots j-1}\, \frac{(j-1)_+}{(j-1\, j)}, \qquad \Yrm_{\bullet j\dots s} = \Yrm_{\bullet j+1\dots s}\, \frac{(j+1)_+}{(j\, j+1)} \ , \ee which follow from the definitions of the $\Yrm$'s, and \be \frac{(j+1)_+}{(j\, j+1)} + \frac{(j-1)_+}{(j-1\, j)} = \frac{j_+(j-1\, j+1)}{(j-1\, j)\ (j\, j+1)} = S(j) \ , \ee which follows from the cyclic identity $i_+(jk) + j_+(ki) + k_+(ij) = 0$. Finally, from relabelling the $K$'s we have in the soft limit that $K_{sj}\rightarrow K_{s j-1}$. Then it follows that in the soft limit \be K_{sj}\ \Yrm_{\bullet s+1\dots j}\ \Yrm_{\bullet j+1\dots s} + K_{sj-1}\ \Yrm_{\bullet s+1\dots j-1}\ \Yrm_{\bullet j\dots s} \rightarrow S(j) K_{s j-1}\ \Yrm_{\bullet s+1\dots j-1}\ \Yrm_{\bullet j+1\dots s} \ , \ee as required. Again, it is then easy to see that the summation over the products of $\Yrm$'s in \eqref{conj} reduces correctly in the soft limit to the required summation over products of $\Yrm$'s with one fewer leg in total. Hence the proposal \eqref{conj} for the amplitude has precisely the same soft limits as the physical amplitude. \section{Discussion} Whilst new, twistor-inspired methods for calculating amplitudes in gauge theory have led to much progress, the lack of a systematic action-based formulation which incorporates these new ideas has been an impediment to further developments. MHV diagrams have the two advantages of being closely allied to the twistor picture, as well as providing an explicit realisation of the dispersion and phase space integrals fundamental to unitarity-based methods. However, without an action formalism, standard MHV methods have so far been mainly restricted to massless theories at one-loop level, and to the cut-constructible parts of amplitudes. The advent of a classical MHV Lagrangian for gauge theory, derived from lightcone YM theory , provides the basis for transcending these limitations. In order for this to be realised, it is necessary to describe the quantum MHV theory. What we have done in this paper is to investigate this quantum theory. Using the regularisation methods of , we have provided arguments that the simplest one-loop counterterm in the quantum MHV theory -- a two point vertex -- provides an extraordinarily concise generating function for the infinite sequence of one-loop, all-plus helicity amplitudes in YM theory. We showed this by explicit calculation for the four-point case, and then proved that the soft and collinear limits of the conjectured $n$-point amplitude precisely matched those of the correct answer. We would like to emphasise that the simplicity of our approach --- which reduced the calculations of the loop amplitudes we considered to tree--level algebraic manipulations--- is largely due to the four--dimensional nature of the regularisation scheme we employed. By staying in four dimensions, we preserve the appealing features of the inherently four--dimensional field redefinition of . Based upon this result, it is very natural to conjecture that the full quantum YM theory is correctly described by this quantum MHV Lagrangian. The correct ingredients appear to be present. For example, in the approach of there arise one-loop counterterms with helicities $(++), (++-), (--), (--+)$. We studied the $(++)$ counterterm in this paper, arguing that when expressed in the $(B, \Bbar)$ variables this generates the full set of all-plus amplitudes. Transforming the $(++-)$ counterterm to $(B, \Bbar)$ variables will generate an infinite sequence of single--minus vertices. There will be other contributions to single-minus vertices from combinations of all-plus vertices and MHV vertices. It would be surprising if the combined contributions of these did not lead to the correct YM single-minus expressions. Certainly all of these have the correct powers of spinor brackets for this to be the case. Transforming the $(--)$ and $(--+)$ counterterms to $(B, \Bbar)$ variables will lead to new contributions to MHV vertices\footnote{In the MHV case there are additional counterterms noted in which may also need to be taken into account in future discussions.}. The MHV vertices from the classical MHV Lagrangian only generate the cut-constructible parts of YM loop amplitudes, such as the one-loop MHV amplitude. These new contributions might be expected to lead to the missing, rational parts. This would also potentially explain why in the combination of all-plus vertices with MHV tree vertices did not yield the correct single-minus amplitudes -- these additional MHV contributions are missing. Further evidence for the conjecture that the quantum MHV Lagrangian is equivalent to quantum YM theory would be welcome. One could start with seeking explicit proofs of the above proposals. One can also investigate beyond massless one-loop gauge theory -- an advantage of the Lagrangian approach is that the inclusion of masses, and of fermions and scalars, is in principle clear. There are other issues raised by this work. It is plausible that the potential quantum versions of the twistor space formulations of gauge theory are most likely to be allied to the quantum theory discussed here -- one simple reason for believing this is that the regularisation employed here keeps one in four dimensions. Perhaps there are simple twistor space analogues of the counterterms discussed above. Finally, although for our purposes the lightcone worldsheet approach to perturbative gauge theory provided simply the motivation for a particular choice of regularisation scheme, we believe that it would be fruitful to further explore possible connections between that framework and the twistor string programme. \noindent {\bf Addendum:} We would like to thank Paul Mansfield and Tim Morris for having informed us that they have recently been pursuing research related to that presented in this paper. Their work, which is complementary to ours in that it employs dimensional regularisation, has now appeared in . \section*{Acknowledgements} It is a pleasure to thank Paul Heslop, Gregory Korchemsky, Paul Mansfield, Tim Morris and Adele Nasti for discussions. We would like to thank PPARC for support under the Rolling Grant PP/D507323/1 and the Special Programme Grant PP/C50426X/1. The work of GT is supported by an EPSRC Advanced Fellowship EP/C544242/1 and by an EPSRC Standard Research Grant EP/C544250/1. \newpage \appendix \section{Notation} \paragraph{Lightcone conventions}\mbox{} Here we summarise our lightcone conventions. We start off by introducing lightcone coordinates \beq x^{\pm} := {x^0 \pm x^3 \over \sqrt{2}} \ , \quad x^{z} := {x^1 + i x^2 \over \sqrt{2}} \ , \quad x^{\zb } := {x^1 - i x^2 \over \sqrt{2}} \ . \eeq We also have $x^+ = x_{-}$, $ x^{z} = - x_{\zb}$, and so on. The scalar product between two vectors $A$ and $B$ is written as \beq A \cdot B := A_+ B_{-} + A_{-} B_+ - A_{z} B_{\zb} - A_{\zb} B_{z} \ . \eeq We choose $x^-$ as our lightcone time coordinate, therefore the lightcone gauge used in this paper is defined by \beq A^- = 0 \ . \eeq This condition can be written as $\eta \cdot A =0$, where $\eta$ is a constant null vector, chosen to have components $\eta := ( 1/\sqrt{2},0, 0,1/ \sqrt{2})$ (hence $\eta_{-} = 1$, $\eta_{+} = \eta_{z} = \eta_{\zb} = 0$). To any four-vector $p$ we associate the bispinor $p_{a \dot{a}}$ defined by \beq p_{a \dot{a}} \ := \ \sqrt{2} \left( \begin{matrix} p_{-} & - p_z \\ - p_{\zb} & p_{+} \end{matrix} \right) \ . \eeq We also define holomorphic and anti-holomorphic spinors as \beq \lambda_{a} \ : = \ {2^{1 \over 4} \over \sqrt{p_+}} \left( \begin{matrix} - p_{z} \\ \, p_+ \end{matrix} \right) \ , \qquad \lt_{\dot{a}} \ : = \ {2^{1 \over 4} \over \sqrt{p_+}} \left( \begin{matrix} - p_{\zb} \\ \, p_+ \end{matrix} \right) \ , \eeq from which it follows that \beq \lambda_{a}\lt_{\dot{a}} \ := \ \sqrt{2} \left( \begin{matrix} {p_z p_{\zb} \over p_{+} }& - p_z \\ - p_{\zb} & p_{+} \end{matrix} \right) \ . \eeq This is of course consistent with the on-shell condition $p_{-} = p_z p_{\zb} / p_{+}$. Furthermore, comparing \eqref{paad} and \eqref{paados} and choosing $\eta$ as specified earlier, we see that a generic off-shell vector $p$ can be decomposed as \beq p \ = \ \lambda \lt \, + \, z \eta \ , \eeq where \beq z \ = \ { p_{-} p_{+} - p_z p_{\zb} \over p_{+} \eta_{-}} \ = \ {p^2 \over 2 (p\cdot \eta )} \ . \eeq \eqref{mhvl1} and \eqref{mhvl2} are the familiar decompositions of off-shell vectors in the MHV literature . The off-shell holomorphic spinor product is defined as: \be \ip{ij}=\sqrt{2}\, \frac{p_+^ip_z^j-p_+^jp_z^i}{\sqrt{p_+^ip_+^j}} \ , \ee whereas for the antiholomorphic spinors we define \be [ij]=\sqrt{2}\, \frac{p_+^ip_{\zb}^j-p_+^jp_{\zb}^i}{\sqrt{p_+^ip_+^j}} \ . \ee In these conventions, one finds \beq 2 (p^i \cdot p^j ) \ = \ \lan i \, j \ran \,[i\, j] + \, \left( {p^j_{+} \over p^i_{+}}\right) (p^i)^2 \, + \, \left( {p^i_{+} \over p^j_{+}}\right) (p^j)^2 \ , \eeq or, in the case where $p^i$ and $p^j $ are on shell, $2 (p^i \cdot p^j ) = \lan i \, j \ran \,[i\, j] $. In the standard QCD literature conventions it is customary to define $2 (p^i \cdot p^j ) = \lan i \, j \ran \,[j\, i] $; this can be obtained by simply re-defining the inner product of two anti-holomorphic spinors, $[i\, j]$, to be the negative of the right hand side of \eqref{product2}. \paragraph{Useful identities}\mbox{} The form () is very convenient for deriving identities for $\ip{ij}$ that also involve the $p_+$ components. For instance, one has: \be \begin{split} & \sqrt{p_+^i}\ip{jk}+\sqrt{p_+^j}\ip{ki}+\sqrt{p_+^k}\ip{ij} \\ &= \sqrt{2}\, \frac{p_+^i(p_+^jp_z^k-p_+^kp_z^j)}{\sqrt{p_+^ip_+^jp_+^k}} +\sqrt{2}\, \frac{p_+^j(p_+^kp_z^i-p_+^ip_z^k)}{\sqrt{p_+^ip_+^jp_+^k}} +\sqrt{2}\, \frac{p_+^k(p_+^ip_z^j-p_+^jp_z^i)}{\sqrt{p_+^ip_+^jp_+^k}}=0 \ . \end{split} \ee It is also easy to see how to apply momentum conservation, take say $\ip{ij}$, and substitute \be p^j=-\sum_{k\neq j} p^k\;\;\quad \text{(for each component)}. \ee Then we have \be \sqrt{p_+^j}\ip{ij}= \sqrt{2}\frac{p_+^i(-\sum_{k\neq j} p_z^k)+ (\sum_{k\neq j}p_+^k)p_z^i}{\sqrt{p_+^i}}= -\sqrt{2}\sum_{k\neq j}\sqrt{p_+^k}\frac{p_+^ip_z^k-p_+^kp_z^i} {\sqrt{p_+^ip_+^k}} =\sum_{k\neq j}\sqrt{p_+^k}\ip{ki} \ . \ee We have also used the momentum bracket notation from \be (ij) = p_+^ip_z^j-p_+^jp_z^i \ , \quad \{ij\} = p_+^ip_{\bar z}^j-p_+^jp_{\bar z}^i \ . \ee \paragraph{Lightcone Yang--Mills action}\mbox{} Here we give the form of the lightcone Yang--Mills action that we use in this paper. As discussed in more detail in , starting from the YM Lagrangian $-(1/4)\, \tr F^2$, imposing the lightcone gauge (), and integrating out the $A^+$ component which appears quadratically, the final lightcone theory contains only the two physical components $A_z$ and $A_\zb$ , which we associate with positive and negative helicity respectively. The Lagrangian takes the simple form () \be \Lcal_{\rm YM}=\Lcal_{+-}+\Lcal_{++-}+\Lcal_{--+}+\Lcal_{++--} \ , \ee with \be \begin{split} \Lcal_{+-}&=-2\, \tr\{ A_\zb(\p_+\p_--\p_z\p_\zb) A_z\} \ , \\ \Lcal_{++-}&=2ig\, \tr\{[A_z,\p_+A_\zb](\p_+)^{-1}(\p_\zb A_z)\} \ , \\ \Lcal_{--+}&=2ig\, \tr\{[A_\zb,\p_+A_z](\p_+)^{-1}(\p_z A_\zb)\} \ , \\ \Lcal_{++--}&=-2g^2\, \tr\{[A_\zb,\p_+A_z](\p_+)^{-2}[A_z,\p_+A_\zb]\}\ . \end{split} \ee Note that, in agreement with CQT, we have used the normalisation $\tr \{T^aT^b\}=\delta^{ab}$. In order to convert to the usual conventions for Yang--Mills theory, we therefore need to rescale $g\ra g/\sqrt2$. \paragraph{Relation to the notation of CQT}\mbox{} To compare our notation to that of , note that we employ outgoing momenta instead of incoming, therefore the all--plus amplitudes in these works would be all--minus from our perspective, and should thus be conjugated when comparing. Also, our time evolution coordinate is taken to be $x^-$ rather that $x^+$, which (among other changes) implies that $p^+$ of CQT becomes $p_+$. Our metric is also taken to have opposite signature to that in CQT. Finally, CQT define momentum brackets $K^\wedge_{ij}$ and $K^\vee_{ij}$, which are just our $(ij)$ and $\{ij\}$ brackets respectively. \section{Details on the four--point calculation} In this appendix we prove two results that were used in section , namely equations () and (). To make the expressions more compact, instead of momentum brackets we use the following notation: \be f_{ij}=-\frac{(ij)}{p_+^ip_+^j}=\frac{p_z^i}{p_+^i}-\frac{p_z^j}{p_+^j} \ . \ee The $f_{ij}$ variables satisfy the simple relation: \be f_{ij}=f_{ik}+f_{kj} \ , \ee while momentum conservation is applied as \be p_+^if_{ij}=-\sum p_+^k f_{kj} \ . \ee Also, to minimise clutter, in this appendix we use the notation $q_i:=p_+^i$. \paragraph{Proof of the quadratic identity} \mbox{} In order to show (), it is convenient to divide out by the $\sqrt{\pplfour}$ factor (which is there anyway in ()) in order to bring it to the form \be \begin{split} &q_4^2f_{34}f_{41} +q_1^2f_{12}f_{41} +q_2^2f_{12}f_{23} +q_3^2f_{23}f_{34}\\ &-(q_2+q_3)(q_1+q_4)f_{12}f_{34} -(q_3+q_4)(q_2+q_1)f_{23}f_{41}=0\ , \end{split} \ee Expanding out the two last terms in () as \be -(q_1q_3+q_2q_4)(f_{12}f_{34}+f_{23}f_{41}) -(q_1q_2+q_3q_4)f_{12}f_{34}-(q_2q_3+q_4q_1)f_{23}f_{41}\;, \ee we apply momentum conservation on each of the four components of the first term of (), in the following way: \be \begin{split} &-q_1q_3f_{12}f_{34}=q_1f_{12}(q_1f_{14}+q_2f_{24})=-q_1^2f_{12}f_{41}+q_1q_2f_{12}f_{24}\;,\\ &-q_1q_3f_{23}f_{41}=q_3f_{23}(q_2f_{42}+q_3f_{43})=-q_3^2f_{23}f_{34}+q_2q_3f_{23}f_{42}\;,\\ &-q_2q_4f_{12}f_{34}=q_4(q_3f_{13}+q_4f_{14})f_{34}=-q_4^2f_{34}f_{41}+q_3q_4f_{13}f_{34}\;,\\ &-q_2q_4f_{23}f_{41}=q_2f_{23}(q_2f_{21}+q_3f_{31})=-q_2^2f_{12}f_{23}+q_2q_3f_{31}f_{23}\;.\\ \end{split} \ee Clearly these transformations have been chosen to cancel the first four terms in (). Collecting the remaining terms, we obtain \be \begin{split} &q_1q_2f_{12}(f_{24}-f_{34})+q_2q_3f_{23}(f_{42}+f_{31}-f_{41})+q_3q_4f_{34}(f_{13}-f_{12})-q_1q_4f_{23}f_{41}\\ &=q_1q_2f_{12}f_{23}+q_2q_3f_{23}f_{32}+q_3q_4f_{34}f_{23}+q_1q_4f_{23}f_{14}\\ &=f_{23}[q_2(q_1f_{12}+q_3f_{32})+q_4(q_3f_{34}+q_1f_{14})]=f_{23}[-q_2(q_4f_{42})-q_4(q_2f_{24})]\\ &=0 \end{split} \ee thus showing (). \paragraph{Proof of the linear identity}\mbox{} We will now outline the proof ot the linear (in region momenta) identity (). Converting it to the notation used in the appendix, and performing simple manipulations, we find (suppressing the overall $3/8$ factor): \be \begin{split} X=\ &q_4^2((\bp_3+\bp_4)+(\bp_2+\bp_3))f_{34}f_{41} +q_1^2(-(\bp_2+\bp_3)+(\bp_3+\bp_4))f_{12}f_{41}\\ &+q_2^2(-(\bp_3+\bp_4)-(\bp_2+\bp_3))f_{12}f_{23} +q_3^2(+(\bp_2+\bp_3)-(\bp_3+\bp_4))f_{23}f_{34}\\ &-\half(q_2+q_3)(q_1+q_4)[(\bp_3-\bp_2)+(\bp_1-\bp_4)]f_{12}f_{34}\\ &-\half(q_3+q_4)(q_1+q_2)[(\bp_4-\bp_3)+(\bp_2-\bp_1)]f_{23}f_{41}\\ =\ &(\bp_3-\bp_1)(q_4^2f_{34}f_{41}-q_2^2f_{12}f_{23}) +(\bp_4-\bp_2)(q_1^2f_{12}f_{41}-q_3^2f_{23}f_{34})\\ &-(q_2+q_3)(q_1+q_4)(\bp_3+\bp_1)f_{12}f_{34} -(q_3+q_4)(q_1+q_2)(\bp_2+\bp_4)f_{23}f_{41}\\ =\ &(\bp_3-\bp_1)(q_4^2f_{34}f_{41}-q_2^2f_{12}f_{23}) +(\bp_4-\bp_2)(q_1^2f_{12}f_{41}-q_3^2f_{23}f_{34})\\ &-(\bp_1+\bp_3)q_2q_4(f_{12}f_{34}-f_{23}f_{41})+(\bp_2+\bp_4)q_1q_3(f_{12}f_{34}-f_{23}f_{41})\\ &-(\bp_1+\bp_3)(q_1q_2+q_3q_4)f_{12}f_{34}+(\bp_1+\bp_3)(q_2q_3+q_4q_1)f_{23}f_{41}\ . \end{split} \ee Similarly to the previous case, we will rewrite the second line in the final expression in such a way that we completely cancel all the terms in the first line. To do that we use \be \begin{split} -(\bp_1+\bp_3)q_2q_4(f_{12}f_{34}-f_{23}f_{41})=& (\bp_3-\bp_1)(q_2^2f_{12}f_{23}-q_4^2f_{34}f_{41})+\\ &+q_1q_2\bp^1f_{12}f_{31}-q_4q_1\bp^1f_{41}f_{13}+\\ &+q_3q_4\bp^3f_{34}f_{13}-q_2q_3\bp^3f_{23}f_{31} \end{split} \ee and \be \begin{split} (\bp_2+\bp_4)q_1q_3(f_{12}f_{34}-f_{23}f_{41})=& (\bp_4-\bp_2)(q_3^2f_{23}f_{34}-q_1^2f_{12}f_{41})+\\ &+q_2q_3\bp_2f_{23}f_{42}-q_1q_2\bp_2f_{12}f_{24}+\\ &+q_4q_1\bp_4f_{41}f_{24}-q_3q_4\bp_4f_{34}f_{42}\ . \end{split} \ee What remains after substituting these is \be \begin{split} X=\ &\bp_1q_1f_{31}(q_2f_{12}+q_4f_{41})+q_3\bp_3f_{13}(q_4f_{34}+q_2f_{23})\\ &+\bp_2q_2f_{42}(q_3f_{23}+q_1f_{12})+q_4\bp_4f_{24}(q_1f_{41}+q_3f_{34})\\ &-(\bp_1+\bp_3)(q_1q_2+q_3q_4)f_{12}f_{34}+(\bp_1+\bp_3)(q_2q_3+q_4q_1)f_{23}f_{41}\\ =\ &\bp_1q_1q_2f_{12}f_{41}+\bp_3q_3q_4f_{34}f_{23} +\bp_1q_4q_1f_{41}f_{21}+\bp_3q_2q_3f_{23}f_{43}\\ &+\bp_2q_2f_{42}(q_3f_{23}+q_1f_{12})+q_4\bp_4f_{24}(q_1f_{41}+q_3f_{34})\\ &-(\bp_1q_3q_4+\bp_3q_1q_2)f_{12}f_{34}+(\bp_1q_2q_3+\bp_3q_4q_1)f_{23}f_{41}\ . \end{split} \ee Now we collect various terms together to rewrite $X$ as \be \begin{split} X=\ &\bp_1q_2f_{41}(q_1f_{12}+q_3f_{23})+\bp_3q_4f_{23}(q_3f_{34}+q_1f_{41})\\ &+\bp_1q_4f_{21}(q_1f_{41}+q_3f_{34})+\bp_3q_2f_{43}(q_3f_{23}+q_1f_{12})\\ &+\bp_2q_2f_{42}(q_3f_{23}+q_1f_{12})+\bp_4q_4f_{24}(q_1f_{41}+q_3f_{34})\\ =\ &\bp_1q_2f_{41}(2q_3f_{23}-q_4f_{42})+\bp_3q_4f_{23}(2q_1f_{41}-q_2f_{24})\\ &+\bp_1q_4f_{21}(2q_1f_{41}-q_4f_{42})+\bp_3q_2f_{43}(2q_3f_{23}-q_4f_{42})\\ &+\bp_2q_2f_{42}(2q_3f_{23}-q_4f_{42})+\bp_4q_4f_{24}(2q_1f_{41}-q_2f_{24})\\ =\ &2[q_2q_3f_{23}(\bp_1f_{41}+\bp_3f_{43}+\bp_2f_{42}) +q_4q_1f_{41}(\bp_3f_{23}+\bp_1f_{21}+\bp_4f_{24})] \\ &+(\bp_1+\bp_2+\bp_3+\bp_4)q_2q_4f_{24}f_{42}\ . \end{split} \ee Clearly the term on the last line vanishes by momentum conservation. We now restore all labels to write the final result as \be \begin{split} X=&2~(32)[f_4(p_\zb^1+p_\zb^2+p_\zb^3)-p_\zb^1f_1-p_\zb^2f_2-p_\zb^3f_3]+\\ &+2~(14)[f_2(p_\zb^1+p_\zb^3+p_\zb^4)-p_\zb^3f_3-p_\zb^1f_1-p_\zb^4f_4]\ , \end{split} \ee where we used that $q_2q_3f_{23}=p_+^2p_+^3(p_z^2/q_+^2-p_z^3/p_+^3) =p_+^3p_z^2-p_+^2p_z^3=(32)$ (and similarly for $(14)$), and where $f_i=p_z^i/p_+^i$. Using momentum conservation on both terms, we rewrite them as \be X=-2[(32)+(14)]\left[\frac{p_\zb^1p_z^1}{p_+^1}+\frac{p_\zb^2p_z^2}{p_+^2}+ \frac{p_\zb^3p_z^3}{p_+^3}+\frac{p_\zb^4p_z^4}{p_+^4}\right] \ . \ee For each momentum we have that $p^2=2(p_+p_--p_zp_\zb)$, therefore we can rewrite the above as \be X=+[(32)+(14)]\left[\frac{(p_1)^2}{p_+^1}+\frac{(p_2)^2}{p_+^2}+ \frac{(p_3)^2}{p_+^3}+\frac{(p_4)^2}{p_+^4} +2(p_-^1+p_-^2+p_-^3+p_-^4)\right] \ . \ee The $p_-$ term vanishes, hence, noticing also that $(32)+(14)=-\half((12)+(23)+(34)+(41))$, we conclude that \be X=-\half[(12)+(23)+(34)+(41)]\sum_{i=1}^4 \frac{(p_i)^2}{p_+^i} \ . \ee \paragraph{Off-shell terms in the four-point case} \mbox{} For completeness, we also give the form of the off-shell terms that arose in the manipulations leading to \eqref{finalfinal}. Using the notation $P_{ij}=(\frac{(p_i)^2}{p_+^i}+\frac{(p_j)^2}{p_+^j})$ they are : \be \begin{split} &f(p^2)=\frac{1}{4\ip{12}\cdots\ip{41}}\big[-P_{13}(\bp_1+\bp_2)(41)-P_{13}(\bp_2+\bp_3)(12)+P_{24}(\bp_2+\bp_3)(42)\\ &+\frac{1}{p_+^1}P_{12} [(p_+^2+p_+^3)(2\bp_1+\bp_2-\bp_3)-p_+^3(\bp_1+\bp_2)-p_+^1(\bp_2+\bp_3)]~ (13)\\ &+P_{12}\frac{p_+^3}{p_+^1p_+^2}[p_+^2(\bp_1+\bp_2)-p_+^4(\bp_2+\bp_3)](12) -2P_{13}\frac{1}{p_+^1}\{31\}(41)\big] \;. \end{split} \ee This expression, together with ${\cal V}^{(4)}_k$ in \eqref{regionvertex}, should be added to \eqref{finalfinal} in order to recover a fully off-shell four--point vertex. \newpage \bibliography{ctrefs} \bibliographystyle{JHEP1}
|
0704.0254
|
Title: Unravelling the sbottom spin at the CERN LHC
Abstract: Establishing that a signal of new physics is undoubtly supersymmetric
requires not only the discovery of the supersymmetric partners but also probing
their spins and couplings. We show that the sbottom spin can be probed at the
CERN Large Hadron Collider using only angular correlations in sbottom pair
production with subsequent decay of sbottoms into bottom quark plus the
lightest neutralino, which allow us to distinguish a universal extra
dimensional interpretation with a fermionic heavy bottom quark from
supersymmetry with a bosonic bottom squark. We demonstrate that this channel
provides a clear indication of the sbottom spin provided the sbottom production
rate and branching ratio into bottom quark plus the lightest neutralino are
sufficiently large to have a clear signal above Standard Model backgrounds.
Body: \date{\bf 02/04/07} \title{Unravelling the sbottom spin at the CERN LHC} \author{Alexandre Alves} \email{aalves@fma.if.usp.br} \affiliation{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Universidade de S\~{a}o Paulo, S\~{a}o Paulo, Brazil} \author{Oscar \'Eboli} \email{eboli@fma.if.usp.br} \affiliation{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Universidade de S\~{a}o Paulo, S\~{a}o Paulo, Brazil} \begin{abstract} \bigskip Establishing that a signal of new physics is undoubtly supersymmetric requires not only the discovery of the supersymmetric partners but also probing their spins and couplings. We show that the sbottom spin can be probed at the CERN Large Hadron Collider using only angular correlations in the reaction $pp \to \sbx{} \sbx{}^* \to b \bar{b} \sla{p}_T$, which allow us to distinguish a universal extra dimensional interpretation with a fermionic heavy bottom quark from supersymmetry with a bosonic bottom squark. We demonstrate that this channel provides a clear indication of the sbottom spin provided the sbottom production rate and branching ratio into $b \nn{1}$ are sufficiently large to have a clear signal above Standard Model backgrounds. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} Supersymmetric models are promising candidates for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM), despite the present lack of direct experimental evidence on supersymmetry (SUSY). The CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has a large reach for the discovery of SUSY~ that largely relies on the production and decay of strongly interacting new particles {\em i.e.} squarks and gluinos~. Establishing that a signal of new physics at the LHC is indeed supersymmetric requires not only the discovery of the new supersymmetric partners but also probing their interactions and spins~. \medskip Previously, the squark spin has been studied through the long decay chain $ \sq{} \to \nn{2} \to \se{} \to \nn{1}$ which is also used to measure its mass~ or in conjunction with the gluino spin analysis in the decay chain $ \go \to \sbx{} \to \nn{2} \to \se{} \to \nn{1}$~. In this work we probe the potential of the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) for unravelling the bottom squark spin using angular correlations in the short decay chain $pp \to \sbx{} \sbx{}^* \to b \bar{b} \sla{p}_T$, analogously to what has been done for the analysis of the slepton spin~. A nice feature of this reaction is that only sbottoms and the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) takes place in it, providing a further check of sbottom spin obtained in the long decay chain studies. Unfortunately, this analysis can not be extended straightforwardly to light flavor squarks due to large QCD backgrounds. \medskip To determine the spin nature of the sbottoms at the LHC we compare the SUSY sbottom production and decay chain with another scenario where the new intermediate states have the same spin as the SM particles and leads to the same final state $b \bar{b} \sla{p}_T$. Such a model are Universal Extra Dimensions (UED)~ where each SM particle has a heavy Kaluza--Klein (KK) partner which can mimic the SUSY cascade decay, provided we employ the mass spectra extracted from the decay kinematics match~. Here we are not focusing on UED searches but we use UED only for comparison with the SUSY predictions. \medskip There are many observables which we can use to discriminate `typical' UED and SUSY models, like the production rate or the mass spectrum. Nevertheless, at the LHC we measure only production cross sections times branching ratios, and the UED as well as the SUSY mass spectra are unlikely to be what we currently consider `typical'. On the other hand, spin information is generally extracted from angular correlations. Therefore, we base our analysis exclusively on distributions of the outgoing SM $b$ quarks as predicted by UED and by SUSY. We demonstrate that this final state $b \bar{b} \sla{p}_T$ provides a clear indication of the sbottom spin provided the sbottom production rate and branching ratio into $b \nn{1}$ are sufficiently large to have a clear signal above SM backgrounds. \bigskip \section{UED interactions and parameters} We assumed one extra dimension with size $R$, where all SM fields propagate~, leading to a tower of discrete KK excitations for each of the SM fields ($n=0$). In this scenario, the 5-dimensional wave functions for an SU(2)--doublet fermion are \begin{equation} \psi_d = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}} \psi^{(0)}_{dL} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left( \psi^{(n)}_{dL} \cos\frac{ny}{R} +\psi^{(n)}_{dR} \sin\frac{ny}{R} \right) \; . \end{equation} On the other hand, the roles of the left and right handed $n$-th KK excitations are reversed for SU(2) singlets. Just like in the MSSM, the spinors of the singlet ($q$) and doublet ($Q$) KK--fermion mass eigenstates can be expressed in terms of the SU(2) doublet and singlet fields $\psi_{d,s}$ \begin{alignat}{5} Q^{(n)} &= \; \cos \alpha^{(n)} \psi_d^{(n)} &+\;& \sin\alpha^{(n)} \psi_s^{(n)} \; , \notag \\ q^{(n)} &= \; \sin\alpha^{(n)}\gamma^5 \psi_d^{(n)} &-& \cos\alpha^{(n)} \gamma^5\psi_s^{(n)} \; . \end{alignat} In general, the mixing angle $\alpha^{(n)}$ is suppressed by the SM fermion mass over the KK--excitation mass plus one--loop corrections except for the top quark due to its large mass. \begin{equation} \tan 2\alpha^{(n)}= \frac{m_f}{\frac{n}{R} + \frac{1}{2} (\delta m^{(n)}_Q+\delta m^{(n)}_q)} \end{equation} The non--degenerate KK--mass terms $\delta m^{(n)}$ contain tree level and loop contributions to the KK masses, including possibly large contributions from non--universal boundary conditions. \medskip The neutral KK gauge fields will play the role of neutralinos in the alternative description of the sbottom production and decay. Just as in the SM, there is a KK--weak mixing angle which for each $n$ rotates the interaction eigenstates into mass eigenstates \begin{alignat}{5} \gamma_\mu^{(n)} &= & \cos \theta_{w}^{(n)} \, B_\mu^{(n)} &+\;& \sin \theta_{w}^{(n)} \, W_{3,\mu}^{(n)} \; ,\notag \\ Z_\mu^{(n)} &= -& \sin \theta_{w}^{(n)} \, B_\mu^{(n)} &+& \cos \theta_{w}^{(n)} \, W_{3,\mu}^{(n)} \; . \end{alignat} The $n$-th KK weak mixing angle is again mass suppressed \begin{equation} \tan 2\theta_w^{(n)} = \frac{v^2 \, g \, g_Y/2}{ ( \delta m^{(n)}_{W_3} )^2 - ( \delta m^{(n)}_B )^2 + v^2 \left( g^2-g^2_Y \right)/4} \end{equation} where $\delta m^{(n)}$ contains tree level as well as loop corrections to the KK gauge boson masses. Generally $(\delta m^{(n)}_{W_3} )^2 - ( \delta m^{(n)}_B )^2 \gg v^2 \left( g^2-g^2_Y \right)$~ and the lightest KK partner is the $B^{(1)}$, with basically no admixture from the heavy $W_3^{(1)}$. \medskip We only considered the first set of KK excitations to formulate an alternative interpretation of production and decay of sbottoms at the LHC, using the UED decay $ b^{(1)} \to b \gamma^{(1)}$ to mimic a sbottom decay. The relevant interactions for this decay are \begin{equation} {\cal L}_{\gamma_1 q_1 q} = ig_Y\Big[ \; \bar{q}^{(0)}\gamma^\mu \left( Y_d\cos\alpha^{(1)} P_L +Y_s\sin\alpha^{(1)} P_R \right) Q^{(1)} -\bar{q}^{(0)}\gamma^\mu \left( Y_d\sin\alpha^{(1)} P_L +Y_s\cos\alpha^{(1)} P_R \right) q^{(1)} \Big]\gamma^{(1)}_\mu \; . \end{equation} In general, the KK partners of the SM particles do not have a mass spectrum similar to what we expect in SUSY, however, we imposed that the first KK excitations have the same mass as the SUSY particles. Assigning the LSP mass to the Lightest KK Particle (LKP) and the Next-LSP mass to the Next-LKP mass fixes the KK-weak mixing angle by means of Eq.~() \begin{equation} \theta_w^{(1)} = \frac{1}{2}\arctan\left(\frac{gg_Yv^2}{2(m^2_{NLSP}-m^2_{LSP})}\right) \; . \end{equation} \section{Event simulation and test points} We considered three scenarios for the new particle spectrum. Our first test point is the LHC point 5 (S5) that exhibits rather heavy sbottoms with sizeable decays into $b \nn{1}$; see Table~I. Our second reference point is SPS1a where the sbottom masses are close to ones in the first scenario, however the decays $\sbx{1,2} \to b \nn{1}$ are suppressed. The third test point exhibits a somewhat light squark spectrum which could be eventually produced at a 1 TeV International $e^+ e^-$ Linear Collider; we denote this point by L1. The masses for the L1 parameter point are $\msb{1} = 280 \gev$, $\msb{2} = 354 \gev$, $\mst{1} = 339 \gev$, $\mst{2} = 371 \gev$, and $\mnn{1} = 97.8 \gev$. For the SPS1a and S5 parameter choices the lighter of the two sbottoms is almost entirely a left state $\sbx{1}\sim \sbx{L}$ while for L1 it is approximately a maximal mixture of left and right states $\sbx{1}\sim \sqrt{2}/2\sbx{L}+\sqrt{2}/2\sbx{R}$. The salient features of these reference points is summarized in Table~I. \medskip \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline test point & particle & mass (GeV) & branching ratio \\ \hline \hline S5 & $\nn{1}$ & 122. & stable \\ \hline S5 & $\sbx{1}$ & 633. & Br($\sbx{1} \to b \nn{1}$) = 26.6\ \\ \hline S5 & $\sbx{2}$ & 663. & Br($\sbx{2} \to b \nn{1}$) = 78.8\ \\ \hline \hline SPS1a & $\nn{1}$ & 97. & stable \\ \hline SPS1a & $\sbx{1}$ & 517. & Br($\sbx{1} \to b \nn{1}$) = 4.4\ \\ \hline SPS1a & $\sbx{2}$ & 547. & Br($\sbx{2} \to b \nn{1}$) = 29\ \\ \hline \hline L1 & $\nn{1}$ & 97.8 & stable \\ \hline L1 & $\sbx{1}$ & 280. & Br($\sbx{1} \to b \nn{1}$) = 40\ \\ \hline L1 & $\sbx{2}$ & 354. & Br($\sbx{2} \to b \nn{1}$) = 20\ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \caption{Masses of sbottoms, the lightest neutralino, and branching ratios of $\sbx{1,2} \to b\nn{1}$ for the test points considered in our numerical simulations.} \end{table} In order to correctly treat all spin correlations we performed a parton--level analysis including the UED interactions in MADGRAPH~ and using SMADGRAPH~ for the SUSY simulation. In our calculations we used CTEQ6L1 parton distribution functions with the factorization and renormalization scales are fixed by $\mu_F=\mu_R=(\msb{1}+\msb{2})/2$ for the signal and $\mu_F=\mu_R=m_V+\sum_i\p_{T_i}$ for the SM backgrounds, where $m_V$ is the mass of the relevant electroweak gauge boson and $\sum_i\p_{T_i}$ is the sum of the transverse momentum of additional jets. \medskip We simulated experimental resolutions by smearing the energies (but not directions) of all final state partons with a Gaussian error. We considered a jet resolution $\Delta E/E = 0.5/\sqrt{E} \oplus 0.03$ and $\sigma_{\sla{E}_T}=0.46\sqrt{\sum E_T}$ for the missing transverse energy where $\sum E_T$ is the sum of the jet transverse energies. In addition to that we included a b-tagging efficiency of $\varepsilon=60\ mistagging probability of $1/200$ for light jets~. No K-factors were applied to signals or backgrounds since we do not expect QCD corrections to change significantly the shape of kinematical distributions~. Nevertheless, given the increasing interest in studying spins correlations at the LHC by means of long and short decay chains, it is important to check if this is indeed the case. \section{ Analysis and results} At the LHC we analyzed the production of sbottom pairs followed by their decay in a $b$ and the LSP \begin{equation} pp \to\sbx{1,2} \sbx{1,2}^* \to b \bar{b} \nn{1} \nn{1} \to b \bar{b} \sla{p}_T \; , \end{equation} \ie the signal is characterized by two $b$-tagged jets and missing transverse energy. One feature of the reaction () is that the s--channel subprocesses $q \bar{q} \to \sbx{} \sbx{}^*$ present the well--known angular distribution \begin{equation} \frac{d \sigma}{d \cos\theta^*} \propto 1 - \cos^2\theta^* \end{equation} where $\theta^*$ is the polar angle of produced scalar particles in their center-of-mass frame. However, this clean signature of the sbottom spin is contaminated by the subprocess $ g g \to \sbx{} \sbx{}^*$ which contains $t$-channel diagrams and quartic couplings; see Fig.~ left panel. Therefore, it is easier to decipher the new state spin if we enhance the importance of the $q\bar{q}$ s--channel subprocesses via a judicious choice of cuts. Notwithstanding, the cuts to isolate the signal must not introduce bias in the angular distributions used to study the sbottom spin. On the other hand, the center--of--mass angular distribution of KK bottoms in UED produced by $q \bar{q}$ fusion is \begin{equation} \frac{d \sigma}{d \cos\theta^*} \propto 1 +\left(\frac{E^2_{b_1}-m^2_{b_1}}{E^2_{b_1}+m^2_{b_1}}\right) \cos^2\theta^* \; , \end{equation} where $M_{b_1}$ and $E_{b_1}$ are the mass and energy respectively of the $b^{(1)}$ in the center--of--mass frame. This distribution peaks in the forward and backward directions being quite distinct of the SUSY prediction. Moreover, we must also include the $gg\rightarrow b^{(1)}\bar{b}^{(1)}$ which contains t- and s-channel contributions which present a peak towards the forward and backward regions as well; see Fig.~ right panel. \medskip At the LHC we can not reconstruct the the polar angle ($\theta^*$) of produced particles in their center-of-mass frame due to the presence of undetected $\nn{1}$ or $\gamma^{(1)}$. Therefore, we must use an alternative variable that retains part of the information carried by $\theta^*$. A convenient variable to use in our analysis is~ \begin{equation} \cos\theta_{bb}^*\equiv \tanh\left ( \frac{\Delta\eta_{bb}}{2} \right) \end{equation} where $\Delta\eta_{bb}$ is the rapidity separation of the $b$-tagged jets. Notice that $\Delta\eta_{bb}$ is invariant under boosts along the collision axis, and consequently, $\cos\theta_{bb}^*$ is invariant under boosts as well. The angle $\theta_{bb}^*$ is the polar angle between each reconstructed bottom jet direction in the longitudinally boosted frame in which the rapidities of the bottoms are equal and opposite. \medskip In order to $\cos\theta_{bb}^*$ carry information of the produced particle spin, the flight directions of sbottoms and bottoms must be correlated. We depict in the left panel of Fig.~ the cosine of the opening angle between the bottom and the sbottom flight directions in the $\sbx{} \sbx{}^*$ center--of--mass system for the S5 and L1 spectra. Clearly, the bulk of the signal is concentrated in region of small opening angles as a consequence of the large energy of the sbottoms after cuts. \medskip Fig.~ shows that $\cos\theta_{bb}^*$ is indeed strongly correlated to the cosine of production polar angle ($\theta^*$) of the sbottoms and $b^{(1)}$'s in their center--of--mass system. Therefore, we must expect the shape of $\cos\theta_{bb}^*$ distributions to resemble the polar angle spectra of sbottoms and KK bottoms apart from some smearing effects due to non-perfect correlations between the bottoms and sbottoms (KK bottoms) flight directions. Nevertheless, a clear separation between SUSY and UED distributions should be possible as was demonstrated in the case of smuon pair production at the LHC~. Taking a closer look at Fig.~ we already realize that UED events are slightly more concentrated near $\cos\theta_{bb}^*=\pm 1$ while SUSY events are homogeneously distributed along the direction $\cos\theta_{bb}^* = \cos \theta_{\tilde{b}}$. \medskip In our analysis, we included the following backgrounds for the process $ pp \to b \bar{b} \sla{p}_T$: \begin{itemize} \item SM QCD and electroweak production of $b \bar{b} Z$ with $Z\to \nu \bar{\nu}$ that accounts for $\simeq 91$\ after cuts for the S5 and SPS1a test points and $\simeq 72$\ scenario. \item Reducible electroweak and QCD backgrounds like $jjZ$, $jjW$, $j\tau\nu_\tau$, $b \bar{b} j$, $jj$, $jjj$, and $jjb$ where some of the decay products evade detection and $j$ stands for a light jet that might be mistagged as a $b$ jet. These dangerous backgrounds are efficiently reduced by the requirement of two $b$-tagged jets. The second largest background after cuts is $bbW$ where the lepton from the W boson has a large rapidity $|\eta_\ell| > 2.5$. \item SUSY processes, excluding $\sbx{} \sbx{}^*$ production, that lead to the final state $b \bar{b} \nn{1} \nn{1}$. \end{itemize} In order to properly trigger~ the event and tag the b-jets~ the following acceptance cuts were imposed in all cases \begin{equation} \begin{array}{llll} |\eta_b| < 2.5\;\;\;\;,\;\;\;\; & p_{T}^{b} > 100 \gev\;\;\;\;,\;\;\;\; & \Delta R_{bb} > 0.7\;\;\;\;,\;\;\;\; & \sla{p}_T > 100\;\;\;\;. \end{array} \end{equation} \bigskip A potentially large background is the QCD production of dijets once we take into account that mismeasurements of the jets properties can lead to missing transverse momentum and that this process has a huge cross section. This background can be efficiently reduced by the missing transverse momentum cut Eq.~() and by requiring that the azimuthal angle between the jets and the missing transverse momentum satisfy \begin{equation} |\Delta\Phi(\sla{p}_T,p_{Tj})| > 0.3\;\;\;\;. \end{equation} In the L1 test point simulations we applied the following cuts not only to enhance the signal and deplete the background but also to augment the importance of the $q \bar{q}$ s-channel subprocess \begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} M_{b\bar{b}} > 300 \gev\;\;\;\;,\;\;\;\; & M_{\rm eff} > 600 \gev\;\;\;\;,\;\;\;\; & |\Delta\Phi(\sla{p}_T,p_{Tj_{soft}})| < 2.4\;\;\;\;, \end{array} \end{equation} where $M_{\rm eff}$ is the sum of all jet and missing transverse momenta and $\Delta\Phi(\sla{p}_T,p_{Tj_{soft}})$ the azimuthal angle between the missing transverse momentum and the softest jet. After cuts the SUSY signal cross section is 38.1 fb while the background cross section is 2.4 fb, leading to $S/B \simeq 16.6$. \medskip For the parameter point S5 we used the following cuts to optimize the signal \begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} M_{b\bar{b}} > 600 \gev\;\;\;\;,\;\;\;\; & M_{\rm eff} > 1 \tev \;\;\;\;,\;\;\;\; & |\Delta\Phi(\sla{p}_T,p_{Tj_{soft}})| < 2.4\;\;\;\;. \end{array} \end{equation} The SUSY signal cross section at this test point is 4.55 fb with a background of 1.24 fb and $S/B \simeq 3.7$ while the $q\bar{q}$ fusion accounts for $\simeq 40$\ UED signal stems from $q \bar{q}$ fusion. The cuts employed in this case were harder for two reasons: first, the bottoms are harder in this case once the sbottom is much heavier than the neutralino compared to L1 case; second, the signal cross section is significantly smaller than in the L1 case which required a deeper suppression of backgrounds to avoid a severe bias on the signal angular distributions. \medskip Finally, we imposed the following cuts for the test point SPS1a \begin{equation} M_{b\bar{b}} > 600 \gev\;\;\;\;,\;\;\;\; M_{\rm eff} > 1 \tev\;\;\;\;, \end{equation} which lead to a signal (background) cross section of 1.07 (1.46) fb and $S/B \simeq 0.73$. \medskip In the left panel of Fig.~ we show the impact of cuts on the $d\sigma/d\cos\theta^*_{bb}$ distributions for SUSY and UED predictions assuming the S5 spectrum. We normalized the UED signal cross section to the SUSY one. As the background events populate the bins of larger $|\cos\theta^*_{bb}|$, the selection cuts tend to suppress that region enhancing the central region for both SUSY and UED. The variable $\Delta\Phi(\sla{p}_T,p_{Tj})$ is efficient in rejecting dangerous SM backgrounds like dijet production, however, it has a potential to bias the distributions as we can see in the left panel of Fig.~. Therefore, a harder cut on this variable is not recommended in the study of spin correlations. \medskip A natural question at this point is whether we can mimic the SUSY signal by varying the UED mixing angles. According to Section~ there is not very much room to modify the UED Lagrangian to bring kinematical correlations closer to the SUSY prediction. The KK weak mixing angle $\theta_w^{(n)}$ in Eq.~() is fixed by the KK masses, so we can not change it while keeping the masses fixed. The same limitations hold when we try to adjust the mixing between the singlet and doublet KK fermions, described by the angle $\alpha^{(n)}$; see Eq.~(). In contrast to the 3rd--generation sfermion sector in the MSSM, the UED mixing angle is not a (third) free parameter, even if we move around the masses invoking boundary conditions. Notwithstanding, for illustration purpose we vary $\alpha^{(1)}$ in the right panel Fig.~ to check whether the SUSY $\cos\theta_{bb}^*$ can be reproduced by a UED decay chain with different couplings to the fermions. From Eq.~() we see that varying $\alpha^{(1)}$ effectively enhances the left or right couplings of the KK bottom decay into bottom plus LKP. This figure allows us to see that the changes in the UED parameters are not sufficient to mimic the SUSY predictions. \medskip We depict in Fig.~ the $\cos\theta_{bb}^*$ spectrum with/without adding the background for the S5 test point, an integrated luminosity of 300 fb$^{-1}$, and after applying cuts () and (). To avoid using any information but the spin we assume the S5 spectrum for the UED particles and normalize their production cross section times branching fractions to the SUSY rate. From Figure~, we can easily see that the production of fermionic strongly interacting states (UED) favor large separations ($\cos\theta_{bb}^*$) between the $b$-tagged jets while the production of scalar particles (SUSY) leads to a rather constant distribution. Note that these distributions indeed resembles the distributions of the production angles in the center--of--mass system which reflects the correlation between these observables. Moreover, the UED $\cos\theta_{bb}^*$ distribution is similar to the SM background one since they take place through similar diagrams containing KK partners or SM particles with the same spin quantum numbers. \medskip For the assumed integrated luminosity it is rather easy to distinguish between the two models. These two possibilities can be disentangled, for instance, through the asymmetry: \begin{equation} A=\frac{\sigma(|\cos\theta^*_{bb}|<0.5) - \sigma(|\cos\theta^*_{bb}|>0.5)} {\sigma(|\cos\theta^*_{bb}|<0.5)+\sigma(|\cos\theta^*_{bb}|>0.5)} \; . \end{equation} This asymmetry is $+0.238 \pm 0.023$ for the UED spin assignment while the SUSY interpretation it is significantly larger $+0.373 \pm 0.022$ where the quoted errors are statistical. We estimate that an integrated luminosity of $300\ifb$ is needed to reach a 5$\sigma$ level signal for the S5 spectrum. \medskip The determination of the sbottom spin is much easier for the test point L1 due to the large $\sbx{} \to b \nn{1}$ branching ratio and production cross section. We depicted in Fig.~ the $\cos\theta^*_{bb}$ distribution and without/with adding the SM background. In this case a mere integrated luminosity of $15 \ifb$ is enough to discriminate at the 5$\sigma$ level UED and SUSY. The asymmetries are given by $+0.565\pm 0.019$ for SUSY and $+0.365\pm 0.021$ for UED for this integrated luminosity. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the two spin assignments (UED $\times$ SUSY) for both S5 and L1 mass spectra and the above integrated luminosities. \medskip The results for the reference point SPS1a are quite different from the S5 and L1 ones. Due to small $\sbx{} \to b \nn{1}$ branching ratio, the SM backgrounds play a major role. We can see in the left panel of Fig.~ that the pure SUSY and UED $\cos\theta^*_{bb}$ spectrum are quite different. However, once we add the SM background, which has a shape similar to UED, it is no longer easy to separate the SUSY from UED, even for an integrated luminosity of 1 ab$^{-1}$; see the right panel of Fig.~. For instance, the asymmetry () is $0.282 \pm 0.019$ for SUSY and $0.200 \pm 0.019$ for UED and this extremely large luminosity. In this case SUSY and UED can be discriminated only at at $\sim 4\sigma$ level. Therefore, it is important for this point to subtract the SM background which can be estimated, for instance, from the measurement of the $b \bar{b} \mu^+ \mu^-$ cross section. If we neglect systematic errors associated to this extraction from data, the sbottom spin can be determined at 5$\sigma$ level for an integrated luminosity of $\simeq 500 \ifb$. The left panel of Fig.~ displays the distributions of SUSY and UED after a naive background subtraction where we just did not add the background to the signals and the error bars calculated as $\sqrt{S+B}$. A dedicated study is necessary to determine the actual impact of the statistical and systematic errors~. \medskip In general, we noticed that the expected shape of distributions in $\cos\theta^*_{bb}$ are similar to the ones in smuon pair production and decay to $\mu\chi^0_1$~, which shows the universality and robustness of the method. Moreover, in both cases ($\sbx{}^* sbx{}$ and $\smuon{}^*\smuon{}$) the S5 spectrum seems to be more promising as compared to the SPS1a spectrum, for example, SUSY {\it versus} UED discrimination of smuon spin assignments is possible in the case of S5 (SPS1a) for an integrated luminosity of $200 \ifb$($500 \ifb$). As a final remark note that, apart from negligible effects from $b\bar{b}$ initiated contributions which include interactions with gluinos and electroweak interactions with $Z$ bosons, the production rate does not depend upon the left or right nature of the sbottom since the QCD interactions to the gluons are blind to these details. On the other hand, the sbottom--bottom--neutralino vertex is sensitive to the relative content of mass eigenstates in terms of left and right states which by its turn depend upon the mass spectrum. As we have pointed out in the Section~ the lightest sbottom is almost entirely a left state in the S5 mass spectrum, while it is an equal mixture of left and right states in the L1 mass spectrum. As can be seen in the Figs.~ and~, it seems plausible to conclude that the distributions are not sensitive to the particular mixtures of left and right states of the sbottom mass eigenstates, however a more detailed study including more test points is necessary to confirm this indication. \section{Conclusions} In the near future the LHC will start its endeavor in searching for new physics signals. Once those signals have been identified as the production of new states the next logical step will be the determination of the underlying model among all candidates by measuring the properties and interactions of the new particles. The size of production cross sections and mass spectra might provide valuable hints about the underlying model, nevertheless, an undisputed discrimination will only be possible after determination of the spins of the new states. We showed that the discrimination between a SUSY spin interpretation against an UED one is possible in the case of scalar bottom (fermionic KK bottom) pair production in the reaction $pp \rightarrow b \bar{b}\sla{p}_T$. Using the variable proposed in Ref.~, see Eq.~(), we demonstrated that a clear determination of the spin of the decaying strongly interacting particle is possible provided the production cross sections and branching ratios into $b\nn{1}$ are sufficiently large.Even in the worst scenario studied, the SPS1a spectrum, the determination of spins might be possible after background subtraction, however, a dedicated study of the impact of statistical and systematic errors on the spin determinations will be necessary in this test point. \begin{acknowledgments} We would like to thank Tilman Plehn for insightful comments and Fabio Maltoni and the CP3 team for their help with the implementation of UED model into Madgraph. This research was supported in part by Funda\c{c}\~{a}o de Amparo \`a Pesquisa do Estado de S\~ao Paulo (FAPESP) and by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\'{\i}fico e Tecnol\'ogico (CNPq). \end{acknowledgments} \baselineskip15pt \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{susy} For reviews of SUSY, see \eg: I.~J.~R.~Aitchison, hep-ph/0505105; S.~P.~Martin, hep-ph/9709356. \bibitem{deq} S.~Dawson, E.~Eichten and C.~Quigg, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 31}, 1581 (1985). \bibitem{prospino} W.~Beenakker, R.~H\"opker, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 492}, 51 (1997); T.~Plehn, arXiv:hep-ph/9809319; W.~Beenakker, M.~Kr\"amer, T.~Plehn, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 515}, 3 (1998); W.~Beenakker, M.~Klasen, M.~Kr\"amer, T.~Plehn, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3780 (1999); Propspino2.0 publicly available from \bibitem{barr1} A.~J.~Barr, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 596}, 205 (2004); \bibitem{barr2} A.~J.~Barr, JHEP {\bf 0602}, 042 (2006). \bibitem{smillie} J.~M.~Smillie and B.~R.~Webber, JHEP {\bf 0510}, 069 (2005). \bibitem{aet} A.~Alves, O.~Eboli and T.~Plehn, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 095010 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0605067]. \bibitem{ued} T.~Appelquist, H.~C.~Cheng and B.~A.~Dobrescu, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035002 (2001); T.~G.~Rizzo, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 095010 (2001); D.~A.~Dicus, C.~D.~McMullen and S.~Nandi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 076007 (2002); C.~Macesanu, arXiv:hep-ph/0510418; G.~Burdman, B.~A.~Dobrescu and E.~Ponton, arXiv:hep-ph/0601186; M.~Battaglia, A.~Datta, A.~De Roeck, K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev, JHEP {\bf 0507}, 033 (2005); M.~Battaglia, A.~K.~Datta, A.~De Roeck, K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev, arXiv:hep-ph/0507284. \bibitem{early} H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 056006 (2002); A.~Datta, K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 096006 (2005) [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 72}, 119901 (2005)]; A.~Datta, G.~L.~Kane and M.~Toharia, arXiv:hep-ph/0510204. \bibitem{S5} ATLAS detector and physics performance, Technical Design Report, section 20.2. \bibitem{sps} B.~C.~Allanach {\it et al.}, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25}, 113 (2002). \bibitem{madevent} T.~Stelzer, F.~Long, Comput.{} Phys.{} Commun.{} \textbf{81} (1994) 357; F.~Maltoni and T.~Stelzer, JHEP {\bf 0302}, 027 (2003). \bibitem{smadgraph} K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 055005 (2006); G.~C.~Cho, K.~Hagiwara, J.~Kanzaki, T.~Plehn, D.~Rainwater and T.~Stelzer, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 054002 (2006). \bibitem{Pumplin:2002vw} J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky and W.~K.~Tung, JHEP {\bf 0207}, 012 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0201195]. \bibitem{btags} ATLAS detector and physics performance, Technical Design Report, section 17.7.2; R.~Hawkings, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\, C {\bf 34}, s109-s116 (2004). \bibitem{triggers} R.~Hauser [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 34}, 173 (2004); G.~Azuelos {\it et al.} [ATLAS Collaboration], ATL--DAQ--2003--004. \bibitem{subtraction} V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration], Phys. \ Lett. \ B {\bf 638}, 119 (2006). \end{thebibliography} \bibitem{Meade:2006dw} P.~Meade and M.~Reece, arXiv:hep-ph/0601124.
|
0704.0257
|
Title: Orbifold cohomology of abelian symplectic reductions and the case of
weighted projective spaces
Abstract: These notes accompany a lecture about the topology of symplectic (and other)
quotients. The aim is two-fold: first to advertise the ease of computation in
the symplectic category; and second to give an account of some new computations
for weighted projective spaces. We start with a brief exposition of how
orbifolds arise in the symplectic category, and discuss the techniques used to
understand their topology. We then show how these results can be used to
compute the Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology ring of abelian symplectic
reductions. We conclude by comparing the several rings associated to a weighted
projective space. We make these computations directly, avoiding any mention of
a stacky fan or of a labeled moment polytope.
Body: \title[Cohomology of abelian symplectic reductions]{Orbifold cohomology of abelian symplectic reductions and the case of weighted projective spaces} \author{Tara S. Holm} \address{Department of Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-4201 USA} \email{tsh@math.cornell.edu} \thanks{TSH is grateful for the support of the NSF through the grant DMS-0604807.} \subjclass{Primary 53D20; Secondary 14N35, 53D45, 57R91} \keywords{Symplectic quotient, orbifold, cohomology} \begin{abstract} These notes accompany a lecture about the topology of symplectic (and other) quotients. The aim is two-fold: first to advertise the ease of computation in the symplectic category; and second to give an account of some new computations for weighted projective spaces. We start with a brief exposition of how orbifolds arise in the symplectic category, and discuss the techniques used to understand their topology. We then show how these results can be used to compute the Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology ring of abelian symplectic reductions. We conclude by comparing the several rings associated to a weighted projective space. We make these computations directly, avoiding any mention of a stacky fan or of a labeled moment polytope. \end{abstract} \maketitle \tableofcontents \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6} The notion of an {\bf orbifold} has been present in topology since the 1950's . More recently, orbifolds have played an important role in differential and algebraic geometry, and in mathematical physics. A fundamental theme is to compute topological invariants associated to an orbifold, with one ostensible goal to understand Gromov-Witten invariants for these spaces. The aim of the present article is modest: to expound how techniques from symplectic geometry may be used to understand the degree-zero genus-zero Gromov-Witten invariants with three marked points, the so-called {\bf Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology ring}; and to make explicit the details of these techniques in the case of weighted projective spaces. In the symplectic category, orbifolds arise as symplectic quotients. We recount the techniques from symplectic geometry that may be used to compute topological invariants of a symplectic quotient. This is based on Kirwan's seminal work ; and for orbifold invariants, the author's joint work with Goldin and Knutson . The quotients we consider are by a compact connected abelian group. We employ techniques coming from algebraic topology, most notably using equivariant cohomology. For those used to working with finite groups, it is important to note that, whereas for finite groups the invariant part of a cohomology ring is identical to the equivariant cohomology, this is not the case for connected groups. The main example in this article is a {\bf weighted projective space} $\C P^n_{(b)}$. Its definition depends on a sequence $(b) = (b_0,\dots,b_n)$ of positive integers. Kawasaki showed that the ordinary cohomology groups, with integer coefficients, of the underlying topological space of a weighted projective space are identical to the cohomology groups of a smooth projective space , but there is a twisted ring structure. We review the details of his work. Then in Theorem~, we compute the cohomology of the orbifold $[\C P^n_{(b)}]$, proving that \begin{equation} H^*([\C P^n_{(b)}];\Z) = H_{S^1_{(b)}}^*(S^{2n+1};\Z) \cong \frac{\Z[u]}{\langle b_0\cdots b_n u^{n+1}\rangle}. \end{equation} Whereas Kawasaki finds a twist in the the ring structure, we find torsion in high degrees of the ring \eqref{eq:wps}. There is a natural map from Kawasaki's ring to this one, and we describe the map explicitly. Finally in Theorem~, we compute the Chen-Ruan cohomology ring of this orbifold. We make this computation using integer coefficients, generalizing results in . Moreover, we give explicit generators and relations, and avoid mentioning a stacky fan or a labeled polytope . The definitions in this article make sense for arbitrary coefficient rings. Indeed, all computations in the final section use integer coefficients. Moore and Witten have suggested that the torsion in $K$-theory has more physical significance than torsion in cohomology . The author together with Goldin, Harada and Kimura, is investigating a $K$-theoretic version of and of the computations herein, building on the work of Harada and Landweber . The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section~ we give a quick exposition of how orbifolds arise in the symplectic category. We then introduce several cohomology rings associated to an orbifold in Section~. We advertise the ease of computation for these rings in Section~. The novel results in this article are the computations in Section~. We include detailed proofs that avoid much of the symplectic machinery used in . \medskip \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments.} Many thanks are due to Tony Bahri, Matthias Franz, Rebecca Goldin, Megumi Harada, Ralph Kaufmann, Takashi Kimura, Allen Knutson, Eugene Lerman, Reyer Sjamaar, and Alan Weinstein for many helpful conversations; and to Yoshiaki Maeda and the organizers and sponsors of Poisson 2006 in Tokyo, Japan, where this work was presented. \section{Symplectic manifolds and quotients} We begin with a very brief introduction to the symplectic category; a more detailed account of the subject can be found in . A {\bf symplectic form} on a manifold $M$ is a closed non-degenerate two-form $\omega\in \Omega^2(M)$. Thus, for any tangent vectors $\XX,\Y\in T_pM$, $\omega_p(\XX,\Y)\in\R$. The key examples include the following. \begin{example} $M=S^2 = \C P^1$ with $\omega_p (\XX,\Y)$ equal to the signed area of the parallelogram spanned by $\XX$ and $\Y$. This is the Fubini-Study form on $\C P^1$. \end{example} \begin{example} $M$ any orientable Riemann surface with $\omega$ as in Example~. Note that orientability is a necessary condition on a symplectic manifold $M$, because the top exterior power of the symplectic form is a volume form. \end{example} \begin{example} $M= \R^{2d}$ with $\omega = \sum dx_i\wedge dy_i$. \end{example} \begin{example} $M= \mathcal{O}_\lambda$ a coadjoint orbit of a compact connected semisimple Lie group, equipped with $\omega$ the Kostant-Kirillov-Soriau form. \end{example} \noindent Example~ gains particular importance because of \begin{thmd} Let $M$ be a symplectic $2d$-manifold with symplectic form $\omega$. Then for every point $p\in M$, there exists a coordinate chart $U$ about $p$ with coordinates $x_1,\dots,x_d,y_1,\dots,y_d$ so that on this chart, \begin{equation} \omega = \sum_{i=1}^d dx_i\wedge dy_i. \end{equation} \end{thmd} \noindent Thus, whereas Riemannian geometry uses local invariants such as {\bf curvature} to distinguish metrics, symplectic forms are locally indistinguishable. The symmetries of a symplectic manifold may be encoded as a group action. Here we restrict ourselves to a compact connected abelian group $T= (S^1)^n$. An action of $T$ on $M$ is {\bf symplectic} if it preserves $\omega$; that is, $\rho_g^*\omega = \omega$, for each $g\in T$, where $\rho_g$ is the diffeomorphism corresponding to the group element $g$. The action is {\bf Hamiltonian} if in addition, for every $\xi\in\algt$, the vector field \begin{equation} \XX_\xi = \frac{d}{dt}[ \exp (t\xi)] |_{t=0} \end{equation} is a Hamiltonian vector field. That is, we require that $ \omega(\XX_\xi, \cdot ) = d\phi^\xi $ is an exact one-form. Each $\phi^\xi$ is a smooth function on $M$, determined up to a constant. Taking them together, we may define a {\bf moment map} \begin{equation} \begin{array}{rcc} \Phi: M & \longrightarrow & \algt^* \\ p & \longmapsto & \left(\begin{array}{rcl} \Phi(p):\algt & \rightarrow & \R \\ \xi & \mapsto & \phi^\xi(p) \end{array}\right). \end{array} \end{equation} Returning to our examples, we have Hamiltonian actions in all but the second example. \begin{example} The circle $S^1$ acts on $M=S^2 = \C P^1$ by rotations. If we use angle and height coordinates on $S^2$, then the vector field this action generates is tangent to the latitude lines, so in coordinates, $\XX^\xi = \frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}$, and since $\omega = d\theta\wedge dh$, $\omega(\XX_\xi, \cdot ) = dh$, so a moment map is the height function on $S^2$, as shown in Figure~ below. \end{example} \begin{example} If $M$ is a two-torus $M=T^2 = S^1\times S^1$, then $S^1\times S^1$ acts on itself by multiplication. This action is symplectic, but is not Hamiltonian. In fact, no Riemann surface with non-zero genus has a nontrivial Hamiltonian torus action. \end{example} \begin{example} The torus $T^d=(S^1)^d\subset \C^d$ acts by coordinate-wise multiplication on $M= \R^{2d} = \C^d$. This action rotates each copy of $\C = \R^2$ (at unit speed), and is Hamiltonian. Identifying $\algt^* \cong \R^d$, a moment map is \begin{equation} \Phi (z_1,\dots,z_n) = (|z_1|^2, \dots,|z_d|^2), \end{equation} up to a constant multiple. \end{example} \begin{example} Each coadjoint orbit $M= \mathcal{O}_\lambda\subseteq \algg^*$ may be identified as a homogenous space $G/L$, where $L$ is a Levi subgroup of the Lie group $G$. Thus $G$ and its maximal torus $T$ act on $M$ by left multiplication. A $G$-moment map is inclusion \begin{equation} \Phi_G : \mathcal{O}_\lambda\hookrightarrow \algg^*, \end{equation} and a $T$-moment map is the $G$-moment map composed with the natural projection $\algg^* \to\algt^*$ that is dual to the inclusion $\algt\hookrightarrow\algg$. \end{example} In each of these examples, the image of the (torus) moment map is a convex subset of $\R^n$. This is true more generally. \begin{thmc}[,] If $M$ is a compact Hamiltonian $T$-space, then $\Phi(M)$ is a convex polytope. It is the convex hull of $\Phi(M^T)$, the images of the $T$-fixed points. \end{thmc} The convexity theorem is an example of a {\bf localization phenomenon}: a global feature (the image of the moment map) that is determined by local features of the fixed points (their images under the moment map). The convexity property is a recurring theme in symplectic geometry; its many guises are illustrated in . The moment map is a $T$-invariant map: it maps entire $T$-orbits to the same point in $\algt^*$. Thus when $\alpha$ is a regular value, the level set $\Phi^{-1}(\alpha)$ is a $T$-invariant submanifold of $M$. Moreover, the action of $T$ on a regular level set is {\bf locally free}: it has only finite stabilizers. This follows directly from the moment map condition: at a regular value, $d\phi^\xi$ is never zero, implying that $\XX_\xi$ is not zero, so there is no $1$-parameter subgroup fixing points in the level set. Thus, at a regular value the {\bf symplectic reduction} $M/\!\!/T(\alpha) = \Phi^{-1}(\alpha)$ is an orbifold. In fact, Marsden and Weinstein proved \begin{theorem}[] If $M$ is a Hamiltonian $T$-space and $\alpha$ is a regular value of the moment map $\Phi$, then the symplectic reduction $M/\!\!/T(\alpha)$ is a {\bf symplectic} orbifold. \end{theorem} \noindent More generally, the symplectic reduction $M/\!\!/T(\alpha)$ at a critical value is a symplectic stratified space . Symplectic reduction is an important technique for constructing new symplectic manifolds from old. From our examples, we may construct several classes of symplectic manifolds. \begin{example} For the action of $S^1$ on $M=S^2 = \C P^1$ by rotation, the level set of a regular value is a latitude line, which the circle rotates. The quotient is a point. Note that if $S^1$ acts by rotation $S^2$ at twice the usual speed, then the quotient, as an orbifold, is $[ \mathrm{pt}/\Z_2]$. Thus, every orbifold $[ \mathrm{pt}/\Z_k]$ is a quotient of $S^2$ by a rotation action. \end{example} \begin{example} $T^d$ acts on $M= \R^{2d} = \C^n$ by rotation of each copy of $\C = \R^2$. The level set of a regular value is a copy of $T^d$, and so again the quotient is a point (or potentially an orbipoint, for different actions of $T^d$). However, we may also restrict our attention to subtori $K\subseteq T^n$. The action of $K$ is still Hamiltonian, and for certain choices of $K$, $\C^n/\!\!/K (\alpha)$ is a {\bf symplectic toric orbifold}. Lerman and Tolman show that every {\bf effective} symplectic toric orbifold may be constructed in this way . \end{example} \begin{example} For the $T$-action on a coadjoint orbit $M= \mathcal{O}_\lambda$, the symplectic reduction $M/\!\!/T(\alpha)$ is known as a {\bf weight variety}. One may determine the possible orbifold singularities by analyzing the combinatorics of $G$ and its Weyl group. See, for instance, or . This reduced space plays an important role in representation theory. \end{example} \section{Orbifolds and their cohomology} We now turn to orbifolds in the topological category. In terms of local models, an {\bf orbifold} is a topological space where each point has a neighborhood homeomorphic (or diffeomorphic) to the quotient of a (fixed dimensional) vector space by a finite group. Satake introduced this notion in the 1950's , originally calling the spaces $V$-manifolds. Thurston coined the term orbifold when he rediscovered them in the 1970's (see ) in his study of $3$-manifolds. This local model, however, makes it difficult to define very basic pieces in the theory of orbifolds: overlap conditions on orbifold charts, suborbifolds, and maps between orbifolds. As is evident already in the work of Haefliger , the proper way to think of an orbifold is as a Morita equivalence class of {\bf groupoids}, one of which is a proper \'etale groupoid (see ); or equivalently as a smooth {\bf Deligne-Mumford stack} (see ). For example, using this structure, a map of orbifolds should simply be a morphism of the appropriate objects. While groupoids or stacks provide the correct mathematical framework, the technology is a bit beyond the scope of this article. Indeed, for us it is sufficient to work with the local models, largely because we restrict our attention to orbifolds that arise as global quotients. Nevertheless, we will need to distinguish between an orbifold $\X$ or $[X]$ and its underlying topological space (or {\bf coarse moduli space}) $X$. In particular, when $\X$ is presented as a global quotient of a manifold $M$ by a group $G$, we will use square brackets $[M/G]$ to denote the orbifold, and $M/G$ to denote the underlying coarse moduli. For an orbifold $\X$, at each point $x\in \X$, we have a local isotropy group $\Gamma_x$ at $x$. We will be interested in {\bf almost complex orbifolds}, that is orbifolds that have local models isomorphic to $\C^d/ \Gamma_x$, with $\Gamma_x\subseteq U(d)$ a finite group acting unitarily on $\C^d$. Our main example in this section is the orbisphere shown in the figure below. This is a symplectic toric orbifold in the sense of Tolman and Weitsman . In that context, it corresponds to the labeled polytope that is an edge, with the vertices labeled $p$ and $q$. This orbifold cannot (always) be presented as a global quotient by a {\bf finite group}, although it can be presented as a symplectic reduction. When $p$ and $q$ are relatively prime, it is the reduction of $\C^2$ by the Hamiltonian $S^1$-action \begin{equation} e^{2\pi i\theta}\cdot (z_1,z_2) = (e^{p\cdot 2\pi i\theta}\cdot z_1, e^{q\cdot 2\pi i\theta}\cdot z_2). \end{equation} Thus, it is a global quotient of the level set $\Phi^{-1}(\alpha)\approx S^3$ by a locally free $S^1$ action. In this case, it is also the global quotient of $\C P^2$ by a $\Z_p\times \Z_q$ action\footnote{With an apology to number theorists, we take the topologist's notation: $\Z_p$ denotes the integers modulo $p$.}. When $p$ and $q$ are not relatively prime, the orbisphere is not a global quotient by a finite group, but it is still a symplectic quotient of $\C^2$ by a Hamiltonian $S^1\times \Z_g$ action, where $g=\gcd(p,q)$ (following ). Note also that an orbisphere is isomorphic to a weighted projective space $\C P^2_{p,q}$ exactly when $p$ and $q$ are relatively prime. If $p$ and $q$ are not relatively prime, the weighted projective space is not {\bf reduced}: it has a global stabilizer. On the other hand, the orbisphere described above is always reduced. Next we turn to algebraic invariants that we may attach to an orbifold $\X$. The hope is that these invariants are computable and at the same time retain some information of the orbifold structure of $\X$. All the invariants are isomorphic to singular cohomology if $\X=X$ is in fact a manifold. \begin{definition} The {\bf ordinary cohomology ring} of an orbifold $\X$ is the singular cohomology of the underlying topological space $X$, \begin{equation} H^*(X;R), \end{equation} with coefficients in a commutative ring $R$. \end{definition} \noindent This ring is computable using standard techniques from algebraic topology, but it does not distinguish between the orbisphere in Figure~ and a smooth sphere. For the second invariant, we restrict our attention to orbifolds $\X$ presented as the quotient of a manifold $M$ by the locally free action of a Lie group $G$. It is conjectured that every orbifold can be expressed as such a global quotient, and it is known to be true for {\bf effective} or {\bf reduced orbifolds}, those that do not have a global finite stabilizer (see, for example, \cite[Theorem 2.18]{EHKV}). A presentation as a global quotient is desirable because then the topology or geometry of the quotient $\X$ is simply the $G$-{\bf equivariant} topology or geometry of the manifold $M$. This principle motivates the following definition. \begin{definition} Given a presentation of an orbifold $\X = [M/G]$ as a global quotient, the {\bf cohomology ring of the orbifold} $\X$ is the equivariant cohomology ring \begin{equation} H^*(\X;R) := H^*_G(M;R), \end{equation} with coefficients in a commutative ring $R$. \end{definition} \noindent Recall that {\bf equivariant cohomology} is a generalized cohomology theory in the equivariant category. Using the {\bf Borel model}, we define \begin{equation} H_G^*(M;R) := H^*((M\times EG)/G;R), \end{equation} where $EG$ is a contractible (though infinite dimensional) space with a free $G$ action, and $G$ acts diagonally on $M\times EG$. There are well-developed methods for computing equivariant cohomology, hence this invariant is still computable. Whenever $\X=[M/G]$ is a global quotient, the associated quotient map \begin{equation} q:M\to X \end{equation} is a $G$-invariant map. This induces a continuous map \begin{equation} q: (M\times EG)/G \to X. \end{equation} When $\X=X$ is a manifold (i.e.\ $G$ acts on $M$ locally freely), this map is a fibration with fiber $BG$. The map $q$ induces a map in cohomology, \begin{equation} q^*: H^*(X;R) \longrightarrow H^*((M\times EG)/G;R) = H^*_G(M;R). \end{equation} This induced map is an isomorphism when \begin{enumerate} \item[1.] $G$ acts freely on $M$; \item[2.] $G$ is a finite group and $R$ is a ring in which $|G|$ is invertible; and \item[3.] $G$ acts locally freely on $M$ and $R$ is a field of characteristic $0$. \end{enumerate} This last item implies that the cohomology of the orbifold differs from the cohomology of its coarse moduli only in its torsion. Notably, when $R=\Z$, this ring does in fact distinguish between the orbisphere in Figure~ and a smooth sphere. The third invariant was introduced by Chen and Ruan to explain mathematically the {\bf stringy Betti numbers} and {\bf stringy Hodge numbers} that physicists have attached to orbifolds. To define this third invariant, we need to introduce the {\bf first inertia orbifold} \begin{equation} I^1(\X) := \left\{ \left(x,(g)_{\Gamma_x}\right)\ \Big| \ x\in \X \mbox{ and } (g)_{\Gamma_x} \mbox{ is a conjugacy class in } \Gamma_x\right\}. \end{equation} This is again an orbifold, and $\X$ is the suborbifold called the {\bf identity sector} whose pairs consist of a point in $\X$ together with the identity element coset. The other connected components of $I^1(\X)$ are called the {\bf twisted sectors}. For a global quotient $\X=[M/G]$ with $G$ abelian, we may identify $I^1(\X) = \coprod_{g\in G} [M^g/G]$. On the other hand, when $\X=[M/G]$ is global quotient with $G$ finite, we may identify $I^1(\X) = \coprod_{g\in T} [M^g/C(g)]$, where the union is over $T$ a set of representatives of conjugacy classes in $G$. For the orbisphere example, the inertia orbifold is shown in Figure~. \begin{definition}[] Given a presentation of an orbifold $\X = [M/G]$ as a global quotient, the {\bf Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology} of $\X$, as a vector space, is defined to be the cohomology of the first inertia orbifold, \begin{equation} H_{CR}(\X;R) := H(I^1(\X);R), \end{equation} with coefficients in a commutative ring $R$. \end{definition} The Chen-Ruan ring is endowed with a $\Q$ grading, different from the grading coming from singular cohomology. For a connected component $\ZZ$ of $I^1(\X)$ that lies in the $(g)$ piece of the first inertia, the grading of $H(\ZZ;R)$ is shifted by a rational number which is twice the {\bf age} of $\ZZ$. The age is determined by the weights of the action of the group element $g$ on the normal bundle to $\ZZ$ inside of $\X$. This is precisely where we need $\X$ to be (stably) almost complex. These rational shifts ensure that the ranks of the Chen-Ruan cohomology groups agree with the stringy invariants of an orbifold. The dependence of the rational shifts on the normal bundles $\nu(\ZZ\subset\X)$ means that the Chen-Ruan ring is not in general functorial for arbitrary morphisms of orbifolds. To define a product on the Chen-Ruan cohomology, we must define higher inertia. The $\mathbf{n^{\mathrm{th}}}$ {\bf inertia orbifold} consists of tuples, a point in the orbifold and an $n$-tuple of conjugacy classes. Restricting to the $2^{\mathrm{nd}}$ inertia, there are natural maps \begin{equation} e_1,e_2,\overline{e}_3 : I^2(X)\longrightarrow I^1(X) \end{equation} defined by \begin{eqnarray} e_1(p,(g)_{\Gamma_p},(h)_{\Gamma_p}) & =& (p, (g)_{\Gamma_p}),\\ e_2(p,(g)_{\Gamma_p},(h)_{\Gamma_p}) & =& (p,(h)_{\Gamma_p}),\mbox{ and}\\ \overline{e}_3(p,(g)_{\Gamma_p},(h)_{\Gamma_p}) & =& (p, ((gh)^{-1})_{\Gamma_p}) \end{eqnarray} Chen and Ruan define the product of two classes $\alpha,\beta\in H_{CR}(\X;R)$ to be be \begin{equation} \alpha\smile\beta := (\overline{e}_3)_*(e_1^*\alpha\cup e_2^*\beta\cup\varepsilon), \end{equation} where $e_1^*$ and $e_2^*$ are pull-back maps, $(\overline{e}_3)_*$ is the push-forward, $\cup$ is the usual cup product, and $\varepsilon$ is the Euler class of the {\bf obstruction bundle}. This Euler class should be viewed as a quantum correction term. It ensures that the product respects the $\Q$-grading and that the product is associative. Neither of these properties is immediately obvious, and proving the latter requires a rather substantial argument. Since we can avoid mention of the obstruction bundle in our computations, we suppress further details here, and refer the curious reader to for additional information. The Chen-Ruan cohomology ring is the degree $0$ part of the (small) quantum cohomology ring. Hence, it is generally the most difficult of these three invariants to compute. It has been computed for orbifolds that are global quotients of a manifold by a finite group in . The definition was extended to the algebraic category in , and in , the ring is computed for toric Deligne-Mumford stacks with $\Q$, $\R$ and $\C$ coefficients. In the next section, we review how to compute this ring for abelian symplectic quotients, as demonstrated in . In the last section, we will compute each of these invariants explicitly for weighted projective spaces. We conclude this section with a table of these rings for an orbisphere that has a $\Z_2$ singularity at the north pole and is otherwise smooth. This is an example of a {\bf weighted projective space}, and is denoted $\C P^1_{1,2}$. \begin{equation} \begin{array}{|c|c|c|}\hline \X = [\C P^1_{1,2}] & \mbox{Ring} & \mbox{Grading} \\ \hline H^*(X;\Z) & \Z[x]/\langle x^2\rangle & \deg(x)=2 \\ \hline H^*(\X;\Z) & \Z[x]/\langle 2x^2\rangle & \deg(x)=2 \\ \hline H_{CR}^{\phantom{i}*\phantom{i}}(\X;\Z) & \Z[x,u]/\langle 2x^2, 2xu, u^2-x \rangle & \deg(x)=2,\ \deg(u)=1 \\ \hline \end{array} \end{equation} \section{Why the symplectic category is convenient} In the past thirty years, tremendous progress has been made in understanding the equivariant topology of Hamiltonian $T$-spaces and its relationship to the ordinary topology of their quotients. For a compact torus $T=(S^1)^n$, the classifying bundle $ET$ is an $n$-fold product of infinite dimensional spheres, and the classifying space $BT$ is an $n$-fold product of copies of $\C P^\infty$. Thus, \begin{equation} H_T^*(pt;\Z)= H^*(BT;\Z)=\Z[x_1,\dots,x_n], \end{equation} where $\deg(x_i)=2$. The key ingredient to understanding topology of Hamiltonian $T$-spaces is the moment map. Frankel proved that for a Hamiltonian $T$-action on a K\"ahler manifold, each component $\phi^\xi$ of the moment map is a Morse-Bott function on $M$, and generically the critical set is the fixed point set $M^T$. In his paper on the Convexity Theorem~, Atiyah generalized this work to the purely symplectic setting. Building on the work of Frankel and Atiyah, Kirwan developed techniques to prove two fundamental theorems that allow us to understand the cohomology of Hamiltonian $T$-spaces and their quotients. The first is a version of {\bf localization}: it allows us to make global computations by understanding fixed point data. While this theorem is not explicitly stated in her book , it does follow immediately from her work in Chapter~5. \begin{thmi}[] Let $M$ be a compact Hamiltonian $T$-space. The inclusion map $M^T\hookrightarrow M$ induces \begin{equation} i^*:H_T^*(M;\Q) \longrightarrow H_T^*(M^T;\Q) \end{equation} an {\bf injection} in equivariant cohomology. \end{thmi} The compactness hypothesis is stronger than strictly necessary. We may replace it with a properness condition on the moment map. The proof relies on the fact that a generic component of the moment map is an {\bf equivariantly perfect} Morse-Bott function on $M$. The image of this injection has been computed in many examples, including toric varieties, coadjoint orbits of compact connected semisimple Lie groups, and coadjoint orbits of Kac-Moody groups. These computations initially appeared in and further generalizations are described in . The second theorem relates the equivariant topology of a Hamiltonian $T$-space to the ordinary topology of its reduction. \begin{thms}[] Let $M$ be a compact Hamiltonian $T$-space, and $\alpha$ a regular value of the moment map. The inclusion $\Phi^{-1}(\alpha)\hookrightarrow M$ induces \begin{equation} \kappa: H_T^*(M;\Q) \longrightarrow H_T^*(\Phi^{-1}(\alpha);\Q) \end{equation} a {\bf surjection} in equivariant cohomology. \end{thms} Again for surjectivity, compactness is more than is necessary. Most importantly, this result does apply to linear actions of a torus on $\C^d$ with a proper moment map. The key idea in the proof is to use the function $||\Phi-\alpha| |^2$ as a {\em Morse-like} function, now known as a {\bf Morse-Kirwan function}. The critical sets are not non-degenerate, but one may still explicitly understand them via a local normal form. It is then possible to prove that $||\Phi-\alpha| |^2$ is an equivariantly perfect function on $M$. The kernel of the map $\kappa$ can be computed using methods in . Using the fact that at a regular value, $H_T^*(\Phi^{-1}(\alpha);\Q)\cong H^*(M/\!\!/T(\alpha);\Q)$, we have a diagram \begin{equation} \begin{array}{c} \xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \ker(\kappa)\ar@{^{(}->}[r] & H_T^*(M;\Q)\ar@{->>}[r]^(0.4){\kappa} )\ar@{^{(}->}[d]^{i^*} & H^*(M/\!\!/T(\alpha);\Q) \ar[r] & 0\\ & & H_T^*(M^T;\Q) & & } \end{array}. \end{equation} Thus, by computing $\im(i^*)$ and $\ker(\kappa)$, we may derive an explicit presentation of the cohomology $H^*([M/\!\!/T(\alpha)];\Q)$ of an orbifold arising as a symplectic quotient. We now turn to a generalization of Theorem~ in the context of orbifolds and the Chen-Ruan ring. \begin{thmcr}[] Let $M$ be a compact Hamiltonian $T$-space, and $\alpha$ a regular value of the moment map. The inclusion $\Phi^{-1}(\alpha)\hookrightarrow M$ induces \begin{equation} \mathcal{K}: \bigoplus_{g\in T} H_T^*(M^g;\Q) \longrightarrow \bigoplus_{g\in T} H_T^*(\Phi^{-1}(\alpha)^g;\Q) \end{equation} a {\bf surjection}. Moreover, these are $\R\times T$-graded rings, $\mathcal{K}$ is a map of graded rings, and there is an isomorphism of graded rings \begin{equation} \bigoplus_{g\in T} H_T^*(\Phi^{-1}(\alpha)^g;\Q) \cong H_{CR}^{\phantom{i}*\phantom{i}}(M/\!\! /T(\alpha);\Q). \end{equation} \end{thmcr} The surjectivity \eqref{eq:cr-surj} is a direct consequence of the Surjectivity Theorem~ applied to each space $M^g$ (and again the compactness is not strictly necessary). The hard work is defining the grading and ring structure, and proving that $\mathcal{K}$ is a map of graded rings. Goldin, Knutson, and the author define a ring structure $\smile$ that generalizes a definition (for $G$ finite) of Fantechi and G\"ottsche . Using this definition, we may deduce \eqref{eq:CRiso}; on the other hand, associativity of this product is not at all obvious. Making use of the injection $i^*$ on each piece, there is an alternative product $\star$ on the ring $\bigoplus_{g\in T} H_T^*(M^g;\Q)$ that is much simpler to compute, and clearly associative. This alternative product has the advantage that it avoids all mention of the obstruction bundle; instead it relies only on fixed point data (i.e.\ the topology of the fixed point set and isotropy data for the action of the torus on the normal bundles to the fixed point components). Another key point is that although the ring on the left of \eqref{eq:cr-surj} is quite large, there is a finite subgroup $\Gamma$ of $T$, generated by all finite-order elements that stabilize some regular point in $M$, so that the ${\mathbf \Gamma}${\bf-subring} \begin{equation} \bigoplus_{g\in \Gamma} H_T^*(M^g;\Q) \end{equation} still surjects onto the Chen-Ruan cohomology of the reduction. Thus, while it appears that we have made the computation much more complicated, it turns that there is still an effective algorithm to complete it. For full details, please refer to . We now return to our examples. \begin{example} For a {\bf symplectic toric orbifold} $\C^n/\!\!/K (\alpha)$, we may use the combinatorics of its labeled polytope to establish an explicit presentation of the Chen-Ruan cohomology of these orbifolds \cite[\S\ 9]{GHK:preorb}. In the cases where the symplectic picture is identical to the algebraic, the results replicate those of . \end{example} \begin{example} For the $T$-action on a coadjoint orbit $M= \mathcal{O}_\lambda$, the symplectic reduction $M/\!\!/T(\alpha)$ is a {\bf weight variety}. The equivariant cohomology of $M$ may be read directly from its moment polytope, as may the orbifold singularities of the reduction. In this case, the Theorem~ yields an explicit combinatorial description of the Chen-Ruan cohomology of the weight variety. \end{example} We conclude this section with a brief remark on coefficients. In both Theorems~ and , the rational coefficients are necessary. For the Injectivity Theorem~, we may prove the result over $\Z$ with the additional hypothesis that $H^*(M^T;\Z)$ contains no torsion. The Surjectivity Theorem~ over $\Z$ requires much stronger hypotheses. We will see in the next section that we may compute integrally for weighted projective spaces, but that a simple product of two weighted projective spaces yields a counter-example to the general theorem. Tolman and Weitsman verify surjectivity over $\Z$ for a rather restrictive class of torus actions . This topic is being more closely examined for a larger collection of actions by Susan Tolman and the author . \section{The case of weighted projective spaces} Let $b = (b_0,\dots,b_n)$ be an $(n+1)$-tuple of positive integers. Consider the circle action on $\C^{n+1}$ given by \begin{equation} t\cdot (z_0,\dots,z_n) = (t^{b_0}z_0,\dots,t^{b_n}z_n) \end{equation} for each $t\in S^1$. This action preserves the unit sphere $S^{2n+1}$, and the {\bf weighted projective space} $\C P^n_{(b)}$ is the quotient of $S^{2n+1}$ by this locally free circle action. This is a symplectic reduction because $S^{2n+1}$ is (up to equivariant homeomorphism) a regular level set for a moment map $\Phi$ for the weighted $S^1$ action on $\C^{n+1}$. Thus, \begin{equation} \C P^n_{(b)} \cong \C^{n+1}/\!\! /S^1. \end{equation} Nonetheless, we may continue our analysis without invoking the full symplectic machinery: the arguments simplify greatly in this special case. When the $b_i$ are relatively prime (that is, $\gcd(b_0,\dots,b_n)=1$), this fits into the framework of symplectic toric orbifolds discussed in Example~. When the $b_i$ are not relatively prime, we let $g = \gcd(b_0,\dots,b_n)$, and note that there is a global $\Z_g$ stabilizer. In this case, the orbifold $[\C P^n_{(b)}]$ is not reduced. Its coarse moduli space is the same as the coarse moduli space of $\C P^n_{(b/g)}$, where $(b/g)$ denotes the sequence of integers $(b_0/g,\dots,b_n/g)$; and as a non-reduced orbifold, it corresponds to a {\bf gerbe} $$ [\C P^n_{(b)}]\to[\C P^n_{(b/g)}]. $$ It is important to include the case when the $b_i$ are not relatively prime, because such non-reduced weighted projective spaces may well show up as suborbifolds of a reduced weighted projective space. \medskip \noindent {\bf The cohomology of the topological space $\C P^n_{(b)}$.} Kawasaki studied the singular cohomology ring of (the coarse moduli space of) weighted projective spaces . To present the product structure, we will need the integers \begin{equation} \ell_k = \ell_k^{(b)} := \lcm\left\{ \frac{b_{i_0}\cdots b_{i_k}}{\gcd(b_{i_0},\dots,b_{i_k})}\ \bigg| \ 0\leq i_0<\cdots <i_k\leq n \right\}, \end{equation} for each $1\leq k\leq n$. \begin{theorem}[] The integral cohomology of $\C P^n_{(b)}$ is \begin{equation} H^i(\C P^n_{(b)};\Z) \cong \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \Z & \mbox{if } i=2k,\ 0\leq k\leq n, \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right. \end{equation} Moreover, letting $\gamma_{i}$ denote the generator of $H^{2i}( \C P^n_{(b)};\Z)$, we have \begin{equation} \gamma_k\cup\gamma_m = \frac{\ell_k\cdot\ell_m}{\ell_{m+k}} \gamma_{m+k}. \end{equation} \end{theorem} \noindent {\textsc{Outline of the Proof}.} Let $G_k$ denote the group of $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ roots of unity. Then as a topological space, $\C P^n_{(b)}$ is homeomorphic to a quotient of ordinary projective space $\C P^n$ by the finite group \begin{equation} G_{(b)} = G_{b_0}\times\cdots\times G_{b_n}. \end{equation} Explicitly, using standard homogeneous coordinates, the map \begin{eqnarray} p_b: \C P^n & \longrightarrow & \C P^n_{(b)} \\ \left[ z_0:\cdots:z_n\right] & \longmapsto & [z_0^{b_0}:\cdots: z_n^{b_n}] \end{eqnarray} induces the homeomorphism $\C P^n/G_{(b)}\cong\C P^n_{(b)}$. This then induces an isomorphism in singular cohomology with rational coefficients, since over $\Q$ we have the isomorphisms \begin{equation} H^*(\C P^n;\Q) \cong H^*(\C P^n;\Q)^{G_{(b)}} \cong H^*(\C P^n/G_{(b)};\Q). \end{equation} Over the integers, the computation is a bit more subtle. Using twisted lens spaces, Kawasaki verifies that just as for $\C P^n$, the cohomology ring $H^*(\C P^n_{(b)};\Z)$ is torsion-free with a copy of $\Z$ in each even degree between $0$ and $2n$; however the product structure is twisted by the weights $b_i$. Moreover, there are cases when we need all $n$ generators $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_n$ to present this ring. Kawasaki showed that the map \begin{equation} p_b^*: H^{2k}(\C P^n_{(b)};\Z)\longrightarrow H^{2k}(\C P^n;\Z) \end{equation} is multiplication by $\ell_k$ for all $1\leq k\leq n$. From this, we may deduce that \begin{equation} \gamma_1\cup\gamma_k = \frac{\ell_1\cdot \ell_{k+1}}{\ell_k} \gamma_{k+1}, \mbox{ and hence }\ \gamma_k\cup\gamma_m = \frac{\ell_k\cdot\ell_m}{\ell_{m+k}} \gamma_{m+k}. \end{equation} The result now follows. \hfill\qed \medskip It is important to note that $p_b$ is {\bf not} an isomorphism of orbifolds. Indeed, the isotropy group at any point in $\C P^n_{(b)}$ is the stabilizer group of any lift of the point in $S^{2n+1}$. Thus, all isotropy groups for $\C P^n_{(b)}$ are cyclic. On the other hand, the orbifold $\C P^n/G_{(b)}$ has points with isotropy group $G_{(b)}$, which may not be cyclic. Nevertheless we will make use of the map $p_b$ to understand the structure of the cohomology of the orbifold $[\C P^n_{(b)}] = [S^{2n+1}/S^1_{(b)}]$. Here, the subscript $(b)$ on $S^1$ indicates that the circle action is weighted by the integers $(b) = (b_0,\dots,b_n)$. \medskip \noindent {\bf The cohomology of the orbifold $[\C P^n_{(b)}]$.} Since the weighted projective space $[\C P^n_{(b)}]$ is a symplectic reduction, it is possible invoke the results from Section~ to determine the cohomology of the orbifold $H^*([\C P^n_{(b)}];\Q)$, and to apply results from \cite[\S 9]{GHK:preorb} to obtain a presentation over $\Z$. We give a direct argument here that is similar in spirit, but that avoids much of this big machinery; we then compare this to Kawasaki's Theorem~. \begin{theorem} The cohomology of the orbifold $[\C P^n_{(b)}]$ is \begin{equation} H^*([\C P^n_{(b)}];\Z) = H_{S^1_{(b)}}^*(S^{2n+1};\Z) \cong \frac{\Z[u]}{\langle b_0\cdots b_n u^{n+1}\rangle}. \end{equation} Moreover, the natural map \begin{equation} q_{(b)}^*:H^*(S^{2n+1}/S^1_{(b)};\Z)\longrightarrow H_{S^1_{(b)}}^*(S^{2n+1};\Z) \end{equation} is completely determined by $q_{(b)}^*(\gamma_1) = \ell_1 \cdot u = \lcm(b_0,\dots,b_n)\cdot u$. \end{theorem} \noindent {\textsc{Proof}.} Consider the (weighted) circle action of $S^1$ on $\C^{n+1}$ given by \begin{equation} t\cdot (z_0,\cdots,z_n) = (t^{b_0}\cdot z_0,\cdots,t^{b_n}\cdot z_n). \end{equation} The unit sphere $S^{2n+1}$ is invariant under this action, so we get a long exact sequence in $S^1$-equivariant cohomology for the pair $(\C^{n+1},S^{2n+1})$, \begin{equation} \cdots\to H^i_{S^1_{(b)}}(\C^{n+1},S^{2n+1} ;\Z) \stackrel{\alpha}{\to} H^i_{S^1_{(b)}}(\C^{n+1} ;\Z) \stackrel{\beta}{\to} H^i_{S^1_{(b)}}(S^{2n+1} ;\Z) \to \cdots. \end{equation} Thinking of $(\C^{n+1},S^{2n+1})$ as a disk and sphere bundle over a point, we may use the Thom isomorphism to identify $H^i_{S^1_{(b)}}(\C^{n+1},S^{2n+1} ;\Z) \cong H^{i-2(n+1)}_{S^1_{(b)}}(\C^{n+1} ;\Z)$. Under this identification, the map $\alpha$ is the cup product with the equivariant Euler class \begin{equation} e_{S^1_{(b)}}(\C^{n+1}) = b_o\cdots b_n u^{n+1}. \end{equation} Thus, the map $\alpha$ is injective, so the long exact sequence splits into short exact sequences \begin{equation} 0\to H^i_{S^1_{(b)}}(\C^{n+1},S^{2n+1} ;\Z) \stackrel{\alpha}{\to} H^i_{S^1_{(b)}}(\C^{n+1} ;\Z) \stackrel{\beta}{\to} H^i_{S^1_{(b)}}(S^{2n+1} ;\Z) \to 0. \end{equation} Thus, we have a surjection \begin{equation} \beta: \Z[u]\cong H^*_{S^1_{(b)}}(\C^{n+1} ;\Z) \longrightarrow H^*_{S^1_{(b)}}(S^{2n+1} ;\Z). \end{equation} Moreover, the exactness of \eqref{eq:ses} means that the kernel of $\beta$ is equal to the image of $\alpha$, namely all multiples of the equivariant Euler class. This establishes \eqref{eq:coh_orb}. Turning to \eqref{eq:kaw-rel}, the map \begin{equation} q_{(b)}^*: H^*(S^{2n+1}/S^1_{(b)};\Z)\longrightarrow H_{S^1_{(b)}}^*(S^{2n+1};\Z), \end{equation} is exactly the one defined in \eqref{eq:quotientmap}. We know that this is an isomorphism over $\Q$, so $q_{(b)}^*$ must map $\gamma_1$ to a multiple of $u$. Moreover, because $b_0\cdots b_nu^{n+1}$ is zero in $H_{S^1_{(b)}}^*(S^{2n+1};\Z)$, we must have that \begin{equation} (q_{(b)}^*(\gamma_1))^{n+1}\in \left\langle b_0\cdots b_n u^{n+1}\right\rangle. \end{equation} To determine the image of the class $\gamma_1$, we return to the map $p_b : \C P^n \to \C P^n_{(b)}$. This map lifts to maps on $S^{2n+1}$ and $\C^{n+1}$ given by \begin{equation} \begin{array}{c} \xymatrix{ \C^{n+1} \ar[r]^{\Pi_b} & \C^{n+1} \\ S^{2n+1}\ar[r]^{\pi_b}\ar@{^(->}[u]^{i} & S^{2n+1} \ar@{_(->}[u]_{i} } \end{array}. \end{equation} \begin{eqnarray} \phantom{BOoooO} 0\neq( z_0,\cdots,z_n) & \longmapsto & \frac{\sum |z_i|^2}{\sum |z_i^{b_i}|^2}\cdot \left(z_0^{b_0},\cdots, z_n^{b_n}\right) \\ (0,\dots,0) & \longmapsto & (0,\dots,0) \end{eqnarray} The maps in this diagram are all equivariant with respect to the standard circle action on the left-hand spaces and the $(b)$-weighted circle action on the right-hand spaces. Thus, we have a diagram of maps \begin{equation} \begin{array}{c} \xymatrix{ (\C^{n+1}\times S^1)/S^1 \ar[r]^{\Pi_b} & (\C^{n+1} \times S^1_{(b)})/S^1_{(b)} \\ ( S^{2n+1}\times S^1)/S^1 \ar[r]^{\pi_b}\ar@{^(->}[u]^{i}\ar[d]^{q} & (S^{2n+1} \times S^1_{(b)})/S^1_{(b)} \ar@{_(->}[u]_{i} \ar[d]_{q_{(b)}} \\ \C P^n\ar[r]_{p_{b}} & \C P^n_{(b)} } \end{array}. \end{equation} Applying singular cohomology $H^*(\phantom{-};\Z)$ and identifying equivariant cohomology, we have a commutative diagram \begin{equation} \begin{small} \begin{array}{c} \xymatrix{ \Z[x] \ar@{=}[r] & H_{S^1}^*(\C^{n+1};\Z) \ar@{<-}[r]^{\Pi^*_b} & H_{S^1_{(b)}}^*(\C^{n+1};\Z) & \Z[u]\ar@{=}[l] \\ \frac{\Z[x]}{\left\langle x^{n+1}\right\rangle} \ar@{=}[d]\ar@{=}[r] & H_{S^1}^*(S^{2n+1};\Z) \ar@{<-}[r]^{\pi_b^*}\ar@{<-}[u]^{\kappa}\ar@{<-}[d]^{q^*} & H_{S^1_{(b)}}^*(S^{2n+1};\Z) \ar@{<-}[u]_{\kappa_{(b)}} \ar@{<-}[d]_{q^*_{(b)}} & \frac{ \Z[u]}{\left\langle b_0\cdots b_nu^{n+1}\right\rangle} \ar@{=}[l] \\ \frac{\Z[x]}{\left\langle x^{n+1}\right\rangle} \ar@{=}[r] & H^*(\C P^n;\Z) \ar@{<-}[r]_{p^*_{b}} & H^*(\C P^n_{(b)};\Z) & \Z\oplus\Z\gamma_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\Z\gamma_n \ar@{=}[l] } \end{array}. \end{small} \end{equation} Because $\C^{n+1}$ equivariantly deformation retracts to a point, the map $\Pi_b^*$ maps the generator $u$ to $x$. The commutativity of the top square then implies that $\pi_b^*(u) = x$. Thus, we know that \begin{eqnarray} \pi_b^*(q^*_{(b)}(\gamma_1) & = & q^*(p_b^*(\gamma_1))\\ & = & q^*(\ell_1 \cdot x), \ \ \ \mbox{ by Kawasaki's result,}\\ & = & \ell_1\cdot x, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{ since } q^* \mbox{ is an equality,} \\ & = & \pi_b^*( \ell_1\cdot u). \end{eqnarray} In low degree, $\pi_b^*$ is injective, so we may conclude that $q_{(b)}^*(\gamma_1) = \ell_1 \cdot u$. Noting that $\ell_1=\lcm(b_0,\dots,b_n)$ completes the proof.\hfill\qed \medskip Over the integers, this invariant does distinguish a weighted projective space from the standard one; however, it may not differentiate between two weighted projective spaces. For example, the cohomology rings of the orbifolds $[\C P^1_{2,2}]$ and $[\C P^1_{4,1}]$ are identical. They are both \begin{equation} \frac{\Z[u]}{\langle 4u^2\rangle}. \end{equation} We note that these surjectivity techniques do not generally work over the integers. To see this, we note that for any abelian reduction of affine space, the domain of the Kirwan map $H_T^*(\C^N;\Z)$ has terms only in even degrees. If we consider the simple product $[\C P^1_{1,2}\times \C P^1_{1,2}]$, we may compute the cohomology of this orbifold using the above result and the K\"unneth formula. Since $[\C P^1_{1,2}]$ has $2$-torsion in high degrees, the $\mathrm{Tor}$ term from the K\"unneth formula plays a role, yielding $2$-torsion in high odd degrees in the cohomology of the orbifold $[\C P^1_{1,2}\times \C P^2_{1,2}]$. Thus, surjectivity must fail over the integers in this example. We note that any failure over $\Z$ must be due to problems with torsion, because surjectivity does hold over $\Q$. \medskip \noindent {\bf The Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology of $[\C P^n_{(b)}]$.} When computing the Chen-Ruan ring, it is important to recall that a weighted projective space is a circle reduction. Thus, the finite group $\Gamma$ for which the $\Gamma$-piece surjects onto $H_{CR}^{\phantom{i}*\phantom{i}}([\C P^n_{(b)}];\Z)$ is a cyclic group. For any vector $v$ that is non-zero is a single coordinate, say the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ coordinate, the stabilizer of $v$ is $\Z_{b_i}$. Thus, the group $\Gamma$ generated by all finite stabilizers is the $\ell^{\mathrm{th}}$ roots of unity $\Z_\ell \subset S^1$, where $\ell=\lcm(b_0,\dots,b_n)$. Hence, we have a surjection \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ \Z[u,\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{\ell-1}] \ar@{->>}[r] & H_{CR}^{\phantom{i}*\phantom{i}}([\C P^n_{(b)}];\Z). } \end{equation} In this case, thinking of $e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{\ell}} = \zeta_k\in \Z_\ell \subset S^1$, $\alpha_k$ denotes a generator for \begin{equation} H^*_{S^1_{(b)}}((\C^{n+1})^{\zeta_k};\Z). \end{equation} To complete the computation, we must determine the orbifold product \begin{equation} \alpha_i\smile\alpha_j=\alpha_i\star\alpha_j \end{equation} and the kernel of the orbifold Kirwan map \eqref{eq:cr-surj}. For any integer $m\in \Z$, we let $[m]$ denote the smallest non-negative integer congruent to $m$ modulo $\ell$. For any rational number $q\in\Q$, $\langle q\rangle_f$ denotes its fractional part. Finally, we let \begin{equation} a_k(m) := \frac{[ b_k\cdot m]}{\ell} = \left\langle \frac{b_k\cdot m}{\ell} \right\rangle_f. \end{equation} This is the rational number such that $\zeta_m$ acts on the $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ coordinate by $e^{2\pi i a_k(m)}$. \begin{theorem} The Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology of $\C P^n_{(b)}$ is \begin{equation} H_{CR}^{\phantom{i}*\phantom{i}}([\C P^n_{(b)}];\Z) \cong \frac{\Z[u,\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{\ell-1}] }{\mathcal{I}+\mathcal{J}}, \end{equation} where $u$ is a class in degree $2$, \begin{equation} \deg(\alpha_j) = 2 \sum_{k=0}^n a_k(j). \end{equation} Here, $\mathcal{I}$ is the ideal \begin{equation} \mathcal{I} = \left\langle \alpha_i\alpha_j-\left(\prod_{k=0}^n (b_ku)^{a_k(i)+a_k(j)-a_k(i+j)}\right)\alpha_{[i+j]}\right\rangle \end{equation} generated by the $\star$ product structure, and $\mathcal{J}$ is \begin{equation} \mathcal{J} = \sum_{j=0}^n \left\langle\left( \prod_{a_k(j)=0} b_ku\right) \alpha_i\right\rangle, \end{equation} the kernel of the surjection $\mathcal{K}$ of the orbifold Kirwan map. \end{theorem} \begin{remark} The generator $u$ is the generator of $S^1$-equivariant cohomology and hence has degree $2$. The generator $\alpha_k$ is a placeholder for the cohomology of the $\zeta_k$-sector. \end{remark} \begin{remark} Note that the generator $\alpha_0$ is the placeholder for the identity sector. Indeed, we always have \begin{equation} \alpha_0\star\alpha_0 =\alpha_0 \end{equation} as a consequence of the relation in \eqref{eq:product} where $i=j=0$, hence we may think of $\alpha_0$ as $1$. \end{remark} \begin{remark} The reader may use this theorem to check that $H_{CR}^{\phantom{i}*\phantom{i}}(\phantom{-};\Z)$ does distinguish $[\C P^1_{2,2}]$ from $[\C P^1_{4,1}]$. \end{remark} \noindent {\textsc{Proof}.} We use the $\star$ product given by Equation~(2.1) in . In the case of a weighted circle action on $\C^{n+1}$, there is exactly one fixed point (the origin), any generator $\alpha_i$ restricted to that fixed point is $1$, and the equivariant Euler class for the $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ coordinate is precisely $b_ku$, whence \begin{equation} \alpha_i\star\alpha_j=\left(\prod_{k=0}^n (b_ku)^{a_k(i)+a_k(j)-a_k(i+j)}\right)\alpha_{[i+j]}. \end{equation} Turning to the kernel computation, each $(\C^{n+1})^{\zeta_j}$ has a weighted $S^1$ action, and so we apply Theorem~ to this subspace. Thus, for the $\zeta_j$-sector, the kernel contribution is the equivariant Euler class of $(\C^{n+1})^{\zeta_j}$ times the placeholder $\alpha_j$. We note that $(\C^{n+1})^{\zeta_j}$ contains the $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ coordinate subspace precisely when $a_k(j)=0$. Hence, \begin{equation} e_{S^1_{(b)}}((\C^{n+1})^{\zeta_j}) = \prod_{a_k(j)=0}^{\phantom{o}} b_ku, \end{equation} and the theorem follows. \hfill\qed \medskip This theorem is an immediate consequence of Theorem~ and . The importance of this description is its ease in computation, since it avoids any computation of a labeled moment polytope ({\em \'a la} ) or of a stacky fan ({\em \'a la} ). We demonstrate this computational facility in the following concluding example. \begin{example} Consider the weighted projective space $[\C P^5_{1,2,2,3,3,3}]$. This is a symplectic reduction of $\C^6$, the group $\Gamma$ is $\Z/6\Z$, and so the Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology of $[\C P^5_{1,2,2,3,3,3}]$ is a quotient of \begin{equation} \Z[u,\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\alpha_4,\alpha_5]. \end{equation} The following chart contains the data needed to compute the ideals $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{J}$. \begin{equation} \begin{array}{c||c|c|c|c|c|c|} g & \zeta_0 & \zeta_1 & \zeta_2 & \zeta_3 & \zeta_4 & \zeta_5 \\ \hline\hline (\C^6)^g & \C^6 & \{ 0\} & 3\C_{(3)} & 2\C_{(2)} & 3\C_{(3)} & \{ 0\} \\ \hline \Year_{\C_{(1)}}(g) & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & \frac{1}{3} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{2}{3} & \frac{5}{6} \\ \hline \Year_{\C_{(2)}}(g) & 0 & \frac{1}{3} & \frac{2}{3} & 0 & \frac{1}{3} & \frac{2}{3} \\ \hline \Year_{\C_{(3)}}(g) & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & \frac{1}{2} \\ \hline 2\cdot\age(g) & 0 & \frac{14}{3} & \frac{10}{3} & 4 & \frac{8}{3} & \frac{22}{3} \\ \hline \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{0}{\mbox{generator of}}{H_{S^1_{(b)}}^*((\C^6)^g;\Z)} & \alpha_0 & \alpha_1 & \alpha_2 &\alpha_3 & \alpha_4 & \alpha_5\\ \hline e_{S^1_{(b)}}((\C^6)^g) & 108u^6& 1& 27u^3&4u^2 &27u^3 & 1\\ \hline \end{array} \end{equation} Note that because of the multiplicities, \begin{equation} 2\cdot \age(g) = 2\cdot \big[a_1(g) +2a_2(g)+3a_3(g)\big]. \end{equation} Since $\alpha_0=1$, and $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_5$ are in the kernel ideal $\mathcal{J}$, we only need to compute the products among $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$ and $\alpha_4$. For example, we may compute \begin{equation} \alpha_2\star\alpha_2 = (u)^{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3}-\frac{2}{3}}\left( (2u)^{\frac{2}{3}+\frac{2}{3}-\frac{1}{3}}\right)^2 \left( (3u)^{0+0-0}\right)^3\alpha_4 = 4u^2\alpha_4. \end{equation} All of the products contributing to $\mathcal{I}$, then, are summarized in the following table. \begin{equation} \begin{array}{c||c|c|c|} \star & \alpha_2 & \alpha_3 & \alpha_4 \\ \hline \hline \alpha_2 & 4u^2\alpha_4 & \alpha_5=0 & 4u^3 \\ \hline \alpha_3 & & 27u^4 & u\alpha_1=0 \\ \hline \alpha_4 & & & u\alpha_2 \\ \hline \end{array}. \end{equation} Thus, as a ring, \begin{equation} H_{CR}^{\phantom{i}*\phantom{i}}([\C P^n_{1,2,2,3,3,3}];\Z) \iso \frac{\Z[u,\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\alpha_4,\alpha_5]}{\mathcal{I}+\left\langle 108u^6, \alpha_1, 27u^3\alpha_2, 4u^2\alpha_3, 27u^3\alpha_4, \alpha_5 \right\rangle}. \end{equation} This generalizes Jiang's computation to a computation over $\Z$. \end{example} \bibliographystyle{amsalpha} \begin{thebibliography}{EHKVI} \bibitem[\AGV]{AGV:orbifoldquantumproducts} D.\ Abramovich, T.\ Graber, and A.\ Vistoli, ``Algebraic orbifold quantum products.'' {\em Contemp. Math.,} {\bf 310} (2002) 1--24. Preprint {\tt math.AG/0112004}. \bibitem[A]{At:convexity} M. Atiyah, ``Convexity and commuting Hamiltonians.'' {\em Bull. London Math. Soc.} {\bf 14} (1982) no. 1, 1--15. \bibitem[BCS]{BCS:toricvarieties} L.\ Borisov, L.\ Chen, and G.\ Smith, ``The orbifold Chow ring of toric Deligne-Mumford stacks.'' {\em J. Amer. Math. Soc.} {\bf 18} (2005) no. 1, 193--215. Preprint {\tt math.AG/0309229}. \bibitem[CdS]{CdS:book} A. Cannas da Silva, {\em Lectures on symplectic geometry.} {\bf Lecture Notes in Mathematics}, 1764. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. \bibitem[CR]{CR:orbH} W.\ Chen and Y.\ Ruan, ``A New Cohomology Theory for Orbifold.'' {\em Commun.Math.Phys.} {\bf 248} (2004) 1-31. Preprint {\tt math.AG/0004129}. \bibitem[CS]{CS:injectivity} T. Chang and T. Skjelbred, ``Topological Schur lemma and related results.'' {\em Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.} {\bf 79} (1973) 1036--1038. \bibitem[CCLT]{CCLT} T. Coates, A. Corti, Y.-P. Lee, and H.-H. Tseng, ``The quantum orbifold cohomology of weighted projective space." Preprint {\tt math.AG/0608481}. \bibitem[D]{danilov} V.\ Danilov, ``The geometry of toric varieties.'' {\em Russian Math.\ Surveys} {\bf 33} (1978) no.\ 2, 97--154. \bibitem[DM]{DM} P. Deligne and D. Mumford, ``The irreducibility of the space of curves of given genus." {\em Inst.\ Hautes �tudes Sci.\ Publ.\ Math.} {\bf 36} (1969) 75--109. \bibitem[EHKV]{EHKV} D. Edidin, B. Hassett, A. Kresch, and A. Vistoli, ``Brauer groups and quotient stacks.'' {\em Amer.\ J. Math.\ } {\bf 123} (2001) no. 4, 761--777. \bibitem[FG]{FG:globalquotients} B.\ Fantechi and L.\ G\"ottsche, ``Cohomology for global quotients.'' {\em Duke Math. J.} {\bf 117} (2003) no. 2, 197--227. Preprint {\tt math.AG/0104207}. \bibitem[F]{frankel} T. Frankel, ``Fixed points and torsion on Ka\"hler manifolds.'' {\em Ann.\ of Math.\ (2)} {\bf 70} 1959 1--8. \bibitem[Go]{Go:effective} R. Goldin, ''An effective algorithm for the cohomology ring of symplectic reduction.'' {\em Geom. Funct. Anal.} {\bf 12} (2002) 567-583. Preprint {\tt math.SG/0110022}. \bibitem[GoH]{GoH} R. Goldin and T. Holm, ''The equivariant cohomology of Hamiltonian $G$-spaces from residual $S\sp 1$ actions.'' {\em Math. Res. Lett.} {\bf 8} (2001) no. 1-2, 67--77. Preprint {\tt math.SG/0107131}. \bibitem[GHK]{GHK:preorb} R. Goldin, T. Holm and A. Knutson, ``Orbifold cohomology of torus quotients.'' {\em Duke Math.\ Journal}, to appear. Preprint {\tt math.SG/0502429}. \bibitem[GKM]{GKM} M. Goresky, R. Kottwitz, and R. MacPherson, ``Equivariant cohomology, Koszul duality, and the localization theorem.'' {\em Invent. Math.} {\bf 131} (1998) no. 1, 25--83. \bibitem[GuH]{GuH} V. Guillemin and T. Holm, ``GKM theory for torus actions with non-isolated fixed points.'' {\em Int. Math. Res. Not.} {\bf 40} (2004) 2105--2124. Preprint {\tt math.SG/0308008}. \bibitem[GuSj]{GuSj:convex} V. Guillemin and R. Sjamaar, {\em Convexity properties of Hamiltonian group actions.} {\bf CRM Monograph Series} {\bf 26}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005. \bibitem[GuSt]{GS:convexity} V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, ``Convexity properties of the moment mapping.'' {\em Invent. Math.} {\bf 67} (1982) no. 3, 491--513. \bibitem[GuZ]{GZ} V. Guillemin and C. Zara, ``1-skeleta, Betti numbers, and equivariant cohomology.'' {\em Duke Math. J.} {\bf 107} (2001) no. 2, 283--349. Preprint {\tt math.DG/9903051}. \bibitem[H\ae]{haefliger} A. Haefliger, ``Structures feuillet�es et cohomologie � valeur dans un faisceau de groupo�des.'' {\bf Comment. Math. Helv.} {\bf 32} (1958) 248--329. \bibitem[HHH]{HHH} M. Harada, A. Henriques, and T. Holm, ``Computation of generalized equivariant cohomologies of Kac-Moody flag varieties.'' {\em Adv. Math.} {\bf 197} (2005) no. 1, 198--221. Preprint {\tt math.AT/0409305}. \bibitem[HL]{HL} M. Harada and G. Landweber, ``Surjectivity for Hamiltonian $G$-spaces in $K$-theory." {\em Trans.\ AMS} to appear. Preprint {\tt math.SG/0503609}. \bibitem[HeMe]{HM} A. Henriques and D. Metzler, ``Presentations of Noneffective Orbifolds.'' {\em Trans.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.} {\bf 356} (2004) no. 6 2481--2499. Preprint {\tt math.AT/0302182}. \bibitem[HT]{HT} T. Holm and S. Tolman, ``Integral Kirwan Surjectivity for Hamiltonian $T$-manifolds," in preparation. \bibitem[JK]{JK:kernel} L. Jeffrey and F. Kirwan, ``Localization for nonabelian group actions." {\em Topology} {\bf 34} (1995) no. 2, 291--327. \bibitem[J]{J:wps} Y. Jiang, ``The Chen-Ruan Cohomology of Weighted Projective Spaces." Preprint {\tt math.AG/0304140}. \bibitem[Ka]{K:weightedproj} T. Kawasaki, ``Cohomology of twisted projective spaces and lens complexes.'' {\em Math.\ Ann.} {\bf 206} (1973) 243--248. \bibitem[Ki]{K:quotients} F. Kirwan, {\em Cohomology of quotients in symplectic and algebraic geometry.} Mathematical Notes, {\bf 31}. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1984. \bibitem[Kn]{AllenThesis} A. Knutson, {\em Weight varieties}, MIT Ph.D. thesis 1996. \bibitem[LT]{LT:toricorbifolds} E. Lerman and S. Tolman, Hamiltonian torus actions on symplectic orbifolds and toric varieties. {\em Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.} {\bf 349} (1997) no. 10, 4201--4230. {\tt dg-ga/9511008}. \bibitem[Ma1]{Mann:thesis} E. Mann, {\em Cohomologie quantique orbifolde des espaces projectifs \'a poids}, IRMA (Strasbourg) Ph.D. thesis 2005. Available at {\tt math.AG/0510331}. \bibitem[Ma2]{Mann:paper} E. Mann ``Orbifold quantum cohomology of weighted projective spaces.'' {\em J.\ of Alg. Geom.}, to appear. Preprint {\tt math.AG/0610617}. \bibitem[MaWe]{MW:reduction} J. Marsden and A. Weinstein, ``Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry.'' {\em Rep. Mathematical Phys.} {\bf 5} (1974) no. 1, 121--130. \bibitem[Moe]{Moe} I. Moerdijk, ``Orbifolds as groupoids: an introduction." In {\em Orbifolds in mathematics and physics (Madison, WI, 2001)} 205--222, {\em Contemp.\ Math.}, {\bf 310}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002. \bibitem[MoWi]{MoWi:torsion} G. Moore and E. Witten, ``Self-duality, Ramond-Ramond fields and $K$-theory." {\em J. High Energy Phys.} (2000) no. 5, Paper 32, 32 pp. \bibitem[S1]{Sat56} I. Satake, ``On a generalization of the notion of manifold.'' {\em Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA} {\bf 42} (1956) 359--363. \bibitem[S2]{Sat57} I. Satake, ``The Gauss-Bonnet Theorem for V-manifolds.'' {\em J. Math. Soc. Japan} {\bf 9} (1957) 464--492. \bibitem[SL]{SL:strat} R. Sjamaar and E. Lerman, ``Stratified symplectic spaces and reduction.'' {\em Ann.\ of Math.\ (2)} {\bf 134} (1991) no. 2, 375--422. \bibitem[Th]{Thu} W. Thurston, {\it Three-dimensional geometry and topology. Vol. 1.} Princeton Mathematical Series, \#35. Princeton University Press, 1997. ISBN 0-691-08304-5. \bibitem[TW]{TW:symplecticquotients} S. Tolman and J. Weitsman, ``The cohomology ring of symplectic quotients.'' {\em Communications in Analysis and Geometry} {\bf 11} (2003) no.\ 4, 751--773. Preprint {\tt math.DG/9807173}. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0258
|
Title: Correlation functions in the Non Perturbative Renormalization Group and
field expansion
Abstract: The usual procedure of including a finite number of vertices in Non
Perturbative Renormalization Group equations in order to obtain $n$-point
correlation functions at finite momenta is analyzed. This is done by exploiting
a general method recently introduced which includes simultaneously all vertices
although approximating their momentum dependence. The study is performed using
the self-energy of the tridimensional scalar model at criticality. At least in
this example, low order truncations miss quantities as the critical exponent
$\eta$ by as much as 60%. However, if one goes to high order truncations the
procedure seems to converge rapidly.
Body: \title{Correlation functions in the Non Perturbative Renormalization Group and field expansion} \author{Diego Guerra} \email{dguerra@fing.edu.uy} \affiliation{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Facultad de Ingenier\'{\i}a, Univ.~de la Rep\'ublica, J.H.y Reissig 565, 11000 Montevideo, Uruguay} \author{Ram\'on M\'endez-Galain} \email{mendezg@fing.edu.uy} \affiliation{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Facultad de Ingenier\'{\i}a, Univ.~de la Rep\'ublica, J.H.y Reissig 565, 11000 Montevideo, Uruguay} \author{Nicol\'as Wschebor} \email{nicws@fing.edu.uy} \affiliation{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Facultad de Ingenier\'{\i}a, Univ.~de la Rep\'ublica, J.H.y Reissig 565, 11000 Montevideo, Uruguay} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} The usual procedure of including a finite number of vertices in Non Perturbative Renormalization Group equations in order to obtain $n$-point correlation functions at finite momenta is analyzed. This is done by exploiting a general method recently introduced which includes simultaneously all vertices although approximating their momentum dependence. The study is performed using the self-energy of the tridimensional scalar model at criticality. At least in this example, low order truncations miss quantities as the critical exponent $\eta$ by as much as 60\ \end{abstract} \pacs{03.75.Fi,05.30.Jp} \maketitle \def\bfphi{\mbox{\boldmath$\phi$}} \def\bfvarphi{\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}} \def\bfgamma{\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}} \def\bfalpha{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}} \def\bftau{\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}} \def\bfnabla{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}} \def\bfsigma{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}} \def\bfpi{\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}} \newcommand \beq{\begin{eqnarray}} \newcommand \eeq{\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand \ga{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}} \newcommand \la{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}} \def\psib{\psi} \def\phib{\phi} \def\r{{\rm r}} \def\d{{\rm d}} \def \e {\mbox{e}} \input epsf \def\square{\hbox{{$\sqcup$}\llap{$\sqcap$}}} \def\grad{\nabla} \def\del{\partial} \def\frac#1#2{{#1 \over #2}} \def\smallfrac#1#2{{\scriptstyle {#1 \over #2}}} \def\half{\ifinner {\scriptstyle {1 \over 2}} \else {1 \over 2} \fi} \def\bra#1{\langle#1\vert} \def\ket#1{\vert#1\rangle} \def\simge{\mathrel{ \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}} \def\simle{\mathrel{ \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}} \def\buildchar#1#2#3{{\null\! \mathop#1\limits^{#2}_{#3} \!\null}} \def\overcirc#1{\buildchar{#1}{\circ}{}} \def\slashchar#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} \dimen0=\wd0 \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} #1 \else \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} / \fi} \def\real{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \def\imag{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \def\tr{\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits} \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits} \def\Det{\mathop{\rm Det}\nolimits} \def\mod{\mathop{\rm mod}\nolimits} \def\wrt{\mathop{\rm wrt}\nolimits} \def\TeV{{\rm TeV}} \def\GeV{{\rm GeV}} \def\MeV{{\rm MeV}} \def\KeV{{\rm KeV}} \def\eV{{\rm eV}} \def\mb{{\rm mb}} \def\mub{\hbox{$\mu$b}} \def\nb{{\rm nb}} \def\pb{{\rm pb}} \def\picture #1 by #2 (#3){ \vbox to #2{ \hrule width #1 height 0pt depth 0pt \vfill \special{picture #3} } } \def\scaledpicture #1 by #2 (#3 scaled #4){{ \dimen0=#1 \dimen1=#2 \divide\dimen0 by 1000 \multiply\dimen0 by #4 \divide\dimen1 by 1000 \multiply\dimen1 by #4 \picture \dimen0 by \dimen1 (#3 scaled #4)} } \def\centerpicture #1 by #2 (#3 scaled #4){ \dimen0=#1 \dimen1=#2 \divide\dimen0 by 1000 \multiply\dimen0 by #4 \divide\dimen1 by 1000 \multiply\dimen1 by #4 \noindent \vbox{ \hspace*{\fill} \picture \dimen0 by \dimen1 (#3 scaled #4) \hspace*{\fill} \vfill}} \def\figfermass{\centerpicture 122.4mm by 32.46mm (fermass scaled 750)} \section{Introduction} In nearly all fields in physics, there are systems having a large number of strongly correlated constituents. These cannot be treated with usual perturbative methods. Phase transitions and critical phenomena, disordered systems, strongly correlated electrons, quantum chromodynamics at large distances, are just a few examples which demand a general and efficient method to treat non-perturbative situations. In problems as those just quoted, the calculation of correlation functions of the configuration variables is, in general, a very complicated task. The non perturbative renormalization group (NPRG) has proven to be a powerful tool to achieve this goal. It presents itself as an infinite hierarchy of flow equations relating sequentially the various $n$-point functions. It has been successfully applied in many different problems, either in condensed matter, particle or nuclear physics (for reviews, see e.g. ; a pedagogical introduction can be found in ). In most of these problems however, one is interested in observables dominated by long wavelength modes. In these cases, it is then possible to approximately close the infinite hierarchy of NPRG equations performing an expansion in the number of derivatives of the field. This approximation scheme is known as the derivative expansion (DE) . The price to pay is that the $n$-point functions can be calculated only at small external momenta, i.e. smaller than the smallest mass on the problem (vanishing momenta in the case of critical phenomena). In many other physical problems however, this is not enough: the full knowledge of the momentum dependence of correlation functions is needed in order to calculate quantities of physical interest (e.g. to get the spectrum of excitations, the shape of a Fermi surface, the scattering matrix, etc.). There have been many attempts to solve the infinite system of flow equations at finite momenta; most of them are based on various forms of an early proposal by Weinberg . Although some of these attempts introduce sophisticated ansatz for the unknown correlation functions appearing in a given flow equation, most efforts simply ignore high order vertices. In all these works, only low order vertices are taken into account: usual calculations do not even include the complete flow of the $3$- and $4$-point functions. Moreover, it is not possible a priori to gauge the quality of such approximations schemes. Recently, an alternative general method to get $n$-point functions at any finite momenta within the NPRG has been proposed . It has many similarities with DE. First, it is an approximation scheme that can be systematically improved. Second, the scheme yields a closed set of flow equations including simultaneously an infinite number of vertices; one thus goes far beyond schemes including a small number of vertices, as those quoted in the previous paragraph. Moreover, it has been proven that in their corresponding limits, both perturvative and DE results are recovered; this remains valid at each order of the respective expansion. Finally, in the large-$N$ limit of $O(N)$ models, the leading-order (LO) of the approximation scheme becomes exact for all $n$-point functions. (The expression ``leading order" means the first step in the approximation scheme; it does not refer to an expansion in a small parameter which usually does not exist in these kind of problems.). In , the method has been applied, in its leading order, to the calculation of the self-energy of the scalar model, at criticality. That is, we have fine-tuned the bare mass of the model in order for the correlation length to be infinite, and then we have studied the full range of momenta, from the high momenta Gaussian regime to the low momenta scaling one. At this order of the approximation scheme the self-energy is expected to include all one loop contributions and to achieve DE at next-to-leading order (NLO) precision, in the corresponding limit . The numerical solution found in verifies these properties. Moreover, the function has the expected physical properties in all momenta regime. First, it presents the correct scaling behavior in the infrared limit. The model reproduces critical exponent $\eta$ with a level of precision comparable to the DE at NLO. Moreover, contrarily to DE, the anomalous power-law behavior can be read directly from the momentum dependence of the $2$-point function. Second, it shows the expected logarithmic shape of the perturbative regime even though the coefficient in front of the logarithm, which is a $2$-loops quantity, is only reproduced with an error of $8$\ Another interesting similarity between DE and the method presented in is that, as a price to pay in order to close the equations including an infinite number of vertices, one has to study the problem in an external constant field. Accordingly, one ends up with partial differential equations which may be difficult to solve. A useful approximation scheme, widely used in DE calculations, is to perform, on top of the expansion in derivatives of the field, an extra expansion in powers of the field (see e.g.~), in the spirit of Weinberg proposal. During the last 10 years, this strategy has been widely used ; in many studied situations this expansion seems to converge (generally oscillating) , while in many others it does not . In $d=2$, the field expansion has been explored with no indication of convergence for critical exponents, even going to high orders . In this work we shall explore this procedure of expansion in powers of the field, in the framework of the calculation scheme presented in . More precisely, we shall make a field expansion on top of the already approximated 2-point function flow equation solved in . Then we shall compare results with and without field expansion. In doing so, we have two goals. First, we shall study the apparent convergence of this procedure. This comparison is essential if one hopes to apply the scheme described in to situations more complicated than that considered in . For example, within DE scheme, when trying to go to higher orders or when considering more involved models, the expansion in powers of the field on top of the corresponding approximate flow equations is sometimes the only practical strategy to solve them . The second and more important goal is the following: as we shall see in section , truncation in powers of the field is equivalent to ignoring high order vertices in the flow equations. Thus, the comparison presented here can help to estimate the quality of the calculations made so far to get $n$-point functions at finite momenta neglecting high order vertices. The article is organized as follows. In the next section we describe the basics ingredients of both the NPRG and the approximation scheme introduced in . We also present the results obtained in , when this scheme is used to find the 2-point function of the scalar model. In section , we apply the expansion in the field at various orders and compare these results with those found in . Finally, we present the conclusions of the study. \section{General considerations} Let us consider a scalar field theory with the classical action \begin{equation} S = \int {\rm d}^{d}x\,\left\lbrace{ \frac{1}{2}} \left(\del_\mu \varphi(x)\right)^2 + \frac{r}{2} \, \varphi^2(x) + \frac{u}{4!} \,\varphi^4(x) \right\rbrace \,. \end{equation} Here, $r$ and $u$ are the microscopic mass and coupling, respectively. The NPRG builds a family of effective actions, $\Gamma_\kappa[\phi]$ (where $\phi(x)=\langle \varphi(x) \rangle_J$ is the expectation value of the field in presence of an external source $J(x)$), in which the magnitude of long wavelength fluctuations are controlled by an infrared regulator depending on a continuous parameter $\kappa$. One can write for $\Gamma_\kappa[\phi]$ an exact flow equation : \begin{equation} \partial_\kappa \Gamma_\kappa[\phi]=\frac{1}{2} \int \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi)^d} \partial_\kappa R_\kappa(q^2) \left[\Gamma_\kappa^{(2)}+R_\kappa\right]^{-1}_{q,-q}, \end{equation} where $\Gamma_\kappa^{(2)}$ is the second functional derivative of $\Gamma_\kappa$ with respect to $\phi(x)$, and $R_\kappa$ denotes a family of ``cut-off functions'' depending on $\kappa$: $R_\kappa(q)$ behaves like $\kappa^2$ when $q\ll \kappa$ and it vanishes rapidly when $q\gg \kappa$ . The effective action $\Gamma_\kappa[\phi]$ interpolates between the classical action obtained for $\kappa=\Lambda$ (where $\Lambda^{-1}$ is the microscopic length scale), and the full effective action obtained when $\kappa \to 0$, i.e., when all fluctuations are taken into account (see e.g. ). By differentiating eq.~() with respect to $\phi(x)$, and then letting the field be constant, one gets the flow equation for the $n$-point function $\Gamma_\kappa^{(n)}$ in a constant background field $\phi$. For example, for the 2-point function one gets: \begin{eqnarray} \partial_\kappa\Gamma_{\kappa}^{(2)}(p;\phi)&=&\int \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi)^d}\partial_\kappa R_k(q)\Big\{G_{\kappa}(q;\phi) \Gamma_{\kappa}^{(3)}(p,q,-p-q;\phi) \nonumber \\ &&\times G_{\kappa}(q+p;\phi)\Gamma_{\kappa}^{(3)}(-p,p+q,-q;\phi) G_{\kappa}(q;\phi) \nonumber \\ &&-\frac{1}{2}G_{\kappa}(q;\phi)\Gamma_{\kappa}^{(4)} (p,-p,q,-q;\phi)G_{\kappa}(q;\phi)\Big\} , \end{eqnarray} where \begin{equation} G^{-1}_{\kappa} (q;\phi) \equiv \Gamma^{(2)}_{\kappa} (q,-q;\phi) + R_\kappa(q^2), \end{equation} and we used the definition \begin{equation} (2\pi)^d \;\delta^{(d)}\left(\sum_i p_i\right)\;\Gamma_\kappa^{(n)}(p_1,\dots,p_n;\phi)= \int d^dx_1\dots\int d^dx_{n} e^{i\sum_{j=1}^n p_jx_j}\left. \frac{\delta^n\Gamma_\kappa}{\delta\phi(x_1) \dots \delta\phi(x_n)}\right|_{\phi(x)\equiv \phi}. \end{equation} The flow equation for a given $n$-point function involves the $n+1$ and $n+2$ point functions (see, e.g., eq.~()), so that the flow equations for all correlation functions constitute an infinite hierarchy of coupled equations. In , a general method to solve this infinite hierarchy was proposed. It exploits the smoothness of the regularized $n$-point functions, and the fact that the loop momentum $q$ in the right hand side of the flow equations (such as eq.~() or eq.~()) is limited to $q\simle \kappa$ due to the presence of $\partial_\kappa R_\kappa(q)$. The leading order of the method presented in thus consists in setting \beq \Gamma^{(n)}_{\kappa}(p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}+q,p_n-q)\sim \Gamma^{(n)}_{\kappa}(p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1},p_n) \eeq in the r.h.s. of the flow equations. After making this approximation, some momenta in some of the $n$-point functions vanish, and their expressions can then be obtained as derivatives of $m$-point functions ($m<n$) with respect to a constant background field. Specifically, in the flow equation for the 2-point function, eq.~(), after setting $q=0$ in the vertices of the r.h.s., the 3- and 4-point functions will contain one and two vanishing momenta, respectively. These can be related to the following derivatives of the 2-point function: \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\kappa}^{(3)}(p,-p,0;\phi)=\frac{\partial \Gamma_{\kappa}^{(2)} (p,-p;\phi)} {\partial \phi} , \hskip 1 cm \Gamma_{\kappa}^{(4)}(p,-p,0,0;\phi)=\frac{\partial^2 \Gamma_{\kappa}^{(2)} (p,-p;\phi)} {\partial \phi^2}. \end{equation} One then gets a closed equation for $\Gamma_{\kappa}^{(2)}(p;\phi)$: \begin{equation} \kappa \partial_\kappa\Gamma_\kappa^{(2)}(p^2;\phi)= J_d^{(3)}(p,\kappa;\phi) \; \left( \frac{\partial \Gamma_\kappa^{(2)}(p,-p;\phi)} {\partial \phi} \right)^2 -\frac{1}{2} I_d^{(2)}(\kappa;\phi) \; \frac{\partial^2 \Gamma_\kappa^{(2)}(p,-p;\phi)} {\partial \phi^2}, \end{equation} where \beq J_d^{(n)}(p;\kappa;\phi)\equiv \int\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi)^d}\kappa \partial_\kappa R_\kappa(q^2) G_\kappa(p+q;\phi)G^{(n-1)}_\kappa(q;\phi) , \eeq and \beq I_d^{(n)}(\kappa;\phi)\equiv \int \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi)^d}\kappa \partial_\kappa R_\kappa(q^2) G^n_\kappa(q;\phi). \eeq In fact, in order to preserve the relation \beq \Gamma^{(2)}_{\kappa}(p=0;\phi) = \frac{\partial^2 V_\kappa}{\partial \phi^2}, \eeq $V_\kappa(\phi)=\Gamma_\kappa[\phi(x)\equiv\phi]/\mathrm{Vol}$ being the effective potential, it is better to make the approximation () (followed by ()) in the flow equation for $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\phi)$ defined as \begin{equation} \Sigma_\kappa (p;\phi) = \Gamma^{(2)}_{\kappa} (p;\phi) - p^2 - \Gamma^{(2)}_{\kappa} (p=0;\phi). \end{equation} The $2$-point function is then obtained from $\Gamma^{(2)}(p;\phi)=\partial^2 V_\kappa(\phi)/\partial \phi^2 + p^2 + \Sigma_\kappa(p;\phi)$, which demands the simultaneous solution of the flow equations for $V_\kappa(\phi)$ and $\Sigma_\kappa (p;\phi)$. As shown in , even if the complete solution of these equations is a priori complicated, a simple, and still accurate, way of solving them consists in assuming in the various integrals \beq G^{-1}_{\kappa} (q;\phi) \simeq Z_\kappa q^2 + \partial^2 V_\kappa(\phi)/\partial \phi^2 + R_\kappa(q^2), \eeq where $Z_\kappa \equiv Z_\kappa(\phi=0)$, with $Z_\kappa(\phi)\equiv 1+ \partial \Sigma_\kappa(p;\phi) / \partial p^2|_{p=0}$. This approximation is consistent with an improved version of the Local Potential Approximation (LPA, the first order of the DE), which includes explicitly a field renormalization factor $Z_\kappa$ . Doing so, the ``$p=0$'' sector decouples from the $p\neq 0$ one. Here, by ``$p=0$'' we mean the sector describing vertices and derivative of vertices at zero momenta, i.e., flow equations for $V_\kappa$ and $Z_\kappa$. Moreover, it is useful to use the regulator \beq R_\kappa(q^2) =Z_\kappa (\kappa^2-q^2) \; \Theta(\kappa^2-q^2), \eeq which allows the functions $J_d^{(n)}(p;\kappa;\phi)$ and $I_d^{(n)}(\kappa;\phi)$ to be calculated analytically. The corresponding expressions can be found in . In fact, all quantities are functions of $\rho\equiv \phi^2/2$. The problem is then reduced to the solution of the three flow equations for $V_\kappa(\rho)$ and $Z_\kappa(\rho)$, for the $p = 0$ sector, and for $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\rho)$, in the $p\neq 0$ one. As only the ``effective mass'' \beq m^2_\kappa(\rho) \equiv \frac{\partial^2 V_\kappa (\phi)}{\partial \phi^2} = \frac{\partial V_\kappa (\rho)}{\partial \rho} + 2\rho \; \frac{\partial^2 V_\kappa (\rho)}{\partial \rho^2} \eeq (and its derivatives with respect to $\rho$) enters in the $p\neq 0$ sector, it is more convenient to work with the flow equation for $m^2_\kappa (\rho)$ instead of that for $V_\kappa(\rho)$ itself. The non-trivial fact is that by differentiating twice the flow equation for $V_\kappa(\rho)$ w.r.t $\phi$, one gets a closed equation for $m^2_\kappa (\rho)$. In order to make explicit the fixed point in the $\kappa \to 0$ limit, it is necessary to work with dimensionless variables: \beq \mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho) \equiv Z_\kappa^{-1} \; \kappa^{-2} \; m^2_\kappa(\rho) \hskip 0.3 cm ,\hskip 1 cm \chi_\kappa(\tilde \rho) \equiv Z_\kappa^{-1} \; Z_\kappa(\rho) \hskip 0.3 cm , \hskip 1 cm \tilde \rho \equiv K_d^{-1} \; Z_\kappa \; \kappa^{2-d} \; \rho \hskip 0.3 cm , \eeq which, in the critical case, have a finite limit when $\kappa \to 0$. Above, $K_d$ is a constant conveniently taken as $K_d^{-1}\equiv d\; 2^{d-1}\; \pi^{d/2} \; \Gamma(d/2)$ (e.g., $K_3=1/(6\pi^2)$). In the $p\neq 0$ sector, the dimensionful variable $p$ in the self-energy flow equation makes $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\tilde \rho)$ reach a finite value when $\kappa \to 0$. As discussed in , the inclusion of the flow equation for the renormalization factor $Z_\kappa(\tilde \rho)$ is essential in order to preserve the correct scaling behavior of $\Gamma^{(2)}(p;\tilde \rho)$ in the infrared limit. Doing so, in the critical case, the function $\Gamma^{(2)}(p;\tilde \rho)/(Z_\kappa \kappa^2)$ has to reach a fixed point expression depending on $\tilde \rho$ and $p/\kappa$, when $\kappa, p \ll u$ and $\tilde \rho \sim 1$. Putting all together, in $d=3$, the three flow equations that have to be solved are \beq \kappa \partial_\kappa\mu_\kappa(\tilde{\rho})=-(2-\eta_\kappa)\mu_\kappa(\tilde{\rho}) +(1+\eta_\kappa)\tilde{\rho}\mu_\kappa'(\tilde{\rho})-\left(1-\frac{\eta_\kappa}{5}\right) \left(\frac{\mu_\kappa'(\tilde{\rho})+2\tilde{\rho}\mu_\kappa''(\tilde{\rho})} {(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde{\rho}))^2}-\frac{4\tilde{\rho}\mu_\kappa'(\tilde{\rho})^2} {(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde{\rho}))^3}\right) \nonumber \\ \eeq and \beq &\kappa \partial_\kappa\chi_\kappa(\tilde \rho)= \eta_\kappa \chi_\kappa(\tilde \rho) + (1+\eta_\kappa) \tilde \rho \chi_\kappa'(\tilde \rho) - 2 \tilde \rho \frac{\mu_\kappa'^2(\tilde \rho)}{(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho))^4} \nonumber \\ &\hskip 1.0 cm +\left( 1-\frac{\eta_\kappa}{5}\right) \left( 8\tilde \rho \chi'_\kappa(\tilde \rho) \frac{\mu'_\kappa(\tilde \rho)} {(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho))^3} - \frac{\chi'_\kappa(\tilde \rho)+2\tilde\rho\chi''_\kappa(\tilde \rho)} {(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho))^2}\right), \eeq together with \beq \eta_\kappa=\frac{\chi_\kappa'(0)}{\chi_\kappa'(0)/5+(1+\mu_\kappa(0))^2}\hskip 0.2 cm , \hskip 1cm \kappa \partial_\kappa Z_{\kappa}=-\eta_\kappa Z_{\kappa} \hskip 0.2 cm , \eeq for the $p=0$ sector, and \begin{eqnarray} &\hspace{-2cm}\kappa \partial_\kappa\Sigma_\kappa(p,\tilde{\rho})=(1+\eta_\kappa)\tilde{\rho}\Sigma_\kappa'(p,\tilde{\rho}) +\frac{2\tilde{\rho}\mu_\kappa'^2(\tilde{\rho})\kappa^2Z_\kappa}{(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde{\rho}))^2} \left(f_\kappa(\tilde{p},\tilde{\rho})-\frac{2(1-\eta_\kappa/5)}{(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde{\rho}))^2} \right) \nonumber \\ &+ \frac{2\tilde{\rho} f_\kappa(\tilde{p},\tilde{\rho})}{(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde{\rho}))^2} \; \left(2\mu_\kappa'(\tilde{\rho})\Sigma_\kappa'(p,\tilde{\rho})+\frac{\Sigma_\kappa'^2(p,\tilde{\rho})}{\kappa^2 Z_\kappa}\right)-\frac{(1-\eta_\kappa/5)}{(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde{\rho}))^2}\left(\Sigma_\kappa'(p,\tilde{\rho}) +2\tilde{\rho}\Sigma_\kappa''(p,\tilde{\rho})\right) \end{eqnarray} for the $p\neq 0$ one. In these equations, the prime means $\partial_{\tilde \rho}$ and we used the explicit expression for $I_3^{(n)}=2 K_3 {\kappa^{5-2n}}{Z_\kappa^{1-n}}(1-{\eta_\kappa}/5) /{(1+\mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho))^n} $. In eq.~(), we introduced the dimensionless expression $f_\kappa$ defined as $J_3^{(3)}(p;\kappa;\rho) \equiv K_3 \kappa^{-1} Z^{-2}_\kappa / (1+\mu_\kappa (\tilde \rho))^2 \times f_\kappa(\tilde p;\tilde\rho)$, with $\tilde p \equiv p/\kappa$. In , this strategy is used to get the $2$-point function of the scalar model at criticality and zero external field (i.e., $\Sigma(p=0,\rho=0)=0$), in $d=3$. As recalled above, the function thus obtained has the correct shape, either in the scaling, perturbative and intermediate momenta regimes. \section{Expansion in powers of the field} In this section, we shall compare the solution obtained in using the procedure described above, with the solution of the same three flow equations expanded in powers of $\tilde \rho$ and truncating up to a given order. Before doing so, let us first consider only the flow equation for the potential or, equivalently, that for the effective mass, i.e., eq.~(), with $Z_\kappa\equiv 1$ ($\eta_\kappa \equiv 0$). This corresponds to the pure LPA sector and it is thus independent of the scheme presented in . In $d=3$, its expansion in powers of the field has been widely studied during the last ten years, using various regulators . Recently, another interesting truncation scheme has also been considered in showing much better convergence properties. However, here we shall consider the simpler expansion in powers of the fields; as shall be seen bellow this is the field expansion that can be compared to usual truncation in the number of vertices. It has been shown that, using the regulator we consider here (see eq.~()), this expansion seems to converge. This result follows when expanding both around finite and zero external field, although faster in the first case. In the convergence in this situation has been discussed studying the critical exponent $\nu$. In order to strengthen this conclusion, as a first step in our study, we have analyzed the effect of the expansion on the function $\mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho)$: \beq \mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}\; \mu_\kappa^{(n)} \; {\tilde \rho}^n. \eeq More precisely, we shall gauge the impact of truncating this sum on the fixed point values of the coefficients $\mu_{\kappa}^{(n)}$, which are proportional to vertices at zero momenta and zero external field. This study is motivated by the fact that these $\mu_{\kappa}^{(n)}$ shall appear in the $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\tilde \rho)$ flow equation, eq.~(), when the later shall be expanded around $\tilde \rho=0$. Results are shown in Figure . The four plots present the fixed point value for the first 4 couplings, $\mu_{\kappa=0}^{(n)}$, $n=0, \cdots , 3$. For each coupling, we present the result which follows by solving the complete LPA equation, eq.~(), together with the result obtained with the equation expanded in powers of $\tilde \rho$. For example, when going only up to the first order (i.e., neglecting all $\mu_\kappa^{(n)}$ with $n\geq 2$), the corresponding equations for $\mu_\kappa^{(0)}$ and $\mu_\kappa^{(1)}$, are: \beq \kappa \partial_\kappa\mu_\kappa^{(0)}=(\eta_\kappa-2)\mu_\kappa^{(0)} -\frac{(1-\eta_\kappa/5)\mu_\kappa^{(1)}}{(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})^2} \eeq and \beq \kappa\partial_\kappa\mu_\kappa^{(1)}=(2\eta_\kappa-1)\mu_\kappa^{(1)}+\frac{6(1-\eta_\kappa/5) {(\mu^{(1)}_\kappa)}^2}{(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})^3}. \eeq which have to be solved simultaneously. (In fact, if solving just the LPA, $\eta_\kappa=0$; nevertheless, we have kept $\eta_\kappa$ in eqs.~()-() for a later use of these equations). When going to the second order, eq.~() acquires a new term and a new flow equation, that for $\mu_\kappa^{(2)}$, appears; and so on. According to Figure , an apparent convergence shows up. In all cases one observes that: 1) there seems to be an oscillating convergence, 2) the value of $\mu^{(i)}$ is found with about 1\ Let us now turn to the study of the flow equation for the $2$-point function coming from the scheme proposed in . As the effective potential (or the effective mass), $ \Gamma^{(2)}_\kappa(p;\rho)$ can also be expanded in powers of the external field: \beq \Gamma^{(2)}_\kappa(p;\rho) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{2^n}{(2n)!} \; \Gamma^{(2n+2)}_\kappa(p,-p,0,0,\cdots,0;\rho)|_{\rho=0}\; \; \rho^n , \eeq because \beq \Gamma^{(m+2)}_\kappa(p,-p,0,0,\cdots,0;\rho) = \frac{\partial^{m}\Gamma_\kappa^{(2)}(p;\phi)}{\partial \phi^{m}} \eeq and we used that, at zero field, all odd vertex functions vanish. Equation () makes clear the point stated above: once approximation () is performed, truncating the expansion in powers of the external field is equivalent to neglecting high order vertices. Moreover, eqs.~() and () show that the procedure proposed in indeed includes all vertices, although approximately. We have now all the ingredients to discuss the main goal of this paper: the analysis of the expansion of the three flow equations for $\mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho)$, $Z_\kappa(\tilde \rho)$ and $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\tilde \rho)$, eqs.~(-), around $\tilde \rho=0$. In doing so, one can write: \beq \Sigma_\kappa(p,\tilde \rho) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}\; \Sigma_\kappa^{(n)}(p) \; {\tilde \rho}^n. \eeq and \beq \chi_\kappa(\tilde \rho) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}\; \chi_\kappa^{(n)} \; {\tilde \rho}^n. \eeq together with eq.~(). For example, when going to the first order, the six equations that have to be solved are: \beq \kappa\partial_\kappa\Sigma_\kappa^{(0)}(p)=-\frac{(1-\eta_\kappa/5)\Sigma_\kappa^{(1)}(p)} {(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})^2} \eeq and \begin{eqnarray} \kappa\partial_\kappa\Sigma_\kappa^{(1)}(p)=(1+\eta_\kappa)\Sigma_\kappa^{(1)}(p)+ \frac{{2(\mu_\kappa^{(1)})}^2 Z_{\kappa}\kappa^2}{(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})^2}\left(f_\kappa(\tilde{p},0) -\frac{2(1-\eta_\kappa/5)}{(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})}\right) \nonumber \\ +\frac{2f_\kappa(\tilde{p},0)}{(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})^2}\left(2\mu_\kappa^{(1)}\Sigma_\kappa^{(1)}(p) +\frac{\Sigma_\kappa^{(1)}(p)^2}{\kappa^2Z_{\kappa}}\right) +\frac{2(1-\eta_\kappa/5)\mu_\kappa^{(0)}\Sigma_\kappa^{(1)}(p)}{(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})^3}, \end{eqnarray} which correspond to the expansion of eq.~(), \beq \kappa\partial_\kappa\chi_\kappa^{(0)}=\eta_\kappa\chi_\kappa^{(0)}-\frac{(1-\eta_\kappa/5) \chi_\kappa^{(1)}}{(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})^2} \eeq and \beq \kappa\partial_\kappa\chi_\kappa^{(1)}=(1+2\eta_\kappa)\chi_\kappa^{(1)}-\frac{2{(\mu_\kappa^{(1)})}^2} {(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})^4}+\frac{10\mu_\kappa^{(0)}\chi_\kappa^{(1)}(1-\eta_\kappa/5)}{(1+\mu_\kappa^{(0)})^3}, \eeq which correspond to the expansion of eq.~(), together with eqs.~() and (). In fact, it is possible to perform two kinds of expansion. First, in order to isolate the effect of the field expansion just in the flow equations provided by the scheme presented in , we shall expand only the flow equations for $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\tilde \rho)$ and its derivative at zero momenta $Z_\kappa(\tilde \rho)$, eqs.~() and (), solving exactly the differential flow equation for $\mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho)$, eq.~(). For example, at first order, one should solve simultaneously eqs.~(-), (-), and (). This is called ``strategy I''. Second, to consider all the effects, we shall make the expansion in the three flow equations. For example, at first order, one should solve simultaneously eqs.~(-), (-), and (-). We call this ``strategy II''. Notice that, as explained in , in order to get the correct scaling behavior it is mandatory to treat the equations for $Z_\kappa(\tilde \rho)$ and $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\tilde \rho)$ with the same approximations; it is then not possible to solve one of them completely while expanding the other one. Figure presents the self-energy one gets truncating up to fourth order, following strategy I; it is also shown the function obtained in (from now on, the latter function, obtained by solving the 3 differential equations, eqs.~(), () and (), shall be called the ``complete solution''). Figure presents the same results when following strategy II. These Figures show that, in both strategies of expansion, by truncating at first order one already gets a function with the correct shape in all momenta regimes. In order to make a quantitative evaluation of the approximate solution obtained doing the expansion, we have calculated different numbers describing the physical properties of the self-energy. First, as can be seen in both figures above, all solutions have, in the infrared ($p \ll u$), the potential behavior characterizing the scaling regime: $\Sigma(p) + p^2 \sim p^{2-\eta}$, where $\eta$ is the anomalous dimension. We have checked that, at each order and in both strategies, the resulting self-energy does have scaling, and we extracted the corresponding value of $\eta$. In fact, this can be done in two different ways: either using the $\kappa$--dependence of $Z_\kappa$ ($\eta=- \lim_{\kappa \to 0}\kappa \partial_\kappa \log Z_\kappa$) or the $p$--dependence of $\Sigma(p)$ stated above. We checked that those two values always coincide, within numerical uncertainties. Figure presents the relative error for $\eta$, at each order, when compared with the value following from the complete solution. One observes: 1) in both strategies of expansion there is an apparent convergence, which is oscillatory; 2) the solution from strategy I reaches faster the correct result; 3) when following strategy I, already with a second order truncation the error is about 3\ Nevertheless, due to the mixed characteristic of strategy I, when using this strategy at high order numerical problems arise: indeed, this task demands the numerical evaluation of high order derivatives of $\mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho)$, to be used in the various flow equations obtained when expanding that of $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\tilde \rho)$. If high precision in the result is required, strategy II is then numerically preferable. It is important to observe here that the procedure which can be compared to the usual truncation including a finite number of vertices is strategy II. Moreover, the inclusion of high order vertices without performing any other approximation is difficult; for example, the complete inclusion of the 6-point vertex has never been done. Accordingly, as can be seen in fig. , when including only up to the 4-point vertex, as it usually done, the error in $\eta$ can be as large as 60\ A second number to assess the quality of the approximate solution is the critical exponent $\nu$. In order to calculate it, we extract the renormalized dimensionful mass from $m_R^2=\kappa^2\mu_\kappa(\tilde \rho=0)$ and we relate it to the microscopic one by \begin{equation} m_R^2(\kappa=0)\propto (m_R^2(\kappa=\Lambda)-m_{R,crit}^2(\kappa=\Lambda))^{2\nu}, \end{equation} where $m_{R,crit}$ is the critical renormalized mass. With the complete solution one gets $\nu=0.647$, to be compared with the best accepted value : $\nu=0.6304\pm 0.0013$. Figure presents the relative error of the value of $\nu$ extracted from the expansion. Once again, one observes that the convergence is much faster when following strategy I, i.e., when considering the effect of the expansion only on the self-energy equation. The large momenta regime ($p \gg u$) of the self-energy can be calculated using perturbation theory, yielding the well known logarithmic shape: $\Sigma(p) \sim A \log(p/B)$, where $A$ and $B$ are constants. For the complete solution presented in one can prove analytically that $A=u^2/9\pi^4$, which is only 8\ valid when performing the field expansion, at any order and within both strategies. We have checked that our numerical solution always has the correct shape, with $A=u^2/9\pi^4$. This is due to the fact that already the first order in the expansion of $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\tilde\rho)$ around $\tilde \rho=0$ contains the same 2-loop diagrams contributing to the complete solution. In order to study the quality of the self-energy in the intermediate momenta regime, we have calculated a quantity which is very sensitive to this cross-over region: \beq \Delta\langle \phi^2\rangle= \int\frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3}\,\left( \frac{1}{p^2+\Sigma(p)}-\frac{1}{p^2}\right). \eeq (the integrand is non zero only in the region $10^{-3} \simle p/u \simle 10$, see for example ). This quantity received recently much attention because it has been shown that for a scalar model with $O(N)$ symmetry, in $d=3$ and $N=2$, it determines the shift of the critical temperature of the weakly repulsive Bose gas. It has then been widely evaluated by many methods, for different values of $N$, in particular, for $N=1$. With the numerical solution found in , one gets a number almost within the error bars of the best accepted results available in the literature, using lattice and 7 loops resumed perturbative calculations. Please observe that these errors are as large as 10\ is an indication that this quantity is particularly difficult to calculate. In Figure we plot the relative error in $\Delta\langle\phi^2\rangle$, at each order of the expansion, when compared with the complete solution result found in . One can appreciate that 1) for both expansion strategies there is an apparent convergence, which is also oscillatory; 2) in both strategies, already with a second order truncation the error is about 1\ \section{Summary and Conclusions} In this article, the inclusion of a finite number of vertices in NPRG flow equations is analyzed. An unsolved difficulty of this usual strategy (originally proposed by Weinberg) is the estimation of the error introduced at a given step. Moreover, without performing further approximations, it is very hard to reach high orders of the procedure. The study of its convergence is thus a difficult task. In the present work we analyse this problem using a different approximation scheme : instead of considering a finite number of vertices, this procedure includes all of them, although approximately. Within this context, it is possible to estimate the error of the Weinberg approximation, order by order. To do so one can perform, on top of the approximation presented in , the usual truncation in the number of vertices. The analysis has been done in the particular case of the 2-point function of the scalar field theory in $d=3$ at criticality. It has been shown that, at least in this case, the procedure proposed in yields very precise results. Another interesting outcome of the present work follows from the fact that, within the approximation , truncation in the number of vertices is equivalent to an expansion in powers of a constant external field. The latter is usually employed in the DE context in order to deal with complicated situations. The analysis of the present paper generalizes this expansion procedure when non zero external momentum are involved. The calculation of the $2$-point function demands the study of both the $p=0$ and the $p\neq 0$ sectors. While the first one is given by the well studied DE flow equations, the latter follows from the approximation scheme introduced in to calculate the flow of $\Sigma_\kappa(p;\rho)$. We used two different strategies to perform the field expansion, both of them around zero external field: either expanding only the flow equation for the self-energy (and its derivative) (strategy I), or both the effective potential and the self-energy (and its derivative) flow equations (strategy II). We have studied the convergence of various quantities measuring physical properties of the self-energy in all momenta regimes: the critical exponents $\eta$ and $\nu$ of the infrared regime, the coefficient of the ultraviolet logarithm, and $\Delta\langle\phi^2\rangle$ which is dominated by the crossover momenta regime. As stated in section , the strategy that can be compared to the usual truncation which includes a finite number of vertices is strategy II. For example, including completely the $4$-point vertex as it is usually done (i.e., in the language of field expansion, going only up to the first order of the expansion), when describing the deep infrared regime one could make errors as big as 60\ However, when going to higher orders in the field expansion, the series for all considered quantities seem to converge rapidly, within both strategies. The convergence is faster when using strategy I, i.e., when making the expansion only for the approximate flow equation resulting from the method presented in . For example, using strategy I, a third order truncation introduces a relative error smaller that 1\ while using strategy II, in order to reach the same error one needs 6th order for $\eta$, 4th order for $\nu$ and 2nd order for $\Delta\langle\phi^2\rangle$. Nevertheless, due to numerical difficulties, if trying to go to high order expansions, it is preferable to use strategy II, i.e., expanding also the effective potential flow equation. It is difficult to assess the generality of these results on the use of field expansion on top of the strategy proposed in . Of course, there are situations where expanding in an external field is not a priori convenient. One can mention as a first example, situations where there is a physical external field (as in a broken phase or when an external source for the field is considered). A second example is two-dimensional systems where even in the DE, the field expansion does not seem to converge. Nevertheless, the short study presented in the present paper allows to consider field expansion on top of the approximation proposed in as a possible strategy to deal with many involved models, as for example QCD. \bibliographystyle{unsrt} \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{Wilson73} K.~G.~Wilson and J.~B.~Kogut, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 12}, 75 (1974). \bibitem{Polchinski83} J.~Polchinski, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 231}, 269 (1984). \bibitem{Wetterich93} C.Wetterich, Phys. Lett., {\bf B301}, 90 (1993). \bibitem{Ellwanger93} U.Ellwanger, Z.Phys., {\bf C58}, 619 (1993). \bibitem{Morris94} T.R.Morris, Int. J. Mod. Phys., {\bf A9}, 2411 (1994). \bibitem{Bagnuls:2000ae} C.~Bagnuls and C.~Bervillier, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 348}, 91 (2001). \bibitem{Berges02} J. Berges, N. Tetradis and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rept. {\bf 363} (2002) 223. \bibitem{Canet04} B. Delamotte, D. Mouhanna, M. Tissier, Phys.Rev. {\bf B69} (2004) 134413. \bibitem{delamotte:2007} B. Delamotte, cond-mat/0702365. \bibitem{Golner86} G.R.~Golner, Phys. Rev. {\bf B33}, (1986) 7863. \bibitem{weinberg73} S.~Weinberg, Phys. Rev. {\bf D8} (1973) 3497. \bibitem{truncation} U.~Ellwanger, M.~Hirsch and A.~Weber, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 1} (1998) 563; J.~M.~Pawlowski, D.~F.~Litim, S.~Nedelko and L.~von Smekal, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93} (2004) 152002; J.~Kato, arXiv:hep-th/0401068; C.~S.~Fischer and H.~Gies, JHEP {\bf 0410} (2004) 048; S.~Ledowski, N.~Hasselmann, P.~Kopietz, Phys. Rev. {\bf A69}, 061601(R) (2004); ibid, Phys. Rev. {\bf A70}, 063621 (2004) J.~P.~Blaizot, R.~Mendez Galain and N.~Wschebor, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf E74} 051116, 2006; ibid {\bf E74}:051117, 2006. \bibitem{Ellwanger94} U. Ellwanger and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B423} (1994), 137. \bibitem{Ellwanger94a} Ulrich Ellwanger, Z. Phys. {\bf C62} (1994) 503--510. \bibitem{Blaizot:2004qa} J.~P.~Blaizot, R.~Mendez Galain and N.~Wschebor, Europhys. Lett., {\bf 72 (5)}, 705-711 (2005). \bibitem{BMW} J.~P.~Blaizot, R.~Mendez Galain and N.~Wschebor, Phys.Lett.B632:571-578,2006. \bibitem{BMW-num} J.~P.~Blaizot, R.~Mendez Galain and N.~Wschebor, \emph{Non Perturbative Renormalization Group calculation of the scalar self-energy}, arXiv:hep-th/0605252, to appear in Eur. Jour. of Phys. B. \bibitem{expansion} G.~Zumbach, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 413}, 754 (1994). \bibitem{Canet02} L.Canet, B.Delamotte, D.Mouhanna and J.Vidal, Phys. Rev. {\bf D67} 065004 (2003). \bibitem{litimreg} D.Litim, Phys. Lett. {\bf B486}, 92 (2000); Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 105007 (2001); Nucl. Phys. {\bf B631}, 128 (2002); Int.J.Mod.Phys. {\bf A16}, 2081 (2001). \bibitem{Tetradis94} N.~Tetradis and C.~Wetterich, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 422} (1994) 541. \bibitem{morris} T.~R.~Morris, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 334} (1994) 355. \bibitem{Canet03} L. Canet, B. Delamotte, D. Mouhanna and J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. {\bf B68} (2003) 064421. \bibitem{aoki} K.~I.~Aoki, K.~Morikawa, W.~Souma, J.~I.~Sumi and H.~Terao, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 99}, 451 (1998) \bibitem{Litim-exp} D.~F.~Litim, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 631}, 128 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0203006]. \bibitem{Tetradis92} N.~Tetradis and C.~Wetterich, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 383} (1992) 197. \bibitem{private} B.~Delamotte, D.~Mouhanna and M.~Tissier, private comunication. \bibitem{difficult-exp} G. Tarjus, M. Tissier, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93} (2003) 267008; L. Canet, B. Delamotte, O. Deloubriere, N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92} (2004) 195703; L. Canet, cond-mat/0509541. \bibitem{Morris94c} T.R.Morris, Phys. Lett. {\bf B329}, 241 (1994). \bibitem{Boisseau06} B.~Boisseau, P.~Forgacs and H.~Giacomini, J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 40} (2007) F215 [arXiv:hep-th/0611306]. \bibitem{zinn} R.~Guida, J.~Zinn-Justin, J.~Phys.~{\bf A31}, 8103 (1998). \bibitem{JPTc} G. Baym, J.-P. Blaizot, M. Holzmann, F. Lalo\"e, and D. Vautherin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1703 (1999). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0262
|
Title: Stringy Instantons at Orbifold Singularities
Abstract: We study the effects produced by D-brane instantons on the holomorphic
quantities of a D-brane gauge theory at an orbifold singularity. These effects
are not limited to reproducing the well known contributions of the gauge theory
instantons but also generate extra terms in the superpotential or the
prepotential. On these brane instantons there are some neutral fermionic
zero-modes in addition to the ones expected from broken supertranslations. They
are crucial in correctly reproducing effects which are dual to gauge theory
instantons, but they may make some other interesting contributions vanish. We
analyze how orientifold projections can remove these zero-modes and thus allow
for new superpotential terms. These terms contribute to the dynamics of the
effective gauge theory, for instance in the stabilization of runaway
directions.
Body: \setcounter{section}{0} \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}} \setcounter{footnote}{0} \setcounter{page}{1} \tableofcontents \section{Introduction} It has long been realized that instantons in string theory are often in close correspondence with instantons in gauge theories~. Recently it was found that in some situations stringy instantons can dynamically generate some terms which from a low-energy effective point of view enter as ordinary external couplings in the superpotential of gauge theories living on space-filling branes . By instantons in string theory we generally mean instantons which are geometrically realized as Euclidean extended objects wrapped on some non-trivial cycles of the geometry. Thus, in a sense, a stringy instanton has a ``life of its own'', not requiring an underlying gauge theory. This opens up the possibility of having contributions originating from instantons that do not admit a standard gauge theory realization. We shall refer to these instantons as {\it exotic}. There has been some debate in the recent literature about the instances where such exotic instantons can actually contribute to the gauge theory superpotential in a non-trivial manner. In this work we will contribute to such a debate by considering backgrounds where a simple CFT description is possible, such as orbifolds or orientifolds thereof. We present various simple examples of what we believe to be a rather generic situation. Namely, the presence of extra zero-modes for these instantons, in addition to those required by the counting of broken symmetries, makes some of their contributions vanish. Such extra zero-modes should not come as a surprise, since a D-brane instanton in a CY manifold breaks a total of four out of eight supercharges, i.e. it has two extra fermionic zero-modes from the point of view of holomorphic $\Ncal=1$ gauge theory quantities. We give some arguments as to why the backreaction of the space-filling branes on the geometry might not help in lifting these extra zero-modes. We further argue that only more radical changes of the background, such as the introduction of fluxes, deformations of the CY geometry or the introduction of orientifold planes, can remove these zero-modes. When this happens, exotic instantons do contribute to the gauge theory superpotential and may provide qualitative changes in the low energy effective dynamics, as for instance the stabilization of otherwise runaway directions. We will be interested in Euclidean D-branes in type II theories. We will work with IIB fractional branes at orbifold and orientifold singularities rather than type IIA wrapped branes. The motivation for this choice of setting is two-fold. First, recent advances in the gauge/gravity correspondence require the study of exotic instantons, whose effects tend to stabilize the gauge theory rather than unstabilize it~, and the gauge/gravity correspondence is more naturally defined in the context of IIB theory. Second, similar effects are used in string phenomenology to try to understand possible mechanisms for neutrino masses~. This latest activity is mainly done in the type IIA scenario, but we find it easier to address some subtle issues in the IIB orbifold case. While working in an exact string background, our considerations will nonetheless be only local, {\it i.e.} we will not be concerned with global issues such as tadpole cancellation that arise in proper compactifications. This is perfectly acceptable in the context of the gauge/gravity correspondence where the internal manifold is non-compact but, even for string phenomenology, the results we obtain stand (locally) when properly embedded in a consistent compactification. The paper is organized as follows: In section~ we set up the notation and discuss some preliminary material. In section~ we discuss our first case, namely the $\Ncal=1$ $\mathbf{Z}_2 \times \mathbf{Z}_2$ orbifold. After briefly recovering the usual instanton generated corrections to the superpotential we discuss the possible presence of additional exotic contributions and find that they are not present because of the additional zero-modes. We conclude by giving a CFT argument on why such zero-modes are not expected to be lifted even by taking into account the backreaction of the D-branes, unless one is willing to move out the orbifold point in the CY moduli space. Sections~ and~ present two separate instances where exotic contributions are present after having removed the extra zero-modes by orientifolding. The first is an $\Ncal=1$ orientifold, the second is an $\Ncal=2$ orientifold, displaying corrections to the superpotential and the prepotential, respectively. We end with some conclusions and a discussion of further developments. \section{Preliminaries} In this section we briefly review the generic setup in the well understood $\Ncal=4$ situation in order to introduce the notation for the various fields and moduli and their couplings. The more interesting theories we will consider next will be suitable projections of the $\Ncal=4$ theory. In fact, the exotic cases can all be reduced to orbifolds/orientifolds of this master case once the appropriate projections on the Chan-Paton factors are performed. Since we are interested in instanton physics (for comprehensive reviews see~ and the recent~) we will take the ten dimensional metric to be Euclidean. We consider a system where both D3-branes and D$(-1)$-branes (D-instantons) are present. To be definite, we take $N$ D3's and $k$ D-instantons \footnote{These D3/D$(-1)$ brane systems (and their orbifold projections) are very useful and efficient in studying instanton effects from a stringy perspective even in the presence of non-trivial closed string backgrounds, both of NS-NS type and of R-R type .}. Quite generically we can distinguish three separate open string sectors: \begin{itemize} \item The gauge sector, made of those open strings with both ends on a D3-brane. We assume the brane world-volumes are lying along the first four coordinates $x^\mu$ and are orthogonal to the last six $x^a$. The massless fields in this sector form an $\Ncal=4$ SYM multiplet~. We denote the bosonic components by $A_\mu$ and $X^a$. Written in $\Ncal=1$ language this multiplet is formed by a gauge superfield whose field strength is denoted by $W_\alpha$ and three chiral superfields $\Phi^{1,2,3}$. With a slight abuse of notation, the bosonic components of the chiral superfields will also be denoted by $\Phi$, {\it i.e.} $\Phi^1 = X^4 + i X^5$ and so on. In $\Ncal=2$ language we have instead a gauge superfield $\Acal$ and a hypermultiplet $H$, all in the adjoint representation. The low energy action of these fields is a four dimensional $\Ncal=4$ gauge theory. All these fields are $N \times N$ matrices for a gauge group $\mathrm{SU}(N)$. \item The neutral sector, which comprises the zero-modes of strings with both ends on the D-instantons. It is usually referred to as the neutral sector because these modes do not transform under the gauge group. The zero-modes are easily obtained by dimensionally reducing the maximally supersymmetric gauge theory to zero dimensions. We will use an ADHM~ inspired notation . We denote the bosonic fields as $a_\mu$ and $\chi^a$, where the distinction between the two is made by the presence of the D3-branes. The fermionic zero-modes are denoted by $M^{\alpha A}$ and $\lambda_{\dot\alpha A}$, where $\alpha$ and $\dot\alpha$ denote the (positive and negative) four dimensional chiralities and $A$ is an $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ (fundamental or anti-fundamental) index denoting the chirality in the transverse six dimensions. The ten dimensional chirality of both fields is taken to be negative. In Euclidean space $M$ and $\lambda$ must be treated as independent. When needed, we will also introduce the triplet of auxiliary fields $D^c$, directly analogous to the four dimensional $D$, that can be used to express the various interactions in an easier form as we will see momentarily. All these fields are $k \times k$ matrices where $k$ is the instanton number. \item The charged sector, comprising the zero-modes of strings stretching between a D3-brane and a D-instanton. For each pair of such branes we have two conjugate sectors distinguished by the orientation of the string. In the NS sector, where the world-sheet fermions have opposite modding as the bosons, we obtain a bosonic spinor $\omega_{\dot\alpha}$ in the first four directions where the GSO projection picks out the negative chirality. In the conjugate sector, we will get an independent bosonic spinor $\bar\omega_{\dot\alpha}$ of the same chirality. Similarly, in the R sector, after the GSO projection we obtain a pair of independent fermions (one for each conjugate sector) both in the fundamental of $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ which we denote by $\mu^A$ and $\bar\mu^A$. These fields are rectangular matrices $N \times k$ and $k \times N$. \end{itemize} The couplings of the fields in the gauge sector give rise to a four dimensional gauge theory. The instanton corrections to such a theory are obtained by constructing the Lagrangian describing the interaction of the gauge sector with the charged sector zero-modes while performing the integral over \emph{all} zero-modes, both charged and neutral. A crucial point to notice and which will be important later is that while the neutral modes do not transform under the gauge group, their presence affects the integral because of their coupling to the charged sector. The part of the interaction involving only the instanton moduli is well known from the ADHM construction and it is essentially the reduction of the interacting gauge Lagrangian for these modes in a specific limit where the Yukawa terms for $\lambda$ and the quadratic term for $D$ are scaled out (see~ for details). The final form of this part of the interaction is: \beqs S_1 &=& \tr\Big\{-{[a_\mu,\chi^a]}^2 + \chi^a \bar\omega_{\dot\alpha}\omega^{\dot\alpha} \chi_a +\,\frac{i}{2} (\bar\Sigma^a)_{AB} \bar\mu^A \mu^B \chi_a - \frac{i}{4}(\bar\Sigma^a)_{AB} M^{\alpha A} {[\chi_a, M^B_\alpha]} \nonumber \\ &+& i \left(\bar\mu^A \omega_{\dot\alpha} + \bar\omega_{\dot\alpha} \mu^A + \sigma^\mu_{\beta \dot\alpha}{[M^{\beta A}, a_\mu]}\right)\! \lambda^{\dot\alpha}_A - i D^c\!\left( \bar\omega^{\dot \alpha} (\tau^c)^{\dot\beta}_{\dot\alpha} \omega_{\dot\beta} + i \bar\eta^c_{\mu\nu} {[a^\mu, a^\nu]}\right) \!\Big\} \eeqs where the sum over colors and instanton indices is understood. $\tau$ denotes the usual Pauli matrices, $\bar\eta$ (and $\eta$) the 't~Hooft symbols and $\bar\Sigma$ (and $\Sigma$) are used to construct the six-dimensional gamma-matrices \beq \Gamma^a = \begin{pmatrix}0 & \Sigma^a \cr \bar\Sigma^a & 0 \cr\end{pmatrix}~. \eeq The above interactions can all be understood in terms of string diagrams on a disk with open string vertex operators inserted at the boundary in the $\alpha' \to 0$ limit. The interaction of the charged sector with the scalars of the gauge sector can be worked out in a similar way and yields \beq S_2 = \tr\Big\{ \bar\omega_{\dot\alpha } X^a X_a \omega^{\dot\alpha } + \frac{i}{2} (\bar\Sigma^a)_{AB} \bar\mu^A X_a \mu^B \Big\}~. \eeq Let us rewrite the above action in a way which will be more illuminating in the following sections. Since we will be mainly focusing on situations where we have ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetry, it is useful to write explicitly all indices in $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ notation, and then break them into $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ representations. We thus write the six scalars $X_a$ as the antisymmetric representation of $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ as follows \beq X_{AB}=-X_{BA}\equiv (\bar\Sigma^a)_{AB} X_a~. \eeq The action $S_2$ then reads \beq S_2 = \tr \Big\{ \frac18\,\epsilon^{ABCD} \bar\omega_{\dot\alpha } X_{AB} X_{CD} \omega^{\dot\alpha } + \frac{i}{2}\, \bar\mu^A X_{AB} \mu^B \Big\}~. \eeq Splitting now the indices $A$ into $i=1\dots 3$ and 4, we can identify $\Phi^\dagger_i \equiv X_{i4}$ in the $\bf{\bar 3}$ of $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ and $\Phi^i \equiv \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^ {ijk}X_{jk}$ in the $\bf{3}$ of $\mathrm{SU}(3)$. Thus we can rewrite the action () as \beq S_2 = \tr \Big\{\frac12\, \bar\omega_{\dot\alpha }\big\{ \Phi^i ,\Phi^\dagger_i \big\}\omega^{\dot\alpha } + \frac{i}{2} \,\bar\mu^i \Phi^\dagger_i \mu^4 - \frac{i}{2} \,\bar\mu^4 \Phi^\dagger_i \mu^i -\frac{i}{2} \,\epsilon_{ijk} \bar\mu^i \Phi^j \mu^k \Big\}~. \eeq In the above form, it is clear which zero-modes couple to the holomorphic superfields and which others couple to the anti-holomorphic ones. This distinction will play an important role later. The main object of our investigation is the integral of $e^{-S_1 - S_2}$ over \emph{all} moduli \beq Z = \Ccal \int d\{a,\chi,M,\lambda,D,\omega,\bar\omega,\mu,\bar\mu\} \,e^{-S_1 -S_2}~, \eeq where we have lumped all field independent normalization constants (including the instanton classical action and the appropriate powers of $\alpha^\prime$ required by dimensional analysis) into an overall coefficient $\Ccal$. There are, of course, other interactions involving the fermions and the gauge bosons but, as far as the determination of the holomorphic quantities are concerned, they can be obtained from the previous ones and supersymmetry arguments. For example, a term in the superpotential is written as the integral over chiral superspace $\int dx^4 d\theta^2$ of a holomorphic function of the chiral superfields, but such a function is completely specified by its value for bosonic arguments at $\theta=0$. Thus, if we can ``factor out'' a term $\int dx^4 d\theta^2$ from the moduli integral (), whatever is left will define the complex function to be used in the superpotential and similarly for the prepotential in the $\Ncal = 2$ case if we succeed in factoring out an integral over $\Ncal=2$ chiral superspace $\int dx^4 d\theta^4$. The coordinates $x$ and $\theta$ must of course come from the (super)translations broken by the instanton and they will be associated to the center of mass motion of the D-instanton, namely, $x^\mu = \tr a^\mu$ and $\theta^{\alpha A} = \tr M^{\alpha A}$ for some values of $A$.\footnote{Obviously, for the case of an anti-instanton, the roles of $M$ and $\lambda$ are reversed.} One must pay attention however to the presence of possible additional neutral zero-modes coming either from the traceless parts of the above moduli or from the fields $\lambda$ and $\chi$. These modes must also be integrated over in () and their effects, as we shall see, can be quite dramatic. In particular, the presence of $\lambda$ in some instances is crucial for the implementation of the usual ADHM fermionic constraints whereas in other circumstances it makes the whole contribution to the superpotential vanish. These extra $\lambda$ zero-modes are ubiquitous in orbifold theories and generically make it difficult to obtain exotic instanton corrections for these models. As we shall see, they can however be easily projected out by an orientifold construction making the derivation of such terms possible. In the full expression for the instanton corrections there will also be a field-in\-de\-pen\-dent normalization factor coming from the one-loop string diagrams and giving for instance the proper $g_{YM}$ dependence in the case of the usual instanton corrections. In this paper we will only focus on the integral over the zero-modes, which gives the proper field-dependence, referring the reader to for a discussion of these other issues. \section{The $\Ncal = 1~ \mathbf{Z}_2 \times \mathbf{Z}_2$ orbifold} In order to present a concrete example of the above discussion, let us study a simple $\mathbf{C}^3/\mathbf{Z}_2 \times \mathbf{Z}_2$ orbifold singularity. The resulting $\Ncal=1$ theory is a non-chiral four-node quiver gauge theory with matter in the bi-fundamental. Non-chirality implies that the four gauge group ranks can be chosen independently~. This corresponds to being able to find a basis of three independent fractional branes in the geometry (for a review on fractional branes on orbifolds see e.g.~). The field content can be conveniently summarized in a quiver diagram, see Fig.~, which, together with the cubic superpotential \beqs W &=& \Phi_{12}\Phi_{23}\Phi_{31}-\Phi_{13}\Phi_{32}\Phi_{21}+\Phi_{13}\Phi_{34}\Phi_{41}- \Phi_{14}\Phi_{43}\Phi_{31} \nonumber \\ && +\Phi_{14}\Phi_{42}\Phi_{21}-\Phi_{12}\Phi_{24}\Phi_{41}+\Phi_{24}\Phi_{43}\Phi_{32}- \Phi_{23}\Phi_{34}\Phi_{42}~, \eeqs uniquely specifies the theory. A stack of $N$ regular D3-branes amounts to having one and the same rank assignment on the quiver. The gauge group is then $\mathrm{SU}(N)^4$ and the theory is an $\Ncal =1$ SCFT. Fractional branes correspond instead to different (but anomlay free) rank assignments. Quite generically, fractional branes can be divided into three different classes, depending on the IR dynamics they trigger~. The non-chiral nature and the particularly symmetric structure of the orbifold under consideration allows one to easily construct any such instance of fractional brane class. If we turn on a single node, we are left with a pure $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ SYM gauge theory, with no matter fields and no superpotential. This theory is believed to confine. The geometric dual effect is that the corresponding fractional brane leads to a geometric transition where the branes disappear leaving behind a deformed geometry. Indeed, there is one such deformation in the above singularity. Turning on two nodes leads already to more varied phenomena. There are now two bi-fundamental superfields, but still no tree level superpotential. Thus, the system is just like two coupled massless SQCD theories or, by a slightly asymmetric point of view, massless SQCD with a gauged diagonal flavor group. The low-energy behavior depends on the relative ranks of the two nodes. If the ranks are different, the node with the highest rank is in a situation where it has less flavors than colors. Then an Affleck-Dine-Seiberg (ADS) superpotential~ should be dynamically generated, leading eventually to a runaway behavior. This set up of fractional branes is sometimes referred to as supersymmetry breaking fractional branes . If the ranks are the same we are in a situation similar to $N_f=N_c$ SQCD for both nodes. Hence we expect to have a moduli space of SUSY vacua, which gets deformed, but not lifted, at the quantum level. This moduli space is roughly identified in the geometry with the fact that the relevant fractional branes are interpreted as D5-branes wrapped on the 2-cycle of a singularity which is locally $\mathbf{C}\times (\mathbf{C}^2/\mathbf{Z}_2)$. Such a fractional brane can move in the $\mathbf{C}$ direction. This is what is called an ${\cal N}=2$ fractional brane since, at least geometrically, it resembles very much the situation of fractional branes at ${\cal N}=2$ singularities. In what follows we use the two-node example as a simple setting in which we can analyze the subtleties involved in the integration over the neutral modes. For the gauge theory instanton case it is known that there are {\it extra} neutral fermionic zero-modes in addition to those required to generate the superpotential. Their integration allows to recover the fermionic ADHM constraints on the moduli space of the usual field theory instantons. For such instantons, we will be able to obtain the ADS superpotential and corresponding runaway behavior in the familiar context with $N_c$ and $N_f$ fractional branes at the respective nodes, for $N_f = N_c -1$. On the other hand, we will argue that the presence of such extra zero-modes rules out the possibility of having exotic instanton effects, such as terms involving baryonic operators in the $N_f=N_c$ case. It was the desire to study such possible contributions that constituted the original motivation for this investigation. We will first show that such effects are absent for this theory as it stands, and we will later discuss when and how this problem can be cured.\footnote{In a situation where the CFT description is less under control than in the setting discussed in the present paper, it has been argued in that such baryonic couplings do arise in the context of fractional branes on orbifolds of the conifold, possibly at the expense of introducing O-planes. Also in a IIA set up similar to the ones of it seems reasonable that one can wrap an ED2-brane along an O6-plane and produce such couplings on other intersecting D6-branes.} Our orbifold theory can be easily obtained as an orbifold projection of $\Ncal = 4$ SYM. The orbifolding procedure and the derivation of the superpotential () are by now standard. We briefly recall the main points in order to fix the notation and because some of the details will be useful later in describing the instantons in such a set up. The group $\mathbf{Z}_2 \times \mathbf{Z}_2$ has four elements: the identity $e$, the generators of the two $\mathbf{Z}_2$ that we denote with $g_1$ and $g_2$ and their product, denoted by $g_3 =g_1 g_2$. If we introduce complex coordinates $(z_1, z_2,z_3)\in \mathbf{C}^3$ \beq z^1 = x^4 + i x^5~~,~~z^2 = x^6 +i x^7~~,~~ z^3 = x^8 + i x^9 \end{equation} the action of the orbifold group can be defined as in Table~1. \begin{table} [ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|} &$z^1$ & $z^2$ & $z^3$ \\ \hline \hline $e$ &$z^1$ & $z^2$ & $z^3$ \\ \hline $g_1$ &$z^1$ & $-z^2$ & $-z^3$ \\ \hline $g_2$ &$-z^1$ & $z^2$ & $-z^3$ \\ \hline $g_3$ &$-z^1$ & $-z^2$ & $z^3$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{\small The action of the orbifold generators.} \end{center} \end{table} Let $\gamma(g)$ be the regular representation of the orbifold group on the Chan-Paton factors. If the orbifold is abelian, as always in the cases we shall be interested in, we can always diagonalize all matrices $\gamma(g)$. We will assume that the two generators have the following matrix representation \beq \gamma(g_1) =\sigma_3 \otimes \mathbf{1} =\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \cr\end{pmatrix}~~~,~~~ \gamma(g_2) =\mathbf{1}\otimes \sigma_3=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \cr\end{pmatrix}~ \eeq where the 1's denote $N_\ell \times N_\ell$ unit matrices ($\ell=1,...,4$). Then, the orbifold projection amounts to enforcing the conditions \beq A_\mu = \gamma(g)A_\mu \gamma(g)^{-1}~~~,~~~ \Phi^i = \pm \gamma(g)\Phi^i\gamma(g)^{-1} \eeq where the sign $\pm$ must be chosen according to the action of the orbifold generators $g$ that can be read off from Table~1. With the choice (), the vector superfields are block diagonal matrices of different size $(N_1,N_2,N_3,N_4)$, one for each node of the quiver, while the three chiral superfields $\Phi^i$ have the following form~ \beq \Phi^1 = \begin{pmatrix}0 & \times & 0 & 0 \cr \times & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & \times \cr 0 & 0 & \times & 0 \cr\end{pmatrix},~~ \Phi^2 = \begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & \times & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & \times \cr \times & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & \times & 0 & 0 \cr\end{pmatrix}, ~~ \Phi^3 = \begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 0 & \times \cr 0 & 0 & \times & 0 \cr 0 & \times & 0 & 0 \cr \times & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr\end{pmatrix}~, \eeq where the crosses represent the non-zero entries $\Phi_{\ell m}$ appearing in the superpotential (). \subsection{Instanton sector} Now consider D-instantons in the above set up. Such instantons preserve half of the 4 supercharges preserved by the system of D3-branes plus orbifold. In this respect recall that the fractional branes preserve exactly the same supercharges as the regular branes.\footnote{There is another Euclidean brane which preserves two supercharges, namely the Euclidean (anti) D3-branes orthogonal to the 4 dimensions of space-time. We will be considering here only the D-instantons, leaving the complete analysis of the other effects to future work. In this context, note that the extended brane instantons would have an infinite action (and thus a vanishing contribution) in the strict non-compact set up we are using here.} Using the $\Ncal=4$ construction of the previous section and the structure of the orbifold presented in eq.~(), we now proceed in describing the zero-modes for such instantons. The neutral sector is very similar to the gauge sector. Indeed, in the $(-1)$~superghost picture, the vertex operators for such strings will be exactly the same, except for the $e^{ip\cdot X}$ factor which is absent for the instanton. The Chan-Paton structure will also be the same, so that the same pattern of fractional D-instantons will arise as for the fractional D3-branes. In particular, the only regular D-instanton (which could be thought of as deriving from the one of $\Ncal=4$ SYM) is the one with rank (instanton number) one at every node. All other situations can be thought of as fractional D-instantons, which can be interpreted as Euclidean D1-branes wrapped on the two-cycles at the singularity, ED1 for short. Generically, we can then characterize an instanton configuration in our orbifold by $(k_1, k_2, k_3, k_4)$. Following the notation introduced in section~, the bosonic modes will comprise a $4\times 4$ block diagonal matrix $a^\mu$, and six more matrix fields $\chi^1, \dots \chi^6$, that can be paired into three complex matrix fields $\chi^1 + i\chi^2, \chi^3 + i\chi^4, \chi^5 + i\chi^6$, having the same structure as () but now where each block entry is a $k_\ell\times k_m$ matrix. On the fermionic zero-modes $M^{\alpha A}$ and $\lambda_{\dot\alpha A}$ (also matrices) the orbifold projection enforces the conditions \beq M^{\alpha A} = R(g)^A_{~ B}\,\gamma(g) M^{\alpha B} \gamma(g)^{-1} ~~~,~~~ \lambda_{\dot\alpha A} =\,\gamma(g) \lambda_{\dot\alpha B} \gamma(g)^{-1} R(g)_{~A}^B \eeq where $R(g)$ is the orbifold action of Table~1 in the spinor representation which can be chosen as \beq R(g_1) = - \Gamma^{6789}~~~,~~~ R(g_2) = - \Gamma^{4589}~. \eeq It is easy to find an explicit representation of the Dirac matrices such that $M^{\alpha A}$ and $\lambda_{\dot\alpha A}$ for $A=1,2,3$ also have the structure of () while for $A=4$ they are block diagonal. Equivalently, one could write the spinor indices in the internal space in terms of the three $\mathrm{SO}(2)$~charges associated to the embedding $\mathrm{SO}(2)\times \mathrm{SO}(2)\times \mathrm{SO}(2) \subset \mathrm{SO}(6) \simeq \mathrm{SU}(4)$ \beqs && M^{\alpha-++} = M^{\alpha 1}~,~ M^{\alpha+-+} = M^{\alpha 2}~,~ M^{\alpha++-} = M^{\alpha 3}~,~ M^{\alpha---} = M^{\alpha 4}~,~ \nonumber \\ && \lambda_{\dot\alpha+--} = \lambda_{\dot\alpha 1}~,~ \lambda_{\dot\alpha-+-} = \lambda_{\dot\alpha 2}~,~ \lambda_{\dot\alpha--+} = \lambda_{\dot\alpha 3}~,~ \lambda_{\dot\alpha+++} = \lambda_{\dot\alpha 4}~. \eeqs The most notable difference between the neutral sector and the gauge theory on the D3-branes is that, whereas in the four-dimensional theory the $U(1)$ gauge factors are rendered massive by a generalization of the Green-Schwarz mechanism and do not appear in the low energy action, for the instanton they are in fact present and enter crucially into the dynamics. Let us finally turn to the charged sector, describing strings going from the instantons to the D3-branes. The analysis of the spectrum and the action of the orbifold group on the Chan-Paton factors show, in particular, that the bosonic zero-modes are diagonal in the gauge factors. There are four block diagonal matrices of bosonic zero-modes $\omega_{\dot\alpha}, ~\bar\omega_{\dot\alpha}$ with entries $N_\ell \times k_\ell$ and $k_\ell \times N_\ell$ respectively and eight fermionic matrices $\mu^A, ~\bar\mu^A$ with entries $N_\ell \times k_m$ and $k_m \times N_\ell$, that again display the same structure as above -- same as () for $A=1,2,3$ and diagonal for $A=4$. \subsection{Recovery of the ADS superpotential} The measure on the moduli space of the instantons and the ADHM constraints are simply obtained by inserting the above expressions into the moduli integral (). If one chooses some of the $N_\ell$ or $k_\ell$ to vanish one can deduce immediately from the structure of the projection which modes will survive and which will not. As a consistency check, one can try to reproduce the ADS correction to the superpotential~ for the theory with two nodes. Take fractional branes corresponding to a rank assignment $(N_c,N_f,0,0)$, and consider the effect of a ED1 corresponding to instanton numbers $(1,0,0,0)$. The only chiral fields present are the two components of $\Phi^1$ connecting the first and second node \beq \Phi^1 = \begin{pmatrix}0 & Q & 0 & 0 \cr \tilde Q & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr\end{pmatrix}~. \eeq Since the instanton is sitting only at one node, all off diagonal neutral modes are absent, as they connect instantons at two distinct nodes. Thus, the only massless modes present in the neutral sector are four bosons $x^\mu$, denoting the upper-left component of $a^\mu$, two fermions $\theta^\alpha$ denoting the upper-left component of $M^{\alpha 4}$ and two more fermions $\lambda_{\dot\alpha}$ denoting the upper-left component of $\lambda_{\dot\alpha 4}$. We have identified the non zero entries of $a^\mu$ and $M^{\alpha 4}$ with the super-coordinates $x^\mu$ and $\theta^\alpha$ since they precisely correspond to the Goldstone modes of the super-translation symmetries broken by the instanton and do not appear in $S_1 + S_2$ (cfr. () and ()). Their integration produces the integral over space-time and half of Grassmann space which precedes the superpotential term to which the instanton contributes. On the contrary, $\lambda_{\dot\alpha}$ appears in $S_1$ and when it is integrated it yields the fermionic ADHM constraint. In the charged sector, we have bosonic zero-modes $\omega_{\dot\alpha}^u$ and $\bar\omega_{{\dot\alpha}u}$, with $u$ an index in the fundamental or anti-fundamental of $\mathrm{SU}(N_c)$. In addition, there are fermionic zero-modes $\mu^u$ and $\bar\mu_u$ with indices in $\mathrm{SU}(N_c)$, together with additional fermionic zero-modes $\mu'{}^f$ and $\bar\mu'_f$ where the index $f$ is now in the fundamental or anti-fundamental of $\mathrm{SU}(N_f)$.\footnote{Recall that the bosonic zero-modes are diagonal in the gauge factors; therefore there are no $\omega_{\dot\alpha}^f$ and $\bar\omega_{{\dot\alpha}f}$ zero-modes.} Note that the $\mu$ zero-modes carry an $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ index 4 (being on the diagonal) while the $\mu'$ zero-modes carry an $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ index $1$, since they are of the same form as $\Phi^1$. All this can be conveniently summarized in a generalized quiver diagram as represented in Fig.~, which accounts for both the brane configuration and the instanton zero-modes. For a single instanton, the action () greatly simplifies since many fields are vanishing as well as all commutators and one gets \beq S_1 = i \left(\bar\mu_u \omega^u_{\dot\alpha} + \bar\omega_{\dot\alpha u} \mu^u \right) \lambda^{\dot\alpha} - i D^c \bar\omega_{u}^{\dot \alpha}(\tau^c)_{\dot\alpha}^{\dot\beta} \omega_{\dot\beta}^{u}~. \eeq Similarly, the coupling of the charged modes to the chiral superfield can be expressed by writing eq. () as \beq S_2 = \frac12\,\bar\omega_{{\dot\alpha}u} \big(Q^u_f {Q^\dagger}{}^f_v +\tilde Q^\dagger{}^u_f \tilde Q^f_v\big) \omega^{{\dot\alpha}v} - \frac{i}2\,\bar \mu_u \tilde Q^\dagger{}^u_f \mu'{}^f +\frac{i}2\, \bar \mu'_f Q^\dagger{}^f_u \mu^u~. \eeq Note that it is the anti-holomorphic superfields that enter in the couplings with the fermionic zero-modes, as is clear by comparing with (). The above action is exactly the same which appears in the ADHM construction as reviewed in . We are now ready to perform the integral () over all the existing zero-modes. Writing \beq Z = \int dx^4 d\theta^2 \,W~, \eeq we see that the instanton induced superpotential is \beq W = \Ccal \int d\{\lambda,D,\omega,\bar\omega,\mu,\bar\mu\}\, e^{-S_1 -S_2}~. \eeq The integrals over $D$ and $\lambda$ enforce the bosonic and fermionic ADHM constraints, respectively. Thus \beq W = \Ccal \int d\{\omega,\bar\omega,\mu,\bar\mu\}\, \delta(\bar\mu_u \omega^u_{\dot\alpha} + \bar\omega_{\dot\alpha u} \mu^u)\,\delta(\bar\omega_{u}^{\dot \alpha}(\tau^c)_{\dot\alpha}^{\dot\beta} \omega_{\dot\beta}^{u}) \,e^{-S_2}~. \eeq We essentially arrive at the point of having to evaluate an integral over a set of zero-modes which is exactly the same as the one discussed in detail in the literature, {\it e.g.}~. We thus quickly go to the result referring the reader to the above review for further details. First of all, it is easy to see that, due to the presence of extra $\mu$ modes in the integrand from the fermionic delta function, only when $N_f=N_c-1$ we obtain a non-vanishing result. After having integrated over the $\mu$ and $\mu'$, we are left with a (constrained) gaussian integration that can be performed {\it e.g.} by going to a region of the moduli space where the chiral fields are diagonal, up to a row/column of zeroes. Furthermore, the D-terms in the gauge sector constrain the quark superfields to obey $Q Q^\dagger= \tilde Q^\dagger \tilde Q$, so that the bosonic integration brings the square of a simple determinant in the denominator. The last fermionic integration conspires to cancel the anti-holomorphic contributions and gives \beq W_{ADS} = \frac{\Lambda^{2N_c +1}}{\det (\tilde Q Q) }~, \eeq which is just the expected ADS superpotential for $N_f =N_c-1$, the only case where such non-perturbative contribution is generated by a genuine one-instanton effect and not by gaugino condensation. In () $\Lambda$ is the SQCD strong coupling scale that is reconstructed by the combination of $e^{-8\pi^2/g^2}$ coming from the instanton action with various dimensional factors coming from the normalization of the instanton measure . \subsection{Absence of exotic contributions} Until now, we have reproduced from stringy considerations the effect that is supposed to be generated also by instantons in the gauge theory. Considering a slightly different set up, we would like to study the possibility of generating other terms. Let us consider a system with rank assignment $(N_c,N_f,0,0)$, as before, but fractional instanton numbers $(0,0,1,0)$. In other words, we study the effect of a single fractional instanton sitting on an {\it unoccupied} node of the gauge theory. The quiver diagram, with the relevant zero-modes structure, is given in Fig.~. The neutral zero-modes of the instanton sector are the same as before. This is because the quantization of this sector does not know the whereabouts of the D3-branes and thus all nodes are equivalent, in this respect. In the mixed sector, we have no bosonic zero-modes now, since the $\omega$ and $\bar\omega$ are diagonal. Note that, although we always have four mixed (ND) boundary conditions, due to the quiver structure induced by the orbifold, here we effectively realize the same situation one has when there are eight ND directions, namely that the bosonic sector of the charged moduli is empty. On the other hand, there are fermionic zero-modes $\mu^u$, $\bar\mu_u$, $\mu'{}^f$ and $\bar\mu'_f$, as in the previous case. Note that despite having the same name, these zero-modes correspond actually to different Chan-Paton matrix elements with respect to the previous ones, the difference being in the instanton index that is not written explicitly. In particular we can think of $\mu$ and $\mu'$ as carrying an $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ index 2 and 3 respectively. Because of the absence of bosonic charged modes, the action () is identically zero and the action () contains only the last term: \beqs S_1 &=& 0 \nonumber \\ S_2 &=& \frac{i}{2}\,\bar \mu_u Q^u_f \mu'{}^f - \frac{i}{2}\, \bar\mu'_f \tilde Q^f_u \mu^u. \eeqs Note that in this case it is the holomorphic superfields which appear above, as is clear from () and from noticing that the diagonal fermionic zero-mode $\mu^4$ is not present. We are thus led to consider \beq W = \Ccal \int d\{\lambda,D,\mu,\bar\mu\}\, e^{-S_2}~. \eeq One notices right away that the integral over the charged modes is non vanishing (only) for the case $N_f = N_c$ and gives a tantalizing contribution proportional to $B \tilde B$, where $B=\det Q$ and $\tilde B=\det \tilde Q$ are the baryon fields of the theory. However, we must carefully analyze the integration over the remaining zero-modes of the neutral sector. Now neither $D$ nor $\lambda$ appear in the integrand. The integral over $D$ does not raise any concern: it is, after all, an auxiliary field and its disappearance from the integrand is due to the peculiarities of the ADHM limit. Before taking this limit, $D$ appeared quadratically in the action and could be integrated out, leaving an overall normalization constant. The integral over $\lambda$ is another issue. In this case, $\lambda$ is absent from the integrand even before taking the ADHM limit and its integration multiplies the above result by zero, making the overall contribution of such instantons to the superpotential vanishing. Of course, the presence of such extra zero-modes should not come as a surprise since they correspond to the two extra broken supersymmetries of an instanton on a CY. Therefore we see that the neutral zero-modes contribution, in the exotic instanton case, plays a dramatic role and conspires to make everything vanishing (as opposite to the ADS case analyzed before). A natural question is to see whether these zero-modes get lifted by some effect we have not taken into account, yet. For one thing, supersymmetry arguments would make one think that taking into account the back-reaction of the D3-branes might change things. However, in the following subsection we show that this seems not to be the case. \subsection{Study of the back-reaction} Let us stick to the case $N_f=N_c$, which is the only one where the integral () might give a non-vanishing contribution. In this case the fractional brane system is nothing but a stack of ($N_c$) $\Ncal = 2$ fractional branes. These branes couple to only one of the 3 closed string twisted sectors . More specifically, they source the metric $h_{\mu\nu}$, the R-R four-form potential $C_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ and two twisted scalars $b$ and $c$ from the NS-NS and R-R sector respectively. This means that the disk one-point function of their vertex operators~ is non vanishing when the disk boundary is attached to such D3-branes. (Indeed in this way or, equivalently, by using the boundary-state formalism~, one can derive the profile for these fields.) If the back-reaction of these fields on the instanton lifted the extra zero-modes $\lambda$'s, this should be visible when computing the one point function of the corresponding closed string vertex operators on a disk with insertions on this boundary of the vertex operators for such moduli. To see whether such coupling is there, we first need to write down the vertex operators for the $\lambda$'s in the $(\pm 1/2)$~superghost pictures. The vertex in the $(-1/2)$ picture is found {\it e.g.} in~ and reads \beq V^{-1/2}_\lambda(z) = \lambda_{\dot\alpha A} S^{\dot\alpha}(z) S^A(z) e^{-\phi(z)/2}~, \eeq where $S^{\dot\alpha}(z)$ and $S^A(z)$ are the spin-fields in the first four and last six directions respectively. For our argument we need to focus on the $S^A(z)$ dependence. Since the modulus that survives the orbifold projection is, with our conventions, $\lambda_{\dot\alpha 4} = \lambda_{\dot\alpha +++}$, we write the corresponding spin-field as \beq S^{+++}(z) = e^{i H_1(z)/2} e^{i H_2(z)/2} e^{i H_3(z)/2}, \eeq where $H_i(z)$ is the free boson used to bosonize the fermionic sector in the $i$-th complex direction: $\psi^i(z) = e^{i H_i(z)}$. The vertex operator in the $+1/2$~picture can be obtained by applying the picture-changing operator to~() \beq V^{1/2}_\lambda(z) = {[Q_\mathrm{BRST}, \xi V^{-1/2}_\lambda(z)]}~. \eeq The crucial part in $Q_\mathrm{BRST}$ is~ \beq Q_\mathrm{BRST} = \oint \frac{dz}{2 \pi i} \,\, \eta\,e^{\phi} \left( \psi^\mu \partial X^\mu + \bar\psi^i \partial Z^i + \psi^i \partial \bar Z^i\right) + \dots \eeq Because of the nature of the supercurrent, we see that () flips at most one sign in (), hence the product $V^{-1/2}_\lambda V^{1/2}_\lambda$ will always carry an unbalanced charge in some of the three internal $\mathrm{SO}(2)$ groups. On the other hand, the vertex operators for the fields sourced by the fractional D3's cannot compensate such an unbalance. Hence, their correlation function on the D-instanton with the insertion of $V^{-1/2}_\lambda V^{1/2}_\lambda$ carries a charge unbalance and therefore vanishes. Therefore, at least within the above perturbative approach, the neutral zero-modes seem not to get lifted by the back-reaction of the D3-branes. One might consider some additional ingredients which could provide the lifting. A natural guess would be moving in the CY moduli space or adding suitable background fluxes . There are indeed non-vanishing background fields at the orbifold point, {\it i.e.} the $b$ fields of the twisted sectors which the $\Ncal =2$ fractional branes do not couple to. These fields, however, being not associated to geometric deformations of the internal space should be described by a CFT vertex operator uncharged under the $\mathrm{SO}(2)$'s, simply because of Lorentz invariance in the internal space. Therefore, the only way to get an effective mass term for the zero-modes $\lambda$ would be to move out of the orbifold point in the CY moduli space. Indeed, the other moduli of the NS-NS twisted sector, being associated to geometric blow-ups of the singularity, are charged under (some of) the internal $\mathrm{SO}(2)$'s and can have a non vanishing coupling with the $\lambda$'s. More generically, complicated closed string background fluxes might be suitable. This is an interesting option which however we do not pursue here, since we want to stick to situations where a CFT description is available. A more radical thing to do is to remove the zero-modes from the very start, for instance by means of an orientifold projection ~. This is the option we are going to consider in the remainder of this work. \section{The $\Ncal = 1$ $\mathbf{Z}_2 \times \mathbf{Z}_2$ orientifold} In this section we supplement our orbifold background by an O3 orientifold and show that in this case exotic instanton contributions do arise and provide new terms in the superpotential. We refer to {\it e.g.}~ for a comprehensive discussion of $\Ncal = 1$ and $\Ncal = 2$ orientifolds. The first ingredient we need is the action of the O3-plane on the various fields. Denote by $\Omega$ the generator of the orientifold. The action of $\Omega$ on the vertex operators for the various fields (ignoring for the time being the Chan-Paton factors) is well known. The vertex operators for the bosonic fields on the D3-brane contain, in the 0~picture, the following terms: $A_\mu \sim\ \partial_\tau x^\mu$ and $\Phi^i \sim \partial_\sigma \bar z^i$. They both change sign under $\Omega$, the first because of the derivative $\partial_\tau$ and the second because the orientifold action for the O3-plane is always accompanied by a simultaneous reflection of all the transverse coordinates $z^i$. The action of the orientifold on the Chan-Paton factors is realized by means of a matrix $\gamma(\Omega)$ which in presence of an orbifold must satisfy the following consistency condition \beq \gamma(g) \gamma(\Omega) \gamma(g)^T = +\, \gamma(\Omega) \eeq for all orbifold generators $g$. This amounts to require that the orientifold projection commutes with the orbifold projection. The matrix $\gamma(\Omega)$ can be either symmetric or anti-symmetric. We choose to perform an anti-symmetric orientifold projection on the D3 branes and denote the corresponding matrix by $\gamma_-(\Omega)$. This requires having an even number $N_\ell$ of D3 branes on each node of the quiver so that we can write \beq \gamma_-(\Omega) = \begin{pmatrix}\epsilon_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & \epsilon_2 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & \epsilon_3 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & \epsilon_4 \cr\end{pmatrix} \eeq where the $\epsilon_\ell$'s are $N_\ell \times N_\ell$ antisymmetric matrices obeying $\epsilon_\ell^2 = -1$. Using () and () it is straightforward to verify that the consistency condition () is verified. The field content of the stacks of fractional D3-branes in this orientifold model is obtained by supplementing the orbifold conditions () with the orientifold ones \beq A_\mu = - \gamma_-(\Omega) A_\mu^T \gamma_-(\Omega)^{-1} ~~~,~~~ \Phi^l = - \gamma_-(\Omega) \Phi^{l T} \gamma_-(\Omega)^{-1}. \eeq This implies that $A_\mu = \diag(A_\mu^1, A_\mu^2, A_\mu^3, A_\mu^4)$ with $A_\mu^\ell = \epsilon_\ell A_\mu^{iT} \epsilon_\ell$. Thus, the resulting gauge theory is a $\mathrm{USp}(N_1) \times \mathrm{USp}(N_2) \times \mathrm{USp}(N_3) \times \mathrm{USp}(N_4)$ theory. The chiral superfields, which after the orbifold have the structure (), are such that the $\Phi_{\ell m}$ component joining the nodes $\ell$ and $m$ of the quiver, must obey the orientifold condition $\Phi_{\ell m} = \epsilon_\ell \Phi_{m\ell}^T \epsilon_m$. In the following, we will take $N_3=N_4=0$ so that we are left with only two gauge groups and no tree level superpotential. \subsection{Instanton sector} Let us now consider the instanton sector, starting by analyzing the zero-mode content in the neutral sector. There are two basic changes to the previous story. The first is that the vertex operator for $a_\mu$ is now proportional to $\partial_\sigma x^\mu$, not to $\partial_\tau x^\mu$ and it remains invariant under $\Omega$ (the vertex operator for $\chi_a$ still changes sign). The second is that the crucial consistency condition discussed in~ requires that we now represent the action of $\Omega$ on the Chan-Paton factors of the neutral modes by a symmetric matrix which can be taken to be \beq \gamma_+(\Omega) = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 &0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & 0& 0 \cr 0&0&1&0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr \end{pmatrix}~, \eeq where the $1$'s are $k_\ell \times k_\ell$ unit matrices. The matrix $a_\mu$ will be $4 \times 4$ block diagonal, {\it e.g.} $a_\mu = \diag(a_\mu^1, a_\mu^2, a_\mu^3,a_\mu^4)$, but now $a_\mu^\ell = a_\mu^{\ell T}$. The most generic situation is to have a configuration with instanton numbers $(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)$. By considering a configuration with $k_3 = 1$ and $k_1 =k_2 =k_4 = 0$, we can project out all bosonic zero-modes except for the four components $a_\mu^3$ that we denote by $x_\mu$. The scalars $\chi^4\dots\chi^9$ are off-diagonal and we shall not consider them further. The nice surprise comes when considering the orientifold action on the fermionic neutral zero-modes $M^{\alpha A}$ and $\lambda_{\dot \alpha A}$. The orbifold part of the group acts on the spinor indices as in (), while the orientifold projection acts as the reflection in the transverse space, namely \beq R(\Omega) = -i\, \Gamma^{456789} \eeq Putting together the orbifold projections () with the orientifold ones \beq M^{\alpha A} = R^A_{~B}(\Omega) \gamma_+(\Omega) (M^{\alpha B})^T \gamma_+(\Omega)^{-1} ~~~,~~~ \lambda_{\dot\alpha A} = \gamma_+(\Omega) (\lambda_{\dot\alpha B})^T \gamma_+(\Omega)^{-1}R^B_{~A}(\Omega) \eeq we can find the spectrum of surviving fermionic zero-modes. Using () and (), it is easy to see that () implies \beq M^{\alpha A} = (M^{\alpha A})^T ~~~,~~\lambda_{\dot\alpha A} = - (\lambda_{\dot\alpha A})^T~. \eeq Thus, for the simple case where $k_3 = 1$ and $k_1 =k_2 =k_4 = 0$, all $\lambda$'s are projected out and only {\em two} chiral $M$ zero-modes remain: $M^{\alpha---}$, to be identified with the $\Ncal=1$ chiral superspace coordinates $\theta^\alpha$. Also the charged zero-modes are easy to discuss in this simple scenario. There are no bosonic modes since the D-instanton and the D3-branes sit at different nodes while the bosonic modes are necessarily diagonal. Most of the fermionic zero-modes $\mu^A$ and $\bar\mu^A$ are also projected out by the orbifold condition \beq \mu^A = R(g)^A_{~B} \gamma(g) \mu^B \gamma(g)^{-1} ~~~,~~~ \bar\mu^A = R(g)^A_{~B} \gamma(g) \bar\mu^B \gamma(g)^{-1}~. \eeq Finally, the orientifold condition relates this time the fields in the conjugate sectors, allowing one to express $\bar\mu$ as a linear combination of the $\mu$ \beq \bar\mu^A = R(\Omega)^A_{~B} \gamma_+(\Omega) (\mu^B)^T \gamma_-(\Omega)^{-1}~. \eeq The only charged modes surviving these projections can be expressed, in block $4 \times 4$ notation, as \beqs \mu^2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & \mu_{13} & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\cr 0& 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \bar\mu^2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr \bar\mu_{31} & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \nonumber \\ \mu^3 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 &0 \cr 0 & 0&\mu_{23} & 0\cr 0 & 0 & 0&0 \cr 0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \bar\mu^3 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0&0 \cr 0&0 & 0 & 0\cr 0&\bar\mu_{32} & 0 & 0 \cr 0&0&0&0 \end{pmatrix}~, \eeqs where the entries, to be thought of as column/row vectors in the fundamental/anti-fundamental of $\mathrm{SU}(N_\ell)$ depending on their position, are such that $\bar\mu_{31} = - \mu_{13}^T \epsilon_1$ and $\bar\mu_{32} = - \mu_{23}^T \epsilon_2$. Thus, in the case where we have fractional D3 branes $(N_1, N_2, 0, 0)$ and an exotic instanton $(0,0,1,0)$, the only surviving chiral field is $\Phi_{12} \equiv \epsilon_1 \Phi_{21}^T \epsilon_2$, the orientifold projection eliminates the offending $\lambda$'s and we are left with just the neutral zero-modes $x_\mu$ and $\theta^\alpha$ and the charged ones $\mu_{13}$ and $\mu_{23}$. This is summarized in the generalized quiver of Fig.~. In this case the instanton partition function is \beq Z= \int dx^4 d\theta^2 \,\,W \eeq where the superpotential $W$ is \beq W = \Ccal \int d\mu \,\,e^{-S_1 -S_2} = \Ccal \int d\mu_{13} d\mu_{23}\,\, e^{i \mu_{13}^T \epsilon_1 \Phi_{12} \mu_{23}} ~. \eeq This integral clearly vanishes unless $N_1=N_2$, in which case we have \beq W~\propto~ \det (\Phi_{12}) \eeq We thus see that exotic instanton corrections are possible in this simple model.\footnote{ The gauge invariant quantity above can be rewritten as the Pfaffian of a suitably defined mesonic matrix.} It is interesting to note that the above correction is present in the same case ($N_1=N_2\equiv N$) where the usual ADS superpotential for $\mathrm{USp}(N)$ is generated~ \beq W_{ADS} = \frac{\Lambda^{2N+3}}{\det (\Phi_{12})} \eeq and its presence stabilizes the runaway behavior and gives a theory with a non-trivial moduli space of supersymmetric vacua given by $\det (\Phi_{12}) = \mathrm{const.}$ Of course, the ADS superpotential for this case can also be constructed along the same lines as section~, see e.g.~. In fact, this derivation is somewhat simpler than the one for the $SU(N)$ gauge group since there are no ADHM constraints at all in the one instanton case. We think the above situation is not specific to the background we have been considering, but is in fact quite generic. As soon as the $\lambda$ zero-modes are consistently lifted, we expect the exotic instantons to contribute new superpotential terms. As a further example, in the next section we will consider a $\Ncal =2$ model, where exotic instantons will turn out to contribute to the prepotential. \section{An $\Ncal = 2$ example: the $\mathbf{Z}_3$ orientifold} Let us now consider the quiver gauge theory obtained by placing an orientifold O3-plane at a $\mathbf{C}\times \mathbf{C}^2/\mathbf{Z}_3$ orbifold singularity. In what follows we will use $\Ncal =1$ superspace notation. We first briefly repeat the steps that led to the constructions of such a quiver theory in the seminal paper~. Define $\xi = e^{2\pi i/3}$ and let the generator of the orbifold group act on the first two complex coordinates as \beq g: \begin{pmatrix} z^1 \cr z^2\cr\end{pmatrix} \to \begin{pmatrix} \xi & 0 \cr 0 & \xi^{-1} \cr\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} z^1 \cr z^2\cr\end{pmatrix}~, \eeq while leaving the third one invariant. This preserves $\Ncal = 2$ SUSY. The action of the generator $g$ on the Chan-Paton factors is given by the matrix \beq \gamma(g) = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & \xi & 0\cr 0 & 0 & \xi^2 \cr \end{pmatrix}~. \eeq The $\Ncal =2$ theory obtained this way, summarized in Fig.~, is a three node quiver gauge theory with gauge groups $\mathrm{SU}(N_1) \times \mathrm{SU}(N_2) \times \mathrm{SU}(N_3)$, supplemented by a cubic superpotential which is nothing but the orbifold projection of the $\Ncal =4$ superpotential (its precise form is not relevant for the present purposes). As for the action of $\Omega$ on the Chan-Paton factors, we choose again to perform the symplectic projection on the D3-branes. To do so, we must take $N_1$ to be even and $N_2=N_3$, so that we can write \beq \gamma_-(\Omega) = \begin{pmatrix} \epsilon & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1\cr 0 & -1 & 0 \cr \end{pmatrix}~, \eeq where $\epsilon$ is a $N_1 \times N_1$ antisymmetric matrix obeying $\epsilon^2 = -1$ and the 1's denote $N_2 \times N_2$ identity matrices. The matrices $\gamma(g)$ and $\gamma_-(\Omega)$ satisfy the usual consistency condition~ as in (). The field content on the fractional D3-branes at the singularity will be given by implementing the conditions \beqs &&A_\mu = \gamma(g) A_\mu \gamma(g)^{-1}~~~,~~~ \Phi^i = \xi^{-i} \gamma(g) \Phi^i \gamma(g)^{-1}~, \nonumber \\ &&A_\mu = - \gamma_-(\Omega) A_\mu^T \gamma_-(\Omega)^{-1}~~~,~~~ \Phi^i = - \gamma_-(\Omega) \Phi^{i T} \gamma_-(\Omega)^{-1}~. \eeqs The orbifold part of these conditions forces $A_\mu$ and $\Phi^3$ to be $3 \times 3$ block diagonal matrices, {\it e.g.} $A_\mu = \diag(A_\mu^1, A_\mu^2, A_\mu^3)$, while the orientifold imposes that $A_\mu^1 = \epsilon A_\mu^{1T} \epsilon$ and $A_\mu^2 = - A_\mu^{3 T}$. The resulting gauge theory is thus a $\mathrm{USp}(N_1) \times \mathrm{SU}(N_2)$ theory. It is convenient, however, to still denote $A_\mu^2$ and $A_\mu^3$ diagramatically as belonging to different nodes with the understanding that these should be identified in the above sense. The projection on the chiral fields can be done similarly and we obtain, denoting by $\Phi_{\ell m}$ the non-zero entries of the fields $\Phi^1$ and $\Phi^2$ (only one can be non-zero for each pair $\ell m$) \beq \Phi_{12} = -\epsilon \Phi_{31}^T, \quad \Phi_{13} = +\epsilon \Phi_{21}^T, \quad \Phi_{23} = \Phi_{23}^T, \quad \Phi_{32} = \Phi_{32}^T~. \eeq The field content is summarized in Table~2. \begin{table} [ht] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c||c|c|} & $\mathrm{USp}(N_1)$ & $\mathrm{SU}(N_2)$ \\ \hline \hline $\Phi_{12}$ & $\square$ & $\overline{\square} $ \\ \hline $\Phi_{21}$ & $\square$ & $\square$ \\ \hline $\Phi_{13}$ & $\square$ & $\square$ \\ \hline $\Phi_{31}$ & $\square$ & $\overline{\square}$ \\ \hline $\Phi_{23}$ & $\cdot$ & $\square \! \square$ \\ \hline $\Phi_{32}$ & $\cdot$ & $\overline{\square\! \square}$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{\small Chiral fields making up the quiver gauge theory.} \end{center} \end{table} The theory we want to focus on in the following has rank assignment $(N_1, N_2) = (0, N)$. This yields an $\Ncal=2$ $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ gauge theory with an hyper-multiplet in the symmetric/(conjugate)symmetric representation. We denote the $\Ncal=2$ vector multiplet by $\Acal$ whose field content in the block $3 \times 3$ notation is thus \beq \hat\Acal = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & \Acal & 0\cr 0 & 0 & -\Acal^T \cr \end{pmatrix}~. \eeq In what follows we will be interested in studying corrections to the prepotential $\Fcal$ coming from exotic instantons associated to the first node (the one that is not populated by D3-branes). Let us then analyze the structure of the stringy instanton sector of the present model, first. \subsection{Instanton sector} The most generic situation is to have a configuration with instanton numbers $(k_1,k_2)$ (later we will be mainly concerned with a configuration with instanton numbers $(1,0)$). Let us start analyzing the zero-modes content in neutral sector. The story is pretty similar to the one discussed in the previous section. The vertex operator for $a_\mu$ is proportional to $\partial_\sigma x^\mu$ and so it remains invariant under $\Omega$. The action on the Chan-Paton factors of these D-instantons must now be represented by a symmetric matrix which we take to be \beq \gamma_+(\Omega) = \begin{pmatrix} 1' & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1\cr 0 & 1 & 0 \cr \end{pmatrix} \eeq where $1'$ is a $k_1 \times k_1$ unit matrix and the $1$'s are $k_2 \times k_2$ unit matrices. Because of the different orientifold projection, the matrices of bosonic zero-modes behave slightly differently. The matrices $a_\mu$, $\chi^8$ and $\chi^9$ will still be $3 \times 3$ block diagonal, {\it e.g.} $a_\mu = \diag(a_\mu^1, a_\mu^2, a_\mu^3)$, but now $a_\mu^1 = a_\mu^{1 T}$ and $a_\mu^2 = a_\mu^{3 T}$ whereas the same relations for $\chi^8$ and $\chi^9$ will have an additional minus sign. The remaining fields $\chi^{4\dots7}$ are off diagonal and we shall not consider them further since we will consider only the case of one type of instanton. By considering a configuration with $k_1 = 1$ and $k_2 = 0$, we can project out all bosonic zero-modes except for the four components $a_\mu^1$ that we denote by $x_\mu$. Let us now consider the orientifold action on the fermionic neutral zero-modes $M^{\alpha A}$ and $\lambda_{\dot \alpha A}$. The orbifold part of the group acts on the internal spinor indices as a rotation \beq R(g) = e^{\frac{\pi}{3}\Gamma^{45}} e^{-\frac{\pi}{3}\Gamma^{67}}~, \eeq while the orientifold acts through the matrix $R(\Omega)$ given in (). The orbifold and orientifold projections thus require \beqs && M^{\alpha A} = R(g)^A_{~B} \gamma(g) M^{\alpha B} \gamma(g)^{-1}~~~,~~~ \lambda_{\dot\alpha A} = \gamma(g) \lambda_{\dot\alpha B} \gamma(g)^{-1}R(g)^B_{~A} ~, \\ && M^{\alpha A} = R(\Omega)^A_{~B} \gamma_+(\Omega) (M^{\alpha B})^T \gamma_+(\Omega)^{-1}~~~,~~~ \lambda_{\dot\alpha A} = \gamma_+(\Omega) (\lambda_{\dot\alpha B})^T \gamma_+(\Omega)^{-1} R(\Omega)^B_{~A}~.\nonumber \eeqs Using the explicit expressions for the various matrices, we see that, for the simple case where $k_1 = 1$ and $k_2 = 0$, all $\lambda$'s are projected out and only {\em four} chiral $M$ zero-modes remain: $M^{\alpha ---}$ and $M^{\alpha ++-}$ to be identified with the $\Ncal=2$ chiral superspace coordinates $\theta^1_\alpha$ and $\theta^2_\alpha$. Hence, also in this case the orientifold projection has cured the problem encountered in section (albeit in a $\Ncal = 2$ context now) and we can rest assured that the integration over the charged modes will yield a contribution to the prepotential. Let us now move to the charged zero-modes sector. Just as in the previous model, there are no bosonic modes since the D-instanton and the D3-branes sit at different nodes while the bosonic modes are necessarily diagonal. Most of the fermionic zero-modes $\mu^A$ and $\bar\mu^A$ are projected out by the orbifold condition which is formally the same as in (), while the orientifold condition relates the fields in the conjugate sectors, giving $\bar\mu$ as a linear combination of the $\mu$'s according to \beq \bar\mu^A = R(\Omega)^A_{~B} \gamma_+(\Omega) (\mu^B)^T \gamma_-(\Omega)^{-1}~. \eeq To summarize, the only charged modes surviving the projection can be expressed, in block $3 \times 3$ notation as \beqs \mu^1 &=& \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0\cr \mu & 0 & 0 \cr \end{pmatrix}~~~,~~~ \bar\mu^1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \mu^T & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0\cr 0 & 0 & 0 \cr \end{pmatrix}~, \nonumber \\ \mu^2 &=& \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \cr \mu' & 0 & 0\cr 0 & 0 & 0 \cr \end{pmatrix}~~~,~~~ \bar\mu^2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & -\mu'^T \cr 0 & 0 & 0\cr 0 & 0 & 0 \cr \end{pmatrix} \eeqs where the entries are to be thought of as column/row vectors in the fundamental/anti\-fun\-da\-men\-tal of $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ depending on their position. As anticipated, the configuration we want to consider is a $(0,N)$ fractional D3-branes system together with an exotic $(1,0)$ instanton. The quiver structure, including the relevant moduli, is depicted in Fig.~. It is now easy to see that inserting the expressions () and () into Eqs. (), () and () we finally obtain \beq Z = \int dx^4 d\theta^4 \,\Fcal \quad \mathrm{with} \quad \Fcal = \Ccal \int d\mu d\mu' \,\,e^{i \mu^T \Acal \mu'} \propto \det \Acal~. \eeq It would be interesting to study the potential implications of this result in the gauge theory. There are many other simple models that could be analyzed along these lines. \section{Conclusions} In this paper we have presented some simple examples of what seem to be rather generic phenomena in the context of string instanton physics. We paid particular attention to the study of the fermionic zero-modes and their effects on the holomorphic quantities of the theory. We have seen both examples where the instanton contributions vanish due to the presence of extra zero-modes and where they do not. In the second case, as explicitly shown in a $\Ncal = 1$ example, exotic instantons can have a stabilizing effect on the theory. Although we have only considered some simple examples, we would like to stress that these results are quite generic and can be carried over to all orbifold gauge theories. A future direction would be to try to be more systematic and analyze the various possibilities encountered in more complex $\Ncal=2$ and $\Ncal = 1$ models. In a similar spirit, one should analyze the multi-instanton contributions as well, since the total correction to the holomorphic quantities will be the sum of all such terms. The study of the zero-modes is expected to be even more relevant in this case as it will probably make many contributions vanish. With an eye to string phenomenology, one should also incorporate these models into globally consistent compactifications and study the effects of these terms there. Lastly, it would be interesting to study the dynamical implications of some of the terms generated. We briefly touched upon this at the end of section when we mentioned the stabilizing effect of the exotic instanton on the $\mathrm{USp}(N)$ theory. Although from the strict field theory point of view these terms are thought of as ordinary polynomial terms in the holomorphic quantities,\footnote{Save few (interesting) examples, these terms are typically irrelevant and as a consequence should be naturally suppressed by a high energy scale. Indeed, the terms generated by stringy exotic instantons are suppressed by powers of the string scale.} they are ``special'' when seen from the point of view of string theory and they might therefore induce a particular type of dynamics. \section*{Acknowledgements} We would like to thank many people for discussions and email exchanges at various stages of this work that helped us sharpen the focus of the presentation: M.~Bianchi, M.~Bill\`o, P.~Di~Vecchia, S.~Franco, M.~Frau, F.~Fucito, S.~Kachru, R.~Marotta, L.~Martucci, F.~Morales, B.~E.~W.~Nilsson, D.~Persson, I.~Pesando, D.~Robles-Llana, R.~Russo, A.~Tanzini, A.~Tomasiello, A.~Uranga, T.~Weigand and N.~Wyllard. R.A., M.B. and A.L. are partially supported by the European Commission FP6 Programme MRTN-CT-2004-005104, in which R.A is associated to V.U. Brussel, M.B. to University of Padova and A.L. to University of Torino. R.A. is a Research Associate of the Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (Belgium). The research of R.A. is also supported by IISN - Belgium (convention 4.4505.86) and by the ``Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme --Belgian Science Policy''. M.B. is also supported by Italian MIUR under contract PRIN-2005023102 and by a MIUR fellowship within the program ``Rientro dei Cervelli''. The research of G.F. is supported by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsr{\aa}det) contracts 622-2003-1124 and 621-2002-3884. A.L. thanks the Galileo Galilei Institute for the hospitality and support during the completion of this work. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Witten:1995gx} E.~Witten, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 460} (1996) 541 [arXiv:hep-th/9511030]. \bibitem{Douglas:1995bn} M.~R.~Douglas, arXiv:hep-th/9512077. \bibitem{Witten:1996bn} E.~Witten, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 474}, 343 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9604030]. \bibitem{Ganor:1996pe} O.~J.~Ganor, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 499}, 55 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9612077]. \bibitem{Green:2000ke} M.~B.~Green and M.~Gutperle, JHEP {\bf 0002} (2000) 014 [arXiv:hep-th/0002011]. \bibitem{Billo:2002hm} M.~Billo, M.~Frau, I.~Pesando, F.~Fucito, A.~Lerda and A.~Liccardo, JHEP {\bf 0302} (2003) 045 [arXiv:hep-th/0211250]. \bibitem{Blumenhagen:2006xt} R.~Blumenhagen, M.~Cvetic and T.~Weigand, arXiv:hep-th/0609191. \bibitem{Ibanez:2006da} L.~E.~Ibanez and A.~M.~Uranga, arXiv:hep-th/0609213. \bibitem{Florea:2006si} B.~Florea, S.~Kachru, J.~McGreevy and N.~Saulina, arXiv:hep-th/0610003. \bibitem{Abel:2006yk} S.~A.~Abel and M.~D.~Goodsell, arXiv:hep-th/0612110. \bibitem{Akerblom:2006hx} N.~Akerblom, R.~Blumenhagen, D.~Lust, E.~Plauschinn and M.~Schmidt-Sommerfeld, arXiv:hep-th/0612132. \bibitem{Bianchi:2007fx} M.~Bianchi and E.~Kiritsis, arXiv:hep-th/0702015. \bibitem{Cvetic:2007ku} M.~Cvetic, R.~Richter and T.~Weigand, arXiv:hep-th/0703028. \bibitem{Bianchi:fu} M.~Bianchi, F.~Fucito, J.F.~Morales, arXiv:0704.0784 [hep-th]. \bibitem{Intriligator:2005aw} K.~Intriligator and N.~Seiberg, JHEP {\bf 0602} (2006) 031 [arXiv:hep-th/0512347]. \bibitem{Argurio:2006ew} R.~Argurio, M.~Bertolini, C.~Closset and S.~Cremonesi, JHEP {\bf 0609}, 030 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0606175]. \bibitem{Argurio:2006ny} R.~Argurio, M.~Bertolini, S.~Franco and S.~Kachru, arXiv:hep-th/0703236. \bibitem{Dorey:2002ik} N.~Dorey, T.~J.~Hollowood, V.~V.~Khoze and M.~P.~Mattis, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 371} (2002) 231 [arXiv:hep-th/0206063]. \bibitem{Bianchi:2007ft} M.~Bianchi, S.~Kovacs and G.~Rossi, arXiv:hep-th/0703142. \bibitem{Billo:2005fg} M.~Billo, M.~Frau, S.~Sciuto, G.~Vallone, and A.~Lerda, JHEP {\bf 0603} (2006) 023 [arXiv:hep-th/0511036]. \bibitem{Billo:2004zq} M.~Billo, M.~Frau, I.~Pesando and A.~Lerda, JHEP {\bf 0405} (2004) 023 [arXiv:hep-th/0402160]; M.~Billo, M.~Frau, F.~Lonegro and A.~Lerda, JHEP {\bf 0505} (2005) 047 [arXiv:hep-th/0502084]; M.~Billo, M.~Frau, F.~Fucito and A.~Lerda, JHEP {\bf 0611} (2006) 012 [arXiv:hep-th/0606013]. \bibitem{Witten:1995im} E.~Witten, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 460} (1996) 335 [arXiv:hep-th/9510135]. \bibitem{Atiyah:1978ri} M.~F.~Atiyah, N.~J.~Hitchin, V.~G.~Drinfeld and Yu.~I.~Manin, Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 65}, 185 (1978). \bibitem{Bertolini:2001gg} M.~Bertolini, P.~Di Vecchia, G.~Ferretti and R.~Marotta, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 630} (2002) 222 [arXiv:hep-th/0112187]. \bibitem{Bertolini:2003iv} M.~Bertolini, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 18} (2003) 5647 [arXiv:hep-th/0303160]. \bibitem{Franco:2005zu} S.~Franco, A.~Hanany, F.~Saad and A.~M.~Uranga, JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 011 [arXiv:hep-th/0505040]. \bibitem{Taylor:1982bp} T.~R.~Taylor, G.~Veneziano and S.~Yankielowicz, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 218} (1983) 493. \bibitem{Affleck:1983mk} I.~Affleck, M.~Dine and N.~Seiberg, Phys.\ B {\bf 241} (1984) 493. \bibitem{Berenstein:2005xa} D.~Berenstein, C.~P.~Herzog, P.~Ouyang and S.~Pinansky, JHEP {\bf 0509} (2005) 084 [arXiv:hep-th/0505029]. \bibitem{Bertolini:2005di} M.~Bertolini, F.~Bigazzi and A.~L.~Cotrone, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 061902 [arXiv:hep-th/0505055]. \bibitem{Friedan:1985ge} D.~Friedan, E.~J.~Martinec and S.~H.~Shenker, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 271} (1986) 93. \bibitem{Dixon:1986qv} L.~J.~Dixon, D.~Friedan, E.~J.~Martinec and S.~H.~Shenker, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 282} (1987) 13. \bibitem{DiVecchia:1997pr} P.~Di Vecchia, M.~Frau, I.~Pesando, S.~Sciuto, A.~Lerda and R.~Russo, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 507} (1997) 259 [arXiv:hep-th/9707068]; M.~Bertolini, P.~Di Vecchia, M.~Frau, A.~Lerda, R.~Marotta and I.~Pesando, JHEP {\bf 0102} (2001) 014 [arXiv:hep-th/0011077]; M.~Bertolini, P.~Di Vecchia, M.~Frau, A.~Lerda and R.~Marotta, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 621} (2002) 157 [arXiv:hep-th/0107057]. \bibitem{DiVecchia:1999rh} P.~Di Vecchia and A.~Liccardo, NATO Adv.\ Study Inst.\ Ser.\ C.\ Math.\ Phys.\ Sci.\ {\bf 556} (2000) 1 [arXiv:hep-th/9912161]. \bibitem{Martucci:2005rb} L.~Martucci, J.~Rosseel, D.~Van den Bleeken and A.~Van Proeyen, Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 22}, 2745 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0504041]. \bibitem{Bergshoeff:2005yp} E.~Bergshoeff, R.~Kallosh, A.~K.~Kashani-Poor, D.~Sorokin and A.~Tomasiello, JHEP {\bf 0510}, 102 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0507069]. \bibitem{Pradisi:1988xd} G.~Pradisi and A.~Sagnotti, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 216} (1989) 59. \bibitem{Gimon:1996rq} E.~G.~Gimon and J.~Polchinski, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 1667 [arXiv:hep-th/9601038]. \bibitem{Douglas:1996sw} M.~R.~Douglas and G.~W.~Moore, arXiv:hep-th/9603167. \bibitem{Berkooz:1996dw} M.~Berkooz and R.~G.~Leigh, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 483} (1997) 187 [arXiv:hep-th/9605049]. \bibitem{Zwart:1997aj} G.~Zwart, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 526} (1998) 378 [arXiv:hep-th/9708040]. \bibitem{Intriligator:1995ne} K.~A.~Intriligator and P.~Pouliot, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 353} (1995) 471 [arXiv:hep-th/9505006]. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0264
|
Title: Gluon Radiation of an Expanding Color Skyrmion in the Quark-Gluon Plasma
Abstract: The density of states and energy spectrum of the gluon radiation are
calculated for the color current of an expanding hydrodynamic skyrmion in the
quark gluon plasma with a semiclassical method. Results are compared with those
in literatures.
Body: \def \CMP {{ Commun. Math. Phys.}} \def \PRL {{ Phys. Rev. Lett.}} \def \PL {{Phys. Lett.}} \def \NPBProc {{ Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)}} \def \NP {{ Nucl. Phys.}} \def \RMP {{ Rev. Mod. Phys.}} \def \JGP {{ J. Geom. Phys.}} \def \CQG {{ Class. Quant. Grav.}} \def \MPL {{Mod. Phys. Lett.}} \def \IJMP {{ Int. J. Mod. Phys.}} \def \JHEP {{ JHEP}} \def \PR {{Phys. Rev.}} \def \JMP {{J. Math. Phys.}} \def\JoP {{J. Phys.}} \begin{titlepage} \null\vspace{-62pt} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{center} \rightline{CCNY-HEP-07/x} \rightline{March 2007} \vspace{1truein} {\Large\bfseries Gluon Radiation of an Expanding Color Skyrmion in the Quark-Gluon Plasma }\\ \vskip .2in\noindent \vspace{.5in} {\bf\large Jian Dai}\footnote{E-mail: \fontfamily{cmtt}\fontsize{11pt}{15pt}\selectfont jdai@sci.ccny.cuny.edu} \\ \vspace{.15in}{\itshape Physics Department\\ City College of the CUNY\\ New York, NY 10031}\\ \fontfamily{cmr}\fontsize{11pt}{15pt}\selectfont \vskip 1in \centerline{\large\bf Abstract} \end{center} The density of states and energy spectrum of the gluon radiation are calculated for the color current of an expanding hydrodynamic skyrmion in the quark gluon plasma with a semiclassical method. Results are compared with those in literatures. \end{titlepage} \pagestyle{plain} \setcounter{page}{1} \setcounter{footnote}{0} \section{Introduction} In this letter, we address the issue of gluon radiation during the hydrodynamic stage in the evolution of the deconfined hot QCD matter or quark gluon plasma (QGP) (for review see for example ). The medium induced gluon radiation has been thoroughly explored in the context of final state partonic energy loss or ``jet quenching'' . The spatially extended nuclear matter affects the processes of fragmentation and hadronization of the hard partons produced in the relativistic heavy ion collisions. Essentially all high $p_\bot$ hadronic observables are affected at collider energies and the degree of the medium modification can give a characterization of the hot QCD matter in the deconfined phase. In principle, the medium induced radiation effect emerges from thermal QCD {\it per se}. However, in practice, different approximation schemes are applied giving consistent results . On the other hand, gluon radiation has also been considered in the context of gluon density saturation in the initial stage, where a strongly interacting gluonic atmosphere is crucial for the rapid local thermalization for the deconfined QCD matter . The time evolution of the RHIC ``fireball'' can influence the observable particle production spectra. Given a strong initial interaction, the resulting state of matter is usually modeled as a relativistic fluid undergoing a hydrodynamic flow. Generalized fluid mechanics that characterizes the long-distance physics of the transport of color charges has been developed for this purpose (for review see ). Recently, we discovered a type of single skyrmion solutions in color fluid . Moreover, we found an interesting case in which the time-dependent skyrmion expands in time, which is in accordance with the expanding nature of the fireball generated in RHIC experiments . The pattern of gluon radiation pertaining to the color current of these non-static configurations is an important character of this color skyrmion. So in this letter we calculate this radiation spectrum in a semiclassical approach. The main results from our calculation are the following. There is a fast fall-off in the UV side of the spectrum but a smooth peak dominates the intermediate energy. And in IR, a long tail is the characteristic feature. The organization of this paper is the following. In Sect.~, after a brief review of the nonabelian fluid mechanics, we calculate the nonabelian current corresponding to the soliton solution. In Sect.~, semiclassical gluon radiation is calculated. In Sect.~, comparison of the radiation spectrum in our hydrodynamic approach and in other approaches is carried out. \section{Color current of an expanding soliton} Given the thermalization of hot QCD matter above the deconfinement transition temperature, the transport of the color charges in the volume of the nuclear size can be modeled by a nonlinear sigma model in a first-order formalism \beq \L=j^\mu \o_\mu - F(n) - g_{eff}J^{a\mu}A^a_\mu. \eeq This nonlinear sigma model describes an ideal fluid system. The configuration of this fluid is described by a group element field $U$, which shows up in the velocity field $\o_\mu$ \beq \o_\mu=-{i\over 2}Tr(\s_3 U^\dag \del_\mu U). \eeq Conjugate to the velocity is the abelian charge current $j^\mu$. It is easy to see that the first term in the lagrangian density () gives rise to the canonical structure of the fluid system. The fact that we will consider only one abelian charge current means that $U$ takes value in an $SU(2)$ group. The information about the equation of state (EOS) of the fluid is contained in the second term, which is essentially the free energy density of the fluid. In fact, energy and pressure densities are given by the ideal fluid formula \beq \e=F,~~p=nF^\prime-F. \eeq Here $n$ is the invariant length of $j^\mu$, $n^2=j^\mu j_\mu$. The third term is the gauge coupling of the fluid with an external gluon field $A^a_\mu$ with an effective coupling $g_{eff}$. $J^{a\mu}$ is the nonabelian charge current which is related to the abelian current by the Eckart factorization $J^{a\mu}=Q^aj^\mu$ where $Q^a$ is the nonabelian charge density of the fluid configuration \beq Q^a={1\over 2}Tr(\s_3U^\dag \s^aU). \eeq For $SU(2)$ group, $a=1,2,3$. When the temperature is relatively high, we approximate the EOS by \beq \e = 3p \eeq which is known in relativistic fluid mechanics to describe radiation. As a result, the free energy density can be obtained by integrating Eq.~(), \beq F={\b\over 4/3} n^{4/3} \eeq where $\b$ is a dimensionless constant of integration. In this case, and without an external gluon field, the fluid system in () possesses a class of expanding soliton solutions which can be studied via variational and collective coordinate methods . \beq U=U\Bigl({{\mathbf x}\over R(t)}\Bigr),~~R(t)\approx R_0({t\over \tau}+1)^{4/3}\theta(t) \eeq where $R_0$ and $\tau$ are the spacial and temporal characterizations of the variational soliton and $\theta(t)$ the usual step function in time direction. Physically, it is certainly very interesting to understand the origin of these two scales from a fundamental level. The approximation in () is valid provided $\tau \ll R_0$. This condition enables us to define a small parameter \beq \l={\tau\over R_0}. \eeq For our purpose, we calculate the nonabelian current in () corresponding to the soliton solution in Eq.~(). To do so, the {\em hedgehog ansatz} is specified for the solution () \beq U=\cos\phi+i\s\cdot\hx \sin\phi \eeq where $\hx$ is the unit vector and $\phi$ is given by the stereographic map \beq \sin\phi={2s\over 1+s^2},~~ \cos\phi=\pm {1-s^2\over 1+s^2}. \eeq We write $s$ as the dimensionless coordinate $x/R(t)$. The sign in the expression of $\cos\phi$ signifies a topological charge which is the {\em skyrmion number}. The negative sign gives the skyrmion number $+1$ or a skyrmion and the positive sign the skyrmion number is $-1$ or an anti-skyrmion. We will take the positive sign in the following. By expressing the abelian current $j^\mu$ in terms of the velocity $\o_\mu$ through the equation of motion, we derive the following expression for the nonabelian current \beqar\nonumber d^3xJ^{a\mu}&=&\Bigl({2\over\b}\Bigr)^3\cdot {d^3s\over (1+s^2)^6}\cdot (\hs_3^2s^2\dot{R}^2-1)\cdot\\ &&\Bigl( \d^a_3(1-6s^2+s^4)+4\e^{a3b}\hs_bs(1-s^2)+8\hs_3\hs_as^2 \Bigr)\cdot \left(\begin{array}{c}-\hs_3s(1+s^2)\dot{R}\\ 2\hs_1\hs_3s^2-2\hs_2s\\2\hs_2\hs_3s^2+2\hs_1s\\ 2\hs_3^2s^2-s^2+1 \end{array}\right). \eeqar The current in () has a natural form of a multipole expansion due to the skyrmion orientation in the color space. In this letter we only consider the effect of the lowest mode and the effects of higher polarization will be considered elsewhere. The spherically symmetric part in the current is contained only in the third component \beq \Bigl(d^3xJ^{a3}\Bigr)_0=-\d^a_3\Bigl({2\over\b}\Bigr)^3{d^3s\over (1+s^2)^6}P_6(s) \eeq where $P_6(s)=1-7s^2+7s^4-s^6$. \section{Semiclassical gluon radiation} Now we consider the interaction between the expanding color skyrmion and the hard partons. Since the transfer momentum between hard partons is in high order to that between hard parton and soliton, we expect a hierarchy between the partonic coupling $g_{YM}$ and the effective coupling $g_{eff}$. Accordingly, gluon self-interaction in terms like $F^a_{\mu\nu}F^{a\mu\nu}$ can be omitted so we can work with a free parton picture. Then the gauge coupling in () becomes the coupling between a classical current and a free quantum field for gluon. In this approximation, the lowest order semiclassical amplitude is given by \beq i\M=g_{eff}\langle 1|\int d^4x J^{a\mu}\hat{A}^a_\mu |0\rangle. \eeq $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ are gluonic Fock vacuum and one-gluon state. The gluon factor in () is given by the wave function \beq \langle 1|\hat{A}^a_\mu(x) |0\rangle=\vf^a\ve_\mu {e^{ik\cdot x}\over \sqrt{2\o}} \eeq where the color and helicity parts $\vf$, $\ve$ will be summed over eventually. Putting the current in, we have \beq i\M=A(k)\int dt e^{i\o t} \int{d^3s\over (1+s^2)^6}e^{-iR(t){\mathbf k}\cdot{\mathbf s}}P_6(s) \eeq where $A(k)=-(2/\b)^3g_{eff}\vf^3\ve_3/\sqrt{2\o}$. The spatial Fourier transformation can be completed analytically \beq i\M=B(k)\int dt e^{i\o t-R(t)k}Q_4(R(t)k) \eeq where $B(k)=\pi^2A(k)/120$ and $Q_4(x)=5x^2-5x^3+x^4$. To go further, we need to specify $R(t)$ in this equation to the form given in (). This gives \beq i\M=B(k)e^{-i\o\tau}{\eta \over\o }\int\limits_{{\o\tau\over\eta}}^\infty dt e^{i\eta t-t^{4/3}}Q_4(t^{4/3}) \eeq where $\eta=\o\tau/(kR_0)^{3/4}$. With onshell condition $\o=k$, $\eta=\l\kappa^{1/4}$ where $\kappa$ is defined to be $R_0k$. Accordingly, \beq i\M=\Bigl(-{\pi^2\over 15\sqrt{2}}\Bigr)\Bigl({g_{eff}\over\b^3}\l R_0^{3/2}\Bigr)\Bigl(\vf^3\ve_3 e^{-i\o\tau}\Bigr) \Bigl({i\widetilde{\M}_\l(\kappa)\over\kappa^{5/4}}\Bigr) \eeq where \beq i\widetilde{\M}_\l(\kappa)=\int\limits_{\kappa^{3/4}}^\infty dt e^{i\l\kappa^{1/4} t-t^{4/3}}Q_4(t^{4/3}) \eeq The radiation spectrum is given by $dE=kd\N$. $E(k)$ is the total energy radiated over the entire time of expansion as a function of $k$. The number distribution is \beq d\N = \sum\limits_{c,h} |\M|^2d^3k \eeq where the summation is over colors and helicities of the gluon. In a spherically symmetric setting, $d\N=n dk$ where $n$ is the density of states \beq n=4\pi k^2\sum\limits_{c,h}|\M|^2. \eeq By straightforward calculation, \beqar n &=& \a R_0 \lambda^2\kappa^{-1/2}|\widetilde{\M}_\l(\kappa)|^2,\\ {dE\over dk}&=& \a \lambda^2 \kappa^{1/2}|\widetilde{\M}_\l(\kappa)|^2. \eeqar where $\a\equiv (2\pi^5/225)(g_{eff}^2/\b^6)$. The numerical results for $\lambda=1/15,2/15,1/5$ are given in Fig. ~. \section{Comparison and discussion} Understanding the pattern of gluon radiation in relativistic heavy ion collision processes is important for making an accurate determination of the physical mechanisms from the measurement of its decay products. In , the authors extracted the asymptotic behavior of the number density in small $k$ is of the $1/k$ form. In our case, the asymptotic of the number density in small $k$ is $\sim 1/\sqrt{k}$. (See Fig. ~.) The difference comes from the fact that the medium size is taken to be infinitely large in while in our case the medium size is characterized by the soliton size $R_0$. So the IR behavior in our case is softer. For the case of jet quenching, the radiation energy lost is due to scattering off the hard quarks. A popular approach is to model the medium as a collection of colored static scattering centers . This approach can be extended to the expanding medium though the gluon radiation by the expanding medium itself is not included. In fact, the medium induced gluon radiation is characterized by the frequency \beq \o_C={1\over 2}\hat{q}L^2 \eeq where $\hat{q}$ is the quenching parameter, estimated to be $.04 \sim .16 GeV^2/fm$, and $L$ is the in-medium path length of a hard parton . In general $\o_C$ is significantly larger than the characteristic momentum in our case $1/R_0$. So there is a hierarchy between the medium induced gluon radiation spectrum and the gluon radiation spectrum by the medium. Our hydrodynamical approach opens up another interesting possibility to address the eccentricity of the elliptic flow either intrinsically by considering the nonabelian color current or exogenously by considering the gluon radiation patterns. This will be the topic of the follow-up to this work. \vskip .2in\noindent {\bf Acknowledgment}. This work was supported by a CUNY Collaborative Research Incentive grant. The author has greatly benefited from the mentoring by V. P. Nair. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{expt1} PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox, {\it et al}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A757} (2005) 184-283, nucl-ex/0410003; I. Arsene {\it et al}. BRAHMS collaboration, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A757} (2005) 1-27, nucl-ex/0410020; B. B. Back {\it et al} (PHOBOS), Nucl. Phys. {\bf A757} (2005) 28-101, nucl-ex/0410022; STAR Collaboration: J. Adams, {\it et al}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A757} (2005) 102-183, nucl-ex/0501009. \bibitem{expt2} Berndt Muller, James L. Nagle, nucl-th/0602029. \bibitem{KW} Alexander Kovner, Urs A. Wiedemann, ``Gluon Radiation and Parton Energy Loss'', in {\em Quark Gluon Plasma 3} Editors: R. C. Hwa and X. Wang World Scientific Singapore, hep-ph/0304151. \bibitem{SW} Carlos A. Salgado, Urs Achim Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. {\bf D68} (2003) 014008, hep-ph/0302184. \bibitem{W} Urs A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B588} (2000) 303, hep-ph/0005129. \bibitem{KR} Yuri V. Kovchegov, Dirk H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. {\bf C56} (1997) 1084, hep-ph/9704201. \bibitem{NFM} R. Jackiw, V.P. Nair, So-Young Pi, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62} (2000) 085018, hep-th/0004084; B. Bistrovic, R. Jackiw, H. Li, V.P. Nair, S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. {\bf D67} (2003) 025013, hep-th/0210143. \bibitem{NFMR} R. Jackiw, V.P. Nair, S.-Y. Pi, A.P. Polychronakos, \JoP {\it A. Math. Gen.} {\bf 37} (2004) R327. \bibitem{DN} Jian Dai, V.P. Nair, Phys. Rev. {\bf D74} (2006) 085014, hep-ph/0605090. \bibitem{D} Jian Dai, ``Stability and Evolution of Color Skyrmions in the Quark-Gluon Plasma'', hep-ph/0612260. \bibitem{GW} M. Gyulassy, X. Wang, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B420} (1994) 583. \bibitem{GVWZ} Miklos Gyulassy, Ivan Vitev, Xin-Nian Wang, Ben-Wei Zhang, ``Jet Quenching and Radiative Energy Loss in Dense Nuclear Matter'', in {\em Quark Gluon Plasma 3} Editors: R. C. Hwa and X. Wang World Scientific Singapore, nucl-th/0302077. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0268
|
Title: Automated Generation of Layout and Control for Quantum Circuits
Abstract: We present a computer-aided design flow for quantum circuits, complete with
automatic layout and control logic extraction. To motivate automated layout for
quantum circuits, we investigate grid-based layouts and show a performance
variance of four times as we vary grid structure and initial qubit placement.
We then propose two polynomial-time design heuristics: a greedy algorithm
suitable for small, congestion-free quantum circuits and a dataflow-based
analysis approach to placement and routing with implicit initial placement of
qubits. Finally, we show that our dataflow-based heuristic generates better
layouts than the state-of-the-art automated grid-based layout and scheduling
mechanism in terms of latency and potential pipelinability, but at the cost of
some area.
Body: \begin{abstract} We present a computer-aided design flow for quantum circuits, complete with automatic layout and control logic extraction. To motivate automated layout for quantum circuits, we investigate grid-based layouts and show a performance variance of four times as we vary grid structure and initial qubit placement. We then propose two polynomial-time design heuristics: a \emph{greedy} algorithm suitable for small, congestion-free quantum circuits and a \emph{dataflow-based analysis} approach to placement and routing with implicit initial placement of qubits. Finally, we show that our dataflow-based heuristic generates better layouts than the state-of-the-art automated grid-based layout and scheduling mechanism in terms of latency and potential pipelinability, but at the cost of some area. \end{abstract} \section{Conclusion} We presented a computer-aided design flow for the layout, scheduling and control of ion trap-based quantum circuits. We focused on physical quantum circuits, that is, ones for which all ancillae, encodings and interconnect are explicitly specified. We explored several mechanisms for generating optimal layouts and schedules for our benchmark circuits. Prior work has tended to assume a specific regular grid structure and to schedule operations within this structure. We investigated a variety of grid structures and showed a performance variance of a factor of four as we varied grid structure and initial qubit placement. Since exhaustive search is clearly impractical for large circuits, we also explored two polynomial-time heuristics for automated layout design. Our \emph{greedy algorithm} produces good results for very simple circuits, but quickly begins to be suboptimal as circuit size grows. For larger circuits, we investigated a \emph{dataflow-based analysis} of the quantum circuit to assist a place and route mechanism which leverages from classical algorithms. We found that our our dataflow approach generally offers the best latency, often at the cost of area. However, we expect that a layout based on the dataflow graph analysis also offers better potential for pipelining than a grid-based approach, and we intend to investigate this further in the future. \section{Control} The classical control system is responsible for executing the quantum circuit, including deciding where and when gate operations occur and tracking and managing every qubit in the system. It is composed of the following major components: instruction issue logic, gate control logic and macroblock control logic. Instruction issue logic handles all instruction scheduling and determines qubit movement paths. Gate control logic oversees laser resource arbitration, deciding which requested gate operations may occur at any given time. The macroblock control logic, which consists of an individual logic block for each macroblock in the system, handles all the internals of the macroblock, including details of gate operation for each gate possible within the macroblock, qubit movement within the macroblock and qubit movement into and out of the ports. \subsection{Control Interfaces} The first step in the control flow involves processing the quantum circuit's high-level description (the QASM file). The instruction issue logic accepts this stream of instructions as input and creates a series of qubit control messages. Using these qubit control messages, macroblock control logic blocks can determine where to move qubits and when to execute a gate operation. Qubit control messages are simple bit streams composed of a qubit ID, along with a sequence of commands, as shown in Figure~. When a qubit needs to perform an action, the instruction issue logic sends to it an appropriate control message which travels with the qubit as it traverses the layout. Once a macroblock receives a qubit and its corresponding control message, it uses the first command in the sequence to determine the operation it must perform. The macroblock then removes the command bits used and passes on the remaining control message to the next macroblock into which the qubit travels. In this manner, the instruction issue logic can create a multi-command qubit control message that specifies the path a qubit will traverse through consecutive macroblocks, along with where gate operations take place. The instruction issue logic only has to transmit this control message to the source macroblock, relying on the inter-macroblock communication interface to handle the rest. Communication between the instruction issue logic and the macroblocks takes place using a shared control message bus in order to minimize the number of wire connections required by the instruction issue logic. Each macroblock listens to the control message bus for messages addressed to it and only processes messages with a destination ID that match the macroblock's ID. A macroblock is only responsible for monitoring the control message bus if it contains a qubit that has no remaining command bits. This condition generally occurs after a gate operation, when the instruction issue logic is deciding what action the qubit should take next. Once the instruction issue logic sends a new control message for the qubit, the macroblock resumes operation. Macroblocks communicate with each other via control signals associated with each quantum port in the macroblock. Each port has signals to control qubit movement into the macroblock and signals to control movement out of the macroblock via that port. These signals are connected to the corresponding signals of the neighboring macroblocks. The macroblocks assert a \texttt{request} signal to a destination macroblock when a qubit command indicates the qubit should cross into the next macroblock. If an \texttt{available} signal response is received, the qubit, along with its control message, can move across into the neighboring macroblock; if not, the qubit must wait until the available signal is present. The macroblock interface enables the instruction issue logic to schedule qubit movement as a path through a sequence of macroblocks, without concerning itself with the low level details of qubit movement. This modular system allows macroblocks to be replaced with any other macroblock that implements the defined interface, without modifying the instruction issue logic. Additionally, macroblocks have an interface to the laser control logic. Whenever a macroblock is instructed to perform a gate operation, it must request a laser resource through the laser control logic. The laser controller is responsible for aggregating requests from all the macroblocks in the system, and deciding when and where to send laser pulses. The laser controller also attempts to parallelize as many operations as possible. Once the laser pulses have completed, the laser controller notifies the macroblocks, indicating that the gate operation is complete. \subsection{Instruction Scheduling} The instruction issue logic is responsible for determining the runtime execution order of the instructions in the quantum circuit, which involves both preprocessing and online scheduling. The instruction sequence is first preprocessed to assign priorities that will help during scheduling. The sequence is traversed from end to beginning, scheduling instructions as late as dependencies allow, using realistic gate latencies but ignoring movement. Essentially, each instruction is labeled with the length of its critical path to the end of the program. This is similar to the method used in~, but we use critical path with gate times rather than the size of the dependent subtree. The instruction preprocessing generates an optimal schedule assuming infinite gates and zero movement cost. However, we wish to evaluate a layout with more realistic characteristics. Our scheduler is designed to schedule on an arbitrary graph, but the layouts provided to it by the place and route tool are in fact planar layouts using only right angles. In addition, the scheduler requires that the qubit initial positions be provided as well. Our scheduler implements a greedy scheduling technique. It keeps the set of instructions which have had all their dependencies fulfilled (and thus are ready to be executed). It attempts to schedule them in priority order. So the highest priority ready instruction (according to critical path) is attempted first and is thus more likely to get access to the resources it needs. These contested resources include both gates and channels/intersections. Once all possible instructions have been scheduled, time advances until one or more resources is freed and more instructions may be scheduled. This scheduling and stalling cycle continues until the full sequence has been executed or until deadlock occurs, in which case it is detected and the highest priority unscheduled instruction at the time of deadlock is reported. Since we are interested in evaluating layouts rather than in designing an efficient online scheduler, we use very thorough searches over the graph in both gate assignment and pathfinding. This causes the scheduler to take longer but takes much of the uncertainty concerning schedule quality out of our tests. In addition, the scheduler reports stalling information which may be used for iterating upon the layout. \subsection{Control Extraction} Armed with well defined component interfaces and a method to execute the quantum instructions, all that remains to create the control system for a given quantum circuit is putting the pieces together. The quantum datapath is composed of an arbitrary number of macroblocks pulled from the component library. Each macroblock in our component library has associated with it classical control logic. The control logic handles all the internals of the macroblock including details of ion movement, ion trapping and gate operation. In our library, the macroblock control logic is specified using behavioral Verilog modules. When the layout stage of the CAD flow creates a physical layout of macroblocks, we extract the corresponding control logic blocks and assemble them together in a top-level Verilog module for the full control system, stitching together all necessary macroblock interfaces. This module instantiates all the appropriate macroblock control modules, along with the instruction issue logic and laser controller unit. Combined, these modules are assembled into a single Verilog module which implements the full classical control system for the quantum circuit and which may be input to a classical CAD flow for synthesis. \section{Dataflow-Based Layouts} As described in Section~, a systematic row by row initial placement for qubits allows us to make somewhat accurate comparisons between different grid-based layouts, while a random initial qubit placement allows us to test a single grid's dependence on qubit starting positions. However, in laying out a quantum circuit, we would like to have a more intelligent and natural means of determining initial qubit placement. For this, we turn to the dataflow graph representation of the circuit. \subsection{Dataflow Graph Analysis} Figure~a shows a QASM instruction sequence consisting of Hadamard gates (H) and controlled bit-flips (CX) operating on qubits Q0, Q1, Q2 and Q3, with each instruction labeled by a letter. Figure~b shows the equivalent sequence of operations in standard quantum circuit format. Either of these may be translated into the dataflow graph shown in Figure~c, where each node represents a QASM instruction (as labeled in Figure~a) and each arc represents a qubit dependency. With this dataflow graph, we may perform some analyses to help us place and route a layout for our quantum circuit. The general idea is that we shall create node groups in the dataflow graph which correspond to distinct gate locations that may then be placed and routed on a layout. All instructions within a single node group are guaranteed to be executed at a single gate location, as elaborated upon in Section~. To begin with, we create a node group for each instruction, giving us a dataflow group graph, as shown in Figure~a. If we lay out this group graph with a distinct designated gate for each instruction (using heuristics discussed in Section~), we get a layout in which the starting location of each qubit is specified implicitly by its first gate location, so no additional initial placement heuristic is needed. From this layout we can extract movement latency between nodes and label the edges with weights (as in Figure~a). We now find the longest critical path by qubit. The critical path A-E-I of qubit Q0 has length 14 (the dashed bold arrows), while the critical path C-F-G-H-I of qubit Q2 has length 15 (the solid bold arrows). We select the longest edge on the longest critical path, which is the edge G-H with weight 5. We merge these two node groups to eliminate this latency, in effect specifying that these two instructions should occur at the same gate location (Figure~b). We then update the layout and recompute distances. Assuming we merged these two node groups to the location of H (NG8), then the weight of edge F-G changes to 1 (to match the weight of edge F-H) and the weight of edge E-G probably changes to 6 (former E-G plus former G-H), but the exact change really depends on layout decisions. The new critical path is now A-E-I, so if we do this again, we merge node groups NG5 and NG9 to eliminate the edge of weight 8, and we get the group graph in Figure~c. In merging nodes, there is the possibility that two qubit starting locations get merged, complicating the assignment of initial placement. For this reason, we add a dummy {\it input} node for each qubit before its first instruction. The merging heuristic doesn't allow more than one input node in any single node group, so we maintain the benefit of having an intelligent initial qubit placement without extra work. There is an important trade-off to consider when taking this merging approach. A tiled grid layout provides plenty of gate location reuse but is unlikely to provide any pipelinability without great effort. A layout of the group graph in Figure~a (with each instruction assigned to a distinct gate location) provides no gate location reuse at all but high potential pipelinability. This raises the question of whether we wish to minimize area and time (for critical data qubits), maximize throughput of a pipeline (for ancilla generation), or compromise at some middle ground where small sets of nearby nodes are merged in order to exploit locality while still retaining some pipelinability. We intend to further explore this topic in the future. \subsection{Placement and Routing} Taking the group graph from the dataflow analysis heuristic, the placement algorithm takes advantage of the fanout-limited gate output imposed by the No-Cloning Theorem~ to lay out the dataflow-ordered gate locations in a roughly rectangular block. We adopt a gate array-style design, where gate locations are laid out in columns according to the graph, with space left between each pair of columns for necessary channels. This can lead to wasted space due to a linear layout of uneven column sizes, so we may also perform a folding operation, wherein a short column may be folded in (joined) with the previous column, thus filling out the rectangular bounding box of the layout as much as possible and decreasing area. The columns are then sorted to position gate locations that need to be connected roughly horizontal to one another. This further minimizes channel distance between connected gate locations and reduces the number of high-latency turns. Once gate locations are placed, we use a grid-based model in which we first route local wire channels between gate locations that are in adjacent or the same columns. These channels tend to be only a few macroblocks long each. A separate global channel is then inserted between each pair of rows and between each pair of columns of gate locations. These global channels stretch the full length of the layout. There are no real routing constraints in our simple model since channels are allowed to overlap and turn into 3- or 4-way intersections. We depend on the dataflow column sorting in the placement phase to reduce the number of intersections and shared local channels. While local channels could technically be used for global routing and vice versa, we've found that this division in routing tends to divide the traffic and separate local from long-distance congestion. With these basic placement and routing schemes, we may now iterate upon the layout, as shown in Figure~. The technology-dependent netlist is translated into a dataflow group graph with a separate gate location for each instruction (Figure~a). This group graph is then placed, routed and scheduled to get latency and identify the runtime critical path (as opposed to the critical path in the group graph, which fails to take congestion into account). The longest latency move on the runtime critical path (between two node groups) is merged into one node group, thus eliminating the move since a node group represents a single gate location. This new group graph is then placed, routed and scheduled again to find the next pair of node groups to merge. Once this process has iterated enough times, we reach a point where congestion at some heavily merged node group is actually hurting the latency with each further merge. We alleviate this congestion by adding storage nodes (essentially gate locations that don't actually perform gates) near the congested node group. This increases the area slightly but maintains the locality exploited by the merging heuristic. If congestion persists, we halt the algorithm, back up a few merging steps and output the geometry-aware netlist. \subsection{Annotated Scheduling} The scheduling heuristic described in Section~ schedules an arbitrary QASM instruction sequence on an arbitrary layout. However, once we have assigned instructions in a dataflow graph to node groups (as described in Section~), we wish those instructions to be executed at their proper location on any layout placed and routed from the group graph. To this end, we annotate each instruction in the instruction sequence with the name of the gate location where it must be executed. Additionally, since we have the gate locations in advance, we can incorporate movement in the back-prioritization of the instruction sequence. Thus, the priority assigned to each qubit now incorporates both gate latencies and movement through an uncongested layout, which gives us a better approximation of each qubit's critical path. We use this extended scheduler in our dataflow-based experiments presented in Section~. \section{Results} We now present our simulation results for the heuristics described in earlier sections. \subsection{Benchmarks} \begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|} \hline & Qubit & Gate \\ Circuit name & count & count \\ \hline \hline $[[7,1,3]]$ L1 encode~ & 7 & 21 \\ $[[23,1,7]]$ L1 encode~ & 23 & 116 \\ $[[7,1,3]]$ L1 correction~ & 21 & 136 \\ $[[7,1,3]]$ L2 encode~ & 49 & 245 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \vspace{-0.2in} \caption{List of our QECC benchmarks, with quantum gate count and number of qubits processed in the circuit.} \end{table} \begin{table*} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|r|r|} \hline Circuit & Heuristic & Latency ($\mu s$) & Area \\ \hline \hline $[[7,1,3]]$ L1 encode & QPOS Grid & 548.0 & 49 \\ & Optimal Grid & 509.0 & 49 \\ & Greedy channel and gate location placement & 648.0 & 36 \\ & Non-folded DF, 2 global channels, critical combining & 768.2 & 231 \\ & Folded DF, 1 global channels, critical combining & 795.4 & 126 \\ & Folded DF, 2 global channels, critical combining & 712.4 & 182 \\ \hline $[[23,1,7]]$ Golay encode & QPOS Grid & 2268.0 & 575 \\ & Optimal Grid & 1801.0 & 575 \\ & Greedy channel and gate location placement & 2457.0 & 168 \\ & Non-folded DF, 2 global channels, critical combining & 2169.2 & 3880 \\ & Folded DF, 1 global channels, critical combining & 2264.0 & 713 \\ & Folded DF, 2 global channels, critical combining & 2248.2 & 1394 \\ \hline $[[7,1,3]]$ L1 correction & QPOS Grid & 1300.0 & 1271 \\ & Optimal Grid & 771.0 & 1271 \\ & Greedy channel and gate location placement & 1932.0 & 756 \\ & Non-folded DF, 2 global channels, critical combining & 999.8 & 2378 \\ & Folded DF, 1 global channels, critical combining & 1501.2 & 690 \\ & Folded DF, 2 global channels, critical combining & 1121.2 & 1496 \\ \hline $[[7,1,3]]$ L2 encode & QPOS Grid & 2411.0 & 1365 \\ & Optimal Grid & 1367.0 & 1365 \\ & Greedy channel and gate location placement & 4791.0 & 936 \\ & Non-folded DF, 2 global channels, critical combining & 1582.4 & 4087 \\ & Folded DF, 1 global channels, critical combining & 1828.6 & 1617 \\ & Folded DF, 2 global channels, critical combining & 1944.8 & 3381 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Latency results for a variety of ECC circuits with different placement and routing heuristics.} \end{table*} Relatively high error rates of operations in a quantum computer necessitate heavy encodings of qubits. As such, we focus on encoding circuits (useful for both data and ancillae) and error correction circuits to experiment with circuit layout techniques. We lay out a number of error correction and encoding circuits to evaluate the effectiveness of the heuristics used in our CAD flow in terms of circuit area and latency, as determined by our scheduler. Our circuit benchmarks are shown in Table~. We use two level 1 (L1) encoding circuits, a level 2 (L2) recursive encoding circuit and a fault-tolerant level 1 correction circuit. The idea of the encoding circuits is that they will provide a constant stream of encoded ancillae to interact with encoded data qubit blocks. Thus, for these circuits, throughput is a more important measure than latency, implying that they would benefit greatly from pipelining. Nonetheless, a high latency circuit could introduce non-trivial error due to increased qubit idle time. On the other hand, correction circuits are much more latency dependent, since they are on the critical path for the processing of data qubit blocks. \subsection{Evaluation} We have evaluated a variety of layout design heuristics on the four benchmarks shown in Table~. The results are in Table~. ``QPOS Grid'' refers to the best scheduled layout from the literature~ (see Section~). ``Optimal Grid'' refers to the best grid with an area matching the QPOS Grid used that was found by the exhaustive search described in Section~. ``Greedy'' refers to the heuristic described in Section~. ``DF'' refers to the dataflow-based approach from Section~. ``Non-folded'' means the dataflow graph is laid out with varying column widths; ``folded'' means the layout has been made more rectangular by stacking columns. The number of global channels is between each pair of rows and columns of gate locations. ``Critical combining'' refers to our dataflow group graph merging heuristic. The exhaustive search over grids yields the best latency for all benchmarks, which is not surprising. This kind of search becomes intractable quickly as circuit size grows, and additionally, it is based on the unproven assumption that a regular layout pattern is the best approach. We include this data point as something to keep in mind as a target latency. Among the polynomial-time heuristics, we first note that no single heuristic is optimal for all four benchmarks and that, in fact, no single heuristic optimizes both latency and area for any single circuit. Dataflow-based place and route techniques in general produce the lowest latency circuits. We find that the optimal global channel count per column (1 or 2) depends on the circuit being laid out. This is an artifact of the lack of maturity in our routing methodology. We intend to explore more adaptive routing optimization in our ongoing work. The dataflow approach and the QPOS Grid tend to trade off between latency and area. However, we expect that the dataflow approach will show greater potential for pipelining, thus allowing us to target circuits such as an encoded ancilla generation factory, for which throughput is of greater importance than latency. We also observe that non-folded dataflow layouts are likely to have even greater pipelinability than folded ones, but at the likely cost of greater area. Although, we should note that the area estimates for the non-folded DF-based layouts are in fact overestimates due to our use of a liberal bounding box for these calculations. We find that the greedy heuristic tends to find the best design area-wise, but the latency penalty increases with circuit complexity. This is expected, as greedy is unable to handle congestion problems, so it works best for small circuits where congestion is not an issue. It is for the opposite reason that the DF heuristics fail on the $[[7,1,3]]$ L1 encode. They insert too much complexity into an otherwise simple problem. \section{Greedy Place and Route} One problem we observed in the regular grid layout design was that the high amount of channel congestion due to limited bandwidth causes densely-packed (occupied) gates. Additionally, we found that a number of gate locations and channels in many of the grids were not even used by the scheduler to perform the circuit. We present a new heuristic that attempts to solve some of these problems. The heuristic is a simple greedy algorithm that starts with only as many gate locations as qubits (because we assume that qubits only rest in storage/gate locations) and no channels connecting the gates. It iterates with the circuit scheduler, moving and connecting gate locations until the qubits can communicate sufficiently to perform the specified circuit. The current layout is fed into the circuit scheduler which tries to schedule until it finds qubits in gate locations that cannot communicate to perform a gate. The place and router then connects the problematic gate locations and tries scheduling on the layout again. The iteration finishes once the circuit can be successfully completed. Our algorithm bears some similarity to the iterative procedure in adaptive cluster growth placement~ in classical CAD. Gate locations are placed from the center outward as the circuit grows to fit a rectilinear boundary. The placer can move gate locations that have to be connected if they are not already connected to something else. The router connects gate locations by making a direct path in the x and y directions between them and placing a new channel, shifting existing channels out of the way. Since channels are allowed to overlap, intersections are inserted where the new channels cut across existing ones. This technique has the advantage that, since the circuit scheduler prioritizes gates based on gate delay critical path, potentially critical gates are mapped to gate locations and connected early in the process. Thus critical gates tend to be initially placed close together to shorten the circuit critical path. Additionally, gate locations that need to communicate can be connected directly instead of using a general shared grid channel network, where congestion can occur and cause qubits to be routed along unnecessarily long paths. A disadvantage of this heuristic is that gate placement is done to optimize critical path, not to minimize channel intersections. This means that the layout could end up having many 4-way channel intersections and turns, both of which have more delay than 2-way straight channels. Additionally, even though critical gates are mapped and placed near each other, the channel routing algorithm tends to spread these gate locations apart as more channels cut through the center of the circuit. We discuss our experimental evaluation of this heuristic in Section~. \begin{figure*} \begin{minipage}[b]{\columnwidth} \begin{center} \epsfig{file=graphs/23_1_7_golay_encode_level1_search_143_3by2.eps, width=\hsize} \end{center} \end{minipage}\hfill \begin{minipage}[b]{\columnwidth} \begin{center} \epsfig{file=figures/23_golay_min_3x2.eps, width=\hsize} \end{center} \end{minipage} \hfill \begin{minipage}[t]{\columnwidth} \caption{Variations in runtime of various grid-based physical layouts for $[[23,1,7]]$ Golay encode circuit. For each grid structure the minimum, mean, and maximum time are plotted. } \end{minipage}\hfill \begin{minipage}[t]{\columnwidth} \caption{Comparison of the best $3\times 2$ cell for two different circuits. (a) The best cell for the $[[23,1,7]]$ Golay encode circuit. (b) The best cell for the $[[7,1,3]]$ L1 correct circuit.} \end{minipage} \end{figure*} \section{Grid-based Layouts} We begin our exploration of placement and routing heuristics by considering grid-based layouts. A majority of the work done in the field has concentrated on these types of layouts. In all of these works, a layout is constructed by first designing a primitive cell and then tiling this cell into a larger physical layout. For example, the authors of manually design a single cell, and for any given quantum circuit, they use that cell to construct an appropriately sized layout. In , the authors automate the generation of an H-Tree based layout constructed from a single cell pattern. Similarly, uses a cell such as in but also provides some tools to evaluate the performance of a circuit when the number of communication channels and gate locations within the cell is varied. We use a combination of these methods to implement a tool that automatically creates a grid-based physical layout for a given quantum circuit. The grid-based physical layouts generated by our tools are constructed by first creating a primitive cell out of the macroblocks mentioned in Section~ and then tiling the cell to fill up the desired area. For example, Figure~ shows how a $2\times 2$ sized cell can be tiled to create the layout used in (referred to henceforth as the QPOS grid). These types of simple structures are easy to automatically generate given only the number of qubits and gate operations in the quantum circuit. Furthermore, grid-based structures are very appealing to consider because, apart from selecting the number of cells in the layout and the initial qubit placement, no other customization is required in order to map a quantum circuit onto the layout. The regular pattern also makes it easy to determine how qubits move through the system, as simple schemes such as dimension-ordered routing can be used. The approach we use to generate the grid-based layout for a given quantum circuit is as follows: \begin{enumerate} \item Given the cell size, create a valid cell structure out of macroblocks. \vspace{-4pt} \item Create a layout by tiling the cell to fill up the desired area. \vspace{-4pt} \item Assign initial qubit locations. \vspace{-4pt} \item Simulate the quantum circuit on the layout to determine the execution time. \end{enumerate} The first step finds a valid cell structure. A cell is valid if all the macroblocks that open to the perimeter of the cell have an open macroblock to connect to when the cell is tiled. Also, a cell cannot have an isolated macroblock within it that is unreachable. Once we tile this valid cell to create a larger layout, we must decide on how to assign initial qubit locations. The two methods we utilize are: a systematic left to right, one qubit per cell approach, and a randomized placement. The systematic placement allows us to fairly compare different layouts. However, since the initial placement of the qubits can affect the performance of the circuit, the tool also tries a number of random placements in an effort to determine if the systematic placement unfairly handicapped the circuit. This layout generation and evaluation procedure is iterated upon until all valid cell configurations of the given size are searched. We then repeat this process for different cell sizes. The cell structure that results in the minimum simulated time for the circuit is used to create the final layout. As an example, Figure~ shows the results of searching for the best layout composed of $3\times 2$ sized cells targeting the $[[23,1,7]]$ Golay encode circuit~, one of our benchmarks shown in Table~. More than 900 valid cell configurations were tested. For each cell configuration, we try multiple initial qubit placements (as mentioned earlier) resulting in a range of runtimes for each cell configuration. Differences in the runtime of the circuit are not limited to just variations on the cell configuration but are in fact also highly dependent on the initial qubit placement. Figure~ shows the best cell structure found by conducting a search of all $2\times 2$, $2\times 3$, and $3\times 2$ sized cells for two different circuits. The main result of this search is that the best cell structure used to create the grid-based layout is dependent on what circuit will be run upon it. By varying the location of gates and communication channels, we tailor the structure of the layout to match the circuit requirements. While this type of exhaustive search of physical layouts is capable of finding an optimal layout for a quantum circuit, it suffers from a number of drawbacks. Namely, as the size of the cell increases, the number of possible cell configurations grows exponentially. Searching for a good layout for anything but the smallest cell sizes is not a realistic option. Furthermore, while small circuits may be able to take advantage of primitive cell based grids, larger circuits will require a less homogeneous layout. One approach to doing this is to construct a large layout out of smaller grid-based pieces, all with different cell configurations. While this approach is interesting, we feel a more promising approach is one that resembles a classical CAD flow, where information extracted from the circuit is used to construct the layout. \section{Introduction} Quantum computing offers us the opportunity to solve certain problems thought to be intractable on a classical machine. For example, the following classically hard problems benefit from quantum algorithms: factorization~, unsorted database search~, and simulation of quantum mechanical systems~. In addition to significant work on quantum algorithms and underlying physics, there have been several studies exploring architectural trade-offs for quantum computers. Most such research~ has focused on simulating quantum algorithms on a fixed layout rather than on techniques for quantum circuit synthesis and layout generation. These studies tend to use hand-generated and hand-optimized layouts on which efficient scheduling is then performed. While this approach is quite informative in a new field, it quickly becomes intractable as the size of the circuit grows. Our goal is to automate most of the tasks involved in generating a physical layout and its associated control logic from a high-level quantum circuit specification (Figure~). Our computer-aided design (CAD) flow should process a quantum circuit specification and produce the following: \begin{itemize} \item a physical layout in the desired technology \item an intelligent initial qubit placement in the layout \item classical control circuitry specified in some hardware description language (HDL), which may then be run through a classical CAD flow \item a set of annotations or ``hints'' for the online scheduler, allowing a tighter coupling of layout optimizations to actual runtime operation \end{itemize} Much like a classical CAD flow, this quantum CAD flow is intended to be used hierarchically. We begin with a set of technology-specific basic blocks (some ion trap technology examples are given in Section~). We then lay out some simple quantum circuits with the CAD flow, thus creating custom modules. The CAD flow may then be used recursively to create ever larger designs. This approach allows us to develop, evaluate and reuse design heuristics and avoids both the uncertainty and time-intensive nature of hand-generated layouts. \subsection{Motivation for a Quantum CAD Flow} Quantum circuits that are large enough to be ``interesting'' require the orchestration of hundreds of thousands of physical components. In approaching such problems, it is important to build upon prior work in classical CAD flows. Although the specifics of quantum technologies (such as are discussed in Section~) are different from classical CMOS technologies, prior work in CAD research can give us insight into how to approach the automated layout of quantum gates and channels. Further, quantum circuits exhibit some interesting properties that lend themselves to automatic synthesis and computer-aided design techniques: \begin{description} \item[Quantum ECC] Quantum data is extremely fragile and consequently must remain encoded at all times -- while being stored, moved, and computed upon. The encoded version of a circuit is often two or three orders of magnitude larger than the unencoded version. Further, the appropriate level of encoding may need to be selected as part of the layout process in order to achieve an appropriate ``threshold'' of error-free execution. Rather than burdening the designer with the complexities of adding fault-tolerance to a circuit, computer-aided synthesis, design and verification can perform such tasks automatically. \item[Ancillae] Quantum computations use many helper qubits known as \emph{ancillae}. Ancillae consist of bits that are constructed, utilized and recycled as part of a computation. Sometimes, ancillae are explicit in a designer's view of the circuit. Often, however, they should be added automatically in the process of circuit synthesis, such as during the construction of fault-tolerant circuits from high-level circuit descriptions. An automatic design flow can insert appropriate circuits to generate and recycle ancillae without involving the designer. \item[Teleportation] Quantum circuits present two possibilities for data transport: \emph{ballistic movement} and \emph{teleportation}. Ballistic movement is relatively simple over short distances in technologies such as ion traps (Section~). Teleportation is an alternative that utilizes a higher-overhead distribution network of entangled quantum bits to distribute information with lower error over longer distances~. The choice to employ teleportation is ideally done after an initial layout has determined long communication paths. Consequently, it is a natural target for a computer-aided design flow. \end{description} \subsection{Contributions} In this paper, we make the following contributions: \begin{itemize} \item We propose a CAD flow for automated design of quantum circuits and detail the necessary components of the flow. \item We describe a technique for automatic synthesis of the classical control circuitry for a given layout. \item We show that different grid-based architectures, which have been the focus of most prior work in this field, exhibit vastly varying performance for the same circuit. \item We present heuristics for the placement and routing of quantum circuits in ion trap technology. \item We lay out some quantum error correction circuits and evaluate the effectiveness of the heuristics in terms of circuit area and latency. \end{itemize} \subsection{Paper Organization} The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We introduce our chosen technology in Section~, followed by an overview of prior work in the field in Section~. In Section~, we detail our proposed CAD flow and our evaluation metrics. In Section~, we describe the control circuitry interface and scheduling protocol that we use in the following sections. Section~ contains a study of grid-based layouts, which have been the basis of most prior work on this subject. In Section~, we present a greedy approach to laying out quantum circuits, followed in Section~ by a much more scalable dataflow analysis-based approach to layout. Section~ contains our experimental results for all three approaches to layout generation, and we conclude in Section~. \section{Ion Traps} For our initial study, we choose \emph{trapped ions}~ as our substrate technology. Trapped ions have shown good potential for scalability~. In this technology, a physical qubit is an ion, and a gate is a location where a trapped ion may be operated upon by a modulated laser. The ion is both trapped and ballistically moved by applying pulse sequences to discrete electrodes which line the edges of ion traps. Figure~a shows an experimentally-demonstrated layout for a three-way intersection~. A qubit may be held in place at any trap region, or it may be ballistically moved between them using the gray electrodes lining the paths. \begin{figure*} \begin{center} \epsfig{file=figures/macroblock_abstraction.eps,width=.8\hsize} \end{center} \vspace{-0.2in} \caption{ a) Experimentally demonstrated physical layout of a T-junction (three-way intersection). b) Abstraction of the circuit in (a), built using the StraightChannel and ThreeWayIntersection macroblocks shown in Figure~. c) The ion traps are laid out on a plane, above which is an array of MEMS mirrors used to route and split the laser beams that apply quantum gates.} \end{figure*} Rather than using ion traps as basic blocks, we define a library of \emph{macroblocks} consisting of multiple traps for two reasons. First, macroblocks abstract out some of the low-level details, insulating our analyses from variations in the technology implementations of ion traps. Details such as which ion species is used, specific electrode sizing and geometry (clearly variable in the layout in Figure~a) and exact voltage levels necessary for trapping and movement are all encapsulated within the macroblock. Second, ballistic movement along a channel requires carefully timed application of pulse sequences to electrodes in non-adjacent traps. By defining basic blocks consisting of a few ion traps, we gain the benefit that crossing an interface between basic blocks requires communication only between the two blocks involved. We use the library of macroblocks shown in Figure~, each of which consists of a 3x3 grid of trap regions and electrodes, with ports to allow qubit movement between macroblocks. The black squares are gate locations, which may not be performed at intersections or turns in ion trap technology. Each of these macroblocks may be rotated in a layout. This library is by no means exhaustive, however it does provide the major pieces necessary to construct many physical circuits. The macroblocks we present are abstractions of experimentally-demonstrated ion trap technology~. In Figure~, we show how one can map a demonstrated layout (Figure~a) to our macroblock abstractions (Figure~b). We model this layout as a set of StraightChannel and ThreeWayIntersection macroblocks. Above the ion trap plane is an array of MEMS mirrors which routes laser pulses to the gate locations in order to apply quantum gates~, as shown in Figure~c. Some key differences between this quantum circuit technology and classical CMOS are as follows: \begin{itemize} \item ``Wires'' in ion traps consist of rectangular channels, lined with electrodes, with atomic ions suspended above the channel regions and moved ballistically~. Ballistic movement of qubits requires synchronized application of voltages on channel electrodes to move data around. Thus each wire requires movement control circuitry to handle any qubit communication. \item A by-product of the synchronous nature of the qubit wire channels is that these circuits can be used in a synchronous manner with no additional overhead. This enables some convenient pipelining options which will be discussed in Section~. \item Each gate location will likely have the ability to perform any operation available in ion trap technology. This enables the reuse gate locations within a quantum circuit. \item Scalable ion trap systems will almost certainly be two-dimensional due to the difficulty of fabricating and controlling ion traps in a third dimension~. This means that all ion crossings must be intersections. \item Any routing channel may be shared by multiple ions as long as control circuits prevent multi-ion occupancy. Consequently, our circuit model resembles a general network, although scheduling the movement in a general networking model adds substantial complexity to our circuit. \item Movement latency of ions is not only dependent on Manhattan distance but also on the geometry of the wire channel. Experimentally, it has been shown that a right angle turn takes substantially longer than a straight channel over the same distance~. \end{itemize} \title{Automated Generation of Layout and Control\\ for Quantum Circuits} \author{ Mark Whitney, Nemanja Isailovic, Yatish Patel and John Kubiatowicz\\ University of California, Berkeley\\ \{whitney, nemanja, yatish, kubitron\}@eecs.berkeley.edu\\ \emph{To appear in the ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, 2007} } \date{} \maketitle \input{abstract.tex} \input{intro.tex} \input{iontraps.tex} \input{related.tex} \input{proposedcad.tex} \input{control.tex} \input{grid_layout.tex} \begin{figure*}[ht] \begin{minipage}{\hsize} \begin{center} \epsfig{file=figures/dataflow_graph.eps, width=0.75\hsize} \end{center} \vspace{-20pt} \caption{a) A QASM instruction sequence. b) A quantum circuit equivalent to the instruction sequence in (a). c) A dataflow graph equivalent to the instruction sequence in (a). Each node represents an instruction, as labeled in (a). Each arc represents a qubit dependency.} \end{minipage} \begin{minipage}{\hsize} \vspace{10pt} \begin{center} \epsfig{file=figures/dataflow_alg2.eps, width=0.75\hsize} \end{center} \vspace{-20pt} \caption{a) Each node (instruction) is initialized in its own node group (NG, outlined by the dotted lines), which corresponds to a physical gate location in a layout. Once placed, we extract physical distances between the nodes (the edge labels). b) We find the longest edge weight on the longest critical path (the length 5 edge on the path C-F-G-H-I; solid bold arrows) and merge its two node groups to eliminate that latency.\newline c) We recompute the critical path (A-E-I; dashed bold arrows) and merge its node groups, and so on.} \end{minipage} \end{figure*} \input{greedy_layout.tex} \input{dataflow_layout.tex} \input{evaluation.tex} \input{conclusion.tex} \bibliographystyle{plain} \bibliography{main,qubib,micro38-QuantumQLA-paper} \section{Quantum CAD Flow} The ultimate goal of a quantum CAD flow is identical to that of a standard classical CAD flow: to automate the synthesis and laying out of a circuit. For a quantum CAD flow, the output circuit consists of both the quantum portion and the associated classical control logic. The quantum CAD flow we present elaborates on the design flows described in prior works~\cite{balensiefer2005efa, svore2006lsa, svore04tsa}. Unlike prior work, our CAD flow addresses the need to integrate automatic generation of classical control into the flow. Figure~ shows an overview of our CAD toolset. Rectangles are tools, while ovals represent intermediate file formats. Our toolset is built to be as similar to classical CAD flows as possible, while still accounting for the differences between classical and quantum computing described in Section~. At the top, we begin with a high-level description of the desired quantum circuit. At present this specification consists of a sequence of quantum assembly language (QASM~) instructions implementing the desired circuit, since this is a convenient format already being used by various third-party tools. We are currently investigating extension of this high-level description to other formats, such as schematic entry, mathematical formulae or a more general high-level language. The synthesizer parses the QASM file and generates a technology-independent netlist stored in XML format. From this point onward (downward in the figure), all file formats are XML. Additionally, information may be modified or added but generally not removed. As we move down the flow, we add more and more low level details, but we also keep high-level information such as encoded qubit groupings, nested layout modules, distinction between ancillae and data, etc. This allows low-level tools to make more intelligent decisions concerning qubit placement and channel needs based on high-level circuit structure. It likewise allows logical level modification at the lowest levels without having to attempt to deduce qubit groupings. A technology parameter file specifies the complete set of basic blocks available for the layout (see examples in Figure~), as well as design rules for connecting them. A basic block specification contains the following: \begin{itemize} \item the geometry of the block in enough detail to allow fabrication \item control logic for each operation possible within the block (including both movement and gates) \item control logic for handling each operation possible at each interface \end{itemize} The most basic function of the technology mapping tool is to take a technology-independent netlist and map it onto allowed basic blocks to create the technology-dependent netlist. This may be more or less complicated depending upon the complexity of the basic blocks. In addition, it may need to translate to technology-specific gates (in case the QASM file uses gates not available in this technology), encode the qubits used in the circuit (perhaps also automatically adding the ancilla and operation sequences necessary for error correction) and add fault tolerance to the final physical circuit. In the initial technology-dependent netlist, all qubits are physical qubits, meaning that encoding levels have been set (though they may still be modified later). At this point, any technology-specific optimizations may optionally be applied to the physical circuit encapsulated in this netlist. Additionally, if the circuit is complex enough to warrant the inclusion of a teleportation-based interconnection network~, it is added to the netlist here using the higher level qubit grouping information in the netlist. Once the designer is happy with the netlist, a placement and routing tool lays out the netlist and adds any further channels needed for communication. This geometry-aware netlist may be iterated upon as necessary to refine the layout. Once the layout is finalized, the classical control synthesis tool combines the control logic of the various components of the design, integrates interface control mechanisms to function properly and generates the unified control structure for the entire layout. Our control synthesis tool generates a Verilog file, which may then be run through a classical CAD flow for implementation. The layout specification along with the control logic file together comprise the geometry-aware netlist, which is the end result for the quantum circuit initially specified in the high-level description. In order to allow hierarchical design of larger quantum circuits, we may now add this geometry-aware netlist to our set of custom modules. Future technology mappings may use both the basic blocks specified in the technology parameter file and any custom modules we create (or acquire). The gray area in Figure~ identifies the portions we shall be focusing on for the rest of this paper. We currently process the high-level description (a QASM file) directly into a technology-dependent netlist for ion traps using the macroblocks shown in Figure~. Thus we perform a tech mapping, but no automatic encoding, interconnect or addition of gates for fault tolerance. In this paper, we focus on laying out low-level circuits, such as those for encoded ancilla generation and error correction. The classical control synthesis box of the CAD flow is discussed in Section~, while placement and routing are analyzed and compared in Sections~,~, and~. We use two main metrics to evaluate the performance of our CAD flow: area and latency. For area, we consider the bounding box around the layout, so irregularly-shaped layouts are penalized (since they have wasted space). To determine latency of circuit execution, we use the scheduling heuristic described in Section~ and extended in Section~. A third metric of interest is fault-tolerance. For small layouts and circuits, we can use third-party tools to determine whether a given layout and schedule is fault-tolerant~, but we do not currently use the fault-tolerance metric in our iterative design flow. We use area and latency because, to a first approximation, lower area and lower latency are likely to decrease decoherence. Previous algorithms to accurately determine the error tolerance of a quantum circuit have involved very computationally-intensive analyses that would be inappropriate for circuits with more than a few dozen gates~. However, we are looking into ways to incorporate fault tolerance as a metric. \section{Related Work} Prior research has laid the groundwork for our quantum circuit CAD flow. Svore et al~ proposed a design flow capable of pushing a quantum program down to physical operations. Their work outlined various file formats and provided initial implementations of some of the necessary tools. Similarly, Balensiefer et al~ proposed a design flow and compilation techniques to address fault-tolerance and provided some tools to evaluate simple layouts. While our CAD flow builds upon some of these ideas, we concentrate on automatic layout generation and control circuitry extraction. Additionally, initial hand-optimized layouts have been proposed in the literature. Metodi et al~ proposed a uniform Quantum Logic Array architecture, which was later extended and improved in~. Their work concentrated on architectural research and did not delve into details of physical layout or scheduling. Finally, Metodi et al~ created a tool to automatically generate a physical operations schedule given a quantum circuit and a fixed grid-based layout structure. We extend and improve upon their work by adding new scheduling heuristics capable of running on grid-based and non-grid-based layouts. Maslov et al~ have recently proposed heuristics for the mapping of quantum circuits onto molecules used in liquid state NMR quantum computing technology. Their algorithm starts with a molecule to be used for computation, modeled as a weighted graph with edges representing atomic couplings within the molecule. The dataflow graph of the circuit is mapped onto the molecule graph with an effort to minimize overall circuit runtime. Our techniques focus on circuit placement and routing in an ion trap technology and do not use a predefined physical substrate topology as in the NMR case. A new ion trap geometry is instead generated by our toolset for each circuit.
|
0704.0273
|
Title: Dimers on surface graphs and spin structures. II
Abstract: In a previous paper, we showed how certain orientations of the edges of a
graph G embedded in a closed oriented surface S can be understood as discrete
spin structures on S. We then used this correspondence to give a geometric
proof of the Pfaffian formula for the partition function of the dimer model on
G. In the present article, we generalize these results to the case of compact
oriented surfaces with boundary. We also show how the operations of cutting and
gluing act on discrete spin structures and how they change the partition
function. These operations allow to reformulate the dimer model as a quantum
field theory on surface graphs.
Body: \title{Dimers on surface graphs and spin structures. II} \author{David Cimasoni} \address{Department of Mathematics, UC Berkeley, 970 Evans Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA} \email{cimasoni@math.berkeley.edu} \author{Nicolai Reshetikhin} \email{reshetik@math.berkeley.edu} \subjclass{Primary: 82B20; Secondary: 57R15} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} In a previous paper , we showed how certain orientations of the edges of a graph $\G$ embedded in a closed oriented surface $\SI$ can be understood as discrete spin structures on $\SI$. We then used this correspondence to give a geometric proof of the Pfaffian formula for the partition function of the dimer model on $\G$. In the present article, we generalize these results to the case of compact oriented surfaces with boundary. We also show how the operations of cutting and gluing act on discrete spin structures and how they change the partition function. These operations allow to reformulate the dimer model as a quantum field theory on surface graphs. \end{abstract} \maketitle \tableofcontents \section*{Introduction} A dimer configuration on a graph $\G$ is a choice of a family of edges of $\G$, called dimers, such that each vertex of $\G$ is adjacent to exactly one dimer. Assigning weights to the edges of $\G$ allows to define a probability measure on the set of dimer configurations. The study of this measure is called the dimer model on $\G$. Dimer models on graphs have a long history in statistical mechanics , but also show interesting aspects involving combinatorics, probability theory , real algebraic geometry , etc... A remarkable fact about dimer models was discovered by P.W. Kasteleyn in the 60's: the partition function of the dimer model can be written as a linear combination of $2^{2g}$ Pfaffians of $N\times N$ matrices, where $N$ is the number of vertices in the graph and $g$ the genus of a closed oriented surface $\SI$ where the graph can be embedded. The matrices are signed-adjacency matrices, the sign being determined by an orientation of the edges of $\G$ called a Kasteleyn orientation. If the graph is embedded in a surface of genus $g$, there are exactly $2^{2g}$ equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations, defining the $2^{2g}$ matrices. This Pfaffian formula for the partition function was proved by Kasteleyn in for the cases $g=0,1$, and only stated for the general case . A combinatorial proof of this fact and the exact description of coefficients for all oriented surfaces first appeared much later . The number of equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations on a graph $\G$ embedded in $\Sigma$ is also equal to the number of equivalence classes of spin structures on $\SI$. An explicit construction relating a spin structure on a surface with a Kasteleyn orientation on a graph with dimer configuration was suggested in . In , we investigated further the relation between Kasteleyn orientations and spin structures. This allows to understand Kasteleyn orientations on a graph embedded in $\SI$ as discrete spin structures on $\SI$. We also used this relation to give a geometric proof of the Pfaffian formula for closed surfaces. Our final formula can be expressed as follows: given a graph $\G$ embedded in a closed oriented surface $\SI$ of genus $g$, the partition function of the dimer model on $\G$ is given by \[ Z(\G)=\frac{1}{2^g}\sum_{\xi\in\mathcal{S}(\SI)}\A(\xi)\Pf(A^\xi(\G)), \] where $\mathcal{S}(\SI)$ denotes the set of equivalence classes of spin structures on $\SI$, $\A(\xi)=\pm 1$ is the Arf invariant of the spin structure $\xi$, and $A^\xi(\G)$ is the matrix given by the Kasteleyn orientation corresponding to $\xi$. \medskip The first part of the present paper is devoted to the extension of the results obtained in to dimer models on graphs embedded in surfaces with boundary (Sections and ). We then show how the operations of cutting and gluing act on discrete spin structures and how they change the partition function (Section ). These operations define the structure of a functorial quantum field theory in the spirit of , as detailed in Section . We then give two equivalent reformulations of the dimer quantum field theory: the ``Fermionic" version, which describes the partition function of the dimer model as a Grassman integral, and the ``Bosonic" version, the equivalent description of dimer models on bipartite surface graphs in terms of height functions. This special case of bipartite graphs is the subject of Section . Throughout this paper, $\Sigma$ is a compact surface, possibly disconnected and possibly with boundary, endowed with the counter-clockwise orientation. All results can be extended to the case of non-orientable surfaces, which will be done in a separate publication. We refer to for a combinatorial treatment of dimer models on non-orientable surface graphs. \subsection*{Acknowledgements} We are grateful to J. Andersen, M. Baillif, P. Teichner and A. Vershik for inspiring discussions. We also thankfully acknowledge the hospitality of the Department of Mathematics at the University of Aarhus. The work of D.C. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. This work of N.R. was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS--0307599, by the CRDF grant RUM1--2622, by the Humboldt foundation and by the Niels Bohr research grant. \section{The dimer model on graphs with boundary} \subsection{Dimers on graphs with boundary} In this paper, a {\em graph with boundary\/} is a finite graph $\G$ together with a set $\partial\G$ of one valent vertices called {\em boundary vertices\/}. A {\em dimer configuration\/} $D$ on a graph with boundary $(\G,\partial\G)$ is a choice of edges of $\G$, called {\em dimers\/}, such that each vertex that is not a boundary vertex is adjacent to exactly one dimer. Note that some of the boundary vertices may be adjacent to a dimer of $D$, and some may not. We shall denote by $\partial D$ this partition of boundary vertices into matched and non-matched. Such a partition will be called a {\em boundary condition\/} for dimer configurations on $\G$. A {\em weight system\/} on $\G$ is a positive real valued function $w$ on the set of edges of $\G$. It defines edge weights on the set $\D(\G,\partial\G)$ of dimer configurations on $(\G,\partial\G)$ by \[ w(D)=\prod_{e\in D} w(e), \] where the product is taken over all edges occupied by dimers of $D$. Fix a boundary condition $\partial D_0$. Then, the Gibbs measure for the dimer model on $(\G,\partial\G)$ with weight system $w$ and boundary condition $\partial D_0$ is given by \[ \mbox{Prob}(D\,|\,\partial D_0)=\frac{w(D)}{Z(\G; w\,|\,\partial D_0)}, \] where \[ Z(\G; w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\sum_{D:\partial D=\partial D_0} w(D), \] the sum being on all $D\in \D(\G,\partial\G)$ such that $\partial D=\partial D_0$. Let $V(\G)$ denote the set of vertices of $\G$. The group \[ {\mathcal G}(\G)=\{s\colon V(\G)\to\R_{>0}\} \] acts on the set of weight systems on $\G$ as follows: $(sw)(e)=s(e_+)w(e)s(e_-)$, where $e_+$ and $e_-$ are the two vertices adjacent to the edge $e$. Note that $(sw)(D)=\prod_{v}s(v)w(D)$ and $Z(\G;sw\,|\,\partial D_0)=\prod_{v}s(v)Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)$, both products being on the set of vertices of $\G$ matched by $D_0$. Therefore, the Gibbs measure is invariant under the action of the group ${\mathcal G}(\G)$. Note that the dimer model on $(\G,\partial\G)$ with boundary condition $\partial D_0$ is equivalent to the dimer model on the graph obtained from $\G$ by removing all edges adjacent to non-matched boundary vertices. \medskip Given two dimer configurations $D$ and $D'$ on a graph with boundary $(\G,\partial\G)$, let us define the {\em $(D,D')$-composition cycles\/} as the connected components of the symmetric difference $C(D,D')=(D\cup D')\backslash(D\cap D')$. If $\partial D=\partial D'$, then $C(D,D')$ is a 1-cycle in $\G$ with $\Z_2$-coefficients. In general, it is only a 1-cycle $(rel\;\partial\G)$. \subsection{Dimers on surface graphs with boundary} Let $\Sigma$ be an oriented compact surface, not necessarily connected, with boundary $\partial\Sigma$. A {\em surface graph with boundary} $\G\subset \SI$ is a graph with boundary $(\G,\partial \G)$ embedded in $\SI$, so that $\G\cap\partial\SI=\partial\G$ and the complement of $\G\setminus\partial\G$ in $\SI\setminus\partial\SI$ consists of open 2-cells. These conditions imply that the graph $\overline\G:=\G\cup\partial\SI$ is the $1$-skeleton of a cellular decomposition of $\SI$. Note that any graph with boundary can be realized as a surface graph with boundary. One way is to embed the graph in a closed surface of minimal genus, and then to remove one small open disc from this surface near each boundary vertex of the graph. A {\em dimer configuration} on a surface graph with boundary $\G\subset \SI$ is simply a dimer configuration on the underlying graph with boundary $(\G, \partial\G)$. Given two dimer configurations $D$ and $D'$ on a surface graph $\GSS$, let $\Delta(D,D')$ denote the homology class of $C(D,D')$ in $H_1(\SI,\partial\SI;\Z_2)$. We shall say that two dimer configurations $D$ and $D'$ are {\em equivalent\/} if $\Delta(D,D')=0\in H_1(\SI,\partial\SI;\Z_2)$. Note that given any three dimer configurations $D,D'$, and $D''$ on $\G\subset \SI$, we have the identity \begin{equation} \Delta(D,D')+\Delta(D',D'')=\Delta(D, D'') \end{equation} in $H_1(\SI, \partial \SI; \Z_2)$. Fix a homology class $\beta\in H_1(\SI, \partial \SI; \Z_2)$, a dimer configuration $D_1\in \D(\G, \partial \G)$ and a boundary condition $\partial D_0$. The associated partial partition function is defined by \[ Z_{\beta, D_1}(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{D:\partial D=\partial D_0}{\Delta(D,D_1)=\beta}}w(D), \] where the sum is taken over all $D\in \D(\G, \partial \G)$ such that $\partial D=\partial D_0$ and $\Delta(D,D_1)=\beta$. The equality () implies that \[ Z_{\beta, D_1}(\G; w\,|\,\partial D_0)=Z_{\beta+\Delta(D_0, D_1), D_0}(\G; w\,|\,\partial D_0). \] Furthermore, the relative homology class $\beta'=\beta+\Delta(D_0,D_1)$ lies in the image of the canonical homomorphism $j: H_1(\SI, \Z_2)\to H_1(\SI, \partial \SI; \Z_2)$. Hence, \[ Z_{\beta', D_0}(\G; w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\sum_{\alpha: j(\alpha)=\beta'}Z_\alpha(\G, w\,|\,\partial D_0), \] where the sum is taken over all $\alpha\in H_1(\SI, \Z_2)$ such that $j(\alpha)=\beta'$, and \[ Z_\alpha(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{D:\partial D=\partial D_0}{\Delta(D,D_0)=\alpha}}w(D). \] Therefore the computation of the partition function $Z_{\beta, D_1}(\G; w\,|\,\partial D_0)$ boils down to the computation of $Z_\alpha(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)$ with $\alpha\in H_1(\SI;\Z_2)$. We shall give a Pfaffian formula for this latter partition function in the next section (see Theorem ). \section{Kasteleyn orientations on surface graphs with boundary} \subsection{Kasteleyn orientations} Let $K$ be an orientation of the edges of a graph $\G$, and let $C$ be an oriented closed curve in $\G$. We shall denote by $n^K(C)$ the number of times that, traveling once along $C$ following its orientation, one runs along an edge in the direction opposite to the one given by $K$. A {\em Kasteleyn orientation\/} on a surface graph with boundary $\GSS$ is an orientation $K$ of the edges of $\overline\G=\Gamma\cup\partial\SI$ which satisfies the following condition: for each face $f$ of $\SI$, $n^K(\partial f)$ is odd. Here $\partial f$ is oriented as the boundary of $f$, which inherits the orientation of $\SI$. Using the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.1]{C-R}, one easily checks that if $\partial\SI$ is non-empty, then there always exists a Kasteleyn orientation on $\GSS$. More precisely, we have the following: \begin{prop} Let $\Gamma\subset\Sigma$ be a connected surface graph, possibly with boundary, and let $C_1,\dots,C_\mu$ be the boundary components of $\Sigma$ with the induced orientation. Finally, let $n_1,\dots,n_\mu$ be $0$'s and $1$'s. Then, there exists a Kasteleyn orientation on $\Gamma\subset\Sigma$ such that $1+n^K(-C_i)\equiv n_i\pmod{2}$ for all $i$ if and only if $$ n_1+\cdots+n_\mu\equiv V\pmod{2}, $$ where $V$ is the number of vertices of $\Gamma$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} First, let us assume that there is a Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on $\Gamma\subset\Sigma$ such that $1+n^K(-C_i)\equiv n_i$ for all $i$. Let $\Sigma'$ be the closed surface obtained from $\Sigma$ by pasting a 2-disc $D_i$ along each boundary component $C_i$. Let $\Gamma'\subset\Sigma'$ be the surface graph obtained from $\overline\Gamma$ as follows: for each $i$ such that $n_i=1$, add one vertex in the interior of $D_i$ and one edge (arbitrarily oriented) between this vertex and a vertex of $C_i$. The result is a Kasteleyn orientation on $\Gamma'\subset\Sigma'$, with $\Sigma'$ closed. By \cite[Theorem 3.1]{C-R}, the number $V'$ of vertices of $\Gamma'$ is even. Hence, $$ 0\equiv V'\equiv V+n_1+\cdots+n_\mu\pmod{2}. $$ Conversely, assume $\Gamma\subset\Sigma$ is a surface graph with $n_1+\cdots+n_\mu\equiv V\pmod{2}$. Paste $2$-discs along the boundary components of $\Sigma$ as before. This gives a surface graph $\Gamma'\subset\Sigma'$ with $\Sigma'$ closed and $V'$ even. By \cite[Theorem 3.1]{C-R}, there exists a Kasteleyn orientation $K'$ on $\Gamma'\subset\Sigma'$. It restricts to a Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on $\Gamma\subset\Sigma$ with $1+n^K(-C_i)\equiv n_i$ for all $i$. \end{proof} Recall that two Kasteleyn orientations are called {\em equivalent\/} if one can be obtained from the other by a sequence of moves reversing orientations of all edges adjacent to a vertex. The proof of \cite[Theorem 3.2]{C-R} goes through verbatim: if non-empty, the set of equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations on $\GSS$ is an affine $H^1(\Sigma;\Z_2)$-space. In particular, there are exactly $2^{b_1(\SI)}$ equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations on $\GSS$. \subsection{Discrete spin structures} As in the closed case, any dimer configuration $D$ on a graph $\G$ allows to identify equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations on $\GSS$ with spin structures on $\SI$. Indeed, \cite[Theorem 4.1]{C-R} generalizes as follows. Given an oriented simple closed curve $C$ in $\overline\G$, let $\ell_D(C)$ denote the number of vertices $v$ in $C$ whose adjacent dimer of $D$ sticks out to the left of $C$ in $\Sigma$. Also, let $V_{\partial D}(C)$ be the number of boundary vertices $v$ in $C$ not matched by $D$, and such that the interior of $\Sigma$ lies to the right of $C$ at $v$. \begin{thm} Fix a dimer configuration $D$ on a surface graph with boundary $\GSS$. Given a class $\alpha\in H_1(\SI;\Z_2)$, represent it by oriented simple closed curves $C_1,\dots,C_m$ in $\overline\G$. If $K$ is a Kasteleyn orientation on $\GSS$, then the function $q^K_D\colon H_1(\Sigma;\Z_2)\to\Z_2$ given by \[ q^K_D(\alpha)=\sum_{i<j}C_i\cdot C_j+\sum_{i=1}^m(1+n^K(C_i)+\ell_D(C_i)+V_{\partial D}(C_i))\pmod{2} \] is a well-defined quadratic form on $H_1(\Sigma;\Z_2)$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} Fix a dimer configuration $D$ on $(\G,\partial\G)$ and a Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on $\GSS$. Let $\SI'$ be the surface (homeomorphic to $\SI$) obtained from $\SI$ by adding a small closed collar to its boundary. For every vertex $v$ of $\partial\G$ that is not matched by a dimer of $D$, add a vertex $v'$ near $v$ in the interior of the collar and an edge between $v$ and $v'$. Let us denote by $\G'$ the resulting graph in $\SI'$. Putting a dimer on each of these additional edges, and orienting them arbitrarily, we obtain a perfect matching $D'$ and an orientation $K'$ on $\G'$. Although $\G'\subset\SI'$ is not strictly speaking a surface graph, all the methods of \cite[Section 4]{C-R} apply. Indeed, Kuperberg's vector field defined near $\G'$ clearly extends continuously to the collar. As in the closed case, it also extends to the faces with even index singularities. Using the perfect matching $D'$ on $\G'$, we obtain a vector field $f(K',D')$ with even index singularities, which determines a spin structure $\xi_{f(K',D')}$ on $\SI'$. Johnson's theorem holds for surfaces with boundary, so this spin structure defines a quadratic form $q$ on $H_1(\SI';\Z_2)= H_1(\SI;\Z_2)$. If $C$ is a simple close curve in $\G'\subset\SI'$, then $q([C])+1=n^{K'}(C)+\ell_{D'}(C)$ as in the closed case. The proof is completed using the equalities $n^{K'}(C)=n^{K}(C)$ and $\ell_{D'}(C)=\ell_{D}(C)+V_{\partial D}(C)$. \end{proof} Since Johnson's theorem holds true for surfaces with boundary and \cite[Proposition 4.2]{C-R} easily extends, we have the following corollary. \begin{cor} Let $\GSS$ be a surface graph, non-necessarily connected, and possibly with boundary. Any dimer configuration $D$ on $\GSS$ induces an isomorphism of affine $H^1(\Sigma;\Z_2)$-spaces \[ \psi_D\colon\K(\GSS)\longrightarrow {\mathcal{S}}(\SI) \] from the set of equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations on $\GSS$ onto the set of spin structures on $\SI$. Furthermore, $\psi_D-\psi_{D'}$ is equal to the Poincar\'e dual of $\Delta(D,D')$. In particular, $\psi_D=\psi_{D'}$ if and only if $D$ and $D'$ are equivalent dimer configurations.\qed \end{cor} \subsection{The Pfaffian formula for the partition function} Let $\Gamma$ be a graph, not necessarily connected, and possibly with boundary, endowed with a weight system $w$. Realize $\G$ as a surface graph $\GSS$, and fix a Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on it. The {\em Kasteleyn coefficient\/} associated to an ordered pair $(v,v')$ of distinct vertices of $\G$ is the number \[ a^K_{vv'}=\sum_{e}\e_{vv'}^K(e)w(e), \] where the sum is on all edges $e$ in $\overline\Gamma$ between the vertices $v$ and $v'$, and \[ \e^K_{vv'}(e)= \begin{cases} \phantom{-}1 & \text{if $e$ is oriented by $K$ from $v$ to $v'$;} \\ -1 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \] One also sets $a^K_{vv}=0$. Let us fix a boundary condition $\partial D_0$ and enumerate the matched vertices of $\G$ by $1,2,\dots, 2n$. Then, the corresponding coefficients form a $2n\times 2n$ skew-symmetric matrix $A^K(\overline\Gamma;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=A^K$ called the {\em Kasteleyn matrix\/}. Let $D$ be a dimer configuration on $(\Gamma,\partial\G)$ with $\partial D=\partial D_0$, given by edges $e_1,\dots,e_n$ matching vertices $i_\ell$ and $j_\ell$ for $\ell=1,\dots,n$. Let $\sigma$ be the permutation $(1,\dots, 2n)\mapsto (i_1,j_1,\dots,i_n,j_n)$, and set \[ \e^K(D)=(-1)^\sigma\prod_{\ell=1}^n\e^K_{i_\ell j_\ell}(e_\ell), \] where $(-1)^\sigma$ denotes the sign of $\sigma$. Note that $\e^K(D)$ does not depend on the choice of $\sigma$, but only on the dimer configuration $D$. Finally, recall that the {\em Arf invariant\/} of a (possibly degenerate) quadratic form $q$ on $H:=H_1(\Sigma;\Z_2)$ is defined by \[ \A(q)=\frac{1}{|H|}\sum_{\alpha\in H}(-1)^{q(\alpha)}. \] If there is a component $\gamma$ of $\partial\SI$ such that $q(\gamma)\neq 0$, then one easily checks that $\A(q)=0$. On the other hand, if $q(\gamma)=0$ for all boundary components $\gamma$ of $\SI$, then $\A(q)$ takes the values $+1$ or $-1$. \begin{thm} Let $\Gamma\subset\Sigma$ be a surface graph, not necessarily connected, and possibly with boundary. Let $b_1(\Sigma)$ denote the dimension of $H_1(\Sigma;\Z_2)$, and let $g$ denote the genus of $\Sigma$. Then, \[ Z_\alpha(\Gamma;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\frac{1}{2^{b_1(\Sigma)}}\sum_{[K]}(-1)^{q^K_{D_0}(\alpha)}\e^K(D_0)\Pf(A^K) \] for any $\alpha\in H_1(\Sigma;\Z_2)$, and \[ Z(\Gamma;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\frac{1}{2^g}\sum_{[K]}\A(q_{D_0}^K)\e^K(D_0)\Pf(A^K), \] where both sums are over the $2^{b_1(\Sigma)}$ equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations on $\GSS$. Furthermore, $\A(q_{D_0}^K)\e^K(D_0)$ does not depend on $D_0$. \end{thm} \begin{proof} First note that if the theorem holds for two surface graphs, then it holds for their disjoint union. Therefore, it may be assumed that $\Sigma$ is connected. The first formula follows from Theorem : the proof of Theorem 4 and the first half of the proof of Theorem 5 of generalize verbatim to the case with (possible) boundary. The second formula can be obtained from the first one by summing over all $\alpha\in H_1(\Sigma;\Z_2)$. However, this requires some cumbersome computations, so let us give another proof of this equality. As mentioned in Section , the dimer model on $(\G,\partial\G)$ with boundary condition $\partial D_0$ is equivalent to the dimer model on the graph $\G'=\G'(\partial D_0)$ obtained from $\G$ by removing all edges adjacent to non-matched boundary vertices. Let $w'$ denote the restriction of $w$ to $\G'$. If $\GSS$ is a surface graph with boundary, then $\G'\subset\SI'$ is a surface graph, where $\SI'$ is the closed oriented surface obtained from $\SI$ by gluing discs along all boundary components. By \cite[Theorem 5.3]{C-R}, \[ Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=Z(\G';w')=\frac{1}{2^g}\sum_{[K']}\A(q^{K'}_{D_0})\e^{K'}(D_0)\Pf(A^{K'}(\G';w')), \] the sum being on all equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations on $\G'\subset\SI'$. Such a Kasteleyn orientation $K'$ extends uniquely to a Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on $\GSS$ such that $q^K_{D_0}(\gamma)=0$ for all boundary component $\gamma$ of $\SI$. Furthermore, $\e^{K'}(D_0)=\e^K(D_0)$ and $A^{K'}(\G';w')=A^K(\overline\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)$. Since $\A(q^K_{D_0})=0$ for all other Kasteleyn orientations, the theorem follows. \end{proof} \section{Cutting and gluing} \subsection{Cutting and gluing graphs with boundary} Let $(\G,\partial\G)$ be a graph with boundary, and let us fix an edge $e$ of $\G$. Let $(\G_{\{e\}},\partial\G_{\{e\}})$ denote the graph with boundary obtained from $(\G,\partial\G)$ as follows: cut the edge $e$ in two, and set $\partial\G_{\{e\}}=\partial\G\cup\{v',v''\}$, where $v'$ and $v''$ are the new one valent vertices. Iterating this procedure for some set of edges $\E$ leads to a graph with boundary $(\G_\E,\partial\G_\E)$, which is said to be obtained by {\em cutting $(\G,\partial\G)$ along $\E$}. Note that a dimer configuration $D\in \D(\G,\partial\G)$ induces an obvious dimer configuration $D_\E\in \D(\G_\E,\partial\G_\E)$: cut in two the dimers of $D$ that belong to $\E$. A weight system $w$ on $\G$ induces a family of weight systems $(w^t_\E)_t$ on $\G_\E$ indexed by $t\colon\E\to\R_{>0}$, as follows: if $e$ is an edge of $\G$ which does not belong to $\E$, set $w^t_\E(e)=w(e)$; if $e\in\E$ is cut into two edges $e',e''$ of $\G_\E$, set $w^t_\E(e')=t(e)w(e)^{1/2}$ and $w^t_\E(e'')=t(e)^{-1}w(e)^{1/2}$. Note that this family of weight systems is an orbit under the action of the subgroup of ${\mathcal G}(\G_\E)$ consisting of elements $s$ such that $s(v)=1$ for all $v\in V(\G)$ and $s(v')=s(v'')$ whenever $v',v''\in\partial\G_\E$ come from the same edge of $\E$. Let us now formulate how the cutting affects the partition function. The proof is straightforward. \begin{prop} Fix a boundary condition $\partial D_0$ on $(\G,\partial\G)$ and a set $\E$ of edges of $\G$. Then, given any parameter $t\colon\E\to\R_{>0}$, \[ Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\sum_{I\subset\E} Z(\G_\E;w^t_\E\,|\,\partial D_0^I), \] where the sum is taken over all subsets $I$ of $\E$ and $\partial D_0^I$ is the boundary condition on $(\G_\E,\partial\G_\E)$ induced by $\partial D_0$ and $I$: a vertex of $\partial\G_\E$ is matched in $\partial D_0^I$ if and only if it is matched in $\partial D_0$ or it comes from an edge in $I$. \qed \end{prop} The operation opposite to cutting is called {\em gluing\/}: pick a pair of boundary vertices of $\G$, and glue the adjacent edges $e',e''$ along these vertices into a single edge $e$. In order for the result to be a graph, it should be assumed that $e'$ and $e''$ are different edges of $\G$. We shall denote by $(\G_\varphi,\partial\G_\varphi)$ the graph obtained by gluing $(\G,\partial\G)$ according to a pairing $\varphi$ of several vertices of $\partial\G$. Note that a dimer configuration $D\in\D(\G,\partial\G)$ induces a dimer configuration $D_\varphi\in\D(\G_\varphi,\partial\G_\varphi)$ if and only if the boundary condition $\partial D$ on $\partial\G$ is {\em compatible with $\varphi$\/}, i.e: $\varphi$ relates matched vertices with matched vertices. Obviously, a dimer configuration $D_\E$ is compatible with the pairing $\varphi$ which glues back the edges of $\E$, and $(D_\E)_\varphi=D$ on $((\Gamma_\E)_\varphi,(\partial\Gamma_\E)_\varphi)=(\G,\partial\G)$. An edge weight system $w$ on $\G$ induces an edge weight system $w_\varphi$ on $\G_\varphi$ as follows: \[ w_\varphi(e)=\begin{cases} w(e) & \text{if $e$ is an edge of $\G$;} \\ w(e')w(e'')& \text{if $e$ is obtained by gluing the edges $e'$ and $e''$ of $\G$.} \end{cases} \] If $\E$ is a set of edges of $\G$ and $\varphi$ is the pairing which glues back these edges, then $(w_\E^t)_\varphi=w$ for any $t\colon\E\to\R_{>0}$. The effect of gluing on the partition function is best understood in the language of quantum field theory. We therefore postpone its study to Section . \subsection{Cutting and gluing surface graphs with boundary} Let $\G\subset \SI$ be a surface graph with boundary. Let $C$ be a simple curve in $\SI$ which is ``in general position" with respect to $\G$, in the following sense: \begin{romanlist} \item{it is disjoint from the set of vertices of $\G$;} \item{it intersects the edges of $\G$ transversally;} \item{its intersection with any given face of $\SI$ is connected.} \end{romanlist} Let $\SI_C$ be the surface with boundary obtained by cutting $\SI$ open along $C$. Also, let $\G_C:=\G_{\E(C)}$ be the graph with boundary obtained by cutting $(\G,\partial\G)$ along the set $\E(C)$ of edges of $\G$ which intersect $C$, as illustrated in Figure . \medskip Obviously, $\G_C\subset \SI_C$ is a surface graph with boundary. We will say that it is obtained by {\em cutting $\G\subset\SI$ along $C$}. Abusing notation, we shall write $w^t_C$ for the weight system $w^t_{\E(C)}$ on $\G_C$. A class $\beta\in H_1(\SI,\partial \SI; \Z_2)$ induces $\beta_C\in H_1(\SI_C,\partial\SI_C;\Z_2)$ via \[ H_1(\SI, \partial \SI; \Z_2)\to H_1(\SI, \partial \SI\cup N(C); \Z_2)\simeq H_1(\SI_C, \partial \SI_C; \Z_2). \] Here $N(C)$ denotes a neighborhood of $C$ in $\SI$, the first homomorphism is induced by inclusion, and the second one is the excision isomorphism. Note that given any two dimers configurations $D$ and $D'$ on $\GSS$, $\Delta(D_C,D'_C)=\Delta(D,D')_C$ in $H_1(\SI_C, \partial \SI_C; \Z_2)$. This easily leads to the following refinement of Proposition . \begin{prop} Fix $\beta \in H_1(\SI, \partial \SI; \Z_2)$, $D'\in \D(\G,\partial \G)$, and a boundary condition $\partial D_0$ on $(\G,\partial \G)$. Then, given any parameter $t\colon\E(C)\to\R_{>0}$, \[ Z_{\beta, D'}(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\sum_{I\subset\E(C)} Z_{\beta_C,D'_C}(\G_C;w^t_C\,|\,\partial D_0^I), \] where the sum is taken over all subsets $I$ of $\E(C)$ and $\partial D_0^I$ is the boundary condition on $(\G_C,\partial\G_C)$ induced by $\partial D_0$ and $I$.\qed \end{prop} Let us now define the operation opposite to cutting a surface graph with boundary. Pick two closed connected subsets $M_1,M_2$ of $\partial\SI$, which are not points, and satisfy the following properties: \begin{romanlist} \item{$M_1\cap M_2\subset\partial M_1\cup\partial M_2$ and $\partial M_1\cup\partial M_2$ is disjoint from $\partial\G$;} \item{the intersection of each given face of $\SI$ with $M_1\cup M_2$ is connected;} \item{there exists an orientation-reversing homeomorphism $\varphi\colon M_1\to M_2$ which induces a bijection $M_1\cap\partial\G\to M_2\cap\partial\G$ such that for all $v$ in $M_1\cap\partial\G$, $v$ and $\varphi(v)$ are not adjacent to the same edge of $\G$.} \end{romanlist} Let $\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi$ be obtained from the surface graph $\GSS$ by identifying $M_1$ and $M_2$ via $\varphi$ and removing the corresponding vertices of $\Gamma$. This is illustrated in Figure . By the conditions above, the pair $\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi$ remains a surface graph. It is said to be obtained by {\em gluing $\GSS$ along $\varphi$.} Note that any surface graph $\G_C\subset\SI_C$ obtained by cutting $\GSS$ along some curve $C$ in general position with respect to $\G$ satisfies the conditions listed above. Furthermore, $(\G_C)_\varphi\subset(\SI_C)_\varphi=\GSS$, where $\varphi$ is the obvious homeomorphism identifying the two closed subsets of $\partial\SI_C$ coming from $C$. Conversely, if $C$ denotes the curve in $\SI_\varphi$ given by the identification of $M_1$ and $M_2$ via $\varphi$, then it is in general position with respect to $\G_\varphi$, and $(\G_\varphi)_C\subset(\SI_\varphi)_C$. \subsection{Cutting and gluing discrete spin structures} Let $\G\subset \SI$ be a surface graph with boundary, and let $C$ be a simple curve in $\SI$ in general position with respect to $\G$. As noted above, any dimer configuration $D$ on $(\G, \partial\G)$ induces a dimer configuration $D_C$ on $(\G_C,\partial\G_C)$. If two dimer configurations $D, D'\in\D(\G,\partial\G)$ are equivalent, then $D_C, D_C'\in\D(\G_C, \partial \G_C)$ are equivalent as well: \[ \Delta(D_C, D_C')=\Delta(D, D')_C=0 \in H_1(\SI_C, \partial \SI_C; \Z_2). \] A Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on $\G\subset\SI$ induces a Kasteleyn orientation $K_C$ on $\G_C\subset\SI_C$ as follows. Let $K_C$ be equal to $K$ on all edges of $\overline\G_C$ coming from edges of $\overline\G$. For all the new edges of $\overline\G_C$, there is a unique orientation which satisfies the Kasteleyn condition, since each face of $\SI$ is crossed at most once by $C$. One easily checks that if $K$ and $K'$ are equivalent Kasteleyn orientations, then $K_C$ and $K'_C$ are also equivalent. Hence, there is a well-defined operation of cutting discrete spin structures on a surface with boundary. This is not a surprise. Indeed, the inclusion $\SI_C\subset\SI_C\cup N(C)=\SI$ induces a homomorphism $i_*\colon H_1(\SI_C;\Z_2)\to H_1(\SI;\Z_2)$. The assignment $q\mapsto q_C=q\circ i_*$ defines a map from the quadratic forms on $ H_1(\SI;\Z_2)$ to the quadratic forms on $H_1(\SI_C;\Z_2)$, which is affine over the restriction homomorphism $i^*\colon H^1(\SI;\Z_2)\to H^1(\SI_C;\Z_2)$. By Johnson's theorem, it induces an affine map between the sets of spin structures ${\mathcal S}(\SI)\to{\mathcal S}(\SI_C)$. By Corollary , there is a unique map $\K(\GSS)\to\K(\Gamma_C\subset\SI_C)$ which makes the following diagram commute: \begin{equation} \xymatrix{ \K(\GSS)\ar[d]_\cong^{\psi_D}\ar[r]& \K(\Gamma_C\subset\SI_C)\ar[d]_\cong^{\psi_{D_C}}\\ {\mathcal S}(\SI)\ar[r]& {\mathcal S}(\SI_C). } \end{equation} This map is nothing but $[K]\mapsto[K_C]$. \medskip Now, let $K$ be a Kasteleyn orientation on a surface graph $\GSS$, and let $\varphi\colon M_1\to M_2$ be an orientation-reversing homeomorphism between two closed connected subsets in $\partial\SI$, as described above. We shall say that a Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on $\GSS$ is {\em compatible with $\varphi$\/} if the following conditions hold: \begin{romanlist} \item{whenever two edges $e',e''$ of $\overline\G$ are glued into a single edge $e$ of $\overline\G_\varphi$, the orientation $K$ agrees on $e'$ and $e''$, giving an orientation $K_\varphi$ on $e$;} \item{the induced orientation $K_\varphi$ is a Kasteleyn orientation on $\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi$.} \end{romanlist} The Kasteleyn orientation $K_\varphi$ on $\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi$ is said to be obtained by {\em gluing $K$ along $\varphi$\/}. Given any Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on $\GSS$, the induced orientation $K_C$ on $\G_C\subset\SI_C$ is compatible with the map $\varphi$ such that $(\SI_C)_\varphi=\SI$; furthermore, $(K_C)_\varphi$ is equal to $K$. Conversely, if $K$ is a Kasteleyn orientation on $\GSS$ which is compatible with $\varphi$, and $C$ denotes the curve in $\SI_\varphi$ given by the identification of $M_1$ and $M_2$ via $\varphi$, then $(K_\varphi)_C$ is equal to $K$. With these notations, any dimer configuration $D$ on $\G$ which is compatible with $\varphi$ satisfies $(D_\varphi)_C=D$. Therefore, diagram () gives \[ \xymatrix{ \K(\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi)\ar[d]_\cong^{\psi_{D_\varphi}}\ar[r]& \K(\GSS)\ar[d]_\cong^{\psi_D}\\ {\mathcal S}(\SI_\varphi)\ar[r]& {\mathcal S}(\SI), } \] where both horizontal maps are affine over $i^*\colon H^1(\SI_\varphi;\Z_2)\to H^1(\SI;\Z_2)$. Understanding the gluing of Kasteleyn orientations (up to equivalence) now amounts to understanding the restriction homomorphism $i^*$. Using the exact sequence of the pair $(\SI_\varphi,\SI)$, one easily checks the following results: \begin{ticklist} \item{The restriction homomorphism $i^*$ is injective, unless $M_1$ and $M_2$ are disjoint and belong to the same connected component of $\SI$. In this case, the kernel of $i^*$ has dimension 1.} \item{The homomorphism $i^*$ is onto unless $M_1\cup M_2$ is a 1-cycle and the corresponding connected component of $\SI_\varphi$ is not closed. In this case, the cokernel of $i^*$ has dimension 1.} \end{ticklist} This leads to the four following cases. Fix a Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on $\GSS$. \begin{enumerate} \item{If $i^*$ is an isomorphism, then there exist a Kasteleyn orientation $K'$ equivalent to $K$ which is compatible with $\varphi$. Furthermore, the assignment $[K]\mapsto[K'_\varphi]$ gives a well-defined map between $\K(\GSS)$ and $\K(\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi)$.} \item{If $i^*$ is onto but not injective, then there exist $K',K''\sim K$ which are compatible with $\varphi$, inducing two distinct well-defined maps $[K]\mapsto[K'_\varphi]$ and $[K]\mapsto[K''_\varphi]$ between $\K(\GSS)$ and $\K(\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi)$.} \item{If $i^*$ is injective but not onto, then $M_1\cup M_2$ is a 1-cycle, oriented as part of the boundary of $\SI$. There exist $K'\sim K$ which is compatible with $\varphi$ if and only if the following condition holds: \begin{align*} n^K(M_1)+n^K(M_2)&\equiv 0\pmod{2}\quad\text{if $M_1$ and $M_2$ are disjoint;}\\ n^K(M_1\cup M_2)&\equiv 1\pmod{2}\quad\text{otherwise.} \end{align*} (Note that this condition only depends on the equivalence class of $K$.) In this case, it induces a well-defined class $[K'_\varphi]$ in $\K(\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi)$.} \item{Finally, assume $i^*$ is neither onto nor injective. If $K$ satisfies the condition above, then there exist $K',K''\sim K$ which are compatible with $\varphi$, inducing two well-defined maps $[K]\mapsto[K'_\varphi]$ and $[K]\mapsto[K''_\varphi]$. On the other hand, if $K$ does not satisfy the condition above, then it does not contain any representative which is compatible with $\varphi$.} \end{enumerate} \subsection{Cutting Pfaffians} Let us conclude this section with one last observation. Let $\GSS$ be a surface graph with boundary, and let $C$ be a simple curve in $\SI$. The equality \[ Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\sum_{I\subset\E(C)} Z(\G_C;w^t_C\,|\,\partial D_0^I) \] of Proposition can be understood as the Taylor series expansion of the function $Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)$ in the variables $(w(e))_{e\in\E(C)}$. Clearly, if $\E(C)=\{e_{i_1},\dots,e_{i_k}\}$, then \[ \prod_{\ell=1}^kw(e_{i_\ell})\frac{\partial^kZ(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)}{\partial w(e_{i_1})\cdots\partial w(e_{i_k})}(0)=Z(\G_C;w^t_C\,|\,\partial D_0^I). \] By Theorem , the partition function $Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)$ can be expressed as a linear combination of Pfaffians of matrices $A^K(\overline\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)$ depending on Kasteleyn orientations $K$ of $\GSS$ such that $q^K_{D_0}(\gamma)=0$ for all boundary component $\gamma$ of $\SI$. Recall that any such orientation $K$ extends to a Kasteleyn orientation $K_C$ on $\G_C\subset\SI_C$. Furthermore, all equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations such that $q^{K_C}_{(D_0)_C}(\gamma)=0$ for all boundary component $\gamma$ of $\SI_C$ are obtained in this way. (This follows from the fact that the map $[K]\mapsto[K_C]$ is affine over the restriction homomorphism.) Finally, the partition function $Z(\G_C;w^t_C\,|\,\partial D_0)$ can also be expressed as a linear combination of Pfaffians of matrices $A^{K_C}(\overline\G_C;w^t_C\,|\,\partial D_0)$ via Theorem . Gathering all these equations, we obtain a relation between the Pfaffian of the matrix $A^K(\overline\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)$ and the Pfaffian of the matrix $A^{K_C}(\overline\G_C;w^t_C\,|\,\partial D_0)$. This relation turns out to be exactly the equation below, a well-known property of Pfaffians. \begin{prop} Let $A=(a_{ij})$ be a skew-symmetric matrix of size $2n$. Given an ordered subset $I$ of the ordered set $\alpha=(1,\dots,2n)$, let $A_I$ denote the matrix obtained from $A$ by removing the $i^\mathit{th}$ row and the $i^\mathit{th}$ column for all $i\in I$. Then, for any ordered set of indices $I=(i_1,j_1,\dots,i_k,j_k)$, \[ \frac{\partial^k\Pf(A)}{\partial a_{i_1j_1}\cdots\partial a_{i_kj_k}}=(-1)^{\sigma(I)}\Pf(A_I), \] where $(-1)^{\sigma(I)}$ denote the signature of the permutation which sends $\alpha$ to the ordered set $I(\alpha\backslash I)$.\qed \end{prop} \section{Quantum field theory for dimers} \subsection{Quantum field theory on graphs} Let $(\G,\partial\G)$ be a graph with boundary, and let us assume that each vertex $v$ in $\partial\G$ is oriented, that is, endowed with some sign $\e_v$. In the spirit of the Atiyah-Segal axioms for a $(0+1)$-topological quantum field theory , let us define a {\em quantum field theory on graphs\/} as the following assignment: \begin{enumerate} \item{Fix a finite dimensional complex vector space $V$.} \item{To the oriented boundary $\partial\G$, assign the vector space \[ Z(\partial\G)=\bigotimes_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{v\in\partial\G}{\e_v=+1}} V\otimes\bigotimes_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{v\in\partial\G}{\e_v=-1}} V^*, \] where $V^*$ denotes the vector space dual to $V$.} \item{To a finite graph $\G$ with oriented boundary $\partial\G$ and weight system $w$, assign some vector $Z(\G;w)\in Z(\partial\G)$, with $Z(\emptyset;w)=1\in\C=Z(\emptyset)$.} \end{enumerate} Note that any orientation preserving bijection $f\colon\partial\G\to\partial\G'$ induces an isomorphism $Z(f)\colon Z(\partial\G)\to Z(\partial\G')$ given by permutation of the factors. This assignment is functorial: if $g\colon\partial\G'\to\partial\G''$ is another orientation preserving bijection, then $Z(g\circ f)=Z(g)\circ Z(f)$. Finally, if $f\colon\partial\G\to\partial\G'$ extends to a homeomorphism $F\colon\G\to\G'$, then $Z(f)$ maps $Z(\G)$ to $Z(\G')$. Note also that $Z(-\partial\G)=Z(\partial\G)^*$, and that $Z(\partial\G\sqcup\partial\G')=Z(\partial\G)\otimes Z(\partial\G')$. The main point is that we require the following {\em gluing axiom\/}. Let $\G$ be a graph with oriented boundary $\partial\G$, such that there exists two disjoint subsets $X_1,X_2$ of $\partial\G$ and an orientation reversing bijection $\varphi\colon X_1\to X_2$ (i.e. $\e_{\varphi(v)}=-\e_v$ for all $v\in X_1$). Obviously, $\varphi$ induces a linear isomorphism $Z(\varphi)\colon Z(X_1)\to Z(X_2)^*$. Let $\G_\varphi$ denote the graph with boundary $\partial\G_\varphi=\partial\G\setminus(X_1\cup X_2)$ obtained by gluing $\Gamma$ according to $\varphi$, and let $w_\varphi$ be the corresponding weight system on $\G_\varphi$ (recall Section ). Let $B_\varphi$ denote the composition \[ Z(\partial\G)=Z(\partial\G_\varphi)\otimes Z(X_1)\otimes Z(X_2)\to Z(\partial\G_\varphi)\otimes Z(X_2)^*\otimes Z(X_2)\to Z(\partial\G_\varphi), \] where the first homomorphism is given by $id\otimes Z(\varphi)\otimes id$, and the second is induced by the natural pairing $Z(X_2)^*\otimes Z(X_2)\to\C$. We require that \[ B_\varphi(Z(\G;w))=Z(\G_\varphi;w_\varphi). \] \begin{rem} In the same spirit, one can define a {\em quantum field theory on surface graphs\/}. Here, the vector $Z(\GSS;w)\in Z(\partial\G)$ might depend on the realization of $\G$ as a surface graph $\GSS$, and the gluing axiom concerns gluing of surface graphs, as defined in Section . \end{rem} \subsection{Quantum field theory for dimers on graphs} Let us now explain how the dimer model on weighted graphs with boundary defines a quantum field theory. As vector space $V$, choose the 2-dimensional complex vector space with fixed basis $a_0,a_1$. Let $\alpha_0,\alpha_1$ denote the dual basis in $V^*$. To a finite graph $\G$ with oriented boundary $\partial\G$ and weight system $w$, assign \[ Z(\G;w)=\sum_{\partial D}Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D)\,a(\partial D)\in Z(\partial\G), \] where the sum is on all possible boundary conditions $\partial D$ on $\partial\G$, and \[ a(\partial D)= \bigotimes_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{v\in\partial\G}{\e_v=+1}}a_{i_v(\partial D)}\otimes \bigotimes_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{v\in\partial\G}{\e_v=-1}}\alpha_{i_v(\partial D)}\in Z(\partial\G). \] Here, $i_v(\partial D)=1$ if the vertex $v$ is matched by $\partial D$, and $i_v(\partial D)=0$ otherwise. Let us check the gluing axiom. First note that $B_\varphi(a(\partial D))=0$ unless $\partial D$ is compatible with $\varphi$ (i.e: unless $\varphi(v)$ is matched in $\partial D$ if and only if $v$ is matched in $\partial D$). In such a case, $B(a(\partial D))=a(\partial D|_{\partial\G_\varphi})$, where $\partial D|_{\partial\G_\varphi}$ denotes the restriction of the boundary condition $\partial D$ to $\partial\G_\varphi\subset\partial\G$. All the possible boundary conditions $\partial D_\varphi$ on $\partial\G_\varphi$ are given by such restrictions. Therefore, \[ B_\varphi(Z(\G;w))=\sum_{\partial D_\varphi}\Big(\sum_{\partial D\supset\partial D_\varphi}Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D)\Big)a(\partial D_\varphi), \] the interior sum being on all boundary conditions $\partial D$ on $\partial\G$ that are compatible with $\varphi$, and such that $\partial D|_{\partial\G_\varphi}=\partial D_\varphi$. By definition, \[ \sum_{\partial D\supset\partial D_\varphi}Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D)=\sum_{D:\partial D\supset\partial D_\varphi}w(D) =Z(\G_\varphi;w_\varphi\,|\,\partial D_\varphi). \] Therefore, the gluing axiom is satisfied. \subsection{The dimer model as the theory of free Fermions} Let $W$ be an $n$-dimensional vector space. The choice of an ordered basis in $W$ induces an isomorphism between its exterior algebra $\bigwedge W=\oplus_{k=0}^n\bigwedge^k W$ and the algebra generated by elements $\phi_1,\dots,\phi_n$ with defining relations $\phi_i\phi_j=-\phi_j\phi_i$. This space is known as the {\em Grassman algebra\/} generated by $\phi_1,\dots, \phi_n$. The choice of an ordered basis in $W$ also defines a basis in the top exterior power of $W$. The {\em integral over the Grassman algebra of $W$\/} of an element $a\in\bigwedge W$ is the coordinate of $a$ in the top exterior power of $W$ with respect to this basis. It is denoted by $\int a\,d\phi$. There is a scalar product on the Grassman algebra generated by $\phi_1,\dots,\phi_n$; it is given by the Grassman integral \begin{equation} <F,G>=\int \exp\Big(\sum_{i=1}^n\phi_i\psi_i\Big)F(\phi)G(\psi)d\phi d\psi. \end{equation} Note that the monomial basis is orthonormal with respect to this scalar product. One easily shows (see e.g. the Appendix to ) that the Pfaffian of a skew symmetric matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ can be written as \[ \Pf(A)=\int \exp\Big(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n\phi_i a_{ij}\phi_j\Big)d\phi. \] Let us now use this to reformulate the quantum field theory of dimers in terms of Grassman integrals. Let $\GSS$ be a (possibly disconnected) surface graph, possibly with boundary. Let us fix a numbering of the vertices of $\G$, a boundary condition $\partial D_0$ on $\partial\G$ and a Kasteleyn orientation $K$ on $\GSS$. Let $a^K_{ij}$ be the Kasteleyn coefficient associated to $K$ and the vertices $i,j$ of $\G$ (recall Section ). By Theorem and the identity above, \[ Z(\Gamma;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\frac{1}{2^g}\sum_{[K]}\A(q_{D_0}^K)\e^K(D_0) \int\exp\Big(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j\in V(D_0)}\phi_i a^K_{ij} \phi_j\Big)d\phi_{\partial D_0}, \] where the sum is over all $2^{b_1(\SI)}$ equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations on $\GSS$, $V(D_0)$ denotes the set of vertices of $\G$ that are matched by $D_0$, and $d\phi_{\partial D_0}=\wedge_{i\in V(D_0)}d\phi_i$. This leads to the formula \[ Z(\Gamma;w\,|\,\partial D_0)=\frac{1}{2^{g}}\sum_{[K]}\int\exp\Big(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j\in V(D_0)}\phi_i a^K_{ij} \phi_j\Big)D_{\partial D_0}^K\phi, \] where $D_{\partial D_0}^K\phi=\A(q^{K}_{D_0})\e^{K}(D_0)\,d_{\partial D_0}\phi$. Let us point out that this measure does not depend on the choice of $D_0$, but only on the induced boundary condition $\partial D_0$. Now, the numbering of the vertices of $\G$ gives a numbering of the vertices of $\partial\G$. This induces a linear isomorphism between $Z(\partial\G)$ and the Grassman algebra $\bigwedge(\partial\G)$ generated by $(\phi_i)_{i\in\partial\G}$. The image of the partition function under this isomorphism is the following element of the Grassman algebra of boundary vertices: \[ Z(\G;w)=\sum_{\partial D_0}Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D_0)\,\textstyle\prod_{i\in V(\partial D_0)}\phi_i\,\in\,\bigwedge(\partial\G), \] where $V(\partial D_0)=V(D_0)\cap\partial\G$. This leads to \begin{align*} Z(\G;w)&=\frac{1}{2^{g}}\sum_{\partial D_0}\sum_{[K]}\int\exp\Big(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j\in V(D_0)}\phi_i a^K_{ij} \phi_j\Big)D_{\partial D_0}^K\phi \,\textstyle\prod_{i\in V(\partial D_0)}\phi_i\\ &=\frac{1}{2^{g}}\sum_{[K]}\int\exp\Big(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j\in V(\G)}\phi_i a^K_{ij} \phi_j\Big)D^K\phi, \end{align*} where $D^K\phi=\A(q^{K}_{D_0})\e^{K}(D_0)\wedge_{i\notin\partial\G}d\phi_i$. This measure depends only on $K$, but not on $D_0$. We can now formulate the dimer model as the theory of free (Gaussian) Fermions: \begin{enumerate} \item{To the boundary of $\Gamma\subset\Sigma$, we assign $\bigwedge(\partial\G)$, the Grassman algebra generated by the ordered set $\partial\G$;} \item{To a surface graph $\GSS$ with ordered set of vertices $V(\G)$ and weight system $w$, we assign the element $Z(\G\subset\SI;w)$ of $\bigwedge(\partial\G)$ given by \[ Z(\G\subset\SI;w)=\frac{1}{2^{g}}\sum_{[K]}\int\exp\Big(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j\in V(\G)}\phi_i a^K_{ij} \phi_j\Big)D^K\phi, \] where the sum is over all $2^{b_1(\SI)}$ equivalence classes of Kasteleyn orientations on $\GSS$, and $D^K\phi=\A(q^{K}_{D_0})\e^{K}(D_0)\wedge_{i\notin\partial\G}d\phi_i$.} \end{enumerate} The gluing axiom now takes the following form. Let $\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi$ denote the surface graph with boundary obtained by gluing $\GSS$ along some orientation-reversing homeomorphism $\varphi\colon M_1\to M_2$ (see Section ). Recall that $\varphi$ induces a bijection between the two disjoint sets $X_1=\partial\G\cap M_1$ and $X_2=\partial\G\cap M_2$. Therefore, it induces an isomorphism $Z(\varphi)\colon\bigwedge(X_1)\to\bigwedge(X_2)$. Consider the map $B_\varphi$ given by the composition \[ \textstyle \bigwedge(\partial\G)=\bigwedge(\partial\G_\varphi)\otimes \bigwedge(X_1)\otimes \bigwedge(X_2)\to \bigwedge(\partial\G_\varphi)\otimes \bigwedge(X_2)^*\otimes \bigwedge(X_2)\to \bigwedge(\partial\G_\varphi). \] Here, the first homomorphism is given by $id\otimes (h\circ Z(\varphi))\otimes id$, where $h\colon\bigwedge(X_2)\to\bigwedge(X_2)^*$ is the isomorphism induced by the scalar product (). Then, we require that \[ B_\varphi(Z(\GSS;w))=Z(\G_\varphi\subset\SI_\varphi;w_\varphi). \] We already know that this equality holds. Indeed, $Z(\GSS;w)$ just depends on $(\G,w)$, and the formula above is nothing but the gluing axiom for $Z(\G;w)$ translated in the formalism of Grassman algebras. However, it can also be proved from scratch using the results of Section together with well-known properties of Pfaffians. \section{Dimers on bipartite graphs and height functions} \subsection{Composition cycles on bipartite graphs} Recall that a {\em bipartite structure\/} on a graph $\G$ is a partition of its set of vertices into two groups, say blacks and whites, such that no edge of $\G$ joins two vertices of the same group. Equivalently, a bipartite structure can be regarded as a 0-chain \[ \beta =\sum_{v\text{ black}} v-\sum_{v\text{ white}} v\;\in C_0(\G;\Z). \] A bipartite structure induces an orientation on the edges of $\G$, called the {\em bipartite orientation\/}: simply orient all the edges from the white vertices to the black ones. Using this orientation, a dimer configuration $D\in\D(\G,\partial\G)$ can now be regarded as a 1-chain with $\Z$-coefficients \[ D=\sum_{e\in D}e\,\in C_1(\G;\Z) \] such that $\partial D=\beta$ in $C_0(\G,\partial\G;\Z)=C_0(\G;\Z)/C_0(\partial\G;\Z)$. Therefore, given two dimer configurations $D,D'$ on $\G$, their difference $D-D'$ is a 1-cycle $(rel\;\partial\G)$ with $\Z$-coefficients, denoted by $C(D,D')$. Its connected components are called {\em $(D,D')$-composition cycles\/}. In short, a bipartite structure on a graph allows to orient the composition cycles. \subsection{Height functions for planar bipartite graphs} Let us now assume that the bipartite graph $\G$ is planar without boundary, i.e. that it can be realized as a surface graph $\G\subset S^2$. Let $X$ denote the induced cellular decomposition of the 2-sphere, which we endow with the counter-clockwise orientation. Since $H_1(X;\Z)=H_1(S^2;\Z)=0$, the 1-cycle $C(D,D')$ is a 1-boundary, so there exists $\sigma_{D,D'}\in C_2(X;\Z)$ such that $\partial\sigma_{D,D'}=C(D,D')$. Let $h_{D,D'}\in C^2(X;\Z)$ be given by the equality \[ \sigma_{D,D'}=\sum_{f\in F(X)}h_{D,D'}(f)\,f\in C_2(X;\Z), \] where the sum is over all faces of $X$. The cellular 2-cochain $h_{D,D'}$ is called a {\em height function associated to $D,D'$\/}. Since $H_2(X;\Z)=H_2(S^2;\Z)=\Z$, the 2-chain $\sigma_{D,D'}$ is uniquely defined by $D,D'$ up to a constant, and the same holds for $h_{D,D'}$. Hence, one can normalize all height functions by setting $h_{D,D'}(f_0)=0$ for some fixed face $f_0$. This is illustrated in Figure . Alternatively, $h_{D,D'}$ can be defined as the only $h\in C^2(X;\Z)$ such that $h(f_0)=0$ and $h$ increases by 1 when a $(D,D')$-composition cycle is crossed in the positive direction (left to right as we cross). It follows that for any height function $h$ and any two $2$-cells $f_1$ and $f_2$, \[ |h(f_1)-h(f_2)|\leq d(f_1,f_2), \] where $d(f_1,f_2)$ is the distance between $f_1$ and $f_2$ in the dual graph, i.e. the minimal number of edges crossed by a path connecting an point inside $f_1$ with a point inside $f_2$. This can be regarded as a Lipschitz property of height functions. Note also that for any three dimer configurations $D$, $D'$ and $D''$ on $\G$, the following cocycle equality holds: \[ h_{D,D'}+h_{D',D''}=h_{D,D''}. \] The Lipschitz condition stated above leads to the following definition. Given a fixed 2-cell $f_0$ of the cellular decomposition $X$ induced by $\G\subset S^2$, set \[ \mathcal{H}(X,f_0)=\{h\in C^2(X;\Z)\,|\,\text{$h(f_0)=0$ and $|h(f_1)-h(f_2)|\leq d(f_1,f_2)\;\forall f_1,f_2$}\}. \] Given $h\in \mathcal{H}(X,f_0)$, let $C(h)$ denote the oriented closed curves formed by the set of oriented edges $e$ of $\G$ such that $h$ increases its value by 1 when crossing $e$ in the positive direction. (In other words, $C(h)=\partial\sigma$, where $\sigma\in C_2(X;\Z)$ is dual to $h\in C^2(X;\Z)$.) Obviously, there is a well-defined map \[ \D(\G)\times\D(\G)\to\mathcal{H}(X,f_0),\quad(D,D')\mapsto h_{D,D'} \] with $C(h_{D,D'})=C(D,D')$. However, this map is neither injective nor surjective in general. Indeed, the number of preimages of a given $h$ is equal to the number of dimer configurations on the graph obtained from $\G$ by removing the star of $C(h)$. Depending on $\G\subset S^2$, this number can be zero, or arbitrarily large. To obtain a bijection, we proceed as follows. Fix a dimer configuration $D_0$ on $\G$. Let ${\mathcal C}(D_0)$ denote the set of all $C\subset\G$ consisting of disjoint oriented simple 1-cycles, such that the following condition holds: for all $e\in D_0$, either $e$ is contained in $C$ or $e$ is disjoint from $C$. Finally, set \[ {\mathcal H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)=\{h\in{\mathcal H}(X,f_0)\,|\, C(h)\in{\mathcal C}(D_0)\}. \] \begin{prop} Given any $h\in\mathcal{H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)$, there is unique dimer configuration $D\in\D(\G)$ such that $h_{D,D_0}=h$. Furthermore, given any two dimer configurations $D_0,D_1$ on $\G$, we have a canonical bijection \[ \mathcal{H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)\to\mathcal{H}_{D_1}(X,f_0) \] given by $h\mapsto h+h_{D_0,D_1}$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} One easily checks that the assignment $D\mapsto C(D,D_0)$ defines a bijection $\D(\G)\to {\mathcal C}(D_0)$. Furthermore, there is an obvious bijection $\mathcal{H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)\to{\mathcal C}(D_0)$ given by $h\mapsto C(h)$. This induces a bijection $\D(\G)\to\mathcal{H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)$ and proves the first part of the proposition. The second part follows from the first one via the cocycle identity $h_{D,D_0}+h_{D_0,D_1}=h_{D,D_1}$. \end{proof} Let us now consider an edge weight system $w$ on the bipartite planar graph $\G$. Recall that the Gibbs measure of $D\in\D(\G)$ is given by \[ \mbox{Prob}(D)=\frac{w(D)}{Z(\G; w)}, \] where $w(D)=\prod_{e\in D} w(D)$ and $Z(\G; w)=\sum_{D\in\D(\G)} w(D)$. Let us now fix a dimer configuration $D_0$ and a face $f_0$ of $X$, and use the bijection $\D(\G)\to\mathcal{H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)$ given by $D\mapsto h_{D,D_0}$ to translate this measure into a probability measure on $\mathcal{H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)$. To do so, we shall need the following notations: given an oriented edge $e$ of $\G$, set \[ w_\beta(e)= \begin{cases} w(e) & \text{if the orientation on $e$ agrees with the bipartite orientation;} \\ w(e)^{-1} & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \] This defines a group homomorphism $w_\beta\colon C_1(X;\Z)\to\R_{>0}$. Finally, given any $f\in F(X)$, set \[ q_f=w_\beta(\partial f), \] where $\partial f$ is oriented as the boundary of the counter-clockwise oriented face $f$. This number $q_f$ is called the {\em volume weight\/} of the face $f$. \begin{prop} The Gibbs measure on $\D(\G)$ given by the edge weight system $w$ translates into the following probability measure on $\mathcal{H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)$: \[ \mbox{Prob}_{D_0}(h)=\frac{q(h)}{Z_{D_0,f_0}(X,q)}, \] where \[ q(h)=\prod_{f\in F(X)}q_f^{h(f)}\quad\text{and}\quad Z_{D_0,f_0}(X;q)=\sum_{h\in \mathcal{H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)}q(h). \] Furthermore, this measure is independant of the choice of $f_0$. Finally, the bijection $\mathcal{H}_{D_0}(X,f_0)\to\mathcal{H}_{D_1}(X,f_0)$ given by $h\mapsto h+h_{D_0,D_1}$ is invariant with respect to the measures $\mbox{Prob}_{D_0}$ and $\mbox{Prob}_{D_1}$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} For any $D\in\D(\G)$, we have \begin{align*} w(D)w(D_0)^{-1}&=\prod_{e\in D}w(e)\prod_{e\in D_0}w(e)^{-1}=w_\beta(C(D,D_0))\\ &=w_\beta(\partial\sigma_{D,D_0})=w_\beta\Big(\sum_{f\in F(X)}h_{D,D_0}(f)\partial f\Big)\\ &=\prod_{f\in F(X)}w_\beta(\partial f)^{h_{D,D_0}(f)}=\prod_{f\in F(X)}q_f^{h_{D,D_0}(f)}=q(h_{D,D_0}). \end{align*} The proposition follows easily from this equality. \end{proof} Let $V(\G)$ (resp. $E(\G)$) denote the set of vertices (resp. of edges) of $\G$. Recall that the group \[ {\mathcal G}(\G)=\{s\colon V(\G)\to\R_{>0}\} \] acts on the set of weight systems on $\G$ by $(sw)(e)=s(e_+)w(e)s(e_-)$, where $e_+$ and $e_-$ are the two vertices adjacent to the edge $e$. As observed in Section , the Gibbs measure on $\D(\G)$ is invariant under the action of the group ${\mathcal G}(\G)$. Note also that this action is free unless $\G$ is bipartite. In this later case, the 1-parameter family of elements $s_\lambda\in{\mathcal G}(\G)$ given by $s_\lambda(v)=\lambda$ if $v$ is black and $s_\lambda(v)=\lambda^{-1}$ if $v$ is white act as the identity on the set of weight systems. Hence, if $\G$ is bipartite, the number of ``essential" parameters is equal to $|E(\G)|-|V(\G)|+1$. If this bipartite graph is planar, then \[ |E(\G)|-|V(\G)|+1=|F(X)|-\chi(S^2)+1=|F(X)|-1. \] The $|F(X)|$ volume weights $q_f$ are invariant with respect to the action of ${\mathcal G}(\G)$. They can be normalized in such a way that $\prod_{f\in F(X)}q_f=1$, giving exactly $|F(X)|-1$ parameters. Thus, in the height function formulation of the Gibbs measure, only essential parameters appear. \subsection{Height functions for bipartite surface graphs} Let us now address the general case of a bipartite surface graph $\GSS$, possibly disconnected, and possibly with boundary $\partial\G\subset\partial\SI$. Fix a family $\gamma=\{\gamma_i\}_{i=1}^{b_1}$ of oriented simple curves in $\G$ representing a basis in $H_1(\SI,\partial\SI;\Z)$. Note that such a family of curves exists since $\G$ is the 1-squeletton of a cellular decomposition $X$ of $\Sigma$. Given any $D,D'\in\D(\G,\partial\G)$, the homology class of $C(D,D')=D-D'$ can be written in a unique way \[ [C(D,D')]=\sum_{i=1}^{b_1}a^\gamma_{D,D'}(i)[\gamma_i]\in H_1(\SI,\partial\SI;\Z), \] with $a^\gamma_{D,D'}(i)\in\Z$. Hence, $C(D,D')-\sum_{i=1}^{b_1}a^\gamma_{D,D'}(i)\gamma_i$ is a 1-boundary $(rel\;\partial X)$, that is, there exists $\sigma^\gamma_{D,D'}\in C_2(X,\partial X;\Z)=C_2(X;\Z)$ such that \begin{equation} C(D,D')-\partial\sigma^\gamma_{D,D'}-\sum_{i=1}^{b_1}a^\gamma_{D,D'}(i)\gamma_i\;\in\;C_1(\partial X;\Z). \end{equation} The 2-cochain $h^\gamma_{D,D'}\in C^2(X;\Z)$ dual to $\sigma^\gamma_{D,D'}$ is called a {\em height function associated to $D,D'$ with respect to $\gamma$\/}. Since $Z_2(X,\partial X;\Z)=H_2(X,\partial X;\Z)=H_2(\SI,\partial\SI;\Z)\cong H^0(\SI;\Z)$, the 2-chain $\sigma^\gamma_{D,D'}$ is uniquely determined by $D,D'$ and $\gamma$ up to an element of $H^0(\SI;\Z)$, and the same holds for $h^\gamma_{D,D'}$. In other words, the set of height functions associated to $D,D'$ with respect to $\gamma$ is an affine $H^0(\SI;\Z)$-space: it admits a freely transitive action of the abelian group $H^0(\SI;\Z)$. One can normalize the height functions by choosing some family $\mathcal{F}_0$ of faces of $X$, one for each connected component of $X$, and by setting $h^\gamma_{D,D'}(f_0)=0$ for all $f_0\in\mathcal{F}_0$. Given $h\in C^2(X;\Z)$, set $C(h)=\partial\sigma\in C_1(X;\Z)$, where $\sigma\in C_2(X;\Z)$ is dual to $h\in C^2(X;\Z)$. Given a fixed $D_0\in\D(\G,\partial\G)$, let ${\mathcal C}(D_0)$ denote the set of all $C\subset\G$ consisting of disjoint oriented 1-cycles $(rel\;\partial\G)$ such that the following condition holds: for all $e\in D_0$, either $e$ is contained in $C$ or $e$ is disjoint from $C$. Finally, let ${\mathcal H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0)$ denote the set of pairs $(h,a)\in C^2(X;\Z)\times\Z^{b_1}$ which satisfy the following properties: \begin{ticklist} \item{$h(f_0)=0$ for all $f_0$ in $\mathcal{F}_0$;} \item{there exists $C\in{\mathcal C}(D_0)$ such that $C-C(h)-\sum_{i=1}^{b_1}a(i)\gamma_i\in C_1(\partial X;\Z)$.} \end{ticklist} We obtain the following generalization of Proposition . The proof is left to the reader. \begin{prop} Given any $(h,a)\in\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0)$, there is a unique dimer configuration $D\in\D(\G,\partial\G)$ such that $h^\gamma_{D,D_0}=h$ and $a^\gamma_{D,D_0}=a$. Furthermore, given any two dimer configuration $D_0,D_1\in\D(\G,\partial\G)$, there is a canonical bijection \[ \mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0)\to\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_1}(X,\mathcal{F}_0) \] given by $(h,a)\mapsto (h+h^\gamma_{D_0,D_1},a+a^\gamma_{D_0,D_1})$.\qed \end{prop} Recall that the boundary conditions on dimer configurations induce a partition \[ \D(\G,\partial\G)=\bigsqcup_{\partial D_0'}\D(\G,\partial\G\,|\,\partial D_0'), \] where $\D(\G,\partial\G\,|\,\partial D_0')=\{D\in\D(\G,\partial\G)\,|\,\partial D=\partial D_0'\}$. This partition translates into a partition of $\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0)$ via the bijection $\D(\G,\partial\G)\to\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0)$ given by $D\mapsto(h^\gamma_{D,D_0},a^\gamma_{D,D_0})$. Indeed, let $F_\partial(X)$ denote the set of boundary faces of $X$, that is, the set of faces of $X$ that are adjacent to $\partial\SI$. The choice of a boundary condition $\partial D_0'$ (together with $\mathcal{F}_0$) determines $h^\gamma_{D,D_0}(f)$ for all $D$ such that $\partial D=\partial D_0'$ and all $f\in F_\partial(X)$. The actual possible values of $h^\gamma_{D,D_0}$ on the boundary faces depend on $\gamma$, $D_0$ and $\mathcal{F}_0$; they can be determined explicitely. We shall denote by $\partial h$ such a value of a height function on boundary faces, and call it a {\em boundary condition} for height functions. In short, we obtain a partition \[ \mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0)=\bigsqcup_{\partial h_0'}\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0\,|\,\partial h_0') \] indexed by all possible boundary conditions on height functions $h_{D,D_0}^\gamma$. Each boundary condition on dimer configurations corresponds to one boundary condition on height functions via $D\mapsto h^\gamma_{D,D_0}$. \medskip Let us now consider an edge weight system $w$ on the bipartite graph $\G$, and a fixed boundary condition $\partial D'_0$. Recall that the Gibbs measure for the dimer model on $(\G,\partial\G)$ with weight system $w$ and boundary condition $\partial D'_0$ is given by \[ \mbox{Prob}(D\,|\,\partial D'_0)=\frac{w(D)}{Z(\G; w\,|\,\partial D'_0)}, \] where \[ Z(\G; w\,|\,\partial D'_0)=\sum_{D\in\D(\G,\partial\G\,|\,\partial D'_0)} w(D). \] Let us realize $\G$ as a surface graph $\GSS$, fix a dimer configuration $D_0\in\D(\G,\partial\G)$, a family $\gamma=\{\gamma_i\}$ of oriented simple curves in $\G$ representing a basis in $H_1(\SI,\partial\SI;\Z)$, and a collection $\mathcal{F}_0$ of faces of the induced cellular decomposition $X$ of $\SI$, one face for each connected component of $X$. We can use the bijection $\D(\G,\partial\G\,|\,\partial D'_0)\to\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0\,|\,\partial h'_0)$ given by $D\mapsto (h^\gamma_{D,D_0},a^\gamma_{D,D_0})$ to translate the Gibbs measure into a probability measure on $\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0\,|\,\partial h'_0)$. To do so, let us first extend the weight system $w$ to all edges of $X$ by setting $w(e)=1$ for all boundary edges of $X$. As in the planar case, define $w_\beta\colon C_1(X;\Z)\to\R_{>0}$ as the group homomorphism such that, for any oriented edge $e$ of $X$, \[ w_\beta(e)= \begin{cases} w(e) & \text{if the orientation on $e$ agrees with the bipartite orientation;} \\ w(e)^{-1} & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \] Note that this makes sense even for boundary edges where there is no bipartite orientation, as $w(e)=1$ for such edges. Consider the parameters \begin{align*} q_f&=w_\beta(\partial f)\quad\text{for all $f\in F(X)\setminus F_\partial(X)$;}\\ q_i&=w_\beta(\gamma_i)\quad\text{for all $1\le i\le b_1$.} \end{align*} We obtain the following generalization of Proposition : \begin{prop} Given an element $(h,a)\in\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0)$, set \[ q(h,a)=\prod_{f\in F(X)\setminus F_\partial(X)}q_f^{h(f)}\;\prod_{1\le i\le b_1}q_i^{a(i)}. \] Then, the Gibbs measure for the dimer model on $(\G,\partial\G)$ with weight system $w$ and boundary condition $\partial D'_0$ translates into the following probability measure on $\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0\,|\,\partial h'_0)$: \[ \mbox{Prob}_{D_0}(h,a\,|\,\partial h'_0)=\frac{q(h,a)}{Z^\gamma_{D_0,\mathcal{F}_0}(X;q\,|\,\partial h'_0)}, \] where \[ Z^\gamma_{D_0,\mathcal{F}_0}(X;q\,|\,\partial h'_0)=\sum_{(h,a)\in \mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0\,|\,\partial h'_0)}q(h,a). \] Furthermore, the measure is independant of the choice of $\mathcal{F}_0$. Finally, the bijection $\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0\,|\,\partial h'_0)\to\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_1}(X,\mathcal{F}_0\,|\,\partial h'_1)$ given by $(h,a)\mapsto (h+h^\gamma_{D_0,D_1},a+a^\gamma_{D_0,D_1})$ is invariant with respect to the measures $\mbox{Prob}_{D_0}$ and $\mbox{Prob}_{D_1}$. \end{prop} \begin{proof} For any $D\in\D(\G,\partial\G\,|\,\partial D'_0)$, equation () leads to \[ w_\beta\big(C(D,D_0)-\partial\sigma^\gamma_{D,D_0}-\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^{b_1}a^\gamma_{D,D_0}(i)\gamma_i\big)=1. \] Computing the first term, we get \[ w_\beta(C(D,D_0))=\prod_{e\in D}w(e)\prod_{e\in D_0}w(e)^{-1}=w(D)w(D_0)^{-1}. \] As for the second one, \[ w_\beta(\partial\sigma^\gamma_{D,D_0})=w_\beta\Big(\sum_{f\in F(X)}h_{D,D_0}(f)\partial f\Big)=\prod_{f\in F(X)}q_f^{h_{D,D_0}(f)}. \] Since $w_\beta(\gamma_i)=q_i$, these equations lead to \[ w(D)=w(D_0)\prod_{f\in F(X)}q_f^{h^\gamma_{D,D_0}(f)}\prod_{1\le i\le b_1}q_i^{a^\gamma_{D,D_0}(i)}=\lambda\cdot q(h^\gamma_{D,D_0},a^\gamma_{D,D_0}), \] where $\lambda=w(D_0)\prod_{f\in F_\partial(X)}q_f^{h^\gamma_{D,D_0}(f)}$ depends only on $D_0$ and $\partial D'_0$. The proposition follows easily from this equality. \end{proof} Let us count the number of essential parameters in the dimer model on $(\G,\partial\G)$ with some boundary condition partitioning $\partial\G$ into $(\partial\G)_{nm}\sqcup (\partial\G)_m$, matched and non-matched vertices. We have $|E(\G)|-|(\partial\G)_{nm}|$ edge weights, with an action of a $(|V(\G)|-|(\partial\G)_{nm}|)$-parameter group. Since $\G$ is bipartite, there is a $b_0(\G)$-parameter subgroup acting as the identity. Therefore, the number of essential parameters is equal to \begin{align*} |E(\G)|-|V(\G)|+b_0(\G)&=|E(X)|-|\partial\G|-|V(X)|+b_0(X)\\ &=|F(X)|-|\partial\G|-\chi(X)+b_0(X)\\ &=|F(X)\setminus F_\partial(X)|+b_1(\SI)-b_2(\SI). \end{align*} The numbers $|F(X)\setminus F_\partial(X)|$ and $b_1(\SI)$ correspond to the parameters $q_f$ and $q_i$. Furthermore, the parameters $q_f$ can be normalized by $\prod_f q_f=1$, the product being on all faces of a given closed component of $\SI$. Therefore, we obtain exactly the right number of parameters in this height function formulation of the dimer model. \begin{rem} Note that all the results of the first part of the present section can be adapted to the general case of a non-necessarily bipartite surface graph: one simply needs to work with $\Z_2$-coefficients. However, the height function formulation of the dimer model using volume weights does require a bipartite structure. It is unknown whether a reformulation of the dimer model with the right number of parameters is possible in the general case. \end{rem} \subsection{The dimer quantum field theory on bipartite surface graphs} Let us now use these results to reformulate the dimer quantum field theory on bipartite graphs. Let $\GSS$ be a bipartite surface graph, and let $X$ denote the induced cellular decomposition of $\SI$. Fix a dimer configuration $D_0\in\D(\G,\partial\G)$, a family $\gamma=\{\gamma_i\}$ of oriented simple curves in $\G$ representing a basis in $H_1(\SI,\partial\SI;\Z)$, and a choice $\mathcal{F}_0$ of one face in each connected component of $X$. \begin{enumerate} \item{To $\partial X$, assign \[ Z(\partial X)=\bigotimes_{f\in F_\partial(X)}W, \] where $W$ is the complex vector space with basis $\{\alpha_n\}_{n\in\Z}$, and $F_\partial(X)$ denotes the set of faces of $X$ adjacent to the boundary.} \item{To $X$ with weight system $q=\{q_f\}_{f\in F(X)}\cup\{q_i\}_{1\le i\le b_1(\SI)}$, assign \[ Z^\gamma_{D_0,\mathcal{F}_0}(X;q)=\sum_{\partial h}Z^\gamma_{D_0,\mathcal{F}_0}(X;q\,|\,\partial h)\,\alpha(\partial h)\,\in\,Z(\partial X), \] where \[ Z^\gamma_{D_0,\mathcal{F}_0}(X;q\,|\,\partial h)=\sum_{(h,a)\in \mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0\,|\,\partial h)} \prod_{f\in F(X)\setminus F_\partial(X)}q_f^{h(f)}\;\prod_{1\le i\le b_1(\SI)}q_i^{a(i)} \] and $\alpha(\partial h)=\bigotimes_{f\in F_\partial(X)}q_f^{h(f)}\alpha_{h(f)}$.} \end{enumerate} Recall the notation $a(\partial D)\in Z(\partial\G)$ of Section . The bijection $\D(\G,\partial\G)\to\mathcal{H}^\gamma_{D_0}(X,\mathcal{F}_0)$ induces an inclusion $j\colon Z(\partial\G)\hookrightarrow Z(\partial X)$ such that \[ j(a(\partial D))=\bigotimes_{f\in F_\partial(X)}\alpha_{h^\gamma_{D,D_0}(f)}. \] Therefore, using the proof of Proposition , \begin{align*} j(Z(\G;w))&=\sum_{\partial D}Z(\G;w\,|\,\partial D)\,j(a(\partial D))\\ &=\sum_{\partial h}Z^\gamma_{D_0,\mathcal{F}_0}(X;q\,|\,\partial h)\,w(D_0) \prod_{f\in F_\partial(X)}q_f^{h(f)}\bigotimes_{f\in F_\partial(X)}\alpha_{h(f)}\\ &=w(D_0)\,Z^\gamma_{D_0,\mathcal{F}_0}(X;q), \end{align*} where the weight system $q$ is obtained from $w$ by $q_f=w_\beta(\partial f)$ and $q_i=w_\beta(\gamma_i)$. In this setting, the gluing axiom makes sense only when the data $\beta$, $D_0$ and $\gamma$ are compatible with the gluing map $\varphi$. In such a case case, it holds by the equality above and the results of Section . The equivalence between the quantum field theories formulated in Section and in the present section should be regarded as a discrete version of the boson-fermion correspondence on compact Riemann surfaces (see ). \bibliographystyle{amsplain} \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{AGBMNV} L. \'Alvarez-Gaum\'e, J.-B. Bost, G. Moore, P. Nelson and C. Vafa, Bosonization on higher genus Riemann surfaces, Comm. Math. Phys. \textbf{112}, (1987) 503--552. \bibitem{At} M. Atiyah, Topological quantum field theories, Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. \textbf{68}, (1988) 175--186. \bibitem{C-R} D. Cimasoni and N. Reshetikhin, Dimers on surface graphs and spin structures. I, to appear in Comm. Math. Phys. \bibitem{CKP} H. Cohn, R. Kenyon and J. Propp, A variational principle for domino tilings. J. Amer. Math. Soc. \textbf{14}, (2001) 297--346. \bibitem{Jo} D. Johnson, Spin structures and quadratic forms on surfaces. J. London Math. Soc. (2) \textbf{22}, (1980) 365--373. \bibitem{Kast1} W. Kasteleyn, Dimer statistics and phase transitions. J. Mathematical Phys. \textbf{4}, (1963) 287--293. \bibitem{Kast2} W. Kasteleyn, \textit{Graph Theory and Theoretical Physics} (Academic Press, London 1967) pp. 43--110. \bibitem{KenOk} R. Kenyon and A. Okounkov, Planar dimers and Harnack curves. Duke Math. J. \textbf{131}, (2006) 499--524. \bibitem{KenOkS} R. Kenyon, A. Okounkov and S. Sheffield, Dimers and amoebae. Ann. of Math. (2) \textbf{163}, (2006) 1019--1056. \bibitem{Kup} G. Kuperberg, An exploration of the permanent-determinant method. Electron. J. Combin. \textbf{5}, (1998) Research Paper 46, 34 pp. (electronic). \bibitem{L} A. Galluccio and M. Loebl, On the theory of Pfaffian orientations. I. Perfect matchings and permanents. Electron. J. Combin. \textbf{6}, (1999) Research Paper 6, 18 pp. (electronic). \bibitem{McCoyW} B. McCoy and T.T. Wu, \textit{The two-dimensional Ising model} (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts 1973). \bibitem{Segal} G. Segal, The definition of conformal field theory, Differential geometrical methods in theoretical physics (Como, 1987), 165--171, NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., 250, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1988. \bibitem{T} G. Tesler, Matchings in graphs on non-orientable surfaces, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B \textbf{78} (2000), no. 2, 198--231. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0274
|
Title: New version announcement for TaylUR, an arbitrary-order diagonal
automatic differentiation package for Fortran 95
Abstract: We present a new version of TaylUR, a Fortran 95 module to automatically
compute the numerical values of a complex-valued function's derivatives with
respect to several variables up to an arbitrary order in each variable, but
excluding mixed derivatives. The new version fixes a potentially serious bug in
the code for exponential-related functions that could corrupt the imaginary
parts of derivatives, as well as being compatible with a wider range of
compilers.
Body: \begin{frontmatter} \title{New version announcement for TaylUR, an arbitrary-order diagonal automatic differentiation package for \FOR} \author{G.M. von Hippel\thanksref{a}} \thanks[a]{Corresponding author} \address{Department of Physics, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2, Canada} \ead{vonhippg@uregina.ca} \ead[url]{http://uregina.ca/\~\/vonhippg/} \begin{abstract} We present a new version of TaylUR, a \FOR\/ module to automatically compute the numerical values of a complex-valued function's derivatives with respect to several variables up to an arbitrary order in each variable, but excluding mixed derivatives. The new version fixes a potentially serious bug in the code for exponential-related functions that could corrupt the imaginary parts of derivatives, as well as being compatible with a wider range of compilers. \begin{keyword} automatic differentiation \sep higher derivatives \sep \FOR\/ \PACS 02.60.Jh \sep 02.30.Mv \MSC 41-04 \sep 41A58 \sep 65D25 \end{keyword} \end{abstract} \end{frontmatter} {\bf NEW VERSION PROGRAM SUMMARY} \begin{small} \noindent {\em Manuscript Title:} New version announcement for TaylUR, an arbitrary-order diagonal automatic differentiation package for Fortran 95 \\ {\em Authors:} G.M. von Hippel \\ {\em Program Title:} TaylUR \\ {\em Journal Reference:} \\ {\em Catalogue identifier:} \\ {\em Licensing provisions:} none \\ {\em Programming language:} Fortran 95 \\ {\em Computer:} Any computer with a conforming Fortran 95 compiler \\ {\em Operating system:} Any system with a conforming Fortran 95 compiler \\ {\em Keywords:} automatic differentiation, higher derivatives, Fortran 95 \\ {\em PACS:} 02.60.Jh, 02.30.Mv \\ {\em Classification:} 4.12 Other Numerical Methods, 4.14 Utility \\ {\em Catalogue identifier of previous version:} ADXR\_v1\_0 \\ {\em Journal reference of previous version:} Comput.~Phys.~Commun. {\bf 174} (2006) 569-576\\ {\em Does the new version supersede the previous version?:} yes \\ {\em Nature of problem:}\\ Problems that require potentially high orders of derivatives with respect to some variables or derivatives of complex-valued functions, such as e.g. expansions of Feynman diagrams in particle masses in perturbative Quantum Field Theory. \\ \\ {\em Solution method:}\\ Arithmetic operators and Fortran intrinsics are overloaded to act correctly on objects of a defined type {\tt taylor}, which encodes a function along with its first few derivatives with respect to the user-defined independent variables. Derivatives of products and composite functions are computed using Leibniz's rule and F\`aa di Bruno's formula. \\ \\ {\em Reasons for the new version:}\\ The previous version [1] contained a potentially serious bug in the functions overloading the exponential-related intrinsics ({\tt EXP}, {\tt LOG}, {\tt SIN}, {\tt COS}, {\tt TAN}, {\tt SINH}, {\tt COSH}, {\tt TANH}), which could corrupt the imaginary parts of derivatives. It also contained some features which caused it to crash when compiled with certain compilers (notably the NAG and Lahey/Fujitsu compilers). \\ \\ {\em Summary of revisions:}\\ The bug in the exponential-related intrinsics has been corrected. A number of additional changes have been made to the code to enable better compatibility with a greater range of compilers, including the NAG and Lahey/Fujitsu compilers. Users of some of these compilers may have to define {\tt useintrinsic} as a preprocessor symbol when compiling TaylUR.\\ \\ {\em Restrictions:}\\ Memory and CPU time constraints may restrict the number of variables and Taylor expansion order that can be achieved. Loss of numerical accuracy due to cancellation may become an issue at very high orders. \\ \\ {\em Unusual features:}\\ No mixed higher-order derivatives are computed. The complex conjugation operation assumes all independent variables to be real. \\ \\ {\em Running time:}\\ The running time of TaylUR operations depends linearly on the number of variables. Its dependence on the Taylor expansion order varies from linear (for linear operations) through quadratic (for multiplication) to exponential (for elementary function calls). \\ \\ {\em References:} \begin{refnummer} \item G.~M. von~Hippel, TaylUR, an arbitrary-order diagonal automatic differentiation package for Fortran 95, Comput.~Phys.~Commun. {\bf 174} (2006) 569-576. \end{refnummer} \end{small}
|
0704.0282
|
Title: On Punctured Pragmatic Space-Time Codes in Block Fading Channel
Abstract: This paper considers the use of punctured convolutional codes to obtain
pragmatic space-time trellis codes over block-fading channel. We show that good
performance can be achieved even when puncturation is adopted and that we can
still employ the same Viterbi decoder of the convolutional mother code by using
approximated metrics without increasing the complexity of the decoding
operations.
Body: \title{\mbox{}\vspace{0.0cm}\\ On Punctured Pragmatic Space-Time Codes\\ in Block Fading Channel \vspace{0.0cm}} \author{\authorblockN{Samuele Bandi\authorrefmark{2}, Luca Stabellini, Andrea Conti and Velio Tralli} \authorblockA{\authorrefmark{2}Corresponding author.} \authorblockA{Authors are with ENDIF, University of Ferrara, via Saragat 1, 44100 Ferrara, Italy \\ (e-mail: samuele.bandi@gmail.com,lucast17@libero.it,a.conti@ieee.org,vtralli@ing.unife.it)} } \maketitle \begin{abstract} This paper considers the use of punctured convolutional codes to obtain pragmatic space-time trellis codes over block-fading channel. We show that good performance can be achieved even when puncturation is adopted and that we can still employ the same Viterbi decoder of the convolutional mother code by using approximated metrics without increasing the complexity of the decoding operations. \end{abstract} \IEEEpeerreviewmaketitle \section{Introduction} A relevant result obtained in wireless communications is that the use of Space-Time Codes (STC) with both multiple transmitting and receiving antennas can be exploited to mitigate the effect of fading without sacrificing spectral efficiency. Several research activities in the last decade has been devoted to find STC able to improve the performance in terms of achieved diversity and coding gain . Since the introduction of STC, the problem of determining the best STC has been always a difficult task, especially for a large number of transmitting antennas. In a new approach to space-time coding called Pragmatic space-time coding (PSTC) has been devised. The pragmatic approach consists in using common convolutional codes as STC over a MIMO channel; it has also been shown that PSTC could be used with both QPSK and BPSK to achieve maximum diversity and good performance. The use of convolutional codes as STC allows decoding by using the same Viterbi decoder with only a proper change in metrics evaluation. However, in the case of high-rate codes, $R=k/n$, the number of operations that the decoder has to perform grows exponentially with $k$, and the number of paths to be stored increases rapidly. Puncturation was initially introduced for convolutional codes to avoid the complexity issue of the Viterbi decoder in case of high rate codes. Puncturation consists in deleting one or more bits of a codeword; in this way rate $p/(p+m)$ punctured code can be obtained by periodically puncturing a low rate $1/n$ convolutional code, i.e. by erasing $m$ bits for each period of length $p$. In this paper, following the same aforementioned pragmatic approach to STC, we will introduced puncturation, using therefore punctured convolutional codes as ST codes. We will call this family of codes punctured pragmatic space-time codes (P$^2$-STC). The use of puncturation in conjunction with STC has also been investigated in , where the pragmatic approach was not adopted and only the case of two transmitting antennas was addressed by designing the codes to preserve full diversity gain only for short error sequences. \section{Pragmatic space-time codes:} In this work we consider P$^2$-STC in a block fading channel (BFC)(see ) where fading coefficients for each couple of transmitting and receiving antennas are constants in blocks of $B$ bits and independent block by block. $L$ different blocks are experimented by a codeword. In this situation, being $N$ the number of transmitting antennas and $M$ the number of receiving antennas, we can generalize the Singleton bound for BFC to obtain the following diversity bound \begin{equation} div \le 1+ \lfloor L N (1-R) \rfloor \,. \end{equation} where $div$ is the maximum achievable diversity degree per receiving antenna. This means that, by puncturing a rate $1/2$ convolutional code in quasi-static fading channel ($L=1$) with $N=2$,$M=1$, we cannot achieve $div=2$ since $R>1/2$. For a rate $1/3$ convolutional code with $N=3$, $M=1$ and $L=1$, we cannot achieve $div=3$ if $R>1/3$. Our results prove however, that we can still implement puncturation and preserve $div=2$ if $1/3<R<2/3$. To describe a system with P$^2$-STC we refer to the block scheme in Fig.. We denote by $\underline{C}^{(t)}=\lbrack{c}^{(t)}_{1}{c}^{(t)}_{2}...{c}^{(t)}_{N} \rbrack^{T}$ a super-symbol, i.e. a vector of symbols simultaneously transmitted by the $N$ transmitting antennas at the time $t$. A frame is composed by a sequence of $F$ super-symbols (every $T_s$ seconds, N symbols are sent in parallel on the $N$ transmitting antennas). If we indicate the complex envelope of the signal received by antenna $s$ at time $t$ with $r_s^{(t)}$ and with $\alpha_{i,j}^{(t)}$ the fading coefficient between antenna $s$ and $i$, at time $t$, we have: \begin{equation} r_s^{(t)}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_{i,s}^{(t)}c_i^{(t)}\sqrt{E_s} +\eta_s^{(t)} \end{equation} To perform maximum likelihood decoding, the Viterbi algorithm should estimate the input bit sequence $\hat{\underline{b}}$ in this way: \begin{equation} \hat{\underline{b}}={\arg \underset{\underline{b}}{\min}} \sum_t \sum_s |r_s^{(t)}-\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha_{i,s}^{(t)} c_i^{(t)}(\underline{b})\sqrt{E_s}|^2 \end{equation} where $c_i^{(t)}(\underline{b})$ are the transmitted symbols corresponding to the path in the trellis labeled by the bit sequence $\underline{b}$, and \begin{equation} \Delta M^{(t)}= \sum_s |r_s^{(t)}-\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha_{i,s}^{(t)} c_i^{(t)}\sqrt{E_s}|^2 \end{equation} are the metric increments. The fundamental problem is, how to compute these metric increments when we adopt puncturation. Consider for example a rate $1/2$ code used with the puncturation matrix \begin{equation} P=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\1 & 1 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right) \end{equation} with two transmitting antennas and BPSK modulation. \noindent Fig.~ shows the relationship between the received symbols $r^{(t)}$ and the coded bits. We can see that the second and third transition of the trellis diagram are labeled with only one coded bit, i.e., symbol $r^{(2)}$ carries coded bits from two different transitions and therefore we must use the same received symbol $r^{(2)}$ to compute two transition metrics on the trellis. Since the coded bit $c_1^{(2)}$ cannot be recovered from the trellis diagram at instant $t=2$ we can use it only for the third transition metric. To implement ML decoding we should join two transitions into one such that no symbol contains bits from two transitions anymore, as already pointed out in . This however, would mean that we could not use a conventional Viterbi decoder of the rate 1/2 code. To exploit the same Viterbi decoder we must actually choose an approximation of ML decoding that uses approximated metrics. In a very similar problem arise in the context of trellis coded modulation. In a similar way we suggest to split the second transition metric in two components that can be used for two different transitions on the trellis diagram. In this way, at the time $t=2$, $ \Delta M^{(t)}$ is approximated with $\Delta \tilde{M}^{(t)}$ as follows: \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \tilde{M}^{(t)}= \nonumber \\ 1/2\min_{b_2} \sum_s {\vert r_s-[\alpha_{1,s}^{(t)} (2 b_1-1)-\alpha_{2,s}^{(t)} (2 b_2-1)]\sqrt{E_s}\vert }^2 \nonumber \\ +1/2\min_{b1} \sum_s {\vert r_s-[\alpha_{1,s}^{(t)} (2 b_1-1)-\alpha_{2,s}^{(t)} (2 b_2-1)]\sqrt{E_s} \vert }^2 \end{eqnarray} This metric increment can be easily split on the two transitions at time $t=2$, which we name as left and right transitions supporting transmission at time $t$. To improve decoding, we also propose another approximated metric whose computation requires an interaction with the Viterbi algorithm: in other words, with this second approach the left part of the metrics at time $t=2$ can be computed by using the outcomes of the Viterbi algorithm after having processed left transitions at time $t$. If the metric computation runs in parallel with the Viterbi algorithm, when we know the survivor path at each state of the trellis between left and right transitions, we can compute the metric increments on the right transition using the information on the survivor path at each departing state $\sigma$. The second approximated metric can be written as \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \tilde{M}^{(t)} = \nonumber \\ (1-\beta)\min_{b_2} \sum_s {\vert r_s-[\alpha_{1,s}^{(t)} (2 b_1-1)-\alpha_{2,s}^{(t)} (2 b_2-1)]\sqrt{E_s}\vert }^2 \nonumber \\ +\beta \sum_s {\vert r_s-[\alpha_{1,s}^{(t)} (2 b_1(\sigma)-1)-\alpha_{2,s}^{(t)} (2 b_2-1)]\sqrt{E_s} \vert }^2 \end{eqnarray} where an additional parameter $\beta$ is included for further optimization. We have compared these two metrics and we had confirmation that the second one performs better, since it exploits the additional information provided by the Viterbi algorithm. In the next section, we will address the way of generalizing this method of evaluating decoding metrics for different codes with BPSK modulation and different puncturation matrices. \section{Decoding metric computation} When the transmitted super-symbol carries coded bits from two different transitions due to puncturing, the approximated metric increment that exploits the information on the survivor path has proved to give the best performance. However, up to now, it can only be computed for a puncturation pattern similar to that given in (). The next step is to generalize the metric computation for the generic puncturation matrix and for a generic number of transmitting antennas. We will do this in two steps: first we will find a generalization for the case with two transmitting antennas ($N=2$) and a generic puncturation matrix and then we will remove this hypothesis and consider the case with $N>2$. We first considered a two columns puncturation matrix as follows: \begin{equation} P_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right) \end{equation} In this case we have three symbols ($\delta=3$) carrying coded bits belonging to different transitions of the trellis diagram. As the decoder computes three metrics using the three received symbols, we must split these three metrics into four trellis transition. The relationship between the received symbols $r^{(t)}$ and the coded bits is shown in Fig.. Since $r^{(2)}$ carries bits from the second and third transitions on the trellis we will use it to compute the metric increments for the left and right transitions at time $t=2$. Since also $r^{(3)} $ carries bits from the third transition we will use both $r^{(2)}$ and $r^{(3)}$ to compute the metric for the third transition (which is also the left transition at time $t=3$). On the left metric computed at time $t=3$ the symbol $c_1^{(3)}$ is unknown; therefore this left metric is evaluated with the value of $c_1^{(3)}$ that minimizes it. On the right metric computed at time $t=2$ the information from the Viterbi algorithm can be exploited to derive the value of $c_2^{(2)}$ for the computation of the metric. Each metric increment coming from received symbols carrying bits belonging to two trellis transitions can be split into two components, a left metric $\Delta \tilde{m}_L^{(t)}$ and a right metric $\Delta \tilde{m}_R^{(t)}$: the former will be approximately computed by considering the coded bits of the right transition at time $t$ as unknown, whereas the latter will be computed by considering the coded bits on the left transition at time $t$ as those of the survivor path at the trellis state $\sigma^{(t)}$. That is, for $t=2,3,4$: \begin{equation} \Delta \tilde{M}^{(t)}= \Delta \tilde{m}_L^{(t)} + \Delta \tilde{m}_R^{(t)} \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \tilde{m}_L^{(t)} &=&(1-\beta)min_{b_2} \sum_s | r_s^{(t)}-\alpha_{1,s}^{(t)} (2 b_1^{(t)}-1)\nonumber \\ &-&\alpha_{2,s}^{(t)} (2 b_2-1)\sqrt{E_s}|^2 \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \tilde{m}_R^{(t)} &=& \beta \sum_s | r_s^{(t)}-\alpha_{1,s}^{(t)} (2 b_1^{(t)}(\sigma^{(t)})-1)\nonumber \\ &-&\alpha_{2,s}^{(t)} (2 b_2^{(t)}-1)\sqrt{E_s} |^2 \end{eqnarray} In the decoding algorithm for this example, the second transition of the trellis will be labelled with $ \Delta\tilde{m}_L^{(2)}$, the third transition with $\Delta\tilde{m}_R^{(2)}$+$\Delta\tilde{m}_L^{(3)}$, the fourth transition with $\Delta\tilde{m}_R^{(3)}$+$\Delta\tilde{m}_L^{(4)}$ and the last transition with $\Delta\tilde{m}_R^{(4)}$. We have investigated the optimum value of $\beta$ for different values of $\delta$ and for a rate 1/2 code with puncturation matrices with 2 zeros (as in eq. (9)). We found that the optimum value of $\beta$ is a decreasing function of $\delta$. The reason of this behaviour is that the information held by the survivor path at each state exploited in the right metric will be more and more unreliable as the $\delta$ increases. For $\delta =1$ this value approaches 0.5. The generalization of this approach to the $N>2$ case can be easily done if we assume that the puncturation pattern does not allow the transmission of super-symbols carrying coded bits from more than two trellis transition. Also in this case each approximated metric increment can be split into a left and right components. These two component may be related to more than one coded bits and the value of $\beta$ should be suitably chosed and optimized for each puncturation pattern, for each value of $N$ and even for each time $t$. However, we can give the following rules of thumb to compute the parameter $\beta$ in the approximated metric increment at time $t$: \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ cc} \beta-1=\frac{n_L}{n_{tot}}, & \beta=\frac{n_R}{n_{tot}} \end{array} \end{equation} where $n_L$ is the number of not erased coded bits in the label of the left transition at time $t$ and $n_R$ is the number of not erased coded bits in the label of the rigth transition at time $t$. For example, if we refer to matrices in (20), we suggest using $\beta=1/3$ in the approximated metric at time $t=2$. \subsection{A simplified metric} We propose here another possible approach for the generalization of the metric computation, which is sligthly simplified with respect to the one already presented. We name this approximated metric as Type-2 metric to distinguish it from the former metric named Type-1 metric. With this second approach, if we refer to the example in Fig. as before, we will exploit the information of the survivor path at each state only in the last transition with an erased bit, i.e the right-metric increment is used only at the fifth transition. As we want our decoder to be an approximation of an ML decoder, we have to weight each component of each metric increment with an appropriate parameter: the first $\delta$ components (left metrics) and the last component have to be multiplied by parameters whose sum must equal to $\delta$ (equal to 3 in the example). Instead of using $\delta+1$ different parameters we choose to use only two different weights: the first one, $\omega_a$, is used for the left metrics, whereas the second one, $\omega_b$, is used for the last right metric. Once again we include a parameter $\beta$ to balance the two different weights. \begin{equation} \omega_a=(1-\beta)\frac{\delta}{\delta+\beta(1-\delta)} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \omega_b=\beta\frac{\delta}{\delta+\beta(1-\delta)} \end{equation} With this choice of $\omega_a$ and $\omega_b$, if $\beta=0$ then $\omega_a=1$ and $\omega_b=0$, i.e. we do not trust the right metric using survivor paths information. If $\beta=1$ then $\omega_a=0$ and $\omega_b=1$, i.e., we only exploit the last right metric If $\beta=0.5$ then $\omega_a=\omega_b$, i.e. we weight the metrics uniformly. For our decoding rule to be an approximation of the ML decoder we require that: \begin{equation} \delta \omega_a+\omega_b=\delta \end{equation} which is clearly satisfied by our construction of parameters $\omega_a$ and $\omega_b$. If we refer to the same example as before, the expression for the approximated metric increments at time $t=2,3,4$ becomes: \begin{equation} \sum_{t=2,3,4} \Delta \tilde{M}^{(t)}= \sum_{t=2,3,4} \Delta \tilde{m}_L^{(t)} + \Delta \tilde{m}_R^{(4)} \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \tilde{m}_L^{(t)}&= &\omega_a {\underset{b_2}{\min}} \sum_s| r_s-\alpha_{1,s}^{(t)} (2 b_1^{(t)}-1)\nonumber \\ &-&\alpha_{2,s}^{(t)} (2 b_2-1)\sqrt{E_s}|^2 \end{eqnarray} \begin{eqnarray} \Delta \tilde{m}_R^{(t)} &=&\omega_b \sum_s |r_s-\alpha_{1,s}^{(t)} (2 b_1^{(t)}(\sigma^{(t)})-1)\nonumber \\ &-&\alpha_{2,s}^{(t)} (2 b_2^{(t)}-1)\sqrt{E_s} |^2 \end{eqnarray} With this approach we have split $\delta$ metric increments corresponding to the $\delta$ symbols received at $t=2,3,4$ into $\delta+1$ metric increments. As in the previous case the optimum values of $\beta$ is a decreasing function of $\delta$ since the state is more and more untrustworthy as $\delta$ increases. A reasonable value of $\beta$ is between $0.5$ and 1. In rate-adaptive applications this allows to change simple parameters for metric computation in the Viterbi decoder to decode very different puncturation matrices, keeping the overall trellis structure of the decoder unchanged. \section{Search for good puncturation matrices} We address now the issue of finding good puncturation matrices that allow to design the wanted rate $R$ for the P$^2$-STC starting from a convolutional mother code of rate $1/N$ for BPSK modulation (this is the case addressed in this paper: we can easily extend the approach for any pragmatic STC, i.e. as an example by considering a mother code with rate $2/(2N)$ or $1/(2N)$ for QPSK modulation). As a first step, we investigate the behavior of simple puncturation patterns of $N$ zeros to be used as building blocks for good puncturation matrices with $N$ rows ($N$ is also the number of transmitting antennas). We conjecture that the position of a basic pattern inside a puncturation matrix do not affect the performance (or its effect is negligible). A simple observation will guide our search for good patterns: if the number of super-symbols which carry coded bits of different transitions of the trellis diagram increases, the performance of the decoder get worse because of the increasing for the number of approximated metric increments. On the other hand, if we limit this number to zero by considering a puncturing pattern of $N$ zeros that erases all the bits in a single transition (in this case the entire super-symbol is erased), the performance may be degradated because all the erased bits are concentrated in a single position. We consider basic patterns obtained by placing $N$ zeros on one or more subsequent columns (in the latter case $\delta$ is the number of columns). The simulations have proved that putting all zeros in the same column is not the best solution. We made simulations comparing the performance obtained by each different pattern when parameter $\beta$ is fixed to the optimum value for each case. For $N=2$ we obtained as best puncturing patterns the following: \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ cc} P=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc} ... & 1 & 0 & ... & \\ ... & 0 & 1 & ...& \end{array}\right) & P=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc} ... & 0 & 1 & ... & \\ ... & 1 & 0 & ... & \end{array}\right) \end{array} \end{equation} For $N=3$ all the best patterns have one zero on the first column and two on the second column, e.g. \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ cc} P=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc} ... & 1 & 0 & ... & \\ ... & 1 & 0 & ... & \\ ... & 0 & 1 & ... & \end{array}\right) & P=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc} ... & 1 & 0 & ... & \\ ... & 0 & 1 & ... & \\ ... & 1 & 0 & ... & \end{array}\right) \end{array} \end{equation} As a second step in our search, we try to use this basic patterns to build up more complex puncturation matrices that allow to reach higher code rates. In the search for good puncturation matrices we put the zeros in a way to satisfy the rate-compatibility rule. In table we show a family of rate-compatible puncturation matrices for the $N=2$ case with a puncturation matrix with $p=10$. In table , instead, we addressed the case with three transmitting antennas ($N=3$) and a puncturation matrix with $p=10$. The final rate $R$ of the code will be $p/[(m-p)N]$, where $m$ is the number of basic puncturing patterns of $N$ bits in the matrix. \begin{table}[h] \caption{} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|r|c|} \hline rate & rate-compatible \\ \hline R=5/9 & $\begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ \end{array} $ \\ \hline R=5/8 & $\begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ \end{array} $ \\ \hline R=5/7 & $\begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0& 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ \end{array} $ \\ \hline R=5/6 & $\begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0& 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1\\ \end{array} $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \begin{table}[h] \caption{} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{|r|c|} \hline rate & rate-compatible \\ \hline R=10/27 & $\begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 0 & 1& 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ \end{array} $ \\ \hline R=10/24 & $\begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 &1 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ \end{array} $ \\ \hline R=10/21 & $\begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1&1\\ 0 & 1 & 0& 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1&1\\ \end{array} $ \\ \hline R=10/18 & $\begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 &1\\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 &1\\ 0 & 1 & 0& 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 &1\\ \end{array} $ \\ \hline R=10/15 & $\begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1& 0\\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1&0\\ 0 & 1 & 0& 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\ \end{array} $ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \section{Numerical results} The Fig., shows the sensitivity of the performance of a P$^2$-STC with the same rate to different puncturation patterns of 2 zeros and to the two types of approximated metrics discussed before. We can easily note that Type-I metric is better than Type-II metric as expected, and in general, as already commented in previous sections, the performance degrades as $\delta$ (distance between the 2 zeros) increases. The best case is $\delta=1$, even though for Type-II metric performance changes sligthly. In Fig. we show that it is possible to achieve the maximum diversity allowed on a quasi static channel with a P$^2$-STC with 3 transmitting antennas: for $1/3<R<2/3$, the maximum diversity degree is 2 and can be achieved with all the codes with rate larger than 10/21. It is evident that there is a threashold effect around rate 0.5: if we puncture too much, we lose $1$ degree of diversity. In Fig. we show the performance over a BFC of a rate 5/8 P$^2$-STC obtained from the well-known rate 1/2 mother code (133,171) with a puncturing pattern like the one in () for varying fading levels per codeword. This code, which can not achieve a diversity degree larger than 1 on a quasi-static channel, is able to capture a significantly large diversity degree according to the limits given by (1). \section{Conclusions} In this paper, we have shown that it is possible to use punctured convolutional codes to build pragmatic space-codes over a block-fading channel. We have also shown that by an appropriate choice of the metric increments a single Viterbi algorithm on the same trellis diagram can still be used for decoding different rate-compatible codes. We have proposed two different approximated metrics and explained how to construct rate-compatible puncturation matrices that give good performances. In the results we have shown that with this scheme we can easily obtain codes with rates higher than $1/N$ which can approach or achieve the maximum allowed diversity degree on both quasi-static channel and block-fading channel. \section {Acknowledgments} Authors would like to acknowledge Prof. M. Chiani for his helpful discussions. This work has been done within the European Network of Excellence in Wireless Communications (NEWCOM). \bibliographystyle{IEEEtran} \begin{thebibliography}{10} \providecommand{\url}[1]{#1} \csname url@rmstyle\endcsname \providecommand{\newblock}{\relax} \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2} \providecommand\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing{\spaceskip=0pt\relax} \providecommand\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor{4} \providecommand\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing{\spaceskip=\fontdimen2\font plus \BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor\fontdimen3\font minus \fontdimen4\font\relax} \providecommand\BIBforeignlanguage[2]{{ \expandafter\ifx\csname l@#1\endcsname\relax \typeout{** WARNING: IEEEtran.bst: No hyphenation pattern has been} \typeout{** loaded for the language `#1'. Using the pattern for} \typeout{** the default language instead.} \else \language=\csname l@#1\endcsname \fi #2}} \bibitem{tarok} Vahid Tarokh, Nambi Seshadri, A. R. Calderbank ``Space-Time Codes for high Data Rate Wireless Communication: Performance Criterion and Code Construction" \emph{IEEE Transactions on information theory} Volume: 44 no. 2, 2001 Page(s): 744-65 March 1998 \bibitem{mcacvt} Chiani, M.; Conti, A.; Tralli, V.; ``A pragmatic approach to space-time coding" \emph{Communications, 2001. ICC 2001. IEEE International Conference} on, Volume: 9, 2001 Page(s): 2794-2799 vol.9 \bibitem{PuncSTTC} Chan-Soo Hwang; Seung Hoon Nam; Jaehak Chung; Byungiang Jeong; ``Design of punctured space-time trellis codes'' \emph{Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications IEEE Proceedings on}, vol.2, pp. 1698-1702, Sept. 2003. \bibitem{Chiani} Chiani, M. ``Error probability for block codes over channel with block interference,''\emph{IEEE Transactions on information theory} vol.44, Issue 7, pp. 2998-3008, November 1998. \bibitem{Elice} McEliece, R.J ; Stark, W.E. ``Channel with block interference'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on information theory} vol.IT-30, pp. 44-53, Jan. 1984. \bibitem{PTCM} Woerz, T;Schweikrt, R. ``Performance of Punctured Pragmatic Codes,'' \emph{Global Telecommunications Conference, '95., IEEE} vol.1, pp. 13-17, November 1995. \bibitem{malkamakileib} E. Malkamaki, H. Leib, ``Coded diversity on Block-Fading Channels" \emph{IEEE Trans. on Information Theory} on, Volume: 45, March 1999 \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0283
|
Title: On the Markov trace for Temperley--Lieb algebras of type $E_n$
Abstract: We show that there is a unique Markov trace on the tower of Temperley--Lieb
type quotients of Hecke algebras of Coxeter type $E_n$ (for all $n \geq 6$). We
explain in detail how this trace may be computed easily using tom Dieck's
calculus of diagrams. As applications, we show how to use the trace to show
that the diagram representation is faithful, and to compute leading
coefficients of certain Kazhdan--Lusztig polynomials.
Body: \documentstyle{amsppt} \baselineskip18pt \magnification=\magstep1 \pagewidth{30pc} \pageheight{45pc} \hyphenation{co-deter-min-ant co-deter-min-ants pa-ra-met-rised pre-print pro-pa-gat-ing pro-pa-gate fel-low-ship Cox-et-er dis-trib-ut-ive} \def\leaderfill{\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss.\hss}\hfill} \def\A{{\Cal A}} \def\C{{\Cal C}} \def\D{{\Cal D}} \def\H{{\Cal H}} \def\J{{\Cal J}} \def\L{{\Cal L}} \def\latl#1{{\Cal L}_L^{#1}} \def\latr#1{{\Cal L}_R^{#1}} \def\Pl{{\Cal P}} \def\Sy{{\Cal S}}\ \def\TL{{\Cal T}\!{\Cal L}} \def\ldescent#1{{\Cal L (#1)}} \def\rdescent#1{{\Cal R (#1)}} \def\lcell#1{{{\bold L}(#1)}} \def\rcell#1{{{\bold R}(#1)}} \def\tcell#1{{{\bold T}(#1)}} \def\lem{\le^M} \def\simm{\sim^M} \def\afn{{\text {\bf a}}} \def\tr{{\text {\rm tr}}} \def\Co{\text {\rm Co}} \def\cm{\text {\ cm}} \def\met{\text {\ m}} \def\cmps{\text {\ cm\ s}} \def\idest{i.e.,\ } \def\wh{\widehat} \def\ti{\widetilde} \def\a{{\alpha}} \def\be{{\beta}} \def\g{{\gamma}} \def\G{{\Gamma}} \def\d{{\delta}} \def\De{{\Delta}} \def\e{{\varepsilon}} \def\z{{\zeta}} \def\th{{\theta}} \def\i{{\iota}} \def\k{{\kappa}} \def\l{{\lambda}} \def\m{{\mu}} \def\s{{\sigma}} \def\t{{\tau}} \def\w{{\omega}} \def\ephi{{\varphi}} \def\E{{\widehat E}} \def\P{{\widetilde P}} \def\Q{{\widetilde Q}} \def\T{{\widetilde T}} \def\te{\widetilde t} \def\O{{\widehat O}} \def\W{{\widehat W}} \def\tmu{\tilde{\mu}} \def\tem{\tilde{M}} \def\ba{{\bold a}} \def\bb{{\bold b}} \def\bc{{\bold c}} \def\bd{{\bold d}} \def\bF{{\bold F}} \def\bi{{\bold i}} \def\bj{{\bold j}} \def\bk{{\bold k}} \def\bm{{\bold m}} \def\bn{{\bold n}} \def\wbn{{\widehat{\bold n}}} \def\bp{{\bold p}} \def\bq{{\bold q}} \def\br{{\bold r}} \def\bs{{\bold s}} \def\bt{{\bold t}} \def\bu{{\bold u}} \def\bv{{\bold v}} \def\bw{{\boldsymbol \omega}} \def\bx{{\bold x}} \def\BB{{\bold B}} \def\uu{{\underline u}} \def\uv{{\underline v}} \def\brr{{\bar r}} \def\b0{\text{\bf 0}} \def\wrho{{\widehat \rho}} \def\ra{{\ \longrightarrow \ }} \def\sra{{\rightarrow}} \def\ora{\overrightarrow} \def\cast{\circledast} \def\ds{\displaystyle} \def\rad{\text{\rm \, rad}} \def\arg{\text{\rm \, arg}} \def\smod{\text{\rm \, mod \ }} \def\char{\text{\rm \, char}} \def\cosec{\text{\rm \, cosec }} \def\cot{\text{\rm \, cot }} \def\sp{\text{\rm \, span }} \def\hei{\text{\rm \, ht }} \def\supp{\text{\rm \, supp}} \def\aut{\text{\rm \, Aut}} \def\coker{\text{\rm \, coker}} \def\adj{{\text {\rm \, adj\,}}} \def\coms{\text{\rm Co}(X, S)} \def\cjs#1{{\cos #1 + \j \sin #1}} \def\cmjs#1{{\cos #1 - \j \sin #1}} \def\exp#1{{e^{#1}}} \def\varexp{\text{\rm exp}} \def\lan{{\langle}} \def\ran{{\rangle}} \def\lal{{\langle\langle}} \def\rar{{\rangle\rangle}} \def\lrt#1#2{\left\langle {#1}, {#2} \right\rangle} \def\lrh#1#2{\left\langle {#1}, {#2} \right\rangle_\H} \def\wf{{\widehat F}} \def\extln{{{\Cal D}(\widehat A_{n-1})}} \def\extll{{{\Cal D}(\widehat A_l)}} \def\tln{{TL(\widehat A_n)}} \def\tll{{TL(\widehat A_l)}} \def\otll{{O(\widehat A_l)}} \def\annn{\text{\rm Ann({\bf n})}} \def\ct{{\Bbb C \Bbb T}} \def\dt{{\Bbb D \Bbb T}} \def\qv{{{\Bbb Q}(v)}} \def\ugn{{U(\widehat{{\frak g \frak l}_n})}} \def\usn{{U(\widehat{{\frak s \frak l}_n})}} \def\ugln{{U({\frak g \frak l}_n})} \def\usln{{U(\frak s \frak l_n)}} \def\sln{{\frak s \frak l_n}} \def\sqnr{{\widehat S_q(n, r)}} \def\ct{{\Bbb C \Bbb T}} \def\dt{{\Bbb D \Bbb T}} \def\real{{\Bbb R}} \def\complex{{\Bbb C}} \def\zed{{\Bbb Z}} \def\kyu{{\Bbb Q}} \def\enn{{\Bbb N}} \def\j{\text{\rm j}} \def\Re{\text{\rm Re}} \def\Im{\text{\rm Im}} \def\End{\text{\rm End}} \def\Hom{\text{\rm Hom}} \def\labt{{\Bbb L \Bbb T}} \def\du{{\text{ d}u}} \def\dx{{\text{ d}x}} \def\dy{{\text{ d}y}} \def\dtee{{\text{ d}t}} \def\dee{{\text{ d}}} \def\ddx{{\text{d} \over {\text{d}x}}} \def\dydx{{\text{d}y \over {\text{d}x}}} \def\dudx{{\text{d}u \over {\text{d}x}}} \def\dxdt{{\text{d}x \over {\text{d}t}}} \def\dydt{{\text{d}y \over {\text{d}t}}} \def\ddt#1{{\text{d} {#1} \over {\text{d}t}}} \def\dd#1#2{{\text{d} {#1} \over {\text{d} {#2} }}} \def\pd{\partial} \def\boxit#1{\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule \kern3pt \vbox{\kern3pt\hbox{#1}\kern3pt}\kern3pt\vrule}\hrule}} \def\rabbit{\vbox{\hbox{\kern0pt \vbox{\kern0pt{\hbox{---}}\kern3.5pt}}}} \def\qchoose#1#2{\left[{{#1} \atop {#2}}\right]} \def\lchoose#1#2{\left({{#1} \over {#2}}\right)} \font\bigf=cmbx10 scaled\magstep3 \font\bigmi=cmmi10 scaled\magstep3 \def\Tableau#1{\tableau {#1}} \def\tableau#1{ \hbox { \hskip -10pt plus0pt minus0pt \raise\baselineskip\hbox{ \offinterlineskip \hbox{#1}} \hskip0.25em } } \def\tabCol#1{ \hbox{\vtop{\hrule \halign{\strut\vrule\hskip0.5em##\hskip0.5em\hfill\vrule\cr\lower0pt \hbox\bgroup$#1$\egroup \cr} \hrule } } \hskip -10.5pt plus0pt minus0pt} \def\CR{ $\egroup\cr \noalign{\hrule} \lower0pt\hbox\bgroup$ } \def\wt{{\rm wt}} \def\mapright#1{ \mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{#1}} \def\mapdown#1{\Big\downarrow \rlap{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}} \def\mapdownright#1{\searrow \rlap{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}} \def\mapupright#1{\nearrow \rlap{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}} \def\CD#1{ $$ \def\normalbaselines{\baselineskip20pt \lineskip3pt \lineskiplimit3pt } \matrix #1 \endmatrix $$ } \def\blank#1#2{ \hbox to #1{\hfill \vbox to #2{\vfill}} } \def\bblank{{\blank{.5in}{10pt}}} \def\sblank{{\blank{.2in}{10pt}}} \def\mk#1{\hfill{\bf ({#1})}} \def\tmk#1{\hfill{\boxit{{#1}}}} \def\dom{\triangleright} \def\domeq{\trianglerighteq} \def\isdom{\triangleleft} \def\isdomeq{\trianglelefteq} \def\ideal{\trianglelefteq} \def\vtab{\noalign{\hrule}} \def\stab{\vrule height0pt depth0pt width1.5mm} \def\strut{\vrule height10pt depth5pt width0pt} \def\secz{1} \def\secy{2} \def\seca{3} \def\secb{4} \def\secc{5} \def\secd{6} \def\sece{7} \def\secf{8} \def\secg{9} \def\qvk{K} \def\tlqvk{TL_{\qvk}(E_n)} \def\tlqvkd{TL_{\qvk'}(E_n)} \def\almd{(1+v^{-2})} \topmatter \title On the Markov trace for Temperley--Lieb algebras of type $E_n$ \endtitle \author R.M. Green \endauthor \affil Department of Mathematics \\ University of Colorado \\ Campus Box 395 \\ Boulder, CO 80309-0395 \\ USA \\ {\it E-mail:} rmg\@euclid.colorado.edu \\ \newline \endaffil \abstract We show that there is a unique Markov trace on the tower of Temperley--Lieb type quotients of Hecke algebras of Coxeter type $E_n$ (for all $n \geq 6$). We explain in detail how this trace may be computed easily using tom Dieck's calculus of diagrams. As applications, we show how to use the trace to show that the diagram representation is faithful, and to compute leading coefficients of certain Kazhdan--Lusztig polynomials. \endabstract \subjclass 20C08, 20F55, 57M15 \endsubjclass \endtopmatter \head \secz. Introduction \endhead In the paper }, Jones introduced a certain Markov trace on the tower of Hecke algebras $\H(A_{n-1})$ associated to the Coxeter groups $\Sy_n = W(A_{n-1})$, which are the symmetric groups. When Jones' trace is restricted to one of the algebras $\H = \H(A_{n-1})$, it is degenerate, but its radical is an ideal, $J$, of $\H$ and so we obtain a generically nondegenerate trace on the algebra $\H/J$, which is the Temperley--Lieb algebra $TL_n$ occurring in statistical mechanics } (the trace is the matrix trace of a transfer matrix algebra). In }, Kazhdan and Lusztig introduced a remarkable polynomial $P_{x, w}(q)$ for any elements $x, w$ in a Coxeter group $W$. These polynomials have important applications in representation theory. Although the polynomials have an elementary definition, the only obvious way to compute them is using a rather complicated recurrence relation. One of the main obstructions to computing the polynomials efficiently is a fast way to compute the integer $\mu(x, w)$, which is the coefficient of $q^{(\ell(w) - \ell(x) - 1)/2}$ in $P_{x, w}(q)$. In }, the author showed how Jones' trace can be used to compute the leading coefficients $\mu(x, w) \in \zed$ in the case where $x$ and $w$ are fully commutative elements of $W$ (in the sense of }). In this paper, we will investigate the analogous phenomenon in Coxeter type $E_n$. This includes Coxeter groups of types $A$ and $D$ as special cases. The algebras $TL_n$ may be defined in terms of generators and relations in a way that generalizes readily to Coxeter systems of other types. These generalized Temperley--Lieb algebras have been studied for Coxeter type $E_n$ by a number of people , {\bf 3}, {\bf 7}}. Although the Coxeter groups of type $E_n$ are infinite for $n > 8$, the Hecke algebra quotient $TL(E_n)$ in this case is still finite dimensional. In }, tom Dieck constructed a diagrammatic representation of $TL(E_n)$, although the question of whether this is a realisation---a faithful representation---is not tackled. In \S\secg, we will prove \proclaim{Theorem \secz.1} The diagrammatic representation of $TL(E_n)$ given in } is injective. \endproclaim The closing remarks of } state without proof that this representation can be used to define a Markov trace on the tower of algebras $TL(E_n)$. In Theorem \secf.11, we will prove this claim and furthermore we will show that there is a unique such Markov trace. Although this is similar to what happens in type $A$, the analogous claim for Coxeter type $D$ is false. This trace is also remarkable for other reasons: after suitable rescaling, it is a tabular trace in the sense of }, and a generalized Jones trace in the sense of }. The fact that the trace is tabular implies that it is (generically) nondegenerate on the algebras $TL(E_n)$. The fact that we have a generalized Jones trace will lead to the following theorem (proved in \S\secg) where the monomial basis elements $b_w$ are defined in \S\seca. \proclaim{Theorem \secz.2} Let $\{b_w : w \in W_c\}$ be the monomial basis of $TL(E_n)$ indexed by the fully commutative Coxeter group elements, and let $\tr$ be the unique Markov trace on the tower of algebras $TL(E_n)$. If $x, y \in W_c$, then the coefficient of $v^{-1}$ in $\tr(b_x b_{y^{-1}})$ (after expansion as a power series) is $\tmu(x, y)$, where $$ \tmu(x, y) = \cases \mu(x, y) & \text{ if } x \leq y,\cr \mu(y, x) & \text{ if } x \not\leq y,\cr \endcases $$ and $\mu(a, b)$ is the integer defined in }. \endproclaim We will also show in \S\secg\ how $\tmu(x, y)$ may be evaluated non-recursively using the diagram calculus. \head \secy. Traces and Markov traces \endhead By a {\it trace} on an $R$-algebra $A$, we mean an $R$-linear map $t : A \ra R$ such that $t(ab) = t(ba)$ for all $a, b \in A$. The {\it radical} of the trace is the set of all $a \in A$ such that $t(ab) = 0$ for all $b \in A$. The radical is always an ideal of $A$, and if it is trivial, the trace is said to be {\it nondegenerate}. In any case, if $I$ is the radical of $t$, then $t$ induces a nondegenerate trace on the quotient algebra $R/I$. The set of traces on an $R$-algebra $A$ has a natural $R$-module structure. In the special case where $\rho$ is a representation of an $R$-algebra $A$, then the matrix trace associated to $\rho$ is a trace in the above sense, which means that, if $A$ is semisimple, the Grothendieck group of $A$ gives a $\zed$-lattice in the space of traces, generated by the traces of the simple modules. We will be particularly concerned with algebras where the base ring $R$ is obtained by extending scalars from the ring of Laurent polynomials $\A = \zed[v, v^{-1}]$ to some ring $F \otimes \A$. This has the effect of specializing the parameter $v$ to an invertible element of $F$. In this situation, a trace is called {\it generically nondegenerate} if it is nondegenerate as a trace over $\A$, and if it also remains nondegenerate as a trace over $F \otimes \A$ for all but finitely many specializations of $v$. Suppose now that $R$ is an integral domain and $\{A_n : n \geq N\}$ is a family of unital $R$-algebras such that $A_n$ is a subalgebra of $A_{n+1}$ for all $n \geq N$. Let $A_{\infty}$ be the associated direct limit. Suppose also that there is a set of elements $\{g_n : n \in \enn\}$ such that $g_{n+1} \in A_{n+1} \backslash A_n$ for all $n$ and such that $\{g_n : n \leq M\}$ is an algebra generating set for $A_M$. Following , \S4}, we may now introduce the notion of Markov trace. \definition{Definition \secy.1} Maintain the above notation, and let $F$ be a field containing $R$. A {\it Markov trace} on $A_\infty$ with parameter $z \in F$ is an $F$-linear map $\t : A_\infty \ra F$ satisfying the following conditions: \item{\rm (i)}{$\t(1) = 1$;} \item{\rm (ii)}{$\t(h b_{n+1}) = z \t(h)$ for $n \geq N$ and $h \in A_n$;} \item{\rm (iii)}{$\t(hh') = \t(h'h)$ for all $h, h' \in A_\infty$.} \enddefinition Jones } proved that there is a unique Markov trace with parameter $z$ on the tower of Hecke algebras of type $A_n$, and that the only one of these traces that passes to the Temperley--Lieb quotient is the one with parameter $z = (v + v^{-1})^{-1}$. This is an important observation in the construction of the Jones polynomial, because conditions (ii) and (iii) for the trace are what is needed to ensure that the polynomial is invariant under the two types of ``Markov move''. Some other notable work on Markov traces includes that of Geck and Lambropoulou }, who classified the Markov traces in Coxeter types $B$ and $D$, using a suitable extension of the above definition. Lambropoulou } extended this work (in type $B$) to generalized and cyclotomic Hecke algebras of type $B$. For the purposes of studying Temperley--Lieb type quotients of Hecke algebras, a better definition of Markov traces seems to be one that appears in work of Seifert } and recent work of Gomi , Definition 3.7}. In this case, one retains conditions (i) and (iii) of Definition \secy.1 and replaces condition (ii) by the requirement that $$ \tau(a T_s) = z_s T(a) $$ whenever we have $a \in {\Cal H}(W_I)$ for some parabolic subgroup $W_I$ corresponding to $I \subseteq S \backslash \{s\}$. (In other words, we require condition (ii) to hold for all generators of $A_{n+1}$, not just one particular generator.) Here, $z_s$ is an indeterminate depending on the conjugacy class of $s$ in $W$. In this paper, we will restrict our attention to the tower of algebras $TL(E_n)$, and in this case, the above definitions happen to agree; however, they do not agree in the corresponding question for type $D_n$. In the latter case, it can be shown that the Seifert--Gomi formulation produces a unique Markov trace, and Definition \secy.1 does not. \head \seca. The algebras $TL(E_n)$ \endhead Let $X = X(E_n)$ be a Coxeter graph of type $E_n$, where $n \geq 6$. Following }, we label the vertices of $X$ by $0, 1, \ldots, n-1$ in such a way that $1, 2, 3, \ldots, n-1$ lie in a straight line, and such that $3$ is the unique vertex of degree $3$, which is adjacent to $2$, $4$ and $0$. Figure 1 shows the case $n = 6$. \topcaption{Figure 1} Coxeter graph of type $E_6$ \endcaption \centerline{ \hbox to 2.138in{ \vbox to 0.819in{\vfill \special{psfile=e6fdiag.eps} } \hfill} } Let $W(E_n)$ be the associated Coxeter group with distinguished set of generating involutions $$ S(E_n) = \{s_i : i \text{ is a vertex of } X(E_n)\} .$$ In other words, $W = W(E_n)$ is given by the presentation $$ W = \lan S(E_n) \ | \ (st)^{m(s, t)} = 1 \text{ for } m(s, t) < \infty \ran ,$$ where $m(s, s) = 1$, $m(s, t) = 2$ if $s$ and $t$ are not adjacent in $X$, and $m(s, t) = 3$ if $s$ and $t$ are adjacent in $X$. The elements of $S = S(E_n)$ are distinct as group elements, and $m(s, t)$ is the order of $st$. Denote by $\H_q = \H_q(E_n)$ the Hecke algebra associated to $W$. This is a $\zed[q, q^{-1}]$-algebra with a basis consisting of (invertible) elements $T_w$, with $w$ ranging over $W$, satisfying $$T_s T_w = \cases T_{sw} & \text{ if } \ell(sw) > \ell(w),\cr q T_{sw} + (q-1) T_w & \text{ if } \ell(sw) < \ell(w),\cr \endcases$$ where $\ell$ is the length function on the Coxeter group $W$, $w \in W$, and $s \in S$. If $n > 8$, the group $W$ is infinite and $\H_q$ has infinite rank as an $\A$-algebra. For the applications we have in mind, it is convenient to extend the scalars of $\H_q$ to produce an $\A$-algebra $\H$, where $\A = \zed[v, v^{-1}]$ and $v^2 = q$, and to define a scaled version of the $T$-basis, $\{\T_w : w \in W\}$, where $\T_w := v^{-\ell(w)} T_w$. We will write $\A^+$ and $\A^-$ for $\zed[v]$ and $\zed[v^{-1}]$, respectively. A product $w_1w_2\cdots w_n$ of elements $w_i\in W$ is called {\it reduced} if \newline $\ell(w_1w_2\cdots w_n)=\sum_i\ell(w_i)$. We reserve the terminology {\it reduced expression} for reduced products $w_1w_2\cdots w_n$ in which every $w_i \in S$. We write $$ \ldescent{w} = \{s \in S : \ell(sw) < \ell(w)\} $$ and $$ \rdescent{w} = \{s \in S : \ell(ws) < \ell(w)\} .$$ The set $\ldescent{w}$ (respectively, $\rdescent{w}$) is called the {\it left} (respectively, {\it right}) {\it descent set} of $w$. Call an element $w \in W$ {\it complex} if it can be written as a reduced product $x_1 w_{ss'} x_2$, where $x_1, x_2 \in W$ and $w_{ss'}$ is the longest element of some rank 2 parabolic subgroup $\lan s, s'\ran$ such that $s$ and $s'$ correspond to adjacent vertices in the Coxeter graph $E_n$. Denote by $W_c(E_n)$ the set of all elements of $W$ that are not complex. The elements of $W_c = W_c(E_n)$ are the {\it fully commutative} elements of }; they are characterized by the property that any two of their reduced expressions may be obtained from each other by repeated commutation of adjacent generators. Let $J(E_n)$ be the two-sided ideal of $\H$ generated by the elements $$ T_1 + T_s + T_t + T_{st} + T_{ts} + T_{sts} ,$$ where $(s, t)$ runs over all pairs of elements of $S$ for which $m(s, t) = 3$. Following Graham , Definition 6.1}, we define the {\it generalized Temperley--Lieb algebra} $TL(E_n)$ to be the quotient $\A$-algebra $\H(E_n)/J(E_n)$. We denote the corresponding epimorphism of algebras by $\th : \H(E_n) \ra TL(E_n)$. Let $t_w$ (respectively, $\te_w$) denote the image in $TL(E_n)$ of the basis element $T_w$ (respectively, $\T_w$) of $\H$. If $s \in S$, we define $b_s \in TL(E_n)$ by $b_s = v^{-1} 1 + \te_s$. A more convenient description of $TL(E_n)$ for the purposes of this paper is by generators and relations (as in , \S2.2}). Since the Laurent polynomial $v + v^{-1}$ occurs frequently, we denote it by $\d$. \proclaim{Proposition \seca.1} As a unital $\A$-algebra, $TL(E_n)$ is given by generators $\{b_s : s \in S\}$ and relations $$\eqalign{ b_s^2 &= \d b_s, \cr b_s b_t &= b_t b_s \text{\quad if } m(s, t) = 2, \cr b_s b_t b_s &= b_s \text{\quad if } m(s, t) = 3. \cr }$$ \qed\endproclaim The following basis theorem will be used freely in the sequel. \proclaim{Theorem \seca.2 , {\bf 7}}} \item{\rm (i)} {The set $\{\te_w : w \in W_c\}$ is a free $\A$-basis for $TL(E_n)$.} \item{\rm (ii)}{If $w \in W_c$ and $w = s_{i_1} s_{i_2} \cdots s_{i_r}$ is reduced, then the element $$ b_w = b_{s_{i_1}} b_{s_{i_2}} \cdots b_{s_{i_r}} $$ is a well-defined element of $TL(E_n)$.} \item{\rm (iii)} {The set $\{b_w : w \in W_c\}$ is a free $\A$-basis for $TL(E_n)$.} \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Part (i) is due to Graham , Theorem 6.2}. Parts (ii) and (iii) are stated by Fan in , \S2.2}, and more details may be found in , Proposition 2.4}. \qed\enddemo \definition{Definition \seca.3 , \S2.3}} Let $P = P(n)$ denote the set of subsets of the Coxeter graph $E_n$ that consist of non-adjacent vertices. We allow $P$ to include the empty set, $\emptyset$. For any $A \in P$, let $i(A)$ be the product of the elements of $S(E_n)$ corresponding to the vertices in $A$ (with $i(\emptyset) = 1$); note that the order of the product is immaterial since the vertices in $A$ correspond to commuting generators. Let $A, B \in P$. We say that $A$ and $B$ are neighbours if and only if $1 + \#(A \cap B) = \#A = \#B$, and the two vertices in $(A \cup B) \backslash (A \cap B)$ are adjacent in $E_n$. Define an equivalence relation on $P$ by taking the reflexive and transitive closure of the relation $A \sim B$ if $A$ and $B$ are neighbours. Let $\bar{P}$ denote the set $P/\sim$ . \enddefinition \example{Example \seca.4} In type $E_7$, let $A = \{0, 2, 4, 6\}$ and $B = \{0, 1, 4, 6\}$. In this case, $i(A) = b_0 b_2 b_4 b_6$ and $i(B) = b_0 b_1 b_4 b_6$, $A$ and $B$ are neighbours, and the equivalence class of $A$ is precisely $\{A, B\}$. \endexample \definition{Definition \seca.5 , \S6.3}} Let $n \geq 6$. If $n$ is odd, we define $P' = P'(n)$ to be the subset of $P(n)$ consisting of the sets $$ \left\{ \left\{(n - 1) - 2j : 0 \leq j \leq N \right\} : 0 \leq N \leq {{n - 1} \over 2} \right\} ,$$ together with the set $$ \{n - 1, n - 3, n - 5, \ldots, 4\} \cup \{0\} $$ and the empty set. If $n$ is even, we define $P' = P'(n)$ be the subset of $P(n)$ consisting of the sets $$ \left\{ \left\{(n - 1) - 2j : 0 \leq j \leq N \right\} : 0 \leq N \leq {{n - 2} \over 2} \right\} ,$$ together with the empty set. \enddefinition \example{Example \seca.6} In type $E_6$, we have $$ P' = \left\{ \{5\}, \{5, 3\}, \{5, 3, 1\}, \emptyset \right\} .$$ In type $E_7$, we have $$ P' = \left\{ \{6\}, \{6, 4\}, \{6, 4, 2\}, \{6, 4, 2, 0\}, \{6, 4, 0\}, \emptyset \right\} .$$ \endexample The importance of the set $P'$ comes from the following \proclaim{Proposition \seca.7 (Fan, , Lemma 8.1.2})} The set $P'$ constitutes a complete set of equivalence class representatives for $P$ with respect to $\sim$. \qed\endproclaim \head \secb. Cells and the $\afn$-function \endhead In \S\secb, we recall the definitions of the $\afn$-function and cells arising from the monomial basis. Most of this material comes from the papers } and }, or is implicit in them. \definition{Definition \secb.1 , Definition 2.3.1}} The {\it $\afn$-function} $\afn : W_c \ra \zed^{\geq 0}$ is defined by $$ \afn(w) := \max_{A \in P} \{\#A : w = x i(A) y \text{\ is reduced} \} $$ for $w \in W_c$. \enddefinition \proclaim{Proposition \secb.2} Let $w \in W_c$ and let $f \in \A$. Define the degree, $\deg f$, of $f$ to be the largest integer $n$ such that $v^n$ occurs with nonzero coefficient in $f$, with the convention that $\deg 0 = -\infty$. Denote the structure constants with respect to the monomial basis by $g_{x, y, z} \in \A$, namely $$ b_x b_y = \sum_{z \in W_c} g_{x, y, z} b_z .$$ \item{\rm (i)} {The structure constant $g_{x, y, z}$ is either zero or a nonnegative power of $\d$, and, given $x$ and $y$, we have $g_{x, y, z} \ne 0$ for a unique $z$.} \item{\rm (ii)} {If $s \in S$ and $g_{s, y, z} \not\in \zed$, then $g_{s, y, z} = \d$, $\ell(sy) < \ell(y)$ and $y = z$. Similarly, if $g_{x, s, z} \not\in \zed$, then $g_{x, s, z} = \d$, $\ell(xs) < \ell(x)$ and $x = z$}. \item{\rm (iii)} {We have $ \afn(w) = \max_{x, y \in W_c} \deg g_{x, y, w} .$} \item{\rm (iv)} {We have $ \afn(w) = \max_{x, y \in W_c} \deg g_{w, x, y} .$} \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Parts (i) and (ii) are well known and follow easily from , Proposition 5.4.1}. Part (iii) is proved in , Proposition 4.2.3} using the results of }. The proof of , Theorem 5.5.1} shows that $$ \deg g_{w, x, y} \leq \min (\afn(w), \afn(x)) ,$$ which means that $$ \max_{x, y \in W_c} \deg g_{w, x, y} \leq \afn(w) .$$ Conversely, , Lemma 5.2.6} shows that $$ b_w b_{w^{-1}} = (v + v^{-1})^{\afn(w)} b_d $$ for some $d \in W_c$, so taking $x = w^{-1}$ and $y = d$, we find that $$ \max_{x, y \in W_c} \deg g_{w, x, y} \geq \afn(w) ,$$ which completes the proof of (iv). \qed\enddemo \definition{Definition \secb.3 , Definition 4.1}} For any $w, w' \in W_c$, we say that $w' \leq_L w$ if there exists $b_x$ such that $g_{x, w, w'} \ne 0$, where $g$ is as in Proposition \secb.2. For any $w, w' \in W_c$, we say that $w' \leq_R w$ if there exists $b_x$ such that $g_{w, x, w'} \ne 0$. For any $w, w' \in W_c$, we say that $w' \leq_{LR} w$ if there exist $b_x$ and $b_y$ such that $b_x b_w b_y = c b_{w'}$ for some $c \ne 0$. We write $w \sim_L w'$ to mean that both $w' \leq_L w$ and $w \leq_L w'$. Similarly, we define $w \sim_R w'$ and $w \sim_{LR} w'$. The relation $\sim_L$ (respectively, $\sim_R$, $\sim_{LR}$) is an equivalence relation, and the corresponding equivalence classes of $W_c$ are called the {\it left} (respectively, {\it right}, {\it two-sided}) cells. It is clear from the definitions and the fact that the identity element is a monomial basis element that two-sided cells are unions of left cells, and also unions of right cells. \enddefinition \proclaim{Proposition \secb.4} \item{\rm (i)} {Let $w \in W_c$. If we have $w = x i(A) y$ reduced for some $A$ such that $\#A = \afn(w)$, then $i(A) \sim_{LR} w$ and $w \sim_R x i(A)$.} \item{\rm (ii)} {The $\afn$-function is constant on left, right, and two-sided cells.} \item{\rm (iii)} {If $w, w' \in W_c$ are such that $w' \leq_R w$ and $w' \not\sim_R w$, then $\afn(w') > \afn(w)$. An analogous statement holds for left cells and two-sided cells.} \item{\rm (iv)} {The right cell containing $i(A)$ is precisely the set $$ \{ w \in W_c : w = i(A) x \text{ reduced}, \ \afn(w) = \#A \} .$$}\item{\rm (v)} {A left cell and a right cell contained in the same two-sided cell intersect in a unique element.} \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Statement (i) is proved during the argument establishing , Theorem 4.5.1.}. The fact that the $\afn$-function is constant on two-sided cells is implicit in the proof of , Theorem 4.5.1}. Since two-sided cells are unions of left (or right) cells, part (ii) follows. Suppose now that $w, w' \in W_c$ are such that $w' \leq_R w$ and $w' \not\sim_R w$. An inductive argument using the definition of $\leq_R$ reduces the problem to the case where there is some $s \in S$ such that $b_w b_s$ is a multiple of $b_{w'}$, so let us assume that this is the situation. By , Corollary 4.2.2}, the assumption that $w' \leq_R w$ implies that $\afn(w') \geq \afn(w)$. The statement follows unless $\afn(w') = \afn(w)$, so suppose we are in this case. Let us write $w = x i(A) y$ as in statement (i). Now , Lemma 4.2.5}, applied to the element $x i(A)$ and the sequence of generators corresponding to $ys$, shows that we have $w' = x i(A) y'$ reduced. By part (i), we find that $w' \sim_R x i(A)$, and thus that $w' \sim_R w$, a contradiction. The statement for left cells follows by a symmetrical argument, and the statement for two-sided cells follows from the previous claims and the fact that if $w' \leq_{LR} w$, then there is a chain $$ w' = w_1, w_2, w_3, \ldots, w_k = w $$ where, for each $1 \leq i < k$, we have either $w_i \leq_L w_{i+1}$ or $w_i \leq_R w_{i+1}$. This completes the proof of (iii). Part (iv) is , Proposition 4.4.3}. Part (v) is well known and follows from the proof of , Theorem 6.1.2}. \qed\enddemo \remark{Remark \secb.5} For finite and affine Weyl groups, the $\afn$-function defined above is known by , Theorem 3.1} to be the restriction of Lusztig's more general $\afn$-function } restricted to the subset $W_c$. Although it is not true that each of the monomial cells studied above is a cell in the sense of Kazhdan--Lusztig }, it can be shown fairly easily that each left (respectively, right, two-sided) monomial cell is a subset of some left (respectively, right, two-sided) Kazhdan--Lusztig cell. \endremark \head \secc. Traces on the algebras $TL(E_n)$ \endhead In \S\secc, we will extend scalars and deal with a $\qvk$-form of $TL(E_n)$, where $\qvk$ is a field containing $\A$ and a square root of $\d$. (The existence of $\sqrt{\d}$ is needed for compatibility with }, but can ultimately be removed; see Remark \secd.4.) We write $\tlqvk := \qvk \otimes_\A TL(E_n)$. We aim to classify the traces, $\t : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$, that is, linear functions $\t$ with the property that $\t(ab) = \t(ba)$ for all $a, b \in \tlqvk$. It is clear that the set of all traces on $\tlqvk$ is a $\qvk$-vector space (dependent in principle on $K$ and $\delta$). The main result of \S\secc\ is that there is a basis for this vector space in natural bijection with the set $P'$ of \S\seca. The next result shows how $\t$ naturally induces a function $P/\sim \ra \qvk$. \proclaim{Lemma \secc.1} Maintain the notation of Definition \seca.3. Suppose $A, B \in P$ are such that $A \sim B$, and let $\t : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$ be a trace. Then $\t(i(A)) = \t(i(B))$. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} The proof immediately reduces to the case where $A$ and $B$ are neighbours. Let $s$ (respectively, $t$) be the element of $S$ corresponding to the unique element of $A \backslash B$ (respectively, $B \backslash A$). It is immediate from the definitions that $i(A) = b_s i(A \cap B) = i(A \cap B) b_s$ and $i(B) = b_t i(A \cap B) = i(A \cap B) b_t$. We then have $$\eqalign{ \t(i(A)) &= \t(b_s i(A \cap B)) = \t(b_s b_t b_s i(A \cap B)) \cr &= \t(b_t b_s i(A \cap B) b_s) = \t(b_t b_s b_s i(A \cap B)) \cr &= \d \t(b_t b_s i(A \cap B)) \cr &= \t(b_t b_t b_s i(A \cap B)) = \t(b_t b_s i(A \cap B) b_t) \cr &= \t(b_t b_s b_t i(A \cap B)) = \t(b_t i(A \cap B)) \cr &= \t(i(B)), \cr }$$ as required. \qed\enddemo \proclaim{Lemma \secc.2} Any trace $\t : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$ is determined by its values on the set $$ \{ i(A) : A \in P \} .$$ \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Suppose the values of $\t(i(A))$ are known for each $A \in P$. We will show how to compute the value of $\t(b_w)$, where $w \in W_c$ is arbitrary. Let us write $w = x i(A) y$ reduced as in Proposition \secb.4 (i). Using a reverse induction, we will assume that the values of $\t(b_{w'})$ for $\afn(w') > \afn(w) = \#A$, if such $w'$ exist, have been determined. By the defining relations of $TL(E_n)$, we have $b_{i(A)} b_{i(A)} = \d^{\#A} b_{i(A)}$, and so we have $$\eqalign{ \t(b_w) &= \t(b_x b_{i(A)} b_y) \cr &= \d^{-\#A} \t(b_x b_{i(A)} b_{i(A)} b_y) \cr &= \d^{-\#A} \t(b_{i(A)} b_y b_x b_{i(A)}). \cr }$$ Now $i(A) y$ and $x i(A)$ lie in $W_c$ because $w$ does, and Proposition \secb.4 (i) and (ii) shows that $\afn(w) = \afn(x i(A))$. By Proposition \secb.2 (i), we have $$ b_{i(A)} b_y b_x b_{i(A)} = b_{i(A) y} b_{x i(A)} = \d^c b_z $$ for some $z \in W_c$, and it is clear from the definitions that $z \leq_L x i(A)$. By Proposition \secb.4 (ii) and (iii), we see that $$ \afn(z) \geq \afn(x i(A)) = \afn(w) = \#A .$$ If $\afn(z) > \#A$ then our inductive hypothesis determines the value of $\t(\d^c b_z)$, which in turn determines the value of $\t(b_w)$. We may therefore assume that $\afn(z) = \#A$. To complete the proof, it is enough to show that $z = i(A)$, because the value of $\t(b_z)$ will then have been determined by our assumptions. Let $s \in A$. Since $b_s b_{i(A)} = \d b_{i(A)}$ by the defining relations, the definition of $b_z$ shows that $b_s b_z = \d b_z$. By Proposition \secb.2 (ii), this means that $\ell(sz) < \ell(z)$, and it follows that $A \subseteq \L(z)$. Because $A$ is a set of commuting generators, standard properties of Coxeter groups show that we can write $z = i(A) z'$ reduced. Applying Proposition \secb.4 (iv) to the fact that $\afn(z) = \#A$ shows that $z \sim_R i(A)$. A symmetrical argument then shows that we have $z \sim_L i(A)$. By Proposition \secb.4 (v), this can only happen if $z = i(A)$. \qed\enddemo \proclaim{Theorem \secc.3} For each $\bar{A} \in \bar{P}$ (as in Definition \seca.3), there is a unique trace $\t_{\bar{A}} : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$ such that for each $B \in P$ we have $$ \t_{\bar{A}}(i(B)) = \cases 1 & \text{ if } B \in \bar{A},\cr 0 & \text{ otherwise.}\cr \endcases .$$ The set $$\{\t_{\bar{A}} : \bar{A} \in \bar{P}\}$$ is a $\qvk$-basis for the set of all traces $\t : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} It is clear from the definition of trace that the traces from $\tlqvk$ to $\qvk$ form a $\qvk$-vector space. Lemmas \secc.1 and \secc.2 show that this space has dimension at most the size of $\bar{P}$. Fan , Theorem 5.6.1} shows that $\tlqvk$ is semisimple and that is then a direct sum of $|\bar{P}|$ matrix rings. This proves that the dimension of the space of traces is at least the size of $\bar{P}$, and thus that the space has the claimed dimension. A dimension count, together with another application of lemmas \secc.1 and \secc.2, then shows that there are unique traces $\t_{\bar{A}}$ with the properties claimed, and that they form a basis. \qed\enddemo We now come to the central definition of the paper. \definition{Definition \secc.4} The trace $\tr : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$ is defined by $$ \tr = \sum_{{\bar A} \in {\bar P}} \d^{-\#A} \t_{\bar{A}} ,$$ where $\t_{\bar{A}}$ is as in Theorem \secc.3. \enddefinition \proclaim{Corollary \secc.5} Any trace $\t : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$ satisfies $\t(b_w) = \t(b_{w^{-1}})$ for all $w \in W_c$. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} It follows from Proposition \seca.1 that there is a unique $\A$-linear antiautomorphism $* : TL(E_n) \ra TL(E_n)$ fixing the generators $b_s$. We may extend this to a $\qvk$-linear antiautomorphism $* : \tlqvk \ra \tlqvk.$ If $a \in \tlqvk$, let us write $a^*$ for $*(a)$. Note that if $A \in P$, then $i(A)$ is invariant under $*$, because $i(A)$ is a product of commuting generators $b_s$. Given a trace $\t : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$, the $\qvk$-linear map $\t' : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$ defined by $\t'(a) = \t(a^*)$ is also a trace. Since $\t$ and $\t'$ agree on all elements $i(A)$ for $A \in P$, Lemma \secc.2 shows that $\t = \t'$, and the assertion follows. \qed\enddemo \remark{Remark \secc.6} The trace $\tr$ will turn out to induce the Markov trace of the title. Note that the definition makes sense because $\bar{A}, \bar{B} \in \bar{P}$ implies $\#A = \#B$. Traces on Hecke algebras of finite Coxeter groups are known have a property similar to that given in Corollary \secc.5; see , Corollary 8.2.6} for more details. \endremark \head \secd. Cellular structure and the $\afn$-funtion \endhead In \S\secd, we explain how the trace $\tr$ is particularly compatible with the structure of $TL(E_n)$ as a cellular algebra, in the sense of }. We will not recall the complete definition of a cellular algebra here, but we summarize below the properties of the cellular structure that are important for our purposes. \definition{Definition \secd.1} Let $\Lambda$ be the set of two-sided cells for $TL(E_n)$, equipped with the partial order induced by $\leq_{LR}$. For each $\l \in \Lambda$, let $M(\l)$ be an indexing set for the left cells contained in $\l$; note that the inversion map on the Coxeter group $W$ induces a bijection between the set of left cells in $\l$ and the set of right cells in $\l$ (see the remarks at the end of , \S4.4}). \enddefinition \proclaim{Proposition \secd.2} Maintain the above notation. \item{\rm (i)}{Let $T, U \in M(\l)$ for some fixed $\l \in \Lambda$. Then $T \cap U$ contains a unique element, $w$, and we define $C_{T, U} = b_w$.} \item{\rm (ii)}{The $\A$-algebra anti-automorphism $* : TL(E_n) \ra TL(E_n)$ defined by $*(b_w) = b_{w^{-1}}$ satisfies $*(C_{T, U}) = C_{U, T}$. In particular, we have $w^2 = 1$ if and only if $b_w = C_{T, T}$ for some $T$.} \item{\rm (iii)}{Suppose that $C_{P, Q}$ and $C_{R, S}$ are arbitrary monomial basis elements, and define $C_{T, U}$ by the condition $$ C_{P, Q} C_{R, S} = \d^a C_{T, U} $$ (which makes sense by Proposition \secb.2 (i)). If $P, Q, R, S, T$ and $U$ all belong to the same two-sided cell, then $P = T$ and $S = U$; if, furthermore, we have $Q = R$, then $a = \afn(C_{T, U})$. If it is not the case that $P = T$, $S = U$ and $Q = R$, then we have $a < \afn(C_{T, U})$.} \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Parts (i) and (ii), which are originally due to Graham }, are proved in , Proposition 4.2.1}. Part (iii) is proved in , propositions 4.2.1 and 4.2.3} using the results of }. \qed\enddemo \proclaim{Proposition \secd.3} For all $w \in W_c$, we have $\tr(b_w) = \d^a$, where $a = -\afn(w)$ if $w^2 = 1$, and $a < -\afn(w)$ otherwise. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Let $\l$ be the two-sided cell containing $w$. We will prove the statement by induction on the partial order on two-sided cells given in Definition \secd.1. Writing $w = C_{T, U}$ for $T, U \in M(\l)$, as in Proposition \secd.2 (i), and applying Proposition \secd.2 (ii), we see that the condition $w^2 = 1$ is equivalent to $T = U$. By Proposition \secb.4, there exists a product of $\afn(w)$ commuting generators, $i(A)$, in $\l$. Define $V \in M(\l)$ by the condition $C_{V, V} = b_{i(A)}$. Since $\tr$ is a trace, Proposition \secd.2 (iii) shows that $$ \tr(C_{T, U}) = \d^{-\afn(w)} \tr(C_{T, V} C_{V, U}) = \d^{-\afn(w)} \tr(C_{V, U} C_{T, V}) .$$ By Proposition \secb.2 (i), we have $$ C_{V, U} C_{T, V} = \d^b C_{X, Y} $$ for some $b \geq 0$ and some basis element $C_{X, Y}$. There are now two cases to consider. The first possibility is that $C_{X, Y}$ comes from the two-sided cell $\l$. (If $T = U$, this case must occur by Proposition \secd.2 (iii).) In this case, we have $X = Y = V$, and thus $C_{X, Y} = b_{i(A)}$. Proposition \secd.2 (iii) then shows that $b = \afn(w)$ if $T = U$, and $b < \afn(w)$ otherwise. Since we have $\tr(b_{i(A)}) = \d^{-\afn(w)}$ by definition of $\tr$, we have $\tr(C_{T, U}) = \d^{-\afn(w) + b - \afn(w)}$, and the result follows. The other possibility is that $C_{X, Y}$ comes from a two-sided cell $\l'$ with $\l' < \l$, and $T \ne U$. In this case, Proposition \secb.4 (iii) shows that $\afn(C_{X, Y}) > \afn(w)$. By the inductive hypothesis, we know that $\tr(C_{X, Y}) = \d^{a'}$, where $a' \leq -\afn(C_{X, Y}) < -\afn(w)$. This means that $\tr(C_{T, U}) = \d^{- \afn(w) + b + a'}$. By propositions \secb.2 (iii) and \secb.4 (ii), we have $b \leq \afn(w)$, and thus $\tr(C_{T, U}) = \d^a$ for $a < -\afn(w)$, as required. \qed\enddemo \remark{Remark \secd.4} The above proposition shows that we do not actually need $\sqrt{\d} \in k$ to define $\tr$. From now on, we need only assume that $\qvk$ is a field containing $\A$. \endremark \proclaim{Proposition \secd.5} If $\qvk$ is the field of fractions of the power series ring $\zed[[v^{-1}]]$, then $\tr$ is a nondegenerate trace on $\tlqvk$, and $$ \tr(C_{P, Q} C_{R, S}) - \d_{QR} \d_{PS} \in v^{-1} \kyu[[v^{-1}]] ,$$ where $\d_{QR}$ and $\d_{PS}$ are the Kronecker delta. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} An element $x$ of $\qvk$ is uniquely representable in the form $$ x = \sum_{i = -\infty}^N \l_i v^i ,$$ where $\l_i \in \kyu$ for all $i$. If $x \ne 0$, we define $\deg x$ to be the largest integer $j$ such that $\l_j \ne 0$. If $x, y \ne 0$ then $\deg (xy) = \deg x + \deg y$, so the facts that $\deg \d = 1$ and $\deg 1 = 0$ imply that $\deg \d^a = -a$. The second assertion follows from the fact that $\deg \d^a = -a$ combined with Proposition \secb.4 (ii), Proposition \secd.2 (iii) and Proposition \secd.3. We will now show that for any nonzero $a \in \tlqvk$, we have $\tr(a a^*) \ne 0$, from which the assertion follows. We have $$ a = \sum_{w \in W_c} \l_w b_w ,$$ and by clearing denominators (thus multiplying $a$ by a nonzero scalar), we may assume that we have $\l_w \in \A$ for all $w \in W_c$. Choose $w'$ with $\l_{w'} \ne 0$ and $N(w') := \deg \l_{w'}$ maximal, and let $c_{w'}$ be the (integer) coefficient of $v^{N(w')}$ in $\l_{w'}$. Setting $a_{w'} = v^{-N(w')} \l_{w'} b_{w'}$, we then have $$ \tr(a_{w'} a_{w'}^*) = c^2 \mod v^{-1} \kyu[[v^{-1}]] .$$ If $\l_{w''} \ne 0$ but $\deg \l_{w''}$ is not maximal, we may again define $a_{w''} = v^{-N(w'')} \l_{w''} b_{w''}$, but then $$ \tr(a_{w''} a_{w''}^*) \in v^{-1} \kyu[[v^{-1}]] .$$ Since the integers $c^2$ are strictly positive, it follows that $$ \tr((v^{-N(w')}a)(v^{-N(w')}a)^*) \not\in v^{-1} \kyu[[v^{-1}]] ,$$ which completes the proof. \qed\enddemo \proclaim{Proposition \secd.6} Let $\qvk$ be the field of fractions of the power series ring $\zed[[v^{-1}]]$, and let $\qvk'$ be the subfield of $\qvk$ consisting of the field of fractions of $\zed[[v^{-2}]]$. \item{\rm (i)}{The field $\tlqvk$ has a unique structure as a $\zed_2$-graded algebra over $\qvk'$ in which $v^n$ has degree $n \mod 2$ and $\qvk'$ is precisely the set of elements of degree $0 \mod 2$.} \item{\rm (ii)}{The algebra $\tlqvk$ has a unique structure as a $\zed_2$-graded algebra over $\qvk'$ in which $v^n$ has degree $n \mod 2$ and the generators $b_s$ have degree $1 \mod 2$. We denote the even subalgebra consisting of elements of degree $0 \mod 2$ by $\tlqvkd$.} \item{\rm (iii)}{Let $\t : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$ be any trace. Then there are unique $\qvk'$-linear maps $\t_{(0)}, \t_{(1)} : \tlqvkd \ra \qvk'$ such that $\t_{(0)} + v \t_{(1)}$ is the restriction of $\t$ to $\tlqvkd$, and furthermore, $\t_{(0)}$ and $\t_{(1)}$ are themselves traces.} \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Recall from the proof of Proposition \secd.5 that $\qvk = \kyu((v^{-1})) = \kyu[v][[v^{-1}]]$, so that each element $x \in \qvk$ has a unique expression of the form $$ \sum_{i = N}^\infty q_i v^i ,$$ where $q_i \in \kyu$ and $N \in \zed$ depends on $x$. Similar reasoning shows that the subfield $\qvk'$ of $\qvk$ then consists precisely of those elements for which $q_i = 0$ whenever $i$ is odd. Part (i) is a consequence of this construction. The assertion of (ii) is immediate from the observation that the defining relations of Proposition \seca.1 respect the given grading. Let $\pi : \qvk \ra \qvk'$ be the map $$ \pi\left( \sum_{i = N}^\infty q_i v^i\right) = \sum_{i = N}^\infty q'_i v^i ,$$ where $$q'_i = \cases q_i & \text{ if } i \text{ is even,}\cr 0 & \text{ otherwise.}\cr \endcases$$ Our description of $\qvk'$ shows that $\pi$ is a $\qvk'$-linear map. Denoting the restriction of $\t$ to $\tlqvkd$ by $\t'$, it follows that $\pi \circ \t'$ is a trace on $\tlqvkd$. Since $\t_{(0)} = \pi \circ \t'$, the maps $\t_{(0)}$, $v\t_{(1)} = \t' - \t_{(0)}$ and $\t_{(1)}$ are also traces, completing the proof of (iii). \qed\enddemo Note that any trace from $\tlqvkd$ to $\qvk'$ extends uniquely to a trace from $\tlqvk$ to $\qvk$ by tensoring by $\qvk \otimes_{\qvk'} -$. \proclaim{Lemma \secd.7} The trace $\tr : \tlqvk \ra \qvk$ arises from a trace $$\tr' : \tlqvkd \ra \qvk'$$ by extension of scalars. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} We use the notation of \S\secc. Note that if $A \in P$, then $i(A)$ is an element of $\tlqvk$ of degree $\#A \mod 2$. We also have $\tr(i(A)) = \d^{\#A}$, which is an element of $\qvk$ of degree $\#A \mod 2$. Recall that $\tlqvkd$ is a $\qvk'$-subalgebra of $\tlqvk$ and note that if $y, z$ are homogeneous elements of $\tlqvk$, then $yz$ and $zy$ have the same degree. The argument of Lemma \secc.2 now shows that if $x$ is an element of $\tlqvkd$, we have a relation $$ \tr(x) = \tr\left( \sum_{\bar{A} \in \bar{P}} \l_{\bar{A}} i(A) \right) ,$$ where for each $\bar{A} \in \bar{P}$, we have $\l_{\bar{A}} (i(A)) \in \tlqvkd$. By the first paragraph of the proof, $\l_{\bar{A}}$ must be homogeneous of degree $\#A \mod 2$, and $\tr(\l_{\bar{A}} i(A)) \in \qvk'$. The proof is completed by the observation that any $x \in \tlqvk$ is uniquely expressible as $x_{(0)} + v x_{(1)}$ for $x_{(0)}, x_{(1)} \in \tlqvkd$ (compare with Proposition \secd.6 (iii)). \qed\enddemo \proclaim{Corollary \secd.8} If $w \in W_c$ and $\tr(b_w) = \d^a$ as in Proposition \secd.3, then $a \equiv \l(w) \mod 2$. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} By Lemma \secd.7, we have $\deg\tr(b_w) = \ell(w) \mod 2$, so the assertion follows from the fact that $\deg \d = 1$. \qed\enddemo \head \S\sece. tom Dieck's diagram calculus \endhead In }, tom Dieck introduced a diagram calculus for the algebras $TL(E_n)$. To give a rigorous definition of tom Dieck's diagram calculus, as we do here, we first need to recall the graphical definition of the Temperley--Lieb algebra. We start by recalling Jones' formalism of $k$-boxes }, following the approach of Martin and the author in }. For further details and references, the reader is referred to , \S2}. \definition{Definition \sece.1} Let $k$ be a nonnegative integer. The {\it standard $k$-box}, ${\Cal B}_k$, is the set $\{(x, y) \in \real^2 : 0 \leq x \leq k + 1, \ 0 \leq y \leq 1\}$, together with the $2k$ marked points $$\eqalign{ &1 = (1, 1), \ 2 = (2, 1), \ 3 = (3, 1), \ \ldots, \ k = (k, 1), \cr &k + 1 = (k, 0), \ k + 2 = (k-1, 0), \ \ldots, \ 2k = (1, 0).\cr }$$ \enddefinition \definition{Definition \sece.2} Let $X$ and $Y$ be embeddings of some topological spaces (such as lines) into the standard $k$-box. Multiplication of such embeddings to obtain a new embedding in the standard $k$-box shall, where appropriate, be defined via the following procedure on $k$-boxes. The product $XY$ is the embedding obtained by placing $X$ on top of $Y$ (that is, $X$ is first shifted in the plane by $(0,1)$ relative to $Y$, so that marked point $(i,0)$ in $X$ coincides with $(i,1)$ in $Y$), rescaling vertically by a scalar factor of $1/2$ and applying the appropriate translation to recover a standard $k$-box. \enddefinition \definition{Definition \sece.3} Let $k$ be a nonnegative integer. Consider the set of smooth embeddings of a single curve (which we usually call an ``edge'') in the standard $k$-box, such that the curve is either closed (isotopic to a circle) or its endpoints coincide with two marked points of the box, with the curve meeting the boundary of the box only at such points, and there transversely. By a smooth diffeomorphism of this curve we mean a smooth diffeomorphism of the copy of $\real^2$ in which it is embedded, that fixes the boundary, and in particular the marked points, of the $k$-box, and takes the curve to another such smooth embedding. (Thus, the orbit of smooth diffeomorphisms of one embedding contains all embeddings with the same endpoints.) A concrete Brauer diagram is a set of such embedded curves with the property that every marked point coincides with an endpoint of precisely one curve. (In examples we can represent this set by drawing all the curves on one copy of the $k$-box. Examples can always be chosen in which no ambiguity arises thereby.) Two such concrete diagrams are said to be equivalent if one may be taken into the other by applying smooth diffeomorphisms to the individual curve embeddings within it. There is an obvious map from the set of concrete diagrams to the set of pair partitions of the $2k$ marked points. It will be evident that the image under this map is an invariant of concrete diagram equivalence. The set $B_k(\emptyset)$ is the set of equivalence classes of concrete diagrams. Such a class (or any representative) is called a Brauer diagram. Let $D_1, D_2$ be concrete diagrams. Since the $k$-box multiplication defined above internalises marked points in coincident pairs, corresponding curve endpoints in $D_1D_2$ may also be internalised seamlessly. Each chain of curves concatenated in this way may thus be put in natural correspondence with a single curve. Thus the multiplication gives rise to a closed associative binary operation on the set of concrete diagrams. It will be evident that this passes to a well defined multiplication on $B_k(\emptyset)$. Let $R$ be a commutative ring with $1$. The elements of $B_n(\emptyset)$ form the basis elements of an $R$-algebra $\Pl_n^B(\emptyset)$ with this multiplication. \enddefinition A curve in a diagram that is not a closed loop is called {\it propagating} if its endpoints have different $y$-values, and {\it non-propagating} otherwise. (Some authors use the terms ``through strings'' and ``arcs'' respectively for curves of these types.) Note that in a Brauer diagram drawn on a single copy of the $k$-box it is not generally possible to keep the embedded curves disjoint. Let $T_k(\emptyset) \subset B_k(\emptyset)$ denote the subset of diagrams having representative elements in which the curves are disjoint. Representatives of this kind are called Temperley--Lieb diagrams. It will be evident that $\Pl_n^B(\emptyset)$ has a subalgebra with basis the subset $T_k(\emptyset) $. (That is to say, the disjointness property is preserved under multiplication.) We denote this subalgebra $\Pl_n(\emptyset)$ Because of the disjointness property there is, for each element of $T_k(\emptyset) $, a unique assignment of orientation to its curves that satisfies the following two conditions. \item{(i)}{A curve meeting the $r$-th marked point of the standard $k$-box, where $r$ is odd, must exit the box at that point.} \item{(ii)}{Each connected component of the complement of the union of the curves in the standard $k$-box may be oriented in such a way that the orientation of a curve coincides with the orientation induced as part of the boundary of the connected component.} Note that the orientations match up automatically in composition. If $D_1$ and $D_2$ are equivalent concrete Temperley--Lieb diagrams, the diffeomorphisms that give rise to the equivalence set up a bijection between the connected components of $D_1$ and those of $D_2$. \topcaption{Figure 2} A pillar diagram corresponding to an element of $T_8(\emptyset)$ \endcaption \centerline{ \hbox to 4.6in{ \vbox to 2.2in{\vfill \special{psfile=pillar.eps} } \hfill} } \definition{Definition \sece.4} A {\it pillar diagram} consists of a pair $(D, f)$, where $D \in T_k(\emptyset)$ is a Temperley--Lieb diagram and $f$ is a function from the connected components of $D$ to $\zed^{\geq 0}$, such that any component with anticlockwise orientation is mapped to zero. On the diagram $D$, we indicate the values of $f$ on the clockwise connected components either by writing in the appropriate integer, or by inserting $k$ disjoint discs (the ``pillars'' of }). The set of pillar diagrams arising from the set $T_k(\emptyset)$ will be denoted $T_k(\bullet)$. \enddefinition \example{Example \sece.5} Let $k = 8$. A pillar diagram corresponding to an element of $T_k(\bullet)$ is shown in Figure 2. Note that there are 10 connected components, precisely 7 of which inherit a clockwise orientation. The values of $f$ on these 7 components are $3, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0$. \endexample We define an algebra $\Pl_n(\bullet)$, analogous to $\Pl_n(\emptyset)$, with the set $T_k(\bullet)$ as a basis. The multiplication is $k$-box multiplication with the added convention that function values on the connected components are additive. (This is natural if one represents the function values with pillars as in Figure 2.) For our purposes, we need to apply an equivalence relation on the concrete diagrams of $T_k(\bullet)$. Locally, this is given by the relation shown in Figure 3. \topcaption{Figure 3} A topological reduction rule \endcaption \centerline{ \hbox to 2.263in{ \vbox to 1.000in{\vfill \special{psfile=toprel.eps} } \hfill} } In the notation where clockwise regions are labelled by nonnegative integers, the relation of Figure 3 is that shown in Figure 4. \topcaption{Figure 4} Alternative notation for the topological reduction \endcaption \centerline{ \hbox to 2.263in{ \vbox to 1.000in{\vfill \special{psfile=toprel2.eps} } \hfill} } If the regions labelled $k$ and $l$ are connected to each other, Figure 3 shows that we have $k = l > 1$ and $p = k-1$. On the other hand, if the regions labelled $k$ and $l$ are genuinely distinct, that is, the arcs shown on the left hand side of figure 3 are not sections of some longer arc, then we have $p = k + l - 1 \geq 1$. In the latter case, it is not possible for any regions labelled by the integer zero to be created or destroyed by the topological reduction. Note that the other partial regions shown in figures 2 and 3 have anticlockwise orientation, and as such they are labelled by the integer $0$. \definition{Definition \sece.6} If $L$ is a closed loop in a concrete diagram of $T_k(\bullet)$, we define $m(L)$ to be the integer label of the region immediately interior to $L$; in particular, we have $m(L) = 0$ if $L$ has anticlockwise orientation. Let $R$ be a commutative ring with $1$. The $R$-algebra $\Pl_n^E(\bullet)$ is the quotient of the $R$-algebra $\Pl_n(\bullet)$ obtained by applying the following three relations: \item{(i)}{for each closed loop $L$ whose immediate interior is labelled $1$ and whose immediate exterior is necessarily labelled $0$, relabel the immediate interior of $L$ by $0$ and remove $L$;} \item{(ii)}{for each closed loop $L$ whose immediate interior is labelled $0$ and whose immediate exterior is labelled $k$, relabel the immediate interior of $L$ by $k$, remove $L$ and multiply by $\d$;} \item{(iii)}{for each region $R$ labelled by $k \geq 2$ (whether or not $R$ is a closed loop), decrease the label of $R$ by $1$ and multiply by $\d$.} \enddefinition A basis for $\Pl_n^E(\bullet)$ may be obtained by using the notion of ``reduced'' diagrams given in , \S2} and Bergman's diamond lemma }. However, we do not pursue this because we do not need it for our purposes. \definition{Definition \sece.7} Suppose $n > 1$ and $1 \leq k < n$. The diagram $E_k^n$ of $\Pl_n^E(\bullet)$ is the one where each point $i$ is connected by a propagating edge to point $2n + 1 - i$, unless $i \in \{k, k+1, 2n - k, 2n + 1 - k\}$. Points $k$ and $k+1$ are connected by an edge, as are points $2n - k$ and $2n + 1 - k$. All regions are labelled by $0$. The diagram $B_k^n$ of $\Pl_n^E(\bullet)$ is the one where each point $i$ is connected by a propagating edge to point $2n + 1 - i$, and all regions are labelled by $0$, except the rectangular region bounded by $k, k+1, 2n - k$ and $2n + 1 - k$, which is labelled by $1$. \enddefinition \proclaim{Proposition \sece.8} There is a unique homomorphism $\rho : TL(E_n) \ra \Pl_n^E(\bullet)$ of unital $\A$-algebras sending $b_0$ to $B_3^n$ and $b_s$ to $E_s^n$ for $i \in \{1, 2, \ldots, n-1\}$, where the numbering of generators is as in \S\seca. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} This is a routine (but important) exercise using the presentation of Proposition \seca.1, and is essentially the same as the proof of , Theorem 2.5}. \qed\enddemo We shall see later that $\rho$ is in fact a faithful representation. We will not determine the image of $\rho$, but this can be done by an inductive combinatorial argument similar to those in , \S5}. \head \S\secf. Existence and uniqueness of the Markov trace \endhead There is a well-known embedding $\iota_n : TL(E_n) \ra TL(E_{n+1})$ sending $b_s$ to $b_s$ for each generator of $TL(E_n)$ (see , \S6.3}). This means that the tower of algebras $TL(E_n)$, equipped with the generators $b_s$, fits into the framework of Markov traces defined in \S\secy. We recall the definition in order to fix some notation. \definition{Definition \secf.1} Let $\qvk$ be a field containing $\A$. A {\it Markov trace} on $TL_K(E_\infty)$ with parameter $z \in \qvk$ is a $\qvk$-linear map $\t : TL_K(E_\infty) \ra K$ satisfying the following conditions: \item{\rm (i)}{$\t(1) = 1$;} \item{\rm (ii)}{$\t(h b_n) = z \t(h)$ for $n \geq 6$ and $h \in \tlqvk$;} \item{\rm (iii)}{$\t(hh') = \t(h'h)$ for all $n \geq 6$ and $h, h' \in \tlqvk$.} \enddefinition \remark{Remark \secf.2} Note that in condition (ii), $b_n$ is the unique generator in $TL(E_{n+1})$ that does not lie in $TL(E_n)$. As mentioned in , \S2.2}, the algebras $TL(E_n)$ are quotients of the Hecke algebras of the Coxeter groups $W(E_n)$, and $b_s = q^{-1/2}(T_s + 1)$, where the $T_s$ are the usual generators for the Hecke algebra as given in , \S7}. This means that the Markov trace can also be regarded as a trace on a tower of Hecke algebras. \endremark \proclaim{Proposition \secf.3} If $\t$ is a Markov trace on $TL_K(E_\infty)$, then the parameter $z$ must be equal to $\d^{-1}$, and $\t$ is unique. Restricted to $TL(E_n)$, such a Markov trace must agree with the trace $\tr$. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Let $n \geq 6$. Part (ii) of Definition \secf.1 shows that $\t(b_{n-1} b_n) = z \t(b_{n-1})$. On the other hand, the defining relations and part (iii) of the definition show that $$ \t(b_{n-1} b_n) = \d^{-1} \t(b_{n-1} (b_{n-1} b_n)) = \d^{-1} \t(b_{n-1} b_n b_{n-1}) = \d^{-1} \t(b_{n-1}) ,$$ proving the assertion about the parameter. To prove the other assertions, it suffices to show that, regarding $\tlqvk$ as a subalgebra of $TL_K(E_\infty)$, we have $\t(i(A)) = \d^{-\#A}$ for $A \in P = P(n)$. Choose such an $A$. It follows from Definition \seca.3 that for sufficiently large $N \geq n$, and identifying $A$ in the obvious way with an element of $P(N)$, we can find $B \in P(N)$ with $A \sim B$ and $B \cap \{b_0, b_1, \ldots, b_5\} = \emptyset$. The first assertion together with repeated applications of part (ii) of Definition \secf.1 (and one application of part (i)) now show that $\t(i(B)) = \d^{-\#B} = \d^{-\#A}$, and Lemma \secc.1 completes the proof. \qed\enddemo To prove that the Markov trace on $TL_K(E_\infty)$ exists, we make use of the diagram calculus, as hinted in , \S6}. \definition{Definition \secf.4} Let $k$ be a nonnegative integer. The {\it standard $k$-cone} is obtained from the standard $k$-box by identifying each pair of points $\{(x, 0), (x, 1)\}$ for each $0 \leq x \leq k+1$, and identifying all the points in the set $\{(k + 1, y) : 0 \leq y \leq 1\}$. The standard $k$-cone is homeomorphic to a closed disc. Let $D$ be a diagram in $\Pl_k^E(\bullet)$. The {\it trace diagram}, $\overline{D}$, of $D$ is obtained by identifying the boundary points of the $k$-box bounding $D$ to form the standard $k$-cone. \enddefinition \topcaption{Figure 5} The trace diagram of the pillar diagram in Figure 2 \endcaption \centerline{ \hbox to 2.527in{ \vbox to 2.083in{\vfill \special{psfile=tdpillar.eps} } \hfill} } \example{Example \secf.5} The trace diagram $\overline{D}$ corresponding to the diagram $D$ of Figure 2 is shown in Figure 5. \endexample Notice that the outer part of the trace diagram (regarded as a disc) will always have an anticlockwise orientation and thus be labelled by $0$. Consequently, any regions in the trace diagram not labelled by zero must be bounded by at least one closed loop. (It is possible for the closed loops to be nested.) \definition{Definition \secf.6} Let $g : \zed^{\geq 0} \ra \zed^{\geq 0}$ be given by $$ g(c) = \cases 1 & \text{ if } c = 0,\cr c-1 & \text{ if } c \geq 1.\cr \endcases $$ If $\overline{D}$ is a trace diagram for $TL(E_n)$, we define the {\it content}, $c(\overline{D})$, of $\overline{D}$ to be the integer $$ \sum_L g(f(L)) ,$$ where the sum is over all the connected components $L$ of $\overline{D}$ that are interior to at least one closed loop, and where $f(L)$ is the integer assigned to $L$ as in Definition \sece.4. \enddefinition \example{Example \secf.7} The content of the trace diagram in Figure 5 is $$ g(2) + g(3) + g(3) = 5 .$$ \endexample \proclaim{Lemma \secf.8} The content of a trace diagram $\overline{D}$ is invariant under the topological reduction rule shown in Figure 3. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Consider the application of the topological reduction rule to a diagram that looks locally like the situation in Figure 6. \topcaption{Figure 6} Labelling of points involved in the topological relation \endcaption \centerline{ \hbox to 0.958in{ \vbox to 1.222in{\vfill \special{psfile=toprel3.eps} } \hfill} } As in the discussion following Figure 4, there are two cases to consider, according as the two pillar regions are connected or not in $\overline{D}$. There are four cases to consider, according as there is an oriented curve in $\overline{D}$ from point A to point C, and (independently) according as there is an oriented curve in $\overline{D}$ from point D to point B. Suppose first that there is no oriented curve in $\overline{D}$ from point A to point C, and also that there is no oriented curve in $\overline{D}$ from point D to point B. In this case, the two pillar regions are genuinely distinct, and applying the topological relation does not produce any new closed loops. We are then in the case $p = k + l - 1 \geq 1$ of Figure 4, so the summands $(k - 1)$ and $(l - 1)$ appearing in Definition \secf.6 are replaced by a single $((k + l - 1) - 1)$, leaving the content unchanged. We next deal with the case where there is an oriented curve from point A to point C, but no oriented curve from point D to point B. In this case, the two pillar regions are connected to each other, and the application of the topological rule produces a new closed loop (labelled zero) from the curve originally connecting point A to point C. We are now in the case $k = l > 1$ of Figure 4. This will change one of the summands $(k - 1)$ of Definition \secf.6 to $(k - 2)$, and a new summand of $1$ will be produced, corresponding to the new closed loop. The content thus remains unchanged. Consideration of the case where there is an oriented curve from point D to point B, but not from point A to point C, proceeds in exactly the same way. The last case, in which both oriented curves exist, also works similarly, except that the oriented curves shown in Figure 6 are already part of a closed loop. Application of the topological relation splits this closed loop into two closed loops, again producing an extra summand of $1$ and changing a summand $(k - 1)$ to $(k - 2)$, leaving the content unchanged. \qed\enddemo \proclaim{Lemma \secf.9} There is a well-defined $K$-linear map $$ \t_n^\bullet : \Pl_n^E(\bullet) \ra K $$ such that for each pillar diagram $D$, $\t_n^\bullet(D) = \d^{c(\overline{D})}$. If $x, y \in \Pl_n^E(\bullet)$, we have $\t_n^\bullet(xy) = \t_n^\bullet(yx)$. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} For the first assertion, we need to check relations (a)--(c) of Definition \sece.6. Relation (iii) holds by Lemma \secf.8. In relation (i), we have $D = D_1$, where $D_1$ is the result of removing a loop labelled $1$ from $D$. Since $c(\overline{D}) = c(\overline{D_1})$, we have $\t_n^\bullet(D) = \t_n^\bullet(D_1)$. In relation (ii), we have $D = \d D_2$, where $D_2$ is the result of removing a loop labelled $0$ from $D$. Since $c(\overline{D}) = c(\overline{D_2}) + 1$, we have $\t_n^\bullet(D) = \t_n^\bullet(D_2)$. By linearity, we only need check the second assertion in the case where $x$ and $y$ are pillar diagrams, and this is immediate from the construction of trace diagrams from pillar diagrams. \qed\enddemo It is not hard to see that there is an algebra embedding $\iota_n^\bullet : \Pl_n^E(\bullet) \ra \Pl_{n+1}^E(\bullet)$ analogous to the map $\iota_n$. Given a pillar diagram $D$ of $\Pl_n^E(\bullet)$, $\iota^\bullet(D)$ is the diagram obtained by adding a vertical line on the right of the diagram. \proclaim{Lemma \secf.10} Let $D$ be a pillar diagram of $\Pl_n^E(\bullet)$. \item{\rm (i)}{We have $\t_{n+1}^\bullet(\iota_n^\bullet(D)) = \d\t_n^\bullet(D).$} \item{\rm (ii)}{Let $E_n^{n+1}$ be as in Definition \sece.7. Then we have $ \t_n^\bullet(D) = \t_{n+1}^\bullet(\iota_n(D) E_n). $} \endproclaim \demo{Proof} Part (i) follows from the observation that the trace diagram $\overline{\iota_n^\bullet(D)}$ differs from the trace diagram $\overline{D}$ only in having a single extra closed loop, labelled $0$. A short calculation involving diagrams shows that the trace diagrams $\overline{D}$ and $\overline{\iota_n(D) E_n}$ are equivalent, from which part (ii) follows. \qed\enddemo \proclaim{Theorem \secf.11} Let $\t_n : \tlqvk \ra K$ be the trace defined by $$\t_n(x) = \d^{-n} \t_n^\bullet(\rho(x)).$$ The family of traces $\{ \t_n : n \geq 6\}$ is compatible with the direct limit of algebras $\tlqvk$ and gives the unique Markov trace on $TL_{\qvk}(E_\infty)$. Furthermore, the Markov trace agrees with the traces $\tr$ of Definition \secc.4. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} The maps $\t_n$ are traces by Proposition \sece.8 and Lemma \secf.9. They are compatible with the direct limit by Lemma \secf.10 (i). Since $\t_n^\bullet(1) = \d^n$, we have $\t_n(1) = 1$. Condition (ii) of Definition \secf.1 follows from part (ii) of Lemma \secf.10. Uniqueness of the Markov trace, and agreement with the traces $\tr$, is given by Proposition \secf.3. \qed\enddemo \head \secg. Proofs and applications \endhead \demo{Proof of Theorem \secz.1} We need to show that the homomorphism $\rho$ of Proposition \sece.8 is injective, and there is no loss in passing to the field of fractions $\qvk$ of $\zed[[v^{-1}]]$. In this case, Proposition \secd.5 and Theorem \secf.11 show that the unique Markov trace on $\tlqvk$, which can be defined on $\Im(\rho)$, is nondegenerate on $\tlqvk$. The conclusion follows. \qed\enddemo \proclaim{Proposition \secg.1} The linear map $$ \almd^n \t_n = v^{-n} \t_n^{\bullet} \circ \rho $$ restricted to $TL(E_n)$ takes values in $\A$. It is a tabular trace in the sense of }, and a positive generalized Jones trace in the sense of }. \endproclaim \demo{Proof} The first assertion comes from the fact that $\t_n^\bullet$ evaluated on a diagram (such as an element of the form $\rho(b_w)$ for $w \in W_c$) yields a nonnegative integer power of $\d$. To check that $\almd^n \t_n$ is a tabular trace, we need to check that axiom (A5) of , Definition 1.3.4} is satisfied. We have just shown that $\almd^n \t_n$ takes values in $\A$, and it is clear from Theorem \secf.11 that $\almd^n \t_n$ is a trace. We have seen in Corollary \secc.5 and Proposition \secd.2 (ii) that $\almd^n \t_n(x) = \almd^n \t_n(x^*)$ for all $x \in TL(E_n)$. All that remains to check is that $$ \t(v^{\afn(C_{S, T})} C_{S, T}) = \d_{S, T} \mod v^{-1} \A^- .$$ This follows from propositions \secd.2 (ii) and \secd.3 once we observe that we have $$ \almd^n = 1 \mod v^{-2} \kyu[[v^{-1}]] ,$$ regarded as power series in $\kyu[v][[v^{-1}]]$. To show that $\almd^n \t_n$ is a generalized Jones trace (see , Definition 2.9}), two further conditions must be checked. One of these is precisely that established by Lemma \secd.7; the other is that, for $x, y \in W_c$, we should have $$ \almd^n \t_n(c_x c_{y^{-1}}) = \cases 1 \mod v^{-1} \A^- & \text{ if } x = y,\cr 0 \mod v^{-1} \A^- & \text{ otherwise,} \cr \endcases$$ where $\{c_w : w \in W_c\}$ is the canonical basis of $TL(E_n)$ defined by J. Losonczy and the author in }. By , Theorem 3.6}, this is nothing other than the basis $\{b_w : w \in W_c\}$ in this case. The corresponding property for $\tr$ (instead of $\almd^n \t_n$) follows from Proposition \secd.5, and the assertion for $\almd^n \t_n$ follows from the fact that $\almd^n = 1 \mod v^{-2} \A^-$. A generalized Jones trace is positive if it sends canonical basis elements to elements of $\enn[v, v^{-1}]$. This holds for $\almd^n \t_n$ by Proposition \secd.3: in this case, $\almd^n \t_n(b_w) = \d^b$ for some $b \geq 0$, so that $\almd^n \in \enn[v, v^{-1}]$. \qed\enddemo \remark{Remark \secg.2} Proposition \secg.1 corrects the proof of , Theorem 4.3.5}, where the proof that the tabular trace takes the same values on $x$ and $x^*$ contains a gap. \endremark \demo{Proof of Theorem \secz.2} By , Theorem 7.10}, the conclusion of Theorem \secz.2 holds for a generalized Jones trace if the underlying Coxeter group has ``Property F'' and a bipartite Coxeter graph. Clearly the graphs $E_n$ are bipartite, because they contain no circuits. Property F holds by , Remark 3.5}; see , Lemma 5.6} for a fuller explanation. To complete the proof, we simply have to transfer the result from $\almd^n \t_n$ to the Markov trace, which follows from the fact that $\almd^n = 1 \mod v^{-2} \A^-$. \qed\enddemo The next result is an easier to use version of Theorem \secz.2. \proclaim{Corollary \secg.3} Let $x, y \in W_c(E_n)$. Then we have $$\tmu(x, y) = \cases 1 & \text{ if } \t_n^\bullet \circ \rho(b_x b_{y^{-1}}) = \d^{n-1},\cr 0 & \text{ otherwise.}\cr \endcases$$ \endproclaim \demo{Proof} This follows from Theorem \secz.2 together with the observation that $b_x b_{y^{-1}} = \d^b b_w$ for some $b \geq 0$ and $w \in W_c$, and the fact that $\t_n^\bullet$ sends diagrams to positive powers of $\d$. \qed\enddemo \remark{Remark \secg.4} It follows from , Theorem 4.6 (iv)} and , Theorem 3.6} that the monomial basis element $b_x$ is the projection of the Kazhdan--Lusztig basis element $C'_x \in \H(E_n)$. Regarding $\tr$ and $\t_n^\bullet \circ \rho$ as traces on the Hecke algebra, Theorem \secz.2 and Corollary \secg.3 can be used to evaluate the trace on products of certain Kazhdan--Lusztig basis elements, without evaluating the product (which would be difficult). Another noteworthy property of these results is that they give non-recursive formulae for certain of the integers $\mu(x, y)$. \endremark \remark{Remark \secg.5} In , \S9}, Graham showed that if $x, w \in W_c$ for $TL(E_n)$ then $\mu(x, y) \in \{0, 1\}$, and also produced a nonrecursive method of finding all the $x$ with $\mu(x, y) = 1$ for a fixed $y$. (In }, $x$ and $y$ are said to be ``close'' if $\tmu(x, y) = 1$.) However, unlike the results above, this does not give an efficient way to compute $\mu(x, y)$ when both of $x$ and $y$ are specified. Corollary \secg.3 can therefore be regarded as a quick way to tell if two elements are close or not. \endremark \remark{Remark \secg.6} It is possible to modify Theorem \secz.2 and Corollary \secg.3 so that they provide a nonrecursive way to test whether two diagrams represent the same algebra element. However, we do not pursue this here for reasons of space. \endremark \example{Example \secg.7} Consider the Coxeter system of type $E_n$ with $n = 6$, and generators $s_0, \ldots, s_5$ as numbered in Figure 1. Define $y = s_1 s_2 s_4 s_0 s_5$ and $$ w = s_1 s_2 s_3 s_4 s_0 s_3 s_5 s_2 s_4 s_1 s_3 s_2 s_0 s_3 s_4 s_5 ;$$ these are both reduced expressions for fully commutative elements. The diagrams $\rho(b_y)$ and $\rho(b_w)$ are shown in figures 7 and 8 respectively. To evaluate $\t_n^\bullet(b_y b_{w^{-1}})$, we invert the diagram for $b_w$, compose it with $b_y$ and identify boundary points to produce a trace diagram. The trace diagram so obtained is shown in Figure 9 (up to equivalence), and by inspection, it has content $1 + 1 + 1 + (3-1) = 5 = n-1$. It follows from Corollary \secg.3 that $\mu(y, w) = 1$. \endexample \topcaption{Figure 7} The diagram $\rho(b_y)$ of Example \secg.7 \endcaption \centerline{ \hbox to 3.541in{ \vbox to 1.958in{\vfill \special{psfile=ypillar.eps} } \hfill} } \vfill\eject \topcaption{Figure 8} The diagram $\rho(b_w)$ of Example \secg.7 \endcaption \centerline{ \hbox to 3.541in{ \vbox to 1.958in{\vfill \special{psfile=wpillar.eps} } \hfill} } \topcaption{Figure 9} The trace diagram corresponding to $\t_6^\bullet \circ \rho(b_y b_{w^{-1}})$ of Example \secg.7 \endcaption \centerline{ \hbox to 4.736in{ \vbox to 2.763in{\vfill \special{psfile=td2pillar.eps} } \hfill} } \head Acknowledgement \endhead I am grateful to P.P. Martin for helpful comments on an early version of this paper. \leftheadtext{} \rightheadtext{} \Refs\refstyle{A}\widestnumber\key{{\bf 25}} \leftheadtext{References} \rightheadtext{References} \ref\key{{\bf 1}} \by G.M. Bergman \paper The diamond lemma for ring theory \jour Adv. Math. \vol 29 \yr 1978 \pages 178--218 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 2}} \by T. tom Dieck \paper Bridges with pillars: a graphical calculus of knot algebra \jour Topology Appl. \vol 78 \yr 1997 \pages 21--38 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 3}} \by C.K. Fan \paper Structure of a Hecke algebra quotient \jour J. Amer. Math. Soc. \vol 10 \yr 1997 \pages 139--167 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 4}} \by M. Geck and S. Lambropoulou \paper Markov traces and knot invariants related to Iwahori--Hecke algebras of type $B$ \jour J. Reine Angew. Math. \vol 482 \yr 1997 \pages 191--213 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 5}} \by M. Geck and G. Pfeiffer \book Characters of finite Coxeter groups and Iwahori--Hecke algebras \publ Oxford University Press \publaddr Oxford \yr 2000 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 6}} \by Y. Gomi \paper The Markov traces and the Fourier transforms \jour J. Algebra \vol 303 \yr 2006 \pages 566--591 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 7}} \by J.J. Graham \book Modular representations of Hecke algebras and related algebras \publ Ph.D. thesis \publaddr University of Sydney \yr 1995 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 8}} \by J.J. Graham and G.I. Lehrer \paper Cellular algebras \jour Invent. Math. \vol 123 \yr 1996 \pages 1--34 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 9}} \by R.M. Green \paper Generalized Temperley--Lieb algebras and decorated tangles \jour J. Knot Th. Ram. \vol 7 \yr 1998 \pages 155--171 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 10}} \by R.M. Green \paper Tabular algebras and their asymptotic versions \jour J. Algebra \vol 252 \yr 2002 \pages 27--64 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 11}} \by R.M. Green \paper On planar algebras arising from hypergroups \jour J. Algebra \vol 263 \yr 2003 \pages 126--150 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 12}} \by R.M. Green \paper Generalized Jones traces and Kazhdan--Lusztig bases \jour J. Pure Appl. Alg. \miscnote to appear; {\tt math.QA/0509362} \endref \ref\key{{\bf 13}} \by R.M. Green \paper Star reducible Coxeter groups \jour Glasgow Math. J. \vol 48 \yr 2006 \pages 583--609 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 14}} \by R.M. Green and J. Losonczy \paper Canonical bases for Hecke algebra quotients \jour Math. Res. Lett. \vol 6 \yr 1999 \pages 213--222 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 15}} \by R.M. Green and P.P. Martin \paper Constructing cell data for diagram algebras \jour J. Pure Appl. Alg. \miscnote in press; {\tt math.RA/0503751} \endref \ref\key{{\bf 16}} \by J.E. Humphreys \book Reflection Groups and Coxeter Groups \publ Cambridge University Press \publaddr Cambridge \yr 1990 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 17}} \by V.F.R. Jones \paper Hecke algebra representations of braid groups and link polynomials \jour Ann. of Math. (2) \vol 126 \yr 1987 \pages 335--388 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 18}} \by V.F.R. Jones \paper Planar Algebras, I \miscnote preprint \endref \ref\key{{\bf 19}} \by D. Kazhdan and G. Lusztig \paper Representations of Coxeter groups and Hecke algebras \jour Invent. Math. \vol 53 \yr 1979 \pages 165--184 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 20}} \by S. Lambropoulou \paper Knot theory related to generalized and cyclotomic Hecke algebras of type $B$ \jour J. Knot Th. Ram. \vol 8 \yr 1999 \pages 621--658 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 21}} \by G. Lusztig \paper Cells in affine Weyl groups \inbook Algebraic groups and related topics \publ Adv. Studies Pure Math 6, North-Holland and Kinokuniya \publaddr Tokyo and Amsterdam \yr 1985 \pages 255--287 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 22}} \by B.G. Seifert \paper The spherical trace on inductive limits of Hecke algebras of type $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ and factors \jour Quart J. Math. \vol 41 \yr 1990 \pages 109--126 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 23}} \by J.Y. Shi \paper Fully commutative elements and Kazhdan--Lusztig cells in the finite and affine Coxeter groups, II \jour Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. \vol 133 \yr 2005 \pages 2525--2531 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 24}} \by J.R. Stembridge \paper On the fully commutative elements of Coxeter groups \jour J. Algebraic Combin. \vol 5 \yr 1996 \pages 353--385 \endref \ref\key{{\bf 25}} \by H.N.V. Temperley and E.H. Lieb \paper Relations between percolation and colouring problems and other graph theoretical problems associated with regular planar lattices: some exact results for the percolation problem \jour Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A \vol 322 \yr 1971 \pages 251--280 \endref \endRefs \end
|
0704.0291
|
Title: Approaching the Heisenberg limit in an atom laser
Abstract: We present experimental and theoretical results showing the improved beam
quality and reduced divergence of an atom laser produced by an optical Raman
transition, compared to one produced by an RF transition. We show that Raman
outcoupling can eliminate the diverging lens effect that the condensate has on
the outcoupled atoms. This substantially improves the beam quality of the atom
laser, and the improvement may be greater than a factor of ten for experiments
with tight trapping potentials. We show that Raman outcoupling can produce atom
lasers whose quality is only limited by the wavefunction shape of the
condensate that produces them, typically a factor of 1.3 above the Heisenberg
limit.
Body: \title{Approaching the Heisenberg limit in an atom laser} \author{M.~Jeppesen} \affiliation{Australian Research Council Centre Of Excellence for Quantum-Atom Optics, Department of Physics, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia} \email{matthew.jeppesen@anu.edu.au} \homepage{http://www.acqao.org} \author{J.~Dugu\'e} \affiliation{Australian Research Council Centre Of Excellence for Quantum-Atom Optics, Department of Physics, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia} \affiliation{Laboratoire Kastler-Brossel, 24 rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France} \author{G.~R.~Dennis} \author{M.~T.~Johnsson} \author{C.~Figl} \author{N.~P.~Robins} \author{J.~D.~Close} \affiliation{Australian Research Council Centre Of Excellence for Quantum-Atom Optics, Department of Physics, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia} \begin{abstract} We present experimental and theoretical results showing the improved beam quality and reduced divergence of an atom laser produced by an optical Raman transition, compared to one produced by an RF transition. We show that Raman outcoupling can eliminate the diverging lens effect that the condensate has on the outcoupled atoms. This substantially improves the beam quality of the atom laser, and the improvement may be greater than a factor of ten for experiments with tight trapping potentials. We show that Raman outcoupling can produce atom lasers whose quality is only limited by the wavefunction shape of the condensate that produces them, typically a factor of 1.3 above the Heisenberg limit. \end{abstract} \pacs{03.75.Pp,03.75.Mn} \maketitle Experiments in ultracold dilute atomic gases have had an enormous impact on physics. The realization of Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs), degenerate Fermi gases, BEC-BCS crossover systems, and many others have resulted in many fundamental insights and a wealth of new results in both experiment and theory. One exciting system to emerge from this research is the atom laser, a highly coherent, directional beam of degenerate atoms, controllably released from a BEC~. The atom lasers demonstrated so far have produced beams many orders of magnitude brighter than is possible with thermal atomic beams~. Atom laser beams show great promise for studies of fundamental physics and in high precision measurements~. In the future, it will be possible to produce quadrature squeezing in atoms lasers, to use atom lasers to produce correlations and entanglement between massive particles~, as well as high precision interferometers both on earth and in space~. For all these it will be crucial to develop atom lasers with output modes that as clean as possible in amplitude and phase, to allow stable modematching, just as it was crucial for optical lasers. The beam quality factor $M^2$, introduced for atom lasers by J.-F. Riou \textit{et al.}~, is a measure of how far the beam deviates from the Heisenberg limit, and is defined by \begin{equation} M^2 = \frac{2}{\hbar} \Delta x \Delta p_x, \end{equation} where $\Delta x$ is the beam width, measured at the waist, and $\Delta p_x$ is the transverse momentum spread. An ideal (Gaussian) beam would therefore have $M^2 =1$ along both its principal transverse axes. A number of experimental works have shown that the beam quality of an atom laser is strongly affected by the interaction of the outcoupled atoms with the BEC from which it is produced~. As the atoms fall through the condensate, the repulsive interaction acts as a diverging lens to the outcoupled atoms. This leads to a divergence in the atom laser beam and (because the BEC is a non-ideal lens) a poor quality transverse beam profile. Such behavior may cause problems in mode matching the atom laser beam to another atom laser, a cavity or to a waveguide. Experiments on atom lasers in waveguides have produced beams with improved spatial profile~. However, precision measurements with atom interferometry are likely to require propagation in free space, to avoid introducing noise from the fluctuations in the waveguide itself~. In a recent Letter~, it was shown that the quality of a free space atom laser is improved by outcoupling from the base of the condensate. Our scheme, however, enables the production of a high quality atom laser while outcoupling from the center of the condensate. This is desirable for a number of reasons: First, because the classical noise level is determined by the outcoupling Rabi frequency, then outcoupling from the center, where the density is greatest, gives the highest possible output flux for a given classical noise level~. Second, outcoupling from the center allows the longest operating time (for a quasicontinuous atom laser) since the condensate can be drained completely. Third, outcoupling from the center minimizes the sensitivity of the output coupling to condensate excitations or external fluctuations. In a recent Letter~, we have demonstrated a continuously outcoupled atom laser where the output coupler is a coherent multi-photon (Raman) transition~. In this scheme, the atoms receive a momentum kick from the absorption and emission of photons. They leave the condensate more quickly, so that adverse effects due to the mean-field repulsion from the condensate are reduced. In this Letter, we report measurements of a substantial improvement in the beam quality $M^2$ using this outcoupling. In Fig.~, we show absorption images of atom laser beams outcoupled from the center of a BEC with (a) negligible momentum kick, (b) a kick of 0.3~cm/s, and 1.1~cm/s (c). As the kick increases, the divergence is reduced and the beam profile improved. In our experiment, we create $^{87}$Rb BECs of \mbox{$5 \times 10^5$~atoms} in the $|F=1, m_F=-1 \rangle $ state via standard runaway evaporation of laser cooled atoms. We use a highly stable, water cooled QUIC magnetic trap (axial frequency $\omega_{y} = 2 \pi \times 12$~Hz and radial frequency $\omega_{\rho} = 2 \pi \times 128$~Hz, with a bias field of $B_0=2$~G). We control drifts in the magnetic bias by using high stability power supplies and water cooling. This stability allows us to precisely and repeatably address the condensate. We produce the atom laser by transferring the atoms to the untrapped $|F=1, m_F=0 \rangle$ state and letting them fall under gravity. To outcouple atoms with negligible momentum kick we induce spin flips via an RF field of a frequency corresponding to the Zeeman shift in the center of the condensate. Alternatively, we induce the spin flips via an optical Raman transition. The setup is shown in Fig.~~(a). Two optical Raman beams, separated by an angle $\theta$, propagate in the plane of gravity and the magnetic trap bias field. The momentum transfer to the atoms through absorption and emission of the photons is ${ 2\hbar k \sin(\theta/2)}$, with $k$ the wave number of the laser beams. The Raman laser beams are produced from one 700~mW diode laser. We can turn the laser power on or off in less than 200~ns using a fast switching AOM in a double pass configuration. After the switching AOM, the light is split and sent through two separate AOMs, again each in a double pass configuration. The frequency difference between the AOMs corresponds to the Zeeman plus kinetic energy difference between the initial and final states of the two-photon Raman transition. We stabilize the frequency difference by running the 80~MHz function generators driving the AOMs from a single oscillator. The beams are then coupled via single mode, polarization maintaining optical fibers directly to the BEC through a collimating lens and waveplate, providing a maximum intensity of 2500~mW/cm$^2$ per beam at the BEC. The polarization of the beams is optimized to achieve maximum outcoupling with a downward kick and corresponds to $\pi$ polarization for the upper beam and $\sigma^+$ for the lower beam. The outcoupling resonance is set to the center of the BEC for both RF and Raman outcoupling, as shown in Fig.~~(b). This point is found by performing spectroscopy on the BEC using 100~ms of weak output coupling at varying RF frequencies, and measuring the number of atoms remaining in the condensate after the output coupling time . A typical calibration curve is shown in Fig.~~(a), in this case for RF outcoupling. We operate both RF and Raman output couplers at the point of maximum outcoupling rate. We further check this frequency by ensuring that a continuous beam can still be produced when the initial condensate is very small, which can only happen when outcoupling from the center. We observe the system using standard absorption imaging along the $y$ (weak trapping) direction, on the $F = 2 \rightarrow F'=3$ transition, with a 200~$\mu$s pulse of repumping light ($F = 1 \rightarrow F'=2$) 1~ms prior to imaging. From these images we are able to extract the rms width of the atom laser as a function of fall distance (see Fig.~~(b)), which we use to calculate $M^2$ (details below). To model the system, we use a two-step method following . Inside the condensate, we use the WKB approximation, by integrating the phase along the classical trajectories of atoms moving in the Thomas-Fermi potential of the condensate (an inverted paraboloid)~. After this, we propagate the atom laser wavefunction using a Kirchoff-Fresnel diffraction integral over the surface of the condensate: \begin{equation} \psi(\mathbf{r}) = \int_S d \mathbf{S'} \cdot [ G \, \nabla' \, \psi - \psi \, \nabla' \, G], \end{equation} where $G = G(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{r'})$ is the Green's function for the Hamiltonian in the gravitational potential $V(\mathbf{r}) = - m g z$ . Therefore, the model includes only interactions between condensate atoms and beam atoms; interactions between atoms within the beam are ignored. The integral in Eq.~() is formally a two dimensional surface integral over the whole condensate. However for simplicity, following , we neglect divergence in the weak trapping axis and only consider cross sections in the plane of the strong trapping axes, and so the integral becomes one dimensional. A 3D wavefunction is built up by calculating the atom laser in a series of planes along the weak trapping axis. We ignore the effects of the magnetic field on the atom laser. The atom laser state $| F = 1, m_F = 0 \rangle$ is unaffected to first order by the magnetic field, but is weakly anti-trapped due to the second order Zeeman effect, with an effective trapping frequency of $\omega_{\text{2nd}} = 2 \pi \times 2.6$~Hz. The transverse position of an atom in such a potential is \begin{equation} x(t) = x_0 \cosh(\omega_{\text{2nd}} t) \approx x_0( 1 + \omega_{\text{2nd}}^2 t^2/2). \end{equation} For the 1~mm (14~ms) propagation we consider here the transverse position is affected by less than 3\ We have checked the validity of this model against a solution of the full 3D Gross-Pitaesvskii (GP) equation, including beam-beam interactions. To find the atom laser wavefunction at large distances below the condensate (up to 1~mm), we transfer the GP model to a freely falling frame once the atom laser wavefunction has reached steady state. The details of the calculation will be the basis of a future publication. The two models give good agreement. Calculating the quality factor $M^2$ of the atom laser directly from Eq.~() requires measurement of the beam width at the waist $\Delta x_0$. Because the BEC acts as a diverging lens on the atom laser, the beam waist is \emph{virtual} and located above the BEC, and so it is not possible to measure the beam quality $M^2$ using Eq.~ only. For our simulations, $M^2$ is calculated equivalently from the wavefunction $\psi(x,y,z)$ at some height $z$ below the BEC in which the atom laser has reached the paraxial regime: \begin{equation} (M^2/2)^2 = ( \Delta x(z))^2 (\Delta k_x(z))^2 - C(z)^2, \end{equation} where $\Delta x(z)$ is beam width and $C(z)$ is the curvature-beam width product~: \begin{equation} C(z) = \frac{i}{2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x \left( \psi \frac{\partial \psi^*}{\partial x} - \psi^* \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} \right) dx. \end{equation} In practice it is difficult to measure the wavefunction phase, and hence $C(z)$. However the beam width, in the paraxial regime, obeys: \begin{equation} \Delta (x (t))^2 = (\Delta x_0)^2 + (\Delta v_x)^2 (t-t_w)^2, \end{equation} where $t_w$ is the time when the beam is at its waist, and $\Delta x_0$ is the beam waist. In principle $M^2$ may be determined simply from measurements of the beam width at different heights. In our experiment, we can only measure the beam width in the far field, at distances greater than 300~$\mu$m below the condensate (observation at distances less than 300~$\mu$m are prevented by the condensate expansion after trap switchoff.) In the far field the second term of Eq.~\ dominates, and so only the velocity spread can be measured. Therefore we calculate $\Delta x_0$ and $t_w$ from the model, $t_w = m \, C(z)/ (\hbar \Delta k_x^2)$, with $t_w$ negative since the waist is virtual and located above the BEC. We then fit to the experimental data to find $\Delta v_x$. In Fig.~, we present the theoretical and experimental results. We find that as the kick increases, the beam quality is improved and the divergence is reduced. For our parameters, we find that for an RF atom laser $M^2 = 2.2$, and for a Raman atom laser $M^2 = 1.4$ with the maximum two photon kick. As the kick increases, $M^2$ continues to improve, and approaches but does not reach the Heisenberg limit of one. It asymptotes to a limit slightly above that, which for our parameters is equal to 1.3. In this regime of large kick, the interaction of the outcoupled atoms with the condensate becomes negligible, and the transverse atom laser wavefunction is approximately the free space evolution of the condensate wavefunction (along the outcoupling surface). It is therefore limited by the non-ideal (non-Gaussian) condensate wavefunction itself. We calculate the product $\Delta x \Delta p_x$ for the condensate wavefunction (taken through the central horizontal plane of the condensate) to be 1.3. We have therefore improved the beam quality $M^2$ by 50 percent, down to a factor of 1.4 above the Heisenberg limit. In addition, our simulations show that (using the same maximum two photon kick) it is possible to reach the condensate limit even for much tighter trapping potentials. In Fig~ (b), we show the results of simulations for increasing trap frequencies, up to $\omega = 2 \pi \times 300$ Hz. As the trap frequency increases, the $M^2$ worsens, up to $M^2 = 14$ for RF outcoupling from a $2 \pi \times 300$~Hz trap. For the maximum Raman two photon kick, the increase is only to $M^2 = 1.7$ for the same $2 \pi \times 300$~Hz trap. Only for traps of less than $2 \pi \times 50$~Hz is the beam quality of an RF atom laser within 5 percent of that of a Raman atom laser. With higher order Raman transitions , it will be possible to reach the condensate limit even for experiments with traps of several kilohertz. It will also be possible to reach the Heisenberg limit by completely removing the atomic interaction, for example by using a Feschbach resonance. Using Raman lasers phase locked to the 6.8~GHz hyperfine splitting will prevent populating the anti-trapped state, and produce a truly two state atom laser~. Such lasers, combined with the high quality transverse mode of Raman atom lasers, could be used in a continuous version of the atomic Mach-Zehnder Bragg interferometer~, and in the development of atomic local oscillators. We thank Ruth Mills for useful discussions. CF acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation. This work was financially supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence program. Numerical simulations were done at the APAC National Supercomputing Facility. \bibliography{bibliography}
|
0704.0292
|
Title: A practical Seedless Infrared-Safe Cone jet algorithm
Abstract: Current cone jet algorithms, widely used at hadron colliders, take event
particles as seeds in an iterative search for stable cones. A longstanding
infrared (IR) unsafety issue in such algorithms is often assumed to be solvable
by adding extra `midpoint' seeds, but actually is just postponed to one order
higher in the coupling. A proper solution is to switch to an exact seedless
cone algorithm, one that provably identifies all stable cones. The only
existing approach takes N 2^N time to find jets among N particles, making it
unusable at hadron level. This can be reduced to N^2 ln(N) time, leading to
code (SISCone) whose speed is similar to that of public midpoint
implementations. Monte Carlo tests provide a strong cross-check of an
analytical proof of the IR safety of the new algorithm, and the absence of any
'R_{sep}' issue implies a good practical correspondence between parton and
hadron levels. Relative to a midpoint cone, the use of an IR safe seedless
algorithm leads to modest changes for inclusive jet spectra, mostly through
reduced sensitivity to the underlying event, and significant changes for some
multi-jet observables.
Body: \maketitle \vspace{-10.3cm} \begin{flushright} arXiv:0704.0292 [hep-ph]\\ April 2007\\ \end{flushright} \vspace{7.5cm} \begin{abstract} Current cone jet algorithms, widely used at hadron colliders, take event particles as seeds in an iterative search for stable cones. A longstanding infrared (IR) unsafety issue in such algorithms is often assumed to be solvable by adding extra `midpoint' seeds, but actually is just postponed to one order higher in the coupling. A proper solution is to switch to an exact seedless cone algorithm, one that provably identifies all stable cones. The only existing approach takes $N2^N$ time to find jets among $N$ particles, making it unusable at hadron level. This can be reduced to $N^2 \ln N$ time, leading to code (SISCone) whose speed is similar to that of public midpoint implementations. Monte Carlo tests provide a strong cross-check of an analytical proof of the IR safety of the new algorithm, and the absence of any `$R_\mathrm{sep}$' issue implies a good practical correspondence between parton and hadron levels. Relative to a midpoint cone, the use of an IR safe seedless algorithm leads to modest changes for inclusive jet spectra, mostly through reduced sensitivity to the underlying event, and significant changes for some multi-jet observables. \vspace*{1.0cm} \noindent SISCone, the \verb:C++: implementation of the algorithm, is available at\\ \indent (standalone),\\ \indent (FastJet plugin). \end{abstract} \newpage \tableofcontents \section{Introduction} Two broad classes of jet definition are generally advocated for hadron colliders. One option is to use sequential recombination jet algorithms, such as the $k_t$ and Cambridge/Aachen algorithms , which introduce a distance measure between particles, and repeatedly recombine the closest pair of particles until some stopping criterion is reached. While experimentally these are starting to be investigated , the bulk of measurements are currently carried out with the other class of jet definition, cone jet algorithms (see \eg ). In general there are indications~ that it may be advantageous to use both sequential recombination and cone jet algorithms because of complementary sensitivities to different classes of non-perturbative corrections. Cone jet algorithms are inspired by the idea of defining a jet as an angular cone around some direction of dominant energy flow. To find these directions of dominant energy flow, cone algorithms usually take some (or all) of the event particles as `seeds', \ie trial cone directions. Then for each seed they establish the list of particles in the trial cone, evaluate the sum of their 4-momenta, and use the resulting 4-momentum as a new trial direction for the cone. This procedure is iterated until the cone direction no longer changes, \ie until one has a ``stable cone''. Stable cones have the property that the cone axis $a$ (a four-vector) coincides with the (four-vector) axis defined by the total momentum of the particles contained in the cone, \begin{equation} D\left( p_\mathrm{in\;cone}, a\right) = 0\,,\quad \mathrm{with}\quad p_\mathrm{in\;cone} = \sum_{i} p_i\, \Theta(R-D({p}_i,{a}))\,, \end{equation} where $D(p,a)$ is some measure of angular distance between the four-momentum $p$ and the cone axis $a$, and $R$ is the given opening (half)-angle of the cone, also referred to as the cone radius. Typically one defines $D^2(p,a) = (y_p - y_a)^2 + (\phi_p - \phi_a)^2$, where $y_p, y_a$ and $\phi_p,\phi_a$ are respectively the rapidity and azimuth of $p$ and $a$. Two types of problem arise when using seeds as starting points of an iterative search for stable cones. On one hand, if one only uses particles above some momentum threshold as seeds, then the procedure is collinear unsafe. Alternatively if any particle can act as a seed then one needs to be sure that the addition of an infinitely soft particle cannot lead to a new (hard) stable cone being found, otherwise the procedure is infrared (IR) unsafe. The second of these problems came to fore in the 1990's , when it was realised that there can be stable cones that have two hard particles on opposing edges of the cone and no particles in the middle, \eg for configurations such as \begin{equation} p_{t1} > p_{t2};\quad R < D(p_1,p_2) < (1+p_{t2}/p_{t1})R. \end{equation} In traditional iterative cone algorithms, $p_1$ and $p_2$ each act as seeds and two stable cones are found, one centred on $p_1$, the other centred on $p_2$. The third stable cone, centred between $p_1$ and $p_2$ (and containing them both) is not found. If, however, a soft particle is added between the two hard particles, it too acts as a seed and the third stable cone is then found. The set of stable cones (and final jets) is thus different with and without the soft particle and there is a resulting non-cancellation of divergent real soft production and corresponding virtual contributions, \ie the algorithm is infrared unsafe. Infrared unsafety is a serious issue, not just because it makes it impossible to carry out meaningful (finite) perturbative calculations, but also because it breaks the whole relation between the (Born or low-order) partonic structure of the event and the jets that one observes, and it is precisely this relation that a jet algorithm is supposed to codify: it makes no sense for the structure of multi-hundred GeV jets to change radically just because hadronisation, the underlying event or pileup threw a 1 GeV particle in between them. A workaround for the above IR unsafety problem was proposed in : after finding the stable cones that come from the true seed particles, add artificial ``midpoint'' seeds between pairs of stable cones and search for new stable cones that arise from the midpoint seeds. For configurations with two hard particles, the midpoint fix resolved the IR unsafety issue. It was thus adopted as a recommendation for Run~II of the Tevatron and is now coming into use experimentally~. Recently, it was observed that in certain triangular three-point configurations there are stable cones that are not identified even by the midpoint procedure. While these can be identified by extended midpoint procedures (\eg midpoints between triplets of particles) , in this article (section~) we show that there exist yet other 3-particle configurations for which even this fix does not find all stable cones. Given this history of infrared safety problems being fixed and new ones being found, it seems to us that iterative\footnote{A more appropriate name might be the \emph{doubly iterative} cone algorithm, since as well as iterating the cones, the cone algorithm's definition has itself seen several iterations since its original introduction by UA1 in 1983 , and even since the Snowmass accord~, the first attempt to formulate a standard, infrared and collinear-safe cone-jet definition, over 15 years ago.} cone algorithms should be abandoned. Instead we believe that cone jet algorithms should solve the mathematical problem of demonstrably finding all stable cones, \ie all solutions to eq.~(). This kind of jet algorithm is referred to as an exact seedless cone jet algorithm and has been advocated before in~. With an exact seedless algorithm, the addition of one or more soft particles cannot lead to new hard stable cones being found, because all hard stable cones have already been (provably) found. Therefore the algorithm is infrared safe at all orders. Two proposals exist for approximate implementations of the seedless jet algorithm . They both rely on the event being represented in terms of calorimeter towers, which is far from ideal when considering parton or hadron-level events. Ref.~ also proposed a procedure for an exact seedless jet algorithm, intended for fixed-order calculations, and implemented for example in the MCFM and NLOJet fixed order (NLO) codes~. is the source of some confusion regarding nomenclature, because after discussing both the midpoint and seedless algorithms, it proceeds to show some fixed-order results calculated with the seedless algorithm, but labelled as midpoint. Though both algorithms are IR safe up to the order that was shown, they would not have given identical results.} This method takes a time $\order{N 2^N}$ to find jets among $N$ particles. While perfectly adequate for fixed order calculations ($N\le 4$), a recommendation to extend the use of such seedless cone implementations more generally would have little chance of being adopted experimentally: the time to find jets in a single (quiet!) event containing $100$ particles would approach $10^{17}$ years. Given the crucial importance of infrared safety in allowing one to compare theoretical predictions and experimental measurements, and the need for the same algorithm to be used in both, there is a strong motivation for finding a more efficient way of implementing the seedless cone algorithm. Section~ will show how this can be done, first in the context of a simple one-dimensional example (sec.~), then generalising it to two dimensions ($y$, $\phi$, sec.~) with an approach that can be made to run in polynomial ($N^2 \ln N$) time. As in recent work on speeding up the $k_t$ jet-algorithm , the key insights will be obtained by considering the geometrical aspects of the problem. Section~ will discuss aspects of the split--merge procedure. In section~ we will study a range of physics and practical properties of the seedless algorithm. Given that the split--merge stage is complex and so yet another potential source of infrared unsafety, we will use Monte Carlo techniques to provide independent evidence for the safety of the algorithm, supplementing a proof given in appendix~. We will examine the speed of our coding of the algorithm and see that it is as fast as publicly available midpoint codes. We will also study the question of the relation between the low-order perturbative characteristics of the algorithm, and its all-order behaviour, notably as concerns the `$R_{sep}$' issue~. Finally we highlight physics contexts where we see similarities and differences between our seedless algorithm and the midpoint algorithm. For inclusive quantities, such as the inclusive jet spectrum, perturbative differences are of the order of a few percent, increasing to 10\ event in the seedless algorithm. For exclusive quantities we see differences of the order of $10-50\ \section{Overview of the cone jet-finding algorithm} \begin{algorithm} \caption{A full specification of a modern cone algorithm, governed by four parameters: the cone radius $R$, the overlap parameter $f$, the number of passes $N_\mathrm{pass}$ and a minimum transverse momentum in the split--merge step, $p_{t,\min}$. Throughout, particles are to be combined by summing their 4-momenta and distances are to be calculated using the longitudinally invariant $\Delta y$ and $\Delta \phi$ distance measures (where $y$ is the rapidity). } \renewcommand{\algorithmiccomment}[1]{[#1]} \begin{algorithmic}[1] \STATE Put the set of current particles equal to the set of all particles in the event. \REPEAT \STATE Find {\em all}\, stable cones of radius $R$ (see Eq. ()) for the current set of particles, \eg using algorithm~, section . \STATE For each stable cone, create a protojet from the current particles contained in the cone, and add it to the list of protojets. \STATE Remove all particles that are in stable cones from the list of current particles. \UNTIL{No new stable cones are found, or one has gone around the loop $N_\mathrm{pass}$ times.} \STATE Run a Tevatron Run-II type split--merge procedure~, algorithm~ (section ), on the full list of protojets, with overlap parameter $f$ and transverse momentum threshold $p_{t,\min}$. \end{algorithmic} \end{algorithm} Before entering into technical considerations, we outline the structure of a modern cone jet definition as algorithm~, largely based on the Tevatron Run-II specification . It is governed by four parameters. The cone radius $R$ and overlap parameter $f$ are standard and appeared in previous cone algorithms. The $N_\mathrm{pass}$ variable is new and embodies the suggestion in~ that one should rerun the stable cone search to eliminate dark towers~, \ie particles that do not appear in any stable cones (and therefore never appear in jets) during a first pass of the algorithm, even though they can correspond to significant energy deposits. A sensible default is $N_\mathrm{pass}=\infty$ since, as formulated, the procedure will in any case stop once further passes find no further stable cones. The $p_{t,\min}$ threshold for the split--merge step is also an addition relative to the Run~II procedure, inspired by . It is discussed in section together with the rest of the split--merge procedure and may be set to zero to recover the original Run~II type behaviour, a sensible default. The main development of this paper is the specification of how to efficiently carry out step of algorithm~. In section~ we will show that the midpoint approximation for finding stable cones fails to find them all, leading to infrared unsafety problems. Section~ will provide a practical solution. Code corresponding to this algorithm is available publicly under the name of `Seedless Infrared Safe Cone' (SISCone). \section{IR unsafety in the midpoint algorithm} Until now, the exact exhaustive identification of all stable cones was considered to be too computationally complex to be feasible for realistic particle multiplicities. Instead, the Tevatron experiments streamline the search for stable cones with the so-called 'midpoint algorithm'~. Given a seed, the latter calculates the total momentum of the particles contained within a cone centred on the seed, uses the direction of this momentum as a new seed and iterates until the resulting cone is stable. The initial set of seeds is that of all particles whose transverse momentum is above a seed threshold $s$ (one may take $s=0$ to obtain a collinear-safe algorithm). Then, one adds a new set of seeds given by all midpoints between pairs of stable cones separated by less than $2R$ and repeats the iterations from these midpoint seeds. The problem with the midpoint cone algorithm can be seen from the configurations of table~, represented also in fig.~. \begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} particle & $p_t$ [GeV]& $y$ & $\phi$ \\\hline 1 & 400 & 0 & 0 \\ 2 & 110 & 0.9R & 0 \\ 3 & \;\;90 & 2.3R & 0 \\\hline 4 & \;\;\;\;\;\;1.1 & 1.5R & 0 \\ \end{tabular} \end{center} \caption{Particles 1--3 represent a hard configuration. The jets from this hard configuration are modified in the midpoint cone algorithm when one adds the soft particle $4$.} \end{table} Using particles $1-3$, there exist three stable cones. In a $p_t$-scheme recombination procedure (a $p_t$ weighted averaging of $y$ and $\phi$) they are at $y\simeq\{0.194R, 1.53R, 2.3R\}$.\footnote{In a more standard $E$-scheme (four-momentum) recombination procedure the exact numbers depend slightly on $R$, but the conclusions are unchanged.} Note however that starting from particles $1,2,3$ as seeds, one only iterates to the stable cones at $y\simeq0.194R$ and $y=2.3R$. Using the midpoint between these two stable cones, at $y\simeq1.247R$, one iterates back to the stable cone at $y\simeq 0.194R$, therefore the stable cone at $y=1.53R$ is never found. The result is that particles $1$ and $2$ are in one jet, and particle $3$ in another, fig.a. If additionally a soft particle (4) is present to act as a seed near $y=1.53R$, fig.b, then the stable cone there is found from the iterative procedure. In this case we have three overlapping stable cones, with hard-particle content $1+2$, $2+3$ and $3$. What happens next depends on the precise splitting and merging procedure that is adopted. Using that of then for $f<0.55$ the jets are merged into a single large jet $1+2+3$, otherwise they are split into $1$ and $2+3$. Either way the jets are different from those obtained without the extra soft seed particle, meaning that the procedure is infrared unsafe. In contrast, a seedless approach would have found the three stable cones independently of the presence of the soft particle and so would have given identical sets of jets. The infrared divergence arises for configurations with 3 hard particles in a common neighbourhood plus one soft one (and a further hard electroweak boson or QCD parton to balance momentum). Quantities where it will be seen include the NLO contribution to the heavy-jet mass in $W/Z$+2-jet (or $3$-jet) events, the NNLO contribution to the $W/Z$+2-jet cross section or the $3$-jet cross section, or alternatively at NNNLO in the inclusive jet cross section. The problem might therefore initially seem remote, since the theoretical state of the art is far from calculations of any of these quantities. However one should recall that infrared safety at all orders is a prerequisite if the perturbation series is to make sense at all. If one takes the specific example of the $Z$+2-jet cross section (measured in ) then the NNLO divergent piece would be regulated physically by confinement at the non-perturbative scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$, and would give a contribution of order $\alpha_{EW} \alpha_s^4 \ln p_t/\Lambda_{QCD}$. Since $\alpha_s(p_t) \ln p_t/\Lambda_{QCD} \sim 1$, this divergent NNLO contribution will be of the same order as the NLO piece $\alpha_{EW} \alpha_s^3$. Therefore the NLO calculation has little formal meaning for the midpoint algorithm, since contributions involving yet higher powers of $\alpha_s$ will be parametrically as large as the NLO term. , the discussion is complicated by the confusion surrounding the nomenclature of the seedless and midpoint algorithms --- while it seems that the measurement was carried out with a true midpoint algorithm, the calculation probably used the `midpoint' as defined in section 3.4.2 of (cf.\ footnote~), which is actually the seedless algorithm, \ie the measurements and theoretical predictions are based on different algorithms.} The situation for a range of processes is summarised in table~. \begin{table} \centering \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}\hline Observable & 1st miss cones at & Last meaningful order \\ \hline Inclusive jet cross section & NNLO & NLO \\ $W/Z/H$ + 1 jet cross section & NNLO & NLO \\ $3$ jet cross section & NLO & LO \\ $W/Z/H$ + 2 jet cross section & NLO & LO \\ jet masses in $3$~jets, $W/Z/H + 2$~jets & LO & none \\\hline \end{tabular} \caption{Summary of the order ($\as^4$ or $\as^3 \alpha_{EW}$) at which stable cones are missed in various processes with a midpoint algorithm, and the corresponding last order that can be meaningfully calculated. Infrared unsafety first becomes visible one order beyond that at which one misses stable cones.} \end{table} \section{An exact seedless cone jet definition} One way in which one could imagine trying to `patch' the seed-based iterative cone jet-algorithm to address the above problem would be to use midpoints between all pairs of \emph{particles} as seeds, as well as midpoints between the initial set of stable cones.\footnote{This option was actually mentioned in but rejected at the time as impractical.} However it seems unlikely that this would resolve the fundamental problem of being sure that one will systematically find all solutions of eq.~() for any ensemble of particles. Instead it is more appropriate to examine exhaustive, non-iterative approaches to the problem, \ie an exact seedless cone jet algorithm, one that provably finds all stable cones, as advocated already some time ago in~. For very low multiplicities $N$, one approach is that suggested in section~3.3.3 of and used in the MCFM and NLOJet next-to-leading order codes. One first identifies all possible subsets of the $N$ particles in the event. For each subset $\cS$, one then determines the rapidity ($y_{\cS}$) and azimuth ($\phi_{\cS}$) of the total momentum of the subset, $p_{\cS} = \sum_{i \in \cS} p_i$ and then checks whether a cone centred on $y_\cS$, $\phi_\cS$ contains all particles in $\cS$ but no other particles. If this is the case then $\cS$ corresponds to a stable cone. This procedure guarantees that all solutions to eq.~() will be found. In the above procedure there are $\sim 2^N$ distinct subsets of particles and establishing whether a given subset corresponds to a stable cone takes time $\order{N}$. Therefore the time to identify all stable cones is $\order{N 2^N}$. For the values of $N$ ($\le 4$) relevant in fixed-order calculations, $N2^N$ time is manageable, however as soon as one wishes to consider parton-shower or hadron-level events, with dozens or hundreds of particles, $N2^N$ time is prohibitive. A solution can only be considered realistic if it is polynomial in $N$, preferably with not too high a power of $N$. As mentioned in the introduction, approximate procedures for implementing seedless cone jet algorithms have been proposed in the past~. These rely on considering the momentum flow into discrete calorimeter towers rather than considering particles. As such they are not entirely suitable for examining the full range event levels, which go from fixed-order (few partons), via parton shower level (many partons) and hadron-level, to detector level which has both tracking and calorimetry information. \subsection{One-dimensional example} To understand how one might construct an efficient exact seedless cone jet algorithm, it is helpful to first examine a one-dimensional analogue of the problem. The aim is to identify all solutions to eq.~(), but just for (weighted) points on a line. The equivalent of a cone of radius $R$ is a segment of length $2R$. Rather than immediately looking for stable segments one instead looks for all distinct ways in which the segment can enclose a subset of the points on the line. Then for each separate enclosure one calculates its centroid $C$ (weighted with the $p_t$ of the particles) and verifies whether the segment centred on $C$ encloses the same set of points as the original enclosure. If it does then $C$ is the centre of a stable segment. A simple way of finding all distinct segment-enclosures is illustrated in fig.. First one sorts the points into order on the line. One then places the segment far to the left and slides it so that it goes infinitesimally beyond the leftmost point. This is a first enclosure. Then one slides the segment again until its right edge encounters a new point or the left edge encounters a contained point. Each time either edge encounters a point, the point-content of the segment changes and one has a new distinct enclosure. Establishing the stability of each enclosure is trivial, since one knows how far the segment can move in each direction without changing its point content --- so if the centroid is such that the segment remains within these limits, the enclosure corresponds to a stable segment. The computational complexity of the above procedure, $N \ln N$, is dominated by the need to sort the points initially: there are $\order{N}$ distinct enclosures and, given the sorted list, finding the next point that will enter or leave an edge costs $\order{1}$ time, as does updating the weighted centroid (assuming rounding errors can be neglected), so that the time not associated with the sorting step is $\order{N}$. \subsection{The two-dimensional case} \subsubsection{General approach} The solution to the full problem can be seen as a 2-dimensional generalisation of the above procedure.\footnote{We illustrate the planar problem rather than the cylindrical one since for $R<\pi/2$ the latter is a trivial generalisation of the former.} The key idea is again that of trying to identify all distinct circular enclosures, which we also call distinct cones (by `distinct' we mean having a different point content), and testing the stability of each one. In the one-dimensional example there was a single degree of freedom in specifying the position of the segment and all distinct segment enclosures could be obtained by considering all segments with an extremity defined by a point in the set. In 2 dimensions there are two degrees of freedom in specifying the position of a circle, and as we shall see, the solution to finding all distinct circular enclosures will be to examine all circles whose circumference lies on a \emph{pair} of points from the set. To see in detail how one reaches this conclusion, it is useful to examine fig.~. Box (a) shows a circle enclosing two points, the (red) crosses. Suppose, in analogy with fig.~ that one wishes to slide the circle until its point content changes. One might choose a direction at random and after moving a certain distance, the circle's edge will hit some point in the plane, box (b), signalling that the point content is about to change. In the 1-dimensional case a single point, together with a binary orientation (taking it to be the left or right-hand point) were sufficient to characterise the segment enclosure. However in the 2-dimensional case one may orient the circle in an infinite number of ways. We can therefore pivot the circle around the boundary point. As one does this, at some point a second point will then touch the boundary of the circle, box (c). The importance of fig.~ is that it illustrates that for each and every enclosure, one can always move the corresponding circle (without changing the enclosure contents) into a position where two points lie on its boundary. \footnote{There are two minor exceptions to this: (a) for any point separated from all others by more than $2R$, the circle containing it can never have more than that one point on its edge --- any such point forms a stable cone of its own; (b) there may be configurations where three or more points lie on the same circle of radius $R$ (\ie are cocircular) --- given a circle defined by a pair of them, the question of which of the others is in the circle becomes ambiguous and one should explicitly consider all possible combinations of inclusion/exclusion; a specific case of this is when there are collinear momenta (coincident points), which can however be dealt more simply by immediately merging them.} Conversely, if one considers each circle whose boundary is defined by a pair of points in the set, and considers all four permutations of the edge points being contained or not in the enclosure, then one will have identified all distinct circular enclosures. Note that one given enclosure can be defined by several distinct pairs of particles, which means that when considering the enclosures defined by all pairs of particles, we are likely to find each enclosure more than once, cf.\ fig.~d. A specific implementation of the above approach to finding the stable cones is given as algorithm~ below. It runs in expected time $\order{Nn \ln n}$ where $N$ is the total number of particles and $n$ is the typical number of particles in a circle of radius $R$. $, $n/N \sim \pi R^2/(4\pi y_{\max})$, which is considerably smaller than $1$ --- this motivates us to distinguish $n$ from $N$.} The time is dominated by a step that establishes a traversal order for the $\order{N n}$ distinct circular enclosures, much as the one-dimensional ($N \ln N$) example was dominated by the step that ordered the $\order{N}$ distinct segment enclosures. \footnote{For comparison we note that the complexity of public midpoint algorithm implementations scales as $N^2n$.} Some aspects of algorithm~ are rather technical and are explained in the subsubsection that follows. A reader interested principally in the physics of the algorithm may prefer to skip it on a first reading. \subsubsection{Specific computational strategies} A key input in evaluating the computational complexity of various algorithms is the knowledge of the number of distinct circular enclosures (or `distinct cones') and the number of stable cones. These are both estimated in appendix~, and are respectively $\order{N n}$ and (expected) $\order{N}$. Before giving the 2-dimensional analogue of the 1-d algorithm of section~ we examine a simple `brute force' approach for finding all stable cones. One takes all $\sim Nn$ pairs of points within $2R$ of each other and for each pair identifies the contents of the circle and establishes whether it corresponds to a stable cone, at a cost of $\order{N}$ each time, leading to an overall $N^2 n$ total cost. This is to be compared to a standard midpoint cone algorithm, whose most expensive step will be the iteration of the expected $\order{Nn}$ midpoint seeds, for a total cost also of $N^2 n$, assuming the average number of iterations from any given seed to be $\order{1}$. \footnote{In both cases one can reduce this to $N n^2$ by tiling the plane into squares of edge-length $R$ and restricting the search for the circle contents to tiles in the vicinity of the circle centre.} \begin{algorithm}[tp] \caption{Procedure for establishing the list of all stable cones (protojets). For simplicity, parts related to the special case of multiple cocircular points (see footnote ) are not shown. They are a straightforward generalisation of steps to .} \renewcommand{\algorithmiccomment}[1]{[#1]} \begin{algorithmic}[1] \STATE For any group of collinear particles, merge them into a single particle. \FOR{particle $i = 1 \ldots N$ } \STATE Find all particles $j$ within a distance $2R$ of $i$. If there are no such particles, $i$ forms a stable cone of its own. \STATE Otherwise for each $j$ identify the two circles for which $i$ and $j$ lie on the circumference. For each circle, compute the angle of its centre $C$ relative to $i$, $\zeta = \arctan \frac{\Delta\phi_{iC}}{\Delta y_{iC}}$. \STATE Sort the circles found in steps and into increasing angle $\zeta$. \STATE Take the first circle in this order, and call it the current circle. Calculate the total momentum and checkxor for the cones that it defines. Consider all 4 permutations of edge points being included or excluded. Call these the ``current cones''. \REPEAT \FOR{each of the 4 current cones} \STATE If this cone has not yet been found, add it to the list of distinct cones. \STATE If this cone has not yet been labelled as unstable, establish if the in/out status of the edge particles (with respect to the cone momentum axis) is the same as when defining the cone; if it is not, label the cone as unstable. \ENDFOR \STATE Move to the next circle in order. It differs from the previous one either by a particle entering the circle, or one leaving the circle. Calculate the momentum for the new circle and corresponding new current cones by adding (or removing) the momentum of the particle that has entered (left); the checkxor can be updated by XORing with the label of that particle. \UNTIL{all circles considered. } \ENDFOR \FOR{each of the cones not labelled as unstable} \STATE Explicitly check its stability, and if it is stable, add it to the list of stable cones (protojets). \ENDFOR \end{algorithmic} \end{algorithm} One can reduce the computational complexity by using some of the ideas from the 1-d example, notably the introduction of an ordering for the boundary points of circles, and the use of the boundary points as sentinels for instability. Specifically, three elements will be required:\vspace{-0.5em} \begin{itemize} \item[i)] one needs a way of labelling distinct cones that allows one to test whether two cones are the same at a cost of $\order{1}$;\vspace{-0.5em} \item[ii)] one needs a way of ordering one's examination of cones so that one can construct the cones incrementally, so as not to pay the (at least, see below) $\order{\sqrt{n}}$ construction price anew for each cone; \vspace{-0.5em} \item[iii)] one needs a way limiting the number of cones for which we carry out a full stability test (which also costs at least $\sqrt{n}$). \end{itemize} To label cones efficiently, we assign a random $q$-bit integer tag to each particle. Then we define a tag for combinations of particles by taking the logical exclusive-or of all the tags of the individual particles (this is easily constructed incrementally and is sometimes referred to as a checkxor). Then two cones can be compared by examining their tags, rather than by comparing their full list of particles. With such a procedure, there is a risk of two non-identical cones ending up with identical tags (`colliding'), which strictly speaking will make our procedure only `almost exact'. The probability $p$ of a collision occurring is roughly the square of the number of enclosures divided by the number of distinct tags. Since we have $\order{Nn}$ enclosures, this gives $p \sim N^2 n^2/2^q$. By taking $q$ sufficiently large (in a test implementation we have used $q=96$) and using a random number generator that guarantees that all bits are decorrelated , one can ensure a negligible collision probability. \footnote{A more refined analysis shows that we need only worry about collisions between the tags of stable cones and other (stable or unstable) cones --- since there are $\order{N}$ stable cones, the actual collision probability is more likely to be $\order{Nn^2}/2^q$. In practice for $N\sim 10^4$ and $n\sim 10^3$ (a very highly populated event) and using $q=96$, this gives $ p \sim 10^{-18}$. In principle to guarantee an infinitesimal collision probability regardless of N, $q$ should scale as $\ln N$, however $N$ will in any case be limited by memory use (which scales as $Nn$) so a fixed $q$ is not unreasonable.} Given the ability to efficiently give a distinct label to distinct cones, one can address points ii) and iii) mentioned above by following algorithm~. Point (ii) is dealt with by steps --, and : for each particle $i$, one establishes a traversal order for the circles having $i$ on their edge --- the traversal order is such that as one works through the circles, the circle content changes only by one particle at a time, making it easy to update the momentum and checkxor for the circle.\footnote{Rounding errors can affect the accuracy of the momentum calculated this way; the impact of this can be minimised by occasionally recomputing the momentum of the circle from scratch.} One maintains a record of all distinct cones in the form of a hash (as a hash function one simply takes $\log_2 Nn$ bits of the tag), so that it only takes $\order{1}$ time to check whether a cone has been found previously. Rather than explicitly checking the stability of each distinct cone, the algorithm examines whether the multiple edge points that define the cone are appropriately included/excluded in the circle around the cone's momentum axis, step . All but a tiny fraction of unstable cones fail this test, so that at the end of step~ one has a list (of size $\order{N}$) of candidate stable cones --- at that point one can carry out a full stability test for each of them. This therefore deals with point~(iii) mentioned above. The dominant part of algorithm~ is the ordering of the circles, step~, which takes $n \ln n$ time and must be repeated $N$ times. Therefore the overall cost is $N n \ln n$. As well as computing time, a significant issue is the memory use, because one must maintain a list of all distinct cones, of which there are $\order{Nn}$. One notes however that standard implementations of the split--merge step of the cone algorithm also require $\order{Nn}$ storage, albeit with a smaller coefficient. It is worth highlighting also an alternative approach, which though slower, $\order{N n^{3/2}}$, has lower memory consumption and also avoids the small risk inexactness from the checkxor. It is similar to the brute-force approach, but uses 2-dimensional computational geometry tree structures, such as quad-trees or $k$-d trees . These involve successive sub-divisions of the plane (in quadrants, or pairs of rectangles), similarly to what is done in $1$-dimensional binary trees. They make it possible to check the stability of a given circle in $\sqrt{n}$ time (the time is mostly taken by identifying tree cells near the edge of the circle, of which there are $\order{\sqrt{n}}$), giving an overall cost of $N n^{3/2}$. The memory use of this form of approach is $\order{N\smash{\sqrt n}}$, simply the space needed to store the stable-cone contents. \footnote{Though here we are mainly interested in exact approaches, one may also examine the question of the speed of the approximate seedless approach of Volobouev~. This approach represents the event on a grid and essentially calculates the stability of a cone at each point of the grid using a fast-Fourier transformation (FFT). In principle, for this procedure to be as good as the exact one, the grid should be fine enough to resolve each distinct cone, which implies that it should have $\order{N n}$ points; therefore the FFT will require $\order{N n \ln Nn}$ time, which is similar in magnitude to the time that is needed by the exact algorithm. An open question remains that of whether a coarser grid might nevertheless be `good enough' for many practical applications.} \subsection{The split--merge part of the cone algorithm} \begin{algorithm}[t] \caption{The disambiguated, scalar $\pttilde$ based formulation of a Tevatron Run-II type split--merge procedure~, with overlap threshold parameter $f$ and transverse momentum threshold $p_{t,\min}$. To ensure boost invariance and IR safety, for the ordering variable and the overlap measure, it uses of ${\tilde p}_{t,\mathrm{jet}} = \sum_{i\in \mathrm{jet}} |p_{t,i}|$, \ie a scalar sum of the particle transverse momenta (as in a `$p_t$' recombination scheme). } \renewcommand{\algorithmiccomment}[1]{[#1]} \begin{algorithmic}[1] \REPEAT \STATE Remove all protojets with $p_t <p_{t,\min}$. \STATE Identify the protojet ($i$) with the highest ${\tilde p}_{t}$. \STATE Among the remaining protojets identify the one ($j$) with highest ${\tilde p}_{t}$ that shares particles (overlaps) with $i$. \IF{there is such an overlapping jet } \STATE{Determine the total ${\tilde p}_{t,\textrm{shared}} \!=\! \sum_{k\in i \& j} |p_{t,k} |$ of the particles shared between $i$ and $j$.} \IF{${\tilde p}_{t,\textrm{shared}} < f {\tilde p}_{t,j}$ } \STATE Each particle that is shared between the two protojets is assigned to the one to whose axis it is closest. The protojet momenta are then recalculated. \ELSE \STATE Merge the two protojets into a single new protojet (added to the list of protojets, while the two original ones are removed). \ENDIF \STATE If steps -- produced a protojet that coincides with an existing one, maintain the new protojet as distinct from the existing copy(ies). \ELSE \STATE Add $i$ to the list of final jets, and remove it from the list of protojets. \ENDIF \UNTIL{no protojets are left. } \end{algorithmic} \end{algorithm} The split--merge part of our cone algorithm is basically that adopted for Run-II of the Tevatron~. It is shown in detail as algorithm~. Since it does not depend on the procedure used to find stable cones, it may largely be kept as is. We do however include the following small modifications: \begin{enumerate} \item The run~II proposal used $E_t$ throughout the split--merge procedure. This is not invariant under longitudinal boosts. We replace it with $\tilde p_t$, a scalar sum of the transverse momenta of the constituents of the protojet. This ensures that the results are both boost-invariant and infrared safe. We note that choosing instead $p_t$ (a seemingly natural choice, made for example in the code of ) would have led to IR unsafety in purely hadronic events --- the question of the variable to be used for the ordering is actually a rather delicate one, and we discuss it in more detail in appendix~. \item We introduce a threshold $p_{t,\min}$ below which protojets are discarded (step~ of algorithm~). This parameter is motivated by the discussion in concerning problems associated with an `excess' of stable cones in seedless algorithms, notably in events with significant pileup. It provides an infrared and collinear safe way of removing the resulting large number of low $p_t$ stable cones. By setting it to zero one recovers a behaviour identical to that of the Run-II algorithm (modulo the replacement $E_t\to \pttilde$, above), and we believe that in practice zero is actually a sensible default value. We note that a similar parameter is present in PxCone~. \item After steps~--, the same protojet may appear more than once in the list of protojets. For example a protojet may come once from a single original stable cone, and a second time from the splitting of another original stable cone. The original statement of the split--merge procedure~ did not address this issue, and there is a resulting ambiguity in how to proceed. One option (as is done for example in the seedless cone code of ) is to retain only a single copy of any such identical protojets. This however introduces a new source of infrared unsafety: an added soft particle might appear in one copy of the protojet and not the other and the two protojets would then no longer be identical and would not be reduced to a single protojet. This could (and does occasionally, as evidenced in section ) alter the subsequent split--merge sequence. If one instead maintains multiple identical protojets as distinct entities (as is done in the codes of ), then the addition of a soft particle does not alter the number of hard protojet entries in the protojet list and the split--merge part of the algorithm remains infrared safe. We therefore choose this second option, and make it explicit as step~ of algorithm~. \end{enumerate} The split--merge procedure is guaranteed to terminate because the number of overlapping pairs of protojets is reduced each time an iteration of the loop finds an overlap. A proof of the infrared safety of this (and the other) parts of our formulation of the cone algorithm is given in appendix~. The computational complexity ($\order{N^2}$) of the split--merge procedure is generally smaller than that of the stable-cone search, and so we relegate its discussion to appendix~. Finally, before closing this section, let us return briefly to the top-level of the cone formulation, algorithm~ and the question of the loop over multiple passes. This loop contains just the stable-cone search, and one might wonder why the split--merge step has not also been included in the loop. First consider $p_{t,\min}=0$: protojets found in different passes cannot overlap, and the split--merge procedure is such that if a particle is in a protojet then it will always end up in a jet. Therefore it is immaterial whether the split--merge step is kept inside or outside the loop. The advantage of keeping it outside the loop is that one may rerun the algorithm with multiple overlap values $f$ simply by repeating the split--merge step, without repeating the search for stable cones. For $p_{t,\min} \neq 0$ the positioning of the split--merge step with respect to the $N_\mathrm{pass}$ loop would affect the outcome of the algorithm if all particles not found in first-pass jets were to be inserted into the second pass stable-cone search. Our specific formulation constitutes a design choice, which allows one to rerun with different values of $f$ and $p_{t,\min}$ without repeating the stable-cone search. \section{Tests and comparisons} \subsection{Measures of IR (un)safety} In section~ we presented a procedure for finding stable cones that is explicitly IR safe. In appendix~ we provide a proof of the IR safety of the rest of the algorithm. The latter is rather technical and not short, and while we have every reason to believe it to be correct, we feel that there is value in supplementing it with complementary evidence for the IR safety of the algorithm. As a byproduct, we will obtain a measure of the IR unsafety of various commonly used formulations of the cone algorithm. To verify the IR safety of the seedless cone algorithm, we opt for a numerical Monte Carlo approach, in analogy with that used in to test the more involved \emph{recursive} infrared and collinear safety (a prerequisite for certain kinds of resummation). The test proceeds as follows. One generates a `hard' event consisting of some number of randomly distributed momenta of the order of some hard scale $p_{t,H}$, and runs the jet algorithm on the hard event. One then generates some soft momenta at a scale $p_{t,S} \ll p_{t,H}$, adds them to the hard event (randomly permuting the order of the momenta) and reruns the jet algorithm. One verifies that the hard jets obtained with and without the soft event are identical. If they are not, the jet algorithm is IR unsafe. For a given hard event one repeats the test with many different add-on soft events so as to be reasonably sure of identifying most hard events that are IR unsafe. One then repeats the whole procedure for many hard events. \begin{table} \centering \begin{minipage}{1.0\linewidth} \begin{tabular}{l|l|l|c} Algorithm & Type & IR unsafe & Code \\\hline JetClu & Seeded, no midpoints & 2h+1s & \\ SearchCone & Seeded, search cone~, midpoints & 2h+1s & \\ MidPoint & Seeded, midpoints (2-way) & 3h+1s & \\ MidPoint-3 & Seeded, midpoints (2-way, 3-way) & 3h+1s & \\ PxCone & Seeded, midpoints ($n$-way), non-standard SM & 3h+1s & \\ Seedless [SM-$p_t$] & Seedless, SM uses $p_t$ & 4h+1s\footnote{Failures on 4h+1s arise only for $R > \pi/4$; for smaller $R$, failures arise only for higher multiplicities} & [here]\\ Seedless [SM-MIP] & Seedless, SM merges identical protojets & 4h+1s\footnote{Failures for 4h+1s are extremely rare, but become more common for 5h+1s and beyond} & [here]\\ Seedless [SISCone] & Seedless, SM of algorithm~ & no & [here]\\ \end{tabular} \end{minipage} \caption{Summary of the various cone jet algorithms and the code used for tests here; \mbox{SM} stands for ``split--merge''; $N$h+$M$s indicates that infrared unsafety is revealed with configurations consisting of $N$ hard particles and $M$ soft ones, not counting an additional hard, potentially non-QCD, particle to conserve momentum. All codes have been used in the form of plugins to FastJet (v2.1)~.} \end{table} The hard events are produced as follows: we choose a linearly distributed random number of momenta (between 2 and 10) and for each one generate a random $p_t$ (linearly distributed, $2^{-24}p_{t,H}\!\le\! p_t \!\le\! p_{t,H}$, with $p_{t,H}=1000\GeV$), a random rapidity (linearly distributed in $-1.5 \!<\! y \!<\! 1.5$) and a random $\phi$. For each hard event we also choose random parameters for the jet algorithm, so as to cover the jet-algorithm parameter space ($0.3\!<\!R\!<\!1.57$, $0.25\!<\!f\!<\!0.95$, linearly distributed, the upper limit on $R$ being motivated by the requirement that $R<\pi/2$; the $p_{t,\min}$ on protojets is set to 0 and the number of passes is set to $1$). For each add-on soft event we generate between $1$ and $5$ soft momenta, distributed as the hard ones, but with the soft scale $p_{t,S}=10^{-100}\GeV$ replacing $p_{t,H}$. We note that the hard events generated as above do not conserve momentum --- they are analogous to events with a missing energy component or with identified photons or leptons that are not given as inputs to the jet clustering. For the safety studies on the full SISCone algorithm, we therefore also generate a set of hard events which do have momentum conservation, analogous to purely hadronic events. To validate our approach to testing IR safety, we apply it to a range of cone jet algorithms, listed in table~, including the many variants that are IR unsafe. In PxCone the cut on protojets is set to $1\GeV$ and in the SearchCone algorithm the search cone radius is set to $R/2$. The fraction of hard events failing the safety test is shown in fig.~ for each of the jet algorithms.\footnote{The results are based on 80 trial soft add-on events for each hard event and should differ by no more than a few percent (relative) from a full determination of the IR safety for each hard event (which would be obtained in the limit of an infinite number of trial soft add-on events for each hard event). For SISCone we only use 20 soft add-on events, so as to make it possible to probe a larger number of hard configurations.} All jet algorithms that are known to be IR unsafe do indeed fail the tests. One should be aware that the absolute failure rates depend to some extent on the way we generated the hard events, and so are to be interpreted with caution. Having said that, our hard events have a complexity similar to the Born-level (lowest-order parton-level) of events that will be studied at LHC, for example in the various decay channels of $t\bar t H$ production, and so both the order of magnitudes of the failure rates and their relative sizes should be meaningful. Algorithms that fail on `2h+1s' events have larger failure rates than those that fail on `3h+1s' events, as would be expected --- they are `more' infrared unsafe. One notes the significant failure rates for the midpoint algorithms, $\sim 16\ 3-way midpoints (\ie between triplets of stable cones) has almost no effect on the failure rate, indicating that triangular configurations identified as IR unsafe in are much less important than others such as that discussed in section~. PxCone's smaller failure rate seems to be due not to its multi-way midpoints, but rather to its specific split--merge procedure which leads to fewer final jets (so that one is less sensitive to missing stable cones). Seedless algorithms with problematic split--merge procedures lead to small failure rates (restricting one's attention to small values of $R$, these values are further reduced). One might be tempted to argue that such small rates of IR safety failure are unlikely to have a physical impact and can therefore be ignored. However there is always a risk of some specific study being unusually sensitive to these configurations, and in any case our aim here is to provide an algorithm whose IR safety is exact, not just approximate. Finally, with a `good' split--merge procedure, that given as algorithm~, none of the over $5\times 10^9$ hard events tested (a mix both with and without momentum conservation) failed the IR safety test. For completeness, we have carried out limited tests also for $N_\mathrm{pass} = \infty$ and with a $p_{t,\min}$ on protojets of $100\GeV$, and have additionally performed tests with a larger range of rapidities ($|y| <3$), collinearly-split momenta, cocircular configurations, three scales instead of two scales and again found no failures. These tests together with the proof given in appendix~ give us a good degree of confidence that the algorithm truly is infrared safe, hence justifying its name. \subsection{Speed} As can be gathered from the discussion in~, reasonable speed is an essential requirement if a new variant of cone jet algorithm is to be adopted. To determine the speed of various cone jet algorithms, we use the same set of events taken for testing the FastJet formulation of the $k_t$ jet algorithm in --- these consist of a single Pythia dijet event (with $p_{t,\mathrm{jets}} \simeq 50 \GeV$) to which we add varying numbers of simulated minimum bias events so as to vary the multiplicity $N$. Thus the event structure should mimic that of LHC events with pileup. Figure~ shows the time needed to find jets in one event as a function of $N$. Among the seeded jet algorithms we consider only codes that include midpoint seeds. For the (CDF) midpoint code , written in \texttt{C++}, there is an option of using only particles above a threshold $s$ as seeds and we consider both the common (though collinear unsafe) choice $s=1\GeV$ and the (collinear safe but IR unsafe) $s=0\GeV$. The PxCone code~, written in Fortran~77, has no seed threshold. Our seedless code, SISCone, is comparable in speed to the fastest of the seeded codes, the CDF midpoint code with a seed threshold $s=1\GeV$, and is considerably faster than the codes without a seed threshold (not to mention existing exact seedless codes which take $\sim 1\;$s to find jets among $20$ particles and scale as $N 2^N$). Its run time also increases more slowly with $N$ than that of the seeded codes, roughly in agreement with the expectation of SISCone going as $Nn\ln n$ (with a large coefficient) while the others go as $N^2 n$. The midpoint code with $s=1\GeV$ has a more complex $N$-dependence presumably because we have run the timing on a single set of momenta, and the proportionality between the number of seeds and $N$ fluctuates and depends on the event structure. For comparison purposes we have also included the timings for the FastJet (v2) $k_t$ implementation, which for these values of $N$ uses a strategy that involves a combination of $N\ln N$ and $Nn$ dependencies. Timings for the FastJet implementation of the Aachen/Cambridge algorithm are similar to those for the $k_t$ algorithm. \subsection[$\rsep$: an inexistent problem]{$\boldsymbol{\rsep}$: an inexistent problem} Suppose we have two partons separated by $\Delta R$ and with transverse momenta $p_{t1}$ and $p_{t2}$ ($p_{t1} > p_{t2}$). Both partons end up in the same jet if the cone containing both is stable, \ie if \begin{equation} \frac{\Delta R}{R} < 1 + z\,,\qquad\quad z = \frac{p_{t2}}{p_{t1}} \,, \end{equation} where the result is exact for small $R$ or with $p_t$-scheme recombination. Equivalently one can write the probability for two partons to be clustered into a single jet as \begin{equation} P_{2\to 1}(\Delta R, z) = \Theta\left(1 + z - \frac{\Delta R}{R} \right)\,. \end{equation} The limit on $\Delta R/R$ ranges from $1$ for $z = 0$ to $2$ for $z=1$. This $z$-dependent limit is the main low-order perturbative difference between the cone algorithm and inclusive versions of sequential recombination ones like the $k_t$ or Cambridge/Aachen algorithms, since the latter merge two partons into a single jet for $\Delta R/R < 1$, independently of their energies. A statement regularly made about cone algorithms (see for example ) is that parton showering and hadronisation reduce the stability of the cone containing the `original' two partons, leading to a modified `practical' condition for two partons to end up in a single jet, \begin{equation} \frac{\Delta R}{R} < \min\left(\rsep\,, 1 + z \right)\,, \end{equation} or equivalently, \begin{equation} P_{2\to 1}(\Delta R, z) = \Theta\left(1 + z - \frac{\Delta R}{R} \right) \Theta\left(\rsep - \frac{\Delta R}{R}\right) \,, \end{equation} with $\rsep \simeq 1.3$~.\footnote{The name $\rsep$ was originally introduced~ in the context of NLO calculations of hadron-collider jet-spectra, but with a different meaning --- there it was intended as a free parameter to model the lack of knowledge about the details of the definition of the cone jet algorithm used experimentally. This is rather different from the current use as a parameter intended to model our inability to directly calculate the impact of higher-order and non-perturbative dynamics of QCD in cone algorithms.} This situation is often represented as in figure~, which depicts the $\Delta R$,~$z$ plane, and shows the regions in which two partons are merged into one jet or resolved as two jets. The boundary $\Delta R = 1+z$ corresponds to eq.~(), while the alternative boundary at $\Delta R = \rsep$ is eq.~(). So large a difference between the low-order partonic expectation and hadron-level results would be quite a worrying feature for a jet algorithm --- after all, the main purpose of a jet algorithm is to give as close a relation as possible between the first couple of orders of perturbation theory and hadron level.\footnote{The apparent lack of correspondence is considered sufficiently severe that in some publications (\eg ) the NLO calculation is modified by hand to compensate for this.} The evidence for the existence of eq.~() with $\rsep=1.3$ seems largely to be based~ on merging two events (satisfying some cut on the jet $p_t$'s), running the jet-algorithm on the merged event, and examining at what distance particles from the two events end up in the same jet. This approach indicated that particles were indeed less likely to end up in the same jet if they were more than $1.3 R$ apart, however the result is an average over a range of $z$ values making it hard to see whether eq.~() is truly representative of the underlying physics. showed more differential results; these, however, seem not to be in the definitive version.} To address the question in more depth we adopt the following strategy. Rather than combining different events, we use one event at a time, but with two different jet algorithms. On one hand we run SISCone with a fairly small value of $R$, $R_{\text{cone}} = 0.4$. Simultaneously we run inclusive $k_t$ jet-clustering on the event, using a relatively large $R$ ($R_{k_t} = 1.0$), and identify any hard $k_t$-jets. For each hard $k_t$ jet we undo its last clustering step so as to obtain two subjets, $S_1$ and $S_2$ --- these are taken to be the analogues of the two partons. We then examine whether there is a cone jet that contains more than half of the $p_t$ of each of $S_1$ and $S_2$. If there is, the conclusion is that the two $k_t$ subjets have ended up (dominantly) in a single cone jet. The procedure is repeated for many events, and one then examines the probability, $P_{2\to1}(\Delta R, z)$, of the two $k_t$ subjets being identified with a single cone jet, as a function of the distance $\Delta R$ between the two subjets, $S_1$ and $S_2$, and the ratio $z$ of their $p_t$'s. The results are shown in fig.~ both at parton-shower level and at hadron level, as simulated with Herwig~. The middle contour corresponds to a probability of $1/2$. At parton-shower level this contour coincides remarkably well with the boundary defined by eq.~(), up to $\Delta R/R=1.7$. It is definitely not compatible with eq.~() with $\rsep=1.3$. Beyond $\Delta R/R = 1.7$ the contour bends a little and one might consider interpreting this as an $\rsep \simeq 1.8$.\footnote{Such a value has been mentioned to us independently by M.~Wobisch in the context of unpublished studies of jet shapes for the SearchCone algorithm~.} However, in that region the transition between $P=1$ and $P=0$ is broad, and to within the width of the transition, there remains good agreement with eq.~() --- it seems more natural therefore to interpret the small deviation from eq.~() as a Sudakov-shoulder type structure , which broadens and shifts the $\Theta$-function of eq.~(), as would happen with almost any discontinuity in a leading-order QCD distribution. Once one includes hadronisation effects in the study, fig.~b, one finds that the transition region broadens further, as is to be expected. Now the $P=1/2$ contour shifts away slightly from the $1+z$ result at small $z$ as well. However, once again this shift is modest, and of similar size as the breadth of the transition region. To verify the robustness of the above results we have examined other related indicators. One of them is the probability, $P_{2\to2}$ of finding two cone jets, each containing more than half of the transverse momentum of just one of the $k_t$ subjets. At two-parton level, one expects $P_{1\to2} + P_{2\to2} = 1$. Deviation from this would indicate that our procedure for matching cone jets to $k_t$ jets is misbehaving. We find that the relation holds to within around $15\ most of the region, deviating by at most $\sim 25\ of phase space $\Delta R / R \simeq 1.5$, $z \simeq 0.2$. Another test is to examine the fraction $F_{2}$ of the softer $S_2$'s transverse momentum that is found in the cone that overlaps dominantly with $S_{1}$. At two-parton level this should be equal to $P_{2\to1}$, but this would not be the case after showering if there were underlying problems with our matching procedure. We find however that $F_{2}$ does agree well with $P_{2\to 1}$. These, together with yet further tests, lead to us to believe that conclusions drawn from fig.~ are robust. Finally, while these results have been obtained within a Monte Carlo simulation, Herwig, a similar study could equally be well carried experimentally on real events. So, in contrast to statements that are often made about the cone jet algorithm, the perturbative picture of when two partons will recombine, given by eq.~(), seems to be a relatively good indicator of what happens even after perturbative radiation and hadronisation. In particular the evidence that we have presented strongly disfavours the $\rsep$-based modification, eq.~(). This is a welcome finding, and should help provide a firmer basis for cone-based phenomenology. \subsection{Physics impact of seedless v.\ midpoint cone} In this section, we discuss the impact on physical measurement of switching from a midpoint type algorithm to a seedless IR-safe one such as SISCone. We study two physical observables, the inclusive jet spectrum and the jet mass spectrum in 3-jet events. The spectra have been obtained by generating events with a Monte-Carlo either at fixed order in perturbation theory (NLOJet ) or with parton showering and hadronisation (Pythia ), and by performing the jet analysis on each event using three different algorithms (each with $R=0.7$ and $f=0.5$, and additionally in the case of SISCone, $N_\mathrm{pass} = 1$ and $p_{t,\min}=0$): \begin{enumerate} \item SISCone: the seedless, IR-safe definition described in algorithms --; \item midpoint(0): the midpoint algorithm using all particles as seeds; \item midpoint(1): the midpoint algorithm using as seeds all particles above a threshold of 1 GeV. \end{enumerate} We have used a version of the CDF implementation of the midpoint algorithm modified to have the split--merge step based on $\pttilde$ rather than $p_t$ (so that it corresponds to algorithm~ with $p_{t,\min}=0$). The motivation for this is that we are mainly interested in the physics impact of having midpoint versus all stable cones, and the comparison is simplest if the subsequent split--merge procedure is identical in both cases.\footnote{We could also have compared SISCone with a midpoint algorithm using $p_t$ in the split--merge (a common default); the figures we show below would have stayed unchanged at the $1\ the effects range between a few percent at moderate masses and $10-20\ We shall first present the results obtained for the inclusive jet spectrum and then discuss the jet mass spectrum in 3-jet events. Most studies carried out in this section have used kinematics corresponding to the Tevatron Run II, \ie a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV, and usually, for simplicity we have chosen not to impose any cuts in rapidity. \subsubsection{Inclusive jet spectrum} As discussed in section~, the differences between the midpoint algorithm and SISCone are expected to start when we have 3 particles in a common neighbourhood plus one to balance momentum. For pure QCD processes this corresponds to $2\to 4$ diagrams, $\order{\as^4}$. This is NNLO for the inclusive spectrum. Though a NNLO calculation of the inclusive spectrum is beyond today's technology (for recent progress, see ), we can easily calculate the $\order{\as^4}$ difference between midpoint and SISCone, using just tree-level $2\to4$ diagrams, since the difference between the algorithms is zero at orders $\as^2$ and $\as^3$, \ie we can neglect two-loop $2\to2$ diagrams and one-loop $2\to3$ diagrams. The significance of the difference can be understood by comparing to the leading order spectrum, which is identical for the two algorithms. Figure shows the resulting spectra: the upper plot gives the leading order inclusive spectrum together with the difference between SISCone and midpoint(0) at $\order{\as^4}$. The lower plot shows the relative difference. One sees that the use of the IR-safe seedless cone algorithm introduces modest corrections, of order 1-2\ roughly what one would expect, since the differences only appear at relative order $\as^2$. As we will see below, larger differences will appear when one examines more exclusive quantities. In addition, we have used Herwig and Pythia to investigate the differences between midpoint(1) and SISCone with parton showering. Both generators give similar results, and we show the results just of Pythia, fig.~a. The difference at parton level is very similar to what was observed at fixed order. At hadron level without underlying event (UE) corrections, the difference remains at the level of $1-2\ underlying event contributions, the difference increases noticeably at lower $p_t$ --- this is because the midpoint(1) algorithm receives somewhat larger UE corrections than SISCone. Since the underlying event is one of the things that is likely to change from Tevatron to LHC, in figure b we show similar curves for LHC kinematics. At parton level and at hadron level without the underlying event, the results are essentially the same as for the Tevatron. With the underlying event included, the impact of the missing stable cones in the midpoint algorithm reaches of the order of 10 to 15\ Herwig, we find that the impact is little smaller because its underlying event is smaller than Pythia's at the LHC. \subsubsection{Jet masses in 3-jet events} As well as the inclusive jet $p_T$ spectrum, we can also study more exclusive quantities. One example is the jet-mass spectrum in multi-jet events. Jet-masses are potentially of interest for QCD studies, particle mass measurements and new physics searches, where they could be used to identify highly boosted W/Z/H bosons or top quarks produced in the decays of new heavy particles~. The simplest multi-jet events in which to study jet masses are 3-jet events. There, the masses of all the jets vanish at the 3-particle level. The first order at which the jet masses become non-zero is $\order{\alpha_s^4}$ and this is also the order at which differences appear between the midpoint and seedless cone algorithms. Therefore, as in section~, we generate $2\to4$ tree-level events, but now keep only those with exactly 3 jets with $p_T\ge 20$ GeV in the final state. We further impose that the hardest jet should have a $p_T$ of at least 120 GeV and the second hardest jet a $p_T$ of at least 60 GeV. With these cuts we can compute the jet-mass spectrum for each of the three jets and for the three different algorithms. In the upper plot of Figure , we show the relative difference ``(midpoint(0) - SISCone)/SISCone'' for the mass spectrum of the second hardest jet. In the lower plot we show the same quantity for events in which we have placed an additional requirement that the $y-\phi$ distance between the second and third jets be less than $2R$ (such distance cuts are often used when trying to reconstruct chains of particle decays). The midpoint algorithm's omission of certain stable cones leads to an overestimate of the mass spectrum by up to $\sim 10\ distance cut (much smaller differences are observed for the first and third jet) and of over $40\ enhanced by the presence of the distance cut because many more of the selected events then have three particles in a common neighbourhood, and this is precisely the situation in which the midpoint algorithm misses stable cones (\cf section~). We emphasise also that the NLO calculation of these mass spectra would be impossible with a midpoint algorithm, because the $10-40\ tree-level differences would be converted into an infrared divergent NLO contribution. A general comment is that the problems seen here for the midpoint algorithm without a distance cut are of the same general order of magnitude as the 16\ section~, suggesting that the absolute failure rates given there are a good indicator of the degree of seriousness of issues that can arise in generic studies with the infrared unsafe algorithms. In addition to this fixed-order parton-level analysis, we have studied the jet masses in 3-jet events at hadron level (\ie after parton showering and hadronisation) using events generated with Pythia. At hadron level many more seeds are present, due to the large particle multiplicity. One might therefore expect the midpoint algorithm to become a good approximation to the seedless one. For the mass of the second hardest jet, \ie the quantity we studied at fixed order in figure~, we find that the midpoint and seedless algorithms do give rather similar results at hadron level. In other words differences that we see in a leading order calculation are not propagated through to the full hadron level result. This is a serious practical issue for the midpoint algorithm, because a jet algorithm's principal role is to provide a good mapping between low-order parton level and hadron level. Nevertheless, despite the many seeds that are present at hadron level, we find that there are still some observables for which the midpoint algorithm's lack of stable cones does have a large impact even at hadron level. This is the case that the mass distribution of the third hardest jet, shown in figure~ (obtained without a distance cut) on both linear and logarithmic scales so as to help visualise the various regions of the distribution. Moderate differences are present in the peak region, but in the tail of the distribution they become large, up to 50\ for midpoint(0), because the seed threshold causes fewer stable cones to be found with the midpoint(1) algorithm. These results have been checked using the Herwig Monte-Carlo. We have observed similar differences at parton-shower level, at the hadron level and at the hadron level including underlying event, both in the peak of the distribution and in the tail. We note that hadronisation corrections are substantial in the tail of the distribution, both for the midpoint and SISCone algorithms. The above results confirm what one might naturally have expected: while very inclusive quantities may not be overly sensitive to the deficiencies of one's jet algorithm, as one extends one's investigations to more exclusive quantities, those deficiencies begin to have a much larger impact. \section{Conclusions} Given the widespread use of cone jet algorithms at the Tevatron and their foreseen continued use at LHC, it is crucial that they be defined in an infrared safe way. This is necessary in general so as to ensure that low-order parton-level considerations about cone jet-finding hold also for the fully showered, hadronised jets that are observed in practice. It is also a prerequisite if measurements are to be meaningfully compared to fixed order (LO, NLO, NNLO) predictions. The midpoint iterative cone algorithm currently in use is infrared unsafe, as can be seen by examining the sets of stable cones that are found for simple three-parton configurations. This may seem surprising given that the midpoint algorithm was specifically designed to avoid an earlier infrared safety problem --- however the midpoint infrared problem appears at one order higher in the coupling, and this is presumably why it was not identified in the original analyses. The tests shown in section~ suggest that the midpoint-cone infrared safety problems, while smaller than without the midpoint, are actually quite significant ($\sim 15\ We therefore advocate that where a cone jet algorithm is used, it be a seedless variant. For such a proposal to be realistic it is crucial that the seedless variant be practical. The approaches adopted in fixed order codes take $\order{N2^N}$ time and are clearly not suitable in general. Here we have shown that it is possible to carry out exact seedless jet-finding in expected $\order{N n^{3/2}}$ time with $\order{N n^{1/2}}$ storage, or almost exactly\footnote{with a failure probability that can be made arbitrarily small and that we choose to be $\lesssim 10^{-18}$.} in expected $\order{N n \ln n}$ time with $\order{N n}$ storage (we recall that $N$ is the total number of particles, $n$ the typical number of particles in a jet). The second of these approaches has been implemented in a \texttt{C++} code named SISCone, available also as a plugin for the FastJet package. For $N \sim 1000$ it is comparable in speed to the existing CDF midpoint code with $1\GeV$ seeds. While this is considerably slower than the $N \ln N$ and related FastJet strategies~ for the $k_t$ and Cambridge/Aachen jet algorithms, it remains within the limits of usability and provides for the first time a cone algorithm that is demonstrably infrared and collinear safe at all orders, and suitable for use at parton level, hadron level and detector level. As well as being infrared safe, a jet algorithm must provide a faithful mapping between expectations based on low-order perturbative considerations, and observations at hadron level. There has been considerable discussion of worrisome possible violations of such a correspondence for cone algorithms, the ``$\rsep$'' issue. For SISCone we find however that the correspondence holds well. An obvious final question is that of the impact on physics results of switching from the midpoint to the seedless cone. For inclusive quantities, one expects the seedless cone jet algorithm to give results quite similar to those of the midpoint cone, because the IR unsafety of the midpoint algorithm only appears at relatively higher orders. This is borne out in our fixed order and parton-shower studies of the inclusive jet spectrum where we see differences between the midpoint and SISCone algorithms of about a couple of percent. At moderate $p_t$ at hadron level, the differences can increase to $5-10\ because SISCone has a lower sensitivity to the underlying event, a welcome `fringe-benefit' of the seedless algorithm. For less inclusive quantities, for example the distribution of jet masses in multi-jet events, differences can be significant. We find that for 3-jet events, the absence of some stable cones (\ie infrared unsafety) in the midpoint algorithm leads to differences compared to SISCone at the $\sim 10\ large part of the jet-mass spectrum. Greater effects still, up to $50\ the tails of the jet-mass spectra for parton-shower events. Thus, even if the infrared safety issues of the midpoint algorithm appear to be at the limit of today's accuracy when examining inclusive quantities, for measurements of even moderate precision in multi-jet configurations (of increasing interest at Tevatron and omnipresent at LHC), the use of a properly defined cone algorithm such as SISCone is likely to be of prime importance. \subsection*{Acknowledgements} We are grateful to Markus Wobisch for many instructive discussions about cone algorithms, Steve Ellis and Joey Huston for exchanges about their IR safety and $\rsep$, Matteo Cacciari for helpful suggestions on the SISCone code and Giulia Zanderighi for highlighting the question of collinear safety. We thank them all, as well as George Sterman, for useful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We also gratefully acknowledge Mathieu Rubin for a careful reading of an early version of the manuscript, Andrea Banfi for pointing out a relevant reference and Torbj\"orn Sj\"ostrand for assistance with Pythia. The infrared unsafe configuration shown here was discovered subsequent to discussions with Mrinal Dasgupta on non-perturbative properties of cone jet algorithms. This work has been supported in part by grant ANR-05-JCJC-0046-01 from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche. G.S. is funded by the National Funds for Scientific Research (Belgium). Finally, we thank the Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics for hospitality and the INFN for partial support during the completion of this work. \begin{appendix} \section{Further computational details} \subsection{Cone multiplicities} In evaluating the computational complexity of (computational) algorithms for various stages of the cone jet algorithm it is necessary to know the numbers of distinct cones and of stable cones. Such information also constitutes basic knowledge about cone jet definitions, which may for example be of relevance in understanding their sensitivity to pileup, \ie multiple $pp$ interactions in the same bunch crossing. Since large multiplicities will be due to pileup, let us consider a simple model for the event structure which mimics pileup, namely a set of momenta distributed randomly in $y$ and $\phi$ and all with similar $p_t$'s (or alternatively with random $p_t$'s in some limited range). Given that the particles will be spread out over a region in $y$, $\phi$ that is considerably larger than the cone area, in addition to $N$, the total number of particles, it is useful to introduce also $n$, the number of points likely to be contained in a region of area $\pi R^2$. The first question to investigate is that of the number of distinct cones. The number of pairs of points that has to be investigated is $\order{N n}$. However some of these pairs of points will lead to identical cones. It is natural to ask whether, despite this, the number of distinct cones is still $\order{N n}$. To answer this question, one may examine how far one can displace a cone in any given direction before its point content changes. The area swept when moving a cone a distance $\delta\! R$ is $4R \,\delta R $, and the average number of points intersected is $4\rho R \,\delta R $ where $\rho = \order{n/R^2}$ is the density of points (per unit area). Therefore the distance moved before the cone edge is likely to touch a point is $\delta R = (4\rho R)^{-1} = \order{R/n}$. Correspondingly the area in which one can move the centre of cone without changing the cone's contents is $\pi (\delta R)^2 = \order{R^2/n^2}$. Given that the total area is $\order{R^2 N/n}$ we have that the number of distinct cones is $\order{N n}$, the same magnitude as the number of relevant point pairs. Let us now consider the number of stable cones. If we take a cone at random and sum its momenta then the resulting momentum axis will differ from the original cone axis by an amount typically of order $R/\sqrt{n}$ (since the standard deviation of $y$ and $\phi$ for set of points in the cone is $\order{R}$). The probability of the difference being $\lesssim R/n$ in both the $y$ and $\phi$ directions (\ie the probability that the new axis contains the same set of particles) is $\sim (R/n)^2 / (R/\sqrt{n})^2 \sim 1/n$. Therefore the number of stable cones is $\order{N}$. This assumes a random distribution of particles. There may exist special classes of configurations for which the number of stable cones is greater than $\order{N}$. Therefore timing results that are sensitive to the number of stable cones are to be understood as ``expected'' results rather than rigorous upper bounds. \subsection{Computational complexity of the split--merge step} To study the computational complexity of the split--merge step, we work with the expectation that there are $\order{N}$ initial protojets (as discussed above) and that there will be roughly $N/n \ll N$ final jets (since there are $\order{n}$ particles per jet). It is reasonable to assume that there will be roughly equal numbers of merging and splitting operations. Splitting leaves the number of protojets unchanged, while merging reduces it by 1. Therefore there will be $\order{N}$ split--merge steps before we reach the final list of jets. There are three kinds of tasks in the split--merge procedure. Firstly one has to maintain a list of jets ordered in $\pttilde$, both for finding the one with highest $\pttilde$ and for searching through the remaining jets (in order of decreasing $\pttilde$) to find an overlapping one. Maintaining the jets in order is easily accomplished with a balanced tree (for example a \verb:priority_queue: or \verb:multiset: in C++), at a cost of $N \ln N$ for the initial construction and $\ln N$ per update, \ie a total of $N \ln N$, which is small compared to the remaining steps. In examining the complexity of finding the hardest overlapping jet one needs to know the cost of comparing two jets for overlap as well as the typical number of times this will have to be done. A naive comparison of two jets takes time $n$. Using a 2d tree structure such as a quadtree or $k$-d tree (as suggested also by Volobouev~), this can be reduced to $\sqrt{n}$. The number of jets to be compared before an overlap is found will depend on the event structure --- if one assumes that jet positions are decorrelated with their $\pttilde$'s, then $\order{N/n}$ comparisons will have to be made each time around the loop. The total cost of this will therefore be $N^2/\sqrt{n}$ ($N^2$) with (without) a 2d tree. Finally each merging/splitting procedure will take $\sqrt{n}$ ($n$) time with (without) a tree, so the total time spent merging and splitting will be $\order{N\smash{\sqrt{n}}}$ (or $\order{Nn}$ without a tree). The dominant step is the search for overlapping jets, which will have a total cost of $N^2/\sqrt{n}$ (with a sizable coefficient), or $N^2$ without any 2d tree structures. Since in practice $N^2$ is smaller than the $N n \ln n$ needed to find the stable cones, here the introduction of a tree structure gives little overall advantage. A final comment concerns memory usage: when not using any tree structures, the list of protojets and their contents requires $\order{Nn}$ space, which is the same order of magnitude as the storage needed for identifying the set of stable cones in the first place. With a tree structure this can be reduced to $\order{N\smash{\sqrt{n}}}$. \section{Proof of IR safety of the SISCone algorithm} In this appendix, we shall explicitly prove that SISCone, algorithms --, is infrared safe. This means that if we run SISCone first with a set of hard particles, then with the same set of hard particles together with additional soft particles, then: (a) all jets found in the event without soft particles will be found also in the event with the soft particles; (b) any extra jets found in the event with soft particles will themselves be soft, \ie they will not contain any of the hard particles. If either of these conditions fails in a finite region of phasespace for the hard particles, then the cancellation between (soft) real and virtual diagrams will be broken at some order of perturbation theory, leading to divergent jet cross sections. We will first discuss the proof using a simplifying assumption: two protojets with distinct hard particle content have distinct values for the split--merge ordering variable, $\pttilde$. We shall then discuss subtleties associated with various ordering variables, and explain why $\pttilde$ is a valid choice. \subsection{General aspects of the proof} By soft particles, we understand particles whose momenta are negligible compared to the hard ones. Specifically, for any set of hard particles $\{p_1, \dots, p_n\}$ and any set of soft ones $\{\bar p_1, \dots, \bar p_m\}$, we consider a limit in which all soft momenta are scaled to zero, so that they do not affect any momentum sums, \begin{equation} \lim_{\{\bar p_j\}\to 0} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n p_i + \sum_{j=1}^m \bar p_j\right) = \sum_{i=1}^n p_i. \end{equation} In what follows, the limit of the momenta of the soft particles being taken to zero will be implicit. Let us now compare two different runs of the cone algorithm: in the first one, referred to as the ``hard event'', we compute the jets starting with a list of hard particles $\{p_1,\dots,p_N\}$, and, in the second one, referred to as the ``hard+soft event'', we compute the jets with the same set of hard particles plus additional soft particles $\{\bar p_1, \dots, \bar p_{M}\}$. As mentioned above, the IR safety of the SISCone algorithm amounts to the statements (a) that for every jet in the hard event there is a corresponding jet in the hard+soft event with identical hard particle content (plus possible extra soft particles) and (b) that there are no hard jets in the hard+soft event that do not correspond to a jet in the hard event. To prove this, we shall proceed in two steps: first, we shall show that the determination of stable cones is IR safe, then that the split--merge procedure is also IR safe. The IR safety of the stable-cone determination is a direct consequence of the fact that: \begin{itemize} \item each cone initially built from the hard particles only was determined by two particles in algorithm . This cone is thus still present when adding soft particles and, because of eq.~\eqref{eq:momrel}, is still stable. Hence, all stable cones from the hard event are also present after inclusion of soft particles, the only difference being that they also contain extra soft particles which do not modify their momentum. \item no new stable cone containing hard particles can appear. Indeed, if a new stable cone appeared, $S_{\text{new}}$ with content $\{p_{\alpha_1},\dots, p_{\alpha_n}, \bar p_{\bar\alpha_1},\dots, \bar p_{\bar\alpha_m}\}$, then the fact that its momentum $\sum p_{\alpha_i} + \sum \bar p_{\bar \alpha_j}$ corresponds to a stable cone, implies, by eq.~(), that the cone with just the hard momenta $p_{\alpha_i}$ is also stable. However as shown in section~ all stable cones in the hard event have already been identified, therefore this cone cannot be new. \end{itemize} From these two points, one can deduce that after the determination of the stable cones we end up with two different kinds of stable cones: firstly, there are those that are the same as in the hard event but with possible additional soft particles; and secondly there are stable cones that contain only soft particles. So, the `hard content' of the stable cones has not been changed upon addition of soft particles and algorithm~ is IR safe. The main idea behind the proof of the IR safety of the split--merge process, algorithm~, is to show by induction that the hard content of the protojets evolves in the same way for the hard and hard+soft event. Since the hard content is the same at the beginning of the process, it will remain so all along the split--merge process which is what we want to prove. There is however a slight complication here: when running algorithm~ over one iteration of the loop in the hard event, we sometimes have to consider more than one iteration of the loop in the hard+soft event. As we shall shortly see, in that case, only the last of these iterations modifies the hard content of the jets and it does so in the same way as in the hard event step. So, let us now follow the steps of algorithm~ in parallel for the hard and hard+soft event, and show that they are equivalent as concerns the hard particles. In the following analysis, item numbers coincide with the corresponding step numbers in algorithm~. \begin{itemize} \item[:] If $p_{t,\min}$ is non-zero, all purely soft protojets will be removed from the hard+soft event and by eq.~\eqref{eq:momrel} the same set of hard protojets will be removed in the hard and hard+soft event. Thus the correspondence between the hard protojets in the two events will persist independently of $p_{t,\min}$. \item[:] In general, protojets with identical hard content will have nearly identical $\pttilde$ values, whereas protojets with different hard-particle content will have substantially different $\pttilde$ values.\footnote{As mentioned already, this point is more delicate than it might seem at first sight. We come back to it in the second part of this appendix.} Therefore the addition of soft particles will not destroy the $\pttilde$ ordering and the protojet with the largest $\pttilde$ in the hard event, $i$ will have the same hard content as the one in the hard+soft event (let us call it $i'$). \item[:] The selection of the highest-$\pttilde$ protojet $j$ ($j'$ in the hard+soft case) that overlaps with $i$ ($i'$) can differ in the hard and hard+soft events, and we need to consider separately the cases where this does not, or does happen. The first case, C1, is that $i'$ and $j'$ overlap in their hard content --- because of the common $\pttilde$ ordering, $j'$ must then have the same hard content as $j$. The second case, C2, is that $i'$ and $j'$ only overlap through their soft particles, so $j'$ cannot be the `same' jet as $j$ (since $j$ by definition overlaps with $i$ through hard particles). By following the remaining part of the loop, we shall show that in the first case all modifications of the hard content are the same in the hard and hard+soft events, while, for the second case, the iteration of the loop in the hard+soft event does not modify any hard content of the protojets. In this second case, we then proceed to the next iteration of the loop in the hard+soft event but stay at the same one for the hard event. \item[{\bf C1}:] The two protojets $i'$ and $j'$ overlap in their hard content \begin{itemize} \item[,:] We need to compute the fraction of $\pttilde$ shared by the two protojets. Since the hard contents of $i$ ($j$) and $i'$ ($j'$) are identical, the fraction of overlap, given by the hard content only, will be the same in the hard and hard+soft events. Hence, the decision to split or merge the protojets will be identical. \item[:] Since the centres of both protojets are the same in the hard and hard+soft events, the decision to attribute a hard particle to one protojet or the other will be the same in both events. Hence splitting will reorganise hard particles in the same way for the hard+soft event as for the hard one. \item[:] In both the hard and the hard+soft events, the merging of the two protojets will result in a single protojet with the same hard content. \end{itemize} \item[{\bf C2}:] The two protojets $i'$ and $j'$ overlap through soft particles only \begin{itemize} \item[,:] Since the fraction of $\pttilde$ shared by the protojets will be $0$ in the limit eq.~\eqref{eq:momrel}, the two protojets will be split. \item[:] In the splitting, only shared particles, {\em i.e.} soft particles, will be reassigned to the first or second protojet. The hard content is therefore left untouched, as is the $\pttilde$ ordering of the protojets. \end{itemize} \item[:] At the end of the splitting/merging of the overlapping protojets, we have to consider the two possible overlap cases separately: in the first case, the hard contents of the protojets are modified in the same way for the hard and hard+soft event. This case is thus IR safe. In the second case, the iteration of the loop in the hard+soft event does not correspond to any iteration of the loop in the hard event. However the hard content of the protojets in the hard+soft event is not modified and the $\pttilde$ ordering of the jets remains identical; at the next iteration of the hard+soft loop, the new $j'$ may once again have just soft overlap with $i'$ and the loop will thus continue iterating, splitting the soft parts of the jets, but leaving the hard content of the jets unchanged. This will continue until $j'$ corresponds to the $j$ of the hard event, \ie we encounter case 1.\footnote{Note that the second case can only happen a finite number of times between two occurrences of the first case: as the $\pttilde$ ordering is not modified during the second case, each time around the loop the overlap will involve a $j'$ with a lower $\pttilde$ than in the previous iteration, until one reaches the $j'$ that corresponds to $j$.} Therefore even though we may have gone around the loop more times in the hard+soft event, we do always reach a stage where the split--merge operation in the hard+soft event coincides with that in the hard event, and so this part of the procedure is infrared safe. \item[,:] Up to possible intermediate loops involving case~2 above, when the protojet $i$ has no overlapping protojets in the hard event, the corresponding $i'$ in the hard+soft event has no overlaps either. Final jets will thus be added one by one with the same hard content in the hard and hard+soft events. \end{itemize} This completes the proof that the SISCone algorithm is IR safe, modulo subtleties related to the ordering variable, as discussed below. Regarding the `merge identical protojets' (MIP) procedure: \begin{itemize} \item[:] In algorithm~, we do not automatically merge protojets appearing with the same content during the split--merge process. This is IR safe. If instead we allow for two identical protojets to be automatically merged, then when two protojets have the same hard content but differ as a result of their soft content, they are automatically merged in the hard event but not in the hard+soft event. This in turn leads to IR unsafety of the final jets. \end{itemize} A final comment concerns collinear safety and cocircular points. When defining a candidate cone from a pair of points, if additional points lie on the edge of the cone, then there is an ambiguity as to whether they will be included in the cone. From the geometrical point of view, this special case of cocircular points (on a circle of radius R) can be treated by considering all permutations of the the cocircular points being included or excluded from the circle contents. SISCone contains code to deal with this general issue. The case of identically collinear particles, though a specific example of cocircularity, also adds the problem that a circle cannot properly be defined from two identical points. For explicit collinear safety we thus simply merge any collinear particles into a single particle, step~ of algorithm~. Given the resulting collinear-safe set of protojets, the split--merge steps preserve collinear safety, since particles at identical $y-\phi$ coordinates are treated identically. \subsection{Split--merge ordering variable} Suppose we use some generic variable $v$ (which may be $p_t$, $E_t$, $m_t$, $\pttilde$, etc.) to decide the order in which we select protojets for the split--merge process. A crucial assumption in the proof of IR safety is that two jets with different hard content will also have substantially different values for $v$, \ie the ordering of the $v$'s will not be changed by soft modifications. If this is not the case then the choice of the hard protojets that enter a given split--merge loop iteration can be modified by soft momenta, with a high likelihood that the final jets will also be modified. At first sight one might think that whatever variable is used, it will have different values for distinct hard protojets. However, momentum conservation and coincident masses of identical particles can introduce relations between the kinematic characteristics of distinct protojets. Some care is therefore needed so as to ensure that these relations do not lead to degeneracies in the ordering, with consequent ambiguities and infrared unsafety for the final jets. In particular: \begin{itemize} \item Two protojets can have equal and opposite transverse momenta if between them they contain all particles in the event (and the event has no missing energy or `ignored' particles such as isolated leptons). It is probably fair to assume that no two protojets will have identical longitudinal components, since in $pp$ collisions the hard partonic reaction does not occur in the $pp$ centre of mass frame. \item Two protojets will have identical masses if they each stem exclusively from the same kind of massive particle. The two massive particles may be undecayed (\eg fully reconstructed $b$-hadrons) or decayed (top, $W$, $Z$, $H$, or some non-standard new particle), or even one decayed and the other not (some hypothetical particle with a long lifetime).\footnote{Strictly speaking, for all scenarios of decayed heavy particles, the finite width $\Gamma$ of the particle ensures that the two jets actually have slightly different masses, breaking any degeneracies. In practice however, $\Gamma_{W,Z,t} \sim 1\GeV$ and (for a light Higgs) $\Gamma_H \ll \Lambda_{QCD}$, whereas for the width to save us from the dangers of degeneracies we would need $\Gamma \gg \Lambda_{QCD}$.} In the second case we can assume that two identical decayed particles have different decay planes, because there is a vanishing phase space for them to have identical decay planes. \end{itemize} Note that in a simple two-parton event almost any choice of variable will lead to a degeneracy (no sensible invariant will distinguish the two particles), however this specific case is not problematic because for $R<\pi/2$ neither of the two partons can be in a protojet that overlaps with anything else. From the point of view of IR safety, it is only for `fat' (non-collimated) hard protojets that we need worry about the problem of degeneracies in the split--merge ordering, because only then will there be overlaps whose resolution is ambiguous in the presence of degeneracies. Let us now consider what occurs with various possible choices for the split--merge variable. \begin{itemize} \item[$p_t$:] This choice, adopted in certain codes~, can be seen to have a problem for events with momentum conservation in the hadronic part, because if two non-overlapping protojets contain, between them, all the hard particles then they will have identical $p_t$'s. If they each overlap with a common third protojet, the resulting split--merge sequence will be ambiguous. Table~ provides an example of such an event. The simplest occurrences of this problem ($4h+1s$) apply only to $R>\pi/4$ (four particles must form at least 3 fat protojets). The problem arises also for smaller $R$ values, but only at higher multiplicities. \item[$m_t$:] A workaround for the event of table~ is to use the transverse mass, $m_t = \sqrt{p_t^2 + m^2}$. In pure QCD, with all particles stable, this is a good variable, because even if two fat protojets have identical $p_t$'s through momentum conservation, the fact that they are `fat' implies that they will be massive (over and above intrinsic particle masses), and the phase space for them to have identical masses vanishes, thus killing any IR divergences. However, for events with two identical decaying particles, two fat protojets resulting from the particle decays can have identical $p_t$'s (by momentum conservation) and identical masses (because the decaying particles were identical). This could happen for example in the fully hadronic decay channel for $t\bar t$ events. Thus, this choice is not advisable in a general purpose algorithm. \item[$E_t$:] The variable used in the original run~II proposal was $E_t$~. It has the drawback that it is not longitudinally boost invariant: at central rapidity it is equal to $m_t$, while at high rapidities it tends to $p_t$. Because the phase space for two protojets to have identical rapidities vanishes (recall that we do not fix the partonic centre-of-mass), two protojets with identical $p_t$'s and masses will have different $E_t$'s, because the degree of `interpolation' between between $p_t$ and $m_t$ will be different. This resolves the degeneracy and should cure the resulting IR safety issue, albeit at the expense of introducing boost-dependence. \item[$\pttilde$:] The scalar sum of transverse momenta of the protojet constituents, $\pttilde$, has the property that it is equal to $m_t$ if all particles in the protojet have identical rapidities, while it is equal to $p_t$ (\ie the vector sum) if all particles have identical azimuths. For a decayed massive particle, it essentially interpolates between $p_t$ and $m_t$ according to the orientation of the decay plane. The phase space for all particles to have identical azimuths vanishes, as does the phase space for the decay products of two heavy particles to have identically oriented decay planes. Therefore this choice resolves any degeneracies, as is needed for infrared safety. Another advantage of $\pttilde$ is that adding a particle to a protojet always increases its $\pttilde$ (this is not the case for $p_t$ or $E_t$), ensuring that the degree of overlap between a pair of jets is always bounded by $1$. Since it is also boost invariant, it is the choice that we recommend and that we adopt as our default.\footnote{ One might worry about the naturalness of a variable that depends on the decay plane of heavy particles --- however, any unnaturalness is present anyway in the split--merge procedure since if two particles decay purely in the transverse plane then there is a likelihood of having overlapping protojets, whereas if they decay in longitudinally oriented decay planes they will not overlap.} \end{itemize} \begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c|rrr} \multicolumn{4}{c}{event 1}\\\hline n & $p_x$ & $p_y$ & $p_z$\\\hline 0 & 86.01 & 66 & 0 \\ 1 & 64 & -66 & 0 \\ 2 & -77 & -70 & 0 \\ 3 & -73 & 70 & 0 \\ 4 & -0.01 & 0 & 2 \\ \end{tabular}\qquad\qquad \begin{tabular}{c|rrr} \multicolumn{4}{c}{event 2}\\\hline n & $p_x$ & $p_y$ & $p_z$\\\hline 0 & 85.99 & 66 & 0 \\ 1 & 64 & -66 & 0 \\ 2 & -77 & -70 & 0 \\ 3 & -73 & 70 & 0 \\ 4 & 0.01 & 0 & 2 \\ \end{tabular} \caption{Illustration of two events that conserve transverse momentum and differ only through a soft particle, but lead to different hard jets with a split--merge procedures that uses $p_t$ as the ordering variable and for measuring overlap. All the particles are to be taken massless. For $R=0.9$ and $f=0.7$ each event has stable cones consisting of $\{01\}$, $\{23\}$ and $\{12\}$, as well as all single particles. The slight difference in momenta between the two events, to balance the soft particle, causes the $\{01\}$ ($\{23\}$) protojet to have the largest $p_t$ in the first (second) event, it splits with $\{12\}$ (merges with $\{12\}$), leading after further split--merge steps to two hard jets, $\{01\}$ and $\{23\}$ (one hard `monster' jet, $\{0123\}$). } \end{center} \end{table} Note that the above considerations hold for any split--merge procedure that relies on ordering the jets according to a single-jet variable. One might also consider ordering according to variables determined from pairs of protojets: e.g. first split-merge the pair of protojets with the largest (or alternatively smallest) overlap, recalculate all overlaps, and then repeat until there are no further overlaps. However this specific example would also be dangerous, since the particles that are common to protojets $a$ and $b$ (say) could also be the particles that are common between $a$ and $c$, once again leading to an ambiguous split--merge sequence. One protojet-pair ordering variable that might be free of this problem is the $y-\phi$ distance between the protojets, however we have not investigated it in detail. A final comment concerns the impact of the split--merge procedure on non-global~ resummations for jets~, in which one is interested in determining which of a set of ordered soft particles are in a given hard jet. A soft and collinear splitting inside the jet can modify the $\pttilde$ (or $E_t$ or $m_t$) of the jet by an amount of the same order of magnitude as a soft, large-angle emission near the edge of the jet. In events with two back-to-back narrow jets, for which there is a near degeneracy between the $\pttilde$'s of the two hard jets, this can affect which of the two hard protojets split--merges first with an overlapping soft protojet, leading to ambiguities in the assignment of the soft particles to the two hard jets. This interaction between collinear and soft modes is somewhat reminiscent of that in~, though the origin and structure are kinematical in our case. Considering only branchings with transverse momenta above $\epsilon p_{t,\mathrm{hard}}$, for $R>\pi/4$ this is likely to be relevant in events with two equally soft particles ($\as^2 \ln \epsilon$) and $n$ soft-collinear splittings ($\as^n \ln^{2n} \epsilon$) giving an overall contribution $\as^{n+2} \ln^{2n+1} \epsilon$. This competes with the normal soft-ordered non-global logarithms, starting from order $\as^{3} \ln^{3} \epsilon$. For $R\le \pi/4$, the problem will only arise with a greater number of equally soft large-angle particles, and so will be further suppressed by powers of $\as$. \end{appendix} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{TeV4LHC} TeV4LHC QCD Working Group {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0610012. \bibitem{Kt} S.~Catani, Y.~L.~Dokshitzer, M.~H.~Seymour and B.~R.~Webber, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 406} (1993) 187; S.~D.~Ellis and D.~E.~Soper, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 3160 [hep-ph/9305266]. \bibitem{Cam} Y.~L.~Dokshitzer, G.~D.~Leder, S.~Moretti and B.~R.~Webber, JHEP {\bf 9708}, 001 (1997) [hep-ph/9707323]; M.~Wobisch and T.~Wengler, hep-ph/9907280; M.~Wobisch, ``Measurement and QCD analysis of jet cross sections in deep-inelastic positron proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 300\GeV$,'' DESY-THESIS-2000-049. \bibitem{D0kt} V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 525} (2002) 211 [hep-ex/0109041]. \bibitem{CDFkt} A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF II Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96} (2006) 122001 [hep-ex/0512062]. \bibitem{RunII-jet-physics} G.~C.~Blazey {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0005012. \bibitem{SeymourTevlin} M.~H.~Seymour and C.~Tevlin, JHEP {\bf 0611} (2006) 052 [hep-ph/0609100]. \bibitem{StermanWeinberg} G.~Sterman and S.~Weinberg, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 39} (1977) 1436. \bibitem{midpoint} S.D. Ellis, private communication to the OPAL Collaboration; D.E. Soper and H.-C. Yang, private communication to the OPAL Collaboration; L.A. del Pozo, University of Cambridge PhD thesis, RALT--002, 1993; R.~Akers {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration], Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 63}, 197 (1994); M.~H.~Seymour, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 513} (1998) 269 [hep-ph/9707338]. \bibitem{D0Zjets} V.~Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration], hep-ex/0608052. \bibitem{CDFConeJetsPaper} A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF Run II Collaboration], hep-ex/0512020. \bibitem{PxCone} L.~A.~del~Pozo and M.~H.~Seymour, \texttt{pxcone} (unpublished code). \bibitem{CDFcode} The CDF Collaboration's implementation of the Tevatron Run-II cone definition is available at \bibitem{UA1} G.~Arnison {\it et al.} [UA1 Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 132} (1983) 214. \bibitem{Snowmass} J.~E.~Huth {\it et al.}, in \emph{Snowmass Summer Study} (1990) pp.~134--136. \bibitem{KOS} N.~Kidonakis, G.~Oderda and G.~Sterman, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 525} (1998) 299 [hep-ph/9801268]. \bibitem{Volobouev} I.~Volobouev, presentation at MC4LHC meeting, CERN, July 2006. \bibitem{MCFM} J.~Campbell and R.~K.~Ellis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 113007 [hep-ph/0202176]. \bibitem{NLOJet} Z.~Nagy, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 122003 [hep-ph/0110315]; Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 094002 [hep-ph/0307268]. \bibitem{FastJet} M.~Cacciari and G.~P.~Salam, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641} (2006) 57 [hep-ph/0512210]. \bibitem{EHT} S.~D.~Ellis, J.~Huston and M.~Tonnesmann, in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf, p. P513 [hep-ph/0111434]. \bibitem{ranlux} M.~Luscher, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 79} (1994) 100 [hep-lat/9309020]. \bibitem{QuadTree} H.~Samet, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) {\bf 16} (1984) 187. \bibitem{KDTree} J.~L.~Bentley, Communications of the ACM {\bf 18} (1975) 509. \bibitem{caesar} A.~Banfi, G.~P.~Salam and G.~Zanderighi, JHEP {\bf 0503} (2005) 073 [hep-ph/0407286]; Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 584} (2004) 298 [hep-ph/0304148]. \bibitem{Pythia} T.~Sjostrand {\it et al.}, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 135}, 238 (2001) [hep-ph/0010017]; T.~Sjostrand {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0308153. \bibitem{LHCPrimer} J.~M.~Campbell, J.~W.~Huston and W.~J.~Stirling, Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ {\bf 70} (2007) 89 [hep-ph/0611148]. \bibitem{Abe:1991ui} F.~Abe {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45} (1992) 1448. \bibitem{Abbott:1997fc} B.~Abbott, M.~Bhattacharjee, D.~Elvira, F.~Nang and H.~Weerts [for the D0 Collaboration], FERMILAB-PUB-97-242-E. \bibitem{EKSRsep} S.~D.~Ellis, Z.~Kunszt and D.~E.~Soper, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 69} (1992) 3615 [hep-ph/9208249]. \bibitem{Herwig} G.~Marchesini, B.~R.~Webber, G.~Abbiendi, I.~G.~Knowles, M.~H.~Seymour and L.~Stanco, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 67} (1992) 465; G.~Corcella {\it et al.}, JHEP {\bf 0101} (2001) 010 [hep-ph/0011363]. \bibitem{Shoulder} S.~Catani and B.~R.~Webber, JHEP {\bf 9710} (1997) 005 [hep-ph/9710333]. \bibitem{Daleo} A.~Daleo, T.~Gehrmann and D.~Maitre, hep-ph/0612257. \bibitem{HoangMantry} S.~Fleming, A.~H.~Hoang, S.~Mantry and I.~W.~Stewart, hep-ph/0703207; A.~Hoang and S.~Mantry, presentations at the ``Ringberg workshop on non-perturbative QCD of jets'', Ringberg Castle, 8--10 January 2007. \bibitem{JetMass} J.~Huston, private communication; A.~L.~Fitzpatrick, J.~Kaplan, L.~Randall and L.~T.~Wang, hep-ph/0701150; B.~Lillie, L.~Randall and L.~T.~Wang, hep-ph/0701166. W.~Skiba and D.~Tucker-Smith, hep-ph/0701247; B.~Holdom, hep-ph/0702037; J.~M.~Butterworth, J.~R.~Ellis and A.~R.~Raklev, hep-ph/0702150. \bibitem{non-global} M.~Dasgupta and G.~P.~Salam, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 512} (2001) 323 [hep-ph/0104277], JHEP {\bf 0203} (2002) 017 [hep-ph/0203009]; A.~Banfi, G.~Marchesini and G.~Smye, JHEP {\bf 0208} (2002) 006 [hep-ph/0206076]. \bibitem{non-global-jets} R.~B.~Appleby and M.~H.~Seymour, JHEP {\bf 0212} (2002) 063 [hep-ph/0211426]; A.~Banfi and M.~Dasgupta, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 628} (2005) 49 [hep-ph/0508159]; Y.~Delenda, R.~Appleby, M.~Dasgupta and A.~Banfi, JHEP {\bf 0612} (2006) 044 [hep-ph/0610242]. \bibitem{FKS} J.~R.~Forshaw, A.~Kyrieleis and M.~H.~Seymour, JHEP {\bf 0608} (2006) 059 [hep-ph/0604094]. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0293
|
Title: Isospin breaking in the yield of heavy meson pairs in e+e- annihilation
near threshold
Abstract: We revisit the problem of interplay between the strong and the Coulomb
interaction in the charged-to-neutral yield ratio for $B {\bar B}$ and $D {\bar
D}$ pairs near their respective thresholds in $e^+e^-$ annihilation. We
consider here a realistic situation with a resonant interaction in the isospin
I=0 channel and a nonresonant strong scattering amplitude in the I=1 state. We
find that the yield ratio has a smooth behavior depending on the scattering
phase in the I=1 channel. The same approach is also applicable to the $K {\bar
K}$ production at the $\phi(1020)$ resonance, where the Coulomb effect in the
charged-to-neutral yield ratio is generally sensitive to the scattering phases
in both the isoscalar and the isovector channels. Furthermore, we apply the
same approach to the treatment of the effect of the isotopic mass difference
between the charged and neutral mesons and argue that the strong-scattering
effects generally result in a modification to the pure kinematical effect of
this mass difference.
Body: \begin{titlepage} \begin{center} {\Large \bf William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute \\ University of Minnesota \\} \end{center} \begin{flushright} FTPI-MINN-07/08 \\ UMN-TH-2541/07 \\ LPT-Orsay/07-19\\ March 2007 \\ \end{flushright} \begin{center} {\Large \bf Isospin breaking in the yield of heavy meson pairs in $e^+e^-$ annihilation near threshold \\} \vspace{0.1in} {\bf S. Dubynskiy}$^a$, {\bf A. Le Yaouanc}$^b$, {\bf L. Oliver}$^b$, {\bf J.-C. Raynal}$^b$ {\bf and M.B. Voloshin}$^c$ \\[0.1in] {\it $^a$ School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA\\ $^b$ Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique\footnote{Unit\'e Mixte de Recherche UMR 8627 - CNRS }, Universit\'e de Paris XI, B\^atiment 210, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France \\ $^c$ William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA and Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, 117259, Russia} \\[0.1in] \end{center} \begin{abstract} We revisit the problem of interplay between the strong and the Coulomb interaction in the charged-to-neutral yield ratio for $B {\bar B}$ and $D {\bar D}$ pairs near their respective thresholds in $e^+e^-$ annihilation. We consider here a realistic situation with a resonant interaction in the isospin $I=0$ channel and a nonresonant strong scattering amplitude in the $I=1$ state. We find that the yield ratio has a smooth behavior depending on the scattering phase in the $I=1$ channel. The same approach is also applicable to the $K {\bar K}$ production at the $\phi(1020)$ resonance, where the Coulomb effect in the charged-to-neutral yield ratio is generally sensitive to the scattering phases in both the isoscalar and the isovector channels. Furthermore, we apply the same approach to the treatment of the effect of the isotopic mass difference between the charged and neutral mesons and argue that the strong-scattering effects generally result in a modification to the pure kinematical effect of this mass difference. \end{abstract} \end{titlepage} \section{Introduction} The $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ resonances near the new flavor thresholds: $\Upsilon(4S)$, $\psi(3770)$, and $\phi(1020)$ are the well known sources in $e^+e^-$ experiments of pairs of the new-flavor mesons: respectively $B {\bar B}$, $D {\bar D}$, and $K {\bar K}$. A number of experimental approaches depends on the knowledge of the relative yield of pairs of charged and neutral mesons: \beq R^{c/n}={\sigma(e^+e^- \to P^+P^-) \over \sigma(e^+e^- \to P^0 {\bar P}^0)}~, \eeq where $P$ stands for the pseudoscalar meson, i.e. $B$, $D$, or $K$, and dedicated measurements of such ratio have been done at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance\, at $\psi(3770)$\, and at $\phi(1020)$\,. The values of the ratio $R^{c/n}$ at all three discussed resonances are close to one due to these resonances being isotopic scalars, and it is the deviation of the discussed ratio from one that presents phenomenological interest. This deviation is generally contributed by the following factors: the isospin violation due to the Coulomb interaction between the charged mesons and due to the isotopic mass difference between charged and neutral mesons, and, in the case of the $K {\bar K}$ production at the $\phi(1020)$ resonance, a non-negligible nonresonant isovector production amplitude. The latter effect can be studied and described as the ``tail of the $\rho$ resonance", while the isospin breaking due to the mass difference is usually accounted for as a kinematical effect in the $P$ wave production cross section factor $p^3$, where $p$ is the the c.m. momentum of each of the mesons. The Coulomb effect has attracted a considerable theoretical attention. The expression for this effect in the ratio $R^{c/n}$ in the limit, where the resonance and the charged mesons are considered as point-like particles\, has the simple textbook form: \beq \drcn = {\pi \alpha \over 2 v}, \eeq with $\alpha$ being the QED constant and $v$ the velocity of each of the (charged) mesons in the c.m. frame. However for the production of the real-life mesons the analysis is complicated by the charge form factors of the mesons, by the form factor in the vertex of interaction of the resonance with the meson pair\, and generally by the strong interaction between the mesons\,. In particular, it has been argued\, that the modification of the Coulomb effect by the strong (resonant) interaction between the mesons is quite significant. The previously considered picture of the strong interaction was however somewhat unrealistic. Namely, it has been assumed\, that the wave function in the $I=1$ state of the meson pair is vanishing at short but finite distances, which would correspond to a singular behavior of the strong interaction at finite distances. In this paper we derive the formulas for the Coulomb effect in the ratio $R^{c/n}$ under the standard assumption about the strong scattering amplitude in the channels with $I=0$ and $I=1$. We find that in the case of the $\Upsilon(4S)$ and $\psi(3770)$ resonances, where the heavy meson pairs are produced by the isotopically singlet electromagnetic current of the corresponding heavy quark, the strong-interaction effect in the Coulomb correction depends on the scattering phase $\delta_1$ in the $I=1$ channel and is a smooth function of the energy across the resonance, while in the case of the Kaon production at and near the $\phi(1020)$ there is also a smooth dependence on the nonresonant part of the strong scattering phase $\delta_0$ in the isoscalar channel inasmuch as there is a contribution of the isovector production amplitude at these energies. In either case we find that the behavior of the Coulomb effect is smooth on the scale of the resonance width, unlike the behavior previously found\, under less realistic assumptions. We further notice that essentially the same calculation can be applied to considering the effect on the ratio $R^{c/n}$ of the isotopic mass difference $\Delta m$ between the charged and neutral mesons, at least in the first order in $\Delta m$, by considering the mass difference as a perturbation by a (constant) potential. In this way we find that the result coincides with the linear in $\Delta m$ term in the ratio of the kinematical factors $p^3$ only in the limit of vanishing strong scattering phase. Once the latter phase is taken into account, there arises a correction whose relative contribution is determined by the parameter $(p \, a)$ with $a$ being the characteristic range of the strong interaction. We therefore conclude that the conventionally used $p^3$ approximation for this effect may be somewhat applicable to the $K {\bar K}$ production at the $\phi(1020)$ resonance, where $p \approx 120\,$MeV, but becomes quite questionable for the $D {\bar D}$ production at the $\psi(3770)$, where $p \approx 280\,$MeV. The strong-scattering phase in the $P$-wave state of mesons produced in $e^+e^-$ annihilation near the threshold is proportional to $p^3$. We therefore expect the discussed effects of the strong interaction in the ratio $R^{c/n}$ to exhibit a measurable variation with energy. A measurement of this variation can thus provide an information on the strong scattering phases, which is not readily available by other means. The material in the paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~2 we consider the production of meson pairs by an isosinglet source and derive the formula for the correction to $R^{c/n}$ due to a generic isospin-violating interaction potential $V(r)$ viewed as a perturbation. In Sec.~3 we generalize this treatment to the situation where the source is a coherent mixture of $I=0$ and $I=1$. The specific expressions corresponding to the Coulomb interaction and the isotopic mass difference are considered in Sec.~4. Sec.~5 contains phenomenological estimates of the constraints on the parameters of the strong interaction between heavy mesons based on the currently available data\, for $B {\bar B}$ and $D {\bar D}$ production. Finally, in Sec.~6 we summarize our results. \section{General formulas for an isoscalar source} We start with considering the behavior of the scattering wave functions of a meson-antimeson pair in the limit of exact isotopic symmetry, i.e. neglecting any Coulomb effects and the isotopic mass difference. We adopt the standard picture (see e.g. in the textbook ), where the strong interaction is confined within the range of distances $r < a$, so that beyond that range, at $r > a$ the motion of the mesons is free. The two relevant independent solutions to the Schr\"odinger equation at $r > a$ for the radial wave function in the $P$ wave are the free outgoing wave \beq f(pr)=\left ( 1 +{i \over pr} \right ) \, e^{ipr} \eeq and its complex-conjugate, $f^*(pr)$, describing the incoming wave. A general wave function of a pair of neutral mesons, $\phi_n(r)$ as well as of a pair of charged mesons, $\phi_c(r)$, in this region is a linear superposition of these two solutions. In the region of strong interaction, i.e. at $r<a$, the isotopic symmetry selects as independent channels the states with definite isospin, $I=0$ and $I=1$, corresponding to the wave functions $\phi_0=\phi_c+\phi_n$ and $\phi_1=\phi_c-\phi_n$. The detailed behavior of the $I=0$ and $I=1$ wave functions inside the strong interaction region is not important for the present treatment, and the important point is that the non-singular at $r=0$ `inner' wave functions match at $r=a$ particular linear superpositions of the incoming and outgoing waves (which superpositions in fact correspond to standing waves): \begin{eqnarray} &&\chi_0(r)= e^{i \delta_0} \, f(pr) + e^{-i \delta_0} \, f^*(pr)\,, \nonumber \\ &&\chi_1(r)= e^{i \delta_1} \, f(pr) + e^{-i \delta_1} \, f^*(pr)\,, \end{eqnarray} where $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$ are the strong scattering phases in respectively the isoscalar and isovector states. Consider now the production of meson pairs by a source localized inside the region of strong interaction, i.e. $r < a$, such as e.g. the electromagnetic current. The wave function of the produced meson pairs at $r \le a$ is then determined by both the source and the strong interaction, and the relevant solution to the Schr\"odinger equation is chosen by the requirement that asymptotically at large distances, $r \to \infty$, only an outgoing wave is present. Let us first consider the simple case where the relevant electromagnetic current is a pure isotopic singlet, which is the case for $D {\bar D}$ and $B {\bar B}$ pair production. Then in the limit of exact isotopic symmetry the outgoing waves for the `$n$' and the `$c$' channels have exactly the same amplitude, which for our present purpose can be chosen as one: \beq \phi_c^{(0)}(r) = f(pr)~~{\rm and}~~ \phi_n^{(0)}(r) = f(pr)~~{\rm at}~r \to \infty~, \eeq where the superscript $(0)$ stands for the approximation of exact isotopic symmetry. It can be noted that the approximation of the free motion beyond the region of the strong interaction in fact makes the expressions in Eq.() applicable at all $r > a$, i.e. all the way down to the matching point $r=a$. It is helpful to notice for a later discussion that at the matching point the $I=1$ wave function is vanishing while the $I=0$ function $\phi_0^{(0)}$ contains only the outgoing wave. When continued into the strong interaction region, i.e. at $r < a$, the function $\phi_0$ evolves into the solution determined by the strong interaction and the source. The isospin-violating effects of the Coulomb interaction and of the mass difference $\Delta m$ between the charged and neutral mesons can be generally described as being due to a presence of an extra potential $V(r)$ in the `$c$' channel beyond the region of the strong interaction: $V=-\alpha/r$ for the Coulomb interaction effect and a constant potential $V=2 \, \Delta m$ describing the mass difference. In other words the wave function $\phi_n$ of the `n' channel is still determined at $r > a$ by the radial Schr\"odinger equation for free $P$-wave motion\footnote{Clearly, in the considered here first order in the isospin violation only the difference of the interaction between the two channels is important, thus any such difference can be relegated to one channel, while keeping the other one unperturbed. Also, any effect of the mass difference in the kinetic term $p^2/m$ is of order $v^2/c^2$ as compared to the discussed here effect of $\Delta m$ in the overal energy difference between the two channels, and is totally neglected in our treatment.}, while the equation for the `$c$' channel function $\phi_c$ reads as \beq \left ( {\partial^2 \over \partial r^2} + p^2 - m \,V(r) - {2 \over r^2} \right ) \, \phi_c(r)=0~. \eeq It is assumed throughout the present consideration that the isospin-breaking potential exists only at distances beyond the range of the strong interaction, i.e. that $V(r)$ has support only at $r > a$. The justification for such treatment is that in the region of the strong force small isospin-violating effects are compared to the energy of the strong interaction, so that the contribution of any such effects arising at $r < a$ is very small, while in the region $r > a$ the relative contribution of the potential $V(r)$ is determined by its ratio to the kinetic energy of the mesons, which is small near the threshold. It should be emphasized that although the interaction at distances $r > a$ is present only in the `$c$' channel, the wave functions in {\it both} channels are modified in comparison with those in Eq.(), as a result of the coupling between channels imposed by the boundary conditions at $r=a$. According to the setting of the problem of production of the meson pairs by a localized source, the appropriate modified functions are those containing at $r \to \infty$ only the outgoing waves \beq \phi_c \to (1+x) \, f(pr), ~~~~ \phi_n \to (1+y) \, f(pr)~, \eeq where the (complex) coefficients $x$ and $y$ arise due to the potential $V$, and are proportional to $V$ in the considered here first order of perturbation theory. These coefficients determine the ratio of the production amplitudes: $A_c/A_n=1+x-y$, and the discussed here modification of the yield ratio: \beq R^{c/n}=1+2\,{\rm Re}\, x - 2\,{\rm Re}\, y~. \eeq The modified wave function in both channels is subject to two conditions:\\ {\bf i:} The channel with neutral mesons has only an outgoing wave at all $r > a$. In other words, the expression for $\phi_n(r)$ in Eq.() is valid at all $r$ down to $r=a$;\\ {\bf ii:} The wave function of the channel with isospin $I=1$ at $r \le a$ should be proportional to the standing-wave solution matching the function $\chi_1$ in Eq.(), since there is no source for the $I=1$ state of the meson pairs.\\ These two conditions are sufficient to fully determine the modified functions at $r>a$ and thus to find the coefficients $x$ and $y$. The first order in $V(r)$ perturbation of the wave function in the channel with charged mesons is found in the standard way, using the P wave Green's function $G_+(r,r')$ satisfying the equation \beq \left ( {\partial^2 \over \partial r^2} + p^2 - {2 \over r^2} \right ) \, G_+(r,r') = \delta(r-r')~, \eeq and the condition that $G_+(r,r')$ contains only an outgoing wave when either of its arguments goes to infinity. The Green's function is constructed from two solutions of the homogeneous equation, i.e. from the functions $f(pr)$ and $f^*(pr)$, as \beq G_+(r,r')={1 \over 2 \, i \, p} \left[ f(pr) \, f^*(pr') \, \theta(r-r') + f(pr') \, f^*(pr) \, \theta(r'-r) \right ]~, \eeq where $\theta$ is the standard unit step function. The perturbation $\delta \phi_c$ is then found as \beq \delta \phi_c(r) =m \, \int_a^\infty G_+(r,r') \, V(r') \, f(pr') \, dr'~. \eeq One readily finds from this explicit form of the solution that $\delta \phi_c$ contains only the outgoing wave at asymptotic distances $r \to \infty$: \beq \delta \phi_c \left. \right |_{r \to \infty} = -{i \over 2 v} \, f(pr) \int_a^\infty V(r') \, |f(p r')|^2 \, dr'~, \eeq so that the coefficient $x$ is purely imaginary: \beq x = -{i \over 2 v} \, \int_a^\infty V(r') \, |f(p r')|^2 \, dr' \eeq and gives no contribution to the ratio of the production rates $R^{c/n}$ described by Eq.()\footnote{It can be noticed that the integral in Eq.() is divergent, which corresponds to the infrared-divergent behavior of the perturbation for the phase of the wave function, logarithmic for the Coulomb interaction and linear for a constant potential. This slight technical difficulty can be readily resolved, for our present purposes, by introducing an infrared regularizing factor $\exp(- \lambda \, r)$ in the potential and setting $\lambda \to 0$ in the end result.}. Consider now the matching of the wave functions at $r=a$. In this region of $r$ one has $r < r'$ in the integral in Eq.() so that the correction in the `$c$' channel has only an incoming wave: \beq \delta \phi_c(r) \left. \right |_{r \to a} = \eta \, f^*(pr) \eeq with \beq \eta = -{i \over 2 v}\, \int_a^\infty V(r') \, \left [f(p r') \right]^2 \, dr'~. \eeq The wave functions $\phi_0 = \phi_c+\phi_n$ and $\phi_1=\phi_c-\phi_n$ corresponding to the states with isospin $I=0$ and $I=1$ are then found as \beq \phi_0 \left. \right |_{r \to a}=2 f(pr) + y \, f(pr) + \eta \, f^*(pr)~~~{\rm and}~~~ \phi_1 \left. \right |_{r \to a}= \eta \, f^*(pr) - y \, f(pr)~. \eeq One can now apply the condition {\bf ii} to determine the coefficient $y$. Indeed, the condition for the wave function $\phi_1$ at $r \to a$ to be proportional to $f^*(pr)+e^{2i\delta_1} \, f(pr)$ requires $y$ to be given by \beq y=-\eta \, e^{2 i \delta_1}~. \eeq Upon substitution in Eq.() this yields \beq R^{c/n}=1+{ 1 \over v} \, {\rm Im}\left [ e^{2i \delta_1} \, \int_a^\infty e^{2ipr} \, \left ( 1+ {i \over p r} \right )^2 \, V(r) \, dr \right ]~. \eeq \section{Mixed isoscalar and isovector source} The formula () gives the general expression for the isospin-breaking effect in the considered yield ratio for the case where the mesons are produced by an isoscalar source. The presented consideration can also be extended to a situation where the source is a general coherent mixture of an isoscalar and isovector. The specific isotopic composition of the source determines the ratio of the coefficients of the amplitudes of the running outgoing waves in the $I=1$ and $I=0$ channels at the matching point $r=a$, which ratio we denote as $A_1/A_0$, thus defining $A_1$ and $A_0$ as the production amplitudes in the respective channels (in the limit of exact isotopic symmetry). In this situation the generalization of the expressions in Eq.() for radial wave functions in the `outer' region $r > a$ in the zeroth order in the isospin violation can be written as \beq \phi_c^{(0)}(r) = (A_0+A_1) \, f(pr)~~{\rm and}~~ \phi_n^{(0)}(r) = (A_0- A_1) \,f(pr)~. \eeq The isospin violation in the asymptotic form of these wave functions at $r \to \infty$ can then be parametrized, similarly to Eq.(), by complex coefficients $x$ and $y$ as \beq \phi_c \to (A_0+A_1) \,(1+x) \, f(pr), ~~~~ \phi_n \to (A_0-A_1) \,(1+y) \, f(pr)~, \eeq so that the yield ratio is found from \beq R^{c/n}=\left | {A_0+A_1 \over A_0-A_1} \right |^2 \left (1+2\,{\rm Re}\, x - 2\,{\rm Re}\, y~ \right ). \eeq The coefficient $x$, similarly to the previous discussion and the equation (), is purely imaginary and in fact does not contribute in Eq.(), while the coefficient $y$ is found from the appropriately modified conditions on the wave functions. Namely, the previously discussed condition {\bf i} remains applicable, so that the asymptotic expression in Eq.() for the `$n$' channel function remains valid in the entire `outer' region $r > a$ down to the matching point $r=a$. In order to allow for the isovector component of the source the condition {\bf ii} has to be modified as will be described few lines below. The perturbation by the potential $V(r)$ of the `$c$' channel wave function at the matching point $r=a$ is readily found, similarly to Eq.(), as \beq \delta \phi_c(r) \left. \right |\,_{r \to a} = \eta \, (A_0+A_1) \, f^*(pr) \eeq with $\eta$ given by Eq.(). One can now write the expressions for the resulting `outer' wave functions in the isotopic channels at the matching point: \begin{eqnarray} &&\phi_0(r) \left. \right |\,_{r \to a} = 2\, A_0 \, f(pr) + \eta \, (A_0+A_1) \, f^*(pr)+ y \, (A_0-A_1) f(pr) = \nonumber \\ &&\left [ 2 \, A_0 + y \, (A_0-A_1) - \eta \, (A_0+A_1) \, e^{2 i \delta_0} \right ] \, f(pr) + \eta \, (A_0+A_1) \, e^{ i \delta_0} \, \chi_0(r) \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} &&\phi_1(r) \left. \right |\,_{r \to a} = 2\, A_1 \, f(pr) + \eta \, (A_0+A_1) \, f^*(pr)- y \, (A_0-A_1) f(pr) = \nonumber \\ &&\left [ 2 \, A_1 - y \, (A_0-A_1) - \eta \, (A_0+A_1) \, e^{2 i \delta_1} \right ] \, f(pr) + \eta \, (A_0+A_1) \, e^{ i \delta_1} \, \chi_1(r)~, \end{eqnarray} with $\chi_0$ and $\chi_1$ being the standing wave functions from Eq.() in the corresponding isotopic channels, which when evolved in the region of strong interaction contain no singularity at $r=0$. The remaining parts in the latter expressions for the functions $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ describe the proper {\it running} outgoing waves. These parts, when continued down in $r$ into the strong interaction region evolve to match the source at $r < a$. The ratio of the amplitudes of the isovector and the isoscalar running waves is determined by the isotopic composition of the source, and by the isotopically symmetric propagation through the strong-interaction region. Thus the ratio of the amplitudes of these waves at $r=a$ does not depend on the isospin-breaking effects at $r>a$ and should be equal to $A_1/A_0$. Applying this condition to the isotopic wave functions given by the expressions () and (), one finds the equation for the coefficient $y$: \beq { 2 \, A_1 - y \, (A_0-A_1) - \eta \, (A_0+A_1) \, e^{2 i \delta_1} \over 2 \, A_0 + y \, (A_0-A_1) - \eta \, (A_0+A_1) \, e^{2 i \delta_0}} = {A_1 \over A_0}~. \eeq This equation in fact replaces in this more general situation the previously discussed condition {\bf ii}, which condition and the ensuing result in Eq.() are readily recovered in the limit $A_1/A_0=0$ from Eq.(). Considering that both $y$ and $\eta$ are of the first order in the potential $V$, it is sufficient to use the linear expansion of the equation () in $y$ and $\eta$, finding in this way the solution for $y$ in the form \beq y=-\eta {A_0 \, e^{2 i \delta_1} - A_1 \, e^{2 i \delta_0} \over A_0-A_1}~, \eeq and thus arriving at the final formula for the relative yield: \beq R^{c/n}=\left | {A_0+A_1 \over A_0 - A_1} \right |^2 \, \left \{ 1 + { 1 \over v} \, {\rm Im}\left [ {{A_0 \, e^{2i \delta_1}- A_1 \, e^{2i \delta_0}} \over {A_0 - A_1 }} \, \int_a^\infty e^{2ipr} \, \left ( 1+ {i \over p r} \right )^2 \, \, V(r) \, dr \, \right ] \right \}~. \eeq Given that $A_0=|A_0| \, e^{i \delta_0}$ and $A_1=|A_1| \, e^{i \delta_1}$, the amplitude-dependent factor in this formula can also be written in terms of the real ratio $\rho=|A_1/A_0|$ as \beq {{A_0 \, e^{2i \delta_1}- A_1 \, e^{2i \delta_0}} \over {A_0 - A_1 }}= e^{2i \delta_1} \, {1- \rho \, e^{i (\delta_0-\delta_1)} \over 1- \rho \, e^{-i (\delta_0-\delta_1)}}~. \eeq \section{The Coulomb and the mass-difference effects} The general formulas in Eq.() and () can now be applied to a discussion of the specific isospin-breaking effects in the $e^+e^-$ production of meson pairs at and near the threshold resonances. We start with considering the effect of the Coulomb interaction. In a detailed treatment of this correction one should include the realistic form factors of the mesons, which cut off at short distances the difference in the electromagnetic interactions between the charged and neutral mesons. In the present discussion we replace for simplicity the gradual cutoff of the Coulomb interaction by an abrupt cutoff at an effective range $r=a_c$, where generally $a_c \ge a$\,\footnote{As previously mentioned, any extension of the isospin-breaking potential inside the strong interaction region can result only in very small corrections.}. The master integral with the Coulomb potential $V(r) = - \alpha/r$ in the equations () and () then takes the form \begin{eqnarray} &&\int_{a_c}^\infty e^{2ipr} \, \left ( 1+ {i \over p r} \right )^2 \, \, V(r) \, dr = \nonumber \\ &&\alpha \left \{ \left [{\cos 2 pa_c \over 2 (pa_c)^2}+{\sin 2 pa_c \over pa_c}-Ci(2pa_c) \right ] + i \, \left[ {\pi \over 2}-{\cos 2 pa_c \over pa_c} + {\sin 2 pa_c \over 2 (pa_c)^2} - Si(2pa_c) \right ] \right \} = \nonumber \\ && \alpha \left \{ \left [{1 \over 2 \, (p a_c)^2} - \ln (2 \, p a_c) +1 - \gamma_E \right ] + i \, \left [ {\pi \over 2} + {pa_c \over 3} \right ] + O \left [ (pa_c)^2 \right ] \right \}~, \end{eqnarray} where the integral sine and cosine are defined in the standard way: $$ Si(z)=\int_0^z \sin t \, {dt \over t}~~~~{\rm and}~~~~Ci(z)=-\int_z^\infty \cos t \, {dt \over t}~,$$ and $\gamma_E = 0.577\ldots$ is the Euler's constant. The latter line in Eq.() shows few first terms of the expansion of the integral in the parameter $(p a_c)$. This expansion illustrates the behavior of the correction toward the threshold. For the purpose of this illustration one can consider first the simpler expression in Eq.(). The imaginary part, which determines the discussed Coulomb effect in $R^{c/n}$ in the limit where there is no strong scattering, $\delta_1 \to 0$, is not singular at $p a_c \to 0$, and the textbook formula () is recovered in this limit. The real part of the integral in Eq.() is singular at small $p a_c$, but it multiplies in Eq.() the factor $\sin \delta_1$. The $P$-wave scattering phase in its turn is proportional at small momenta to $p^3$: $\delta_1 \sim (pa)^3$, so that the overall contribution of the real part of the integral is not singular at the threshold either. Considering a more general expression for the Coulomb effect for the case of an isotopically mixed source, following from the equation (), one can readily arrive at the same conclusion that the singular in $(p a_c)$ real part of the integral () does not lead to an actual singularity, since it only enters the ratio $R^{c/n}$ multiplied by a combination of the phases $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$ (cf. Eq.()), each vanishing as $p^3$ toward the threshold. As previously mentioned, the effect of the isotopic mass difference corresponds to that of a constant potential $V = 2 \, \Delta m$ extending from the range of the strong interaction $r=a$ to infinity. The master integral with such potential has the form \begin{eqnarray} &&\int_{a}^\infty e^{2ipr} \, \left ( 1+ {i \over p r} \right )^2 \, \, V(r) \, dr = \nonumber \\ &&- {\Delta m \over p} \left \{ {2 \, \cos 2 \, p a \over p a}+ \sin 2 \, p a + i \, \left [ {2 \sin 2 \, p a \over p a} - \cos 2 \, p a \right] \right \} = \nonumber \\ && - {\Delta m \over p} \left \{ {2 \over p a} - 2 \, pa + 3 \, i + O \left [ (pa)^2 \right ] \right \}~. \end{eqnarray} In the limit of vanishing strong scattering phases the mass correction to $R^{c/n}$ is determined by only the imaginary part of the integral, which in the limit of small $pa$ thus yields \beq R^{c/n}=1-{3 \, \Delta m \over v \, p} = 1-{3 \, \Delta m \over E}~, \eeq where $E$ is the total kinetic energy of the meson pair, and the found expression coincides with the linear in $\Delta m$ term in the expansion of the usually assumed ratio of the kinematical factors $(p_+/p_0)^3$. Clearly, in the more realistic case of presence of the strong scattering the real part of the integral in Eq.() also contributes and the simple kinematical approximation is generally invalidated. \section{Phenomenological estimates} In this section we discuss application of our formulas to interpreting the data on the charged to neutral meson yield ratio $R^{c/n}$ at the near-threshold resonances $\Upsilon(4S)$, $\psi(3770)$ and $\phi(1020)$. The purpose of this discussion is to illustrate the effect of the strong scatering on the isospin breaking corrections, and we use here the simplified picture of a abrupt cutoff of the Coulomb interaction and of the isotopic mass difference effects. Such simplification generally can be used as long as the parameter $(p a)$ is not large. A detailed analysis should likely involve a model of a gradual cutoff, since the details of the transition become important at lager momenta. \subsection{$\Upsilon(4S)$} The simplest case for the study of the isospin breaking corrections in the relative production of heavy mesons is offered by the $B {\bar B}$ pair production near and at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance. Indeed, this process only is due to the purely isosinglet electromagnetic current of the $b$ quarks, and the isotopic mass difference between the $B$ mesons is very small: $\Delta m_B = - 0.33 \pm 0.28\,$MeV\,, so that any deviation of the ratio $R^{c/n}$ from one is essentially entirely due to the Coulomb interaction. On the other hand, the parameter $\alpha/v$ for the Coulomb effect in this case is the largest due to small velocity of the $B$ mesons: at the energy of the $\Upsilon(4S)$ peak $v_B/c \approx 0.06$. In particular, the numerical value in the expression () is $0.19$. The experimental data\, however indicate a significantly smaller deviation of $R^{c/n}$ from one. The BaBar data with the smallest errors give $R^{c/n} = 1.006 \pm 0.036 \pm 0.031$. Such behavior is likely a result of a combined effect of the meson and production vertex form factors\, and of the discussed here modification of the Coulomb correction by the strong scattering phase. These effects can in principle be separated and studied quantitatively by measuring the energy dependence of the ratio $R^{c/n}$ near the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance. With the presently available data we can only use a simplified parametrization of the form factor effects by introducing an abrupt cutoff for the Coulomb interaction at $r=a_c \ge a$ and thereby estimate the likely regions in the $(a_c, \delta_1)$ plane. Such estimate from the equations () and () is shown in Fig.1 as a one-sigma area, corresponding to the BaBar data with the statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature: $R^{c/n}=1.006 \pm .048$. Clearly, more precise data from dedicated measurements of the ratio $R^{c/n}$ are needed for a better understanding of the parameters of strong interaction between the $B$ mesons. \subsection{$\psi(3770)$} The largest isospin-breaking effect in the $D {\bar D}$ production at the $\psi(3770)$ is that due to the mass difference between the charged and the neutral $D$ mesons: $\Delta m_D = 4.78 \pm 0.10\,$MeV\,. The most precise measurements of this process have been done\, at the energy $\sqrt{s}=3773\,$MeV. At this energy the momentum of each charged $D$ meson is $p_+=254\,$MeV and that for a neutral $D$ meson is $p_0=287\,$MeV. Thus the ratio of the kinematical factors $(p_+/p_0)^3 \approx 0.69$ is significantly less than one. The Coulomb effect is somewhat smaller. Indeed, the velocity of a charged meson at this energy is $v_+/c=0.135$ and the expression () gives numerically $0.085$. One can notice that if the kinematical and the Coulomb factors are combined in a straightforward way to estimate $R^{c/n} = (p_+/p_0)^3 \, [ 1 + \pi \alpha/(2v_+)] \approx 0.75$, this would be in a very good agreement with the experimental number\,: $R^{c/n}=0.776 \pm 0.024^{+0.014}_{-0.006}$. Thus it is quite likely that at this particular energy there is a considerable cancelation between the strong-interaction effects in the yield ratio, and such cancelation by itself imposes constraints on the parameters of strong interaction between the $D$ mesons, which constraints is interesting to analyze. An analysis of the strong-interaction effects along the lines discussed in the present paper generally runs into two difficulties. One is that our approach is accurate only in the linear in $\Delta m$ approximation, while the actual effect of the isotopic mass difference between the $D$ mesons is not very small. However, numerically, the first term in the expansion of the kinematical factor (Eq.()) gives $0.67$, which is quite close to the mentioned above value $0.69$, and it looks like the linear term gives a reasonable approximation. The other point is that the cutoff parameter $a_c$ for the Coulomb interaction at short distances does not necessarily coincide with the range parameter $a$ used for the short-distance cutoff of the effect of the mass difference. However, as previously noted, the Coulomb effect is somewhat small at the energy of the $\psi(3770)$ resonance, and for the purpose of preliminary estimates we set $a_c=a$ in our numerical analysis. In order to allow for possible errors introduced by our approximations in comparing with the data, we linearly add a theoretical uncertainty of $0.03$ units to the combined in quadrature statistical and experimental errors. Proceeding in this way we find that the only region in the $(a, \delta_1)$ plane at $a < 2\,$fm consistent with the CLEO-c data at one sigma level is the one shown in Fig.2. It is interesting to compare the plots in the Figures 1 and 2. In the heavy quark limit applied to both $b$ and $c$ quarks the strong interaction between the heavy mesons should be the same, corresponding to the same range parameters $a$ and $a_c$. The scattering phase $\delta_1$ for these two systems is generally different due to different masses. However, provided there are no isovector `molecular' bound states, the sign of the phase should be the same, with the absolute value of the phase for heavier $B$ mesons being larger than for the $D$ mesons. The comparison with the data for the $D$ mesons favors small values of the range parameter, as indicated by Fig.2. If one also assumes that $a_c \approx a$ for the $B$ mesons, the short range of $a_c$, according to Fig.1, is compatible with the $B$ mesons data at a negative scattering phase $\delta_1$, which sign of $\delta_1$ is also in agreement with the $D$ meson data. A negative sign of $\delta_1$ corresponds to a repulsion, which for the $I=1$ state of heavy meson pairs can be expected on general grounds\,. \subsection{$\phi(1020)$} We believe that the production of $K {\bar K}$ pairs in $e^+e^-$ annihilation at and near the $\phi(1020)$ resonance merits a separate analysis along the lines discussed in the present paper and using detailed data similar to those in Ref.. As is known, this production receives a small but measurable nonresonant contribution from the isovector part of the electromagnetic current of the $u$ and $d$ quarks, which corresponds to an isotopically mixed source. Furthermore, it has been pointed out\, that a detailed theoretical analysis of the $K^+K^-/K^0 {\bar K}^0$ yield ratio at the $\phi(1020)$ resonance produces a result which possibly is at a meaningful variance with the data. At present we limit ourselves to noticing that the formula in Eq.(), applicable in this situation, describes a smooth behavior of the considered isospin breaking effects across the resonance in the $I=0$ channel. Indeed, the $I=0$ scattering phase at energy $E$ near the resonance energy $E_0$ is given by the Breit-Wigner formula \beq e^{2 i \delta_0}= {\Delta - i \, \gamma \over \Delta+i \, \gamma} \, e^{2 i {\tilde \delta}_0}~, \eeq where $\Delta=E-E_0$, ${\tilde \delta}_0$ is the nonresonant scattering phase in the isoscalar channel, and $\gamma$ is the width parameter. Both ${\tilde \delta}_0$ and $\gamma$ are smooth functions of the energy proportional to $p^3$ at small momentum, and $\gamma(E_0)$ determines the resonance width $\Gamma$ as $\gamma=\Gamma/2$. The ratio of the isovector and isoscalar production amplitudes can then be parametrized near the resonance as \beq {A_1 \over A_0}= {\Delta+ i \, \gamma \over \mu} \, e^{ i \, (\delta_1 - {\tilde \delta}_0)}~, \eeq where $\mu$ is a parameter with dimension of energy: $\mu \sim m_\phi-m_\rho$. The amplitude ratio entering the correction factor in Eq.() can then be written in the form \beq {{A_0 \, e^{2i \delta_1}- A_1 \, e^{2i \delta_0}} \over {A_0 - A_1 }}= e^{2 i \delta_1} \, {\mu - (\Delta - i \, \gamma) \, e^{-i (\delta_1-{\tilde \delta}_0)} \over \mu - (\Delta + i \, \gamma) \, e^{+ i (\delta_1-{\tilde \delta}_0)}}~, \eeq which manifestly shows that this ratio is a pure phase factor of a complex quantity slowly varying across the $\phi(1020)$ resonance. \section{Summary} We have considered the effects of the isospin breaking by the Coulomb interaction and by the isotopic mass difference in the relative yield $R^{c/n}$ of pairs of charged and neutral mesons near threshold by a compact source, such as in the production of heavy mesons in $e^+e^-$ annihilation. These effects are modified by the strong interaction scattering phases. The general formula for a situation where the source is an arbitrary coherent mixture of an isoscalar and isovector is given by Eq.(). In particular, for a purely isoscalar source, which is the case for the $e^+e^-$ annihilation into $D {\bar D}$ and $B {\bar B}$ pairs the strong-interaction effect is determined by the scattering phase $\delta_1$ in the $I=1$ channel (Eq.()). As a practical matter we find that under the standard assumptions about the strong scattering amplitudes in the near-threshold resonance region the ratio $R^{c/n}$ has a smooth behavior with energy showing no abnormal rapid variation on the scale of the resonance width. The energy dependence of this ratio is rather determined by the non-resonant scattering scattering phase(s). In the $P$-wave the phase $\delta_1$ is proportional to $p^3$, so that a measurement of the behavior ratio $R^{c/n}$ with energy can provide information on this phase, which is not readily accessible by other means. The behavior of the ratio $R^{c/n}$ at larger energies away from the threshold also depends on the details of the onset of the strong interaction between the heavy mesons at short distances and on the behavior of their electromagnetic form factors, and a study of this behavior can provide an insight into these properties of the heavy-light hadrons. \section*{Acknowledgements} The work of MBV is supported, in part, by the DOE grant DE-FG02-94ER40823. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{rups} J.P. Alexander {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration], Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 86}, 2737 (2001); \\ S.B. Athar {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration], Phys.Rev. D {\bf 66}, 052003 (2002); \\ B. Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.Rev. D {\bf 65}, 032001 (2002); \\ B. Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.Rev. D {\bf 69}, 071101 (2004); \\ N.C. Hastings {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration], Phys.Rev. D {\bf 67}, 052004 (2003). \bibitem{rpsi} Q. He {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration], Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 95}, 121801 (2005) [Erratum-ibid. {\bf 96}, 199903 (2006)] \bibitem{rphi} M.N. Achasov {\it et al.} [SND Collaboration], Phys.Rev. D {\bf 63}, 072002 (2001). \bibitem{am} D. Atwood and W.J. Marciano, Phys.Rev. D {\bf 41}, 1736 (1990). \bibitem{lepage} G.P. Lepage, Phys.Rev. D {\bf 42}, 3251 (1990). \bibitem{be} N. Byers and E. Eichten, Phys.Rev. D {\bf 42}, 3885 (1990). \bibitem{kmm} R. Kaiser, A.V. Manohar, and T. Mehen, Report hep-ph/0208194, Aug. 2002 (unpublished) \bibitem{mv1} M.B. Voloshin, Mod.Phys.Lett. A {\bf 18}, 1783 (2003). \bibitem{mv2} M.B. Voloshin, Phys.Atom.Nucl. {\bf 68}, 771 (2005) [Yad.Fiz. {\bf 68}, 804 (2005)]. \bibitem{ll} L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshits, {\it Quantum Mechanics (Non-relativistic Theory)}, Third Edition, Pergamon, Oxford, 1977. \bibitem{pdg} W.M. Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group], J.Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006). \bibitem{ov} M.B. Voloshin and L.B. Okun, JETP Lett. {\bf 23}, 333 (1976). \bibitem{belp} A. Bramon, R. Escribano, J.L. Lucio M. and G. Pancheri, Phys.Lett. B {\bf 486}, 406 (2000) \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0295
|
Title: On the number of topological types occurring in a parametrized family of
arrangements
Abstract: Let ${\mathcal S}(\R)$ be an o-minimal structure over $\R$, $T \subset
\R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}$ a closed definable set, and $$ \displaylines{\pi_1:
\R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}\to \R^{k_1 + k_2}, \pi_2: \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}\to \R^{\ell}, \
\pi_3: \R^{k_1 + k_2} \to \R^{k_2}} $$ the projection maps.
For any collection ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,...,A_n\}$ of subsets of
$\R^{k_1+k_2}$, and $\z \in \R^{k_2}$, let $\A_\z$ denote the collection of
subsets of $\R^{k_1}$, $\{A_{1,\z},..., A_{n,\z}\}$, where $A_{i,\z} = A_i \cap
\pi_3^{-1}(\z), 1 \leq i \leq n$. We prove that there exists a constant $C =
C(T) > 0,$ such that for any family ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,...,A_n\}$ of
definable sets, where each $A_i = \pi_1(T \cap \pi_2^{-1}(\y_i))$, for some
$\y_i \in \R^{\ell}$, the number of distinct stable homotopy types of $\A_\z,
\z \in \R^{k_2}$, is bounded by $ \displaystyle{C \cdot n^{(k_1+1)k_2},} $
while the number of distinct homotopy types is bounded by $ \displaystyle{C
\cdot n^{(k_1+3)k_2}.} $ This generalizes to the general o-minimal setting,
bounds of the same type proved in \cite{BV} for semi-algebraic and
semi-Pfaffian families. One main technical tool used in the proof of the above
results, is a topological comparison theorem which might be of independent
interest in the study of arrangements.
Body: \title[Topological types of parametrized arrangements]{ On the number of topological types occurring in a parametrized family of arrangements } \author{Saugata Basu} \address{School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A.} \email{saugata.basu@math.gatech.edu} \thanks{The author was supported in part by NSF grant CCF-0634907.} \keywords{Combinatorial Complexity, O-minimal Structures, Homotopy Types, Arrangements} \begin{abstract} Let ${\mathcal S}(\R)$ be an o-minimal structure over $\R$, $T \subset \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}$ a closed definable set, and $$ \displaylines{ \pi_1: \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}\rightarrow \R^{k_1 + k_2}, \\ \pi_2: \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}\rightarrow \R^{\ell}, \\ \pi_3: \R^{k_1 + k_2} \rightarrow \R^{k_2} } $$ the projection maps as depicted below. \[ \begin{diagram} \node{\R^{k_1 + k_2 + \ell}}\arrow{e,t}{\pi_1} \arrow{s,l}{\pi_2} \node{\R^{k_1+k_2}}\arrow{s,l}{\pi_3} \\ \node{\R^{\ell}}\node{\R^{k_2}} \end{diagram} \] For any collection ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of subsets of $\R^{k_1+k_2}$, and $\z \in \R^{k_2}$, let $\A_\z$ denote the collection of subsets of $\R^{k_1}$ \[ \{A_{1,\z},\ldots, A_{n,\z}\}\] where $A_{i,\z} = A_i \cap \pi_3^{-1}(\z), \;1 \leq i \leq n$. We prove that there exists a constant $C = C(T) > 0$ such that for any family ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of definable sets, where each $A_i = \pi_1(T \cap \pi_2^{-1}(\y_i))$, for some $\y_i \in \R^{\ell}$, the number of distinct stable homotopy types amongst the arrangements $\A_\z,\; \z \in \R^{k_2}$ is bounded by $ \displaystyle{ C \cdot n^{(k_1+1)k_2} } $ while the number of distinct homotopy types is bounded by $ \displaystyle{ C \cdot n^{(k_1+3)k_2}. } $ This generalizes to the o-minimal setting, bounds of the same type proved in for semi-algebraic and semi-Pfaffian families. One technical tool used in the proof of the above results is a pair of topological comparison theorems reminiscent of Helly's theorem in convexity theory and these might be of independent interest in the quantitative study of arrangements. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The study of arrangements is a very important subject in discrete and computational geometry, where one studies {\em arrangements} of $n$ subsets of $\R^k$ (often referred to as objects of the arrangements) for fixed $k$ and large values of $n$ (see for a survey of the known results from this area). The precise nature of the objects in an arrangements will be discussed in more details below. Common examples consist of arrangements of hyperplanes, balls or simplices in $\R^k$. More generally one considers arrangements of objects of ``bounded description complexity''. This means that each set in the arrangement is defined by a first order formula in the language of ordered fields involving at most a constant number of polynomials whose degrees are also bounded by a constant (see ). In this paper we consider parametrized families of arrangements. The question we will be interested in most, is the number of ``topologically'' distinct arrangements which can occur in such a family (precise definition of the topological type of an arrangement is given later (see Definition )). Parametrized arrangements occur quite frequently in practice. For instance, take any arrangement $\A$ in $\R^{k_1+k_2}$ and let $\pi:\R^{k_1+k_2} \rightarrow \R^{k_2}$ be the projection on the last $k_2$ co-ordinates. Then for each $\z \in \R^{k_2}$, the intersection of the arrangement $\A$ with the fiber $\pi^{-1}(\z)$, is an arrangement $\A_\z$ in $\R^{k_1}$ and the family of the arrangements $\{\A_\z\}_{\z \in \R^{k_2}}$ is an example of a parametrized family of arrangements. Even though the number of arrangements in the family $\{A_\z\}_{\z \in \R^{k_2}}$ is infinite, it follows from Hardt's triviality theorem generalized to o-minimal structures (see Theorem below) that the number of ``topological types'' occurring amongst them is finite and can be effectively bounded in terms of the $n,k_1,k_2$ up to multiplication by a constant that depends only on the particular family from which the objects of the arrangements are drawn. If by topological type we mean homeomorphism type, then the best known upper bound on the number of types occurring is doubly exponential in $k_1,k_2$. However, if we consider the weaker notion of homotopy type, then we obtain a singly exponential bound. We conjecture that a singly exponential bound also holds for homeomorphism types as well. We now make precise the class of arrangements that we consider and also the notion of topological type of an arrangement. \subsection{Combinatorial Complexity in O-minimal Geometry} In order to put the study of the combinatorial complexity of arrangements in a more natural mathematical context, as well as to elucidate the proofs of the main results in the area, a new framework was introduced in which is a significant generalization of the settings mentioned above. We recall here the basic definitions of this framework from , referring the reader to the same paper for further details and examples. We first recall an important model theoretic notion -- that of o-minimality -- which plays a crucial role in this generalization. \subsubsection{O-minimal Structures} O-minimal structures were invented and first studied by Pillay and Steinhorn in the pioneering papers . Later the theory was further developed through contributions of other researchers, most notably van den Dries, Wilkie, Rolin, Speissegger amongst others . We particularly recommend the book by van den Dries and the notes by Coste for an easy introduction to the topic as well as the proofs of the basic results that we use in this paper. \begin{definition}[o-minimal structure] An o-minimal structure over a real closed field $\Rc$ is a sequence ${\mathcal S}(\Rc) = ({\mathcal S}_n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$, where each ${\mathcal S}_n$ is a collection of subsets of $\Rc^n$ (called the {\em definable sets} in the structure) satisfying the following axioms (following the exposition in ). \begin{enumerate} \item All algebraic subsets of $\Rc^n$ are in ${\mathcal S}_n$. \item The class ${\mathcal S}_n$ is closed under complementation and finite unions and intersections. \item If $A \in {\mathcal S}_m$ and $B \in {\mathcal S}_n$ then $A \times B \in {\mathcal S}_{m+n}$. \item If $\pi: \Rc^{n+1} \rightarrow \Rc^{n}$ is the projection map on the first $n$ co-ordinates and $A \in {\mathcal S}_{n+1}$, then $\pi(A) \in {\mathcal S}_n$. \item The elements of ${\mathcal S}_1$ are precisely finite unions of points and intervals. \end{enumerate} \end{definition} The class of semi-algebraic sets is one obvious example of such a structure, but in fact there are much richer classes of sets which have been proved to be o-minimal (see ). \subsubsection{Admissible Sets} We now recall from the definition of the class of sets that will play the role of sets with bounded description complexity mentioned above. \begin{definition}[admissible sets] Let ${\mathcal S}(\R)$ be an o-minimal structure over $\R$ and let $T \subset \R^{k+\ell}$ be a fixed definable set. Let $\pi_1: \R^{k+\ell} \rightarrow \R^{k}$ (respectively $\pi_2: \R^{k+\ell} \rightarrow \R^{\ell}$) be the projections onto the first $k$ (respectively last $\ell$) co-ordinates. \[ \begin{diagram} \node{}\node{T \subset \R^{k+\ell}} \arrow{sw,t}{\pi_1} \arrow{se,t}{\pi_2} \node{}\\ \node{\R^{k}}\node{}\node{\R^{\ell}} \end{diagram} \] We will call a subset $S$ of $\R^k$ to be a $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-set if \[ S = T_\y = \pi_1(\pi_2^{-1}(\y)\cap T) \] for some $\y \in \R^{\ell}$. If $T$ is some fixed definable set, we call a family of $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-sets to be a $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-family. We wil also refer to a finite $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-family as an {\em arrangement} of $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-sets. \end{definition} \subsection{Stable Homotopy Equivalence} For any finite CW-complex $X$ we denote by $\Suspension X$ the suspension of $X$ and for $n \geq 0$, we denote by $\Suspension^n X$ the $n$-fold iterated suspension $\underbrace{\Suspension \circ \Suspension \circ \cdots \circ \Suspension}_{n \text{ times}}X$. Note that if $i: X \hookrightarrow Y$ is an inclusion map, then there is an obvious induced inclusion map $\Suspension^n i: \Suspension^n X \hookrightarrow \Suspension^n Y$ between the $n$-fold iterated suspensions of $X$ and $Y$. Recall from that for two finite CW-complexes $X$ and $Y$, an element of \begin{equation} \{X;Y\}= \varinjlim_i \; [\Suspension^i X,\Suspension^i Y] \end{equation} is called an {\em S-map} (or map in the {\em suspension category}). An S-map $f \in \{X;Y\}$ is represented by the homotopy class of a map $f: \Suspension^N X \rightarrow \Suspension^N Y$ for some $N \geq 0$. \begin{definition}[stable homotopy equivalence] An S-map $f \in \{X;Y\}$ is an S-equivalence (also called a stable homotopy equivalence) if it admits an inverse $f^{-1} \in \{Y;X\}$. In this case we say that $X$ and $Y$ are stable homotopy equivalent. \end{definition} If $f \in \{X;Y\}$ is an S-map, then $f$ induces a homomorphism \[ f_* : \HH_*(X,\Z) \rightarrow \HH_*(Y,\Z) \] between the homology groups of $X$ and $Y$. The following theorem characterizes stable homotopy equivalence in terms of homology. \begin{theorem} \cite[pp. 604]{Dieudonne} Let $X$ and $Y$ be two finite CW-complexes. Then $X$ and $Y$ are stable homotopy equivalent if and only if there exists an S-map $f \in \{X;Y\}$ which induces isomorphisms $f_* : \HH_*(X,\Z) \rightarrow \HH_*(Y,\Z)$. \end{theorem} \subsection{Diagrams and Co-limits} The arrangements that we consider are all finitely triangulable. In other words, the union of objects of an arrangement is homeomorphic to a finite simplicial complex, and each individual object in the arrangement will correspond to a sub-complex of this simplicial complex. It will be more convenient to work in the category of finite regular cell complexes, instead of just simplicial complexes. Let ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$, where each $A_i$ is a sub-complex of a finite regular cell complex. We will denote by $[n]$ the set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and for $I \subset [n]$ we will denote by ${\mathcal A}^I$ (respectively ${\mathcal A}_I$) the regular cell complexes $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{i \in I} A_i}$ (respectively $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{i \in I} A_i}$). Notice that if $J \subset I \subset [n]$, then $$ \displaylines{ {\mathcal A}^J \subset {\mathcal A}^I, \cr {\mathcal A}_I \subset {\mathcal A}_J . } $$ We will call the collection of sets $\{|\A_I|\}_{I \subset [n]}$ together with the inclusion maps $i_{I,J}: |\A_I| \hookrightarrow |\A_J|, J \subset I$, the {\em diagram} of $\A$. Notice that (even though we do not use this fact), $|\A^{[n]}|$ is the co-limit of the diagram of $\A$. For $I \subset [n]$ we will denote by $\A[I]$ the sub-arrangement $\{ A_i \,\mid \, i \in I\}$. \subsection{Diagram Preserving Maps} Now let $ {\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}, \; {\mathcal B} = \{B_1,\ldots,B_n\} $ where each $A_i,B_j$ is a sub-complex of a finite regular cell complex for $1 \leq i,j \leq n$. \begin{definition}[diagram preserving maps] We call a map $f: |\A^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\B^{[n]}|$ to be {\em diagram preserving} if $f(|\A_I|) \subset |\B_I|$ for every $I \subset [n]$. (Notice that the above property is equivalent to $f(|A_i|) \subset |B_i|$ for every $i \in [n]$ but the previous property will be more convenient for us later when we extend the definition of diagram preserving maps to homotopy co-limits (see Definition ).) We say that two maps $f,g: |\A^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\B^{[n]}|$ are {\em diagram homotopic} if there exists a homotopy $h: |\A^{[n]}| \times [0,1] \rightarrow |\B^{[n]}|$, such that $h(\cdot,0)= f, h(\cdot,1) = g$ and $h(\cdot,t)$ is diagram preserving for each $t \in [0,1]$. More generally, we call a map $f: \Suspension^N |\A^{[n]}| \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}|$ to be {\em diagram preserving} if $f(\Suspension^N |\A_I|) \subset \Suspension^N |\B_I|$ for every $I \subset [n]$. We say that two maps $f,g: \Suspension^N |\A^{[n]}| \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}|$ are {\em diagram homotopic} if there exists a homotopy $h: \Suspension^N |\A^{[n]}| \times [0,1] \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}|$ such that $h(\cdot,0)= f, h(\cdot,1) = g$ and $h(\cdot,t)$ is diagram preserving for each $t \in [0,1]$. We say that $f: | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\B^{[n]}|$ is a diagram preserving homeomorphism if there exists a diagram preserving inverse map $g: |\B^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\A^{[n]}|$ such that the induced maps $g\circ f : | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow | \A^{[n]}| $ and $f\circ g : |\B^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\B^{[n]}|$ are ${\mathrm{Id}}_{| \A^{[n]}|}$ and ${\mathrm{Id}}_{|\B^{[n]}|}$, respectively. We say that $f: |\A^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\B^{[n]}|$ is a diagram preserving homotopy equivalence if there exists a diagram preserving inverse map $g: |\B^{[n]}| \rightarrow | \A^{[n]}|$ such that the induced maps $g\circ f : | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow | \A^{[n]}|$ and $f\circ g : |\B^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\B^{[n]}|$ are diagram homotopic to ${\mathrm{Id}}_{| \A^{[n]}|}$ and ${\mathrm{Id}}_{|\B^{[n]}|}$, respectively. We say that an S-map $f \in \{ |\A^{[n]}|;|\B^{[n]}| \}$ is a diagram preserving stable homotopy equivalence if it is represented by a diagram preserving map \[ \tilde{f}: \Suspension^N | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}| \] such that there exists a diagram preserving inverse map \[ \tilde{g}: \Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}| \rightarrow \Suspension^N | \A^{[n]}| \] for which the induced maps \[ \tilde{g}\circ \tilde{f} : \Suspension^N | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow \Suspension^N | \A^{[n]}|, \] and \[ \tilde{f}\circ \tilde{g} : \Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}| \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}| \] are diagram homotopic to ${\mathrm{Id}}_{\Suspension^N | \A^{[n]}|}$ and ${\mathrm{Id}}_{\Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}|}$, respectively. \end{definition} Translating these topological definitions into the language of arrangements, we say that: \begin{definition}[topological type of an arrangement] Two arrangements $\A,\B$ are homeomorphic (respectively homotopy equivalent, stable homotopy equivalent) if there exists a diagram preserving homeomorphism (respectively homotopy equivalence, stable homotopy equivalence) between them. \end{definition} \begin{remark} Note that, since two definable sets might be stable homotopy equivalent, without being homotopy equivalent (see \cite[pp. 462]{Spanier}), and also homotopy equivalent without being homeomorphic, the notions of homeomorphism type, homotopy type and stable homotopy type are each strictly weaker than the previous one. \end{remark} The main results of this paper can now be stated. \subsection{Main Results} Let ${\mathcal S}(\R)$ be an o-minimal structure over $\R$, $T \subset \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}$ a closed and bounded definable set, and let $\pi_1: \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}\rightarrow \R^{k_1 + k_2}$ (respectively, $\pi_2: \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}\rightarrow \R^{\ell}$, $\pi_3: \R^{k_1 + k_2} \rightarrow \R^{k_2}$) denote the projections onto the first $k_1 + k_2$ (respectively, the last $\ell$, the last $k_2$) co-ordinates. For any collection ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-sets, and $\z \in \R^{k_2}$, we will denote by $\A_\z$ the collection of sets, $\{A_{1,\z},\ldots, A_{n,\z}\}$, where $A_{i,\z} = A_i \cap \pi_3^{-1}(\z), 1 \leq i \leq n$. A fundamental theorem in o-minimal geometry is Hardt's trivialization theorem (Theorem below) which says that there exists a definable partition of $\R^{k_2}$ into a finite number of definable sets $\{T_i\}_{i \in I}$ such that for each $i \in I$, all fibers $\A_{\z}$ with $\z \in T_i$ are definably homeomorphic. A very natural question is to ask for an upper bound on the size of this partition (which will also give an upper bound on the number of homeomorphism types amongst the arrangements $\A_{\z}, \z \in \R^{k_2}$). Hardt's theorem is a corollary of the existence of {\em cylindrical cell decompositions} of definable sets proved in (see also ). When $\A$ is a $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-family for some fixed definable set $T \subset \R^{k_1+k_2 +\ell}$, with $\pi_1: \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell} \rightarrow \R^{k_1+k_2}$, $\pi_2: \R^{k_1+ k_2+\ell} \rightarrow \R^{\ell}$, $\pi_2: \R^{k_1+ k_2} \rightarrow \R^{k_2}$ the usual projections, and $\#\A = n$, the quantitative definable cylindrical cell decomposition theorem in gives a doubly exponential (in $k_1k_2$) upper bound on the cardinality of $I$ and hence on the number of homeomorphism types amongst the arrangements $\A_{\z}, \z \in \R^{k_2}$. A tighter (say singly exponential) bound on the number of homeomorphism types of the fibers would be very interesting but is unknown at present. Note that we cannot hope for a bound which is better than singly exponential because the lower bounds on the number of topological types proved in also applies in our situation. In this paper we give tighter (singly exponential) upper bounds on the number of homotopy types occurring amongst the fibers $\A_{\z}, \z \in \R^{k_2}$. We prove the following theorems. The first theorem gives a bound on the number of stable homotopy types of the arrangements $\A_{\z}, \z \in \R^{k_2}$, while the second theorem gives a slightly worse bound for homotopy types. \begin{theorem} There exists a constant $C = C(T) > 0$ such that for any collection ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-sets the number of distinct stable homotopy types amongst the arrangements $\A_{\z}, \z \in \R^{k_2}$ is bounded by \[ C \cdot n^{(k_1+1)k_2}. \] \end{theorem} If we replace stable homotopy type by homotopy type, we obtain a slightly weaker bound. \begin{theorem} There exists a constant $C = C(T) > 0$ such that for any collection ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-sets the number of distinct homotopy types occuring amongst the arrangements $\A_{\z}, \z \in \R^{k_2}$ is bounded by \[ C \cdot n^{(k_1+3)k_2}. \] \end{theorem} \section{Background} In this section we describe some prior work in the area of bounding the number of homotopy types of fibers of a definable map and their connections with the results presented in this paper. We begin with a definition. \begin{definition}[$\A$-sets] Let ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$, such that each $A_i \subset \R^k$ is a $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-set. For $I \subset \{1,\ldots,n\}$, we let ${\mathcal A}(I)$ denote the set \begin{equation} \bigcap_{i \in I \subset [n]} A_i \;\; \cap \bigcap_{j \in [n]\setminus I} (\R^k \setminus A_j) \end{equation} and we will call such a set to be a basic ${\mathcal A}$-set. We will denote by ${\mathcal C}({\mathcal A})$ the set of non-empty connected components of all basic ${\mathcal A}$-sets. We will call definable subsets $S \subset \R^k$ defined by a Boolean formula whose atoms are of the form, $x \in A_i, 1 \leq i \leq n$, an ${\mathcal A}$-set. An ${\mathcal A}$-set is thus a union of basic ${\mathcal A}$-sets. If $T$ is closed, and the Boolean formula defining $S$ has no negations, then $S$ is closed by definition (since each $A_i$ is closed) and we call such a set an ${\mathcal A}$-closed set. Moreover, if $V$ is any closed definable subset of $\R^k$, and $S$ is an ${\mathcal A}$-set (respectively ${\mathcal A}$-closed set), then we will call $S \cap V$ to be an $({\mathcal A},V)$-set (respectively $({\mathcal A},V)$-closed set). \end{definition} \subsection{Bounds on the Betti numbers of Admissible Sets} The problem of bounding the Betti numbers of ${\mathcal A}$-sets is investigated in , where several results known in the semi-algebraic and semi-Pfaffian case are extended to this general setting. In particular, we will need the following theorem proved there. \begin{theorem} Let ${\mathcal S}(\R)$ be an o-minimal structure over $\R$ and let $T \subset \R^{k+\ell}$ be a closed definable set. Then, there exists a constant $C = C(T) > 0$ depending only on $T$ such that for any arrangement ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-sets of $\R^k$ the following holds. For every $i, 0 \leq i \leq k$, \begin{equation} \sum_{D \in {\mathcal C}({\mathcal A})} b_i(D) \leq C \cdot n^{k-i}. \end{equation} \end{theorem} \begin{remark} The main intuition behind the bound in Theorem (as well as similar results in the semi-algebraic and semi-Pfaffian settings) is that the homotopy type (or at least the Betti numbers) of a definable set in $\R^k$ defined in terms of $n$ sets belonging to some fixed definable family, depend only on the interaction of these sets at most $k+1$ at a time. This is reminiscent of Helly's theorem in convexity theory (see ) but in a homotopical setting. This observation is also used to give an efficient algorithm for computing the Betti numbers of arrangements (see \cite[Section 8]{Basu_survey}). However, the proof of Theorem in (as well as the proofs of similar results in the semi-algebraic and semi-Pfaffian settings ) depends on an argument involving the Mayer-Vietoris sequence for homology, and does not require more detailed information about homotopy types. In Section below, we make the above intuition mathematically precise. We prove two theorems (Theorems and below) and these auxiliary results are the keys to proving the main results of this paper (Theorems and ). Moreover, these auxiliary results could also be of independent interest in the quantitative study of arrangements. \end{remark} \subsection {Homotopy types of the fibers of a semi-algebraic map} Theorem gives tight bounds on the topological complexity of an ${\mathcal A}$-set in terms of the cardinality of ${\mathcal A}$, assuming that the sets in ${\mathcal A}$ belong to some fixed definable family. A problem closely related to the problem we consider in this paper is to bound the number of topological types of the fibers of a projection restricted to an arbitrary $\A$-set. More precisely, let $S \subset \R^{k_1+k_2}$ be a set definable in an o-minimal structure over the reals (see ) and let $\pi: \R^{k_1+k_2} \rightarrow \R^{k_2}$ denote the projection map on the last $k_2$ co-ordinates. We consider the fibers, $S_{\z} = \pi^{-1}(\z) \cap S$ for different $\z$ in $\R^{k_2}$. Hardt's trivialization theorem, (Theorem below) shows that there exists a definable partition of $\R^{k_2}$ into a finite number of definable sets $\{T_i\}_{i \in I}$ such that for each $i \in I$ and any point $\z_i \in T_i$, $\pi^{-1}(T_i) \cap S$ is definably homeomorphic to $S_{\z_i} \times T_i$ by a fiber preserving homeomorphism. In particular, for each $i \in I$, all fibers $S_{\z}$ with $\z \in T_i$ are definably homeomorphic. In case $S$ is an ${\mathcal A}$-set, with $\A$ a $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-family for some fixed definable set $T \subset \R^{k_1+k_2 +\ell}$, with $\pi_1: \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell} \rightarrow \R^{k_1+k_2}$, $\pi_2: \R^{k_1+ k_2+\ell} \rightarrow \R^{\ell}$, $\pi_2: \R^{k_1+ k_2} \rightarrow \R^{k_2}$, the usual projections, and $\#\A = n$, the quantitative definable cylindrical cell decomposition theorem in gives a doubly exponential (in $k_1k_2$) upper bound on the cardinality of $I$ and hence on the number of homeomorphism types of the fibers of the map $\pi_3|_S$. A tighter (say singly exponential) bound on the number of homeomorphism types of the fibers would be very interesting but is unknown at present. Recently, the problem of obtaining a tight bound on the number of topological types of the fibers of a definable map for semi-algebraic and semi-Pfaffian sets was considered in , and it was shown that the number of distinct homotopy types of the fibers of such a map can be bounded (in terms of the format of the formula defining the set) by a function singly exponential in $k_1 k_2$. In particular, the combinatorial part of the bound is also singly exponential. A more precise statement in the case of semi-algebraic sets is the following theorem which appears in . \begin{theorem} Let ${\mathcal P} \subset \R[X_1,\ldots,X_{k_1},Y_1,\ldots,Y_{k_2}]$, with $\deg(P) \leq d$ for each $P \in {\mathcal P}$ and cardinality $\#{\mathcal P} = n$. Then, for any fixed ${\mathcal P}$-semi-algebraic set $S$ the number of different homotopy types of fibers $\pi^{-1} (\y) \cap S$ for various $\y \in \pi(S)$ is bounded by \[ (2^{k_1} n k_2d)^{O(k_1 k_2)}. \] \end{theorem} \begin{remark} The proof of Theorem however has the drawback that it relies on techniques involving perturbations of the original polynomials in order to put them in general position, as well as Thom's Isotopy Theorem, and as such does not extend easily to the o-minimal setting. The main results of this paper (see Theorem and Theorem ) extend the combinatorial part of Theorem to the more general o-minimal category. \end{remark} \begin{remark} Even though the formulation of Theorem seems a little different from the main theorems of this paper (Theorems and ), they are in fact closely related. In fact, as a consequence of Theorem we obtain bounds on the number of homotopy types of the fibers of $S$ for any fixed ${\mathcal A}$-set $S$, analogous to the one in Theorem . More precisely we have: \begin{theorem} Let ${\mathcal S}(\R)$ be an o-minimal structure over $\R$, and $T \subset \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}$ a closed and bounded definable set, and $\pi_1: \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}\rightarrow \R^{k_1 + k_2}$, $\pi_2: \R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}\rightarrow \R^{\ell}$, and $\pi_3: \R^{k_1 + k_2} \rightarrow \R^{k_2}$ the projection maps. Then, there exists a constant $C = C(T) > 0,$ such that for any collection ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$-sets, for any fixed ${\mathcal A}$-set $S$ the number of distinct homotopy types of fibers $\pi_3^{-1}(\z) \cap S$ for various $\z \in \pi_3(S)$ is bounded by \[ C \cdot n^{(k_1+3)k_2}. \] \end{theorem} A similar result with a bound of $C \cdot n^{(k_1+1)k_2}$ holds for stable homotopy types as well. \end{remark} \section{A Topological Comparison Theorem} As noted previously, the main underlying idea behind our proof of Theorem is that the homotopy type of an ${\mathcal A}$-set in $\R^k$ depends only on the interaction of sets in ${\mathcal A}$ at most $(k+1)$ at a time. In this section we make this idea precise. We show that in case $\A = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$, with each $A_i$ a definable, closed and bounded subset of $\R^k$, the homotopy type of any ${\mathcal A}$-closed set is determined by a certain sub-complex of the {\em homotopy co-limit} of the diagram of $\A$. The crucial fact here is that this sub-complex depends only on the intersections of the sets in $\A$ at most $k+1$ at a time. In order to avoid technical difficulties, we restrict ourselves to the category of finite, regular cell complexes (see for the definition of a regular cell complex). The setting of finite, regular cell complexes suffices for us, since it is well known that closed and bounded definable sets in any o-minimal structure are finitely triangulable, and hence, are homeomorphic to regular cell complexes. \subsection{Topological Preliminaries} Let ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$, where each $A_i$ is a sub-complex of a finite regular cell complex. We now define the homotopy co-limit of the diagram of $\A$. \subsubsection{Homotopy Co-limits} Let $\Delta_{[n]}$ denote the standard simplex of dimension $n-1$ with vertices in $[n]$ (and by $|\Delta_{[n]}|$ the corresponding closed geometric simplex). For $I \subset [n]$, we denote by $\Delta_I$ the $(\#I-1)$-dimensional face of $\Delta_{[n]}$ corresponding to $I$. The homotopy co-limit, $\hocolimit(\A)$, is a CW-complex defined as follows. \begin{definition}[homotopy co-limit] \[ \hocolimit(\A) = \coprod_{I \subset [n]} \Delta_I \times \A_I/\sim \] where the equivalence relation $\sim$ is defined as follows. For $I \subset J \subset [n]$, let $s_{I,J}: |\Delta_I| \hookrightarrow |\Delta_J|$ denote the inclusion map of the face $|\Delta_I|$ in $|\Delta_J|$, and let $i_{I,J}: |\A_J| \hookrightarrow |\A_I|$ denote the inclusion map of $|\A_J|$ in $|\A_I|$. Given $({\mathbf s},\x) \in |\Delta_I| \times |\A_I|$ and $({\mathbf t},\y) \in |\Delta_J| \times |\A_J|$ with $I \subset J$, then $({\mathbf s},\x) \sim ({\mathbf t},\y)$ if and only if ${\mathbf t} = s_{I,J}({\mathbf s})$ and $\x = i_{I,J}(\y)$. \end{definition} Note that there exist two natural maps $$ \displaylines{ f_\A: |\hocolimit(\A)| \rightarrow | \A^{[n]}|, \cr g_\A: |\hocolimit(\A)| \rightarrow | \Delta_{[n]}| } $$ defined by \begin{equation} f_\A(\s,\x) = \s, \end{equation} and \begin{equation} g_\A(\s,\x) = \x. \end{equation} where $(\s,\x) \in |{\Delta}_{I_c}| \times c $, $c$ is a cell in ${\mathcal A}^{[n]}$ and $I_c = \{i \in [n] \;\mid\; c \in A_i \}$. Notice that we have \[ |\hocolimit(\A)| = \bigcup_{I \subset [n]} |\Delta_I| \times |\A_I| \subset \bigcup_{I \subset [n]} |\Delta_I| \times \A^{[n]}. \] \begin{definition}[truncated homotopy co-limits] For any $m, 0 \leq m \leq n$, we will denote by $\hocolimit_m(\A)$ the sub-complex of $\hocolimit(\A)$ defined by \begin{equation} \displaystyle{ \hocolimit_m(\A) = g_\A^{-1}({\rm sk}_m(\Delta_{[n]}))}. \end{equation} \end{definition} \begin{definition} [diagram preserving maps between homotopy co-limits] Replacing in Definition , $| \A^{[n]}|$ and $|\B^{[n]}|$, by $|\hocolimit(\A)|$ and $|\hocolimit(\B)|$ respectively, as well as $|\A_I|$ and $|\B_I|$ by $f_\A^{-1}(|\A_I|)$ and $f_\B^{-1}(|\B_I|)$ respectively, we get definitions of diagram preserving homotopy equivalences and stable homotopy equivalences between $|\hocolimit(\A)|$ and $|\hocolimit(B)|$, and more generally for any $m \geq 0$, between $|\hocolimit_m(\A)|$ and $|\hocolimit_m(\B)|$. \end{definition} \begin{definition} We say that $\A \approx_m \B$ if there exists a diagram preserving homotopy equivalence \[ \phi: |\hocolimit_m(\A)| \rightarrow |\hocolimit_m(\B)|. \] We say that $\A \sim_m \B$, if there exists a diagram preserving stable homotopy equivalence $\phi \in \{\hocolimit_m(\A);\hocolimit_m(\B)\}$, represented by \[ \tilde{\phi}: \Suspension^N| \hocolimit_m(\A)| \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\hocolimit_m(\B)|, \] for some $N > 0$. \end{definition} \begin{remark} Note that in the above definition the map $\phi$ need not be induced by a diagram preserving map $\phi: \A^{[n]} \rightarrow \B^{[n]}$ (respectively, $ \tilde{\phi}: \Suspension^N| \hocolimit_m(\A)| \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\hocolimit_m(\B)| $). Indeed if it was the case then the proofs of Theorems and below would be simplified considerably. \end{remark} The two following theorems are the crucial topological ingredients in the proofs of our main results. \begin{theorem} Let ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}, {\mathcal B} = \{B_1,\ldots,B_n\}$ be two families of sub-complexes of a finite regular cell complex, such that: \begin{enumerate} \item $\HH_i(|\A^{[n]}|,\Z), \HH_i(|\B^{[n]}|,\Z) = 0$, for all $i \geq k$, and \item $\A \sim_k \B$. \end{enumerate} Then, $\A$ and $\B$ are stable homotopy equivalent. \end{theorem} \begin{theorem} Let ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}, {\mathcal B} = \{B_1,\ldots,B_n\}$ be two families of sub-complexes of a finite regular cell complex, such that: \begin{enumerate} \item $\dim(A_i), \dim(B_i) \leq k$, for $1 \leq i \leq n$, and \item $\A \approx_{k+2} \B$. \end{enumerate} Then, $\A$ and $\B$ are homotopy equivalent. \end{theorem} We now state two corollaries of Theorems and which might be of interest. Given a Boolean formula $\theta(T_1,\ldots,T_n)$ containing no negations and a family of sub-complexes ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of a finite regular cell complex, we will denote by ${\mathcal A}_{\theta}$ the sub-complex defined by the formula, $\theta_{\mathcal A}$, which is obtained from $\theta$ by replacing in $\theta$ the atom $T_i$ by $A_i$ for each $i \in [n]$, and replacing each $\wedge$ (respectively $\vee$) by $\cap$ (respectively $\cup$). \begin{corollary} Let ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}, {\mathcal B} = \{B_1,\ldots,B_n\}$ be two families of sub-complexes of a finite regular cell complex, satisfying the same conditions as in Theorem . Let $\theta(T_1,\ldots,T_n)$ be a Boolean formula without negations. Then, $|\A_\theta|$ and $|\B_\theta|$ are stable homotopy equivalent. \end{corollary} \begin{corollary} Let ${\mathcal A} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}, {\mathcal B} = \{B_1,\ldots,B_n\}$ be two families of sub-complexes of a finite regular cell complex, satisfying the same conditions as in Theorem . Let $\theta(T_1,\ldots,T_n)$ be a Boolean formula without negations. Then, $|\A_\theta|$ and $|\B_\theta|$ are homotopy equivalent. \end{corollary} \subsection{Proofs of Theorems and } Let $\A$ and $\B$ as in Theorem . We need a preliminary lemma. \begin{lemma} \[ |{\mathcal A}^{[n]}| \;\;\mbox{is diagram preserving homotopy equivalent to}\;\; |\hocolimit(\A)|. \] \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Consider the map \[ f_\A: |\hocolimit(\A)| \rightarrow | \A^{[n]}| \] defined in \eqref{eqn:f_A}. Clearly, if $\x \in c$, $f_\A^{-1}(c) = |{\Delta}_{I_c}|$. Now applying Smale's version of the Vietoris-Begle Theorem we obtain that $f_\A$ is a homotopy equivalence. Clearly, $f_\A$ is diagram preserving. Moreover, (see for instance the proof of Theorem 6 in ) there exists an cellular inverse map \[ h_\A: | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\hocolimit(\A)| \] such that $f_\A \circ h_\A$ is diagram preserving, and is a homotopy inverse of $f_\A$. \end{proof} We can now prove Theorems and . \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem ] Let $h_{\A}: |{\A}^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\hocolimit(\A)|$ be a diagram preserving homotopy equivalence known to exist by Lemma . Since $h_\A$ is cellular, and $\dim |\A^{[n]}| \leq k $, its image is contained in $\hocolimit_k(\A)$ since by definition (Eqn. ()) \[ {\rm sk}_k (\hocolimit(\A)) \subset \hocolimit_k(\A). \] We will denote by $h_{\A,\B}: \Suspension^N |\hocolimit_k (\A)| \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\hocolimit_k(\B)|$ a map representing a diagram preserving stable homotopy equivalence known to exist by hypothesis (which we assume to be cellular). Let $i_{\B,k}: \Suspension^N |\hocolimit_k(\B)| \hookrightarrow \Suspension^N |\hocolimit(\B)|$ denote the inclusion map. The map $i_{\B,k}$ induces isomorphisms \[ (i_{\B,k})_*: \HH_j(\hocolimit_k(\B),\Z) \rightarrow \HH_j(\hocolimit(\B),\Z) \] for $0 \leq j \leq k-1$. Consequently, the map $f_{\B}\circ i_{\B,k}$ induces isomorphisms \[ (f_{\B}\circ i_{\B,k})_*: \HH_j(\hocolimit_k(\B),\Z) \rightarrow \HH_j(\B^{[n]},\Z) \] for $0 \leq j \leq k-1$. Composing the maps, $\Suspension^N h_{\A}, h_{\A\B}, i_{\B,k}, \Suspension^N f_{\B}$ we obtain that the map, \[ \Suspension^N f_{\B} \circ i_{\B,k} \circ h_{\A\B} \circ \Suspension^N h_{\A}: \Suspension^N | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}| \] induces isomorphisms \[ (\Suspension^N f_{\B} \circ i_{\B,k} \circ h_{\A,\B,k} \circ \Suspension^N h_{\A})_*:\HH_j( |\A^{[n]}|,\Z) \rightarrow \HH_j(|\B^{[n]}|,\Z) \] for all $j \geq 0$. Moreover, the map $\Suspension^N f_{\B} \circ i_{\B,k} \circ h_{\A\B} \circ \Suspension^N h_{\A}$ is diagram preserving since each constituent of the composition is diagram preserving. It now follows from Theorem that the S-map represented by \[ \phi = \Suspension^N f_{\B} \circ i_{\B,k} \circ h_{\A\B} \circ \Suspension^N h_{\A}: \Suspension^N | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow \Suspension^N |\B^{[n]}|, \] is a diagram preserving stable homotopy equivalence. \end{proof} Before proving Theorem we first need to recall a few basic facts from homotopy theory. \begin{definition}[$k$-equivalence] A map $f: X \rightarrow Y$ between two regular cell complex is called a $k$-equivalence if the induced homomorphism \[ f_*: \pi_i(X) \rightarrow \pi_i(Y) \] is an isomorphism for all $0 \leq i < k$, and an epimorphism for $i=k$, and we say that $X$ is $k$-equivalent to $Y$. (Note that $k$-equivalence is not an equivalence relation). \end{definition} We also need the following well-known fact from algebraic topology. \begin{proposition} Let $X,Y$ be finite regular cell complexes with \[ \dim(X) < k, \dim(Y) \leq k, \] and $f: X \rightarrow Y$ a $k$-equivalence. Then, $f$ is a homotopy equivalence between $X$ and $Y$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} See \cite[pp. 69]{Viro}. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem ] The proof is along the same lines as that of the proof of Theorem . Let $h_{\A}: |{\A}^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\hocolimit(\A)|$ be a diagram preserving homotopy equivalence known to exist by Lemma . By the same argument as before, its image is contained in $|\hocolimit_{k+2}(\A)|$. We will denote by $h_{\A,\B}: |\hocolimit_{k+2} (\A)| \rightarrow |\hocolimit_{k+2}(\B)|$ a diagram preserving homotopy equivalence known to exist by hypothesis. Let $i_{\B,k+2}: |\hocolimit_{k+2}(\B)| \hookrightarrow |\hocolimit(\B)|$ denote the inclusion map. The map $i_{\B,k+2}$ induces isomorphisms \[ (i_{\B,k+2})_*: \pi_j(\hocolimit_{k+2}(\B)) \rightarrow \pi_j(\hocolimit(\B)) \] for $0 \leq j \leq k+1$. This is a consequence of the exactness of the homotopy sequence of the pair $(\hocolimit(\B),\hocolimit_{k+2}(\B))$ (see ). Consequently, the map $f_{\B}\circ i_{\B,k}$ induces isomorphisms \[ (g_{\B}\circ i_{\B,k})_*: \pi_j(\hocolimit_{k+2}(\B)) \rightarrow \pi_j(\B^{[n]}) \] for $0 \leq j \leq k+1$. Composing the maps, $h_{\A}, h_{\A\B}, i_{\B,k+2}, f_{\B}$ we obtain that the map \[ f_{\B} \circ i_{\B,k} \circ h_{\A\B} \circ h_{\A}: | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\B^{[n]}| \] induces isomorphisms \[ (f_{\B} \circ i_{\B,k} \circ h_{\A,\B,k} \circ h_{\A})_*:\pi_j(\A^{[n]}) \rightarrow \pi_j(\B^{[n]}) \] for $0 \leq j \leq k+1$. Moreover, the map $f_{\B} \circ i_{\B,k} \circ h_{\A\B} \circ h_{\A}$ is diagram preserving since each constituent of the composition is diagram preserving. It now follows from Proposition that the map \[ \phi = f_{\B} \circ i_{\B,k} \circ h_{\A\B} \circ h_{\A}: | \A^{[n]}| \rightarrow |\B^{[n]}| \] is a diagram preserving homotopy equivalence. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary ] First note that since the formula $\theta$ does not contain negations, writing $\theta$ as a disjunction of conjunctions, there exists $\Sigma \subset 2^{[n]}$ such that $ \displaystyle{ \A_\theta = \bigcup_{I \in \Sigma} \A_I } $ (respectively, $ \displaystyle{ \B_\theta = \bigcup_{I \in \Sigma} \B_I } $). Let $\A' = \{\A_I \mid I \in \Sigma \}$ (respectively, $\B' = \{\B_I \mid I \in \Sigma \}$). It follows from the hypothesis that \[ \A' \sim_k \B'. \] Now apply Theorem . \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary ] The proof is similar to that of Corollary using Theorem in place of Theorem and is omitted. \end{proof} \section{Proofs of the Main Theorems} \subsection{Summary of the main ideas} We first summarize the main ideas underlying the proof of Theorem . The proof of Theorem is similar and differs only in technical details. Let $\A = \{A_1,\ldots,\A_n\}$ be a $(T,\pi_1,\pi_2)$- arrangement in $\R^{k_1+k_2}$. Using Proposition , we obtain a definable partition, $\{C_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha \in I}$ (say) of $\R^{k_2}$, into connected locally closed definable sets $C_\alpha \subset \R^{k_2}$, with the property that as $\z$ varies over $C_\alpha$, we get for each $I \subset [n]$ with $\#I \leq k_1+1$ isomorphic (and continuously varying) triangulations of the sub-arrangement $\A[I]$. Moreover, these triangulations are {\em downward compatible} in the sense that the restriction to $\A[J]$ of the triangulation of $\A[I]$, refines that of $\A[J]$ for each $J \subset I$ (cf. Proposition below). These facts allow us to prove that for any $z_1,z_2 \in C_\alpha$ the truncated homotopy co-limits $|\hocolimit_{k_1}(\A_{z_1})|$ and $|\hocolimit_{k_1}(\A_{z_2})|$ are homotopy equivalent by a diagram preserving homotopy equivalence. More precisely, we first prove that the thickened homotopy co-limits $|\hocolimit^+_{k_1}(\A_{z_1},\bar\eps)|$ and $|\hocolimit^+_{k_1}(\A_{z_2},\bar\eps)|$ are homeomorphic, and then use Proposition to deduce that $|\hocolimit_{k_1}(\A_{z_1})|$ and $|\hocolimit_{k_1}(\A_{z_2})|$ are homotopy equivalent. Theorem then implies that $\A_{z_1}$ is stable homotopy equivalent to $\A_{\z_2}$ by a diagram preserving stable homotopy equivalence. It remains to bound the number of elements in the partition $\{C_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha \in I}$. We use Theorem to obtain a bound of $C \cdot n^{(k_1+1)k_2}$ on this number, where $C$ is a constant which depends only on $T$. In order to prove Theorem we recall a few results from o-minimal geometry. We first note an elementary property of families of admissible sets (see for a proof). \begin{observation} Suppose that $T_1,\ldots,T_m \subset \R^{k+\ell}$ are definable sets, $\pi_1: \R^{k+\ell} \rightarrow \R^{k}$ and $\pi_2: \R^{k+\ell} \rightarrow \R^{\ell}$ the two projections. Then, there exists a definable subset $T' \subset \R^{k+\ell+m}$ depending only on $T_1,\ldots,T_m$, such that for any collection of $(T_i,\pi_1,\pi_2)$ families $\A_i$, $1 \leq i \leq m$, the union $ \displaystyle{ \bigcup_{i=1}^{m} \A_i } $ is a $(T',\pi_1',\pi_2')$-family, where $\pi_1': \R^{k+m+\ell} \rightarrow \R^{k}$ and $\pi_2': \R^{k+\ell+m} \rightarrow \R^{\ell+m}$ are the projections onto the first $k$, and the last $\ell + m$ co-ordinates respectively. \end{observation} \subsection{Hardt's Triviality for Definable Sets} One important technical tool will be the following o-minimal version of Hardt's triviality theorem. Let $X \subset \R^k \times \R^\ell$ and $A \subset \R^k$ be definable subsets of $\R^k \times \R^\ell$ and $\R^\ell$ respectively, and let $\pi: X \rightarrow \R^\ell$ denote the projection map on the last $\ell$ co-ordinates. We say that {\em $X$ is definably trivial over $A$} if there exists a definable set $F$ and a definable homeomorphism \[ h: F \times A \rightarrow X \cap \pi^{-1}(A), \] such that the following diagram commutes. \[ \begin{diagram} \node{F \times A}\arrow{e,t}{h}\arrow{s,t}{\pi_2} \node{X \cap \pi^{-1}(A)}\arrow{sw,t}{\pi} \\ \node{A} \end{diagram} \] In the diagram above $\pi_2: F \times A \rightarrow A$ is the projection onto the second factor. We call $h$ {\em a definable trivialization of $X$ over $A$}. If $Y$ is a definable subset of $X$, we say that the trivialization $h$ is {\em compatible} with $Y$ if there is a definable subset $G$ of $F$ such that $h(G \times A) = Y \cap \pi^{-1}(A)$. Clearly, the restriction of $h$ to $G \times A$ is a trivialization of $Y$ over $A$. \begin{theorem}[Hardt's theorem for definable families] Let $X \subset \R^k \times \R^\ell$ be a definable set and let $Y_1,\ldots,Y_m$ be definable subsets of $X$. Then, there exists a finite partition of $\R^\ell$ into definable sets $C_1,\ldots,C_N$ such that $X$ is definably trivial over each $C_i$, and moreover the trivializations over each $C_i$ are compatible with $Y_1,\ldots,Y_m$. \end{theorem} \begin{remark} We first remark that it is straightforward to derive from the proof of Theorem that the definable sets $C_1,\ldots,C_N$ can be chosen to be locally closed, and can be expressed as, $C_1 = \R^\ell \setminus B_1, C_2 = B_1 \setminus B_2, \ldots, C_N = B_{N-1} \setminus B_N$ for closed definable sets $B_1,\ldots,B_N$. Clearly, the closed definable sets $B_1,\ldots,B_N$, determine the sets $C_i$ of the partition. \end{remark} \begin{remark} Note also that it follows from Theorem , that there are only a finite number of topological types amongst the fibers of any definable map $f: X \rightarrow Y$ between definable sets $X$ and $Y$. This remark would be used a number of times later in the paper. \end{remark} Since in what follows we will need to consider many different projections, we adopt the following convention. \begin{notation} Given $m$ and $p$, $p\leq m$, we will denote by \[ \pi_{m}^{\leq p}: \R^m \rightarrow \R^p \] (respectively $\pi_{m}^{>p}:\R^m \rightarrow \R^{m-p}$) the projection onto the first $p$ (respectively the last $m-p$) coordinates. \end{notation} \subsection{Definable Triangulations} A triangulation of a closed and bounded definable set $S$ is a simplicial complex $\Delta$ together with a definable homeomorphism from $\vert \Delta\vert$ to $S$. Given such a triangulation we will often identify the simplices in $\Delta$ with their images in $S$ under the given homeomorphism. We call a triangulation $h_1: |\Delta_1| \rightarrow S$ of a definable set $S$, to be a {\em refinement} of a triangulation $h_2: |\Delta_2| \rightarrow S$ if for every simplex $\sigma_1 \in \Delta_1$, there exists a simplex $\sigma_2 \in \Delta_2$ such that $h_1(|\sigma_1|) \subset h_2(|\sigma_2|).$ Let $S_1 \subset S_2$ be two closed and bounded definable subsets of $\R^k$. We say that a definable triangulation $h: |\Delta| \rightarrow S_2$ of $S_2$, { \em respects} $S_1$ if for every simplex $\sigma \in \Delta$, $h(\sigma) \cap S_1 = h(\sigma)$ or $\emptyset$. In this case, $h^{-1}(S_1)$ is identified with a sub-complex of $\Delta$ and $h|_{h^{-1}(S_1)} :h^{-1}(S_1) \rightarrow S_1$ is a definable triangulation of $S_1$. We will refer to this sub-complex by $\Delta|_{S_1}$. We introduce the following notational conventions in order to simplify arguments used later in the paper. \begin{notation} If $T \subset \R^{k_1 + k_2 +\ell}$ be any definable subset of $\R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}$, for each $m \geq 0$, and $(\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_m) \in \R^{k_2+ (m+1)\ell}$, we will denote by $T_{\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_m} \subset \R^{k_1}$ the definable set $ \displaystyle{ \bigcup_{1 \leq i \leq m} \{\x \in \R^{k_1} \;\mid\; (\x,\z) \in T_{\y_i}\} } $. For $\{j_0,\ldots,j_{m'}\} \subset [m]$, we will denote by $\pi_{m,j_0,\ldots,j_{m'}}: \R^{(m+1)\ell} \rightarrow \R^{(m'+1)\ell}$ the projection map on the appropriate blocks of co-ordinates. \end{notation} It is well known that compact definable sets are triangulable and moreover the usual proof of this fact (see for instance ) can be easily extended to produce a definable triangulation in a parametrized way. We will actually need a family of such triangulations satisfying certain compatibility conditions mentioned before. The following proposition states the existence of such families. We omit the proof of the proposition since it is a technical but straightforward extension of the proof of existence of triangulations for definable sets. \begin{proposition}[existence of $m$-adaptive triangulations] Let $T \subset \R^{k_1 + k_2 +\ell}$ be a closed and bounded definable subset of $\R^{k_1+k_2+\ell}$ and let $m \geq 0$. For each $0 \leq p \leq m$, there exists \begin{enumerate} \item a definable partition $\{C_{p,\alpha}\}_{\alpha \in I_p}$ of $\R^{k_2 + (p+1)\ell}$, into locally closed sets, determined by a sequence of definable closed sets, $\{B_{p,\alpha}\}_{\alpha \in I_p}$ (see Remark above), and \item for each $\alpha \in I_p$, a definable continuous map, $$ \displaylines{ h_{p,\alpha}: |\Delta_{p,\alpha}| \times C_{p,\alpha} \rightarrow \bigcup_{(\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p) \in C_{p,\alpha}} T_{\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p} } $$ where $\Delta_{p,\alpha}$ is a simplicial complex, and such that for each $(\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p) \in C_{p,\alpha}$, the restriction of $h_{p,\alpha}$ to $|\Delta_{p,\alpha}| \times (\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p)$ is a definable triangulation \[ h_{p,\alpha}: |\Delta_{p,\alpha}| \times (\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p) \rightarrow T_{\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p} \] of the definable set $T_{\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p}$ respecting the subsets, $T_{\z,\y_0},\ldots,T_{\z,\y_p}$, and \item for each subset $\{j_0,\ldots,j_{p'}\} \subset [p]$, $({\rm Id}_{k_2} ,\pi_{p,j_0,\ldots,j_{p'}})(C_{p,\alpha}) \subset C_{p',\beta}$ for some $\beta \in I_{p'}$, and for each $(\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p) \in C_{p,\alpha}$, the definable triangulation of $T_{\z,\y_{j_0},\ldots,\y_{j_{p'}}}$ induced by the triangulation \[ h_{p,\alpha}: |\Delta_{p,\alpha}| \times (\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p) \rightarrow T_{\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_p} \] is a refinement of the definable triangulation, \[ h_{p',\beta}: |\Delta_{p',\beta}| \times (\z,\y_{j_0},\ldots,\y_{j_{p'}}) \rightarrow T_{\z,\y_{j_0},\ldots,\y_{j_{p'}}}. \] \end{enumerate} (We will call the family $\{h_{p,\alpha}\}_{0 \leq p \leq m, \alpha \in I_p}$ an $m$-adaptive family of triangulations of $T$.) \end{proposition} We will also need the following technical result. \begin{proposition} Let $C_t \subset \R^k, t\geq 0$ be a definable family of closed and bounded sets, and let $C \subset \R^{k+1}$ be the definable set $ \displaystyle{ \bigcup_{t \geq 0} C_t \times \{t\}. } $ If for every $0 \leq t < t'$, $C_t \subset C_{t'}$, and $ \displaystyle{ C_0 = \pi_{k+1}^{\leq k} (\overline{C} \cap (\pi_{k+1}^{>k})^{-1}(0)), } $ then there exists $t_0 > 0$ such that, $C_0$ has the same homotopy type as $C_t$ for every $t$ with $0 \leq t \leq t_0$. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} The proof given in (see Lemma 16.17) for the semi-algebraic case can be easily adapted to the o-minimal setting using Hardt's triviality for definable families instead of for semi-algebraic ones. \end{proof} We now introduce another notational convention. \begin{notation} Let ${\mathcal F}(x)$ be a predicate defined over $\R_+$ and $y \in \R_+$. The notation $\forall(0 < x \ll y)\ {\mathcal F}(x)$ stands for the statement $$\exists z \in (0,y)\ \forall x \in \R_+\ ({\rm if}\> x<z,\> {\rm then}\> {\mathcal F}(x)),$$ and can be read ``for all positive $x$ sufficiently smaller than $y$, ${\mathcal F(x)}$ is true''. \end{notation} More generally, \begin{notation} For $\bar \eps =(\eps_0,\ldots,\eps_n)$ and a predicate ${\mathcal F}(\bar \eps)$ over $\R_{+}^{n}$ we say ``for all sufficiently small $\bar \eps$, ${\mathcal F}(\bar \eps)$ is true'' if $$ \forall(0 < \eps_{0} \ll 1) \forall(0 < \eps_{1} \ll \eps_{0}) \cdots \forall(0 < \eps_{n} \ll \eps_{n-1}) {\mathcal F}(\bar \eps). $$ \end{notation} \subsection{Infinitesimal Thickenings of the Faces of a Simplex} We will need the following construction. Let $\bar\eps = (\eps_0,\ldots,\eps_n) \in \R_+^{n+1}$, with $0 \leq \eps_n < \cdots < \eps_0 < 1$. Later we will require $\bar\eps$ to be sufficiently small (see Notation ). For a face $\Delta_J \in \Delta_{[n]}$, we denote by $C_{J}(\bar\eps)$ the subset of $|\Delta_J|$ defined by \[ C_{J}(\bar\eps) = \{x \in |\Delta_J| \;\mid\; \dist(x,|\Delta_I|) \geq \eps_{\#I-1} \mbox{ for all } I \subset J \}. \] Note that, $$ \displaylines{ |\Delta_{[n]}| = \bigcup_{I \subset [n]} C_{I}(\bar\eps). } $$ Also, observe that for sufficiently small $\bar\eps > 0$, the various $C_J(\bar\eps)$'s are all homeomorphic to closed balls, and moreover all non-empty intersections between them also have the same property. Thus, the cells $C_{J}(\bar\eps)$'s together with the non-empty intersections between them form a regular cell complex, ${\mathcal C}(\Delta_{[n]},\bar\eps)$, whose underlying topological space is $|\Delta_{[n]}|$ (see Figures and ). \begin{definition} We will denote by ${\mathcal C}({\rm sk}_m(\Delta_{[n]}),\bar\eps)$ the sub-complex of ${\mathcal C}(\Delta_{[n]},\bar\eps)$ consisting of the cells $C_{I}(\bar\eps)$'s together with the non-empty intersections between them where $|I| \leq m+1$. \end{definition} We now use thickened simplices defined above to define a thickened version of the homotopy co-limit of an arrangement $\A$. \subsection{Thickened Homotopy Co-limits} Given an $m$-adaptive family of triangulations of $T$ (cf. Proposition ), $\{h_{p,\alpha}\}_{0 \leq p \leq m, \alpha \in I_p}$ and $\z \in \R^{k_2}$, we define a cell complex, $\hocolimit^+_m(\A_\z)$ (best thought of as an infinitesimally thickened version of $\hocolimit_{m}(\A_\z)$), whose associated topological space is homotopy equivalent to $|\hocolimit_{m}(\A_\z)|$. \begin{definition}[the cell complex $\hocolimit^+_m(\A_\z)$] Let ${\mathcal C}_m$ denote the cell complex ${\mathcal C}({\rm sk}_m(\Delta_{[n]}),\bar\eps)$ defined previously (cf. Definition ). Let $C$ be a cell of ${\mathcal C}_m$. Then, $C \subset |\Delta_I|$ for a unique simplex $\Delta_I$ with $I = \{i_0,\ldots,i_{m'}\} \subset [n]$, $m' \leq m$, and (following notation introduced before in Definition ) $$ \displaylines{ C = C_{I_1}(\bar\eps) \cap \cdots \cap C_{I_p}(\bar\eps), } $$ with $I_1 \subset I_2 \subset \cdots \subset I_p \subset I$ and $p \leq m'$. We denote by ${\mathcal K}(C,\bar\eps)$ the cell complex consisting of the cells \[ C \times h_{m',\alpha}(|\sigma|,\z,\y_{i_0},\ldots,\y_{i_{m'}}) \] with $\alpha \in I_{m'}$, $(\z,\y_{i_0},\ldots,\y_{i_{m'}}) \in C_{\alpha,m'}$, $\sigma \in \Delta_{m',\alpha}$, and $ h_{m',\alpha}(|\sigma|,\z, \y_{i_0},\ldots,\y_{i_{m'}}) \subset \A_{\z,I} $. We denote \begin{equation} \hocolimit^+_m(\A_\z,\bar\eps) = \bigcup_{C \in {\mathcal C}_m} {\mathcal K}(C). \end{equation} \end{definition} The compatibility properties (properties (2) and (3) in Proposition ) of the $m$-adaptive family of triangulations of $T$, $\{h_{p,\alpha}\}_{0 \leq p \leq m, \alpha \in I_p}$, ensure that $\hocolimit^+_{m}(\A_{\z},\bar\eps)$ defined above is a regular cell complex. Notice that, since the map $f_\A$ defined in Eqn. extends to $|\hocolimit^+_m(\A_\z,\bar\eps)$, the notion of diagram preserving maps extend to $|\hocolimit^+_m(\A_\z,\bar\eps)$ as well. We now prove: \begin{lemma} Let $\z \in \R^{\ell}$ and $m \geq 0$. Then, for all sufficiently small $\bar\eps > 0$, $|\hocolimit^+_{m}(\A_{\z},\bar\eps)|$ is homotopy equivalent to $|\hocolimit_{m}(\A_{\z})|$ by a diagram preserving homotopy equivalence. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let $N = |\hocolimit^+_{m}(\A_{\z},\bar\eps)|$. First replace $\eps_m$ by a variable $t$ in the definition of $N$ to obtain a closed and bounded definable set, $N_{t}^m$, and observe that $N_{t}^m \subset N_{t'}^m$ for all $0 < t < t' \ll 1$. Now apply Proposition to obtain that $N$ is homotopy equivalent to $N_{0}^m$. Now, replace $\eps_{m-1}$ by $t$ in the definition of $N_{0}^m$ to obtain $N_{t}^{m-1}$, and applying Proposition obtain that $N_{0}^m$ is homotopy equivalent to $N_{0}^{m-1}$. Continuing in this way we finally obtain that, $N$ is homotopy equivalent to $N_{0}^0 = |\hocolimit_{m}(\A_{z})|$. Moreover, the diagram preserving property is clearly preserved at each step of the proof. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem ] Recall that for $m \geq 0$, and $(\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_m) \in \R^{k_2+ (m+1)\ell}$, we denote by $T_{\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_m}$ the definable set $$ \displaylines { \bigcup_{i=1}^{m} T_{\z,\y_i} \subset \R^{\ell}. } $$ Now apply Proposition to the set $T$ with $m = k_1$ to obtain an $k_1$-adaptive family of triangulations $\{h_{p,\alpha}\}_{1 \leq p \leq k_1, \alpha \in I_p}$. We now fix $\{\y_1,\ldots,\y_n \} \subset \R^{\ell}$ and let $\A = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ with $A_i = T_{\y_i} \subset \R^{k_1+k_2}$. For each $\z \in \R^{k_2}$, we will denote by $\A_z = \{A_{1,\z},\ldots,A_{n,\z} \}$ where $A_{i,\z} = \{\x \in \R^{k_1} \;\mid\; (\x,\z) \in A_i \}$. For $\alpha \in I_{k_1}$, and $1 \leq i_0 < \cdots < i_{k_1} \leq n$, we will denote by $B_{k_1,\alpha,{i_0},\ldots,{i_{k_1}}} \subset \R^\ell$ the definable closed set $$ \displaylines{ B_{k_1,\alpha,{i_0},\ldots,{i_{k_1}}} = \{ \z \in \R^\ell \;\mid \; (\z,\y_0,\ldots,\y_{k_1}) \in B_{k_1,\alpha} \}. } $$ Let $$ \displaylines{ {\mathcal B} = \bigcup_{\alpha \in I_{k_1}}\{ B_{k_1,\alpha,{i_0},\ldots,{i_{k_1}}}\;\mid\; 1 \leq i_0 < i_1 < \cdots < i_{k_1} \leq n \}, } $$ and let $C \in {\mathcal C}({\mathcal B})$. Theorem will follow from the following two lemmas. \begin{lemma} For any $\z_1,\z_2 \in C$, $\A_{\z_1}$ is stable homotopy equivalent to $\A_{\z_2}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Clearly, by Theorem it suffices to prove that $|\hocolimit_{k_1}(\A_{\z_1})|$ is diagram preserving homotopy equivalent to $|\hocolimit_{k_1}(\A_{\z_2})|$. The compatibility properties of the triangulations ensure that that the complex $|\hocolimit^+_{k_1}(\A_{\z_1},\bar\eps)$ is isomorphic to $|\hocolimit^+_{k_1}(\A_{\z_2},\bar\eps)$ and hence $|\hocolimit^+_{k_1}(\A_{\z_1},\bar\eps)|$ is homeomorphic to $|\hocolimit^+_{k_1}(\A_{\z_1},\bar\eps)|$. Using Lemma we get a diagram preserving homotopy equivalence $$ \displaylines{ \phi: |\hocolimit_{k_1}(\A_{\z_1})| \rightarrow |\hocolimit_{k_1}(\A_{\z_2})|. } $$ It now follows from Theorem that the arrangements $\A_{\z_1}$ and $\A_{\z_2}$ are stable homotopy equivalent. \end{proof} \begin{lemma} There exists a constant $C(T)$ such that the cardinality of ${\mathcal C}({\mathcal B})$ is bounded by $C \cdot n^{(k_1+1)k_2}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Notice that each $B_{k_1,\alpha}, \alpha \in I_{k_1}$ is a definable subset of $\R^{k_2 + (k_1+1)\ell}$ depending only on $T$. Also, the cardinality of the index set $I_{k_1}$ is determined by $T$. Hence, the set ${\mathcal B}$ consists of ${n \choose {k_1+1}}$ definable sets, each one of them is a \[ (B_{k_1,\alpha},\pi_{k_2+ (k_1+1)\ell}^{\leq k_2}, \pi_{k_2+ (k_1+1)\ell}^{> k_2}) \] for some $\alpha \in I_{k_1}$. Using Observation , we have that ${\mathcal B}$ is a $(B,\pi_1',\pi_2')$-set for some $B$ determined only by $T$. Now apply Theorem . \end{proof} The theorem now follows from Lemmas and proved above. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem ] The proof is similar to that of Theorem given above, except we use Theorem instead of Theorem , and this accounts for the slight worsening of the exponent in the bound. \end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem ] Using a construction due to Gabrielov and Vorobjov (see also ) it is possible to replace any given ${\mathcal A}$-set by a closed bounded ${\mathcal A}'$-set (where ${\mathcal A}'$ is a new family of definable closely related to ${\mathcal A}$ with $\#\A' = 2k(\#\A)$), such that the new set has the same homotopy type as the original one. Using this construction one can directly deduce Theorem from Theorem . We omit the details. \end{proof} \bibliographystyle{amsplain} \bibliography{master}
|
0704.0298
|
Title: Direct Theorems in the Theory of Approximation of the Banach Space
Vectors by Entire Vectors of Exponential Type
Abstract: For an arbitrary operator A on a Banach space X which is a generator of
C_0-group with certain growth condition at the infinity, the direct theorems on
connection between the smoothness degree of a vector $x\in X$ with respect to
the operator A, the order of convergence to zero of the best approximation of x
by exponential type entire vectors for the operator A, and the k-module of
continuity are given. Obtained results allows to acquire Jackson-type
inequalities in many classic spaces of periodic functions and weighted $L_p$
spaces.
Body: \author{Ya. Grushka and S. Torba} \title[Direct Theorems in the Theory of Approximation ...]{Direct Theorems in the Theory of Approximation of Banach Space Vectors by Exponential Type Entire Vectors} \email{sergiy.torba@gmail.com, grushka@imath.kiev.ua} \address{Institute of Mathematics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Tereshchenkovskaya 3, 01601 Kiev (Ukraine)} \thanks{This work was partially supported by the Ukrainian State Foundation for Fundamental Research (project N14.1/003).} \date{04/04/2007} \subjclass[2000]{Primary 41A25, 41A17, 41A65} \keywords{ Direct and inverse theorems, modulo of continuity, Banach space, entire vectors of exponential type} \begin{abstract} For an arbitrary operator $A$ on a Banach space $\XX$ which is the generator of $C_0$--group with certain growth condition at infinity, the direct theorems on connection between the smoothness degree of a vector $x\in\XX$ with respect to the operator $A$, the rate of convergence to zero of the best approximation of $x$ by exponential type entire vectors for the operator $A$, and the $k$-module of continuity are established. The results allow to obtain Jackson-type inequalities in a number of classic spaces of periodic functions and weighted $L_p$ spaces. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} The direct and inverse theorems establishing a relationship between the smoothness degree of a function with respect to the differentiation operator and the rate of convergence to zero of its best approximation by trigonometric polynomials are well known in the theory of approximation of periodic functions. Jackson's inequality is one among such results. N. P. Kuptsov proposed a generalized notion of the module of continuity, expanded onto $C_0$-groups in a Banach space . Using this notion, N. P. Kuptsov and A. P. Terekhin proved the generalized Jackson's inequalities for the cases of a bounded group and $s$-regular group. Remind that the group $\{U(t)\}_{t\in\R}$ is called $s$-regular if the resolvent of its generator $A$ satisfies the condition $\exists \theta\in\R:\quad \|R_\lambda(e^{i\theta}A^s)\|\le\frac{C}{{\mathrm Im}\lambda}$. G. V. Radzievsky studied the direct and inverse theorems , using the notion of $K$-functional instead of module of continuity, but it should be noted that the $K$-functional has two-sided estimates with regard to module of continuity at least for bounded $C_0$-groups. In the papers and the authors investigated the case of a group of unitary operators in a Hilbert space and established Jackson-type inequalities in Hilbert spaces and their rigs. These inequalities are used to estimate the rate of convergence to zero of the best approximation of both finite and infinite smoothness vectors for the operator $A$ by exponential type entire vectors. We consider the $C_0$-groups, generated by the so-called \emph{non-quasianalytic operators} , i.e. the groups satisfying \begin{equation} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\ln\left\Vert U(t)\right\Vert }{1+t^{2}}dt<\infty. \end{equation} As was shown in , the set of exponential type entire vectors for the non-quasianalytic operator $A$ is dense in $\XX$, so the problem of approximation by exponential type entire vectors is correct. On the other hand, it was shown in that condition () is close to the necessary one, so in the case when () doesn't hold, the class of entire vectors isn't necessary dense in $\XX$, and the corresponding approximation problem loses its meaning. The purpose of this work is to obtain Jackson-type inequalities in the case where a vector of a Banach space is approximated by exponential type entire vectors for a non-quasianalytic operator, and, in particular, Jackson-type inequalities in various classical function spaces. \setcounter{equation}{0} \section{Preliminaries} Let $A$ be a closed linear operator with dense domain of definition $\D(A)$ in the Banach space $(\XX,\left\Vert \cdot\right\Vert )$ over the field of complex numbers. Let $C^{\infty}(A)$ denotes the set of all infinitely differentiable vectors of the operator $A$, i.e. \begin{equation*} C^{\infty}(A)=\bigcap_{n\in\N_{0}}\D(A^{n}),\quad\N_{0}=\N\cup\{0\}. \end{equation*} For a number $\alpha>0$ we set \begin{equation*} \E^{\alpha}(A)=\left\{ x\in C^{\infty}(A)\,|\,\exists c=c(x)>0\,\,\forall k\in\N_{0}\,\left\Vert A^{k}x\right\Vert \leq c\alpha^{k}\right\}. \end{equation*} The set $\E^{\alpha}(A)$ is a Banach space with respect to the norm \begin{equation*} \left\Vert x\right\Vert _{\E^{\alpha}(A)}=\sup_{n\in\N_{0}}\frac{\left\Vert A^{n}x\right\Vert }{\alpha^{n}}\,. \end{equation*} Then $\E(A)=\bigcup_{\alpha>0}\E^{\alpha}(A)$ is a linear locally convex space with respect to the topology of the inductive limit of the Banach spaces $\E^{\alpha}(A)$: \begin{equation*} \E(A)=\limind_{\alpha\rightarrow\infty}\E^{\alpha}(A). \end{equation*} Elements of the space $\E(A)$ are called exponential type entire vectors of the operator $A$. The type $\sigma(x,A)$ of a vector $x\in\E(A)$ is defined as the number \begin{equation*} \sigma(x,A)=\inf\left\{ \alpha>0\,:\, x\in\E^{\alpha}(A)\right\} =\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left\Vert A^{n}x\right\Vert ^{\frac{1}{n}}. \end{equation*} \begin{example} Let $\XX$ is one of the $L_{p}(2\pi)$ ($1\leq p<\infty$) spaces of integrable in $p$-th degree over $[0,2\pi]$, $2\pi$-periodical functions or the space $C(2\pi)$ of continuous $2\pi$-periodical functions (the norm in $\XX$ is defined in a standard way), and let $A$ is the differentiation operator in the space $\XX$ ($\D(A)=\{ x\in\XX\cap AC(\R)\,:\, x'\in\XX\}$; $(Ax)(t)=\frac{dx}{dt}$, where $AC(\R)$ denotes the space of absolutely continuous functions over $\R$). It can be proved that in such case the space $\E(A)$ coincides with the space of all trigonometric polynomials, and for $y\in\E(A)$~ $\sigma(y,A)=\deg(y)$, where $\deg(y)$ is the degree of the trigonometric polynomial $y$. \end{example} In what follows, we always assume that the operator $A$ is the generator of the group of linear continuous operators $\{ U(t)\,:\, t\in\R\}$ of class $C_{0}$ on $\XX$. We recall that belonging of the group to the $C_{0}$ class means that for every $x\in\XX$ the vector-function $U(t)x$ is continuous on $\R$ with respect to the norm of the space $\XX$. For $t\in\R_{+}$, we set \begin{equation*} M_{U}(t):=\sup_{\tau\in\mathbb{R},\,|\tau|\leq t}\left\Vert U(\tau)\right\Vert. \end{equation*} The estimation $\|U(t)\|\le Me^{\omega t}$ for some $M,\omega\in\R$ implies $M_{U}(t)<\infty\,(\forall t\in\R_{+})$. It is easy to see that the function $M_{U}(\cdot)$ has the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item[1)] $M_{U}(t)\geq1,$ $t\in\R_{+}$; \item[2)] $M_{U}(\cdot)$ is monotonically non-decreasing on $\R_{+}$; \item[3)] $M_{U}(t_{1}+t_{2})\leq M_{U}(t_{1})M_{U}(t_{2})$, $t_{1},t_{2}\in\R_{+}$. \end{itemize} According to , for $x\in\XX$, $t\in\R_{+}$ and $k\in\N$ we set \begin{gather} ef} \omega_{k}(t,x,A)=\sup_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\left\Vert \Delta_{\tau}^{k}x\right\Vert,\qquad\text{where}\\ ef} \Delta_{h}^{k}=(U(h)-\I)^{k}=\sum_{j=0}^{k}(-1)^{k-j}{{j \choose k}}U(jh),\quad k\in\N_{0},\, h\in\R\quad (\Delta_{h}^{0}\equiv 1). \end{gather} Moreover, let \begin{equation} \widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)=\sup_{|\tau|\leq t}\left\Vert \Delta_{\tau}^{k}x\right\Vert.ef} \end{equation} \begin{rmk} It is easy to see that in the case of the bounded group $\{ U(t)\}$ ($\left\Vert U(t)\right\Vert \leq M,\, t\in\R$) the quantities $\omega_{k}(t,x,A)$ and $\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)$ are equivalent within constant factor ($\omega_{k}(t,x,A)\leq\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)\leq M\,\omega_{k}(t,x,A)$), and in the case of isometric group ($\left\Vert U(t)\right\Vert \equiv1,\, t\in\mathbb{R}$) these quantities coincide. \end{rmk} It is immediate from the definition of $\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)$ that for $k\in\N$: \begin{itemize} \item[1)] $\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(0,x,A)=0$; \item[2)] for fixed $x$ the function $\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)$ is non-decreasing and is continuous by the variable $t$ on $\mathbb{R}_{+}$; \item[3)] $\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(nt,x,A)\leq\big(1+(n-1)M_{U}((n-1)t)\big)^{k}\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)$ ~ ($n\in\N,\, t>0$); \item[4)] $\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(\mu t,x,A)\leq\big(1+\mu M_{U}(\mu t)\big)^{k}\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)$ ~ ($\mu,t>0$); \item[5)] for fixed $t\in\R_{+}$ the function $\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)$ is continuous in $x$. \end{itemize} For arbitrary $x\in\XX$ we set, according to , \begin{equation*} \mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)=\inf_{y\in\E(A)\,:\,\sigma(y,A)\leq r}\left\Vert x-y\right\Vert ,\quad r>0, \end{equation*} i.e. $\mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)$ is the best approximation of the element $x$ by exponential type entire vectors $y$ of the operator $A$ for which $\sigma(y,A)\leq r$. For fixed $x$~ $\mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)$ does not increase and $\mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)\rightarrow 0,\ r\rightarrow\infty$ for every $x\in\XX$ if and only if the set $\E(A)$ of exponential type entire vectors is dense in $\XX$. Particularly, as indicated above, the set $\E(A)$ is dense in $\XX$ if the group $\{ U(t)\,:\, t\in\R\}$ belongs to non-quasianalytic class. \setcounter{equation}{0} \section{Abstract Jackson's inequality in a Banach space} \begin{theorem} Suppose that $\{ U(t)\,:\, t\in\mathbb{R}\}$ satisfies condition (). Then $\forall k\in\N$ there exists a constant $\mathbf{m}_{k}=\mathbf{m}_{k}(A)>0$, such that $\forall x\in\XX$ the following inequality holds: \begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)\leq\mathbf{m}_{k}\cdot\tilde\omega_{k}\left(\frac{1}{r},x,A\right),\quad r\ge 1. \end{equation} \end{theorem} \begin{rmk} If, additionally, the group $\left\{ U(t)\right\} $ is bounded ($M_{U}(t)\leq\widetilde{M}<\infty,\,\, t\in\mathbb{R}$), then the assumption $r\ge 1$ can be changed to $r>0$. \end{rmk} Integral kernels, constructed in , will be used in the proving of the theorem. Moreover, we need additional properties of these kernels, lacking in . The following lemma shows how these kernels are constructed and continues the investigation of their properties. In what follows we denote as $\QQ$ the class of functions $\alpha:\R\mapsto\R$, satisfying the following conditions: {\em \begin{itemize} \item [I)] $\alpha(\cdot)$ is measurable and bounded on any segment $[-T,T]\subset\R$. \item [II)] $\alpha(t)>0,\,\, t\in\R$. \item [III)] $\alpha(t_{1}+t_{2})\leq\alpha(t_{1})\alpha(t_{2}),\quad t_{1},t_{2}\in\R$. \item [IV)] $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\left|\ln(\alpha(t))\right|}{1+t^{2}}dt<\infty$. \end{itemize} } \begin{lemma} Let $\alpha\in\QQ$. Then there exists such entire function $\K_{\alpha}:\CC\mapsto\CC$ that \begin{itemize} \item [1)] $\K_{\alpha}(t)\geq0,\,\, t\in\R$; \item [2)] $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha}(t)\,dt=1$; \item [3)] $\forall r>0\ \exists c_{r}=c_{r}(\alpha)>0\ \forall z\in\CC\quad |\K_{\alpha}(rz)|\leq c_{r}\frac{e^{r|\Imm z|}}{\alpha(|z|)}$ \end{itemize} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Without lost of generality we may assume that the function $\alpha(t)$ satisfies additional conditions: {\em \begin{itemize} \item [V)] $\alpha(t)\ge 1$, $t\in\R$; , for non-quasianalytic groups the condition $\|U(t)\|\ge 1$ always holds, therefore in this paper the condition V) automatically takes place.} \item [VI)] $\alpha(t)$ is even on $\R$ and is monotonically increasing on $\R_{+}$; \item[VII)] $\left\Vert \alpha^{-1}\right\Vert _{L_{1}(\R)}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|\alpha^{-1}(t)|dt<\infty$. \end{itemize} } It is easy to verify that assumptions V),VII) and condition that the function $\alpha(t)$ is even in VI) don't confine the general case if one examined the function $\alpha_{1}(t)=\widetilde{\alpha}(t)\widetilde{\alpha}(-t)$, where $\widetilde{\alpha}(t)=(1+\alpha(t))(1+t^{2})$. In \cite[theorems 1 and 2]{Marchenko2} it has been proved that the monotony condition on $\alpha(t)$ in VI) doesn't confine the general case too. It follows from VII) that \begin{equation} \alpha(t)\to\infty,\ t\to\infty. \end{equation} Let $\beta(t)=\ln\alpha(t),\,\, t\in\R$. Conditions III)-VII) and () lead to conclusion that \begin{equation*} \beta(t)>0, \qquad \beta(-t)=\beta(t),\qquad \beta(t)\to\infty,\,\, t\to\infty; \end{equation*} \begin{align} \beta(t_{1}+t_{2})& \leq\beta(t_{1})+\beta(t_{2}),\,\, t_{1},t_{2}\in\R\\ \int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\beta(t)}{t^{2}}dt & <\infty \end{align} Because of () there exists limit $\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{\beta(t)}{t}$. And, by virtue of (): \begin{equation} \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{\beta(t)}{t}=0. \end{equation} Also, using () it is easy to check that \begin{equation} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\beta(k)}{k^{2}}<\infty, \end{equation} moreover, all terms of the series () are positive. From the convergence of series () follows the existence of such sequence $\{ Q_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\subset\R$ that $Q_{n}>1,\quad Q_{n}\to\infty,\ n\to\infty$ and \begin{equation} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\beta(k)}{k^{2}}Q_{k}=S<\infty. \end{equation} We set \begin{equation*} a_{k}:=\frac{\beta(k)Q_{k}}{S\, k^{2}},\quad k\in\N. \end{equation*} The definition of $a_k$ and () result in equality \begin{equation} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}a_{k}=1. \end{equation} We construct the sequence of functions, which, obviously, are entire for every $n\in\N$: \begin{equation*} f_{n}(z):=\prod_{k=1}^{n}P_{k}(z),\quad\textrm{where}\,\, P_{k}(z)=\left(\frac{\sin\frac{a_{k}z}{2}}{\frac{a_{k}z}{2}}\right)^{2},\,\, z\in\CC,\, n\in\N. \end{equation*} Similarly to the proof of the Denjoy-Carleman theorem \cite[p.378]{Rudin1970} it can be concluded that the sequence of (entire) functions $f_{n}(z)$ converges uniformly to the function \begin{equation*} f(z)=\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\sin\frac{a_{k}z}{2}}{\frac{a_{k}z}{2}}\right)^{2},\qquad z\in\CC \end{equation*} in every disk $\{ z\in\CC\,|\,|z|\leq R\}$. Thus, by Weierstrass theorem, the function $f(z)$ is entire. Using the inequality $|\sin z|\leq\min(1,|z|)e^{|\Imm z|}$, $z\in\CC$ and taking () into account, when $z\in\CC$ and $r>0$, we receive \begin{multline*} \left|f(rz)\right|=\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}\left|\frac{\sin\frac{a_{k}rz}{2}}{\frac{a_{k}rz}{2}}\right|^{2}\leq\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{2}{a_{k}r|z|}\min\left(1,\frac{a_{k}r|z|}{2}\right)e^{\frac{1}{2}a_{k}r|\Imm z|}\right)^{2}=\\ =e^{r|\Imm z|}\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}{\min}^{2}\left(1,\frac{2}{a_{k}r|z|}\right)\le e^{r|\Imm z|}\prod_{k=1}^N{\min}^2\left(1, \frac 2{a_{k}r|z|}\right) \end{multline*} for every $N\in\N$. Using the inequality $\min(1,a)\cdot\min(1,b)\le\min(1,ab)$, we get: \begin{multline} \left|f(rz)\right|\leq e^{r|\Imm z|}{\min}^{2}\left(1,\prod_{k=1}^{N}\frac{2}{a_{k}r|z|}\right)=e^{r|\Imm z|}{\min}^{2}\Bigg(1,\frac{2^{N}}{\left(\prod_{k=1}^{N}\frac{\beta(k)Q_{k}}{S\, k^{2}}\right)(r|z|)^{N}}\Bigg)=\\ =e^{r|\Imm z|}{\min}^{2}\bigg(1,\frac{2^{N}N!}{\frac{\beta(1)}{1}\cdots\frac{\beta(N)}{N}\,\left(\frac{r}{S}\right)^{N}|z|^{N}Q_{1}\cdots Q_{N}}\bigg). \end{multline} Because of the condition $Q_{n}\to\infty$, $n\to\infty$ there exists such number $n(r)\in\N$ that: \begin{equation} \forall n>n(r)\quad Q_{n}\geq\frac{4\sqrt{e}S}{r}. \end{equation} It follows from () that there is $T_{0}\in(0,\infty)$ such that: \begin{equation} \forall\, t>T_{0}\quad\frac{\beta(t)}{t}\leq1. \end{equation} In the following statement was proved: \begin{equation} \forall\, t_{1},t_{2}\in\R_{+}\quad t_{1}\leq t_{2}\,\Rightarrow\,\frac{\beta(t_{1})}{t_{1}}\geq\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta(t_{2})}{t_{2}}. \end{equation} Let $z\in\CC$ and $|z|\geq\max\big(\beta^{[-1]}(n(r)),T_{0}\big),$ where $\beta^{[-1]}$ is the inverse function of the function $\beta$ on $[0,\infty)$ (the inverse function $\beta^{[-1]}$ exists due to monotony of $\beta$ on $[0,\infty)$). We substitute as $N$ in () $N:=[\beta(|z|)]$, where $[\cdot]$ denotes the integer part of a number. Then for $k\in\{1,\dots,N\}$, in accordance with () and (), we obtain $k\leq N\leq\beta(|z|)\leq|z|$ and \begin{equation} \frac{\beta(k)}{k}\ge\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta(|z|)}{|z|}. \end{equation} Using (),(),(), we find \begin{multline*} |f(rz)|\leq e^{r|\Imm z|}\Bigg(\frac{2^{N}N!}{\big(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta(|z|)}{|z|}\big)^{N}\,\left(\frac{r}{S}\right)^{N}|z|^{N}Q_{1}\cdots Q_{N}}\Bigg)^{2}\leq \displaybreak[1]\\ \leq e^{r|\Imm z|}\Bigg(\frac{2^{N}N!}{\big(\frac{1}{2}\frac{N}{|z|}\big)^{N}\,\left(\frac{r}{S}\right)^{N}|z|^{N}Q_{1}\cdots Q_{N}}\Bigg)^{2}=e^{r|\Imm z|}\left(\frac{2^{2N}N!}{N^{N}\,\left(\frac{r}{S}\right)^{N}Q_{1}\cdots Q_{N}}\right)^{2}\leq \displaybreak[1]\\ \leq e^{r|\Imm z|}\left(\frac{2^{2N}}{\left(\frac{r}{S}\right)^{N}Q_{1}\cdots Q_{N}}\right)^{2}=e^{r|\Imm z|}\left(\frac{\left(\frac{4S}{r}\right)^{N}}{Q_{1}\cdots Q_{N}}\right)^{2}. \end{multline*} Since $Q_n\ge 1$, the last inequality leads to \begin{multline} |f(rz)|\leq e^{r|\Imm z|}\Bigg(\frac{\left(\frac{4S}{r}\right)^{N}}{\big(\frac{4\sqrt{e}S}{r}\big)^{N-n(r)}}\Bigg)^{2}=e^{r|\Imm z|}\left(\frac{4\sqrt{e}S}{r}\right)^{2n(r)}e^{-[\beta(|z|)]}\leq\\ \le e^{r|\Imm z|}\left(\frac{4\sqrt{e}S}{r}\right)^{2n(r)}e^{-(\beta(|z|)-1)}= C_{r}^{(1)}\frac{e^{r|\Imm z|}}{\alpha(|z|)}, \end{multline} where $C_{r}^{(1)}=e\left(\frac{4\sqrt{e}S}{r}\right)^{2n(r)}$. When $z\in\CC$ and $|z|<\max\big(\beta^{[-1]}(n(r)),T_{0}\big)$, using (), we get \begin{equation} |f(rz)|\leq e^{r|\Imm z|}=e^{r|\Imm z|}\frac{\alpha(|z|)}{\alpha(|z|)}\leq e^{r|\Imm z|}\frac{C_{r}^{(2)}}{\alpha(|z|)}, \end{equation} where $C_{r}^{(2)}=\alpha(\max(\beta^{[-1]}(n(r)),T_{0}))$. It follows from (), () that \begin{equation} |f(rz)|\leq e^{r|\Imm z|}\frac{C_{r}^{(0)}}{\alpha(|z|)},\quad z\in\CC,\qquad\textrm{where}\quad C_{r}^{(0)}=\max(C_{r}^{(1)},C_{r}^{(2)}). \end{equation} Inequality () and Condition VII) imply that $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L_{1}(\R)}<\infty$. Thus it is enough to set $\K_{\alpha}(z):=\frac{1}{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L_{1}(\R)}}f(z)$, $z\in\CC$ and use () to finish the proof. \end{proof} Let $\alpha\in\QQ$, and ~$\K_{\alpha}:\CC\mapsto\CC$ is the function constructed by the function $\alpha$ in lemma . We set \begin{equation*} \K_{\alpha,r}(z):=r\K_{\alpha}(rz),\quad z\in\CC,\,\, r\in(0,\infty). \end{equation*} The lemma ensures us that the function $\K_{\alpha,r}$ has the following properties: \begin{itemize} \item [1)] $\K_{\alpha,r}(t)\geq0,\quad t\in\R$; \item [2)] $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)\,dt=1$; \item [3)] $\forall z\in\CC\,\,\,|\K_{\alpha,r}(z)|\leq rc_{r}\frac{e^{r|\Imm z|}}{\alpha(|z|)};\quad r>0$. \end{itemize} \begin{lemma} $\forall r\in(0,\infty)$ there exists constant $\cc_{r}=\cc_{r}(\alpha)>0$, such that $\forall n\in\N$ the following inequality holds: \begin{equation*} |\K_{\alpha,r}^{(n)}(t)|\leq\cc_{r}\frac{\sqrt{2\pi n}\,\alpha\left(\frac{n}{r}\right)}{\alpha(|t|)}r^{n},\qquad t\in\R \end{equation*} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} In what follows in this proof we assume $t\in\R$, $r\in(0,\infty)$, $n\in\N$. Let \begin{equation*} \gamma_{n,r}(t):=\left\{ \zeta\in\CC\,:\,|\zeta-t|=\frac{n}{r}\right\}. \end{equation*} Using Cauchy's integral theorem and Stirling's approximation for $n!$, we get \begin{multline*} |\K_{\alpha,r}^{(n)}(t)|\leq\frac{n!}{2\pi}\,\oint_{\gamma_{n,r}(t)}\frac{|\K_{\alpha,r}(\xi)|}{|\xi-t|^{n+1}}|d\xi|=\frac{n!}{2\pi}\frac{r^{n+1}}{n^{n+1}}\,\oint_{\gamma_{n,r}(t)}|\K_{\alpha,r}(\xi)||d\xi|\leq\\ \leq\frac{c^{(!)}r^{n+1}}{\sqrt{2\pi n}}e^{-n}\oint_{\gamma_{n,r}(t)}|\K_{\alpha,r}(\xi)||d\xi|,\quad \text{where}\ c^{(!)}=\sup_{k\in\N}\,\frac{k!}{\sqrt{2\pi k}}\left(\frac ek\right)^k< e^{1/12}. \end{multline*} Using property 3) of the function $K_{\alpha,r}$, the condition $t\in\R$ and conditions III), VI) of the function $\alpha$, one can find from the last inequality \begin{multline*} |\K_{\alpha,r}^{(n)}(t)|\leq\frac{c^{(!)}r^{n+1}}{\sqrt{2\pi n}}e^{-n}rc_{r}\oint_{\gamma_{n,r}(t)}\frac{e^{r|\Imm\xi|}}{\alpha(|\xi|)}|d\xi|=\\ =\frac{c^{(!)}r^{n+1}}{\sqrt{2\pi n}}e^{-n}\frac{rc_{r}}{\alpha(|t|)}\oint_{\gamma_{n,r}(t)}\frac{e^{r|\Imm(\xi-t)|}\alpha(|(t-\xi)+\xi|)}{\alpha(|\xi|)}|d\xi|\leq\\ \leq\frac{c^{(!)}r^{n+1}}{\sqrt{2\pi n}}e^{-n}\frac{rc_{r}}{\alpha(|t|)}\oint_{\gamma_{n,r}(t)}e^{r|\Imm(\xi-t)|}\alpha(|t-\xi|)|d\xi|\le\\ \le\frac{c^{(!)}r^{n+1}}{\sqrt{2\pi n}}e^{-n}\frac{rc_{r}}{\alpha(|t|)}\oint_{\gamma_{n,r}(t)}e^{n}\alpha\left(\frac{n}{r}\right)|d\xi|=\cc_{r}\frac{\sqrt{2\pi n}\,\alpha\left(\frac{n}{r}\right)}{\alpha(|t|)}r^{n}, \end{multline*} where $\cc_{r}=c^{(!)}rc_{r}$. \end{proof} \begin{rmk} If the function $\alpha(t)$ satisfies the conditions of lemma , but, moreover, has the polynomial order of growth at infinity, i.e. $\exists m\in\N_0,\,\exists M>0$: \begin{equation} \alpha(t)\le M(1+|t|)^{2m},\quad t\in\R, \end{equation} another integral kernel may be used: \begin{equation*} \tilde K_\alpha(z)=\frac 1{\textrm K_m}\left(\frac{\sin\frac z{2m}}{\frac z{2m}}\right)^{2m},\qquad {\textrm K_m}=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\left(\frac{\sin\frac x{2m}}{\frac x{2m}}\right)^{2m}dx. \end{equation*} In much the same way to the proving of the lemmas and one can show that \begin{equation*} \big|\tilde K_{\alpha}(rz)\big|\le \tilde C_r\frac{e^{r|\Imm z|}}{\alpha(|z|)},\qquad\text{where}\ \tilde C_r=\frac M{\textrm K_m}\left(1+\frac {2m}r\right)^{2m}, \end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} \big|\tilde K_{\alpha,r}^{(n)}(t)\big|\le \tilde c_r\frac{\sqrt{2\pi n}\,\alpha(\frac nr)}{\alpha(|t|)}r^n,\qquad\text{where}\ \tilde c_r=c^{(!)}r\tilde C_r, \end{equation*} that is to say, defined in such a way integral kernel satisfies lemmas and . \end{rmk} \begin{proof}[Proof of theorem ] Let the group $\{ U(t):t\in\R\}$ satisfies (). Then it follows from \cite[theorems 1 and 2]{Marchenko2} that \begin{equation} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\ln\left(M_{U}(|t|)\right)}{1+t^{2}}dt<\infty. \end{equation} We fix arbitrary $k\in\N$ and set \begin{equation*} \alpha(t):=\big(M_{U}(|t|)\big)^{k}(1+|t|)^{k+2},\qquad t\in\R. \end{equation*} The function $\alpha$ is, obviously, even on $\R$. Condition () and the properties of the function $M_{U}(\cdot)$ imply $\alpha\in\QQ$, and, moreover, \begin{equation} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\big((1+|t|)M_{U}(|t|)\big)^{k}}{\alpha(t)}dt=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{(1+|t|)^{2}}=2. \end{equation} Using lemma (or remark if $\alpha(t)\le M(1+|t|)^m$) for the function $\alpha(t)$, we construct the family of kernels $K_{\alpha,r}$. In what follows, we assume $x\in\XX,\ r\in (0,\infty)$ and $n\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$. We define \begin{equation*} x_{r,n}:=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)U(nt)x\,dt. \end{equation*} Let $\nu\in\N_{0}$. Let's prove that $x_{r,n}\in C^{\infty}(A)=\bigcap_{\nu\in\N_{0}}\D(A^{\nu})$~ and \begin{equation} A^{\nu}x_{r,n}=\frac{(-1)^{\nu}}{n^{\nu}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu)}(t)U(nt)x\,dt. \end{equation} It follows from the property 3) of the function $\K_{\alpha,r}$ and from lemma that there exists such constant $\widetilde{C}(\nu,r)>0$ that $\K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu)}(t)\leq\frac{\widetilde{C}(\nu,r)}{\alpha(t)}$, $t\in\R$. Thus, using (), we get \begin{multline} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left\Vert \K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu)}(t)U(nt)x\right\Vert dt\leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\widetilde{C}(\nu,r)}{\alpha(t)}\left\Vert U(t)\right\Vert ^{n}\left\Vert x\right\Vert dt\leq\\ \le\widetilde{C}(\nu,r)\left\Vert x\right\Vert \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{M_{U}(|t|)^{k}}{\alpha(t)}dt\leq 2\widetilde{C}(\nu,r)\left\Vert x\right\Vert <\infty. \end{multline} Therefore the integral $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu)}(t)U(nt)x\,dt$ converges. We define \begin{equation*} x_{r,n}^{(\nu)}=\frac{(-1)^{\nu}}{n^{\nu}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu)}(t)U(nt)x\,dt. \end{equation*} Then, using closedness of the operator $A$ and integration by parts, one can find for $x\in\D(A)$ that $x_{r,n}^{(\nu)}\in\D(A)$ and \begin{multline} Ax_{r,n}^{(\nu)}=\frac{(-1)^{\nu}}{n^{\nu}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu)}(t)U(nt)Ax\,dt=\frac{(-1)^{\nu}}{n^{\nu}}\frac{1}{n}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu)}(t)(U(nt)x)'dt= \\ =-\frac{(-1)^{\nu}}{n^{\nu}}\frac{1}{n}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu+1)}(t)U(nt)x\,dt=x_{r,n}^{(\nu+1)}. \end{multline} Let $x$ is an arbitrary element of the space $\XX$. Then there exists the sequence $\{ x_{m}\}_{m=1}^{\infty}\subset\D(A)$ such that $\left\Vert x_{m}-x\right\Vert \to0,\quad m\to\infty$. Consequently, using inequality () and relation (), one can get \begin{gather*} \left\Vert (x_{m})_{r,n}^{(\nu)}-x_{r,n}^{(\nu)}\right\Vert \leq\frac{1}{n^{\nu}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left\Vert \K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu)}(t)U(nt)(x_{m}-x)\right\Vert dt \leq\frac{2\widetilde{C}(\nu,r)}{n^{\nu}}\left\Vert x_{m}-x\right\Vert \to 0;\\ \left\Vert A(x_{m})_{r,n}^{(\nu)}-x_{r,n}^{(\nu+1)}\right\Vert =\left\Vert (x_{m})_{r,n}^{(\nu+1)}-x_{r,n}^{(\nu+1)}\right\Vert \to0,\quad m\to\infty. \end{gather*} Hence, taking into account closedness of the operator $A$, we have: \begin{equation} x_{r,n}^{(\nu)}\in\D(A),\quad Ax_{r,n}^{(\nu)}=x_{r,n}^{(\nu+1)}. \end{equation} One can get () from () by induction. Using relation () and lemma , one can find: \begin{multline} \left\Vert A^{\nu}x_{r,n}\right\Vert \leq\frac{\left\Vert x\right\Vert }{n^{\nu}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left|\K_{\alpha,r}^{(\nu)}(t)\right|\left\Vert U(nt)\right\Vert dt\leq\\ \leq\frac{\left\Vert x\right\Vert }{n^{\nu}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\cc_{r}\frac{\sqrt{2\pi\nu}\,\alpha\left(\frac{\nu}{r}\right)}{\alpha(|t|)}r^{\nu}\left\Vert U(t)\right\Vert ^{n}dt\leq\\ \leq\cc_{r}\left\Vert x\right\Vert \sqrt{2\pi\nu}\,\alpha\left(\frac{\nu}{r}\right)\bigg(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\left\Vert U(t)\right\Vert ^{n}}{\alpha(t)}dt\bigg)\left(\frac{r}{n}\right)^{\nu}, \end{multline} where, accordingly to () and due to $n\le k$, $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\left\Vert U(t)\right\Vert ^{n}}{\alpha(t)}dt\leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\left\Vert U(t)\right\Vert ^{k}}{\alpha(t)}dt\leq2<\infty$. Since $\beta(t)=\ln(\alpha(t))$, $t\in\R$, as was mentioned in the proof of lemma , $\lim_{\tau\to\infty}\frac{\beta(\tau)}{\tau}=0$ (cf. ()). Thus \begin{equation*} \lim_{\nu\to\infty}\left(\alpha\left(\frac{\nu}{r}\right)\right)^{1/\nu}=\lim_{\nu\to\infty}e^{\frac{1}{r}\left(\frac{r}{\nu}\beta\left(\frac{\nu}{r}\right)\right)}=e^{\frac{1}{r}\cdot0}=1. \end{equation*} Therefore from relation () one can get: \begin{equation*} \limsup_{\nu\to\infty}\big(\left\Vert A^{\nu}x_{r,n}\right\Vert \big)^{1/\nu}\leq\frac{r}{n}. \end{equation*} The last inequality brings us to the conclusion that \begin{equation} x_{r,n}\in\E(A)\quad\textrm{and}\quad\sigma(x_{r,n},A)\leq\frac{r}{n}. \end{equation} For arbitrary $x\in\XX$ we define \begin{multline} \xx_{r,k}:=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)(x+(-1)^{k-1}(U(t)-\I)^{k}x)dt= \\ =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)\sum_{n=1}^{k}(-1)^{n+1}{{k \choose n}}U(nt)x\,dt \end{multline} (the absolute convergence by the norm of $\XX$ of the integral in the right part of () follows from inequality (), so the definition of the vector $\xx_{r,k}$ is correct). Using definition () one can get: \begin{equation*} \xx_{r,k}=\sum_{n=1}^{k}(-1)^{n+1}{{k \choose n}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)U(nt)xdt=\sum_{n=1}^{k}(-1)^{n+1}{{k \choose n}}x_{r,n}. \end{equation*} Therefore, accordingly to (), \begin{equation*} \xx_{r,k}\in\E(A)\quad\textrm{and}\quad\sigma(\xx_{r,k},A)\leq r. \end{equation*} Hence for an arbitrary $x\in\XX$ we have: \begin{equation*} \mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)=\inf_{y\in\E(A)\,:\,\sigma(y,A)\leq r}\,\left\Vert x-y\right\Vert \leq\left\Vert x-\xx_{r,k}\right\Vert \end{equation*} Using (), the property 2) of the kernel $\K_{\alpha,r}$ and (ef}), the last inequality implies: \begin{multline*} \mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)\leq\left\Vert \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)x dt-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)\big(x+(-1)^{k-1}(U(t)-\I)^{k}x\big)\,dt\right\Vert\le\\ \leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)\left\Vert (U(t)-\I)^{k}x\right\Vert dt\leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(|t|,x,A)\,dt. \end{multline*} So, in accordance with the property 4) of the function $\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(|t|,x,A)$, \begin{multline} \mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)\leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)\widetilde{\omega}_{k}\left(|rt|\frac{1}{r},x,A\right)dt\leq \\ \leq\widetilde{\omega}_{k}\left(\frac{1}{r},x,A\right)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\big(1+|rt|M_{U}(|t|)\big)^{k}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)dt. \end{multline} Taking into account properties of the function $M_{U}(\cdot)$, the definition of $\K_{\alpha,r}$, lemma and equality (), one can find for $r\ge 1$: \begin{multline*} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\big(1+|rt|M_{U}(|t|)\big)^{k}\K_{\alpha,r}(t)dt\leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\big(1+|rt|M_{U}(rt)\big)^{k}r\K_{\alpha}(rt)dt\leq\\ \leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\big((1+\tau)M_{U}(\tau)\big)^{k}\K_{\alpha}(\tau)d\tau\leq c_{1}\int _{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\big((1+|\tau|)M_{U}(|\tau|)\big)^{k}}{\alpha(\tau)}d\tau=2c_{1}<\infty. \end{multline*} In accordance with (), inequality () holds for all $r\in[1,\infty)$ with a constant $\mathbf{m}_{k}=2c_{1}$. It should be noted that constant $\mathbf{m}_{k}$, indeed, depends on $k$, because due to , the constant $c_{1}=c_{1}(\alpha)$ depends on the function $\alpha(t)=(M_{U}(|t|))^{k}(1+|t|)^{k+2}$. Moreover, let the group $\{U(t)\}$ is bounded ($M_{U}(t)\leq \widetilde{M},\, \, t\in \mathbb{R}$, $\widetilde{M}\ge 1$). Taking into account properties of the function $M_{U}(\cdot)$, the definition of $\K_{\alpha,r}$, lemma and equality (), one can find for $r\in(0,\infty)$ \begin{multline*} \int_{-\infty }^{\infty }(1+|rt|M_{U}(|t|))^{k}\K _{\alpha ,r}(t)dt\leq \int_{-\infty }^{\infty }(1+|rt|\widetilde{M}M_{U}(rt))^{k}r\K _{\alpha }(rt)dt\leq \\ \le\widetilde{M}^{k}\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }((1+\tau )M_{U}(\tau ))^{k}\K _{\alpha }(\tau )d\tau \leq 2\widetilde{M}^{k}c_{1}<\infty, \end{multline*} which proves remark with the constant $\mathbf{m}_{k}=2\widetilde{M}^{k}c_{1}$. \end{proof} Theorem allows us to prove the analogue of the classic Jackson's inequality for $m$ times differentiable functions: \begin{nasl} Let $x\in\D(A^{m}),\,\, m\in\N_{0}$. Then $\forall k\in\N_0$ \begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)\leq\mathbf{m}_{k+m}\frac{M_{U}\left(\frac{m}{r}\right)}{r^{m}}\widetilde{\omega}_{k}\left(\frac{1}{r},A^{m}x,A\right),\quad r\ge 1, \end{equation} where the constants $\mathbf{m}_{n}$ ($n\in\N$) are the same as in theorem . \end{nasl} \begin{proof} Let $x\in\D(A^{m})$ and $r\ge 1$. By theorem , \begin{equation*} \mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)\leq\mathbf{m}_{k+m}\cdot\widetilde{\omega}_{k+m}\left(\frac{1}{r},x,A\right). \end{equation*} Let $t\in\R$, $0\leq|t|\leq\frac{1}{r}$. Then, using properties of the groups of the $C_{0}$ class and properties of the function $M_{U}(t)$, one can get: \begin{multline*} \left\Vert (U(t)-\I)^{k+m}x\right\Vert =\left\Vert (U(t)-\I)^{m}(U(t)-\I)^{k}x\right\Vert \leq\\ \leq\int_{0}^{t}\cdots\int_{0}^{t}\left\Vert U(\xi_{1}+\dots+\xi_{m})\right\Vert \left\Vert (U(t)-\I)^{k}A^{m}x\right\Vert \, d\xi_{1}\dots d\xi_{m}\leq \\ \leq M_{U}(m|t|)\left\Vert (U(t)-\I)^{k}A^{m}x\right\Vert t^{m}\leq\frac{M_{U}(\frac{m}{r})}{r^{m}}\widetilde{\omega}_{k}\left(\frac{1}{r},A^{m}x,A\right). \end{multline*} This implies $\widetilde{\omega}_{k+m}\left(\frac{1}{r},x,A\right)= \sup_{|t|\leq\frac{1}{r}}\left\Vert (U(t)-\I)^{k+m}x\right\Vert \leq\frac{M_{U}(\frac{m}{r})}{r^{m}}\widetilde{\omega}_{k}\left(\frac{1}{r},A^{m}x,A\right),$ which proves inequality (). \end{proof} By setting in corollary $k=0$ and taking into account that $\tilde\omega_0\left(\cdot,A^{m}x,A\right)\equiv \|A^{m}x\|$, one can conclude the following inequality: \begin{nasl} Let $x\in\D(A^{m}),\,\, m\in\N_{0}$. Then \begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)\leq\frac{\mathbf{m}_{m}}{r^{m}}\big(M_{U}(1/r)\big)^{m}\|A^{m}x\|\qquad r\ge 1, \end{equation} where the constants $\mathbf{m}_{n}$ ($n\in\N$) are the same as in theorem . \end{nasl} \setcounter{equation}{0} \section{The examples of application of the abstract Jackson's inequality in particular spaces} Lets consider several examples of application of theorem in particular spaces. \subsection{Jackson's inequalities in $L_{p}(2\pi)$ and $C(2\pi)$} \begin{example} Let the space $\XX$ and the operator $A$ are the same as in the example . Then for $x\in\XX$ the quantity $\mathcal{E}_{r}(x,A)$ is the value of the best approximation of function $x$ by trigonometric polynomials whose degree does not exceed $r$ with respect to the norm in $\XX$. It is generally known that differential operator $A$ is a generator of (isometric) group of shifts in the space $\XX$: \begin{eqnarray} & (U(t)x)(\xi)=x(t+\xi),\qquad x\in\XX;\,\, t,\xi\in\R\nonumber \\ & \left\Vert U(t)\right\Vert \equiv1,\qquad t\in\R,\end{eqnarray} where $\left\Vert U(\cdot)\right\Vert =\left\Vert U(\cdot)\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}(\XX)}$ is the norm of the operator $U(t)$ in the space $\mathcal{L}(\XX)$ of linear continuous operators over $\XX$. It follows from () that \[ \widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)=\omega_{k}(t,x,A)=\sup_{0\leq h\leq t}\bigg\Vert \sum_{j=0}^{k}(-1)^{k-j}{{j \choose k}}x(\cdot+jh)\bigg\Vert _{\XX},\quad t\in\R_{+},\, x\in\XX. \] I.e., in that case, $\widetilde{\omega}_{k}(t,x,A)$ coincides with classic modulus of continuity of $k$-th degree in the space $\XX$. Thus, from theorem and corollary one can conclude all classic Jackson-type inequalities in the spaces $C(2\pi)$ and $L_{p}(2\pi),$ $1\leq p<\infty$. \end{example} \subsection{Jackson's inequalities of the approximation by exponential type entire functions in the space $L_{p}(\R, \mu^p)$} We consider the real-valued function $\mu(t)$ satisfying the following conditions: \begin{itemize} \item[1)] $\mu(t)\ge 1,\quad t\in\R$; \item[2)] $\mu(t)$ is even, monotonically non-decreasing when $t>0$; \item[3)] $\mu(t)$ satisfies naturally occurring in many applications condition $\mu(t+s)\le \mu(t)\cdot\mu(s),\ s,t\in\R$. \item[4)] $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\ln\mu(t)}{1+t^2}\,dt<\infty$, \end{itemize} or alternatively, instead of 4), the equivalent condition holds: \begin{itemize} \item[4')] $\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{\ln\mu(k)}{k^2}<\infty$. \end{itemize} Lets consider several important classes of functions satisfying conditions 1)--4). 1. Constant function $\mu(t)\equiv 1,\quad t\in\R$. 2. Functions with polynomial order of growth at infinity. It is easy to check that for such functions following estimate holds: $\exists k\in\N,\ \exists M\ge 1$ \begin{equation*} \mu(t)\le M(1+|t|)^k,\quad t\in\R. \end{equation*} 3. Functions of the form \begin{equation*} \mu(t)=e^{|t|^\beta},\quad 0<\beta<1,\ t\in\R. \end{equation*} 4. $\mu(t)$ represented as a power series for $t>0$. I.e., \begin{equation*} \mu(t)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{|t|^{n}}{m_n}, \end{equation*} where $\{m_n\}_{n\in\N}$ is the sequence of positive real numbers satisfying two conditions: \begin{itemize} \item $m_0=1$, $m_n^2\le m_{n-1}\cdot m_{n+1},\ n\in\mathbb{N}$; \item $\forall k,l\in\mathbb{N}\ \frac{(k+l)!}{m_{k+l}}\le \frac{k!}{m_k}\frac{l!}{m_l}$. \end{itemize} The function $\mu(t)$, defined above, obviously satisfies conditions 1) and 2). The condition $\forall k,l\in\mathbb{N}\ \frac{(k+l)!}{m_{k+l}}\le \frac{k!}{m_k}\frac{l!}{m_l}$ implies \begin{equation} \sum_{k=0}^n\frac{t^ks^{n-k}n!}{k!(n-k)!\,m_n}\le\sum_{k=0}^n\frac{t^ks^{n-k}}{m_km_{n-k}}, \end{equation} and it is easy to see that condition 3) follows from inequality (). The Denjoy~- Carleman theorem \cite[p.376]{Rudin1970} asserts that the following conditions are equivalent: \begin{itemize} \item[a)] $\mu(t)$ satisfies condition 4); \item[b)] $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac 1{m_n}\right)^{1/n}<\infty$; \item[c)] $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{m_{n-1}}{m_n}<\infty$. \end{itemize} 5. $\mu(t)$ as a module of an entire function with zeroes on the imaginary axis. We consider \begin{equation*} \omega(t)=C\prod_{k=1}^\infty\left(1-\frac t{it_k}\right),\quad t\in\R, \end{equation*} where $C\ge 1,\ 0<t_1\le t_2\le\ldots,\ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac 1{t_k}<\infty$. We set $\mu(t):=|\omega(t)|$. Then $\mu(t)$ satisfies conditions 1)~-- 3), and, as shown in , $\mu(t)$ satisfies condition 4) also. Lets proceed to the description of the spaces $L_p(\R,\mu^p)$. Let the function $\mu(t)$ satisfies conditions 1)~-- 4). One can consider the space $L_p(\R,\mu^p)$ of the functions $x(s),\ s\in\R$, integrable in $p$-th degree with the weight $\mu^p$: \begin{equation*} \|x\|^p_{L_p(\R,\mu^p)}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|x(s)|^p\mu^p(s)\,ds. \end{equation*} $L_p(\R,\mu^p)$ is the Banach space. We consider the differential operator $A$ ($\D(A)=\{x\in L_p(\R,\mu^p)\cap AC(\R):\ x'\in L_p(\R,\mu^p)\},\ (Ax)(t)=\frac {dx}{dt}$). As in example , the operator $A$ generates the group of shifts $\{U(t)\}_{t\in\R}$ in the space $L_p(\R,\mu^p)$. But in contrast to example , this group isn't bounded. Indeed, lets consider \begin{equation*} x(s)=\begin{cases} 1, & s\in [0,1],\\ 0, & s\not\in [0,1]. \end{cases} \end{equation*} Obviously, $x(s)\in L_p(\R,\mu^p)$, but for $t>1$ \begin{equation*} \|U(t)x\|^p=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|x(t+s)|^p\mu^p(s)\,ds=\int_{t-1}^t\mu^p(s)\,ds\ge\mu^p(t-1)\to\infty,\ t\to\infty. \end{equation*} On the other hand, because of the property 3), \begin{equation*} \|U(t)x\|^p=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|x(t+s)|^p\mu^p(s)\,ds\le \mu^p(-t)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|x(t+s)|^p\mu^p(t+s)\,ds=\big(\mu(-t)\big)^p\|x\|^p, \end{equation*} so $\|U(t)\|_{L_p(\R,\mu^p)}\le\mu(-t)=\mu(|t|),\quad t\in\R$. =\mu(|t|)$.} By the same way as in the example , modules of continuity $\omega_k$ and $\tilde\omega_k$ coincides with classic ones, but in contrast to the example , they don't equal mutually. The space $\E(A)$ consists of fast decrescent at the infinity entire functions. The examples of such functions have been given in . By applying theorem one can get \begin{nasl} $\forall k\in\N$ there exists constant $\mathbf{m}_{k}(p,\mu)>0$ such that $\forall f\in L_p(\R,\mu^p)$ \begin{equation*} \mathcal{E}_{r}(f)\leq\mathbf{m}_{k}\cdot\tilde\omega_{k}\left(\frac{1}{r},x,A\right),\quad r\ge 1. \end{equation*} \end{nasl} \begin{thebibliography}{10} \bibitem{Kyptsov} {N. P. Kupcov}, \textit{Direct and inverse theorems of approximation theory and semigroups of operators} \emph{(Russian)}, {Uspekhi Mat.Nauk.} \textbf{23} (1968), {No.~4}, {118-178}. \bibitem{Terjoxin} {A. P. Terehin}, \textit{A bounded group of operators, and best approximation} \textit{(Russian)}, {Differencial'nye Uravneniya i Vy\c{c}isl.Mat.}, {Vyp.2} {(1975)}, {3-28}. \bibitem{Radzievsky1997} {G. V. Radzievskii}, \emph{On best approximations and the rate of convergence of expansions in root vectors of an operator}, {Ukrainian Math.J.} \textbf{49} (1997), {No.~6}, {844-864} (1998). \bibitem{Radzievsky1998} {G. V. Radzievskii}, \emph{Direct and inverse theorems in problems of approximation by vectors of finite degree}, {Sb.Math.} \textbf{189} (1998), {No.3--4}, {561-601}. \bibitem{MGorbShilinst_ExpA} {M. L. Gorbachuk and V. I. Gorbachuk}, \emph{On the approximation of smooth vectors of a closed operator by entire vectors of exponential type}, {Ukrainian Math.J.} \textbf{47} (1995), {No.~5}, {713-726} (1996). \bibitem{MGorb_OperAppr} {M. L. Gorbachuk and V. I. Gorbachuk} \textit{Operator approach to approximation problems}, {St.Petersburg Math.J.} \textbf{9} (1998), {No.~6}, {1097-1110}. \bibitem{Gorb_Gr_Torba} {M. L. Gorbachuk, Ya. I. Grushka and S. M. Torba}, \emph{Direct and inverse theorems in the theory of approximations by the Ritz method}, {Ukrainian Math.J.} \textbf{57} {(2005)}, {No.~5}, {751-764} ({\tt arXiv:0709.4243 [math.FA]}). \bibitem{LubMatsaev} {Ju. I. Ljubi\c{c} and V. I. Macaev}, \emph{Operators with separable spectrum} \emph{(Russian)}, {Mat.Sb.(N.S.)} \textbf{56 (98)} (1962), {No.~4}, {433-468}. \bibitem{Gorbachuk_NeobhidnistNekvazianal} {M. L. Gorbachuk}, \emph{On analytic solutions of operator-differential equations}, {Ukrainian Math.J.} \textbf{52} (2000), {No.~5}, {680-693} (2001). \bibitem{Yadro_Marchenko} {V. A. Mar\c{c}enko}, \emph{On some questions of the approximation of continuous functions on the whole real axis} \emph{(Russian)}, {Zap. Mat. Otd. Fiz-Mat. Fak. KHGU i KHMO} \textbf{22} (1951), {No.~4}, {115-125}. \bibitem{Marchenko2} {O. I. Inozemcev and V. A. Mar\c{c}enko}, \emph{On majorants of genus zero} \emph{(Russian)}, {Uspekhi Mat.Nauk (N.S.)} \textbf{11} (1956), {173-178}. \bibitem{Rudin1970} Walter Rudin, \emph{Real and Complex Analysis}, McGrow-Hill, New York, {1970}. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0301
|
Title: Differential Recursion and Differentially Algebraic Functions
Abstract: Moore introduced a class of real-valued "recursive" functions by analogy with
Kleene's formulation of the standard recursive functions. While his concise
definition inspired a new line of research on analog computation, it contains
some technical inaccuracies. Focusing on his "primitive recursive" functions,
we pin down what is problematic and discuss possible attempts to remove the
ambiguity regarding the behavior of the differential recursion operator on
partial functions. It turns out that in any case the purported relation to
differentially algebraic functions, and hence to Shannon's model of analog
computation, fails.
Body: \maketitle \begin{abstract} Moore introduced a class of real-valued ``recursive'' functions by analogy with Kleene's formulation of the standard recursive functions. While his concise definition inspired a new line of research on analog computation, it contains some technical inaccuracies. Focusing on his ``primitive recursive'' functions, we pin down what is problematic and discuss possible attempts to remove the ambiguity regarding the behavior of the differential recursion operator on partial functions. It turns out that in any case the purported relation to differentially algebraic functions, and hence to Shannon's model of analog computation, fails. \ifsimple\else \smallskip \noindent\textbf{Keywords:} analog computation, real recursive functions, differentially algebraic functions, transcendentally transcendental functions \fi \end{abstract} \section{Introduction} There are several different kinds of theoretical models that talk about ``computability'' and ``complexity'' of real functions. \emph{Computable Analysis}~ and some other equivalent models use approximation in one way or another to bring real numbers into the framework of the standard Computability Theory that deals with discrete data in discrete time. Another well-known model is the \emph{Blum--Shub--Smale model}~ in which continuous quantities are treated as an entity in themselves but the machine still works with discrete clock ticks. A third approach is \emph{analog computation} in which not only are the data real-valued, but also the transition takes place in continuous time~ . One of the oldest and the best-studied models of such computation is Shannon's \emph{General Purpose Analog Computer}~ that models the \emph{Differential Analyzer}~ , a computing device built and put to use during the thirties through the fifties. The GPAC, after some refinements~ \cite{pour-el74:_abstr_comput_relat_gener_purpos, lipshitz87:_differ_algeb_replac_theor_analog_comput, graca04:_some_gener_purpos_analog_comput}, was shown capable of generating (in a sense) all and only the \emph{differentially algebraic} functions. We will explore this class in Section~ and show that it can be characterized in many different ways. \ifsimple \looseness=-1 \fi Little is known about how such analog models relate to the standard (digital) computability. Moore~ addressed this question for his new function classes that also try to express the power of GPAC-like computation. In imitation of Kleene's characterization of the usual recursive functions, these classes are defined as the closures under certain operators that are supposedly real-number versions of primitive recursion and minimization. He makes the following claims, among others, that relate his classes of \emph{real primitive recursive} and \emph{real recursive} functions to analog and digital computation, respectively~ \cite[Propositions 9 and 13]{moore96:_recur_theor_reals_contin_comput}. \begin{claim} Real primitive recursive functions are differentially algebraic. \footnote{ Moore writes $M _0$ for the class of real primitive recursion functions. Claim~ was later replaced by a similar claim~ \cite[Proposition~2]{campagnolo00:_iterat_inequal_and_differ_in_analog_comput} for a more ``restricted'' class~$\mathcal G$ than $M _0$, but its definition is again unclear. } \end{claim} \begin{claim} Each (partial) recursive function on the nonnegative integers (in the standard sense) is a restriction of some real recursive function. \end{claim} Despite its impact on the subsequent study on the classes and their variants~ \cite{campagnolo01:_comput_compl_real_valued_recur, campagnolo01:_upper_and_lower_bound_contin_time_comput, graca04:_some_gener_purpos_analog_comput, mycka04:_real_recur_funct_and_their_hierar, bournez04:_analog_charac_of_elemen_comput}, his work lacked formality in some ways, as already pointed out~ \cite{campagnolo00:_iterat_inequal_and_differ_in_analog_comput, graca02:_gener_purpos_analog_comop_recur}. In fact, the definition of the classes suffers from ambiguity. In Section~ of this paper, we reformulate Moore's theory up to the real primitive recursive functions in a mathematically sound way. With the aid of the preparation in Section~, we show that, even though our formulation of the class seems the most restrictive possible, Claim~ fails. In section~, we discuss some issues about classes other than the real primitive recursive functions, including Claim~. Throughout the paper, we write $\Nset$, $\Zset$, $\Rset$ for the sets of nonnegative integers (including $0$), integers and real numbers, respectively. \paragraph{Partial functions} In this paper, a \emph{function} $f \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset ^n$ may be \emph{partial}, as opposed to \emph{total}; that is, the set $\dom f$ of $x \in \Rset ^m$ for which the value $f \ap x \in \Rset ^n$ is defined is allowed to be a proper subset of $\Rset ^m$. By the \emph{restriction} of $f$ to a set $J \subseteq \Rset ^m$ we mean the function~$g$ with $\dom g = J \cap \dom f$ such that $g \ap x = f \ap x$ for every $x \in \dom g$. When $\dom f$ is open, $f$ is said to be \emph{(real) analytic} if for every $a = (a _0, \dots, a _{m - 1}) \in \dom f$ there are an open set $ J \subseteq \dom f $ containing $a$ and a family $(c _p) _{p \in \Nset ^m}$ of $n$-tuples of real numbers such that the sum \begin{equation} \sum _{p = (p _0, \dots, p _{m - 1}) \in \Nset ^m} c _p \cdot (x _0 - a _0) ^{p _0} \cdots (x _{m - 1} - a _{m - 1}) ^{p _{m - 1}} \end{equation} converges to $f \ap x$ for each $x = (x _0, \dots, x _{m - 1}) \in J$ (regardless of the ordering of summation). See Krantz and Parks~ \cite[Chapters 1 and 2]{krantz02:_primer_of_real_analy_funct} for well-known properties of analytic functions. When $f$ is analytic, we write $\D ^{(a _0, \dots, a _{m - 1})} f$ (and not $ \partial ^{a _0 + \dots + a _{m - 1}} f / \partial t _0 ^{a _0} \cdots \partial t _{m - 1} ^{a _{m - 1}} $) for the mixed partial derivative of $f$ of order $a _i$ along the $i$\textsuperscript{th} place (which is known to exist). Moore~ does not explicitly deal with partial functions. We believe that this is responsible for ambiguous and erroneous statements made in his seminal work as well as in some of the subsequent works by other authors. Although there are some situations in mathematical analysis where we can pretend that there are no partial functions (namely, when we are only discussing properties defined \emph{locally}, such as continuity or analyticity), this is not the case with the notions we want to discuss here. If, say, the above Claim~ is to make any nontrivial sense, it is clearly inappropriate to talk about ``real recursiveness at $x$,'' as there is a real function which is simple locally but the restriction of which to $\Nset$ is highly complicated in the recursion-theoretic sense. We therefore emphasize that partial functions must be dealt with seriously, and devote this paper to accordingly reformulating the theory wherever possible. \section{Differentially algebraic functions} We show some facts about single- and multi-place differentially algebraic functions. \begin{theorem} Let $m$, $n$ and $i < m$ be nonnegative integers and $f \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset ^n$ be an analytic function with open domain. Let \textup{()}, \textup{()}, \textup{()} and \textup{()} be the following statements: \begin{enumerate} \def\theenumi{\roman{enumi}} \def\labelenumi{\textup{(\theenumi)}} \item for any open connected set $J \subseteq \dom f$, there is a $\Zset ^n$-coefficient nonzero polynomial~$P$ such that \begin{equation} P \ap \bigl( f \ap x, \D ^{e _i} f \ap x, \D ^{2 \cdot e _i} f \ap x, \ldots, \D ^{(\arity P - 1) \cdot e _i} f \ap x \bigr) = 0 \end{equation} for all $x \in J$, where $e _i \in \Nset ^m$ is the vector whose $i$\textsuperscript{th} component is $1$ and others are $0$; \item for each $x _0 \in \dom f$, there are a $\Zset ^n$-coefficient nonzero polynomial~$P$ and an open set~$J$ containing $x _0$ such that we have \eqref{eq: 0605282120} for all $x \in J$; \item for each $x _0 \in \dom f$, there are a $\Zset ^n$-coefficient nonzero polynomial~$P$ and an open interval $J$ containing the $i$\textsuperscript{th} component of $x _0$ such that we have \eqref{eq: 0605282120} for all $x$ whose $i$\textsuperscript{th} component is in $J$ and whose other components equal those of $x _0$; \item for each $x \in \dom f$, there is a $\Zset ^n$-coefficient nonzero polynomial~$P$ satisfying \eqref{eq: 0605282120}. \end{enumerate} Let \textup{($_\Rset$)}, \textup{($_\Rset$)} and \textup{($_\Rset$)} be the statements obtained by replacing $\Zset$ by $\Rset$ in \textup{()}, \textup{()} and \textup{()}, respectively. Then \textup{()}, \textup{()}, \textup{()}, \textup{()}, \textup{($_\Rset$)}, \textup{($_\Rset$)} and \textup{($_\Rset$)} are equivalent. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} The implications ()~$\Rightarrow$ ()~$\Rightarrow$ ()~$\Rightarrow$ () and ()~$\Rightarrow$ ($_\Rset$)~$\Rightarrow$ ($_\Rset$)~$\Rightarrow$ ($_\Rset$) are obvious. It has been known that ($_\Rset$) $\Rightarrow$ (), see Theorem~. To see ()~$\Rightarrow$ (), consider, for each $\Zset ^n$-coefficient polynomial~$P$, the set~$J _P$ of all $ x \in J $ satisfying \eqref{eq: 0605282120}. Since by () these countably many closed sets~$J _P$ cover the open set $J$, one of them must have nonempty interior by Baire Category Theorem~. This $J _P$ must then equal $J$ by the Identity Theorem~. \end{proof} \begin{definition} Let $m$ and $n$ be nonnegative integers. An analytic function $f \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset ^n$ is \emph{differentially algebraic} \footnote{ Also termed \emph{algebraic transcendental} or \emph{hypotranscendental}. Functions \emph{without} this property is said to be \emph{transcendentally transcendental} or \emph{hypertranscendental}. } if for each $i < m$ it satisfies one (or all) of the clauses in Theorem~ . \end{definition} Note that $f$ need not be the \emph{unique} solution of \eqref{eq: 0605282120}. For example, every function (with open domain) that is constant on each connected component of its domain is differentially algebraic because of the single set of equations $\D ^{e _i} f \ap x = 0$. The clauses~()--() show that being differentially algebraic is a ``local'' property. When $\dom f$ is connected, () reduces to the following statement: \begin{enumerate} \item[($'$)] there is a $\Zset ^n$-coefficient nonzero polynomial~$P$ such that we have \eqref{eq: 0605282120} for all $x \in \dom f$. \end{enumerate} Hence, the clause~() shows that, as long as $\dom f$ is connected, our definition is equivalent to that of many authors, including Moore~ , who first state the definition for $m = 1$ by ($'$) and then extend it to $m > 1$ by saying that a function is differentially algebraic when it is so as a unary function of each argument when all other arguments are held fixed. \footnote{ Their definition for the case $m = 1$ is slightly different from ($'$) in that it replaces \eqref{eq: 0605282120} by $ P \ap ( x, f \ap x, \D ^{e _i} f \ap x, \ldots, \allowbreak \D ^{(\arity P - 2) \cdot e _i} f \ap x ) = 0 $. But the proof of ()~$\Rightarrow$ () of Lemma~ shows that this difference is superficial. } We proved Theorem~ in order to use () to present a counterexample to Claim~ later. Let us characterize differentially algebraic functions in yet another way for the case $n = 1$. For a field $E$, its subfield $F$ and a set $B \subseteq E$, we write $F (B)$, agreeing tacitly on $E$, for the smallest subfield of $E$ that includes $F$ and $B$. We write $\overline F$ for the \emph{algebraic closure} of $F$, that is, the set of those elements of $E$ that annuls some $F$-coefficient unary nonzero polynomial. Let $J \subseteq \Rset ^m$ be an open set and consider the ring $\Analytic [J]$ of analytic functions $g \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset$ with $\dom g = J$. Note that $\Rset$ is embedded into this ring by regarding each $x \in \Rset$ as the constant function taking the value~$x$. To assert \eqref{eq: 0605282120} for all $x \in J$ is to say that \begin{equation} P \ap \bigl( f, \D ^{e _i} f, \D ^{2 \cdot e _i} f, \ldots, \D ^{(\arity P - 1) \cdot e _i} f \bigr) = 0 \end{equation} in $\Analytic [J]$. If $J$ is connected, $\Analytic [J]$ has a quotient field by the Identity Theorem~, so the notation $ \Rset (\Derivatives f) $ in the following lemma makes sense. We write $\Derivatives f = \{\, \D ^a f \mid a \in \Nset ^m \,\}$. \begin{lemma} Let $J \subseteq \Rset ^m$ be open and connected. For $f \in \Analytic [J]$, the following are equivalent: \begin{enumerate} \item $f$ is differentially algebraic; \item $\Derivatives f \subseteq \Rset (B)$ for some finite set $B \subseteq \Derivatives f$; \item $\Derivatives f \subseteq \overline{\Rset (B)}$ for some finite set $B \subseteq \Rset (\Derivatives f)$. \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The implication ()~$\Rightarrow$ () is trivial. The Transcendence Degree Theorem~ shows ()~$\Rightarrow$ (). For ()~$\Rightarrow$ (), assume that for each $i$ we have an $\Rset$-coefficient polynomial~$P _i$ with \begin{equation} P _i \ap ( f, \D ^{e _i} f, \D ^{2 \cdot e _i} f, \ldots, \D ^{N _i \cdot e _i} f ) = 0, \end{equation} where $N _i = \arity P _i - 1$. By choosing $N _i$ to be smallest and then the degree of $P _i$ in the last place to be smallest, we may assume that \begin{equation} \varXi = (\D ^{(0, \dots, 0, 1)} P _i) \ap ( f, \D ^{e _i} f, \D ^{2 \cdot e _i} f, \ldots, \D ^{N _i \cdot e _i} f ) \end{equation} is nonzero. Consider the order~$\leq$ on $\Nset ^m$ defined by setting $a \leq b$ when $a + c = b$ for some $c \in \Nset ^m$. We will show by induction on $a \in \Nset ^m$ that $\D ^a f \in \Rset (\{\, \D ^b f \mid b \leq (N _0, \dots, N _{m - 1})\,\})$. The case $a \leq (N _0, \dots, N _{m - 1})$ being trivial, assume that $a \geq (N _i + 1) \cdot e _i$ for some $i$. Apply $\D ^{a - N _i \cdot e _i}$ to both sides of \eqref{eq: 0605282359} and calculate using chain rules to obtain \begin{equation} \varPsi + \varXi \cdot \D ^a f = 0, \end{equation} where $\varPsi$ can be written as a sum of products of several derivatives of $f$ of order $\leq a$ and $\neq a$, which hence enjoy the induction hypothesis. \end{proof} Apart from purely theoretical interest, the significance of differentially algebraic functions lies in their relation to the \emph{General Purpose Analog Computer}, an analog computation model introduced by Shannon~ and later refined by Pour-El~ . More precisely, if a function $f \pcolon \Rset \pto \Rset$ with nonempty domain is differentially algebraic, then the restriction of $f$ to some nonempty subset of $\dom f$ is GPAC generable~ \cite[Theorem~4]{pour-el74:_abstr_comput_relat_gener_purpos}; conversely, if a function $f \pcolon \Rset \pto \Rset$ with nonempty domain is GPAC generable, then the restriction of $f$ to some nonempty subset of $\dom f$ is differentially algebraic~ \cite[Theorem~2]{lipshitz87:_differ_algeb_replac_theor_analog_comput}. Gra\c ca later considered the \emph{Polynomial GPAC}, a simpler refinement than Pour-El's, and proved analogous results~ . \section{Real primitive recursive functions} The class of real primitive recursive functions is defined~ as the smallest class containing some basic functions and closed under the operators specified below. Unfortunately, the original definition contains ambiguity, resulting in some inconsistent claims about the class. To remedy this, we shall revisit the definitions carefully in Sections and . Section~ discusses an alternative approach by Campagnolo. Section~ disproves Claim~. \subsection{Two basic operators} The real primitive recursive functions are defined through three operators: \emph{juxtaposition}, \emph{composition} and \emph{differential recursion}. The first two are very simple. \begin{definition} Given $g _0$, \ldots, $g _{n - 1} \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset$, define their juxtaposition $ \JX {(g _0, \dots, g _{n - 1})} \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset ^n $ by setting $ \JX {(g _0, \dots, g _{n - 1})} \ap \vec x = (g _0 \ap \vec x, \dots, g _{n - 1} \ap \vec x) $ whenever $\vec x \in \dom g _0 \cap \dots \cap \dom g _{n - 1}$. Given $f \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset ^n$ and $g \pcolon \Rset ^l \pto \Rset ^m$, define their composition $\CM {(f, g)} \pcolon \Rset ^l \pto \Rset ^n$ by setting $ \CM {(f, g)} \ap \vec x = f \ap (g \ap \vec x) $ whenever $\vec x \in \dom g$ and $g \ap x \in \dom f$. \end{definition} We write $f \circ g$ for $ \CM {(f, g)} $. As remarked in Section~, it is important to define precisely what the operators do on partial functions. Note how Definition~ specifies the domain of the functions constructed. If $g \ap x$ is not defined, neither is $(f \circ g) \ap x$, even if, say, $f$ is a constant function defined everywhere. We thus work in the following (informal) general principle. \begin{principle} For the value of an expression to be defined, the value of each of its subexpressions has to be defined. \end{principle} We remark that this was not explicitly intended by Moore. In fact, he presents an example to the contrary when he claims~ \cite[Section~6]{moore96:_recur_theor_reals_contin_comput} that the total function $\overline{\mathrm{inv}} \pcolon \Rset \pto \Rset$ given by \begin{equation} \overline{\mathrm{inv}} \ap x = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if} \ x = 0 \\ 1 / x & \text{if} \ x \neq 0 \end{cases} \end{equation} can be obtained by composing the binary multiplication with $\JX {(\mathrm{zero?}, g)}$, where $\mathrm{zero?}$ is from \eqref{eq: zero test} and $g$ is the restriction of $\overline{\mathrm{inv}}$ to $\Rset \setminus \{0\}$. Some authors point this out~ \cite[p.~22]{campagnolo01:_comput_compl_real_valued_recur} and criticize it~ \cite[p.~47]{graca02:_gener_purpos_analog_comop_recur}. Without discussing which definition is more ``natural,'' we adopt our restrictive Definition~ , simply because it is not clear how to formulate a general definition that would admit this construction of $\overline{\mathrm{inv}}$. The operators~$\JX$ and $\CM$ preserve analyticity~ \cite[Proposition~2.2.8]{krantz02:_primer_of_real_analy_funct}. \begin{theorem} The property of being differentially algebraic is preserved by $\JX$ and $\CM$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} This is trivial for $\JX$. For $\CM$, it suffices to show that if $ f \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset $ and $g _0$, \ldots, $ g _{m - 1} \pcolon \Rset ^l \pto \Rset $ are differentially algebraic, so is $f \circ g$, where $g = \JX {(g _0, \dots, g _{m - 1})}$. We may assume that $\dom g$ and $J = \dom {(f \circ g)}$ are connected. We use the characterization~() of Lemma~. Calculate each element of $\Derivatives {(f \circ g)}$ by the chain rule to see that it belongs to \begin{equation} \Rset \bigl( \{\, d \circ g \mid d \in \Derivatives f \,\} \cup \bigcup _{i = 0} ^{m - 1} \{\, q \mathord\upharpoonright _J \mid q \in \Derivatives g _i \,\} \bigr), \end{equation} where $q \mathord\upharpoonright _J$ means the restriction of $q$ to $J$. By the assumption, there are finite subsets $ A \subseteq \Derivatives f $ and $ B _i \subseteq \Derivatives g _i $ with $ \Derivatives f \subseteq \Rset (A) $ and $ \Derivatives g _i \subseteq \Rset (B _i) $ for each $i = 0, \dots, m - 1$. This implies that \eqref{eq: 0702130056} stays unchanged by replacing $\Derivatives f$ by $A$ and $\Derivatives g _i$ by $B _i$. \end{proof} \subsection{The differential recursion operator} To formulate the third operator, we need a notion of \emph{unique solution} of an integral equation of the form \eqref{eq: integral equation} below, where $h$ is the unknown. For example, it sounds natural to say that the tangent function restricted to $(-\pi / 2, \pi / 2)$ uniquely solves $ h \ap t = \int _0 ^t \bigl( 1 + (h \ap \tau) ^2 \bigr) \, \d \tau $. But as we are talking about partial functions, the word ``unique'' should be used carefully, because the restriction to any subinterval $J \subseteq (-\pi / 2, \pi / 2)$ containing $0$ also satisfies the equation on $J$. Thus, out of the set~$H$ of all solutions, we need to pick one function that deserves to be called the unique solution defined on the largest possible interval (Figure~). Though Moore did not discuss this, it is not hard to formulate this intuition: for a set $H$ of functions of a type, we say that a function $h \in H$ is \emph{unique} in $H$ if the restriction of any function in $H$ to $\dom h$ is a restriction of $h$. \begin{definition} Let $f \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset ^n$ and $g \pcolon \Rset ^{m + 1 + n} \pto \Rset ^n$. For each $\vec v \in \Rset ^m$, let $H _{\vec v}$ be the set of all functions $h \pcolon \Rset \pto \Rset ^n$ such that \begin{enumerate} \item $\dom h$ is either the empty set or a possibly unbounded interval containing $0$, \item $\vec v \in \dom f$ if $\dom h$ is nonempty, \item $(\vec v, \tau, h \ap \tau) \in \dom g$ for each $\tau \in \dom h$, and \item every $t \in \dom h$ satisfies \begin{equation} h \ap t = f \ap \vec v + \int _0 ^t g \ap (\vec v, \tau, h \ap \tau) \, \d \tau. \end{equation} \end{enumerate} Let $K _{\vec v}$ be the set of functions unique in $H _{\vec v}$. By Lemma~ in the appendix, $K _{\vec v}$ has an element~$h _{\vec v}$ of which all functions in $K _{\vec v}$ is a restriction. Define $ \PR {(f, g)} \pcolon \Rset ^{m + 1} \pto \Rset ^n $ by $ \dom {\bigl( \PR {(f, g)} \bigr)} = \{\, (v, t) \in \Rset ^{m + 1} \mid t \in \dom h _{\vec v} \,\} $ and $\PR {(f, g)} \ap (\vec v, t) = h _{\vec v} \ap t$. \end{definition} \begin{definition} The class of \emph{real primitive recursive} functions is the smallest class containing the nullary functions $0 ^{0 \to 1}$, $1 ^{0 \to 1}$, $-1 ^{0 \to 1}$ and closed under $\mathord{\JX}$, $\mathord{\CM}$ and $\mathord{\PR}$. \end{definition} \begin{lemma} The following functions are real primitive recursive: for each $n \in \Nset$, the $n$-ary constants $0 ^{n \to 1}$, $1 ^{n \to 1}$, $-1 ^{n \to 1}$; for $n \in \Nset$ and $i = 0, \dots, n - 1$, the $n$-ary projection $\Proj i n$ to the $i$\textsuperscript{th} component; binary $\mathrm{add}$ and $\mathrm{mul}$; the functions $\mathrm{inv} _+$ (mapping $x > 0$ to $1 / x$), $\mathrm{sqrt _+}$ (mapping $x > 0$ to $\sqrt x$) and $\mathrm{ln}$ (natural logarithm) defined on $(0, \infty)$; the total functions $\mathrm{sin}$, $\mathrm{cos}$ and $\mathrm{exp}$; the circle ratio $\pi$ as a nullary function. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The constant $0 ^{n \to 1}$ is built by $ 0 ^{n \to 1} = 0 ^{0 \to 1} \circ \JX {(\,)} $; similarly for $1 ^{n \to 1}$ and $-1 ^{n \to 1}$. Then inductively define $ \Proj{i}{i + 1} = \PR {(0 ^{i \to 1}, 1 ^{i + 2 \to 1})} $ and $ \Proj i {n + 1} = \PR {(\Proj i n, 0 ^{n + 2 \to 1})} $. Using these, let $ \mathrm{add} = \PR {(\Proj 0 1, 1 ^{3 \to 1})} $ and $ \mathrm{mul} = \PR {(0 ^{1 \to 1}, \Proj 0 3)} $. For $\mathrm{inv} _+$, define \begin{align} f & = \PR {\bigl( 1 ^{0 \to 1}, \mathrm{mul} \circ \JX{\bigl( -1 ^{1 \to 1}, \mathrm{mul} \circ \JX {(\Proj 0 1, \Proj 0 1)} \bigr)} \circ \Proj 1 2 \bigr)}, \\ \mathrm{inv} _+ & = f \circ \bigl( \mathrm{add} \circ \JX {(\Proj 0 1, -1 ^{1 \to 1})} \bigr), \end{align} or, more colloquially, \begin{align} f \ap t & = 1 - \int _0 ^t (f \ap \tau) ^2 \, \d \tau, & \mathrm{inv} _+ \ap t & = f \ap (t - 1). \end{align} Square root is defined analogously by \begin{align} f \ap t & = 1 + \int _0 ^t \mathrm{inv} _+ \ap (2 \cdot f \ap \tau) \, \d \tau, & \mathrm{sqrt} _+ \ap t & = f \ap (t - 1). \end{align} Logarithm and exponentiation are analogous, using suitable integral equations. For the trigonometric functions, let $ \mathrm{sin} = \Proj 0 2 \circ \mathrm{trig} $ and $ \mathrm{cos} = \Proj 1 2 \circ \mathrm{trig} $, where \begin{equation} \mathrm{trig} = \PR {\bigl( \JX {(0 ^{0 \to 1}, 1 ^{0 \to 1})}, \JX{\bigl( \Proj 2 3, \bigl( \mathrm{mul} \circ \JX {(-1 ^{3 \to 1}, \Proj 1 3)} \bigr) \bigr)} \bigr)}, \end{equation} which is to say, \begin{equation} \begin{pmatrix} \mathrm{sin} \ap t \\ \mathrm{cos} \ap t \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} + \int _0 ^t \begin{pmatrix} \mathrm{cos} \ap \tau \\ - \mathrm{sin} \ap \tau \end{pmatrix} \, \d \tau. \end{equation} The circle ratio is $ \pi \ap (\,) = 4 \cdot \mathrm{Arctan} \ap 1 $, with $\mathrm{Arctan}$ defined by a suitable integral equation. \end{proof} Some authors say ``the function $1 / x$ is real primitive recursive'' to mean that $\mathrm{inv} _+$ is. It is not clear how such assertions without specification of domain can be justified. The reader may have felt uncomfortable with the unwieldy process of Definition~ in picking the right solution $h _{\vec v}$ out of $H _{\vec v}$. This can be simplified if we discuss only real primitive recursive functions, because of the following facts that result from the \emph{Uniqueness Theorem} for initial value problems~ and the \emph{Cauchy--Kowalewsky Theorem}~ \cite[Section~2.4]{krantz02:_primer_of_real_analy_funct}. \begin{theorem} Let $f$, $g$, $v$, $H _{\vec v}$ and $h _{\vec v}$ be as in Definition~. \begin{enumerate} \item If $g$ is an analytic \footnote{ This fact is often stated with a weaker assumption that $g$ be \emph{Lipschitz continuous}.} function with open domain, $H _{\vec v}$ is the set of all restrictions of $h _v$. \item If $ f $ and $ g $ are analytic functions with open domain, so is $\PR {(f, g)}$. \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} The fact~() says that a solution of \eqref{eq: integral equation} may diverge to infinity at some point but can never ``branch'' as in Figure~, provided $g$ is smooth enough. We therefore could have dispensed with Lemma~ and simply let $h _{\vec v}$ be the (graph) union of $H _v$, so far as real primitive recursive functions are concerned, because they are analytic by (). \subsection{Campagnolo's differential recursion} The clauses~()-- () of Definition~ guarantee that the integral equation \eqref{eq: integral equation} makes sense for all $t \in \dom h$. The clause (), however, could be slightly relaxed, since a small set of singularities in the integrand does not affect the integration. Define $\CampaPR$ by replacing () with \begin{enumerate} \item[($'$)] $(\vec v, \tau, h \ap \tau) \in \dom g$ for any $\tau \in \dom h \setminus S$, where $S$ is a countable set of isolated points. \end{enumerate} This is due to Campagnolo~ \cite[Definition~2.4.2]{campagnolo01:_comput_compl_real_valued_recur}, though he does not present a precise specification of the ``unique'' solution as we noted in the Section~. The choice between () and ($'$) is somewhat similar to the discussion regarding Principle~. The issue is whether $g \ap (\vec v, \tau, h \ap \tau)$, where $\tau \in [0, t]$, is a ``subexpression'' of the right-hand side of the equation~\eqref{eq: integral equation}. Without going into the philosophical discussion to ask which is ``natural,'' we point out some differences this choice incurs. Theorem~~() fails if we replace $\PR$ by $\CampaPR$, as the following example shows (Figure~). The function $g \pcolon \Rset \pto \Rset$ defined by $ \dom g = \Rset \setminus \{1\} $ and $ g \ap t = \mathrm{inv} _+ \ap \bigl( \mathrm{sqrt} _+ \ap \bigl( \mathrm{sqrt} _+ \ap (t - 1) ^2 \bigr) \bigr) = 1 /\! \sqrt{\lvert t - 1 \rvert} $ is real primitive recursive by Lemma~. But $ k = \CampaPR {(-2 ^{0 \to 1}, g \circ \Proj 0 2)} \pcolon \Rset \pto \Rset $, where $-2 ^{0 \to 1}$ is the constant function with value~$-2$, is the total function given by \begin{equation} k \ap t = \begin{cases} + 2 \cdot \sqrt{ t - 1} & \text{if $t \geqslant 1$}, \\ - 2 \cdot \sqrt{-t + 1} & \text{if $t < 1$}, \end{cases} \end{equation} which is not differentiable at $1$. Note that $\PR {(-2 ^{0 \to 1}, g \circ \Proj 0 2)}$ is its restriction to $(-\infty, 1)$ and thus analytic. For a subtler example, recall the equation \eqref{eq: square root} for $\mathrm{sqrt} _+$; with $\CampaPR$, the same equation produces the square root function defined on $[0, \infty)$, rather than on $(0, \infty)$. This breaks the assumption of Theorem~~() and thus gives rise to incomparable functions in $H _{\vec v}$ when, say, $f = 1 ^{0 \to 1}$ and $g = k \circ \Proj 1 2$, with $k$ from \eqref{eq: 06071790810}; that is, the equation \begin{equation} h \ap t = 1 + \int _0 ^t k \ap (h \ap \tau) \, \d \tau \end{equation} has two solutions that take different values at a point. Keeping the class analytic also conforms to Moore's intention ~\cite[Definition~9]{moore96:_recur_theor_reals_contin_comput} to make the equation \eqref{eq: integral equation} equivalent to \begin{equation} h \ap 0 = f \ap v, \qquad \D ^1 h \ap t = g \ap (v, t, h \ap t), \end{equation} which would not make sense for non-differentiable $h$. \subsection{A primitive recursive but not differentially algebraic function} Claim~ would not make sense if we adopted $\CampaPR$ in defining real primitive recursive functions, because there would then arise non-analytic functions, as we noted above. We now show that, even under our restrictive definition with the analyticity-preserving $\PR$, the claim fails. Define $\Check \varGamma \pcolon \Rset ^2 \pto \Rset$ by $\dom \varGamma = (0, \infty) ^2$ and \begin{equation} \Check \varGamma \ap (R, x) = \int _{1 / R} ^R \exp {\bigl( (x - 1) \cdot \ln t - t \bigr)} \, \d t. \end{equation} Define Euler's \emph{gamma function} $ \varGamma \pcolon \Rset \pto \Rset$ by $\dom \varGamma = (0, \infty) $ and \begin{equation} \varGamma \ap x = \lim _{R \to \infty} \Check \varGamma \ap (R, x). \end{equation} It can be verified that this value converges and satisfies \begin{equation} \D ^n \varGamma \ap x = \lim _{R \to \infty} \D ^{(0, n)} \Check \varGamma \ap (R, x) \end{equation} for each $n \in \Nset$ and $x \in (0, \infty)$. H\"older showed that $\varGamma$ is not differentially algebraic~ . We do not know if $\varGamma$ is real primitive recursive, but $\Check \varGamma$ is easily shown real primitive recursive, using Lemma~. However, contrary to Claim~, it is not differentially algebraic. For assume that it were. We would then have a nonzero polynomial $P$ such that \begin{equation} P \ap \bigl( \Check \varGamma \ap (R, x), \D ^{(0, 1)} \Check \varGamma \ap (R, x), \dots, \D ^{(0, \arity P - 1)} \Check \varGamma \ap (R, x) \bigr) = 0 \end{equation} for each $(R, x) \in (0, \infty) ^2$. Note that we used the characterization~() of Theorem~ in order to take $P$ independent of $R$. We take the limit of \eqref{eq: 0604131901} as $R \to \infty$, which by \eqref{eq: 0604151413} yields \begin{equation} P \ap ( \varGamma \ap x, \D ^1 \varGamma \ap x, \dots, \D ^{\arity P - 1} \varGamma \ap x ) = 0, \end{equation} contradicting H\"older. \section{Other classes and related works} This section discusses some other operators introduced by Moore and other authors. \subsection{Minimization and Moore's real recursive functions} For a function $f \pcolon \Rset ^{m + 1} \pto \Rset$, Moore defines $\MN f \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset$ by \begin{equation} \MN f \ap \vec v = \begin{cases} t ^+ = \inf {\{\, t \geq 0 \mid f \ap (\vec v, t) = 0 \,\}} & \text{if} \ t ^+ < -t ^-, \\ t ^- = \sup {\{\, t \leq 0 \mid f \ap (\vec v, t) = 0 \,\}} & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} \end{equation} The class of \emph{real recursive} functions \footnote{ This ``recursiveness'' of Moore's should not be confused with the same word also used in the context of Computable Analysis. As we see in Appendix~, Moore's real recursive functions can even be discontinuous. } is the smallest class containing all real primitive recursive functions and closed under $\mathord{\JX}$, $\mathord{\CM}$, $\mathord{\PR}$ and $\mathord{\MN}$. Moore states the definition of $\MN$ in a way that leaves ambiguous whether \eqref{eq: definition of minimization} has a value when, say, $ \dom f = \Rset ^m \times [1, \infty) $ and $f \ap (v, t) = 2 - t$ for all $t \geq 1$. Should it have the value~$2$, or be left undefined because ``the zero-searching program gets stuck''? It turns out that, whichever definition we choose, Moore's claim about iteration~ \cite[Proposition~11]{moore96:_recur_theor_reals_contin_comput} remains true, in the following modified form. Since the original proof again forgets partial functions, we present a new proof in Appendix~. \begin{lemma} If $f \pcolon \Rset ^m \pto \Rset ^m$ is real recursive, there is a real recursive function $g \pcolon \Rset ^{m + 1} \pto \Rset ^m$ that extends the function $g'$ defined by $ \dom g' = \bigl\{\, (v, k) \in \Rset \times (\Nset \setminus \{0\}) \bigm| v \in \dom f ^k \,\bigr\} $ and $g' \ap (\vec v, k) = f ^k \ap \vec v$ for all $(v, k) \in \dom g'$, where $f ^k = \underbrace{f \circ \dots \circ f} _k$. \end{lemma} We have to note, however, that the class of real recursive functions is probably not well-behaved, since, with $\MN$ producing non-smooth functions, the class no longer enjoys Theorem~. We therefore doubt the significance of Claim~, although it could be justified by using Lemma~ to simulate Turing machines as Moore did. \subsection{Linear differential recursion} We have seen that many of the problems in Moore's original work were caused by failure to deal with partial functions properly. Some authors avoid this trouble by studying only operators preserving totality, so that partial functions never come into discussion. Campagnolo\- and Moore~ take this path by considering \emph{linear differential recursion} in place of $\PR$. For classes defined by this operator, some relationships with digital computation are known~ \cite{campagnolo01:_comput_compl_real_valued_recur, bournez04:_analog_charac_of_elemen_comput}. \subsection{Open problems} Claim~ has been the main rationale for calling variants of Moore's classes a model of analog computation. Now that we have lost it, an important challenge is the following. \begin{openproblem} Find a subclass of our real primitive recursive functions, preferably with an equally simple definition, that has a close relationship to the differentially algebraic functions. \end{openproblem} Another direction would be to reformulate further the rest of Moore's work, as well as other authors' works that also suffer from the same kind of ambiguity. For example, it may be interesting to work out Mycka and Costa's class arising from the operator of taking limits~ . \section*{Acknowledgement} The author thanks Ma\-ri\-ko~Ya\-sugi at Kyoto Sangyo University for the discussion that led to this work. Comments by J.\thinspace F.~Costa at Instituto Superior T\'ecnico helped improve the presentation of Section~. \clearpage \begin{small} \bibliographystyle{jipsj} \begin{thebibliography}{10} \itemsep4pt plus3pt minus2pt \parskip0pt \bibitem{blum97:_compl_real_comput} {\sc Blum,~L., Cucker,~F., Shub,~M.{\rm\ and }Smale,~S.} {\em Complexity and Real Computation}, Springer-Verlag (1997). \bibitem{bournez04:_analog_charac_of_elemen_comput} {\sc Bournez,~O.{\rm\ and }Hainry,~E.} An Analog Characterization of Elementarily Computable Functions over the Real Numbers, Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Springer (2004), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3142. \bibitem{bush31:_differ_analy} {\sc Bush,~V.} The {D}ifferential {A}nalyzer: A New Machine for Solving Differential Equations, {\em Journal of the Franklin Institute}, {\bf 212} (1931), 447--488. \bibitem{campagnolo01:_comput_compl_real_valued_recur} {\sc Campagnolo,~M.~L.} {\em Computational Complexity of Real Valued Recursive Functions and Analog Circuits}, PhD thesis, Instituto Superior T\'{e}cnico (July 2001). \bibitem{campagnolo01:_upper_and_lower_bound_contin_time_comput} {\sc Campagnolo,~M.~L.{\rm\ and }Moore,~C.} Upper and Lower Bounds on Continuous-Time Computation, Second International Conference on Unconventional Models of Computation (2001). \bibitem{campagnolo00:_iterat_inequal_and_differ_in_analog_comput} {\sc Campagnolo,~M.~L., Moore,~C.{\rm\ and }Costa,~J.~F.} Iteration, Inequalities, and Differentiability in Analog Computers, {\em Journal of Complexity}, {\bf 16}, 4 (December 2000), 642--660. \bibitem{graca02:_gener_purpos_analog_comop_recur} {\sc Gra\c{c}a,~D.} The {G}eneral {P}urpose {A}nalog {C}omputer and Recursive Functions Over the Reals, Master's thesis, Instituto Superior T\'{e}cnico (July 2002). \bibitem{graca04:_some_gener_purpos_analog_comput} {\sc Gra\c{c}a,~D.} Some recent developments on {S}hannon's {G}eneral {P}urpose {A}nalog {C}omputer, {\em Mathematical Logic Quarterly}, {\bf 50} (April 2004), 473--485. \bibitem{hoelder86:_ueber_eigen_gammaf_differ} {\sc H{\"o}lder,~O.~L.} Ueber die {E}i\-gen\-schaft der {G}amma\-function kei\-ner al\-ge\-bra\-i\-schen {D}if\-fe\-ren\-tial\-glei\-chung zu gen\"ugen, {\em Mathematische Annalen}, {\bf 28} (1886), 1--13. \bibitem{krantz02:_primer_of_real_analy_funct} {\sc Krantz,~S.~G.{\rm\ and }Parks,~H.~R.} {\em A Primer of Real Analytic Functions}, Birk\-h{\"a}user Advanced Texts, Birk\-h{\"a}user Boston, second edition (June 2002). \bibitem{lang93:_real_funct_analy} {\sc Lang,~S.} {\em Real and Functional Analysis}, Vol. 142 of {\em Graduate Texts in Mathematics}, Springer-Verlag, third edition (1993). \bibitem{lipshitz87:_differ_algeb_replac_theor_analog_comput} {\sc Lipshitz,~L.{\rm\ and }Rubel,~L.~A.} A Differentially Algebraic Replacement Theorem, and Analog Computability, {\em Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society}, {\bf 99}, 2 (February 1987), 367--372. \bibitem{moore96:_recur_theor_reals_contin_comput} {\sc Moore,~C.} Recursion Theory on the Reals and Continuous-Time Computation, {\em Theoretical Computer Science}, {\bf 162} (1996), 23--44. \bibitem{mycka04:_real_recur_funct_and_their_hierar} {\sc Mycka,~J.{\rm\ and }Costa,~J.~F.} Real Recursive Functions and Their Hierarchy, {\em Journal of Complexity}, {\bf 20}, 6 (December 2004), 835--857. \bibitem{orponen97:_survey_of_contin_time_comput_theor} {\sc Orponen,~P.} A Survey of Continuous-Time Computation Theory, Advances in Algorithms, Languages, and Complexity, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997), 209--224. \bibitem{pour-el74:_abstr_comput_relat_gener_purpos} {\sc {Pour-El},~M.~B.} Abstract Computability and its Relation to the {G}eneral {P}urpose {A}nalog {C}omputer (Some Connections Between Logic, Differential Equations and Analog Computers), {\em Transactions of the American Mathematical Society}, {\bf 199} (1974), 1--28. \bibitem{ritt27:_assem_theor_proof_exist_trans_trans_funct} {\sc Ritt,~J.~F.{\rm\ and }Gourin,~E.} An Assemblage-Theoretic Proof of the Existence of Transcendentally Transcendental Functions, {\em Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society}, {\bf 33} (1927), 182--184. \bibitem{shannon41:_mathem_theor_differ_analy} {\sc Shannon,~C.~E.} Mathematical Theory of the {D}ifferential {A}nalyzer, {\em Journal of Mathematics and Physics}, {\bf 20}, 4 (1941), 337--354. \bibitem{weihrauch00:_comput_analy} {\sc Weihrauch,~K.} {\em Computable Analysis: An Introduction}, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science, Springer-Verlag (2000). \end{thebibliography} \end{small} \appendix\small \section{Old results} We list some known theorems that we used in Section~. The following \emph{Baire Category Theorem} is used in the proof Theorem~. \begin{theorem} Let $J$ be a subset of\/ $\Rset ^m$. The union of countably many closed subsets of $J$ with empty interior has empty interior. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} \newcommand{\Ball}{\mathrm{B}} Let $J _0$, $J _1$, \ldots be closed subsets of $J$ with empty interior, and $U$ be any nonempty open subset of $J$. We will show that $U \setminus \bigcup _{P \in \Nset} J _P$ is nonempty. For each $P \in \Nset$, we take $x _P \in \Rset ^m$ and $\varepsilon _P \in \Rset$ as follows. Write $ \Ball (x, \varepsilon) $ for the open set of points in $J$ whose distance from $x$ is less than $\varepsilon$. Let $x _0 \in U$ and $\varepsilon _0 \in (0, 1)$ be such that $\Ball (x _0, \varepsilon _0) \subseteq U$. For each $P \in \Nset$, let $x _{P + 1} \in U$ and $ \varepsilon _{P + 1} \in (0, 2 ^{-P - 1}) $ be such that $ \Ball (x _{P + 1}, \varepsilon _{P + 1}) \subseteq \Ball (x _P, \varepsilon _P) \setminus J _P $. This is possible because $\Ball (x _P, \varepsilon _P) \setminus J _P$ is open and nonempty, since $J _P$ is closed and has empty interior. As $P$ tends to infinity, $x _P$ converges to a point in $U \setminus \bigcup _{P \in \Nset} J _P$. \end{proof} The proof of Theorem~ also uses the following \emph{Identity Theorem} (for real analytic functions of several variables), also known as the \emph{Principle of Analytic Continuation}. It can be proved by straightforwardly generalizing the same assertion for unary functions~ \cite[Section~1.2]{krantz02:_primer_of_real_analy_funct}. \begin{theorem} An analytic function with open connected domain that vanishes on an open set vanishes everywhere. \end{theorem} Let $J \subseteq \Rset$ be an open interval. It is well known that functions $u _0$, \dots, $u _{k - 1} \in \Analytic [J]$ are linearly dependent if and only if the determinant $ \bigl\lvert {(\D ^i u _j) _{i, j = 0, \dots, k - 1}} \bigr\rvert $, called their \emph{Wronskian}, is zero. Using this fact, Ritt and Gourin~ showed ($_\Rset$) $\Rightarrow$ () of Theorem~. \begin{theorem} Let $J \subseteq \Rset$ be an open interval and let $f \in \Analytic [J]$. If we have \begin{equation} P \ap ( f, \D ^1 f, \D ^2 f, \ldots, \D ^{\arity P - 1} f ) = 0 \end{equation} for some $\Rset$-coefficient nonzero polynomial~$P$, then we have \eqref{eq: 0702172230} for some $\Zset$-coefficient nonzero polynomial~$P$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} By the assumption, there is a finite set $ B \subseteq \Nset ^{\arity P} $ such that the functions \begin{equation} f ^{\nu _0} \cdot (\D f) ^{\nu _1} \cdots (\D ^{\arity P - 1} f) ^{\nu _{\arity P - 1}}, \qquad \text{for} \ (\nu _0, \dots, \nu _{\arity P - 1}) \in B, \end{equation} are linearly dependent. The Wronskian of \eqref{eq: 0605281357} thus vanishes, which is a $\Zset$-coefficient polynomial in $f$, $\D ^1 f$, \dots, $\D ^{\arity P + \lvert B \rvert - 1} f$. This polynomial is nonzero, since otherwise \eqref{eq: 0605281357} would be linearly dependent for arbitrary $ f $, which is absurd. \end{proof} One direction of Lemma~ uses the following \emph{Transcendence Degree Theorem}. \begin{theorem} Let $F$ be a subfield of a field~$E$ and $D$ be a subset of $E$. If $D \subseteq \overline{F (B)}$ for some finite set $B \subseteq E$, then $D \subseteq \overline{F (C)}$ for some finite set $C \subseteq D$. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} For each $d \in D$, the assumption gives \begin{equation} d ^l = \sum _{j = 0} ^{l - 1} \beta _j \cdot d ^j \end{equation} for some $l \in \Nset \setminus \{0\}$ and $\beta _j \in F (B)$. Suppose that for some $d = d _0 \in D$, this equation contains some $b \in B \setminus D$, since otherwise we are done. Then we can rewrite \eqref{eq: 0702122314} as \begin{equation} b ^k = \sum _{i = 0} ^{k - 1} \alpha _i \cdot b ^i \end{equation} for some $k \in \Nset \setminus \{0\}$ and $\alpha _i \in F (B')$, where $B' = (B \setminus \{b\}) \cup \{d _0\}$. For each $d \in D$ and $t \in \Nset$, we can substitute \eqref{eq: 0702122314} and \eqref{eq: 0702122313} repeatedly in $d ^t$ to write \begin{equation} d ^t = \sum _{i = 0} ^{k - 1} \sum _{j = 0} ^{l - 1} \gamma _{i, j} \cdot c ^i \cdot d ^j \end{equation} for some $\gamma _{i, j} \in F (B')$. The $k \cdot l + 1$ elements $1$, $d$, $d ^2$, \ldots, $d ^{k \cdot l}$ are hence linearly dependent over $F (B')$. We have thus found a set~$B'$ with $D \subseteq \overline{F (B')}$ such that $B' \setminus D$ has strictly less elements than $B \setminus D$. Repeat. \end{proof} \section{Maximal unique function} This section shows that, from a set~$K$ of functions with a certain property, we can choose a function of which all functions in $K$ is a restriction. This was used to justify Definition~ in the presence of non-analytic functions where Theorem~~() does not apply. We say that a set $I \subseteq \Rset$ is \emph{$0$-convex} if it is either the empty set or a possibly unbounded interval containing $0$. Note that the union of $0$-convex sets is $0$-convex. We say that a set~$K$ of functions from $\Rset$ is \emph{consistent} if for any $t \in \Rset$, the set $\{\, g \ap t \mid g \in K \,\}$ has at most one element. In this case, the \emph{union} of $K$ means the unique function $k$ such that $\dom h = \bigcup _{g \in K} \dom g$ and for each $t \in \dom h$, there is some $g \in K$ with $h \ap t = g \ap t$. \begin{lemma} Let $H$ be a set of functions from $\Rset$ with $0$-convex domain. Then the set $K$ of functions unique in $H$ is consistent. Moreover, if its union belongs to $H$, it belongs to $K$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} For the first claim, suppose otherwise. Then there are functions $k _0$, $k _1 \in K$ and $t \in \dom k _0 \cap \dom k _1$ such that $k _0 \ap t \neq k _1 \ap t$. This contradicts the fact that $k _0$ is unique in $H$. For the second claim, suppose that the union~$k$ of $K$ is not unique in $H$. That is, there are a function $g \in H$ and $t \in \dom k \cap \dom g$ such that $g \ap t \neq k \ap t$. There is $k _0 \in K$ for which $t \in \dom k _0$. We have $k _0 \ap t = k \ap t \neq g \ap t$, contradicting the fact that $k _0$ is unique in $H$. \end{proof} This lemma can be applied to $H = H _{\vec v}$ in the situation of Definition~ , because there the union of any consistent subset of $H _{\vec v}$ belongs to $H _{\vec v}$. \section{Iteration} As we noted, the definition~ \eqref{eq: definition of minimization} of the operator~$\MN$ is ambiguous, as it contains a subexpression $f \ap (v, t)$ that may be undefined for some $(v, t)$. So when is $\MN f \ap v$ defined? Possible answers include: \begin{enumerate} \item When $t ^+$ and $t ^-$ are defined. \item When at least either $t ^+$ or $t ^-$ is defined; the condition $t ^+ < -t ^-$ will be used only when both are defined. \end{enumerate} And when is $t ^+$ (resp.\ $t ^-$) defined? Possible answers include: \begin{enumerate} \def\theenumi{\roman{enumi}} \item When there is $t \geq 0$ (resp.\ $\leq 0$) such that $f \ap (v, t) = 0$ and $(v, \tau) \in \dom f$ for all $\tau \in \Rset$. \item When there is $t \geq 0$ (resp.\ $\leq 0$) such that $f \ap (v, t) = 0$ and $(v, \tau) \in \dom f$ for all $\tau \in [-t, t]$ (resp.\ $[t, -t]$). \item When there is $t \geq 0$ (resp.\ $\leq 0$) such that $f \ap (v, t) = 0$ and $(v, \tau) \in \dom f$ for all $\tau \in [0, t]$ (resp.\ $[t, 0]$). \item When there is $t \geq 0$ (resp.\ $\leq 0$) such that $f \ap (v, t) = 0$. \end{enumerate} For (), () and (), we may also consider adding the phrase ``except for some countably many isolated $\tau$'' (compare ($'$) in Section~). Moore's informal explanation by a programming language \cite[Section~7]{moore96:_recur_theor_reals_contin_comput} seems to suggest () and (). However, without discussing which is the ``right'' definition of $\MN$, we show that, whichever we choose, Lemma~ holds. The following proof is consistent with any of the above $2 \times 7$ possible definitions. \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~] Denote $\MN f \ap \vec v$ by $\mu t \ldotp f \ap (\vec v, t)$. Let \begin{align} \mathrm{zero?} \ap x & = \mu y \ldotp (x ^2 + y ^2) \cdot (1 - y), \\ \mathrm{integer?} \ap x & = \mathrm{zero?} \ap \bigl( \sin {(\pi \cdot x)} \bigr), \\ \mathrm{round} \ap x & = x - \mu r \ldotp \mathrm{integer?} \ap (x - r), \end{align} so that \eqref{eq: 0607142300} is the unique integer in $(x - 1 / 2, x + 1 / 2]$. We get $\overline{\mathrm{inv}}$ of \eqref{eq: 0607150051} by \begin{equation} \overline{\mathrm{inv}} \ap x = \mu t \ldotp x \cdot (x \cdot t - 1). \end{equation} The above four functions are total. Let \begin{equation} \mathrm{digit} \ap (x, b, i) = \mathrm{round} \left( \frac x {b ^i} - \frac 1 2 \right) - b \cdot \mathrm{round} \left( \frac x {b ^{i + 1}} - \frac 1 2 \right) \end{equation} for $b > 0$, where $b ^i = \mathrm{exp} \ap (i \cdot \ln b)$. When $b > 1$ and $i$ are integers, $\mathrm{digit} \ap (x, b, i)$ is the digit in $b ^i$'s place when $x$ is written in base-$b$ notation. Define \begin{gather} \mathrm{clk} \ap t = \mathrm{digit} \ap (t, 2, -1), \qquad \mathrm{zigzag} \ap t = 0 + \int _0 ^t (2 - 4 \cdot \mathrm{clk} \ap \tau) \, \d \tau, \\ \begin{pmatrix} g \ap (\vec v, t) \\ h \ap (\vec v, t) \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \vec v \\ \vec v \end{pmatrix} + \int _0 ^t \begin{pmatrix} 2 \cdot (1 - \mathrm{clk} \ap \tau) \cdot \bigl( f \ap \bigl( h (v, \tau) - \mathrm{clk} \ap \tau \cdot (h \ap (v, \tau) - v) \bigr) - h \ap (\vec v, \tau) \bigr) \\ 2 \cdot \mathrm{clk} \ap \tau \cdot \bigl( h \ap (\vec v, \tau) - g \ap (\vec v, \tau) \bigr) \cdot \overline{\mathrm{inv}} \ap (\mathrm{zigzag} \ap \tau) \end{pmatrix} \, \d \tau, \end{gather} as in Figure~. We have $f ^k \ap \vec v = g \ap (\vec v, k - 1 / 2)$ for $k \in \Nset \setminus \{0\}$. \end{proof} Note that $ \mathrm{clk} \ap \tau \cdot (h \ap (v, \tau) - v) $ in \eqref{eq: 0612132308} cannot be dropped, because of Principle~.
|
0704.0302
|
Title: Spline Single-Index Prediction Model
Abstract: For the past two decades, single-index model, a special case of projection
pursuit regression, has proven to be an efficient way of coping with the high
dimensional problem in nonparametric regression. In this paper, based on weakly
dependent sample, we investigate the single-index prediction (SIP) model which
is robust against deviation from the single-index model. The single-index is
identified by the best approximation to the multivariate prediction function of
the response variable, regardless of whether the prediction function is a
genuine single-index function. A polynomial spline estimator is proposed for
the single-index prediction coefficients, and is shown to be root-n consistent
and asymptotically normal. An iterative optimization routine is used which is
sufficiently fast for the user to analyze large data of high dimension within
seconds. Simulation experiments have provided strong evidence that corroborates
with the asymptotic theory. Application of the proposed procedure to the rive
flow data of Iceland has yielded superior out-of-sample rolling forecasts.
Body: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2} \markboth{\hfill{\footnotesize\rm LI WANG AND LIJIAN YANG}\hfill} {\hfill {\footnotesize\rm SINGLE-INDEX PREDICTION MODEL} \hfill} \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{} $\ $\par \fontsize{10.95}{14pt plus.8pt minus .6pt}\selectfont \vspace{0.8pc} \centerline{\large\bf SPLINE SINGLE-INDEX PREDICTION MODEL} \vspace{.4cm} \centerline{Li Wang and Lijian Yang : Lijian Yang, Department of Statistics and Probability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. E-mail: yang@stt.msu.edu}} \vspace{.4cm} \centerline{\it University of Georgia and Michigan State University} \vspace{.55cm} \fontsize{9}{11.5pt plus.8pt minus .6pt}\selectfont \begin{quotation} \noindent \textit{Abstract:} For the past two decades, single-index model, a special case of projection pursuit regression, has proven to be an efficient way of coping with the high dimensional problem in nonparametric regression. In this paper, based on weakly dependent sample, we investigate the single-index prediction (SIP) model which is robust against deviation from the single-index model. The single-index is identified by the best approximation to the multivariate prediction function of the response variable, regardless of whether the prediction function is a genuine single-index function. A polynomial spline estimator is proposed for the single-index prediction coefficients, and is shown to be root-n consistent and asymptotically normal. An iterative optimization routine is used which is sufficiently fast for the user to analyze large data of high dimension within seconds. Simulation experiments have provided strong evidence that corroborates with the asymptotic theory. Application of the proposed procedure to the rive flow data of Iceland has yielded superior out-of-sample rolling forecasts. \vspace{9pt} \noindent \textit{Key words and phrases:} B-spline, geometric mixing, knots, nonparametric regression, root-n rate, strong consistency. \end{quotation} \fontsize{10.95}{14pt plus.8pt minus .6pt}\selectfont \thispagestyle{empty} \setcounter{chapter}{1} \setcounter{equation}{0} \noindent \textbf{1. Introduction} \vskip 0.1in Let $\left\{ \mathbf{X}_{i}^{T},Y_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{n}=\left\{ X_{i,1},...,X_{i,d},Y_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{n}$ be a length $n$ realization of a $\left( d+1\right) $-dimensional strictly stationary process following the heteroscedastic model \begin{equation} Y_{i}=m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) +\sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i},m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) =E\left( Y_{i}|\mathbf{X} _{i}\right) , \end{equation} in which $E\left( \varepsilon _{i}\left| \mathbf{X}_{i}\right. \right) =0$, $ E\left( \varepsilon _{i}^{2}\left| \mathbf{X}_{i}\right. \right) =1$, $1\leq i\leq n$. The $d$-variate functions $m$, $\sigma $ are the unknown mean and standard deviation of the response $Y_{i}$ conditional on the predictor vector $\mathbf{X}_{i}$, often estimated nonparametrically. In what follows, we let $\left( \mathbf{X}^{T},Y,\varepsilon \right) $ have the stationary distribution of $\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}^{T},Y_{i},\varepsilon _{i}\right) $. When the dimension of $\mathbf{X}$ is high, one unavoidable issue is the ``curse of dimensionality'', which refers to the poor convergence rate of nonparametric estimation of general multivariate function. Much effort has been devoted to the circumventing of this difficulty. In the words of Xia, Tong, Li and Zhu (2002), there are essentially two approaches: function approximation and dimension reduction. A favorite function approximation technique is the generalized additive model advocated by Hastie and Tibshirani (1990), see also, for example, Mammen, Linton and Nielsen (1999), Huang and Yang (2004), Xue and Yang (2006 a, b), Wang and Yang (2007). An attractive dimension reduction method is the single-index model, similar to the first step of projection pursuit regression, see Friedman and Stuetzle (1981), Hall (1989), Huber (1985), Chen (1991). The basic appeal of single-index model is its simplicity: the $d $-variate function $m\left( \mathbf{x}\right) =m\left( x_{1},...,x_{d}\right) $ is expressed as a univariate function of $\mathbf{x} ^{T}\mathbf{\theta }_{0}=\sum_{p=1}^{d}x_{p}\theta _{0,p}$. Over the last two decades, many authors had devised various intelligent estimators of the single-index coefficient vector $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}=\left( \theta _{0,1},...,\theta _{0,d}\right) ^{T}$, for instance, Powell, Stock and Stoker (1989), H\"{a}rdle and Stoker (1989), Ichimura (1993), Klein and Spady (1993), H\"{a}rdle, Hall and Ichimura (1993), Horowitz and H\"{a}rdle (1996), Carroll, Fan, Gijbels and Wand (1997), Xia and Li (1999), Hristache, Juditski and Spokoiny (2001). More recently, Xia, Tong, Li and Zhu (2002) proposed the minimum average variance estimation (MAVE) for several index vectors. All the aforementioned methods assume that the $d$-variate regression function $m\left( \mathbf{x}\right) $ is exactly a univariate function of some $\mathbf{x}^{T}\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ and obtain a root-$n$ consistent estimator of $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$. If this model is misspecified ($m$ is not a genuine single-index function), however, a goodness-of-fit test then becomes necessary and the estimation of $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ must be redefined, see Xia, Li, Tong and Zhang (2004). In this paper, instead of presuming that underlying true function $m$ is a single-index function, we estimate a univariate function $g$ that optimally approximates the multivariate function $m$ in the sense of \begin{equation} g\left( \nu \right) =E\left[ \left. m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) \right| \mathbf{X}^{T}\mathbf{\theta }_{0}=\nu \right] , \end{equation} where the unknown parameter $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ is called the SIP coefficient, used for simple interpretation once estimated; $\mathbf{X}^{T} \mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ is the latent SIP variable; and $g$ is a smooth but unknown function used for further data summary, called the link prediction function. Our method therefore is clearly interpretable regardless of the goodness-of-fit of the single-index model, making it much more relevant in applications. We propose estimators of $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ and $g$ based on weakly dependent sample, which includes many existing nonparametric time series models, that are (i) computationally expedient and (ii) theoretically reliable. Estimation of both $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ and $g$ has been done via the kernel smoothing techniques in existing literature, while we use polynomial spline smoothing. The greatest advantages of spline smoothing, as pointed out in Huang and Yang (2004), Xue and Yang (2006 b) are its simplicity and fast computation. Our proposed procedure involves two stages: estimation of $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ by some $\sqrt{n}$ -consistent $\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}$, minimizing an empirical version of the mean squared error, $R(\mathbf{\theta })=E\{Y-E(\left. Y\right| \mathbf{X} ^{T}\mathbf{\theta })\}^{2}$; spline smoothing of $Y$ on $\mathbf{X}^{T}\hat{ \mathbf{\theta }}$ to obtain a cubic spline estimator $\hat{g}$ of $g$. The best single-index approximation to $m(\mathbf{x})$ is then $\hat{m}(\mathbf{x})=\hat{g}\left( \mathbf{x}^{T}\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}\right)$. Under geometrically strong mixing condition, strong consistency and $\sqrt{n}$-rate asymptotic normality of the estimator $\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}$ of the SIP coefficient $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ in () are obtained. Proposition is the key in understanding the efficiency of the proposed estimator. It shows that the derivatives of the risk function up to order 2 are uniformly almost surely approximated by their empirical versions. Practical performance of the SIP estimators is examined via Monte Carlo examples. The estimator of the SIP coefficient performs very well for data of both moderate and high dimension $d$, of sample size $n$ from small to large, see Tables and , Figures \ref {FIG:Xia2004} and . By taking advantages of the spline smoothing and the iterative optimization routines, one reduces the computation burden immensely for massive data sets. Table reports the computing time of one simulation example on an ordinary PC, which shows that for massive data sets, the SIP method is much faster than the MAVE method. For instance, the SIP estimation of a $200$-dimensional $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ from a data of size $1000$ takes on average mere $2.84$ seconds, while the MAVE method needs to spend $2432.56$ seconds on average to obtain a comparable estimates. Hence on account of criteria (i) and (ii), our method is indeed appealing. Applying the proposed SIP procedure to the rive flow data of Iceland, we have obtained superior forecasts, based on a $9$-dimensional index selected by BIC, see Figure . The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives details of the model specification, proposed methods of estimation and main results. Section 3 describes the actual procedure to implement the estimation method. Section 4 reports our findings in an extensive simulation study. The proposed SIP model and the estimation procedure are applied in Section 5 to the rive flow data of Iceland. Most of the technical proofs are contained in the Appendix. \setcounter{chapter}{2} \renewcommand{\theproposition}{{2. \arabic{proposition}}} \setcounter{equation}{0} \setcounter{lemma}{0} \setcounter{theorem}{0} \setcounter{proposition}{0} \setcounter{corollary}{0} \vskip .12in \noindent \textbf{2. The Method and Main Results} \label {SEC:method} \vskip .10in \noindent \textbf{2.1. Identifiability and definition of the index coefficient} \vskip .10in It is obvious that without constraints, the SIP coefficient vector $\mathbf{ \theta }_{0}=\left( \theta _{0,1},...,\theta _{0,d}\right) ^{T}$ is identified only up to a constant factor. Typically, one requires that $\left\| \mathbf{\theta }_{0}\right\| =1$ which entails that at least one of the coordinates $\theta _{0,1},...,\theta _{0,d} $ is nonzero. One could assume without loss of generality that $\theta _{0,d}>0$, and the candidate $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ would then belong to the upper unit hemisphere $S_{+}^{d-1}=\left\{ \left( \theta _{1},...,\theta _{d}\right) |\sum_{p=1}^{d}\theta _{p}^{2}=1,\theta _{d}> 0\right\} $. For a fixed $\mathbf{\theta }=\left( \theta _{1},...,\theta _{d}\right) ^{T}$ , denote $X_{\mathbf{\theta }}=\mathbf{X}^{T}\mathbf{\theta }$, $X_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}=\mathbf{X}_{i}^{T}\mathbf{\theta }$, $1\leq i\leq n$. Let \begin{equation} m_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( X_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) =E\left( Y|X_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\right) =E\left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) |X_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right\} . \end{equation} Define the risk function of $\mathbf{\theta }$ as \begin{equation} R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) =E\left[ \left\{ Y-m_{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( X_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} ^{2}\right] =E\left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) -m_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( X_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} ^{2}+E\sigma ^{2}\left( \mathbf{X}\right) , \end{equation} which is uniquely minimized at $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ $\in S_{+}^{d-1}$, i.e. \[ \mathbf{\theta }_{0}=\arg \min_{\mathbf{\theta \in }S_{+}^{d-1}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right). \] \vskip 0.05in \noindent \textbf{Remark 2.1.} Note that $S_{+}^{d-1}$ is not a compact set, so we introduce a cap shape subset of $S_{+}^{d-1}$ \[ S_{c}^{d-1}=\left\{ \left( \theta _{1},...,\theta _{d}\right) |\sum_{p=1}^{d}\theta _{p}^{2}=1,\theta _{d}\geq \sqrt{1-c^{2}}\right\}, c\in \left( 0,1\right) \] Clearly, for an appropriate choice of $c$, $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}\in S_{c}^{d-1}$, which we assume in the rest of the paper. Denote $\mathbf{\theta }_{-d}=\left( \theta _{1},...,\theta _{d-1}\right) ^{T}$, since for fixed $\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{+}^{d-1}$, the risk function $ R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) $ depends only on the first $d-1$ values in $ \mathbf{\theta }$, so $R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) $ is a function of $ \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}$ \[ R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) =R\left( \theta _{1},\theta _{2},...,\theta _{d-1},\sqrt{1-\left\| \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right\| _{2}^{2} }\right) , \] with well-defined score and Hessian matrices \begin{equation} S^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) =\frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{ \theta }_{-d}}R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) \text{, }H^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) =\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \mathbf{\theta } _{-d}\partial \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}^{T}}R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta } _{-d}\right). \end{equation} \noindent \textbf{Assumption A1:} \textit{The Hessian matrix} $H^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) $ \textit{is positive definite and the risk function }$R^{*}$ \textit{is locally convex at} $\mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}$ \textit{, i.e., for any }$\varepsilon >0$\textit{, there exists} $\delta >0$ \textit{such that} $R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) -R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) <\delta $ \textit{implies} $\left\| \mathbf{ \theta }_{-d}-\mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right\| _{2}<\varepsilon $. \vskip .12in \noindent \textbf{2.2. Variable transformation} \vskip .10in Throughout this paper, we denote by $B_{a}^{d}=\left\{ \mathbf{x}\in R^{d}\left| \left\| \mathbf{x}\right\| \leq a\right. \right\} $ the $d$ -dimensional ball with radius $a$ and center $\mathbf{0}$ and \[ C^{(k)}\left( B_{a}^{d}\right) =\left\{ m\left| \text{the\ }k\text{th order partial derivatives of }m\text{ are continuous on }B_{a}^{d}\right. \right\} \] the space of $k$-th order smooth functions. \noindent \textbf{Assumption A2:} \textit{The density function of }$\mathbf{X }$,\textit{\ }$f\left( \mathbf{x}\right) \in C^{(4)}\left( B_{a}^{d}\right) $ \textit{, and there are constants }$0<c_{f}\leq C_{f}$\textit{\ such that } \[ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} c_{f}/\text{Vol}_{d}\left( B_{a}^{d}\right) \leq f\left( \mathbf{x}\right) \leq C_{f}/\text{Vol}_{d}\left( B_{a}^{d}\right) , & \mathbf{x}\in B_{a}^{d} \\ f\left( \mathbf{x}\right) \equiv 0, & \mathbf{x}\notin B_{a}^{d} \end{array} \right. . \] For a fixed $\mathbf{\theta }$, define the transformed variables of the SIP variable $X_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ \begin{equation} U_{\mathbf{\theta }}=F_{d}\left( X_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ,U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}=F_{d}\left( X_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) ,1\leq i\leq n, \end{equation} in which $F_{d}$ is the a rescaled centered $\text{Beta}\left\{ \left( d+1\right) /2,\left( d+1\right) /2\right\} $ cumulative distribution function, i.e. \begin{equation} F_{d}\left( \nu \right) =\int_{-1}^{\nu /a}\frac{\Gamma \left( d+1\right) }{ \Gamma \left\{ \left( d+1\right) /2\right\} ^{2}2^{d}}\left( 1-t^{2}\right) ^{\left( d-1\right) /2}dt,\nu \in \left[ -a,a\right] . \end{equation} \vskip 0.05in \noindent \textbf{Remark 2.2.} For any fixed $\mathbf{\theta }$ , the transformed variable $U_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ in () has a quasi-uniform $[0,1]$ distribution. Let $f_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) $ be the probability density function of $U_{\mathbf{\theta }}$, then for any $u\in \left[ 0,1\right] $ \[ f_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) =\left\{ F_{d}^{^{\prime }}\left( v\right) \right\} f_{X_{\theta }}\left( v\right), \ v=F_{d}^{-1}\left( u\right), \] in which $f_{X_{\theta}}\left( v\right)=\lim_{\triangle \nu \rightarrow 0} P\left( \nu \leq X_{\mathbf{\theta }}\leq \nu +\triangle \nu \right)$. Noting that $x_{\mathbf{\theta}}$ is exactly the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ on $\mathbf{\theta }$, let $\mathcal{D}_{\nu }=\left\{\mathbf{x}| \nu \leq x_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\leq \nu +\triangle \nu \right\} \cap B_{a}^{d}$, then one has \[ P\left( \nu \leq X_{\mathbf{\theta }}\leq \nu +\triangle \nu \right) =P\left( \mathbf{X}\in \mathcal{D}_{\nu }\right) =\int_{\mathcal{D}_{\nu }}f\left( \mathbf{x}\right) d\mathbf{x}. \] According to Assumption A2 \[ \frac{c_{f}\text{Vol}_{d}(\mathcal{D}_{\nu })}{\text{Vol}_{d}\left( B_{a}^{d}\right) }\leq P\left( \nu \leq X_{\mathbf{\theta }}\leq \nu +\triangle \nu \right) \leq \frac{C_{f}\text{Vol}_{d}(\mathcal{D}_{\nu })}{ \text{Vol}_{d}\left( B_{a}^{d}\right) }. \] On the other hand \[ \text{Vol}_{d}(\mathcal{D}_{\nu })=\text{Vol}_{d-1}(\mathcal{J}_{\nu })\triangle \nu +o\left( \triangle \nu \right) , \] where $\mathcal{J}_{\nu }=\left\{\mathbf{x}|x_{\mathbf{\theta}}=v\right\} \cap B_{a}^{d}$. Note that the volume of $B_{a}^{d}$ is $ \pi ^{d/2}a^{d}/\Gamma\left( d/2+1\right)$ and \[ \text{Vol}_{d-1}\left( \mathcal{J}_{\nu }\right) =\left. \pi ^{\left( d-1\right) /2}\left( a^{2}-\nu ^{2}\right) ^{\left( d-1\right) /2}\right/ \Gamma\left\{ (d+1)/{2}\right\} , \] thus \[ \frac{\text{Vol}_{d-1}(\mathcal{J}_{\nu })}{\text{Vol}_{d}\left( B_{a}^{d}\right) }=\frac{1}{a\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\Gamma\left( d+1\right) }{\left\{ \Gamma\left( \frac{d+1}{2}\right) \right\} ^{2}2^{d}}\left\{ 1-\left( \frac{\nu }{ a}\right) ^{2}\right\} ^{\left( d-1\right) /2}. \] Therefore $0<c_{f}\leq f_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) \leq C_{f}<\infty $, for any fixed $\mathbf{\theta }$ and $u\in \left[ 0,1\right] $. In terms of the transformed SIP variable $U_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ in (\ref {DEF:Utheta}), we can rewrite the regression function $m_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ in () for fixed $\mathbf{\theta }$ \begin{equation} \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) =E\left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) |U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} =E\left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) |X_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} =m_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( X_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) , \end{equation} then the risk function $R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) $ in (\ref {DEF:Rtheta}) can be expressed as \begin{equation} R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) =E\left[ \left\{ Y-\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} ^{2}\right] =E\left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \right\} ^{2}+E\sigma ^{2}\left( \mathbf{X}\right) . \end{equation} \vskip 0.10in \noindent \textbf{2.3. Estimation Method} \vskip 0.10in Estimation of both $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ and $g$ requires a degree of statistical smoothing, and all estimation here is carried out via cubic spline. In the following, we define the estimator $\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}$ of $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ and the estimator $\hat{g}$ of $g$. To introduce the space of splines, we pre-select an integer $n^{1/6}\ll N=N_{n}\ll n^{1/5}\left( \log n\right) ^{-2/5}$, see Assumption A6 below. Divide $\left[ 0,1\right] $ into $\left( N+1\right) $ subintervals $ J_{j}=\left[ t_{j},t_{j+1}\right) $, $j=0,...,N-1,J_{N}=\left[ t_{N},1\right] $, where $T:=\left\{ t_{j}\right\} _{j=1}^{N}$ is a sequence of equally-spaced points, called interior knots, given as \[ t_{1-k}=...=t_{-1}=t_{0}=0<t_{1}<...<t_{N}<1=t_{N+1}=...=t_{N+k}, \] in which $t_{j}=jh,\,\,j=0,1,...,N+1,h=1/\left( N+1\right) $ is the distance between neighboring knots. The $j$-th B-spline of order $k$ for the knot sequence $T$ denoted by $B_{j,k}$ is recursively defined by de Boor (2001). Denote by $\Gamma ^{\left( k-2\right) }=\Gamma ^{\left( k-2\right) }\left[ 0,1\right] $ the space of all $C^{\left( k-2\right) }\left[ 0,1\right] $ functions that are polynomials of degree $k-1$ on each interval. For fixed $ \mathbf{\theta }$, the cubic spline estimator $\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta } }$ of $\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}$ and the related estimator $\hat{m}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}$ of $m_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ are defined as \begin{equation} \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( \cdot \right) =\arg \min_{\gamma \left( \cdot \right) \in \Gamma ^{\left( 2\right) }\left[ 0,1\right] }\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ Y_{i}-\gamma \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} ^{2},\mbox{\ }\hat{m}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( \nu \right) =\hat{ \gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left\{ F_{d}\left( \nu \right) \right\} . \end{equation} Define the empirical risk function of $\mathbf{\theta }$ \begin{equation} \hat{R}\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) =n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ Y_{i}- \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} ^{2}=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ Y_{i}-\hat{m}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( X_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} ^{2}, \end{equation} then the spline estimator of the SIP coefficient $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ is defined as \[ \hat{\mathbf{\theta }}=\arg \min_{\mathbf{\theta \in }S_{c}^{d-1}}\hat{R} \left( \mathbf{\theta }\right), \] and the cubic spline estimator of $g$ is $\hat{m}_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ with $\mathbf{\theta }$ replaced by $\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}$, i.e. \begin{equation} \hat{g}\left( \nu \right) =\left\{ \arg \min_{\gamma \left( \cdot \right) \in \Gamma ^{\left( 2\right) }\left[ 0,1\right] }\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ Y_{i}-\gamma \left( U_{\hat{\mathbf{\theta}},i}\right) \right\} ^{2}\right\} \left\{ F_{d}\left( \nu \right) \right\} . \end{equation} \vskip 0.05in \noindent \textbf{2.4. Asymptotic results} \vskip 0.1in Before giving the main theorems, we state some other assumptions. \noindent \textbf{Assumption A3:} \textit{The regression function }$m\in C^{(4)}\left( B_{a}^{d}\right) $\textit{\ for some }$a>0$. \noindent \textbf{Assumption A4:} \textit{The noise }$\varepsilon $\textit{\ satisfies }$E\left( \varepsilon \left| \mathbf{X}\right. \right) =0$, $ E\left( \varepsilon ^{2}\left| \mathbf{X}\right. \right) =1$ \textit{and there exists a positive constant} $M$ \textit{such that} $\sup\limits_{ \mathbf{x}\in B^{d}}E\left( \left| \varepsilon \right| ^{3}\left| \mathbf{X}= \mathbf{x}\right. \right) <M$. \textit{The standard deviation function }$ \sigma \left( \mathbf{x}\right) $\textit{\ is continuous on }$B_{a}^{d}$, \[ 0<c_{\sigma }\leq \inf_{\mathbf{x}\in B_{a}^{d}}\sigma \left( \mathbf{x} \right) \leq \sup_{\mathbf{x}\in B_{a}^{d}}\sigma \left( \mathbf{x}\right) \leq C_{\sigma }<\infty . \] \noindent \textbf{Assumption A5:} \textit{There exist positive constants $ K_{0}$ and }$\lambda _{0}$\textit{\ such that $\alpha \left( n\right) \leq K_{0}e^{-\lambda _{0}n} $ holds for all $n$, with the }$\alpha $\textit{ -mixing coefficient for }$\left\{ \mathbf{Z}_{i}=\left( \mathbf{X} _{i}^{T},\varepsilon _{i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}$\ \textit{\ defined as} \[ \alpha \left( k\right) =\sup_{B\in \sigma \left\{ \mathbf{Z}_{s},s\leq t\right\} ,C\in \sigma \left\{ \mathbf{Z}_{s},s\geq t+k\right\} }\left| P\left( B\cap C\right) -P\left( B\right) P\left( C\right) \right| ,\mbox{\ } k\geq 1. \] \noindent \textbf{Assumption A6:} \textit{The number of interior knots} $N$ \textit{\ satisfies:} $n^{1/6}\ll N\ll n^{1/5}\left( \log n\right) ^{-2/5}$ \textit{.} \vskip 0.1in \noindent \textbf{Remark 2.3.} Assumptions A3 and A4 are typical in the nonparametric smoothing literature, see for instance, H\"{a}rdle (1990), Fan and Gijbels (1996), Xia, Tong Li and Zhu (2002). By the result of Pham (1986), a geometrically ergodic time series is a strongly mixing sequence. Therefore, Assumption A5 is suitable for () as a time series model under aforementioned assumptions. We now state our main results in the next two theorems. \begin{theorem} Under Assumptions A1-A6, one has \begin{equation} \hat{\mathbf{\theta }}_{-d}\mathbf{\longrightarrow \theta }_{0,-d},a.s.. \end{equation} \end{theorem} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} Denote by $\left( \Omega ,\mathcal{F},\mathcal{P} \right) $ the probability space on which all $\left\{ \left( \mathbf{X} _{i}^{T},Y_{i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{\infty }$ are defined. By Proposition , given at the end of this section \begin{equation} \sup_{\left\| \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right\| _{2}\leq \sqrt{1-c^{2}}}\left| \hat{R}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) -R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta } _{-d}\right) \right| \longrightarrow 0,a.s.. \end{equation} So for any $\delta >0$ and $\omega \in \Omega $, there exists an integer $ n_{0}\left( \omega \right) $, such that when $n>n_{0}\left( \omega \right) $ , $\hat{R}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d},\omega \right) -R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) <$ $\delta /2$. Note that $\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}_{-d}=\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\left( \omega \right) $ is the minimizer of $\hat{R}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d},\omega \right) $, so $\hat{R} ^{*}\left(\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\left( \omega \right) ,\omega \right) -R^{*}\left(\mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) <\delta /2$. Using ( ), there exists $n_{1}\left( \omega \right) $, such that when $n>n_{1}\left( \omega \right) $, $R^{*}\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\left( \omega \right) ,\omega \right) -\hat{R}^{*}\left(\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\left( \omega \right) ,\omega \right) <$ $\delta /2$. Thus, when $n>\max \left( n_{0}\left( \omega \right) ,n_{1}\left( \omega \right) \right)$, \[ R^{*}\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\left( \omega \right) ,\omega \right) -R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) <\delta /2+\hat{R}^{*}\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\left( \omega \right) ,\omega \right) -R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) <\delta /2+\delta /2=\delta . \] According to Assumption A1, $R^{*}$ is locally convex at $\mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}$, so for any $\varepsilon >0$ and any $\omega$, if $R^{*}\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\left( \omega \right) ,\omega \right) -R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) <\delta $, then $\left\| \hat{\mathbf{\theta}} _{-d}\left( \omega \right) \mathbf{-\theta }_{0,-d}\right\| <\varepsilon $ for $n$ large enough , which implies the strong consistency.\hfill \begin{theorem} Under Assumptions A1-A6, one has \[ \sqrt{n}\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta }}_{-d}\mathbf{-\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow }N\left\{ \mathbf{0},\Sigma \left( \mathbf{ \theta }_{0}\right) \right\} , \] where $\Sigma \left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0}\right) =\left\{ H^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \right\} ^{-1}\Psi \left( \mathbf{\theta } _{0}\right) \left\{ H^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \right\} ^{-1} $, $H^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) =\left\{ l_{pq}\right\} _{p,q=1}^{d-1}$ and $\Psi \left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0}\right) =\left\{ \psi _{pq}\right\} _{p,q=1}^{d-1}$ with \begin{eqnarray} l_{p,q}=-2E\left[ \left\{ \dot{\gamma}_{p}\dot{\gamma}_{q}+\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }_{0}}\ddot{\gamma}_{p,q}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } _{0}}\right) \right] +2\theta _{0,q}\theta _{0,d}^{-1}E\left[ \left\{ \dot{ \gamma}_{p}\dot{\gamma}_{d}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }_{0}}\right) +\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }_{0}}\ddot{\gamma}_{p,d}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } _{0}}\right) \right] \nonumber \\ +2\theta _{0,d}^{-3}E\left[ \left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }_{0}}\dot{\gamma} _{d}\right) \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }_{0}}\right) \right] \left\{ \left( \theta _{0,d}^{2}+\theta _{0,p}^{2}\right) I_{\left\{ p=q\right\} }+\theta _{0,p}\theta _{0,q}I_{\left\{ p\neq q\right\} }\right\} \nonumber \\ +2\theta _{0,p}\theta _{0,d}^{-1}E\left[ \left\{ \dot{\gamma}_{p}\dot{\gamma} _{q}+\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }_{0}}\ddot{\gamma}_{p,q}\right\} \left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta }_{0}}\right) \right] -2\theta _{0,p}\theta _{0,q}\theta _{0,d}^{-2}E\left[ \left\{ \dot{\gamma}_{d}^{2}+\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } _{0}}\ddot{\gamma}_{d,d}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }_{0}}\right) \right] , \nonumber \end{eqnarray} \begin{equation} \psi _{pq}=4E\left[ \left\{ \left( \dot{\gamma}_{p}-\theta _{0,p}\theta _{0,d}^{-1}\dot{\gamma}_{d}\right) \left( \dot{\gamma}_{q}-\theta _{0,q}\theta _{0,d}^{-1}\dot{\gamma}_{d}\right) \right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta }_{0}}\right) \left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }_{0}}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta }_{0}}\right) -Y\right\} ^{2}\right] , \nonumber \end{equation} in which $\dot{\gamma}_{p}$ and $\ddot{\gamma}_{p,q}$ are the values of $ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}$, $\frac{ \partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}$ taking at $\mathbf{\theta =\theta }_{0}$, for any $p,q=1,2,...,d-1 $ and $\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}$ is given in (). \end{theorem} \noindent \textbf{Remark 2.4.} Consider the Generalized Linear Model (GLM): $ Y=g\left( \mathbf{X}^{T}\mathbf{\theta }_{0}\right) +\sigma \left( \mathbf{X} \right) \varepsilon $, where $g$ is a known link function. Let $\tilde{ \mathbf{\theta }}$ be the nonlinear least squared estimator of $\mathbf{ \theta }_{0}$ in GLM. Theorem shows that under the assumptions A1-A6, the asymptotic distribution of the $\hat{\mathbf{\theta }} _{-d}$ is the same as that of $\tilde{\mathbf{\theta }}$. This implies that our proposed SIP estimator $\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}_{-d}$ is as efficient as if the true link function $g$ is known. The next two propositions play an important role in our proof of the main results. Proposition establishes the uniform convergence rate of the derivatives of $\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ up to order 2 to those of $\gamma_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ in $\mathbf{\theta}$. Proposition shows that the derivatives of the risk function up to order 2 are uniformly almost surely approximated by their empirical versions. \begin{proposition} Under Assumptions A2-A6, with probability $1$ \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup_{u\in \left[ 0,1\right] }\left| \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( u\right) \right| =O\left\{ \left( nh\right) ^{-1/2}\log n+h^{4}\right\} , \end{equation} \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max\limits_{1\leq i\leq n}\left| \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} \right| =O\left( \frac{\log n}{\sqrt{nh^{3}}}+h^{3}\right) , \end{equation} \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{1\leq p,q\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max\limits_{1\leq i\leq n}\left| \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} \right| =O\left( \frac{\log n}{\sqrt{ nh^{5}}}+h^{2}\right) . \end{equation} \end{proposition} \begin{proposition} Under Assumptions A2-A6, one has for $k=0,1,2$ \[ \sup_{\left\| \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right\| \leq \sqrt{1-c^{2}}}\left| \frac{ \partial ^{k}}{\partial ^{k}\mathbf{\theta }_{-d}}\left\{ \hat{R}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) -R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) \right\} \right| =o(1),a.s.. \] \end{proposition} Proofs of Theorem , Propositions and are given in Appendix. \setcounter{chapter}{3} \renewcommand{ \thetheorem}{{\arabic{theorem}}} \renewcommand{\thelemma}{{3.\arabic{lemma}}} \renewcommand{\theproposition}{{3.\arabic{proposition}}} \setcounter{equation}{0} \setcounter{lemma}{0} \setcounter{theorem}{0} \setcounter{proposition}{0}\setcounter{corollary}{0}\vskip .12in \noindent \textbf{3. Implementation} \vskip 0.10in In this section, we will describe the actual procedure to implement the estimation of $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ and $g$. We first introduce some new notation. For fixed $\mathbf{\theta }$, write the B-spline matrix as $ \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}=\left\{ B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) \right\} _{i=1,j=-3}^{n,\text{ }N}$ and \begin{equation} \mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}=\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( \mathbf{B} _{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}^{T} \end{equation} as the projection matrix onto the cubic spline space $\Gamma _{n,\mathbf{ \theta }}^{\left( 2\right) }$. For any $p=1,...,d$, denote \[ \mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}=\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}, \ \mathbf{\dot{P}}_{p}=\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta } }. \] as the first order partial derivatives of $\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}$ and $\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ with respect to $\mathbf{ \theta }$. Let $\hat{S}^{*}(\mathbf{\theta }_{-d})$ be the score vector of $\hat{R}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right)$, i.e. \begin{equation} \hat{S}^{*}(\mathbf{\theta }_{-d})=\frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{\theta } _{-d}}\hat{R}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right). \end{equation} The next lemma provides the exact forms of $\hat{S}^{*}(\mathbf{\theta } _{-d})$. \begin{lemma} For the score vector of $\hat{R}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) $ defined in (), one has \begin{equation} \hat{S}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) =-n^{-1}\left\{ \mathbf{Y}^{T} \mathbf{\dot{P}}_{p}\mathbf{Y}-\theta _{p}\mathbf{\theta }_{d}^{-1}\mathbf{Y} ^{T}\mathbf{\dot{P}}_{d}\mathbf{Y}\right\} _{p=1}^{d-1}, \end{equation} where for any $p=1,2,...,d$ \begin{equation} \mathbf{Y}^{T}\mathbf{\dot{P}}_{p}\mathbf{Y}=2\mathbf{Y}^{T}\left( \mathbf{I} -\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}\left( \mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{Y}, \end{equation} where $\mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}=\left\{ \left\{ B_{j,3}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -B_{j+1,3}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} \dot{F}_{d}\left( \mathbf{X}_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) h^{-1}X_{i,p}\right\} _{i=1,j=-3}^{n, \text{ }N}$ with \[ \dot{F}_{d}\left( x\right)=\frac{d}{dx}F_{d}=\frac{\Gamma \left( d+1\right) }{a\Gamma \left\{ \left( d+1\right) /2\right\} ^{2}2^{d}}\left( 1- \frac{x^{2}}{a^{2}}\right) ^{\frac{d-1}{2}}I\left( \left| x\right| \leq a\right). \] \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof}. For any $p=1,2,...,d$, the derivatives of B-splines in de Boor (2001) implies \begin{eqnarray*} \mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p} &=&\left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}} B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1,j=-3}^{n,\text{ } N}=\left\{ \frac{d}{du}B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \frac{d}{ d\theta _{p}}U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right\} _{i=1,j=-3}^{n,\text{ }N} \\ &=&3\left\{ \left\{ \frac{B_{j,3}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) }{ t_{j+3}-t_{j}}-\frac{B_{j+1,3}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) }{ t_{j+4}-t_{j+1}}\right\} \dot{F}_{d}\left( \mathbf{X}_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) X_{i,p}\right\} _{i=1,j=-3}^{n,\text{ }N} \\ &=&\left\{ \left\{ B_{j,3}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -B_{j+1,3}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} \dot{F}_{d}\left( \mathbf{X}_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) h^{-1}X_{i,p}\right\} _{i=1,j=-3}^{n, \text{ }N}. \end{eqnarray*} Next, note that \begin{eqnarray*} \mathbf{\dot{P}}_{p} &=&\mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}+\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\right\} \right] \\ &=&\mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}+\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\right\} \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}+\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}^{T}. \end{eqnarray*} Since \[ 0\equiv \frac{\partial \left\{ \left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T} \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T} \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} }{\partial \theta _{p}}=\frac{\partial \left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}}{\partial \theta _{p}}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}+\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\frac{\partial \left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) }{\partial \theta _{p}}, \] and $\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) =\mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}^{T}\mathbf{B }_{\mathbf{\theta }}+\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}$, thus \[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta } }^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}=-\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\left( \mathbf{\dot{B} }_{p}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}+\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T} \mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}\right) \left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B }_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}. \] Hence \[ \mathbf{\dot{P}}_{p}=\left( \mathbf{\mathbf{I}}-\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{ B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}+\mathbf{B }_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}^{T}\left( \mathbf{\mathbf{ I}}-\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right). \] Thus, () follows immediately. \hfill In practice, the estimation is implemented via the following procedure. Step 1. \textit{Standardize the predictor vectors $\left\{\mathbf{X} _{i}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}$ and for each fixed $\mathbf{\theta}\in S_{c}^{d-1}$ obtain the CDF transformed variables $\left\{U_{ \mathbf{\theta},i}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}$ of the SIP variable $\left\{X_{\mathbf{ \theta},i}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}$ through formula (), where the radius $a$ is taken to be the 95\ _{i}\|\right\}_{i=1}^{n}$}. Step 2. \textit{Compute quadratic and cubic B-spline basis at each value $U_{\mathbf{\theta},i}$, where the number of interior knots $N$ is} \begin{equation} N=\min\left\{c_{1}\left[n^{1/5.5}\right], c_{2}\right\}, \end{equation} Step 3. \textit{Find the estimator $\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}$ of $\mathbf{\theta}_{0}$ by minimizing $ \hat{R}^{*}$ through the port optimization routine with $\left(0,0,...,1\right)^{T}$ as the initial value and the empirical score vector $\hat{S}^{*}$ in (). If $d<n$, one can take the simple LSE (without the intercept) for data $\left\{Y_i,\mathbf{X} _{i}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}$ with its last coordinate set positive.} Step 4. \textit{Obtain the spline estimator $\hat{g}$ of $g$ by plugging $\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}$ obtained in Step 3 into ().} \vskip 0.1in \noindent \textbf{Remark 3.1.} In (), $ c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ are positive integers and $[\nu]$ denotes the integer part of $\nu$. The choice of the tuning parameter $c_1$ makes little difference for a large sample and according to our asymptotic theory there is no optimal way to set these constants. We recommend using $ c_{1}=1$ to save computing for massive data sets. The first term ensures Assumption A6. The addition constrain $c_{2}$ can be taken from 5 to 10 for smooth monotonic or smooth unimodel regression and $c_{2}>10$ if has many local minima and maxima, which is very unlikely in application. \setcounter{chapter}{4}\setcounter{equation}{0} \renewcommand{\thetable}{{ \arabic{table}}} \setcounter{figure}{0} \vskip .12in \noindent \textbf{4. Simulations} \vskip 0.10in In this section, we carry out two simulations to illustrate the finite-sample behavior of our SIP estimation method. The number of interior knots $N$ is computed according to () with $c_1=1, c_2=5$. All of our codes have been written in R. \vskip 0.1in \noindent \textbf{Example 1.} Consider the model in Xia, Li, Tong and Zhang (2004) \[ Y=m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) +\sigma _{0}\varepsilon,\ \sigma _{0}=0.3,0.5,\ \varepsilon \stackrel{i.i.d}{\sim}N(0,1) \] where $\mathbf{X}=\left( X_{1},X_{2}\right)^{T}{\sim}N(\mathbf{0},I_2)$, truncated by $[-2.5,2.5]^2$ and \begin{equation} m\left( \mathbf{x}\right) =x_{1}+x_{2}+4\exp \left\{ -\left( x_{1}+x_{2}\right) ^{2}\right\} +\delta \left( x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}\right) ^{1/2}. \end{equation} If $\delta =0$, then the underlying true function $m$ is a single-index function, i.e., $m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) =\sqrt{2}\mathbf{X}^{T}\mathbf{ \theta } _{0}+4\exp \left\{ -2\left( \mathbf{X}^{T}\mathbf{\theta } _{0}\right) ^{2}\right\}$, where $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}^{T}=\left( 1,1\right) /\sqrt{2}$. While $\delta\neq 0$, then $m$ is not a genuine single-index function. An impression of the bivariate function $m$ for $\delta=0$ and $\delta=1$ can be gained in Figure (a) and (b), respectively. \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \begin{table}[hb] \caption{Report of Example 1 (Values out/in parentheses: $\delta=0$/$\delta=1 $)} \centering \fbox{ \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|ccc|c} \hline $\sigma_0$ & $n$ & $\mathbf{\theta}_{0}$ & \textbf{BIAS} & \textbf{SD} & \textbf{MSE} & \textbf{Average MSE} \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{$0.3$} & \multirow{4}{*}{$100$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\mathbf{ \theta}_{0,1}$} & $5e-04$ & $0.00825$ & $7e-05$ & \\ & & & $(-0.00236)$ & $(0.02093)$ & $(0.00044)$ & $7e-05$ \\ & & \multirow{2}{*}{$\mathbf{\theta}_{0,2}$} & $-6e-04$ & $0.00826$ & $7e-05 $ & $(0.00043)$ \\ & & & $(0.00174)$ & $(0.02083)$ & $(0.00043)$ & \\ \cline{2-7} & \multirow{4}{*}{$300$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\mathbf{\theta}_{0,1}$} & $ -0.00124$ & $0.00383$ & $2e-05$ & \\ & & & $(-0.00129)$ & $(0.01172)$ & $(0.00014)$ & $2e-05$ \\ & & \multirow{2}{*}{$\mathbf{\theta}_{0,2}$} & $-0.00124$ & $0.00383$ & $ 2e-05$ & $(0.00014)$ \\ & & & $(0.00110)$ & $(0.01160)$ & $(0.00013)$ & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{$0.5$} & \multirow{4}{*}{$100$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\mathbf{ \theta}_{0,1}$} & $0.00121$ & $0.01346$ & $0.00018$ & \\ & & & $(-0.00137 )$ & $(0.02257 )$ & $(0.00051)$ & $0.00018$ \\ & & \multirow{2}{*}{$\mathbf{\theta}_{0,2}$} & $-0.00147$ & $0.01349$ & $ 0.00018$ & $(0.00051)$ \\ & & & $(0.00062)$ & $(0.02309)$ & $(0.00052)$ & \\ \cline{2-7} & \multirow{4}{*}{$300$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\mathbf{\theta}_{0,1}$} & $ -0.00204$ & $0.00639$ & $4e-05$ & \\ & & & $(-0.00229 )$ & $(0.01205)$ & $(0.00015)$ & $4e-05$ \\ & & \multirow{2}{*}{$\mathbf{\theta}_{0,2}$} & $0.00197 $ & $0.00637 $ & $ 4e-05$ & $(0.00015)$ \\ & & & $(0.00208)$ & $(0.01190)$ & $(0.00014)$ & \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \end{table} For $\delta=0,1$, we draw $100$ random realizations of each sample size $ n=50,100,300$ respectively. To demonstrate how close our SIP estimator is to the true index parameter $\mathbf{\theta}_{0}$, Table lists the sample mean (MEAN), bias (BIAS), standard deviation (SD), the mean squared error (MSE) of the estimates of $\mathbf{\theta }_{0}$ and the average MSE of both directions. From this table, we find that the SIP estimators are very accurate for both cases $\delta=0$ and $\delta=1$, which shows that our proposed method is robust against the deviation from single-index model. As we expected, when the sample size increases, the SIP coefficient is more accurately estimated. Moreover, for $n=100,300$, the total average is inversely proportional to $n$. \textbf{Example 2.} Consider the heteroscedastic regression model (\ref {sindmodel}) with \begin{equation} m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) =\sin \left( \frac{\pi}{4} \mathbf{X}^{T}\mathbf{ \theta }_{0}\right),\ \sigma \left( \mathbf{X}\right) =\sigma _{0}\frac{ \left\{ 5-\exp \left( \left. \left\| \mathbf{X}\right\|\right/ \sqrt{d} \right) \right\} }{5+\exp \left( \left. \left\| \mathbf{X}\right\| \right/ \sqrt{d}\right) }, \end{equation} in which $\mathbf{X}_{i}=\left\{ X_{i,1},...,X_{i,d}\right\}^{T}$ and $ \varepsilon_i$, $i=1,...,n$, are $\stackrel{i.i.d}{\sim }$ $N\left( 0,1\right) $, $\sigma _{0}=0.2$. In our simulation, the true parameter $ \mathbf{\theta }_{0}^{T}=\left. \left( 1,1,0,...,0,1\right) \right/ \sqrt{3}$ for different sample size $n$ and dimension $d$. The superior performance of SIP estimators is borne out in comparison with MAVE of Xia, Tong, Li and Zhu (2002). We also investigate the behavior of SIP estimators in the previously unemployed cases that sample size $n$ is smaller than or equal to $d$, for instance, $n=100,d=100,200$ and $n=200,d=200,400$. The average MSEs of the $d$ dimensions are listed in Table , from which we see that the performance of the SIP estimators are quite reasonable and in most of the scenarios $n\leq d$, the SIP estimators still work astonishingly well where the MAVEs become unreliable. For $n=100$, $d=10,50,100,200$, the estimates of the link prediction function $g$ from model () are plotted in Figure , which is rather satisfactory even when dimension $d$ exceeds the sample size $n$. \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \begin{table}[ht] \caption{Report of Example 2} \centering \fbox{ \begin{tabular}{|c|c|r|r||r|r|} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Sample Size} $n$} & \multirow{2}{*}{ \textbf{Dimension} $d$} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{Average MSE}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Time}} \\ \cline{3-6} & & \textbf{MAVE} & \textbf{SIP} & \textbf{MAVE} & \textbf{SIP} \\ \hline\hline \multirow{6}{*}{$50$} & $4$ & $0.00020$ & $0.00018$ & $1.91$ & $0.19$ \\ & $10$ & $0.00031$ & $0.00043$ & $2.17$ & $0.10$ \\ & $30$ & $0.00106$ & $0.00285$ & $2.77$ & $0.13$ \\ & $50$ & $0.00031$ & $0.00043$ & $3.29$ & $0.10$ \\ & $100$ & $0.00681$ & $0.00620$ & $5.94$ & $0.31$ \\ & $200$ & $0.00529$ & $0.00407$ & $27.90$ & $0.49$ \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{$100$} & $4$ & $0.00008$ & $0.00008$ & $3.28$ & $0.09$ \\ & $10$ & $0.00012$ & $0.00017$ & $3.93$ & $0.13$ \\ & $30$ & $0.00017$ & $0.00058$ & $5.41$ & $0.15$ \\ & $50$ & $0.00032$ & $0.00127$ & $8.48$ & $0.16$ \\ & $100$ & --- & $0.00395$ & --- & $0.44$ \\ & $200$ & --- & $0.00324$ & --- & $0.73$ \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{$200$} & $4$ & $0.00004$ & $0.00003$ & $5.32$ & $0.17$ \\ & $10$ & $0.00005$ & $0.00007$ & $7.49$ & $0.24$ \\ & $30$ & $0.00006$ & $0.00017$ & $10.08$ & $0.26$ \\ & $50$ & $0.00007$ & $0.00030$ & $15.42$ & $0.24$ \\ & $100$ & $0.00015$ & $0.00061$ & $40.81$ & $0.54$ \\ & $200$ & --- & $0.00197$ & --- & $1.44$ \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{$500$} & $4$ & $0.00002$ & $0.00001$ & $14.44$ & $0.76$ \\ & $10$ & $0.00002$ & $0.00003$ & $24.54$ & $0.79$ \\ & $30$ & $0.00002$ & $0.00008$ & $32.51$ & $0.83$ \\ & $50$ & $0.00002$ & $0.00010$ & $52.93$ & $0.89$ \\ & $100$ & $0.00003$ & $0.00012$ & $143.07$ & $0.99$ \\ & $200$ & $0.00004$ & $0.00020$ & $386.80$ & $1.96$ \\ & $400$ & --- & $0.00054$ & --- & $4.98$ \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{$1000$} & $4$ & $0.00001$ & $0.00001$ & $33.57$ & $1.95$ \\ & $10$ & $0.00001$ & $0.00001$ & $62.54$ & $3.64$ \\ & $30$ & $0.00001$ & $0.00002$ & $92.41$ & $1.95$ \\ & $50$ & $0.00001$ & $0.00003$ & $155.38$ & $2.72$ \\ & $100$ & $0.00001$ & $0.00005$ & $275.73$ & $1.81$ \\ & $200$ & $0.00008$ & $0.00006$ & $2432.56$ & $2.84$ \\ & $400$ & --- & $0.00010$ & --- & $9.35$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} } \end{table} Theorem indicates that $\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}$ is strongly consistent of $\mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}$. To see the convergence, we run $100$ replications and in each replication, the value of $\Vert \hat{ \mathbf{\theta}}-\mathbf{\theta }_{0}\Vert/\sqrt{d}$ is computed. Figure \ref {FIG:density} plots the kernel density estimations of the $100$ $\Vert \hat{ \mathbf{\theta}}-\mathbf{\theta }_{0}\Vert$ in Example 2, in which dimension $d=10,50,100,200$. There are four types of line characteristics which correspond to the two sample sizes, the dotted-dashed line ($n=100$), dotted line ($n=200$), dashed line ($500$) and solid line ($n=1000$). As sample sizes increasing, the squared errors are becoming closer to $0$, with narrower spread out, confirmative to the conclusions of Theorem \ref {THM:strconsistent}. Lastly, we report the average computing time of Example 2 to generate one sample of size $n$ and perform the SIP or MAVE procedure done on the same ordinary Pentium IV PC in Table . From Table , one sees that our proposed SIP estimator is much faster than the MAVE. The computing time for MAVE is extremely sensitive to sample size as we expected. For very large $d$, MAVE becomes unstable to the point of the breaking down in four cases. \setcounter{chapter}{5}\setcounter{equation}{0} \renewcommand{\thetable}{{ \arabic{table}}} \setcounter{figure}{0} \vskip .12in \noindent \textbf{5. An application} \vskip 0.10in In this section we demonstrate the proposed SIP model through the river flow data of J\"{o}kuls\'{a} Eystri River of Iceland, from January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1974. There are 1096 observations, see Tong (1990). The response variables are the daily river flow ($Y_t$), measured in meter cubed per second of J\"{o}kuls\'{a} Eystri River. The exogenous variables are temperature ($X_t$) in degrees Celsius and daily precipitation ($Z_t$) in millimeters collected at the meteorological station at Hveravellir. This data set was analyzed earlier through threshold autoregressive (TAR) models by Tong, Thanoon and Gudmundsson (1985), Tong (1990), and nonlinear additive autoregressive (NAAR$X$) models by Chen and Tsay (1993). Figure shows the plots of the three time series, from which some nonlinear and non-stationary features of the river flow series are evident. To make these series stationary, we remove the trend by a simple quadratic spline regression and these trends (dashed lines) are shown in Figure . By an abuse of notation, we shall continue to use $X_t$, $Y_t$, $Z_t$ to denote the detrended series. In the analysis, we pre-select all the lagged values in the last 7 days (1 week), i.e., the predictor pool is $\left\{Y_{t-1},..., Y_{t-7}, X_{t}, X_{t-1},..., X_{t-7}, Z_{t}, Z_{t-1},..., Z_{t-7},\right\}$. Using BIC similar to Huang and Yang (2004) for our proposed spline SIP model with 3 interior knots, the following $9$ explanatory variables are selected from the above set $\left\{Y_{t-1},..., Y_{t-4}, X_{t}, X_{t-1}, X_{t-2}, Z_{t}, Z_{t-1}\right\}$. Based on this selection, we fit the SIP model again and obtain the estimate of the SIP coefficient $ \hat{\mathbf{\theta}}=\left\{-0.877, 0.382, -0.208, 0.125, -0.046, -0.034, 0.004, -0.126, 0.079\right\}^{T}$. Figure (a) and (b) display the fitted river flow series and the residuals against time. Next we examine the forecasting performance of the SIP method. We start with estimating the SIP estimator using only observations of the first two years, then we perform the out-of-sample rolling forecast of the entire third year. The observed values of the exogenous variables are used in the forecast. Figure (c) shows this SIP out-of-sample rolling forecasts. For the purpose of comparison, we also try the MAVE method, in which the same predictor vector is selected by using BIC. The mean squared prediction error is $60.52$ for the SIP model, $61.25$ for MAVE, $65.62$ for NAAR$X$, $66.67$ for TAR and $81.99$ for the linear regression model, see Chen and Tsay (1993). Among the above five models, the SIP model produces the best forecasts. \setcounter{chapter}{6} \setcounter{equation}{0} \vskip .10in \noindent \textbf{6. Conclusion} \vskip 0.05in In this paper we propose a robust SIP model for stochastic regression under weak dependence regardless if the underlying function is exactly a single-index function. The proposed spline estimator of the index coefficient possesses not only the usual strong consistency and $\sqrt{n}$-rate asymptotically normal distribution, but also is as efficient as if the true link function $g$ is known. By taking advantage of the spline smoothing method and the iterative method, the proposed procedure is much faster than the MAVE method. This procedure is especially powerful for large sample size $n$ and high dimension $d$ and unlike the MAVE method, the performance of the SIP remains satisfying in the case $d>n$. \vskip 0.05in \noindent {\large \textbf{Acknowledgment}} This work is part of the first author's dissertation under the supervision of the second author, and has been supported in part by NSF award DMS 0405330. \setcounter{chapter}{8} \renewcommand{\thetheorem}{{A.\arabic{theorem}}} \renewcommand{\theproposition}{{ A.\arabic{proposition}}} \renewcommand{\thelemma}{{A.\arabic{lemma}}} \renewcommand{ \thecorollary}{{A.\arabic{corollary}}} \renewcommand{\theequation}{A. \arabic{equation}} \renewcommand{\thesubsection}{A.\arabic{subsection}} \setcounter{equation}{0} \setcounter{lemma}{0} \setcounter{proposition}{0} \setcounter{theorem}{0} \setcounter{subsection}{0}\setcounter{corollary}{0} \vskip 0.10in \noindent \textbf{Appendix} \vskip .05in \noindent \textbf{A.1. Preliminaries} In this section, we introduce some properties of the B-spline. \begin{lemma} There exist constants $c>0$ such that for $ \sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}$ up to order $k=4$ \[ \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} ch^{1/r}\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{r}\leq \left\| \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\right\| _{r}\leq \left( 3^{r-1}h\right) ^{1/r}\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{r}, & 1\leq r\leq \infty \\ ch^{1/r}\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{r}\leq \left\| \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\right\| _{r}\leq \left( 3h\right) ^{1/r}\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{r}, & 0<r<1 \end{array} \right. , \] where $\mathbf{\alpha :=}\left( \alpha _{-1,2},\alpha _{0,2},...,\alpha _{N,2},...,\alpha _{N,4}\right) $. In particular, under Assumption A2, for any fixed $\mathbf{\theta }$ \[ ch^{1/2}\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{2}\leq \left\| \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{ \theta }}\leq Ch^{1/2}\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{2}. \] \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} It follows from the B-spline property on page 96 of de Boor (2001), $\sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}B_{j,k}\equiv 3$ on $ \left[ 0,1\right] $. So the right inequality follows immediate for $r=\infty $. When $1\leq r<\infty $, we use H\"{o}lder's inequality to find \begin{eqnarray*} \left| \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\right| &\leq &\left( \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\left| \alpha _{j,k}\right| ^{r}B_{j,k}\right) ^{1/r}\left( \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}B_{j,k}\right) ^{1-1/r} \\ &=&3^{1-1/r}\left( \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\left| \alpha _{j,k}\right| ^{r}B_{j,k}\right) ^{1/r}. \end{eqnarray*} Since all the knots are equally spaced, $\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }B_{j,k}\left( u\right) du\leq h$, the right inequality follows from \[ \int_{0}^{1}\left| \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\left( u\right) \right| ^{r}du\leq 3^{r-1}h\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{r}^{r}. \] When $r<1$, we have \[ \left| \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\right| ^{r}\leq \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\left| \alpha _{j,k}\right| ^{r}B_{j,k}^{r}. \] Since $\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }B_{j,k}^{r}\left( u\right) du\leq t_{j+k}-t_{j}=kh$ and \[ \int_{0}^{1}\left| \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\left( u\right) \right| ^{r}du\leq \left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{r}^{r}\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }B_{j,k}^{r}\left( u\right) du\leq 3h\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{r}^{r}, \] the right inequality follows in this case as well. For the left inequalities, we derive from Theorem 5.4.2, DeVore and Lorentz (1993) \[ \left| \alpha _{j,k}\right| \leq C_{1}h^{-1/r}\int_{t_{j}}^{t_{j+1}}\left| \sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\left( u\right) \right| ^{r}du \] for any $0<r\leq \infty ,$ so \[ \left| \alpha _{j,k}\right| ^{r}\leq C_{1}^{r}h^{-1}\int_{t_{j}}^{t_{j+1}}\left| \sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\left( u\right) \right| ^{r}du. \] Since each $u\in \left[ 0,1\right] $ appears in at most $k$ intervals $ \left( t_{j,}t_{j+k}\right) $, adding up these inequalities, we obtain that \[ \left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{r}^{r}\leq C_{1}h^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^{4}\int_{t_{j}}^{t_{j+k}}\left| \sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\left( u\right) \right| ^{r}du\leq 3Ch^{-1}\left\| \sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\right\| _{r}^{r}. \] The left inequality follows. \hfill For any functions $\phi$ and $\varphi$, define the empirical inner product and the empirical norm as \[ \left\langle \phi ,\varphi \right\rangle _{\mathbf{\theta }} =\int_{0}^{1}\phi \left( u\right) \varphi \left( u\right) f_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) du,\ \left\| \phi \right\| _{2,n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\phi ^{2}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right). \] In addition, if functions $\phi ,\varphi$ are $L_{2}\left[ 0,1\right]$ -integrable, define the theoretical inner product and its corresponding theoretical $L_2$ norm as \[ \left\| \phi \right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2} =\int_{0}^{1}\phi ^{2}\left( u\right) f_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) du,\ \left\langle \phi ,\varphi \right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }} =n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\phi \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta ,}i}\right) \varphi \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta ,}i}\right). \] \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2, A5 and A6, with probability $1$, \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max_{\substack{ k,k^{\prime }=2,3,4 \\ 1\leq j, j^{\prime }\leq N }}\left| \left\langle B_{j,k},B_{j^{\prime },k^{\prime }}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta } }-\left\langle B_{j,k},B_{j^{\prime },k^{\prime }}\right\rangle _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\right| =O\left\{ \left( nN\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} . \] \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} We only prove the case $k=k^{\prime }=4$, all other cases are similar. Let \[ \zeta _{\mathbf{\theta ,}j,j^{\prime },i}=B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -EB_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) , \] with the second moment \[ E\zeta _{\mathbf{\theta ,}j,j^{\prime },i}^{2}=E\left[B_{j,4}^{2}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}^{2}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right)\right] -\left\{ EB_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} ^{2}, \] where $\left\{ EB_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} ^{2}\sim N^{-2}$, $ E\left[B_{j,4}^{2}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}^{2}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right)\right] \sim N^{-1}$ by Assumption A2. Hence, $E\zeta _{\mathbf{\theta ,}j,j^{\prime },i}^{2}\sim N^{-1}$. The $k$-th moment is given by \begin{eqnarray*} &&\left. E\left| \zeta _{\mathbf{\theta ,}j,j^{\prime },i}\right| ^{k}=E\left| B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -EB_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| ^{k}\right. \\ &\leq &2^{k-1}\left\{ E\left| B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| ^{k}+\left| EB_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| ^{k}\right\}, \end{eqnarray*} where $\left| EB_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| ^{k}\sim N^{-k}$, $E\left| EB_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) B_{j^{\prime },4}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| ^{k}\sim N^{-1}$. Thus, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $E\left| \zeta _{\mathbf{\theta ,} j,j^{\prime },i}\right| ^{k}\leq C2^{k-1}k!E\zeta _{j,j^{\prime },i}^{2}$. So the Cram\'{e}r's condition is satisfied with Cram\'{e}r's constant $c^{*}$ . By the Bernstein's inequality (see Bosq (1998), Theorem 1.4, page 31), we have for $k=3$ \[ P\left\{ \left| n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\zeta _{\mathbf{\theta ,}j,j^{\prime },i}\right| \geq \delta _{n}\right\} \leq a_{1}\exp \left( -\frac{q\delta _{n}^{2}}{25m_{2}^{2}+5c^{*}\delta _{n}}\right) +a_{2}\left( k\right) \alpha \left( \left[ \frac{n}{q+1}\right] \right) ^{6/7}, \] where \[ \delta _{n}=\delta \frac{\log n}{\sqrt{nN}},\text{ }a_{1}=2\frac{n}{q} +2\left( 1+\frac{\delta ^{2}\left( nN\right) ^{-1}\log ^{2}n}{ 25m_{2}^{2}+5c^{*}\delta _{n}}\right) ,\text{ }m_{2}^{2}\sim N^{-1}, \] \[ a_{2}\left( 3\right) =11n\left( 1+\frac{5m_{3}^{6/7}}{\delta _{n}}\right) , \text{ }m_{3}=\max_{1\leq i\leq n}\left\| \zeta _{\mathbf{\theta ,} j,j^{\prime },i}\right\| _{3}\leq cN^{1/3}. \] Observe that $5c\delta _{n}=o(1)$ by Assumption A6, then by taking $q\ $such that $\left[ \frac{n}{q+1}\right] \geq c_{0}\log n$, $q\geq c_{1}n/\log n$ for some constants $c_{0},c_{1}$, one has $a_{1}=O(n/q)=O\left( \log n\right) $, $a_{2}\left( 3\right) =o\left( n^{2}\right) $ via Assumption A6 again. Assumption A5 yields that \[ \alpha \left( \left[ \frac{n}{q+1}\right] \right) ^{6/7}\leq \left\{ K_{0}\exp \left( -\lambda _{0}\left[ \frac{n}{q+1}\right] \right) \right\} ^{6/7}\leq Cn^{-6\lambda _{0}c_{0}/7}. \] Thus, for fixed $\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}$, when $n$ large enough \begin{equation} P\left\{ \frac{1}{n}\left| \sum_{i=1}^{n}\zeta _{\mathbf{\theta ,} j,j^{\prime },i}\right| >\delta _{n}\right\} \leq c\log n\exp \left\{ -c_{2}\delta ^{2}\log n\right\} +Cn^{2-6\lambda _{0}c_{0}/7}. \end{equation} We divide each range of $\theta_{p}$, $p=1,2,...,d-1$, into $n^{6/(d-1)}\ $ equally spaced intervals with disjoint endpoints $-1=\theta _{p,0}<\theta _{p,1}<...<\theta _{p,M_{n}}=1$, for $p=1,...,d-1$. Projecting these small cylinders onto $ S_{c}^{d-1}$, the radius of each patch $\Lambda _{r}$, $r=1,...,M_{n}$ is bounded by $cM_{n}^{-1}$. Denote the projection of the $M_{n}$ points as $ \mathbf{\theta }_{r}=\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{r,-d},\sqrt{1-\left\| \mathbf{ \theta }_{r,-d}\right\| _{2}^{2}}\right) $, $r=0,1,...,M_{n}$. Employing the discretization method, $\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max\limits_{\substack{ 1\leq j, j^{\prime}\leq N }}\left| \zeta _{\mathbf{\theta },j,j^{\prime },i}\right| $ is bounded by \begin{equation} \sup_{0\leq r\leq M_{n}}\max_{\substack{ 1\leq j, j^{\prime}\leq N }}\left| \zeta _{\mathbf{\theta }_{r},j,j^{\prime },i}\right| +\sup_{0\leq r\leq M_{n}}\max_{\substack{ 1\leq j, j^{\prime}\leq N }}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{ \theta }\in \Lambda _{r}}\left| \zeta _{\mathbf{\theta },j,j^{\prime },i}-\zeta _{\mathbf{\theta }_{r},j,j^{\prime },i}\right|. \end{equation} By () and Assumption A6, there exists large enough value $ \delta >0$ such that \[ P\left\{ \frac{1}{n}\left| \sum_{i=1}^{n}\zeta _{\mathbf{\theta }_{r}\mathbf{ ,}j,j^{\prime },i}\right| >\delta _{n}\right\} \leq n^{-10}, \] which implies that \[ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty }P\left\{ \max_{\substack{ 1\leq j, j^{\prime}\leq N } }\left| n^{-1}\sum_{l=1}^{n}\zeta _{\mathbf{\theta }_{r},j,j^{\prime },i}\right| \geq \delta _{n}\right\} \leq 2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }N^{2}M_{n}n^{-10}\leq C\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-3}<\infty . \] Thus, Borel-Cantelli Lemma entails that \begin{equation} \sup_{0\leq r\leq M_{n}}\max_{\substack{ 1\leq j, j^{\prime}\leq N }}\left| n^{-1}\sum_{l=1}^{n}\zeta _{\mathbf{\theta }_{r},j,j^{\prime },i}\right| =O\left( \frac{\log n}{\sqrt{nN}}\right) ,a.s.. \end{equation} Employing Lipschitz continuity of the cubic B-spline, one has with probability 1 \begin{equation} \sup_{0\leq r\leq M_{n}}\max_{\substack{ 1\leq j, j^{\prime}\leq N } }\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in \Lambda _{r}}\left| n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \zeta _{\mathbf{\theta ,}j,j^{\prime },i}-\zeta _{\mathbf{\theta }_{r}\mathbf{,}j,j^{\prime },i}\right\} \right| =O\left( M_{n}^{-1}h^{-6}\right) . \end{equation} Therefore Assumption A2, (), () and ( ) lead to the desired result.\hfill Denote by $\Gamma =\Gamma ^{\left( 0\right) }\cup \Gamma ^{(1)}\cup \Gamma ^{(2)}$ the space of all linear, quadratic and cubic spline functions on $ \left[ 0,1\right] $. We establish the uniform rate at which the empirical inner product approximates the theoretical inner product for all B-splines $ B_{j,k}$ with $k=2,3,4$. \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2, A5 and A6, one has \begin{equation} A_{n}=\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{\gamma _{1},\gamma _{2}\in \Gamma }\left| \frac{\left\langle \gamma _{1},\gamma _{2}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}-\left\langle \gamma _{1},\gamma _{2}\right\rangle _{\mathbf{\theta }}}{\left\| \gamma _{1}\right\| _{2, \mathbf{\theta }}\left\| \gamma _{2}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}}\right| =O\left\{ \left( nh\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} ,a.s.. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} Denote without loss of generality, \[ \gamma _{1}=\sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{jk}B_{j,k}\text{, } \gamma _{2}=\sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\beta _{jk}B_{j,k}\text{,} \] for any two $3\left( N+3\right) $-vectors \[ \mathbf{\alpha =}\left( \alpha _{-1,2},\alpha _{0,2},...,\alpha _{N,2},...,\alpha _{N,4}\right) ,\mathbf{\beta =}\left( \beta _{-1,2},\beta _{0,2},...,\beta _{N,2},...,\beta _{N,4}\right) . \] Then for fixed $\mathbf{\theta }$ \begin{eqnarray*} \left\langle \gamma _{1},\gamma _{2}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }} &=& \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}B_{j,k}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} \left\{ \sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\beta _{j,k}B_{j,k}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) \right\} \\ &=&\sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\sum_{k^{\prime }=2}^{4}\sum_{j^{\prime }=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}\beta _{j^{\prime },k^{\prime }}\left\langle B_{j,k},B_{j^{\prime },k^{\prime }}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}, \end{eqnarray*} \begin{eqnarray*} \left\| \gamma _{1}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2} &=&\sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\sum_{k^{\prime }=2}^{4}\sum_{j^{\prime }=-k+1}^{N}\alpha _{j,k}\alpha _{j^{\prime },k^{\prime }}\left\langle B_{j,k},B_{j^{^{\prime }},k^{\prime }}\right\rangle _{\mathbf{\theta }}, \\ \left\| \gamma _{2}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2} &=&\sum_{k=2}^{4}\sum_{j=-k+1}^{N}\sum_{k^{\prime }=2}^{4}\sum_{j^{\prime }=-k+1}^{N}\beta _{j,k}\beta _{j^{\prime },k^{\prime }}\left\langle B_{j,k},B_{j^{^{\prime }},k^{\prime }}\right\rangle _{\mathbf{\theta }}. \end{eqnarray*} According to Lemma , one has for any $\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}$, \[ c_{1}h\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{2}^{2}\leq \left\| \gamma _{1}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}\leq c_{2}h\left\| \mathbf{\alpha } \right\| _{2}^{2},c_{1}h\left\| \mathbf{\beta }\right\| _{2}^{2}\leq \left\| \gamma _{2}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}\leq c_{2}h\left\| \mathbf{ \beta }\right\| _{2}^{2}, \] \[ c_{1}h\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{2}\left\| \mathbf{\beta }\right\| _{2}\leq \left\| \gamma _{1}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}\left\| \gamma _{2}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}\leq c_{2}h\left\| \mathbf{\alpha } \right\| _{2}\left\| \mathbf{\beta }\right\| _{2}. \] Hence \begin{eqnarray*} A_{n} &=&\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{\gamma _{1}\in \gamma ,\gamma _{2}\in \Gamma }\left| \frac{\left\langle \gamma _{1},\gamma _{2}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}-\left\langle \gamma _{1},\gamma _{2}\right\rangle _{\mathbf{\theta }}}{\left\| \gamma _{1}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}\left\| \gamma _{2}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{ \theta }}}\right| \leq \frac{\left\| \mathbf{\alpha }\right\| _{\infty }\left\| \mathbf{\beta }\right\| _{\infty }}{c_{1}h\left\| \mathbf{\alpha } \right\| _{2}\left\| \mathbf{\beta }\right\| _{2}} \\ &&\times \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max_{\substack{ k,k^{\prime }=2,3,4 \\ 1\leq j, j^{\prime }\leq N }}\left| \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \left\langle B_{j,k},B_{j^{^{\prime }},k^{\prime }}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}-\left\langle B_{j,k},B_{j^{^{\prime }},k^{\prime }}\right\rangle _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \right| , \end{eqnarray*} \[ A_{n}\leq c_{0}h^{-1}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max_{ \substack{ k,k^{\prime }=2,3,4 \\ 1\leq j, j^{\prime }\leq N }}\left| \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \left\langle B_{j,k},B_{j^{^{\prime }},k^{\prime }}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}-\left\langle B_{j,k},B_{j^{^{\prime }},k^{\prime }}\right\rangle _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \right| , \] which, together with Lemma , imply (\ref{EQ:order of An}).\hfill \vskip 0.10in \noindent \textbf{A.2. Proof of Proposition \ref {PROP:ghattheta-gtheta}} For any fixed $\mathbf{\theta }$, we write the response $\mathbf{Y} ^{T}=\left( Y_{1},...,Y_{n}\right) $ as the sum of a signal vector \textbf{$ \gamma $}$_{\mathbf{\theta }}$, a parametric noise vector $\mathbf{E}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}$ and a systematic noise vector $\mathbf{E}$, i.e., \[ \mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{\gamma }_{\mathbf{\theta }}+\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}+ \mathbf{E,} \] in which the vectors \textbf{$\gamma $}$_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}=\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta ,}1}\right) ,...,\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta ,}n}\right) \right\} $, $\mathbf{E} ^{T}=\left\{ \sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{1}\right) \varepsilon _{1},...,\sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{n}\right) \varepsilon _{n}\right\} $ and $\mathbf{E}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}^{T}=\left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}_{1}\right) -\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },1}\right) ,...,m\left( \mathbf{X} _{n}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },n}\right) \right\} $. \vskip 0.1in \noindent \textbf{Remark A.1.} If $m$ is a genuine single-index function, then $\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta}_0}\equiv 0$, thus the proposed SIP model is exactly the single-index model. Let $\Gamma _{n,\mathbf{\ \theta }}^{\left( 2\right) }$ be the cubic spline space spanned by $\left\{ \mathbf{B}_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}$, $-3\leq j\leq N$ for fixed $\mathbf{\theta } $. Projecting $\mathbf{Y}$ onto $\Gamma _{n,\mathbf{\ \theta }}^{\left( 2\right) }$ yields that \[ \hat{\mathbf{\gamma }}_{\mathbf{\theta }}=\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta ,}1}\right) ,...,\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },n}\right) \right\} ^{T}=\text{Proj} _{\Gamma _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{\left( 2\right) }}\mathbf{\gamma }_{\mathbf{ \theta }}+\text{Proj}_{\Gamma _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{\left( 2\right) }} \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}+\text{Proj}_{\Gamma _{n,\mathbf{\theta } }^{\left( 2\right) }}\mathbf{E}, \] where $\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ is given in (). We break the cubic spline estimation error $\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) $ into a bias term $\tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) $ and two noise terms $\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) $ and $\hat{\varepsilon}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) $ \begin{equation} \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) =\left\{ \tilde{\gamma}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} +\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) +\hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( u_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) , \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) =\left\{ B_{j,4}\left( u\right) \right\} _{-3\leq j\leq N}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta } }^{-1}\left\{ \left\langle \mathbf{\gamma }_{\mathbf{\theta } },B_{j,4}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} _{j=-3}^{N}, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) =\left\{ B_{j,4}\left( u\right) \right\} _{-3\leq j\leq N}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta } }^{-1}\left\{ \left\langle \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta }},B_{j,4}\right \rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} _{j=-3}^{N}, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) =\left\{ B_{j,4}\left( u\right) \right\} _{-3\leq j\leq N}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta } }^{-1}\left\{ \left\langle \mathbf{E},B_{j,4}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{ \theta }}\right\} _{j=-3}^{N}. \end{equation} In the above, we denote by $\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}$ the empirical inner product matrix of the cubic B-spline basis and similarly, the theoretical inner product matrix as $\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ \begin{equation} \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}=\frac{1}{n}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T} \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}=\left\{ \left\langle B_{j^{\prime },4},B_{j,4}\right\rangle _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} _{j,j^{\prime }=-3}^{N},\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{\theta }}=\left\{ \left\langle B_{j^{\prime },4},B_{j,4}\right\rangle _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} _{j,j^{\prime }=-3}^{N}. \end{equation} In Lemma , we provide the uniform upper bound of $\left\| \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{-1}\right\|_{\infty }$ and $\left\| \mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{-1}\right\|_{\infty }$. Before that, we first describe a special case of Theorem 13.4.3 in DeVore and Lorentz (1993). \begin{lemma} If a bi-infinite matrix with bandwidth $r$ has a bounded inverse $\mathbf{A}^{-1}$ on $l_{2}$ and $ \kappa =\kappa \left( \mathbf{A}\right) :=\left\| \mathbf{A}\right\| _{2}\left\| \mathbf{A}^{-1}\right\| _{2}$ is the condition number of $ \mathbf{A}$, then $\left\| \mathbf{A}^{-1}\right\| _{\infty }\leq 2c_{0}\left( 1-\nu \right) ^{-1}$, with $c_{0}=\nu ^{-2r}\left\| \mathbf{A} ^{-1}\right\| _{2}$, $\nu =\left( \kappa ^{2}-1\right) ^{1/4r}\left( \kappa ^{2}+1\right) ^{-1/4r}$. \end{lemma} \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2, A5 and A6, there exist constants $0<c_{V}<C_{V}$ such that $c_{V}N^{-1}\left\| \mathbf{w}\right\| _{2}^{2}\mathbf{\leq w}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{\theta }} \mathbf{w}\leq C_{V}N^{-1}\left\| \mathbf{w}\right\| _{2}^{2}$ and \begin{equation} c_{V}N^{-1}\left\| \mathbf{w}\right\| _{2}^{2}\mathbf{\leq w}^{T}\mathbf{V} _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{w}\leq C_{V}N^{-1}\left\| \mathbf{w}\right\| _{2}^{2},a.s., \end{equation} with matrices $\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{\theta }}$ and $\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{ \theta }}$ defined in (). In addition, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{ \theta }}^{-1}\right\| _{\infty }\leq CN,a.s.,\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta } \in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{-1}\right\| _{\infty }\leq CN. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} First we compute the lower and upper bounds for the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}$. Let $\mathbf{w}$ be any $\left( N+4\right) $-vector and denote $\gamma _{\mathbf{w}}\left( u\right) =\sum_{j=-3}^{N}w_{j}B_{j,4}\left( u\right) $, then $\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{w}=\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{w}}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },1}\right) ,...,\gamma _{\mathbf{w}}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,n}\right) \right\} ^{T}$ and the definition of $A_{n}$ in (\ref{EQ:order of An}) from Lemma entails that \begin{equation} \left\| \gamma _{\mathbf{w}}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}\left( 1-A_{n}\right) \leq \mathbf{w}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{w} =\left\| \gamma _{\mathbf{w}}\right\| _{2,n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}\leq \left\| \gamma _{\mathbf{w}}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}\left( 1+A_{n}\right) . \end{equation} Using Theorem 5.4.2 of DeVore and Lorentz (1993) and Assumption A2, one obtains that \begin{equation} c_{f}\frac{C}{N}\left\| \mathbf{w}\right\| _{2}^{2}\leq \Vert \gamma _{ \mathbf{w}}\Vert _{2,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}=\mathbf{w}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\mathbf{w=}\left\| \sum_{j=-3}^{N}w_{j}B_{j,4}\right\| _{2,\mathbf{ \theta }}^{2}\leq C_{f}\frac{C}{N}\left\| \mathbf{w}\right\| _{2}^{2}, \end{equation} which, together with (), yield \begin{equation} c_{f}CN^{-1}\left\| \mathbf{w}\right\| _{2}^{2}\left( 1-A_{n}\right) \leq \mathbf{w}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{w}\leq C_{f}CN^{-1}\left\| \mathbf{w}\right\| _{2}^{2}\left( 1+A_{n}\right) . \end{equation} Now the order of $A_{n}$ in (), together with (\ref {EQ:gworder}) and () implies (), in which $ c_{V}=c_{f}C,C_{V}=C_{f}C$. Next, denote by $\lambda _{\max }\left( \mathbf{V }_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right) $ and $\lambda _{\min }\left( \mathbf{V}_{n, \mathbf{\theta }}\right) $ the maximum and minimum eigenvalue of $\mathbf{V} _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}$, simple algebra and () entail that \[ C_{V}N^{-1}\geq \left\| \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right\| _{2}=\lambda _{\max }\left( \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ,\left\| \mathbf{V}_{n, \mathbf{\theta }}^{-1}\right\| _{2}=\lambda _{\min }^{-1}\left( \mathbf{V} _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \leq c_{V}^{-1}N,a.s., \] thus \[ \kappa :=\left\| \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right\| _{2}\left\| \mathbf{ V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{-1}\right\| _{2}=\lambda _{\max }\left( \mathbf{V} _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \lambda _{\min }^{-1}\left( \mathbf{V}_{n, \mathbf{\theta }}\right) \leq C_{V}c_{V}^{-1}<\infty ,a.s.. \] Meanwhile, let $\mathbf{w}_{j}=$ the $\left( N+4\right) $-vector with all zeros except the $j$-th element being $1,j=-3,...,N$. Then clearly \[ \mathbf{w}_{j}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{w}_{j}=\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}B_{j,4}^{2}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) =\left\| B_{j,4}\right\| _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2},\left\| \mathbf{w}_{j}\right\| _{2}=1,-3\leq j\leq N \] and in particular \begin{eqnarray*} \mathbf{w}_{0}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{w}_{0} &\leq &\lambda _{\max }\left( \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \left\| \mathbf{w}_{0}\right\| _{2}=\lambda _{\max }\left( \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{ \theta }}\right) , \\ \mathbf{w}_{-3}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{w}_{-3} &\geq &\lambda _{\min }\left( \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \left\| \mathbf{w}_{-3}\right\| _{2}=\lambda _{\min }\left( \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{ \theta }}\right) . \end{eqnarray*} This, together with () yields that \[ \kappa =\lambda _{\max }\left( \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \lambda _{\min }^{-1}\left( \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \geq \frac{\mathbf{w}_{0}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{w}_{0}}{ \mathbf{w}_{-3}^{T}\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{w}_{-3}}=\frac{ \left\| B_{0,4}\right\| _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}}{\left\| B_{-3,4}\right\| _{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}}\geq \frac{\left\| B_{0,4}\right\| _{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{2}}{\left\| B_{-3,4}\right\| _{\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}}\frac{1-A_{n} }{1+A_{n}}, \] which leads to $\kappa \geq C>1,a.s.$ because the definition of B-spline and Assumption A2 ensure that $\left\| B_{0,4}\right\| _{\mathbf{\theta } }^{2}\geq C_{0}\left\| B_{-3,4}\right\| _{\mathbf{\theta }}^{2}$ for some constant $C_{0}>1$. Next applying Lemma with $\nu =\left( \kappa ^{2}-1\right) ^{1/16}\left( \kappa ^{2}+1\right) ^{-1/16}$ and $c_{0}=\nu ^{-8}\left\| \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{-1}\right\| _{2} $, one gets $\left\| \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{-1}\right\| _{\infty }\leq 2\nu ^{-8}N\left( 1-\nu \right) ^{-1}=CN,a.s.$. Hence part one of (\ref {EQ:ninvBB}) follows. Part two of () is proved in the same fashion.\hfill In the following, we denote by $Q_{T}\left( m\right) $ the $4$-th order quasi-interpolant of $m$ corresponding to the knots $T$, see equation (4.12), page 146 of DeVore and Lorentz (1993). According to Theorem 7.7.4, DeVore and Lorentz (1993), the following lemma holds. \begin{lemma} There exists a constant $C>0 $, such that for $0\leq k\leq 2$ and $\gamma \in C^{\left( 4\right) }\left[ 0,1\right] $ \[ \left\| \left( \gamma -Q_{T}\left( \gamma \right) \right) ^{\left( k\right) }\right\| _{\infty }\leq C\left\| \gamma ^{\left( 4\right) }\right\| _{\infty }h^{4-k}, \] \end{lemma} \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2, A3, A5 and A6, there exists an absolute constant $C>0$, such that for function $\tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) $ in (\ref {DEF:gtilde}) \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{d^{k}}{du^{k}} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}-\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\| _{\infty }\leq C\left\| m^{\left( 4\right) }\right\| _{\infty }h^{4-k},a.s.,0\leq k\leq 2, \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} According to Theorem A.1 of Huang (2003), there exists an absolute constant $C>0$, such that \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}-\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\| _{\infty }\leq C\sup\limits_{ \mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\inf\limits_{\gamma \in \Gamma ^{\left( 2\right) }}\left\| \gamma -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\| _{\infty }\leq C\left\| m^{\left( 4\right) }\right\| _{\infty }h^{4},a.s., \end{equation} which proves () for the case $k=0$. Applying Lemma \ref {LEM:DVL7.7.4}, one has for $0\leq k\leq 2$ \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{d^{k}}{du^{k}} \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\right\} \right\| _{\infty }\leq C\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}^{\left( 4\right) }\right\| _{\infty }h^{4-k}\leq C\left\| m^{\left( 4\right) }\right\| _{\infty }h^{4-k}, \end{equation} As a consequence of () and () for the case $k=0$, one has \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\| _{\infty }\leq C\left\| m^{\left( 4\right) }\right\| _{\infty }h^{4},a.s., \] which, according to the differentiation of B-spline given in de Boor (2001), entails that \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{d^{k}}{du^{k}} \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\tilde{\gamma}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \right\| _{\infty }\leq C\left\| m^{\left( 4\right) }\right\| _{\infty }h^{4-k},a.s.,\mbox{\ }0\leq k\leq 2. \end{equation} Combining () and () proves (\ref {EQ:biasbound}) for $k=1,2.$ \hfill \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A1, A2, A4 and A5, there exists an absolute constant $C>0 $, such that \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \tilde{ \gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}\right\| _{\infty }\leq C\left\| m^{\left( 4\right) }\right\| _{\infty }h^{3},a.s., \end{equation} \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{1\leq p,q\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}\left\{ \tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}\right\| _{\infty }\leq C\left\| m^{\left( 4\right) }\right\| _{\infty }h^{2},a.s.. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof}. According to the definition of $\tilde{\gamma}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}$ in (), and the fact that $Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) $ is a cubic spline on the knots $T$ \[ \left\{ \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\tilde{\gamma} _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}=\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left\{ \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}, \] which entails that \begin{eqnarray*} &&\left. \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}=\frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{p}}\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left\{ \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}\right. \\ &=&\mathbf{\dot{P}}_{p}\left\{ \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}+\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}. \end{eqnarray*} Since \begin{eqnarray*} &&\left. \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}=\left\{ \left\{ Q_{T}\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) -\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}\right. \\ &&+\left\{ \frac{d}{du}\left\{ Q_{T}\left( \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) X_{ip}\right\} _{i=1}^{n}, \end{eqnarray*} applying () to the decomposition above produces (\ref {EQ:biasboundtthetaderiv}). The proof of () is similar. \hfill \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2, A5 and A6, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| n^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\right\| _{\infty }\leq Ch,a.s.,\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| n^{-1}\mathbf{ \dot{B}}_{p}^{T}\right\| _{\infty }\leq C,a.s., \end{equation} \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\right\| _{\infty }\leq C,a.s.,\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \mathbf{\dot{P}} _{p}\right\| _{\infty }\leq Ch^{-1},a.s.. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} To prove (), observe that for any vector $\mathbf{a}\in R^{n}$, with probability $1$ \[ \left\| n^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{a}\right\| _{\infty }\leq \left\| \mathbf{a}\right\| _{\infty }\max\limits_{-3\leq j\leq N}\left| n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| \leq Ch\left\| \mathbf{a}\right\| _{\infty }, \] \[ \left\| n^{-1} \mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}^{T}\mathbf{a}\right\| _{\infty }\leq \left\| \mathbf{a}\right\| _{\infty }\max\limits_{-3\leq j\leq N}\left| \frac{1}{nh}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \left( B_{j,3}-B_{j+1,3}\right) \left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} \dot{F}_{d}\left( \mathbf{X}_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) X_{i,p}\right| \leq C\left\| \mathbf{a}\right\| _{\infty }. \] To prove (), one only needs to use ( ), () and (). \hfill \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2 and A4-A6, one has with probability $1$ \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}}{n}\right\| _{\infty }=\max_{-3\leq j\leq N}\left| n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}\right| =O\left( \frac{ \log n}{\sqrt{nN}}\right) , \end{equation} \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \frac{ \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}}{n}\right) \right\| _{\infty }=\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{\mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}^{T}\mathbf{E}}{n}\right\| _{\infty }=O\left( \frac{\log n}{\sqrt{nh}}\right). \end{equation} Similarly, under Assumptions A2, A4-A6, with probability 1 \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{\mathbf{B}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}}{n}\right\| _{\infty }=\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max_{-3\leq j\leq N}\left| \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) \right\} \right|=O\left( \frac{\log n}{\sqrt{nN}}\right), \end{equation} \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \frac{ \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}}{n}\right) \right\| _{\infty }=O\left( \frac{\log n}{\sqrt{nh}}\right) ,a.s.. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} We decompose the noise variable $\varepsilon _{i}$ into a truncated part and a tail part $\varepsilon _{i}=\varepsilon _{i,1}^{D_{n}}+\varepsilon _{i,2}^{D_{n}}+m_{i}^{D_{n}}$, where $ D_{n}=n^{\eta }\left( 1/3<\eta <2/5\right) $, $\varepsilon _{i,1}^{D_{n}}=\varepsilon _{i}I\left\{ \left| \varepsilon _{i}\right| >D_{n}\right\} $, \[ \varepsilon _{i,2}^{D_{n}}=\varepsilon _{i}I\left\{ \left| \varepsilon _{i}\right| \leq D_{n}\right\} -m_{i}^{D_{n}},m_{i}^{D_{n}}=E\left[ \varepsilon _{i}I\left\{ \left| \varepsilon _{i}\right| \leq D_{n}\right\} | \mathbf{X}_{i}\right] . \] It is straightforward to verify that the mean of the truncated part is uniformly bounded by $D_{n}^{-2}$, so the boundedness of B spline basis and of the function $\sigma ^{2}$ entail that \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left| \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) m_{i}^{D_{n}}\right| =O\left( D_{n}^{-2}\right) =o\left( n^{-2/3}\right) . \] The tail part vanishes almost surely \[ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty }P\left\{ \left| \varepsilon _{n}\right| >D_{n}\right\} \leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty }D_{n}^{-3}<\infty . \] Borel-Cantelli Lemma implies that \[ \left| \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i,1}^{D_{n}}\right| =O\left( n^{-k}\right) ,\text{ for any }k>0. \] For the truncated part, using Bernstein's inequality and discretization as in Lemma \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup_{1\leq j\leq N}\left| n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i,2}^{D_{n}}\right| =O\left( \log n/\sqrt{nN}\right) ,a.s.. \] Therefore () is established as with probability $1$ \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \frac{1}{n}\mathbf{ \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}}\right\| _{\infty }=o\left( n^{-2/3}\right) +O\left( n^{-k}\right) +O\left( \log n/\sqrt{nN}\right) =O\left( \log n/\sqrt{nN}\right) . \] The proofs of (), () are similar as $E\left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \left| U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right. \right\} \equiv 0$, but no truncation is needed for ( ) as $\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max\limits_{1\leq i\leq n}\left| m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| \leq C<\infty $. Meanwhile, to prove (\ref {EQ:BEthetasupnormderiv}), we note that for any $p=1,...,d$ \[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta } }^{T}\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) =\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left[ B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) \left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} \right] \right\} _{j=-3}^{N}. \] According to (), one has $\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \equiv E\left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X} \right) |U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} $, hence \[ E\left[ B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X} \right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} \right] \equiv 0,-3\leq j\leq N,\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}. \] Applying Assumptions A2 and A3, one can differentiate through the expectation, thus \[ E\left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left[ B_{j,4}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) \left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} \right] \right\} \equiv 0,1\leq p\leq d,-3\leq j\leq N,\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}, \] which allows one to apply the Bernstein's inequality to obtain that with probability $1$ \[ \left\| \left\{ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left[ B_{j,4}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) \right\} \right] \right\} _{j=-3}^{N}\right\| _{\infty }=O\left\{ (nh)^{-1/2}\log n\right\} , \] which is (). \hfill \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2 and A4-A6, for $\hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) $ in (\ref {DEF:epshat}), one has \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup_{u\in \left[ 0,1\right] }\left| \hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) \right| =O\left\{ \left( nh\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} ,a.s.. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} Denote $\mathbf{\hat{a}}\equiv \left( \hat{a} _{-3},\cdots ,\hat{a}_{N}\right) ^{T}\mathbf{=}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}=\mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{\theta }}^{-1}\left( n^{-1} \mathbf{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}}\right) $, then $\hat{ \varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) =\sum_{j=-3}^{N}\hat{a} _{j}B_{j,4}\left( u\right) $, so the order of $\hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( u\right) $ is related to that of $\mathbf{\hat{a}}$. In fact, by Theorem 5.4.2 in DeVore and Lorentz (1993) \begin{eqnarray*} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup_{u\in \left[ 0,1\right] }\left| \hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) \right| &\leq &\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \mathbf{\hat{a}} \right\| _{\infty }= \\ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| \mathbf{V}_{n,\mathbf{ \theta }}^{-1}\left( n^{-1}\mathbf{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E }}\right) \right\| _{\infty } &\leq &CN\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| n^{-1}\mathbf{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E} }\right\| _{\infty },a.s., \end{eqnarray*} where the last inequality follows from () of Lemma \ref {LEM:ninvBB}. Applying () of Lemma , we have established ().\hfill \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2 and A4-A6, for $\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) $ in ( ), one has \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup_{u\in \left[ 0,1\right] }\left| \tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) \right| =O\left\{ \left( nh\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} ,a.s.. \end{equation} \end{lemma} The proof is similar to Lemma , thus omitted. \hfill The next result evaluates the uniform size of the noise derivatives. \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2-A6, one has with probability $1$ \begin{eqnarray} \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max_{1\leq i\leq n}\left| \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}} \hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| =O\left\{ (nh^{3})^{-1/2}\log n\right\} , \\ \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max_{1\leq i\leq n}\left| \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}} \tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| =O\left\{ (nh^{3})^{-1/2}\log n\right\} , \\ \sup\limits_{1\leq p,q\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max_{1\leq i\leq n}\left| \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}\hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| =O\left\{ (nh^{5})^{-1/2}\log n\right\} , \\ \sup\limits_{1\leq p,q\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max_{1\leq i\leq n}\left| \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| =O\left\{ (nh^{5})^{-1/2}\log n\right\} . \end{eqnarray} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} Note that \[ \left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}=\left( \mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1} \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}^{T}\left( \mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\right) \mathbf{E}. \] Applying () and () of Lemma \ref {LEM:BEsupnorm}, () of Lemma , (\ref {EQ:BthetadotBpnorm}) and () of Lemma \ref {LEM:BthetadotBpnorm}, one derives (). To prove ( ), note that \begin{equation} \left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\tilde{\varepsilon }_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} _{i=1}^{n}=\frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\mathbf{ E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} =\mathbf{\dot{P}}_{p}\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}+\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}} \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}=T_{1}+T_{2}, \end{equation} in which \begin{eqnarray*} T_{1} &=&\left\{ \left( \mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \mathbf{\dot{B}}_{p}-\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{\dot{B}} _{p}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right\} \left( \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta }} \\ &=&\left\{ \left( \mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \mathbf{ \dot{B}}_{p}-\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( \frac{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}}{n}\right) ^{-1}\frac{\mathbf{ \dot{B}}_{p}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}}{n}\right\} \left( \frac{ \mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}}{n}\right) ^{-1}\frac{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}}{n} , \end{eqnarray*} \[ T_{2}=\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( \frac{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta } }^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}}{n}\right) ^{-1}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \frac{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}}{n}\right) . \] By (), (), () and ( ), one derives \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| T_{1}\right\| _{\infty }=O\left( n^{-1/2}N^{3/2}\log n\right) ,a.s., \end{equation} while () of Lemma , (\ref {EQ:ninvBB}) of Lemma \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\| T_{2}\right\| _{\infty }=N\times O\left( n^{-1/2}h^{-1/2}\log n\right) =O\left( n^{-1/2}h^{-3/2}\log n\right) ,a.s.. \end{equation} Now, putting together (), () and (\ref {EQ:T2bound}), we have established (). The proof for () and () are similar. \hfill \noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition .} According to the decomposition () \[ \left| \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( u\right) \right| =\left| \left\{ \tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( u\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) \right\} +\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) +\hat{\varepsilon}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) \right| . \] Then () follows directly from () of Lemma , () of Lemma \ref {LEM:epshatorder} and () of Lemma \ref {LEM:epstildeorder}. Again by definitions () and (\ref {DEF:epshat}), we write \[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \left( \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}-\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) \right\} =\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \tilde{ \gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}-\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) +\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\tilde{ \gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) +\frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) . \] It is clear from (), ( ) and () that with probability $1$ \[ \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max\limits_{1\leq i\leq n}\left| \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}-\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| =O\left( h^{3}\right) , \] \[ \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\max\limits_{1\leq i\leq n}\left\{ \left| \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{p}}\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) \right| +\left| \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}} \hat{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| \right\} =O\left\{ \left( nh^{3}\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} . \] Putting together all the above yields (). The proof of () is similar. \hfill \vskip 0.10in \noindent \textbf{A.3. Proof of Proposition } \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2-A6, one has \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left| \hat{R}\left( \mathbf{ \theta }\right) -R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) \right| =o(1),a.s.. \] \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} For the empirical risk function $\hat{R}\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) $ in (), one has \[ \hat{R}\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) =n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{ \gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}\right\} ^{2} \] \[ =n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) +\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\sigma \left( \mathbf{X} _{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}\right\} ^{2}, \] hence \[ \hat{R}\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) =n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{ \gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} ^{2}+n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sigma ^{2}\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}^{2} \] \[ +2n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) \right\} \left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}\right\} \] \[ +n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \right\} ^{2}+2n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \right\} \sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}, \] where $\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( x\right) $ is defined in (\ref {DEF:mthetahat}). Using the expression of $R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) $ in (), one has \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left| \hat{R}\left( \mathbf{ \theta }\right) -R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) \right| \leq I_{1}+I_{2}+I_{3}+I_{4}, \] with \[ I_{1}=\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left| n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) \right\} ^{2}\right| , \] \[ I_{2}=\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left| 2n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) \right\} \left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}\right\} \right| , \] \[ I_{3}=\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left| n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \right\} ^{2}-E\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) \right\} ^{2}\right| , \] \[ I_{4}=\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left\{ \left| \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\sigma ^{2}\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}^{2}-E\sigma ^{2}\left( \mathbf{X}\right) \right| +\left| \frac{2}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \right\} \sigma \left( \mathbf{X} _{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}\right| \right\} . \] Bernstein inequality and strong law of large number for $\alpha $ mixing sequence imply that \begin{equation} I_{3}+I_{4}=o(1),a.s.. \end{equation} Now () of Proposition provides that \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{u\in \left[ 0,1\right] }\left| \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) -\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( u\right) \right| =O\left( n^{-1/2}h^{-1/2}\log n+h^{4}\right) ,a.s., \] which entail that \begin{equation} I_{1}=O\left\{ \left( n^{-1/2}h^{-1/2}\log n\right) ^{2}+\left( h^{4}\right) ^{2}\right\} ,a.s., \end{equation} \[ I_{2}\leq O\left\{ (nh)^{-1/2}\log n+h^{4}\right\} \times \sup\limits_{ \mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}2n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left| \gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}\right| . \] Hence \begin{equation} I_{2}\leq O\left( n^{-1/2}h^{-1/2}\log n+h^{4}\right) ,a.s.. \end{equation} The lemma now follows from (), () and (\ref {EQ:I2order}) and Assumption A6.\hfill \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2 - A6, one has \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\left| \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \hat{R}\left( \mathbf{ \theta }\right) -R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) \right\} -n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\xi _{\mathbf{\theta },i,p}\right| =o\left( n^{-1/2}\right) ,\text{ }a.s., \end{equation} in which \begin{equation} \xi _{\mathbf{\theta },i,p}=2\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -Y_{i}\right\} \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -\frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) ,\ E\left( \xi _{\mathbf{\theta },i,p}\right) =0. \end{equation} Furthermore for $k=1,2$ \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\left| \frac{\partial ^{k}}{ \partial \mathbf{\theta }^{k}}\left\{ \hat{R}\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) -R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) \right\} \right| =O\left( n^{-1/2}h^{-1/2-k}\log n+h^{4-k}\right) ,a.s.. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} Note that for any $p=1,2,...,d$ \[ \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\hat{R}\left( \mathbf{ \theta }\right) =n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -Y_{i}\right\} \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{p}}\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right), \] \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta } \right) &=&E\left[ \left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) \right\} \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \right] \\ &=&E\left[ \left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) -\sigma \left( \mathbf{X}\right) \varepsilon \right\} \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right] . \end{eqnarray*} Thus $E\left( \xi _{\mathbf{\theta },i,p}\right) =2E\left[ \left\{ \gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -Y_{i}\right\} \frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta },i}\right) \right] -\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) =0$ and \begin{equation} \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \hat{R}\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) -R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) \right\} =\left( 2n\right) ^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\xi _{\mathbf{\theta },i,p}+J_{1,\mathbf{\theta },p}+J_{2,\mathbf{\theta },p}+J_{3,\mathbf{\theta },p}, \end{equation} with \begin{eqnarray*} J_{1,\mathbf{\theta },p} &=&n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{p}}\left( \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}-\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\right) \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) , \\ J_{2,\mathbf{\theta },p} &=&n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}\right\} \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}-\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) , \\ J_{3,\mathbf{\theta },p} &=&n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right\} \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } ,i}\right) . \end{eqnarray*} Bernstein inequality implies that \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\left| n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\xi _{\mathbf{\theta },i,p}\right| =O\left( n^{-1/2}\log n\right) ,a.s.. \end{equation} Meanwhile, applying () and (\ref {EQ:ghatthetaderiv-gthetaderv}) of Proposition , one obtains that \begin{eqnarray} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\left| J_{1,\mathbf{\theta },p}\right| &=&O\left\{ \left( nh\right) ^{-1/2}\log n+h^{4}\right\} \times O\left\{ \left( nh^{3}\right) ^{-1/2}\log n+h^{3}\right\} \nonumber \\ &=&O\left( n^{-1}h^{-2}\log ^{2}n+h^{7}\right) ,a.s.. \end{eqnarray} Note that \begin{eqnarray*} J_{2,\mathbf{\theta },p} &=&n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) -\sigma \left( \mathbf{X}_{i}\right) \varepsilon _{i}\right\} \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left( \tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}-\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \\ &&-n^{-1}\left( \mathbf{E+E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{T}\frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( \mathbf{E+E} _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} . \end{eqnarray*} Applying (), one gets \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\left| J_{2,\mathbf{\theta },p}+n^{-1}\left( \mathbf{E+E}_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) ^{T}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \mathbf{P}_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( \mathbf{E+E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} \right| =O\left( h^{3}\right) ,a.s., \] while (), () and () entail that with probability $1$ \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\left| n^{-1}\left( \mathbf{E+E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{T}\frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\left\{ \mathbf{P}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( \mathbf{E+E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} \right| \] \[ =O\left\{ \left( nN\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} \times N\times N\times O\left\{ \left( nN\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} =O\left\{ n^{-1}N\log ^{2}n\right\} , \] thus \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\left| J_{2,\mathbf{\theta },p}\right| =O\left( h^{3}+n^{-1}N\log ^{2}n\right) ,a.s.. \end{equation} Lastly \[ J_{3,\mathbf{\theta },p}-n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left( \tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}-\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) =n^{-1}\left( \mathbf{E+E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( \frac{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{ \theta }}}{n}\right) ^{-1}\frac{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}}{n}\frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\mathbf{\gamma }_{\mathbf{\theta }}. \] By applying (), (), and (\ref {EQ:ninvBB}), it is clear that with probability $1$ \begin{eqnarray*} &&\sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\left| \left( n^{-1}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{E+}n^{-1} \mathbf{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}E}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) ^{T}\left( \frac{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}}{n}\right) ^{-1}\frac{\mathbf{B}_{\mathbf{\theta }}^{T}}{n}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\mathbf{\gamma }_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right| \\ &=&O\left\{ \left( nN\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} \times N\times O\left\{ h+\left( nN\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} \\ &=&O\left\{ n^{-1}\log ^{2}n+\left( nN\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} , \end{eqnarray*} while by applying () of Lemma , one has \[ \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\left| n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left( \tilde{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}-\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right| =O\left( h^{4}\right) ,a.s., \] together, the above entail that \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{\mathbf{\theta }\in S_{c}^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d}\left| J_{3,\mathbf{\theta },p}\right| =O\left\{ h^{4}+n^{-1}\log ^{2}n+\left( nN\right) ^{-1/2}\log n\right\} ,a.s.. \end{equation} Therefore, (), (), (), ( ) and Assumption A6 lead to (\ref {EQ:Rhat-Lderivlinearization}), which, together with (), establish () for $k=1$. Note that the second order derivative of $\hat{R}\left( \mathbf{\theta } \right) $ and $R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) $ with respect to $\theta _{p} $, $\theta _{q}$ are \[ 2n^{-1}\left[ \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{ \hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) -Y_{i}\right\} \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta },i}\right) +\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{q}}\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\hat{\gamma}_{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta },i}\right) \right] , \] \[ 2\left[ E\left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) -m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) \right\} \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\right) +E\left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{q}}\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \right\} \right] . \] The proof of () for $k=2$ follows from (\ref {EQ:ghattheta-gtheta}), () and (\ref {EQ:ghatthetaderiv2-gthetaderv2}). \hfill \vskip .05in \noindent \textbf{Proof of Proposition .} The result follows from Lemma , Lemma , equations () and (). \hfill \vskip .10in \noindent \textbf{A.4. Proof of the Theorem 2} Let $\hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) $ be the $p$-th element of $\hat{S}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) $ and for $\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}$ in (), denote \begin{equation} \eta _{i,p}:=2\left\{ \dot{\gamma}_{p}-\theta _{0,p}\theta _{0,d}^{-1}\dot{ \gamma}_{d}\right\} \left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }_{0},i}\right) \left\{ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }_{0}}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }_{0},i}\right) -Y_{i}\right\} , \end{equation} where $\dot{\gamma}_{p}$ is value of $\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}} \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}$ taking at $\mathbf{\theta =\theta }_{0}$, for any $p,q=1,2,...,d-1$. \begin{lemma} Under Assumptions A2-A6, one has \begin{equation} \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d-1}\left| \hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta } _{0,-d}\right) -n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta _{i,p}\right| =o\left( n^{-1/2}\right) ,a.s.. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} For any $p=1,...,d-1$ \[ \hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) -S_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{ \theta }_{-d}\right) =\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}-\theta _{p}\theta _{d}^{-1}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{d}}\right) \left\{ \hat{R}\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) -R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) \right\}. \] Therefore, according to (), (\ref {DEF:xithetaip}) and () \[ \eta _{i,p}=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\xi _{\mathbf{\theta }_{0},i,p}-\theta _{0,p}\theta _{0,d}^{-1}n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\xi _{\mathbf{\theta }_{0},i,d}, \text{ }E\left( \eta _{i,p}\right) =0, \] \[ \sup\limits_{1\leq p\leq d-1}\left| \hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta } _{0,-d}\right) -S_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) -n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta _{i,p}\right| =o\left( n^{-1/2}\right) ,a.s.. \] Since $S^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) $ attains its minimum at $ \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}$, for $p=1,...,d-1$ \[ S_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \equiv \left. \left( \frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}-\theta _{p}\theta _{d}^{-1}\frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{d}}\right) R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) \right| _{ \mathbf{\theta =\theta }_{0}}\equiv 0, \] which yields ().\hfill \begin{lemma} The $\left( p,q\right) $-th entry of the Hessian matrix $H^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) $ equals $l_{p,q}$ given in Theorem . \end{lemma} \noindent \textbf{Proof.} It is easy to show that for any $p,q=1,2,...,d$, \[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) =\frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}E\left\{ m\left( \mathbf{X}\right) -\gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} ^{2}=-2E\left[ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \right] , \] \[ \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) =-2E\left[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}} \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{q}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) +\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{ \partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right] . \] Note that \begin{equation} \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta } _{-d}\right) =\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta } \right) -\frac{\theta _{p}}{\theta _{d}}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{d} }R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) , \end{equation} \begin{eqnarray} &&\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) =\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) -\frac{\theta _{q}}{ \theta _{d}}\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{d}} R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) -\frac{\theta _{p}}{\theta _{d}}\frac{ \partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{d}\partial \theta _{q}}R\left( \mathbf{ \theta }\right) \nonumber \\ &&-\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{q}}\left( \frac{\theta _{p}}{\sqrt{ 1-\left\| \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right\| _{2}^{2}}}\right) \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{d}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) +\frac{\theta _{p}\theta _{q}}{\theta _{d}^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{d}\partial \theta _{d}}R\left( \mathbf{\theta }\right) . \end{eqnarray} Thus \[ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta } _{-d}\right) =-2E\left[ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta } }\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right] +2\theta _{d}^{-1}\theta _{p}E\left[ \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{d}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{ \mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right] , \] \[ \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}R^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) =-2E\left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{ \partial }{\partial \theta _{q}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{ \theta }}\right) +\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}} \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} \] \begin{eqnarray*} &&+2\theta _{q}\theta _{d}^{-1}E\left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{d} }\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) +\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{ \partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{d}}\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} \\ &&+2\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{q}}\left( \frac{\theta _{p}}{\sqrt{ 1-\left\| \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right\| _{2}^{2}}}\right) E\left\{ \gamma _{ \mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{d}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \right\} \\ &&+2\theta _{p}\theta _{d}^{-1}E\left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{p} }\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{q}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) +\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \frac{ \partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{p}\partial \theta _{q}}\gamma _{\mathbf{ \theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right\} \\ &&-2\theta _{p}\theta _{q}\theta _{d}^{-2}E\left[ \left\{ \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta _{d}}\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \right\} ^{2}+\gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta } }\right) \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{d}\partial \theta _{d}} \gamma _{\mathbf{\theta }}\left( U_{\mathbf{\theta }}\right) \right] . \end{eqnarray*} Therefore we obtained the desired result.\hfill \vskip .05in \noindent \textbf{Proof of Theorem .} For any $p=1,2,...,d-1$, let \[ f_{p}\left( t\right) =\hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( t\hat{\mathbf{\theta}} _{-d}+\left( 1-t\right) \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) ,t\in [0,1], \] then \[ \frac{d}{dt}f_{p}\left( t\right) =\sum_{q=1}^{d-1}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta _{q}}\hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( t\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\mathbf{+} \left( 1-t\right) \mathbf{\theta}_{0,-d}\right) \left( \hat{\theta} _{q}-\theta _{0,q}\right) . \] Note that $\hat{S}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{-d}\right) $ attains its minimum at $\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}$, i.e., $\hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( \hat{ \mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\right) \equiv 0$. Thus, for any $p=1,2,...,d-1$, $ t_{p}\in \left[ 0,1\right] $, one has \begin{eqnarray*} &&\left. -\hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) =\hat{S} _{p}^{*}\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\right) -\hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) =f_{p}\left( 1\right) -f_{p}\left( 0\right) \right. \\ &=&\left\{ \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{q}\theta _{p}}\hat{R} ^{*}\left( t_{p}\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}+\left( 1-t_{p}\right) \mathbf{ \theta }_{0,-d}\right) \right\} _{q=1,...,d-1}^{T}\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta} }_{-d}\mathbf{-\theta }_{0,-d}\right) , \end{eqnarray*} then \[ -\hat{S}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) =\left\{ \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{q}\partial \theta _{p}}\hat{R}^{*}\left( t_{p}\hat{ \mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}+\left( 1-t_{p}\right) \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \right\} _{\substack{p,q=1,...,d-1}}\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}- \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) . \] Now () of Theorem and Proposition with $k=2$ imply that uniformly in $ p,q=1,2,...,d-1$ \begin{equation} \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{q}\partial \theta _{p}}\hat{R} ^{*}\left( t_{p}\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\mathbf{+}\left( 1-t_{p}\right) \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \longrightarrow l_{q,p},a.s., \end{equation} where $l_{p,q}$ is given in Theorem . Noting that $\sqrt{n }\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\mathbf{-\theta }_{0,-d}\right) $ is represented as \[ -\left[ \left\{ \frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \theta _{q}\partial \theta _{p} }\hat{R}^{*}\left( t_{p}\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}+\left( 1-t_{p}\right) \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \right\} _{\substack{p,q=1,...,d-1}}\right] ^{-1}\sqrt{n}\hat{S}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right), \] where $\hat{S}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) =\left\{ \hat{S} _{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \right\} _{p=1}^{d-1}$ and according to () and Lemma \[ \hat{S}_{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) =n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\eta _{p,i}+o\left( n^{-1/2}\right) ,a.s.,\text{ } E\left( \eta _{p,i}\right) =0. \] Let $\Psi \left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0}\right) =\left( \psi _{pq}\right) _{p,q=1}^{d-1}$ be the covariance matrix of $\sqrt{n}\left\{ \hat{S} _{p}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \right\} _{p=1}^{d-1}$ with $ \psi _{pq}$ given in Theorem . Cram\'{e}r-Wold device and central limit theorem for $\alpha $ mixing sequences entail that \[ \sqrt{n}\hat{S}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \stackrel{d}{ \longrightarrow }N\left\{ \mathbf{0},\Psi \left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0}\right) \right\} . \] Let $\Sigma \left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0}\right) =\left\{ H^{*}\left( \mathbf{ \theta }_{0,-d}\right) \right\} ^{-1}\Psi \left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0}\right) \left[ \left\{ H^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) \right\} ^{T}\right] ^{-1}$, with $H^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right) $ being the Hessian matrix defined in (). The above limiting distribution of $\sqrt{n}\hat{S}^{*}\left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0,-d}\right)$, ( ) and Slutsky's theorem imply that \[ \hspace{3.2cm}\sqrt{n}\left( \hat{\mathbf{\theta}}_{-d}\mathbf{-\theta } _{0,-d}\right) \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow }N\left\{ \mathbf{0},\Sigma \left( \mathbf{\theta }_{0}\right) \right\}.\hspace{3.5cm} \] \noindent{\large \textbf{References}} \begin{description} \item Bosq, D. (1998). \emph{Nonparametric Statistics for Stochastic Processes}. Springer-Verlag, New York. \item Carroll, R., Fan, J., Gijbles, I. and Wand, M. P. (1997). Generalized partially linear single-index models. \textit{J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.} \textbf{92} 477-489. \item Chen, H. (1991). Estimation of a projection -persuit type regression model. \textit{Ann. Statist.} \textbf{19} 142-157. \item de Boor, C. (2001). \emph{A Practical Guide to Splines}. Springer-Verlag, New York. \item DeVore, R. A. and Lorentz, G. G. (1993). \emph{Constructive Approximation: Polynomials and Splines Approximation}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. \item Fan, J. and Gijbels, I. (1996). \emph{Local Polynomial Modelling and Its Applications}. Chapman and Hall, London. \item Friedman, J. H. and Stuetzle, W. (1981). Projection pursuit regression. \textit{J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.} \textbf{76} 817-823. \item H\"{a}rdle, W. (1990). \emph{Applied Nonparametric Regression}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. \item H\"{a}rdle, W. and Hall, P. and Ichimura, H. (1993). Optimal smoothing in single-index models. \textit{Ann. Statist.} \textbf{21} 157-178. \item H\"{a}rdle, W. and Stoker, T. M. (1989). Investigating smooth multiple regression by the method of average derivatives. \textit{J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.} \textbf{84} 986-995. \item Hall, P. (1989). On projection pursuit regression. \textit{Ann. Statist.} \textbf{17} 573-588. \item Hastie, T. J. and Tibshirani, R. J. (1990). \emph{Generalized Additive Models}. Chapman and Hall, London. \item Horowitz, J. L. and H\"{a}rdle, W. (1996). Direct semiparametric estimation of single-index models with discrete covariates. \textit{J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.} \textbf{91} 1632-1640. \item Hristache, M., Juditski, A. and Spokoiny, V. (2001). Direct estimation of the index coefficients in a single-index model. \textit{Ann. Statist.} \textbf{29} 595-623. \item Huang, J. Z. (2003). Local asymptotics for polynomial spline regression. \textit{Ann. Statist.} \textbf{31} 1600-1635. \item Huang, J. and Yang, L. (2004). Identification of nonlinear additive autoregressive models. \textit{J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol.} \textbf{66} 463-477. \item Huber, P. J. (1985). Projection pursuit (with discussion). \textit{ Ann. Statist.} \textbf{13} 435-525. \item Ichimura, H. (1993). Semiparametric least squares (SLS) and weighted SLS estimation of single-index models \textit{Journal of Econometrics} \textbf{58} 71-120. \item Klein, R. W. and Spady. R. H. (1993). An efficient semiparametric estimator for binary response models. \textit{Econometrica} \textbf{61} 387-421. \item Mammen, E., Linton, O. and Nielsen, J. (1999). The existence and asymptotic properties of a backfitting projection algorithm under weak conditions. \textit{Ann. Statist.} \textbf{27} 1443-1490. \item Pham, D. T. (1986). The mixing properties of bilinear and generalized random coefficient autoregressive models. \textit{Stochastic Anal. Appl.} \textbf{23} 291-300. \item Powell, J. L., Stock, J. H. and Stoker, T. M. (1989). Semiparametric estimation of index coefficients. \textit{Econometrica.} \textbf{57} 1403-1430. \item Tong, H. (1990) \emph{Nonlinear Time Series: A Dynamical System Approach}. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. \item Tong, H., Thanoon, B. and Gudmundsson, G. (1985) Threshold time series modeling of two icelandic riverflow systems. \textit{Time Series Analysis in Water Resources}. ed. K. W. Hipel, American Water Research Association. \item Wang, L. and Yang, L. (2007). Spline-backfitted kernel smoothing of nonlinear additive autoregression model. \textit{Ann. Statist.} Forthcoming. \item Xia, Y. and Li, W. K. (1999). On single-index coefficient regression models. \textit{J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.} \textbf{94} 1275-1285. \item Xia, Y., Li, W. K., Tong, H. and Zhang, D. (2004). A goodness-of-fit test for single-index models. \textit{Statist. Sinica.} \textbf{14} 1-39. \item Xia, Y., Tong, H., Li, W. K. and Zhu, L. (2002). An adaptive estimation of dimension reduction space. \textit{J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol.} \textbf{64} 363-410. \item Xue, L. and Yang, L. (2006 a). Estimation of semiparametric additive coefficient model. \textit{J. Statist. Plann. Inference} \textbf{136}, 2506-2534. \item Xue, L. and Yang, L. (2006 b). Additive coefficient modeling via polynomial spline. \textit{Statistica Sinica} \textbf{16} 1423-1446. \end{description} \setcounter{chapter}{8} \renewcommand{\thefigure}{{\arabic{figure}}} \setcounter{figure}{0} \newpage \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \pagestyle{empty} \newpage \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \pagestyle{empty} \newpage \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \pagestyle{empty} \newpage \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \pagestyle{empty} \newpage \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \pagestyle{empty} \newpage \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \pagestyle{empty}
|
0704.0303
|
Title: Measurement of the Aerosol Phase Function at the Pierre Auger
Observatory
Abstract: Air fluorescence detectors measure the energy of ultra-high energy cosmic
rays by collecting fluorescence light emitted from nitrogen molecules along the
extensive air shower cascade. To ensure a reliable energy determination, the
light signal needs to be corrected for atmospheric effects, which not only
attenuate the signal, but also produce a non-negligible background component
due to scattered Cherenkov light and multiple-scattered light. The correction
requires regular measurements of the aerosol attenuation length and the aerosol
phase function, defined as the probability of light scattered in a given
direction. At the Pierre Auger Observatory in Malargue, Argentina, the phase
function is measured on an hourly basis using two Aerosol Phase Function (APF)
light sources. These sources direct a UV light beam across the field of view of
the fluorescence detectors; the phase function can be extracted from the image
of the shots in the fluorescence detector cameras. This paper describes the
design, current status, standard operation procedure, and performance of the
APF system at the Pierre Auger Observatory.
Body: \begin{frontmatter} \journal{Astroparticle Physics} \title{ Measurement of the Aerosol Phase Function at the Pierre Auger Observatory } \author[Columbia]{S.Y.~BenZvi}, \author[Columbia]{B.M.~Connolly}, \author[UNM]{J.A.J.~Matthews}, \author[Columbia]{M.~Prouza}, \author[Columbia,Carnegie]{E.F.~Visbal}, and \author[Columbia]{S.~Westerhoff} \address[Columbia]{Columbia University, Department of Physics and Nevis Laboratories, 538 West $\it 120^{th}$ Street, New York, NY 10027, USA} \address[UNM]{University of New Mexico, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA} \address[Carnegie]{Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Physics, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA} \begin{abstract} Air fluorescence detectors measure the energy of ultra-high energy cosmic rays by collecting fluorescence light emitted from nitrogen molecules along the extensive air shower cascade. To ensure a reliable energy determination, the light signal needs to be corrected for atmospheric effects, which not only attenuate the signal, but also produce a non-negligible background component due to scattered Cherenkov light and multiple-scattered light. The correction requires regular measurements of the aerosol attenuation length and the aerosol phase function, defined as the probability of light scattered in a given direction. At the Pierre Auger Observatory in Malarg\"ue, Argentina, the phase function is measured on an hourly basis using two Aerosol Phase Function (APF) light sources. These sources direct a UV light beam across the field of view of the fluorescence detectors; the phase function can be extracted from the image of the shots in the fluorescence detector cameras. This paper describes the design, current status, standard operation procedure, and performance of the APF system at the Pierre Auger Observatory. \end{abstract} \begin{keyword} Ultra-high energy cosmic rays; air fluorescence detectors; atmospheric monitoring; aerosol phase function \PACS 42.68.-w \sep 42.68.Jg \sep 92.60.Mt \sep 92.60.Sz \sep 96.50.sd \end{keyword} \end{frontmatter} \section{Introduction} The Pierre Auger Observatory in Malarg\"ue, Argentina, is designed to study the origin of ultra-high energy cosmic rays with energies above $10^{18}$\,eV. While still under construction, scientific data taking began in 2004, and first results have been published~. The Pierre Auger Observatory is a hybrid detector that combines two techniques traditionally used to measure cosmic ray air showers: surface particle detection and air fluorescence detection. Both detector types measure the cosmic ray primary indirectly, using the Earth's atmosphere as part of the detector medium. When the primary particle enters the atmosphere, it interacts with air molecules, initiating a cascade of secondary particles, the so-called extensive air shower. Surface detectors in the form of ground arrays sample the shower front as it impacts the ground, whereas air fluorescence detectors make use of the fact that the particles in the air shower excite nitrogen molecules in the air, causing UV fluorescence. Using photomultiplier cameras to record air shower UV emission, we can observe showers as they develop through the atmosphere and obtain a nearly calorimetric estimate of the shower energy. Upon completion, the surface detector (SD) array of the Pierre Auger Observatory will comprise 1600 water Cherenkov detector tanks, deployed in a hexagonal grid over an area of $3000~\mathrm{km}^{2}$, and four fluorescence detector (FD) stations overlooking the SD from the periphery. An advantage of combining both detector types at the same site is the possibility to cross-calibrate. Based on the subset of events seen with both detectors, the nearly calorimetric information of the FD provides the energy calibration of the SD. For the calibration to be meaningful, the properties of the calorimeter, {\it i.e.} the atmosphere, must be well-known. At the Pierre Auger Observatory, this is achieved by an extensive program to monitor the atmosphere within the overall FD aperture and measure atmospheric attenuation and scattering properties in the 300 to 400~nm wavelength band recorded by the FDs~. Two primary forms of atmospheric light scattering need to be considered: molecular, or Rayleigh, scattering, mainly due to nitrogen and oxygen molecules; and aerosol scattering due to airborne particulates. The angular distribution of scattered light in both types of scattering may be described by a phase function $P(\theta)$, defined as the probability per unit solid angle of scattering through an angle $\theta$. Rayleigh scattering allows for an analytical treatment, and assuming isotropic scattering, the Rayleigh phase function has the well known $1+\cos^{2}\theta$ angular dependence. Matters are more complicated for aerosols, because the scattering cross section depends on the size distribution and shape of the scatterers. Forward scattering typically dominates in this case, but the fraction of forward-scattered light varies strongly with aerosol type. Moreover, a rigorous analytical treatment is not possible, though the literature gives various approximations. For example, if one assumes spherical particles with a known or estimated size distribution, then aerosol scattering can be described analytically using Mie theory~. In practice, however, aerosols vary a great deal in size and shape, and the aerosol content of the atmosphere changes on short time scales as wind lifts up dust, weather fronts pass through, or rain removes dust from the atmosphere. The FD reconstruction of the primary cosmic ray particle energy must account not only for light that is ``lost'' between the shower and the camera due to scattering, but also for direct and indirect Cherenkov light contributing to the FD signal. The amount of Cherenkov light seen by the FDs depends on the viewing angle, {\it i.e.} the angle between the shower axis and the FD line of sight, and can be calculated once the geometry of the air shower is determined. At small viewing angles, direct Cherenkov light dominates, while at viewing angles greater than $\sim 20^{\circ}$, the FDs detect mainly ``indirect'' Cherenkov light scattered into the FD field of view. To calculate this scattered component, the aerosol phase function needs to be known. Finally, a small multiple scattering component also adds to the contamination of the fluorescence light and must be removed~. The Aerosol Phase Function (APF) light sources~, in conjunction with the fluorescence detectors at the Pierre Auger Observatory, are designed to measure the aerosol phase function on an hourly basis during FD data taking. The APF light sources direct a near-horizontal pulsed light beam across the field of view of a nearby FD. The aerosol phase function can then be reconstructed from the intensity of the light observed by the FD cameras as a function of scattering angle. Since the FD telescopes cover about $180^{\circ}$ in azimuth, the aerosol phase function is measured over a wide range of scattering angles. Currently, APF light sources are installed and operating at two of the FDs. With their ability to measure the {\it angular distribution} of the scattered light, the APF light sources are meant to complement other atmospheric monitoring tools at the Auger site which measure the optical depth, and therefore the {\it amount} of attenuation due to aerosols. This paper describes the design and performance of the APF light sources. It is structured as follows. Section 2 gives a description of the APF facilities. Section 3 describes how the aerosol phase function is determined from the APF data. In Section 4, we show first results for data taken between June and December 2006. Section 5 summarizes the paper. \section{APF Light Sources} \subsection{Detector Buildings, Optics, and Electronics} The Auger FD comprises four detector stations (see Fig.\,). At present, the sites at Los Leones, Coihueco, and Los Morados are completed and fully operational, while the fourth site at Loma Amarilla is under construction. APF light sources are operating at the Coihueco and Los Morados FD sites. Both were built by the University of New Mexico group~. Fig.\, shows a photograph of the APF container building at Los Morados. Each APF building contains sources which operate at different wavelengths in the region of interest between 300~nm and 400~nm. During the initial studies described in this paper, only one light source with a Johnson U-band filter of central wavelength 350~nm was used. However, in the near future, we plan to operate the light sources at several wavelengths to study the wavelength dependence of the phase function over the full range of the FD sensitivity. The light beam is provided by a broad-band Xenon flash lamp source from Perkin Elmer Optoelectronics (model LS-1130-4 FlashPac with FX-1160 flash lamp). The Xenon flash lamps were chosen because of their excellent stability in intensity and pulse shape. A Johnson/Cousins (Bessel) U-band filter from Omega Optical Inc. (part number XBSSL/U/50R) selects a central wavelength of $\sim 350$~nm, FWHM 60~nm) from the broad flash lamp spectrum. The beam is focused using a 20.3~cm diameter UV enhanced aluminum spherical mirror (speed f/3) from Edmund Scientific Co. (part number R43-589). All optical components are assembled on a commercial optical plate. We use Thor optical table parts, assembled from Nomex Epoxy/Fiberglass 1.91~cm panels from TEKLAM (part number N507EC). The Xenon lamps rest inside refurbished 6.1~m shipping containers, and the light is sent through a 0.749~cm thick acrylite UV transmitting window (Cyro Industries acrylite OP-4 UVT acrylic). Each light source provides a nearly horizontal beam of divergence $\leq 10~\mathrm{mrad}$ pulsed across the field of view of the nearby fluorescence detector. Computer control occurs from the corresponding FD building. A serial radio link (YDI Wireless, model 651-900001-001 (TranzPoint ESC-II Kit)) connects the computer to a commercial ADC/relay system (model ADC-16F 16 channel 8 bit ADC and RH-8L 8-relay card from Electronic Energy Control Inc.) at the light source. Once during each hour of FD data taking, the ADC/relay system enables a 1~Hz GPS pulser (CNS Systems Inc., model CNSC01 with TAC32 software) and a 12~V to 24~V inverter to power the Xenon flash lamps. Each lamp fires a set of 5 shots, pulsed at 2 second intervals. The APF events are flagged by the FD data acquisition system and the corresponding FD data are stored on disk in especially designated APF data files. When the light sources are not operating, only the radio link and the ADC board are powered. The total current draw is therefore only $\sim 0.2\,\,\mathrm{A}$ at 12~V, and the whole system can be powered by batteries recharged during the day with 12~V solar panels (two Siemens SP75 75~W solar modules with Trace C35 controller). \subsection{APF Signals in the Fluorescence Detectors} The light beam produced by the APF sources is observed by the cameras of the corresponding FD site. The FD detectors of the Pierre Auger Observatory are described in detail elsewhere~. Here, we only give a short summary of the main characteristics relevant for the analysis of APF shots. Each Auger FD site contains six bays, and each bay encloses a UV telescope composed of a spherical light-collecting mirror, a photomultiplier camera at the focal surface, and a UV transmitting filter in the aperture. The mirrors have a radius of curvature of 3.4~m and an area of about $3.5\times 3.5~\mathrm{m}^{2}$. The camera consists of 440 photomultipliers with a hexagonal bialkaline photocathode, arranged in a $20\times 22$ array. Each camera has a field of view of $30.0^{\circ}$ in azimuth and $28.6^{\circ}$ in elevation, covering an elevation angle range from $1.6^{\circ}$ to $30.2^{\circ}$ above horizon. To reduce optical aberrations, including coma, the FD telescopes use Schmidt optics with a circular diaphragm of diameter 2.2~m placed at the center of curvature of the mirror, and a refractive corrector ring at the telescope aperture. Fig.\, shows an APF shot as seen by the Coihueco FD. Five out of the 6 bays of the Coihueco FD site observe light from the Coihueco APF facility. In this figure, the light travels from right to left. Fig.\, shows the relative positions of the APF source and the FD at the Coihueco site. The geometry is in part dictated by the local topography, and consequently is slightly different for the Los Morados site. \section{Determination of the Aerosol Phase Function} The signal from the APF light source observed by the $i^{th}$ pixel of a fluorescence detector can be expressed as \begin{equation} S_i = I_0 \cdot T_i \cdot \left[ \frac{1}{\Lambda_m} \left(\frac{1}{\sigma_m} \frac{d \sigma_m}{d\Omega}\right)+\frac{1}{\Lambda_a} \left(\frac{1}{\sigma_a} \frac{d\sigma_a}{d\Omega}\right)\right] _i \cdot \Delta z_i \cdot \Delta \Omega_i \cdot \epsilon_i~~. \end{equation} In this equation, $I_0$ is the light source intensity; $T_i$ is the transmission factor $e^{-r_i/\Lambda_{tot}}$ which accounts for light attenuation from the beam to the pixel; $r_i$ is the distance from the beam to the detector; $\Lambda_{tot}$, $\Lambda_m$, and $\Lambda_a$ are the total, molecular, and aerosol extinction length, respectively; and $\sigma_m^{-1} d\sigma_m/d\Omega$ and $\sigma_a^{-1} d\sigma_a/d\Omega$ are the normalized differential molecular and aerosol scattering cross sections, respectively, which are identical to the phase functions $P_m(\theta)$ and $P_a(\theta)$. The integral of $P_m(\theta)$ and $P_{a}(\theta)$ over all solid angles is equal to 1. Finally, $\Delta z_i$, $\Delta\Omega_i$, and $\epsilon_i$ are the track length, detector solid angle, and the efficiency for the $i^{th}$ pixel of the detector. The data come in the form of total PMT signal per pixel from a particular shot. Those data are binned as a function of azimuth and averaged between the five shots taken within 10 seconds. In this analysis, $5^{\circ}$ bins are used, although the fit is relatively insensitive to the number of bins. Each FD pixel is hexagonally shaped, so for those lying at the boundary of two azimuth bins, the fractional area of the hexagon in each bin is used to properly distribute the signal. The signal in each pixel is divided by $\Delta z_i$, $1/r_i^2$ and $\epsilon_i$ to correct for the geometry of the beam and pixel calibration. Note that in the roughly cylindrical geometry of the FD-APF beam, the $\Delta z_i$ and $1/r_i^2$ corrections almost completely cancel out. Typical values for the aerosol extinction length in dry atmospheres are between 10~km and 20~km, reaching 40~km for very clear conditions. Since the perpendicular distance from the beam to the FD is only on the order of a few hundred meters, it is reasonable to assume full atmospheric transmission $(T_i=1)$ over the length of the beam. In reality, this assumption does not hold well for the most distant beam points, so these points are not used in the present study. In the near future, measurements of the extinction length from the Auger lidar stations~ will be used to improve the APF analysis. In another approximation, we assume that the extinction lengths are identical for each pixel for single measurements and do not require an index $i$. In principle, the extinction length depends on the number density of scatterers and is therefore a function of the density (temperature, pressure) of the air. Given corrections for geometry, attenuation, and pixel efficiency, Eq.\, reduces to \begin{equation} S_i = C \cdot\left[ \frac{1}{\Lambda_m} \left(\frac{1}{\sigma_m} \frac{d \sigma_m}{d\Omega}\right)+\frac{1}{\Lambda_a} \left(\frac{1}{\sigma_a}\frac{d\sigma_a}{d\Omega}\right)\right]~~, \end{equation} where $C$ is a constant whose value is unimportant because arbitrary units are sufficient in determining the phase function. From the theory of Rayleigh scattering it is known that the Rayleigh phase function is \begin{equation} P_{m}(\theta) = \frac{3}{16\,\pi (1+2\,\gamma)} \left[(1+3\,\gamma)+(1-\gamma)\cos^{2}\theta\right] \end{equation} where $\gamma$ accounts for the effect of molecular anisotropy on Rayleigh scattering. For isotropic scattering, $\gamma=0$, this reduces to the familiar \begin{equation} P_{m}(\theta) = \frac{3}{16\,\pi} (1+\cos^2\theta)~~. \end{equation} The effect of the anisotropy is small and wavelength-dependent. Bucholtz~ estimates $\gamma\simeq 0.015$ at 360~nm and concludes that the correction leads to a $\sim 3\,\ change $\leq 1.5\,\ shape of the function is relevant, and we use Eq.\, as an approximation of Eq.\,. The aerosol phase function is often parameterized by the Henyey-Greenstein function~: \begin{equation} P_{a}(\theta) = \frac{1-g^2}{4\pi} \frac{1}{(1+g^2-2g\mu)^{3/2}}~~, \end{equation} where $\mu=\cos\theta$ and $g$ is an asymmetry parameter equal to the mean cosine of the scattering angle: $g=\langle\cos\theta\rangle$. The parameter $g$ is a measure of how much light is scattered in the forward direction; a greater $g$ means more light is forward-scattered. Values for $g$ range from $g=1$ (total forward scattering) to $g=-1$ (total backward scattering), with $g=0$ indicating isotropic scattering. The Henyey-Greenstein function works well for pure forward scattering, but it cannot describe realistic aerosol conditions, which typically give rise to non-negligible backscattering. Following~, we modify Eq.\, so that \begin{equation} P_{a}(\theta) = \frac{1-g^2}{4\pi}\left(\frac{1}{(1+g^2-2g\mu)^{3/2}} +f\frac{3\mu^2-1}{2(1+g^2)^{3/2}}\right)~~. \end{equation} The new term in this expression is proportional to the second Legendre polynomial, and it is introduced to describe the extra backscattering component. The value $f$ is a fit parameter used to tune the relative strength of forward to backward scattering. The binned APF signal observed in the FD is therefore subjected to a 4-parameter fit: \begin{equation} S_i = A \cdot (1+\mu_i^2) + B \cdot (1-g^2) \left(\frac{1}{(1+g^2-2g\mu_i)^{3/2}} +f\frac{3\mu_i^2-1}{2(1+g^2)^{3/2}}\right)~~, \end{equation} where $A$, $B$, $g$ and $f$ are the fit parameters. In principle, the parameters $A$ and $B$, which describe the relative amount of Rayleigh and Mie scattering, can be determined from measurements of the extinction lengths $\Lambda_m$ and $\Lambda_a$ and assumptions about the particle albedo, {\it i.e.} the ratio of light scattered by the aerosol particle in all directions to the amount of incoming light. The albedo is close to one if the particle is mostly reflective. Since local information on the extinction lengths was not available for this analysis, we use $A$ and $B$ as additional fit parameters. We find that the distinct shapes of the two phase functions does allow a determination of $A$ and $B$ from the data themselves. At Coihueco, the APF signal is seen in 5 out of the 6 mirrors, so the track is visible over $\sim 150^{\circ}$ in azimuth. At the boundary between each mirror there is some overlap in the fields of view of pixels. This overlap produces a double counting of signal resulting in the value of bins at boundaries being too large. These bins are simply ignored in the fit. The values of the other bins and their errors are obtained from the mean and standard deviation of the five APF shots in each shot sequence. On clear nights with few or no aerosols, the fit to Eq.\, returns unphysical values for the parameters $B$, $f$, and $g$. In those cases, we re-fit the data to a pure Rayleigh function by setting $B$, $f$, and $g$ equal to zero. Two examples of fits, one for a night with aerosol content, and one for a night with pure Rayleigh scattering, are shown in Fig.\,. The aerosol, molecular, and total phase functions are shown. The aerosol phase function is obtained by subtracting the molecular component determined by the fit. We fit the data only over a subrange of the available scattering angles, from $\theta_{min}\simeq 32.5^{\circ}$ to $\theta_{max}\simeq 147.3^{\circ}$. As Fig.\, indicates, the data deviates from the theoretical prediction for scattering angles below $\theta_{min}$ and above $\theta_{max}$. At smaller and larger angles, several effects corrupt the signal and make it unusable for the fit to the phase function. Due to the local geometry at the Coihueco site (see Fig.\,), the APF shot is not visible for $\theta<24^{\circ}$, and below $30^{\circ}$, the signal is incomplete because the beam is still partially beneath the detector field of view. At large scattering angles, the beam is at a rapidly increasing distance to the corresponding FD bay, and attenuation of light from the beam to the detector becomes important. As mentioned earlier, because local measurements of the optical depth are not yet available, we simply assume $T=1$. As measurements of $T$ become available, the attenuation of light scattered at large angles can be used to correct the data. In order to apply geometrical corrections when binning the data, the angle at which the APF light source shoots ($\gamma$ in Fig.\,) with respect to the FD and the elevation angle of the shot direction needs to be known. We determined these values from the data themselves. The elevation angle was determined from a reconstruction of APF shots with the FD offline reconstruction~, and $\gamma$ was determined from the analysis of APF shots on nights where aerosol scattering was negligible. The data from these nights were fit to the Rayleigh component of the phase function, with the position of the minimum (nominally at $90^{\circ}$ scattering angle) as a free parameter. The fit value of this angle was then used to deduce the direction which the APF light source shoots relative to the FD ($\sim 24^{\circ}$ at Coihueco). \section{First Results} We have applied the analysis described in Section\, to data recorded between June and December 2006 at the Coihueco site. Since the APF light sources operate during all nights of FD operation, this data set includes all moonless nights, with the exception of nights with rain or strong winds when the FDs remain closed. Fig.\, shows the distribution of the asymmetry parameter $g$ (left) and the backscatter parameters $f$ (right). For most nights with aerosol contamination, the value of $g$ at the experiment site in Malarg\"ue is $\sim 0.6$, with an average of 0.59 and a standard deviation of 0.07 for the data period analyzed here. Values of $g=0$ indicate hours where the measured phase function can be described by pure Rayleigh scattering, so the aerosol phase function is effectively negligible. Fig.\, also shows the asymmetry parameter as a function of time for the analyzed period. With the limited amount of data taken so far, no conclusions concerning seasonal variations can be drawn. The asymmetry parameter appears to be stable during the observed time period. With more data becoming available over the next few years, we plan to monitor the month-to-month variation in $g$ and analyze possible correlations with other weather measurements. One of the main tasks of the APF, in addition to providing the {\it in situ} aerosol phase function for every hour of FD data taking, is the identification of ``clear'' nights with small aerosol contamination. These nights play an important role in the calibration of other atmospheric monitoring devices such as the Central Laser Facility (CLF)~. On clear nights, the measured phase function can be described by pure Rayleigh scattering (measurements where this is the case appear as $g=0$ in Fig.\,). To confirm the reliability of the fit where both the normalization of the Mie and the Rayleigh contribution are fit parameters, Fig.\, shows the Rayleigh normalization factor $A$ for the same data set. One might expect the molecular contribution to be rather stable, and in fact this parameter does not change much with time. It is instructive to compare the average asymmetry parameter obtained from the APF with model expectations and measurements at comparable locations. Typically, measurements are performed at optical wavelengths and cannot be directly compared to measurements at UV wavelengths. However, a compilation at different wavelengths from 450~nm to 700~nm~ shows that the wavelength dependence of $g$ is small; values at 450~nm are a few percent larger than at 550~nm. To first order, $g=0.7$ is often used as a generic value for $g$ in radiative transfer models. A smaller value for $g$ is expected at dry locations. A parameterization of aerosol optical properties by d'Almeida et al.~ suggests values for $g$ between 0.64 and 0.83 at 550~nm depending on aerosol type and season, with higher averages for high relative humidity. The Pierre Auger Observatory is located east of the Andes in the Pampa Amarilla, an arid high plateau at 1420~m a.s.l., so values around 0.6 are within expectations. For comparison, recent measurements carried out in the Southern Great Planes of the US~ yield values for $g$ at 550~nm of $0.60\pm0.03$ for dry conditions and $0.65\pm0.05$ for ambient conditions. The aerosol phase function most commonly used in fluorescence detector data analysis, both for the High Resolution Fly's Eye (HiRes) Experiment~, which operated in Utah between 1997 and 2006, and the Pierre Auger FD detectors, is the function obtained from a desert aerosol simulation by Longtin~. Longtin's desert model is based on Mie scattering theory and assumes that the desert atmosphere has three major components: carbonaceous particles, water-soluble particles, and sand. For each aerosol component, the model assumes a characteristic log normal size distribution and refractive index. Longtin performed his calculations for several wavelengths and wind speeds; those made at 550~nm with a wind speed of 10~m/s most closely match the 300~nm to 400~nm nitrogen fluorescence band observed by the FDs and have therefore been traditionally used in air fluorescence data analysis. Fig.\, compares the Longtin aerosol phase function at 550~nm to the modified Henyey-Greenstein function of Eq.\, with two sets of $f$ and $g$: $f=0.5$ and $g=0.7$, the default values used by the Auger atmospheric database; and $f=0.4$ and $g=0.6$, the values determined in this study to be more typical of the detector location. The comparison shows that, on average, the difference between the Longtin function and the measured phase function is small for those scattering angles relevant in fluorescence measurements --- $\sim 30^\circ$ to $150^\circ$. Only at the largest scattering angles above $160^\circ$ do the phase functions differ notably. This region is outside the current range of validity of our measurement. Our primary interest in aerosol scattering is its effect on the air shower reconstruction, most notably the determination of the shower energy. However, it is not straightforward to estimate the extent to which the use of measured rather than averaged values of $f$ and $g$ changes the energy reconstruction, as this depends strongly on other atmospheric parameters, for example the aerosol optical depth. Rather than singling out the phase function measurement, we need to study the effect of the combined measurement of all atmospheric parameters, a task which is beyond the scope of this paper. We can, however, get an estimate of the relevance of the phase function measurement by studying its effect on the energies of events that are of particular importance for the energy calibration of the detector, the ``golden hybrid events.'' These are events observed by one or more fluorescence detectors and three or more surface array tanks. For ``golden hybrid events'' observed by the Coihueco FD site between June and December 2006, we performed the reconstruction twice: first, using the default parameters $f=0.5$ and $g=0.7$ to estimate aerosol scattering; and second, using the fit parameters determined from APF measurements. In both cases atmospheric extinction was simulated using an average aerosol profile model representative of the Malarg\"ue site~. Fig.\, depicts the relative differences in energies caused by reconstructing showers with the default phase function and the measured phase function. The red (bold) histogram represents data taken during nights with aerosol contamination ($f>0$, $g>0$) while the blue (light) histogram represents data taken during nights where according to the APF analysis scattering is purely molecular. The correction is typically of order one percent. However, on those nights when aerosol loading is extremely low, so that atmospheric scattering may be characterized as purely molecular, the use of the default scattering parameters causes larger errors in the shower reconstruction. Under such conditions, the total phase function lacks the strong forward-scattering component typical of aerosols. During these periods, incorrectly accounting for aerosol scattering starts to impact the energy calibration of the detector. A correct determination of the phase function on a regular basis is therefore an important part of the atmospheric monitoring efforts at the site. \section{Conclusions and Outlook} As part of the atmospheric monitoring program at the Pierre Auger Observatory, the aerosol phase function at 350~nm is routinely measured at two of the four FD sites. A first analysis of data taken from June to December 2006 shows that values of $g=\langle\cos\theta \rangle\simeq 0.6$ for the mean cosine of the scattering angle $\theta$ are typical for aerosols at the site of the experiment. Over the next several years, the APF light sources will produce a data set of unprecedented size of the scattering properties of aerosols. This data set will enable us to carefully study any seasonal change in the aerosol content. The APF light sources and the other atmospheric monitoring instruments at the Auger site will accumulate one of the largest sets of continuous measurements in the 300~nm to 400~nm range ever recorded for a single location. The APF light sources are currently operating at a wavelength of 350~nm only. In the near future, we will add regular measurements at 330~nm and 390~nm to study the dependence of the phase function on the wavelength of the scattered light. \ack We are grateful to the following agencies and organizations for financial support: The APF light sources were built by a grant from the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science (USA) (DE-FG03-92ER40732). Parts of the APF analysis were performed during the 2006 REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates) program at Columbia University's Nevis Laboratories which is supported by the National Science Foundation (USA) under contract number NSF-PHY-0452277. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{Mantsch:2005} P.~Mantsch (for the Pierre Auger Collaboration), \textit{The Pierre Auger Observatory Status and Progress}, in Proc. $29^{\mathrm{th}}$ Int. Cosmic Ray Conference, Pune, India (2005) (astro-ph/0604114); {\tt www.auger.org}. \bibitem{Abraham:2006} J.~Abraham et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Astroparticle Phys. 27\,(2007)\,155. \bibitem{Aglietta:2006} J.~Abraham et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Astroparticle Phys., in press (2007) (astro-ph/0607382). \bibitem{Cester:2005} M.~Mostaf\'a (for the Pierre Auger Collaboration), \textit{Atmospheric Monitoring for the Pierre Auger Fluorescence Detector}, in Proc. $28^{\mathrm{th}}$ Int. Cosmic Ray Conference, Tsukuba, Japan (2003), 2\,(HE\,1.3), 465. \bibitem{BenZvi:2007} S.Y.~BenZvi et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A, in press (2007) (astro-ph/0609063). \bibitem{Fick:2006} B.~Fick et al., Journal of Instrumentation 1\,(2006)\,P11003. \bibitem{Mie:1908} G.~Mie, Ann. Phys. 25\,(1908)\,377. \bibitem{Roberts:2005} M.D.~Roberts, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys 31\,(2005)\,1291. \bibitem{Matthews:2001} J.A.J.~Matthews, R.~Clay, for the Pierre Auger Collaboration, \textit{Atmospheric Monitoring for the Auger Fluorescence Detector}, in Proc. $27^{\mathrm{th}}$ Int. Cosmic Ray Conference, Hamburg, Germany (2001), 2\,(HE\,1.8), 745. \bibitem{Matthews:2003} J.A.J.~Matthews et al., \textit{APF Light Sources for the Auger Southern Observatory}, in Proc. $28^{\mathrm{th}}$ Int. Cosmic Ray Conference, Tsukuba, Japan (2003), 2\,(HE\,1.5), 873. \bibitem{Bellido:2005} The Pierre Auger Collaboration, \textit{Performance of the Fluorescence Detectors of the Pierre Auger Observatory}, in Proc. $29^{\mathrm{th}}$ Int. Cosmic Ray Conference, Pune, India (2005) (astro-ph/0508389). \bibitem{Bucholtz:1995} A.~Bucholtz, Appl. Opt. 34\,(1995)\,2765. \bibitem{Henyey:1941} L.~Henyey and J.~Greenstein, Astrophys. Journal 93\,(1941)\,70. \bibitem{Fishburne:1976} E.S.~Fishburne, M.E.~Neer, and G.~Sandri, {\it Voice Communication via Scattered Ultraviolet Radiation}, Report 274, Vol. 1, Aeronautical Research Associates of Princeton, Princeton, NJ (1976). \bibitem{Riewe:1978} F.~Riewe and A.E.S.~Green, Applied Optics 17\,(1978)\,1923. \bibitem{Argiro:2007} S.~Argir\`o et al., submitted to Computer Physics Communications (2007). \bibitem{Fiebig:2006} M.~Fiebig and J.A.~Ogren, J. Geophys. Res. 111\,(2006)\,D21204. \bibitem{dAlmeida:1991} G.A.~d'Almeida, P.~Koepke, and E.P.~Shettle, \textit{Atmospheric Aerosols: Global Climatology and Radiative Characteristics}, A. Deepak Publishing, Hampton, Virginia (1991). \bibitem{Andrews:2006} E.~Andrews et al., J. Geophys. Res. 111\,(2006)\,D05S04. \bibitem{Thomson:2004} G.B.~Thomson et al. (for the HiRes Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 136\,(2004)\,28; {\tt www.cosmic-ray.org}. \bibitem{Longtin:1988} D.R.~Longtin, {\it A Wind Dependent Desert Aerosol Model: Radiative Properties}, Air Force Geophysics Laboratories, AFL-TR-88-0112, 1988. \bibitem{BenZvi:2007a} S.Y.~BenZvi et al. (for the Pierre Auger Collaboration), \textit{Measurement of Aerosols at the Pierre Auger Observatory}, in Proc. $30^{\mathrm{th}}$ Int. Cosmic Ray Conference, M\'erida, M\'exico (2007). \bibitem{Prouza:2007} M.~Prouza (for the Pierre Auger Collaboration), \textit{Systematic Study of Atmosphere-Induced Influences and Uncertainties on Shower Reconstruction at the Pierre Auger Observatory}, in Proc. $30^{\mathrm{th}}$ Int. Cosmic Ray Conference, M\'erida, M\'exico (2007). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0304
|
Title: The World as Evolving Information
Abstract: This paper discusses the benefits of describing the world as information,
especially in the study of the evolution of life and cognition. Traditional
studies encounter problems because it is difficult to describe life and
cognition in terms of matter and energy, since their laws are valid only at the
physical scale. However, if matter and energy, as well as life and cognition,
are described in terms of information, evolution can be described consistently
as information becoming more complex.
The paper presents eight tentative laws of information, valid at multiple
scales, which are generalizations of Darwinian, cybernetic, thermodynamic,
psychological, philosophical, and complexity principles. These are further used
to discuss the notions of life, cognition and their evolution.
Body: \pagestyle{empty} \footskip 0in \textheight 7.55in \footskip 0in \textwidth 4.8in \oddsidemargin .85in \evensidemargin .85in \sloppy \makeatletter \ifx\UNDEF\mail\def\mail{ }\else\fi \ifx\UNDEF\prange\def\prange{0 0}\else\fi \gdef\@empty{} \def\Mail#1 #2 {\gdef\thecontact{#1}\gdef\theaddr{#2}} \def\Range#1 #2 {\gdef\thefirstpage{#1}\gdef\thelastpage{#2}} {\let\'\mail \expandafter\Mail\' } {\let\'\prange \expandafter\Range\' } \gdef\@shtitle{\relax} \long\def\shtitle#1{\gdef\@shtitle{#1}} \long\def\author#1{\gdef\@author{#1}} \def\affil#1{\par\noindent{\rm#1\par}} \gdef\@abstract{} \long\def\abstract#1{\gdef\@abstract{#1}} \def\maketitle{\thispagestyle{empty}\chapter{\@title}} \renewcommand\chapter{\if@openright\cleardoublepage\else\clearpage\fi \thispagestyle{empty} \global\@topnum\z@ \@afterindentfalse \secdef\@chapter\@schapter} \def\@makechapterhead#1{ \vspace*{50\p@} {\parindent \z@ \raggedleft \normalfont \ifnum \c@secnumdepth >\m@ne \if@mainmatter \par\nobreak \vskip 20\p@ \fi \fi \interlinepenalty\@M \Huge \bfseries #1\par\nobreak \vskip.25in \large\bfseries\@author\par\nobreak \vskip 40\p@} \ifx\@abstract\@empty\else{\small\@abstract\par\vskip20\p@}\fi } \let\tdf\textbf \let\df\bf \DeclareRobustCommand\em {\@nomath\em \ifdim \fontdimen\@ne\font >\z@ \upshape \else \slshape \fi} \let\tem\emph \def\@begintheorem#1#2{\sl \trivlist \item[\hskip \labelsep{\bf #1\ #2}]} \def\@opargbegintheorem#1#2#3{\sl \trivlist \item[\hskip \labelsep{\bf #1\ #2\ (#3)}]} \newcommand{\sect}[1]{\S} \newcommand{\baresect}[1]{} \newcommand{\eq}[1]{()} \newcommand{\foot}[1]{footnote } \newcommand{\fig}[1]{Fig.~} \newcommand{\sectlabel}[1]{} \newcommand{\eqlabel}[1]{} \newcommand{\figlabel}[1]{} \renewcommand{\theequation} {\mbox{\arabic{equation}}} \renewcommand{\thesection} {\mbox{\arabic{section}}} \renewcommand{\thefigure} {\mbox{\arabic{figure}}} \renewcommand{\thetable} {\mbox{\arabic{table}}} \let\smallsection\subsubsection \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \newcommand{\parhead}[1]{\tsl{#1}.\quad} \def\@arabic#1{\number #1} \long\def\@makecaption#1#2{ \vskip\abovecaptionskip \sbox\@tempboxa{{\small {\bf #1}: #2}} \ifdim\wd\@tempboxa>\hsize {\small {\bf #1}: #2\par} \else \global\@minipagefalse \hbox to\hsize{\hfil\box\@tempboxa\hfil} \fi \vskip \belowcaptionskip} \def\figstrut#1{\hbox to\linewidth{\vrule height#1\hfill}} \newcommand{\Fig}[4][!htb]{ } \let\figonecol\Fig \newcommand{\Figwide}[4][!t]{ \begin{figure*}[#1] \centering\leavevmode#3 \caption{#4} \figlabel{#2} \end{figure*} } \let\figtwocol\Figwide \newcommand{\Figpage}[3]{ \begin{figure*}[p] \centering\leavevmode#2 \caption{#3} \figlabel{#1} \end{figure*} } \let\figpage\Figpage \renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1] {\section*{\bibname \@mkboth{\MakeUppercase\bibname}{\MakeUppercase\bibname}} \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}} {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}} \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv} \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}} \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000 \sfcode`\.\@m} {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `thebibliography' environment}} \endlist} \makeatother \bibliographystyle{ICCS} \endinput \def\maketitle{ \thispagestyle{empty} \raggedleft \noindent\@author\par \medskip \noindent\hrule \smallskip \noindent{\Huge\sf\@title\par} \vfil\vfil\vfil\vfil {\narrower\narrower\noindent\@abstract\par}\newpage} \maketitle \section{Introduction} Throughout history we have used concepts from our current technology as metaphors to describe our world. Examples of this are the description of the body as a factory during the Industrial Age, and the description of the brain as a computer during the Information Age. These metaphors are useful because they extend the knowledge acquired by the scientific and technological developments to other areas, illuminating them from a novel perspective. For example, it is common to extend the particle metaphor used in physics to other domains, such as crowd dynamics . Even when people are not particles and have very complicated behaviour, for the purposes of crowd dynamics they can be effectively described as particles, with the benefit that there is an established mathematical framework suitable for this description. Another example can be seen with cybernetics , where the system metaphor is used: everything is seen as a system with inputs, outputs, and a control that regulates the internal variables of the system under the influence of perturbations from its environment. Yet another example can be seen with the computational metaphor , where the universe can be modelled with simple discrete computational machines, such as cellular automata or Turing machines. Having in mind that we are using metaphors, this paper proposes to extend the concept of information to describe the world: from elementary particles to galaxies, with everything in between, particularly life and cognition. There is no suggestion on the nature of reality as information . This work only explores the advantages of \emph{describing} the world as information. In other words, there are no ontological claims, only epistemological. In the next section, the motivation of the paper is presented, followed by a section describing the notion of information to be used throughout the paper. In Section , eight tentative laws of information are put forward. These are applied to the notions of life (Section ) and cognition (Section ). The paper closes presenting future work and conclusions. \section{Why Information?} There is a great interest in the relationship between energy, matter, and information . One of the main reasons for this arises because this relationship plays a central role in the definition of life: Hopfield suggests that the difference between biological and physical systems is given by the meaningful information content of the former ones. Not that information is not present in physical systems, but---as Roederer puts it---information is \emph{passive} in physics and \emph{active} in biology . However, it becomes complicated to describe how this information came to be in terms of the physical laws of matter and energy. In this paper the inverse approach is proposed: let us describe matter and energy in terms of information. If atoms, molecules and cells are described as information, there is no need of a \emph{qualitative} shift (from non-living to living matter) while describing the origin and evolution of life: this is translated into a \emph{quantitative} shift (from less complex to more complex information). There is a similar problem when we study the origin and evolution of cognition : it is not easy to describe cognitive systems in terms of matter and energy. The drawback with the physics-based approach to the studies of life and cognition is that it requires a new category, that in the best situations can be referred to as ``emergent". Emergence is a useful concept, but it this case it is not explanatory. Moreover, it stealthily introduces a dualist view of the world: if we cannot relate properly matter and energy with life and cognition, we are forced to see these as separate categories. Once this breach is made, there is no clear way of studying or understanding how systems with life and cognition evolved from those without it. If we see matter and energy as particular, simple cases of information, the dualist trap is avoided by following a continuum in the evolution of the universe. Physical laws are suitable for describing phenomena at the physical scale. The tentative laws of information presented below aim at being suitable for describing phenomena \emph{at any scale}. Certainly, there are other approaches to describe phenomena at multiple scales, such as general systems theory and dynamical systems theory. These approaches are not exclusive, since one can use several of them, including information, to describe different aspects of the same phenomena. Another benefit of using information as a basic descriptor for our world is that the concept is well studied and formal methods have already been developed , as well as its philosophical implications have been discussed . Thus, there is no need to develop a new formalism, since information theory is well established. I borrow this formalism and interpret it in a new way. Finally, information can be used to describe other formalisms: not only particles and waves, but also systems, networks, agents, automata, and computers can be seen as information. In other words, it can contain other descriptions of the world, potentially exploiting their own formalisms. Information is an \emph{inclusive} formalism. \section{What Is Information?} Extending the notion of Umwelt , the following notion of information can be given: \begin{notion} Information is anything that an agent can sense, perceive, or observe. \end{notion} This notion is in accordance with Shannon's , where information is seen as a just-so arrangement, a defined structure, as opposed to randomness , and it can be measured in bits. This notion can be applied to everything that surrounds us, including matter and energy, since we can perceive it---because it has a defined structure---and we are agents, according to the following notion: \begin{notion} An agent is a description of an entity that \emph{acts} on its environment \cite[p. 39]{GershensonDCSOS}. \end{notion} Noticing that agents (and their environments) are also information (as they can be perceived by other agents, especially us, who are the ones who \emph{describe} them as agents), an agent can be a human, a cell, a molecule, a computer program, a society, an electron, a city, a market, an institution, an atom, or a star. Each of these can be described (by us) as \emph{acting} in their environment, simply because they \emph{interact} with it. However, not all information is an agent, e.g. temperature, color, velocity, hunger, profit. \begin{notion} The environment of an agent consists of all the information \emph{interacting} with it. \end{notion} Information will be relative to the agent perceiving it deals only with the technical aspect of the transmission of information and not with its \emph{meaning}, i.e. it neglects the semantic aspect of communication.}. Information can exist in theory ``out there", independently of an agent, but for practical purposes, it can be only spoken about once an agent---not necessarily a human---perceives / interacts with it. The \emph{meaning} of the information will be given by the \emph{use} the agent perceiving it makes of it , i.e. how the agent responds to it . Thus, Notion is a \emph{pragmatic} one. Note that perceived information is different from the meaning that an agent gives to it. Meaning is an \emph{active} product of the \emph{interaction} between information and the agent perceiving it . Like this, an electron can be seen as an agent, which perceives other electrons as information. The same description can be used for molecules, cells, and animals. We can distinguish: \begin{description} \item[First order information] is that which is perceived directly by an agent. For example, the information received by a molecule about another molecule \item[Second order information] is that which is perceived by an agent about information perceived by another agent. For example, the information perceived by a human observer about a molecule receiving information about another molecule. \end{description} Most of the scientific descriptions about the world are second order information, as we perceive how agents perceive and produce information. The present approach also introduces naturally the role of the observer in science, since everything is ``observing" the (limited, first order) information it interacts with from its own perspective. Humans would be second-level observers, observing the information observed by information. Everything we can speak about is observed, and all agents are observers. Information is not necessarily conserved, i.e. it can be created, destroyed, or transformed. These can take place only through interaction. \emph{Computation} can be seen as the \emph{change} in information, be it creation, destruction, or transformation. Matter and energy can be seen as particular types of information that cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed, along with the well-known properties that characterize them. The amount of information required to describe a process, system, object, or agent determines its \emph{complexity} . According to our current knowledge, during the evolution of our universe there has been a shift from simple information towards more complex information (the information of an atom is less complex than that of a molecule, than that of a cell, than that of a multicellular organism, etc.). This ``arrow of complexity" in evolution can guide us to explore general laws of information. \section{Tentative Laws of Information} Seeing the world as information allows us to describe general laws that can be applied to everything we can perceive. Extending Darwin's theory , the present framework can be used to reframe ``universal Darwinism" , which explores the idea of evolution beyond biological systems. In this work, the laws that describe the general behaviour of information as it evolves are introduced. These laws are only \emph{tentative}, in the sense that they are only presented with arguments in favour of them, but they still need to be thoroughly tested. \subsection{Law of Information Transformation} Since information is relative to the agents perceiving it, \emph{information will potentially be \emph{transformed} as different agents perceive it}. Another way of stating this law is the following: \emph{information will potentially be transformed by \emph{interacting} with other information}. This law is a generalization of the Darwinian principle of random variation, and ensures \emph{novelty} of information in the world. Even when there might be static information, different agents can perceive it differently and interact with it, potentially transforming it. Through evolution, the transformation of information generates a \emph{variety} or \emph{diversity} that can be used by agents for novel purposes. Since information is not a conserved quantity, it can increase (created), decrease (destroyed), or be maintained as it is transformed. As an example, RNA polymerase (RNAP) can make errors while copying DNA onto RNA strands. This slight random variation can lead to changes in the proteins for which the RNA strands serve as templates. \emph{Some} of these changes will lead to novel proteins that might improve or worsen the function of the original proteins. The transformation of information can be classified as follows: \begin{description} \item[Dynamic.] Information changes itself. This could be considered as ``objective, internal" change. \item[Static.] The agent perceiving the information changes, but the information itself does not change. There is a dynamic change but in the agent. This could be considered as ``subjective, internal" change. \item [Active.] An agent changes information in its environment. This could be considered as an ``objective, external" change. \item[Stigmergic.] An agent makes an active change of information, which changes the perception of that information by another agent. This could be considered as ``subjective, external" or ``intersubjective" change. \end{description} \subsection{Law of Information Propagation} \emph{Information \emph{propagates} as fast as possible}. Certainly, only some information manages to propagate. In other words, we can assume that different information has a different ``ability" to propagate, also depending on its environment. The ``fitter" information, i.e. that which manages to persist and propagate faster and more effectively, will prevail over other information. This law generalizes the Darwinian principle of natural selection, the maximum entropy production principle (entropy can also be described as information), and Kauffman's tentative fourth law of thermodynamics}. It is interesting that this law contains the second law of thermodynamics, as atoms interact, propagating information homogeneously. It also describes living organisms, where genetic information is propagated across generations. And it also describes cultural evolution, where information is propagated among individuals. Life is ``far from thermodynamic equilibrium" because it constrains the (more simple) information propagation at the thermodynamic scale, i.e. the increase of entropy, exploiting structures to propagate (or maintain) the (more complex) information at the biological scale. In relation with the law of information transformation, as information requires agents to perceive it, information will be potentially transformed. This source of novelty will allow for the ``blind" exploration of better ways of propagating information, according to the agents perceiving it and their environments. Extending the previous example, if errors in transcription made by RNAP are beneficial for its propagation (which entails the propagation of the cell producing RNAP), cells with such novel proteins will have better chances of survival than their ``cousins" without transcription errors. The propagation of information can be classified as follows: \begin{description} \item[Autonomous.] Information propagates by itself. Strictly speaking, this is not possible, since at least some information is determined by the environment. However, if more information is produced by itself than by its environment, we can call this autonomous propagation (See Section ). \item[Symbiotic. ] Different information cooperates, helping to propagate each other. \item[Parasitic. ] Information exploits other information for its own propagation. \item[Altruistic. ] Information promotes the propagation of other information at the cost of its own propagation. \end{description} \subsection{Law of Requisite Complexity} Taking into account the law of information transformation, transformed information can increase, decrease, or maintain its previous complexity, i.e. amount . However, \emph{more complex information will require more complex agents to perceive, act on, and propagate it}. This law generalizes the cybernetic law of requisite variety . Note that simple agents can perceive and interact with \emph{part} of complex information, but they cannot (by themselves) propagate it. An agent cannot perceive (and thus contain) information more complex than itself. For simple agents, information that is complex for us will be simple as well. As stated above, different agents can perceive the same information in different ways, giving it different meanings. The so called ``arrow of complexity" in evolution can be explained with this law. If we start with simple information, its transformation will produce by simple drift increases in the complexity of information, without any goal or purpose. This occurs simply because there is an open niche for information to become more complex as it varies. But this also promotes agents to become more complex to exploit novel (complex) information and propagate it. Evolution does not need to favour complexity in any way: information just propagates to every possible niche as fast as possible, and it seems that there is often an ``adjacent possible" niche of greater complexity. For example, it can be said that a protein (as an agent) perceives some information via its binding sites, as it recognizes molecules that ``fit" a site. More complex molecules will certainly need more complex binding sites. Whether complex molecules are better or worse is a different matter: some will be better, some will be worse. But for those which are better, the complexity of the proteins must match the complexity of the molecules perceived. If the binding site perceives only a part of the molecule, then this might be confused with other molecules which share the perceived part. Following the law of information transformation, there will be a variety of complexities of information. The law of requisite complexity just states that the increase in complexity of information is determined by the ability of agents to perceive, act on, and propagate more complex information. Since more complex information will be able to produce more variety, the \emph{speed} of the complexity increase will escalate together with the complexity of the information. \subsection{Law of Information Criticality} \emph{Transforming and propagating information will tend to a critical \emph{balance} between its stability and its variability}. Propagating information maintains itself as much as possible, but transforming information varies it as much as possible. This struggle leads to a critical balance analogous to the ``edge of chaos" , self-organized criticality , and the ``complexity from noise" principle . The homeostasis of living systems can also be seen as the self-regulation of information criticality. This law can generalize Kauffman's four candidate laws for the coconstruction of a biosphere \cite[Ch. 8]{Kauffman2000}. Their relationship with this framework demands further discussion, which is out of the scope of this paper. A well known example can be seen with cellular automata and random Boolean networks : stable (ordered) dynamics limit considerably or do not allow change of states so information cannot propagate, while variable (chaotic) dynamics change the states too much, losing information. Following the law of information propagation, information will tend to a critical state between stability and variability to maximize its propagation: if it is too stable, it will not propagate, and if it is too variable, it will be transformed. In other words, ``critical" information will be able to propagate better than stable or variable one, i.e. as fast as possible (cf. law of information propagation). \subsection{Law of Information Organization} \emph{Information produces constraints that regulate information production}. These constraints can be seen as \emph{organization} . In other words, evolving information will be organized (by transformation and propagation) to regulate information production. According to the law of information criticality, this organization will lie at a critical area between stability and variability. And following the law of information propagation, the organization of information will enable it to propagate as fast as possible. This law can also be seen as information having a certain \emph{control} over its environment, since the organization of information will help it withstand perturbations. It has been shown that using this idea as a fitness function can lead to the evolution of robust and adaptive agents, namely maximizing the mutual information between sensors and environment. A clear example of information producing its own organization can be seen with living systems, which are discussed in Section . \subsection{Law of Information Self-organization} \emph{Information tends to its preferred, most probable state}. This is actually a tautology, since observers determine probabilities after observing tendencies of information dynamics. Still, this tautology can be useful to describe and understand phenomena. This law lies at the heart of probability theory and dynamical systems theory . The dynamics of a system tend to a subset of its state space, i.e. attractors, depending on its history. This simple fact reduces the possibility space of information, i.e. a system will tend towards a small subset of all possible states. If we describe attractors as ``organized", then we can describe the dynamics of information in terms of self-organization . Pattern formation can be described as information self-organizing, and related to the law of information propagation. Information will self-organize in ``fit" patterns that are the most probable (defined \emph{a posteriori}). Understanding different ways in which self-organization is achieved by transforming information can help us understand better natural phenomena and design artificial systems . For example, random Boolean networks can be said to self-organize towards their attractors . \subsection{Law of Information Potentiality} \emph{An agent can give different potential meanings to information}. This implies that the same information can have different meanings. Moreover, meaning---while being information---can be independent of the information carrying it, i.e. depend only on the agent observing it. Thus, different information can have the same potential meaning. The precise meaning of information will be given by an agent observing it within a specific context. The potentiality of information allows the effective communication between agents. Different information has to be able to acquire the same meaning (homonymy), while the same information has to be able to acquire different meanings (polysemy) . The relationship between the laws of information and communication is clear, but beyond the scope of this paper. The law of information potentiality is related to a passive information transformation, i.e. a change in the agent observing information. In spite of information potentiality, not all meanings will be suitable for all information. In other words, pure subjectivism cannot dictate meanings of information. By the law of information propagation, some meanings will be more suitable than others and will propagate. The suitability of meanings will be determined by their use and context . However, there is always a certain freedom to subjectively transform information. For example, a photon can be observed as a particle, as a wave, or as a particle-wave. The suitability of each given meaning is determined by the context in which the photon is described/observed. \subsection{Law of Information Perception} \emph{The meaning of information is \emph{unique} for an agent perceiving it in unique, always changing open contexts}. If meaning of information is determined by the use an agent makes of it, which is embedded in an open environment, we can go to such a level of detail that the meaning will be unique. Certainly, agents make generalizations and abstractions of perceptions in order to be able to respond to novel information. Still, the precise situation and context will never be repeated. This makes perceived information unique. The implication of this is that the response to any given information might be ``unexpected", i.e. novelty can arise. Moreover, the meaning of information can be to a certain extent \emph{arbitrary}. This is related with the law of information transformation, as the uniqueness of meaning allows the same information perceived differently by the same or different agents to be statically transformed. This law is a generalization of the first law of human perception: ``whatever is perceived can be perceived only from a uniquely situated place in the overall structure of points of view" \cite[p. xxiv]{Holquist:1990} (cited in \cite[p. 250]{Neuman:2008}). We can describe agents perceiving information as filtering it. An advantage of humans and other agents is that we can \emph{choose} which filter to use to perceive. The suggestion is not that ``unpleasant" information should be solipsistically ignored, but that information can be potentially actively transformed. For example, T lymphocytes in an immune system can perceive foreign agents and attack them. Even when the response will be similar for similar foreign agents, each perception will be unique, a situation that always leaves space for novelty. \subsubsection{Scales of perception} Different information is perceived at different scales of observation . As the scale tends to zero, then the information tends to infinite. For lower scales, more information and details are perceived. The uniqueness of information perception dominates at these very low (spatial and temporal) scales. However, as generalizations are made, information is ``compressed", i.e. only relevant aspects of information are perceived. At higher scales, more abstractions and generalizations are made, i.e. less information is perceived. When the scale tends to infinite, the information tends to zero. In other words, no information is needed to describe all of the universe, because all the information is already there. This most abstract understanding of the world is in line with the ``highest view" of Vajrayana Buddhism . Implications at this level of description cannot be right or wrong, because there is no context. Everything is contained, but no information is needed to describe it, since it is already there. This ``maximum" understanding is also described as vacuity, which leads to bliss \cite[p. 42]{Nydahl:2008}. Following the law of information criticality, agents will tend to a balance where the perceived information is minimal but maximally predictive (at a particular scale): few information is cheaper, but more information in general entails a more precise predictability. The law of requisite complexity applies at particular scales, since a change of scale will imply a change of complexity of information . \section{On the Notion of Life} There is no agreed notion of life, which reflects the difficulty of defining the concept. Still, many researchers have put forward properties that characterize important aspects of life. \emph{Autopoiesis} is perhaps the most salient one, which notes that living systems are self-producing . Still, it has been argued that autopoiesis is a necessary but not sufficient property for life . The relevance of autonomy and individuality for life have also been highlighted . These approaches are not unproblematic, since no living system is completely autonomous. This follows from the fact that all living systems are open. For example, we have some degree of autonomy, but we are still dependent on food, water, oxygen, sunlight, bacteria living in our gut, etc. This does not mean that we should abandon the notion of autonomy in life. However, we need to abandon the sharp distinction between life and non-life , as different degrees of autonomy escalate \emph{gradually}, from the systems we considered as non-living to the ones we consider as living. In other words, life has to be a fuzzy concept. Under the present framework, living and non-living systems are information. Rather than a yes/no definition, we can speak about a ``\emph{life ratio}": \begin{notion} The ratio of \emph{living information} is the information produced by itself over the information produced by its environment. \end{notion} Being more specific---since all systems also receive information---a system with a high life ratio produces more (first order) information about itself than the one it receives from its environment. Following the law of information organization, this also implies that living information produces more of its own constraints (organization) to regulate itself than the ones produced by its environment, and thus it has a greater autonomy. All information will have constraints from other (environmental) information, but we can measure (as second-order information) the proportion of internal over external constraints to obtain the life ratio. If this is greater than one, then the information regulates by itself more than the proportion that is regulated by external information. In the opposite case, the life ratio would be less than one. Following the law of information propagation, evolution will tend to information with higher life ratios, simply because this can propagate better, as it has more ``control" and autonomy over its environment. When information depends more on its environment for its propagation, it has a higher probability of being transformed as it interacts with its environment. Note that the life ratio depends on spatial and temporal scales at which information is perceived. For example, for some microorganisms observed at a scale of years , the life ratio would be less than one, but if observed at a scale of seconds, the life ration would be greater than one. Certainly, some artificial systems would be considered as living under this notion. However, we can make a distinction between living systems embodied in or composed by biological cells , i.e. life as we know it, and the rest, i.e. life as it could be. The latter ones are precisely those explored by artificial life. \section{On the Notion of Cognition} Cognition is certainly related with life . The term has taken different meanings in different contexts, but all of them can be generalized into a common notion . Cognition comes from the Latin \emph{cognoscere}, which means ``get to know". Like this, \begin{notion} A system is cognitive if it \emph{knows} something \cite[p.135]{Gershenson2004}. \end{notion} From Notion , all agents are cognitive, since they ``\emph{know}" how to act on their environment, giving (first order) \emph{meaning} to their environmental information. Thus, there is no boundary between non-cognitive and cognitive systems. Throughout evolution, however, there has been a \emph{gradual} increase in the complexity of cognition . This is because all agents can be described as possessing some form of cognition, i.e. ``knowledge" about the (first-order) information they perceive. Following the law of requisite complexity, evolution leads to more complex agents, to be able to cope with the complexity of their environment. This is precisely what triggers the (second-order) increase in the complexity of cognition we observe. Certainly, there are different types of cognition.}. We can say that a rock ``knows" about gravity because it perceives its information, which has an effect on it, but it cannot \emph{react} to this information. Throughout evolution, information capable of maintaining its integrity has prevailed over that which was not. \emph{Robust} information is that which can resist perturbations to maintain its integrity. The ability to react to face perturbations to maintain information makes information \emph{adaptive}, increasing its probability of maintenance. When this reaction is made before it occurs, the information is \emph{anticipative}}. As information becomes more complex (even if only by information transformation), the mechanisms for maintaining this information also become more complex, as stated by the law of requisite complexity. This has led gradually to the advanced cognition that animals and machines posses. \section{Future Work} The ideas presented here still need to be explored and elaborated further. One way of doing this would be with a simulation-based method. Being inspired by $\epsilon$-machines , one could start with ``simple" agents that are able to perceive and produce information, but cannot control their own production. These would be let to evolve, measuring if complexity increases as they evolve. The hypothesis is that complexity would increase (under which conditions still remains to be seen), to a point where ``$\epsilon$-agents" will be able to produce themselves depending more on their own information than that of the environment. This would be similar to the evolution in Tierra or Avida systems, only that self-replication would not be inbuilt. The tentative laws of information presented in Section would be better defined if such a system was studied. One important aspect that remains to be studied is the representation of thermodynamics in terms of information. This is because the ability to perform thermodynamic work is a characteristic property of biological systems . This work can be used to generate the organization necessary to sustain life (cf. law of information organization). It is difficult to describe life in terms of thermodynamics, since it entails new characteristic properties not present in thermodynamic systems. But if we see the latter ones as information, it will be easier to describe how life---also described as information---evolves from them, as information propagates itself at different scales. A potential application of this framework would be in economy, considering capital, goods, and resources as information (a non-conserved quantity) . A similar benefit (of non-conservation) could be given in game theory: if the payoff of games is given in terms of information (not necessarily conserved), non-zero sum games could be easier to grasp than if the payoff is given in material (conserved) goods. It becomes clear that information (object), the agent perceiving it (subject) and the meaning-making or transformation of information (action) are deeply interrelated. They are part of the same totality, since one cannot exist without the others. This is also in line with Buddhist philosophy. The implications of an informational description of the world for philosophy have also to be addressed, since some schools have focussed on partial aspects of the object-subject-action trichotomy. Another potential application of the laws of information would be in ethics, where value can be described accordingly to the present framework. \section{Conclusions} This paper introduced general ideas that require further development, extension and grounding in particular disciplines. Still, a first step is always necessary, and hopefully feedback from the community will guide the following steps of this line of research. Different metaphors for describing the world can be seen as different languages: they can refer to the same objects without changing them. And each can be more suitable for a particular context. For example, English has several advantages for fast learning, German for philosophy, Spanish for narrative, and Russian for poetry. In other words, there is no ``best" language outside a particular context. In a similar way, I am not suggesting that describing the world as information is more suitable than physics to describe physical phenomena, or better than chemistry to describe chemical phenomena. It would be redundant to describe particles as information if we are studying only particles. The suggested approach is meant only for the cases when the physical approach is not sufficient, i.e. across scales, constituting an alternative worth exploring to describe evolution. It seems easier to describe matter and energy in terms of information than vice versa. Moreover, information could be used as a common language across scientific disciplines . \subsection*{Acknowledgements} I should like to thank Irun Cohen, Inman Harvey, Francis Heylighen, David Krakauer, Antonio del R\'{i}o, Marko Rodriguez, David Rosenblueth, Stanley Salthe, Mikhail Prokopenko, Cl\'{e}ment Vidal, and H\'{e}ctor Zenil for their useful comments and suggestions. \footnotesize{ \bibliography{carlos,information,sos,complex,COG,rbn,evolution} }
|
0704.0305
|
Title: Polymerization Force Driven Buckling of Microtubule Bundles Determines
the Wavelength of Patterns Formed in Tubulin Solutions
Abstract: We present a model for the spontaneous formation of a striated pattern in
polymerizing microtubule solutions. It describes the buckling of a single
microtubule (MT) bundle within an elastic network formed by other similarly
aligned and buckling bundles and unaligned MTs. Phase contrast and polarization
microscopy studies of the temporal evolution of the pattern imply that the
polymerization of MTs within the bundles creates the driving compressional
force. Using the measured rate of buckling, the established MT force-velocity
curve and the pattern wavelength, we obtain reasonable estimates for the MT
bundle bending rigidity and the elastic constant of the network. The analysis
implies that the bundles buckle as solid rods.
Body: \title{Polymerization Force Driven Buckling of Microtubule Bundles Determines the Wavelength of Patterns Formed in Tubulin Solutions} \author{Yongxing Guo} \author{Yifeng Liu} \author{Jay X. Tang} \author{James M. Valles, Jr.} \affiliation{Physics Department, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912} \date{\today{}} \begin{abstract} We present a model for the spontaneous formation of a striated pattern in polymerizing microtubule solutions. It describes the buckling of a single microtubule (MT) bundle within an elastic network formed by other similarly aligned and buckling bundles and unaligned MTs. Phase contrast and polarization microscopy studies of the temporal evolution of the pattern imply that the polymerization of MTs within the bundles creates the driving compressional force. Using the measured rate of buckling, the established MT force-velocity curve and the pattern wavelength, we obtain reasonable estimates for the MT bundle bending rigidity and the elastic constant of the network. The analysis implies that the bundles buckle as solid rods. \end{abstract} \maketitle \newpage Microtubules (MTs), a major component of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton~, can form various structures and patterns. For example, \emph{in} \emph{vivo,} MTs organize into the spindles and asters essential for mitosis~ and the parallel arrays and stripes necessary for directing early processes in embryogenesis~. Many \emph{in vitro} studies of MT organization have been performed in order to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the formation of these structures~. Of particular relevance here are the striped birefringent patterns {[}Fig.~(a)], which spontaneously form from polymerizing a purified tubulin solution without motor proteins or MT associated proteins. Hitt \emph{et al.} attributed these patterns to the formation of nematic liquid crystalline domains~. Tabony \emph{et al.}, on the other hand, proposed that a reaction-diffusion based mechanism drives the formation of MT stripes~. Our recent investigations imply a starkly different scenario in which the local MT alignment into wave-like structures occurs through a collective process of MT bundling and buckling~. MTs that are aligned by a static magnetic field~ or convective flow~ during the initial stage of polymerization spontaneously form bundles in tubulin solutions with concentrations of a few mg/ml. These bundles elongate and buckle in coordination with neighboring bundles into a wave-like shape. The nesting of the buckled bundles can quantitatively account for the MT density and orientation variations leading to the striped birefringent pattern~. We proposed that a compressional force is generated by MT polymerization occurring uniformly along the bundle contours. The buckling wavelength is controlled by the bending rigidity of the bundles and the elasticity of the background network of MTs. This interesting initial assessment calls for further investigation of the microscopic picture of the bundle elongation, the MT buckling force and the buckling mode selection mechanism. Here we present a mechanical model for the process in addition to new experimental data on the time evolution of the bundle contour length and solution birefringence that provide direct support for the validity of the model. The model considers the instability of a single MT bundle under a compressional force, embedded in an elastic network formed by both bundled and dispersed MTs. Time lapse phase contrast and quantitative polarized light microscopy imply that MT polymerization within the bundles provides the compressional force. Specifically, they reveal that the bundles elongate uniformly along their contours while maintaining constant radii consistent with growth through the elongation of the individual MTs comprising them. We make predictions for the characteristic buckling wavelength using the bundle bending rigidity and the critical buckling force estimated from the measured MT force-velocity curve. The measured wavelength of about $600\,\mu\textrm{m}$ implies that the bundles bend as solid rods. We envision initially the microtubule solution to consist of an array of straight and parallel bundles aligned along the $x$ axis and embedded in a network composed of dispersed MTs as in Fig.~(b). All of the bundles experience a similar compressional force that grows to a critical value, causing them to buckle. To describe the buckling, we consider a single bundle in the center of the sample and characterize its interaction with the network using a single elastic constant, $\alpha$, such that $\alpha\xi(x)$ is the elastic restoring force exerted by the network on the bundle per unit length. Treating the bundle as a rod with a bending rigidity, $K$, under a uniform compressional force, $F$, the force balance in the $y$ direction at the onset of the buckling is given by~ \begin{equation} K\frac{\partial^{4}\xi(x)}{\partial x^{4}}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}[F\frac{\partial\xi(x)}{\partial x}]+\alpha\xi(x)=0\end{equation} Performing a standard normal mode stability analysis of Eq.~\prettyref{eq:EOM} using $\xi(x)\propto e^{ikx}$ yields a relation between the angular wavenumber, $k$, and the compressional force, $F=\alpha/k^{2}+Kk^{2}$, which suggests a minimum or critical compressional force $F_{c}$ for a buckling solution. The critical compressional force is $F_{c}=2\sqrt{K\alpha}$, and the characteristic wavelength is \begin{equation} \lambda_{c}=2\pi/k=\pi\sqrt{8K/F_{c}}=2\pi\sqrt[4]{K/\alpha}\end{equation} The resultant characteristic wavelength {[}Eq.~\prettyref{eq:characteristic_wavelength}] agrees with the prediction for $\lambda_{c}$ based on energy minimization~. This model predicts buckling in a higher mode than the fundamental one as in classic Euler buckling. In agreement with experiments, this model implies that the orientation of MT bundles in a striped sample varies continuously in space~. In contrast, previous models had suggested that discrete and alternate angular orientations of the MTs formed the striated patterns~. In addition, the weak dependence of the buckling wavelength on the mechanical parameters is consistent with the small variations in both the observed buckling wavelength across a single macroscopic sample and the patterns formed under different conditions (for example, samples with different tubulin concentrations and samples in containers with different size.). Time lapse phase contrast microscopy reveals that the MT bundles elongate uniformly along their contour during buckling, which is consistent with polymerization occurring uniformly along the bundles. The elongation is illustrated in the phase images Fig.~(a) and Fig.~(b), showing a fixed region taken 12 and 100 minutes after polymerization initiation, respectively. The three white curves in each image are computer generated traces of bundle contours that extend between selected fiducial marks. The fiducial marks are visible as dark spots in the images. To generate the white curves, we presumed that the bundles followed the striations in the images and traced the stripes between the fiducial marks, whose positions were tracked using the MetaMorph imaging software (Universal Imaging, West Chester, PA). Specifically, we determined the local striation orientation at each pixel by calculating a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the area around the pixel, shown, for example, in Fig.~(c). The FFT appeared as an elongated spot oriented perpendicular to the striation direction {[}Fig.~(d)]. The radially integrated FFT intensity has a peak at a specific azimuthal angle {[}Fig.~(d)] that is perpendicular to the striation orientation. In this way, the lengths of three segments along a MT bundle were recorded every 30 seconds and plotted in Fig.~(f), (g) and (h). The normalized lengths of these three segments grew at nearly the same, constant rate, shown in Fig.~(i), implying that the MT bundles elongate uniformly along their contour instead of growing solely at their ends. It further suggests that the bundles elongate through polymerization of their constituent MTs, which start and end at random places along a bundle. The uniform growth of all MTs within the bundle justifies a uniform elongation rate and the use of a uniform compressional force throughout the bundle in the mechanical model, giving rise to the sinusoidal $\xi(x)$ over the entire pattern. Additional quantitative information about the microscopic picture of the buckling is gained through time-lapse birefringence measurements. PolScope (CRI, Cambridge, MA) images, taken sequentially at a fixed sample region~, yielded the time evolution at each pixel of both the retardance ($\Delta\equiv birefringence\times h$, where $h$ is the sample thickness) and the slow axis direction ($\varphi(x)$, orientation of MT bundles)~. Two representative PolScope images of a single region taken at different stages of self-organization are shown in Fig.~(a) and (b). The slow axis variation, $\varphi(x)$, along the white lines in Fig.~(a) and (b) can be fit to $\varphi(x)=\textrm{atan}[A\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\textrm{cos}(\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}(x+x_{0}))]$, indicating that the bundle follows $\xi(x)=A\sin(\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}(x+x_{0}))$ with a single wavelength $\lambda$, buckling amplitude $A$, and offset $x_{0}$ {[}Fig.~(c)]. The resultant wavelength, $\lambda\approx600\,\mu\textrm{m}$, is plotted in Fig.~(d). The normalized contour length calculated from the fits, $L(t)/L_{0}$, grew nearly linearly with time at a normalized rate of $\dot{L}(t)/L_{0}\approx1$\,\ per min {[}Fig.~(e)]. Simultaneously, the retardance magnitude averaged over the white line in Fig.~(a) increased roughly in proportion to $L(t)/L_{0}$ {[}Fig.~(f)]. Based on the nesting model we proposed earlier and assuming that neighboring MT bundles do not coalesce, the average retardance goes as $\overline{\Delta}(t)\sim\delta\times n(t)L(t)/L_{0}$~, where $n(t)$ is the number of MTs in the cross section of a bundle and $\delta$ is the retardance of a single MT. Therefore, the linear relation between $\overline{\Delta}(t)$ and $L(t)/L_{0}$ implies that $n(t)$ remains constant throughout buckling. Thus, the elongation of MT bundles occurs through the polymerization of MTs within the bundles and does not involve the incorporation of new MTs to existing bundles. With the above observations and model, we can quantitatively characterize the elastic properties of the bundle ($K$) and network ($\alpha$). We begin with the implications of the measured wavelength $\lambda$. In order to predict $\lambda$ from the mechanical buckling model, we need to estimate $K$ and $F$ {[}Eq.~\prettyref{eq:characteristic_wavelength}]. Two limits exist for $K$. If tight packing (solid model) of the MTs inside the bundle is assumed, then $K_{\textrm{solid}}=n^{2}K_{\textrm{MT}}$, where $K_{\textrm{MT}}\approx3.4\times10^{-23}\, N\cdot m^{2}$ is the bending rigidity of a single MT~. If MTs slide freely inside the bundle, then $K_{\textrm{slip}}=nK_{\textrm{MT}}$. We employ the measured force-velocity relation, $f(v)=C_{1}\ln[C_{2}/(v+C_{3})]$ ($C_{1}=1.89\, pN$, $C_{2}=1.13\,\mu\textrm{m}/\textrm{min}$ and $C_{3}=-0.08\,\mu\textrm{m}/\textrm{min}$~), for a single MT and presume $F=nf(v)$, where $v$ is the average elongation rate of individual MT inside the bundle. Writing the average length of MTs inside the bundle as $l_{\textrm{MT}}$, the elongation rate of a single MT is then approximately $v(l_{\textrm{MT}})=l_{\textrm{MT}}\times\dot{L}(t)/L_{0}$. Using the models for $K$, $F$ and Eq.~\prettyref{eq:characteristic_wavelength}, we derive predictions of $\lambda$ for both the solid model, $\lambda_{\textrm{solid}}=\pi\sqrt{8nK_{\textrm{MT}}/f(v(l_{\textrm{MT}}))}$, and the slip model, $\lambda_{\textrm{slip}}=\pi\sqrt{8K_{\textrm{MT}}/f(v(l_{\textrm{MT}}))}$. Each depends on $l_{\textrm{MT}}$ and $n$. Using $n=280$~, we plot the wavelength over a reasonable range of individual MT lengths () in Fig.~. The solid model for $K$ appears much more reasonable than the slip model. The fact that $K$ depends quadratically on $n$ in our system suggests that MTs are fully coupled (acting like a solid material) inside the bundle, similar to the behavior of F-actin bundles held together through depletion forces~. The bundling of initially aligned MTs can be attributed to the depletion force induced by unpolymerized tubulin dimers, oligomers and even short MTs~. The conclusion that the bundles bend as solid rods apparently conflicts with the picture of elongation, that involves the growth and relative sliding of individual MTs within the bundles. We speculate that the explanation involves two distinct time scales: the time for a MT to come to mechanical equilibrium with its neighbors following the insertion of a tubulin dimer to its end, $\tau_{\textrm{mech}}$, and the average interval between insertions, $\tau_{\textrm{dimer}}$. In the limit $\tau_{\textrm{mech}}<\tau_{\textrm{dimer}}$, strong coupling between the MTs in the bundle can occur leading to the solid rod result. The opposite limit intuitively leads to weak coupling between the MTs within a bundle. We estimate $\tau_{\textrm{dimer}}\approx0.1\,\textrm{s}$ from our data, which seems quite long compared to the times characterizing the relative motion of neighboring MTs on the molecular length scales relevant to $\tau_{\textrm{mech}}$. The exact molecular picture, which goes beyond the scope of our model, needs further study. Using the solid model for $K$, we can calculate the remaining model parameter, $\alpha$, from Eq.~\prettyref{eq:characteristic_wavelength}: $\alpha=K_{\textrm{slip}}(2\pi/\lambda_{\textrm{expt}})^{4}\approx0.032\,\textrm{Pa}$. This value is remarkably small compared to that estimated for a single MT buckling inside a cell ($\alpha^{*}\approx2700\,\textrm{Pa}$~). We identify two contributors to the difference between $\alpha$ and $\alpha^{*}$. In general, $\alpha\sim G$, where $G$ is the elastic shear modulus of the surrounding network. $G\sim1\,\textrm{Pa}$ in our system~, while $G^{*}\sim1000\,\textrm{Pa}$ for the surrounding cytoskeleton network inside the cell~. The other contributor is the coordination of the buckling of the MT bundles, which reduces the distortion of the surrounding network, and thus weakens the effective restoring force and $\alpha$ (analysis in preparation). In summary, using microscopic studies of the temporal evolution of the striated MT patterns, we show that the polymerization of MTs within the bundles causes uniform elongation. This in turn creates the driving compressional force which ultimately causes the MT bundles to buckle. It is this coordinated buckling that produces the striped birefringent pattern. The proposed mechanical buckling model adequately describes the buckling process. It predicts a critical buckling force and a characteristic wavelength, which depend on the elasticity of the surrounding network and the bending rigidity of the MT bundles. Combing the bending rigidity of MT bundles and the established MT force-velocity curve with the mechanical model, we obtain a reasonable estimate for the elastic constant of the network and find that MTs inside the bundle are fully coupled. We thank Allan Bower for help in understanding the elastic constant $\alpha$ and thank L. Mahadevan and Thomas R. Powers for valuable discussions. This work was supported by NASA (NNA04CC57G, NAG3-2882) and NSF (DMR 0405156, DMR 0605797). \begin{thebibliography}{24} \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2} \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{} \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Desai and Mitchison}(1997)}]{Microtubule_Polymerization_Dynamics1997} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Desai}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.} \bibnamefont{Mitchison}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{13}}, \bibinfo{pages}{83} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bray}(2001)}]{cellmovement} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bray}}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Cell Movement: From Molecules to Motility}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Garland}, \bibinfo{address}{New York}, \bibinfo{year}{2001}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Elinson and Rowning}(1988)}]{arrays} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~P.} \bibnamefont{Elinson}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Rowning}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Dev. Biol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{128}}, \bibinfo{pages}{185} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Callaini}(1989)}]{drosophila} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Callaini}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Development} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{107}}, \bibinfo{pages}{35} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hitt et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Hitt, Cross, and Williams}}]{Hitt} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~L.} \bibnamefont{Hitt}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~R.} \bibnamefont{Cross}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~C.} \bibnamefont{Williams}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Biol. Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{265}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1639} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tabony}(1994)}]{Tabonyscience} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tabony}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{264}}, \bibinfo{pages}{245} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{N{\' e}d{\' e}lec et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{N{\' e}d{\' e}lec, Surrey, Maggs, and Leibler}}]{constrained} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~J.} \bibnamefont{N{\' e}d{\' e}lec}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Surrey}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~C.} \bibnamefont{Maggs}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Leibler}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{389}}, \bibinfo{pages}{305} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Walczak et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Walczak, Vernos, Mitchison, Karsenti, and Heald}}]{1998-Walczak-Microtubule} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~E.} \bibnamefont{Walczak}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Vernos}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.} \bibnamefont{Mitchison}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Karsenti}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Heald}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Current Biology} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{8}}, \bibinfo{pages}{903} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Liu et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Liu, Guo, Valles, and Tang}}]{YF_YX_JM_JT_PNAS_2006} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Liu}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Guo}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Valles}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tang}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{103}}, \bibinfo{pages}{10654} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bras et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Bras, Diakun, D{\' i}az, Maret, Kramer, Bordas, and Medrano}}]{Bras-Magnetic} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Bras}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~P.} \bibnamefont{Diakun}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~F.} \bibnamefont{D{\' i}az}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Maret}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Kramer}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Bordas}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~J.} \bibnamefont{Medrano}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Biophys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{74}} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Glade and Tabony}(2005)}]{tabony_magnetic_field} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Glade}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tabony}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Biophys. Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{115}}, \bibinfo{pages}{29} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brangwynne et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Brangwynne, MacKintosh, Kumar, Geisse, Talbot, Mahadevan, Parker, Ingber, and Weitz}}]{MT-buckling} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~P.} \bibnamefont{Brangwynne}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~C.} \bibnamefont{MacKintosh}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Kumar}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~A.} \bibnamefont{Geisse}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Talbot}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Mahadevan}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~K.} \bibnamefont{Parker}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Ingber}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Weitz}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Cell Biol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{173}}, \bibinfo{pages}{733} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gladden et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont{Gladden, Handzy, Belmonte, and Villermaux}}]{dynamic_buckling_Gladden} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~R.} \bibnamefont{Gladden}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~Z.} \bibnamefont{Handzy}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Belmonte}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Villermaux}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{94}}, \bibinfo{pages}{035503} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Landau and Lifshitz}(1986)}]{Theory_of_Elasticity} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~D.} \bibnamefont{Landau}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~M.} \bibnamefont{Lifshitz}}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Theory of Elasticity}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Oxford}, \bibinfo{address}{New York}, \bibinfo{year}{1986}), \bibinfo{edition}{3rd} ed. \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tabony and Glade}(2002)}]{concentration} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tabony}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Glade}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Langmuir} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{18}}, \bibinfo{pages}{7196} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}); \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Papaseit}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Vuillard}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tabony}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Biophys. Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{79}}, \bibinfo{pages}{33} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}); \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tuszynski}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~V.} \bibnamefont{Sataric}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{\emph{et al.}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physics Letters A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{340}}, \bibinfo{pages}{175} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}). \bibitem[{Prl({\natexlab{a}})}]{Prl-retardance-sample} \bibinfo{note}{The sample was polymerized from a 5 mg/ml tubulin solution (2 mM GTP, 3.5\ 100 mM pipes, 1 mM EGTA, 2 mM MgSO$_4$, PH 6.9) in a $40\times8\times0.4\,\textrm{mm}^{3}$ glass cuvette which was exposed to 9\,T vertical static magnetic field for 5 minutes at 37$^{\circ}$C (the magnetic field direction is along the long axis of the cuvette). The cuvette was then laid flat on the microscope stage and a coherently buckled area was chosen for observation and measurement at 30$^{\circ}$C.} \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Oldenbourg et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Oldenbourg, Salmon, and Tran}}]{oldenbourg_MT_birefringence} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Oldenbourg}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~D.} \bibnamefont{Salmon}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~T.} \bibnamefont{Tran}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Biophys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{74}}, \bibinfo{pages}{645} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dogterom and Yurke}(1997)}]{buckling} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Dogterom}} \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Yurke}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{278}}, \bibinfo{pages}{856} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tuszy\'nski et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont{Tuszy\'nski, Luchko, Portet, and Dixon}}]{2005-Tuszynski-MT-elasticity} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{Tuszy\'nski}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Luchko}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Portet}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Dixon}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{17}}, \bibinfo{pages}{29} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Claessens et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Claessens, Bathe, Frey, and Bausch}}]{2006-Claessens-Bundle-Stiffness} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~M. A.~E.} \bibnamefont{Claessens}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Bathe}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Frey}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~R.} \bibnamefont{Bausch}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature Materials} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{5}}, \bibinfo{pages}{748} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sato et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Sato, Schwartz, Selden, and Pollard}}]{elastic_shear_modulus} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Sato}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~H.} \bibnamefont{Schwartz}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~C.} \bibnamefont{Selden}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~D.} \bibnamefont{Pollard}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Cell Biol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{106}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1205} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}). \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mahaffy et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Mahaffy, Shih, MacKintosh, and K\"as}}]{2000-Mahaffy-G-gel} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~E.} \bibnamefont{Mahaffy}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~K.} \bibnamefont{Shih}}, \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~C.} \bibnamefont{MacKintosh}}, \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{K\"as}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}}, \bibinfo{pages}{880} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}). \bibitem[{Prl({\natexlab{b}})}]{Prl-phase-sample} \bibinfo{note}{The sample was polymerized from 8 mg/ml tubulin solution (same buffer condition as in \,) in a $40\times10\times1\,\textrm{mm}^{3}$ quartz cuvette and was subjected to convective flow (induced by asymmetrical thermal contacts, with the left and bottom surfaces in contact with a 37$^{\circ}$C waterbath-warmed aluminum holder and other sides exposed to 30$^{\circ}$C ambient) for the first 9 minutes. The cuvette was then laid flat on the microscope stage for observation and measurement at 30$^{\circ}$C.} \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0308
|
Title: Effect of node deleting on network structure
Abstract: The ever-increasing knowledge of the structure of various real-world networks
has uncovered their complex multi-mechanism-governed evolution processes.
Therefore, a better understanding of the structure and evolution of these
networked complex systems requires us to describe such processes in a more
detailed and realistic manner. In this paper, we introduce a new type of
network growth rule which comprises addition and deletion of nodes, and propose
an evolving network model to investigate the effect of node deleting on network
structure. It is found that, with the introduction of node deleting, network
structure is significantly transformed. In particular, degree distribution of
the network undergoes a transition from scale-free to exponential forms as the
intensity of node deleting increases. At the same time, nontrivial
disassortative degree correlation develops spontaneously as a natural result of
network evolution in the model. We also demonstrate that node deleting
introduced in the model does not destroy the connectedness of a growing network
so long as the increasing rate of edges is not excessively small. In addition,
it is found that node deleting will weaken but not eliminate the small-world
effect of a growing network, and generally it will decrease the clustering
coefficient in a network.
Body: \title{Effect of node deleting on network structure} \author{Ke Deng} \email{dengke@jsu.edu.cn} \author{Heping Zhao} \author{Dejun Li} \affiliation{Department of Physics, Jishou University, Jishou, Hunan 416000, People's Republic of China} \begin{abstract} The ever-increasing knowledge to the structure of various real-world networks has uncovered their complex multi-mechanism-governed evolution processes. Therefore, a better understanding to the structure and evolution of these networked complex systems requires us to describe such processes in more detailed and realistic manner. In this paper, we introduce a new type of network growth rule which comprises of adding and deleting of nodes, and propose an evolving network model to investigate the effect of node deleting on network structure. It is found that, with the introduction of node deleting, network structure is significantly transformed. In particular, degree distribution of the network undergoes a transition from scale-free to exponential forms as the intensity of node deleting increases. At the same time, nontrivial disassortative degree correlation develops spontaneously as a natural result of network evolution in the model. We also demonstrate that node deleting introduced in the model does not destroy the connectedness of a growing network so long as the increasing rate of edges is not excessively small. In addition, it is found that node deleting will weaken but not eliminate the small-world effect of a growing network, and generally it will decrease the clustering coefficient in a network. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{INTRODUCTION} Network structure is of great importance in the topological characterization of complex systems in reality. Actually, these networked complex systems have been found to share some common structural characteristics, such as the small-world properties, the power-law degree distribution, the degree correlation, and so on . In the theoretical description of these findings, the Watts-Strogatz (WS) model provides a simple way to generate networks with the small-world properties. Barab\'{a}si and Albert (BA) , with a somewhat different aim, proposed an evolving network model to explain the origin of power-law degree distribution. In this model, by considering two fundamental mechanisms: growth and preferential attachment (PA), power-law degree distribution emerges naturally from network evolution. Based on the framework of BA model, many other mechanisms were introduced into network evolution to reproduce some more complex observed network structures , such as the degree distribution of broad scale and single scale , as well as the degree correlation . These further studies show that real networked systems may undergo a very complex evolution process governed by multiple mechanisms on which the occurrence of network structures depends. Therefore, to get a better understanding of the structure and evolution of complex networks, describing such processes in more detailed and realistic manner is necessary. In the BA's framework, the growing nature of real-world networks is captured by a BA-type growth rule. According to this rule, one node is added into the network at each time step, intending to mimic the growing process of real systems. This rule gives an explicit description to the real-network' growing process which, however, can in fact be much more complex. One fact is that in many real growing networks, there are constant adding of new elements, but accompanied by permanent removal of old elements (deletion of nodes) . Take the food webs for a example: there are both additions and losses of nodes (species) at ecological and evolutionary time scales by means of immigration, emigration, speciation, and extinction . Likewise, for Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW), node-deleting is reported experimentally in spit of their rapid expansion of size . In the Internet's Autonomous Systems (ASs) map case, a node is an AS and a link is a relationship between two ASs. An AS adding means a new Internet Service Provider (ISP) or a large institution with multiple stub networks joins the Internet. An AS deleting happens due to the permanent shutdown of the corresponding AS as it is, for example, out of business. Investigations of the evolution of real Internet maps from 1997 to 2000 verified such network mechanism . The same is for the evolution of WWW, in which the deletions of invalid web pages are also frequently discovered . In most cases, the deletion of a node is also accompanied with the removal of all edges once attached to it. These facts justify the investigation of node-deletion's influence on network structure. In this paper, we introduce a new type of network growth rule which comprises of adding and deleting of nodes, and propose an evolving network model to investigate the effect of node deleting on the network structure. Before now several authors have proposed some models on node removal in networks, such as AJB networks in which a portion nodes are simultaneously removed from the network , and also the decaying and mortal networks, which concerns networks' scaling property and critical behavior respectively. Sarshar \textit{et al} investigated the \textit{ad hoc} network with node removal, focusing on the compensatory process to preserve true scale-free state. They are different from present work, in which node deleting is treated as an ubiquitous mechanism accompanied with the evolution of real-world networks. This paper is organized as follows. In Section~, an evolving network model taking account of the effect of node deleting is introduced which reduces to a generalized BA model when the effect of node deleting vanishes. Then the effect of node deleting on network structure are investigated in five aspects: degree distribution (Section~), degree correlation (Section~), size of giant component (Section~), average distance between nodes (Section~) and clustering (Section~). Finally, Section~ presents a brief summary. \section{THE MODEL} We consider the following model. In the initial state, the network has $m_0$ isolated nodes. At each time step, either a new node is added into the network with probability $P_a$ or a randomly chosen old node is deleted from the network with probability $P_d=1-P_a$, where $P_a$ is an adjustable parameter. When a new node is added to the network, it connects to $m$ ($m\leqslant m_0$) existing node in the network according to the preferential probability introduced in the BA model , which reads \begin{eqnarray} \Pi_\alpha=\frac{k_\alpha+1}{\sum_\beta(k_\beta+1)} \end{eqnarray} where $k_\alpha$ is the degree of node $\alpha$. When an old node is deleted from the network, edges once attached to it are removed as well. In the model, $P_a$ is varied in the range of $0.5<P_a\leq1$, since in the case of $P_a\leqslant 0.5$ the network can not grow. In order to give a chance for isolated nodes to receive a new edge, we choose preferential probability $\Pi_\alpha$ proportional to $k_\alpha+1$ . Note that when $P_a=1$, our model reduces to a generalized BA model . To get a general knowledge to the effect of node deleting on network structure, firstly, a simple analysis to the surviving probability $D(i,t)$ is helpful. Here, $D(i,t)$ is defined as the probability that a node is added into the network at time step $i$, and this node (the $i$th node) has not been deleted until time step $t$, where $t\geqslant i$. Supposing that a node-adding event happens at time step $i^{'}$, and the probability that the $i'$th node has not been deleted until time step $t$ is denoted as $D'(i',t)$. Then, due to the independence of events happened at each time step, it is easy to verify that $D'(i',t+1)=D'(i',t)[1-(1-P_a)/N(t)]$ with $D'(i',i')=1$, where $N(t)=(2P_a-1)t$ is the number of nodes in the network at moment $t$ (in the limit of large $t$). In the continuous limit, we obtain \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial D'(i',t)}{\partial t} =-\frac{(1-P_a)}{(2P_a-1)t}D'(i',t), \end{eqnarray} which yields \begin{eqnarray} D'(i',t)=\left( \frac{t}{i'}\right)^{-(1-P_a)/(2P_a-1)}. \end{eqnarray} Thus to get the $D(i,t)$ we should multiply $D'(i',t)$ with $P_a$, i.e. \begin{eqnarray} D(i,t)=P_a\left( \frac{t}{i}\right)^{-(1-P_a)/(2P_a-1)}. \end{eqnarray} One can easily find that $D(i,t)$ decreases rapidly as $t$ increases and/or as $i$ decreases provided $0.5<P_a<1$. It is well known that highly connected nodes, or hubs, play very important roles in the structural and functional properties of growing networks . The formation of hubs needs a long time to gain a large number of connections. As a consequence, according to Eq.~(), a large portion of potential hubs are deleted during the network evolution. Thus it can be expected that the introduction of node deleting has nontrivial effects on network structure. In the following we show how network structure can be effected by the node deleting introduced in present model. \section{DEGREE DISTRIBUTION} The degree distribution $p(k)$, which gives the probability that a node in the network possesses $k$ edges, is a very important quantity to characterize network structure. In fact, $p(k)$ has been suggested to be used as the first criteria to classify real-world networks . Therefore it is necessary to investigate the effect of node deleting on the degree distribution of networks firstly. Now we adopt the continuous approach to give a qualitative analysis of $p(k)$ for our model with slight node deletion (i.e., when $P_d$ is very small). Supposing that there is a node added into the network at time step $i'$, and this node is still in the network at time $t$, let $k(i',t)$ be the degree of the $i'$th node at time $t$, where $t\geqslant i'$. Then the increasing rate of $k(i',t)$ is \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial k(i',t)}{\partial t} =P_am \frac{k(i',t)+1}{S(t)}-(1-P_a) \frac{k(i',t)}{N(t)}, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} S(t)=\sum_{i^{'}}D'(i',t)[k(i',t)+1] \end{eqnarray} and the $\sum_{i^{'}}$ denotes the sum of all $i'$ during the time step between $0$ and $t$. It is easy to verify that the first term in Eq.~() is the increasing number of links of the $i'$th node due to the preferential attachment made by the newly added node. The second term in Eq.~() accounts for the losing of a link of the $i'$th node during the process of node deletion, which happened with the probability $k(i',t)/N(t)$. Firstly we solve for the $S(t)$ and get \begin{eqnarray} S(t)=\left(2P_a-1\right)\left(2P_am+1\right)t \end{eqnarray} (see the Appendix for details). Inserting Eq.~() back into Eq.~(), one gets \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial k(i',t)}{\partial t} =\frac{Ak(i',t)+B}{t}, \end{eqnarray} where \begin{eqnarray} A=\frac{2P_a^{2}m-P_am+P_a-1}{(2P_a-1)(2P_am+1)} \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} B=\frac{P_am}{(2P_a-1)(2P_am+1)}. \end{eqnarray} When $Ak+B>0$, the solution of Eq.~() is \begin{eqnarray} k(i',t)=\frac{1}{A}\left[(Am+B)\left(\frac{t}{i'}\right)^{A}-B\right]. \end{eqnarray} Now, to get the probability $p(k,t)$ that a randomly selected node at time $t$ will have degree $k$, we need to calculate the expected number of nodes $N_k(t)$ with degree $k$ at time $t$. Then the $p(k,t)$ can be obtained from $p(k,t)=N_k(t)/N(t)$, where $N(t)$ is the total number of nodes at time $t$. Let $I_k(t)$ represent the set of all possible nodes with degree $k$ at time $t$, then one gets \begin{eqnarray} p(k,t)=\frac{N_k(t)}{N(t)}= \frac{1}{N(t)}\sum_{i\in I_k(t)} D(i,t). \end{eqnarray} In the continuous-time approach, the number of nodes in $I_k(t)$ is the number of $i$'s for which $k\leqslant k(i,t) \leqslant k+1$, and it is approximated to $|\partial k(i,t) / \partial i|^{-1}_{i=i_{k}}$, where $i_k$ is the solution of the equation $k(i,t)=k$. To proceed with our analysis, now we make the approximation that all nodes in $I_k(t)$ have the same surviving probability $D(i_k,t)$ \footnote{It seems that this is not a very good approximation, since investigations indicate that values of $\left(\partial D(i,t)/\partial i\right)|_{i=i_{k}}$ are large and increase rapidly with the decrease of $P_a$. Thus the analysis here is a qualitative one and only suit for the condition of slight node deletion in the model.}. Under this mean-field approximation, Eq.~() can be written as \begin{eqnarray} p(k,t)=\frac{1}{N(t)}D(i_k,t)\left|\frac{\partial k(i,t)} {\partial i}\right|^{-1}_{i=i_{k}}. \end{eqnarray} From Eq.~(), we obtain \begin{eqnarray} i_k=\left( \frac{Ak+B}{Am+B}\right)^{-1/A}t. \end{eqnarray} then \begin{equation} \left|\frac{\partial k(i,t)} {\partial i}\right|^{-1}_{i=i_{k}}=\left(Am+B\right)^{1/A}t\left(Ak+B\right)^{-(A+1)/A}. \end{equation} Inserting Eq.~() back into Eq.~() we get \begin{eqnarray} D(i_k,t)=P_a\left(\frac{Ak+B}{Am+B}\right)^{(A-B)/A} \end{eqnarray} Inserting Eqs.~() and ~() into Eq.~(), and noting that $N(t)=(2P_a-1)t$, we get \begin{widetext} \begin{equation} p(k,t)=\frac{P_a}{2P_a-1}\left(Am+B\right)^{(B-A+1)/A}\left(Ak+B\right)^{-(B+1)/A}, \end{equation} \end{widetext} which is a generalized power-law form with the exponent \begin{equation} \gamma=\frac{B+1}{A}=2+\frac{P_am+1}{2P_a^{2}m-P_am+P_a-1}. \end{equation} We point out again that equation () is only valid when $Ak+B>0$, which translates into $A>0$, i.e. \begin{eqnarray} 2P_a^{2}m-P_am+P_a-1>0. \end{eqnarray} Considering that $P_a>0.5$, Eq.~() is satisfied when \begin{eqnarray} P_a>P_a^{min}=\frac{(m-1)+\sqrt{m^{2}+6m+1}}{4m}. \end{eqnarray} In Fig.~, we plot $P_a^{min}$ as a function of $m$. One can see from Fig.~ that the curve divides our model into two regimes. $(i)$ $P_a>P_a^{min}$: in this case $Ak+B>0$ and equation () is valid. Thus, the degree distribution of the network $p(k)$ exhibits a generalized power-law form. $(ii)$ $P_a>P_a^{min}$: In this case $Ak+B>0$ can not be always satisfied and equation () is not valid. Therefore, our continuous approach fails to predict the behavior of $p(k)$, and we will investigate it with numerical simulations. The $P_a^{min}(m)$, as one can find from Fig.~, decreases with the increase of $m$. In the power-law regime [$P_a>P_a^{min}(m)$], the behavior of $p(k)$ is predicted by Eqs.~() and~(), which are obtained using a mean-field approximation [Eq.~()]. One can easily verify that such approximation is only exact when $P_a=1$, in which case Eq.~() turns into $\gamma=3+1/m$, in good agreement with the results obtained from generalized BA model studied in Ref . If $P_a^{min}(m)<P_a<1$, Eqs.~() and~() still give qualitative predictions for the model: with slight node deletion, $p(k)$ of the network is still power-law, and the exponential $\gamma$ increases with the decrease of $P_a$ (inset of Fig.~). In remaining regime [$P_a<P_a^{min}(m)$], the limiting case is $P_a\rightarrow0.5$, in which the growth of network is suppressed (a very slowly growing one). Similar non-growing networks have been studied, for example, for the Model B in Ref, and the degree distribution has the exponential form. Here we conjecture that, in this regime, $p(k)$ of our model crossovers to an exponential form, which is verified by the numerical simulation results below. Now we verify the above analysis with numerical simulations. In Fig.~, we give the cumulative degree distributions $P(k)$ of the networks with different $P_a$. As $P_a$ gradually decreases from $1$ to $0.5$, Fig.~ shows an interesting transition process which can be roughly divided into three stages. $(1)$ $0.9\leqslant P_a\leqslant 1$: In this stage, the model works in the power-law regime and the power-law exponent $\gamma$ increases as $P_a$ decreases. Inset of Fig.~ gives the comparison between the value of $\gamma$ predicted by Eq.~() and the one obtained from numerical simulations. One sees that the theory and the simulation results are in perfect agreement for $P_a=1$. As $P_a$ decreases, however, the agreement is only qualitative and the deviation between theory and simulation becomes more and more obvious. As we have mentioned above, such increasing deviation is due to the mean-field approximation used in the analysis. These results tell us that slight node deletion does not cause deviation of the network from scale-free state, but only increases its power-law exponent. Such robustness of power-low $p(k)$ revealed here gives an explanation to the ubiquity of scale-free networks in reality. It should be noted that a very similar robustness has also been found in the study of network resilience, where simultaneously deleting of a portion of nodes was taken into account in static scale-free networks . $(2)$ $0.5<P_a\leqslant 0.6$: In this stage, the model works in the regime of $P_a<P_a^{min}(m)$. As one sees from Fig.~, $P(k)$ of the network behaviors exponentially. This result indicates that with manifest node deletion, the network will deviate from scale-free state and become exponential. $(3)$ $0.6<P_a<0.9$: In this stage, a crossover of the model from the power-law regime to the exponential regime is found, in which the $P(k)$ is no longer pure scale-free but truncated by an exponential tail. As one can see, the truncation in $P(k)$ increases as $P_a$ decreases. Besides the power-law degree distribution, it is now known that $p(k)$ in real world may deviate from a pure power-law form . According to the extent of deviation, $p(k)$ of real systems has been classified into three groups : scale-free (pure power-law), broad scale (power-law with a truncation), and single scale (exponential). Many mechanisms, such as aging , cost , and information filtering , have been introduced into network growth to explain these distributions. Here, the results of Fig.~ indicate that a modified version of growth rule can lead to all the three kinds of $p(k)$ in reality, and it provides another explanation for the origin of the diversity of degree distribution in real-world: such diversity may be a natural result of network growth. \section{DEGREE CORRELATION} It has been recently realized that, besides the degree distribution, structure of real networks are also characterized by degree correlations . This translates into the fact that degrees at the end of any given edge in real networks are not usually independent, but are correlated with one another, either positively or negatively. A network in which the degrees of adjacent nodes are positively (negatively) correlated is said to show assortative (disassortative) mixing by degree. An interesting observation emerging from the comparing of real networks of different types is that most social networks appear to be assortatively mixed, whereas most technological and biological networks appear to be disassortative. The level of degree correlation can be quantified by the assortativity coefficient $r$ lying in the range $-1\leqslant r\leqslant1$, which can be written as \begin{equation} r=\frac{M^{-1}\sum_{i}j_{i}k_{i}-\left[M^{-1}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{2}\left(j_{i}+k_{i}\right)\right]^{2}}{M^{-1}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{2}\left(j_{i}^{2}+k_{i}^{2}\right)-\left[M^{-1}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{2}\left(j_{i}+k_{i}\right)\right]^{2}} \end{equation} for practical evaluation on an observed network, where $j_{i}$, $k_{i}$ are the degrees of the vertices at the ends of the $i$th edge, with $i=1,\ldots,M$ . This formula gives $r>0 (r<0)$ when the corresponding network is positively (negatively) correlated, and $r=0$ when there is no correlation \footnote{Another way to represent degree correlation is to calculate the mean degree of the nearest neighbors of a vertex as a function of the degree $k$ of that vertex. Although such way is explicit to characterize degree correlation for highly heterogeneously organized networks, for less heterogeneous networks (this is the case in the proposed model when the intensity of node deleting increases, see Fig.~), it may be very nosy and difficult to interpret. So here we adopt the assortativity coefficient $r$ to characterize degree correlation in the model.}. Recently, Maslov \textit{et al} and Park \textit{et al} have proposed a possible explanation for the origin of such correlation. They show for a network the restriction that there is at most one edge between any pair of nodes induces negative degree correlations. This restriction seems to be an universal mechanism (indeed, there is no double edges in most real networks), therefore, the authors of Ref. conjecture that disassortativity by degree is the normal state of affairs for a network. Although only a part of the measured correlation can be explained in the way of Ref. , this universal mechanism does give a promising explanation for the origin of degree correlation observed in real networks of various types. It will be of great interest to discuss the effect of node deleting on degree correlation. In Fig.~, we give the assortativity coefficient $r$ as a function of network size $N$, for different $P_a$ in our model, for $m=5$. As one sees from Fig.~, for each value of $P_a$, after a transitory period with finite-size effect, each $r$ of networks tends to reach a steady value. When $P_a=1$, $r\rightarrow0$ as $N$ becomes large. This result indicates that networks in the BA model are uncorrelated, in agreement with results obtained in previous studies . When $P_a<1$, nontrivial negative degree correlations spontaneously develop as networks evolve. One can see from Fig.~ that the steady value of $r$ in the model decreases with the decreasing $P_a$. In particular, when $P_a\leqslant 0.6$, the value of $r$ is about $-0.1$. These results indicate that node deleting leads to disassortative mixing by degree in evolving networks. To make such relation more clear, in Fig.~, we plot $r$ of networks in our model as a function of $P_a$, for different $m$. As the Fig.~ indicates, when the network size is larger than $40000$, the assortativity coefficient $r$ is nearly stable. So all results in Fig.~ are obtained from networks with $N=40000$. Fig.~ gives us the same relation between $r$ and $P_a$ shown in Fig.~. What is more, it tells us that for a given $P_a$, $r$ will increase with the increasing $m$. The increment gets its maximum between $m=1$ and other values. We point out that this is because when $m=1$, the network has been broke up into small separate components (see the following section). We can also find from Fig.~ that the gap between different curves decreases with the increasing $m$ and the curves tend to merge at large $m$. Now we give some explanations to the above observations. In the BA model, the network being uncorrelated is the result of a competition between two factors: the growth and the preferential attachment (PA). On the one hand, networks with pure growth is positively correlated. This is because the older nodes, also tending to be higher degree ones, have a higher probability of being connected to one another, since they coexisted earlier. In Fig.~, we compute the assortativity coefficient $r$ of a randomly growing network, which grows by the growth rule of BA-type, while the newly added nodes connect to \emph{randomly chosen} existing ones. As one can see from Fig.~ that pure growth leads to positive $r$. On the other hand, the introduction of PA makes the connection between nodes tend to be negatively correlated, since newly added nodes (usually low degree ones) prefer to connect to highly connected ones. Then degree correlation characteristic of the BA model is determined by this two factors. In Fig.~, we plot the average degree of the nearest neighbor $<k>_{nn}$ as a function of $k$ in the BA model. It is found that nodes with large $k$ show no obvious biases in their connections. But there is a short disassortative mixing region when $k$ is relatively small (also reported in Ref. , see Fig.1a therein). Such phenomenon can be explained by the effect of these two factor: Growth together with PA makes nodes with large $k$ equally connect to both large and small degree nodes, and the latter makes nodes with small degree be disassortatively connected. Now, we introduce node-deletion. According to Eq.~(), depression of the growth of large-degree nodes also decreases the connections between them, therefore makes the correlation negative. We also investigate the effect of node deleting on the $r$ of the randomly growing network, and obtained similar results. As one sees from Fig.~, depression of connections between higher degree nodes causes the network less positively correlated, and with stronger node-deletion, negatively correlated. Finally, with regard to the effect of $m$ in this relation (Fig.~), larger $m$ means more edges are established according to the PA probability Eq.~(). We conjecture that the orderliness of newly added nodes connecting to large degree nodes will be weakened by the increasing randomness as $m$ becomes larger, thus leading to a less negative correlation. Such randomness can not always increase and, as we see from Fig.~, for large $m$, e.g., $m\geq14$, the curves tend to merge together. \section{SIZE OF GIANT COMPONENT} In a network, a set of connected nodes forms a component. If the relative size of the largest component $S$ in a network approaches a nonzero value when the network is grown to infinite size, this component is called the giant component of the network . In most previously studied growing models , due to the BA-type growth rule they adopted, there is only one huge component in the network, i.e., $S\equiv1$. In this extreme case the network gains a perfect connectedness. The opposite case of $S=1$ is the extreme of $S=0$, in which case the network, made up of small components, exhibits no connectedness. Experiments indicate that some real networks seem to lie in somewhere between these two extreme: they contain a giant component as well as many separate components . For example, According to Ref., in May of 1999, the entire WWW, containing $203\times10^{6}$ pages, consisted of a giant component of $186\times10^{6}$ pages and the disconnected components (DC) of about $17\times10^{6}$ pages. In general, the introduction of node deletion in our model will cause the emergence of separate components even isolated nodes in the network. What we interest here is the connectedness of the network. In Fig.~ we plot the relative size of the largest component $S$ in the model, as a function of $P_a$, for $m=2,3,4,5$, where $m$ is the number of edges generated with the adding of a new node. One sees from Fig.~ that for any $0.5<P_a\leq1$, a giant component can be observed in the model if $m>1$. In addition, for the same $P_a$, $S$ increase as the increase of $m$. While when $m=1$, the network is found to be broke up into separate components if $P_a<1$. For example, when $P_a=0.9$, $S$ of the network with $N=100000$ rapidly drops to $0.034$. Inset of Fig.~ gives the $S$ Vs $P_a$ curve for $m=1$. These results indicate that node deleting does not destroy the connectedness of a growing network so long as the increasing rate of edges is not excessively small. \section{AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN NODES} Now we study the effect of node deletion on networks' average distance $L$ between nodes. Here the distance between any two nodes is defined as the number of edges along the shortest path connecting them. It has been revealed that, despite their often large size, most real networks present a relatively short $L$, showing the so-called small-world effect . Such an effect has a more precise meaning: networks are said to show the small-world effect if the value of $L$ scales logarithmically or slower with network size for fixed mean degree. This logarithmic scaling can be proved for a variety of network models . As we have demonstrated in Section~, node deleting does not destroy the connectedness of the network in our model for any $m>1$, since there is always a giant component exists. Here in our simulation, we calculate $L$ of the giant component of the network in our model using the ��burning algorithm�� . In Fig.~, we plot $L$ as a function of network size $N$, for different $P_a$ in our model. As one can see from the figure, for any $0.5<P_a\leq1$, a logarithmic scaling $L\sim\ln N$ is obtained, while the proportional coefficient increases with the decrease of $P_a$. Furthermore, for a given $N$, $L$ increases with the decrease of $P_a$. These results tell us that node deleting will weaken but not eliminate the small-world effect of a growing network. \section{CLUSTERING} Finally, we investigate the effect of node deletion on network's cluster coefficient $C$, which is defined as the average probability that two nodes connected to a same other node are also connected. For a selected node $i$ with degree $k_i$ in the network, if there are $E_i$ edges among its $k_i$ nearest neighbors, the cluster coefficient $C_i$ of node $i$ is defined as \begin{eqnarray} C_i=\frac{2E_i}{k_i\left(k_i+1\right)}. \end{eqnarray} Then the clustering coefficient of the whole network is the average of all individual $C_i$. In Fig.~, we plot $C$ of the giant component in the network as a function of network size $N$, for different $P_a$. As one sees from Fig.~, for each $P_a$, the clustering coefficient $C$ of our model decreases with the network size, following approximately a power law form. Such size-dependent property of $C$ is shared by many growing network model . Moreover, as Fig.~ shows, for the same network-size $N$, $C$ decreases as $P_a$ decreases. The results of Fig.~ indicate that node deleting weakens network's clustering. \section{CONCLUSION} In summary, we have introduced a new type of network growth rule which comprises of adding and deleting of nodes, and proposed an evolving network model to investigate effects of node deleting on network structure. It has been found that, with the introduction of node deleting, network structure was significantly transformed. In particular, degree distribution of the network undergoes a transition from scale-free to exponential forms as the intensity of node deleting increased. At the same time, nontrivial disassortative degree correlation spontaneously develops as a natural result of network evolution in the model. We also have demonstrated that node deleting introduced in our model does not destroy the connectedness of a growing network so long as the increasing rate of edge is not excessively small. In addition, it has been observed that node deleting will weaken but not eliminate the small-world effect of a growing network. Finally, we have found that generally node deleting will decrease the clustering coefficient in a network. These nontrivial effects justify further studies of the effect of node deleting on network function , which include topics such as percolation, information and disease transportation, error and attack tolerance, and so on. \begin{acknowledgments} The authors thank Doc. Ke Hu for useful discussions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 10647132, and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China, Grant No. 00JJY6008. \end{acknowledgments} \appendix* \section{THE CALCULATION OF $S(T)$} To get $S(t)$, we multiply both sides of Eq.~() by $D'(i',t)$ and sum up all $i'$ between $0$ and $t$: \begin{equation} \sum_{i^{'}}\frac{\partial k(i',t)}{\partial t}D'(i',t) =P_a(m-1)-\frac{1-P_a}{(2P_a-1)t}S(t)+1. \end{equation} To get the above equation we have used the definition of $S(t)$ [Eq.~()] and the following equation: \begin{eqnarray} \sum_{i^{'}}D'(i',t)=\int_{0}^{t}D(i,t)di. \end{eqnarray} The left-hand side of Eq.~() can be simplified as: \begin{widetext} \begin{eqnarray*} \sum_{i^{'}}\frac{\partial \left\{\left[k(i',t)+1\right]D'(i',t)\right\}}{\partial t}-\sum_{i^{'}}\left[k(i',t)+1\right]\frac{\partial D'(i',t)}{\partial t}\\=\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left\{\sum_{i^{'}}\left[k(i',t)+1\right]D'(i',t)\right\}-\left[k(t,t)+1\right]D(t,t) \\-\sum_{i^{'}}\left[k(i',t)+1\right]D'(i',t)\frac{P_a-1}{(2P_a-1)t}. \end{eqnarray*} \end{widetext} Substituting the above expression in Eq.~(), and noting that $k(t,t)=m$ and $D(t,t)=P_a$, we get \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{\partial S(t)}{\partial t}=\frac{2(P_a-1)}{(2P_a-1)t}S(t)+2P_am+1. \end{eqnarray*} The solution to the above equation is \begin{eqnarray*} S(t)=\left(2P_a-1\right)\left(2P_am+1\right)t. \end{eqnarray*} \begin{references} \bibitem{1}R. Albert and A.-L. Barab\'{a}si, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{74}, 47 (2002). \bibitem{a1}S. N. Dorogovtsev, and J. F. F. Mendes, Adv. Phys. \textbf{51}, 1079 (2002). \bibitem{2}M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Review \textbf{45}, 167 (2003). \bibitem{3}D. J. Watts and S.H. Strogatz, Nature (London) \textbf{393}, 440 (1998). \bibitem{4}A.-L. Barab\'{a}si and R. Albert, Science, \textbf{286}, 509 (1999). \bibitem{5}L. A. N. Amaral, A. Scala, M. Barth\'{e}l\'{e}my and H. E. Stanley, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. \textbf{97}, 11149 (2000). \bibitem{6}R. Albert and A.-L. Barab\'{a}si, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{85}, 5234 (2000). \bibitem{7}S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{62}, 1842 (2000). \bibitem{8}K. Klemm and V. M. Egu\'{i}luz, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{65}, 036123 (2002). \bibitem{9}S. Mossa, M. Barth\'{e}l\'{e}my, H. E. Stanley and L. A. N. Amaral, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{88}, 138701 (2002). \bibitem{10}Z. Liu, Y.-C. Lai and N. Ye, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 036112 (2002). \bibitem{11}S. Fortunato, A. Flammini and F. Menczer, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{96}, 218701 (2006). \bibitem{12}W. Je\.{z}ewski, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 067102 (2002). \bibitem{13}R. Xulvi-Brunet and I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 026118 (2002). \bibitem{14}A. V\'{a}zquez, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{67}, 056104 (2003). \bibitem{a2}Tao Zhou, Gang Yan and B.-H. Wang, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{71}, 046141 (2005). \bibitem{a5}Wen-Xu Wang, Bo Hu, Tao Zhou, Bing-Hong Wang, and Yan-Bo Xie, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{72}, 046140 (2005). \bibitem{28}J. A. Dunne, R. J. Williams and N. D. Martinez, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. \textbf{99}, 12917 (2002). \bibitem{15}K.-I. Goh, B. Kahng and D. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{88}, 108701 (2002). \bibitem{16}Q. Chen \textit{et al.}, \textit{The origins of power laws in Internet topologies revisited}, in Proceedings of the 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, IEEE Computer Society (2002). \bibitem{17}A. V\'{a}zquez, R. Pastor-Satorras1 and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{65}, 066130 (2002). \bibitem{a3}S. Lawrence and C. Lee Giles, Science, \textbf{280}, 98 (1998). \bibitem{a4}B. A. Huberman and L. A. Adamic, Nature (London), \textbf{401}, 131 (1999). \bibitem{18}R. Albert, H. Jeong and A.-L. Barab\'{a}si, Nature (London) \textbf{406}, 378 (2000). \bibitem{19}S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, EuroPhys. Lett. \textbf{52}, 33 (2000). \bibitem{20}J. L. Slater, B. D. Hughes and K. A. Landman, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{73}, 066111 (2006). \bibitem{21}N. Sarshar and V. Roychowdhury, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{69}, 026101 (2004). \bibitem{22}S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes and A. N. Samukhin, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{85}, 4633 (2000). \bibitem{23}S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{63}, 056125 (2001). \bibitem{24}A.-L. Barab\'{a}si, R. Albert and H. Jeong, Physica A \textbf{272}, 173 (1999). \bibitem{25}M. E. J. Newman, Computer Physics Communications \textbf{147}, 40 (2002). \bibitem{26}J. Camacho, R. Guimer\`{a} and L. A. N. Amaral, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{88}, 228102 (2002). \bibitem{27}M. E. J. Newman, S. Forrest and J. Balthrop, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{66}, 035101 (2002). \bibitem{29}H. Jeong, S. P. Mason, A.-L. Barab\'{a}si and Z. N. Oltvai, Nature (London), \textbf{411}, 41 (2001). \bibitem{30}M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 208701 (2002). \bibitem{31}R. Pastor-Satorras1, A. V\'{a}zquez and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{87}, 258701 (2001). \bibitem{32}S. Maslov and K. Sneppen, Science, \textbf{296}, 910 (2002). \bibitem{33}M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{67}, 026126 (2003). \bibitem{34}S. Maslov, K. Sneppen and A. Zaliznyak, e-print cond-mat/0205379. \bibitem{35}J. Park and M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{68}, 026112 (2003). \bibitem{a6} Huang Zhuang-Xiong, Wang Xin-Ran and Zhu Han, Chinese Physics \textbf{13}, 273 (2004). \bibitem{36}A. Broder, R. Kumar, F. Maghoul, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, R. Stata, A. Tomkins, and J. Wiener, in Proceedings of the 9th WWW Conference (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000), p. 309. \bibitem{37}S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes and A. N. Samukhin, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{64}, 025101(R) (2001). \end{references}
|
0704.0309
|
Title: The Complexity of HCP in Digraps with Degree Bound Two
Abstract: The Hamiltonian cycle problem (HCP) in digraphs D with degree bound two is
solved by two mappings in this paper. The first bijection is between an
incidence matrix C_{nm} of simple digraph and an incidence matrix F of balanced
bipartite undirected graph G; The second mapping is from a perfect matching of
G to a cycle of D. It proves that the complexity of HCP in D is polynomial, and
finding a second non-isomorphism Hamiltonian cycle from a given Hamiltonian
digraph with degree bound two is also polynomial. Lastly it deduces P=NP base
on the results.
Body: \markboth{\LaTeXe{} Class for Lecture Notes in Computer Science}{\LaTeXe{} Class for Lecture Notes in Computer Science} \thispagestyle{empty} \pagestyle{plain} \title{ The Complexity of HCP in Digraps with Degree Bound Two} \author{Guohun Zhu} \institute{ Guilin University of Electronic Technology,\newline No.1 Jinji Road,Guilin, Guangxi, 541004,P.R.China \newline \email{ccghzhu@guet.edu.cn}} \maketitle \begin{abstract} The Hamiltonian cycle problem (HCP) in digraphs $D$ with degree bound two is solved by two mappings in this paper. The first bijection is between an incidence matrix $C_{nm}$ of simple digraph and an incidence matrix $F$ of balanced bipartite undirected graph $G$; The second mapping is from a perfect matching of $G$ to a cycle of $D$. It proves that the complexity of HCP in $D$ is polynomial, and finding a second non-isomorphism Hamiltonian cycle from a given Hamiltonian digraph with degree bound two is also polynomial. Lastly it deduces $P=NP$ base on the results. \\ \end{abstract} \section{Introduction} It is well known that the Hamiltonian cycle problem(HCP) is one of the standard NP-complete problem . As for digraphs, even when the digraphs on this case: planar digraphs with indegree 1 or 2 and outdegree 2 or 1 respectively, it is still $NP-Complete$ which is proved by J.Plesn{\'\i}k . Let us named a simple strong connected digraphs with at most indegree 1 or 2 and outdegree 2 or 1 as $\Gamma$ digraphs. This paper solves the HCP of $\Gamma$ digraphs with following main results. \begin{theorem} Given an incidence matrix $C_{nm}$ of $\Gamma$ digraph, building a mapping:$F=\left ( {\begin{array}{c c} C^+ \\ -C^- \end{array}}\right)$, then $F$ is a incidence matrix of undirected balanced bipartite graph $G(X,Y;E)$, which obeys the following properties: \begin{enumerate} \item[c1.] $|X|=n$,$|Y|=n$,$|E|=m$ \item[c2.] $$ \forall x_i \in X \wedge 1 \leq d(x_i) \leq 2$$ $$ \forall y_i \in Y \wedge 1 \leq d(y_i) \leq 2$$ \item[c3.] $G$ has at most $\frac{n}{4}$ components which is length of $4$. \end{enumerate} \end{theorem} Let us named the undirected balanced bipartite graph $G(X,Y:E)$ of $\Gamma$ digraph as projector graph. \begin{theorem} Let $G$ be the projector graph of a $\Gamma$ graph $D(V,A)$, determining a Hamiltonian cycle in $\Gamma$ digraph is equivalent to find a perfect match $M$ in $G$ and $r(C^\prime)=n-1$, where $C^\prime$ is the incidence matrix of $D^\prime(V,L) \subseteq D$ and $L=\{a_i| a_i \in D \wedge e_i \in M\}$. \end{theorem} Let the each component of $G$ corresponding to a boolean variable, a monotonic function $f(M)$ is build to represents the number of component in $D$. Based on this function, the maximum number of non-isomorphism perfect matching is linear, thus complexity of $\Gamma$ digraphs has a answer. \begin{theorem} Given the incidence matrix $C_{nm}$ of a $\Gamma$ digraph , the complexity of finding a Hamiltonian cycle existing or not is $O(n^4)$ \end{theorem} The concepts of cycle and rank of graph are given in section $2$. Then theorems $1$,$2$,$3$ are proved in sections $3$,$4$,$5$ respectively. The last section discusses the $P$ versus $NP$ in more detail. \section{Definition and properties} Throughout this paper we consider the finite simple (un)directed graph $D=(V,A)$ ($G(V,E)$, respectively), i.e. the graph has no multi-arcs and no self loops. Let $n$ and $m$ denote the number of vertices $V$ and arcs $A$ (edges $E$, respectively), respectively. As conventional, let $|S|$ denote the number of a set $S$. The set of vertices $V$ and set of arcs of $A$ of a digraph $D(V,A)$ are denoted by $V=\{v_i | 1 \leq i \leq n\}$ and $A=\{a_j | (1 \leq j \leq m) \wedge a_j=<v_i,v_k>, (v_i \neq v_k \in V) \}$ respectively, where $ <v_i,v_k>$ is a arc from $v_i$ to $v_k$. Let the out degree of vertex $v_i$ denoted by $d^{+}(v_i)$, which has the in degree by denoted as $d^{-}(v_i)$ and has the degree $d(v_i)$ which equals $d^{+}(v_i)+d^{-}(v_i)$. Let the $N^+(v_i)=\{v_j| <v_i,v_j> \in A \}$, and $N^-(v_i)=\{v_j | <v_j,v_i> \in A \}$. Let us define a forward relation $ \bowtie $ between two arcs as following, $ a_i \bowtie a_j = v_k \: \mbox{iff}\: a_i=<v_i,v_k> \wedge a_j=<v_k, v_j> $. It is obvious that $|a_i \bowtie a_i|=0$ . A {\it cycle } $L$ is a set of arcs $(a_{1},a_{2},\ldots,a_{l})$ in a digraph $D$, which obeys two conditions: \begin{enumerate} \item[c1.] $ \forall a_i \in L,\exists a_j,a_k \in L \setminus \{a_i\},\; a_i \bowtie a_j \neq a_j \bowtie a_k \in V $ \item[c2.] $ | \bigcup\limits_{a_i \neq a_j \in L } {a_i \bowtie a_j} |=|L|$ \end{enumerate} If a cycle $L$ obeys the following conditions, it is a {\it simple cycle}. \begin{enumerate} \item[c3.] $\forall L' \subset L $, $L'$ does not satisfy both conditions $c1$ and $c2$. \end{enumerate} A {\it Hamiltonian cycle $L$} is also a simple cycle of length $n=|V| \geq 2$ in digraph. As for simplify, this paper given a sufficient condition of Hamiltonian cycle in digraph. \begin{lemma} If a digraph $D(V,A)$ include a sub graph $D^\prime(V,L)$ with following two properties, the $D$ is a Hamiltonian graph. \begin{enumerate} \item[c1.] $ \forall v_i \in D^\prime \rightarrow d^+(v_i)=1 \wedge d^-(v_i)=1$, \item[c2.] $ |L|=|V| \geq 2$ and $D^\prime$ is a strong connected digraph. \end{enumerate} \end{lemma} A graph that has at least one Hamiltonian cycle is called a {\it Hamiltonian graph}. A graph G=$(V;E)$ is bipartite if the vertex set $V$ can be partitioned into two sets $X$ and $Y$ (the bipartition) such that $\exists e_i \in E, x_j \in X, \forall x_k \in X \setminus \{x_j\}$, $(e_i \bowtie x_j \neq \emptyset \rightarrow e_i \bowtie x_k =\emptyset)$ ($e_i, Y$, respectively). if $|X|=|Y|$, We call that $G$ is a balanced bipartite graph. A matching $M \subseteq E$ is a collection of edges such that every vertex of $V$ is incident to at most one edge of $M$, a matching of balanced bipartite graph is perfect if $|M| = |X|$. Hopcroft and Karp shows that constructs a perfect matching of bipartite in $O((m + n)\sqrt{n})$ . The matching of bipartite has a relation with neighborhood of $X$. \begin{theorem} A bipartite graph $G=(X,Y;E)$ has a matching from $X$ into $Y$ if and only if $|N(S)| \geq S$, for any $S \subseteq X$. \end{theorem} \begin{lemma} A even length of simple cycle consist of two disjoin perfect matching. \end{lemma} Two matrices representation for graphs are defined as follows. \begin{definition} The incidence matrix $C$ of undirected graph $G$ is a two dimensional $n \times m$ table, each row represents one vertex, each column represents one edge, the $c_{ij}$ in $C$ are given by \begin{equation} c_{ij} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1, & \mbox{if $v_i \in e_j$;} \\ 0, & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} \end{definition} It is obvious that every column of an incidence matrix has exactly two $1$ entries. \begin{definition} The incidence matrix $C$ of directed graph $D$ is a two dimensional $n \times m$ table, each row represents one vertex, each column represents one arc the $c_{ij}$ in $C$ are given by \begin{equation} c_{ij} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1, & \mbox{if $<v_i,v_i> \bowtie a_j =v_i $;} \\ -1, & \mbox{if $a_j \bowtie <v_i,v_i>=v_i $;} \\ 0, & \mbox{$otherwise $}. \end{array} \right. \end{equation} \end{definition} It is obvious to obtain a corollary of the incidence matrix as following. \begin{corollary} Each column of an incidence matrix of digraph has exactly one $1$ and one $-1$ entries. \end{corollary} \begin{theorem} The $C$ is the incidence matrix of a directed graph with $k$ components the rank of $C$ is given by \begin{equation} r(C)=n-k \end{equation} \end{theorem} In order to convince to describe the graph $D$ properties, in this paper, we denotes the $r(D)=r(C)$. \section{Divided incidence matrix and Projector incidence matrix} Firstly, let us divided the matrix of $C$ into two groups. \begin{equation} C^+=\left\{c_{ij} | c_{ij} \geq 0 \mbox{ otherwise $0$ }\right \} \end{equation} \begin{equation} C^-=\left\{c_{ij} | c_{ij} \leq 0 \mbox{ otherwise $0$ } \right \} \end{equation} It is obvious that the matrix of $C^+$ represents the forward arc of a digraph and $C^-$ matrix represents the backward arc respectively. A corollary is deduced as following. \begin{corollary} A digraph $D=(V,A)$ is strong connected if and only if the rank of divided incidence matrix satisfies $r(C^+)=r(C^-)=|V|$. \end{corollary} Secondly, let us combined the the $C^+$ and $C^-$ as following matrix. \begin{equation} F=\left ( {\begin{array}{c c} C^+ \\ -C^- \end{array}}\right) \end{equation} In more additional, let $F$ represents as an incidence matrix of undirected graph $G( X,Y;E)$. The $F$ is named as {\it projector incidence matrix } of $C $ and $G$ is named as {\it projector graph }, where $X$ represents the vertices $V^+$ of $D$, $Y$ represents the vertices of $V^-$ respectively. In another words we build a mapping $F: D \rightarrow G$ and denotes it as $G=F(D)$. So the $F(D)$ has $2n$ vertices and $m$ edges if $D$ has $n$ vertices and $m$ arcs. We also build up a reverse mapping: $F^{-1}: G \rightarrow D$ When $G$ is a projector graph. To simplify, we also denotes the arcs $a_i=F^{-1}(e_i)$, $v_i^+=F^{-1}(x_i)$ and $v_i^-=F^{-1}(y_i)$. \subsection{Proof of Theorem~ } Firstly, let us prove the theorem~. \begin{proof} \begin{enumerate} \item[c1.] Since $\Gamma$ digraph is strong connected, then each vertices of $\Gamma$ digraph has at least one forward arcs, each row of $C^+$ has at least one $1$ entries, and the $U$ represents the $C^+$ , so $$|U|=n$$ the same principle of $C^-$, each row of $C^-$ has at least one $-1$ entries, and the $V$ represents the $C^-$ , so $$|V|=n$$ Since the columns of $F$ equal to the columns of $C$, $$|E|=m$$ \item[c2.] Since the degree of each $v_i$ of $\Gamma$ digraph is $ 1 \leq d^{+}(v_i) \leq 2$, $$ \forall u_i \in U \wedge 1 \leq d(u_i) \leq 2$$ Since the degree of each $v_i$ of $\Gamma$ digraph is $ 1 \leq d^{-}(v_i) \leq 2$, $$ \forall v_i \in V \wedge 1 \leq d(v_i) \leq 2$$ \item[c3.] Let us prove by contradiction, suppose there are $k>\frac{n}{4}$ components with length of $4$ in $G$. Since $D$ is strong connected, according to the corollary~, $r(F)=\frac{3n}{2}-q \geq r(C^+)=n$, where $q \geq k$ is number of components (including $k$ components with length of $4$). Thus $q \leq \frac{n}{2}$, then there are only $x$ components without length $4$, where $x$ is \begin{equation} x=q-k<\frac{n}{4} \end{equation} Suppose the remind $x$ components with length of $t$ (at least $t$ vertices connected by some edges), then $4k+xt=\frac{3n}{2}$. So $tx=\frac{3n}{2}-4k<\frac{n}{2}$. According to the equation~, the $t<2$. It is contradict that the $D$ is strong connected. \end{enumerate} \end{proof} \subsection{The cycle in digraph corresponding matching in projector graph} Secondly, let us given the properties after mapping Hamiltonian cycle $L$ of $D$ into the sub graph $M$ of projector graph $G$. \begin{lemma} If a Hamiltonian cycle $L$ of $D$ mapping into a forest $M$ of projector graph $G$, the forest $M$ consist of $|L|$ number of trees which has only two node and one edge, and $M$ has a unique perfect matching. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Let the $\Gamma$ digraph $D(V,A)$ has a sub digraph $D^\prime(V,L)$ which exists one Hamiltonian cycle and $|L|=n$, the incidence matrix $C$ of $L$ could be permutation as follows. \begin{equation} C = \left( {\begin{array}{llllll} 1&0&0&\ldots&0&-1\\ -1&1&0&\ldots&0&0\\ 0&-1&1&\ldots&0&0\\ 0&0&-1&\ldots&0&0\\ 0&0&0&\ldots&0&0\\ 0&0&0&\ldots&-1&1 \end{array} } \right ). \end{equation} Let $$ F=\left ( {\begin{array}{c c} C^+ \\ -C^- \end{array}}\right) $$ It is obvious that each row of $F$ has only one $1$ entry and each column of $F$ has two $1$ entries. According to theorem~, $F$ represents a balanced bipartite graph $G(X,Y;E)$ that each vertex has one edge connected, and each edge $e_i$ connect on vertex $x_i \in X$ , another in $Y$, in another words, $ \exists e_i \in E \, x_j \in X $,$ \forall x_k \in X \setminus \{x_j\}$, $e_i \bowtie x_j \neq \emptyset \rightarrow e_i \bowtie x_k =\emptyset $($e_i,Y$,respectively). According the matching definition, $M$ is a matching, since $|E|=|L|$, $E$ is a perfect matching. and pair of vertices between $X$ and $Y$ only has one edge, so $M$ is a forest, and each tree has only two node with one edge. \end{proof} \section{Proof of Theorem~ } \begin{proof} $\Rightarrow$ Let the $\Gamma$ digraph $D(V,A)$ has a sub digraph $D^\prime(V,L)$ which is a Hamiltonian cycle and $|L|=n$, let matrix $C^\prime$ represents the incidence matrix of $D^\prime$, so $r(C^\prime)=n-1$; According to lemma~, the projector graph $F(D^\prime)$ has a perfect matching, thus $F(D)$ also has a perfect matching. $\Leftarrow$ Let $G(X,Y;E)$ be a projector graph of the $\Gamma$ graph $D(V,A)$,$M$ is a perfect matching in $G$. Let $D^\prime(V,L)$ be a sub graph of $D(V,A)$ and $L=\{a_i |a_i \in D \wedge e_i \in M\}$. Since $r(L)=n-1$, $D^\prime(V,L)$ is a strong connected digraph. it deduces that $\forall v_i \in D^\prime $,$d^+(v_i) \geq 1 \wedge d^-(v_i) \geq 1$. Suppose $\exists v_i \in D^\prime$, $d^+(v_i) > 1$ ($d^-(v_i) > 1$ respectively), Since $|M|=n$, it deduces that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}d(v_i)>2n+1$, which imply that $|L|>n$. this is contradiction with $L=\{a_i |a_i \in D \wedge e_i \in M\}$ and $|M|=n$. So $\forall v_i \in D^\prime$, $d^+(v_i)=d^-(v_i)=1$, According the lemma~, $D^\prime$ has a Hamiltonian cycle. \end{proof} \section{ Number of perfect matching in projector graph } Let us considering the number of perfect matching in $G$ . Firstly, let us considering a example as shown in figure 1. \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \begin{picture}(10,4) \linethickness{0.065mm} \put(1, 0){Figure 1. Original Digraph $D$} \put(1, 1){\vector(0, 1){.8}} \put(1, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(1.2, 1.4){$a_8$} \put(1, 2){\vector(1, 0){.8}} \put(1, 2){\circle{.5}} \put(1.4, 2.1){$a_{1}$} \put(2, 1){\vector(-1,0){.8}} \put(2, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(1.4, .7){$a_{22}$} \put(2, 2){\vector(0, -1){.8}} \put(2, 2){\vector(1, 0){.8}} \put(2, 2){\circle{.5}} \put(2.4, 2.1){$a_2$} \put(2.2, 1.4){$a_9$} \put(3, 1){\vector(-1,0){.8}} \put(3, 1){\vector(0,1){.8}} \put(3, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(2.4, .7){$a_{21}$} \put(3.1, 1.4){$a_{10}$} \put(3, 2){\circle{.5}} \put(3, 2){\vector(1, 0){.8}} \put(3.4, 2.1){$a_{3}$} \put(4, 1){\vector(-1,0){.8}} \put(4, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(3.4, .7){$a_{20}$} \put(4, 2){\vector(0, -1){.8}} \put(4, 2){\vector(1, 0){.8}} \put(4, 2){\circle{.5}} \put(4.4, 2.1){$a_4$} \put(4.1, 1.4){$a_{11}$} \put(5, 1){\vector(-1,0){.8}} \put(5, 1){\vector(0,1){.8}} \put(5, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(4.4, .7){$a_{12}$} \put(5.1, 1.4){$a_{19}$} \put(5, 2){\circle{.5}} \put(5, 2){\vector(1, 0){.8}} \put(5.4, 2.1){$a_{5}$} \put(6, 1){\vector(-1,0){.8}} \put(6, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(5.4, .7){$a_{18}$} \put(6, 2){\vector(0, -1){.8}} \put(6, 2){\vector(1, 0){.8}} \put(6, 2){\circle{.5}} \put(6.4, 2.1){$a_6$} \put(6.1, 1.4){$a_{13}$} \put(7, 1){\vector(-1,0){.8}} \put(7, 1){\vector(0,1){.8}} \put(7, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(6.4, .7){$a_{17}$} \put(7.2, 1.4){$a_{14}$} \put(7, 2){\circle{.5}} \put(7, 2){\vector(1, 0){.8}} \put(7.4, 2.1){$a_{7}$} \put(8, 1){\vector(-1,0){.8}} \put(8, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(7.4, .7){$a_{16}$} \put(8, 2){\circle{.5}} \put(8, 2){\vector(0,-1){.8}} \put(8.4, 1.4){$a_{15}$} \end{picture} Then the projector graph is shown in figure 2. \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \begin{picture}(12,4) \linethickness{0.065mm} \put(1, 0){Figure 2. Projector graph $G$} \put(1, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(1, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(1, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(1.1, 1.4){$e_1$} \put(1.5, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(1.5, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(1.5, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(1.6, 1.4){$e_8$} \put(2, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(2, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(2, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(2.1, 1.4){$e_{22}$} \put(3, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(3, 1){\line(1, 2){1}} \put(3, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(3, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(2.5, 2.0){$e_{9}$} \put(3.2, 2.6){$e_{2}$} \put(3.3, .4){$G_1$} \put(4, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(4, 1){\line(-1, 2){1}} \put(4, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(4, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(4.1, 1.4){$e_{10}$} \put(3.6, 2.1){$e_{21}$} \put(4.6, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(4.6, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(4.6, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(4.7, 1.4){$e_3$} \put(5.3, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(5.3, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(5.3, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(5.4, 1.4){$e_{20}$} \put(6, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(6, 1){\line(1, 2){1}} \put(6, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(6, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(5.8, 2.0){$e_{11}$} \put(6.2, 2.6){$e_{4}$} \put(6.3, .4){$G_2$} \put(7, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(7, 1){\line(-1, 2){1}} \put(7, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(7, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(7.1, 1.4){$e_{19}$} \put(6.6, 2.1){$e_{12}$} \put(7.7, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(7.7, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(7.7, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(7.7, 1.4){$e_5$} \put(8.3, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(8.3, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(8.3, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(8.3, 1.4){$e_{18}$} \put(9, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(9, 1){\line(1, 2){1}} \put(9, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(9, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(8.6, 2.0){$e_{6}$} \put(9.2, 2.6){$e_{13}$} \put(9.3, .4){$G_3$} \put(10, 1){\line(0, 1){1.8}} \put(10, 1){\line(-1, 2){1}} \put(10, 1){\circle{.5}} \put(10, 3){\circle{.5}} \put(9.6, 2.1){$e_{17}$} \put(10.3, 1.4){$e_{14}$} \put(10.6, 2.0){$\ldots$} \end{picture} Given a perfect matching $M$, each component(cycle) in $G$ has two partition edges belong to $M$. Let us code component $G_i$ which $|G_i|>2$ and matching $M$ to a binary variable. \begin{equation} G_{i} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1, & \mbox{if $G_i \cap M =\{e_j,e_k,\ldots \} $;} \\ 0, & \mbox{if $G_i \cap M =\{e_l,e_q,\ldots \} $.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} Now there are two cases for the number of perfect matching. \begin{enumerate} \item [Label edge.] In that cases, the $Code(M_1)=\{0,0,1\}$ is different with $Code(M_2)=\{0,1,0\}$. If there are $k$ number of components(cycles), then there are $2^k$ perfect matching. \item [Unlabel edge.] In that cases, the $Code(M_1)=\{0,0,1\}$ is isomorphic to $Code(M_2)=\{0,1,0\}$. The same principle that $Code(M_3)=\{0,1,1\}$ is isomorphic to $Code(M_4)=\{1,1,0\}$ but is not isomorphic to $Code(M_1)$. \end{enumerate} Then let us summary the maximal number of perfect matching in these two cases. \begin{lemma} The maximal number of labeled perfect matching in a projector graph $G$ is $2^{\frac{n}{4}}$, but the maximal number of unlabeled perfect matching in a projector graph $G$ is $\frac{n}{2}$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} According to the theorem~, there at most $\frac{n}{4}$ components with a components which is length of $k=4$. When $k$=2, there are only one perfect matching in $G$; When $k=4$, there are $\frac{n}{4}$ components which is $C_4$, and so on when $k=6$, there are $\frac{n}{6}$ components which is $C_6$, etc, so on. According to the lemma~, each simple cycle has divided the perfect matching into two class. So maximal number perfect matching in the non isomorphism cycle which is $2^{\frac{n}{4}}$. Since in unlabeled cases, every $C_4$ cycle is isomorphism, the maximal number of perfect matching is $2*\frac{n}{4}=\frac{n}{2}$. \end{proof} Review the example 1 again, it is easy find that follow proposition. \begin{proposition} Given two perfect matching $M1$ and $M2$ in projector graph $G$, if $code(M1)=code(M2)$, then the $r(F^{-1}(M1))=r(F^{-1}(M2))$. \end{proposition} \subsection{Proof of Theorem~ } Now let us proof the theorem~. \begin{proof} Let $G$ be a project balanced bipartition of $D$. According theorem~, the $\Gamma$ graph is equivalent to find a perfect match $M$ in a project $G$. According to the lemma~, the maximal number non isomorphism perfect matching in $G$ is only $n$. Thus it is only need exactly enumerate all of non isomorphism perfect matching $M$, then obtain the $value=r(F^{-1}(M))$,if $value=n-1$, then the $e_i \in M$ is also $e_i \in C$, where $C \subset D$ is a Hamiltonian cycle. Since the complexity of rank of matrix is $O(n^3)$, finding a simple cycle in a component with degree $2$ is $O(n^2)$, and obtaining a perfect matching of a bipartite graph is $O((m+n)\sqrt{n})<O(n^2)$ . Then all exactly algorithms need to calculate the $n$ time $o(n^3)$. Thus the complexity is $O(n^4)$. \end{proof} Since the non isomorphism perfect matching comes from the coding of edges in the component of $G$, it is not easy implementation. Let us give two recursive equation to obtain a perfect matching $M$ from $G$. Suppose there are $k$ component $G_1,G_2,\ldots G_k$ in $G$ where $G_i$ is a component with degree $2$ and $|E_i| \geq 3$. \begin{equation} M^\prime= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} M(t) \otimes G_t, & \mbox{ $G_t$ is a cycle }; \\ M(t), & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} \begin{equation} M(t+1)= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} M^\prime, & \mbox{if $r(F^{-1}(M^\prime)) > r(F^{-1}(M(t)))$ }; \\ M(t), & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} where $t \leq k-1$, when $t=0$, $M(0)$ is the initial perfect matching from $G$. When $r(F^{-1}(M(t)))=n-1$, According the theorem~, the $A=F^{-1}(M(t))$ is a Hamiltonian cycle solution. If all of $r(F^{-1}(M(t)))<n-1$, then there has no Hamiltonian cycle in $D$. Since the non isomorphism perfect matching $M$ in $G$ is poset, the function $r(F^{-1}(M))$ in $G$ is monotonic, so this approach is exactly approach. Let us give a example to illustrate the approach in detail. \begin{example} Considering the digraph $D$ in figure 1, then the projector graph $G$ in figure 2. Let $M(0)=\{e_1,e_8,e_{22},e_9,e_{10},e_3,e_{20},e_{11},e_{19},e_5,e_{18},e_6, e_{17},e_7,e_{15},e_{16} \} $. Thus the $r(F^{-1}(M(0))=n-3$. Let $M^\prime=r(F^{-1}(M(0) \otimes G_3)$,then $r(F^{-1}(M^\prime)=n-4$, thus $M(1)=M(0)$ and then turn to $G_2$,$G_1$. At last it obtain the solution. \end{example} Considering the equation~, let it substituted by following equations when $r(M^\prime)=n-1$ and $t < k-1$. \begin{equation} M(t+1)=M^\prime \mbox{ if $r(F^{-1}(M^\prime)) \geq r(F^{-1}(M(t)))$ } \end{equation} It is obvious that all non-isomorphism Hamiltonian cycle could obtain by the repeat check the equation~ and the equation $r(M^\prime)=n-1$. In conversely, if a Hamiltonian cycle of $\Gamma$ digraphs is given, it represents a perfect matching $M$ in its projector graph $G$. Thus the equation~ and Theorem~ follows a corollary. \begin{corollary} Given a Hamiltonian $\Gamma$ digraph, the complexity of determining another non-isomorphism Hamiltonian cycle is polynomial time. \end{corollary} \subsection{ The HCP in digraph with bound two} Let us extend the Theorem~ to digraphs with $d^+(v) \leq 2$ and $d^-(v) \leq 2$ in this section. \begin{theorem} The complexity of finding a Hamiltonian cycle existing or not in digraphs with degree $d^+(v)\leq 2$ and $d^-(v)\leq 2$ is polynomial time. \end{theorem} \begin{proof} Suppose a digraph $D(V,A)$ having a vertex $v_i$ is shown as figure $3$, which is $d^(v_i) =2 \wedge d^-(v_i) =2 $ \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \begin{picture}(8,4) \linethickness{0.065mm} \put(1, 0){Figure 3. A vertex with degree than 2} \put(1, 1){\vector(2, 1){1.8}} \put(1, 3){\vector(2,-1){1.8}} \put(3, 2){\circle{.5}} \put(1.2, 1.4){$a1$} \put(1.2, 3.1){$a2$} \put(3.2, 2){\vector(2, 1){1.8}} \put(3.2, 2){\vector(2,-1){1.8}} \put(4.2, 1.0){$a3$} \put(4.2, 2.8){$a4$} \end{picture} Let us spilt this vertex to two vertices that one of vertex has degree with in degree 2 or out degree 1 , another vertex has degree with in degree 1 or out degree 2 as shown in figure $4$. Then the $D$ is derived to a new $\Gamma$ graph $S$. \begin{picture}( 10,4) \linethickness{0.065mm} \put(1, 0){Figrue 4 A vertex in $D$ is mapping to a vertex in $\Gamma$ digraph} \thicklines \put(1, 1){\vector(2, 1){1.8}} \put(1, 2){\vector(1, 0){1.8}} \put(3, 2){\circle{.3}} \put(1.2, 1.4){$a1$} \put(1.2, 2.1){$a2$} \put(3.2, 2){\vector(1,0){1.8}} \put(5.6, 1.4){$a3$} \put(5,2){\circle{.3}} \put(6.2, 2.8){$a4$} \put(5.2,2){\vector(2,1){1.8}} \put(5.2, 2){\vector(1,0){1.8}} \end{picture} It is obvious that each vertex in the $\Gamma$ graph $S$ has increase $1$ vertices and $1$ arcs of $D$. Suppose the worst cases is each vertex in $D$ has in degree 2 and out degree 2, the total vertices in $S$ has $2n$ vertices. According to the theorem~, obtain a Hailtonian cycle $L^\prime$ in $S$ is no more then $O(n^4)$, then the $D$ will has a Hamiltonian cycle $L^\prime=L \cap A$. \end{proof} \section{ Discussion P versus NP} The $P$ versus $NP$ is a famous open problem in computer science and mathematics, which means to determine whether very language accepted by some nondeterministic algorithm in polynomial time is also accepted by some deterministic algorithm in polynomial time . Cook give a proposition for the $P$ versus $NP$. \begin{proposition} If L is NP-complete and $L \in P$, then $P=NP$. \end{proposition} According above proposition and the result above section, $P$ versus $NP$ problem has a answer. \begin{theorem} $P=NP$ \end{theorem} \begin{proof} As the result of , the complexity of HCP in digraph with bound two is $NP-complete$. According the theorem~, the complexity of HCP in digraph with bound two is also $P$, thus according to proposition~, $P=NP$. \end{proof} In fact, the proves that $ 3SAT \preceq _{p} HCP \; of \; \Gamma \; digraph$, since $3SAT$ is a $NPC$ problem, which also implies that $P=NP$. \section{Conclusion} According to the theorem~, the complexity of determining a Hamiltonian cycle existence or not in digraph with bound degree two is in polynomial time. And according to the theorem~, $P$ versus $NP$ problem has closed, $P=NP$. \section*{Acknowledgements} The author would like to thank Prof. Kaoru Hirota for valuable suggestions, thank Prof. J{\o}rgen Bang-Jensen who called mine attention to the paper , and thank Andrea Moro for useful discussions. \thebibliography{6} \itemsep=0pt \bibitem{Johnson1985} Papadimitriou, C. H. {\it Computational complexity }, in Lawler, E. L., J. K. Lenstra, A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan, and D. B. Shmoys, eds., The Traveling Salesman Problem: A Guided Tour of Combinatorial Optimization. Wiley, Chichester, UK. (1985), 37--85 \bibitem{PLESNIK1978} J.Plesn{\'\i}k,{\it The NP-Completeness of the Hamiltonian Cycle Problem in Planar digraphs with degree bound two}, Journal Information Processing Letters, Vol.8(1978), 199--201 \bibitem{Hopcroft1973} J.E. Hopcroft and R.M. Karp , {\it An $n^{5/2} $ Algorithm for Maximum Matchings in Bipartite Graphs }. SIAM J. Comput. Vol.2, (1973), 225--231 \bibitem{Hall1935} P. Hall, { \it On representative of subsets}, J. London Math. Soc. 10, (1935), 26--30 \bibitem{Pearl1973} Pearl, M, { \it Matrix Theory and Finite Mathematics},McGraw-Hill, New York,(1973), 332--404. \bibitem{cook2000} Stephen Cook. {\it The {P} Versus {NP} Problem },"http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/302888.html" ,2000.
|
0704.0318
|
Title: Effects of Dirac sea on pion propagation in asymmetric nuclear matter
Abstract: We study pion propagation in asymmetric nuclear matter (ANM). One of the
interesting consequences of pion propagation in ANM is the mode splitting for
the different charged states of pions. First we describe the pion-nucleon
dynamics using the non-chiral model where one starts with pseudoscalar (PS)
$\pi$N coupling and the pseudovector (PV) representation is obtained via
suitable non-linear field transformations. For both of these cases the effect
of the Dirac sea is estimated. Subsequently, we present results using the
chiral effective Lagrangian where the short-distance behavior (Dirac vacuum) is
included by re-defining the field parameters as done in the modern effective
field theory approach developed recently. The results are compared with the
previous calculations for the case of symmetric nuclear matter (SNM). Closed
form analytical results are presented for the effective pion masses and
dispersion relations by making hard nucleon loop (HNL) approximation and
suitable density expansion.
Body: \title{Effects of Dirac sea on pion propagation in asymmetric nuclear matter} \author{Subhrajyoti Biswas and Abhee K. Dutt-Mazumder} \address{Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700 064, INDIA} \medskip \begin{abstract} We study pion propagation in asymmetric nuclear matter (ANM). One of the interesting consequences of pion propagation in ANM is the mode splitting for the different charged states of pions. First we describe the pion-nucleon dynamics using the non-chiral model where one starts with pseudoscalar (PS) $\pi$N coupling and the pseudovector (PV) representation is obtained via suitable non-linear field transformations. For both of these cases the effect of the Dirac sea is estimated. Subsequently, we present results using the chiral effective Lagrangian where the short-distance behavior (Dirac vacuum) is included by re-defining the field parameters as done in the modern effective field theory approach developed recently. The results are compared with the previous calculations for the case of symmetric nuclear matter (SNM). Closed form analytical results are presented for the effective pion masses and dispersion relations by making hard nucleon loop (HNL) approximation and suitable density expansion. \end{abstract} \vspace{0.08 cm} \date{\today} \pacs{21.65.+f, 13.75.Cs, 13.75.Gx, 21.30.Fe} \keywords{Dirac sea, isospin, symmetry, collective modes} \maketitle \section{introduction} Pions in nuclear physics assume a special status. It is responsible for the spin-isospin dependent long range part of the nuclear force. In addition, there are variety of physical phenomena related to the pion propagation in nuclear matter. One of the fascinating ideas in relation to the pion-nucleon dynamics in nuclear matter is the pion condensation . This might happen if there exists space like zero energy excitation of pionic modes. The short-range correlation, on the other hand, removes such a possibility at least at densities near the saturation densities. In the context of relativistic heavy ion collisions (RHIC), the importance of medium modified pion spectrum was discussed by Mishustin, where it was shown that due to the lowering of energy, pion, in nuclear matter, might carry a bulk amount of entropy . Subsequently, Gyulassy and Greiner studied pionic instability in great detail in the context of RHIC . The production of pionic modes in nuclear collisions was also discussed in .\\ In experiments medium dependent pion dispersion relation can also be probed via the measurements of dilepton invariant mass spectrum. The lepton pairs produced with invariant mass near the $\rho$ pole are sensitive to the slope of the pion dispersion relation in matter . Particularly the softening of momentum dependence of the pion dispersion relation in matter leads to higher yield of dileptons. Gale and Kapusta were first to realize that the in-medium pion dynamics can be studied by measuring lepton pair productions . Most of the earlier studies of in-medium pion properties were performed in the non-relativistic frame work . A quasi-relativistic approach was taken in where the calculations were extended to finite temperature. In particular, discusses various non-collective modes with the possibility of pion condensation. In , on the other hand, the dilepton production rates were calculated using non-relativistic pion dispersion relations. Ref. treated the problem relativistically but free Fermi gas model was used, while in pion propagation was studied by extending the Walecka model including delta baryon. In recent years, there has been significant progress to calculate dilepton production rates involving pionic properties in a more realistic framework .\\ In the present paper we study pion dispersion relations in ANM using relativistic models. This is important as most of the calculations, as mentioned above, are either restricted to SNM or performed in the non-relativistic framework. Here we focus on the propagating modes of various charged states of pions which are non degenerate in ANM. The importance of relativistic corrections and density dependent pion mass splitting in ANM in the context of deriving pion-nucleus optical potential was discussed in . The formalism adopted in was that of chiral perturbation theory. Recently, in the context of astrophysics, pionic properties in ANM has also been studied by involving Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model . Motivated by present authors revisited the problem in ref. where not only the static self-energy responsible for the mass splitting but the full dispersion relations for the various charged states of pions were calculated after performing relevant density expansion in terms of the Fermi momentum. However, in our previous work , pions were included via straight forward PV coupling in the Walecka model which renders the theory non-renormalizable. Although the problem of non-renormalizibility could be avoided by considering the PS $\p$N coupling. This, on the other hand, fails to account for the pion-nucleon phenomenology.\\ Historically, the extension of the Walecka model to include the isovector $\pi$ and $\rho$ meson for the realistic description of dense nuclear matter (DNM) while retaining the renormalizibility of the theory was first made by Serot . However, in this work, the calculation was restricted only to the mean field level which gives to rise tachyonic mode for pions even at density as low as $0.1\rho_0$, where $\rho_0$ denotes normal nuclear matter (NNM) density . Such a non-propagating mode for the pions can be removed by extending the calculation beyond the mean field level as showed by Kapusta . This, in effect, means inclusion of the $\pi$-$NN$ loop while calculating the in-medium dressed propagator for the pion. This model has an added advantage because of the presence of $\p$-$\s$ coupling in addition to the usual PS coupling of the pion with the nucleons which is responsible for the generation of small s-wave pion nucleon interaction in vacuum. This is consistent with the observed characteristics of the pion-nucleon interaction which is dominated by the p-wave scattering while the $s$-wave scattering length is almost zero. In matter, however, as argued in , such subtle cancellation does not occur resulting in a unrealistically large mass for the pions in matter. To circumvent this problem it was suggested in to use the pseudovector coupling even though it makes the theory non-renormalizable.\\ The theoretical challenge, therefore, is to construct a model with $\p$N PV interaction which preserves the renormalizibility of the theory. This was accomplished in ref.~ following the technique developed by Weinberg and Schwinger . Here one starts with the PS coupling and subsequently invokes non-linear field transformations to obtain PV representation. Unlike straight forward inclusion of PV interaction in this method one requires only finite number of counter terms which makes the theory renormalizable. We, here, start with this model developed by Matsui and Serot to study the pion propagation in ANM. Clearly, the model adopted here is different from what we had invoked in our previous work . Furthermore, in , for the determination of pion self-energy in matter only the scattering from the Fermi sphere was considered and the vacuum part was completely ignored. The latter gives rise to a large contribution to the pion self-energy in presence of strong scalar density ($\rho_s$).\\ The above mentioned model has various shortcomings too. In fact, the ref. itself discusses its limitations in describing many body $\pi N$ dynamics. For example, the successful description of the saturation properties of nuclear matter in this scheme requires higher scalar mass which gives rise to larger in-medium nucleon mass compared to the MFT. In addition, it also fails to account for the observed pion-nucleus scattering length at finite density . In the same work, chiral $\pi$-$\sigma$ model has also been discussed to which we shall come later. In the end, we present results calculated using this non-chiral model together with what we obtain from a chirally invariant Lagrangian.\\ In we have discussed another interesting possibility of the density driven $\pi$-$\eta$ mixing in ANM. However, quantitatively, the mixing was found to be a higher order effect and does not affect the pion dispersion relations at the leading order in density. Hence in the present paper we neglect $\p$-$\eta$ mixing.\\ The plan of the paper is as follows. In section II we present the formalism, where we start with PS coupling in subsection A. In II B we invoke non-linear field transformation and subsequently report results involving PV coupling. In section III we present results using recently developed chiral effective model in the context of nuclear many body problem . Finally, section IV presents the summary and conclusion. Detailed derivations for the Dirac part of the pion self-energy for PS and PV couplings have been relegated to appendix A and B respectively.\\ \section{Formalism} \subsection{Model with pseudoscalar $\p N$ interaction} We start with the following interaction Lagrangian given by , \bwt \bea \mathcal{L} &=& \bar{\Psi}(i\g_\m \partial^\m - M)\Psi - \f{1}{2}g_\rho\bar{\Psi}\g_\m(\v{\t} \cdot \v{\Phi}^\m_\rho)\Psi + g_s\bar{\Psi}\Phi_s\Psi - g_\o\bar{\Psi}\g_\m\Phi^\m_\o\Psi - ig_\p\bar{\Psi}\g_5(\v{\t}\cdot\v{\Phi}_\p)\Psi \nn \\ &+& \f{1}{2}(\partial_\m\Phi_s\partial^\m\Phi_s - m^2_s\Phi^2_s) + \f{1}{2}(\partial_\m \v{\Phi}_\p - g_\rho \v{\Phi}_{\rho\m}\times\v{\Phi}_\p)\cdot (\partial^\m \v{\Phi}_\p - g_\rho \v{\Phi}^\m_{\rho}\times\v{\Phi}_\p)\nn \\ &-& \f{1}{2}m^2_\p\v{\Phi}^2_\p + \f{1}{2}g_{\phi\p}m_s\Phi_s\v{\Phi}^2_\p - \f{1}{4}G_{\m\n}G^{\m\n} -\f{1}{4}\v{B}_{\m\n}\cdot\v{B}^{\m\n} + \f{1}{2}m^2_\o\Phi_{\o\m}\Phi^\m_\o + \f{1}{2}m^2_\rho\v{\Phi}_{\rho\m}\cdot\v{\Phi}^\m_\rho \eea \ewt where, \bse \bea G_{\m\n} &=& \partial_\m \Phi_{\o\n} - \partial_\n \Phi_{\o\m} \\ \v{B}_{\m\n} &=& \partial_\m \v{\Phi}_{\rho\n} - \partial_\n \v{\Phi}_{\rho\m} - g_\rho \v{\Phi}_{\rho\m}\times\v{\Phi}_{\rho\n}. \eea \ese Here, $\Psi$, $\v{\Phi}_\p$, $\Phi_s$, $\v{\Phi}_\rho$ and $\Phi_\o$ represents the nucleon, pion, sigma, rho and omega fields respectively and their masses are denoted by $M$, $m_\p$, $m_s$, $m_\rho$ and $m_\o$. This model successfully reproduces the saturation properties of nuclear matter and yields accurate results for closed shell nuclei in the Dirac-Hartree approximation .\\ It is to be noted that in Eq.() the pion-nucleon dynamics is described by \bea {\cal L}^{PS}=-ig_\p\bar{\Psi}\g_5 \lt(\v{\t}\cdot {\v{\Phi}}_\p\rt){\Psi} \eea where, $g_\p$ is the pion-nucleon coupling constant with $\f{g^2_\p}{4\p}=12.6$ . This apart, the interaction Lagrangian of Eq.() also has another term involving the coupling of pions with the scalar meson given by \be \mathcal{L}_s = \f{1}{2}g_{\phi\p} m_s \Phi_s \v{\Phi}^2_\p \ee Here, $g_{\phi\p}$ is the coupling constant of the scalar to pion field. The $\p$N scattering amplitude would now involve both nucleon and sigma meson in the intermediate state causing sensitive cancellation between the two that gives reasonable value of the $s$-wave scattering length as mentioned before. At the self-energy level Eq.() and () will generate the exchange and the tadpole diagram as shown in Fig.b and a.\\ First we consider the tadpole diagram whose contribution to the self-energy is given by $\S^{TC} = - g_{\phi\p} m_s \phi_0$ where, $\phi_0 = \f{g_s}{m^2_s}\rho^s$ and $\rho^s (= \rho^s_p + \rho^s_n)$. Here $\rho^s_i (i = p,n)$ represents scalar density given by \bea \rho^s_i=\frac{M^*_i}{2\pi^2} \left[E^*_i k_i - M^{* 2}_i \ln \left ( \frac{E^*_i + k_i}{M^*_i}\right )\right ]. \eea The effective nucleon mass $M^*_i$ as appears in Eq.() can be determined from the following self-consistent condition . \bea M^*_i=M_i- \frac{g^2_s}{m^2_s} (\rho^s_p+\rho^s_n) \eea It is clear from Eq.() that $\Dt M^* = M_n-M_p = \Dt M$ as the nucleon masses are modified by scalar mean field which does not distinguish between $n$ and $p$. Here, for the moment we neglect explicit symmetry breaking ($n$-$p$ mass difference) {\em i.e.} $M^*_p=M^*_n=M^*$.\\ It is to be noted that in the mean field theory (MFT), only Fig.(a), {\em i.e.} the tadpole diagram contributes, while Fig.(b) is neglected. The origin of tachyonic mode can now easily be understood. The pion mass in matter due to the tadpole is given by \bea m_\pi^{* 2}&=& m_\pi^2+\S^{TC} \nn \\ &=& m_\pi^2-g_{\phi\pi} m_s \phi_0\nn\\ &=& m_\pi^2-\frac{g_{\phi\pi} g_s}{m_s} (\rho_n^s+\rho_p^s) \eea The second term of the last equation is quite large even at densities far below $\rho_0$ density {\em viz.} for $\rho \sim 0.1\rho_0$ $m^{*2}_\p < 0$. Fig.b would involve various combinations of $n$ and $p$ depending upon the various charged states of pions as shown in Fig.(a) and Fig.(b). \bea \S^*(q)&=& -i\int\f{d^4k}{(2\p)^4}\nn \\ & \times & Tr[\{i\G(q)\}iG_i(k+q)\{i\G(-q)\}iG_j(k)]\nn\\ & & \eea where the subscript $i (j)$ denotes either $p$ (proton) or $n$ (neutron). $\G(q)$ is the vertex factor. $\G = -i\g_5$ or $- i\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\g_5\g_\m q^\m $ for PS and PV coupling respectively. Explicitly, \bea G_i(k)=G^F_i(k)+G^D_i(k). \eea where, \bse \bea G^F_i(k)&=&\frac{k\!\!\!/+M^*_i}{k^2-M^{* 2}_i+i\z} \\ G^D_i(k)&=&\frac{i\pi(k\!\!\!/+M^*_i)}{E^*_i}\delta(k_0-E^*_i) \theta(k^F_i-|{\bf k}|) \eea \ese Here, $G^F_i(k)$ and $G^D_i(k)$ represent the free and the density dependent part of the propagator. In Eq.() $k$ is the nucleon momentum; $k^F_i$ denotes the Fermi momentum and $M^*_i$ is the in-medium nucleon mass modified due to scalar mean field . We, from now onward, use $k_p$ and $k_n$ to denote the proton and neutron Fermi momentum respectively.The nucleon energy is $E^*_i=\sqrt{M^{*2}_i + {\bf k}^2}$. \\ Note that the total self-energy is given by $\S^*_{total}(q) = \S^*(q) + \S^{TC}$. Using Eq.() and Eq.(), the expression for self-energy given in Eq.() takes the following form : \bea \S^*(q) &=& -ig^2\int\f{d^4k}{(2\p)^4}{\bf T} \nn \\ &=& \S^{*FF}(q) + \S^{*(FD+DF)}(q) + \S^{*DD}(q) \eea Here $g$ is $g_\p$ $(f_\p/m_\p)$ for $PS$ (PV) coupling. For $\p^\pm$ the coupling constant $g_\p$ (or $f_\p$) gets replaced by $\sqrt{2}g_\p$. The values of the coupling constants $g_\p$ and $f_\p$ are determined experimentally from $\p$N and NN scattering data. ${\bf T}$ is the trace factor which consists of four parts : \bea {\bf T} = {\bf T}^{FF} + {\bf T}^{FD} + {\bf T}^{DF} + {\bf T}^{DD} \eea Detailed expressions for ${\bf T}^{FF}$, ${\bf T}^{FD}$ and ${\bf T}^{DF}$ will be discussed later. Here the term ${\bf T}^{DD}$ contains the product of two delta functions ($G^D(k)G^D(k+q)$) which put both the loop-nucleons on shell implying the cut in the loop (Fig.a). This means that pion can decay into nucleon-antinucleon (Fig.b) pair which happens only in the high momentum limit {\em i.e} $q> 2k_{p,n}$ and also $q_0>2E^F_{p,n}$ where $E^F_{p,n}$ is the Fermi energy for proton (or neutron). Under this conditions only ${\bf T}^{DD}$ contributes to the self-energy. But in the present calculation, we investigate low momentum (of pion) collective excitations only . Therefore ${\bf T}^{DD}$ ({\em i.e} $\S^{*DD}(q)$) is neglected.\\ Thus, the pion self-energy can now be written as: \bea \S^*(q)&=& -ig^2\int\f{d^4k}{(2\p)^4}\lt[ {\bf T}^{FF} + \lt( {\bf T}^{FD}+{\bf T}^{DF}\rt) \rt] \eea The self-energies for different charged states of pion are calculated using the one-loop diagram shown in the Fig.(b). The first term of Eq.() is same as the pion self-energy in vacuum with $M_i \ra M^*_i$. This part is divergent. \bea {\bf T}^{FF}_{PS} &= &2~Tr \lt[\g_5iG^F(k)\g_5iG^F(k+q) \rt]\nn \\ &=& -8\lt[ \f{M^{*2}-k\cdot(k+q)}{(k^2-M^{*2})\lt((k+q)^2-M^{*2} \rt)} \rt] \eea Here factor 2 that appears in ${\bf T}^{FF}_{PS}$, {\em i. e.} in Eq.(), follows from isospin symmetry for $M_n = M_p$. The $FF$ part of self-energy for PS coupling is calculated from Eq.() by substituting ${\bf T}^{FF}_{PS}$ and it is denoted by $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$. \bea \S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)&=& 8ig^2_\p\int\f{d^4k}{(2\p)^4}\nn \\ & \times & \lt[\f{M^{*2}-k\cdot(k+q)}{(k^2-M^{*2})\lt((k+q)^2-M^{*2} \rt)} \rt] \eea From Eq.() it is observed that $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$ is quadratically divergent. To eliminate these divergences we need to renormalize $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$. Here we adopt the dimensional regularization technique to regularize $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$ with the following results (details are discussed in appendix A). \bwt \bea \S^{*R}_{PS}(q,m_\p) &=& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\lt[-3(M^2-M^{*2})+\right. \left.(q^2-m^2_\p)\lt(\f{1}{6}+\f{M^2}{m^2_\p}\rt) \right. \left. - 2M^{*2}\ln\lt(\f{M^*}{M}\rt)+\f{8M^2(M-M^*)^2}{(4M^2-m^2_\p)}\right. \nn \\ &-& \left. \f{2M^{*2}\sqrt{4M^{*2}-q^2}}{q} \right. \left. \tan^{-1}\lt(\f{q}{\sqrt{4M^{*2}-q^2}} \rt) \right. +\left. \f{2M^2\sqrt{4M^2-m^2_\p}}{m_\p} \right. \left. \tan^{-1}\lt(\f{m_\p}{\sqrt{4M^2-m^2_\p}} \rt) \right. \nn \\ &+& \left. \lt( (M^2-M^{*2})+\f{m^2_\p(M-M^*)^2}{(4M^2-m^2_\p)} \right. \left. + \f{M^2}{m^2_\p}(q^2-m^2_\p) \rt) \right. \left. \f{8M^2}{m_\p\sqrt{4M^2-m^2_\p}} \right. \left. \tan^{-1}\lt(\f{m_\p}{\sqrt{4M^2-m^2_\p} }\rt) \right. \nn \\ &+& \left. \int^1_0 dx~3x(1-x)q^2 \right. \left. \ln\lt( \f{M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)}{M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x)} \rt)\right] \eea \ewt It is found that the result given in Eq.() is finite and no divergences appear further. In the appropriate kinematic regime it might generate imaginary part: \bea {\rm Im}~\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q) & = & -\f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\int^1_0~dx~\lt(M^{*2}-3q^2x(1-x)\rt)\nn \\ &\times & {\rm Im}\lt[\ln\lt(M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)-i\eta\rt)\rt] \nn \\ &=&-\f{g^2_\p}{4\p} \lt[q\sqrt{q^2-4M^{*2}}\rt]~\th\lt(q^2-4M^{*2}\rt)\nn \\ & & \eea If we consider that $(M^*-M)$ is small enough then the term $\ln[(M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x))/(M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x))]$ of Eq.() can be approximated to $2\ln(M^*/M)$ and the last term of Eq.() can be easily evaluated to give \bea \S^{*R}_{PS}(q,m_\p)\simeq - \tilde{\mathcal{C}} + \tilde{\mathcal{D}}q^2. \eea where, \be\left.\begin{array}{ll} \tilde{\mathcal{C}}&= \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[3(2M^2-M^{*2})+2M^{*2}\ln\lt(\f{M^*}{M}\rt)\rt] \\ & \\ \tilde{\mathcal{D}}&= \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[3\lt(\f{M}{m_\p} \rt)^2 \rt]\end{array}~ \right\}\ee The trace of (FD+DF) part for $\p^0$, \bea T^{FD}_{PS}+T^{DF}_{PS} &=& Tr \lt[\g_5G^F_p(k+q)\g_5G^D_p(k) \rt. \nn \\ &+& \lt. \g_5G^D_p(k+q)\g_5G^F_p(k)\rt] + \lt[p \ra n\rt] \eea and for $\p^{+(-)}$, \bea T^{FD}_{PS}+T^{DF}_{PS}&=&Tr \lt[\g_5G^F_{p(n)}(k+q)\g_5G^D_{n(p)}(k) \rt. \nn \\ &+& \lt. \g_5G^D_{p(n)}(k+q)\g_5G^F_{n(p)}(k) \rt] \eea The $(FD+DF)$ part of the self-energy for $\p^0$ and $\p^\pm$ can be written as \bea \S^{*0(FD+DF)}_{PS}(q)&=& -8g^2_\p\int \f{d^3k}{(2\p)^3E^*}{\bf A}_{PS} \\ \S^{*\pm(FD+DF)}_{PS}(q)&=& -8g^2_\p\int \f{d^3k}{(2\p)^3E^*} [{\bf A}_{PS} \mp {\bf B}_{PS}] \nn \\ & = & \S^{*0(FD+DF)}_{PS}(q)~\mp ~\dt\S^{*(FD+DF)}_{PS}(q),\nn \\ & & \eea where, \bea {\bf A}_{PS} & = & \lt[\f{(k\cdot q)^2}{q^4 - 4(k\cdot q)^2} \rt] (\th_p +\th_n) \\ {\bf B}_{PS}& = &\f{1}{2}\lt[\f{q^2(k\cdot q)}{q^4-4(k\cdot q)^2} \rt] (\th_p - \th_n) \eea with $\th_{p,n}=\th(k_{p,n}-|{\bf k}|)$. We restrict ourselves in the long wavelength limit {\em i.e.} when the pion momentum $({\bf q})$ is small compared to the Fermi momentum $(k_{p,n})$ of the system where the many body effects manifest strongly. In this case particle propagation can be understood in terms of collective excitation of the system which permits analytical solutions of the dispersion relations . But in the short wavelength limit {\em i.e.} when the pion momentum $({\bf q})$ is much larger than the Fermi momentum $(k_{p,n})$, particle dispersion approaches to that of the free propagation. Note that for SNM ${\bf B}_{PS} = 0$ implying $\S^{*\pm(FD+DF)}_{PS} = \S^{*0(FD+DF)}_{PS}$.\\ In the long wavelength limit we neglect the term $q^4$ compared to the term $4(k\cdot q)^2$ from the denominator of both ${\bf A}_{PS}$ and ${\bf B}_{PS}$ in Eqs.() and (). Explicitly, after a straight forward calculation we get, \bwt \bea \S^{*0(FD+DF)}_{PS}(q) &=& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[\lt( k_p E^*_p - \f{1}{2}M^{*2}\ln \lv\f{1+v_p}{1-v_p}\rv \rt) + \lt( k_n E^*_n - \f{1}{2}M^{*2} \ln \lv\f{1+v_n}{1-v_n}\rv \rt) \rt] \eea and \bea \dt\S^{*(FD+DF)}_{PS}(q) & = & \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[\f{1}{2}E^*_p\ln\lv\f{c_0+v_p}{c_0-v_p}\rv - \right. \left.\f{M^*}{\sqrt{c^2_0-1}} \right. \left. \tan^{-1}\lt(\f{k_p\sqrt{c^2_0-1}}{c_0M^*}\rt)\rt]\f{q^2}{|{\bf q}|} \nn \\ & - & \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[\f{1}{2}E^*_n\ln\lv\f{c_0+v_n}{c_0-v_n}\rv - \right. \left.\f{M^*}{\sqrt{c^2_0-1}} \right. \left. \tan^{-1}\lt(\f{k_n\sqrt{c^2_0-1}}{c_0M^*}\rt)\rt]\f{q^2}{|{\bf q}|} \eea \ewt where $v_{p,n}=k_{p,n}/E^*_{p,n}$, $E^*_{p,n}=\sqrt{M^{*2} + k^2_{p,n}}$ and $c_0=q_0/|{\bf q}|$. The approximate results of Eqs.() and() are given below. \bea \S^{*0(FD+DF)}_{PS}(q) & \simeq & - \tilde{\mathcal{A}} - \tilde{\mathcal{B}} - \tilde{\mathcal{F}} + \tilde{\mathcal{G}} \\ \dt\S^{*(FD+DF)}_{PS}(q) & \simeq & \tilde{\mathcal{E}} \f{q^2}{q_0} \eea where, \be \left.\begin{array}{ll} \tilde{\mathcal{A}} & = \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[\f{1}{3}\lt(\f{k^3_p}{E^{*3}_p} + \f{k^3_n}{E^{*3}_n}\rt) \rt]M^{*2} \\ & \\ \tilde{\mathcal{B}} & = \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[\f{1}{5}\lt(\f{k^5_p}{E^{*5}_p} + \f{k^5_n}{E^{*5}_n}\rt) \rt]M^{*2} \\ & \\ \tilde{\mathcal{F}} & = \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[\lt(\f{k_p}{E^*_p} + \f{k_n}{E^*_n}\rt) \rt]M^{*2} \\ & \\ \tilde{\mathcal{G}} & = \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[k_pE^*_p + k_nE^*_n \rt] \\ & \\ \tilde{\mathcal{E}} & = \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[\f{1}{3}\lt(\f{k^3_p}{M^{*2}} - \f{k^3_n}{M^{*2}}\rt) \rt]\end{array}~~~~~\right\} \ee The self-energy for PS coupling: \bea \S^{*0,\pm}_{PS}(q) = \S^{*R}_{PS}(q,m_\p) + \S^{*0,\pm(FD+DF)}_{PS}(q) \eea The dispersion relations can be found by solving Dyson-Schwinger equation. \bea q^2 - m^2_{\p^{0,\pm}} - (\S^{*0,\pm}(q) + \S^{TC}) = 0 \eea Here $m_{\p^{0,\pm}}$ are the masses of $\p^0$ and $\p^\pm$. The dispersion relations without the effect of Dirac sea for $\p^{0,\pm}$: \bea q^2_0 \simeq m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}}+ {\bf q}^2 \eea The effective masses without Dirac sea are \bea m^{*2}_{\p^0} \simeq \lt[ \O_{PS} + \S^{TC} + m^2_{\p^0}\rt] \nn \\ ~~~{\rm and} ~~ \nn \\ m^{*2}_{\p^\pm} \simeq \lt[ \f{\O_{PS} + \S^{TC} + m^2_{\p^\pm}}{1 \mp \dt\O_{PS}} \rt] \eea where, \be \left.\begin{array}{ll} \O_{PS} &= \tilde{\mathcal{G}} - \tilde{\mathcal{A}} - \tilde{\mathcal{B}} - \tilde{\mathcal{F}} \\ & \\ \dt\O_{PS} &= \f{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}{ \sqrt{ \O_{PS} + \S^{TC} + m^2_{\p^\pm} } } \end{array}~~~~~\right\} \ee Now we presents the dispersion relations for $\p^{0,\pm}$ with the effect of Dirac sea. \bea q^2_0 \simeq m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}}+ {\bf q}^2 \eea The effective masses $(m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}})$ with Dirac sea for different charged states of pion are given by \bea m^{*2}_{\p^0} \simeq \lt[(\L_{PS} - m^2_{\p^0})/\tilde{\mathcal{D}}\rt] \nn \\ ~~ {\rm and} ~~~ \nn \\ m^{*2}_{\p^\pm} \simeq \lt[ \f{(\L_{PS} - m^2_{\p^\pm})} {(1 \mp \dt\L_{PS})\tilde{\mathcal{D}} }\rt] \eea where, \be\left.\begin{array}{ll} \L_{PS} &= \tilde{\mathcal{C}} - \O_{PS} - \S^{TC} \\ & \\ \dt\L_{PS} &= \f{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}{\sqrt{(\L_{PS} - m^2_{\p^\pm})\tilde{\mathcal{D}} }} \end{array}~~~~~\right\}\ee The PS coupling the asymmetry driven mass splitting is of ${\mathcal O(k^3_{p(n)}/M^{*2})}$. The terms $\dt\L_{PS}$ and $\dt\O_{PS}$ are non-vanishing in ANM and responsible for the pion mass splitting.\\ In Fig. and we present the density ($\rho$) and asymmetry parameter ($\a$) dependent effective masses for the various charged states of pion. In the top panel we present the results without vacuum correction (Dirac sea). Here we include both the tadpole and $n$-$n$ loop. It is evident that the inclusion of (b) removes the tachyonic mode but gives rise to effective pion masses which are unrealistically large as discussed by Kaputa as shown in the top panel of Fig.. \\ \begin{table} \caption{This table presents the effective pion masses including the tadpole contribution to the self-energy in $PS$ coupling. Kapusta corresponds to ref. and BDM corresponds to the present calculation.} \begin{ruledtabular} \begin{tabular}{ccc} & $m^{*2}_{\p^0}$ & $m^{*2}_{\p^\pm}$ \\ \hline & & \\ MFT & $m^2_{\p^0} + \S^{TC}$ & $m^2_{\p^\pm} + \S^{TC}$ \\ & & \\ Kapusta & $\O_{PS} + (\S^{TC} + m^2_{\p^0})$ & $\f{\O_{PS} + (\S^{TC} + m^2_{\p^\pm}) }{1\mp \dt\O_{PS}}$ \\ & & \\ BDM & $[\tilde{\mathcal{C}} - (\O_{PS} + \S^{TC} + m^2_{\p^0})] /\tilde{\mathcal{D}}$ & $\f{\tilde{\mathcal{C}} - (\O_{PS} + \S^{TC} + m^2_{\p^\pm})} {(1 \mp \dt\L_{PS})\tilde{\mathcal{D}} }$ \end{tabular} \end{ruledtabular} \end{table} It is to be noted that the inclusion of the vacuum part reduces the effective pion masses and gives reasonable value for the density dependent pion masses in matter at NNM density. The reason for this could be understood from the Table~ which enumerates expressions for the effective pion masses that we obtain in three different cases. The top row represents effective pion masses for the case considered in which gives rise to the tachyonic mode, the second row corresponds to the case discussed by Kapusta and in the last row we present results of the present work as by BDM. The presence of the additional term $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}$ somewhat tames the dispersion curve bringing the masses down compared to . This can be noted that at the MFT level $\S^{TC}$ involves sum of the scalar densities $\rho^s_n$ and $\rho^s_p$. Therefore, in MFT, as expected, the masses are insensitive to asymmetry parameter $\a$. For Pb-like nuclei ($\a = 0.2$), $\Dt m_{\p^0} = 16.8 MeV$, $\Dt m_{\p^+} = 17.37 MeV$ and $\Dt m_{\p^-} = 17.41 MeV$ with vacuum correction.\\ The dispersion relation for various charged states of pion are shown in the Fig. where upper and lower panel present the dispersion curves without and with the Dirac sea including the tadpole contribution. In the presence of Dirac sea $\p^+$ and $\p^-$ dispersion curves are indistinguishable. \\ \subsection{Renormalizible model with pseudovector $\p N$ coupling} To obtain the pseudovector representation from the starting Lagrangian given by Eq.(), one gives following nonlinear chiral transformation , \bse \bea \Psi &=& \lt[ \f{1 - i\g_5\v{\t}\cdot\v{\xi}}{\sqrt{1 + \v{\xi}^2}} \rt] \Psi^\prime \\ \v{\xi} &=& \lt( \f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)\v{\Phi}^\prime_\p \nn \\ &=& g_\p \v{\Phi}_\p/\lt[M - g_s \Phi_s + \sqrt{(M - g_s \Phi_s)^2 + g^2_\p \v{\Phi}^2_\p} \rt] \nn \\ & & \\ g_s\Phi^\prime_s &=& M - \sqrt{(M - g_s \Phi_s)^2 + g^2_\p \v{\Phi}^2_\p} \eea \ese The last two equations () and () are used to express the old fields $\Phi_s$ and $\v{\Phi}_\p$ in terms of new fields $\Phi^\prime_s$ and $\v{\Phi}^\prime_\p$. \bse \bea \v{\Phi}_\p &=& \lt[ \f{1-2(f_\p/m_\p) \Phi^\prime_s}{1 + (f_\p/m_\p)^2 \v{\Phi}^{\prime 2}_\p}\rt] \v{\Phi}^\prime_\p \\ \Phi_s &=& \f{(1- (f_\p/m_\p)^2\v{\Phi}^{\prime 2}_\p)\Phi^\prime_s + (g_\p/g_s)(f_\p/m_\p)\v{\Phi}^{\prime 2}_\p}{1 + (f_\p/m_\p)^2\v{\Phi}^{\prime 2}_\p}\nn \\ & & \eea \ese \bwt The transformed Lagrangian is \bea \mathcal{L}^\prime &=& \bar{\Psi}^\prime (i\g_\m \partial^\m -M)\Psi^\prime - \f{1}{2}g_\rho \bar{\Psi}^\prime \g_\m (\v{\t}\cdot\v{\Phi}^\m_\rho )\Psi^\prime + g_s \bar{\Psi}^\prime \Phi^\prime_s \Psi^\prime - g_\o \bar{\Psi}^\prime \g_\m \Phi^\m_\rho \Psi^\prime \nn \\ &+& \f{1}{2}(\partial_\m \Phi_s\partial^\m\Phi_s - m^2_s \Phi^2_s) + \f{1}{2}(\partial_\m \v{\Phi}_\p - g_\rho \v{\Phi}_{\rho\m}\times \v{\Phi}_\p)\cdot (\partial^\m \v{\Phi}_\p - g_\rho \v{\Phi}^\m_\rho\times \v{\Phi}_\p) \nn \\ &-& \f{1}{2}m^2_\p \v{\Phi}^2_\p + \f{1}{2}g_{\phi\p}m_s \Phi_s \v{\Phi}^2_\p - \f{1}{4}G_{\m\n}G^{\m\n} - \f{1}{4}\v{B}_{\m\n}\cdot\v{B}^{\m\n} + \f{1}{2}m^2_\o \Phi_{\o\m}\Phi^\m_\o + \f{1}{2}m^2_\rho \v{\Phi}_{\rho\m}\cdot\v{\Phi}^\m_\rho \nn \\ &-&\f{(f_\p/m_\p)^2}{1+(f_\p/m_\p)^2\v{\Phi}^{\prime 2}_\p}\bar{\Psi}^\prime \g_\m(\v{\t}\cdot\v{\Phi}^\prime_\p) \times (\partial^\m\v{\Phi}^\prime_\p - g_\rho \v{\Phi}^\m_\rho\times\v{\Phi}^\prime_\p)\Psi^\prime -\f{(f_\p/m_\p)}{1+(f_\p/m_\p)^2\v{\Phi}^{\prime 2}_\p}\bar{\Psi}^\prime \g_5 \g_\m \v{\t}\cdot (\partial^\m\v{\Phi}^\prime_\p - g_\rho \v{\Phi}^\m_\rho\times\v{\Phi}^\prime_\p)\Psi^\prime \nn \\ & & \eea \ewt We see from the Eq.~{} that the $\pi$-$N$ PS coupling has disappeared and instead the pion-nucleon dynamics is now governed by the last term of the above mentioned equation. At the leading order one obtains the usual PV coupling represented by, \bea {\cal L}^{PV} = -\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\bar{\Psi}^\prime \g_5\g^\m{\partial}_\m \lt(\v{\t}\cdot \v{\Phi}^\prime_\p\rt)\Psi^\prime \eea Here $f_\p$ is the pseudovector coupling constant and $\f{f^2_\p}{4\p} = 0.08$ . First we discuss the FF part where the trace factor is given by \bea {\bf T}^{FF}_{PV} &=& -2~Tr[\g_5\g^\m q_\m iG^F(k)\g_5\g^\n q_\n iG^F(k+q)] \nn \\ &=& -8~\lt[\f{M^{*2}q^2+k\cdot (k+q)q^2-2(k\cdot q)(k+q)\cdot q} {(k^2-M^{*2})((k+q)^2-M^{*2})}\rt]\nn \\ & & \eea Now the $FF$ part of the self-energy for $PV$ coupling is denoted by $\S^{*FF}_{PV}(q)$. From Eq.() and Eq.() we get, \bea \S^{*FF}_{PV}(q)&=& 8i\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2\int\f{d^4k}{(2\p)^4}\nn \\ & \times & \lt[\f{M^{*2}q^2+k\cdot (k+q)q^2-2(k\cdot q)(k+q)\cdot q} {(k^2-M^{*2})((k+q)^2-M^{*2})}\rt]\nn \\ & & \eea Direct power counting shows that the term $\S^{*FF}_{PV}(q)$ is divergent. The appropriate renormalization scheme for the present model has been developed in ref. We first consider a simple subtraction scheme described in Appendix B to obtain \bea \S^{*R}_{PV}(q)&=& \f{q^2}{2\p^2}\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2 \nn \\ & \times & \lt[2M^{*2}\int^1_0dx~ \ln\lt(\f{M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)}{M^{*2}-m^2_{\p}x(1-x)}\rt)\rt]\nn \\ \eea Now $\S^{*R}_{PV}(q)$ can be approximated to \bea \S^{*R}_{PV}(q)\simeq {\cal C}q^2 - {\cal D}q^4 \eea where, \be \left. \begin{array}{ll} {\cal C} & = \lt(\f{f_\p M^*}{m_\p\p}\rt)^2\lt[\f{m^2_\p}{6M^{*2}}\rt] \\ & \\ {\cal D} & = \lt(\f{f_\p M^*}{m_\p\p}\rt)^2 \lt[\f{1}{6M^{*2}}\rt] \end{array}~\right\} \ee On the other hand borrowing results from one has, \bea \S^{*R}_{PV}(q)\simeq {\cal C}^\prime + {\cal D}^\prime q^2 \eea where, \be \left. \begin{array}{ll} {\cal C}^\prime & = \lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p\p}\rt)^2 \lt[\f{4}{3}M(M-M^*)m^2_\p \rt] \\ & \\ {\cal D}^\prime & = \lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p\p}\rt)^2 \lt[2M^{*2}\ln\lt(M^*/M \rt) \rt] \end{array}~\right\} \ee It might be mentioned, although ${\cal C, D}$ are different from ${\cal C^\prime, D^\prime}$, their effect on the effective pion masses and corresponding dispersion relations are found to be marginal as we discuss later. The FF part can also develop imaginary part as given by \bea {\rm Im}~\S^{*FF}_{PV}(q)&=& -\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2\nn \\ & \times & \lt[\f{q}{\p}2M^{*2}\sqrt{q^2-4M^{*2}} \rt]~\th\lt(q^2-4M^{*2}\rt) \nn \\ & & \eea It is observed from Eq.() that ${\rm Im}~\S^{*FF}_{PV}(q)$ is non-vanishing only if $q^2>4M^{*2}$. The trace of the (FD+DF) part for $\p^0$, \bea T^{FD}_{PV}+T^{DF}_{PV}&=& Tr \lt[\g_5q\!\!\!/G^F_p(k+q)\g_5q\!\!\!/G^D_p(k)\rt. \nn \\ &+& \lt. \g_5q\!\!\!/G^D_p(k+q)\g_5q\!\!\!/G^F_p(k)\rt]+[p\ra n] \nn \\ & & \eea and for $\p^{+(-)}$, \bea T^{FD}_{PV}+T^{DF}_{PV}&=& Tr \lt[\g_5q\!\!\!/G^F_{p(n)}(k+q)\g_5q\!\!\!/G^D_{n(p)}(k) \rt. \nn \\ &+& \lt. \g_5q\!\!\!/G^D_{p(n)}(k+q)\g_5q\!\!\!/G^F_{n(p)}(k)\rt] \eea In pure neutron (or proton) matter one of the terms of Eq.() {\em viz} $G^D_{p(n)} = 0$ for the charged pion states. The same argument holds true for the neutral pion where only two terms would contribute which can be observed from Eq.(). In case of pure neutron (or proton) matter $p(n)$ appears as the intermediate state. Now the $(FD+DF)$ part of the self-energy for $\p^0$ and $\p^\pm$ can be written as \bea \S^{*0(FD+DF)}_{PV}(q) &=& -8\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2 \int\f{d^3k}{(2\p)^3E^*}{\bf A}_{PV}\\ \S^{*\pm(FD+DF)}_{PV}(q) &=& -8\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2 \int\f{d^3k}{(2\p)^3E^*}[{\bf A}_{PV}\mp{\bf B}_{PV}] \nn \\ &=& \S^{*0(FD+DF)}_{PV}(q)\mp \dt\S^{*(FD+DF)}_{PV}(q) \nn \\ & & \eea where \bea {\bf A}_{PV} &=&\lt[\f{M^{*2}q^4}{q^4-4(k\cdot q)^2}\rt](\th_p+\th_n)\\ {\bf B}_{PV} &=&\f{1}{2}\lt[1+\f{4M^{*2}q^2}{q^4-4(k\cdot q)^2}\rt] (k\cdot q)(\th_p-\th_n) \eea In the long wavelength limit considering collective excitations near the Fermi surface, $(FD+DF)$ part of the pion-self energy can be evaluated analytically. In this case we can neglect the term $q^4$ compared to the term $4(k\cdot q)^2$ from the denominator of ${\bf A}_{PV}$ and ${\bf B}_{PV}$ in Eqs. () and (). This is called hard nucleon loop (HNL) approximation . Explicitly, after a straight forward calculation, we get, \bwt \bea \S^{*0(FD+DF)}_{PV}(q) &=& \f{1}{2}\lt(\f{f_\p M^*}{m_\p\p}\rt)^2 \lt[\lt(\ln\lv\f{1+v_p}{1-v_p}\rv-c_0\ln\lv\f{c_0+v_p }{c_0-v_p}\rv\rt) + \lt(\ln\lv\f{1+v_n}{1-v_n}\rv-c_0\ln\lv\f{c_0+v_n }{c_0-v_n}\rv\rt) \rt] \eea and \bea \dt\S^{*(FD+DF)}_{PV}(q) &=& \lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p\p}\rt)^2\lt[ \f{2}{3}k^3_p q_0 -\f{M^{*2}q^2}{|{\bf q}|}\lt(E^*_p\ln\lv\f{c_0+v_p}{c_0-v_p}\rv -\f{2M^*}{\sqrt{c^2_0-1}}\tan^{-1}\f{k_p\sqrt{c^2_0-1}}{c_0M^*}\rt)\rt]\nn \\ &-& \lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p\p}\rt)^2\lt[ \f{2}{3}k^3_n q_0 -\f{M^{*2}q^2}{|{\bf q}|}\lt(E^*_n\ln\lv\f{c_0+v_n}{c_0-v_n}\rv -\f{2M^*}{\sqrt{c^2_0-1}}\tan^{-1}\f{k_n\sqrt{c^2_0-1}}{c_0M^*}\rt)\rt] \eea \ewt The approximate results of Eqs.() and () are \bea \S^{*0(FD+DF)}_{PV}(q) &\simeq & {\cal A} \f{q^4}{q^2_0} + {\cal B} q^2 \\ \dt\S^{*(FD+DF)}_{PV}(q) & \simeq & {\cal E}q_0 \eea where, \be \left. \begin{array}{ll} {\cal A} &= \lt(\f{f_\p M^*}{m_\p\p} \rt)^2 \lt[\f{1}{3}\lt(\f{k^3_P}{E^{*3}_p} + \f{k^3_n}{E^{*3}_n} \rt)\rt]\\ & \\ {\cal B} &= \lt(\f{f_\p M^*}{m_\p\p} \rt)^2 \lt[\f{1}{5}\lt(\f{k^5_P}{E^{*5}_p} + \f{k^5_n}{E^{*5}_n}\rt)\rt]\\ & \\ {\cal E} &= \lt(\f{f_\p M^*}{m_\p\p} \rt)^2 \lt[\f{2}{5}\lt(\f{k^5_p}{M^{*4}} - \f{k^5_n}{M^{*4}}\rt)\rt] \end{array} ~ \right\} \ee The total pion self-energy for $PV$ coupling is \bea \S^{*0,\pm}_{PV}(q) = \S^{*R}_{PV}(q) + \S^{*0,\pm (FD+DF)}_{PV}(q) \eea The approximate dispersion relations and the effective pion masses of different charged states in ANM without and with the Dirac sea effect are presented below.\\ The dispersion relations for $\p^{0,\pm}$ without the effect of Dirac sea are as follows, \bea q^2_0 \simeq m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}} + \g_{\p\p}{\bf q}^2 + \lt[\f{\g^2_{\p\p}}{4} + \a_{\p\p}\rt]\f{{\bf q}^4}{m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}}} \eea where $m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}}$ is the effective pion masses without Dirac sea effect: \bea m^{*2}_{\p^0} \simeq \f{m^2_{\p^0}}{1-\O_{PV}} ~ {\rm and} ~ m^{*2}_{\p^{\pm}}\simeq \f{m^2_{\p^{\pm}}}{1-(\O_{PV} \pm {\dt\O}_{PV})} \eea where, \be\left.\begin{array}{ll} \O_{PV} &= {\cal A + B} \\ & \\ {\dt\O}_{PV}&=\f{{\cal E}}{m_{\p^{\pm}}}\\ & \\ \g_{\p\p} &= 1 - \f{\O_{PV}}{1-\O_{PV}} + \f{{\cal B}}{1-\O_{PV}}\\ & \\ \a_{\p\p}&= \f{{\cal A}}{1-\O_{PV}}\end{array}~\right\} \ee These results are the same as that of with some notational difference such as $\O_{PV} \ra \O^2_{\p\p}$, $\dt\O_{PV} \ra \dt\O^2_{\p\p}$, $\O_{PV}/(1 - \O_{PV}) \ra \chi_{\p\p}$ and $\mathcal{B}/(1 - \O_{PV}) \ra \b_{\p\p}$. In () and (), ${\dt\L}_{PV}$ and ${\dt\O}_{PV}$ are responsible for the asymmetry parameter $(\a= \f{\rho_n -\rho_p}{\rho_n + \rho_p})$ dependent mass splitting, where $\rho_n$ and $\rho_p$ are the neutron and proton density respectively. Clearly for SNM ${\dt\L}_{PV}$ and ${\dt\O}_{PV}$ vanish.\\ The dispersion relations for $\p^{0,\pm}$ including the effect of Dirac sea are given by, \bea q^2_0 & \simeq & m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}} + \lt[\g_{\p\p}+2m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}}\dt_{\p\p}\rt]{\bf q}^2 \nn \\ &+& \lt[\f{\g^2_{\p\p}}{4} + \a_{\p\p} - \dt_{\p\p} \lt(m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}} - 2\g_{\p\p}\rt) \rt]\f{{\bf q}^4}{m^{*2}_{\p^{0,\pm}}} \nn \\ & & \eea The effective masses $(m^*_{\p})$ of different charged states of pion are found from Eq.({) in the limit $|{\bf q}|=0$. \bea m^{*2}_{\p^0} \simeq \f{m^2_{\p^0}}{1-\L_{PV}} ~{\rm and} ~ m^{*2}_{\p^{\pm}}\simeq \f{m^2_{\p^{\pm}}}{1-(\L_{PV} \pm {\dt\L}_{PV})} \eea where, \be \left.\begin{array}{ll} \L_{PV} &= {\cal A + B + C}\\ & \\ {\dt\L}_{PV} &= \f{{\cal E}}{m_{\p^\pm}} \\ & \\ \g_{\p\p} &=1 - \f{\L_{PV}}{1-\L_{PV}} + \f{{\cal B}}{1-\L_{PV}} + \f{{\cal C}}{1-\L_{PV}} \\ & \\ \a_{\p\p} &= \f{{\cal A}}{1-\L_{PV}} \\ & \\ \dt_{\p\p} &= \f{{\cal D}}{1-\L_{PV}}\end{array}~\right\} \ee This is to be noted that, if one use Eq.() instead of Eq.(); $m^2_{\p^{0,\pm}}$ and ${\cal C}$ will be replaced by $(m^2_{\p^{0,\pm}} + {\cal C}^\prime)$ and ${\cal D}^\prime$ respectively. $\dt_{\p\p}$ will vanish. Numerically,as mentioned before, Eq.() and Eq.() give results very close to each other. Clearly from Eq.(), ${\cal E}$ indicates that the asymmetry driven mass splitting is of ${\cal O}(k^5_{p(n)}/M^{*4})$ for $PV$ coupling.\\ To quote typical values of the pion mass shifts for PV coupling at normal nuclear density $(\rho_0 = 0.17 fm^{-3})$ for Pb-like nuclei which are $\Dt m_{\p^0} = 6.07 MeV$, $\Dt m_{\p^+} = 4.6 MeV$ and $\Dt m_{\p^-} = 8.02 MeV$ with vacuum correction and the corresponding values are $4.95 MeV$, $3.47 MeV$ and $6.82 MeV$ without vacuum correction.\\ In Fig. we show results for the density dependence of effective pion masses for various charge states at $\a = 0.2$. It is observed that the $\p^-$ mass increases in matter while $\p^+$ decreases at higher density. The mass splitting is quite significant even at density $\rho \gtrsim 1.5\rho_0$. In the lower panel we present results with vacuum corrections. Evidently the effect of vacuum corrections is found to be small. \\ It should however be mentioned that the vacuum correction part for PV coupling is rather small. For loops involving heavy baryons it could be quite high. For detailed discussion we refer the readers to . In present case we take only the nucleon loop in presence of the scalar mean field.\\ We also present results of asymmetry parameter dependence effective masses for different charge states of pion in Fig. at normal nuclear matter density. The upper and lower panel present the effective pion masses without and with vacuum correction. It can be observed that the asymmetry parameter dependent pion mass splitting is insensitive to the vacuum correction. The pion dispersions in medium for various charge states of pion are presented in Fig. for PV coupling. \section{Modern Technique} In the previous sections we have discussed pion propagation in ANM using both the PS and PV interaction within the framework of non-chiral model. However, the interactions as represented by Eq. and Eq., fail to describe in-medium $\pi N$ dynamics as shown in . It was also observed that the chirally symmetric model (linear) has also various limitations . For example, as mentioned before, it fails to account for the pion-nucleus dynamics in nuclear matter both in the PS and PV representations. In fact, it gives too strong pion nucleon interaction in matter which cannot be adjusted by fixing the s-wave $\pi$-$N$ interaction in free space even in PV case. In this context the Dirac vacuum involving baryon loops was found to play a significant role. If one uses the chiral model and breaks the symmetry explicitly, the results are found to be very sensitive to the renormalization scheme . In it was shown that the relativistic chiral models with a light scalar meson appear to provide an economical marriage of successful relativistic MFT and chiral symmetry. It, however, fails to reproduce observed properties of finite nuclei, such as spin-orbit splittings, shell structure, charge densities and surface energies. Since then, there has been series of attempts to construct a model which has the virtue of describing both the properties of nuclear matter and finite nuclei \cite{Furnstahl87,Furnstahl93A,Furnstahl95,Furnstahl96, Serot97,Hu07}. Currently, the non-linear chiral effective field theoretic approach seems to be quite successful in this respect. It might be recalled here, that, in such a framework, the explicit calculation of the Dirac vacuum is not required, rather, on the contrary, here, the short distance dynamics are absorbed into the parameters of the theory adjusted phenomenologically by fitting empirical data . Now we proceed to calculate the effective pion masses in ANM in this approach.\\ By retaining only the lowest order terms in the pion fields, one obtains the following Lagrangian from the chirally invariant Lagrangian : \bwt \bea \mathcal{L} &=& \bar{\Psi}(i\g_\m\partial^\m - M)\Psi + g_s\bar{\Psi}\phi_s \Psi - g_\o \bar{\Psi}\g_\m\Phi^\m_\o \Psi - \f{g_A}{f_\p}\bar{\Psi}\g_5\g_\m\partial^\m \v{\t} \cdot \v{\Phi}_\p \Psi + \f{1}{2} \lt(\partial_\m\Phi_s\partial^\m\Phi_s - m^2_s\Phi^2_s\rt) \nn \\ &+& \f{1}{2}\lt(\partial_\m\v{\Phi}_\p\cdot\partial^\m\v{\Phi}_\p - m^2_\p \v{\Phi}^2\rt) -\f{1}{4}G_{\m\n}G^{\m\n} + \f{1}{2} m^2_\o \Phi_{\o\m}\Phi^\m_\o + \mathcal{L}_{NL} + \dt\mathcal{L} \eea \ewt The terms $\mathcal{L}_{NL}$ and $\dt\mathcal{L}$ contain, respectively the nonlinear terms of the meson sector and all of the counterterms. The explicit expressions for $\mathcal{L}_{NL}$ and $\dt\mathcal{L}$ can be found in . \\ It is to be noted that the meson self-energy can be found by differentiating the energy density at the two-loop level with respect to the meson propagator as indicated in Fig~. One may therefore, identify the $FF$, $FD$ and $DD$ parts of the self-energy with the vacuum-fluctuation(VF), Lamb-shift(LS) and exchange (EX) contributions to the self-energy respectively. The VF and LS terms are related to the short-range physics while EX part is related to the long-range physics. The detailed discussion about this short and long distance separation can be found in . The diverging $FF$ part of the self-energy and LS can be expressed as a sum of terms which already exists in the effective field theoretical Lagrangian and can be absorbed into the counter terms. The short distance physics, as shown in , while calculating exchange energies, are either removed by field redefinitions or the coefficients are determined by fitting with the empirical data. The long-range part is computed explicitly that produce modest corrections to the nuclear binding energy curve. This can be compensated by a small adjustment of the coupling parameters. \\ Recently in ref. the exchange energy contributions of pion has been calculated within this theoretical framework. We adopt the same parameter set as designated by {\bf MOA} in to calculate the $\pi$ self-energy explicitly. The corresponding results are presented in Fig.. Here we simply depict the final results as the expressions, at this order, for the pion self-energy and density dependent masses of $\pi^0$ and $\pi^\pm$ remain same as those of Eq. except for the coupling parameters. Quantitatively, it is found that, for the lower density, {\em i.e} $\rho \sim \rho_0$, the effective masses for $\pi^-$, $\pi^0$ and $\pi^+$ states are comparable with that of PV coupling (Fig.), while at higher density the mass splitting is significantly enhanced. The charged states, {\em i.e.} $\pi^\pm$ show stronger density dependence compared to PV coupling. We also observe that the density dependence of $\pi^0$ is rather weak. \section{Summary and conclusion} In the present paper pion propagation in ANM has been studied within the framework of relativistic hadrodynamics in presence of the scalar mean field. We start with the model developed in and present analytical results for the pion dispersion relations in ANM by making HNL approximation and suitable density expansion. Subsequently, we invoke the chirally invariant Lagrangian by retaining only the lowest order terms in pion field and compare the results with non-chiral model calculations performed in section II.\\ The splitting of the various charged states of pion even at normal nuclear matter density is found to be quite significant. Such mode splittings in ANM is, infact, a generic feature of all the isovector mesons. Therefore, it would be interesting to estimate similar splitting for the $\rho$ meson and other isovector states. It is to be noted that the mass splitting is related to the pion-nucleus optical potential . As for the dispersion relations, we restricted our calculation only to the time-like region which can also be extended to study the space like modes both for the pions and rho mesons.\\ {\bf Acknowledgment :} The authors gratefully thank Pradip Roy and Kausik Pal for valuable comments and suggestions.\\ \appendix \section{} After using Feynman parametrization, the term $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$ in Eq.() can be written as \bwt \bea \S^{*FF}_{PS}(q) & = & 8ig^2_\p{\m}^{2\ep}\int\f{d^Nk}{(2\p)^N}\int^1_0 dx \lt[ \f{M^{*2}-k\cdot(k+q)}{((k+qx)^2+q^2x(1-x)-M^{*2})^2} \rt] \nn \\ &=& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\int^1_0 dx \lt( 4\p{\m}^2\rt)^{\ep}~\f{\G(\ep)}{1-\ep} ~ \lt[ \f{M^{*2} - 3q^2x(1-x) + 2\ep q^2 x(1-x)} {\lt(M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)\rt)^{\ep}} \rt]\nn \\ & = & \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}~\f{q^2}{3} + \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}~\f{1}{\ep}~\lt(M^{*2} - \f{q^2}{2}\rt) - \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}~\lt(M^{*2} - \f{q^2}{2}\rt) \lt(\g^\prime_E -\ln\lt(4\p\m^2\rt) \rt) \nn \\ & - & \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}~\int^1_0 dx \lt( M^{*2} - 3q^2x(1-x) \rt) \ln\lt( M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x) \rt) \eea \ewt Here $\ep = 2-\f{N}{2}$ and $\m$ is an arbitrary scaling parameter. $\g_E$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant and $\g^\prime_E = (\g_E -1)$. The imaginary part of $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$ can easily be found by simply replacing $\ln\lt(M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)\rt)$ with $\ln\lt(M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)-i\eta\rt)$ where $\eta$ is an arbitrarily small parameter and the term $i\eta$ comes from the denominator of $G^F_i$ when Feynman parametrization is performed considering $i\z$ in the denominator of the propagator.\\ Here the term $\ln\lt(M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)\rt)$ has branch cut only for $M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)<0$ and it begins at $q^2=4M^{*2}$ {\em i.e.} the threshold condition for nucleon-antinucleon pair production. So the limit of x-integration changes from $(0,1)$ to $(\f{1}{2}-\f{1}{2}\a,\f{1}{2}+\f{1}{2}\a)$ where $\a=\sqrt{1-\f{4M^{*2}}{q^2}}$ and we used ${\rm Im}\ln\lt(Z-i\eta\rt) = -\p$. Now, \bea \int^{\f{1}{2}+\f{1}{2}\a}_{\f{1}{2}-\f{1}{2}\a}dx~\th\lt( q^2-4M^{*2}\rt) & = & \sqrt{1-\f{4M^{*2}}{q^2}} ~\th\lt(q^2-4M^{*2}\rt) \nn \\ & & \eea Now the imaginary part of $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$ is, \bea {\rm Im}~\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q) & = & -\f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\int^1_0~dx~\lt(M^{*2}-3q^2x(1-x)\rt) \nn \\ & \times & {\rm Im}\lt[\ln\lt(M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)-i\eta\rt)\rt] \nn \\ &=&-\f{g^2_\p}{4\p} \lt[q\sqrt{q^2-4M^{*2}}\rt]~\th\lt(q^2-4M^{*2}\rt) \nn \\ & & \eea It is clear from the expression of Eq.() that the second term is divergent in the limit $\ep \ra 0$ (as $N \ra 4$). To remove the divergences we need to add the counterterms in the original Lagrangian interaction . The diverging part of Eq.() is \bea {\cal D}_{PS} &=& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}~\f{1}{\ep}~\lt(M^{*2} - \f{q^2}{2}\rt) \nn \\ &=& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\lt[\f{M^2}{\ep} - \f{2}{\ep}Mg_s\phi_0 + \f{1}{\ep}g^2_s\phi^2_0 - \f{q^2}{2\ep}\rt] \eea In Eq.() we substitute the effective nucleon mass $M^*=(M-g_s\phi_0)$ where $M$ is the nucleon mass and $\phi_0$ is the vacuum expectation value of the scalar field $\phi_s$. The expression given in Eq.() tells us that we need to be added four counter terms with the original interaction Lagrangian to remove the divergences from $\S^{*FF}_{PS}$. Therefore the counter term Lagrangian is denoted as \bwt \bea {\cal L}_{CT}= -~\f{1}{2!}{\b}_1{\Phi}_\p\cdot\lt(\partial^2+m^2_\p \rt)\cdot {\Phi}_\p + \f{1}{2!}{\b}_2{\Phi}^2 + \f{1}{2!}{\b}_3{\phi}_s{\Phi}^2_\p +\f{1}{2!2!}{\b}_4{\phi}^2{\Phi}^2_\p \eea \ewt The value of the counterterms $\b_1$, $\b_2$, $\b_3$ and $\b_4$ are determined by imposing the appropriate renormalization conditions. \bea \b_1 &=& \lt(\f{\partial\S^{FF}_{PS}(q)}{\partial q^2} \rt)_{q^2=m^2_\p} \\ \b_2 &=& \lt( \S^{FF}_{PS} \rt)_{q^2=m^2_\p} \\ \b_3 &=& -g_s\lt( \f{\partial\S^{FF}_{PS}(q)}{\partial M} \rt)_{q^2=m^2_\p} \\ \b_4 &=& -\dt\l + g^2_s\lt( \f{\partial^2\S^{FF}_{PS}(q)}{\partial M^2} \rt)_{q^2=m^2_\p} \eea Here $\b_1$ and $\b_2$ are the wave function and pion mass renormalization counterterms respectively while $\b_3$ and $\b_4$ are the vertex renormalizaton counterterms for the $\phi_s\Phi^2_\p$ vertex and $\phi^2_s\Phi^2_\p$ vertex respectively. The conditions of Eq.()-() implies that the pion propagator $G_\p = [q^2 - m^2_\p - \S^{*R}_{PS}(q)]^{-1}$ reproduces the physical mass of pions in free space. The counterterm $\b_4$ determines the strength of coupling of the $\phi^2_s\Phi^2_\p$ vertex. In fact $\S^{FF}_{PS}(q)$ is found by simply replacing $M^*$ with $M$ in Eq.(). We can set $\dt\l=0$ to minimize the effects of many-body forces in the nuclear medium which is consistent with the renormalization scheme for scalar meson. Using the conditions given in Eqs.()-() the following results are found : \bea \b_1 &=& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[ \f{1}{3} \right. \left. -\f{1}{2} \lt(\f{1}{\ep}-\g^\prime_E+\ln(4\p\m^2) \rt) \rt]\nn \\ &+& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[ \int^1_0 dx~3x(1-x)\ln\lt( M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x)\rt)\rt]\nn \\ &+& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[ \int^1_0 dx \right. \left. \f{M^2x(1-x)-3m^2_\p x^2(1-x)^2}{M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x)} \rt] \nn \\ & & \\ & & \nn \\ \b_2 &=& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\lt[ \f{m^2_\p}{2}+\lt(M^2-\f{m^2_\p}{3}\rt)\right. \left.\lt(\f{1}{\ep}-\g^\prime_E+\ln(4\p\m^2) \rt) \rt]\nn \\ &-& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[ \int^1_0 dx~\lt(M^2-3m^2_\p x(1-x) \rt) \rt. \nn \\ &\times & \lt. \ln(M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x))\rt] \\ & & \nn \\ \b_3 &=& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[-g_s(2M)\lt( \f{1}{\ep}-\g^\prime_E+\ln(4\p\m^2)\rt) \rt]\nn \\ &+& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\lt[ g_s(2M)\int^1_0 dx \ln(M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x)) \rt]\nn \\ &+&\f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\lt[g_s(2M)\int^1_0 dx \right. \left. \lt(\f{M^2-3m^2_\p x(1-x)}{M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x)}\rt) \rt] \nn \\ & & \\ & & \nn \\ \b_4 &=& -\f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}6g^2_s + \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2} \lt[2 g_s\lt( \f{1}{\ep}-\g^\prime_E+\ln(4\p\m^2) \rt) \rt]\nn \\ &-& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\lt[2g^2_s\int^1_0 dx \ln(M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x)) \rt]\nn \\ &-& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\lt[2g^2_s\int^1_0 dx \right. \left. \f{4M^2m^2_\p x(1-x)}{\lt(M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x) \rt)^2}\rt]\nn \\ & & \eea Now the renormalized $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$ is \bea \S^{*R}_{PS}(q,m_\p) &=& \S^{*FF}_{PS}(q) - \b_1(q^2-m^2_\p) \nn \\ & - & \b_2-\b_3\phi_0 -\f{1}{2}\b_4{\phi}^2_0 \eea Substituting $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$ from Eq.() and $\b_1$, $\b_2$, $\b_3$, $\b_4$ from Eqs.()-() in Eq.() it is found that divergences in $\S^{*FF}_{PS}(q)$ are completely eliminated by the counterterms. After simplification $\S^{*R}_{PS}(q,m_\p)$ reduces to \bwt \bea \S^{*R}_{PS}(q,m_\p) &=& \f{g^2_\p}{2\p^2}\lt[-3(M^2-M^{*2})+\right. \left.(q^2-m^2_\p)\lt(\f{1}{6}+\f{M^2}{m^2_\p}\rt) \right. \left. - 2M^{*2}\ln\lt(\f{M^*}{M}\rt)+\f{8M^2(M-M^*)^2}{(4M^2-m^2_\p)}\right. \nn \\ &-& \left. \f{2M^{*2}\sqrt{4M^{*2}-q^2}}{q} \right. \left. \tan^{-1}\lt(\f{q}{\sqrt{4M^{*2}-q^2}} \rt) \right. +\left. \f{2M^2\sqrt{4M^2-m^2_\p}}{m_\p} \right. \left. \tan^{-1}\lt(\f{m_\p}{\sqrt{4M^2-m^2_\p}} \rt) \right. \nn \\ &+& \left. \lt( (M^2-M^{*2})+\f{m^2_\p(M-M^*)^2}{(4M^2-m^2_\p)} \right. \left. + \f{M^2}{m^2_\p}(q^2-m^2_\p) \rt) \right. \left. \f{8M^2}{m_\p\sqrt{4M^2-m^2_\p}} \right. \left. \tan^{-1}\lt(\f{m_\p}{\sqrt{4M^2-m^2_\p} }\rt) \right. \nn \\ &+& \left. \int^1_0 dx~3x(1-x)q^2 \right. \left. \ln\lt( \f{M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)}{M^2-m^2_\p x(1-x)} \rt)\right] \eea \ewt \section{} After Feynman parametrization Eq.() reduces to \bwt \bea \S^{*FF}_{PV}(q) &=& 8i\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2 \m^{2\ep}\int\f{d^Nk}{(2\p)^N}\int^1_0 dx \lt[\f{\lt(M^{*2}+q^2x(1-x)+k^2\rt)q^2-2(k\cdot q)^2} {((k+qx)^2+q^2x(1-x)-M^{*2})^2}\rt] \nn \\ &=& -\f{q^2}{2\p^2}\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2\int^1_0dx \lt(4\p\m^2 \rt)^\ep \G(\ep)\lt[\f{2M^{*2}}{\lt(M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)\rt)^\ep} \rt] \nn \\ &=&\f{q^2}{2\p^2}\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2\lt[2M^{*2}\lt(\g_E-\ln\lt(4\p\m^2\rt) \rt)\rt] + \f{q^2}{2\p^2}\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2 \lt[2M^{*2}\int^1_0 dx~\ln\lt(M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)\rt)\rt] \nn \\ &-& \f{q^2}{2\p^2}\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2\lt[\f{2M^{*2}}{\ep}\rt] \eea \ewt The imaginary part of $\S^{*FF}_{PV}(q)$ can be found as \bea {\rm Im}~\S^{*FF}_{PV}(q) &=& -\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2 \nn \\ & \times & \lt[\f{q}{\p}2M^{*2}\sqrt{q^2-4M^{*2}} \rt]~ \th\lt( q^2-4M^{*2}\rt) \nn \\ & & \eea It is clear from Eq.() that ${\rm Im}\S^{*FF}_{PV}(q)$ vanishes for $q^2<4M^{*2}$. With the same argument as stated for $PS$ coupling, we excluded the imaginary part. The diverging part of $\S^{*FF}_{PV}(q)$ is \bea {\cal D}_{PV} = -~\f{q^2}{2\p^2}\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2\lt[\f{2M^{*2}}{\ep}\rt] \eea Here we use simple subtraction method to remove the divergence. So, the finite FF part of the self-energy is \bea \S^{*R}_{PV}(q)&=& \S^{*FF}_{PV}(q) -\S^{*FF}_{PV}(m_\p) \nn \\ &=& \f{q^2}{2\p^2}\lt(\f{f_\p}{m_\p}\rt)^2 \nn \\ & \times & \lt[2M^{*2}\int^1_0dx~\ln\lt(\f{M^{*2}-q^2x(1-x)}{M^{*2}-m^2_\p x(1-x)}\rt) \rt]\nn \\ & & \eea \newpage \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bm{Migdal78} A. B. Migdal, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 50} (1978) 107. \bm{Mishustin80} I. M. Mishustin, F. Myhrer and P. J. Siemens, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 95} (1980) 361. \bm{Gyulassy77} M. Gyulassy and W. Greiner, Ann. Phys. {\bf 109} (1977) 485. \bm{Brown89} G. E. Brown, E. Oset, M. Vicente Vacas and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 505} (1989) 823. \bm{Xia88} L. H. Xia, C. M. Ko, L. Xiong and J. Q. Wu, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 485} (1988) 721. \bm{Gale87} C. Gale and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 35} (1987) 2107. \bm{Oset82} E. Oset, H. Toki and W. Weise, Phys. Rep. {\bf 83} (1982) 281. \bm{Migdal90} A. B. Migdal, E. E. Saperstein, M. A. Troitsky and D. N. Voskresensky, Phys. Rep. {\bf 192} (1990) 179. \bm{Dmitriev85} V. F. Dmitriev, T. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 438}(1985) 697. \bm{Henning94} P. A. Henning, H. Umezawa, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 571} (1994) 617. \bm{Korpa95} C. L. Korpa and R. Malfliet, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 52} (1995) 2756. \bm{Helgesson95} J. Helgesson and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 52} (1995) 427. \bm{Liu97} L. Liu and M. Nakano, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 618} (1997) 337. \bm{Herbert92} T. Herbert, K. Wehrberger and F. Beck, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 541} (1992) 699. \bm{Walecka74} J. D. Walecka, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 83}, (1974) 491. \bm{Rapp00} R. Rapp and J. Wambach, Adv. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 25} (2000) 1. \bm{Wong94} C. Y. Wong, {\em Introduction to High-Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions}, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994. \bm{Chanfray93} G. Chanfray and P. Schuck, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 555} (1993) 329. \bm{Weise01} N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 512} (2001) 283. \bm{Costa03} P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo and Yu. L. Kalinovsky, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 560} (2003) 171. \bm{Costa04} P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. de Sousa and Yu. L. Kalinovsky, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 70} (2004) 025204. \bm{Biswas06} S. Biswas and A. K. Dutt-Mazumder, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 74} (2006) 065205. \bm{Serot79} B. D. Serot, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 86} (1979) 146; Erratum, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 87} (1979) 403. \bm{Kapusta81} J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 23} (1981) 1648. \bm{Matsui82} T. Matsui and B. D. Serot, Ann. of Phys. {\bf 144} (1982) 107. \bm{Weinberg67} S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 18} (1967) 188. \bm{Weinberg68} S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. {\bf 166} (1968) 1568. \bm{Weinberg79} S. Weinberg, Physica {\bf A 96} (1979) 327. \bm{Schwinger67} J. Schwinger, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 24} (1967) 473. \bm{Serot97} B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf E 6} (1997) 515. \bm{Hu07} Y. Hu, J. McIntire, B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 794} (2007) 187. \bm{Horowitz81} C. J. Horowitz and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 368} (1981) 503. \bm{Engel96} M. Sch$\ddot{a}$fer, H. C. D$\ddot{o}$ngs, A. Engel and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 575} (1994) 429. \bm{Serot86} B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 16} (1986) 1. \bm{Chin77} S. A. Chin, Ann. of Phys. {\bf 108} (1977) 301. \bm{Hooft73} G. 't Hooft and M.T. Veltmann, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 44} (1973) 189. \bm{Peskin} M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, {\em An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory}, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995. \bm{Cheng} T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, {\em Gauge theory of elementary particles}, Clarendon Press, Oxford, New York, 2006. \bm{Akdm03} A. K. Dutt-Mazumder, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 713} (2003) 119. \bm{Ericson88} T. Ericson and W. Weise, {\em Pions and Nuclei}, Oxford University Press, 1988. \bm{Furnstahl95} R. J. Furnstahl, H. B. Tang and B. D. Serot, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 52} (1995) 1368. \bm{Furnstahl89} R. J. Furnstahl, R. J. Perry and B. D. Serot, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 40} (1989) 321. \bm{Furnstahl93} R. J. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 47}, (1993) 2338. \bm{Furnstahl87} R. J. Furnstahl, C. E. Price, G. E. Walker, Phys. Rev. {\bf C 36} (1987) 2590. \bm{Furnstahl93A} R. J. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 316} (1993) 12. \bm{Furnstahl96} R. J. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, H. B. Tang, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 598} (1996) 539. \bm{Furnstahl97} R. J. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, H. B. Tang, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 615} (1997) 441. \bm{Furnstahl98} R. J. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, H. B. Tang, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A 640} (1998) 505, Erratum. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0324
|
Title: On the pseudospectrum of elliptic quadratic differential operators
Abstract: We study the pseudospectrum of a class of non-selfadjoint differential
operators. Our work consists in a detailed study of the microlocal properties,
which rule the spectral stability or instability phenomena appearing under
small perturbations for elliptic quadratic differential operators. The class of
elliptic quadratic differential operators stands for the class of operators
defined in the Weyl quantization by complex-valued elliptic quadratic symbols.
We establish in this paper a simple necessary and sufficient condition on the
Weyl symbol of these operators, which ensures the stability of their spectra.
When this condition is violated, we prove that it occurs some strong spectral
instabilities for the high energies of these operators, in some regions which
can be far away from their spectra. We give a precise geometrical description
of them, which explains the results obtained for these operators in some
numerical simulations giving the computation of false eigenvalues far from
their spectra by algorithms for eigenvalues computing.
Body: \newcounter{equa} \selectlanguage{american} \begin{center} {\large\textbf{ON THE PSEUDOSPECTRUM OF ELLIPTIC QUADRATIC DIFFERENTIAL OPERATORS}\\ \bigskip \medskip Karel \textsc{Pravda-Starov}\\ \bigskip University of California, Berkeley} \end{center} \bigskip \bigskip \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[subsection] \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[subsection] \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}[subsection] \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[subsection] \textbf{Abstract}. We study the pseudospectrum of a class of non-selfadjoint differential operators. Our work consists in a detailed study of the microlocal properties, which rule the spectral stability or instability phenomena appearing under small perturbations for elliptic quadratic differential operators. The class of elliptic quadratic differential operators stands for the class of operators defined in the Weyl quantization by complex-valued elliptic quadratic symbols. We establish in this paper a simple necessary and sufficient condition on the Weyl symbol of these operators, which ensures the stability of their spectra. When this condition is violated, we prove that it occurs some strong spectral instabilities for the high energies of these operators, in some regions which can be far away from their spectra. We give a precise geometrical description of them, which explains the results obtained for these operators in some numerical simulations giving the computation of \og false eigenvalues \fg \ far from their spectra by algorithms for eigenvalues computing. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Key words.} Spectral instability, pseudospectrum, semiclassical quasimodes, non-selfadjoint operators, non-normal operators, condition $(\overline{\Psi})$, subellipticity. \medskip \noindent \textbf{2000 AMS Subject Classification.} 35P05, 35S05. \section{Introduction} \subsection{Miscellaneous facts about pseudospectrum} \init In recent years, there has been a lot of interest in studying the pseudospectrum of non-selfadjoint operators. The study of this notion has been initiated by noticing that for certain problems of science and engineering involving non-selfadjoint operators, the predictions suggested by spectral analysis do not match with the numerical simulations. This fact lets thinking that in some cases the only knowledge of the spectrum of an operator is not enough to understand sufficiently its action. To supplement this lack of information contained in the spectrum, some new subsets of the complex plane called pseudospectra have been defined. The main idea about the definition of these new subsets is that it is interesting to study not only the points where the resolvent of an operator is not defined, i.e. its spectrum, but also where this resolvent is large in norm. This explains the following definition of the $\varepsilon$-pseudospectrum $\sigma_{\varepsilon}(A)$ of a matrix or an operator $A$, $$\sigma_{\varepsilon}(A)=\Big\{z \in \cc, \ \|(zI-A)^{-1}\| \geq \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \Big\},$$ for any $\eps>0$, if we write by convention that $\|(zI-A)^{-1}\|=+\infty$ for every point $z$ belonging to the spectrum $\sigma(A)$ of the operator. Let us mention that there exists an abundant literature about this notion of pseudospectrum. We refer here for the definition and some general properties of pseudospectra to the paper of L.N. Trefethen. Let us also point out the more recently published book , which draws up a wide all-round view of this topic and gives a lot of illustrations. According to the previous definition, studying the pseudospectra of an operator is exactly studying the level lines of the norm of its resolvent. What is interesting in studying such level lines is that it gives some information about the spectral stability of the operator. Indeed, pseudospectra can be defined in an equivalent way in term of spectra of perturbations of the operator. For instance, we have for any $A \in M_n(\cc)$, $$\sigma_{\varepsilon}(A)=\{z \in \cc, \ z \in \sigma(A+B) \ \textrm{for some} \ B \in M_n(\cc) \ \textrm{with} \ \|B\| \leq \varepsilon \}.$$ It follows that a complex number $z$ belongs to the $\varepsilon$-pseudospectrum of a matrix $A$ if and only if it belongs to the spectrum of one of its perturbations $A+B$ with $\|B\| \leq \varepsilon$. More generally, if $A$ is a closed unbounded linear operator with a dense domain on a complex Hilbert space $H$, the result of Roch and Silbermann in gives that $$\sigma_{\eps}(A)=\bigcup_{B \in \mathcal{L}(H), \ \|B\|_{\mathcal{L}(H)} \leq \eps}{\sigma(A+B)},$$ where $\mathcal{L}(H)$ stands for the set of bounded linear operators on $H$. From this second description, we understand the interest in studying such subsets if we want for example to compute numerically some eigenvalues of an operator. Indeed, we start to do it by discretizing this operator. This discretization and inevitable round-off errors will generate some perturbations of the initial operator. Eventually, algorithms for eigenvalues computing will determine the eigenvalues of a perturbation of the initial operator, i.e. a value in a $\varepsilon$-pseudospectrum of the initial operator but not necessarily a spectral one. This explains why it is important in such numerical computations to understand if the $\eps$-pseudospectra of studied operators contain more or less deeply their spectra. Let us first notice that this study is a priori non-trivial only for non-selfadjoint operators, or more precisely for \textit{non-normal} operators. Indeed, we have for a \textit{normal} operator $A$ an exact expression of the norm of its resolvent given by the following classical formula (see for example (V.3.31) in ), \begin{equation}\inc \forall z \not\in \sigma(A), \ \|(zI-A)^{-1}\| = \frac{1}{d\big(z,\sigma(A)\big)}, \num \end{equation} where $d\big(z,\sigma(A)\big)$ stands for the distance between $z$ and the spectrum of the operator, when $A$ is a closed unbounded linear operator with a dense domain on a complex Hilbert space. This formula proves that the resolvent of a \textit{normal} operator cannot blow up far from its spectrum. It ensures the stability of its spectrum under small perturbations because the $\eps$-pseudospectrum is exactly equal in this case to the $\eps$-neighbourhood of the spectrum \begin{equation}\inc \sigma_{\eps}(A) = \big\{z \in \cc : d\big(z,\sigma(A) \big) \leq \eps \big\}. \num \end{equation} Nevertheless it is well-known that this formula () is no more true for non-normal operators. For such operators, it can occur that their resolvents are very large in norm far from their spectra. This induces that the spectra of these operators can be very unstable under small perturbations. To illustrate this fact, let us consider the case of the rotated harmonic oscillator and the following numerical computation of its spectrum. The rotated harmonic oscillator is a simple example of elliptic quadratic differential operator $$H_{c}=D_x^2+c x^2, \ D_x=i^{-1}\partial_x,$$ with $c=e^{i \pi/4}$. The numerical computation is performed on the matrix discretization $$\big{(}(H_{c} \Psi_i,\Psi_j)_{L^2(\rr)}\big{)}_{1 \leq i,j \leq N},$$ where $N$ is an integer taken equal to $100$ and $(\Psi_j)_{j \in \mathbb{N}^*}$ stands for the basis of $L^{2}(\rr)$ composed by Hermite functions. The black dots appearing on this computation stand for the numerically computed eigenvalues. We can notice on this numerical simulation that the computed low energies are very close to theoretical ones since the spectrum of the rotated harmonic oscillator is only composed of eigenvalues regularly spaced out on the half-line $e^{i \pi/8} \rr_+^*$, $$\sigma(H_c)=\{e^{i \pi/8}(2n+1) : n \in \nn\}.$$ However we notice that it is no more true for the high energies. It occurs for them some strong spectral instabilities, which lead to the computation of \og false eigenvalues \fg \ far from the half-line $e^{i \pi/8}\rr_+^*$. Let us mention that some comparable computations can be found in . In this paper, we are interested in studying when and how this kind of phenomena occurs in the class of elliptic quadratic differential operators. \subsection{Elliptic quadratic differential operators} \init We study here the class of elliptic quadratic differential operators. It is the class of pseudodifferential operators defined in the Weyl quantization \begin{equation}\inc q(x,\xi)^w u(x) =\frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\int_{\rr^{2n}}{e^{i(x-y).\xi}q\Big(\frac{x+y}{2},\xi\Big)u(y)dyd\xi}, \num \end{equation} by some symbols $q(x,\xi)$, where $(x,\xi) \in \rr^{n} \times \rr^n$ and $n \in \nn^*$, which are some \textit{complex-valued elliptic quadratic forms} i.e. complex-valued quadratic forms verifying \begin{equation}\inc (x,\xi) \in \rr^{n} \times \rr^n, \ q(x,\xi)=0 \Rightarrow (x,\xi)=(0,0). \num \end{equation} Let us first notice that since the symbols of these operators are some quadratic forms, these are only some differential operators, which are a priori non-selfadjoint because their Weyl symbols are complex-valued. As mentioned before, the rotated harmonic oscillator is an example of such an operator since we have $$D_x^2+e^{i\theta} x^2=(\xi^2+e^{i\theta}x^2)^w, \ 0<\theta<\pi,$$ if $D_x=i^{-1}\partial_x$. This operator is a very simple example of non-selfadjoint operator for which we have noticed on the previous numerical simulation that it occurs some strong spectral instabilities under small perturbations for its high energies. These phenomena have been studied in several recent works. We can mention in particular the works of L.S. Boulton , E.B. Davies , K. Pravda-Starov and M. Zworski~, which have given a good understanding of these phenomena. A question, which has been at the origin of this work, has been to study if these phenomena peculiar to the rotated harmonic oscillator are representative, or not, of what occurs more generally in the class of elliptic quadratic differential operators in every dimension. We have tried to answer to the following questions: \begin{itemize} \item[-] Does it always occur some strong spectral instabilities under small perturbations for the high energies of these operators ? \item[-] If it is not the case, is it possible to give a necessary and sufficient condition on the Weyl symbols of these operators, which ensures their spectral stability~? \item[-] Can we precisely describe the geometry, which separates the regions of the resolvent sets where the resolvents of these operators blow up in norm from the ones where one keeps a control on their sizes ? \end{itemize} To understand these spectral stability or instability phenomena, we need to study the microlocal properties, which rule these phenomena in the class of elliptic quadratic differential operators. Let us mention that it is M. Zworski who first underlined in~ the close link between these questions of spectral instabilities and some results of microlocal analysis about the solvability of pseudodifferential operators. \subsection{Semiclassical pseudospectrum} \init To answer to these previous questions, it is interesting to use a semiclassical setting and to study a notion of pseudospectrum in this new setting. We define for a semiclassical family $(P_h)_{0<h \leq 1}$ of operators on $L^2(\rr^n)$, with a domain~$D$, the following notions of semiclassical pseudospectra. \begin{definition} For all $\mu \geq 0$, the set $$ \Lambda_{\mu}^{\emph{\textrm{sc}}} (P_h)=\big\{z \in \mathbb{C} : \forall C >0, \forall h_0>0, \exists \ 0<h<h_0, \ \|(P_h-z)^{-1}\| \geq C h^{-\mu} \big\}, $$ is called \emph{semiclassical pseudospectrum of index $\mu$} of the semiclassical family $(P_h)_{0<h \leq 1}$. The \emph{semiclassical pseudospectrum of infinite index} is defined by $$\Lambda_{\infty}^{\emph{\textrm{sc}}}(P_h)=\bigcap_{\mu \geq 0}{\Lambda_{\mu}^{\emph{\textrm{sc}}}(P_h)}.$$ \end{definition} \bigskip \noindent With this definition, the points in the complement of the semiclassical pseudospectrum of index $\mu$ are the points of the complex plane where we have the following control of the resolvent's norm for sufficiently small values of the semiclassical parameter $h$, \begin{equation}\inc \exists C>0, \exists h_0>0, \forall \ 0<h<h_0, \ \|(P_h-z)^{-1}\|<C h^{-\mu}. \num \end{equation} To prove the existence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of index $\mu$, we will study the question of existence of semiclassical quasimodes \inc \begin{multline} \forall C>0, \forall h_0>0, \exists \ 0<h<h_0, \exists u_h \in D, \\ \|u_h\|_{L^2(\rr^n)}=1 \ \textrm{and } \|P_h u_h-zu_h\|_{L^2(\rr^n)} \leq C h^{\mu}, \num \end{multline} in some points $z$ of the resolvent set, which can be considered as some \og almost eigenvalues \fg \ in $O(h^{\mu})$ in the semiclassical limit. Let us notice that the definition chosen here for the notions of semiclassical pseudospectra differ from the one given in for a semiclassical pseudodifferential operator. In fact, we have chosen a definition for semiclassical pseudospectra inspired by the remark made p.388 in , because this definition only depends on the properties of the semiclassical operator rather than on its symbol. The interest of working in a semiclassical setting is a matter of geometry. We can explain this choice by the fact that it is easier for an elliptic quadratic differential operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ to describe the geometry of semiclassical pseudospectra of its associated semiclassical operator $(q(x,h\xi)^w)_{0<h \leq 1},$ than to describe directly the geometry of its $\eps$-pseudospectra. The semiclassical setting is particularly well-adapted for the study of elliptic quadratic differential operators because there exists a simple link between this semiclassical setting and the quantum one. Indeed, using that the symbols of these operators are some quadratic forms $q$, we obtain from the change of variables, $y=h^{1/2}x$ with $h>0$, the following identity between the quantum operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ and its associated semiclassical operator $(q(x,h\xi)^w)_{0<h \leq 1}$, \begin{equation}\inc q(x,\xi)^w-\frac{z}{h}=\frac{1}{h}\big{(}q(y,h\eta)^w-z \big{)}, \num \end{equation} if $z \in \cc$. This identity allows to get some information about the resolvent's norm behaviour of the quantum operator $$\big(q(x,\xi)^w-z\big)^{-1},$$ if we have some information about semiclassical pseudospectra for its associated semiclassical operator. Let us mention for example that if a non-zero complex number $z$ belongs to the semiclassical pseudospectrum of infinite index of the operator $$(q(x,h\xi)^w)_{0<h \leq 1},$$ the identity () induces that the resolvent's norm of the quantum operator blows up along the half-line $z \rr_+$ with a rate faster than any polynomials \begin{equation}\inc \forall N \in \nn, \forall C>0, \forall \eta_0 \geq 1, \exists \eta \geq \eta_0, \ \|\big(q(x,\xi)^w-z \eta \big)^{-1}\| \geq C \eta^N, \num \end{equation} and this, even if this half-line $z\rr_+$ does not intersect the spectrum of the operator~$q(x,\xi)^w$. Conversely, in the case where $z \not\in \Lambda_{\mu}^{\textrm{sc}}\big{(}q(y,h\eta)^w\big{)}$, $z \neq 0$ and $0 \leq \mu \leq 1$, the identity () shows that we can find some positive constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that the resolvent of the operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ remains bounded in norm in some regions of the resolvent set of the shape \begin{equation}\inc \big{\{}u \in \cc : |u| \geq C_1, \ d(\Delta,u) \leq C_2 |\textrm{proj}_{\Delta} u|^{1-\mu} \big{\}} \cap \ \cc \setminus \sigma\big{(}q(x,\xi)^w\big{)}, \num \end{equation} where $\Delta=z\rr_+$ and $\textrm{proj}_{\Delta} u$ stands for the orthogonal projection of $u$ on the closed half-line $\Delta$. Indeed, we obtain from () and () that $$\exists C>0, \exists \eta_0 \geq 1, \forall \eta \geq \eta_0, \ \big\|\big(q(x,\xi)^w-\eta e^{i \textrm{arg}z} \big)^{-1} \big\| < C \eta^{\mu-1},$$ which induces that for all $v \in D\big(q(x,\xi)^w\big)$ and $\eta \geq \eta_0$, $$\big\|\big(q(x,\xi)^w-\eta e^{i \textrm{arg}z} \big)v \big\|_{L^2(\rr^n)} \geq C^{-1}\eta^{1-\mu}\|v\|_{L^2(\rr^n)},$$ if $D\big(q(x,\xi)^w\big)$ stands for the domain of the operator $q(x,\xi)^w$. Then, we can find a constant $\tilde{\eta}_0 \geq 1$ such that if $\tilde{z}$ belongs to \begin{multline*} \big\{u \in \cc : |u| \geq \tilde{\eta}_0, \ d(e^{i \textrm{arg}z}\rr_+,u) \leq 2^{-1}C^{-1}|\textrm{proj}_{e^{i\textrm{arg} z}\rr_+} u|^{1-\mu} \big\} \cap \ \cc \setminus \sigma\big(q(x,\xi)^w \big), \end{multline*} then $$|\textrm{proj}_{e^{i\textrm{arg} z}\rr_+} \tilde{z}| \geq \eta_0.$$ This induces using the previous estimates and the triangular inequality that if $\tilde{z}$ belongs to \begin{multline*} \big\{u \in \cc : |u| \geq \tilde{\eta}_0, \ d(e^{i \textrm{arg}z}\rr_+,u) \leq 2^{-1}C^{-1}|\textrm{proj}_{e^{i\textrm{arg} z}\rr_+} u|^{1-\mu} \big\} \cap \ \cc \setminus \sigma\big(q(x,\xi)^w \big), \end{multline*} we have for all $v \in D\big(q(x,\xi)^w\big)$, \begin{eqnarray*} \big\|\big(q(x,\xi)^w-\tilde{z}\big)v \big\|_{L^2} & \geq & \big\|\big(q(x,\xi)^w-\textrm{proj}_{e^{i \textrm{arg}z}\rr_+}\tilde{z} \big)v \big\|_{L^2}-d\big(e^{i \textrm{arg}z}\rr_+,\tilde{z}\big)\|v\|_{L^2}\\ &\geq & 2^{-1} C^{-1} |\textrm{proj}_{e^{i \textrm{arg}z}\rr_+}\tilde{z}|^{1-\mu} \|v\|_{L^2}\\ & \geq& 2^{-1} C^{-1} \eta_0^{1-\mu} \|v\|_{L^2}, \end{eqnarray*} because $\mu \leq 1$. This last estimate shows that the resolvent of the operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ is bounded in norm by $2C \eta_0^{\mu-1}$ on the set \begin{multline*} \big\{u \in \cc : |u| \geq \tilde{\eta}_0, \ d(e^{i \textrm{arg}z}\rr_+,u) \leq 2^{-1}C^{-1}|\textrm{proj}_{e^{i\textrm{arg} z}\rr_+} u|^{1-\mu} \big\} \cap \ \cc \setminus \sigma\big(q(x,\xi)^w \big). \end{multline*} We notice that depending directly on the value of the index $\mu$, $0 \leq \mu<1$, the previous set contains more or less deeply in its interior the half-line $$\{u \in \cc : |u| \geq \tilde{\eta}_0, \ u \in z \rr_+\}.$$ This fact explains why in the following we will precise carefully the index of the semiclassical pseudospectrum to which a point does not belong when there is no semiclassical pseudospectrum of infinite index in that point. \section{Statement of the results} \subsection{Some notations and some preliminary facts about elliptic quadratic differential operators} \init Let us begin by giving some notations and recalling known results about elliptic quadratic differential operators. Let $q$ be a complex-valued elliptic quadratic form \begin{eqnarray*} q : \rr_x^n \times \rr_{\xi}^n &\rightarrow& \cc\\ (x,\xi) & \mapsto & q(x,\xi), \end{eqnarray*} with $n \in \nn^*$, i.e. a complex-valued quadratic form verifying (). The \textit{numerical range} $\Sigma(q)$ of $q$ is defined by the subset in the complex plane of all values taken by this symbol \begin{equation}\inc \Sigma(q)=q(\rr_x^n \times \rr_{\xi}^n), \num \end{equation} and the \textit{Hamilton map} $F \in M_{2n}(\cc)$ associated to the quadratic form $q$ is uniquely defined by the identity \begin{equation}\inc q\big{(}(x,\xi);(y,\eta) \big{)}=\sigma \big{(}(x,\xi),F(y,\eta) \big{)}, \ (x,\xi) \in \rr^{2n}, (y,\eta) \in \rr^{2n}, \num \end{equation} where $q\big{(}\textrm{\textperiodcentered};\textrm{\textperiodcentered} \big{)}$ stands for the polar form associated to the quadratic form $q$ and $\sigma$ is the symplectic form on $\rr^{2n}$, \begin{equation}\inc \sigma \big{(}(x,\xi),(y,\eta) \big{)}=\xi.y-x.\eta, \ (x,\xi) \in \rr^{2n}, (y,\eta) \in \rr^{2n}. \num \end{equation} Let us first notice that this Hamilton map $F$ is skew-symmetric with respect to $\sigma$. This is just a consequence of the properties of skew-symmetry of the symplectic form and symmetry of the polar form \begin{equation}\inc \forall X,Y \in \rr^{2n}, \ \sigma(X,FY)=q(X;Y)=q(Y;X)=\sigma(Y,FX)=-\sigma(FX,Y).\num \end{equation} Under this assumption of ellipticity, the numerical range of a quadratic form can only take some very particular shapes. It is a consequence of the following result proved by J. Sj�strand (Lemma 3.1 in ), \bigskip \begin{proposition} Let $q : \rr_x^n \times \rr_{\xi}^n \rightarrow \cc$ a complex-valued elliptic quadratic form. If $n \geq 2$, then there exists $z \in \cc^*$ such that $\emph{\textrm{Re}}(z q)$ is a positive definite quadratic form. If $n=1$, the same result is fulfilled if we assume besides that $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$. \end{proposition} \bigskip \noindent This proposition shows that the numerical range of an elliptic quadratic form can only take two shapes. The first possible shape is when $\Sigma(q)$ is equal to the whole complex plane. This case can only occur in dimension $n=1$. The second possible shape is when $\Sigma(q)$ is equal to a closed angular sector with a top in $0$ and an opening strictly lower than $\pi$. \noindent Indeed, if $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$, using that the set $\Sigma(q)$ is a semi-cone $$t q(x,\xi)=q(\sqrt{t} x,\sqrt{t}\xi), \ t \in \rr_+, \ (x,\xi) \in \rr^{2n},$$ because $q$ is a quadratic form, we have $$\Sigma(q)=\rr_+ z^{-1}I,$$ if $z$ is the non-zero complex number given by the proposition and $I$ is the compact interval $$I=1+i \ \textrm{Im}(z q)(K),$$ where $K$ is the following compact subset of $\rr^{2n}$, $$\big\{(x,\xi) \in \rr^{2n} : \textrm{Re}(z q)(x,\xi)=1\big\}.$$ The compactness of $K$ is a direct consequence of the fact that $\textrm{Re}(zq)$ is a positive definite quadratic form. Elliptic quadratic differential operators define some Fredholm operators (see Lemma~3.1 in or Theorem 3.5 in ), \begin{equation}\inc q(x,\xi)^w +z : B \rightarrow \lde, \num \end{equation} where $B$ is the Hilbert space \begin{equation}\inc \big\{ u \in \lde : x^{\alpha} D_x^{\beta} u \in \lde \ \textrm{if} \ |\alpha+\beta| \leq 2\big\}, \num \end{equation} with the norm $$\|u\|_B^2=\sum_{|\alpha+\beta| \leq 2}{\|x^{\alpha} D_x^{\beta} u\|_{\lde}^2}.$$ The Fredholm index of the operator $q(x,\xi)^w+z$ is independent of $z$ and is equal to~$0$ if $n \geq 2$. In the case where $n=1$, this index can take the values $-2$, $0$ or $2$. More precisely, this index is always equal to $0$ if $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$. In the following, we will always assume that $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$. Under this assumption, J.~Sj�strand has proved in the theorem 3.5 in (see also Lemma $3.2$ and Theorem~3.3 in~) that the spectrum of an elliptic quadratic differential operator $$q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow \lde,$$ is only composed of eigenvalues with finite multiplicity \begin{equation}\inc \sigma\big{(}q(x,\xi)^w\big{)}=\Big\{ \sum_{\substack{\lambda \in \sigma(F), \\ -i \lambda \in \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\}}} {\big{(}r_{\lambda}+2 k_{\lambda} \big{)}(-i\lambda) : k_{\lambda} \in \nn} \Big\}, \num \end{equation} where $F$ is the Hamilton map associated to the quadratic form $q$ and $r_{\lambda}$ is the dimension of the space of generalized eigenvectors of $F$ in $\cc^{2n}$ belonging to the eigenvalue $\lambda \in \cc$. Let us notice that the spectra of these operators is always included in the numerical range of their Weyl symbols. To end this review of preliminary properties of elliptic quadratic differential operators, let us underline that the property of normality in this class of operators can be easily checked by computing the Poisson bracket of the real part and the imaginary part of their symbols \begin{equation}\inc \{\textrm{Re }q, \textrm{Im } q\}=\frac{\partial \textrm{Re }q}{\partial \xi}.\frac{\partial \textrm{Im }q}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial \textrm{Re }q}{\partial x}.\frac{\partial \textrm{Im }q}{\partial \xi}. \num \end{equation} \bigskip \begin{proposition} An elliptic quadratic differential operator $$q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow \lde, \ n \in \nn^*,$$ is \emph{normal} if and only if the quadratic form defined by the Poisson bracket of the real part and the imaginary part of its symbol is equal to zero \begin{equation}\inc \forall (x,\xi) \in \rr^{2n}, \ \{\emph{\textrm{Re }}q, \emph{\textrm{Im }} q\}(x,\xi)=0.\num \end{equation} \end{proposition} \bigskip \noindent \textit{Proof of Proposition }. This proposition is a direct consequence of the composition formula in Weyl calculus (see Theorem 18.5.4 in ), which induces that the Weyl symbol of the commutator $$[q^w, (q^w)^*]=[q^w, \overline{q}^w]=-2i [(\textrm{Re }q)^w, (\textrm{Im } q)^w],$$ is equal to $$-2i( \textrm{Re } q \ \sharp \ \textrm{Im } q - \textrm{Im } q \ \sharp \ \textrm{Re } q)=-2 \{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\},$$ because $\textrm{Re }q$ and $\textrm{Im }q$ are some quadratic forms. The notation $\textrm{Re } q \ \sharp \ \textrm{Im } q$ stands for the Weyl symbol of the operator obtained by composition $(\textrm{Re} q)^w(\textrm{Im} q)^w$. $\Box$ \bigskip \noindent \textit{Remark.} Let us notice that the symplectic invariance of the Poisson bracket (see (21.1.4) in ), \begin{equation}\inc \{(\textrm{Re }q) \circ \chi, (\textrm{Im }q) \circ \chi\}=\{\textrm{Re }q,\textrm{Im }q\} \circ \chi, \num \end{equation} if $\chi$ stands for a linear symplectic transformation of $\rr^{2n}$, implies that the condition () is symplectically invariant. \subsection{Statement of the main results} \init Let us consider an elliptic quadratic differential operator $$q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow L^2(\rr^n).$$ We know from () that the spectrum of this operator is contained in the numerical range of its symbol $\Sigma(q)$. The following proposition gives a first localization of the regions where the resolvent can blow up in norm and where spectral instabilities can occur. \bigskip \begin{proposition} Let $q : \rr^n \times \rr^n \rightarrow \cc$, $n \in \nn^*$, be a complex-valued elliptic quadratic form. We have $$\forall z \not\in \Sigma(q), \ \big\|\big{(}q(x,\xi)^w-z\big{)}^{-1}\big\| \leq \frac{1}{d\big{(}z,\Sigma(q) \big{)}},$$ where $d\big{(}z,\Sigma(q)\big{)}$ stands for the distance from $z$ to the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$. \end{proposition} \bigskip This result shows that the resolvent of an elliptic quadratic differential operator cannot blow up in norm far from the numerical range of its symbol. We are now going to study what kind of phenomena can occur in this particular set. There are two cases to separate according to the property of normality or non-normality of the operator. \subsubsection{Case of a normal operator} Let us consider a \textit{normal} elliptic quadratic differential operator $$q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow L^2(\rr^n).$$ Let us recall that according to the proposition this property of normality is exactly equivalent to the fact that $$\forall (x,\xi) \in \rr^{2n}, \ \{\textrm{Re }q,\textrm{Im }q\}(x,\xi)=0.$$ In this case, we have the classical formula () for its resolvent's norm \begin{equation}\inc \forall z \not\in \sigma\big(q(x,\xi)^w\big), \ \big\|\big(q(x,\xi)^w-z\big)^{-1} \big\|=\frac{1}{d\big(z,\sigma(q(x,\xi)^w) \big)}, \num \end{equation} which induces that the $\eps$-pseudospectrum of this operator is exactly equal to the $\eps$-neighbourhood of its spectrum $$\sigma_{\eps}\big(q(x,\xi)^w\big)=\big\{z \in \cc : d\big(z,\sigma( q(x,\xi)^w) \big) \leq \eps \big\}, \ \eps > 0.$$ This classical formula () ensures that the resolvent cannot blow up in norm far from the spectrum and induces that the spectrum of such an operator is stable under small perturbations. \bigskip \noindent \textit{Example 1.} The operator \inc \begin{multline} q_1(x,\xi)^w=-(1+i)\partial_{x_1}^2-\partial_{x_2}^2+4(-1+i) x_1 \partial_{x_1}+2(-1+i) x_2 \partial_{x_1}+6i x_2 \partial_{x_2} \\+2i x_1 \partial_{x_2}+(6+5i) x_1^2+(11+i)x_2^2+(10+4i)x_1 x_2-2+5i, \num \end{multline} is an example of a normal elliptic quadratic differential operator. Its spectrum is given by $$\sigma\big(q_1(x,\xi)^w \big)=\big\{(2k_1+1)+(2k_2+1) \sqrt{2}e^{i \frac{\pi}{4}} : (k_1,k_2) \in \nn^2 \big\}.$$ \bigskip \noindent \textit{Example 2.} Let us notice that when the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ is reduced to a closed half-line, the elliptic quadratic differential operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ is always normal since $$\{\textrm{Re }q,\textrm{Im }q\}=|z|^2\{\textrm{Re}(z^{-1}q),\textrm{Im}(z^{-1}q)\}=0,$$ if $z \in \cc^*$ is chosen such that $\textrm{Im}(z^{-1}q)=0$. In fact, the operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ can in this particular case be reduced after a conjugation by a unitary operator on $L^2(\rr^n)$ to the operator $$z \sum_{j=1}^{n}{\lambda_j (D_{x_j}^2+x_j^2)},$$ where $\lambda_j >0$ for all $j=1,...,n$. \subsubsection{Case of a non-normal operator} Let us consider a \textit{non-normal} elliptic quadratic differential operator $$q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow L^2(\rr^n), \ n \in \nn^*.$$ We assume in the following that the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ is distinct from the whole complex plane \begin{equation}\inc \Sigma(q) \neq \cc. \num \end{equation} As mentioned in the section , this additional assumption is always fulfilled in dimension $n \geq 2$. It only excludes some very particular one-dimensional elliptic quadratic differential operators (see the remark following the proposition for more precision about these operators). Under this additional assumption, the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ is always a closed angular sector with a top in $0$ and a \textit{positive} opening strictly lower than $\pi$. \bigskip \noindent \textit{.a. On the pseudospectrum at the interior of the numerical range.} Let us consider the associated semiclassical elliptic quadratic differential operator $$(q(x,h\xi)^w)_{0<h \leq 1}.$$ We can build in every point of the interior of the numerical range $\mathring{\Sigma}(q)$ some semiclassical quasimodes. \bigskip \begin{theorem} If the elliptic quadratic differential operator $$q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow L^2(\rr^n), \ n \in \nn^*,$$ is \emph{non-normal} and verifies $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$ then for all $z \in \mathring{\Sigma}(q)$ and $N \in \nn$, there exist $h_0>0$ and a semiclassical family $(u_h)_{0<h \leq h_0} \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$ such that $$\|u_h\|_{L^2(\rr^n)}=1 \textrm{ and } \|q(x,h\xi)^w u_h -z u_h\|_{L^2(\rr^n)}=O(h^N) \textrm{ when } h \rightarrow 0^+.$$ This result induces the existence of \emph{semiclassical pseudospectrum of infinite index} in every point of the interior of the numerical range $\mathring{\Sigma}(q)$. \end{theorem} \bigskip According to (), this result in the semiclassical setting induces that the resolvent's norm of the quantum operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ blows up fastly along all the half-lines belonging to the interior of the numerical range $\mathring{\Sigma}(q)$, \begin{equation}\inc \forall z \in \mathring{\Sigma}(q), \forall N \in \nn, \forall C>0, \forall \eta_0 \geq 1, \exists \eta \geq \eta_0, \ \|\big(q(x,\xi)^w-z \eta \big)^{-1}\| \geq C \eta^N. \num \end{equation} We deduce from () that as soon as an elliptic quadratic differential operator is \textit{non-normal} its resolvent blows up in norm in some regions of the resolvent set far from its spectrum. This fact induces that the high energies of such an operator are very unstable under small perturbations as we have already noticed on the numerical computation performed for the rotated harmonic oscillator. It follows that in the class of elliptic quadratic differential operators the property of spectral stability is exactly equivalent to the property of normality: $$\begin{array}{lllll} \sigma( q(x,\xi)^w) \textrm{ is \textit{stable} under} & \Leftrightarrow & q(x,\xi)^w \textrm{ is a \textit{normal}} & \Leftrightarrow & \{\textrm{Re }q,\textrm{Im }q\}=0.\\ \textrm{small perturbations} & & \textrm{operator}& & \end{array}$$ By spectral stability, we mean here that the resolvent of these operators cannot blow up in norm far from their spectra. Let us add that it is not very surprising to have this property of spectral stability under the assumption of normality, but it is worth noticing that as soon as this property is violated, it occurs in this class of operators some strong spectral instabilities under small perturbations for their high energies. \bigskip \noindent \textit{Examples.} The two following operators \begin{equation}\inc q_2(x,\xi)^w=-\partial_{x_1}^2-2\partial_{x_2}^2+4i x_2 \partial_{x_2}+2x_1^2+(4+i) x_2^2+4x_1 x_2 +2i \num \end{equation} and\inc \begin{multline} q_3(x,\xi)^w=-(1+i) \partial_{x_1}^2-2\partial_{x_2}^2+4(-1+i) x_1 \partial_{x_1}+2(1-i)x_2 \partial_{x_1}-4i x_1 \partial_{x_2} \\+(9+4i)x_1^2+(2+i)x_2^2-4(1+i)x_1 x_2-2+2i, \num \end{multline} are some examples of non-normal elliptic quadratic differential operators. \bigskip \noindent \textit{.b. On the pseudospectrum at the boundary of the numerical range.} Let us now study what occurs on the boundary of the numerical range $\partial \Sigma(q)$ for a \textit{non-normal} elliptic quadratic differential operator $$q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow L^2(\rr^n).$$ Let us mention that we always assume that $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$. Under these assumptions, the boundary of the numerical range is composed of the union of the origin $0$ and two half-lines $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$, \begin{equation}\inc \partial \Sigma(q)=\{0\} \sqcup \Delta_1 \sqcup \Delta_2, \num \end{equation} that we can write \begin{equation}\inc \Delta_1=z_1 \rr_+^* \textrm{ and } \Delta_2=z_2 \rr_+^* \textrm{ with } z_1, z_2 \in \partial \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\}. \num \end{equation} We need to define a notion of \textit{order} for the symbol $q(x,\xi)$ on these two half-lines $\Delta_j$, $j=1,2$. Let us begin by recalling the classical definition of the order $k(x_0,\xi_0)$ of a symbol $p(x,\xi)$ at a point $(x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}$ (see section 27.2, chapter 27 in ). This order $k(x_0,\xi_0)$ is an element of the set $\nn \cup \{+\infty\}$ defined by \begin{equation}\inc k(x_0,\xi_0)=\sup\big{\{}j \in \mathbb{Z} : p_I(x_0,\xi_0)=0, \ \forall\ 1 \leq |I| \leq j\big{\}}, \num \end{equation} where $I=(i_1,i_2,...,i_k) \in \{1,2\}^k$, $|I|=k$ and $p_I$ stands for the iterated Poisson brackets $$p_{I}=H_{p_{i_1}}H_{p_{i_2}}...H_{p_{i_{k-1}}}p_{i_k},$$ where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are respectively the real and the imaginary part of the symbol $p$, $p=p_1+ip_2$. The order of a symbol $q$ at a point $z$ is then defined as the maximal order of the symbol $p=q-z$ at every point $(x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}$ verifying $$p(x_0,\xi_0)=q(x_0,\xi_0)-z=0.$$ Let us underline that the symplectic invariance of the Poisson bracket () induces the same property for the order of a symbol at a point. Since here the symbol $q$ is a quadratic form, all the iterated Poisson brackets are also some quadratic forms. This property of degree two homogeneity of these Poisson brackets induces that the symbol $q$ has the same order at every point of each half-line $\Delta_j$, $j=1,2$. This allows to define the order of the symbol $q$ on the half-line $\Delta_j$ by defining this order by this common value. Let us mention that this order can be \textit{finite} or \textit{infinite}. \bigskip \noindent \textit{Examples.} One can easily check that the Weyl symbol $$\xi^2+e^{i \theta}x^2, \ 0<\theta <\pi,$$ of the rotated harmonic oscillator has an order equal to $2$ on the both half-lines $\rr_+^*$ and $e^{i \theta}\rr_+^*$, which composes the boundary of its numerical range. The symbol $q_2$ of the operator defined in () has an order equal to $2$ on $i\rr_+^*$ and to $6$ on $\rr_+^*$, $$\Sigma(q_2)=\{z \in \cc : \textrm{Re }z \geq 0, \ \textrm{Im }z \geq 0\}.$$ On the other hand, we can verify that the symbol $q_3$ of the operator defined in () is of infinite order on the half-line $\rr_+^*$ and has an order equal to $2$ on $e^{i \pi/4}\rr_+^*$, $$\Sigma(q_3)=\{0\} \cup \{z \in \cc^* : 0 \leq \textrm{arg } z \leq \pi/4\}.$$ \bigskip In the case where the symbol is of \textit{finite} order on a half-line $\Delta_j$, $j=1,2$, we have the following result. \bigskip \begin{theorem} If the Weyl symbol $q(x,\xi)$ of a non-normal elliptic quadratic differential operator is of \emph{finite} order $k_j$ on the half-line $$\Delta_j, \ j \in \{1,2\}, \ \Delta_j \subset \partial \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\},$$ then this order is necessary \emph{even} and there is \textbf{\emph{no}} semiclassical pseudospectrum of index $k_j/(k_j+1)$ on $\Delta_j$ for the associated semiclassical operator $$\Delta_j \subset \cc \setminus \Lambda_{k_j/(k_j+1)}^{\emph{\textrm{sc}}}\big( q(x,h\xi)^w\big).$$ \end{theorem} \bigskip \noindent \textit{Remark.} Let us mention that we can more precisely establish that in dimension $n \geq 1$, the order $k_j$ is an even integer verifying $$2 \leq k_j \leq 4n-2.$$ This result is proved in . \bigskip By rephrasing this result in a quantum setting, it follows from () and () that when the symbol $q$ of a non-normal elliptic quadratic differential operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ is of \textit{finite} order $k_j$ on a half-line $$\Delta_j, \ j \in \{1,2\}, \ \Delta_j \subset \partial \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\},$$ then the resolvent of this operator remains bounded in norm in a set of the following type \begin{equation}\inc \big{\{}u \in \cc : |u| \geq C_1, \ d(\Delta_j,u) \leq C_2 |\textrm{proj}_{\Delta_j} u|^{\frac{1}{k_j+1}} \big{\}}, \num \end{equation} where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are some positive constants. As we will see in its proof, this absence of semiclassical pseudospectrum is linked to some properties of subellipticity. Let us just underline for the moment that the index $k_j/(k_j+1)$, which appears in this result is exactly equal to the loss appearing in the subelliptic estimate hidden behind this result. About the case of \textit{infinite} order, the situation is much more complicated. Nevertheless, we can first notice in this case that we cannot expect to prove a stronger result than an absence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of index 1. Indeed, we can easily check on the example of the operator $q_3(x,\xi)^w$ defined in () that its spectrum is given by $$\sigma\big(q_3(x,\xi)^w \big)= \big\{(2 k_1+1) \sqrt{2}+(2 k_2+1)3^{\frac{1}{2}} 2^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{i \frac{ \pi}{8}}: (k_1,k_2) \in \nn^2 \big\}.$$ We recall that the spectrum of this operator is only composed of eigenvalues and that its symbol is of infinite order on $\rr_+^*$. It follows from the structure of the spectrum and () that if there is no semiclassical pseudospectrum of infinite index in a point of the half-line $\rr_+^*$, there is necessary no semiclassical pseudospectrum of index $\mu$ with an index $\mu \geq 1$. In fact, we can prove by using a result of exponential decay in time for the norm of contraction semigroups generated by elliptic quadratic differential operators (see ) that there is never some semiclassical pseudospectrum of index 1 on all these half-lines of infinite order. Let us mention that this result of exponential decay will not be proved here but it will be explained in the following how it induces the absence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of index 1. \subsubsection{About the geometry of $\eps$-pseudospectra for elliptic quadratic differential operators} Let us now explain what are the consequences of these results on the geometry of $\eps$-pseudospectra for elliptic quadratic differential operators. Let us begin by considering the one-dimensional case which is a bit particular. In dimension $n=1$, an elliptic quadratic differential operator can be reduced after a similitude and a conjugation by a unitary operator to the harmonic oscillator or to the rotated harmonic oscillator. \bigskip \begin{proposition} Let us consider $q : \rr \times \rr \rightarrow \cc$ a complex-valued elliptic quadratic form such that $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$. For all $h>0$, there exist a unitary operator \emph{(}more precisely a metaplectic operator\emph{)} $U_h$ on $L^2(\rr)$, which is an automorphism of the spaces $\mathcal{S}(\rr)$ and $B$, $z \in \cc^*$ and $\theta \in [0,\pi[$ such that $$\forall h>0, \ q(x,h\xi)^w=z U_h\big((hD_x)^2+e^{i\theta}x^2 \big)U_h^{-1}.$$ \end{proposition} \bigskip \noindent \textit{Remark.} In the case where $\Sigma(q)=\cc$, an elliptic quadratic differential operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ can be reduced after a similitude and a conjugation by a unitary operator on $L^2(\rr^n)$ to the operator defined in the Weyl quantization by the symbol $$(\xi+i x)(\xi +\eta x) \textrm{ with } \eta \in \cc, \ \textrm{Im } \eta>0,$$ or $$(\xi-i x)(\xi +\eta x) \textrm{ with } \eta \in \cc, \ \textrm{Im } \eta<0,$$ depending on the value of its Fredholm index, which is equal to $-2$ in the first case and to $2$ in the second one. \bigskip As we will see in the following, this proposition allows us to reduce the study of a one-dimensional non-normal elliptic quadratic differential operator verifying $$\Sigma(q) \neq \cc,$$ to the one of the rotated harmonic oscillator $$H_{\theta}=D_x^2+e^{i\theta} x^2, \ 0<\theta <\pi.$$ Let us mention that the previous results (Theorem and Theorem ) were already known in the particular case of the rotated harmonic oscillator. Indeed, the existence of semiclassical quasimodes inducing the presence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of infinite index in every point of the interior of the numerical range for the associated semiclassical operator, is a direct consequence of a result proved by E.B.~Davies in (Theorem 1). About the absence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of index $2/3$ on the boundary of the numerical range, this result has been proved for the rotated harmonic oscillator in . As proved in , this absence of semiclassical pseudospectrum allows to give a proof of a conjecture stated by L.S. Boulton in . It deals with the geometry of $\eps$-pseudospectra for the rotated harmonic oscillator. Let us now recall some facts about this conjecture and some results proved by L.S. Boulton in . L.S. Boulton has first proved (Theorem 3.3 in ) that the resolvent of the rotated harmonic oscillator blows up in norm along all a family of curves of the following form $$\eta \mapsto b \eta+e^{i\theta}\eta^p,$$ where $b$ and $p$ are some positive constants verifying $1/3<p<3$, \begin{equation}\inc \big{\|}\big{(}H_{\theta}-(b \eta + e^{i\theta}\eta^p)\big{)}^{-1}\big{\|} \rightarrow +\infty \ \textrm{when} \ \eta \rightarrow +\infty. \num \end{equation} On the other hand, he also proved that the resolvent of this operator remains bounded in norm on two half-stripes parallel to the half-lines $\rr_+$ or $e^{i\theta}\rr_+$. More precisely, he proved that there exist some positive constants $d$ and $M_d$ such that \begin{equation}\inc \sup_{\eta \in \rr_+^*, \ 0 \leq b \leq d}{\big{\|}\big{(}H_{\theta}-(\eta+ib) \big{)}^{-1}\big{\|}} \leq M_d, \num \end{equation} \begin{equation}\inc \sup_{\eta \in \rr_+^*, \ 0 \leq b \leq d}{\big{\|}\big{(}H_{\theta}-e^{i\theta}(\eta-ib) \big{)}^{-1}\big{\|}} \leq M_d. \num \end{equation} These bounds provide some information about the shape of $\varepsilon$-pseudospectra of the operator $H_{\theta}$. Indeed, L.S. Boulton has proved using these results that for all sufficiently small value of the positive parameter $\varepsilon$, the $\varepsilon$-pseudospectra of the rotated harmonic oscillator is contained in the shaded set appearing on the following figure. The eigenvalues appear on this figure marked by some $\diamond$. More precisely, L.S. Boulton proved that for all $0<\delta<1$ and $m \in \mathbb{N}$, there exists a positive constant $\varepsilon_0$ such that for all $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0$, \begin{equation}\inc \sigma_{\varepsilon}(H_{\theta}) \subset \bigcup_{n=0}^{m}{\{z \in \cc : |z-\lambda_n|<\delta\}} \cup \big{[}\lambda_{m+1}-\delta e^{i \theta/2}+S_{\theta}\big{]}, \num \end{equation} where $$\lambda_n=e^{i\theta/2}(2n+1), \ n \in \nn$$ and $$S_{\theta}=\{z \in \cc^*: 0 \leq \textrm{arg}\ z \leq \theta\} \ \cup \ \{0\}.$$ \noindent In fact, in view of some numerical calculations performed by E.B. Davies in , L.S.~Boulton has conjectured that the index $p=1/3$ appearing in () is the \textit{critical} one in the following sense: Let us consider $0<p<1/3$, $0<\delta<1$ and $m \in \mathbb{N}$. If $b_{m,p}$ and~$E$ are some positive constants verifying $$b_{m,p} E+ e^{i\theta}E^p=\lambda_m \ \textrm{and} \ \forall \eta >E, \ \textrm{arg}\ z_{\eta}< \theta/2,$$ where $z_{\eta}=b_{m,p} \eta+e^{i\theta} \eta^p$, let us set $$\Omega_{m,p}=\big{\{}|z_{\eta}|e^{i\alpha} \in \mathbb{C}: \ \eta \geq E, \ \textrm{arg}\ z_{\eta} \leq \alpha \leq \textrm{arg}(\overline{z_{\eta}}e^{i\theta})\big{\}}.$$ L.S. Boulton has conjectured the following result. \bigskip \noindent \textbf{Boulton's conjecture}. There exists $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that for all $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0$, \begin{equation}\inc \sigma_{\varepsilon}(H_{\theta}) \subset \bigcup_{n=0}^{m}{\{z \in \mathbb{C}: \ |z-\lambda_n| <\delta\}} \cup \Omega_{m,p}.\num \end{equation} The absence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of index $2/3$ on the boundary of the numerical range $\partial \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\}$ for the rotated harmonic oscillator$.} given by the theorem shows that this index $1/3$ is actually the \textit{critical} one. Indeed, we can deduce () from () (see for more details) since here $k_j=2$, $j \in \{1,2\}$. As we will see, this theorem is a consequence of a subelliptic estimate for general semiclassical pseudodifferential operators proved by N. Dencker, J. Sj�strand and M.~Zworski in (Theorem 1.4). In the particular case of the rotated harmonic oscillator, a more elementary proof of this result using only some non-trivial localization scheme in the frequency variable is given in . Let us notice that this inclusion () allows to give a sharp description of the $\eps$-pseudospectra of the rotated harmonic oscillator, which is \textit{optimal} in view of (). By coming back to the case of an arbitrary dimension $n \geq 1$, let us finally underline that using the theorem , we can give similar descriptions of the $\eps$-pseudospectra for non-normal elliptic quadratic differential operators, to the one given by L.S. Boulton for the rotated harmonic oscillator, when the symbols of these operators are of \textit{finite} order on the two open half-lines, which compose the boundary of their numerical ranges. The only difference with the particular case of the rotated harmonic oscillator is that the critical indices, which appear in this description can be \textit{different}. Indeed, these critical indices depend directly according to () on the order of the symbols on the two half-lines composing the boundary of their numerical ranges. We refer the reader to for more details about the way of getting from () such descriptions of $\eps$-pseudospectra. \section{The proofs of the results} \init Before giving the proofs of the results stated in the previous section, let us begin by recalling the \textit{symplectic invariance} property of the Weyl quantization (see Theorem 18.5.9 in ). This symplectic invariance is actually the most important property of the Weyl quantization. For every affine symplectic transformation $\chi$ of $\rr^{2n}$, there exists a unitary transformation $U$ on $\lde$, uniquely determined apart from a constant factor of modulus 1, such that $U$ is an automorphism of the spaces $\mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$, $B$ and $\mathcal{S}'(\rr^n)$, where $B$ is the Hilbert space defined in (), and \begin{equation}\inc (a \circ \chi)(x,\xi)^w=U^{-1} a(x,\xi)^w U, \num \end{equation} for all $a \in \mathcal{S}'(\rr^{2n})$. The operator $U$ is a metaplectic operator associated to the affine symplectic transformation $\chi$. This symplectic invariance of the Weyl quantization induces the same property for the semiclassical pseudospectra of elliptic quadratic differential operators in the sense that if $$q : \rr_x^n \times \rr_{\xi}^n \rightarrow \cc,$$ is a complex-valued elliptic quadratic form and $\chi$ is a \textit{linear} symplectic transformation of $\rr^{2n}$, we have for all $\mu \in [0,\infty]$, \begin{equation}\inc \Lambda_{\mu}^{\textrm{sc}}\big( (q \circ \chi)(x,h\xi)^w\big)=\Lambda_{\mu}^{\textrm{sc}}\big( q(x,h\xi)^w\big). \num \end{equation} To prove this fact, let us begin by noticing that for all $a \in \mathcal{S}'(\rr^{2n})$ and $h>0$, we have $$U_h^{-1}a(x,\xi)^w U_h=a(h^{-1/2}x,h^{1/2}\xi)^w,$$ where $$U_h f(x)=h^{n/4}f(h^{1/2}x),$$ since according to the proof of Theorem 18.5.9 in , $U_h$ is a metaplectic operator associated to the linear symplectic transformation $$(x,\xi) \mapsto (h^{-1/2}x,h^{1/2}\xi).$$ Let us now consider the case where the symbol $a$ is a quadratic form. The homogeneity property of such a symbol implies that $$\forall h >0, \ a(h^{-1/2}x,h^{1/2}\xi)=\frac{1}{h}a(x,h\xi),$$ and $$\forall h>0, \ U_h^{-1} a(x,\xi)^w U_h=\frac{1}{h}a(x,h\xi)^w.$$ If $q : \rr_x^n \times \rr_{\xi}^n \rightarrow \cc$ is a complex-valued elliptic quadratic form and $\chi$ is a linear symplectic transformation of $\rr^{2n}$, we can notice that $$(q \circ \chi)(x,h\xi)^w, \ h>0,$$ is actually an elliptic quadratic differential operator since the symbol $q \circ \chi$ is an elliptic quadratic form. Let $z \in \cc$ and $U$ be a metaplectic operator associated to the linear symplectic transformation $\chi$. Using that $U$ and $U_h$ are some automorphisms of the Hilbert space $B$ and \inc \begin{multline*} U_h^{-1}U^{-1}U_h q(x,h\xi)^w U_h^{-1} U U_h=U_h^{-1}U^{-1} h q(x,\xi)^w U U_h\\ =h U_h^{-1} (q \circ \chi)(x,\xi)^w U_h=(q \circ \chi)(x,h\xi)^w, \num \end{multline*} we obtain that $$U_h^{-1}U^{-1}U_h \big(q(x,h\xi)^w-z\big)^{-1} U_h^{-1} U U_h=\big((q \circ \chi)(x,h\xi)^w-z\big)^{-1}.$$ Using finally that $U_h^{-1} U^{-1} U_h$ is a unitary transformation of $L^2(\rr^n)$, this identity implies that $$\big\| \big((q \circ \chi)(x,h\xi)^w-z \big)^{-1}\big\|=\big\| \big( q(x,h\xi)^w-z\big)^{-1}\big\|,$$ which proves (). In the following, this property of symplectic invariance will allow us to reduce certain symbols to some normal forms by choosing new symplectic coordinates. We can now begin to prove the results stated in the previous section. \bigskip Let us start by the proof of the proposition . \bigskip \noindent \textit{Proof of Proposition }. If the numerical range is equal to the whole complex plane, there is nothing to prove. If $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$, we have seen in the previous section that the numerical range is necessary a closed angular sector with a top in $0$ and an opening strictly lower than $\pi$. Let us consider $z \not\in \Sigma(q)$ and denote by $z_0$ its orthogonal projection on the non-empty closed convex set $\Sigma(q)$. According to the shape of the numerical range, it follows that $z_0$ belongs to its boundary and that we can find a complex number $z_1 \in \cc^*$, $|z_1|=1$ such that $$\Sigma(z_1 q) \subset \big\{z \in \cc : \textrm{Re } z \geq 0\big\}$$ and \begin{equation}\inc z_1 z \in \big\{z \in \cc : \textrm{Re } z<0\big\}, \ d\big{(}z,\Sigma(q)\big{)}=d(z_1 z,i\rr). \num \end{equation} Using now that the operator $i [\textrm{Im}(z_1 q)]^w$ is formally skew-selfadjoint, we obtain that for all $u \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$, \inc \begin{align*} & \ \textrm{Re}\big{(}z_1 q(x,\xi)^w u - z_1 z u,u \big{)}_{\lde}\\ =& \ d(z_1 z,i\rr)\|u\|_{\lde}^2+\big{(}\big[\textrm{Re}\big{(}z_1q(x,\xi)\big{)}\big]^w u,u\big{)}_{\lde}. \num \end{align*} Then, since the quadratic form $\textrm{Re}(z_1 q)$ is non-negative, we deduce from the symplectic invariance of the Weyl quantization and the theorem 21.5.3 in that there exists a metaplectic operator $U$ such that $$\big[\textrm{Re}\big(z_1 q(x,\xi)\big)\big]^w=U^{-1} \Big(\sum_{j=1}^{k}{\lambda_j(D_{x_j}^2+x_j^2)} +\sum_{j=k+1}^{k+l}{x_j^2} \Big) U,$$ with $k,l \in \nn$ and $\lambda_j>0$ for all $j=1,...,k$. By using that $U$ is a unitary operator on $L^2(\rr^{n})$, we obtain that the quantity \begin{align*} & \ \big{(} \big[\textrm{Re}\big{(}z_1q(x,\xi)\big{)}\big]^w u,u\big{)}_{L^2(\rr^n)}\\ =& \ \sum_{j=1}^{k}{\lambda_j \big{(}\|D_{x_j} U u\|_{\lde}^2+\|x_j U u\|_{\lde}^2 \big{)}}+\sum_{j=k+1}^{k+l}{\|x_j U u\|_{\lde}^2}, \end{align*} is non-negative. Then, we can deduce from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $()$ and $()$ that for all $u \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$, $$d\big{(}z,\Sigma(q) \big{)} \|u\|_{\lde} \leq |z_1| \ \|q(x,\xi)^w u -z u\|_{\lde}.$$ Finally, using the density of the Schwartz space $\mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$ in $B$ and the fact that $|z_1|=1$, we obtain that $$\forall z \not\in \Sigma(q), \ \big\|\big{(}q(x,\xi)^w-z\big{)}^{-1}\big\| \leq \frac{1}{d\big{(}z,\Sigma(q)\big{)}},$$ since according to (), $\sigma\big( q(x,\xi)^w\big) \subset \Sigma(q). \ \Box$ \bigskip We now consider the one-dimensional case, which is a bit particular. \subsection{The one-dimensional case} \init In dimension $n=1$, we can reduce the study of complex-valued elliptic quadratic forms to exactly three normal forms after a similitude and a real linear symplectic transformation. \bigskip \begin{lemma} Let $q : \rr_x \times \rr_{\xi} \rightarrow \cc$ be a complex-valued elliptic quadratic form in dimension $1$. Then, there exists a linear symplectic transformation $\chi$ of $\rr^2$ such that the symbol $q \circ \chi$ is equal to one of the following normal forms$:$ \medskip \noindent \emph{(}i\emph{)} \ \ $\alpha(\xi^2+e^{i \theta}x^2)$ with $\alpha \in \cc^*$, $0 \leq \theta < \pi$.\\ \emph{(}ii\emph{)} \ $\alpha(\xi+i x)(\xi+\eta x)$ with $\alpha \in \cc^*$, $\eta \in \cc$, $\emph{\textrm{Im }} \eta >0$.\\ \emph{(}iii\emph{)} $\alpha(\xi-i x)(\xi+\eta x)$ with $\alpha \in \cc^*$, $\eta \in \cc$, $\emph{\textrm{Im }} \eta <0$. \medskip \noindent In the two last cases $(ii)$ and $(iii)$, the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ is equal to the whole complex plane, $\Sigma(q)=\cc$. \end{lemma} \bigskip \noindent \textit{Proof of Lemma .} Let $q : \rr^2 \rightarrow \cc$ be a complex-valued elliptic quadratic form. Let us first consider the case where $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$. We deduce from the proposition~ that we can reduce our study to the case where $\textrm{Re } q$ is a positive definite quadratic form. Then, using Lemma 18.6.4 in , we can find a real linear symplectic transformation to reduce the quadratic form $\textrm{Re } q$ to the normal form $$\lambda(x^2+\xi^2), \textrm{ with } \lambda>0.$$ It follows that there exist some real constants $a,b$ and $c$ such that $$q(x,\xi)=\lambda \big{(}x^2+\xi^2+i (a x^2+ 2 b x \xi +c \xi^2) \big{)}.$$ Then, we can choose an orthogonal matrix $P \in O(2,\rr)$ diagonalizing the real symmetric matrix associated to the quadratic form $a x^2+ 2 b x \xi +c \xi^2$, $$P^{-1}\left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ b & c \\ \end{array} \right)P=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda_1 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda_2 \\ \end{array} \right),$$ with $\lambda_1, \lambda_2 \in \rr$. If $P \in O(2,\rr) \setminus SO(2,\rr)$, we have $$\tilde{P}^{-1}\left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ b & c \\ \end{array} \right)\tilde{P}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \lambda_2 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda_1 \\ \end{array} \right),$$ if $\sigma_0$ is the matrix with determinant equal to $-1$, $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \\ \end{array} \right),$$ and $\tilde{P}=P \sigma_0$. It follows that we can always diagonalize the real symmetric matrix associated to the quadratic form $\lambda^{-1} \textrm{Im } q$ by conjugating it by an element of $SO(2,\rr)$. Since the symplectic group is equal in dimension 1 to the group $SL(2,\rr)$, we can after a linear symplectic transformation of $\rr^2$ reduce the quadratic form $q$ to $$\lambda\big{(}x^2+\xi^2+i(\gamma_1 x^2+\gamma_2 \xi^2) \big{)}=\alpha(\xi^2+ r e^{i \theta}x^2),$$ where $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 \in \rr$, $\alpha \in \cc^*$, $r>0$ and $\theta \in ]-\pi,\pi[$. Let us notice that the ellipticity of $q$ actually implies that $\theta \not\equiv \pi[2\pi]$. Finally, using the real linear symplectic transformation $(x,\xi) \mapsto (r^{-1/4} x, r^{1/4} \xi),$ we get a symbol of type $(i)$, $$\alpha r^{1/2}(\xi^2+e^{i \theta} x^2),$$ if $0 \leq \theta < \pi$. If $-\pi < \theta <0$, we need to use besides the real linear symplectic transformation $(x,\xi) \mapsto (\xi,-x)$ to obtain a symbol of type $(i)$, $$\alpha r^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{i \theta}(\xi^2+e^{-i \theta}x^2).$$ Let us now assume that $\Sigma(q)=\cc$. Since the dimension is equal to 1, we can factor the symbol $q$ on $\cc$ as a polynomial function of degree 2 in the variable~$\xi$. Thus, according to the dependence in the variable $x$ of the polynomial function's coefficients, we can find some complex numbers $\lambda_1, \lambda_2$ and $\alpha \in \cc^*$ such that $$q(x,\xi)=\alpha(\xi- \lambda_1 x)(\xi-\lambda_2 x).$$ The ellipticity assumption for the quadratic form $q$ induces that $$\textrm{Im } \lambda_j \neq 0,$$ if $j=1,2$. Using now the linear symplectic transformation $(x,\xi) \mapsto (x,\xi+\textrm{Re } \lambda_1 x),$ we can assume that \begin{equation}\inc q(x,\xi)=\alpha(\xi-i r x)(\xi+ b x), \num \end{equation} with $r \in \rr^*$ and $\textrm{Im } b \neq 0$. Let us now check that the assumption $\Sigma(q)=\cc$ induces that $r \ \textrm{Im }b<0$. Since $$(\xi-i r x)(\xi+b x)=\xi^2+(b-i r) x \xi-i r b x^2,$$ the condition $\Sigma(q)=\cc$ implies that for all $(v,w) \in \rr^2$, there exists a solution $(x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^2$ of the system \begin{equation}\inc \left\lbrace \begin{array}{l} \xi^2+ \textrm{Re }b \ x \xi +r \ \textrm{Im }b \ x^2=v \\ x \xi (\textrm{Im }b-r)- r \ \textrm{Re }b \ x^2 =w. \num \end{array} \right. \end{equation} Let us first notice that the second equation of $()$ is fulfilled for all $w \in \rr$ only if $$\textrm{Im }b \neq r.$$ If $w \neq 0$, it follows from the second equation of $()$ that $x_0 \neq 0$ and \begin{equation}\inc \xi_0=\frac{w+r \ \textrm{Re }b \ x_0^2}{(\textrm{Im }b-r)x_0}. \num \end{equation} Let us consider the case where $v=0$. Using $()$ and the first equation of $()$, we obtain that $$(w+r \ \textrm{Re }b \ x_0^2)^2+ \textrm{Re }b \ (\textrm{Im }b-r) x_0^2(w+r \ \textrm{Re }b \ x_0^2) +r \ \textrm{Im }b \ (\textrm{Im }b-r)^2 x_0^4=0.$$ We can rewrite this equation as $f_w(X_0)=0$ if we set $X_0=x_0^2$ and \begin{equation}\inc f_w(X)=r \ \textrm{Im }b \ \big((\textrm{Re }b)^2+(\textrm{Im }b-r)^2 \big)X^2+w \ \textrm{Re }b \ (\textrm{Im }b+r)X+w^2. \num \end{equation} Thus, the condition $\Sigma(q)=\cc$ implies that there exists for all $w \neq 0$, a non-negative solution $X_0$ of the equation $f_w(X_0)=0$. Since the quantity $r \ \textrm{Im }b$ is assumed to be non-zero, we first study the case where $r \ \textrm{Im }b>0$. In this case, since \begin{equation}\inc f_w'(X)=2r \ \textrm{Im }b \ \big((\textrm{Re }b)^2+(\textrm{Im }b-r)^2 \big)X+w \ \textrm{Re }b \ (\textrm{Im }b+r) \num \end{equation} and $$2r \ \textrm{Im }b \ \big((\textrm{Re }b)^2+(\textrm{Im }b-r)^2 \big)>0,$$ because $\textrm{Im }b \neq r$, we have \begin{equation}\inc \forall X \in \rr_+, \ f_w(X) \geq f_w(0)=w^2>0, \num \end{equation} if $w \neq 0$ and $$-\frac{w \ \textrm{Re }b \ (\textrm{Im }b+r)}{2r \ \textrm{Im }b \ \big((\textrm{Re }b)^2+(\textrm{Im }b-r)^2 \big)} \leq 0.$$ The estimate $()$ shows that if $r \ \textrm{Im }b>0$, the equation $f_w(X)=0$ has no non-negative solution for all value of the parameter $w \neq 0$. This proves that the condition $\Sigma(q)=\cc$ induces that $r \ \textrm{Im }b<0$. Using the linear symplectic transformation $$(x,\xi) \mapsto (|r|^{-1/2} x,|r|^{1/2} \xi),$$ we obtain the normal forms $(ii)$ and $(iii)$, $$\alpha |r|(\xi+i x)(\xi+ \eta x) \ \textrm{with} \ \textrm{Im } \eta>0 \ \textrm{and} \ \alpha |r|(\xi-ix)(\xi+\eta x) \ \textrm{with} \ \textrm{Im } \eta<0,$$ where $\eta=|r|^{-1}b.$ Finally, we can easily check that the numerical ranges of the normal forms $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ are actually equal to the whole complex plane $\cc$. $\Box$ \bigskip Let us notice that the proposition and the remark following its statement are some direct consequences of the symplectic invariance property of the Weyl quantization (see ()) and the previous lemma. We can add that as proved after the lemma~3.1 in~, the Fredholm indices of the one-dimensional elliptic quadratic differential operators with symbols of type $(i)$, $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ are respectively equal to $0$, $-2$ and~$2$. As we have mentioned in the previous section, the results of Theorem and Theorem are already known in the particular case of the rotated harmonic oscillator. The existence of semiclassical quasimodes inducing the presence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of infinite index in every point of the interior of the numerical range for the associated semiclassical operator, is a direct consequence of a result proved by E.B.~Davies in~ (Theorem 1) and; the absence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of index $2/3$ on the boundary of the numerical range has been proved for the rotated harmonic oscillator in . As we have previously mentioned (see () and ()), the property of non-normality, the order of symbols and the semiclassical pseudospectra of elliptic quadratic differential operators are \textit{symplectically invariant}. These properties allow us to reduce by any real linear symplectic transformations the symbols of the elliptic quadratic differential operators that we consider in our proof of the theorem and the theorem . By using the lemma , we deduce from the results of the theorem and the theorem proved for the rotated harmonic oscillator that they are therefore also fulfilled by all non-normal one-dimensional elliptic quadratic differential operators with a numerical range different from the whole complex plane. \bigskip We now consider the multidimensional case. As we will see in the following, there is a real jump of complexity between the one-dimensional case and the multidimensional one. This jump is among other things a consequence of the complexity increase of symplectic geometry in dimension $n \geq 2$ and the larger diversity appearing in the class of elliptic quadratic differential operators. \subsection{Case of dimension~\mathversion{bold}$n \geq 2$} \init We only need to study the case of a \textit{non-normal} elliptic quadratic differential operator \begin{equation}\inc q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow L^2(\rr^n), \num \end{equation} in dimension $n \geq 2$. Let us recall that in this case, the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ is a closed angular sector with a top in $0$ and a \textit{positive} opening strictly lower than $\pi$, and that the proposition gives that \begin{equation}\inc \exists (x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}, \ \{\textrm{Re }q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0) \neq 0.\num \end{equation} Let us begin by studying what occurs at the interior of the numerical range $\mathring{\Sigma}(q)$. \subsubsection{On the pseudospectrum at the interior of the numerical range} To prove the existence of semiclassical quasimodes for the associated semiclassical operator given by the theorem , we need a first purely algebraic step to characterize the points belonging to the interior of the numerical range. Let us consider the following decomposition of the numerical range \begin{equation}\inc \Sigma(q)=\tilde{A} \sqcup \tilde{B}, \num \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\inc \tilde{A}=\big{\{}z \in \Sigma(q) : \exists (x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}, \ z=q(x_0,\xi_0), \ \{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im }q\}(x_0,\xi_0)\neq 0\big{\}} \num \end{equation} and \begin{equation}\inc \tilde{B}=\big{\{}z \in \Sigma(q) : z=q(x_0,\xi_0) \Rightarrow \{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0)=0\big{\}}.\num \end{equation} The next section is devoted to give a geometrical description of these two sets. We establish using purely algebraic arguments that \begin{equation}\inc \tilde{A}=\mathring{\Sigma}(q) \ \textrm{and } \tilde{B}=\partial\Sigma(q).\num \end{equation} This result is a consequence of the geometry induced by the quadratic setting to which the studied symbols belong. Let us begin by noticing that the symplectic invariance of the Poisson bracket () induces the same property for the sets $\tilde{A}$ and $\tilde{B}$. We can therefore use some real linear symplectic transformation to reduce the symbol $q$. Since $$\{\textrm{Re}(zq),\textrm{Im}(zq)\}=|z|^2\{\textrm{Re }q,\textrm{Im }q\},$$ we deduce from this symplectic invariance, from the proposition and the lemma 18.6.4 in that after a similitude, we can reduce our study to the case where \begin{equation}\inc \textrm{Re }q(x,\xi)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\lambda_j(\xi_j^2+x_j^2)}, \num \end{equation} with $\lambda_j >0$ for all $j=1,...,n$. \subsubsection*{.a. Geometrical description of the sets $\tilde{A}$ and $\tilde{B}$} We begin by proving the following inclusion \begin{equation}\inc \partial \Sigma(q) \subset \tilde{B}. \num \end{equation} Let us consider $z \in \partial \Sigma(q)$ and $(x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}$ such that $z=q(x_0,\xi_0)$. This is possible because the numerical range is a closed angular sector. If $z=0$, the ellipticity property of $q$ implies that $$(x_0,\xi_0)=(0,0) \textrm{ and } \{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0)=0,$$ because this Poisson bracket is also a quadratic form. This proves that $z \in \tilde{B}$. If $$z \in \partial\Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\},$$ let us consider the global solution $Y$ of the linear Cauchy problem \begin{equation}\inc \left\lbrace \begin{array}{l} Y'(t)=H_{\textrm{Re } q}\big{(}Y(t)\big{)} \\ Y(0)=(x_0,\xi_0), \end{array}\right. \num \end{equation} associated to the Hamilton vector field of the symbol $\textrm{Re } q$, $$H_{\textrm{Re } q}=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\Big(\frac{\partial \textrm{Re } q}{\partial \xi_j}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}- \frac{\partial \textrm{Re } q}{\partial x_j}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}\Big)}.$$ It is actually a linear Cauchy problem since $\textrm{Re }q$ is a quadratic form. Setting $$f(t)=\textrm{Im } q\big{(}Y(t)\big{)},$$ a direct computation gives that $$f'(0)=\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0).$$ If $f'(0) \neq 0$, we could find $t_0 \neq 0$ such that $$|f(t_0)| > |f(0)|=|\textrm{Im } z|.$$ Since $Y$ is the flow associated to the Hamilton vector field of $\textrm{Re }q$, the quadratic form $\textrm{Re } q$ is constant under it. It follows that for all $t \in \rr$, $$\textrm{Re }q\big{(}Y(t)\big{)}=\textrm{Re }q\big{(}Y(0)\big{)}=\textrm{Re } z$$ and provides a contradiction because, since $z \in \partial\Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\}$, this would imply in view of the shape of the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ (see Figure 7) that $$q\big{(}Y(t_0)\big{)} \not\in \Sigma(q).$$ \noindent It follows that the Poisson bracket $\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0)$ is necessary equal to 0 and that $z \in \tilde{B}$. This ends the proof of the inclusion (). \bigskip Let us now assume that \begin{equation}\inc \partial \Sigma(q) \subset \tilde{B}, \ \partial \Sigma(q) \neq \tilde{B}. \num \end{equation} In this case, we could find \begin{equation}\inc z \in \tilde{B} \setminus \partial \Sigma(q). \num \end{equation} Let us first notice that $z$ is necessary non-zero since $0 \in \partial\Sigma(q)$, and that $\textrm{Re } z>0$, since from (), \begin{equation}\inc \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\} \subset \{z \in \cc^* : \textrm{Re } z>0\}. \num \end{equation} The fact that $z$ belongs to the set $\tilde{B}$ implies that \begin{equation}\inc \left\lbrace \begin{array}{l} \textrm{Re } q(x,\xi)=\textrm{Re } z \\ \textrm{Im } q(x,\xi)=\textrm{Im } z \end{array}\right. \Longrightarrow \{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x,\xi)=0. \num \end{equation} We also know that there exists at least one solution to the system appearing in the left-hand-side of $()$. Since from (), the quadratic form $\textrm{Re }q$ is positive definite, we can simultaneously reduce the quadratic forms $\textrm{Re } q$ and $\textrm{Im } q$ by finding an isomorphism $P$ of $\rr^{2n}$ such that in the new coordinates $y=P^{-1}(x,\xi)$, \begin{equation}\inc \textrm{Re } q(Py)=\sum_{j=1}^{2n}{y_j^2} \ \textrm{and} \ \textrm{Im } q(Py)=\sum_{j=1}^{2n}{\alpha_j y_j^2} \ \textrm{with} \ \alpha_1 \leq ... \leq \alpha_n. \num \end{equation} Let us now consider the following quadratic form \begin{equation}\inc p(y)=\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(Py). \num \end{equation} We get from $()$ and $()$ that \begin{equation}\inc \left\lbrace \begin{array}{l} \sum_{j=1}^{2n}{y_j^2}=\textrm{Re } z \\ \sum_{j=1}^{2n}{\alpha_j y_j^2}=\textrm{Im } z \end{array}\right. \Longrightarrow p(y)=0. \num \end{equation} Let us underline that the isomorphism $P$ is not a priori a symplectic transformation and that it does not preserve the Poisson bracket $\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}$. We consider the two following sets \begin{equation}\inc E_1=\big\{y \in \rr^{2n} : r(y)=0\big\}, \num \end{equation} where \begin{equation}\inc r(y)=\sum_{j=1}^{2n}{\Big(\alpha_j-\frac{\textrm{Im } z}{\textrm{Re } z} \Big) y_j^2} \num \end{equation} and \begin{equation}\inc E_2=\big\{y \in \rr^{2n} : p(y)=0\big\}. \num \end{equation} The next lemma gives a first inclusion between these two sets $E_1$ and $E_2$. \bigskip \begin{lemma} We have \begin{equation}\inc E_1 \subset E_2. \num \end{equation} \end{lemma} \bigskip \noindent \textit{Proof of Lemma }. Let $y \in E_1$. If $y=0$ then $y$ belongs to $E_2$ since from $()$, $p$ is a quadratic form in the variable $y$. If $y \neq 0$, we set $$t=\sum_{j=1}^{2n}{y_j^2}>0 \ \textrm{and} \ \forall j=1,...,2n, \ \tilde{y}_j=\sqrt{\frac{\textrm{Re } z}{t} }y_j.$$ We recall from $()$ that $z \in \tilde{B} \setminus \partial \Sigma(q)$ implies that $\textrm{Re } z>0$. Then, since, on one hand $$\sum_{j=1}^{2n}{\tilde{y}_j^2}=\textrm{Re } z,$$ and that, on the other hand, we have from $()$ and $()$ that $$\sum_{j=1}^{2n}{\alpha_j \tilde{y}_j^2}=\frac{\textrm{Re } z}{t}\sum_{j=1}^{2n}{\alpha_j y_j^2}= \frac{\textrm{Re } z}{t} \sum_{j=1}^{2n}{\frac{\textrm{Im } z}{\textrm{Re } z}y_j^2}= \textrm{Im } z, $$ because $y \in E_1$, we deduce from $()$ and the homogeneity of degree 2 of the quadratic form $p$ that $$p(\tilde{y})=\frac{\textrm{Re } z}{t} p(y)=0.$$ According to $()$, this proves that $y \in E_2$ and ends the proof of the lemma~.~$\Box$ \bigskip Then, we can notice from $()$ that the boundary of the numerical range $\partial \Sigma(q)$ is given by \begin{equation}\inc (1+i\alpha_1) \rr_+ \cup (1+i \alpha_n)\rr_+. \num \end{equation} Since the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ is a closed set, the assumption $$z \in \tilde{B} \setminus \partial \Sigma(q) \subset \Sigma(q) \setminus \partial \Sigma(q) =\mathring{\Sigma}(q),$$ induces from $()$ that $$\frac{\textrm{Im } z}{\textrm{Re } z} \in ]\alpha_1,\alpha_n[.$$ This implies that the signature $(r_1,s_1)$ of the quadratic form $r$ defined in $()$ fulfills \begin{equation}\inc (r_1,s_1) \in \nn^* \times \nn^* \ \textrm{and} \ r_1+s_1 \leq 2n. \num \end{equation} Thus, we can assume after a new labeling that \begin{equation}\inc r(y)=a_1 y_1^2 +...+ a_{r_1} y_{r_1}^2-a_{r_{1}+1} y_{r_1+1}^2-...-a_{r_1+s_1} y_{r_1+s_1}^2, \num \end{equation} with $a_j>0$ for all $j=1,...,r_1+s_1$. It follows from $()$ and $()$ that in these new coordinates, the set $E_1$ is the direct product of a proper cone $C$ of $\rr^{r_1+s_1}$ and $\rr^{2n-r_1-s_1}$, \begin{equation}\inc E_1=C \times \rr^{2n-r_1-s_1}. \num \end{equation} We are now going to prove that the two sets $E_1$ and $E_2$ are equal \begin{equation}\inc E_1=E_2. \num \end{equation} Let us reason by the absurd by assuming that it is not the case. Then, we could find from the lemma , \begin{equation}\inc y_0 \in E_2 \setminus E_1, \ y_0=(y_0',y_0'') \textrm{ with } y_0' \in \rr^{r_1+s_1}, \ y_0'' \in \rr^{2n-r_1-s_1}. \num \end{equation} We deduce from $()$ that $y_0' \not\in C$. Let us now recall an elementary geometrical fact that we will use several times. This fact is that the intersection of a real line and a real quadric surface is reduced to either $0,1$ or $2$ points, or the line is completely contained in the quadric surface. We first begin by proving that \begin{equation}\inc \rr^{r_1+s_1} \times \{y''=y_0''\} \subset E_2. \num \end{equation} Indeed, let us consider the affine subspace $$F=\{y \in \rr^{2n} : y=(y',y'') \in \rr^{r_1+s_1} \times \rr^{2n-r_1-s_1}, \ y''=y_0''\}.$$ We identify for more simplicity the space $F$ to the space $\rr^{r_1+s_1}$. We agree to say that a point $x_0'$ of $\rr^{r_1+s_1}$ belongs to the set $E_2$ to mean that the point $(x_0',y_0'')$ belongs to the set $E_2$. With this convention, it is sufficient for proving the inclusion $()$ to consider some particular lines of $\rr^{r_1+s_1}$, containing the point $y_0'$ defined in () and, which have an intersection with the cone $C$ in at least two other different points $u_0'$ and $v_0'$ (see Figure 9). These lines are necessary contained in the quadric surface $E_2$ because from the lemma , $$E_1 \subset E_2,$$ and that there are at least three different points of intersection between these lines and the quadric surface $E_2$, $$(u_0',y_0'') \in C \times \rr^{2n-r_1-s_1}=E_1 \subset E_2, \ (v_0',y_0'') \in C \times \rr^{2n-r_1-s_1}=E_1 \subset E_2,$$ and $(y_0',y_0'') \in E_2$. Thus, we prove that the shaded disc appearing on the figure 10 is completely contained in the set $E_2$. By using the cone structure of the set $E_2$, we can deduce that all the interior of the cone $C$ (see Figure 11) is contained in $E_2$. Then, using again other particular intersections with some lines as on the figure 12, we deduce from our identification of the space $F$ to $\rr^{r_1+s_1}$ that the inclusion $()$ is fulfilled. We now prove that under these conditions, we have the identity \begin{equation}\inc E_2=\rr^{2n}. \num \end{equation} Indeed, let us consider $(\tilde{y}_0',\tilde{y}_0'') \in \rr^{2n}=\rr^{r_1+s_1}\times \rr^{2n-r_1-s_1}$. If $\tilde{y}_0' \in C$, then $$(\tilde{y}_0',\tilde{y}_0'') \in E_2,$$ because from $()$ and $()$, $(\tilde{y}_0',\tilde{y}_0'') \in E_1$ and $E_1 \subset E_2$. If, on the other hand $\tilde{y}_0' \not\in C$, we can choose a point $u \in \rr^{r_1+s_1}$ different from $\tilde{y}_0'$ such that $u \not\in C$, and such that the line containing $\tilde{y}_0'$ and $u$ in $\rr^{r_1+s_1}$, has an intersection with $C$ in at least two other different points $v$ and $w$ (see Figure 13). Thus, we can find some distinct real numbers $t_1,t_2 \in \rr \setminus \{0,1\}$ such that $$v=(1-t_1) \tilde{y}_0'+ t_1 u \in C \ \textrm{and} \ w=(1-t_2) \tilde{y}_0'+ t_2 u \in C.$$ Considering now the line $$D=\big{\{}(1-t)(\tilde{y}_0',\tilde{y}_0'')+t (u,y_0'') : t \in \rr\big{\}},$$ we can notice that this real line contains at least three different points of $E_2$: $$(v,(1-t_1)\tilde{y}_0''+t_1 y_0''), \ (w,(1-t_2)\tilde{y}_0''+t_2 y_0'') \ \textrm{and} \ (u,y_0'').$$ Indeed, this is a consequence of the fact that $v$ and $w$ belong to $C$, and from $()$, $()$ and $()$. Thus, the line $D$ is contained in the quadric surface $E_2$. This implies that $(\tilde{y}_0',\tilde{y}_0'') \in D \subset E_2$. To sum up, we have proved that if the two sets $E_1$ and $E_2$ are different then the set $E_2$ is equal to $\rr^{2n}$. This fact induces in view of $()$ that the quadratic form~$p$ is identically equal to zero. By coming back to the first coordinates $(x,\xi)=Py$, it follows from $()$ that the quadratic form $\{\textrm{Re } q, \textrm{Im } q\}$ is also identically equal to zero, which contradicts (). This proves the identity $()$, $$E_1=E_2.$$ With this fact, we can resume our first reasoning by the absurd, which assume in $()$ the existence of a point $z \in \tilde{B} \setminus \partial \Sigma(q)$. Let us now consider $y_0 \not\in E_1=E_2$. This is possible according to $()$, $()$ and $()$. We deduce from $()$ and $()$ that $r(y_0)$ and $p(y_0)$ are non-zero. By considering $\lambda \in \rr^*$ such that $$p(y_0)=\lambda r(y_0)$$ and \begin{equation}\inc \tilde{r}(y)=p(y)-\lambda r(y), \num \end{equation} it follows from $()$, $()$, $()$ and $()$ that \begin{equation}\inc E_1 \subset \{y \in \rr^{2n} : \tilde{r}(y)=0\}. \num \end{equation} This inclusion $()$ is strict since $$\tilde{r}(y_0)=0 \textrm{ and } y_0 \not\in E_1.$$ By using now exactly the same reasoning as the one previously described to prove $()$, about the intersections of real lines and quadric surfaces, we prove that the quadratic form $\tilde{r}$ is necessary identically equal to zero. Then, it follows from $()$ that \begin{equation}\inc p=\lambda r. \num \end{equation} By coming back to the first coordinates $(x,\xi)=Py$, we get using $()$, $()$, $()$ and $()$ that for all $(x,\xi) \in \rr^{2n}$, \begin{equation}\inc \{\textrm{Re } q, \textrm{Im } q\}(x,\xi)=\lambda \Big(\textrm{Im } q(x,\xi)- \frac{\textrm{Im } z}{\textrm{Re } z}\ \textrm{Re } q(x,\xi) \Big). \num \end{equation} Let us now consider $(x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}$ such that $q(x_0,\xi_0) \in \partial \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\}$. This is possible since the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ is a closed angular sector with a top in $0$ and a positive opening. We deduce from $()$ and $()$ that we necessarily have $$\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0)=0.$$ This induces from $()$ that \begin{equation}\inc \textrm{Im } q(x_0,\xi_0)=\frac{\textrm{Im } z}{\textrm{Re } z}\ \textrm{Re } q(x_0,\xi_0), \num \end{equation} because $\lambda \in \rr^*$. Since according to the shape of the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ and $()$, $$q(x_0,\xi_0) \in \partial \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\} \subset \{z \in \cc : \textrm{Re } z>0\},$$ the identity () proves that the point $z$ also belongs to the set $\partial \Sigma(q)$, but it contradicts the initial assumption $$z \in \tilde{B} \setminus \partial \Sigma(q).$$ Finally, this ends our reasoning by the absurd and proves (). \subsubsection*{.b. Existence of semiclassical quasimodes at the interior of the numerical range} To prove the existence of semiclassical quasimodes for the associated semiclassical operator $$(q(x,h\xi)^w)_{0<h \leq 1},$$ in every point of the numerical range's interior (Theorem ), we use an existence result of semiclassical quasimodes for general pseudodifferential operators violating the condition $(\overline{\Psi})$)$ is recalled below.}. Let us mention that this result generalizes the two existence results of semiclassical quasimodes given by E.B. Davies, in the case of Schr�dinger operators (Theorem 1 in ), and by M.~Zworski in and , for pseudodifferential operators. This existence result of semiclassical quasimodes can be stated as follows. Let us consider a semiclassical symbol $P(x,\xi;h)$ in $S(\langle (x,\xi) \rangle^m,dx^2+d\xi^2 )$ with $m \in \rr_+$, $$\langle (x,\xi) \rangle^2=1+x^2+\xi^2,$$ where $S(\langle (x,\xi) \rangle^m,dx^2+d\xi^2 )$ stands for the following symbol class \begin{multline*} S(\langle (x,\xi) \rangle^m,dx^2+d\xi^2)=\Big\{a(x,\xi;h) \in C^{\infty}(\rr_x^n \times \rr_{\xi}^n,\cc) : \\ \forall \alpha \in \nn^{2n}, \ \sup_{0< h \leq 1}\|\langle (x,\xi) \rangle^{-m} \partial_{x,\xi}^{\alpha} a(x,\xi;h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\rr^{2n})} <+\infty\Big\}, \end{multline*} with a semiclassical expansion \begin{equation}\inc P(x,\xi;h) \sim \sum_{j=0}^{+\infty}{ h^j p_j(x,\xi)}, \num \end{equation} where for all $j \in \nn$, $p_j$ is a symbol of the class $S(\langle (x,\xi) \rangle^m,dx^2+d\xi^2)$ independent from the semiclassical parameter $h$. Let $z \in \cc$, we assume that there exists a function $q_0 \in C_b^{\infty}(\rr^{2n},\cc)$, where $C_b^{\infty}(\rr^{2n},\cc)$ stands for the set of bounded complex-valued functions on $\rr^{2n}$ with all derivatives bounded, and a bicharacteristic curve, $t \in [a,b] \mapsto \gamma(t)$, of the real part $\textrm{Re}( q_0 (p_0-z))$ of the symbol $ q_0 (p_0-z)$, with $a<b$, such that \inc \begin{multline*} \forall t \in [a,b], \ q_0\big(\gamma(t) \big) \neq 0 \textrm{ and } \\ \textrm{Im}\big[q_0(\gamma(a))\big(p_0(\gamma(a))-z\big)\big]>0> \textrm{Im}\big[q_0(\gamma(b))\big(p_0(\gamma(b) )-z\big)\big]. \num \end{multline*} \bigskip \begin{theorem} Under these assumptions \emph{()} and \emph{()}, for all open neighbourhood~$V$ of the compact set $\gamma([a,b])$ in $\rr^{2n}$ and for all $N \in \nn$, there exist $h_0>0$ and $(u_h)_{0<h \leq h_0}$ a semiclassical family in $\mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$ such that $$ \|u_h\|_{L^2(\rr^n)}=1,\ \emph{\textrm{FS}}\big{(}(u_h)_{0<h \leq h_0}\big{)} \subset \overline{V} \ \textsl{and } \|P(x,h\xi;h)^w u_h-z u_h\|_{L^2(\rr^n)}=O(h^N),$$ when $h \rightarrow 0^+$. \end{theorem} The notation $\textrm{FS}\big{(}(u_h)_{0<h \leq h_0}\big{)}$ stands for the \textit{frequency set} of the semiclassical family $(u_h)_{0<h \leq h_0}$ defined as the complement in $\rr^{2n}$ of the set composed by the points $(x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}$, for which there exists a symbol $\chi_0(x,\xi;h) \in S(1,dx^2+d\xi^2)$ such that $$\chi_0(x_0,\xi_0;h)=1 \textrm{ and } \|\chi_0(x,h\xi;h)^w u_h\|_{L^2(\rr^n)}=O(h^{\infty}),$$ when $h \rightarrow 0^+$. This existence result of semiclassical quasimodes is an adaptation in a semiclassical setting of the proof given by L. H�rmander in for proving that the condition $(\Psi)$ is a necessary condition for the solvability of a pseudodifferential operator (Theorem 26.4.7 in ). The existence of this result has been first mentioned in . A complete proof of this adaptation in a semiclassical setting is given in . This result shows that when the principal symbol $p_0-z$ of the symbol $P-z$ violates the condition $(\overline{\Psi})$, there exists in this point $z$ some semiclassical quasimodes inducing the presence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of infinite index for the semiclassical operator~$P(x,h\xi;h)^w$. \bigskip \noindent \textbf{Condition \mathversion{bold}$(\overline{\Psi})$.} A complex-valued function $p \in C^{\infty}(\rr^{2n},\cc)$ fulfills the condition~$(\overline{\Psi})$ if there is no complex-valued function $q \in C^{\infty}(\rr^{2n},\cc)$ such that the imaginary part $\textrm{Im}(qp)$ of the function $qp$ changes sign from positive values to negative ones along an oriented bicharacteristic of the symbol $\textrm{Re}(qp)$ on which the function $q$ does not vanish. \bigskip By using the characterization given in the previous section for the interior of the numerical range $\mathring{\Sigma}(q)$ (see () and ()), we are now going to prove that the principal symbol $q(x,\xi)-z$ of the semiclassical operator $$q(x,h\xi)^w-z,$$ violates the condition $(\overline{\Psi})$ for all $z$ in $\mathring{\Sigma}(q)$. This violation of the condition $(\overline{\Psi})$ will induce in view of the theorem that for all $z \in \mathring{\Sigma}(q)$ and $N \in \nn$, we can find a semiclassical quasimode $(u_h)_{0<h \leq h_0} \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$, with $h_0>0$, verifying $$\|u_h\|_{L^2(\rr^n)}=1 \textrm{ and } \|q(x,h\xi)^w u_h -z u_h\|_{L^2(\rr^n)}=O(h^N) \textrm{ when } h \rightarrow 0^+,$$ which will end the proof of Theorem . \bigskip Let us consider $z \in \mathring{\Sigma}(q)$. We are now going to prove that there is actually a violation of the condition $(\overline{\Psi})$ for the symbol $q-z$. According to () and (), there are two cases to separate. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Case 1.} Let us assume that there exists $(x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}$ such that \begin{equation}\inc z=q(x_0,\xi_0), \ \{\textrm{Re}(q-z),\textrm{Im}(q-z)\}(x_0,\xi_0)=\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0)<0. \num \end{equation} By considering the solution of the following Cauchy problem \begin{equation}\inc \left\lbrace \begin{array}{l} Y'(t)=H_{\textrm{Re } q}\big{(}Y(t)\big{)} \\ Y(0)=(x_0,\xi_0), \end{array}\right. \num \end{equation} we define the following function \begin{equation}\inc f(t)=\textrm{Im } q\big{(}Y(t)\big{)}-\textrm{Im } q(x_0,\xi_0). \num \end{equation} As mentioned before, $()$ is a linear Cauchy problem. It follows that its solution $Y$ is global and that the function $f$ is well-defined on $\rr$. A direct computation using $()$ and $()$ gives that for all $t \in \rr$, \begin{equation}\inc f'(t)=\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}\big{(}Y(t)\big{)}.\num \end{equation} Since from $()$, $()$, () and (), $$f(0)=0, \ f'(0)=\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0)<0$$ and $H_{\textrm{Re }q -\textrm{Re }z}=H_{\textrm{Re }q},$ we deduce in this first case that the imaginary part of the function $q-z$ changes sign, at the first order, from positive values to negative ones along the oriented bicharacteristic $Y$ of the symbol $\textrm{Re }q -\textrm{Re }z$. This proves that the symbol $q-z$ actually violates the condition $(\overline{\Psi})$. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Case 2.} Let us now assume that there exists $(x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}$ such that \begin{equation}\inc z=q(x_0,\xi_0), \ \{\textrm{Re}(q-z),\textrm{Im}(q-z)\}(x_0,\xi_0)=\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0)>0. \num \end{equation} We consider as in the previous case, the global solution $Y$ of the Cauchy problem () and the function $f$ defined in (). Since from $()$, (), $()$ and (), \begin{equation}\inc f(0)=0, \ f'(0)=\{\textrm{Re } q,\textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0)>0, \num \end{equation} we deduce this time that the imaginary part of the function $q-z$ also changes sign, at the first order, along the oriented bicharacteristic $Y$ of the symbol $\textrm{Re }q -\textrm{Re }z$. Nevertheless, this change of sign is done in the \og wrong \fg \ way. It is a change of sign from negative values to positive ones, which does not induce directly a violation of the condition~$(\overline{\Psi})$. To check that there is actually a violation of the condition~$(\overline{\Psi})$ in this second case, we need to study more precisely the behaviour of the function $\textrm{Im }q-\textrm{Im }z$ along this bicharacteristic $Y$. We deduce from () that there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$\forall t \in [-\varepsilon, \varepsilon], \ f'(t)>0,$$ which induces that \begin{equation}\inc f(\varepsilon)>0 \ \textrm{and} \ f(-\varepsilon)<0, \num \end{equation} since from $()$, $f(0)=0$. By using the following lemma, we obtain that for all $\delta>0$, there exists a time $t_0(\delta)>\varepsilon$ such that \begin{equation}\inc |Y\big{(}t_0(\delta)\big{)}-Y(-\eps)|<\delta. \num \end{equation} \bigskip \begin{lemma} If $Y(t)=(x(t),\xi(t))$ is the $C^{\infty}(\rr,\rr^{2n})$ function solving the linear system of ordinary differential equations $$Y'(t)=H_{\emph{\textrm{Re }}q}\big{(}Y(t)\big{)},$$ where $\emph{\textrm{Re }}q$ is the symbol defined in \emph{()}, then we have \begin{multline*} \forall t_0 \in \rr, \forall \eps>0, \forall M>0, \exists T_1>M, \exists T_2>M, \\ |Y(t_0)-Y(t_0+T_1)|<\eps \ \textrm{and} \ |Y(t_0)-Y(t_0-T_2)|<\eps. \end{multline*} \end{lemma} \bigskip \noindent \textit{Proof of Lemma }. If $Y(t_0)=(a_1,...,a_n,b_1,...,b_n) \in \rr^{2n}$, we deduce from () that the function $Y(t)=(x(t),\xi(t))$ solves the following Cauchy problem $$ \forall j=1,...,n, \quad \left\lbrace \begin{array}{l} x_j'(t)=2 \lambda_j \xi_j(t) \\ \xi_j'(t)=-2 \lambda_j x_j(t) \\ x_j(t_0)=a_j \\ \xi_j(t_0)=b_j. \end{array}\right.$$ It follows that for all $j=1,...,n$ and $t \in \rr$, \begin{equation}\inc \left\lbrace \begin{array}{l} x_j(t)=b_j \sin\big{(}2(t-t_0)\lambda_j\big{)}+a_j \cos\big{(}2(t-t_0)\lambda_j\big{)} \\ \xi_j(t)=b_j \cos\big{(}2(t-t_0)\lambda_j\big{)}-a_j \sin\big{(}2(t-t_0)\lambda_j\big{)}. \end{array}\right. \num \end{equation} Setting $\beta_j=\lambda_j/\pi$ for all $j=1,...,n$, we need to study two different cases. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Case 1:} $\forall j \in \{1,...,n\}, \ \beta_j \in \mathbb{Q}$. In this case, the function $Y$ is periodic and the result of Lemma is obvious. \medskip \noindent \textbf{Case 2:} $(\beta_1,...,\beta_n) \not\in \mathbb{Q}^n$. In this second case, we use the following classical result of rational approximation: $\forall \eps>0$, $\forall (\theta_1,...,\theta_n) \in \rr^n \setminus \mathbb{Q}^n$, $\exists p_1,...,p_n \in \mathbb{Z}$, $\exists q \in \mathbb{N}^*$ such that $$0< \sup_{j=1,...,n}{\left|\theta_j-\frac{p_j}{q} \right|}<\frac{\eps}{q}.$$ If $0<\eps_1<1/2$, we can therefore find some integers $p_{1,1},...,p_{1,n} \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $q_{\eps_1} \in \mathbb{N}^*$ such that $$0< \sup_{j=1,...,n}{\left|q_{\eps_1}\beta_j-p_{1,j} \right|}<\eps_1.$$ If $$\eps_2=\frac{1}{2}\sup_{j=1,...,n}{|q_{\eps_1}\beta_j-p_{1,j}|}>0,$$ using again this result of rational approximation, we can find some other integers $p_{2,1},...,p_{2,n} \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $q_{\eps_2} \in \mathbb{N}^*$ such that $$0< \sup_{j=1,...,n}{\left|q_{\eps_2}\beta_j-p_{2,j} \right|}<\eps_2.$$ By using this process, we build some sequences $(p_{m,j})_{m \in \mathbb{N}^*}$ of $\mathbb{Z}$ for $j=1,...,n$, $(\eps_m)_{m \in \mathbb{N}^*}$ of $\rr_+^*$ and $(q_{\eps_m})_{m \in \mathbb{N}^*}$ of $\nn^*$ such that for all $m \geq 2$, \begin{equation}\inc 0< \sup_{j=1,...,n}{\left|q_{\eps_m}\beta_j-p_{m,j} \right|}<\eps_m= \frac{1}{2}\sup_{j=1,...,n}{\left|q_{\eps_{m-1}}\beta_j-p_{m-1,j} \right|} \num \end{equation} and \begin{equation}\inc 0<\eps_m < \frac{1}{2^{m-1}} \eps_1. \num \end{equation} The elements of the sequence $(q_{\eps_m})_{m \in \mathbb{N}^*}$ are necessary two by two different. Indeed, if $q_{\eps_k}=q_{\eps_l}$ for $k<l$, this would imply according to () and () that $$\forall j=1,...,n, \ |p_{k,j}-p_{l,j}| \leq |q_{\eps_k} \beta_j- p_{k,j}|+|q_{\eps_l} \beta_j- p_{l,j}|< \eps_k+\eps_l<1,$$ because $0<\eps_1<1/2$, which would induce that $\forall j=1,...,n, \ p_{k,j}=p_{l,j}$ because $p_{k,j}$ and $p_{l,j}$ are some integers; and would contradict () because $$0<\sup_{j=1,...,n}{\left|q_{\eps_l}\beta_j-p_{l,j} \right|}<\eps_l \leq \frac{1}{2}\sup_{j=1,...,n}{\left|q_{\eps_k}\beta_j-p_{k,j} \right|}.$$ Since the sequence $(q_{\eps_m})_{m \in \nn^*}$ is composed of integers two by two different, we can assume after a possible extraction that $q_{\eps_m} \rightarrow +\infty$ when $m \rightarrow +\infty$. We deduce from (), () and () that $$Y(t_0+q_{\eps_m}) \rightarrow Y(t_0) \ \textrm{when} \ m \rightarrow +\infty.$$ Then, considering $(\tilde{\beta_1},...,\tilde{\beta_n})=(-\beta_1,...,-\beta_n)$, we obtain by using the same method a sequence $(\tilde{q}_{\eps_m})_{m \in \nn^*}$ of integers such that $\tilde{q}_{\eps_m} \rightarrow +\infty$ and $$Y(t_0-\tilde{q}_{\eps_m}) \rightarrow Y(t_0) \ \textrm{when} \ m \rightarrow +\infty.$$ This ends the proof of Lemma . $\Box$ \bigskip Since from (), $f(-\eps)<0$, we deduce from () and () that there exists $t_0 > \eps$ such that $f(t_0)$ is arbitrarily close to $f(-\eps)$. It follows in particular that we can find $t_0 > \eps$ such that $f(t_0)<0$. Since from (), $f(\eps)>0$ and $f(t_0)<0$, we deduce from () and () that the function $$t \mapsto \textrm{Im }q\big{(}Y(t)\big{)}-\textrm{Im } z,$$ changes sign from positive values to negative ones on the interval $[\eps,t_0]$. This proves that the imaginary part of the function $q-z$ actually changes sign from positive values to negative ones along the oriented bicharacteristic $Y$ of the symbol $\textrm{Re }q -\textrm{Re }z$; and that the symbol $q-z$ also violates in this second case the condition $(\overline{\Psi})$. This ends the proof of Theorem . \subsubsection*{.c. Another proof for the existence of semiclassical quasimodes} In the following lines, we give another proof for the existence of semiclassical quasimodes in some points of the numerical range's interior. The result proved in this section is weaker than the one given by the theorem , since we prove the existence of semiclassical quasimodes in every point of the numerical range's interior without a finite number of particular half-lines. Let us consider a \textit{non-normal} elliptic quadratic differential operator \begin{equation}\inc q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow L^2(\rr^n), \num \end{equation} in dimension $n \geq 2$. We assume, as before, that () is fulfilled. Using that the quadratic form $\textrm{Re } q$ is positive definite, we can simultaneously reduce the two quadratic forms $\textrm{Re } q$ and $\textrm{Im } q$ by choosing an isomorphism $P$ of $\rr^{2n}$ such that in the new coordinates $y=P^{-1}(x,\xi)$, \begin{equation}\inc r_1(y)=\textrm{Re } q(Py)=\sum_{j=1}^{2n}{y_j^2}, \quad r_2(y)=\textrm{Im } q(Py)=\sum_{j=1}^{2n}{\alpha_j y_j^2}, \num \end{equation} with $\alpha_1 \leq ...\leq \alpha_n.$ Let us study when the differential forms $dr_1(y)$ and $dr_2(y)$ are linearly dependent on $\rr$ i.e. when there exist $(\lambda,\mu) \in \rr^2 \setminus \{(0,0)\}$ such that \begin{equation}\inc \lambda dr_1(y)+\mu d r_2(y)=0. \num \end{equation} It follows from () and () that for all $j=1,...,2n$, \begin{equation}\inc (\lambda+\mu \alpha_j)y_j=0. \num \end{equation} If $y \neq 0$, then there exists $j_0 \in \{1,...,2n\}$ such that $y_{j_0} \neq 0$. This implies that \begin{equation}\inc \lambda+\mu \alpha_{j_0}=0. \num \end{equation} We deduce from () and () that $y_j=0$ if $\alpha_j \neq \alpha_{j_0}$. Thus, we obtain that if $$z \in \mathring{\Sigma}(q) \setminus \big{(}(1+i \alpha_1)\rr_+^* \cup ... \cup (1+i \alpha_n)\rr_+^* \big{)},$$ then the differential forms $d\textrm{Re }q$ and $d\textrm{Im}q$ are linearly independent on $\rr$ in every point of the set $q^{-1}(z)$. Let us consider such a point $$z \in \mathring{\Sigma}(q) \setminus \big{(}(1+i \alpha_1)\rr_+^* \cup ... \cup (1+i \alpha_n)\rr_+^* \big{)}.$$ Since the dimension $n \geq 2$, we can apply the lemma $3.1$ in (see also the lemma 8.1 in ). It follows that for any compact, connected component $\Gamma$ of $q^{-1}(z)$, we have \begin{equation}\inc \int_{\Gamma}{\{\textrm{Re } q, \textrm{Im } q\}(\rho) \lambda_{q,z}(d\rho)}=0, \num \end{equation} where $\lambda_{q,z}$ stands for the Liouville measure on $q^{-1}(z)$, $$\lambda_{q,z} \wedge d\textrm{Re }q \wedge d\textrm{Im }q=\frac{\sigma^n}{n!}.$$ The set $q^{-1}(z)$ is a non-empty submanifold of codimension $2$ in $\rr^{2n}$. We deduce from () and () that there exist $(x_0,\xi_0) \in q^{-1}(z)$ such that \begin{equation}\inc \{\textrm{Re } q, \textrm{Im } q\}(x_0,\xi_0) \neq 0. \num \end{equation} Then, it follows from () and () that there necessary exists $(\tilde{x}_0,\tilde{\xi}_0) \in q^{-1}(z)$ such that \begin{equation}\inc \{\textrm{Re } q, \textrm{Im } q\}(\tilde{x}_0,\tilde{\xi}_0) < 0.\num \end{equation} Under this condition (), we can use the reasoning given in the first studied case (see ()) to prove that the imaginary part of the function $q-z$ changes sign, at the first order, from positive values to negative ones along an oriented bicharacteristic of the symbol $\textrm{Re }q -\textrm{Re }z$. This induces that the symbol $q-z$ violates the condition~$(\overline{\Psi})$; and we can conclude by using the theorem . Let us mention that we can also directly use the existence result of semiclassical quasimodes given by M. Zworski in and . This second proof gives the existence of semiclassical quasimodes in every point belonging to the set $$\mathring{\Sigma}(q) \setminus \big{(}(1+i \alpha_1)\rr_+^* \cup ... \cup (1+i \alpha_n)\rr_+^* \big{)}.$$ \subsubsection{On the pseudospectrum at the boundary of the numerical range} In this section, we give a proof of the theorem . Let us consider a \textit{non-normal} elliptic quadratic differential operator $$q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow L^2(\rr^n),$$ in dimension $n \geq 1$. We assume that $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$, and that its Weyl symbol $q(x,\xi)$ is of \textit{finite} order $k_j$ on a half-line $\Delta_j$, $j \in \{1,2\}$ (See the definition given in ()), which composes the boundary of its numerical range \begin{equation}\inc \partial \Sigma(q)=\{0\} \sqcup \Delta_1 \sqcup \Delta_2. \num \end{equation} As we have already done several times, we can reduce our study to case where () is fulfilled. \bigskip \noindent \textit{Proof of Theorem .} Let us consider the following symbol belonging to the $C_b^{\infty}(\rr^{2n},\cc)$ space, composed of bounded complex-valued functions on $\rr^{2n}$ with all derivatives bounded \begin{equation}\inc r(x,\xi)=\frac{q(x,\xi)-z}{1+x^2+\xi^2}, \num \end{equation} with $z \in \Delta_j$. Setting $\tilde{\Sigma}(r)=\overline{r(\rr^{2n})},$ we can first notice that $$z \in \partial \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\} \Rightarrow 0 \in \partial \tilde{\Sigma}(r).$$ Let us also notice that the symbol $r$ fulfills the principal-type condition in $0$. Indeed, if $(x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}$ was such that $r(x_0,\xi_0)=0$ and $dr(x_0,\xi_0)=0$, we would get from () that \begin{equation}\inc dq(x_0,\xi_0)=0. \num \end{equation} Since from () and (), we have $$d\textrm{Re } q(x_0,\xi_0)=2\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\lambda_j \big{(}(x_0)_j dx_j+ (\xi_0)_j d\xi_j \big{)}}=0,$$ this would imply that $$(x_0,\xi_0)=(0,0), \ q(x_0,\xi_0)=0,$$ because $q$ is a quadratic form and that $\lambda_j>0$ for all $j=1,...,n$. On the other hand, since $r(x_0,\xi_0)=0$, we get from () that $q(x_0,\xi_0)=z \neq 0$ because $$z \in \Delta_j \subset \partial\Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\},$$ which induces a contradiction. It follows that the symbol $r$ actually fulfills the principal-type condition in $0$. Let us notice that, since symbol $q$ is of finite order~$k_j$ in $z$, this induces in view of () that the symbol $r$ is also of finite order $k_j$ in $0$. On the other hand, we deduce from () and () that the set $$\{(x,\xi) \in \rr^{2n} : r(x,\xi)=0\}=\{(x,\xi) \in \rr^{2n} : q(x,\xi)=z\},$$ is compact. Under these conditions, we can apply the theorem 1.4 in , which proves that the integer~$k_j$ is \textit{even} and gives the existence of positive constants $h_0$ and $C_1$ such that \begin{equation}\inc \forall \ 0<h<h_0, \forall u \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n), \ \|r(x,h\xi)^w u\|_{\lde} \geq C_1 h^{\frac{k_j}{k_j+1}}\|u\|_{\lde}. \num \end{equation} \bigskip \noindent \textit{Remark.} We did not check the dynamical condition $(1.7)$ in~, because this assumption is not necessary for the proof of Theorem~1.4. Indeed, this proof only use a part of the proof of lemma 4.1 in (a part of the second paragraph), where this condition (1.7) is not needed. \bigskip \noindent By using some results of symbolic calculus given by Theorem 18.5.4 in and (), we can write \begin{equation}\inc r(x,h\xi)^w(1+x^2+h^2\xi^2)^w=q(x,h\xi)^w-z + h r_1(x,h\xi)^w +h^2 r_2(x,h\xi)^w, \num \end{equation} with \begin{equation}\inc r_1(x,\xi)=-i x \frac{\partial r}{\partial \xi}(x,\xi)+i \xi \frac{\partial r}{\partial x}(x,\xi) \num \end{equation} and \begin{equation}\inc r_2(x,\xi)=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 r}{\partial x^2}(x,\xi)-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 r}{\partial \xi^2}(x,\xi). \num \end{equation} We can easily check from () that these functions $r_1$ and $r_2$ belong to the space $C_b^{\infty}(\rr^{2n},\cc)$, and we deduce from the Calder\'on-Vaillancourt theorem that there exists a positive constant $C_2$ such that for all $u \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$ and $0<h \leq 1$, \begin{equation}\inc \|r_1(x,h\xi)^w u\|_{L^2} \leq C_2 \|u\|_{L^2} \textrm{ and } \|r_2(x,h\xi)^w u\|_{L^2} \leq C_2 \|u\|_{L^2}. \num \end{equation} It follows from (), (), () and the triangular inequality that for all $u \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$ and $0<h<h_0$, \begin{align*} & \ C_1 h^{\frac{k_j}{k_j+1}} \|(1+x^2+h^2 \xi^2)^w u\|_{L^2(\rr^n)} \\ \leq & \ \|r(x,h\xi)^w (1+x^2+h^2 \xi^2)^w u \|_{L^2(\rr^n)} \\ \leq & \ \|q(x,h\xi)^w u -z u \|_{L^2(\rr^n)} + C_2 h(1+h)\|u \|_{L^2(\rr^n)}. \end{align*} Since from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have for all $u \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$ and $0<h \leq 1$, \begin{align*} \|u \|_{L^2(\rr^n)}^2 \leq & \ \|u \|_{L^2(\rr^n)}^2+\|xu \|_{L^2(\rr^n)}^2+\|hD_xu \|_{L^2(\rr^n)}^2\\ = & \ \big((1+x^2+h^2 \xi^2)^w u,u\big)_{L^2(\rr^n)} \\ \leq & \ \|(1+x^2+h^2 \xi^2)^w u \|_{L^2(\rr^n)}\|u \|_{L^2(\rr^n)}, \end{align*} we obtain that for all $u \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$ and $0<h <h_0$, \begin{equation}\inc C_1 h^{\frac{k_j}{k_j+1}} \|u\|_{L^2(\rr^n)} \leq \|q(x,h\xi)^w u -z u \|_{L^2(\rr^n)} + C_2 h(1+h)\|u \|_{L^2(\rr^n)}. \num \end{equation} Since $k_j \geq 1$, we deduce from () that there exist some positive constants $h'_0$ and $C_{3}$ such that for all $0<h<h'_0$ and $u \in \mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$, $$\|q(x,h\xi)^w u - z u\|_{\lde} \geq C_{3} h^{\frac{k_j}{k_j+1}}\|u\|_{\lde}.$$ Using that the Schwartz space $\mathcal{S}(\rr^n)$ is dense in $B$ and that the operator $$q(x,h\xi)^w+z,$$ is a Fredholm operator of index $0$, we obtain that for all $0<h<h_0'$, $$\big\|\big(q(x,h\xi)^w-z\big)^{-1}\big\| \leq C_3^{-1}h^{-\frac{k_j}{k_j+1}},$$ which ends the proof of Theorem . $\Box$ \bigskip About the case of \textit{infinite} order, the situation is much more complicated. As mentioned before, we cannot expect to prove a stronger result than an absence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of index 1, but we can actually prove that there is never some semiclassical pseudospectrum of index 1 on every half-line of infinite order, by using a result of exponential decay in time for the norm of contraction semigroups generated by elliptic quadratic differential operators proved in . The result proved in shows that the norm of a contraction semigroup $$\|e^{tq(x,\xi)^w}\|_{\mathcal{L}(L^2)}, \ t \geq 0,$$ generated by an elliptic quadratic differential operator $q(x,\xi)^w$ with a Weyl symbol verifying $$\textrm{Re }q \leq 0, \ \exists (x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}, \ \textrm{Re }q(x_0,\xi_0) \neq 0,$$ decreases exponentially in time \begin{equation}\inc \exists M,a>0, \forall t \geq 0, \ \|e^{tq(x,\xi)^w}\|_{\mathcal{L}(L^2)} \leq M e^{-a t}.\num \end{equation} Let us consider a \textit{non-normal} elliptic quadratic differential operator $$q(x,\xi)^w : B \rightarrow L^2(\rr^n),$$ in dimension $n \geq 1$ such that $\Sigma(q) \neq \cc$. We explain in the following lines how () allows to prove that there is never some semiclassical pseudospectrum of index 1 on any open half-lines composing the boundary of the numerical range $\partial \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\}$. Let $z \in \partial \Sigma(q) \setminus \{0\}$. Since the numerical range $\Sigma(q)$ is a closed angular sector with a top in $0$ and a positive opening strictly lower than $\pi$, we can find $\eps \in \{\pm 1\}$ such that \begin{equation}\inc \textrm{Re}(\eps i z^{-1}q) \leq 0, \ \exists (x_0,\xi_0) \in \rr^{2n}, \ \textrm{Re}(\eps i z^{-1}q)(x_0,\xi_0) \neq 0. \num \end{equation} Using the theorem 2.8 in , we obtain that for all $\eta \in \rr$, \begin{align*}\inc \big{(}q(x,\xi)^w-\eta z \big{)}^{-1}= & \ -i z^{-1} \eps \big{(}\eps i \eta-\eps i z^{-1} q(x,\xi)^w \big{)}^{-1}\\ = & \ -i z^{-1} \eps \int_{0}^{+\infty}{e^{-i \eps \eta s }e^{s \eps i z^{-1} q(x,\xi)^w}}ds. \num \end{align*} It follows from () and () that for all $\eta \in \rr$, \begin{align*} \big\|\big{(}q(x,\xi)^w-\eta z\big{)}^{-1}\big\| \leq & \ |z|^{-1} \int_{0}^{+\infty}{\|e^{s \eps i z^{-1} q(x,\xi)^w}\|_{\mathcal{L}(L^2)} ds} \\ \leq & \ |z|^{-1} \int_{0}^{+\infty}{M e^{-a s}ds}= |z|^{-1} \frac{M}{a} < +\infty, \end{align*} which proves the absence of semiclassical pseudospectrum of index 1 on the half-line $z \rr_+^*$. We can actually use the theorem 2.8 in because $$i\rr \subset \cc \setminus \sigma\big( \eps i z^{-1} q(x,\xi)^w\big).$$ Indeed, if it was not the case, we would deduce from () that there exists $u_0 \in B \setminus \{0\}$ and $\lambda_0 \in \rr$ such that $$\eps i z^{-1} q(x,\xi)^w u_0=i \lambda_0 u_0.$$ Since from (), the quadratic form $-\textrm{Re}(\eps i z^{-1}q)$ is non-negative, we deduce from the symplectic invariance of the Weyl quantization and the theorem 21.5.3 in that there exists a metaplectic operator $U$ such that \begin{equation}\inc -\big[\textrm{Re}\big(\eps i z^{-1}q(x,\xi)\big)\big]^w=U^{-1} \Big(\sum_{j=1}^{k}{\lambda_j(D_{x_j}^2+x_j^2)} +\sum_{j=k+1}^{k+l}{x_j^2} \Big) U, \num \end{equation} with $k,l \in \nn$ and $\lambda_j>0$ for all $j=1,...,k$. By using that $U$ is a unitary operator on $L^2(\rr^{n})$, we obtain that \begin{align*} 0= & \ -\textrm{Re}(i \lambda_0 u_0,u_0)_{L^2}\\ = & \ -\textrm{Re}\big(\eps i z^{-1}q(x,\xi)^w u_0,u_0\big)_{L^2}\\ = & \ -\big{(} \big[\textrm{Re}\big{(}\eps i z^{-1}q(x,\xi)\big{)}\big]^w u_0,u_0\big{)}_{L^2} \\ = & \ \sum_{j=1}^{k}{\lambda_j \big{(}\|D_{x_j} U u_0\|_{L^2}^2+\|x_j U u_0\|_{L^2}^2 \big{)}}+\sum_{j=k+1}^{k+l}{\|x_j U u_0\|_{L^2}^2}, \end{align*} which induces that $u_0=0$, because from () and (), $k+l \geq 1$. It follows from () that there exists $\eps_0>0$ such that $$\sigma\big(\eps i z^{-1} q(x,\xi)^w\big) \subset \{z \in \cc : \textrm{Re } z \leq -\eps_0\}.$$ \begin{thebibliography}{aa} \bibitem{boulton} L.S.Boulton, \textit{Non-self-adjoint harmonic oscillator semigroups and pseudospectra}, J. Operator Theory, \textbf{47}, 413-429 (2002). \bibitem{davies} E.B.Davies, \textit{One-Parameter Semigroups}, Academic Press, London (1980). \bibitem{daviesosc} E.B.Davies, \textit{Pseudospectra, the harmonic oscillator and complex resonances}, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, \textbf{455}, 585-599 (1999). \bibitem{daviessemi} E.B.Davies, \textit{Semi-classical states for non-self-adjoint Schr\"{o}dinger operators}, Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{200}, 35-41 (1999). \bibitem{dencker} N.Dencker, J.Sj\"{o}strand, M.Zworski, \textit{Pseudospectra of Semiclassical \emph{(}Pseu\-do-\emph{)}Differential Operators}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., \textbf{57}, 384-415 (2004). \bibitem{hypoelliptic} L.H\"{o}rmander, \textit{A Class of Hypoelliptic Pseudodifferential Operators with Double Characteristics}, Math. Ann., \textbf{217}, 165-188 (1975). \bibitem{hormander} L.H\"{o}rmander, \textit{The analysis of linear partial differential operators} (vol. I,II,III,IV), Springer Verlag (1985). \bibitem{kato} T.Kato, \textit{Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1980). \bibitem{melin} A.Melin, J.Sj\"{o}strand, \textit{Determinants of pseudodifferential operators and complex deformations of phase space}, Methods Appl. Anal., \textbf{9}, no.2, 177-237 (2002). \bibitem{karel3} K.Pravda-Starov, \textit{A complete study of the pseudo-spectrum for the rotated harmonic oscillator}, J. London Math. Soc. (2) \textbf{73}, 745-761 (2006). \bibitem{these} K.Pravda-Starov, \textit{Etude du pseudo-spectre d'op�rateurs non auto-adjoints}, PhD Thesis of the University of Rennes 1, France (2006). \bibitem{karel6} K.Pravda-Starov, \textit{Contraction semigroups of elliptic quadratic differential operators}, preprint (2007). \bibitem{roch} S.Roch, B.Silbermann, \textit{$C^*$-algebra techniques in numerical analysis}, J. Oper. Theory \textbf{35}, 241-280 (1996). \bibitem{sjostrand} J.Sj\"{o}strand, \textit{Parametrices for pseudodifferential operators with multiple characteristics}, Ark. f\"{o}r Mat., \textbf{12}, 85-130 (1974). \bibitem{trefethen} L.N.Trefethen, \textit{Pseudospectra of linear operators}, Siam Review \textbf{39}, 383-400 (1997). \bibitem{trefethen2} L.N.Trefethen, M.Embree, \textit{Spectra and Pseudospectra: The Behavior of Nonnormal Matrices and Operators}, Princeton University Press (2005). \bibitem{zworski1} M.Zworski, \textit{A remark on a paper of E.B.Davies}, Proc. Am. Math. Soc., \textbf{129}, 2955-2957 (2001). \bibitem{zworski2} M.Zworski, \textit{Numerical linear algebra and solvability of partial differential equations}, Comm. Math. Phys., \textbf{229}, 293-307 (2002). \end{thebibliography} \bigskip \bigskip \noindent \textsc{Department of Mathematics, University of California, Evans Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}\\ \textit{E-mail address:} \textbf{karel@math.berkeley.edu}
|
0704.0325
|
Title: Fluctuation-dissipation relation on a Melde string in a turbulent flow,
considerations on a "dynamical temperature"
Abstract: We report on measurements of the transverse fluctuations of a string in a
turbulent air jet flow. Harmonic modes are excited by the fluctuating drag
force, at different wave-numbers. This simple mechanical probe makes it
possible to measure excitations of the flow at specific scales, averaged over
space and time: it is a scale-resolved, global measurement. We also measure the
dissipation associated to the string motion, and we consider the ratio of the
fluctuations over dissipation (FDR). In an exploratory approach, we investigate
the concept of {\it effective temperature} defined through the FDR. We compare
our observations with other definitions of temperature in turbulence. From the
theory of Kolmogorov (1941), we derive the exponent -11/3 expected for the
spectrum of the fluctuations. This simple model and our experimental results
are in good agreement, over the range of wave-numbers, and Reynolds number
accessible ($74000 \leq Re \leq 170000$).
Body: \title[Measurements of a dynamical temperature in turbulence.]{Fluctuation-dissipation relation on a Melde string in a turbulent flow, considerations on a ``dynamical temperature''.} \author[GGN]{V Grenard, N B Garnier and A Naert.} \address{Universit\'e de Lyon, Laboratoire de Physique, \'Ecole Normale Sup\'erieure de Lyon,\\ 46 All\'ee d'Italie, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France.} \ead{Antoine.Naert@ens-lyon.fr} \pacs{05.70.Ln} \pacs{05.40.-a} \pacs{05.20.Jj} \begin{abstract} We report on measurements of the transverse fluctuations of a string in a turbulent air jet flow. Harmonic modes are excited by the fluctuating drag force, at different wave-numbers. This simple mechanical probe makes it possible to measure excitations of the flow at specific scales, averaged over space and time: it is a scale-resolved, global measurement. We also measure the dissipation associated to the string motion, and we consider the ratio of the fluctuations over dissipation (FDR). In an exploratory approach, we investigate the concept of {\it effective temperature} defined through the FDR. We compare our observations with other definitions of temperature in turbulence. From the theory of Kolmogorov ($1941$), we derive the exponent $-11/3$ expected for the spectrum of the fluctuations. This simple model and our experimental results are in good agreement, over the range of wave-numbers, and Reynolds number accessible ($74000 \leq Re \leq 170000$). \end{abstract} \section{Introduction} Turbulent flows exhibit a notoriously complex and unpredictable dynamics: they present a huge number of degrees of freedom, and their dynamics are both far from equilibrium and dissipative . The kinetic energy injected at large scale by shear instability mecanisms is dissipated into heat by the molecular viscosity at small scales. That is, dissipation and injection scales are distinct. Therefore, a transport process through scales is necessary for a flow to be stationary. It is suspected that instability mechanisms associated with non-linearities generate harmonics, therefore transfering energy to smaller scales almost without dissipation. An equivalent picture would consist in vortices stretching each other in such a way that a non-zero energy transfer occurs toward smaller scales. This picture of \emph{cascade} process was first proposed by Richardson . The cascade stops approximately in the range of scales where the viscosity becomes efficient to damp velocity gradients. In the late thirties, Kolmogorov derived from this idea a phenomenological theory accounting for the fluctuations of various observables in fully developed turbulence . In the present work, we are neither concerned by the large (energy injection) scales, nor by the small (dissipation) scales, but by the intermediate range. In this intermediate inertial range, we study the transport process through scales, expected to be universal. Instead of scale $l$, one often refers to the wave-number $k=2\pi/l$.\\ The control parameter of the flow is the Reynolds number: $Re=\frac{V L}{\nu}$, where $L$ is the macroscopic scale of the flow (integral scale, or correlation length), $V$ is a characteristic shear velocity at large scale, and $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid. It is also the mean ratio of the inertial by the dissipative contribution of the forcing over a fluid particle. Interesting predictions were derived by Kolmogorov ($1941$), that we use in the following. Especially, the range of scales over which fluctuations occur scales as $Re^{3/4}$. The prediction for the exponent of the power spectral density as $\langle|\tilde{v}|^2\rangle \; \propto \; k^{-5/3}$ is among the most famous successes of this theory .\\ Our experimental system is discribed in detail in the next section. It is a thin string held by its ends at constant tension across a turbulent flow. To formalize briefly, it is an oscillator with multiple resonances, coupled to a particular 'thermostat': the turbulent flow. This string is used to probe the inertial range of a flow of high enough Reynolds numbers. The device is 'calibrated' by measuring the average (complex) response to an external perturbation, and then used to measure the free fluctuations caused by turbulence alone. Measurement of the displacement $r(t)$ caused by the turbulent forcing $f(t)$ is performed with small piezoelectric transducers. We measure the average response, i.e. the displacement on one end caused by a known broad band forcing on the other end. Then, measurements of the displacement on one end alone give information on the forcing fluctuations. Our study goes a step forward, in an exploratory way. Knowing the average response function of the string and measuring $r(t)$, we invoque a version of the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem extended out of equilibrium, to define an effective temperature of the turbulent flow. This effective temperature happends to be scale-dependant.\\ In this work, fully developped turbulence is addressed from the point of view of statistical mechanics. We first recall one important break-through: the statement of the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem (FDT). Consider a pair of conjugate variables (displacement $r$ and force $f$) of a small system in thermal contact with a large heat reservoir. In the present case the small system is the string, coupled to the turbulent flow which is the reservoir. Displacement $r$ and force $f$ are conjugate in the sense that their product is the work exerted by the flow on the string. The theorem originates from the idea that spontaneous fluctuations $r(t)$ should have the same statistical properties as the relaxation of $r(t)$ after the removal of an external forcing perturbation. The main hypothesis needed to derive this theorem are: --~linear response between $f$ and $r$, --~thermal equilibrium between the system under consideration and the thermostat, --~thermal equilibrium of the thermostat itself. The response function $H_{r,f}$ is such that: $r(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{t}H_{x,f}(t-t')f(t')dt'$. Equivalently it can be written in the Fourier space as: $\tilde r(\omega)=\tilde H_{r,f} \; \tilde f(\omega)$. Under some hypothesis, the fluctuations of $r$ (its 2-times correlation function) are linked by a very simple relation with the dissipative response of the system to a perturbation of the conjugate variable $f$ (imaginary part of the average response function). It is simply proportional, and the coefficient is nothing but the temperature multiplied by the Boltzman constant: $k_{\rm B} T$ . The validity of the hypothesis has to be discussed in each case. If they are satisfied, the correlation function of the spontaneous fluctuations is proportional to the response function, i.e. the factor is unique and constant. Moreover, this factor is the same for all couples of conjugate variables, and this factor is $k_{\rm B} T$, where $T$ is the temperature of the system. The Boltzman constant $k_{\rm B} \simeq 1.38\;10^{-23}JK^{-1}$ is an universal constant. This relation can be expressed in spectral variables: \begin{equation} \langle|\tilde r(\omega)|^{2}\rangle=\frac{2\;k_{\rm B}T}{\omega}\;Im[\tilde H_{r,f}(\omega)]. \end{equation} In this expression of the FDT, $\langle|\tilde r(\omega)|^{2}\rangle$ is the power spectral density of the fluctuations of the displacement $r$, as $\tilde H_{\rm r,\rm f}(\omega)$ is the response function on $r$ to the conjugate variable $f$. Because the string is very thin, the drag is purely viscous. It is therefore proportional to the velocity, which is in quadrature with the displacement. The dissipation is therefore proportional to the imaginary part of the average response function: $Im[\tilde H]$.\\ In the perspective of constructing a non-equilibrium thermodynamics, the FDT has been reconsidered by L.~Cugliandolo and J.~Kurchan, while investigating amorphous materials relaxing after a thermal quench through the glass transition .\\ We present in the following an exploratory approach of the question of turbulent fluctuations using their extended formalism. The Fluctuation-Dissipation Ratio (FDR) can be rewritten: \begin{equation} \frac{\omega\;\langle\tilde r(\omega)^{2}\rangle}{Im[\tilde H_{\rm r,\rm f}(\omega)]}=2\;k_{\rm B} T_{\rm eff.}(\omega), \end{equation} where the temperature is replaced by an 'effective' temperature $T_{\rm eff.}$, function of frequency $\omega$. The frequency dependence of $T_{\rm eff.}$ expresses the fact that different degrees of freedom are not at equilibrium with each other, resulting in internal energy fluxes.\\ In other words, in our system, each (independent) mode of the string couples to (non-independent) scale of the flow. As the flow is stationary, we average our measurements on time, and finally obtain the frequency dependance of $T_{\rm eff.}$ as defined by equation~. Measurements of the fluctuations of the string give Fourier components of the excitation of the flow. We measure independently the fluctuations, and the complex average response function to a specified excitation, in a way discussed below. We propose to analyse these measurements with the criteria discussed above.\\ The paper is organised as follows. The next section describes the experimental setup, turbulent flow properties, and the setting of the string. General properties of a vibrating Melde string are also discussed. The measurements are shown in section : response, fluctuations, and the Fluctuation Dissipation Ratio of this system. In section , we derive from Kolmogorov's theory a simple scaling model for the fluctuations of the drag, and therefore the FDR, which accounts for the exponent observed in the whole range of accessible $Re$. The section is devoted to a discussion of our results, especially in comparison to several definitions of temperature in turbulence proposed in the literature. \section{The Melde string and the experimental setup} The experimental setup is sketched in Fig. . A turbulent air jet originates from a nozzle of diameter $5$ cm. The flow facility we used is thoroughly described in . A thin stainless steel string of length $60\,$cm is located $2\;$m downstream the nozzle, perpendicular to the axis of the flow. At this distance, the length of the string is about the diameter of the turbulent jet. The displacement of the string is measured using piezoelectric multi-layer ceramics at each end of the string. A piezo is deformed by a voltage. Reciprocally, if the ceramic in compressed, a voltage is generated. The relation between voltage and deformation is linear, and the frequency response is almost flat in the frequency range we consider here. It can be used as actuator or sensor. We have two piezos, one on each end of the string. The two different measurements we perform are the following. 1)~complex response function: one (input) piezo is feeded with a white noise voltage through a power amplifier. The source is that of a HP$3562$A signal analyser. Standing transverse waves appear in the string, weakly perturbed by the turbulent fluctuations. Mecanical displacement on the other end is transformed into a voltage by the other (output) piezo. It must be amplified, and both input and output voltages are recorded synchronously with a $24$ bits A/D converter. The acquisition frequency is $50$ kHz. We call response the time averaged ratio of the voltage amplitudes on input and output piezos, recorded simultaneously. Voltages {\it in} and {\it out} are proportional respectively to the displacement and the constraint (on the piezos). The dimension of the actual response is the inverse of a stiffness, as what we measure is the ratio of voltages. Dimentional prefactors are omited for simplicity, as they are constant for the same setup (string and transducers). The diameter of the string is $100\;\mu$m, less than the viscous scale of the flow which is about $\eta \simeq 170\;\mu$m at the largest $Re$ accessible. \noindent The equation of motion of the undamped and unforced string is a linear wave equation. Its solutions with fixed ends are standing waves $r(x,t)=A\,\cos(\omega_n\,t-k_n x)$, where $A$ is the amplitude, $t$ is time and $x$ is position along the wire. The discrete wave numbers are $k_n=n\frac{\pi}{L}$, where $L$ is the length of the string and $n$ is a positive integer. In a first approximation, the waves are not dispersive: $\omega_n=c\,k_n$, where $c$ is the phase velocity. $T$ is the tension of the string and $\mu$ its mass per unit length, $c=\sqrt{T/\mu} \simeq 300\;$m/s. With a $4\;$kg weight on one end, the string's fundamental frequency is $f_0=344\;$Hz.\\ Dissipation is mainly due to friction on air, and causes little dispersion. More precise treatment would require terms of dissipation in the wire itself and in the piezoelectric transducers that fix the ends. We neglect this, as the amplitude remains small (a few tens of micrometers) if compared to the length of the ceramic pile ($3$\,mm), or even the wire diameter ($100\,\mu m$). The possible coupling with compression wave is not relevant, as the range of frequency is distinct. (Compression wave speed in steel is a few thousands of m/s, larger than what we consider here: $c \simeq 300\;$m/s.) When this wire is immersed into the turbulent flow, the resonant modes are excited by the drag forcing. The quantities measured are averaged along the wire. They are therefore global in space but local in scale, or more precisely in Fourier-space. The vortices at scale $l$ are expected to excite modes of wave-number $k=2\pi/l$. In that sense, the string is acting like a mechanical spectrometer, almost exactly like a Fabry-Perot interferometer. \section{Measurements} Modulus of the response function is plotted in Fig. . It shows that the resonance peaks are indeed very narrow, ensuring a very precise selection of wave-numbers: the quality factor is approximately $Q \simeq 4000$. The imaginary part of the response function is giving the dissipation. \noindent The width of the peaks in the modulus is also linked to the dissipation, as well as the damping time after a perturbation. We used in the following the measurement of the imaginary part of the response, but checked that these different methods coincide. Only the resonant frequencies are considered in this study, as they are much more sensitive to the velocity fluctuations. This is especially important at large $k$, as the kinetic energy of the flow is small. Spectrum of the fluctuation excited by the turbulent drag is shown in Fig. . Fluctuations resonance peaks are clearly identified. Spurious vibrations are visible, mainly caused by the vibrations of the stand. Because the peaks are very thin, long acquisitions are necessary, as well as large windows for the FFT calculations ($150000$ points), in order to achieve a sufficient resolution ($0.33\,$Hz). The protocol we used to find the resonance frequencies, the value of the amplitude of fluctuations, and imaginary part of the response, is the following. Resonance frequency is obtained by spline smoothing each peak around the maximum amplitude of the response. Then, imaginary part is measured after being also smoothed. The amplitude of the fluctuations peaks are collected on the spectrum, after local smoothing around the maxima. \noindent One can see the FDR in Fig. , called $k_{\rm B} T_{\rm eff.}$, for several values of $Re$. Uncertainties on this ratio have multiple origins. Errors indicated by the size of the symbols are those coming from the determination of the resonance frequencies. Spurious vibrations of the stand are difficult to handle: we perform measurements of response and fluctuations in the same conditions, to reduce its influence on the ratio. We believe the scattering of the points in Fig. comes mainly from the weakening of signal/noise ratio for large frequencies, simply because there is less energy in the flow at large $k$, especially at small $Re$. The only possible escape on this point is to improve the coupling between the string and the sensors. \noindent The wave-number has been rescaled with the internal viscous scale $\eta \propto Re^{-3/4}$. The ordinates have been rescaled by an estimated number of degrees of freedom: $(L/\eta)^3 \propto Re^{9/4}$. These $Re$ scalings are both usual consequences from Kolmogorov's theory. In other words, the \emph{``thermal energy''} $k_{\rm B} T_{\rm eff.}$ that the FDR is representing in the framework of Cugliandolo \etal's theory, is given per degree of freedom. Assuming the number of degrees of freedom is the total number of particles of size $\eta$ in the total volume is usual, but crude. A more realistic description should involve correlations between them, reducing this number. However, all the curves collapse to a single power-law with this scaling. The exponent is discussed in the following section.\\ Please note that the equipartition of energy at equilibrium would require this spectrum to be constant. There is no equilibrium between the Fourier modes, because of the energy flux through scales. Moreover, they are not independent, and probably not Gaussian. There is no reason to expect equipartition. Considering a kinematik temperature as poportional to the kinetic energy, like in the kinetic theory of gases, it would be: $T\;\propto\;\langle\tilde{v}^2\rangle$. And, because of Kolmogorov's theory it would scale as $k^{-5/3}$. The dependance we observe with our definition is much steeper. \section{Scaling law} Because the susceptibility of the string is very high at resonance, the half-wave-length modes $n\lambda/2$ match with velocity structures of scale $l$ ($n$ is an integer). Therefore, the wave number of the standing wave in the string $k=n\;2\pi/\lambda$ is the same as $k=2\pi/l$. The necessary condition for this matching is resonance. It also ensures that velocities of the string and fluid equalise, which is crucial for the following argument.\\ Displacement is proportional to the drag forcing, itself proportional to velocity, as drag is viscous: the string diameter-based Reynolds number is small (about $10$). The Melde string is not dispersive: $\omega = 2\pi f=ck$, $c$ being the wave velocity. Therefore, the displacement is $r=v/\omega=v/(ck)$, and its power spectrum is: $\langle\tilde{r}(\omega)^2\rangle\;=\;\langle\tilde{v}(\omega)^2\rangle(ck)^{-2}\;\propto\;k^{-11/3}$. Because the viscous dissipation at each resonance is proportional to frequency, the FDR of Eq. is simply proportional to $c\,k\,\langle\tilde{r}(\omega)^2\rangle\;\propto\;k^{-11/3}$. Following Eq. , an effective ``thermal agitation'' defined by the FDR would be: $k_{\rm B}T_{\rm eff.}\propto k^{-11/3}$, in the inertial range of fully developed turbulence. This exponent is compatible with the spectrum we measured, as can be seen in Fig. . \section{Discussion} Theoretical characterisation of turbulence in terms of temperature were proposed in the past by several authors. The temperatures as defined by T.~M.~Brown and B.~Castaing do not depend on $k$ throughout the inertial range. The qualitative idea is that the cascade transport process is efficient enough to equalise a quantity they call temperature. In another model invoking an extremum principle, B.~Castaing proposed a definition of temperature, which might depend on scale . In any case, none of these theories invoke the FDR. On different basis, R.~Robert and J.~Sommeria proposed a definition of temperature , only valid for 2D turbulence. It is not expected to apply in a $3$D flow.\\ Now, let's consider our experimental results from the perspective of the three points of reflexion we proposed in the first section, in relation with the FDT. 1- Linear response: as we mentioned, the coupling between the string and the flow is purely viscous. Therefore, drag force is proportional to velocity: $f(t)=\gamma\,v(t)$, $\gamma$ being a friction coefficient. It is also the time-derivative of the position $f(t)=\gamma\,\omega\,r(t)$. Response is linear in $r$, but the coefficient depends on frequency. 2- Are fluctuations and dissipation proportional ? As we have seen, the measurements of the FDR are consistent with a $k^{-11/3}$ scaling, it is definitely not constant with respect to $k$. As our system is out of equilibrium but stationary, there is no time evolution like the relaxation of glasses. 3- Setting a string in a turbulent flow allows to perform measurements on a couple of conjugate force-displacement variables. We have no other set of observables to compare with, for now. \\ We may ask whether what we measure is actually a temperature, in a dynamical sense. If one assumes that each mode of the string is a harmonic oscillator, and that a harmonic oscillator at equilibrium with a bath gives the temperature of this bath through the FDR, then equilibrium between modes of the string and modes of the flow means the temperature is equal: measurements give the temperature of the flow at this corresponding scale. Such interpretation still rely on the assumption that FDR on the oscillator gives the temperature of the oscilaror: this is our working hypothesis. By equilibrium between modes of the string and the flow, we mean a 'no-flux' condition on energy. This is ensured by the high susceptibility of the string at resonance. In other words, the probe and the reservoir are in equilibrium with each other for each $k$, but equilibium is obviously not expected between one scale and another.\\ We have performed measurements on a turbulent flow, coupling to it a set of harmonic oscillators: a Melde string. At equilibrium with the flow, in the sense that each mode of the string couples with the fluid at scale $l=\pi c/\omega$. It gives informations much like a spectrometer, even though the flow itself is strongly out of equilibrium. This is true, of course, as long as the response of the string is fast enough compared to the frequencies of the velocity fluctuations. The displacement spectra are recorded at different values of $Re$, as well as the complex response of the string over an excitation (contributions of all the standing waves). \\ The matching of the string's modes and hydrodynamic structures, what we call equilibrium between the string and the flow, is still a questionable working hypothesis. However, drawing inspiration from Cugliandolo \etal's theory of non-equilibrium temperature based on the FDR, we measured the Fluctuation over Dissipation Ratio of our string in a turbulent flow, for different values of $Re$. The FDR, multiplied by an appropriate power of the Reynolds number exhibits a unique power law, when Reynolds number is between $74000$ and $170000$. The exponent is consistent with a value $-11/3$ given by a very simple model derived from Kolmogorov $1941$ theory. \ack We acknowledge B.~Castaing, E.~Leveque, P.~Borgnat, F.~Delduc, S.~Ciliberto, E.~Bertin, and K.~Gawedzki for many discussions. We also thank V.~Bergeron, T.~Divoux, and V.~Vidal for corrections on the manuscript and for many discussions. Thanks to F.~Dumas for his help in the construction of positioning devices. As this system became a teaching experiment, several students contributed to this study as part of their graduate lab-course. They are gratefully acknowledged: A.~Louvet, G.~Bordes, I.~Dossmann, J.~Perret, C.~Cohen, and M.~Mathieu. We also thank the guitar maker D.~Teyssot, from Lyon, who gently gave us his thinnest E strings. \vspace{1cm} \bibliographystyle{unsrt} \bibliography{biblio3} Modifications apres les referees de JSTAT du 25/07/08. ON THE 28/7/08: - mise en forme avec le style IOP et pour JSTAT, et bibtex : fichier joint biblio.bib ou/et biblio.bll - changement du titre court et du titre long, un peu plus precis je pense. - thermal equilibrium between the system considered and the thermostat => thermal equilibrium between the system under consideration and the thermostat - all this ``-'' become ``--'' - the integral (temporal) form of the relation between force and displacement is corrected. ON THE 29/07/08: - REF.A: $x$ is the absissa along the string, - REF.A: size of the hydrodynamic structures is now called $l$ instead of $r$ - REF.A: the transverse displacement of the string is called $r$ - REF.A, point0: a simple presentation of the Melde string in added in the first section, allowing a simpler introduction of the displacement and force variables. It is therefore also answering point1 concerning the conjugate variables 'displacement' and 'force'. - REF.A, point1: the f(t) is replaced by x(t) on the left of the integral (temporal) form of the relation between force and displacement. - REF.A, point1: Explanations are given on the reason why dissipation is the Im[H]. As the drag is viscous: f=\gamma v. Displacement and velocity being in quadrature, it is the imaginary part of the response to take as the dissipation. Dimensions: \tilde x = H f = H v = H \gamma \omega x. To be consistent, H \gamma \omega must be without dimension, which is the case. CONNERIES ? - REF.A, point2: The short discussion on glasses was there to present the context of Cugliandolo and Kurchan 's theory. We use it in the following in an exploratory way, we thought it was necessary to stress that the conditions of application of this theory are not present. We think Referee A is right, this part is not necessary to our experimental work on turbulence ! We thank Referee A for the reference to the review article from Bettolo et al., which seems very rich and detailed. - REF.A, point3: Concerning the calculation of the average response, we tried to improve our explanation. Linearity of the response: is it diplacement of the piezo v.s. voltage ? We added ``The relation between voltage and displacement is linear.''. We haven't checked this, as we used it in its normal working condition, as givent by Thorlabs. We didn't think this was necessary. - REF.B, point1: This part has been rewritten, we hope it is clearer now. - REF.B, point2: The sentense ``Only the resonant frequencies are considered in this study,'' at the beginning of section 3 is completed as the following: ''as they are much more sensitive to the velocity fluctuations. This is especially important at large $k$, as the kinetic energy of the flow is small.'' - REF.B, point3: As the dissipation is viscous, it is proportional to the velocity of the fluid, and therefore the frequency of oscillation. We suspect there was an ambiguity with the resonance frequency shift with increase of dissipation in the case of a damped oscillator. We slightly modified the text to avoid this ambiguity, stressing that we are concerned with the frequencies of the multiple resonances. - REF.B, point4: In the introduction, the sentense ``Let the flow by itself...'' is simplified. - REF.B, point5: The introduction has been rewritten, more clearly we hope. - REF.B, point6: 'Have to' -> 'has to' - REF.B, point7and9: In Eq.1, we changed the factor 4->2, to make it correct. - REF.B, point8: This part is not anymore in the text. - REF.B, point10: frequency -> frequency dependance - REF.B, point11: added ':' - REF.B, point12: undamped and unforced is added to be more exact. - REF.B, point13: an other -> another - REF.B, point14: We do not have the page number in the referee repport. We hope the modifications of the text makes it clear that the complex response function is obtained with additional white noise. We explained better an important point : input and output voltages have to be reccorded simultaneously, so that the complex response is the average of the ratio. It was not clear enough. ON THE 30/07/08: We thank the referees for their correction and constructive comments. We improved the text of the article accordingly. We hope our article is now suitable for publication. Our aim is to present to the community original experimental results. Obviously, the questions we address are not answered in this article. But we think this study may inspire theoretical and experimental studies, and that some other groups will join on this approach.
|
0704.0328
|
Title: Electroweak phase transitions in the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$
Abstract: We investigate the possibility of electroweak phase transition in the minimal
supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with an extra $U(1)'$. This model has two
Higgs doublets and a singlet, in addition to a singlet exotic quark superfield.
We find that at the one-loop level this model may accommodate the electroweak
phase transitions that are strongly first-order in a reasonably large region of
the parameter space. In the parameter region where the phase transitions take
place, we observe that the lightest scalar Higgs boson has a smaller mass when
the strength of the phase transition becomes weaker. Also, the other three
heavier neutral Higgs bosons get more large masses when the strength of the
phase transition becomes weaker.
Body: \title{Electroweak phase transitions in the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$} \author{S.W. Ham$^{(1)}$, E.J. Yoo$^{(2)}$, and S.K. Oh$^{(1,2)}$ \\ \\ {\it $^{(1)}$ Center for High Energy Physics, Kyungpook National University, } \\ {\it Daegu 702-701, Korea} \\ {\it $^{(2)}$ Department of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Korea} \\ \\ } \date{} \maketitle \begin{abstract} We investigate the possibility of electroweak phase transition in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with an extra $U(1)'$. This model has two Higgs doublets and a singlet, in addition to a singlet exotic quark superfield. We find that at the one-loop level this model may accommodate the electroweak phase transitions that are strongly first-order in a reasonably large region of the parameter space. In the parameter region where the phase transitions take place, we observe that the lightest scalar Higgs boson has a smaller mass when the strength of the phase transition becomes weaker. Also, the other three heavier neutral Higgs bosons get more large masses when the strength of the phase transition becomes weaker. \end{abstract} \vfil\eject \section{INTRODUCTION} The baryon asymmetry of the universe can be dynamically generated during the evolution of the universe, if the mechanism of baryogenesis satisfies the three Sakharov conditions [1]. The three Sakharov conditions are: the presence of baryon number violation, the violation of both C and CP, and a deviation from thermal equilibrium. It is known that the universe can escape out of the thermal equilibrium by means of electroweak phase transition, which should be strongly first-order in order to ensure sufficient deviation from thermal equilibrium to generate the baryon asymmetry that is observed today. However, it has been already recognized that the Standard Model (SM) has some difficulty to realize the desired electroweak phase transition. The present experimental lower bound on the mass of the SM Higgs boson does not allow the electroweak phase transition to be strongly first-order [2, 3]. The electroweak phase transition is weakly first-order or higher order in the SM. Thus, the SM is inadequate to generate sufficient baryon asymmetry. Moreover, the amount CP violation in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix is too small to account for the baryon asymmetry of the observed universe [4]. Consequently, new physical models beyond the SM have extensively been studied for the possibility of reasonable explanation of the baryon asymmetry of the universe. Especially, the low energy supersymmetric models have been studied widely within the context of electroweak baryogenesis [5-7]. The simplest supersymmetric model that includes the SM is the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), which possesses in its superpotential the $\mu$ term that accounts for the mixing between two Higgs doublets. The $\mu$ parameter, which has the mass dimension, causes some problem with respect to its energy scale [8]. Several possibilities have been investigated in the literature to solve the so-called $\mu$ problem [9-12]. Introducing an additional $U(1)'$ to the MSSM is one of the plausible explanations for the $\mu$ problem of the MSSM. The MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$ can not only solve the $\mu$ problem but we will show that it can also overcome the difficulties that the SM encounters when the SM tries to satisfy the Sakharov conditions. This model can accommodate sufficient CP violation, because it possesses other sources of CP violation besides the CKM matrix. It is possible to realize the explicit CP violation in this model by means of complex CP phases arising from the soft SUSY breaking terms [12]. Then, it is the purpose of this paper to show that this model indeed allows the strongly first-order electroweak phase transitions such that it can successfully explain the baryogenesis. The characteristics of the electroweak phase transitions are determined essentially by the temperature-dependent part of the Higgs potential. We construct the full temperature-dependent Higgs potential at the one-loop level, and examine if the electroweak phase transition may be strongly first-order. Two methods are employed for the construction of the temperature-dependent Higgs potential. One method assumes that the critical temperature at which the electroweak phase transition occurs is relatively high, thus the temperature-dependent effective potential is approximated by retaining only terms proportional to $T^2$, whereas the other method carries out numerically exact integrations of the temperature-dependent effective potential. The thermal effects of particles whose masses are comparatively smaller than the critical temperature are included at the one-loop level in the former method, whereas the particle content is different in the latter method. Either way, we obtain almost the same physical results. Unlike the MSSM, this model allows a strongly first-order electroweak phase transition in a wide region of the parameter space, and the first-order electroweak phase transition can be strong enough without requiring a light stop quark. An interesting behavior of this model with respect to the strongly first-order electroweak phase transition is that the mass of the lightest neutral Higgs boson becomes larger when the phase transition gets stronger. On the other hand, the masses of the other three neutral Higgs bosons become smaller when the phase transition gets stronger. \section{ZERO TEMPERATURE} The MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$ accommodates in its Higgs sector two Higgs doublets $H_1 = (H_1^0, H_1^-)$, $H_2=(H_2^+, H_2^0)$, and one Higgs singlet, $S$. In terms of these Higgs fields, the relevant part of the superpotential of this model may be written as \begin{equation} W \approx h_t Q H_2 t_R^c + h_b Q H_1 b_R^c + h_k S D_L {\bar D}_R - \lambda S H_1^T \epsilon H_2 \ , \end{equation} where we take into account only the third generation: $t_R^c$ and $b_R^c$ are, respectively, the right-handed singlet top and bottom quark superfields, $D_R$ is the right-handed singlet exotic quark (a vector-like down quark) superfield, $Q$ is the left-handed $SU(2)$ doublet quark superfield of the third generation, and $D_L$ is the left-handed singlet exotic quark superfield. Further, $h_t$, $h_b$ and $h_k$ are, respectively, the dimensionless Yukawa coupling coefficients of top, bottom, and exotic quark superfields, and $\epsilon$ is an antisymmetric $2 \times 2$ matrix with $\epsilon_{12} = 1$. From the superpotential, at zero temperature, we can construct the Higgs potential at the tree level, which may be read as \begin{equation} V_0 = V_F + V_D + V_{\rm S} \ , \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} V_F & = & |\lambda|^2 [(|H_1|^2 + |H_2|^2) |S|^2 + |H_1^T \epsilon H_2|^2] \ , \cr V_D & = & {g_2^2 \over 8} (H_1^{\dagger} \vec\sigma H_1 + H_2^{\dagger} \vec\sigma H_2)^2 + {g_1^2 \over 8} (|H_1|^2 - |H_2|^2)^2 \cr & &\mbox{}+ {g^{'2}_1 \over 2} ( {\tilde Q}_1 |H_1|^2 + {\tilde Q}_2 |H_2|^2 + {\tilde Q}_3 |S|^2)^2 \ , \cr V_{\rm S} & = & m_1^2 |H_1|^2 + m_2^2 |H_2|^2 + m_3^2 |S|^2 - [\lambda A_{\lambda} (H_1^T \epsilon H_2) S + {\rm H.c.}] \ , \end{eqnarray} where $\vec\sigma$ denotes the three Pauli matrices, $g_1$, $g_2$, and $g'_1$ are the $U(1)$, $SU(2)$, and $U(1)'$ gauge coupling constants, respectively, ${\tilde Q}_1$, ${\tilde Q}_2$, and ${\tilde Q}_3$ are the $U(1)'$ hypercharges of $H_1$, $H_2$, and $S$, respectively, and $m_i^2$ $(i = 1, 2, 3)$ are the soft SUSY breaking masses. In the Higgs potential, $\lambda$ and $A_{\lambda}$ may in general be complex numbers. However, they will be assumed to be real in the subsequent discussions, as we do not consider CP violation in the Higgs sector. The soft masses are also assumed to be real, without loss of generality, and they are eventually eliminated by imposing minimum conditions with respect to the neutral Higgs fields, The gauge invariance of the superpotential under of $U(1)'$ requires that the three $U(1)'$ hypercharges should satisfy ${\tilde Q}_1 + {\tilde Q}_2 + {\tilde Q}_3 = 0$. The above Higgs potential at the tree level would allow the three neutral Higgs fields $H_1^0$, $H_2^0$, and $S$ to develop the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) $v_1 (0)$, $v_2 (0)$, and $s (0)$, respectively. Remark that these VEVs are obtained at zero temperature. However, for simplicity, we omit the temperature dependence of these VEVs until next section where we take into account the finite temperature effect. The tree-level Higgs potential should now be corrected by the radiative one-loop effects. In SUSY models, the radiative corrections due to the top and stop quarks contribute most dominantly to the tree-level Higgs sector. Besides, if $\tan\beta = v_2/v_1$ is very large, the radiative corrections due to the bottom and sbottom quarks should also be included since they become no longer negligible. Furthermore, the radiative corrections due to the exotic quark and squark may be important since the Yukawa coupling of the exotic quark to the singlet field $S$ can be large at the electroweak scale [11]. Therefore, we take into account all the contributions from the top, bottom, exotic quark sector to the tree-level Higgs potential. The one-loop radiative corrections are evaluated by the effective potential method [13]. We assume that the squark masses are degenerate. Ignoring the mixings in the masses of the squarks [14], the one-loop effective potential is given by \begin{equation} V_1 = \sum_{l=t,b,k} {3 {\cal M}_l^4 \over 16 \pi^2} \left [ {3 \over 2} + \log \left ( {{\tilde m}^2 + {\cal M}_l^2 \over {\cal M}_l^2} \right ) \right ] \ , \end{equation} where $t$, $b$, and $k$, respectively are top, bottom, and exotic quark fields including the corresponding squark fields, ${\cal M}_t = h_t |H_2|$, ${\cal M}_b = h_b |H_1|$, ${\cal M}_k = h_k |S|$ are the field-dependent quark masses, and ${\tilde m}$ is the soft SUSY breaking mass, which is assumed that $\tilde m = 1000$ GeV $\gg m_q$ ($q $= $t$, $b$, or $k$). The Higgs sector of the present model consists of six physical Higgs bosons: a pair of charged Higgs boson, one neutral pseudoscalar Higgs boson, and three neutral scalar Higgs bosons. The tree-level mass of the charged Higgs boson is given by \begin{equation} m_{C^{\pm}}^2 = m_W^2 - \lambda^2 v^2 + {2 \lambda A_{\lambda} s \over \sin 2 \beta} \ , \end{equation} where $v = \sqrt{v^2_1 + v^2_2} = 175$ GeV and $m_W^2 = g_2^2 v^2 /2$ is the squared mass of the $W$ boson. At the tree level, the mass of the charged Higgs boson might be either smaller or larger than the $W$ boson mass. The tree-level mass of the neutral pseudoscalar Higgs boson is given by \begin{equation} m_A^2 = {2 \lambda A_{\lambda} v \over \sin 2 \alpha} \ , \end{equation} where $\tan\alpha = (v/2s) \sin 2 \beta$ implies the splitting between the electroweak symmetry breaking scale and the extra $U(1)'$ symmetry breaking scale. Note that these tree-level masses of both the neutral pseudoscalar and the charged Higgs bosons do not receive any radiative corrections, because the squark masses are degenerate. The tree-level squared masses of the three neutral scalar Higgs bosons are considerably affected by the radiative corrections. Their squared masses at the one-loop level are given as the eigenvalues of the $3 \times 3$ one-loop level mass matrix, whose elements may be written as \begin{eqnarray} M_{11} & = & m_Z^2 \cos^2 \beta + 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_1^2 v^2 \cos^2 \beta + m_A^2 \sin^2 \beta \cos^2 \alpha + f_a(m_b^2) \cr M_{22} & = & m_Z^2 \sin^2 \beta + 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_2^2 v^2 \sin^2 \beta + m_A^2 \cos^2 \beta \cos^2 \alpha + f_a(m_t^2) \ , \cr M_{33} & = & 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_3^2 s^2 + m_A^2 \sin^2 \alpha + f_a(m_k^2) \ , \cr M_{12} & = & g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_1 {\tilde Q}_2 v^2 \sin 2 \beta + (\lambda^2 v^2 - m_Z^2/2) \sin 2 \beta - m_A^2 \cos \beta \sin \beta \cos^2 \alpha \ , \cr M_{13} & = & 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_1 {\tilde Q}_3 v s \cos \beta + 2 \lambda^2 v s \cos \beta - m_A^2 \sin \beta \cos \alpha \sin \alpha \ , \cr M_{23} & = & 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_2 {\tilde Q}_3 v s \sin \beta + 2 \lambda^2 v s \sin \beta - m_A^2 \cos \beta \cos \alpha \sin \alpha \ , \end{eqnarray} where $m_Z^2 = (g_1^2 + g_2^2) v^2 /2$ is the squared mass of the $Z$ boson, and the function $f_a(m_q^2)$ is defined as \begin{equation} f_a(m_q^2) = {3 h_q^2 m_q^2 \over 4 \pi^2} \log \left ({{\tilde m}^2 + m_q^2 \over m_q^2} \right ) + {3 \over 8 \pi^2} \left [ {4 h_q^2 m_q^4 \over {\tilde m}^2 + m_q^2 } - {h_q^2 m_q^6 \over ({\tilde m}^2 + m_q^2)^2} \right ] \ . \end{equation} We assume that the masses of three scalar Higgs bosons $S_i$ are sorted such that $m_{S_1} \le m_{S_2} \le m_{S_3}$. \section{FINITE TEMPERATURE} Now, let us study the temperature dependence of the Higgs potential in order to investigate the nature of the electroweak phase transition in the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$. We evaluate $V_T$, the temperature-dependent part of the Higgs potential at the one-loop level, using the effective potential method. It is given as [15] \begin{equation} V_T = \sum_{l = B, F} {n_l T^4 \over 2 \pi^2} \int_0^{\infty} dx \ x^2 \ \log \left [1 \pm \exp{\left ( - \sqrt {x^2+{m_l^2(\phi_i)/T^2 }} \right ) } \right ] \ , \end{equation} where $B$ and $F$ stand for bosons (${\tilde t}$, ${\tilde b}$, and ${\tilde k}$) and fermions ($t$, $b$, and $k$), and $n_t = n_b = n_k = -12$ and $n_{\tilde t} = n_{\tilde b} = n_{\tilde k} = 12$. The negative sign is for bosons and the positive sign is for fermions. Thus, the full Higgs potential at finite temperature at the one-loop level is given by \begin{equation} V(T) = V_0 + V_1 + V_T \end{equation} For numerical analysis, we need to set the values of the relevant parameters of the model. As in the previous section, the soft SUSY breaking mass is set as ${\tilde m} = 1000$ GeV. The quark masses are set as $m_t = 175$ GeV, $m_b = 4$ GeV, and $m_k = 400$ GeV. From these values, $m_{\tilde q} = \sqrt{{\tilde m}^2 + m_q^2}$ ($q=t,b,k$) yield the squark masses as $m_{\tilde t} = 1015$ GeV, $m_{\tilde b} = 1000$ GeV, and $m_{\tilde k} = 1077$ GeV. Some caution should be taken for setting the values of ${\tilde Q}_i$ ($i$=1, 2, 3), the $U(1)'$ hypercharges of the Higgs doublets and the Higgs singlet. In the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$, the extra neutral gauge boson mass ($m_{Z'}$) and the mixing angle ($\alpha_{ZZ'}$) between the two neutral gauge bosons ($Z, Z'$) may impose strong constraints on the parameter values. For our numerical analysis, $m_{Z'}$ is estimated to be larger than 600 GeV, and $\alpha_{ZZ'}$ smaller than $2 \times 10^{-3}$, for $\tan \beta = 3$ and $s(T=0)=500$ GeV. Besides, as recent research has suggested [10], we impose the constraint of ${\tilde Q}_1 {\tilde Q}_2 > 0$. Further, the $U(1)'$ gauge invariance condition requires that ${\tilde Q}_3 = -({\tilde Q}_1 + {\tilde Q}_2)$. In this paper, we define new charges $Q_i = g_1' {\tilde Q}_i$ since ${\tilde Q}_i$ appear always together with $g_1'$. Then, one may establish the allowed area in the ($Q_1, Q_2$)-plane by imposing the above constraints. For $\tan \beta = 3$ and $s(T=0)=500$ GeV, the result is shown in Fig. 1, where the small area near the point ($Q_1$, $Q_2$) = (-1, 0) and the upper right corner of Fig. 1 are the allowed areas. The hatched region is the excluded area. There are two specific points in Fig. 1, marked by a star ($*$) and a cross ($+$). The values of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ at the star-marked point correspond to the $\nu$-model of $E_6$ gauge group realizations [11]. We would take the values of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ at the cross-marked point, namely, ($Q_1, Q_2$) = (-1, -0.1), and hence $Q_3$ =1.1. With these parameter values at hand, we would investigate the possibility of the strongly first-order electroweak phase transition by using two different ways. The first method is to retain only the dominant $T^2$-proportional part from the high-temperature approximation of $V_T$, and to take account only those particles whose masses are relatively small [6]. The second method is to perform the integration in $V_T$ in numerically exact way, and to consider only the contributions of top, bottom, and exotic quarks and squarks. \subsection{Method A} Let us start with the high temperature approximation of $V_T$, which is expressed as [3] \begin{eqnarray} V_T & \approx &\mbox{} - \sum_{i =t,b,k} n_i \left [{T^2 m_i^2 (\phi_i) \over 48} + {m_i^4 (\phi_i) \over 64 \pi^2} \log \left ({m_i^2 (\phi_i) \over c_F T^2} \right ) \right ] \cr & &\mbox{} + \sum_{i = {\tilde t}, {\tilde b}, {\tilde k}} n_i \left [{T^2 m_i^2 (\phi_i) \over 24} - {T m_i^3 (\phi_i) \over 12 \pi} - {m_i^4 (\phi_i) \over 64 \pi^2} \log \left ({m_i^2 (\phi_i) \over c_B T^2} \right ) \right ] \ , \end{eqnarray} where $\log c_F = 2.64$ and $\log c_B = 5.41$. It is known that in the SM the high temperature approximation is consistent with the exact integration of $V_T$ within 5 \ We select those terms that are proportional to $T^2$ in the above expression, which become most dominant at high temperature. Thus, we assume that the temperature at which the electroweak phase transition takes place is sufficiently high. We also assume that the $U(1)$ and $SU(2)$ gaugino masses $M_1$ and $M_2$ in the chargino and neutralino sectors are very much larger than the other mass parameters. We take into account the thermal effects due to the Higgs bosons, $W$, $Z$, and the extra $U(1)$ gauge boson in the boson sector, and $t$, $b$, $k$ quarks, the lighter chargino, and the three light neutralinos in the fermion sector, because their masses are relatively small as compared with temperature, similarly to the analyses of previous articles [6]. Explicitly, the $T^2$ terms in the high temperature approximation of $V_T$ can be expressed as \begin{eqnarray} V_T & = & {T^2 \over 24} \left [ 4 m_1^2 + 4 m_2^2 + 2 m_3^2 + (2 g_1^2 + 6 g_2^2 + 6 \lambda^2) (|H_1|^2 + |H_2|^2) + 12 \lambda^2 |S|^2 \right. \cr &&\mbox{} + 12 g^{'2}_1 ({\tilde Q}_1^2 |H_1|^2 + {\tilde Q}_2^2 |H_2|^2 + {\tilde Q}_3^2 |S|^2) + 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_1 {\tilde Q}_2 (|H_1|^2 + |H_2|^2) \cr & &\mbox{} + 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_2 {\tilde Q}_3 (|H_2|^2 + |S|^2) + 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_1 {\tilde Q}_3 (|H_1|^2 + |S|^2) \cr & &\mbox{} + 8 g^{'2}_1 ({\tilde Q}_1 + {\tilde Q}_2) ({\tilde Q}_1 |H_1|^2 + {\tilde Q}_2 |H_2|^2 + {\tilde Q}_3 |S|^2 ) \cr & &\mbox{} \left. + 6 (h_t^2 |H_2|^2 + h_b^2 |H_1|^2 + h_k^2 |S|^2) \right ] \ . \end{eqnarray} Now, the neutral scalar Higgs fields develop the temperature-dependent VEVs, $v_1 (T)$, $v_2 (T)$, and $s (T)$, which we will simply denote $v_1$, $v_2$, and $s$, respectively. In terms of these temperature-dependent VEVs, the vacuum at finite temperature is defined as the minimum of $V(T)$ as \begin{equation} \langle V(v_1,v_2,s,T) \rangle = \langle V_0 \rangle + \langle V_1 \rangle + \langle V_T \rangle \ , \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} \langle V_0 \rangle & = & m_1^2 v_1^2 + m_2^2 v_2^2 + m_3^2 s^2 + {g_1^2 + g_2^2 \over 8} (v_1^2 - v_2^2)^2 + \lambda^2 (v_1^2 v_2^2 + v_1^2 s^2 + v_2^2 s^2) \cr & &\mbox{} - 2 \lambda A_{\lambda} v_1 v_2 s + {g^{'2}_1 \over 2 } ({\tilde Q}_1 v_1^2 + {\tilde Q}_2 v_2^2 + {\tilde Q}_3 s^2)^2 \ , \cr \langle V_1 \rangle & = & f_b(m_t^2) + f_b(m_b^2) + f_b(m_k^2) \ , \cr \langle V_T \rangle & = & {T^2 \over 24} \left [ 4 m_1^2 + 4 m_2^2 + 2 m_3^2 + (2 g_1^2 + 6 g_2^2 + 6 \lambda^2) (v_1^2 + v_2^2) + 12 \lambda^2 s^2 \right. \cr &&\mbox{} + 12 g^{'2}_1 ({\tilde Q}_1^2 v_1^2 + {\tilde Q}_2^2 v_2^2 + {\tilde Q}_3^2 s^2) + 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_1 {\tilde Q}_2 (v_1^2 + v_2^2) \cr & &\mbox{} + 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_2 {\tilde Q}_3 (v_2^2 + s^2) + 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_1 {\tilde Q}_3 (v_1^2 + s^2) \cr & &\mbox{} \left. + 8 g^{'2}_1 ({\tilde Q}_1 + {\tilde Q}_2) ({\tilde Q}_1 v_1^2 + {\tilde Q}_2 v_2^2 + {\tilde Q}_3 s^2 ) + 6 (h_t^2 v_2^2 + h_b^2 v_1^2 + k^2 s^2) \right ] \ . \end{eqnarray} In the above expressions, the function $f_b$ is defined as \begin{equation} f_b(m_q^2) = {3 m_q^4 \over 16 \pi^2} \left [ {3 \over 2} + \log \left ({{\tilde m}^2 + m_q^2 \over m_q^2} \right ) \right ] \ , \end{equation} and the soft SUSY breaking masses at the one-loop level are given as \begin{eqnarray} m_1^2 & = &\mbox{} - {m_Z^2 \over 2} \cos 2 \beta - \lambda^2 (s(0)^2 + v(0)^2 \sin^2 \beta) + \lambda A_{\lambda} s(0) \tan \beta \cr & &\mbox{} - g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_1 ({\tilde Q}_1 v(0)^2 \cos^2 \beta + {\tilde Q}_2 v(0)^2 \sin^2 \beta + {\tilde Q}_3 s(0)^2) - f_c(m_b^2(0)) \cr m_2^2 & = & {m_Z^2 \over 2} \cos 2 \beta - \lambda^2 (s(0)^2 + v(0)^2 \cos^2 \beta) + \lambda A_{\lambda} s(0) \cot \beta \cr & &\mbox{} - g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_2 ({\tilde Q}_1 v(0)^2 \cos^2 \beta + {\tilde Q}_2 v(0)^2 \sin^2 \beta + {\tilde Q}_3 s(0)^2) - f_c(m_t^2(0)) \cr m_3^2 & = &\mbox{} - \lambda^2 v(0)^2 + {\lambda \over 2 s(0)} v(0)^2 A_{\lambda} \sin 2 \beta \cr & &\mbox{} - g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_3 ({\tilde Q}_1 v(0)^2 \cos^2 \beta + {\tilde Q}_2 v(0)^2 \sin^2 \beta + {\tilde Q}_3 s(0)^2) - f_c(m_k^2(0)) \ , \end{eqnarray} where $v_1 (0)$, $v_2 (0)$, and $s(0)$ are the VEVs evaluated at zero temperature in the preceding section, $\tan \beta = v_2(0)/v_1(0)$, $v(0) = \sqrt{v_1(0)^2 + v_2(0)^2} = 175$ GeV, and the function $f_c$ is defined as \begin{equation} f_c(m_q^2) = {3 h_q^2 m_q^2 \over 16 \pi^2} \left [ 2 + 2 \log \left ( {{\tilde m}^2 + m_q^2 \over m_q^2}\right ) + {m_q^2 \over {\tilde m}^2 + m_q^2} \right ] \ . \end{equation} Now, let us determine the critical temperature at which the electroweak phase transition takes place. In our analysis, the critical temperature is defined by a temperature at which $\langle V (T) \rangle$ has two distinct minima with equal value, that is, a pair of degenerate vacua. In order to have a pair of degenerate vacua, the potential $\langle V (T) \rangle$ should satisfy the minimum condition of \begin{eqnarray} 0 & = & 2 m_3^2 s - 2 \lambda A_{\lambda} v_1 v_2 + 2 \lambda^2 (v_1^2 + v_2^2) s \cr & &\mbox{} + 2 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_3 s ({\tilde Q}_1 v_1^2 + {\tilde Q}_2 v_2^2 + {\tilde Q}_3 s^2) + 2h_k^2 m_k f_c(m_k^2) \cr & &\mbox{} + {T^2 \over 24} s [24 \lambda^2 + 24 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_3^2 + 20 g^{'2}_1 {\tilde Q}_3 ({\tilde Q}_1 + {\tilde Q}_2) + 12 k^2] \ , \end{eqnarray} which is obtained by calculating the first derivative of the full effective potential at the finite temperature with respect to $s$. For given parameter values at given temperature, one may solve the above minimum condition to express $s$ in terms of the other two VEVs, $v_1$ and $v_2$. Then, by substituting $s$ into $\langle V(v_1,v_2,s,T) \rangle$, one may obtain $\langle V(v_1,v_2,T) \rangle$ which depends only on $v_1$ and $v_2$. By inspecting the shape of $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$ on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane for given parameter values at given temperature, we may determine whether it possess a pair of degenerate vacua or not. In Fig. 2, the equipotential contours of $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$ are plotted on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, where the parameter values are set as $\tan \beta =3$, $\lambda=0.8$, $s(0)= 500$ GeV, $m_A = 1830$ GeV, and the temperature is set as $T = 100$ GeV, which is actually the critical temperature $T_c$. One can easily spot two distinct minima of $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$ on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, namely, one at $(0, 0)$ and the other at $(275, 640)$ GeV. The phase of the state is symmetric at the minimum point $(0, 0)$ on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, whereas it is broken at $(275, 640)$ GeV. The electroweak phase transition may take place from $(0, 0)$ to $(275, 640)$ GeV on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, which is evidently discontinuous and therefore it is first-order. The distance on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane between the two minima of $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$, defined as $v_c$, determines the strength of the electroweak phase transition. The electroweak phase transition is said to be strong if $v_c/T_c> 1$, and weak otherwise. In Fig. 2, the distance is calculated to be \begin{equation} v_c = \sqrt{(275-0)^2 + (640-0)^2} = 696 \mbox{ \rm{(GeV)}} \ . \end{equation} In Fig. 2, the strength of the electroweak phase transition is about $v_c/T_c = 6.9$, which definitely tells that the electroweak phase transition is a strong one. Therefore, the particular parameter values set for Fig. 2 yields an electroweak phase transition which is first-order as well as strong. Note that $v_c$ does not depend on $s$, that is, we need not to know the values of $s$ at the two minima to calculate $v_c$. Actually, $v_c$ is the VEV at the broken phase. The masses of the neutral scalar Higgs bosons at zero temperature for the parameter values of Fig. 2 are obtained as $m_{S_1} = 56$ GeV, $m_{S_2} = 807$ GeV, and $m_{S_3} = 1827$ GeV. We repeat the above job of analysis, varying the values of the relevant parameters. We find that there are a large number of sets of parameter values that allow strongly first-order electroweak phase transitions. Thus, the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$ may accommodate the desired phase transitions for a wide region in its parameter space. Some of the results are listed in Table 1, where $\tan \beta =3$, $s(0)= 500$ GeV, and $T = 100$ GeV are fixed as the values set in Fig. 2, whereas $\lambda$ and $m_A$ have different values. The set of numbers in the last row of Table 1 is the numerical result of Fig. 2. Every set of numbers in each row of Table 1 gives $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$ a pair of degenerate minima, the minimum of symmetric phase at $(0, 0)$ on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, and the one of broken phase at a different point on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane as given in Table 1. The electroweak phase transition is strongly first-order. One may easily observe in Table 1 that, as the value of $\lambda$ increases, a larger value of $m_A$ allow desired phase transitions. On the other hand, the strength of the phase transition is reinforced if the value of $\lambda$ decreases. The masses of the neutral scalar Higgs bosons exhibit some interesting behavior. For a larger value of $m_A$, both $S_2$ and $S_3$ have also larger masses whereas $S_1$ has a smaller mass. The tendency is that the strength of the phase transition is reinforced if $m_{S_1}$ increases and if $m_A$, $m_{S_2}$, and $m_{S_3}$ decrease. In the SM, the strength of the first order electroweak phase transition decreases if its single Higgs boson mass is increased. Also, in the MSSM, we have a weaker phase transition if the lighter one of its two scalar Higgs bosons has a larger mass. In this regard, the tendency of our model is opposite to those of the SM or the MSSM. One can see that this strange behavior also occurs in some parameter region of a non-minimal SUSY model, as shown in Fig. 3 of Ref. [7]. \setcounter{table}{0} \def\tablename{}{} \renewcommand\thetable{TABLE 1} \begin{table}[t] \caption{Some sets of $\lambda$ and $m_A$ that allow strongly first-order electroweak phase transitions in the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$, obtained by Method A. The values of other parameters are fixed as $\tan \beta =3$, $s(0)= 500$ GeV, ${\tilde m} = 1000$ GeV, and $T_c = 100$ GeV. The pair of numbers in the third column are the coordinates of the broken-phase minimum of $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$. The coordinates of its symmetric-phase minimum is $(0,0)$ for all sets. The three numbers in the fourth column are the masses of $S_1$, $S_2$, and $S_3$, respectively. The number in the last column is the strength of the first-order electroweak phase transition.} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline\hline $\lambda$ & $m_A$ (GeV) & ($v_1, v_2$) (GeV) & $m_{S_1}$, $m_{S_2}$, $m_{S_3}$ (GeV) & $v_c/T_c$ \\ \hline\hline 0.1 & 478 & (1750, 1650) & 120, 524, 792 & 26 \\ \hline 0.2 & 675 & (1400, 1500) & 118, 674, 796 & 23 \\ \hline 0.3 & 900 & (1200, 1400) & 112, 786, 908 & 18 \\ \hline 0.4 & 1109 & (870, 1200) & 104, 792, 1112 & 15 \\ \hline 0.5 & 1306 & (600, 1000) & 93, 796, 1307 & 12 \\ \hline 0.6 & 1486 & (430, 850) & 82, 800, 1485 & 8 \\ \hline 0.7 & 1660 & (340, 700) & 70, 803, 1658 & 7 \\ \hline 0.8 & 1830 & (275, 640) & 56, 807, 1827 & 6.9 \\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \subsection{Method B} The second method evaluates $V_T$ by exact integration to obtain the temperature-dependent full potential $V(T)$ at one-loop level, where the thermal effects of top, bottom, and exotic quarks and squarks are taken into account. The thermal effects of the gauge bosons can be a help for strengthening the first-order electroweak phase transition, but we would omit them, since the strength of the phase transition is already strong enough. This method starts with the exact integral expression for $\langle V_T \rangle$ after replacing the neutral Higgs fields by their VEVs as \begin{eqnarray} \langle V_T \rangle & = & \mbox{} - \sum_{l=t,b,k} {6 T^4 \over \pi^2} \int_0^{\infty} dx \ x^2 \ \log \left [ 1 -\exp{\left ( - \sqrt {x^2+{m_l^2(v_1, v_2, s) \over T^2 }} \right ) } \right ] \cr & &\mbox{} + \sum_{l= {\tilde t}, {\tilde b}, {\tilde k}} {6 T^4 \over \pi^2} \int_0^{\infty} dx \ x^2 \ \log \left [ 1 +\exp{\left ( - \sqrt {x^2+ {{\tilde m}^2 + m_l^2(v_1, v_2, s) \over T^2 }} \right ) } \right ] \ , \end{eqnarray} which is different from $\langle V_T \rangle$ of Method A, while $\langle V_0 \rangle$ and $\langle V_1 \rangle$ are the same as those of Method A. From the full $\langle V(T) \rangle = \langle V_0 \rangle + \langle V_1 \rangle + \langle V_T \rangle$, we obtain a minimum condition for degenerate vacua as \begin{eqnarray} 0 & = & 2 m_3^2 s - 2 \lambda A_{\lambda} v_1 v_2 + 2 \lambda^2 (v_1^2 + v_2^2) s + 2 g^{'2}_1 Q_3 s ({\tilde Q}_1 v_1^2 + {\tilde Q}_2 v_2^2 + {\tilde Q}_3 s^2) \cr & &\mbox{} + 2 h_k^2 m_k f_c(m_k^2) \cr & & \mbox{} + {3 T^2 \over \pi^2} \int_0^{\infty} dx \ x^2 \ {2 h_k^2 s \exp (-\sqrt{x^2 + m_k^2 /T^2 }) \over \sqrt{x^2 + m_k^2 /T^2 } \left[1 + \exp (-\sqrt{x^2 + m_k^2 /T^2 }) \right]} \cr & &\mbox{} - {3 T^2 \over \pi^2} \int_0^{\infty} dx \ x^2 \ \cr & &\mbox{} \times { 2 h_k^2 s \exp (-\sqrt{x^2 + ({\tilde m}^2 + m_k^2) /T^2 }) \over \sqrt{x^2 + ({\tilde m}^2 + m_k^2) /T^2 } \left[ 1 + \exp (-\sqrt{x^2 + ({\tilde m}^2 + m_k^2) /T^2) }) \right]} \ , \end{eqnarray} where $m_k$ depends only on $s$ and is independent from $v_1$ and $v_2$. Solving the above minimum condition is harder than solving the corresponding minimum condition of Method A. Nevertheless, we can solve it by using the bisection method to express $s$ in terms of the other parameters. Then, eliminating $s$ from $\langle V(T) \rangle$, we can obtain the expression for $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$ which depends only on $v_1$ and $v_2$. Subsequent steps of numerical analysis are the same as the previous method. In Fig. 3, equipotential contours of $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$ obtained by the present method is plotted on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, where the parameter values are set slightly different from the previous method: $\tan \beta =3$, $\lambda=0.8$, $s(0)= 500$ GeV, $m_A = 1780$ GeV, and $T = 100$ GeV. The shape of the equipotential contours of Fig. 3 is almost the same as that of Fig. 2. One can see that there are two distinct minima in Fig. 3, just like Fig. 2: one at $(0,0)$, and the other at $(165,440)$ GeV on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, indicating that the phase transition is first order. The strength of the first-order phase transition is strong, since $v_c/T_c = 4.7$. The masses of the three scalar Higgs bosons are evaluated at zero temperature as $m_{S_1} = 82$ GeV, $m_{S_2} = 804$ GeV, and $m_{S_3} = 1777$ GeV. Comparing Fig. 3 with Fig. 2, one may safely remark that Method A and Method B lead qualitatively the same results. Either method, whether $\langle V_T \rangle$ is calculated by direct integration or is simplified by high-temperature approximation, and whether the participating particles at the one-loop level are somewhat exhaustive or selective, we find that the MSSM with and extra $U(1)'$ allows strongly first-order electroweak phase transitions for certain region in its parameter space. We repeat the numerical analysis by varying the parameter values. and some of the results are listed in Table 2. Like in Table 1, $\tan \beta =3$, $s(0)= 500$ GeV, and $T = 100$ GeV are fixed, whereas $\lambda$ and $m_A$ are varied. The set of numbers in the last row of Table 2 is the numerical result of Fig. 3. Comparing Table 2 with Table 1, one may notice that the numbers are slightly different from each other but the general behavior of the two tables is exactly the same. \setcounter{table}{0} \def\tablename{}{} \renewcommand\thetable{TABLE 2} \begin{table}[t] \caption{Some sets of $\lambda$ and $m_A$ that allow strongly first-order electroweak phase transitions in the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$, obtained by Method B. Other descriptions are the same as Table 1.} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline\hline $\lambda$ & $m_A$ GeV & ($v_{1B}, v_{2B}$) GeV & $m_{S_i}$ GeV & $v_c/T_c$ \\ \hline\hline 0.1 & 462 & (1600, 1600) & 121, 468, 791 & 22 \\ \hline 0.2 & 663 & (1400, 1400) & 118, 662, 795 & 19 \\ \hline 0.3 & 885 & (1100, 1100) & 113, 785, 894 & 15 \\ \hline 0.4 & 1095 & (800, 1200) & 106, 792, 1098 & 14 \\ \hline 0.5 & 1287 & (680, 990) & 97, 796, 1288 & 12 \\ \hline 0.6 & 1457 & (400, 750) & 91, 799, 1456 & 8 \\ \hline 0.7 & 1620 & (300, 600) & 86, 801, 1618 & 6 \\ \hline 0.8 & 1780 & (165, 440) & 82, 804, 1777 & 4.7 \\ \hline\hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \end{table} \section{DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS} We investigate the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$ if it could accommodate strongly first-order electroweak phase transitions to provide sufficient baryon asymmetry, for reasonable masses of scalar Higgs bosons. To do so, we need the temperature-dependent part of the Higgs potential at the one-loop level. Explicitly, its expression is obtained by two complementary methods: Method A employs high-temperature approximation and retains only the most dominant $T^2$ terms, and takes into account the thermal effects at the one-loop level of various participating particles. On the other hand, method B performs numerical integrations, and the thermal effects of top, bottom, and exotic quarks and squarks are accounted for. Both methods lead us to essentially the same conclusion: the strongly first-order electroweak phase transition is possible in the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$, for a wide region in its parameter space. The masses of the scalar Higgs bosons are obtained within reasonably acceptable ranges. Accordingly, we may expect that the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$ can explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe. We remark that the MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$ exhibits an interesting behavior with respect to the correlation between the strength of the phase transition and the Higgs boson masses. The MSSM with an extra $U(1)'$ is opposite to the SM or to the MSSM in the sense that the mass of the lightest scalar Higgs boson increases when the strength of the strongly first-order electroweak phase transition becomes stronger. In the SM, its single Higgs boson has a larger mass when the strength of the first order electroweak phase transition decreases. In the MSSM, we also have a larger mass for the lighter one of its two scalar Higgs bosons when the phase transition becomes weaker. \vskip 0.3 in \noindent {\large {\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}} \vskip 0.2 in This research is supported by KOSEF through CHEP. The authors would like to acknowledge the support from KISTI (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information) under "The Strategic Supercomputing Support Program" with Dr. Kihyeon Cho as the technical supporter. The use of the computing system of the Supercomputing Center is also greatly appreciated. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{1} A.D. Sakharov, JETP Lett. {\bf 5}, 24 (1967). \bibitem{2} V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov, and M.E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 155}, 36 (1985); M.E. Shaposhnikov, JETP Lett. {\bf 44}, 465 (1986); Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 287}, 757 (1987); Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 299}, 797 (1988); L. McLerran, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 1075 (1989); N. Turok and J. Zadrozny, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 2331 (1990); Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 358}, 471 (1991); L. McLerran, M.E. Shaposhnikov, N. Turok, and M. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 256}, 451 (1991); M. Dine, P. Huet, R. S. Singleton Jr., and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 257}, 351 (1991); A. I. Bochkarev, S. V. Kuzmin, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 244}, 257 (1990); Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 2}, 417 (1987); P. Arnold and O. Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47}, 3546 (1993); Z. Fodor and A. Hebecker, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 432}, 127 (1994); K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 2887 (1996); A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 43}, 27 (1993); M. Trodden, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 71}, 1463 (1999); A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 49}, 35 (1999); F. Csikor and Z. Fodor, and J. Heitger, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 21 (1999); F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, and J. Heitger, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 21 (1999). \bibitem{3} G.W. Anderson and L.J. Hall, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 2685 (1992). \bibitem{4} S. Barr, G. Segre, and A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 20}, 2494 (1979); G.R. Farrar and M.E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 50}, 774 (1994). \bibitem{5} M. Carena, M. Quiros, and C.E.M Wagner, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 380}, 81 (1996); Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 524}, 3 (1998); B. de Carlos and J. R. Espinosa, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 503}, 24 (1997); M. Laine and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 5259 (1998); Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 535}, 423 (1998); J.M. Cline and G.D. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 3315 (1998); A.T. Davies, C.D. Froggatt, and R.G. Moorhouse, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 372}, 88 (1996); S.J. Huber and M. G. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 10}, 473 (1999); A. Menon, D.E. Morrissey, and C.E.M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 035005 (2004); S.W. Ham, S.K. Oh, and D. Son, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 015001 (2005); J. Kang, P. Langacker, T. Li, and T. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 061801 (2005). \bibitem{6} M. Pietroni, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 402}, 27 (1993); M. Bastero-Gil, C. Hugonie, S. F. King, D. P. Roy, and S. Vempati, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 489}, 359 (2000); S.W. Ham, S.K. Oh, C.M. Kim, E.J. Yoo, and D. Son, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 075001 (2004). \bibitem{7} S.J. Huber and M.G. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 606}, 183 (2001). \bibitem{8} J.E. Kim and H.P. Nilles, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 138}, 150 (1984). \bibitem{9} J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo, Phys. Rep. {\bf 183}, 193 (1989); A. Leike, Phys. Rep. {\bf 317}, 143 (1999); M. Cvetic and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 3570 (1996); M. Cvetic, D. A. Demir, J. R. Espinosa, L. Everett, and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 3570 (1996); D.A. Demir and N.K. Pak, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 6609 (1998); Y. Daikoku and D. Suematsu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 095006 (1998); H. Amini, New J. Phys. {\bf 5}, 49 (2003). \bibitem{10} M. Cvetic, D.A. Demir, J.R. Espinosa, L.L. Everett, and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 2861 (1997); Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 58}, 119905 (1998). \bibitem{11} S.F. King, S. Moretti, and R. Nevzorov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 035009 (2006); Phys. Lett. B {\bf 634}, 278 (2006). \bibitem{12} D.A. Demir and L.L. Everett, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 015008 (2004); S.W. Ham, E.J. Yoo, and S.K. Oh, hep-ph/0703041. \bibitem{13} S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 7}, 1888 (1973). \bibitem{14} Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi, and T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 85}, 1 (1991). \bibitem{15} L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 9}, 3320 (1974). \end{thebibliography} \vfil\eject {\large {\bf FIGURE CAPTION}} \vskip 0.2 in \noindent FIG. 1. : The allowed area in the ($Q_1, Q_2$)-plane. For $\tan \beta = 3$ and $s(T=0)=500$ GeV, the small area near the point ($Q_1, Q_2$) = (-1, 0) and the upper right corner are the allowed areas, whereas the hatched region is the excluded area. There are two specific points, marked by a star ($*$) and a cross ($+$). The values of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ at the star-marked point correspond to the $\nu$-model of $E_6$ gauge group realizations. The values of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ at the cross-marked point are ($Q_1, Q_2$) = (-1, -0.1), and hence $Q_3$ =1.1. In our discussions, we choose this point. \vskip 0.2 in \noindent FIG. 2. : The plot of the equipotential contours of $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$ on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, obtained by Method A. The parameter values are set as $\tan \beta =3$, $\lambda=0.8$, $s(0)= 500$ GeV, $m_A = 1830$ GeV, and the temperature is set as $T = 100$ GeV, which is actually the critical temperature $T_c$. Notice two distinct minima of $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$ on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane: $(0, 0)$ where the phase of the state is symmetric, and $(275, 640)$ GeV, where the phase of the state is broken. The electroweak phase transition may take place from $(0, 0)$ to $(275, 640)$ GeV on the ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, which is evidently discontinuous and therefore it is first order. The distance between the two minima is $v_c = 696$ GeV, indicating that the strength of the first-order phase transition is strong ($v_c/T_c > 1$). The masses of the three scalar Higgs bosons are obtained as $m_{S_1} = 56$ GeV, $m_{S_2} = 807$ GeV, and $m_{S_3} = 1827$ GeV. \vskip 0.2 in \noindent FIG. 3. : The plot of the equipotential contours of $\langle V (v_1, v_2, T) \rangle$ on ($v_1, v_2$)-plane, obtained by Method B. The parameter values are set as $\tan \beta =3$, $\lambda=0.8$, $s(0)= 500$ GeV, $m_A = 1780$ GeV, and $T_c = 100$ GeV. The coordinates of two minima are: $(0,0)$ and $(165,440)$ GeV. The distance between the two minima is $v_c = 470$ GeV, thus the electroweak phase transition between the two minima is strongly first-order. The masses of the three scalar Higgs bosons are obtained as $m_{S_1} = 82$ GeV, $m_{S_2} = 804$ GeV, and $m_{S_3} = 1777$ GeV. \vfil\eject \setcounter{figure}{0} \def\figurename{}{} \renewcommand\thefigure{FIG. 1} \setcounter{figure}{0} \def\figurename{}{} \renewcommand\thefigure{FIG. 2} \setcounter{figure}{0} \def\figurename{}{} \renewcommand\thefigure{FIG. 3}
|
0704.0330
|
Title: Random Matrix Theory at Nonzero $\mu$ and $T$
Abstract: We review applications of random matrix theory to QCD at nonzero temperature
and chemical potential. The chiral phase transition of QCD and QCD-like
theories is discussed in terms of eigenvalues of the Dirac operator. We show
that for QCD at $\mu \ne 0$, which has a sign problem, the discontinuity in the
chiral condensate is due to an alternative to the Banks-Casher relation. The
severity of the sign problem is analyzed in the microscopic domain of QCD.
Body: \maketitle \section{Introduction} Starting from its introduction in nuclear physics by Wigner , random matrix theories have been applied to a wide range of problems ranging from the physics of proteins to quantum gravity (see for a historical review). Three reasons for the ubiquity of random matrix theory come to mind. First, eigenvalues of large random matrices have universal properties determined by symmetries. Second, random matrices are models for disorder present in many physical systems. Third, random matrix theories have a topological expansion which is important for applications to quantum field theory. One of the attractive features of random matrix theory is that analytical information can be obtained for complex systems which otherwise only can be studied experimentally or numerically. In this review we discuss applications of random matrix theory to QCD at nonzero temperature and chemical potential. Since the order parameter for the chiral phase transition and the deconfining phase transition are determined by the infrared behavior of the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator, these eigenvalues are essential for the phase transitions in QCD. Remarkably, the distribution of the smallest Dirac eigenvalues is given by universal functions that depend only on one or two parameters, the chiral condensate and the pion decay constant. This offers an alternative way to measure these constants on the lattice . \section{ Random Matrix Theory in QCD} Chiral Random Matrix Theory (chRMT) is a theory with the global symmetries of QCD, but matrix elements of the Dirac operator replaced by random numbers \be D = \mat m & iW \\ i W^\dagger & m \emat, \quad P(W) \sim e^{-N {\rm Tr} W^\dagger W}. \ee This random matrix model has the global symmetries and topological properties of QCD. It is confining in the sense that only color singlets have a nonzero expectation value. It is now well understood that fluctuations of low-lying eigenvalues of the Dirac operator are described by chRMT (see for lectures and reviews). Philosphically, this is important because of the realization that chaotic motion dominates the dynamics of quarks at low energy. Practically, this is important because we can use powerful random matrix techniques to calculate physical observables. The condition for the applicability of chRMT is that the Compton wavelength of Goldstone bosons associated with the mass scale $z$ of these eigenvalues is much larger than the size of the box. With the squared mass of the associated Goldstone boson given by $2 z \Sigma/F_\pi^2$, this condition reads \be \frac {2z \Sigma}{F^2_\pi} \ll \frac 1{\sqrt V} \ll \Lambda^2 . \ee The second condition is necessary to factorize the partition function into a contribution from the lightest degrees of freedom and all heavier degrees of freedom. These two conditions determine the microscopic domain of QCD. We stress that $z$ is a scale in the Dirac spectrum so that, for sufficiently large volumes, we always have eigenvalues in the domain () where eigenvalues fluctuate according to chRMT. This can be shown rigorously from the following two observations . First, the infrared Dirac spectrum follows from a (partially quenched) chiral Lagrangian determined by chiral symmetry, and the inequality () is the condition for factorization of the partition function into a factor containing the constant modes and another factor containing the nonzero momentum modes. Second, the factor with the constant modes is equal to the large $N$ limit of chiral random matrix theory. In the condition () was imposed on the quark masses and was the bases for a systematic expansion of the chiral Lagrangian known as the $\epsilon$ expansion. One feature that underlies universal properties of eigenvalues is that they behave as repulsive confined charges. This follows from the joint probability distribution $\sim \prod_k \lambda_k \prod_{k<l} (\lambda_k^2-\lambda_l^2)^2 \exp(-N \sum_k \lambda_k^2)$. It can be shown that eigenvalues correlations at the micrsocopic scale are universal . The reason is spontaneous symmetry breaking and a mass gap so that they can be described in terms of a chiral Lagrangian. \subsection{Chiral Random Matrix Theory at $\mu\ne 0$ and $T\ne 0$} A nonzero temperature does not change the fluctuating behavior of the Dirac eigenvalues provided that chiral symmetry remains broken. However, a transition to a different universality class takes place at the critical temperature. A random matrix model that reproduces this universal behavior of QCD is obtained by replacing the off-diagonal elements in () by \be iW \to iW + t,\qquad iW^\dagger \to iW^\dagger - t \qquad {\rm with} \quad t = {\rm diag} ( -\pi T,\pi T ). \ee This model has been studied elaborately in the literature (see e.g. ). A nonzero chemical potential can be introduced analogously to the quark mass. The requirement is that the small $\mu$ behaviour of the QCD partition function should be reproduced by the random matrix partition function. This achieved by modifying () by \be iW \to iW +\mu, \qquad iW^\dagger \to iW^\dagger +\mu, \ee resulting in a nonhermitean Dirac operator with eigenvalues scattered in the complex plane. The prescription () is not unique. A random matrix model that has had a strong impact on recent developments is defined by \be iW \to iW + \mu H, \qquad iW^\dagger \to iW^\dagger + \mu H \qquad {\rm with} \quad H^\dagger = H , \ee where $H$ is drawn from a Gaussian ensemble of random matrices. This model is in the same universality class as () but is technically simpler since it can be worked out by means of the complex orthogonal polynomial method . There are other types of random matrix models that have been applied to QCD. For example models with random gauge fields such as the Eguchi-Kawai model or its 2-dimensional version . QCD in 1 dimension is a random matrix model as well, with universally fluctuating Dirac eigenvalues. Also models with random Wilson loops have attracted significant interest. \section{Phases of QCD and RMT} QCD-like theories with charged Goldstone bosons have a critical chemical potential equal to $m_\pi/2$. The phase transition to the Bose condensed phase can therefore be described completely in terms of a chiral Lagragian. At the mean field level , the kinetic terms of this chiral Lagrangian do not contribute, so that these results can also be obtained from chiral random matrix theory. Indeed, the static part of the chiral Lagrangian \be {\cal L} = \frac 14 F_\pi^2 \mu^2 {\rm Tr} [U,B][U^\dagger,B] - \frac 12 \Sigma {\rm Tr} (M U + M U^\dagger). \ee can also be obtained from the large N limit of the models () or (). In Fig. we display lattice results for QCD with $N_c=2$ and phase quenched QCD . They show an impressive agreement with the results from () given by the solid curves in both figures. \subsection{Schematic RMT Phase Diagram} The phase transition in QCD with $N_c=3$ at $\mu_c =m_N/3$ cannot be analyzed by means of chiral Lagrangians. Because of the sign problem lattice studies are not possible either. In such situation there is long tradition to analyze the same problem in a much simpler theory in the hope of obtaining at least a qualitative understanding of the problem. For example, one dimensional QCD , or more recently, super Yang-Mills theory and AdS-CFT duality , been explored as toy models for QCD. We will use random matrix theory at $T\ne0$ and $\mu\ne0$, introduced in () and () to obtain a qualitive understanding of the QCD phase diagram. Lattice QCD simulations show that the chiral phase transition at $\mu = 0$ is of second order or a steep cross-over. At $T=0$ we expect a first order phase transition at $\mu_c=m_N/3$. It is natural that the first order line ends in a critical end point or joins the second order critical line at the tricritical point (see Fig. , left). This is indeed what is observed in random matrix theory (see Fig. , right). A similar phase diagram has also been obtained from the NJL model . Another scenario that was discovered in RMT is the splitting of the first order line into two at nonzero isospin chemical potential . This behavior was also found in a NJL model but might not be stable against flavor mixing interactions . \section{ Dirac Spectrum in Theories Without a Sign Problem} Since the spectrum of the Dirac operator determines the chiral condensate, phase transitions in QCD can be understood in terms of its spectral flow. In this section we discuss theories with a positive fermion determinant such as QCD with two colors and phase quenched QCD, where a probabilistic interpretation of the eigenvalue density is possible. The relation between chiral symmetry breaking and Dirac spectra is much more complicated when the fermion determinant is complex and its discussion will be postponed to the next section. The spectrum of an anti-Hermitean Dirac operator is purely imaginary with an eigenvalue density that is proportional to the volume. If chiral symmetry is broken spontaneously, the chiral condensate becomes discontinuous across the imaginary axis in the thermodynamic limit. Chiral symmetry is restored if such discontinuity is absent for example by the formation of a gap in the Dirac spectrum, see eg.\, . For $\mu\ne0$, the Dirac spectrum broadens into a strip of width $4\mu^2 F^2_\pi/\Sigma$ . The chemical potential becomes critical when the quark mass hits the edge of this strip. At this point the chiral condensate starts rotating into a pion condensate. Chiral symmetry restoration takes place when a gap forms at zero. A schematic picture of the critical behavior of Dirac eigenvalues is shown in Fig. and the spectral flow of the Dirac eigenvalues with respect to increasing $\mu$ and $T$ is summarized in Fig. . \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} One conclusion from this behavior is that {$T_c(\mu)$ } is a concave function of {\colgy $\mu$}, and that { $\mu_c(T)$} is a convex function of {\colgy $T$}. The spectral flow discussed in this section is supported by lattice simulations at $T \ne 0$ and $ \mu \ne 0$ (See Fig. ) \subsection{Dirac spectrum in the $\mu$-plane} We could equally well have diagonalized the Dirac operator in a representation where {\colgy $\mu\gamma_0$} is proportional to the identity, \be \det(D+m + \mu \gamma_0) = \det(\gamma_0(D+m) + \mu). \ee These eigenvalues are relevant to the baryon number density. A gap in the spectrum develops at $m\ne 0$ (see Fig. ), and the chemical potential becomes critical, $\mu=m_\pi/2$ when it hits the inner edge of the domain of eigenvalues. \subsection{Quenched Lattice QCD Dirac Spectra at $\mu\ne 0$} Small Dirac eigenvalues at $\mu \ne 0$ have been computed in quenched QCD. The analytical formulas for the average density of the small Dirac eigenvalues are available . They were first derived by exploiting the Toda lattice hierarchy in the flavor index. Comparisons of random matrix predictions for the radial spectral density and lattice QCD results are shown in the left panel of Fig. . In other cases, such as the overlap Dirac operator and QCD with $N_c=2$ , a similar degree of agreement was found. Both the spectral density and two-point correlations can be derived from the Lagrangian (), i.e. they are determined by two parameters, $F_\pi $ and $ \Sigma$. This can be exploited to extract these low-energy constants. For example, $F_\pi$ and $ \Sigma$ were determined (see also ) from the correlators shown in the two right panels of Fig. . \section{~Chiral~Symmetry~Breaking~at~{\colgy $\mu~\ne~0$}} The full QCD partition function at $\mu\neq0$ which is the average of \be \det(D+m+\mu\gamma_0) = |\det(D+m+\mu \gamma_0)| e^{i\theta}, \qquad \theta \ne 0, \ee has properties which are drastically different from the phase quenched partition function where the phase factor is absent. In particular, $\mu_c = m_N/3$ instead of $m_\pi/2$, so that the free energy remains $\mu$-independent until $\mu=m_N/3$. For $\mu < m_N/3$ the chiral condensate remains discontinuous at $m=0$, whereas the chiral condensate of the phase quenched theory approaches zero for $m\to 0$ (see Fig. ). The only difference between the phase quenched partition function and the full QCD partition function is the phase of the fermion determinant. We conclude that the phase factor is responsible for the discontinuity of the chiral condensate. How can this happen if for each configuration the support of the spectrum is approximately the same? This problem known as the ``Silver Blaze Problem'' was solved in . \subsection{Unquenched Spectral Density} The spectral density for QCD with dynamical fermions is given by \be \rho_{N_f}(\lambda) = \langle \sum_k \delta^2 (\lambda-\lambda_k) {\det}^{N_f}(D+m +\mu\gamma_0) \rangle . \ee Because of the phase of the fermion determinant, this density is in general complex and can be decomposed as $ \rho_{N_f}(\lambda) = \rho_{N_f=0}(\lambda) + \rho_U(\lambda)\nn. $ The chiral condensate can then be decomposed as $ \Sigma_{N_f}(m) = \Sigma_{N_f=0}(m) + \Sigma_U(m), $ so that the discontinuity in {\colgy $\Sigma(m)$} is due to {\colgy $\rho_U$}. Asymptotically it behaves as \be{\colgy \rho_U \sim e^{\frac 23 \mu^2 F^2 V} e^{\frac 23 i {\rm Im }(\lambda) \Sigma V}\nn} \ee and vanishes outside an ellips starting at {\colgy ${\rm Re }(\lambda) =m$} (see Fig.~) . In the right part of this figure we show the real part of the spectral density for QCD with one flavor at nonzero chemical potential. This result explains the mechanism of chiral symmetry breaking at nonzero chemical potential. The phase of the fermion determinant rotates the pion condensate back into a chiral condensate, but it does so in an unexpected way . The same mechanism is at play for 1d QCD at $\mu \ne 0$ . \section{ Phase of the Fermion Determinant} The magnitude of the sign problem can be measured by means of the expectation value of the phase factor of the fermion determiant which can be defined in two ways \be \langle e^{2i\theta} \rangle_{N_f} = \frac 1{Z_{N_f}}\left \langle \frac{\det(D+\mu\gamma_0+m)}{{\det}^*(D+\mu\gamma_0+m)} {\det}^{N_f} (D+\mu \gamma_0+m)\right \rangle, \quad \langle e^{2i\theta} \rangle_{1+1^* } = \frac{Z_{N_f=2}}{Z_{1+1^*}}.\nn \ee The average $\langle\cdots \rangle$ is with respect to the Yang-Mills action. The sign problem is { managable} when the average phase factor remains finite in the thermodynamic limit. In the microscopic domain it is possible to obtain exact analytical expressions for the average phase factor by exploiting the equivalence between QCD and RMT in this domain. For $\mu <m_\pi/2$ the free energy of both QCD and phase quenched QCD are independent of $\mu$. This does not imply that the average phase factor is $\mu$-independent. The $\mu$-dependence originates from the charged Goldstone bosons with mass $m_\pi \pm 2\mu$, and for $N_f$ flavors the mean field result for $\langle\exp(2i\theta)\rangle$ reads $( 1 - 4\mu^2 /m_\pi^2 )^{N_f+1}$. The exact result for the average phase factor for $N_f=2$ is shown in Fig. (right), where lattice results are also shown (left). The exact result has an essential singularity at $\mu=0$, but its thermodyanmic limit agrees with the mean result. \section{ Conclusions} The equivalence of chiral random matrix theory and QCD has been exploited succesfully to derive a host of analytical results. Among others, eigenvalue fluctuations predicted by chRMT have been observed in lattice simulations, the phases of QCD can be understood in terms of spectral flow, observables can be extracted from the fluctuations of the smallest eigenvalues, the sign problem is not serious when the quark mass is outside the domain of the eigenvalues, and mean field results can be obtained from random matrix theory. Summarizing, chiral random matrix theory is a powerful tool for analyzing the infrared domain of QCD. \section*{Acknowledgements} The YITP is thanked for its hospitality. G. Akemann, J. Osborn and P.H. Damgaard are acknowledged for valuable discussions. This work was supported by US DOE Grant No. DE-FG-88ER40388 (JV), the Villum Kann Rasmussen Foundation (JV), the Danish National Bank (JV) and the Carslberg Foundation (KS). \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{wigner}E.P. Wigner, Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. 47 (1951) 790. \bibitem{melih}M. Sener and K. Schulten, Phys. Rev. E 65, 031916 (2002). \bibitem{m2} T.~Guhr, A.~Muller-Groeling and H.~A.~Weidenmuller, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 299}, 189 (1998). \bibitem{snaith} P.~J.~Forrester, N.~C.~Snaith and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 36}, R1 (2003). \bibitem{BC} T.~Banks and A.~Casher, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 169}, 103 (1980). \bibitem{OSV} J.~C.~Osborn, K.~Splittorff and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 202001 (2005). \bibitem{Gattringer} C.~Gattringer, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 032003 (2006). \bibitem{wipf} F.~Synatschke, A.~Wipf and C.~Wozar, arXiv:hep-lat/0703018. \bibitem{SV} E.~V.~Shuryak and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 560}, 306 (1993). \bibitem{V} J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 72}, 2531 (1994). \bibitem{VZ} J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot and I.~Zahed, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70}, 3852 (1993). \bibitem{NDW} S.~M.~Nishigaki, P.~H.~Damgaard and T.~Wettig, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 087704 (1998). \bibitem{DN} P.~H.~Damgaard and S.~M.~Nishigaki, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 045012 (2001). \bibitem{Berbenni} M.~E.~Berbenni-Bitsch et al. , Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 63}, 820 (1998). \bibitem{DHNR} P.~H.~Damgaard {\sl et al.} Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 495}, 263 (2000) \bibitem{DeGrand} T.~DeGrand, R.~Hoffmann, S.~Schaefer and Z.~Liu, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 054501 (2006). \bibitem{Fukaya} H.~Fukaya {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration], arXiv:hep-lat/0702003. \bibitem{Lang} C.~B.~Lang, P.~Majumdar and W.~Ortner, arXiv:hep-lat/0611010. \bibitem{heller} P.~Damgaard, U.~Heller, K.~Splittorff and B.~Svetitsky, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 091501 (2005). \bibitem{heller2} P.~Damgaard, U.~Heller, K.~Splittorff, B.~Svetitsky and D.~Toublan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 105016 (2006). \bibitem{OW} J.~C.~Osborn and T.~Wettig, PoS {\bf LAT2005}, 200 (2006) [arXiv:hep-lat/0510115]. \bibitem{kim} G.~Akemann, P.~H.~Damgaard, J.~C.~Osborn and K.~Splittorff, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 766}, 34 (2007). \bibitem{ency} M.~A.~Stephanov, J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot and T.~Wettig, arXiv:hep-ph/0509286. \bibitem{tilorev} J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot and T.~Wettig, Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 50}, 343 (2000). \bibitem{houches} J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, arXiv:hep-th/0502029. \bibitem{nowak} M.~A.~Nowak, arXiv:hep-ph/0112296. \bibitem{splitrev}K. Splittorff, PoS {\bf LAT2006} 023, arXiv:hep-lat/0610072. \bibitem{gerrev} G.~Akemann, arXiv:hep-th/0701175. \bibitem{Vplb} J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 368}, 137 (1996). \bibitem{OTV} J.~C.~Osborn, D.~Toublan and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 540}, 317 (1999). \bibitem{DOTV} P.~Damgaard, J.~Osborn, D.~Toublan and J.~Verbaarschot, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 547}, 305 (1999). \bibitem{GLeps} J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 188}, 477 (1987). \bibitem{LS} H.~Leutwyler and A.~Smilga, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 5607 (1992). \bibitem{ADMN} G.~Akemann, P.~H.~Damgaard, U.~Magnea and S.~Nishigaki, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 487}, 721 (1997). \bibitem{JV} A.~D.~Jackson and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 7223 (1996). \bibitem{tilo-t} T.~Wettig, H.~A.~Weidenmueller and A.~Schaefer, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 610}, 492C (1996). \bibitem{misha-t} M.~A.~Stephanov, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 375}, 249 (1996). \bibitem{melih-u} A.~D.~Jackson, M.~K.~Sener and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 479}, 707 (1996). \bibitem{papp} M.~A.~Nowak, G.~Papp and I.~Zahed, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 389}, 341 (1996). \bibitem{janik} R.~A.~Janik, M.~A.~Nowak, G.~Papp and I.~Zahed, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 446}, 9 (1999). \bibitem{misha} M.~A.~Stephanov, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 76}, 4472 (1996). \bibitem{O} J.~C.~Osborn, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 222001 (2004). \bibitem{AP} G. Akemann and A. Pottier, J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 37}, L453 (2004). \bibitem{fyodorov}Y.V. Fyodorov, B. Khoruzhenko and H.J. Sommers, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar\'e: Phys. Theor. {\bf 68}, 449 (1998). \bibitem{ak-po} G. Akemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 072002 (2002); J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 36}, 3363 (2003). \bibitem{BI} M.~C.~Bergere, arXiv:hep-th/0311227; M.~C.~Bergere, arXiv:hep-th/0404126. \bibitem{Eguchi} T.~Eguchi and H.~Kawai, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 48}, 1063 (1982). \bibitem{GW} D.~J.~Gross and E.~Witten, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 21}, 446 (1980). \bibitem{gibbs1} P.~E.~Gibbs, Preprint PRINT-86-0389-GLASGOW, 1986. \bibitem{bilic} N.~Bilic and K.~Demeterfi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 212}, 83 (1988). \bibitem{olesen} B.~Durhuus and P.~Olesen, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 184}, 461 (1981). \bibitem{pisarski} A.~Dumitru {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 034511 (2004). \bibitem{KSTVZ} J.B. Kogut {\it et al.,} Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 582}, 477 (2000). \bibitem{KST} J.B. Kogut, M.A. Stephanov and D. Toublan, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 464}, 183 (1999). \bibitem{hands} S.~Hands et al., Z Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17}, 285 (2000). \bibitem{sinclair} J.~B.~Kogut and D.~K.~Sinclair, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 034505 (2002). \bibitem{son} G.~Policastro, D.~T.~Son and A.~O.~Starinets, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 081601 (2001). \bibitem{tri} M.~Halasz {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 096007 (1998). \bibitem{benoit} B.~Vanderheyden and A.~D.~Jackson, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 094010 (2000). \bibitem{barducci} A.~Barducci {\sl et al.} Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 1610 (1990). \bibitem{berges} J.~Berges and K.~Rajagopal, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 538}, 215 (1999). \bibitem{njl0} R.~A.~Janik, M.~A.~Nowak, G.~Papp and I.~Zahed, Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 642}, 191 (1998). \bibitem{klein} B.~Klein, D.~Toublan and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 014009 (2003). \bibitem{lorenzo} A.~Barducci, R.~Casalbuoni, G.~Pettini and L.~Ravagli, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 056002 (2005). \bibitem{walters} D.~N.~Walters and S.~Hands, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 140}, 532 (2005). \bibitem{buballa} M.~Frank, M.~Buballa and M.~Oertel, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 562}, 221 (2003). \bibitem{TV} D.~Toublan and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 15}, 1404 (2001). \bibitem{SplitVerb2} K.~Splittorff and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 683}, 467 (2004). \bibitem{akemann} G.~Akemann, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 730}, 253 (2005). \bibitem{narayanan} R.~Narayanan and H.~Neuberger, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 696}, 107 (2004). \bibitem{Far} F.~Farchioni {\sl et al.} Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 014503 (2000). \bibitem{Damg} P.~Damgaard, U.~Heller, R.~Niclasen and K.~Rummukainen, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 583}, 347 (2000). \bibitem{early} I.~Barbour {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 275}, 296 (1986); \bibitem{Muroya} S.~Muroya, A.~Nakamura, C.~Nonaka and T.~Takaishi, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 110}, 615 (2003). \bibitem{tilopr}T. Wettig, private communication. \bibitem{tilo-ger} G.~Akemann and T.~Wettig, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 102002 (2004) [Ibid.\ {\bf 96}, 029902 (2006)]. \bibitem{bloch} J.~Bloch and T.~Wettig, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 012003 (2006). \bibitem{bittner} G.~Akemann {\it et al.,} Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 140}, 568 (2005). \bibitem{HSV} M.~Halasz, J.~Osborn, M.~Stephanov and J.~Verbaarschot, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 076005 (2000). \bibitem{cohen} T.~D.~Cohen, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 222001 (2003); arXiv:hep-ph/0405043. \bibitem{AOSV} G.~Akemann, J.~Osborn, K.~Splittorff and J.~Verbaarschot, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 712}, 287 (2005). \bibitem{qcd1d} L. Ravagli and J.J.M. Verbaarschot, in preparation. \bibitem{SV1} K.~Splittorff and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 031601 (2007). \bibitem{SV2} K.~Splittorff and J.~J.~M.~Verbaarschot, arXiv:hep-lat/0702011. \bibitem{Toussaint} D.~Toussaint, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 17}, 248 (1990). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0335
|
Title: Approximation of the distribution of a stationary Markov process with
application to option pricing
Abstract: We build a sequence of empirical measures on the space D(R_+,R^d) of
R^d-valued c\`adl\`ag functions on R_+ in order to approximate the law of a
stationary R^d-valued Markov and Feller process (X_t). We obtain some general
results of convergence of this sequence. Then, we apply them to Brownian
diffusions and solutions to L\'evy driven SDE's under some Lyapunov-type
stability assumptions. As a numerical application of this work, we show that
this procedure gives an efficient way of option pricing in stochastic
volatility models.
Body: \begin{frontmatter} \title{Approximation of the distribution of a stationary Markov process with application to option pricing} \runtitle{Approximation of the distribution of a stationary Markov process} \begin{aug} \author[a]{\fnms{Gilles} \snm{Pag\`{e}s}\thanksref{a}\ead[label=e1]{gpa@ccr.jussieu.fr}\corref{}} \and \author[b]{\fnms{Fabien} \snm{Panloup}\thanksref{b}\ead[label=e2]{fpanloup@insa-toulouse.fr}} \runauthor{G. Pag\`{e}s and F. Panloup} \pdfauthor{Gilles Pages and Fabien Panloup} \address[a]{Laboratoire de Probabilit\'es et Mod\`eles Al\'eatoires, UMR 7599, Universit\'e Paris 6, Case 188, 4 pl. Jussieu, F-75252 Paris Cedex 5. \printead{e1}} \address[b]{Laboratoire de Statistiques et Probabilit\'{e}s, Universit\'{e} Paul Sabatier \& INSA Toulouse, 135, Avenue de Rangueil, 31077 Toulouse Cedex 4. \printead{e2}} \end{aug} \received{\smonth{4} \syear{2007}} \revised{\smonth{3} \syear{2008}} \begin{abstract} We build a sequence of empirical measures on the space $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued cadlag functions on $\mathbb{R}_+$ in order to approximate the law of a stationary $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued Markov and Feller process $(X_t)$. We obtain some general results on the convergence of this sequence. We then apply them to Brownian diffusions and solutions to L\'{e}vy-driven SDE's under some Lyapunov-type stability assumptions. As a numerical application of this work, we show that this procedure provides an efficient means of option pricing in stochastic volatility models. \end{abstract} \begin{keyword} \kwd{Euler scheme} \kwd{L\'{e}vy process} \kwd{numerical approximation} \kwd{option pricing} \kwd{stationary process} \kwd{stochastic volatility model} \kwd{tempered stable process} \end{keyword} \pdfkeywords{Euler scheme, Levy process, numerical approximation, option pricing, stationary process, stochastic volatility model, tempered stable process,} \end{frontmatter} \section{Introduction} \subsection{Objectives and motivations} In this paper, we deal with an $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued Feller Markov process $(X_t)$ with semigroup $(P_t)_{t\ge0}$ and assume that $(X_t)$ admits an invariant distribution ${\nu_0}$. The aim of this work is to propose a way to approximate the whole stationary distribution $\mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}$ of $(X_t)$. More precisely, we want to construct a sequence of weighted occupation measures $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ on the Skorokhod space $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $\nu^{(n)}(\omega,F)\stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow }\int F(\alpha) \mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}(\mathrm{d}\alpha)$ a.s. for a class of functionals $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ which includes bounded continuous functionals for the Skorokhod topology. One of our motivations is to develop a new numerical method for option pricing in stationary stochastic volatility models which are slight modifications of the classical stochastic volatility models, where we suppose that the volatility evolves under its stationary regime. \subsection{Background and construction of the procedure} This work follows on from a series of recent papers due to Lamberton and Pag\`{e}s (), Lemaire () and Panloup (), where the problem of the approximation of the invariant distribution is investigated for Brownian diffusions and for L\'{e}vy-driven SDE's. \footnote{Note that computing the invariant distribution is equivalent to computing the marginal laws of the stationary process $(X_t)$ since ${\nu_0} P_t={\nu_0}$ for every $t\ge0$.} In these papers, the algorithm is based on an adapted Euler scheme with decreasing step $(\gamma_k)_{k\ge1}$. To be precise, let $(\Gamma_n)$ be the sequence of discretization times: $\Gamma_0=0$, $\Gamma_n=\sum_{k=1}^n\gamma_k$ for every $n\ge1$, and assume that $\Gamma_n\rightarrow+\infty$ when $n\rightarrow+\infty$. Let $(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_n})_{n\ge0}$ be the Euler scheme obtained by ``freezing'' the coefficients between the $\Gamma_n$'s and let $(\eta_n)_{n\ge1}$ be a sequence of positive weights such that $H_n:=\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k\rightarrow+\infty$ when $k\rightarrow+\infty$. Then, under some Lyapunov-type stability assumptions adapted to the stochastic processes of interest, one shows that for a large class of steps and weights $(\eta_n,\gamma_n)_{n\ge1}$, \begin{equation} \bar{\nu}_n(\omega,f):=\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n \eta_kf(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}}) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}\int f(x){\nu _0}(\mathrm{d}x) \qquad\mbox{a.s.}, \end{equation} (at least) \footnote{The class of functions for which () holds depends on the stability of the dynamical system. In particular, in the Brownian diffusion case, the convergence may hold for continuous functions with subexponential growth, whereas the class of functions strongly depends on the moments of the L\'{e}vy process when the stochastic process is a L\'{e}vy-driven SDE.} for every bounded continuous function $f$. Since the problem of the approximation of the invariant distribution has been deeply studied for a wide class of Markov processes (Brownian diffusions and L\'{e}vy-driven SDE's) and since the proof of () can be adapted to other classes of Markov processes under some specific Lyapunov assumptions, we choose in this paper to consider a general Markov process and to assume the existence of a time discretization scheme $(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k})_{k\ge0}$ such that () holds for the class of bounded continuous functions. The aim of this paper is then to investigate the convergence properties of a functional version of the sequence $(\bar{\nu}_n(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$. Let $(X_t)$ be a Markov and Feller process and let $(\bar{X}_t)_{t\ge0}$ be a stepwise constant time discretization scheme of $(X_t)$ with non-increasing step sequence $(\gamma_n)_{n\ge1}$ satisfying \begin{equation} \lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\gamma_n=0,\qquad \Gamma_n:=\sum_{k=1}^n\gamma_k\stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty }{\longrightarrow} + \infty. \end{equation} Letting $\Gamma_0:=0$ and $\bar{X}_0=x_0\in\mathbb{R}^d$, we assume that \begin{equation} \bar{X}_t=\bar{X}_{\Gamma_n}\qquad \forall t\in[\Gamma_n,\Gamma_{n+1}[ \end{equation} and that $(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_n})_{n\ge0}$ can be simulated recursively. We denote by $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\ge0}$ and $(\bar{\mathcal{F}}_t)_{t\ge0}$ the usual augmentations of the natural filtrations $(\sigma(X_s,0\le s\le t))_{t\ge0}$ and $(\sigma(\bar{X}_s,0\le s\le t))_{t\ge0}$, respectively. For $k\ge0$, we denote by $(\bar{X}_t^{(k)})_{t\ge0}$ the shifted process defined by \[ \bar{X}_t^{(k)}:=\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k+t}. \] In particular, $\bar{X}_{t}^{(0)}=\bar{X}_{t}$. We define a sequence of random probabilities $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ on $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ by \[ \nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)=\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k {\bf{1}}_{{\{\bar{X}}^{({k-1})}(\omega)\in\mathrm{d}\alpha\}}, \] where $(\eta_k)_{k\ge1}$ is a sequence of weights. For $t\ge0$, $(\nu_t^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ will denote the sequence of ``marginal'' empirical measures on $\mathbb{R}^d$ defined by \[ \nu^{(n)}_t(\omega,\mathrm{d}x)=\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k {\bf{1}}_{\{\bar{X}^{({k-1})}_t(\omega)\in\mathrm{d}x\}}. \] \subsection{Simulation of $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,F))_{n\ge1}$}\label {simfuncpropos} For every functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb {R}$, the following recurrence relation holds for every \mbox{$n\ge1$}: \begin{equation} {\nu^{(n+1)}}(\omega,F) = {\nu^{(n)}}(\omega,F)+\frac{\eta_{n+1}}{H_{n+1}} \bigl(F\bigl(X^{(n)}(\omega)\bigr)-{\nu^{(n)}}(\omega,F)\bigr). \end{equation} Then, if $T$ is a positive number and $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a functional depending only on the trajectory between 0 and $T$, $({\nu^{(n)}}(\omega,F))_{n\ge1}$ can be simulated by the following procedure. \textbf{Step 0.} (i) Simulate $(\bar{X}^{(0)}_t)_{t\ge0}$ on $[0,T]$, that is, simulate $(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k})_{k\ge0}$ for $k=0,\ldots,{{N}(0,T)}$, where \begin{eqnarray} {N}(n,T) :\!\!&=&\inf\{k\ge n, \Gamma_{k+1}-\Gamma_n> T\} \nonumber\\[-8pt] \\[-8pt] &=& \max\{k\ge0,\Gamma_k-\Gamma_n\le T\},\qquad n\ge0, T>0. \nonumber \end{eqnarray} Note that $n\mapsto N(n,t)$ is an increasing sequence since $(\gamma_n)$ is non-increasing, and that \[ \Gamma_{N(n,T)}-\Gamma_n\le T<\Gamma_{N(n,T)+1}-\Gamma_n. \] (ii) Compute $F((\bar{X}_t^{(0)})_{t\ge0})$ and $\nu^{(1)}(\omega,F)$. Store the values of $(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k})$ for $k=1,\ldots,{N}(0,T)$. \textbf{Step} $\bolds{n}$ \textbf{(}$\bolds{n\ge1}$\textbf{).} (i) Since the values $(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k})_{k\ge0}$ are stored for $k=n,\ldots,N(n-1,T)$, simulate $(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k})_{k\ge0}$ for $k={N}(n-1,T)+1,\ldots,{N}(n,T)$ in order to obtain a path of $(\bar{X}_t^{(n)})$ on $[0,T]$. (ii) Compute $F((\bar{X}_t^{(n)})_{t\ge0})$ and use () to compute ${\nu^{(n+1)}}(\omega,F)$. Store the values of $(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k})$ for $k=n+1,\ldots,{N}(n,T)$. \begin{Remarque} As shown in the description of the procedure, one generally has to store the vector $[\bar{X}_{\Gamma_n},\ldots,\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{N(n,T)}}]$ at time $n$. Since $(\gamma_n)$ is a sequence with infinite sum that decreases to 0, it follows that the size of this vector increases ``slowly'' to $+\infty$. For instance, if $\gamma_n=C n^{-\rho}$ with $\rho\in(0,1)$, its size is of order $n^{\rho}$. However, it is important to remark that even though the number of values to be stored tends to $+\infty$, that is not always the case for the number of operations at each step. Indeed, since $\bar{X}^{(n+1)}$ is obtained by shifting $\bar{X}^{(n)}$, it is usually possible to use, at step $n+1$, the preceding computations and to simulate the sequence $(F(\bar{X}^{(n)}))_{n\ge0}$ in a ``quasi-recursive'' way. For instance, such remark holds for Asian options because the associated pay-off can be expressed as a function of an additive functional (see Section for simulations). \end{Remarque} Before outlining the sequel of the paper, we list some notation linked to the spaces $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb {R}^d)$ and $\mathbb{D}([0,T],\mathbb{R}^d)$ of cadlag $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued functions on $\mathbb{R}_+$ and $[0,T]$, respectively, endowed with the Skorokhod topology. First, we denote by $d_1$ the Skorokhod distance on $\mathbb{D}([0,1],\mathbb{R}^d)$ defined for every $\alpha$, $\beta\in\mathbb{D}([0,1],\mathbb{R}^d)$ by \[ d_1(\alpha,\beta)=\inf_{\lambda\in\Lambda_1} \biggl\{\max\biggl(\sup_{t\in[0,1]}|\alpha(t)-\beta(\lambda(t))|, \sup_{0\le s<t\le1} \biggl|\log\biggl(\frac{\lambda(t)-\lambda(s)}{t-s}\biggr) \biggr| \biggr) \biggr\}, \] where $\Lambda_1$ denotes the set of increasing homeomorphisms of $[0,1]$. Second, for $T>0$, $\phi_T\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\mapsto\mathbb {D}([0,1],\mathbb{R}^d)$ is the function defined by $(\phi_T(\alpha))(s)=\alpha({sT})$ for every $s\in[0,1]$. We then denote by $d$ the distance on $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ defined for every $\alpha, \beta\in\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ by \begin{equation} d(\alpha,\beta)=\int_0^{+\infty} \mathrm{e}^{-t} \bigl(1\wedge d_1(\phi_t(\alpha),\phi_t(\beta)) \bigr)\,\mathrm{d}t. \end{equation} We recall that $(\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d),d)$ is a Polish space and that the induced topology is the usual Skorokhod topology on $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ (see, e.g., Pag\`es ). For every $T>0$, we set \[ \mathcal{D}_T=\bigcap_{s>T}\sigma(\pi_u,0\le u\le s), \] where $\pi_s\dvtx \mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$ is defined by $\pi_s(\alpha)=\alpha(s)$. For a functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, $F_T$ denotes the functional defined for every $\alpha\in\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ by \begin{equation} F_T(\alpha)=F(\alpha^T)\qquad\mbox{with } \alpha^T(t)=\alpha(t\wedge T)\ \forall t\ge0. \end{equation} Finally, we will say that a functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is $Sk$-continuous if $F$ is continuous for the Skorokhod topology on $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ and the notation ``$\stackrel{(Sk)}{\Longrightarrow}$'' will denote the weak convergence on $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$. In Section , we state our main results for a general $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued Feller Markov process. Then, in Section , we apply them to Brownian diffusions and L\'{e}vy-driven SDE's. Section is devoted to the proofs of the main general results. Finally, in Section , we complete this paper with an application to option pricing in stationary stochastic volatility models. \section{General results} In this section, we state the results on convergence of the sequence $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ when $(X_t)$ is a general Feller Markov process. \subsection{Weak convergence to the stationary regime} As explained in the \hyperref[s1]{Introduction}, since the a.s. convergence of $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ to the invariant distribution $\nu_0$ has already been deeply studied for a large class of Markov processes (Brownian diffusions and L\'{e}vy driven SDE's), our approach will be to derive the convergence of $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ toward $\mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}$ from that of $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm {d}x))_{n\ge1}$ to the invariant distribution ${\nu_0}$. More precisely, we will assume in Theorem that $\mathbf{(C_{0,1})}$: $(X_t)$ admits a unique invariant distribution ${\nu_0}$ and \[ \nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x)\stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty }{\Longrightarrow}\nu_0(\mathrm{d}x)\qquad\mbox{a.s.}, \] whereas in Theorem , we will only assume that $\mathbf{(C_{0,2})}$: $(\nu_0^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ is a.s. tight on $\mathbb{R}^d$. We also introduce three other assumptions, $\mathbf{(C_1)}$, $\mathbf{(C_2)}$ and $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$, regarding the continuity in probability of the flow $x\mapsto(X_t^x)$, the asymptotic convergence of the shifted time discretization scheme to the true process $(X_t)$ and the steps and weights, respectively. $\mathbf{(C_1)}$: For every $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^d$, $\epsilon>0$ and $T>0$, \begin{equation} \limsup_{x_0\rightarrow x}\mathbb{P}\biggl(\sup_{0\le t\le T}|X_t^x-X_t^{x_0}|\ge\epsilon\biggr)=0. \end{equation} $\mathbf{(C_2)}$: $(\bar{X}_t)$ is a non-homogeneous Markov process and for every $n\ge0$, it is possible to construct a family of stochastic processes $({{Y}}_t^{(n,x)})_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d}$ such that \begin{longlist} \item$\mathcal{L}({{Y}}^{(n,x)})\stackrel{\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+, \mathbb{R}^d)}{=}\mathcal{L}(\bar{X}^{(n)}|\bar{X}^{(n)}_0=x)$; \item for every compact set $K$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$, for every $T\ge0$, \begin{equation} \sup_{x\in K}\sup_{0\le t\le T} \bigl|{{Y}}^{(n,x)}_t-X_t^x\bigr| \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad\mbox{in probability}. \end{equation} \end{longlist} $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$: For every $n\ge1$, $\eta_n\le C\gamma_n H_n^{\varepsilon}$. \begin{Remarque} Assumption $\mathbf{(C_2)}$ implies, in particular, that asymptotically and uniformly on compact sets of $\mathbb{R}^d$, the law of the approximate process $(\bar{X}^{(n)})$, given its initial value, is close to that of the true process. If there exists a unique invariant distribution ${\nu_0}$, the second part of $\mathbf{(C_2)}$ can be relaxed to the following, less stringent, assertion: for all $\epsilon>0$, there exists a compact set $A_\epsilon\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ such that ${\nu_0}(A_\epsilon^c)\le\epsilon$ and such that \begin{equation} \sup_{x\in A_\epsilon}\sup_{0\le t\le T} \bigl|{{Y}}^{(n,x)}_t-X_t^x\bigr| \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad\mbox{in probability}. \end{equation} This weaker assumption can some times be needed in stochastic volatility models like the Heston model (see Section for details). \end{Remarque} The preceding assumptions are all that we require for the convergence of $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ to $\mathbb{P}_{{\nu}_0}$ along the bounded $Sk$-continuous functionals, that is, for the a.s. weak convergence on $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$. However, the integration of non-bounded continuous functionals $F\dvtx{\mathbb D}([0,T],\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ will need some additional assumptions, depending on the stability of the time discretization scheme and on the steps and weights sequences. We will suppose that $F$ is dominated (in a sense to be specified later) by a function $\mathcal{V}:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_+$ that satisfies the following assumptions for some $s\ge2$ and $\varepsilon<1$. $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$: For every $T>0$, \begin{longlist} \item$\displaystyle\sup_{n\ge1}\mathbb{E} \biggl[\sup_{0\le t\le T}\mathcal{V}^s\bigl({{Y}}^{(n,x)}_t\bigr )\biggr] \le C_T\mathcal{V}^s(x)$,\vspace*{2pt} \item$\displaystyle\sup_{n\ge1}\nu_0^{(n)}(\mathcal{V})<+\infty $,\vspace*{2pt} \item$\displaystyle\sum_{k\ge1}\frac{\eta_k}{H_k^2}\mathbb {E}[\mathcal{V}^2 (\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}})]<+\infty$,\vspace*{2pt} \item$\displaystyle\sum_{k\ge1}\frac{\Delta N(k,T)}{H_k^{s}}\mathbb{E} \bigl[\mathcal{V}^{s(1-\varepsilon)}(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}})\bigr ]<+\infty$, \end{longlist} where $T\mapsto C_T$ is locally bounded on $\mathbb{R}_+$ and $\Delta N(k,T)=N(k,T)-N(k-1,T)$. For every $\varepsilon<1$, we then set \[ \mathcal{K}(\varepsilon)= \{\mathcal{V}\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^d, \mathbb{R}_+),\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)} \mbox{ holds for some }s\ge 2 \}. \] \begin{Remarque} Apart from assumption (i), which is a classical condition on the finite time horizon control, the assumptions in $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$ strongly rely on the stability of the time discretization scheme (and then, to that of the true process). More precisely, we will see when we apply our general results to SDE's that these properties are some consequences of the Lyapunov assumptions needed for the tightness of $(\nu_0^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$. \end{Remarque} We can now state our first main result. \begin{theorem} Assume $\mathbf{(C_{0,1})}$, $\mathbf{(C_1)}$, $\mathbf{(C_2)}$ and $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$ with $\varepsilon\in(-\infty,1)$. Then, a.s., for every bounded $Sk$-continuous functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, \begin{equation} {\nu}^{(n)}(\omega,F)\stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty }{\longrightarrow}\int F(\alpha)\mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}(\mathrm{d}\alpha), \end{equation} where $\mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}$ denotes the stationary distribution of $(X_t)$ (with initial law ${\nu_0}$). Furthermore, for every $T>0$, for every non-bounded $Sk$-continuous functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, () holds a.s. for $F_T$ (defined by ()) if there exists $\mathcal{V}\in\mathcal{K}(\varepsilon)$ and $\rho\in[0,1)$ such that \begin{equation} |F_T(\alpha)|\le C\sup_{0\le t\le T}\mathcal{V}^\rho(\alpha_t) \qquad\forall \alpha\in\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d). \end{equation} \end{theorem} In the second result, the uniqueness of the invariant distribution is not required and the sequence $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ is only supposed to be tight. \begin{theorem} Assume $\mathbf{(C_{0,2})}$, $\mathbf{(C_1)}$, $\mathbf{(C_2)}$ and $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$ with $\varepsilon\in(-\infty,1)$. Assume that $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ is a.s. tight on $\mathbb{R}^d$. We then have the following. \begin{longlist} \item The sequence $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ is a.s. tight on $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ and a.s., for every convergent subsequence $(n_k(\omega))_{n\ge1}$, for every bounded $Sk$-continuous functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, \begin{equation} \nu^{(n_k(\omega))}(\omega,F) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow} \int F(\alpha)\mathbb{P}_{{\nu}_\infty}(\mathrm{d}\alpha), \end{equation} where $\mathbb{P}_{\nu_\infty}$ is the law of $(X_t)$ with initial law $\nu_\infty$ being a weak limits for $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$. Furthermore, for every $T>0$, for every non-bounded $Sk$-continuous functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, () holds a.s. for $F_T$ if () is satisfied with $\mathcal{V}\in\mathcal {K}(\varepsilon)$ and $\rho\in[0,1)$. \item If, moreover, \begin{equation} \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\max_{l\ge k+1}\frac{|\Delta \eta_\ell|}{\gamma_{\ell}}\stackrel{n\to +\infty}{\longrightarrow}0, \end{equation} then ${\nu}_\infty$ is necessarily an invariant distribution for the Markov process $(X_t)$. \end{longlist} \end{theorem} \begin{Remarque} Condition () holds for a large class of steps and weights. For instance, if $\eta_n=C_1n^{-\rho_1}$ and $\gamma_n=C_2n^{-\rho_2}$ with $\rho_1\in[0,1]$ and $\rho_2\in(0,1]$, then () is satisfied if $\rho_1=0$ or if $\rho_1\in(\max(0,2\rho_2-1),1)$. \end{Remarque} \subsection{Extension to the non-stationary case} Even though the main interest of this algorithm is the weak approximation of the process when stationary, we observe that when $\nu_0$ is known, the algorithm can be used to approximate $\mathbb{P}_{\mu_0}$ if $\mu_0$ is a probability on $\mathbb{R}^d$ that is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu_0$. Indeed, assume that $\mu_0(\mathrm{d}x)=\phi(x)\nu_0(\mathrm {d}x)$, where $\phi\dvtx\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a continuous non-negative function. For a functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, denote by $F^\phi$ the functional defined on $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ by $F^{\phi}(\alpha)=F(\alpha)\phi(\alpha(0))$. Then, if $\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)\stackrel {(Sk)}{\Rightarrow} \mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}(\mathrm{d}\alpha)$ a.s., we also have the following convergence: a.s., for every bounded $Sk$-continuous functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, \[ {\nu}^{(n)}(\omega,F^\phi)\stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty }{\longrightarrow} \int F^\phi(\alpha)\mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}(\mathrm{d}\alpha) =\int F(\alpha)\mathbb{P}_{\mu_0}(\mathrm{d}\alpha). \] \section{Application to Brownian diffusions and L\'{e}vy-driven SDE's} Let $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ be a cadlag stochastic process solution to the SDE \begin{equation} \mathrm{d}X_{t}=b(X_{t^{-}})\,\mathrm{d}t + \sigma(X_{t^{-}})\,\mathrm{d}W_{t}+\kappa(X_{t^{-}}) \,\mathrm{d}Z_{t}, \end{equation} where $b\dvtx\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$, $\sigma\dvtx\mathbb{R}^d\mapsto\mathbb{M}_{d,\ell}$ (set of $d\times\ell$ real matrices) and $\kappa\dvtx\mathbb{R}^d\mapsto\mathbb{M}_{d,\ell}$ are continuous functions with sublinear growth, $(W_{t})_{t\ge0}$ is an $\ell$-dimensional Brownian motion and $(Z_{t})_{t\ge0}$ is an integrable purely discontinuous $\mathbb{R}^{\ell}$-valued L\'{e}vy process independent of $(W_{t})_{t\ge0}$ with L\'{e}vy measure $\pi$ and characteristic function given for every $t\ge0$ by \[ \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\langle u,Z_t\rangle}]=\exp\biggl[t \biggl(\int \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\langle u,y\rangle}-1 - \mathrm{i}\langle u,y\rangle\pi(\mathrm{d}y) \biggr) \biggr]. \] Let $(\gamma_n)_{n\ge1}$ be a non-increasing step sequence satisfying (). Let $(U_n)_{n\ge1}$ be a sequence of i.i.d. random variables such that $U_1\stackrel{\mathcal{L}}{=}\mathcal{N}(0,I_{\ell})$ and let $\xi:=(\xi_n)_{n\ge1}$ be a sequence of independent $\mathbb{R}^{\ell}$-valued random variables, independent of $(U_n)_{n\ge1}$. We then denote by $(\bar{X}_t)_{t\ge0}$ the stepwise constant Euler scheme of $(X_t)$ for which $(\bar{X}_{{\Gamma_{n}}})_{n\ge0}$ is recursively defined by $\bar{X}_0=x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and \begin{equation} {\bar{X}}_{{\Gamma_{n+1}}}=\bar{X}^{}_{{\Gamma_{n}}} +\gamma_{n+1} b(\bar{X}^{}_{{\Gamma_{n}}}) + \sqrt{\gamma_{n+1}}\sigma(\bar{X}^{}_{{\Gamma_{n}}})U_{n+1} +\kappa(\bar{X}^{}_{{\Gamma_{n}}})\xi_{n+1}. \end{equation} We recall that the increments of $(Z_t)$ cannot be simulated in general. That is why we generally need to construct the sequence $(\xi_n)$ with some approximations of the true increments. We will come back to this construction in Section . As in the general case, we denote by $(\bar{X}^{(k)})_{k\ge0}$ and $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ the sequences of associated shifted Euler schemes and empirical measures, respectively. Let us now introduce some Lyapunov assumptions for the SDE. Let $\mathcal{E}\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ denote the set of \textit{essentially quadratic} $\mathcal{C}^2$-functions $V\dvtx\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_+^*$ such that $\lim V(x)=+\infty$ as $|x|\rightarrow+\infty$, $|\nabla V|\le C \sqrt{V}$ and $D^2V$ is bounded. Let $a\in(0,1]$ denote the mean reversion intensity. The Lyapunov (or mean reversion) assumption is the following. $\mathbf{(S_a)}$: There exists a function $V\in\mathcal{E}\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that: \begin{longlist} \item\,\ $|b|^2\le CV^a$, $\operatorname{Tr}(\sigma\sigma^*(x))+\|\kappa(x)\|^2 \stackrel{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}{=}o(V^a(x))$; \item\,\ there exist $\beta\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\rho>0$ such that $\langle\nabla V,b\rangle\le\beta-\rho V^a$. \end{longlist} From now on, we separate the Brownian diffusions and L\'{e}vy-driven SDE cases. \subsection{Application to Brownian diffusions} In this part, we assume that $\kappa=0$. We recall a result by Lamberton and Pag\`es . \begin{prop} Let $a\in(0,1]$ such that $\mathbf{(S_{a})}$ holds. Assume that the sequence $(\eta_n/\gamma_n)_{n\ge1}$ is non-increasing. \begin{longlist}[(b)] \item[(a)] Let $(\theta_n)_{n\ge1}$ be a sequence of positive numbers such that $\sum_{n\ge1}\theta_n\gamma_n<+\infty$ and that there exists $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $(\theta_n)_{n\ge n_0}$ is non-increasing. Then, for every positive $r$, \[ \sum_{n\ge1}\theta_n\gamma_n\mathbb{E} [V^{r}(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{n-1}})] <+\infty. \] \item[(b)] For every $r>0$, \begin{equation} \sup_{n\ge1}{\nu}_0^{(n)}(\omega,V^r)<+\infty\qquad\mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} Hence, the sequence $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ is a.s. tight. \item[(c)] Moreover, every weak limit of this sequence is an invariant probability for the SDE (). In particular, if $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ admits a unique invariant probability ${\nu_0}$, then for every continuous function~$f$ such that $f\le C V^r$ with $r>0$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \nu_0^{(n)}(\omega,f)={\nu _0}(f)$ a.s. \end{longlist} \end{prop} \begin{Remarque} For instance, if $V(x)=1+|x|^2$, then the preceding convergence holds for every continuous function with polynomial growth. According to Theorem 3.2 in Lemaire , it is possible to extend these results to continuous functions with exponential growth, but it then strongly depends on $\sigma$. Further the conditions on steps and weights can be less restrictive and may contain the case $\eta_n=1$, for instance (see Remark 4 of Lamberton and Pag\`es and Lemaire ). \end{Remarque} We then derive the following result from the preceding proposition and from Theorems ~and~. \begin{theorem} Assume that $b$ and $\sigma$ are locally Lipschitz functions and that $\kappa=0$. Let $a\in(0,1]$ such that $\mathbf{(S_{a})}$ holds and assume that $(\eta_n/\gamma_n)$ is non-increasing. \begin{longlist}[(b)] \item[(a)] The sequence $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha ))_{n\ge1}$ is a.s. tight on $\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ (\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ denotes the space of continuous functions on $\mathbb{R}_+$ with values in $\mathbb{R}^d$ endowed with the topology of uniform convergence on compact sets.} and every weak limit of $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ is the distribution of a stationary process solution to (). In particular, when uniqueness holds for the invariant distribution $\nu_0$, a.s., for every bounded continuous functional $F\dvtx\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, \begin{equation} \nu^{(n)}(\omega,F)\stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow} \int F(x)\mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}(\mathrm{d}x). \end{equation} \item[(b)] Furthermore, if there exists $s\in(2,+\infty)$ and $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that \begin{equation} \biggl(\frac{\Delta N(k,T)}{\gamma_k H_k^s} \biggr)_{n\ge n_0} \mbox{ is non-increasing and } \sum_{k\ge1}\frac{\Delta N(k,T)}{H_k^s}<+\infty, \end{equation} then, for every $T>0$, for every non-bounded continuous functional $F\dvtx\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, () holds for $F_T$ if the following condition is satisfied: \[ \exists r>0 \quad\mbox{such that}\quad |F_T(\alpha)|\le C\sup_{0\le t\le T}V^r(\alpha_t) \qquad\forall\alpha\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d). \] \end{longlist} \end{theorem} \begin{Remarque} If $\eta_n=C_1n^{-\rho_1}$ and $\gamma_n=C_2n^{-\rho_2}$ with $0<\rho_2\le\rho_1\le1$, then for $s\in(1,+\infty)$, () is fulfilled if and only if $s>1/(1-\rho_1)$. It follows that there exists $s\in (2,+\infty)$ such that () holds as soon as $\rho_1<1$. \end{Remarque} \begin{pf*}{Proof of Theorem } We want to apply Theorem . First, by Proposition , assumption $\mathbf{(C_{0,2})}$ is fulfilled and every weak limit of $(\nu_0^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))$ is an invariant distribution. Second, it is well known that $\mathbf{(C_1)}$ and $\mathbf{(C_2)}$ are fulfilled when $b$ and $\sigma$ are locally Lispchitz sublinear functions. Then, since $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$ holds with $\varepsilon=0$, () holds for every bounded continuous functional $F$. Finally, one checks that $\mathbf{H(s,0)}$ holds with $\mathcal{V}:=V^r$ ($r>0$). It is classical that assumption (a) is true when $b$ and $\sigma$ are sublinear. Assumption (b) follows from Proposition (b). Let $\theta_{n,1}=\eta_n/(\gamma_nH_n^2)$ and $\theta_{n,2}=\Delta N(n,T)/(\gamma_n H_n^s)$. Using () and the fact that $(\eta_n/\gamma_n)$ is non-increasing yields that $(\theta_{n,1})$ and $(\theta_{n,2})$ satisfy the conditions of Proposition (see () for details). Then, (iii) and (iv) of $\mathbf{H(s,0)}$ are consequences of Proposition (a). This completes the proof. \end{pf*} \subsection{Application to L\'{e}vy-driven SDE's} When we want to extend the results obtained for Brownian SDE's to L\'{e}vy-driven SDE's, one of the main difficulties comes from the moments of the jump component (see Panloup for details). For simplification, we assume here that $(Z_t)$ has a moment of order $2p\ge2$, that is, that its L\'{e}vy measure $\pi$ satisfies the following assumption with $p\ge1$: \[ {\bf{(H^1_p)}}\dvtx \int_{|y|>1}\pi(\mathrm{d}y)|y|^{2p}<+\infty. \] We also introduce an assumption about the behavior of the moments of the L\'{e}vy measure at 0: \[ \qquad{\bf{(H^2_q)}}\dvtx\int_{|y|\le1}\pi(\mathrm{d}y)|y|^{2q} < +\infty,\qquad q\in[0,1]. \] This assumption ensures that $(Z_t)$ has finite $2q$-variations. Since $\int_{|y|\le1}|y|^2\pi(\mathrm{d}y)$ is finite, this is always satisfied for $q=1$. Let us now specify the law of $(\xi_n)$ introduced in (). When the increments of $(Z_t)$ can be exactly simulated, we denote by (E) the Euler scheme and by $(\xi_{n,E})$ the associated sequence \[ \xi_{n,E}\stackrel{\mathcal{L}}{=}Z_{\gamma_n}\qquad\forall n\ge1. \] \\ When the increments of $(Z_t)$ cannot be simulated, we introduce some \textit{approximated} Euler schemes (P) and (W) built with some sequences $(\xi_{n,P})$ and $(\xi_{n,W})$ of approximations of the true increment (see Panloup for more detailed presentations of these schemes). In scheme (P), \[ \xi_{n,P}\stackrel{\mathcal{L}}{=}Z_{\gamma_n,n}, \] where $(Z_{\bolds{\cdot},n})_{n\ge1}$ a sequence of compensated compound Poisson processes obtained by truncating the small jumps of $(Z_t)_{t\ge0}$: \begin{equation} Z_{t,n}:=\sum_{0<s\le t}\Delta Z_s 1_{\{|\Delta Z_s|>u_n \}} - t\int_{|y|>u_n}y\pi(\mathrm{d}y)\qquad\forall t\ge0, \end{equation} where $(u_n)_{n\ge1}$ is a sequence of positive numbers such that $u_n\rightarrow0$. We recall that $Z_{\bolds{\cdot},n} \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow} Z$ locally uniformly in $L^2$ (see, e.g., Protter ). As shown in Panloup , the error induced by this approximation is very large when the local behavior of the small jumps component is irregular. However, it is possible to refine this approximation by a \textit{Wienerization} of the small jumps, that is, by replacing the small jumps by a linear transform of a Brownian motion instead of discarding them (see Asmussen and Rosinski~). The corresponding scheme is denoted by (W) with $\xi_{n,W}$ satisfying \[ \xi_{n,W}\stackrel{\mathcal{L}}{=}\xi_{n,P} + \sqrt{\gamma_n}Q_n\Lambda_n\qquad\forall n\ge1, \] where $(\Lambda_n)_{n\ge 1}$ is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables, independent of $(\xi_{n,P})_{n\ge1}$ and $(U_n)_{n\ge1}$, such that $\Lambda_1\stackrel{\mathcal{L}}{=}\mathcal{N}(0,I_\ell)$ and $(Q_n)$ is a sequence of $\ell\times\ell$ matrices such that \[ (Q_nQ_n^*)_{i,j}=\int_{|y|\le u_k} y_i y_j\pi(\mathrm{d}y). \] We recall the following result obtained in Panloup in our slightly simplified framework. \begin{prop} Let $a\in(0,1]$, $p\ge1$ and $q\in[0,1]$ such that $\mathbf{(H^1_p)}$, $\mathbf{(H^2_q)}$ and $\mathbf{(S_{a})}$ hold. Assume that the sequence $(\eta_n/\gamma_n)_{n\ge1}$ is non-increasing. Then, the following assertions hold for schemes \textup{(E)}, \textup{(P)} and \textup{(W)}. \begin{longlist}[(b)] \item[(a)] Let $(\theta_n)$ satisfy the conditions of Proposition . Then, $\sum_{n\ge1}\theta_n\gamma_n\mathbb{E}[V^{p+a-1}(\bar {X}_{\Gamma_{n-1}})]<+\infty$. \item[(b)] We have \begin{equation} \sup_{n\ge1}{\nu}_0^{(n)} (\omega,V^{{p}/{2}+a-1})<+\infty\qquad\mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} Hence, the sequence $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ is a.s. tight as soon as $p/2+a-1>0$. \item[(c)] Moreover, if ${\mathrm{Tr}}(\sigma\sigma^*)+\|\kappa\| ^{2q}\le C V^{{p}/{2}+a-1}$, then every weak limit of this sequence is an invariant probability for the SDE (). In particular, if $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ admits a unique invariant probability ${\nu_0}$, for every continuous function $f$ such that $f=o(V^{{p}/{2}+a-1})$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\nu_0^{(n)}(\omega,f)={\nu_0}(f)$ a.s. \end{longlist} \end{prop} \begin{Remarque} For schemes (E) and (P), the above proposition is a direct consequence of Theorem~2 and Proposition 2 of Panloup . As concerns scheme (W), a straightforward adaptation of the proof yields the result. \end{Remarque} Our main functional result for L\'{e}vy-driven SDE's is then the following. \begin{theorem} Let $a\in(0,1]$ and $p\ge1$ such that $p/2+a-1>0$ and let $q\in[0,1]$. Assume $\mathbf{(H_p^1)}$, $\mathbf{(H_q^2)}$ and $\mathbf{(S_{a})}$. Assume that $b$, $\sigma$ and $\kappa$ are locally Lipschitz functions. If, moreover, $(\eta_n/\gamma_n)_{n\ge1}$ is non-increasing, then the following result holds for schemes \textup{(E)}, \textup{(P)} and \textup{(W)}. \begin{longlist} \item[(a)] The sequence $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ is a.s. tight on $\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$. Moreover, if \begin{equation} \operatorname{Tr}(\sigma\sigma^*)+\|\kappa\|^{2q} \le CV^{{p}/{2}+a-1} \quad\mbox{or}\quad \frac{1}{H_n} \sum_{k=1}^n\max_{l\ge k+1} \frac{|\Delta\eta_\ell|}{\gamma_{\ell-1}} \stackrel{n\to+\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0, \end{equation} then every weak limit of $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ is the distribution of a stationary process solution to~(). \item[(b)] Assume that the invariant distribution is unique. Let $\varepsilon\le0$ such that $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$ holds. Then, a.s., for every $T>0$, for every $Sk$-continuous functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, () holds for $F_T$ if there exist $\rho\in[0,1)$ and $s\ge2$, such that \[ |F_T(\alpha)|\le C\sup_{0\le t\le T}V^{(\rho(p+a-1))/{s}} (\alpha_t)\qquad\forall\alpha\in\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d) \] and if \begin{equation} \biggl(\frac{\Delta N(k,T)}{\gamma_k H_k^{s(1-\varepsilon)}} \biggr)_{n\ge n_0} \mbox{ is non-increasing and } \sum_{k\ge1}\frac{\Delta N(k,T)}{H_k^{s(1-\varepsilon)}}<+\infty. \end{equation} \end{longlist} \end{theorem} \begin{Remarque} In (), both assumptions imply the invariance of every weak limit of $(\nu_0^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))$. These two assumptions are very different. The first is needed in Proposition for using the Echeverria--Weiss invariance criteria (see Ethier and Kurtz , page~238, Lamberton and Pag\`es and Lemaire ), whereas the second appears in Theorem , where our functional approach shows that under some mild additional conditions on steps and weights, every weak limit is always invariant. For (), we refer to Remark for simple sufficient conditions when $(\gamma_n)$ and $(\eta_n)$ are some polynomial steps and weights. \end{Remarque} \section[Proofs of Theorems 1 and 2]{Proofs of Theorems \protect and \protect} We begin the proof with some technical lemmas. In Lemma , we show that the $a.s$ weak convergence of the random measures $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ can be characterized by the convergence () along the set of bounded Lipschitz functionals $F$ for the distance $d$. Then, in Lemma , we show with some martingale arguments that if the functional $F$ depends only on the restriction of the trajectory to $[0,T]$, then the convergence of $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,F))_{n\ge1}$ is equivalent to that of a more regular sequence. This step is fundamental for the sequel of the proof. Finally, Lemma is needed for the proof of Theorem . We show that under some mild conditions on the step and weight sequences, any Markovian weak limit of the sequence $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ is stationary. \subsection{Preliminary lemmas} \begin{lemme} Let $(E,d)$ be a Polish space and let $\mathcal{P}(E)$ denote the set of probability measures on the Borel $\sigma$-field $\mathcal{B}(E)$, endowed with the weak convergence topology. Let $(\mu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge 1}$ be a sequence of random probabilities defined on $\Omega\times \mathcal{B}(E)$. \begin{longlist}[(b)] \item[(a)] Assume that there exists $\mu^{(\infty)}\in\mathcal{P}(E)$ such that for every bounded Lipschitz function $F\dvtx E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, \begin{equation} \mu^{(n)}(\omega,F)\stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty} {\longrightarrow}\mu^{(\infty)}(F)\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} Then, a.s., $(\mu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ converges weakly to $\mu^{(\infty)}$ on $\mathcal{P}(E)$. \item[(b)] Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a subset of $\mathcal{P}(E)$. Assume that for every sequence $(F_{k})_{k\ge1}$ of Lipschitz and bounded functions, a.s., for every subsequence $(\mu^{(\phi_\omega(n))}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))$, there exists a subsequence $(\mu^{(\phi_\omega\circ\psi_\omega(n))}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))$ and a $\mathcal{U}$-valued random probability $\mu^{(\infty)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)$ such that for every $k\ge1$, \begin{equation} \mu^{(\psi_\omega\circ\phi_\omega(n))}(\omega,F_{k}) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow} \mu^{(\infty)}(\omega,F_{k})\qquad\mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} Then, $(\mu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ is a.s. tight with weak limits in $\mathcal{U}$. \end{longlist} \end{lemme} \begin{pf} We do not give a detailed proof of the next lemma, which is essentially based on the fact that in a separable metric space $(E,d)$, one can build a sequence of bounded Lipschitz functions $(g_k)_{k\ge1}$ such that for any sequence $(\mu_n)_{n\ge1}$ of probability measures on $\mathcal{B}(E)$, $(\mu_n)_{n\ge1}$ weakly converges to a probability $\mu$ if and only if the convergence holds along the functions $g_k,$ $k\ge1$ (see Parthasarathy , Theorem 6.6, page~47 for a very similar result). \end{pf} For every $n\ge0$, for every $T>0$, we introduce $\tau(n,T)$ defined by \begin{equation} \tau(n,T):=\min\{k\ge0, N(k,T)\ge n\} = \min\{k\le n,\Gamma_k+T\ge\Gamma_n\}. \end{equation} Note that for $k\in\{0,\ldots,\tau(n,T)-1\}$, $\{\bar{X}_t^{(k)},0\le t\le T\}$ is $\mathcal{\bar{F}}_{\Gamma_n}$-measurable and \[ T-\gamma_{\tau(n,T)-1}\le\Gamma_n-\Gamma_{\tau(n,T)}\le T. \] \begin{lemme} Assume $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$ with $\varepsilon<1$. Let $F\dvtx \mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a $Sk$-continuous functional. Let $(\mathcal{G}_k)$ be a filtration such that $\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\Gamma_k}\subset\mathcal{G}_k$ for every $k\ge1$. Then, for any $T>0$: \begin{longlist}[(b)] \item[(a)] if $F_T$ (defined by ()) is bounded, \begin{equation} \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n \eta_k \bigl(F_T\bigl(\bar{X}^{({k-1})}\bigr)-\mathbb{E} \bigl[F_T\bigl(\bar{X}^{({k-1})}\bigr)/\mathcal{G}_{k-1}\bigr] \bigr) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad \mbox{a.s.}; \end{equation} \item[(b)] if $F_T$ is not bounded, () holds if there exists $\mathcal{V}\dvtx\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_+$, satisfying $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$ for some $s\ge2$, such that $|F_T(\alpha )|\le C \sup_{0\le t\le T}\mathcal{V}(\alpha_t)$ for every $\alpha\in\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$; furthermore, \begin{equation} \sup_{n\ge1}\nu^{(n)}(\omega,F_T)<+\infty\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} \end{longlist} \end{lemme} \begin{pf} We prove (a) and (b) simultaneously. Let $\Upsilon^{(k)}$ be defined by $\Upsilon^{(k)}=F_T(\bar{X}^{({k})})$. We have \begin{eqnarray} && \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n \eta_k \bigl(\Upsilon^{(k-1)}-\mathbb{E}\bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/ \mathcal{G}_{k-1}\bigr] \bigr) \nonumber\\ &&\quad = \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl(\Upsilon^{(k-1)}-\mathbb{E} \bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/\mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr] \bigr) \\ &&\qquad {} +\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n \eta_k \bigl(\mathbb{E}\bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/\mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr] - \mathbb{E}\bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/\mathcal{G}_{k-1}\bigr] \bigr). \end{eqnarray} We have to prove that the right-hand side of () and () tend to 0 a.s. when $n\rightarrow+\infty$. We first focus on the right-hand side of (). From the very definition of ${\tau(n,T)}$, we have that $\{\bar {X}_t^{(k)},0\le t\le T\}$ is $\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\Gamma_n}$-measurable for $k\in\{0,\ldots,\tau(n,T)-1\}$. Hence, since $F_T$ is $\sigma(\pi_s,0\le s\le T)$-measurable and $\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\Gamma_n}\subset\mathcal{G}_{n}$, it follows that $\Upsilon^{(k)}$ is $\mathcal{G}_{n}$-measurable and that $\Upsilon^{(k)}=\mathbb{E}[\Upsilon^{(k)}/\mathcal{G}_{n}]$ for every $k\le\tau(n,T)-1$. Then, if $F_T$ is bounded, we derive from $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$ that \begin{eqnarray*} \Biggl|\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl(\Upsilon^{(k-1)}-\mathbb{E}\bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}\big/ \mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr] \bigr) \Biggr| &\le& \frac{2\|F_T\|_{\mathrm{sup}}}{H_n}\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n \eta_k\le\frac{C}{H_n}\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^{n} \gamma_k H_k^{\varepsilon} \\ &\le& \frac{C}{H_n^{1-\varepsilon}} \bigl(\Gamma_n-\Gamma_{\tau(n,T)} \bigr) \\ \\ &\le&\frac{C(T)}{H_n^{1-\varepsilon}} \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad\mbox{a.s.}, \end{eqnarray*} where we used the fact that $(H_n)_{n\ge1}$ and $(\gamma_n)_{n\ge1}$ are non-decreasing and non-increasing sequences, respectively. Assume, now, that the assumptions of (b) are fulfilled with $\mathcal{V}$ satisfying $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$ for some $s\ge2$ and $\varepsilon<1$. By the Borel--Cantelli-like argument, it suffices to show that \begin{equation} \sum_{n\ge1}\mathbb{E} \Biggl[ \Biggl|\frac{1}{H_n^s}\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n \eta_k \bigl(\Upsilon^{(k-1)}-\mathbb{E} \bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/\mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr] \bigr) \Biggr|^s \Biggr]<+\infty. \end{equation} Let us prove (). Let $a_k:=\eta_k^{(s-1)/s}$ and $b_k(\omega):=\eta_k^{{1}/{s}} (\Upsilon^{(k-1)}-\mathbb{E} [\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/\mathcal{G}_{n}] )$. The H\"{o}lder inequality applied with $\bar{p}=s/(s-1)$ and $\bar{q}=s$ yields \[ \Biggl|\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n a_k b_k(\omega)\Biggr|^s \le \Biggl(\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n\eta_k \Biggr)^{s-1} \Biggl(\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n\eta_k \bigl|\Upsilon^{(k-1)}-\mathbb{E} \bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/\mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr] \bigr|^s \Biggr). \] Now, since $F_T(\alpha)\le \sup_{0\le t\le T}\mathcal{V}(\alpha)$, it follows from the Markov property and from $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$(i) that \[ \mathbb{E}\bigl[\bigl|F_T\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k)}\bigr)\bigr|^s /\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\Gamma_{k}}\bigr] \le C \mathbb{E}\biggl[\sup_{0\le t\le T} \mathcal{V}^s\bigl(\bar{X}_t^{(k)}\bigr)/\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\Gamma_{k}}\biggr] \le C_T \mathcal{V}^s(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k}). \] Then, using the two preceding inequalities and $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$ yields \begin{eqnarray*} && \mathbb{E} \Biggl[ \Biggl|\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n\eta_k \bigl(\Upsilon^{(k-1)}-\mathbb{E} \bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/\mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr] \bigr) \Biggr|^s \Biggr] \\ &&\quad \le C \Biggl(\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n\eta_k \Biggr)^{s-1} \Biggl(\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n\eta_k\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{V}^s(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}})] \Biggr) \\ &&\quad \le C \Biggl(\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n\eta_k \Biggr)^{s} \mathbb{E}\biggl[\sup_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n \mathcal{V}^s(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}})\biggr] \\ &&\quad \le C \Biggl(\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n\gamma_kH_k^\varepsilon\Biggr)^{s} \mathbb{E} \biggl[\sup_{t\in[0,S(n,T)]} \mathcal{V}^s\bigl(\bar{X}^{\tau(n,T)}_{t}\bigr) \biggr], \end{eqnarray*} where $S(n,T)=\Gamma_{n-1}-\Gamma_{\tau(n,T)}$ and $C$ does not depend $n$. By the definition of $\tau(n,T)$, $S(n,T)\le T$. Then, again using $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$(i) yields \[ \sum_{n\ge1}\mathbb{E} \Biggl[\frac{1}{H_n^s} \Biggl|\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)}^n\eta_k \bigl(\Upsilon^{(k-1)}-\mathbb{E}\bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/ \mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr] \bigr) \Biggr|^s \Biggr] \le C\sum_{n\ge 1}\frac{1}{H_n^{s(1-\varepsilon)}} \mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathcal{V}^s\bigl(\bar{X}_{(\tau(n,T))}\bigr)\bigr]. \] Since $n\mapsto N(n,T)$ is an increasing function, $n\mapsto\tau(n,T)$ is a non-decreasing function and ${\rm Card}\{n,\tau(n,T)=k\}=\Delta N(k+1,T):=N(k+1,T)-N(k,T)$. Then, since $n\mapsto H_n$ increases, a change of variable yields \begin{eqnarray*} && \sum_{n\ge1}\mathbb{E} \Biggl[\frac{1}{H_n^s} \Biggl|\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n \eta_k \bigl(\Upsilon^{(k-1)}-\mathbb{E}\bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/ \mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr] \bigr) \Biggr|^s \Biggr] \\ &&\quad \le C\sum_{k\ge1}\frac{\Delta N(k,T)}{H_k^{s(1-\varepsilon)}} \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{V}^s(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}})]<+\infty, \end{eqnarray*} by $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$(iv). Second, we prove that () tends to 0. For every $n\ge1$, we let \begin{equation} M_n=\sum_{k= 1}^n\frac{\eta_k}{H_k} \bigl(\mathbb{E} \bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/\mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr] - \mathbb{E}\bigl[\Upsilon^{(k-1)}/\mathcal{G}_{k-1}\bigr] \bigr). \end{equation} The process $(M_n)_{n\ge1}$ is a $(\mathcal{G}_{n})$-martingale and we want to prove that this process is $L^2$-bounded. Set $\Phi^{(k,n)}=\mathbb{E}[F_T(\bar{X}^{(k)})/\mathcal {G}_{n}]-\mathbb{E}[F_T(\bar{X}^{(k)})/\mathcal{G}_k]$. Since $F_T$ is $\sigma(\pi_s,0\le s\le T)$-measurable, the random variable $\Phi^{(k,n)}$ is $\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\Gamma_{{N}(k,T)}}$-measurable. Then, for every $i\in\{N(k,T),\ldots,n\}$, $\Phi^{(k,n)}$ is \mbox{$\mathcal{G}_i$-measurable} so that \[ \mathbb{E} \bigl[\Phi^{(i,n)}\Phi^{(k,n)} \bigr] = \mathbb{E}\bigl[\Phi^{(k,n)}\mathbb{E} \bigl[\Phi^{(i,n)}/\mathcal{G}_i\bigr]\bigr]=0. \] It follows that \begin{equation} \mathbb{E}[M_n^2]=\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac{\eta_k^2}{H_k^2} \mathbb{E} \bigl[\bigl(\Phi^{({k-1},n)}\bigr)^2\bigr] + 2\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac{\eta_k}{H_k}\sum_{i=k+1}^{{N}(k-1,T) \wedge n}\frac{\eta_i}{H_i}\mathbb{E} \bigl[\Phi^{(i-1,n)}\Phi^{(k-1,n)} \bigr]. \end{equation} Then, \begin{eqnarray} \sup_{n\ge1}\mathbb{E}[M_n^2] &\le& \sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{\eta_k^2}{H_k^2}\sup_{n\geq1} \mathbb{E} \bigl[\bigl(\Phi^{({k-1},n)}\bigr)^2 \bigr] + 2\sum_{k\ge1}\frac{\eta_k}{H_k}\sum_{i=k+1}^{{N}(k-1,T)} \frac{\eta_i}{H_i} \sup_{n\geq1}\mathbb{E}\bigl[\Phi^{(i-1,n)}\Phi^{(k-1,n)} \bigr] \nonumber\\ &\le& C\Biggl(\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac{\eta_k}{H_k^{2-\varepsilon}} \sup_{n\geq1}\mathbb{E}\bigl [\bigl(\Phi^{({k-1},n)}\bigr)^2 \bigr] \\ &&\hspace*{14pt}{} + \sum_{k\ge1}\frac{\eta_k}{H_k^{2-\varepsilon}} \sum_{i=k+1}^{{N}(k-1,T)}\gamma_i\sup_{n\geq1}\mathbb{E} \bigl[\Phi^{(i-1,n)}\Phi^{(k-1,n)} \bigr]\Biggr),\qquad \nonumber \end{eqnarray} where, in the second inequality, we used assumption $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$ and the decrease of $i\mapsto1/H_i^{1-\varepsilon}$. Hence, if $F_T$ is bounded, using the fact that $\sum_{i=k+1}^{{N}(k-1,T)}\gamma_i\le T$ yields \begin{equation} \sup_{n\ge1}\mathbb{E}[M_n^2] \le C\sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{\eta_k}{H_k^{2-\varepsilon}} \le C \biggl(\frac{\eta_1}{H_1^{2-\varepsilon}}+\int_{\eta_1}^\infty \frac{\mathrm{d}u}{u^{2-\varepsilon}} \biggr)<+\infty \end{equation} since $\varepsilon<1$. Assume, now, that the assumptions of (b) hold and let $F_T$ be dominated by a function~$\mathcal{V}$ satisfying $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$. By the Markov property, the Jensen inequality and $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$(i), \[ \mathbb{E} \bigl[\bigl(\Phi^{({k,n})}\bigr)^2\bigr] \le C\mathbb{E}\biggl[\mathbb{E}\biggl[\sup_{0\le t\le T} \mathcal{V}^2\bigl(\bar{X}_t^{(k)}\bigr)/ \bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\Gamma_k}\biggr]\biggr] \le C_T \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{V}^2(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k})]. \] We then derive from the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality that for every $n,k\ge1$, for every $i\in\{k,\ldots,N(k,T)\}$, \begin{eqnarray*} \bigl|\mathbb{E} \bigl[\Phi^{({i,n})}\Phi^{({k,n})}\bigr] \bigr| \le C\sqrt{\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{V}^2(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{i}})]} \sqrt{\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{V}^2(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k}})]} \le C\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{E} \bigl[\mathcal{V}^2\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k)}_{t}\bigr)\bigr] \le C\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{V}^2(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_k})], \end{eqnarray*} where, in the last inequality, we once again used $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$(i). It follows that \[ \sup_{n\ge1}\mathbb{E}[M_n^2]\le C\sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{\eta_k}{H_k^{2-\varepsilon}}\mathbb{E} [\mathcal{V}^2(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}})]<+\infty, \] by $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$(iii). Therefore, () is finite and $(M_n)$ is bounded in $L^2$. Finally, we derive from the Kronecker lemma that \[ \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k= 1}^n\eta_k \bigl(\mathbb{E}\bigl[F_T\bigl(\bar{X}^{({k-1})}\bigr)/ \mathcal{G}_{n}\bigr]-\mathbb{E}\bigl[F_T\bigl(\bar{X}^{({k-1})}\bigr)/ \mathcal{G}_{k-1}\bigr] \bigr) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \] As a consequence, $\sup_{n\ge1}\nu^{(n)}(\omega,F_T)<+\infty$ a.s. if and only if \[ \sup_{n\ge1}\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\mathbb{E}\bigl[F_T\bigl(\bar {X}^{({k-1})}\bigr)/\mathcal{F}_{k-1}\bigr]<+\infty\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \] This last property is easily derived from $\mathbf{H(s,\varepsilon)}$(i) and (ii). This completes the proof. \end{pf} \begin{lemme} \textup{(a)} Assume $\mathbf{(C_1)}$ and let $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^d$. We then have $\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}\mathbb{E}[d(X^x,X^{x_0})]=0$. In particular, for every bounded Lispchitz (w.r.t. the distance $d$) functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, the function $\Phi^F$ defined by $\Phi^F(x)=\mathbb{E}[F(X^x)]$ is a (bounded) continuous function on $\mathbb{R}^d$. \textup{(b)} Assume $\mathbf{(C_2)}$. For every compact set $K\subset \mathbb{R}^d$, \begin{equation} \sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E}[d({{Y}}^{n,x},X^{x})] \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0. \end{equation} Set $\Phi^F_{n}(x)=\mathbb{E}[F({{Y}}^{n,x})]$. Then, for every bounded Lispchitz {functional }\mbox{ $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$,} \begin{equation} \sup_{x\in K}|\Phi^F(x)-\Phi^F_{n}(x)| \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0 \qquad\mbox{for every compact set $K\subset\mathbb{R}^d$.} \end{equation} \end{lemme} \begin{pf} (a) By the definition of $d$, for every $\alpha$, $\beta\in\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ and for every $T>0$, \begin{equation} d(\alpha,\beta)\le\biggl(1\wedge\sup_{0\le t\le T} |\alpha(t)-\beta(t)| \biggr)+\mathrm{e}^{-T}. \end{equation} It easily follows from assumption $\mathbf{(C_1)}$ and from the dominated convergence theorem that \[ \limsup_{x\rightarrow x_0}\mathbb{E}[d(X^x,X^{x_0})] \le \mathrm{e}^{-T}\qquad\mbox{for every $T>0$.} \] Letting $T\rightarrow+\infty$ implies that $\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}\mathbb{E}[d(X^x,X^{x_0})]=0$. (b) We deduce from () and from assumption $\mathbf{(C_2)}$ that for every compact set $K \subset\mathbb{R}^d$, for every $T>0$, \[ \limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty} \sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E} [d({{Y}}^{n,x},X^x)]\le\mathrm{e}^{-T}. \] Letting $T\rightarrow+\infty$ yields (). \end{pf} \begin{lemme} Assume that $(\eta_n)_{n\ge1}$ and $(\gamma_n)$ satisfy $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$ with $\varepsilon<1$ and (). Then: \textup{(i)} for every $t\ge0$, for every bounded continuous function $f\dvtx\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, \[ \nu^{(n)}_t(\omega,f)-\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,f) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad\mbox{a.s.}; \] \textup{(ii)} if, moreover, a.s., every weak limit $\nu^{(\infty)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)$ of $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ is the distribution of a Markov process with semigroup $(Q_t^\omega)_{t\ge0}$, then, a.s., $\nu^{(\infty)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)$ is the distribution of a stationary process. \end{lemme} \begin{pf} (i) Let $f\dvtx\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a bounded continuous function. Since $\bar{X}_t^{(k)}=\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{N(k,t)}}$, we have \[ {\nu^{(n)}_t}(\omega,f)-{\nu^{(n)}_0}(\omega,f)=\frac{1}{H_n} \sum_{k=1}^n \eta_k \bigl(f\bigl(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{N(k-1,t)}}\bigr)-f(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}}) \bigr). \] From the very definition of $N(n,T)$ and $\tau(n,T)$, one checks that $N(k-1,T)\le n-1$ if and only if $\tau(n,T)\ge k$. Then, \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n \eta_k f\bigl(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}}\bigr) &=& \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^{\tau(n,t)}\eta_{N(k-1,t)+1} f\bigl(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{N(k-1,t)}}\bigr) \\ &&{} +\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k f(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}}) 1_{\{k-1\notin{N}(\{0,\ldots,n\},t)\}}. \end{eqnarray*} It follows that \begin{eqnarray*} {\nu^{(n)}_t}(\omega,f)-{\nu^{(n)}_0}(\omega,f) &=& \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^{\tau(n,t)} \bigl(\eta_k-\eta_{{N}(k-1,t)+1}\bigr) f\bigl(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{N(k-1,t)}}\bigr) \\ &&{} +\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{\tau(n,t)+1}^n\eta_k f\bigl(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{N(k-1,t)}}\bigr) \\ &&{} - \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k f(\bar{X}_{\Gamma_{k-1}})1_{\{k-1\notin{N}(\{0,\ldots,n\},t)\}}. \end{eqnarray*} Then, since $f$ is bounded and since \begin{eqnarray*} \sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k 1_{\{k-1\notin{N}(\{0,\ldots,n\},t)\}} &=& \sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k-\sum_{k=1}^{\tau(n,t)}\eta_{{N}(k-1,t)+1} \\ &\le & \sum_{k=1}^{\tau(n,t)} \bigl|\eta_k-\eta_{{N}(k-1,t)+1}\bigr| + \sum_{k=\tau(n,t)+1}^n\eta_k, \end{eqnarray*} we deduce that \[ \bigl|{\nu^{(n)}_t}(\omega,f)-{\nu^{(n)}_0}(\omega,f) \bigr| \le 2\|f\|_\infty\Biggl(\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^{\tau(n,t)} \bigl|\eta_k-\eta_{{N}(k-1,t)+1}\bigr| + \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=\tau(n,t)+1}^n\eta_k \Biggr). \] Hence, we have to show that the sequences of the right-hand side of the preceding inequality tend to 0. On the one hand, we observe that \[ \bigl|\eta_k-\eta_{{N}(k-1,t)+1}\bigr| \le \sum_{\ell=k+1}^{N(k-1,T)+1}|\eta_\ell -\eta_{\ell-1}|\le\max_{\ell\ge k+1} \frac{|\Delta{\eta_\ell}|}{\gamma_\ell} \sum_{\ell =k}^{N(k-1,T)+1}\gamma_\ell. \] Using the fact that $\sum_{\ell=k}^{N(k-1,T)+1}\gamma_\ell\le T+\gamma_1$ and condition () yields \[ \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^{\tau(n,t)} \bigl|\eta_k-\eta_{{N}(k-1,t)+1}\bigr| \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0. \] On the other hand, by $\mathbf{(C_{3,\varepsilon})}$, we have \[ \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^n\eta_k \le \frac{C}{H_n^{1-\varepsilon}}\sum_{k=\tau(n,T)+1}^{n}\gamma_k\le \frac{CT}{H_n^{1-\varepsilon}} \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0 \qquad\mbox{a.s.}, \] which completes the proof of (i). (ii) Let $\mathbb{Q}_+$ denote the set of non-negative rational numbers. Let $(f_\ell)_{\ell\ge1}$ be an everywhere dense sequence in $\mathcal{C}_K(\mathbb{R}^d)$ endowed with the topology of uniform convergence on compact sets. Since $\mathbb{Q}_+$ and $(f_\ell)_{\ell\ge1}$ are countable, we derive from (i) that there exists $\tilde{\Omega}\subset\Omega$ such that \mbox{$\mathbb{P}(\tilde{\Omega})=1$} and such that for every $\omega\in\tilde{\Omega}$, every $t\in\mathbb{Q}_+$ and every $\ell\ge1$, \[ \nu^{(n)}_t(\omega,f_\ell)-\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,f_\ell) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0. \] Let $\omega\in\tilde{\Omega}$ and let $\nu^{(\infty)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)$ denote a weak limit of $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$. We have \[ \nu^{(\infty)}_t(\omega,f_\ell)=\nu^{(\infty)}_0 (\omega,f_\ell) \qquad\forall t\in\mathbb{Q}_+ \ \forall\ell\ge1 \] and we easily deduce that \[ \nu^{(\infty)}_t(\omega,f)=\nu^{(\infty)}_0(\omega,f)\qquad \forall t\in\mathbb{R}_+\ \forall f\in\mathcal{C}_K(\mathbb{R}^d). \] Hence, if $\nu^{(\infty)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)$ is the distribution of a Markov process $(Y_t)$ with semigroup $(Q_t^\omega)_{t\ge0}$, we have, for all $f\in\mathcal{C}_K(\mathbb{R}^d)$, \[ \int Q_t^\omega f(x)\nu_0^{(\infty)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}x) = \int f(x)\nu_0^{(\infty)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}x) \qquad\forall t\ge0. \] $\nu_0^{(\infty)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}x)$ is then an invariant distribution for $(Y_t)$. This completes the proof. \end{pf} \subsection[Proof of Theorem 1]{Proof of Theorem \protect} Thanks to Lemma (a) applied with $E=\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $d$ defined by (), \begin{equation} \nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)\stackrel{(Sk)} {\Longrightarrow}\mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}(\mathrm{d}\alpha) \qquad \mbox{a.s.}\Longleftrightarrow{{\nu}^{(n)}}(\omega,F) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow} \int F(x)\mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}(\mathrm{d}x)\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} \noindent for every bounded Lipschitz functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. Now, consider such a functional. By the assumptions of Theorem , we know that a.s., $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ converges weakly to ${\nu_0}$. Set $\Phi^F(x):=\mathbb{E}[F(X^x)]$, $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$. By Lemma (a), $\Phi^F$ is a bounded continuous function on $\mathbb{R}^d$. It then follows from $\mathbf{(C_{0,1})}$ that \[ \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k\Phi^F \bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow} \int\Phi^F(x){\nu_0}(\mathrm{d}x) = \int F(x)\mathbb{P}_{\nu_0}(\mathrm{d}x)\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \] Hence, the right-hand side of () holds for $F$ as soon as \begin{equation} \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k\bigl (F\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}\bigr) - \Phi^F\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) \bigr) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} Let us prove (). First, let $T>0$ and let $F_T$ be defined by (). By Lemma , \begin{equation} \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k F_T\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}\bigr) - \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k\mathbb{E} \bigl[F_T\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}\bigr)/\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\Gamma_{k-1}}\bigr] \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} With the notation of Lemma (b), we derive from assumption $\mathbf{(C_2)}$(i) that \[ \mathbb{E}\bigl[F_T\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}\bigr)/ \bar{\mathcal{F}}_{\Gamma_{k-1}}\bigr] =\Phi^{F_T}_k\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr). \] Let $N\in\mathbb{N}$. On one hand, by Lemma (b), \begin{equation} \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl(\Phi^{F_T}_k\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) - \Phi^{F_T}\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) \bigr) 1_{\{|\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}|\le N\}} \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} On the other hand, the tightness of $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ yields \[ \psi(\omega,N):=\sup_{n\ge1}\bigl(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega ,(B(0,N)^c))\bigr)\stackrel{N\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \] It follows that, a.s., \begin{eqnarray} && \sup_{n\ge 1} \Biggl(\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl|\Phi^{F_T}_k\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) - \Phi^{F_T}\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) \bigr| 1_{\{|\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}|> N\}} \Biggr) \nonumber\\[-8pt] \\[-8pt] &&\quad \le 2\|F\|_\infty\psi(\omega,N) \stackrel{N\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0. \nonumber \end{eqnarray} Hence, a combination of () and () yields \begin{equation} \forall T>0\qquad \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl(\Phi^{F_T}_k\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) - \Phi^{F_T}\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) \bigr) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \end{equation} Finally, let $(T_\ell)_{\ell\ge1}$ be a sequence of positive numbers such that, $T_\ell\rightarrow+\infty$ when $\ell\rightarrow+\infty$. Combining () and (), we obtain that, a.s., for every $\ell\ge1$, \begin{eqnarray*} && \limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty} \Biggl|\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl(F\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}\bigr) - \Phi^F\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}\bigr) \bigr) \Biggr| \\ &&\quad \le \limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty} \Biggl|\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl(F\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}\bigr) - F_{T_\ell}\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}\bigr) \bigr) \Biggr| \\ &&\qquad {} +\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty} \Biggl|\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl(\Phi^{F_{T_\ell}}\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) - \Phi^{F}\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) \bigr) \Biggr|. \end{eqnarray*} By the definition of ${d}$, $|F-F_{T_\ell}|\le\mathrm{e}^{-T_\ell}$. Then, a.s., \[ \limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty} \Biggl|\frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl(F\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}\bigr) - \Phi^F\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}\bigr) \bigr) \Biggr| \le 2\mathrm{e}^{-T_\ell}\qquad\forall\ell\ge1. \] Letting $\ell\rightarrow+\infty$ implies (). The generalization to non-bounded functionals in Theorem is then derived from () and from a uniform integrability argument. \subsection[Proof of Theorem 2]{Proof of Theorem \protect} (i) We want to prove that the conditions of Lemma (b) are fulfilled. Since $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ is supposed to be a.s. tight, one can check that for every bounded Lipschitz functional $F\dvtx\mathbb{D}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, () is still valid. Then, let $(F_{\ell})_{\ell\ge1}$ be a sequence of bounded Lipschitz functionals. There exists $\tilde{\Omega}\subset\Omega$ with $\mathbb{P}(\tilde{\Omega})=1$ such that for every $\omega\in\tilde{\Omega}$, $(\nu^{(n)}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ is tight and \begin{equation} \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k \bigl(F_{\ell}\bigl(\bar{X}^{(k-1)}(\omega)\bigr) - \Phi^{F_{\ell}}\bigl(\bar{X}_0^{(k-1)}(\omega)\bigr) \bigr) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow}0\qquad\forall\ell\ge1. \end{equation} Let $\omega\in\tilde{\Omega}$ and let $\phi_\omega\dvtx\mathbb{N}\mapsto\mathbb{N}$ be an increasing function. As $(\nu^{(\phi_\omega(n))}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$ is tight, there exists a convergent subsequence $(\nu^{(\phi_\omega\circ\psi_\omega(n))}_0(\omega,\mathrm{d}x))_{n\ge1}$. We denote its weak limit by $\nu_\infty$. Since $\Phi^{F_{\ell}}$ is continuous for every $\ell\ge1$ (see Lemma (a)), \[ \nu^{(\phi_\omega\circ\psi_\omega(n))}_0(\omega,\Phi^{F_{\ell}}) \stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow} \nu_\infty(\Phi^{F_{\ell}}) =\int F_{\ell}(\alpha) \mathbb{P}_{\nu_\infty}(\mathrm{d}\alpha)\qquad \forall\ell\ge1. \] We then derive from () that for every $\ell\ge1$ \[ \nu^{(\phi_\omega\circ\psi_\omega(n))} (\omega,F_{\ell})\stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\longrightarrow} \int F_{\ell}(\alpha)\mathbb{P}_{\nu_\infty}(\mathrm{d}\alpha). \] It follows that the conditions of Lemma (b) are fulfilled with $\mathcal{U}=\{\mathbb{P}_\mu,\mu\in\mathcal{I}\}$, where \[ \mathcal{I}= \biggl\{\mu\in\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^d), \exists\omega\in\tilde{\Omega} \mbox{ and an increasing function } \phi\dvtx \mathbb{N}\mapsto\mathbb{N}, \mu=\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\nu^{(\phi(n))} (\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)\biggr\}. \] Hence, by Lemma (b), we deduce that $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ is a.s. tight with $\mathcal{U}$-valued limits. Finally, Theorem (ii) is a consequence of condition () and Lemma (ii). \section{Path-dependent option pricing in stationary stochastic volatility models} In this section, we propose a simple and efficient method to price options in stationary stochastic volatility (SSV) models. In most stochastic volatility (SV) models, the volatility is a mean reverting process. These processes are generally ergodic with a unique invariant distribution (the Heston model or the BNS model for instance (see below) but also the SABR model (see Hagan \textit{et al.} )$,\ldots)$. However, they are usually considered in SV models under a non-stationary regime, starting from a deterministic value (which usually turns out to be the mean of their invariant distribution). However, the instantaneous volatility is not easy to observe on the market since it is not a traded asset. Hence, it seems to be more natural to assume that it evolves under its stationary regime than to give it a deterministic value at time~0. \footnote{When one has sufficiently close observations of the stock price, it is in fact possible to derive a rough idea of the size of the volatility from the variations of the stock price (see, e.g., Jacod ). Then, using this information, a good compromise between a deterministic initial value and the stationary case may be to assume that the distribution $\mu_0$ of the volatility at time 0 is concentrated around the estimated value (see Section for application of our algorithm in this case).} From a purely calibration viewpoint, considering an SV model in its SSV regime will not modify the set of parameters used to generate the implied volatility surface, although it will modify its shape, mainly for short maturities. This effect can in fact be an asset of the SSV approach since it may correct some observed drawbacks of some models (see, e.g., the Heston model below). From a numerical point of view, considering SSV models is no longer an obstacle, especially when considering multi-asset models (in the unidimensional case, the stationary distribution can be made more or less explicit like in the Heston model; see below) since our algorithm is precisely devised to compute by simulation some expectations of functionals of processes under their stationary regime, even if this stationary regime cannot be directly simulated. As a first illustration (and a benchmark) of the method, we will describe in detail the algorithm for the pricing of Asian options in a Heston model. We will then show in our numerical results to what extent it differs, in terms of smile and skew, from the usual SV Heston model for short maturities. Finally, we will complete this section with a numerical test on Asian options in the BNS model where the volatility is driven by a tempered stable subordinator. Let us also mention that this method can be applied to other fields of finance like interest rates, and commodities and energy derivatives where mean-reverting processes play an important role. \subsection{Option pricing in the Heston SSV model} We consider a Heston stochastic volatility model. The dynamic of the asset price process $(S_t)_{t\ge0}$ is given by $S_0=s_0$ and \begin{eqnarray*} \mathrm{d}S_t &=& S_t\bigl(r\,\mathrm{d}t + \sqrt{(1-\rho^2)v_t}\,\mathrm{d}W^1_t + \rho\sqrt{v_t} \,\mathrm{d}W_t^2\bigr), \\ \mathrm{d}v_t &=& k({\theta}-v_t)\,\mathrm{d}t + \varsigma\sqrt{v_t}\,\mathrm{d}W_t^2, \end{eqnarray*} where $r$ denotes the interest rate, $(W^1,W^2)$ is a standard two-dimensional Brownian motion, $\rho\in[-1,1]$ and $k$, $\theta$ and $\varsigma$ are some non-negative numbers. This model was introduced by Heston in 1993 (see Heston ). The equation for $(v_t)$ has a unique (strong) pathwise continuous solution living in $\mathbb{R}_+$. If, moreover, $2k\theta>\varsigma^2$, then $(v_t)$ is a positive process (see Lamberton and Lapeyre ). In this case, $(v_t)$ has a unique invariant probability ${\nu_0}$. Moreover, ${\nu_0}=\gamma(a,b)$ with $a=(2k)/\varsigma^2$ and $b=(2k\theta)/\varsigma^2$. In the following, we will assume that $(v_t)$ is in its stationary regime, that is, that \[ \mathcal{L}(v_0)={\nu_0}. \] \subsubsection{Option price and stationary processes} Using our procedure to price options in this model naturally needs to express the option price as the expectation of a functional of a stationary stochastic process. \textbf{Na\"{\i}ve method.} (may work) Since $(v_t)_{t\ge0}$ is stationary, the first idea is to express the option price as the expectation of a functional of $(v_t)_{t\ge0}$: by It\^{o} calculus, we have \begin{equation} S_t=s_0\exp\biggl(\biggl(rt-\tfrac{1}{2}\int_0^tv_s\,\mathrm{d}s\biggr) +\rho\int_0^t\sqrt{v_s}\,\mathrm{d}W_s^2 + \sqrt{1-\rho^2}\int_0^t\sqrt{v_s}\,\mathrm{d}W^1_s \biggr). \end{equation} Since \[ \int_0^t\sqrt{v_s}\,\mathrm{d}W_s^2 = \Lambda(t,(v_t)):=\frac{v_t-v_0-k\theta t+k\int_0^t v_s\,\mathrm{d}s}{\varsigma}, \] it follows by setting $M_t=\int_0^t\sqrt{v_s}\,\mathrm{d}W^1_s$ that \begin{equation} S_t=\Psi(t,(v_s),(M_s)), \end{equation} where $\Psi$ is given for every $t\ge0$, $u$ and $w\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R})$ by \[ \Psi(t,u,w)=s_0\exp\biggl(\biggl(rt-\tfrac{1}{2}\int_0^t u(s)\,\mathrm{d}s\biggr)+\rho\Lambda(t,u)+\sqrt{1-\rho^2}w(t) \biggr). \] Then, let $F\dvtx\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a non-negative measurable functional. Conditioning by $\mathcal{F}^{W^2}_T$ yields \[ \mathbb{E}[F_T((S_t)_{t\ge0})]=\mathbb{E}[\tilde{F}_T((v_t)_{t\ge0})], \] where, for every $u\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R})$, \[ \tilde{F}_T(u)=\mathbb{E}\biggl[F_T\biggl(\biggl(\Psi\biggl(t,u, \int_0^t\sqrt{u(s)}\,\mathrm{d}W_s^1\biggr)\biggr)_{t\ge0}\biggr)\biggr]. \] For some particular options such as the European call or put (thanks to the Black--Scholes formula), the functional $\tilde{F}$ is explicit. In those cases, this method seems to be very efficient (see Panloup for numerical results). However, in the general case, the computation of $\tilde{F}$ will need some Monte Carlo methods at each step. This approach is then very time-consuming in general -- that is why we are going to introduce another representation of the option as a functional of a stationary process. \textbf{General method.} (always works) We express the option premium as the expectation of a functional of a two-dimensional stationary stochastic process. This method is based on the following idea. Even though $(v_t,M_t)$ is not stationary, $(S_t)$ can be expressed as a functional of a stationary process $(v_t,y_t)$. Indeed, consider the following SDE given by \begin{equation} \cases{ \mathrm{d}y_t=-y_t\,\mathrm{d}t+\sqrt{v_t}\,\mathrm{d}W_t^1,\cr \mathrm{d}v_t=k({\theta}-v_t)\,\mathrm{d}t+\varsigma\sqrt{v_t}\,\mathrm{d}W_t^2.} \end{equation} First, one checks that the SDE has a unique strong solution and that assumption $\mathbf{(S_1)}$ is fulfilled with $V(x_1,x_2)=1+x_1^2+x_2^2$. This ensures the existence of an invariant distribution $\tilde{{\nu}}_0$ for the SDE (see, e.g., Pag\`es ). Then, since $(v_t)$ is positive and has a unique invariant distribution, the uniqueness of the invariant distribution follows. Then, assume that $\mathcal{L}(y_0,v_0)=\tilde{{\nu}}_0$. Since $(v_t,M_t)=(v_t,y_t-y_0+\int_0^ty_s\,\mathrm{d}s)$, we have, for every positive measurable functional $F\dvtx\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}_+,\mathbb{R})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, \begin{eqnarray} \mathbb{E}[F_T((S_t)_{t\ge0})]&=& \mathbb{E}[F_T((\psi(t,v_t,M_t))_{t\ge0})] \nonumber\\[-8pt] \\[-8pt] &=& \mathbb{E}_{\tilde{{\nu_0}}} \biggl[F_T\biggl(\biggl(\psi\biggl(t,v_t,y_t-y_0 + \int_0^ty_s\,\mathrm{d}s\biggr)\biggr)_{t\ge0}\biggr)\biggr], \nonumber \end{eqnarray} where $\mathbb{P}_{\tilde{{\nu_0}}}$ is the stationary distribution of the process $(v_t,y_t)$. Every option price can then be expressed as the expectation of an explicit functional of a stationary process. We will develop this second general approach in the numerical tests below. \begin{Remarque} The idea of the second method holds for every stochastic volatility model for which~$(S_t)$ can be written as follows: \begin{equation} S_t=\Phi\Biggl(t,v_t,\sum_{i=1}^p\int_0^t h_i(|v_s|)\,\mathrm{d}Y^i_s\Biggr), \end{equation} where, for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,p\}$, $h_i\dvtx\mathbb{R}_+\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a positive function such that $h_i(x)=o(|x|)$ as $|x|\rightarrow+\infty$, $(Y_t^i)$ is a square-integrable centered L\'{e}vy process and $(v_t)$ is a mean reverting stochastic process solution to a L\'{e}vy driven SDE. In some complex models, showing the uniqueness of the invariant distribution may be difficult. In fact, it is important to note at this stage that the uniqueness of the invariant distribution for the couple $(v_t,y_t)$ is not required. Indeed, by construction, the local martingale $(M_t)$ does not depend on the choice of $y_0$. It follows that if $\mathcal{L}(y_0,v_0)=\tilde{\mu}$, with $\tilde{\mu}$ constructed such that $\mathcal{L}(v_0)={\nu_0}$, () still holds. This implies that it is only necessary that uniqueness holds for the invariant distribution of the stochastic volatility process. \end{Remarque} \subsubsection{Numerical tests on Asian options} We recall that $(v_t)$ is a Cox--Ingersoll--Ross process. For this type of processes, it is well known that the genuine Euler scheme cannot be implemented since it does not preserve the non-negativity of the $(v_t)$. That is why some specific discretization schemes have been studied by several authors (Alfonsi , Deelstra and Delbaen and Berkaoui \textit{et al.} ). In this paper, we consider the scheme studied by the last authors in a decreasing step framework. We denote it by $(\bar{v}_t)$. We set $\bar{v}_0=x>0$ and \[ \bar{v}_{\Gamma_{n+1}}= \bigl|\bar{v}_{\Gamma_n}+k\gamma_{n+1} (\theta-\bar{v}_{\Gamma_n})+ \varsigma\sqrt{\bar{v}_{\Gamma_n}} (W^2_{\Gamma_{n+1}}-W^2_{\Gamma_n}) \bigr|. \] We also introduce the stepwise constant Euler scheme $(\bar{y}_t)$ of $(y_t)_{t\ge0}$ defined by \[ \bar{y}_{\Gamma_{n+1}}=\bar{y}_{{\Gamma_n}}-\gamma_{n+1} \bar{y}_{\Gamma_n}+\sqrt{\bar{v}_{\Gamma_n}} (\tilde{W}^1_{\Gamma_{n+1}}-\tilde{W}^1_{\Gamma_{n}}),\qquad \bar{y}_0=y\in\mathbb{R}^d. \] Denote by $(\bar{v}_t^{(k)})$ and $(\bar{y}_t^{(k)})$ the shifted processes defined by $\bar{v}_t^{(k)}:=\bar{v}_{\Gamma_k+t}$ and $\bar{y}_t^{(k)}=\bar{y}_{\Gamma_k+t}$, and let $(\nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha))_{n\ge1}$ be the sequence of empirical measures defined by \[ \nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha) = \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k 1_{\{(\bar{v}^{(k-1)},\bar{y}^{(k-1)})\in d\alpha\}}. \] The specificity of both the model and the Euler scheme implies that Theorems and cannot be directly applied here. However, a specific study using the fact that () holds for every compact set of $\mathbb{R}_+^*\times\mathbb{R}$ when $2k\theta/\varsigma^2>1+2\sqrt{6}/\varsigma$ (see Theorem 2.2 of Berkaoui \textit{et al.} and Remark~) shows that \[ \nu^{(n)}(\omega,\mathrm{d}\alpha)\stackrel{n\rightarrow+\infty} {\Longrightarrow}\mathbb{P}_{\tilde{\nu}_0} (\mathrm{d}\alpha)\qquad \mbox{a.s.} \] when $2k\theta/\varsigma^2>1+2\sqrt{6}/\varsigma$. Details are left to the reader. Let us now state our numerical results obtained for the pricing of Asian options with this discretization. We denote by $C_{as}(\nu_0,K,T)$ and $P_{as}(\nu_0,K,T)$ the Asian call and put prices in the SSV Heston model. We have \begin{eqnarray*} C_{as}(\nu_0,K,T)=\mathrm{e}^{-rT}\mathbb{E}_{\nu_0} \biggl[\biggl(\frac{1}{T}\int_0^TS_s\,\mathrm{d}s-K\biggr)_+\biggr] \end{eqnarray*} and \[ P_{as}(\nu_0,K,T)=\mathrm{e}^{-rT}\mathbb{E}_{\nu_0} \biggl[\biggl(K-\frac{1}{T}\int_0^TS_s\,\mathrm{d}s\biggr)_+\biggr]. \] With the notation of (), approximating $C_{as}(\nu_0,K,T)$ and $P_{as}(\nu_0,K,T)$ by our procedure needs to simulate the sequences $(C_{as}^n)_{n\ge1}$ and $(P_{as}^n)_{n\ge1}$ defined by \begin{eqnarray*} C_{as}^n &=& \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k\mathrm{e}^{-rT} \biggl(\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\Psi \bigl(s,\bar{v}^{(k-1)},\bar{M}^{(k-1)}\bigr)\,\mathrm{d}s -K \biggr)_+, \\ P_{as}^n &=& \frac{1}{H_n}\sum_{k=1}^n\eta_k\mathrm{e}^{-rT} \biggl(K-\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\Psi \bigl(s,\bar{v}^{(k-1)},\bar{M}^{(k-1)}\bigr)\,\mathrm{d}s \biggr)_+. \end{eqnarray*} These sequences can be computed by the method developed in Section . Note that the specific properties of the exponential function and the linearity of the integral imply that $(\int_0^T\Psi(t,\bar{v}^{(n-1)},\bar{M}^{(n-1)})\,\mathrm{d}s)$ can be computed quasi-recursively. \begin{table}[b] \caption{Approximation of the Asian call price } \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} lccccccc@{}} \hline $K$ & 44 &45& 46&47 & 48&49&50 \\ \hline Asian call (ref.) & \textbf{6.92} &\textbf{5.97}& \textbf{5.04}& \textbf{4.12} &\textbf{3.25} & \textbf{2.46} & \textbf{1.78}\\ $N=5\cdot10^4$& 6.89& 6.07& 5.07& 4.13& 3.18& 2.49& 1.77\\ $N=5\cdot10^5$& 6.90 & 6.02& 5.00& 4.11& 3.24& 2.46& 1.79\\ $N=5\cdot10^4$ (CP parity)& 6.92& 5.96& 5.04& 4.13& 3.26& 2.46& 1.78\\ $N=5\cdot10^5$ (CP parity)&6.92& 5.97& 5.04& 4.12& 3.25& 2.47& 1.78 \end{tabular*} \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} lcccccc@{}} \hline $K$ & 51 &52& 53&54 & 55&56 \\ \hline Asian call (ref.)& \textbf{1.23} & \textbf{0.82} & \textbf{0.53}& \textbf{0.33} &\textbf{0.21}& \textbf{0.12}\\ $N=5\cdot10^4$&1.21& 0.81 & 0.51& 0.34& 0.22& 0.11\\ $N=5\cdot10^5$& 1.23& 0.82& 0.53& 0.33& 0.21& 0.13 \\ $N=5\cdot10^4$ (CP parity)& 1.23& 0.82& 0.53& 0.31& 0.21& 0.12\\ $N=5\cdot10^5$(CP parity)& 1.23& 0.82& 0.53& 0.33& 0.21 & 0.13\\ \hline \end{tabular*} \end{table} Let us state our numerical results for the Asian call with parameters \begin{eqnarray} s_0 &=& 50,\qquad r=0.05 ,\qquad T=1 ,\qquad \rho=0.5,\qquad \nonumber\\[-8pt] \\[-8pt] \theta &=&0.01,\qquad \varsigma=0.1,\qquad k=2. \nonumber \end{eqnarray} We also assume that $K\in\{44,\ldots,56\}$ and choose the following steps and weights: $\gamma_n=\eta_n=n^{-{1}/{3}}$. In Table , we first state the reference value for the Asian call price obtained for $N=10^8$ iterations. In the two following lines, we state our results for $N=5.10^4$ and $N=5.10^5$ iterations. Then, in the last lines, we present the numerical results obtained using the call-put parity \begin{equation} C_{as}(\nu_0,K,T)-P_{as}(\nu_0,S_0,K,T)=\frac{s_0}{rT} (1- \mathrm{e}^{-rT}) -K\mathrm{e}^{-rT} \end{equation} as a means of variance reduction. The computation times for $N=5.10^4$ and $N=5.10^5$ (using MATLAB with a Xeon 2.4 GHz processor) are about $5$ s and 51~s, respectively. In particular, the complexity is quasi-linear and the additional computations needed when we use the call-put parity are negligible. \subsection{Implied volatility surfaces of Heston SSV and SV models} Given a particular pricing model (with initial value $s_0$ and interest rate $r$) and its associated European call prices denoted by $C_{\mathrm{eur}}(K,T)$, we recall that the implied volatility surface is the graph of the function $(K,T)\mapsto\sigma_{\mathrm{imp}}(K,T)$, where $\sigma_{\mathrm{imp}}(K,T)$ is defined for every maturity $T>0$ and strike $K$ as the unique solution of \[ C_{BS}(s_0,K,T,r,\sigma_{\mathrm{imp}}(K,T))=C_{\mathrm{eur}}(K,T), \] where $C_{BS}(s_0,K,T,r,\sigma)$ is the price of the European call in the Black--Scholes model with parameters $s_0$, $r$ and $\sigma$. When $C_{\mathrm{eur}}(K,T)$ is known, the value of $\sigma_{\mathrm{imp}}(K,T)$ can be numerically computed using the Newton method or by dichotomy if the first method is not convergent. In this last part, we compare the implied volatility surfaces induced by the SSV and SV Heston models where we suppose that the initial value of $(v_t)$ in the SV Heston model is the mean of the invariant distribution, that is, we suppose that $v_0=\theta$. We also assume that the parameters are those of (), except the correlation coefficient $\rho$. In Figures and , the volatility curves obtained when $T=1$ are depicted, whereas in Figures and , we set the strike $K$ at $K=50$ and let the time vary. These representations show that when the maturity is long, the differences between the SSV and SV Heston models vanish. This is a consequence of the convergence of the stochastic volatility to its stationary regime when $T\rightarrow+\infty$. The main differences between these models then appear for short maturities. That is why we complete this part by a representation of the volatility curve when $T=0.1$ for $\rho=0$ and $\rho=0.5$ in Figures and , respectively. We observe that for short maturities, the volatility smile is more curved and the skew is steeper. These phenomena seem interesting for calibration since one well-known drawback of the standard Heston model is that it can have overly flat volatility curves for short maturities. \begin{table} \caption{Approximation of the Asian call price in the BNS model} \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} lccccccc@{}} \hline $K$ & 44 &45& 46&47 & 48&49&50 \\ \hline Asian call (ref.) & \textbf{6.75} &\textbf{5.83}& \textbf{4.93}& \textbf{4.05} & \textbf{3.18} & \textbf{2.35} &\textbf{1.57}\\ $N=5\cdot10^4$& 6.83 & 5.91& 5.01 &4.10& 3.22& 2.35& 1.51 \\ $N=5\cdot10^5$& 6.78 & 5.86& 4.96 & 4.06& 3.19 &2.34& 1.52 \\ $N=5\cdot10^4$ (CP parity)& 6.76 & 5.85& 4.94& 4.07& 3.20& 2.29& 1.51\\ $N=5\cdot10^5$ (CP parity)& 6.75 & 5.83& 4.93& 4.04& 3.17& 2.32& 1.54 \end{tabular*} \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} lcccccc@{}} \hline $K$ & 51 &52& 53&54 & 55&56 \\ \hline Asian call (ref.)& \textbf{0.91}& \textbf{0.55}& \textbf{0.39} &\textbf{0.29} &\textbf{0.23} & \textbf{0.18} \\ $N=5\cdot10^4$& 0.77& 0.46& 0.33& 0.27& 0.22& 0.19\\ $N=5\cdot10^5$& 0.79 & 0.48& 0.34& 0.27& 0.21& 0.17 \\ $N=5\cdot10^4$ (CP parity)&0.79& 0.47& 0.37& 0.27& 0.23& 0.19\\ $N=5\cdot10^5$(CP parity)& 0.83& 0.50& 0.36& 0.28& 0.22& 0.17\\ \hline \end{tabular*} \vspace*{-6pt} \end{table} \subsection{Numerical tests on Asian options in the BNS SSV model} The BNS model introduced in Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard is a stochastic volatility model where the volatility process is a L\'{e}vy-driven positive Ornstein--Uhlenbeck process. The dynamic of the asset price $(S_t)$ is given by $S_t=S_0\exp(X_t)$, \begin{eqnarray*} \mathrm{d}X_t &=& \bigl(r-\tfrac{1}{2}v_t\bigr)\,\mathrm{d}t + \sqrt{v_t}\,\mathrm{d}W_t+\rho \,\mathrm{d}Z_t, \qquad\rho\le 0, \\ \mathrm{d}v_t &=& -\mu v_t\,\mathrm{d}t+\mathrm{d}Z_t,\qquad\mu>0, \end{eqnarray*} where $(Z_t)$ is a subordinator without drift term and L\'{e}vy measure $\pi$. In the following, we assume that $(Z_t)$ is a tempered stable subordinator, that is, that \[ \pi(\mathrm{d}y)=1_{\{y>0\}} \frac{c\exp(-\lambda y)}{y^{1+\alpha}}\,\mathrm{d}y, \qquad c>0, \lambda>0, \alpha\in(0,1). \] As in the Heston model, we want to use our algorithm as a way of option pricing when the stochastic volatility evolves under its stationary regime and test it on Asian options using the method described in detail in Section . This model does not require a specific discretization and the approximate Euler scheme (P) (see Section ) relative to $(v_t)$ can be implemented using the rejection method. In Table , we present our numerical results obtained for the following choices of parameters, steps and weights: \[ \rho=-1,\qquad \lambda=\mu=1,\qquad c=0.01,\qquad \alpha=\tfrac{1}{2},\qquad \gamma_n=\eta_n=n^{-{1}/{3}}. \] The computation times for $N=5.10^4$ and $N=5.10^5$ are about 8.5 s and 93 s, respectively. Note that for this model, the convergence seems to be slower because of the approximation of the jump component. \section*{Acknowledgement} The authors would like to thank Vlad Bally for interesting comments on the paper. \begin{thebibliography}{00} \bibitem{alfonsi} Alfonsi, A. (2005). On the discretization schemes for the CIR (and Bessel squared) processes. \textit{Monte Carlo Methods Appl.} \textbf {11} 355--384. \MR{2186814} \bibitem{rosinski} Asmussen, S. and Rosinski, J. (2001). Approximations of small jumps of L\'{e}vy processes with a view towards simulation. \textit{J. Appl. Probab.} \textbf{38} 482--493. \MR{1834755} \bibitem{barndorffshephard} Barndorff-Nielsen, O.E. and Shephard, N. (2001). Modelling by L\'{e}vy processes for financial economics. In \textit{L\'{e}vy Processes} 283--318. Boston: Birkh\"auser. \MR{1833702} \bibitem{berkaoui} Berkaoui, A., Bossy, M. and Diop, A. (2008). Euler scheme for SDE's with non-Lipschitz diffusion coefficient: Strong convergence. \textit{ESAIM Probab. Statist.} \textbf{12} 1--11. \MR{2367990} \bibitem{delstra} Deelstra, G. and Delbaen, F. (1998). Convergence of discretized stochastic (interest rate) processes with stochastic drift term. \textit{Appl. Stochastic Models Data Anal.} \textbf{14} 77--84. \MR{1641781} \bibitem{diop} Diop, A. (2003). Sur la discr\'{e}tisation et le comportement \`{a} petit bruit d'EDS unidimensionnelles dont les coefficients sont \`{a} d\'{e}riv\'{e}es singuli\`{e}res. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Nice Sophia Antipolis. \bibitem{bib4} Ethier, S. and Kurtz, T. (1986). \textit{Markov Processes, Characterization and Convergence}. \textit{Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics: Probability and Mathematical Statistics}. New York: Wiley. \MR{0838085} \bibitem{hagan} Hagan, D., Kumar, D., Lesniewsky, A. and Woodward, D. (2002). Managing smile risk. \textit{Wilmott Magazine} \textbf{9} 84--108. \bibitem{heston} Heston, S. (1993). A closed-form solution for options with stochastic volatility with applications to bond and currency options. \textit{Review of Financial Studies} \textbf{6} 327--343. \bibitem{jacodpower} Jacod, J. (2008). Asymptotic properties of realized power variations and related functionals of semimartingales. \textit{Stochastic Process. Appl.} \textbf{118} 517--559. \MR{2394762} \bibitem{lamblapeyre} Lamberton, D. and Lapeyre, B. (1996). \textit{Introduction to Stochastic Calculus Applied to Finance}. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC. \MR{1422250} \bibitem{LP1} Lamberton, D. and Pag\`es, G. (2002). Recursive computation of the invariant distribution of a diffusion. \textit{Bernoulli} \textbf{8} 367--405. \MR{1913112} \bibitem{LP2} Lamberton, D. and Pag\`es, G. (2003). Recursive computation of the invariant distribution of a diffusion: The case of a weakly mean reverting drift. \textit{Stoch. Dynamics} \textbf{4} 435--451. \MR{2030742} \bibitem{lemaire2} Lemaire, V. (2007). An adaptive scheme for the approximation of dissipative systems. \textit{Stochastic Process. Appl.} \textbf{117} 1491--1518. \MR{2353037} \bibitem{lemaire1} Lemaire, V. (2005). Estimation num\'{e}rique de la mesure invariante d'un processus de diffusion. Ph.D.~thesis, Univ. Marne-La Vall\'{e}e. \bibitem{pagesthese} Pag\`{e}s, G. (1985). Th\'{e}or\`{e}mes limites pour les semi-martingales. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Paris VI. \bibitem{bib14} Pag\`es, G. (2001). Sur quelques algorithmes r\'ecursifs pour les probabilit\'es num\'eriques. \textit{ESAIM Probab. Statist.} \textbf{5} 141--170. \MR{1875668} \bibitem{panloup1} Panloup, F. (2008). Recursive computation of the invariant measure of a {SDE} driven by a L\'{e}vy process. \textit{Ann. Appl. Probab.} \textbf{18} 379--426. \MR{2398761} \bibitem{panloup3} Panloup, F. (2008). Computation of the invariant measure of a {L}\'{e}vy driven SDE: Rate of convergence. \textit{Stochastic Process. Appl.} \textbf{118} 1351--1384. \bibitem{panloup2} Panloup, F. (2006). Approximation du r\'{e}gime stationnaire d'une {EDS} avec sauts. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Paris VI. \bibitem{protter} Protter, P. (1990). \textit{Stochastic Integration and Differential Equations}. Berlin: Springer. \MR{1037262} \bibitem{partha} Parthasarathy, K.R. (1967). \textit{Probability Measures on Metric Spaces}. New York: Academic Press. \MR{0226684} \end{thebibliography} \printhistory
|
0704.0340
|
Title: Phonon-mediated decay of an atom in a surface-induced potential
Abstract: We study phonon-mediated transitions between translational levels of an atom
in a surface-induced potential. We present a general master equation governing
the dynamics of the translational states of the atom. In the framework of the
Debye model, we derive compact expressions for the rates for both upward and
downward transitions. Numerical calculations for the transition rates are
performed for a deep silica-induced potential allowing for a large number of
bound levels as well as free states of a cesium atom. The total absorption rate
is shown to be determined mainly by the bound-to-bound transitions for deep
bound levels and by bound-to-free transitions for shallow bound levels.
Moreover, the phonon emission and absorption processes can be orders of
magnitude larger for deep bound levels as compared to the shallow bound ones.
We also study various types of transitions from free states. We show that, for
thermal atomic cesium with temperature in the range from 100 $\mu$K to 400
$\mu$K in the vicinity of a silica surface with temperature of 300 K, the
adsorption (free-to-bound decay) rate is about two times larger than the
heating (free-to-free upward decay) rate, while the cooling (free-to-free
downward decay) rate is negligible.
Body: \title{Phonon-mediated decay of an atom in a surface-induced potential} \author{Fam Le Kien,$^{1,*}$ S. Dutta Gupta,$^{1,2}$ and K. Hakuta$^{1}$} \affiliation{ $^1$Department of Applied Physics and Chemistry, University of Electro-Communications, Chofu, Tokyo 182-8585, Japan\\ $^2$School of Physics, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India} \date{\today} \begin{abstract} We study phonon-mediated transitions between translational levels of an atom in a surface-induced potential. We present a general master equation governing the dynamics of the translational states of the atom. In the framework of the Debye model, we derive compact expressions for the rates for both upward and downward transitions. Numerical calculations for the transition rates are performed for a deep silica-induced potential allowing for a large number of bound levels as well as free states of a cesium atom. The total absorption rate is shown to be determined mainly by the bound-to-bound transitions for deep bound levels and by bound-to-free transitions for shallow bound levels. Moreover, the phonon emission and absorption processes can be orders of magnitude larger for deep bound levels as compared to the shallow bound ones. We also study various types of transitions from free states. We show that, for thermal atomic cesium with temperature in the range from 100 $\mu$K to 400 $\mu$K in the vicinity of a silica surface with temperature of 300 K, the adsorption (free-to-bound decay) rate is about two times larger than the heating (free-to-free upward decay) rate, while the cooling (free-to-free downward decay) rate is negligible. \end{abstract} \pacs{34.50.Dy,33.70.Ca} \maketitle \section{Introduction} Over the past few years, tight confinement of cold atoms has drawn considerable attention. The interest in this area is motivated not only by the fundamental nature of the problem, but also by its potential applications in atom optics and quantum information. A method for microscopic trapping and guiding of individual atoms along a nanofiber has been proposed . Surface--atom quantum electrodynamic effects have constituted another interesting area, where a great deal of work has been carried out. Modification of spontaneous emission of an atom and radiative exchange between two distant atoms mediated by a nanofiber have been investigated. Surface-induced deep potentials have played a major role and have received due attention in recent years. Oria \textit{et al.} have studied various theoretical schemes to load atoms into such potentials . A rigorous theory of spontaneous decay of an atom in a surface-induced potential invoking the density-matrix formalism has been developed . The role of interference between the emitted and reflected fields and also the role of transmission into the evanescent modes were identified. Further calculations on the excitation spectrum have been carried out . Bound-to-bound transitions were shown to lead to significant effects like a large red tail of the excitation spectrum as compared to the weak consequences of free-to-bound transitions. A crucial step in this direction was the experimental observation of the excitation spectrum and the channeling of the fluorescent photons along the nanofiber , opening up avenues for novel quantum information devices. In most of the problems involving surface--atom interaction, the macroscopic surface is usually kept at room temperature. Thus the pertinent question that can be asked is what would be the effect of heating on the cold atoms. It is understood that transfer of heat to the trapped atoms will lead to a change in the occupation probability of the vibrational levels as well as their coherence. Phonon-induced changes in the populations of the vibrational levels have been studied by several groups . In a nice and compact treatment based on the dyadic Green function and the Fermi golden rule, Henkel \textit{et al.} showed that the effects can be very different depending on the nature of the atomic/molecular species . The time scales for various species were estimated. It should be stressed that the trap considered by Henkel \textit{et al.} was not necessarily a surface trap and misses out on many of the aspects of the surface--atom interaction . Based on the assumption that the surface--atom interaction can be represented by a Morse potential, the phonon-mediated decay was estimated by Oria \textit{et al.} . Their estimate was based on the formalism developed by Gortel \textit{et al.} . However, all the previous theories focus on only the transition rates and thus are not general enough. In this paper, we present a general density-matrix formalism to calculate the phonon-mediated decay of populations as well as the changes in coherence. We derive the relevant master equation for the density matrix of the atom. We emphasize that our density-matrix equation describes the full dynamics of the coupling between trapped atoms and phonons and does not assume any particular form of the trapping potential. Under the Debye approximation, we derive compact expressions for the phonon-mediated decay rates. Numerical calculations are carried out assuming the potential model considered in . In contrast to the previous work, we include a large number of vibrational levels due to the deep surface--atom potential. We show that there can be significant differences in the decay rates when the initial level is chosen as one of the shallow or deep bound levels. We also calculate and analyze the decay rates for various types of transitions from free states. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\ we describe the model. In Sec.\ we derive the basic dynamical equations for the phonon-mediated decay processes. In Sec.\ we present the results of numerical calculations. Our conclusions are given in Sec.~. \section{Description of the model system} We assume the whole space to be divided into two regions, namely, the half-space $x<0$, occupied by a nondispersive nonabsorbing dielectric medium (medium 1), and the half-space $x>0$, occupied by vacuum (medium 2). We examine a single atom moving in the empty half-space $x>0$. We assume that the atom is in a fixed internal state $|i\rangle$ with energy $\hbar\omega_i$. Without loss of generality, we assume that the energy of the internal state $|i\rangle$ is zero, i.e. $\omega_i=0$. We describe the interaction between the atom and the surface. We first consider the surface-induced interaction potential and then add the atom-phonon interaction. \subsection{Surface-induced interaction potential} In this subsection, we describe the interaction between the atom and the surface in the case where thermal vibrations of the surface are absent. The potential energy of the surface--atom interaction is a combination of a long-range van der Waals attraction and a short-range repulsion . Despite a large volume of research on the surface--atom interaction, due to the complexity of surface physics and the lack of data, the actual form of the potential is yet to be ascertained . For the purpose of numerical demonstration of our formalism, we choose the following model for the potential : \begin{equation} U(x)=A e^{-\alpha x}-\frac{C_{3}}{x^3}. \end{equation} Here, $C_3$ is the van der Waals coefficient, while $A$ and $\alpha$ determine the height and range, respectively, of the surface repulsion. The potential parameters $C_{3}$, $A$, and $\alpha$ depend on the nature of the dielectric and the atom. In numerical calculations, we use the parameters of fused silica, for the dielectric, and the parameters of ground-state atomic cesium, for the atom. The parameters for the interaction between silica and ground-state atomic cesium are theoretically estimated to be $C_{3}=1.56$ kHz $\mu$m$^3$, $A=1.6\times 10^{18}$ Hz, and $\alpha=53$ nm$^{-1}$ . We introduce the notation $\varphi_{\nu}(x)$ for the eigenfunctions of the center-of-mass motion of the atom in the potential $U(x)$. They are determined by the stationary Schr\"{o}dinger equation \begin{equation} \left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+U(x)\right]\varphi_{\nu}(x) =\mathcal{E}_{\nu}\varphi_{\nu}(x). \end{equation} Here $m$ is the mass of the atom. In the numerical example with atomic cesium, we have $m=132.9$ a.u. $=2.21\times 10^{-25}$ kg. The eigenvalues $\mathcal{E}_{\nu}$ are the center-of-mass energies of the translational levels of the atom. These eigenvalues are the shifts of the energies of the translational levels from the energy of the internal state $|i\rangle$. Without loss of generality, we assume that the center-of-mass eigenfunctions $\varphi_{\nu}(x)$ are real functions, i.e. $\varphi_{\nu}^*(x)=\varphi_{\nu}(x)$. In Fig.~, we show the potential $U(x)$ and the wave functions $\varphi_{\nu}(x)$ of a number of bound levels with energies in the range from $-1$ GHz to $-5$ MHz. We also plot the wave function of a free state with energy of about 4.25 MHz. In order to have some estimate about the spatial extent of a wave function $\varphi_{\nu}(x)$, we define a crossing point $x_{\mathrm{cross}}$, which corresponds to the rightmost solution of the equation $U(x)=\mathcal{E}_\nu$. Note that, for shallow levels, the wave function generally peaks close to the point $x_{\mathrm{cross}}$. We plot the eigenvalue modulus $|\mathcal{E}_{\nu}|$ and the crossing point $x_{\mathrm{cross}}$ in Figs.~(a) and (b), respectively. It is clear from the figure that, for $\nu$ in the range from 0 to 300, the eigenvalue varies dramatically from about 158 THz to about 322 kHz, while the wave function extends only up to 170 nm. We introduce the notation $|\nu\rangle=|\varphi_{\nu}\rangle$ and $\omega_{\nu}=\mathcal{E}_{\nu}/\hbar$ for the state vectors and frequencies of translational levels. Then, the Hamiltonian of the atom in the surface-induced potential can be represented in the diagonal form \begin{equation} H_A=\sum_{\nu}\hbar\omega_{\nu}\sigma_{\nu\nu}. \end{equation} Here, $\sigma_{\nu\nu}=|\nu\rangle\langle \nu|$ is the population operator for the translational level $\nu$. We emphasize that the summation over $\nu$ includes both the discrete ($\mathcal{E}_{\nu}<0$) and continuous ($\mathcal{E}_{\nu}>0$) spectra. The levels $\nu$ with $\mathcal{E}_{\nu}<0$ are called the bound (or vibrational) levels. In such a state, the atom is bound to the surface. It is vibrating, or more exactly, moving back and forth between the walls formed by the van der Waals part and the repulsive part of the potential. The levels $\nu$ with $\mathcal{E}_{\nu}>0$ are called the free (or continuum) levels. The center-of-mass wave functions of the bound states are normalized to unity. The center-of-mass wave functions of the free states are normalized to the delta function of energy. \subsection{Atom--phonon interaction} In this subsection, we incorporate the thermal vibrations of the solid into the model. Due to the thermal effects, the surface of the dielectric vibrates. The surface-induced potential for the atom is then $U(x-x_s)$, where $x_s$ is the displacement of the surface from the mean position $\langle x_s\rangle=0$. We approximate the vibrating potential $U(x-x_s)$ by expanding it to the first order in $x_s$, \begin{equation} U(x-x_s)=U(x)-U'(x)x_s. \end{equation} The first term, $U(x)$, when combined with the kinetic energy $p^2/2m$, yields the Hamiltonian $H_A$ [see Eq. ()], which leads to the formation of translational levels of the atom. The second term, $-U'(x)x_s$, accounts for the thermal effects in the interaction of the atom with the solid. Note that the quantity $F=-U'(x)$ is the force of the surface upon the atom. Hence, the force of the atom upon the surface is $-F=U'(x)$ and, consequently, $U'(x)x_s$ is the work required to displace the surface for a small distance $x_s$. It is well known that, for a smooth surface, the gas atom interacts only with the phonons polarized along the $x$ direction . In the harmonic approximation, we have \begin{equation} x_s=\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\left(\frac{\hbar}{2MN\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}\right)^{1/2}(b_{\mathbf{q}}e^{i\mathbf{qR}}+b_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger e^{-i\mathbf{qR}}). \end{equation} Here, $M$ is the mass of a particle of the solid, $N$ is the particle number density, $\omega_{\mathbf{q}}$ and $\mathbf{q}$ are the frequency and wave vector of the $x$-polarized acoustic phonons, respectively, $\mathbf{R}=(0,y,z)$ is the lateral component of the position vector $(x,y,z)$ of the atom, and $b_{\mathbf{q}}$ and $b_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger$ are the annihilation and creation phonon operators, respectively. Without loss of generality, we choose $\mathbf{R}=0$. Meanwhile, the operator $U'$ can be decomposed as $U'=\sum_{\nu\nu'}\sigma_{\nu\nu'}\langle\nu|U'|\nu'\rangle$, where $\sigma_{\nu\nu'}=|\nu\rangle\langle\nu'|$ is the operator for the translational transition $\nu\leftrightarrow\nu'$. Hence, the energy term $-U'(x)x_s$ leads to the atom--phonon interaction Hamiltonian \begin{equation} H_I=\hbar\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}}S (b_{\mathbf{q}}+b_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger), \end{equation} with \begin{equation} S=\sum_{\nu\nu'}g_{\nu\nu'}\sigma_{\nu\nu'}. \end{equation} Here we have introduced the atom--phonon coupling coefficients \begin{equation} g_{\nu\nu'}=\frac{F_{\nu\nu'}}{\sqrt{2MN\hbar}}, \end{equation} with \begin{equation} F_{\nu\nu'}=-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\varphi_{\nu}(x)U'(x)\varphi_{\nu'}(x)dx \end{equation} being the matrix elements for the force of the surface upon the atom. We note that $F_{\nu\nu'}=-m\omega_{\nu\nu'}^2x_{\nu\nu'}$, where $x_{\nu\nu'}=\langle\nu|x|\nu'\rangle$ and $\omega_{\nu\nu'}=\omega_{\nu}-\omega_{\nu'}$ are the surface--atom dipole matrix element and the translational transition frequency, respectively. Hence, the coupling coefficient $g_{\nu\nu'}$ depends on the dipole matrix element $x_{\nu\nu'}$ and the transition frequency $\omega_{\nu\nu'}$. Since $\omega_{\nu\nu}=0$, we have $g_{\nu\nu}=0$. We note that the Hamiltonian of the $x$-polarized acoustic phonons is given by \begin{equation} H_B=\sum_{\mathbf{q}} \hbar\omega_{\mathbf{q}} b_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger b_{\mathbf{q}}. \end{equation} The total Hamiltonian of the atom--phonon system is \begin{equation} H=H_A+H_I+H_B. \end{equation} We use the above Hamiltonian to study the phonon-mediated decay of the atom. \section{Dynamics of the atom} In this section, we present the basic equations for the phonon-mediated decay processes. We derive a general master equation for the reduced density operator of the atom in subsection , obtain analytical expressions for the relaxation rates and frequency shifts in subsection , and calculate the rates and the shifts in the framework of the Debye model in subsection . \subsection{Master equation} In the Heisenberg picture, the equation for the phonon operator $b_{\mathbf{q}}(t)$ is \begin{equation} \dot{b}_{\mathbf{q}}(t)=-i\omega_{\mathbf{q}}b_{\mathbf{q}}(t)-\frac{i}{\sqrt{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}}S(t), \end{equation} which has a solution of the form \begin{equation} b_{\mathbf{q}}(t)=b_{\mathbf{q}}(t_0)e^{-i\omega_{\mathbf{q}}(t-t_0)}-iW_{\mathbf{q}}(t). \end{equation} Here, $t_0$ is the initial time and $W_{\mathbf{q}}$ is given by \begin{equation} W_{\mathbf{q}}(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}}\int_{t_0}^te^{-i\omega_{\mathbf{q}}(t-\tau)}S(\tau)\,d\tau. \end{equation} Consider an arbitrary atomic operator $\mathcal{O} $ which acts only on the atomic states but not on the phonon states. The time evolution of this operator is governed by the Heisenberg equation \begin{equation} \frac{\partial \mathcal{O}(t)}{\partial t} = \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}[H_A(t)+H_I(t),\mathcal{O}(t)], \end{equation} which, with account of Eqs. () and (), yields \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{\frac{\partial \mathcal{O}(t)}{\partial t} = \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}[H_A(t),\mathcal{O}(t)]} \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\frac{i}{\sqrt{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}} [S(t),\mathcal{O}(t)] [b_{\mathbf{q}}(t_0)e^{-i\omega_{\mathbf{q}}(t-t_0)}-iW_{\mathbf{q}}(t)] \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} -\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\frac{i}{\sqrt{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}} [b_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger(t_0)e^{i\omega_{\mathbf{q}}(t-t_0)}+iW_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger(t)][\mathcal{O}(t),S(t)]. \nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} We assume the initial density of the atom--phonon system to be the direct product state \begin{equation} \rho_{\Sigma}(t_0)= \rho(t_0) \rho_B(t_0), \end{equation} with the atom in an arbitrary state $\rho(t_0)$ and the phonons in a thermal state \begin{equation} \rho_B(t_0)=Z^{-1}\exp[-H_B(t_0)/k_BT]. \end{equation} Here, $Z$ is the normalization constant and $T$ is the temperature of the phonon bath. For the initial condition (), the Bogolubov's lemma , applied to an arbitrary operator $\Theta(t)$, asserts the following: \begin{equation} \langle \Theta(t)b_{\mathbf{q}}(t_0) \rangle=\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}\langle [b_{\mathbf{q}}(t_0),\Theta(t)] \rangle, \end{equation} where the mean number of phonons in the mode $\mathbf{q}$ is given by \begin{equation} \bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}=\frac{1}{\exp(\hbar\omega_{\mathbf{q}}/k_BT)-1}. \end{equation} Let $\Theta$ be an atomic operator. We then have the commutation relation $[b_{\mathbf{q}}(t),\Theta(t)]=0$, which yields \begin{equation} [b_{\mathbf{q}}(t_0),\Theta(t)]=ie^{i\omega_{\mathbf{q}}(t-t_0)}[W_{\mathbf{q}}(t),\Theta(t)]. \end{equation} Combining Eq. () with Eq. () leads to \begin{equation} \langle \Theta(t)b_{\mathbf{q}}(t_0) \rangle = ie^{i\omega_{\mathbf{q}}(t-t_0)}\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}\langle [W_{\mathbf{q}}(t),\Theta(t)] \rangle. \end{equation} We perform the quantum mechanical averaging for expression () and use Eq. () to eliminate the phonon operators $b_{\mathbf{q}}(t_0)$ and $b_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger(t_0)$. The resulting equation can be written as \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{\frac{\partial \langle\mathcal{O}(t)\rangle}{\partial t} = \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}\langle[H_A(t),\mathcal{O}(t)]\rangle} \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}+1}{\sqrt{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}} \langle[S(t),\mathcal{O}(t)]W_{\mathbf{q}}(t)+W_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger(t)[\mathcal{O}(t),S(t)] \rangle \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}}{\sqrt{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}} \langle W_{\mathbf{q}}(t) [\mathcal{O}(t),S(t)] + [S(t),\mathcal{O}(t)]W_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger(t)\rangle. \nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} We note that Eq. () is exact. It does not contain phonon operators explicitly. The dependence on the phonon operators is hidden in the time shift of the operator $S(\tau)$ in expression () for the operator $W_{\mathbf{q}}(t)$. We now show how the dependence of the operator $W_{\mathbf{q}}(t)$ on the phonon operators can be approximately eliminated. We assume that the atom--phonon coupling coefficients $g_{\nu\nu'}$ are small. The use of the zeroth-order approximation $\sigma_{\nu\nu'}(\tau)=\sigma_{\nu\nu'}(t)e^{i\omega_{\nu\nu'}(\tau-t)}$ in the expression for $S(\tau)$ [see Eq. ()] yields \begin{equation} S(\tau)=\sum_{\nu\nu'}g_{\nu\nu'}\sigma_{\nu\nu'}(t) e^{i\omega_{\nu\nu'}(\tau-t)}, \end{equation} which is accurate to first order in the coupling coefficients. Inserting Eq. () into Eq. () gives \begin{equation} W_{\mathbf{q}}(t)= \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}} \sum_{\nu\nu'}g_{\nu\nu'}\sigma_{\nu\nu'}(t) \delta_{-}(\omega_{\nu'\nu}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}), \end{equation} where \begin{eqnarray} \delta_{-}(\omega) &=&\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{0} e^{-i(\omega+i\epsilon)\tau} \,d\tau \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{i}{2\pi}\frac{P}{\omega}+\frac{1}{2}\delta(\omega). \end{eqnarray} Here, in order to take into account the effect of adiabatic turn-on of interaction, we have added a small positive parameter $\epsilon$ to the integral and have used the limit $t_0\to-\infty$. Introducing the notation \begin{equation} K_{\mathbf{q}}=\frac{W_{\mathbf{q}}}{\sqrt{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}} =\frac{2\pi}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} \sum_{\nu\nu'}g_{\nu\nu'}\sigma_{\nu\nu'} \delta_{-}(\omega_{\nu'\nu}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}), \end{equation} we can rewrite Eq. () in the form \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{\frac{\partial \langle\mathcal{O}(t)\rangle}{\partial t} = \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}\langle[H_A(t),\mathcal{O}(t)]\rangle} \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\sum_{\mathbf{q}} (\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}+1) \langle [S(t),\mathcal{O}(t)]K_{\mathbf{q}}(t)+K_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger(t)[\mathcal{O}(t),S(t)] \rangle \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\sum_{\mathbf{q}} \bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}} \langle K_{\mathbf{q}}(t) [\mathcal{O}(t),S(t)] + [S(t),\mathcal{O}(t)]K_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger(t)\rangle. \end{eqnarray} In order to examine the time evolution of the reduced density operator $\rho(t)$ of the atom in the Schr\"odinger picture, we use the relation $\langle\mathcal{O}(t)\rangle=\mathrm{Tr}[\mathcal{O}(t)\rho(0)] =\mathrm{Tr}[\mathcal{O}(0)\rho(t)]$, transform to arrange the operator $\mathcal{O}(0)$ at the first position in each operator product, and eliminate $\mathcal{O}(0)$. Then, we obtain the Liouville master equation \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial\rho(t)}{\partial t}&=& -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}[H_A,\rho(t)] \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\sum_{\mathbf{q}}(\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}+1)\{[K_{\mathbf{q}}\rho(t),S]+[S,\rho(t)K_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger]\} \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}\{ [S,\rho(t)K_{\mathbf{q}}]+[K_{\mathbf{q}}^\dagger\rho(t),S]\}. \end{eqnarray} Equations () and () are valid to second order in the coupling coefficients. These equations allow us to study the time evolution and dynamical characteristics of the atom interacting with the thermal phonon bath. We note that Eq. () is a particular form of the Zwanzig's generalized master equation, which can be obtained by the projection operator method . \subsection{Relaxation rates and frequency shifts} We use Eq. () to derive an equation for the matrix elements $\rho_{jj'}\equiv\langle j|\rho|j'\rangle$ of the reduced density operator of the atom. The result is \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{\frac{\partial\rho_{jj'}}{\partial t}= -i\omega_{jj'}\rho_{jj'} +\sum_{\nu\nu'}(\gamma_{jj'\nu\nu'}^{e}+\gamma_{jj'\nu\nu'}^{a})\rho_{\nu\nu'}} \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} -\sum_{\nu}[(\gamma_{j\nu}^{e}+\gamma_{j\nu}^{a})\rho_{\nu j'} +(\gamma_{j'\nu}^{e*}+\gamma_{j'\nu}^{a*})\rho_{j\nu}], \end{eqnarray} where the coefficients \begin{eqnarray} \gamma_{jj'\nu\nu'}^{e}&=&2\pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}+1}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}g_{j\nu}g_{j'\nu'} [\delta_{-}(\omega_{\nu j}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}) \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\delta_{+}(\omega_{\nu' j'}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}})], \nonumber\\ \gamma_{j\nu}^{e}&=&2\pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}\mu}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}+1}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}g_{j\mu}g_{\nu\mu} \delta_{-}(\omega_{\nu\mu}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}})\qquad \end{eqnarray} and \begin{eqnarray} \gamma_{jj'\nu\nu'}^{a}&=&2\pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}g_{j\nu}g_{j'\nu'} [\delta_{-}(\omega_{j'\nu'}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}) \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\delta_{+}(\omega_{j\nu}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}})], \nonumber\\ \gamma_{j\nu}^{a}&=&2\pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}\mu}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}g_{j\mu}g_{\nu\mu} \delta_{+}(\omega_{\mu\nu}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}) \end{eqnarray} are the decay parameters associated with the phonon emission and absorption, respectively. Here, the notation $\delta_+(\omega)=\delta_-^*(\omega)$ has been used. Equation () describes phonon-induced variations in the populations and coherences of the translational levels of the atom. We analyze the characteristics of the relaxation processes. For simplicity of mathematical treatment, we first consider only transitions from discrete levels. The equation for the diagonal matrix element $\rho_{jj}$ for a discrete level $j$ can be written in the form \begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial\rho_{jj}}{\partial t}&=& \sum_{\nu}(\gamma_{jj\nu\nu}^{e}+\gamma_{jj\nu\nu}^{a})\rho_{\nu\nu} \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} -(\gamma_{jj}^{e}+\gamma_{jj}^{a}+\mathrm{c.c.})\rho_{jj} \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\mbox{off-diagonal terms}. \end{eqnarray} When the off-diagonal terms are neglected, Eq. () reduces to a simple rate equation. It is clear from Eq. () that the rate for the downward transition from an upper level $l$ to a lower level $k$ ($k<l$) is \begin{equation} R_{kl}^{e}=\gamma_{kkll}^{e}= 2\pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}+1}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}g_{lk}^2 \delta(\omega_{lk}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}), \end{equation} while the rate for the upward transition from a lower level $k$ to an upper level $l$ ($l>k$) is \begin{equation} R_{lk}^{a}=\gamma_{llkk}^{a}= 2\pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}g_{lk}^2 \delta(\omega_{lk}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}). \end{equation} Equations () and () are in agreement with the results of Gortel \textit{et al.} , obtained by using the Fermi golden rule. We note that $R_{kl}^{e}$ and $R_{lk}^{a}$ with $l\le k$ are mathematically equal to zero because they have no physical meaning. For convenience, we introduce the notation $R_{lk}=R_{lk}^e$, $R_{lk}^a$, or 0 for $l<k$, $l>k$, or $l=k$, respectively. It is clear that the off-diagonal coefficients $R_{lk}$ with $l\not=k$ are the rates of transitions. However, the diagonal coefficients $R_{kk}$ have no physical meaning and are mathematically equal to zero. As seen from Eq. (), the phonon-mediated depletion rate of a level $k$ is $\Gamma_{kk}=2\mathrm{Re}(\gamma_{kk}^{e}+\gamma_{kk}^{a})$. The explicit expression for this rate is \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{kk}&=& 2\pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}\mu}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}+1}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} g_{k\mu}^2\delta(\omega_{k\mu}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}) \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +2\pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}\mu}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} g_{\mu k}^2\delta(\omega_{\mu k}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}). \end{eqnarray} We note that $\Gamma_{kk}=\sum_{\mu}(R_{\mu k}^e+R_{\mu k}^a)=\sum_{\mu}R_{\mu k}$. We can write $\Gamma_{kk}=\Gamma_{kk}^e+\Gamma_{kk}^a$, where \begin{equation} \Gamma_{kk}^e=\sum_{\mu<k}R_{\mu k}^e \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \Gamma_{kk}^a=\sum_{\mu>k}R_{\mu k}^a \end{equation} are the contributions due to downward transitions (phonon emission) and upward transitions (phonon absorption), respectively. In the above equations, the summation over $\mu$ can be extended to cover not only the discrete levels but also the continuum levels. Meanwhile, the equation for the off-diagonal matrix element $\rho_{lk}$ for a pair of discrete levels $l$ and $k$ can be written in the form $\partial\rho_{lk}/\partial t= -(i\omega_{lk}+\gamma_{ll}^{e}+\gamma_{ll}^{a} +\gamma_{kk}^{e*}+\gamma_{kk}^{a*})\rho_{lk}+\dots$, or, equivalently, \begin{equation} \frac{\partial\rho_{lk}}{\partial t}= -i(\omega_{lk}+\Delta_{lk}-i\Gamma_{lk})\rho_{lk}+\dots . \end{equation} Here the frequency shift $\Delta_{lk}$ is given by \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{\Delta_{lk}=\sum_{\mathbf{q}\mu}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}+1}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} \bigg(\frac{g_{l\mu}^2}{\omega_{l\mu}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} +\frac{g_{\mu k}^2}{\omega_{\mu k}+\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}\bigg)} \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\sum_{\mathbf{q}\mu}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} \bigg(\frac{g_{l\mu}^2}{\omega_{l\mu}+\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} +\frac{g_{\mu k}^2}{\omega_{\mu k}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}\bigg), \end{eqnarray} while the coherence decay rate $\Gamma_{lk}$ is expressed as \begin{eqnarray} \Gamma_{lk}&=& \pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}\mu}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}+1}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} \big[g_{l\mu}^2\delta(\omega_{l\mu}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}) +g_{k\mu}^2\delta(\omega_{k\mu}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}})\big] \nonumber\\&&\mbox{} +\pi\sum_{\mathbf{q}\mu}\frac{\bar{n}_{\mathbf{q}}}{\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} \big[g_{\mu l}^2\delta(\omega_{\mu l}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}}) +g_{\mu k}^2\delta(\omega_{\mu k}-\omega_{\mathbf{q}})\big]. \nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} When we set $l=k$ in Eq. (), we find $\Delta_{kk}=0$. When we set $l=k$ in Eq. (), we recover Eq. (). We note that $\Gamma_{lk}=\sum_{\mu}(R_{\mu l}^e+R_{\mu k}^e+R_{\mu l}^a+R_{\mu k}^a)/2 =\sum_{\mu}(R_{\mu l}+R_{\mu k})/2$. Comparison between Eqs. () and () yields the relation $\Gamma_{lk}=(\Gamma_{ll}+\Gamma_{kk})/2$. We can also write $\Gamma_{lk}=\Gamma_{lk}^e+\Gamma_{lk}^a$, where $\Gamma_{lk}^e=\sum_{\mu}(R_{\mu l}^e+R_{\mu k}^e)/2$ and $\Gamma_{lk}^a=\sum_{\mu}(R_{\mu l}^a+R_{\mu k}^a)/2$ are the contributions due to downward transitions (phonon emission) and upward transitions (phonon absorption), respectively. In the above equations, the summation over $\mu$ can be extended to cover not only the discrete levels but also the continuum levels. We now discuss phonon-mediated transitions from continuum (free) levels. We start by considering free-to-bound transitions. For a continuum level $f$ with energy $\mathcal{E}_f>0$, the center-of-mass wave function $\varphi_f(x)$ is normalized per unit energy. In this case, the quantity $R_{\nu f}$ becomes the density of the transition rate. A free level $f$ can be approximated by a level of a quasicontinuum . A discretization of the continuum can be realized by using a large box of length $L$ with reflecting boundary conditions . We label $E_n$ the energies of the eigenstates in the box and $\phi_{n}(x)$ the corresponding wave functions. Note that such states are standing-wave states . The relation between a quasicontinuum-state wave function $\phi_{n_f}(x)$, normalized to unity in the box, and the corresponding continuum-state wave function $\varphi_f(x)$, normalized per unit energy, with equal energies $E_{n_f}=\mathcal{E}_f$, is \begin{eqnarray} \varphi_f(x)&\cong&\bigg[\frac{\partial E_{n_f}}{\partial n_f}\bigg]^{-1/2}\phi_{n_f}(x) \nonumber\\ &\cong&\left(\frac{L}{\pi\hbar}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{m}{2E_{n_f}}\right)^{1/4}\phi_{n_f}(x). \end{eqnarray} Consequently, for a single atom initially prepared in the quasicontinuum standing-wave state $|n_f\rangle=|\phi_{n_f}\rangle$, the rate for the transition to an arbitrary bound state $|\nu\rangle$ is approximately given by \begin{equation} G_{\nu f}=\frac{\pi\hbar}{L} v_f R_{\nu f}, \end{equation} where $v_f=(2\mathcal{E}_f/m)^{1/2}$ is the velocity of the atom in the initial standing-wave state $|f\rangle$. The phonon-mediated free-to-bound decay rate (adsorption rate) is then given by \begin{equation} G_f=\sum_{\nu}G_{\nu f}, \end{equation} where the summation includes only bound levels. It is clear from Eq. () that, in the continuum limit $L\to\infty$, the rate $G_{\nu f}$ tends to zero. This is because a free atom can be anywhere in free space and therefore the effect of phonons on a single free atom is negligible. In order to get deeper insight into the free-to-bound transition rate density $R_{\nu f}$, we consider a macroscopic atomic ensemble in the thermodynamic limit . Suppose that there are $N_0$ atoms in a volume with a large length $L$ and a transverse cross section area $S_0$. Assume that all the atoms are in the same quasicontinuum state $|n_f\rangle$ and interact with the dielectric independently. The rate for the transitions of the atoms from the quasicontinuum state $|n_f\rangle$ to an arbitrary bound state $|\nu\rangle$, defined as the time derivative of the number of atoms in the state $|\nu\rangle$, is $D_{\nu f}=N_0G_{\nu f}$. In order to get the rate for the continuum state $|f\rangle$, we need to take the thermodynamical limit, where $L\to\infty$ and $N_0\to\infty$ but $N_0/L$ remains constant. Then, the rate for the transitions of the atoms from the continuum state $|f\rangle$ to an arbitrary bound state $|\nu\rangle$ is given by $D_{\nu f}=\pi\hbar \rho_0S_0v_f R_{\nu f}=2\pi\hbar\mathcal{N}_f R_{\nu f}$. Here, $\rho_0=N_0/LS_0$ is the atomic number density and $\mathcal{N}_f=\rho_0S_0v_f/2$ is the number of atoms incident into the dielectric surface per unit time. It is clear that the transition rate $D_{\nu f}$ is proportional to the incidence rate $\mathcal{N}_f$ as well as the transition rate density $R_{\nu f}$. We emphasize that $D_{\nu f}$ is a characteristics for a macroscopic atomic ensemble in the thermodynamic limit while $G_{\nu f}$ is a measure for a single atom. When the length of the box, $L$, and the number of atoms, $N_0$, are finite, the dynamics of the atoms cannot be described by the free-to-bound rate $D_{\nu f}$ directly. Instead, we must use the transition rate per atom $G_{\nu f}=D_{\nu f}/N_0$, which depends on the length $L$ of the box that contains the free atoms [see Eq. ()]. In a thermal gas, the atoms have different velocities and, therefore, different energies. For a thermal Maxwell-Boltzmann gas with temperature $T_0$, the distribution of the kinetic energy $\mathcal{E}_f$ of the atomic center-of-mass motion along the $x$ direction is \begin{equation} P(\mathcal{E}_f)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi k_BT_0}} \frac{e^{-\mathcal{E}_f/k_BT_0}}{\sqrt{\mathcal{E}_f}}. \end{equation} The transition rate to an arbitrary bound state $|\nu\rangle$ is then given by $G_{\nu T_0}=\int_0^{\infty}G_{\nu f}P(\mathcal{E}_f)\, d\mathcal{E}_f$, i.e. \begin{equation} G_{\nu T_0} =\frac{\lambda_D}{L} \int_0^{\infty}e^{-\mathcal{E}_f/k_BT_0}R_{\nu f}d\mathcal{E}_f, \end{equation} where $\lambda_D=(2\pi\hbar^2/mk_BT_0)^{1/2}$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength. The phonon-mediated free-to-bound decay rate (adsorption rate) is given by \begin{equation} G_{T_0}=\sum_{\nu}G_{\nu T_0}=\int_0^{\infty}G_f P(\mathcal{E}_f)\, d\mathcal{E}_f. \end{equation} In the above equation, the summation over $\nu$ includes only bound levels. Note that Eq. () is in qualitative agreement with the results of Refs. . It is easy to extend the above results to the case of free-to-free transitions. Indeed, it can be shown that the density of the rate for the transition from a quasicontinuum state $|n_f\rangle$, which corresponds to a free state $|f\rangle$, to a different free state $|f'\rangle$ is given by \begin{equation} Q_{f'f}=\frac{\pi\hbar}{L} v_f R_{f'f}. \end{equation} For convenience, we introduce the notation $Q_{f'f}^e=Q_{f'f}$ or 0 for $\mathcal{E}_{f'}<\mathcal{E}_f$ or $\mathcal{E}_{f'}\geq \mathcal{E}_f$, respectively, and $Q_{f'f}^a=Q_{f'f}$ or 0 for $\mathcal{E}_{f'}>\mathcal{E}_f$ or $\mathcal{E}_{f'}\leq \mathcal{E}_f$, respectively. Then, we have $Q_{f'f}=Q_{f'f}^e$, 0, or $Q_{f'f}^a$ for $\mathcal{E}_{f'}<\mathcal{E}_f$, $\mathcal{E}_{f'}=\mathcal{E}_f$, or $\mathcal{E}_{f'}>\mathcal{E}_f$, respectively. The downward (phonon-emission) and upward (phonon-absorption) free-to-free decay rates for the free state $|f\rangle$ are given by \begin{equation} Q_f^e=\int_0^{\mathcal{E}_f}Q_{f'f}^e d\mathcal{E}_{f'} \end{equation} and \begin{equation} Q_f^a=\int_{\mathcal{E}_f}^{\infty} Q_{f'f}^a d\mathcal{E}_{f'}, \end{equation} respectively. The total free-to-free decay rate for the free state $|f\rangle$ is $Q_f=Q_f^e+Q_f^a=\int_0^{\infty} Q_{f'f} d\mathcal{E}_{f'}$. For a thermal gas, we need to replace the transition rate density $Q_{f'f}$ and the decay rate $Q_f$ by $Q_{f'T_0}=\int_0^{\infty}Q_{f'f} P(\mathcal{E}_f)\, d\mathcal{E}_f$ and $Q_{T_0}=\int_0^{\infty}Q_f P(\mathcal{E}_f)\, d\mathcal{E}_f$, respectively, which are the averages of $Q_{f'f}$ and $Q_f$, respectively, with respect to the energy distribution $P(\mathcal{E}_f)$ of the initial state. Like in the other cases, we have $Q_{f'T_0}=Q_{f'T_0}^e+Q_{f'T_0}^a$ and $Q_{T_0}=Q_{T_0}^e+Q_{T_0}^a$, where \begin{eqnarray} Q_{f'T_0}^e&=&\int_{\mathcal{E}_{f'}}^{\infty}Q_{f'f}^e P(\mathcal{E}_f)\, d\mathcal{E}_f,\nonumber\\ Q_{f'T_0}^a&=&\int_0^{\mathcal{E}_{f'}}Q_{f'f}^a P(\mathcal{E}_f)\, d\mathcal{E}_f \end{eqnarray} are the downward and upward transition rate densities and \begin{eqnarray} Q_{T_0}^e&=&\int_0^{\infty}Q_f^e P(\mathcal{E}_f)\, d\mathcal{E}_f, \nonumber\\ Q_{T_0}^a&=&\int_0^{\infty}Q_f^a P(\mathcal{E}_f)\, d\mathcal{E}_f \end{eqnarray} are the downward and upward decay rates. The thermal decay rates $Q_{T_0}^e$ and $Q_{T_0}^a$ describe the cooling and heating processes, respectively. It can be easily shown that $Q_{T_0}^e<Q_{T_0}^a$, $Q_{T_0}^e>Q_{T_0}^a$, and $Q_{T_0}^e=Q_{T_0}^a$ when $T_0<T$, $T_0>T$, and $T_0=T$, respectively. The relation $Q_{T_0}^e<Q_{T_0}^a$ ($Q_{T_0}^e>Q_{T_0}^a$), obtained for $T_0<T$ ($T_0>T$), indicates the dominance of heating (cooling) of free atoms by the surface. \subsection{Relaxation rates and frequency shifts in the framework of the Debye model} In order to get insight into the relaxation rates and frequency shifts, we approximate them using the Debye model for phonons. In this model, the phonon frequency $\omega_{\mathbf{q}}$ is related to the phonon wave number $q$ as $\omega_{\mathbf{q}}=vq$, where $v$ is the sound velocity. Furthermore, the summation over the first Brillouin zone is replaced by an integral over a sphere of radius $q_D=(6\pi^2N/V)^{1/3}$, where $V$ is the volume of the solid. The Debye frequency and the Debye temperature are given by $\omega_D=vq_D$ and $T_D=\hbar\omega_D/k_B$, respectively. For fused silica, we have $v=5.96$ km/s, $NM/V=2.2$ g/cm$^3$, and $M=9.98\times 10^{-26}$ kg . Using these parameters, we find $q_D=109.29\times10^6$ cm$^{-1}$, $\omega_D=10.4$ THz, and $T_D=498$ K. In order to perform the summation over phonon states in the framework of the Debye model, we invoke the thermodynamic limit, i.e., replace \begin{equation} \sum_{\mathbf{q}}\dots =\frac{V}{8\pi^3}\int\limits_{|\mathbf{q}|\leq q_D} \dots d\mathbf{q} =\frac{3N}{\omega_D^3}\int\limits_0^{\omega_D}\dots\omega_{\mathbf{q}}^2 d\omega_{\mathbf{q}}. \end{equation} Then, for transitions between an upper level $l$ and a lower level $k$, where $0<\omega_{lk}<\omega_D$, Eqs. () and () yield \begin{equation} R_{kl}^{e}=\frac{3\pi}{M\hbar\omega_D^3}(\bar{n}_{lk}+1)\omega_{lk} F_{lk}^2 \end{equation} and \begin{equation} R_{lk}^{a}=\frac{3\pi}{M\hbar\omega_D^3}\bar{n}_{lk}\omega_{lk} F_{lk}^2. \end{equation} Here, $\bar{n}_{lk}$ is given by Eq. () with $\omega_{\mathbf{q}}$ replaced by $\omega_{lk}$. We emphasize that, according to Eqs. () and (), the phonon-emission rate $R_{kl}^{e}$ and the phonon-absorption rate $R_{lk}^{a}$ depend not only on the matrix element $F_{lk}$ of the force but also on the translational transition frequency $\omega_{lk}$. The frequency dependences of the transition rates are comprised of the frequency dependences of the mean phonon number $\bar{n}_{lk}$, the phonon mode density $3N\omega_{lk}^2/\omega_D^3$, and the matrix element $F_{lk}=-U_{lk}'=-m\omega_{lk}^2x_{lk}$ of the force. An additional factor comes from the presence of the phonon frequency in Eq. () for the surface displacement and, consequently, in the atom--phonon interaction Hamiltonian (). It is clear that an increase in the phonon frequency leads to a decrease in the mean phonon number and an increase in the phonon mode density. The matrix element of the force usually first increases and then decreases with increasing phonon frequency. Due to the existence of several competing factors, the frequency dependences of the transition rates are rather complicated. They usually first increase and then decrease with increasing phonon frequency. We note that, for transitions with $\omega_{lk}>\omega_D$, we have $R_{kl}^{e}=R_{lk}^{a}=0$. We conclude this section by noting that the use of Eq. () in Eq. () yields the frequency shift \begin{equation} \Delta_{lk}=\Delta_{lk}^{(0)}+\Delta_{lk}^{(T)}, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \Delta_{lk}^{(0)}= \frac{3}{2M\hbar\omega_D^3}\sum_{\mu} \int\limits_0^{\omega_D} \bigg(\frac{F_{l\mu}^2}{\omega_{l\mu}-\omega} +\frac{F_{\mu k}^2}{\omega_{\mu k}+\omega}\bigg)\omega d\omega \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \Delta_{lk}^{(T)}= \frac{3}{M\hbar\omega_D^3}\sum_{\mu} \int\limits_0^{\omega_D} \bigg( \frac{\omega_{l\mu} F_{l\mu}^2}{\omega_{l\mu}^2-\omega^2} +\frac{\omega_{\mu k} F_{\mu k}^2}{\omega_{\mu k}^2-\omega^2}\bigg)\bar{n}_{\omega}\omega d\omega \end{equation} are the zero- and finite-temperature contributions, respectively. In Eq. (), $\bar{n}_{\omega}$ is given by Eq. () with $\omega_{\mathbf{q}}$ replaced by $\omega$. \section{Numerical results and discussions} In this section, we present the numerical results based on the analytical expressions derived in the previous section for the phonon-mediated relaxation rates of the translational levels of the atom. In particular, we use Eqs. () and (), obtained in the framework of the Debye model, for our numerical calculations. We consider transitions from bound states as well as free states. The transitions from bound states to other translational levels occur in the case where the atom is initially already adsorbed or trapped near the surface. The transitions from free states to other translational levels occur in the processes of adsorbing, heating, and cooling of free atoms by the surface. Due to the difference in physics of the initial situations, we study the transitions from bound and free states separately. \subsection{Transitions from bound states} We start from a given bound level and calculate the rates of phonon-mediated atomic transitions, both downward and upward. The profiles of the phonon-emission (downward-transition) rate $R_{\nu'\nu}^e$ [see Eq. ()] and the phonon-absorption (upward-transition) rate $R_{\nu'\nu}^a$ [see Eq. ()] are shown in Figs.~ and , respectively. The upper (lower) part of each of these figures corresponds to the case of the initial level $\nu=280$ ($\nu=120$), with energy $\mathcal{E}_{\nu}=-156$ MHz ($\mathcal{E}_{\nu}=-8.4$ THz). The left (right) panel of Fig.~ corresponds to bound-to-bound (bound-to-free) upward transitions. The temperature of the surface is assumed to be $T=300$ K. As seen from Figs.~ and , the transition rates have pronounced localized profiles. Due to the competing effects of the mean phonon number, the phonon mode density, and the matrix element of the force, the transition rates usually first increase and then decrease with increasing phonon frequency. It is clear from a comparison of Figs.~(a) and (b) and also a comparison of Figs.~(a) and (b) that transitions from shallow levels have probabilities orders of magnitude lower than those from deeper levels. The main reason is that the wave functions of the shallow states are spread further away from the surface than those for the deep states. Due to this difference, the effects of the surface vibrations are weaker for the shallow levels than for the deep levels. Another pertinent feature that should be noted from the figure is the following: Since transition frequencies involved are large, they may overshoot the Debye frequency $\omega_D=10.4$ THz, leading to a cutoff on the lower (higher) side of the frequency axis for the emission (absorption) curve. In order to see the overall effect of the individual transition rates shown above, we add them up. First we examine the phonon-absorption rates of bound levels. The total phonon-absorption rate $\Gamma_{\nu\nu}^a$ of a bound level $\nu$ is the sum of the individual absorption rates $R_{\mu\nu}^a$ over all the upper levels $\mu$, both bound and free [see Eq. ()]. We plot in Fig.~ the contributions to $\Gamma_{\nu\nu}^a$ from two types of transitions, bound-to-bound and bound-to-free (desorption) transitions. The solid curve of the figure shows that the bound-to-bound phonon-absorption rate is large (above $10^{10}$ s$^{-1}$) for deep and intermediate levels. However, it reduces dramatically with increasing $\nu$ in the region of large $\nu$ and becomes very small (below $10^{-5}$ s$^{-1}$) for shallow levels. Meanwhile, the dashed curve of Fig.~ shows that the bound-to-free phonon-absorption rate (i.e., the desorption rate) is zero for deep levels, since the energy required for the transition is greater than the Debye energy . However, the desorption rate is substantial (above $10^5$ s$^{-1}$) for intermediate and shallow levels. Thus, the total phonon-absorption rate $\Gamma_{\nu\nu}^a$ is mainly determined by the bound-to-bound transitions in the case of deep levels and by the bound-to-free transitions in the case of shallow levels. One of the reasons for the dramatic reduction of the bound-to-bound phonon-absorption rate in the region of shallow levels is that the number of upper bound levels $\mu$ becomes small. The second reason is that the frequency of each individual transition becomes small, leading to a decrease of the phonon mode density. The third reason is that the center-of-mass wave functions of shallow levels are spread far away from the surface, leading to a reduction of the effect of phonons on the atom. Unlike the bound-to-bound phonon-absorption rate, the bound-to-free phonon-absorption rate is substantial in the region of shallow levels. This is because the free-state spectrum is continuous and the range of the bound-to-free transition frequency can be large (up to the Debye frequency $\omega_D=10.4$ THz). The gradual reduction of the bound-to-free phonon-absorption rate in the region of shallow levels is mainly due to the reduction of the time that the atom spends in the proximity of the surface. The total phonon-emission rate $\Gamma_{\nu\nu}^e$ [see Eq. ()] and the total phonon-absorption rate $\Gamma_{\nu\nu}^a$ [see Eq. ()] are shown in Fig.~ by the solid and dashed curves, respectively. It is clear from the figure that emission is comparable to but slightly stronger than absorption. Such a dominance is due to the fact that phonon emission moves the atom to a center-of-mass state closer to the surface while phonon absorption changes the atomic state in the opposite direction (see Figs.~ and ). Our results for the rates are in good qualitative agreement with the results of Oria \textit{et al.}, albeit with the Morse potential . We stress that we include a large number of vibrational levels as a consequence of the deep silica--cesium potential. Note that the earlier work on this theme involved much fewer levels . We next study the effect of temperature on the decay rates. The results for the phonon-mediated decay rates for $T=30$ K are shown in Fig.~. In contrast to Fig.~, the absorption rate is now much smaller than the corresponding emission rate for both shallow and deep levels. Thus, while it is difficult to distinguish the two log-scale curves for deep and shallow levels at room temperature (see Fig.~), they are well resolved at low temperature. \subsection{Transitions from free states} We now calculate the rates for transitions from free states to other levels. We first examine free-to-bound transitions, which correspond to the adsorption process. According to Eq. (), the free-to-bound (more exactly, quasicontinuum-to-bound) transition rate $G_{\nu f}$ depends not only on the continuum-to-bound transition rate density $R_{\nu f}$ but also on the length $L$ of the free-atom quantization box. To be specific, we use in our numerical calculations the value $L=1$ mm, which is a typical size of atomic clouds in magneto-optical traps . We plot in Fig.~ the free-to-bound transition rate $G_{\nu f}$ [see Eq. ()] as a function of the vibrational quantum number $\nu$. The upper (lower) part of the figure corresponds to the case of the initial-state energy $\mathcal{E}_f=2$ MHz ($\mathcal{E}_f=3.1$ THz), which is close to the average kinetic energy per atom in an ideal gas with temperature $T_0=200$ $\mu$K ($T_0=300$ K). We observe that the free-to-bound transition rate first increases and then decreases with increasing transition frequency $\omega_{f\nu}=(\mathcal{E}_f-\mathcal{E}_{\nu})/\hbar$. Such behavior results from the competing effects of the mean phonon number, the phonon mode density, and the matrix element of the force, like in the case of bound-to-bound transitions (see Fig.~). We also see a cutoff of the transition frequency, which is associated with the Debye frequency. Comparison of Figs.~(a) and (b) shows that the transitions from low-energy free states have probabilities orders of magnitude smaller than those from high-energy free states. One of the reasons is that the transition rate $G_{\nu f}$ is proportional to the velocity $v_f=(2\mathcal{E}_f/m)^{1/2}$ [see Eq. ()]. The dependence of the transition rate density $R_{\nu f}$ on the transition frequency $\omega_{f\nu}$ also plays an important role. Because of this, the rates for the transitions from low-energy free states to shallow bound levels are very small [see the inset of Fig.~(a)]. We show in Fig.~ the free-to-bound decay rate $G_f$ [see Eq. ()], which is a characteristic of the adsorption process, as a function of the free-state energy $\mathcal{E}_f$. We see that $G_f$ first increases and then decreases with increasing $\mathcal{E}_f$. The increase of $G_f$ with increasing $\mathcal{E}_f$ in the region of small $\mathcal{E}_f$ (see the inset) is mainly due to the increase in the atomic incidence velocity $v_f$. In this region, we have $G_f\propto v_f\propto \sqrt{\mathcal{E}_f}$ [see Eqs. () and ()]. For $\mathcal{E}_f$ in the range from 0 to 20 MHz, which is typical for atoms in magneto-optical traps, the maximum value of $G_{f}$ is on the order of $10^4$ s$^{-1}$ (see the inset of Fig.~). Such free-to-bound (adsorption) rates are several orders of magnitude smaller than the bound-to-free (desorption) rates (see the dashed curve in Fig.~). The decrease of $G_f$ with increasing $\mathcal{E}_f$ in the region of large $\mathcal{E}_f$ is mainly due to the reduction of the atom--phonon coupling coefficients. In a thermal gas, the adsorption process is characterized by the transition rate $G_{\nu T_0}$ [see Eq. ()] and the decay rate $G_{T_0}$ [see Eq. ()], which are the averages of the free-to-bound transition rate $G_{\nu f}$ and the free-to-bound decay rate $G_f$, respectively, over the free-state energy distribution (). We plot the free-to-bound transition rate $G_{\nu T_0}$ and the free-to-bound decay rate $G_{T_0}$ in Figs.~ and , respectively. Comparison between Figs.~(a) and (a) shows that the transition rates from low-temperature thermal states and low-energy free states look quite similar to each other. The reason is that the spread of the energy distribution is not substantial in the case of low temperatures. The spread of the energy distribution is however substantial in the case of high temperatures, leading to the softening of the cutoff frequency effect [compare Fig.~(b) with Fig.~(b)]. Figure shows that the free-to-bound decay rate $G_{T_0}$ first increases and then reduces with increasing atomic temperature $T_0$. For $T_0$ in the range from 100 $\mu$K to 400 $\mu$K, which is typical for atoms in magneto-optical traps, the maximum value of $G_{T_0}$ is on the order of $10^4$ s$^{-1}$ [see Fig.~(a)]. Such free-to-bound (adsorption) rates are several orders of magnitude smaller than the bound-to-free (desorption) rates (see the dashed curve in Fig.~). Figure (a) shows that, in the region of low atomic temperature $T_0$, one has $G_{T_0}\propto \sqrt{T_0}$, in agreement with the asymptotic behavior of Eqs. () and (). We now examine free-to-free transitions, both upward and downward, which corresponding to the heating and cooling processes of free atoms by the surface. We plot in Fig.~ the free-to-free transition rate density $Q_{f'f}$ [see Eq. ()] as a function of the final-level energy $\mathcal{E}_{f'}$. The upper (lower) part of the figure corresponds to the case of the initial-state energy $\mathcal{E}_f=2$ MHz ($\mathcal{E}_f=3.1$ THz), which is close to the average kinetic energy per atom in an ideal gas with temperature $T_0=200$ $\mu$K ($T_0=300$ K). The rate densities are shown for the upward (phonon-absorption) and downward (phonon-emission) transitions by the solid and dashed lines, respectively. The figure shows that the free-to-free transition rate density increases or decreases with increasing transition frequency if the latter is not too large or is large enough, respectively. We also observe a signature of the Debye cutoff of the phonon frequency. Comparison of Figs.~(a) and (b) shows that transitions from low-energy free states have probabilities orders of magnitude smaller than those from high-energy free states. Figure (a) and its inset show that, when the energy of the free state is low, the free-to-free downward (cooling) transition rate is very small as compared to the free-to-free upward (heating) transition rate. We show in Fig.~ the free-to-free upward (phonon-absorption) and downward (phonon-emission) decay rates $Q_f^a$ [see Eq. ()] and $Q_f^e$ [see Eq. ()] as functions of the free-state energy $\mathcal{E}_f$. We observe that $Q_f^a$ and $Q_f^e$ increase with increasing $\mathcal{E}_f$ in the range from 0 to 8 THz. The increase of $Q_f^a$ with increasing $\mathcal{E}_f$ in the region of small $\mathcal{E}_f$ (see the left inset) is mainly due to the increase in the atomic incidence velocity $v_f$. In this region, we have $Q_f^a\propto v_f\propto \sqrt{\mathcal{E}_f}$ [see Eqs. () and ()]. The increase of $Q_f^e$ with increasing $\mathcal{E}_f$ in the region of small $\mathcal{E}_f$ (see the right inset) is due to not only the increase in the atomic incidence velocity $v_f$ [see Eq. ()] but also the increase of the transition rate density $Q_{f'f}^e$ and the increase of the integration interval $(0,\mathcal{E}_f)$ [see Eq. ()]. In this region, the dependence of $Q_f^e$ on the energy $\mathcal{E}_f$ is of higher order than $\mathcal{E}_f^{3/2}$. The left inset of Fig.~ shows that, for $\mathcal{E}_f$ in the range from 0 to 20 MHz, the maximum value of $Q_f^a$ is on the order of $10^4$ s$^{-1}$. Such free-to-free upward (heating) decay rates are comparable to but about two times smaller than the corresponding free-to-bound (adsorption) decay rates (see the inset of Fig.~). Meanwhile, the right inset of Fig.~ shows that, in the region of small $\mathcal{E}_f$, the free-to-free downward (cooling) decay rate $Q_f^e$ is very small. In the case of a thermal gas, the phonon-mediated heat transfer between the gas and the surface is characterized by the free-to-free transition rate densities $Q_{f T_0}^a$ and $Q_{f T_0}^e$ [see Eqs. ()] and the free-to-free decay rates $Q_{T_0}^a$and $Q_{T_0}^e$ [see Eqs. ()]. We plot the free-to-free transition rate densities $Q_{f T_0}^a$ and $Q_{f T_0}^e$ in Fig.~. Comparison between Figs.~(a) and (a) shows that the transition rate densities from low-temperature thermal states and low-energy free states are quite similar to each other. The spread of the initial-state energy distribution is not substantial in this case. However, the energy spread of the initial state is substantial in the case of high temperatures, concealing the cutoff frequency effect [compare Fig.~(b) with Fig.~(b)]. We display the free-to-free decay rates $Q_{T_0}^a$ and $Q_{T_0}^e$ in Fig.~. The solid and dashed lines correspond to the upward (heating) and downward (cooling) transitions, respectively. For comparison, the free-to-bound decay rate (adsorption rate) $G_{T_0}$ is re-plotted from Fig.~ by the dotted lines. We observe that, for $T_0$ in the range from 100 $\mu$K to 400 $\mu$K [see Fig. (a)], the adsorption rate $G_{T_0}$ (dotted line) is about two times larger than the heating rate $Q_{T_0}^a$ (solid line), while the cooling rate $Q_{T_0}^e$ (dashed line) is negligible. Figure (a) shows that, in the region of low atomic temperatures, one has $Q_{T_0}\cong Q_{T_0}^a\propto \sqrt{T_0}$, in agreement with the asymptotic behavior of expressions (). The figure also shows that $Q_{T_0}^e$ quickly increases with increasing atomic temperature $T_0$. The relation $Q_{T_0}^e<Q_{T_0}^a$, obtained for $T_0<T$, indicates the dominance of heating of cold free atoms by the surface. The substantial magnitude of the free-to-bound transition rate $G_{T_0}$ (dotted line) indicates that a significant number of atoms can be adsorbed by the surface. According to Fig. (b), the free-to-free downward transition rate $Q_{T_0}^e$ (dashed line) crosses the upward transition rate $Q_{T_0}^a$ (solid line) when $T_0=T=300$ K, and then becomes the dominant decay rate. The relation $Q_{T_0}^e>Q_{T_0}^a$, obtained for $T_0>T$, indicates the dominance of cooling of hot free atoms by the surface. \section{Conclusions} In conclusion, we have studied the phonon-mediated transitions of an atom in a surface-induced potential. We developed a general formalism, which is applicable for any surface--atom potential. A systematic derivation of the corresponding density-matrix equation enables us to investigate the dynamics of both diagonal and off-diagonal elements. We included a large number of vibrational levels originating from the deep silica--cesium potential. We calculated the transition and decay rates from both bound and free levels. We found that the rates of phonon-mediated transitions between translational levels depend on the mean phonon number, the phonon mode density, and the matrix element of the force from the surface upon the atom. Due to the effects of these competing factors, the transition rates usually first increase and then reduce with increasing transition frequency. We focused on the transitions from bound states. Two specific examples, namely, when the initial level is a shallow level also when it can be one of the deep levels have been worked out. We have shown that there can be marked differences in the absorption and emission behavior in the two cases. For example, both the absorption and emission rates from the deep bound levels can be several orders (in our case, six orders) of magnitude larger than the corresponding rates from the shallow bound levels. We also analyzed various types of transitions from free states. We have shown that, for thermal atomic cesium with temperature in the range from 100 $\mu$K to 400 $\mu$K in the vicinity of a silica surface with temperature of 300 K, the adsorption (free-to-bound decay) rate is about two times larger than the heating (free-to-free upward decay) rate, while the cooling (free-to-free downward decay) rate is negligible. \begin{acknowledgments} We thank M. Chevrollier for fruitful discussions. This work was carried out under the 21st Century COE program on ``Coherent Optical Science.'' \end{acknowledgments} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem[$*$]{a} Also at Institute of Physics and Electronics, Vietnamese Academy of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam. \bibitem{our traps} V. I. Balykin, K. Hakuta, Fam Le Kien, J. Q. Liang, and M. Morinaga, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{70}, 011401(R) (2004); Fam Le Kien, V. I. Balykin, and K. Hakuta, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{70}, 063403 (2004). \bibitem{cesium decay} Fam Le Kien, S. Dutta Gupta, V. I. Balykin, and K. Hakuta, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{72}, 032509 (2005). \bibitem{two atoms} Fam Le Kien, S. Dutta Gupta, K. P. Nayak, and K. Hakuta, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{72}, 063815 (2005). \bibitem{Lima} E. G. Lima, M. Chevrollier, O. Di Lorenzo, P. C. Segundo, and M. Ori\'{a}, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{62}, 013410 (2000). \bibitem{Oria2006} T. Passerat de Silans, B. Farias, M. Ori\'{a}, and M. Chevrollier, Appl. Phys. B \textbf{82}, 367 (2006). \bibitem{boundspon} Fam Le Kien and K. Hakuta, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{75}, 013423 (2007). \bibitem{spectrum} Fam Le Kien, S. Dutta Gupta, and K. Hakuta, e-print quant-ph/0610067. \bibitem{Kali} K. P. Nayak, P. N. Melentiev, M. Morinaga, Fam Le Kien, V. I. Balykin, and K. Hakuta, e-print quant-ph/0610136. \bibitem{Henkel} C. Henkel and M. Wilkens, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{47}, 414 (1999). \bibitem{Gortel} Z. W. Gortel, H. J. Kreuzer, and R. Teshima, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{22}, 5655 (1980). \bibitem{Hoinkes} H. Hoinkes, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{52}, 933 (1980). \bibitem{Bogolubov} N. N. Bogolubov, Commun. of JINR, E17-11822, Dubna (1978); N. N. Bogolubov and N. N. Bogolubov Jr., Elementary Particles and Nuclei (USSR) \textbf{11}, 245 (1980). \bibitem{Zwanzig} R. Zwanzig, \textit{Lectures in Theoretical Physics}, eds. W. E. Brittin, B. W. Downs, and J. Downs (Interscience, New York, 1961) Vol. 3, p. 106; G. S. Agarwal, \textit{Progress in Optics}, ed. E. Wolf (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973) Vol. 11, p. 3; L. Mandel and E. Wolf, \textit{Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics} (Cambridge, New York, 1995) p. 880. \bibitem{Javanainen} J. Javanainen and M. Mackie, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{58}, R789 (1998); M. Mackie and J. Javanainen, \textit{ibid.} \textbf{60}, 3174 (1999). \bibitem{Luc-Koenig} E. Luc-Koenig, M. Vatasescu, and F. Masnou-Seeuws, Eur. Phys. J. D \textbf{31}, 239 (2004). \bibitem{Agrawal} See, for example, G. P. Agrawal, \textit{Nonlinear Fiber Optics} (Academic, New York, 2001). \bibitem{coolingbook} H. J. Metcalf and P. van der Straten, \textit{Laser Cooling and Trapping} (Springer, New York, 1999). \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0341
|
Title: Infrared Evolution Equations: Method and Applications
Abstract: It is a brief review on composing and solving Infrared Evolution Equations.
They can be used in order to calculate amplitudes of high-energy reactions in
different kinematic regions in the double-logarithmic approximation.
Body: \title{Infrared Evolution Equations: Method and Applications } \vspace*{0.3 cm} \author{B.I.~Ermolaev} \affiliation{Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, 194021 St.Petersburg, Russia} \author{M.~Greco} \affiliation{Department of Physics and INFN, University Rome III, Rome, Italy} \author{S.I.~Troyan} \affiliation{St.Petersburg Institute of Nuclear Physics, 188300 Gatchina, Russia} \begin{abstract} It is a brief review on composing and solving Infrared Evolution Equations. They can be used in order to calculate amplitudes of high-energy reactions in different kinematic regions in the double-logarithmic approximation. \end{abstract} \pacs{12.38.Cy} \maketitle \section{Introduction} Double-logarithmic (DL) contributions are of a special interest among radiative corrections. They are interesting in two aspects: first, in every fixed order of the perturbation theories they are the largest terms among the radiative corrections depending on the total energy and second, they are easiest kind of the corrections to sum up. DL corrections were discovered by V.V.~Sudakov in Ref.~ in the QED context. He showed that DL terms appear from integrations over soft, infrared (IR) -divergent momenta of virtual photons. All-order resummation of such contributions led to their exponentiations. Next important step was done in Refs.~ where calculation and summation of DL contributions was considered in a systematic way. They found a complementary source of DL terms: soft virtual fermions. This situation appears in the Regge kinematics. The all-order resummations of DL contributions in the Regge kinematic are quite involved and yield more complicated expressions than the Sudakov exponentials. Nonetheless important was the proof of the factorization of bremsstrahlung photons with small $k_{\perp}$ in the high-energy hadronic reactions found in Ref.~ and often addressed as the Gribov's bremsstrahlung theorem. This statement, suggested originally in the framework of the phenomenological QED of hadrons was extended to QCD in Refs.~. Calculation in the double-logarithmic approximation (DLA) amplitudes of the fermion-antifermion annihilation in the Regge forward and backward kinematics involves accounting for DL contributions from soft quarks and soft gluons. These reactions in QED and QCD have many common features. The $e^+e^-$ -annihilation was studied in Refs.~. The quark-aniquark annihilation DLA was investigated in Ref.~. The method of calculation here was based on factorization of virtual quarks and gluons with minimal $k_{\perp}$. Generally speaking, the results obtained in Ref.~ could be obtained with the method of Ref.~, however the technique of calculations suggested in Ref.~ was much more elegant and efficient. Although Ref.~ is about quark scattering only, it contains almost all technical ingredients necessary to compose Infrared Evolution Equations for any of elastic scattering amplitudes. Nevertheless it could not directly be applied to inelastic processes involving emission of soft particles. Such a generalization was obtained in Refs.~. The basic idea of the above-mentioned method was suggested by L.N.~Lipatov: to investigate evolution with respect to the infrared cut-off. The present, sounding naturally term "Infrared Evolution Equations" (IREE) for this method was suggested by M.~Krawczyk in Ref.~ where amplitudes for the backward Compton scattering were calculated in DLA. The aim of the present brief review is to show how to compose and solve IREE for scattering amplitudes in different field theories and kinematic regions. The paper is organized as follows: in Sect.~II we consider composing IREE in the technically simplest hard kinematics. In Sect.~III we consider composing IREE in the forward kinematics and apply it to studying the structure function $g_1$ of the polarized Deep-Inelastic scattering (DIS) at small $x$. The point is that the commonly used theoretical instrument to study $g_1$ is DGLAP . It collects logarithms of $Q^2$ to all orders in $\alpha_s$ but does not include the total resummation of logarithms of $1/x$, though it is important at small $x$. Accounting for such a resummaton leads to the steep rise of $g_1$ at the small-$x$ region. As is shown in Sect.~IV, DGLAP lacks the resummaion but mimics it inexplicitly, through the special choice of fits for the initial parton densities. Invoking such peculiar fits together with DGLAP to describe $g_1$ at $x \ll 1$ led to various misconceptions in the literature. They are enlisted and corrected in Sect.~V. The total resummaion of the leading logarithms is essential in the region of small $x$. In the opposite region of large $x$, DGLAP is quite efficient. It is attractive to combine the resummation with DGLAP. The manual for doing it is given in Sect.~VI. Finally, Sect.~VII is for concluding remarks. \section{IREE for scattering amplitudes in the hard kinematics} From the technical point of view, the hard kinematics, where all invariants are of the same order, is the easiest for analysis. For the simplest, $2 \to 2$ -processes, the hard kinematics means that the Mandelstamm variables $s,t,u$ obey \begin{equation} s \sim -t \sim -u~. \end{equation} In other words, the cmf scattering angles $\theta \sim 1$ in the hard kinematics. This kinematics is the easiest because the ladder Feynman graphs do not yield DL contributions here and usually the total resummation of DL contributions leads to multiplying the Born amplitude by exponentials decreasing with the total energy. Let us begin with composing and solving an IREE for the well-known object: electromagnetic vertex $\Gamma_{\mu}$ of an elementary fermion (lepton or quark). As is known, \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\mu} = \bar{u}(p_2)\big[ \gamma_{\mu} f(q^2) - \frac{\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{\nu}}{2m} g(q^2)\big]u(p_1) \end{equation} where $p_{1,2}$ are the initial and final momenta of the fermion, $m$ stands for the fermion mass and the transfer momentum $q = p_2 - p_1$. Scalar functions $f$ and $g$ in Eq.~() are called form factors. Historically, DL contributions were discovered by V.~Sudakov when he studied the QED radiative corrections to the form factor $f$ at $|q^2| \gg |p^2_{1,2}|$. Following him, let us consider vertex $V_{\mu}$ at \begin{equation} |q^2| \gg p^2_1 = p^2_2 = m^2~ \end{equation} i.e. we assume the fermion to be on--shell and account for DL electromagnetic contributions. We will drop $m$ for the sake of simplicity. \subsection{IREE for the form factor $f(q^2)$ in QED} \textbf{Step 1} is to introduce the infrared cut-off $\mu$ in the transverse (with respect to the plane formed by momenta $p_{1,2}$) momentum space for all virtual momenta $k_i$: \begin{equation} k_{i~\perp} > \mu \end{equation} where $i = 1,2,...$ \textbf{Step 2} is to look for the softest virtual particle among soft external and virtual particles. The only option we have is the softest virtual photon. Let denote its transverse momenta $\equiv k_{\perp}$. By definition, \begin{equation} k_{\perp} = \min{k_{i~\perp}}~. \end{equation} \textbf{Step 3:} According to the Gribov theorem, the propagator of the softest photon can be factorized (i.e. it is attached to the external lines in all possible ways) whereas $k_{\perp}$ acts as a new cut-off for other integrations. Adding the Born contribution $f^{Born}= 1$ we arrive at the IREE for $f$ in the diagrammatic form. It is depicted in Fig.~1. IREE in the analytic form are written in the gauge-invariant way, but their diagrammatical writing depends on the gauge. In the present paper we use the Feynman gauge. Applying to it the standard Feynman rules, we write it in the analytic form: \begin{equation} f(q^2,\mu^2) = f^{Born} - \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2} \int \frac{d\alpha d \beta d k_{\perp}^2~~~\Theta (k_{\perp}^2 - \mu^2)~~f(q^2, k_{\perp}^2)}{(s\alpha\beta - k_{\perp}^2 +\imath \epsilon)(-s\alpha + s\alpha\beta- k_{\perp}^2 + \imath \epsilon)(s\beta + s\alpha\beta - k_{\perp}^2 + \imath \epsilon)} \end{equation} where we have used the Sudakov parametrization $k = \alpha p_2 + \beta p_1 + k_{\perp}$ and denoted $s = -q^2\approx 2p_1p_2$. As $f(q^2, k_{\perp}^2)$ does not depend on $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the DL integration over them can be done with the standard way, so we are left with a simple integral equation to solve: \begin{equation} f(q^2,\mu^2) = f^{Born} - \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2} \int_{\mu^2}^{s} \frac{d k_{\perp}^2}{k_{\perp}^2} \ln(s/k_{\perp}^2) f(q^2, k_{\perp}^2)~. \end{equation} Differentiation of Eq.~() over $\mu^2$ (more exactly, applying $-\mu^2 \partial/\partial \mu^2$) reduces it to a differential equation \begin{equation} \partial f/\partial (\ln(s/\mu^2)) = - (e^2/8\pi^2) \ln(s/\mu^2) f \end{equation} with the obvious solution \begin{equation} f = f^{Born} \exp [-(\alpha/4\pi)\ln^2(q^2/m^2)] \end{equation} where we have replaced $\mu$ by $m$ and used $\alpha = e^2/4\pi$. Eq.~() is the famous Sudakov exponential obtained in Ref.~. \subsection{IREE for the form factor $g(q^2)$ in QED} Repeating the same steps (see Ref.~ for detail) leads to a similar IREE for the form factor $g$: \begin{equation} g(q^2,m^2,\mu^2) = g^{Born}(s,m^2) - \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2} \int_{\mu^2}^{s} \frac{d k_{\perp}^2}{k_{\perp}^2} \ln(s/k_{\perp}^2) g(q^2,m^2, k_{\perp}^2)~ \end{equation} where $g^{Born}(s,m^2) = -(m^2/s)(\alpha/\pi)\ln(s/m^2)$. Solving this equation and putting $\mu = m$ in the answer leads to the following relation between form factors $f$ and $g$: \begin{equation} g(s) = -2 \frac{\partial f}{\partial \rho}~, \end{equation} with $\rho = s/m^2$. Combining Eqs.~(,) allows to write a simple expression for the DL asymptotics of the vertex $\Gamma_{\mu}$: \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\mu} =\bar{u}(p_2)\big[ \gamma_{\mu} + \frac{\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{\nu}}{m} \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho}\big]u(p_1)\exp[-(\alpha/4\pi) \ln^2\rho]~. \end{equation} \subsection{$e^+e^-$ -annihilation into a quark-antiquark pair} Let us consider the $e^+e^-$ -annihilation into a quark $q(p_1)$ and $\bar{q}(p_2)$ at high energy when $2p_1p_2 \gg p^2_{1,2}$. We consider the channel where the $e^+e^-$ -pair annihilates into one heavy photon which decays into the $q(p_1)~\bar{q}(p_2)$ -pair: \begin{equation} e^+e^- \to \gamma^* \to q(p_1)~\bar{q}(p_2)~. \end{equation} We call this process elastic. In this case the most sizable radiative corrections arise from the graphs where the quark and antiquark exchange with gluons and these graphs look absolutely similar to the graphs for the electromagnetic vertex $\Gamma_{\mu}$ considered in the previous subsection. As a result, accounting for the QCD radiative corrections in DLA to the elastic form factors $f_q,~g_q$ of quarks can be obtained directly from Eqs.~(,) by replacement \begin{equation} \alpha \to \alpha_s C_F, \end{equation} with $C_F = (N^2-1)/2N = 4/3$. \subsection{$e^+e^-$ -annihilation into a quark-antiquark pair and gluons} In addition to the elastic annihilation (), the final state can include gluons: \begin{equation} e^+e^- \to \gamma^* \to q(p_1)~\bar{q}(p_2) + g(k_1),..g(k_n)~. \end{equation} We call this process the inelastic annihilation. The QED radiative corrections to the inelastic annihilation () in DLA are absolutely the same as the corrections to the elastic annihilation. On the contrary, the QCD corrections account for gluon exchanges between all final particles. This makes composing the IREE for the inelastic annihilation be more involved (see Ref.~). The difference to the considered elastic case appears at \textbf{Step 2}: look for the softest virtual particle among soft external and virtual particles. Indeed, now the softest particle can be both a virtual gluon and an emitted gluon. For the sake of simplicity let us discuss the 3-particle final state, i.e. the process \begin{equation} e^+e^- \to \gamma^* \to q(p_1)~\bar{q}(p_2) + g(k_1)~. \end{equation} The main ingredient of the scattering amplitude of this process is the new electromagnetic vertex $\Gamma^{(1)}_{\mu}$ of the quark. In DLA, it is parameterized by new form factors $F^{(1)}$ and $G^{(1)}$ \begin{equation} \Gamma_{\mu} = B_1(k_1) \bar{u}(p_2)\big[ \gamma_{\mu} F^{(1)}(q,k_1) - \frac{\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{\nu}}{2m} G^{(1)}(q,k_1)\big]u(p_1) \end{equation} where (1) corresponds to the number of emitted gluons, $q = p_1 + p_2$ and $l$ is the polarization vector of the emitted gluon. The bremsstrahlung factor $B_1$ in Eq.~() at high energies is expressed through $k_{1~\perp}$: \begin{equation} B_1 = \Big(\frac{p_2l}{p_2k_1} - \frac{p_1l}{p_1k_1}\Big) \approx \frac{2}{k_{1\perp}}~. \end{equation} We call $F^{(n)}, G^{(n)}$ inelastic form factors. Let us start composing the IREE for $F^{(1)}$. \textbf{Step 1} is the same like in the previous case. \textbf{Step 2} opens more options. Let us first choose the softest gluon among virtual gluons and denote its transverse momentum $k_{\perp}$ The integration over $k_{\perp}$ runs from $\mu$ to $s$. As $\mu < k_{1~\perp} < s$, we have two regions to consider: Region $\emph{D}_1$ were \begin{equation} ~~~~\mu < k_{1\perp} < k_{\perp} < \sqrt{s} \end{equation} and Region $\emph{D}_2$ were \begin{equation} ~~~~\mu < k_{\perp} < k_{1\perp} < \sqrt{s} \end{equation} Obviously, the softest particle in Region $\emph{D}_1$ is the emitted gluon, so it can be factorized as depicted in graphs (b,b') of Fig.~2. On the contrary, the virtual gluon is the softest in Region $\emph{D}_2$ were its propagator is factorized as shown in graphs (c,d,d') of Fig.~2. Adding the Born contribution (graphs (a,a') in Fig.~2) completes the IREE for $F^{(1)}$ depicted in Fig.~2. Graphs (a-b') do not depend on $\mu$ and vanish when differentiated with respect to $\mu$. Blobs in graphs (c-d') do not depend on the longitudinal Sudakov variables, so integrations over $\alpha,\beta$ can be done like in the first loop. After that the differential IREE for $F^{(1)}$ is \begin{equation} -\mu^2 \frac{\partial F^{(1)}}{\partial \mu^2} = -\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} \Big[ C_F \ln \Big(\frac{s}{\mu^2} \Big) + \frac{N}{2}\ln \Big(\frac{2p_2 k_1}{\mu^2} \Big) + \frac{N}{2}\ln \Big(\frac{2p_1k_1}{\mu^2} \Big) \Big]F^{(1)}~. \end{equation} Solving Eq.~() and using that $(2p_1k_1)(2p_2k_1) = s k^2_{1 \perp}$ leads to the expression \begin{equation} F^{(1)} = \exp \Big(-\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\Big[C_F \ln^2 \Big(\frac{s}{\mu^2}\Big) + \frac{N}{2}\ln^2 \Big(\frac{k^2_{1\perp}}{\mu^2} \Big) \Big]\Big) \end{equation} suggested in Ref.~ and proved in Ref.~ for any $n$. The IREE for the form factor $G^{(n)}$ was obtained and solved in Ref.~. It was shown that \begin{equation} G^{(n)} = -2 \partial F^{(n)}/\partial \rho~. \end{equation} \subsection{Exponentiation of Sudakov electroweak double-logarithmic contributions} The IREE -method was applied in Ref.~ to prove exponentiation of DL correction to the electroweak (EW) reactions in the hard kinematics. There is an essential technical difference between the theories with the exact gauge symmetry (QED and QCD) and the EW interactions theory with the broken $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ gauge symmetry: only DL contributions from virtual photons yield IR singularities needed to be regulated with the cut-off $\mu$ whereas DL contributions involving $W$ and $Z$ -bosons are IR stable because the boson masses $M_W$ and $M_Z$ act as IR regulators. In Ref.~ the difference between $M_W$ and $M_Z$ was neglected and the parameter \begin{equation} M \gtrsim M_W \approx M_Z \end{equation} was introduced, in addition to $\mu$, as the second IR cut-off. It allowed to drop masses $M_{W,Z}$. The IREE with two IR cut-offs was composed quite similarly to Eq.~(), with factorizing one by one the softest virtual photon, $Z$-boson and $W$-boson. As a result the EW Sudakov form factor $F_{EW}$ is \begin{equation} F_{EW} = \exp\Big( -\frac{\alpha (Q^2_1+Q^2_2)}{8\pi}\ln^2(s/\mu^2) -\Big[\frac{g^2 C_F^{SU(2)}}{16\pi^2} + \frac{g'^2}{16\pi^2}\frac{(Y^2_1 + Y^2_2)}{4} - \frac{\alpha (Q^2_1+Q^2_2)}{8\pi}\Big]\ln^2(s/M^2) \Big) \end{equation} where $Q_{1,2}$ are the electric charges of the initial and final fermion (with $W$ -exchanges accounted, they may be different), $Y_{1,2}$ are their hyper-charges and $C_F^{SU(2)} = (N^2-1)/2N$, with $N=2$. We have used in Eq.~() the standard notations $g$ and $g'$ for the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ -EW couplings. The structure of the exponent in Eq.~() is quite clear: the first, $\mu$ -dependent term comes from the factorization of soft photons like the exponent in Eq.~() while other terms correspond to the $W$ and $Z$ -factorization; the factor in the squared brackets is the sum of the $SU(2)$ and U(1) Casimirs, with the photon Casimir being subtracted to avoid the double counting. In the limit $\mu = M$ the group factor in the exponent is just the Casimir of $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$. \section{Application of IREE to the polarized Deep-Inelastic Scattering} Cross-sections of the polarized DIS are described by the structure functions $g_{1,2}$. They appear from the standard parametrization of the spin-dependent part $W_{\mu\nu}$ of the hadronic tensor: \begin{equation} W_{\mu\nu} = \imath \epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}q_{\lambda}\frac{m}{pq} \Big[ S_{\rho}g_1(x,Q^2) + \Big(S_{\rho} - p_{\rho} \frac{Sq}{pq} \Big)g_2(x,Q^2) \Big] \end{equation} where $p$, $m$ and $S$ are the momentum, mass and spin of the incoming hadron; $q$ is the virtual photon momentum; $Q^2 = -q^2$; $x = Q^2/2pq$. Obviously, $Q^2 \geqslant 0$ and $0 \leqslant x \leqslant 1$. Unfortunately, $g_{1,2}$ cannot be calculated in a straightforward model-independent way because it would involve QCD at long distances. To avoid this problem, $W_{\mu\nu}$ is regarded as a convolution of $\Phi_{q,g}$ - probabilities to find a polarized quark or gluon and the partonic tensors $\tilde{W}^{(q,g)}_{\mu\nu}$ parameterized identically to Eq.~(). In this approach $\tilde{W}^{(q,g)}_{\mu\nu}$ involve only QCD at short distances, i.e. the Perturbative QCD while long-distance effects are accumulated in $\Phi_{q,g}$. As $\Phi_{q,g}$ are unknown, they are mimicked by the initial quark and gluon densities $\delta q,~\delta g$. They are fixed aposteriori from phenomenological considerations. So, the standard description of DIS is: \begin{equation} W_{\mu\nu} \approx W_{\mu\nu}^{(q)}\otimes \delta q + W_{\mu\nu}^{(g)}\otimes \delta g~. \end{equation} The standard theoretical instrument to calculate $g_1$ is DGLAP complemented with standard fits for $\delta q,~\delta g$. We call it \textbf{Standard Approach} (SA). In this approach \begin{equation} g_1(x,Q^2) = C_q (x/z)\otimes \Delta q(z, Q^2)+C_g (x/z)\otimes \Delta g(z, Q^2) \end{equation} where $C{q,g}$ are coefficient functions and $\Delta q(z, Q^2),~\Delta g(z, Q^2)$ are called the evolved (with respect to $Q^2$)quark and gluon distributions. They are found as solutions to DGLAP evolution equations \begin{equation} \frac{d \Delta q}{d \ln Q^2} = \frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{2\pi} \big[P_{qq}\Delta q + P_{qg}\Delta g \big],~~\frac{d \Delta g}{d \ln Q^2} = \frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{2\pi} \big[P_{gq}\Delta q + P_{gg}\Delta g \big] \end{equation} where $P_{ab}$ are the splitting functions. The Mellin transforms $\gamma_{ab}$ of $P_{ab}$ are called the DGLAP anomalous dimensions. They are known in the leading order (LO) where they are $\sim \alpha_s$ and in the next-to-leading order (NLO), i.e. $\sim \alpha_s^2$. Similarly, $C_{q,g}$ are known in LO and NLO. Details on this topic can be found in the literature (e.g. see a review ). Structure function $g_1$ has the flavor singlet and non-singlet components, $g_1^S$ and $g_1^{NS}$. Expressions for $g_1^{NS}$ are simpler, so we will use mostly them in the present paper when possible. It is convenient to write $g_1$ in the form of the Mellin integral. In particular, \begin{equation} g_1^{NS~DGLAP}(x, Q^2) = (e^2_q/2) \int_{-\imath \infty}^{\imath \infty} \frac{d \omega}{2\pi\imath }\Big( \frac{1}{x} \Big)^{\omega} C_{NS}(\omega) \delta q(\omega) \exp \Big[\int_{\mu^2}^{Q^2}\frac{d k^2_{\perp}}{k^2_{\perp}}\gamma_{NS}(\omega, \alpha_s(k^2_{\perp}))\Big] \end{equation} where $\mu^2$ is the starting point of the $Q^2$ -evolution; $C_{NS}$ and $\gamma_{NS}$ are the non-singlet coefficient function and anomalous dimension. In LO \begin{eqnarray} \gamma_{NS}(\omega, Q^2) = \frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)C_F}{2\pi}\Big[\frac{1}{\omega(1+\omega)}+\frac{3}{2} + S_2(\omega)\Big], \\ \nonumber~~C_{NS}^{LO}(\omega) = 1 +\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)C_F}{2\pi}\Big[ \frac{1}{\omega^2} + \frac{1}{2\omega}+\frac{1}{2\omega +1} -\frac{9}{2} +\Big(\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{\omega(1+\omega)}\Big)\Big(S_1(\omega)+S^2_1(\omega)-S_2(\omega) \Big)\Big] \end{eqnarray} with $S_r(\omega)=\sum_{j=1}^{\omega} 1/j^r$~. The initial quark and gluon densities in Eq.~() are defined through fitting experimental data. For example, the fit for $\delta q$ taken from the first paper in Ref.~ is \begin{equation} \delta q(x) = N x^{- \alpha} \Big[(1 -x)^{\beta}(1 + \gamma x^{\delta})\Big], \end{equation} with $N$ being the normalization, $\alpha = 0.576$, $\beta = 2.67$, $\gamma = 34.36$ and $\delta = 0.75$. DGLAP equations were suggested for describing DIS in the region \begin{equation} x\lesssim 1,~~~~~~~~~Q^2 \gg \mu^2 \end{equation} ($\mu$ stands for a mass scale, $\mu \gg \Lambda_{QCD}$) and there is absolutely no theoretical grounds to apply them in the small-$x$ region, however being complemented with the standard fits they are commonly used at small $x$. It is known that SA provide a good agreement with available experimental data but the price is invoking a good deal of phenomenological parameters. The point is that DGLAP, summing up leading $\ln^k Q^2$ to all orders in $\alpha_s$, cannot do the same with leading $\ln^k(1/x)$. The later is not important in the region () where $\ln^k(1/x) \ll 1$ but becomes a serious drawback of the method at small $x$. The total resummation of DL contributions to $g_1$ in the region \begin{equation} x\ll 1,~~~~~~~~~Q^2 \gg \mu^2 \end{equation} was done in Refs.~. The weakest point in those papers was keeping $\alpha_s$ as a parameter, i.e. fixed at an unknown scale. Accounting for the most important part of single-logarithmic contributions, including the running coupling effects were done in Refs.~. In these papers $\mu^2$ was treated as the starting point of the $Q^2$ -evolution and as the IR cut-off at the same time. The structure function $g_1$ was calculated with composing and solving IREE in the following way. It is convenient to compose IREE not for $g_1$ but for forward (with $|t| \lesssim \mu^2$) Compton amplitude $M$ related to $g_1$ as follows: \begin{equation} g_1 = \frac{1}{\pi} \Im M~. \end{equation} It is also convenient to use for amplitude $M$ the asymptotic form of the Sommerfeld-Watson transform: \begin{equation} M = \int_{-\imath \infty}^{\imath \infty}\frac{d \omega}{2\pi \imath}\Big(\frac{s}{\mu^2}\Big)^\omega \xi^{(-)}(\omega)F(\omega, Q^2/\mu^2) \end{equation} where $\xi^{(-)}(\omega) = [e^{-\imath \pi\omega} -1]/2 \approx -\imath \pi\omega/2 $ is the signature factor. The transform of Eq.~() and is often addressed as the Mellin transform but one should remember that it coincides with the Mellin transform only partly. IREE for Mellin amplitudes $F(\omega, Q^2)$ look quite simple. For example, the IREE for the non-singlet Mellin amplitude $F^{NS}$ related to $g_1^{NS}$ by Eqs.~(,) is depicted in Fig.~3. In the Mellin space it takes the simple form: \begin{equation} [\omega + \partial/\partial y]F^{NS} = (1+\omega/2)H_{NS}F^{NS}~ \end{equation} where $y = \ln(Q^2/\mu^2)$. Eq.~() involves a new object (the lowest blob in the last term in Fig.~3): the non-singlet anomalous dimension $H_{NS}$ accounting for the total resummaton of leading logarithms of $1/x$. Like in DGLAP, the anomalous dimension does not depend on $Q^2$ but, in contrast to DGLAP, $H_{NS}$ can be found with the same method. The IREE for it is algebraic: \begin{equation} \omega H_{NS} = A(\omega)C_F/8\pi^2 + (1 + \omega/2)H_{NS}^2 + D(\omega)/8\pi^2~. \end{equation} The system of Eqs.~(,) can be easily solved but before doing it let us comment on them. The left-hand sides of Eqs.~(,) are obtained with applying the operator $-\mu^2 \partial/\partial \mu^2$ to Eq.~(). The Born contribution in Fig.~3 does not depend on $\mu$ and therefore vanishes. The last term in Fig.~3 (the rhs of Eq.~()) is the result of a new, $t$ -channel factorization which does not exist in the hard kinematics defined in Eq.~(). In order to compose the IREE for the Compton amplitude $M$, in accordance with the prescription in the previous section we should first introduce the cut-off $\mu$. Then \textbf{Step 2} is to tag the softest particles. In the case under discussion we do not have soft external particles. Had the softest particle been a gluon, it could be factorized in the same way like in Sect.~II. However, the only option now is to attach the softest propagator to the external quark lines and get $\ln (t/\mu^2) = 0$ from integration over $\beta$ (cf Eq.~()). So, the softest gluon does not yield DL contributions. The other option is to find a softest quark. The softest $t$ -channel quark pair factorizes amplitude $M$ into two amplitudes (the last term in Fig.~3) and yield DL contributions. The IREE for $H_{NS}$ is different: (\textbf{i}) $H_{NS}$ does not depend on $Q^2$, so there is not a derivative in the lhs of Eq.~(). (\textbf{ii}) The Born term depends on $\mu$ and contributes to the IREE (term $A$ in Eq.~())). (\textbf{iii}) As all external particles now are quarks, the softest virtual particle can be both a quark and gluon. The case when it is the $t$ -channel quark pair, corresponds to the quadratic term in the rhs of Eq.~(). The case of the softest gluon yields the term $D$, with \begin{equation} D(\omega) = \frac{2C_F}{b^2 N} \int_0^{\infty} d \eta e^{-\omega \eta} \ln \big( \frac{\rho + \eta}{\eta}\big) \Big[ \frac{\rho + \eta}{(\rho + \eta)^2 + \pi^2} - \frac{1}{\eta}\Big] \end{equation} where $b = (33 - 2n_f)/12\pi$ and $\eta = \ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2_{QCD})$. The term $A$ in Eq.~() stands instead of $\alpha_s$. The point is that the standard parametrization $\alpha_s = \alpha_s(Q^2)$ cannot be used at $x \ll 1$ and should be changed (see Ref.~ for detail). It leads to the replacement $\alpha_s$ by \begin{equation} A(\omega) = \frac{1}{b} \Big[ \frac{\eta}{\eta^2 + \pi^2} - \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{d \rho e^{- \omega \rho}}{(\rho + \eta)^2 + \pi^2} \Big]~. \end{equation} Having solved Eqs.~(,), we arrive at the following expression for $g_1^{NS}$ in the region (): \begin{equation} g_1^{NS}(x, Q^2) = (e^2_q/2) \int_{-\imath \infty}^{\imath \infty} \frac{d \omega}{2\pi\imath}(1/x)^{\omega} C_{NS}(\omega) \delta q(\omega) \exp\big( H_{NS}(\omega) y\big) \end{equation} where the coefficient function $C_{NS}(\omega)$ is expressed through $H_{NS}(\omega)$: \begin{equation} C_{NS}(\omega) =\frac{\omega}{\omega - H_{NS}(\omega)}~ \end{equation} and $H_{NS}(\omega)$ is the solution of algebraic equation (): \begin{equation} H_{NS} = (1/2) \Big[\omega - \sqrt{\omega^2 - B(\omega)} \Big] \end{equation} where \begin{equation} B(\omega) = (4\pi C_F (1 + \omega/2) A(\omega) + D(\omega))/ (2 \pi^2)~. \end{equation} It is shown in Ref.~ that the expression for $g_1$ in the region \begin{equation} x\ll 1,~~~~~~~~~Q^2 \lesssim \mu^2 \end{equation} can be obtained from the expressions obtained in Refs.~ for $g_1$ in region () by the shift \begin{equation} Q^2 \to Q^2 + \mu^2_0~ \end{equation} where $\mu_0 = 1$~GeV for the non-singlet $g_1$ and $\mu_0 = 5.5$~GeV for the singlet. \section{Comparison of expressions () and () for $g_1^{NS}$} Eqs.~() and () read that the non-singlet $g_1$ is obtained from $\delta q$ with evolving it with respect to $x$ (using the coefficient function) and with respect to $Q^2$ (using the anomalous dimension). Numerical comparison of Eqs.~() and () can be done when $\delta q$ is specified. \subsection{Comparison of small-$x$ asymptotics, neglecting the impact of $\delta q$ } In the first place let us compare the small-$x$ asymptotics of for $g_1^{NS~DGLAP}$ and $g_1^{NS}$, assuming that $\delta q$ does not affect them. In other words, we compare the differencee in the $x$-evolution at $x \to 0$. Applying the saddle-point method to Eqs.~() and () leads to the following expressions: \begin{equation} g_1^{NS~DGLAP} \sim \exp \Big[\sqrt{\ln(1/x)\ln\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2_{QCD})}\Big] \end{equation} and \begin{equation} g_1^{NS} \sim (1/x)^{\Delta_{NS}} (Q^2/\mu^2)^{\Delta_{NS}/2} \end{equation} where ${\Delta_{NS}}=0.42$ is the non-singlet intercept\footnote{The singlet intercept is much greater: $\Delta_S = 0.86.$}. Expression () is the well-known DGLAP asymptotics. Obviously, the asymptotics () is much steeper than the DGLAP asymptotics (). \subsection{Numerical comparison between Eqs.~() and (), neglecting the impact of $\delta q$} A comparison between Eqs.~() and () strongly depends on the choice of $\delta q$ but also depends on the difference between the coefficient functions and anomalous dimensions. To clarify the latter we choose the simplest form of $\delta q$: \begin{equation} \delta q(\omega) = N_q~. \end{equation} It corresponds to the evolution from the bare quark where $\delta q(x) = N_q \delta(1-\mu^2/s)$. Numerical results for $R = [g_1^{NS}-g_1^{NS~DGLAP}]/g_1^{NS~DGLAP}$ with $\delta q$ chosen by Eq.~() manifest (see Ref.~ for detail) that $R$ increases when $x$ is decreases. In particular, $R > 0.3$ at $x \lesssim 0.05$. It means that the total resummation of leading $\ln^k(1/x)$ cannot be neglected at $x \lesssim 0.05$ and DGLAP cannot be used beyond $x \approx 0.05$. On the other hand, it is well--known that Standard Approach based on DGLAP works well at $x \ll 0.05$. To solve this puzzle, we have to consider the standard fit for $\delta q$ in more detail. \subsection{Analysis of the standard fits for $\delta q$} There are known different fits for $\delta q$. We consider the fit of Eq.~(). Obviously, in the $\omega$ -space Eq.~() is a sum of pole contributions: \begin{equation} \delta q(\omega) = N \eta \Big[ (\omega - \alpha)^{-1} + \sum m_k (\omega + \lambda_k)^{-1}\Big], \end{equation} with $\lambda_{k} > 0$, so that the first term in Eq.~() corresponds to the singular term $x^{-\alpha}$ of Eq.~() and therefore the small-$x$ asymptotics of $f_{DGLAP}$ is given by the leading singularity $\omega = \alpha = 0.57$ of the integrand in Eq.~() so that the asymptotics of $g_1^{NS~DGLAP}(x, Q^2)$ is not given by the classic exponential of Eq.~() but actually is the Regge-like: \begin{equation} g_1^{NS~DGLAP} \sim C(\alpha)(1/x)^{\alpha}\Big(\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)/ \ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)\Big)^{\gamma(\alpha)/b}, \end{equation} with $b = (33 - 2n_f)/12\pi$. Comparison of Eq.~() and Eq.~() demonstrates that both DGLAP and our approach lead to the Regge behavior of $g_1$, though the DGLAP prediction is more singular than ours. Then, they predict different $Q^2$ -behavior. However, it is important that our intercept $\Delta_{NS}$ is obtained by the total resummation of the leading logarithmic contributions and without assuming singular fits for $\delta q$ whereas the SA intercept $\alpha$ in Eq.~() is generated by the phenomenological factor $x^{-0.57}$ of Eq.~() which makes the structure functions grow when $x$ decreases and mimics in fact the total resummation\footnote{We remind that our estimates for the intercepts $\Delta_{NS}, \Delta_{S}$ were confirmed (see Refs.~) by analysis of the experimental data}. In other words, the role of the higher-loop radiative corrections on the small-$x$ behavior of the non-singlets is, actually, incorporated into SA phenomenologically, through the initial parton densities fits. It means that the singular factors can be dropped from such fits when the coefficient functions account for the total resummation of the leading logarithms and therefore fits for $\delta q$ become regular in $x$ in this case. They also can be simplified. Indeed, if $x$ in the regular part $N \Big[(1 -x)^{\beta}(1 + \gamma x^{\delta})\Big]$ of the fit () is not large, all $x$ -dependent terms can be neglected. So, instead of the rather complicated expression of Eq.~(), $\delta q$ can be approximated by a constant or a linear form \begin{equation} \delta q(x) = N(1 + ax)~. \end{equation} with 2 phenomenological parameters instead of 5 in Eq.~(). \section{Correcting misconceptions} The total resummation of $\ln^k(1/x)$ allows to correct several misconceptions popular in the literature. We list and correct them below.\\ \textbf{Misconception 1}: Impact of non-leading perturbative and non-perturbative contributions on the intercepts of $g_1$ is large. \textbf{Actually:} Confronting our results and the estimates of the intercepts in Refs.~ obtained from fitting available experimental data manifests that the total contribution of non-leading perturbaive and non-perturbative contributions to the intercepts is very small, so the main impact on the intercepts is brought by the leading logarithms. \\ \textbf{Misconception 2}: Intercepts of $g_1$ should depend on $Q^2$ through the parametrization of the QCD coupling $\alpha_s = \alpha_(Q^2)$. \textbf{Actually:} This is groundless from the theoretical point of view and appears only if the the parametrization of the QCD coupling $\alpha_s = \alpha_(k_{\perp}^2)$ is kept in all ladder rungs. It is shown in Ref.~ that this parametrization cannot be used at small $x$ and should be replaced by the parametrization of Eq.~().\\ \textbf{Misconception 3}: Initial densities $\delta q(x)$ and $\delta g(x)$ are singular but they are defined at $x$ not too small. Later, being convoluted with the coefficient functions, they become less singular. \textbf{Actually:} It is absolutely wrong: Eq.~() proves that the pole singularity $x^{-\alpha}$ in the fits does not become weaker with the $x$-evolution. \\ \textbf{Misconception 4}: Fits for the initial parton densities are complicated because they mimic unknown non-perturbative contributions. \textbf{Actually:} Our results demonstrate that the singular factors in the fits mimic the total resummation of $\ln^k(1/x)$ and can be dropped when the resummation is accounted for. In the regular part of the fits the $x$ -dependence is essential for large $x$ only, so impact of non-perturbative contributions is weak at the small-$x$ region. \\ \textbf{Misconception 5}: Total resummations of $\ln^k(1/x)$ may become of some importance at extremely small $x$ but not for $x$ available presently and in a forthcoming future. \textbf{Actually:} The efficiency of SA in the available small-$x$ range is based on exploiting the singular factors in the standard fits to mimic the resummations. So, the resummations have always been used in SA at small $x$ in an inexplicit way, through the fits, but without being aware of it. \section{Combining the total resummation and DGLAP} The total resummaton of leading logarithms of $x$ considered in Sect.~IV is essential at small-$x$. When $x \sim 1$, all terms $\sim \ln^k(1/x)$ in the coefficient functions and anomalous dimensions cannot have a big impact compared to other terms. DGLAP accounts for those terms. It makes DGLAP be more precise at large $x$ than our approach. So, there appears an obvious appeal to combine the DGLAP coefficient functions and anomalous dimensions with our expressions in order to obtain an approach equally good in the whole range of $x:~0<x<1$. The prescription for such combining was suggested in Ref.~. Let us, for the sake of simplicity, consider here combining the total resummation and LO DGLAP. The generalization to NLO DGLAP can be done quite similarly. The prescription consists of the following points: \textbf{Step A:} Take Eqs.~() and replace $\alpha_s$ by $A$ of Eq.~(), converting $\gamma_{NS}$ into $\tilde{\gamma}_{NS}$ and $C_{NS}^{LO}$ into $\tilde{C}_{NS}^{LO}$. \textbf{Step B:} Sum up the obtained expressions and Eqs.~(,): \begin{equation} \tilde{c}_{NS} = \tilde{C}_{NS}^{LO} + H_{S},~~~\tilde{h}_{NS} = \tilde{\gamma}_{NS} + H_{NS}~. \end{equation} New expressions $\tilde{c}_{NS}, \tilde{h}_{NS}$ combine the total resummation and DGLAP but they obviously contain the double counting: some of the first--loop contributions are present both in Eqs.~() and in Eqs.~(,). To avoid the double counting, let us expend Eqs.~(,) into series and retain in the series only the first loop contributions\footnote{For combining the total resummation with NLO DGLAP one more term in the series should be retained}: \begin{equation} H_{NS}^{(1)} = \frac{A(\omega C_F)}{2 \pi} \Big[\frac{1}{\omega}+\frac{1}{2}\Big],~~C_{NS}^{(1)} =1 + \frac{A(\omega C_F)}{2 \pi} \Big[\frac{1}{\omega^2}+\frac{1}{2\omega}\Big]~. \end{equation} Finally, there is \textbf{Step C:} Subtract the first-loop expressions () from Eq.~()) to get the combined, or "synthetic" as we called them in Ref.~, coefficient function $c_{NS}$ and anomalous dimension $h_{NS}$: \begin{equation} c_{NS} = \tilde{c}_{NS} -C_{NS}^{(1)},~~~~~h_{NS} = \tilde{h}_{NS} -H_{NS}^{(1)}. \end{equation} Substituting Eqs.~() in Eq.~() leads to the expression for $g_1^{NS}$ equally good at large and small $x$. This description does not require singular factors in the fits for the initial parton densities. An alternative approach for combining DLA expression for $g_1$ was suggested in Ref.~. However, the parametrization of $\alpha_s$ in this approach was simply borrowed from DGLAP, which makes this approach be unreliable at small $x$. \section{Conclusion} We have briefly considered the essence of the IREE method together with examples of its application to different processes. They demonstrate that IREE is indeed the efficient and reliable instrument for all-orders calculations in QED, QCD and the Standard Model of EW interactions. As an example in favor of this point, let us just remind that there exist wrong expressions for the singlet $g_1$ in DLA obtained with an alternative technique and the exponentiation of EW double logarithms obtained in Ref.~ had previously been denied in several papers where other methods of all-order summations were used. \section{Acknowledgement} B.I.~Ermolaev is grateful to the Organizing Committee of the Epiphany Conference for financial support of his participation in the conference. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{sud} V.V.~Sudakov. Sov. Phys. JETP 3(1956)65. \bibitem{ggfl} V.N.~Gorshkov, V.N.~Gribov, G.V.~Frolov, L.N.~Lipatov. Yad.Fiz.6(1967)129; Yad.Fiz.6(1967)361. \bibitem{g} V.N.~Gribov. Yad. Fiz. 5(1967)399. \bibitem{efl} B.I.~Ermolaev, L.N.~Lipatov, V.S.~Fadin. Yad. Fiz. 45(1987)817; B.I.~Ermolaev. Yad. Fiz. 49(1989)546; M.~Chaichian and B.~Ermolav. Nucl. Phys. B 451(1995)194. \bibitem{kl} R.~Kirschner and L.N.~Lipatov. ZhETP 83(1982)488; Nucl. Phys. B 213(1983)122. \bibitem{el} B.I.~Ermolaev and L.N.~Lipatov. Yad. Fiz. 47(1988)841; Yad. Fiz. 48(1988)1125; Int. j. Mod. Phys. A 4(1989)3147. \bibitem{ek} B.I.~Ermolaev and M.~Krawczyk. Proc of Kazimerz Conf on physics of elementary interactions. 1990. \bibitem{et} B.I.~Ermolaev and S.I.~Troyan. Nucl. Phys. B 590(2000)521. \bibitem{ef} B.I.~Ermolaev and V.S.~Fadin. JETP Lett. 33(1981)269. \bibitem{flmm} V.S.~Fadin, L.N.~Lipatov, A.~Martin, M.~Melles. Phys. Rev. D 61(2000)094002. \bibitem{dglap} G.~Altarelli and G.~Parisi, Nucl.~Phys.B126 (1977) 297; V.N.~Gribov and L.N.~Lipatov, Sov.~J.~Nucl.~Phys. 15 (1972) 438; L.N.Lipatov, Sov.~J.~Nucl.~Phys. 20 (1972) 95; Yu.L.~Dokshitzer, Sov.~Phys.~JETP 46 (1977) 641. \bibitem{fits} G.~Altarelli, R.D.~Ball, S.~Forte and G.~Ridolfi. Nucl.~Phys.~B496 (1997) 337; Acta Phys. Polon. B29(1998)1145; E.~Leader, A.V.~Sidorov and D.B.~Stamenov. Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 034023; J.~Blumlein, H.~Botcher. Nucl. Phys. B636 (2002) 225; M.~Hirai at al. Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 054021. \bibitem{vn} W.L.~Van Neerven. hep-ph/9609243. \bibitem{ber} B.I.~Ermolaev, S.I.~Manaenkov and M.G.~Ryskin. Z.~Pyss.~C 69(1996)259; J.~Bartels, B.I.~Ermolaev and M.G.~Ryskin. Z.~Pyss.~C 70(1996)273; Z.~Pyss.~C 72(1996)627. \bibitem{egt} B.I.~Ermolaev, M.~Greco, S.I.~Troyan. Nucl. Phys.B 571 (2000) 137; Nucl. Phys.B 594 (2001) 71; Phys.Lett.B 579 (2004) 321. \bibitem{egta} B.I.~Ermolaev, M.~Greco and S.I.~Troyan. Phys.Lett.B 522(2001)57. \bibitem{smq} B.I.~Ermolaev, M.~Greco and S.I.~Troyan. hep-ph/0605133. \bibitem{kat} J.~Soffer and O.V.~Teryaev. Phys. Rev.56( 1997)1549; A.L.~Kataev, G.~Parente, A.V.~Sidorov. Phys.Part.Nucl 34(2003)20; Nucl.Phys.A666(2000)184; A.V.~Kotikov, A.V.~Lipatov, G.~Parente, N.P.~Zotov. Eur.Phys.J.C26(2002)51; V.G.~Krivohijine, A.V.~Kotikov, hep-ph/0108224; A.V.~Kotikov, D.V.~Peshekhonov hep-ph/0110229. \bibitem{egtfit}B.I.~Ermolaev, M.~Greco and S.I.~Troyan. Phys.Lett.B B.I.~Ermolaev, M.~Greco and S.I.~Troyan. Phys.Lett.B 622(2005)93. \bibitem{kwe} B. Badalek, J.~Kwiecinski. Phys. Lett. B 418(1998)229; J.~Kwiecinski, B.~Ziaja. hep-ph/9802386. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0345
|
Title: A High Robustness and Low Cost Model for Cascading Failures
Abstract: We study numerically the cascading failure problem by using artificially
created scale-free networks and the real network structure of the power grid.
The capacity for a vertex is assigned as a monotonically increasing function of
the load (or the betweenness centrality). Through the use of a simple
functional form with two free parameters, revealed is that it is indeed
possible to make networks more robust while spending less cost. We suggest that
our method to prevent cascade by protecting less vertices is particularly
important for the design of more robust real-world networks to cascading
failures.
Body: \maketitle The network robustness has been one of the most central topics in the complex network research~. In scale-free networks, the existence of hub vertices with high degrees has been shown to yield fragility to intentional attacks, while at the same time the network becomes robust to random failures due to the heterogeneous degree distribution~. On the other hand, for the description of dynamic processes on top of networks, it has been suggested that the information flow across the network is one of the key issues, which can be captured well by the betweenness centrality or the load~. Cascading failures can happen in many infrastructure networks, including the electrical power grid, Internet, road systems, and so on. At each vertex of the power grid, the electric power is either produced or transferred to other vertices, and it is possible that from some reasons a vertex is overloaded beyond the given capacity, which is the maximum electric power the vertex can handle. The breakdown of the heavily loaded single vertex will cause the redistribution of loads over the remaining vertices, which can trigger breakdowns of newly overloaded vertices. This process will go on until all the loads of the remaining vertices are below their capacities. For some real networks, the breakdown of a single vertex is sufficient to collapse the entire system, which is exactly what happened on August 14, 2003 when an initial minor disturbance in Ohio triggered the largest blackout in the history of United States in which millions of people suffered without electricity for as long as 15 hours~. A number of aspects of cascading failures in complex networks have been discussed in the literature~, including the model for describing cascade phenomena~, the control and defense strategy against cascading failures~, the analytical calculation of capacity parameter~, and the modelling of the real-world data~. In a recent paper~, the cascade process in scale-free networks with community structure has been investigated, and it has been found that a smaller modularity is easier to trigger cascade, which implies the importance of the modularity and community structure in cascading failures. In the research of the cascading failures, the following two issues are closely related to each other and of significant interests: One is how to improve the network robustness to cascading failures, and the other particularly important issue is how to design manmade networks with a less cost. In most circumstances, a high robustness and a low cost are difficult to achieve simultaneously. For example, while a network with more edges are more robust to failures, in practice, the number of edges is often limited by the cost to construct them. In brevity, it costs much to build a robust network. Very recently, Sch\"{a}fer \emph{et. al.} proposed a new proactive measure to increase the robustness of heterogeneous loaded networks to cascades. By defining the load dependent weights, the network turns to be more homogeneous and the total load is decreased, which means the investment cost is also reduced~. In the present Letter, for simplicity, we try to find a possible way of protecting networks based on the flow along shortest-hop path, first proposed by Motter-Lai~. Through the use of our improved capacity model, we numerically examine the cascades in scale-free networks and the electrical power grid network. Since for heterogeneously loaded networks, overload avalanches can be triggered by the failure of only one of the most loaded vertices, the following results are all based on the removal of one vertex with the highest load. Our results suggest that networks can indeed be made more robust while spending less cost. We first construct the Barab\'asi-Albert (BA) scale-free network~ of the size $N=5000$ with the average degree $\langle k \rangle\approx 4$ to study the cascading failures. The BA network is characterized by the degree distribution $p(k)\sim{k^{-\gamma}}$ with the degree exponent $\gamma=3$, and it has been shown that the load distribution also exhibits the power-law behavior~, which means that there exist a few vertices with very large loads. The betweenness centrality for each vertex, defined as the total number of shortest paths passing through it, is used as the measure of the load and computed by using the efficient algorithm~. The capacity $c_v$ for the vertex $v$ is assigned as \begin{equation} c_v=\lambda(l_v) l_v , \end{equation} where $l_v$ is the initial load without failed vertices. Although it should be possible to find, via a kind of the variational approach, the optimal functional form of $\lambda(l_v)$ which gives rise to the lower cost and the higher robustness (see below for the definitions of the two) we in this work simplify $\lambda(l_v)$ as shown in Fig.~: \begin{equation} \lambda(l_v) = 1 + \alpha\Theta(l_v/l_{\rm max} - \beta), \end{equation} where $\Theta(x) = 0 (1)$ for $x < 0 (> 0)$ is the Heaviside step function, $l_{\rm max} = \max_v l_v$, and we use $\alpha\in{[0,\infty)}$ and $\beta \in [0,1]$ as two control parameters in the model. In Ref.~ a constant $\lambda$ has been used (see Fig.~ for comparison), which corresponds to the limiting case of $\beta = 0$ with the identification $\lambda = 1 + \alpha$ in our model. At the initial time $t=0$, the vertex with the highest load is removed from the network, and then new loads for all other vertices are recomputed.\footnote{In real situations of failures, the initial breakdown can happen at any vertex in the network. However, the eventual scale of damages must be greater when a heavily loaded vertex is broken, and accordingly we in this work restrict ourselves to the worst case when the vertex with the highest load is initially broken.} We then check the failure condition $c_v < l_v(t)$ for each vertex, and remove all overloaded vertices to get the network at $t+1$. The above process continues until all existing vertices fulfill the condition $c_v > l_v(t)$, and the size of the giant component $N^\prime$ at the final stage is measured. The relative size of the cascading failures is conveniently captured by the ratio~ \begin{equation} g=\frac{N^\prime}{N} , \end{equation} which we call the robustness from now on. For networks of homogeneous load distributions, the cascade does not happen and $g \approx 1$ has been observed~. Also for networks of scale-free load distributions, one can have $g \approx 1$ if randomly chosen vertices, instead of vertices with high loads, are destroyed at the initial stage~. In general, one can split, at least conceptually, the total cost for the networks into two different types: On the one hand, there should be the initial construction cost to build a network structure, which may include e.g., the cost for the power transmission lines in power grids, and the cost proportional to the length of road in road networks. Another type of the cost is required to make the {\it given network} functioning, which can be an increasing function of the amount of flow and can be named as the running cost. For example, we need to spend more to have bigger memory sizes and faster network card and so on for the computer server which delivers more data packets. In the present Letter, we assume that the network structure is given, (accordingly the construction cost is fixed), and focus only on the running cost which should be spent in addition to the initial construction cost. Without consideration of the cost to protect vertices, the cascading failure can be made never to happen by assigning extremely high values to capacities. However, in practice, the capacity is severely limited by cost. We expect the cost to protect the vertex $v$ should be an increasing function of $c_v$, and for convenience define the cost $e$ as \begin{equation} e = \left[\sum_{v=1}^N \bigl(\lambda(l_v) -1 \bigr) \right]/N. \end{equation} It is to be noted that for a given value of $\alpha$, the original Motter-Lai (ML) capacity model in Ref.~ has always a higher value of the cost than our model (see Fig.~). Although $e = 0$ at $\beta = 1$, it should not be interpreted as a costfree situation; we have defined $e$ only as a relative measure in comparison to the case of $\lambda(l) = 1$ for all vertices. For a given network structure, the key quantities to be measured are $g(\alpha,\beta)$ and $e(\alpha,\beta)$, and we aim to increase $g$ and decrease $e$, which will eventually provide us a way to achieve the high robustness and the low cost at the same time. In Fig.~(a), we report the robustness $g$ for the BA network of the size $N=5000$ with the average degree $\langle k \rangle \approx 4$ as a function of $\beta$ at $\alpha = 0.10$, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, and 1.0 (from bottom to top). As $\beta$ increases further beyond the region in Fig.~(a), the robustness $g$ is found to decrease toward zero (not shown here), which is as expected since the larger $\beta$ makes vertices with larger loads less protected (see Fig.~). We also skip in Fig.~ small values of $\beta$ below approximately 0.001: If $\beta < l_{\rm min}/l_{\rm max}$, with the minimum load $l_{\rm min}$, all vertices are given $\lambda(l) = 1+\alpha$, equivalent to the ML model corresponding to $\beta=0$. It is shown in Fig.~(a) that for $\alpha\lesssim{0.30}$, $g$ first increases and then decreases as $\beta$ is increased, exhibiting a well-developed maximum $g_{\rm max}$ at $\beta = \beta^*$. This is a particularly interesting observation since {\em the network becomes more robust (larger $g$) by protecting less vertices (larger $\beta$)}. In more detail, the curve for $\alpha = 0.20$ in Fig.~(a) shows the maximum $g_{\rm max} \approx 0.62$ (at $\beta^* \approx 0.00133$), which is about 3.5 times bigger than $g\approx 0.175$ (at $\beta = 0$). In other words, the network can be made much more robust by assigning smaller capacities to vertices with less loads. For larger values of $\alpha$, on the other hand, it is found that $g_{\rm max}$ occurs at $\beta = 0$, which indicates that the above finding, i.e., possibility of making network more robust by protecting less vertices, does not hold, as exemplified by the curve for $\alpha = 1$ in Fig.~(a). The above observation is closely related with Ref.~, where it has been found that in order to reduce the size of cascades (or to have a larger $g$), some of less loaded vertices should be removed just after the initial attack. In reality, however, we believe that the direct application of this strategy of intentional breakdowns is not easy, for cascading failures usually propagate across the whole network very soon just after the initial breakdown. In contrast, we propose in this work a way to make the network better prepared to breakdowns, by protecting less vertices. In order to look at the cost benefit of protecting less vertices in a more careful way, we plot in Fig.~(b) the cost $e$ in Eq.~() versus $\beta$ at various values of $\alpha$. As is expected from Fig.~, the cost $e$ is shown to be a monotonically decreasing (increasing) function of $\beta$ ($\alpha$) at fixed $\alpha$ ($\beta$). Take again the case with $\alpha = 0.20$ as an example with $e(\beta^*) \approx 0.153$ and $e(\beta=0) = 0.2$: It is then concluded that for $\alpha = 0.2$ one can make the network 3.5 ($\approx 0.62/0.175$) times more robust while spending only 76.5\ In Fig.~(c), we use the same data as in Fig.~(a) and (b), and show the relation between the robustness and the cost for $\alpha=0.10, \cdots, 0.30$ from bottom to top. For comparison, the values ($g$,$e$) for $\beta = 0$, corresponding to the ML model, are also displayed as symbols at the end of curves. It is clearly shown that for a given $\alpha$, one can achieve the higher robustness and the lower cost by tuning $\beta$ toward the right-most point on each curve. We can also use Fig.~(c) to choose the most efficient way to get a given robustness $g$: For example, suppose that $g = 0.6$ is the required robustness. The vertical line for $g=0.6$ crosses several different curves, and one can choose the crossing point which has the lowest cost. We next study the cascading failures in the real network structure of the North American power grid of the size $N=4941$~. Although the electrical power grid network is a very homogeneous network in terms of the degree distribution, the load distribution, in a sharp contrast, shows a strong heterogeneity as shown in Fig.~. In other words, the degree distribution is more like an exponential one, while the load distribution is similar to the power-law form. The broad load distribution can be one of the reasons of the fragility of the power grid to cascading failures~. We then apply, the same method as we used above, to the power grid, and obtain $g$ and $e$ as functions of $\beta$ for given values of $\alpha$. Figure~ for the cascading failures of the power grid is in parallel to Fig.~ for the BA network: Fig.~(a) for $g$ versus $\beta$, (b) for $e$ versus $\beta$, and (c) for $e$ versus $g$. There are some quantitative differences between curves for the power grid and the BA network. However, qualitatively speaking, both networks are shown to exhibit the following common features: (i) For a given $\alpha$, the robustness has a maximum $g_{\rm max}$ at $\beta=\beta^*$, (ii) $e$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $\beta$ at a given $\alpha$, and (iii) there exists a lob-like structure in the $g$-$e$ plane, which indicates that one can make the network exhibit a higher robustness and a lower cost at the same time than the corresponding values for the ML model. It is worth mentioning that the power grid in Fig.~ can be made to show the higher $g$ and the lower $e$ than the ML model in a broader region of $\alpha$: Even at $\alpha = 1$, the power grid can have much better robustness and much less cost in comparison to the ML model. Specifically, at $\alpha = 1.0$ the ML model has $g \approx 0.40$ and $e = 1.0$ while our model can yield $g \approx 0.73$ and $ e \approx 0.26$ (at $\beta \approx 0.00583$) [see Fig.~(c)], which occurs when only 26\ are given the higher capacity $\lambda(l) = 2$, and the other remaining 74\ In other words, by assigning lower capacities to 74\ the network becomes much more robust. In reality, it is also interesting to observe the effect of noise on the dynamical process. In Ref.~, when noise is introduced into the nonlinear dynamical system, it has been shown that noise changes the singularity at a special time to a statistical time distribution and shows various interesting behaviors. In the present work, we are interested in how the presence of noise influences the final cascading failure behavior within our scheme. Here, we introduce effects of noise as an erroneous assignment of the capacity function. In detail, at a given error probability $\varepsilon$, the vertex $v$ is assigned the capacity $c_v'$ instead of its correct $c_v$: \begin{equation} c_v'=c_v ( 1 + r), \end{equation} where $r$ is the uniform random variable with zero mean ($r\in{[-1,1]})$. We believe that this erroneous behavior is plausible in reality, since the perfect knowledge for the true value of the load for each vertex may not be available, which may cause an erroneous assignment of the capacity on a vertex. In the limiting case of $\varepsilon = 0$, we recover our error-free results presented above. In Fig.~, we report the results at $\alpha=0.2$ for the robustness $g$ for the BA network as a function of $\beta$ for different error probability $\varepsilon$ [see Fig.(a) for comparison]. It is seen that for small $\varepsilon$, the overall behavior is qualitatively the same as in Fig.~(a), i.e., the existence of a well-developed robustness peak and gradual decrease as $\beta$ is increased. The peak height of the robustness is found to decrease as $\varepsilon$ is increased, indicating the negative effect of the noise. An interesting observation in Fig.~ is that as $\varepsilon$ becomes larger there exits a region of $\beta$ in which the robustness is actually higher than the error-free case of $\varepsilon = 0$. In summary, we have suggested a new capacity model to cascading failures, by improving the existing ML capacity model in Ref.~. The main idea in our model is the same as in existing studies: In a highly heterogeneous network with a broad load distribution, vertices with large loads should be more protected by assigning large capacities. Different from other studies in which the capacity is assigned in proportion to the load, i.e., $c = \lambda l$, we generalize the model so that the proportionality constant $\lambda$ is now changed to an increasing function $\lambda(l)$ of $l$. In more detail, we use the Heaviside step function for $\lambda(l)$ characterized by two parameters, the step height $\alpha$, and the step position $\beta$. By applying this capacity model to the artificial BA network as well as the real network of the power grid, we have clearly shown that it is indeed possible to make the network more robust, while at the same time the cost to assign capacities is drastically reduced. We believe that our suggested model to assign capacities to vertices should be practically useful in designing infrastructure networks in an economic point of view. As a final remark, it needs to be pointed out that the model proposed in this work should be considered as only the first step to find the optimal functional form $\lambda(l)$ of the capacity as a function of the load. As a future work, we are planning to apply a sort of variational method to find the optimal functional form of $\lambda(l)$. B.J.K. was supported by grant No. R01-2005-000-10199-0 from the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation. \begin{thebibliography}{ref1} \bibitem{Internet}Pastor-Satorras R. and Vespignani A., {\it Evolution and Structure of the Internet: A Statistical Physics Approach} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2004); Albert R. and Barab\'{a}si A.-L., Rev. Mod. Phys., \textbf{74} (2002) 47; Dorogovtsev S.N. and Mendes J.F.F., Adv. Phys., \textbf{51} (2002) 1079; Newman M.E.J., SIAM Rev., \textbf{45} (2003) 167. \bibitem{Albert}Albert R., Jeong H. and Barab\'{a}si A.-L., Nature, \textbf{406} (2000) 378. \bibitem{Cohen1}Cohen R., Erez K., ben-Avraham D. and Havlin S., Phys. Rev. Lett., \textbf{85}, (2000) 4626; {\it ibid.} \textbf{86} (2001) 3682. \bibitem{Holme}Holme P., Kim B.J., Yoon C.N. and Han S.K., Phys. Rev. E, \textbf{65} (2002) 056109. \bibitem{Bing} Wang B., Tang H.W., Guo C.H. and Xiu Z.L., Physica A, \textbf{363}, (2006) 591; Wang B., Tang H.W., Guo C.H., Xiu Z.L. and Zhou T., {\it ibid.} \textbf{368} (2006) 607. \bibitem{Loaddis} Goh K.I., Kahng B. and Kim D., Phys. Rev. Lett., \textbf{87} (2001) 278701. \bibitem{Report} U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, {\it Final Report on the August 14th blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations} (United States Department of Energy and National Resources Canada, April 2004.) \bibitem{CasModel} Motter A.E. and Lai Y.C., Phys. Rev. E, \textbf{66} (2002) 065102(R). \bibitem{Control1} Motter A.E., Phys. Rev. Lett., \textbf{93} (2004) 098701. \bibitem{Control2}Hayashi Y. and Miyazaki T., cond-mat/0503615. \bibitem{alfa} Zhao L., Park K. and Lai Y.C., Phys. Rev. E, \textbf{70}, (2004) 035101(R); Zhao L., Park K., Lai Y.C. and Ye N., {\it ibid.} \textbf{72} (2005) 025104. \bibitem{Realdata}Kinney R., Crucitti P., Albert R. and Latora V., Eur. Phys. J. B, \textbf{46} (2005) 101. \bibitem{Effic1}Crucitti P., Latora V. and Marchiori M., Phys. Rev. E, \textbf{69} (2004) 045104(R). \bibitem{Vexload}Holme P. and Kim B.J., Phys. Rev. E, \textbf{65} (2002) 066109. \bibitem{LoadCost}Sch\"{a}fer M., Scholz J. and Greiner M., Phys. Rev. Lett., \textbf{96} (2006) 108701. \bibitem{Wu}Wu J. J, Gao Z.Y. and Sun H. J., Phys. Rev. E, \textbf{74}, (2006) 066111. \bibitem{BAmodel}Barab\'{a}si A.-L. and Albert R., Science, \textbf{286} (1999) 509. \bibitem{Newman} Newman M.E.J., Phys. Rev. E, \textbf{64}, (2001) 016132; Pro. Natl. Acad. Sci., U.S.A. \textbf{98} (2001) 404. \bibitem{Powerdata}Watts D.J. and Strogatz S.H., Nature, \textbf{393} (1998) 440. \bibitem{Fogedby} Fogedby H. C., Poutkaradze V., Phys. Rev. E, \textbf{66}, (2002) 021103. \end{thebibliography}
|
0704.0358
|
Title: Flavor Physics in SUSY at large tan(beta)
Abstract: We discuss the phenomenological impact of a particularly interesting corner
of the MSSM: the large tan(beta) regime. The capabilities of leptonic and
hadronic Flavor Violating processes in shedding light on physics beyond the
Standard Model are reviewed. Moreover, we show that tests of Lepton
Universality in charged current processes can represent an interesting handle
to obtain relevant information on New Physics scenarios.
Body: \title{Flavor Physics in SUSY at large $\tan\beta$} \author{Paride Paradisi } \affiliation{Departament de F\'{\i}sica Te\`orica and IFIC, Universitat de Val\`encia-CSIC, E-46100, Burjassot, Spain.} \begin{abstract} We discuss the phenomenological impact of a particularly interesting corner of the MSSM: the large $\tan\beta$ regime. The capabilities of leptonic and hadronic Flavor Violating processes in shedding light on physics beyond the Standard Model are reviewed. Moreover, we show that tests of Lepton Universality in charged current processes can represent an interesting handle to obtain relevant information on New Physics scenarios. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} Despite the great phenomenological success of the Standard Model (SM), it is natural to consider this theory only as the low-energy limit of a more general model. The direct exploration of New Physics (NP) particles at the TeV scale will be performed at the upcoming LHC. A complementary strategy in looking for NP is provided by high-precision low-energy experiments where NP could be detected through the virtual effects of NP particles. In particular, flavor-changing neutral-current (FCNC) transitions may exhibit a sensitivity reach even beyond that achievable by the direct searches at the LHC while representing, at the same time, the best (or even the only) tool to extract information about the flavor structures of NP theories. In view of the above considerations, it is clear that flavor physics provides necessary and complementary information to those obtainable by the LHC. Besides FCNC decays, also the Lepton Flavor Universality (LFU) tests ($K_{\ell 2}$ and $\pi_{\ell 2}$) offer a unique opportunity to probe the SM and thus, to shed light on NP: the smallness of NP effects is more than compensated by the excellent experimental resolution and the good theoretical control. \section{LFV in SUSY} The discovery of neutrino masses and oscillations has unambiguously pointed out the existence of the Lepton Flavor Violation (LFV) thus, we expect this phenomenon to occur also in the charged-lepton sector. Within a SM framework with massive neutrinos, FCNC transitions in the lepton sector like $\ell_i\to\ell_j\gamma$ are strongly suppressed by the GIM mechanism at the level of ${\cB}(\ell_i\to\ell_j\gamma)\sim (m_{\nu}/m_{W})^{4}\sim 10^{-50}$ well beyond any realistic experimental resolution . In this sense, the search for FCNC transitions of charged leptons is one of the most promising directions where to look for physics beyond the SM. Within a SUSY framework, LFV effects originate from any misalignment between fermion and sfermion mass eigenstates. In particular, if the light neutrino masses are obtained via a see-saw mechanism, the radiatively induced LFV entries in the slepton mass matrix $(m^2_{\tilde{L}})_{ij}$ are given by : \begin{equation} (m^2_{\tilde{L}})_{i\neq j} \approx - \frac{3m^2_0}{8\pi^2} (Y_{\nu} Y_{\nu}^\dagger)_{i\neq j} \ln \left(\frac{M_X}{M_{R}} \right)\,, \end{equation} where $M_X$ denote the scale of SUSY-breaking mediation and $m_0$ the universal supersymmetry breaking scalar mass. Since the see--saw equation \footnote{The effective light-neutrino mass matrix obtained from a see-saw mechanism is $m_\nu = - Y_\nu \hat{M}^{-1}_R Y_\nu^T \langle H_u \rangle^2$, where $\hat{M}_R$ is the $3\times 3$ right-handed neutrino mass matrix and $Y_{\nu}$ are the $3\times 3$ Yukawa couplings between left- and right-handed neutrinos (the potentially large sources of LFV), and $\langle H_u \rangle$ is the vacuum expectation value of the up-type Higgs.} allows large $(Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger)$ entries, sizable effects can stem from this running . The determination of $(m^2_{\tilde{L}})_{i\neq j}$ would imply a complete knowledge of the neutrino Yukawa matrix $(Y_\nu)_{ij}$, which is not possible even if all the low-energy observables from the neutrino sector were known. As a result, the predictions of leptonic FCNC effects will remain undetermined even in the very optimistic situation where all the relevant NP masses were measured at the LHC. This is in contrast with the quark sector, where similar RGE contributions are completely determined in terms of quark masses and CKM-matrix elements. More stable predictions can be obtained embedding the SUSY model within a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) where the see-saw mechanism can naturally arise (such as $SO(10)$). In this case the GUT symmetry allows us to obtain some hints about the unknown neutrino Yukawa matrix $Y_{\nu}$. Moreover, in GUT scenarios there are other contributions stemming from the quark sector . These effects are completely independent from the structure of $Y_{\nu}$ and can be regarded as new irreducible LFV contributions within SUSY GUTs. For instance, within $SU(5)$, as both $Q$ and $e^c$ are hosted in the {\bf 10} representation, the CKM matrix mixing the left handed quarks will give rise to off diagonal entries in the running of the right-handed slepton soft masses . There exist to different classes of LFV contributions to rare decays: \begin{enumerate} \item[i)] Gauge-mediated LFV effects through the exchange of gauginos and sleptons, \item[ii)] Higgs-mediated LFV effects through effective non-holomorphic Yukawa interactions \,. \end{enumerate} The above contributions decouple with the heaviest mass in the slepton/gaugino loops $m_{SUSY}$ (case $i)$) or with the heavy Higgs mass $m_H$ (case $ii)$). In principle, $m_H$ and $m_{SUSY}$ refers to different mass scales. Higgs mediated effects start being competitive with the gaugino mediated ones when $m_{SUSY}$ is roughly one order of magnitude heavier then $m_H$ and for $\tan\beta\sim\mathcal O(50)$ . While the appearance of LFV transitions would unambiguously signal the presence of NP, the underlying theory generating LFV phenomena will remain undetermined, in general. A powerful tool to disentangle among NP theories is the study of the correlations of LFV transitions among same families . Interestingly enough, the predictions for the correlations among LFV processes are very different in the gauge- and Higgs-mediated cases . In this way, if several LFV transitions are observed, their correlated analysis could shed light on the underlying mechanism of LFV. In the case of gauge-mediated LFV amplitudes the $\ell_{i}\rightarrow\ell_{j}\ell_{k}\ell_{k}$ decays are dominated by the $\ell_{i}\rightarrow\ell_{j}\gamma^{*}$ dipole transition, which leads to the unambiguous prediction: \beq \frac{\cB(\ell_{i}\rightarrow \ell_{j}\ell_{k}\ell_{k})}{\cB(\ell_{i}\rightarrow \ell_{j}\gamma)} \simeq \frac{\alpha_{el}}{3\pi}\left(\log\frac{m^2_{l_{i}}}{m^2_{l_{k}}}-3\right) \eeq \beq \frac{\cB(\mu - e {\rm\ in \ Ti})}{\cB(\mu\!\rightarrow\!e\gamma)} \simeq\! \alpha_{el}\,. \eeq If some ratios different from the above were discovered, then this would be clear evidence that some new process is generating the $\ell_i\rightarrow \ell_j$ transition, with Higgs mediation being a potential candidate , a powerful tool to disentangle between Little Higgs models with T parity (LHT) and SUSY theories is a correlated analysis of LFV processes. In fact, LHT and SUSY theories predict very different correlations among LFV transitions .}. As regards the Higgs mediated case, $Br(\tau\rightarrow l_j\gamma)$ still gets generally the largest contribution among all the possible LFV decay modes . The following approximate relations hold : \beq \frac{Br(\tau\rightarrow l_j\gamma)}{Br(\tau\rightarrow l_j\eta)}\gtrsim 1 \,,\qquad\frac{Br(\tau\rightarrow l_j\eta)}{Br(\tau\rightarrow l_j\mu\mu)} \gtrsim \frac{36}{3\!+\!5\delta_{j\mu}}\,. \eeq \beq \frac{Br(\tau\rightarrow l_j ee)}{Br(\tau\rightarrow l_j\mu\mu)} \gtrsim\frac{0.4}{3\!+\!5\delta_{j\mu}}\,. \eeq \beqa \frac{Br(\mu\rightarrow e \gamma)}{Br(\mu Al\rightarrow e Al)} &\sim& 10\,,\qquad\frac{Br(\mu\rightarrow eee)}{Br(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)}\sim\alpha_{el}\,. \eeqa On the other hand, a correlated study of processes of the same type but relative to different family transitions, like $Br(\mu\rightarrow e\gamma)/Br(\tau\rightarrow\mu\gamma) \sim [(m^2_{\tilde{L}})_{21}/(m^2_{\tilde{L}})_{32}]^2$, provides important information about the unknown structure of the LFV source, i.e. $(m^2_{\tilde{L}})_{i\neq j}$. \section{LFU in SUSY} High precision electroweak tests, such as deviations from the SM expectations of the LFU breaking, represent a powerful tool to probe the SM and, hence, to constrain or obtain indirect hints of new physics beyond it. Kaon and pion physics are obvious grounds where to perform such tests, for instance in the $\pi\rightarrow\ell\nu_{\ell}$ and $K\rightarrow\ell\nu_{\ell}$ decays, where $l= e$ or $\mu$. In particular, the ratios \beq R_P^{\mu/e} = \frac{ \cB(P\to \mu \nu) }{ \cB(P \to e \nu)} \eeq can be predicted with excellent accuracies in the SM, both for $P=\pi$ (0.02\ (0.04\ of the most significant tests of LFU. As recently pointed out in Ref.~, large departures from the SM expectations can be generated within a SUSY framework with R-parity only once we assume i) LFV effects, ii) large $\tan\beta$ values. Denoting by $\Delta r^{e-\mu}_{\!NP}$ the deviation from $\mu-e$ universality in $R_{K}$ due to NP, i.e.: $R_{K}^{\mu/e}=(R_{K}^{\mu/e})_{SM}\left(1+\Delta r^{e-\mu}_{K}\right)$, it turns out that : \begin{equation} \Delta r^{e-\mu}_{K} \simeq \left(\frac{m^{4}_{K}}{M^{4}_{H}}\right) \!\left(\frac{m^{2}_{\tau}}{m^{2}_{e}}\right)|\Delta^{31}_{R}|^2\, \tan^{\!6}\!\beta. \end{equation} The deviations from the SM could reach $\sim 1\ (not far from the present experimental resolution ) and $\sim {\rm few} \times 10^{-4}$ in the $R_\pi^{\mu/e}$ case while maintaining LFV effects in $\tau$ decays at the $10^{-10}$ level. In the pion case the effect is quite below the present experimental resolution~, but could well be within the reach of the new generation of high-precision $\pi_{\ell 2}$ experiments planned at TRIUMPH and at PSI. Larger violations of LFU are expected in $B\to\ell\nu$ decays, with $\cO(10\ even order-of-magnitude enhancements in $R_B^{e/\tau}$~. \section{Flavor physics at large $\tan\beta$ and Dark Matter} Within the MSSM, the scenario with large $\tan\beta$ and heavy squarks is particularly interesting. On the one hand, values of $\tan\beta \sim$ 30--50 can allow the unification of top and bottom Yukawa couplings, as predicted in well-motivated grand-unified models . On the other hand, a Minimal Flavor Violating (MFV) structure with heavy ($\sim TeV$) soft-breaking terms in the quark sector and large $\tan\beta \sim 30-50$ values leads to interesting phenomenological virtues : the present $(g-2)_\mu$ anomaly and the upper bound on the Higgs boson mass can be easily accommodated, while satisfying all the present tight constraints in the electroweak and flavor sectors. Additional low-energy signatures of this scenario could possibly show up in the near future in $\cB(\Btaun)$, $\cB(B_{s,d}\to \ell^+\ell^-)$ and $\cB(B\to X_s \gamma)$. In the following, as discussed in , we analyze the above scenario under the additional assumption that the relic density of a Bino-like lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accommodates the observed dark matter distribution \begin{equation} 0.094 \leq \Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 \leq 0.129 \quad \rm{at}\: 2\sigma\: \rm{C.L.}\,. \end{equation} In the regime with large $\tan\beta$ and heavy squarks, the relic-density constraints can be easily satisfied mainly in the so called $A$-funnel region where $M_{\tilde{B}}\thickapprox M_A/2$. The combined constraints from low-energy observables and dark matter in the $\tan\beta$--$M_H$ plane are illustrated in Figure~ (left). The light-blue areas are excluded since the stau turns out to be the LSP, while the yellow band denotes the allowed region where the stau coannihilation mechanism is also active. The remaining bands correspond to the following constraints/reference-ranges from low-energy observables: \begin{itemize} \item $B\to X_s \gamma$ [$1.01 < R_{ Bs\gamma} <1.24$]: allowed region between the two blue lines. \item $a_\mu$ [$2 < 10^{-9} (a_{\mu}^{\rm exp} - a_{\mu}^{\rm SM}) < 4$ ]: allowed region between the two purple lines. \item{$ B\to \mu^+ \mu^-$} [${\cal B}^{\rm exp}< 8.0 \times 10^{-8}$ ]: allowed region below the dark-green line. \item{$\Delta M_{B_{s}}$} [$\Delta M_{B_{s}} = 17.35 \pm 0.25~{\rm ps}^{-1}$ ]: allowed region below the gray line. \item $B\to \tau \nu$ [$0.8 < R_{B\tau\nu} < 0.9$]: allowed region between the two black lines [ red (green) area if all the other conditions (but for $a_\mu$) are satisfied]. \end{itemize} From Figure~ (right), we deduce that there is a quite strong correlation between $\Delta a_{\mu}$ and $\cB(\Btaun)$ thanks to the $A$-funnel region condition $M_H\thickapprox 2 M_1$. A SUSY contribution to $a_\mu$ of $\cO(10^{-9})$ generally implies a sizable effect in $0.7<\cB(\Btaun)<0.9$. A more precise determination of $\cB(\Btaun)$ is therefore a key element to test this scenario. \begin{figure*}[h] \caption{ Left plot: Combined constraints from low-energy observables and dark matter in the $\tan\beta$--$M_H$ plane setting $[\mu,M_{\tilde{\ell}}]=[0.5,0.4]$~TeV. The light-blue area is excluded by the dark-matter conditions . Within the red (green) area all the reference values of the low-energy observables (but for $a_\mu$) are satisfied. The yellow band denote the area where the stau coannihilation mechanism is active ($1< M_{\tilde{\tau}_R}/M_{\tilde{B}}<1.1$); in this area the $A$-funnel region (where $M_H\thickapprox 2 M_1$) and the stau coannihilation region overlap. Right plot: $\Delta a_\mu=(g_\mu-g^{\rm SM}_\mu)/2$ vs.~the slepton mass within the funnel region taking into account the $B\to X_s \gamma$ constraint and setting $R_{B\tau\nu}>0.7$ (blue), $R_{B\tau\nu}>0.8$ (red), $R_{B\tau\nu}>0.9$ (green) . The supersymmetric parameters have been varied in the following ranges: 200~GeV~$\leq M_{2}\leq$~1000~GeV, 500~GeV~$\leq \mu\leq$~1000~GeV, $10\leq \tan\beta \leq 50$. In both plots, we have set $A_U=-1$~TeV, $M_{\tilde{q}}=1.5~$TeV, and imposed the GUT relation $M_1 \approx M_2/2 \approx M_3/6$. } \end{figure*} \begin{figure*}[h] \caption{ Isolevel curves for $\cB(\mu\rightarrow e\gamma)$ and $\cB(\tau\rightarrow \mu\gamma)$ assuming $|\delta_{LL}^{12}|=10^{-4}$ and $|\delta_{LL}^{23}|=10^{-2}$ in the $\tan\beta$--$M_H$ plane . The green/red areas correspond to the allowed regions for the low-energy observables illustrated in Figure~ for $[\mu,M_{\tilde{\ell}}]=[0.5,0.4]$~TeV.} \end{figure*} The interplay of $B$ physics observables, dark-matter constraints, $\Delta a_\mu$ of $O(10^{-9})$, and LFV rates is shown in Figure~. For a natural choice of $|\delta^{12}_{LL}|=10^{-4}$ ${\cal B}(\mu\rightarrow e\gamma)$ is in the $10^{-12}$ range, i.e.~well within the reach of MEG~ experiment. On the other hand, ${\cal B}(\tau\rightarrow \mu\gamma)$ lies within the $10^{-9}$ range for a $|\delta^{23}_{LL}|=10^{-2}$, that is a natural size expected in many models.\\ \begin{acknowledgments} I wish to thank the conveners of WG3 for the kind invitation and G.~Isidori, F.~Mescia and D.~Temes for collaborations on which this talk is partly based. I also acknowledge support from the EU contract No. MRTN-CT-2006-035482, "FLAVIANET" and from the Spanish MEC and FEDER FPA2005-01678. \end{acknowledgments} \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{epxLFV} W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group], J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33} (2006) 1 [hppt://pdg.lbl.gov]. \bibitem{BorzumatiMasiero} F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 57} (1986) 961. \bibitem{BarbieriHall} R.~Barbieri and L.~J.~Hall, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 338} (1994) 212 [hep-ph/9408406]; R.~Barbieri, L.~J.~Hall and A.~Strumia, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 445} (1995) 219 [hep-ph/9501334]; L.~Calibbi, A.~Faccia, A.~Masiero and S.~K.~Vempati, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 116002 (2006) [hep-ph/0605139]. \bibitem{bkl} K.~S.~Babu and C.~Kolda, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 241802 [hep-ph/0206310]. \bibitem{paradisiH} P.~Paradisi, JHEP {\bf 0602}, 050 (2006) [hep-ph/0508054]; P.~Paradisi, JHEP {\bf 0608}, 047 (2006) [hep-ph/0601100]. \bibitem{RossiBrignole} A.~Brignole and A.~Rossi, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 701}, 3 (2004) [hep-ph/0401100]. \bibitem{buraslfv} M.~Blanke, A.~J.~Buras, B.~Duling, A.~Poschenrieder and C.~Tarantino, hep-ph/0702136. \bibitem{Marciano} W.J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys.Rev.Lett. 71 3629 (1993); M.Finkemeier, Phys.Lett. B 387 391 (1996). \bibitem{kl2} A.~Masiero, P.~Paradisi and R.~Petronzio, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 011701 (2006) [hep-ph/0511289]. \bibitem{kl2_exp} L.~Fiorini [NA48/2 Collaboration], talk presented at EPS 2005 July 21st-27th 2005 (Lisboa, Portugal). \bibitem{pl2_exp} G.~Czapek {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70} (1993) 17; D.~I.~Britton {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 68} (1992) 3000. \bibitem{tgbhints} G.~Isidori and P.~Paradisi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 639} (2006) 499 [hep-ph/0605012]. \bibitem{GUT} G.~Anderson, S.~Raby, S.~Dimopoulos, L.~J.~Hall and G.~D.~Starkman, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 3660 [hep-ph/9308333]. \bibitem{MFV} G.~D'Ambrosio, G.~F.~Giudice, G.~Isidori and A.~Strumia, {Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B645} (2002) 155. \bibitem{vives} E.~Lunghi, W.~Porod and O.~Vives, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 075003 [hep-ph/0605177]. \bibitem{IPwmap} G.~Isidori, F.~Mescia, P.~Paradisi and D.~Temes, hep-ph/0703035. \bibitem{funnel} J.~R.~Ellis, L.~Roszkowski and Z.~Lalak, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 245} (1990) 545. \bibitem{gm2} K.~Hagiwara, A.~D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner, hep-ph/0611102; M.~Passera, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 155} (2006) 365 [hep-ph/0509372]. \bibitem{Bmm} R.~Bernhard {\it et al.} [CDF Collab.], hep-ex/0508058. \bibitem{Dms} A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF - Run II Collab.], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97} (2006) 062003 [AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 870} (2006) 116] [hep-ex/0606027]. \bibitem{MEG} M.~Grassi [MEG Collaboration], Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 149} (2005) 369. \end{thebibliography}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.